orrin woodward on the sepration of Education and State

View Article Separation of Education & State
by Orrin Woodward on Thu 30 Sep 2010 07:33 AM EDT
Peeling away the layers of rhetoric from reality in our Public School System, one discovers an interesting paradox; even though Americans enthusiastically support the Separation of Church & State, strangely, they do not feel the same vigor for Separation of Education & State. What are the real differences between religion and education? By lifting the veil, looking underneath the shiny veneer, both reveal underlying presuppositions that are unprovable, making them more a matter of faith rather than science, requiring belief in doctrines that cannot empirically be proven true or false. The administrators (High Priests) of both genres feed the faithful accepted doctrines, brooking no resistance to the approved creeds. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not against organized religion nor organized education, the more of both the better, as far as I am concerned, for man and society. Everything in life boils down to faith when you track back to first principles, since it deals with world-views and beliefs. My question to the State School Board or, if I may be so bold, the Priests of Education, is why, during the founding of America, was it so important to ensure the State never crossed into the religious sphere, protecting the people against a powerful centralized State Church, even going so far as to make it one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights? The government wouldn’t consider creating a State Church, requiring mandatory attendance every Sunday, teaching State Doctrines at State Churches in every neighborhood; but we yield to our government the same level of control, requiring mandatory attendance, not on Sundays, but Monday through Fridays, educating all adolescents in State Doctrines at State Schools (Churches). When State centralized education requires mandatory attendance of children at State School schools, teaching doctrines much like churches teach creeds,, reaching into every home, I get a bit concerned. The only options for parents, other than surrendering to tyranny, are to quit the public school system entirely, while still supporting them with their local taxes. This doesn’t sound like freedom to me.

As I see it, religious doctrines and educational doctrines are merely different sides of the same coin. Just as theories abound, teaching various religious creeds, suggesting the proper methods and principles to worship God, so too, theories abound teaching various educational creeds, suggesting the proper methods and principles to teach a child. Yet, somehow, we believe an omniscient State will select just the right creeds for our child, regardless of his or her circumstances, ignoring our child’s family life, religious principles, or career aspirations. Now I am a reasonable person, certainly willing to hear all rational discussions on the subject, but something strikes me as disingenuous, separating a man’s religious beliefs so completely from his educational beliefs. To use just one example, suppose a young man was taught in the home or church, that God made men and women for each other, under the sacrament of marriage. He might have a hard time swallowing any contrary doctrine, offered up in our State Schools. Now before you bash me as a sexist, gender hater, etc, please hear my point, the point is, shouldn’t the same freedoms that apply to religion apply when referring to education? Regardless of the specific doctrines one believes in, a higher doctrine ought to be the freedom to choose, since America is famous for being the “land of freedom.” No one should be forced to endure an indoctrination against his will nor forced to submit his children to the same treatment. If parents choose to send their children to another school, aligning better with their personal beliefs, they ought to have that right, transferring their tax dollars to the school of choice, instead of paying more. I believe in freedom of choice so much, that I would fight for your right to disagree with my beliefs, choosing to send your children to another school; the school of your choice. Freedom ensures that we all get the education for our children that we desire, not what the State desires. Free discussion and free choices makes us all better, that’s what makes America great.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the earliest and strongest proponents of religious freedoms, shared these principles with his fellow Virginia delegates, arguing that it’s unjust to charge Presbyterians, Baptist, Congregationalist, etc, to support the Virginia Anglican State Church. For example, if a Baptist moved to Virginia, he was required to pay a tax to support the Anglican church even though he didn’t attend nor believe the Anglican creeds. Liberty loving Virginians could see the justice in Mr. Jefferson’s views and repealed the mandatory tax supporting the Virginia State Church. The Separation of Church & State became a foundational plank in Virginia, eventually finding its way into the Constitution through the Bill of Rights, inspiring millions to come to America to enjoy religious freedom. An interesting aside is George Washington’s thoughts on the Separation of Church & State, believing that churches built character through faith and creeds, Washington was hesitant to see churches not funded by public taxes; therefore, he proposed to tax all citizens, but give them a choice of which church to support. Mr. Washington proposed a voucher program for religion, giving freedom of choice while ensuring that churches thrived to build character in the people for the benefit of society. No, I’m not proposing launching church vouchers, invoking the name of the great George Washington to bolster my position. I believe keeping government out of local churches, the true meaning of Separation of Church & State, has been a blessing, allowing each church to serve their God and congregations as they please, not requiring, nor asking for, government handouts.

