Our local paper has an article in it today about the local school board launching an initiative to find out why students have been either leaving the district or not enrolling at all. After skimming the article, I scrolled down to the comments section. You'd think I would have learned by now to quit reading the comments in this paper, since they're populated by trolls, but I let my curiosity get the better of me.
Some of the comments are as follows:
"If you really want the best education you should give vouchers for those that believe another school or homeschool provides a better work environment. Competition is ALWAYS the best for education and business/ thats why walmart rules the world because it has no real competition and its stuff is junk and workers underpaid."
"Ahh, but liberal teachings are so important to the Democrat agenda. What gives parents the right to want their children to learn anything else? Much less, not pay for it (liberal agenda)."
"We choose to homeschool, and I could go on and on about about the reasons: Smaller . . . no negative peer pressure, moral absolutes, less wasted time,. . ."
Personally, I think we have an above-average public school system here. I have many complaints about my time as a student here, but overall, as a parent I've been happy with the level of education my son is getting. He had some problems with reading in Kindergarten and 1st grade, and was quickly enrolled into a one-on-one teaching program that brought him up to grade level. The teachers have been wonderful, and my son loves going to school.
However, year after year our school district asks for more money from the community, and year after year they are denied. Then we have the nerve to complain about the quality of our schools.
I do not understand how anyone can claim that school vouchers are the answer to our public school problems. In case you're unfamiliar with the concept of school vouchers, here's the gist of it: I think my local public school sucks, so the government should give me tuition money to enroll my kids in a private or religious school. How does that solve anything? Our public school system is decaying, so instead of focusing money on them, let's funnel it to private schools? And I won't even get into the problems with using public money to send kids to religious schools. I'm sure you can figure out where I stand on that one.
As for home-schooling, I can understand the impulse to want to provide a better education for your children by providing it at home, but I think home-schooling brings it own set of problems. For one thing, most home-schooling these days seems to be going on for religious reasons, which again, I probably don't have to explain my problem with.
But to me, the biggest issue is the damage that can be done by keeping your children from going through the struggles associated with school. Learning how to survive and thrive and in the social setting of school is an important part of development. Kids need to figure out how to navigate the world full of other people who don't necessarily think or act like them. Kids who are sheltered from that may have problems transitioning into the world of work as an adult.
Anyway, my point is, public schools are important. They educate the next generation of people who will be taking care of us in our old age. Even if you don't have a child in school, don't you want the people who will be your future doctors, business owners and insurance salesmen to be properly educated? Why don't we value our public education system a little more?
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Death Penalty
I used to be "squishy" on the death penalty issue. I was never a hardcore "hang 'em high" type, but I used to think that if you killed someone, you deserved to die. And in a way, I still think that. Many people have that emotional reaction to crime. Many of us think that if someone we love was murdered, we would want the person who did it to die. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.
Over the years though, my opinion on the issue has evolved. I used to think that from a realistic point of view, it was a whole lot cheaper to just execute someone than to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. Then I learned that it's actually more expensive to impose the death penalty, because of the legal fees associated with the mandatory appeals process.
I used to think that death was the "ultimate penalty." But after mulling it over for awhile, I think that it's actually more of a punishment to spend the rest of your long life in prison. Just because you're alive, that doesn't mean your life is good. Death can actually be a kind of escape from responsibility.
I used to think that our justice system was more or less right on when convicting people, but after hearing the stories of many people who were either innocent or at the very least had a decent amount of reasonable doubt in their case, I'm convinced we have executed innocent people.
I used to think that the death penalty was reserved for the "worst of the worst," but that is clearly not the case anymore.
I used to think that the family of the victim(s) had the right to see the perpetrator of the crime put to death, but now I think that the family of the victim(s) of a violent crime is probably not in the best place to be deciding anything. And should we leave these kinds of life or death decisions up to people who are in an unimaginable emotional state?
We all look back on the middle ages with all their beheadings and various creative ways to execute people with wonder and a sense of "what were they thinking?" But aren't we really doing the same thing? Just because our method of execution is cleaner and quieter, is it any different?
On it's face, the death penalty seems to make at least some sense. An eye for an eye. But how can we be positive that the eye we're taking is the right one? The justice system is run by people, and people make mistakes. I don't want to take that chance.
Over the years though, my opinion on the issue has evolved. I used to think that from a realistic point of view, it was a whole lot cheaper to just execute someone than to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. Then I learned that it's actually more expensive to impose the death penalty, because of the legal fees associated with the mandatory appeals process.
I used to think that death was the "ultimate penalty." But after mulling it over for awhile, I think that it's actually more of a punishment to spend the rest of your long life in prison. Just because you're alive, that doesn't mean your life is good. Death can actually be a kind of escape from responsibility.
