What does it mean to be "liberal"

[Meadmaker]

In the United States, the Democratic Party is generally considered "liberal" while the Republicans are generally "conservative". These two words are often used as if they were opposites, but are they? I like to think of myself as liberal, but I frequently find myself on the opposite side of many other liberals.

So what am I doing wrong? Or are they? Who's really liberal?

When defining a word, you can't go too far wrong in looking at the dictionary, so we may as well crib from dictionary.com


1.Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2.Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3.Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4.l Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

That's not too bad, I think, as a start. Liberals aren't stuck with doing things one way, and they are willing to change things. They are accepting of others.

I think the key characteristic has be the tolerance of ideas and behavior. The word "liberal" includes the root "liber". "liber" means "free". To be a liberal, you have to let people have freedom. Otherwise, you aren't being tolerant of their behavior.

Note one thing in the definitions. The notion of "equality", so prevalent in leftist politics today, is totally absent. On the other hand, while it isn't in the definition, some sense of "equal rights" is totally consistent with the definition. In my opinion, that's a worthwhile distinction. No law can make me "equal" to another person, and it shouldn't try, but I should be able to behave as I see fit within the bounds of society, just like everyone else has that right. As an example, I should have the right to interview for a job, and be hired if I can do it, but that doesn't mean I should have the right to get a job that I want.




Sometimes, being liberal is equated with being against government regulation. I disagree. While all government regulations restrict freedom, by their nature, some of them have the net consequence of increasing overall freedom. I'm sure we'll discuss that more. The key point is that in my opinion, American Libertarians are not very liberal, either. Or, at least, if their policies were implemented, we wouldn't live in a very liberal society.

Well, I should go, due to time constraints, but I would invite people to do two things. First, discuss liberalism in philosophical terms, as to what principles liberals ought to hold. Second, and I think more interesting, give examples of hot button issues of today, and discuss whether the commonly accepted liberal position is truly liberal. I will do so myself at the first available opportunity.

I am particularly interested in cases where people think that the accepted liberal position in the United States is not truly liberal.

[Ryokan]

Because the USA de facto only has two parties, at least on a national level, those two parties have had to adopt political ideas outside their core ideals, to fill the voids in voter wants.

If the USA had more parties, you'd probably see a much purer liberal Democratic party and a much purer conservative Republican Party.

As a European liberal, I really don't recognize much liberal policy in the Democratic Party. In fact, the core ideals of the Republican Party (small government, economic freedom of the individual, etc) is close to the Liberal Party I'm a member of (although actual Republican Party policy, as seen in our current time, is far from the policies of my Liberal Party, just like it's far from the ideals of the Republican Party itself.).

I belive Wikipeda has a seperate article on American liberalism, to distinguish it from general liberalism.

[Zep]

We have to be careful how we define and use this term "liberal" here in Australia. It's probably a case of Orwellian double-think, because the "Liberal Party" (capital L) is actually the in-government arch-conservative party, equivalent roughly to Britain's Tories, or the US Republicans. Whereas the term "liberal party" (small L) would more accurately refer to some of our minor parties - the Democrats, Greens, etc.

So we have to be able to distinguish between "Liberal" and "liberal" politics, because they are poles apart!

Our major opposition and sometimes government party, Labor, is somewhere between Britain's Labour Party and the US Democrats, depending on which faction holds sway at any point.

[kalen]

Universal respect for human rights.

[someguysomewhere]

Well, it's even more of a meaningless word here in British Columbia. We have the federal Liberal party, which although currently an utter shambles, has traditionally been an utterly centrist party, swinging slightly to the left and right in step with public opinion. Hence why they've been hugely successful over the past 100 years.

The BC Liberal Party, however, like the Australian Liberal party, is archconservative. It's actually the remnants of the old Social Credit party, which was quite conservative in nature (although it was originally based in a kooky economic theory). So, people that vote Liberal federally are likely to vote for the socialist NDP provincially; and people that vote Liberal provincially are more likely to vote Conservative nationally. (That last bit is somewhat speculative though; I have no stats to back it up on hand.)

[gnome]

I heard an excellent definition of liberalism from radio personality Phil Hendrie--paraphrased into my own words, it means liberal with respect to the use of government. The Conservative point of view is to believe in as little government involvement as necessary. Liberals, instead, believe that an application of government initiative can be good or bad, depending on the issue and how well-concieved the program is.

[hammegk]

US liberals: for;

SSM, "alternate lifestyles", abortion-on-demand, higher taxes, affirmative action, blame-society-first, appeasement as foreign policy, snail-darters etal, increasing gov't regulations-everywhere on everyone (except themselves), etcetc,

against;

personal responsibility for one's actions.

Any questions?

[SezMe]

Yes, I have a question. Where in the world do you get your wacky notions?

[gnome]

US liberals: for;

SSM, "alternate lifestyles", abortion-on-demand, higher taxes, affirmative action, blame-society-first, appeasement as foreign policy, snail-darters etal, increasing gov't regulations-everywhere on everyone (except themselves), etcetc,

against;

personal responsibility for one's actions.

Any questions?

