NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I like to steal other people's material from time to time, but I thought that this would be an interesting topic of discussion...

From Will Wilkinson (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/archives/2004/11/warning_this_po.html#comments)


Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Kriston links to a funny sheet of textbook advisory stickers and discusses some matters of public reason.

Which puts me in the mind to say this: You know, I wish that some folks on the left (and I don't mean Kriston or Matt, unless the shoe fits) would be more frank about the fact that they really do seek to use the manifold powers of the state to impose their secular liberal comprehensive conception on the unwilling. (The right seems to be pretty frank about its intentions.)

But, I suppose, if you're really up front about this, then you simply CANNOT pretend to be shocked, shocked when you end up in a cultural-political battle with the right. And you can't be properly surprised and appalled when the right wins, and ends up imposing some of their comprehensive conception on you, because this is exactly what you wanted to do to them, but you lost.

So, if you would just cop to your designs of imposition through the power of the state, then it wouldn't be so grating to me if you went ahead and railed full bore against warning stickers on textbooks and those creationist oafs and whatnot. But please don't ALSO bitch about the fact that public schools are a politicized battleground for competing conceptions of truth and goodness. I mean, I guess it's a cagey bit of rhetoric to pretend that sex ed classes and environmental consciousness-raising units and good old Darwin aren't all part of a scheme to impose your view of the world upon other people's children, so that you can then turn around and scream bloody murder when some zealots wants to put a sticker on a textbook because the textbook doesn't teach what they (as opposed to you) want their children to believe. But, please, be serious.

I think that if you're a political liberal, and sincerely don't want to impose your comprehensive view on people, then you're obliged to support something like vouchers for religious schools, so that you don't end up imposing a secular comprehensive conception by means of crowding out the institutions through which people are able to raise and educate their children as they see fit. If you're not willing to go quite this far, then it seems to me extremely unreasonable to complain about a sticker on a textbook. In fact, I don't think you can complain about the sticker, be against vouchers for religious schools, and claim to be a political liberal all at the same time. If you do, then you're really just an "impositionist" liberal of the first sort who has at least tacitly assented to the principle that those with the political power get to impose their views.

Having endorsed this principle, you should be pretty worried to find yourself on the wrong end of the power, but you shouldn't pretend to be shocked that the right is trying to use its power to at least insulate elements of their comprehensive conceptions from the influence of we atheist, Darwinian liberals. Right?

I have no problem with parents sending their children to religious, parochial schools, but do with any religion being taught--outside of religious studies classes--in any public school. The problem I have with school vouchers is not that I care whether a child goes to a parochial school, but the more practical side of it. I personally don't feel too strongly about this, but it seems that everyone would go to the good schools with school vouchers, and then bad schools have a severe lack of students, then the goos ones become bad because there are too many students to suppor there. THat was explained terribly, but I hope you got the gist of my argument.

But, please, remember that when secularity comes into discussion, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
That means that government may not support any religion. Any. It is generally agreed that creationism is faith, and evolution is science. Please don't argue with that, I've exhausted all energy I have trying to convince you close-minded freaks that evolution has been thouroughly proven. If f**king evolution didn't exist, ALL of modern biology would be null. All of it. And I do not want my government advocating any religion, or religious belief. If parents don't want their children to learn secularism, then they can tell them that all science is a lie. If the child realises that that's bullsh*t on their own...well that's tough for them.

I'm not sure if you were calling me a "close-minded freak"....I certainly hope not.

The argument expressed here is if those on the left wish to grant government institutions the power to attempt to make society in the image they see fit, they should not be shocked when conseratives seize the lever of powers and use these institutions to attempt to impose their particular worldviews.

Frankly, I'd rather not get into a discussion of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

what DID you want to discuss then?

that if a secularist wants schools to be secular they shouldnt be shocked when religionist want schools to be religious? of course they WANT it but it isnt allowed under the constitution

those stickers are a stupid waste of time, money and effort. if you dont want YOUR kid to believe in evolution, then TELL HIM SO AT HOME. its not your business to try to force a religious view on OTHER people's kids.

its just another example of a stupid thing that adults want to do that makes THEM feel better but has no good effect on kids.

You've got some pretty interesting reasoning there, Friedmanville.

I can sorta see how liberalism makes itself out to be impositionist secularism . . . for a group that champions there not being one 'right' or 'wrong' group . . . technically, secularists are a group, are they not?

what DID you want to discuss then?

that if a secularist wants schools to be secular they shouldnt be shocked when religionist want schools to be religious? of course they WANT it but it isnt allowed under the constitution

those stickers are a stupid waste of time, money and effort. if you dont want YOUR kid to believe in evolution, then TELL HIM SO AT HOME. its not your business to try to force a religious view on OTHER people's kids.

its just another example of a stupid thing that adults want to do that makes THEM feel better but has no good effect on kids.

As I said previously, this isn't going to be a discussion on the establishment clause. People's views fall everywhere on the spectrum of that discussion.

Yes, I think the stickers are a "feel good" measure for the religious folks out there. But so is the constant trumpeting of things like recycling, which has never been shown to be efficient.

I thought it was an interesting article that could lead to a good discussion. Pehaps not. If you don't care to participate, please exercise your right not to.

lol @ political relativism