I used to think that our justice system was more or less right on when convicting people, but after hearing the stories of many people who were either innocent or at the very least had a decent amount of reasonable doubt in their case, I'm convinced we have executed innocent people.
I used to think that the death penalty was reserved for the "worst of the worst," but that is clearly not the case anymore.
I used to think that the family of the victim(s) had the right to see the perpetrator of the crime put to death, but now I think that the family of the victim(s) of a violent crime is probably not in the best place to be deciding anything. And should we leave these kinds of life or death decisions up to people who are in an unimaginable emotional state?
We all look back on the middle ages with all their beheadings and various creative ways to execute people with wonder and a sense of "what were they thinking?" But aren't we really doing the same thing? Just because our method of execution is cleaner and quieter, is it any different?
On it's face, the death penalty seems to make at least some sense. An eye for an eye. But how can we be positive that the eye we're taking is the right one? The justice system is run by people, and people make mistakes. I don't want to take that chance.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Let 'Em Die
With the whole Ron Paul "Let Him Die" brouhaha last week, I had really hoped that the morality of healthcare in America would start to get more attention in the media. Sadly, I was wrong.
There are many financial and political arguments to be made regarding America's healthcare calamity, but no one seems to want to touch the moral argument. For all the talk we hear about Christianity and faith in politics, especially on the side of the GOP, why don't we talk and think more about what the "right" thing to do is rather than what the most cost-effect thing to do is?
Republicans are so willing to make moral arguments on every other issue of the day. Abortion, gay marriage; these things are not argued by the right on their financial impacts, but on the morality. So why are they so squeamish about even the sheer mention of the morality of healthcare.
Recently, a 24-year-old man died from a tooth infection that spread to his brain. Yes, that happened.
Here.
In America.
An easily treatable, preventable thing that in any other western "civilized" country would have been treated quickly through some sort of government directed plan. Was his needless death moral? Is that what Jesus would approve of?
My brother once said that you really can't argue about healthcare reform because it's a moral issue and people refuse to talk about the morality or even see it (or something to that effect - I'm sure I'm misquoting). But he was right. Until this country grapples with the undeniable fact that our healthcare "system" is truly amoral, we will never have significant change.
There are many financial and political arguments to be made regarding America's healthcare calamity, but no one seems to want to touch the moral argument. For all the talk we hear about Christianity and faith in politics, especially on the side of the GOP, why don't we talk and think more about what the "right" thing to do is rather than what the most cost-effect thing to do is?
Republicans are so willing to make moral arguments on every other issue of the day. Abortion, gay marriage; these things are not argued by the right on their financial impacts, but on the morality. So why are they so squeamish about even the sheer mention of the morality of healthcare.
Recently, a 24-year-old man died from a tooth infection that spread to his brain. Yes, that happened.
Here.
In America.
An easily treatable, preventable thing that in any other western "civilized" country would have been treated quickly through some sort of government directed plan. Was his needless death moral? Is that what Jesus would approve of?
My brother once said that you really can't argue about healthcare reform because it's a moral issue and people refuse to talk about the morality or even see it (or something to that effect - I'm sure I'm misquoting). But he was right. Until this country grapples with the undeniable fact that our healthcare "system" is truly amoral, we will never have significant change.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Why I'm an Atheist
In our world, people often question how someone could be an Atheist. But I question how in this day and age, anyone could not be an Atheist. I feel I must stress again that this is my own personal opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone; just to make you think a little. :-)
Science
We now have at our disposal so much scientific information, so many rational explanations about how the world works, that we really don't need a religion to explain it to us. Back when there was no explanation for disease, natural disasters, or other natural phenomena, it made sense to think that there was some intelligent force causing everything. But these days, that explanation simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Too Many Religions
With so many different doctrines about god(s) in the world, how can any one be right? The biggest predictor of someone's religious belief is their place of birth. If there really was one god with one doctrine, why would there be so very many different faiths around the world, and why would your faith depend on where you live? As a child, I wondered how a fair and loving god would condemn a small child in Africa to hell simply because he had not had the luxury of hearing about Christianity, and that question sticks with me to this day.
Skepticism
I've always been one to question things, so it's natural that I would question religion. I've never found any concrete proof to show that god exists, so why would I believe something in the absence of proof? When my son questions me about god or religion, I tell him he should believe whatever he can find proof of. Someone telling me that the Bible is true because the Bible says so is just circular logic that makes no sense. If that is the case, then why isn't the Koran correct because the Koran says so?
Holy Books
All holy books, including the Bible, were written by men, not a supernatural being, and men can say anything they want to. They can make stuff up, they can misinterpret, they can have poor memories. Nothing in any holy book holds any sway for me, because there is no reason to believe that any of the dictates in them are legitimate. People of faith tend to pick and choose the passages that apply to them or that feel good to them, ignoring everything else that's written in the book. It's way too subjective to take seriously, and ripe for any kind of rampant misinterpretation or misuse.
