The Times-Gazette is trying their best to give the school board's levy a boost. After the sound thumping it received by the people of Ashland on this last ballot, it certainly is necessary. So to help sell it the TG has opened up an online forum where you can post your questions and have them answered by a school board member. Knowing that they could not give an adequate answer, I submitted the following question:
Why are people who home-school and/or have religious objection to the atheistic/materialistic world view of the public education system required to pay for this [building] project?
Below is the desperate attempt to respond by Ashland City Schools Board of Education president Bryan Lefelhoc. I cannot help but say that it was a valiant effort. Should the Lord grant me time, I will be writing a response. My opening will go something like this:
I thank Mr. Lefelhoc for taking the time to respond to my question and I deeply appreciate his skill of persuasion. He most certainly demonstrates that he is a top rated salesman. Unfortunately, he also demonstrates that he has absolutely no understanding of education, economics, or freedom—which is of great concern being that he is a leader of the city's educational program.
But I digress. Here is Mr. Lefelhoc's response. Please feel free to comment.
Dear Matt:
Thank you for your question. I believe the answer lies in the definition of "community." No matter who we are, what we believe or how we view the world, we are all in this together. There is a place in our community for you ... for me ... and for our public school system.
Ashland's public school system is a major part of the fabric of who we are. You may work for, or employ, graduates of Ashland City Schools. Your children may someday have children who will benefit from our schools. Perhaps you are a graduate yourself, or are married to one. Directly or indirectly, the Ashland city public school system impacts our lives every day.
Perhaps a senior citizen wonders why he or she should pay when they've already done their part. Perhaps single people or couples with no children feel this issue should not apply to them. But we're all in this together. Generations past have made the commitment to education. Future generations will as well. This is our time ... and our turn. In truth, these new school buildings are intertwined with the past and with the future in such a way that every one of us will benefit from our proposed answer to the middle school issues in our community.
If you don't believe in the public schools, then I encourage you to think about your tax money. If this bond issue passes, we will be saving millions of future taxpayer dollars (your dollars) in the closing of current elementary buildings, and the plan to address our facilities for the next 50 years. And we'll be bringing in $20 million in state funds ... your money!
By building a new high school, and using our current high school as a middle school, we're saving money, making the best use of your tax dollars. No one will be knocking on your door (or mine) in 15 years to build a new high school, (say, for another $40 million?) and that's a lot of money saved.
In my mind, no matter where you stand on your usage of our school system, this bond issue is good for Ashland's community. And that includes you.
Please also see my first response here.
14 comments:
First of all, the most expensive school building you can build is a high school. You notice of course, even though they changed the site, they did not lower the dollar amount they are going for and they do not tell you they also will be needing an operating levy. They do not tell you if this passes, a lot of senior citizens stand to lose their homes and with property values in the toilet already the amount they will be able to tax the next owners, if they can find next owners, will be less.
Also, the problem as I see it is not that the taxpayers must support public education, but rather that public education has fallen far below what it used to be. Rather than teaching truth and morality, now the public schools are full of liberal, anti-God, anti-Christian, pro-sin propaganda. That is far from the intent of public schools and far from the practice of our nation's public schools for the first couple hundred years. The NEA has already endorsed Pres. Obama for the next election. That is unbiased? I do not want to pay taxes only to see our public school children being taught half-truths and anti-Christian immorality.
Good point Anony. This is why I argue that the public schools are not "good for the community." We are training kids that they are nothing more than cosmic dust (products of evolutionary chance) that have no purpose or absolutes for morality. As a result, when they get to be adults, we should not be surprised that there is very little character or integrity--the two key components of a civilized and economically viable society.
Show me anywhere on the planet where a secular society is less moral.
The most secular Countries on this planet have the lowest crime rates, in every study that has been conducted.
I personally am an Atheist, I am a Vertran, and have dedicated my life to making this world a better place. I donate reguarlly to Harmony House, I worked for several years in the Medical field before switching to law enforcement.
The idea that people can not be good without god is silly...
Dear Covenant whoever:
Nonsense. Who is “WE” that are teaching kids they are cosmic dust, etc etc…??
Yourself included??
What a weak argument, considering you seem to want to replace it with a claim humans were “formed from DUST” by a magical, apparently humanoid(?) Creator-entity who remains unseen and undefined. Sorry, but magnanimous praise titleship and scripture DOES NOT constitute “proof” of his/its’ existence.
Speculation as to cosmic or biological origins has NOTHING to do with communal or personal behavior in the here and now.
The fact is – regardless of how humanity arrived to this point WE HAVE MINDS – LEARN TO USE THEM EFFECTIVELY for survival, prosperity and the balance of individual and common good.
This is a view that will automatically appropriate a moral and ethical base as well, completely independent of rambling re-retranslated theological sludge concerning ancient tribes, heroes, gods, villains and etc… PRACTICAL SKILLS AND WORKING KNOWLEDGE IS THE REQUIREMENT, THANK YOU.
Anony #2: By what standard do you measure good? Truth is, you can't have one without a transcendent being who imposes it. Everything is a whim otherwise.
Anony. #2: By what standard do you measure good and evil? The truth is without God there is none but your own personal whims. Moreover, if man is a sack of worthless cells, then who cares if you help him or squash him for your own personal gain.
