The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance

The Watch


Individual Articles

The mediocre will inherit the Earth

Unintelligent design
Shawn Keller

Why would anybody in their right mind want the government, especially the South Carolina government, to teach religion to their children?

Generally speaking, the government can't even teach kids how to read at their respective grade level, write a coherent essay or achieve even rudimentary math skills - despite the fact that we spend more than the national average per pupil. We rank consistently at the bottom of the list on test scores, and have the highest dropout rate in the country. The 50% who stay in school and go on to college have to take remedial classes just to catch up to private school, home school and out-of-state kids. Not to mention the fact that it's safer to walk around some sections of Iraq than it is to walk around some of our government schools.

And now the same people that do such a banner job teaching our children the fundamentals of education are to include religion in their curriculum. Do you want the government to teach religion, arguably the most important of all subjects for the majority of the population, to your child? What are you thinking?

If you really want your child to have a religious up bringing and/or a quality education, there are two simple things you can do. The first is to be involved in the child's life. The second is to wrest control of education away from the "it takes a village" crowd that is more concerned with saving the beloved institution of "public education" than with actually educating children.

School choice, a voucher program, "put parents in charge", tuition credit assistance - whatever the heck you want to call it, would be a dramatic improvement to the failed social experiment we've poured billions of dollars into for generations. How can anybody argue that giving parents the power to educate their own kids as they see fit is a bad thing? After all, does the government know better than the parent what's best for their children or their needs? What their strengths and weaknesses are? What motivates them?

How does the liberal ideal of diversity jive with the government's one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach to education? How does immersing a child in an institution that doesn't have to concern itself with providing the best possible product, at the best possible price or be burdened with that pesky notion of competition really prepare a child for life in the real world? By perpetuating a system in which only the wealthy are able to provide their children a quality education, do we really expect to end the cycle of poverty?

Yeah, you're right. Who cares about all that? "Intelligent Design" will make everything right and the mediocre shall inherit the earth!

Your Comments:

You have spent time stating your opinions here. From what I can see, you are beating down a straw man though, as you haven't described the specifics of the target of your criticism. You need to detail specific events that you are addressing, so that they may be able to defend themselves, and so that others can analyze the facts and determine with whom they agree.

As it stands, I am afraid your post sounds more like a mere rant.

Posted by: T. Macklin at February 17, 2006 08:04 PM

Post a Comment:
Your Info:
Remember personal info?