In light of that, and the Kansas thing, I think both Max and Gordon are wrong. This is not about "local control," but about the different kinds of truth claims that science and religion make. I have no problem with having kids taught about religion in public schools, as long as religions are taught as religions, not as science. When I saw Jerry Falwell on some talk show about this, he and the rabid right-wing profamily ideologue jumped on the guy from the Center for the Separation of Church and State for being illiberal, and not wanting "alternative" views shown. What bullshit. Like Falwell was also going to teach Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic creation stories? The point isn't that religion is bad and science is good, but that they make different kinds of claims to truth, one based on revelation and faith (or, for some people, unthinking acceptance of comforting ideology), the other on evidence accepted in the field. Taking away the ability of localities to make dumb decisions based on inept thinking isn't anti-populist or big-state-management or whatever. It *is* against dumbing down our schools, however.
> Max B. Sawicky:
> > ...
> > Otherwise you are quite right. A concession on this issue could
> > be amply rewarded by something much more important in return.
> > After all, what's in question is not a national mandate to teach
> > creationism, but merely a ratification of what has always been
> > the case, more-or-less -- public education is locally controlled.
> > In this issue, it comes down to how much trust one puts in
> > popular democracy. Follow-up news reports have indicated
> > that Kansas teachers are going to go right on doing whatever
> > they were doing prior to this flap. ...
>
> I have read the news stories about this set of events only
> sporadically, but it is my impression that no one in Kansas
> is commanded not to teach evolution, but only that questions
> about evolution are to be removed from statewide tests,
> thus making the teaching of evolution optional rather than
> required, thus allowing those students who wish to believe
> in creationism or some other history of the world to
> continue in their belief. It is "the other side" who are
> scandalized that belief in evolution is not to be required
> by the State. It seems, then, that the theocratic shoe is
> actually on the other foot in this case.
>
>
> Gordon
>