Capturing Daily Life
|
Candidate Insider
Mr. Newdow, The Real Issue
Is Education Reform
June 15, 2004 (Tuesday)
Mr. Newdow, you have become
a lightning rod, a polarizing symbol
whereby people can clearly identify
where they stand -
either on the extreme right
or on the extreme left.
The Supreme Court sidestepped the issue,
and we don't know why.
Perhaps it was for that very reason -
It's a polarizing issue,
and sidestepping it maintains
the status quo.
The whole constitutional issue
needs to be discussed with depth
and clarity. There is much
confusion and misunderstanding
about what the Framers meant by
"Congress shall make no law concerning
the establishment of religion."
Perhaps the courts have interpreted
the statement incorrectly.
Perhaps, with 2 1/4 centuries
of hindsight, we can re-write
the statement with clarity,
using a Constitutional Amendment.
Let us define religion.
Let us define church.
Let us define God.
Clearly, the Framers believed in God.
They acknowledged God in the founding
documents and they prayed to God
at government assemblies.
No, Mr. Newdow, they clearly
believed in God and feared government's
power to establish religions,
but they didn't clearly define "God"
or "religion". Perhaps there wasn't
clarity in their minds what they meant
when they used these terms.
Maybe the words meant different things
to different Framers.
According to the 18th Century Framers,
the power to govern is given
to government
by consent of the people governed,
and could be given in small or large
measure, or taken away.
And they believed in things
that are "self-evident",
largely guided by common sense.
Now, "God" and "religion" are concepts
that were not clearly defined.
But, everyone knows what
a parent and a child are, Mr. Newdow.
And, by the laws of nature
and the laws of God,
everyone agrees that
it is self-evident that
children are born to parents,
to be loved and cared for
and enjoyed and raised by
their parents.
So, quite simply, Mr. Newdow,
what you should be fighting for
is the parents' right
to guide and control and oversee
the education of their children.
In your case, you have decided
that your child should not be forced
or coerced to recite "under God"
during the pledge - a perfectly
reasonable position. In fact,
your child should not be forced
or coerced by the school employees
to recite the pledge at all.
You should decide what your child
recites and learns.
Other parents have decided that
reciting the pledge as it is today
is a wonderful and indipensible part
of learning our culture and heritage -
also a perfectly reasonable position.
They feel, and the Supreme Court Justices
probably agree, that your victory
would take away from their children
that wonderful aspect of their education,
and they're probably right.
They are right in believing
that many in America (liberal activists)
are full of hatred for all American
traditions and all traditional
Western culture.
I understand that in your case,
you have physical custody less than
half the time, one-third of the time
to be precise, and that complicates
the discussion. Let us assume
that a parent or parents have
full custody.
Now the reality is that
most parents cannot afford
private schools. And,
the public school system is,
as Gov Arnold's very capable people say,
"a one-size-fits-all
cookie cutter system."
Clearly, we need more choices
for parents. Put your powerful mind
to work on it, Mr. Newdow.
Suppose we maintained a cookie-cutter
system (also known as "templates"
or "programs"), but had a liberal
(pun intended) assortment
of such programs.
We could have smaller schools,
and more of them.
We can still maintain
economies of scale.
It doesn't have to be chaos.
God knows, Mr. Newdow,
there's plenty of money
in the public educational system,
already, to do all sorts
of wonderful and marvelous things.
First of all, we need to simplify
the system. As I wrote to Mr. Riordan,
we must turn the education code
into a pamphlet.
The government's role can be
a supporting one -
funding think tanks and experts
to create a variety of curricula,
for schools and parents to choose from.
Much can be learned
from the home-schooling movement
and applied.
And spread the funding around
evenly and simply to ANY group
that does the job, even
"religious" groups,
(remember, that's one of the words
that hasn't been clearly defined.)
There are two reasons
why we educate children:
1. For the benefit of the child.
2. For the benefit of society.
Government can reasonably set
minimum standards of literacy
for both purposes
(e.g., 3 R's, basic science and
computer literacy, knowledge
of laws and government).
Beyond that, it's all choice
(or propaganda).
ANY lawful group that does the job
and does it well, should get their
share of the funds, evenly distributed.
If it's a religious school
and they do a good job of teaching
the fundamentals like the three R's,
then they get funded to do it.
And if they also teach religion
or whatever they want - fine.
That's not what we're funding them for,
but they're still free to do it.
It's up to the parents to choose.
It's our job to create a system
where all parents will have
good choices to choose from.
No, Mr. Newdow, we don't need
blockheads like the Elk Grove
superintendent indoctrinating
our children and presiding over
the clique-ish public school
cash cow.
Fight a fight that everyone
would want to see you win,
Mr. Newdow. Fight the fight
for quality education for all children,
with parental control and choice.
Fight for every parent
to have the right and power
that the public school monster
has viciously raped from you.
If you fight for every parent
to be able to choose what
precious traditions to pass
on to their beloved children,
you'll have an unstoppable army.
Fight the good fight, Mr. Newdow.
Fight for school reform, real choice
and parental control.
God Bless America,
God Bless "The Sacramento Bee",
And God Bless "The Candidate Insider".
Reverend David Scully
Posted by dscully at 07:77 PM Top of Page
|
David Scully
email
davidscully
@hotmail.com
 |