Contradictions
It makes no sense to me how there can be such variation of human life, yet we have religions that tell us we all have to act in a certain way. Why would an all-knowing god create gay people, then tell them to ignore those feelings? Why would he create women, and then tell them they are not worthy of the same rights as men? Why would he create menstruation and then tell women they're dirty when it happens? Why would he create sex as such a pleasurable means to reproduce, then tell people to never, ever do it?
If some guy walked up to you on the street and told you he was the son of god and you should listen to what he has to say so you can be saved, and furthermore, you should do this just because he said so and because god said so too, you'd probably think he was crazy and ignore him. But because a similar story happened thousands of years ago, it somehow makes sense? Just because a story is repeated enough and believed to be true by a lot of people, it doesn't make it true.
I wish believers of any religion would question their own faith using the same standards they apply to other faiths. To Christians, it's obvious that Islam is wrong. But why? Are their beliefs and stories really that much different than Christian's? Are Mormon's stories any crazier than Catholic's? With so many faiths to choose from, how can any one be the "true" faith.
Basically, I'm not going to believe anything that just makes me "feel good." If there is no rational reason for believing it, I don't see a reason to commit my life to it. I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me how to be good. I have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, as I think most people do. I don't require a holy book to tell me that I shouldn't hurt or kill someone, or that I should treat others with respect or kindness.
I think the world is enough as it is, and religion is a just a distraction from finding out what's actually true in the world.
Science
We now have at our disposal so much scientific information, so many rational explanations about how the world works, that we really don't need a religion to explain it to us. Back when there was no explanation for disease, natural disasters, or other natural phenomena, it made sense to think that there was some intelligent force causing everything. But these days, that explanation simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Too Many Religions
With so many different doctrines about god(s) in the world, how can any one be right? The biggest predictor of someone's religious belief is their place of birth. If there really was one god with one doctrine, why would there be so very many different faiths around the world, and why would your faith depend on where you live? As a child, I wondered how a fair and loving god would condemn a small child in Africa to hell simply because he had not had the luxury of hearing about Christianity, and that question sticks with me to this day.
Skepticism
I've always been one to question things, so it's natural that I would question religion. I've never found any concrete proof to show that god exists, so why would I believe something in the absence of proof? When my son questions me about god or religion, I tell him he should believe whatever he can find proof of. Someone telling me that the Bible is true because the Bible says so is just circular logic that makes no sense. If that is the case, then why isn't the Koran correct because the Koran says so?
Holy Books
All holy books, including the Bible, were written by men, not a supernatural being, and men can say anything they want to. They can make stuff up, they can misinterpret, they can have poor memories. Nothing in any holy book holds any sway for me, because there is no reason to believe that any of the dictates in them are legitimate. People of faith tend to pick and choose the passages that apply to them or that feel good to them, ignoring everything else that's written in the book. It's way too subjective to take seriously, and ripe for any kind of rampant misinterpretation or misuse.
Contradictions
It makes no sense to me how there can be such variation of human life, yet we have religions that tell us we all have to act in a certain way. Why would an all-knowing god create gay people, then tell them to ignore those feelings? Why would he create women, and then tell them they are not worthy of the same rights as men? Why would he create menstruation and then tell women they're dirty when it happens? Why would he create sex as such a pleasurable means to reproduce, then tell people to never, ever do it?
If some guy walked up to you on the street and told you he was the son of god and you should listen to what he has to say so you can be saved, and furthermore, you should do this just because he said so and because god said so too, you'd probably think he was crazy and ignore him. But because a similar story happened thousands of years ago, it somehow makes sense? Just because a story is repeated enough and believed to be true by a lot of people, it doesn't make it true.
I wish believers of any religion would question their own faith using the same standards they apply to other faiths. To Christians, it's obvious that Islam is wrong. But why? Are their beliefs and stories really that much different than Christian's? Are Mormon's stories any crazier than Catholic's? With so many faiths to choose from, how can any one be the "true" faith.
Basically, I'm not going to believe anything that just makes me "feel good." If there is no rational reason for believing it, I don't see a reason to commit my life to it. I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me how to be good. I have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, as I think most people do. I don't require a holy book to tell me that I shouldn't hurt or kill someone, or that I should treat others with respect or kindness.
I think the world is enough as it is, and religion is a just a distraction from finding out what's actually true in the world.
Monday, September 12, 2011
The Creed
As I was listening to the Freethought Radio podcast, I heard the greatest thing I've never heard before.
H.L. Mencken's Creed:
How have I never heard this before? It so perfectly sums up my beliefs (except for that whole thing about government being evil. . . )
H.L. Mencken's Creed:
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind – that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty…
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech…
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
I – But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
How have I never heard this before? It so perfectly sums up my beliefs (except for that whole thing about government being evil. . . )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)