A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===============
What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children.
================
I understand all of this local autonomy stuff. My point really was less
about freedom and more about general attitudes and values. I was using
the Kansas school board more or less as a metaphor for right-wing,
FC-influenced policies. I was exressing concern for values that I think
are taking us (you in the USA) back into the dark ages.
How very diverse of you. You do recognize that people do have a right to the
free exercise of religion down here, donąt you? I do understand that up in
PC Canada, insulting any ethnic group is a crime, but I don't think there's
anything wrong with the majority of people in the US requiring their
government policies to reflect the majority viewpoint. That's why we have
elections, after all.
Of course the woman in Afghanistan under the Taliban didn't have
choices. And we should be reviled by that. Similarly, the science
teacher should not be required to teach anything that is not science --
you should not force the science teacher to tell lies and to deny that
dinosaurs once roamed the earth. To do so is to drag the teacher and
the students into the dark ages. Hell, it is not in the strategic best
interests of the USA to have an irrelevant science curriculum unless,
like the Taliban, your objective is to keep people stupid so as to
better manipulate them. The people in the blue states get this.
Your argument fails because no one, in Kansas or anywhere else, is demanding
any such thing. You are completely mischaracterizing the debate, and appear
to be doing so deliberately. Either that or you are just abysmally ignorant
of the actual controversy.
TnT, it's a metaphor for what those of us outside of the USA see
happening in your country. It's not our business, but it's only not our
business insofar as burka-wearing women under the Taliban were not our
business.
To argue that the teacher is free to teach elsewhere is simplistic.
First, the teacher shouldn't be asked to tell lies.
You make the unproven assumption that creationism is a "lie." It's not. It's
a theory, albeit a weak one. A better description of creationism is
"intelligent design" of the universe, which is something that I think you
will find more than a few reputable scientists have questions about.
Secondly, with
possibly a mortgage, children, etc, it is not that easy to move --
freedom is thus an illusion.
Sorry, but that's the Ghetto argument. "Gimme money because I live in a
ghetto." My response is: "If you have two operating feet, get up and walk
out of the ghetto. If you don't want to, then you CHOOSE to live in the
ghetto, and I have no sympathy for your plight."
Sell the house, pack the kids up and move elsewhere, or quit bitching.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|