My aside on Washington was merely to point out how important freedom of choice was to our Founding Fathers, a freedom sadly missing from our current Public School System. How many millions of children over the years, having conflicting beliefs with the High Priest of Education, went to private schools by the free choice of the parents, paying a tuition for private school on one hand, while still being taxed by the State School on the other hand. But let’s not forget the recent phenomena, if not outright revolution, called Home Schooling. Over the last thirty years or so, millions of children have been home schooled, a challenging endeavor, where parents choose to educate their children, receiving no pay, giving of their time and money in a labor of love, but still suffering from the tax load of a State School they are no longer employing. A young Thomas Jefferson, when faced with a similar situation in 18th century Virginia, confronted by the injustice of forcing parishioner of other sects to pay for a church they didn’t attend, loved freedom enough to do something about it. Maybe George Washington’s idea, if converted from religion to education has merit. School vouchers, a plan where each parent is given a voucher from the State to spend at the school of their choice, would solve the Separation of Education & State issue. Giving each parent a voucher, allowing each family to choose the school that best fits their needs, brings free enterprise and decentralization to the school system. The school options will increase and conflicts over doctrines will decrease by allowing parents to choose an education that marries with their religious beliefs and student's career choices. Perhaps America, that beacon of light, though flickering a bit of late, will remember its great heritage, standing against injustices, even if it doesn’t directly affect them; because tyranny, when given a chance to seed in society’s soil, sinks it roots deeply, consuming everything in its path.

I purposely kept this discussion at fifty thousand feet, not diving into the details of our State School System, not that there isn’t plenty to say, but only because I didn’t want to take away from my main message. Few will argue that our State Schools are broken, throwing more money at State Schools seems to be the only solution bantered about. I have learned over the years that, if the riverbed is wrong, pouring more water in the river isn’t the answer. Until we start working on the foundation, the riverbed, nothing is going to change. The riverbed change, in my opinion, is Separation of Education & State. Of course, the State System is failing, because the State is involved in an area that is shouldn’t be. Can you name any government program designed to serve the public that hasn't failed miserably? It’s not the teachers, nor the students, but the entire system based upon centralized control that must be rooted out. Thomas Jefferson understood this, which is why he decentralized religion from government, making a riverbed change; we need modern day Jefferson’s to decentralize schooling from government, making another riverbed change. I believe firmly that a free enterprise school system, where parents vote with their vouchers, rewarding excellence while punishing incompetence as all customers do in free enterprise, will build a world class educational system that can compete in today’s “flat world.” The key is for free people to make free choices. As over time, free people making free choices will always thrive over tyrannized people following State bureaucrats. Perhaps a Jefferson will step up, creating a Separation of Education & State as Thomas Jefferson’s created a Separation of Religion & State. God Bless, Orrin Woodward
Comments (15) | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Gianna Jessen, supravieţuitoarea avortului | Abortion Survivor Gianna Je...

Now is your moment what type of people are you going to be

Enough Is Enough!

Man I hope he runs again in 2012

By Chris Brady "Genteel Back-Channeling

Images Teams are endlessly interesting because they are made up of people. People, as we will learn throughout our lives, are mind-bogglingly complex. First of all, we get to deal with the two genders. Then we get to deal with those who are single and those who are wed, those who've been widowed and those who've been divorced, those who have children and those who do not. Then we find that people come from different cultures, speak different languages, and worship in different ways. We also discover that there are personality types or temperaments. Additionally, we are told that there are various natural "love languages." Then there are the youth and the elderly and the rest of us in between. Also, there are those who like the New England Patriots, and those who don't. But there is one more variation among individuals that I find worthy of mention, and it is this: how they behave when dealing with others.