ANONY#2
For starters, “good” and “evil” are vague, relativistic catch-all terms, that require further refinement as to what exactly YOU mean by them. Sorry, but I WILL NOT claim to have a universal “personal whim” definition or standard of “good” that I can successfully enforce on others….
However, there ARE principles of ethics, societal behaviors (which certainly can be rejected if one chooses), goodwill, ambition, love and LAWS, to name a few, that spring from purely secular sources and require no mystical, theological garb to exist.
History shows this. If God/religious institutions were an “absolute necessity” or irrefutable law of some sort, then every single secular society or institution would have collapsed and failed, and humanity would have eagerly embraced a uniform theocratic world view long ago!! - I mean – it’s the ONLY system that works, right?? – SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.
Theological entities & institutions are NOT essential or required to establish “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (I’ll borrow a very foundational term) – Intelligence, awareness of self, ones’ environment, and of others IS however.
Btw – In NO WAY does this insinuate that man is “worthless” or that “without God” each person somehow becomes a despotic master of global realities, manipulating everything to their own whims.
…be interesting to know if you could formulate a working definition of what this supposedly transcendent, foundational God entity/person(?)/Thing exactly is??……;<)
BTW - ANONY #2 (me again) ;<)
I'll also add that I'm considered a product of the private Christian education system myself, and once got categorized as "Homeschooled(!!)", altho I don't think it was a correct evaluation.....
Your original post article suggests that public schools are pushing:
"the atheistic/materialistic world view of the public education system..."
If that's the case, are'nt they pushing a religious/theological
issue w/ the "atheism" part?? Not to say that atheism is a religion -technically it's NOT.
Funny, I never remember anything along the lines of firebrand atheism from my own short experience in the public schools...
Anon 2 said, "If that's the case, aren't they pushing a religious/theological issue w/ the "atheism" part?"
I would agree. That's why I want out of paying for it. If someone would like their child trained in an atheistic based system of education, that's their freedom in this great country. However, they should not make me pay for it. It is a violation of my liberty, not to mention my conscience.
I'm sure you would not want to pay for a child to be educated with a Bible based curriculum (and I'm happy to say, I don't think you should). The solution is to let each parent take care of his own child's training--like people have been doing for most of our 5000 year history (I know that 5000 year thing would be another point of debate. lol!)
Anon #2 also said, "However, there ARE principles of ethics, societal behaviors (which certainly can be rejected if one chooses), goodwill, ambition, love and LAWS, to name a few, that spring from purely secular sources and require no mystical, theological garb to exist."
We're still in the realm of relativism. Who's to say that your goodwill and mine (or another atheist's) are similar? Your goodwill and love might say that euthanasia (or other act) is permissible. My goodwill, based in God's Law, says otherwise.
You may say that abortion is ok in some instiances, but once outside that womb it becomes murder. Other atheists say that it is ok to abort in any instance, or even up until the child is 3-5 years old.
Of course, mine would be different as directed by Scripture. But in the above senario, it is simply one's personal whim that makes the difference.
To perhaps make it more concrete, let me give this guide. When dealing with a moral decision ask yourself (or someone else), "Says who?" Who says that euthanasia is ok? Your goodwill? Who says that your goodwill is right? You say its right!
ANON#2
”We're still in the realm of relativism. Who's to say that your goodwill and mine (or another atheist's) are similar? Your goodwill and love might say that euthanasia (or other act) is permissible. My goodwill, based in God's Law, says otherwise.”
A bit of a red herring argument. Euthanasia is currently illegal throughout the U.S and pretty much a majority of the globe. It is not for “ME” to say whether it is “permissible” – that desire (or decision) SHOULD fall to the individual person suffering whatever condition warrants the possible choice of euthanasia. The moral/ethical focus of the actual termination procedure only rests on a tiny fraction of the population (medical practitioners) anyways, so it really is’nt what you’d call a grassroots issue, or poses any threat to population numbers – That is…if it ultimately rests upon INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.
If the euthanasia you speak of is mandated by Higher Authority (say, a righteous Theocratic government) as some form of social engineering, ridding a society of undesirables("the unrighteous"), the aged and diseased, AGAINST THEIR INDIVIDUAL WILL AND CHOICE - well YES, then it would certainly be in alignment with an idealized “God’s Law”.
This would also address the abortion issue as well...
******************************************************************
”You may say that abortion is ok in some instiances, but once outside that womb it becomes murder. Other atheists say that it is ok to abort in any instance, or even up until the child is 3-5 years old.”
Sorry that’s ridiculous – it’s impossible by definition
to “abort” a 3-5 year old child. In that case it’s just plain old fashioned homicide. I question anybody making such a claim. Personally I’ve never heard of it
******************************************************************
”To perhaps make it more concrete, let me give this guide. When dealing with a moral decision ask yourself (or someone else), "Says who?" Who says that euthanasia is ok? Your goodwill? Who says that your goodwill is right? You say its right!”
This sounds a bit circular...
Actually their decision-making faculties determine this, rather than goodwill, I would think.
When a person holds a decisive opinion on an issue, yes indeed - it’s HE (or she) who hold the belief that their view is a correct or effective one.
No problem
"that desire (or decision) SHOULD fall to the individual person..."
That's relativism.
ANON #2
""that desire (or decision) SHOULD fall to the individual person..."
That's relativism."
___________________________________
Ok....so...????
Post a Comment