The future of medicine depends on good science. As a result, I strongly support school vouchers including vouchers using public money for religious schools. Why? Well, first of all, as long as you don't discriminate between awarding vouchers on the basis of religion (baptists, yes, muslims, no or some such nonsense), then it is not even remotely in violation of the establishment clause of the constitution. So, being clearly legal, the whole issue rests upon the pragmatic wisdom of the choice. Lets leave philosophy to philosophers and try and determine what plan would lead to the most harmonious societal outcome. Because that is what most folks want. We just disagree on what constitutes that harmony.
Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan announced we were in a cultural war back at the 1992 republican convention. Many on the left and in the middle were outraged and between the two handed Clinton 8 years (due to a large extent because a chunk of the middle went for Perot both times). But with no one to siphon off the middle, the country is now indeed split in a culture war. Not that most folks are extremists of either stripe, but you have to choose sides, so it comes down to who you have less contempt for. Right of centers are portrayed as more concerned about the poor picking their pockets, while left of centers are allegedly more concerned about losing free speech and privacy. It may come down to a class and personality issue. Polls consistently show that slightly righties and barely lefties are pretty much the same on almost every issue. The slightly righties just keep their mouths shut and continue to live their lives of adultery and drug use and pornography. The barely lefties can't contain themselves and constantly rail about the oppression of the underclass because they supposedly genuinely care about those who are not wealthy enough to avoid getting caught being immoral. A rich chick could always have an abortion, even pre-roe.
Why do the barely lefties care so much about these things? Well, they often came from groups that were once marginalized themselves. And perhaps they feel guilty for their success. So while Jews in 2005 are hardly radicals, they typically side with the downtrodden. And presbyterians are hardly militant hatemongers yet tend to swing right. but can you really tell them apart by the clothes they wear, the shows they watch, what they want for their children or hold as their deepest values. Not as far as I can tell. On both ends, there are folks who literally hate America as it is, a secular society that has allowed private religious freedom. Radical new age anarchists on the left and brimstone and fire preachers on the right both seem to chanting the same chant. Both want to overthrow modernity. They just disagree on how to replace it.
The fact that we disagree as a nation about whether America was founded on religion or secularity has a lot to do with one's culture. Secularity was pretty much absent by default in small towns in the days when most were of similar faiths and remained that way for many places until the mid 20th century. Once upon a time, small towns were typically started by families and friends who shared the same church. As some of those towns grew, they attracted the commerce of "others", in which they willingly enriched themselves. Some of those "others" eventually settled in certain areas and they grew and became diverse. And these "others" were also guaranteed freedom of religion. As a result, it sometimes became necessary for the courts to step in and prevent violation of the establishment clause by tyrannical majorities all over the US. This was to prevent the forced religious training of a minority population by the government and was exactly what the framers intended. At the same time, the public schools, which had functioned basically as government funded religious schools in many small towns throughout most of the 19th and 20th centuries all of a sudden had their plugs pulled. And they were not allowed to take that state money and use it to fund overtly religious schools yet they still had to pay taxes into a system they opposed.
Now some would argue that religious based instruction is not sufficient to live in the modern world, but arguably that is a major overextension of government power to make that determination. The government does have a vested interest in some basic level of reading, writing and math for its citizens to function. But to dictate beyond that what is science, history or literature really begs a question? Why? If a segment of the population rejects evolution, for example, that segment will be unable to pursue advanced careers in areas that depend on that body of knowledge. But isn't that their choice? If they are correct that there is "another" more accurate take on the development of life, I see no harm in letting them use their own money to pursue that path. The fact is that most working Americans know nothing about science already and there are plenty of good jobs in science and technology that can be mastered without ever once mentioning evolution. I see no reason to ram something down people's throats that they don't accept and can easily get by without. To do otherwise does smack of social engineering
Don't get me wrong, though. I do not think the position of supporters of intelligent design (ID) theory, an alternate to evolution, presents a valid scientific critique. I do however, support the right of ID proponents to think as they please and educate their children as they see fit (within the limits of civility - if your religion encourages the murder of others, then not only should you not receive government funding, but you should have your tax exempt status in the US revoked and possibly be deported). The decent religious folk who are the vast majority, I suspect (decent in that they think killing and stealing is usually wrong like most decent secular folk) don't want secularists in their backyard and vice-versa. So why not just take leave of each other and live separately but equal. This would not be an enforced racial based separate but equal, but a choice made as an exercise of freedom religion. While teachers unions might not like seeing their jobs replaced by nuns, that is hardly a problem for the rest of us.
Right now, it is effectively impossible to teach either evolution or ID in many schools in the US. In many states, about 20% of the public school students are armed with information that allows them to completely disrupt the teaching of evolution in the classroom. These questions focus on certain unanswered aspects of evolutionary theory. In all cases, these questions simplify complex matters and are impossible to sufficiently answer to a group of 6th graders with little science background, thus calling into doubt the entire subject. If a teacher attempts to engage the class on the topic or even the meta-issues such as "what is a theory in science?" or the commonly held view that god set the world in motion, but evolution did the rest (called theistic evolution), many students will put their heads on their desks and not listen. So, for those who choose to embrace secular humanism and science in education, let them so choose. Then the teachers who remain in the public schools can actually teach science to students whose parents have adopted such an evidence based belief system. We cannot dismiss the right of anyone to put faith above all else, but we also cannot allow any faith to intrude upon matters of science as that is an equal affront.
As an aside, let me say that I am convinced that correct use of computer technology can also lead to smaller class size with no decrease in teachers in the classroom. This could easily make up for the loss of revenues if religious based vouchers were approved and should effectively mute union opposition over time. Most students will still go to public schools and those schools will be better learning environments when there is less divisiveness on fundamental issues. We need to debate differing ideas, but no scientist can be in a debate that makes reference to the bible, so there is a line that cannot be crossed in academia. Similarly, the supposed amorality and value-free nature of science is considered incompatible with proper character development by many. I don't know why the leaders of left cannot see this (even though urban rank and file democrats vote for vouchers 2:1 every time). There is just no common ground for these 2 cultures (secular and religious), so we would do well to give each other their space to proceed as they see fit. I think this is also what the founders had in mind.
It is not reasonable to make large cities come under the yoke of a common religion, but is equally unfair for a few people to move into an otherwise homogeneous area and completely disrupt the local way of life by imposing outside values. No one is forced to move into a small Christian community or a bohemian seaside resort or a major metropolis. And if you insist on living in such a place, then when in Rome, do as the Romans do. It may be that harmony we crave will only come with a certain degree of distance between those with such sharp differences. There is only one way to find out and many on all sides are certainly itching for an end to this conflict. Then, within their respective enclaves, Americans can choose whether and when to engage in commerce with those they mutually consider to be the downfall of civilization. Its an option. One we haven't tried. One a lot of people want. And arguably more respectful of the way a system naturally organizes itself. It is not overstated to suggest that much of the conflict in America is caused by the majorities in the cities trying, with good intentions, to impose city values on everyone. But just as gun laws make no sense in rural Arizona, perhaps neither do certain church/state restrictions. Local communities are the roots of traditions and must not be harmed. Those who want a taste of the city already have an option. Live there.