I'm almost afraid to ask... what are "SSM" and "snail-darters"?

[SezMe]

I think Phil Hendrie's idea was that liberals see government as part of the solution to some of society's problems while conservatives see government as the problem.

[The Painter]

The government should do 3 things

1) National defense.
b) National health
3) Interstate commerce

That's it. As for the rest, STAY OUT OF MY LIFE.

[SezMe]

SSM: Single Sex Marriage

snail-darters are on the endangered speicies list and, as such, have been an impediment to some development projects.

[hammegk]

Yes, I have a question. Where in the world do you get your wacky notions?
Wacky? Which positions named are not those of US pc'libs?

[Snide]

The government should do 3 things

1) National defense.
b) National health
3) Interstate commerce

That's it. As for the rest, STAY OUT OF MY LIFE.Great ideas! And how could they screw it up, with things so unambiguous and universally agreed upon as "interstate commerce."

:)

[The Painter]

Great ideas! And how could they screw it up, with things so unambiguous and universally agreed upon as "interstate commerce."

:)

They have f-ed that one up

[Tony]

Which positions named are not those of US pc'libs?

For starters, none of them.

[gnome]

For starters, none of them.

You forget that hammegk gets to define which True Scotsmen are pc'libs. He can disavow any counterexample.

[SezMe]

Tony beat me to it.

[gnome]

The government should do 3 things

1) National defense.
b) National health
3) Interstate commerce

That's it. As for the rest, STAY OUT OF MY LIFE.

Hmm, you'd probably want a police department or two...

[Meadmaker]

One way of being liberal despite wanting government regulations is to support only those regulations that end up enhancing overall freedom. It is illegal in America to open a lunch counter, and refuse to serve black people. This is a liberal law, because it demands a certain degree of tolerance even in private, or semi-private, life.

Another requirement of liberalism is that the tolerance must be pretty pervasive. It's not enough to say, "I don't care what those people do in the privacy of their own homes. When they start doing it in public, it's not right, and there needs to be a law to protect the rest of us from it!" That's not very liberal, because it stigmatizes the group and forces them underground. You don't get to claim liberalism just because you won't search them out and arrest them.

Of course, by "those people", I meant Christians, but it could apply equally well to homosexuals.

I suppose you can't discuss liberal vs. (conservative or other nonliberal) in the USA without dealing with the elephant in the room, and that's gay marriage. The "wedge issue" extraordinaire.

So, is it liberal, or not so liberal?

It certainly isn't conservative, so if that's the criterion, it's liberal. Also, support for gay rights, in the sense of ending laws which prevent them from working, teaching, etc. is clearly liberal.

But what about marriage? I have decided that on balance it's liberal to support gay marriage, but I want to explain why I don't think it's quite so obvious.

Marriage itself is a highly restrictive institution. It creates a restrictive covenant that interferes with our most personal activities. On the surface, it isn't very liberal at all. Historically, it was used in a highly non-liberal fashion, to restrict how and when you could have sex. In my opinion, the only reason such an institution can possibly be justified by a liberal is if somehow, some good comes of it. Not just some good, but some way of enhancing freedom.

I think that can be done, but it's much easier to do for heterosexual marriages than for gay ones. There are plenty of threads dealing with gay marriage right now, so I won't go too far on this topic unless the thread takes us there. I just figured that you couldn't discuss liberals and nonliberals these days without mentioning gay marriage, so I thought I would before moving on to something which is to me more interesting. I eventually decided that for some homosexuals, the same needs exist as for homosexuals, and those needs permit the otherwise unwarranted intrusion of government into our personal lives. Therefore, I conclude that support for gay marriage is a liberal position, even though it restricts freedom.

Notice, however, that I will insist that "equality" is not the reason it's a liberal postion.

Hopefully, my next post will get to school vouchers, support for which is an extremely liberal position, despite the fact that fewself-described liberals support them in the US.

[fuelair]

Wacky? Which positions named are not those of US pc'libs?

Uh, your original quote just said liberals - not pc'libs. Don't change the definition in mid stream!! I do not know of anyone calling themselves pc'liberals so I will assume those attributes in your original quote you are actually assigning to them rather than to regular (not pc'libs) liberals and you are using the attributes to define the class. If incorrect, I am sure you will inform us. Thanks for caring!!!

[Meadmaker]

US liberals: for;

SSM, "alternate lifestyles", abortion-on-demand, higher taxes, affirmative action, blame-society-first, appeasement as foreign policy, snail-darters etal, increasing gov't regulations-everywhere on everyone (except themselves), etcetc,

against;

personal responsibility for one's actions.

Any questions?

Here's my extremely simplified take on Hammy's list:

Position , True Liberal , US "Liberal"
SSM , yes , yes
"alternate lifestyles" , mostly , mostly
abortion , I think so , yes
higher taxes , no (but must pay the bills) , yes, on the other guy
affirmative action , no , yes
blame society first, rarely , sometimes
appeasement , no , sometimes
snail darters , yes , yes
regulations , rarely , frequently
responsibiltiy, yes , not often enough

[Tony]

You forget that hammegk gets to define which True Scotsmen are pc'libs.