Working with other people takes a special skill. It requires emotional maturity, patience, acceptance of others and their views, flexibility, the ability to listen, a certain degree of humility, the ability to influence, and the need from time to time to apologize. Some people tend to get pushed to the side in group settings, while others tend to do the pushing. Interactions vary according the an infinite number of combinations of the factors described in the first paragraph above. But there is one tendency, call it a trait, if you will, that is supremely destructive to human interaction and certainly to the functioning of a team. Some call it Passive Aggressive behavior, but when one reads the clinical definitions and professional opinions associated with that term, it doesn't quite fit what I'm discussing here. Nope. For our needs, we'll need to invent a new term. Let's call it:

Genteel Back-Channeling

Just what exactly is Genteel Back-Channeling? It's the behavior of a person who is genteel in public but acidic in private. He or she will not confront the person with whom there is a problem, but will tell others all about it later. Genteel Back-Channelers are masters at involving those who are not part of the problem nor part of the solution. They expand the circle, so to speak, amplifying the problem. They throw gasoline on a spark instead of water. This type of person is conflict-averse and gossip-prone. He or she won't handle issues head-on and out in the open, but rather will "back channel" by trying to build up a coalition of people who "side with their view" through whispering campaigns in the shadows of the hallways. These people are political in nature: they play games and keep score. They generally get their feelings hurt, carry grudges, pout, and assign motives to the behavior of others. Genteel Back-Channelers can make the best of first-impressions but are usually marked by a trail of relational wrecks behind them.

How can you spot this behavior? Here are some signs:

1. "Hey, can I speak to you after the meeting?"

2. "I didn't want to say this in there, but, . . . ."

3. "Do you agree with what Bob said? I"m not so sure . . . ."

4. "Can you keep a secret?"

5. "I love Bob to death, but . . . ."

6. "I didn't tell Bob this, but . . . ."

7. "Bob's a great guy, has some great qualities, it's just that . . . . "

8. "I don't think Bob knows how the rest of us are feeling . . . ."

9. The "silent treatment"

10. Acting like nothing is wrong in public when they've said negative things in private.

It is important to understand this type of behavior because Genteel Back-Channelers appear nearly everywhere groups of people work together. Rare is the team or organization that doesn't have at least one in a position of influence. To have a highly functional team, however, Genteel Back-Channeling cannot be allowed. Otherwise, factions will develop, relationships will be damaged, political games will be played, and what happens "behind the scenes" will trump anything that happens out in the open.

So what do you do if your organization, team, work group, or (swallow hard) family has someone or several someones demonstrating Genteel Back-Channeling behavior?

1. Confront the situation head on, in love.

2. Give clear guidelines for acceptable behavior, but also for those which will not be tolerated. Make sure the whole team understands what's expected. (For the correct way to confront issues and resolve conflict, see my friend Orrin Woodward's blog.)

3. Pray for the offending individual, and for a sweet spirit in yourself as you deal with him or her.

4. If destructive behavior persists, remove the individual from the team or group. This will often be difficult, but entirely necessary. A dysfunctional team is no team at all. In some cases, you will simply have to disassociate with the person.

5. Check yourself against this kind of behavior and make sure your own example is beyond reproach. If it hasn't been, apologize and seek forgiveness.

If you have ever had the great fortune of working on a highly functioning team of people, you will know there are very few situations more fun and exciting, or more productive. But such a special situation can be utterly ruined by one person with that dangerous blend of pride and cowardice; the Genteel Back-Channeler. Like a little bit of arsenic in a batch of brownies, it doesn't take much to ruin the chemistry of a team.

There. You can't say you haven't been warned. (Just don't tell anyone who told you. It's just a secret between you and me. I love those other people to death, but . . . .)"

What Would John Wayne Do?

End of Liberty

where we sit

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was arguing with her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over." Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!" The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence." If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between conservative and liberal or progressive or neocon I'm all ears. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test! If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!) If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his. If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."