Not only that, political correctness (ie, pro-status-quo, pro-establishment) is fundamentally antithetical to liberalism. I wonder how people who confuse the two manage to survive while living with a perpetual brain fart.

[FreeChile]

A conservative would prefer to preserve FEMA and possibly alter FEMA in a moderate way (that would be a moderate conservative). A liberal would want FEMA dismantled and perhaps a new organization put in its place. That is using the literal definition of the word according to Webster, a liberal is not bound by tradition so he is free to change them, a conservative preserves the status quo.

liberal according to Webster's

5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

conservative according to Webster's

3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL

[hammegk]

Tony beat me to it.
True. But two people sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'nah nah I can't hear you' are no more meaningful than one.

Pick any of the positions I named and explain why it is not the "liberal" position on that issue.

For those who think pc'lib means anything other than standard issue US liberal, I disagree.

And why Meadmaker proposes

Position , True Liberal
"alternate lifestyles" , mostly .... it isn't conservatives who back them.

For the following, his "True Liberal positions" are US Conservative and have nothing to do with US Liberal philosophy:

Position , True Liberal
"alternate lifestyles" , mostly ... Er, 110% is mostly?
abortion , I think so ... Also 110%
higher taxes , no (but must pay the bills) ... no liberal I know of ...
affirmative action , no .... What?
blame society first, rarely .... Huh? Free Mumia!
appeasement , no .... LOL.
regulations , rarely .... Again.
responsibiltiy, yes

How in Ed's name did you conclude those are "liberal" positions???? :confused:

[Meadmaker]

For the following, his "True Liberal positions" are US Conservative and have nothing to do with US Liberal philosophy:

Position , True Liberal
"alternate lifestyles" , mostly ... Er, 110% is mostly?
abortion , I think so ... Also 110%
higher taxes , no (but must pay the bills) ... no liberal I know of ...
affirmative action , no .... What?
blame society first, rarely .... Huh? Free Mumia!
appeasement , no .... LOL.
regulations , rarely .... Again.
responsibiltiy, yes

How in Ed's name did you conclude those are "liberal" positions???? :confused:

Read, Hammy. I know my posts are long winded, so I forgive, but I'll summarize: A true liberal is open minded, and values freedom. That doesn't always characterize the democratic party or the American left.

Example: A true liberal would not impose regulations without a compelling reason, but a typical US "liberal" would. A true liberal would oppose most affirmative action, but a typical US "liberal" would use it as a litmus test. A true liberal would hold indiduals accountable for what they do, but a typical US "liberal" fails to do so all too often.

On the other hand, IMHO, a true liberal would put environmental concerns ahead of immediate economic activity, in at least some cases. The US left shares that position. A true liberal would probably, but not necessarily, support abortion and gay marriage. A true liberal would dislike taxes, but would raise them in order to avoid passing the bill to the next generation. (See "taking responsibility for your own actions.)

My point is that the Democratic party isn't truly liberal. In some ways, the Republicans can be more liberal than the democrats.

[shecky]

My point is that the Democratic party isn't truly liberal. In some ways, the Republicans can be more liberal than the democrats.

Seems with the growth of government in the last several years, there's no such thing as classical liberals in American politics. If there ever was such a thing in the last 100 years.

If anything, the Republicans have been great at out-Democrat-ing the Democrats. Government has turned out to be the ultimate solution to everything.

[thaiboxerken]

In the USA, anyone that doesn't agree with Bush and the Republican party is liberal. In otherwords, liberal is another name for "evil commie socialists" according to the GOP.

[Kotatsu]

Position , True Liberal
higher taxes , no (but must pay the bills) ... no liberal I know of ...


http://www.folkpartiet.se/FPTemplates/ListPage____1356.aspx

Above, you will find a link to a political party calling themselves liberal (the full party name is even Folkpartiet Liberalerna). Recall that the part of Meadmaker's post you critizise does not concern the US definition of Liberals, why any objections of that nature are irrelevant. As I am not sure you read Swedish, I shall translate (very freely) the relevant part:

"Folkpartiet vill ha sänkta skatter för att få fram fler jobb för att på så vis gemensamt kunna finansiera samhällets viktigaste uppgifter."

"Folkpartiet (The People's Party) wants to lower taxes to produce more jobs in order to be able to finance the most important responsibilities of the society together."

Thus, there are liberal parties who do not only oppose higher taxes, but who actually wants to lower them. The text block below the "Folkpartiet vill:" line is a more detailed description of which taxes they want to lower and/or abolish, but it is not interesting at the moment.

[Meadmaker]

When the government spends, it automatically raises taxes, because all those bills have to be paid. The only question is whose taxes are to be raised. George W. Bush has presided over massive tax increases...on our children.

Are high taxes liberal? When you take tax money from me, I have less freedom than I had before. High taxes are the enemy of freedom. Also, the government programs promote a particular agenda, as opposed to being open to the diversity of thought present among the people. I conclude that high taxes are not liberal, and anyone seeking to follow a liberal philosophy should closely scrutinize any proposed government spending. We know that there will be a loss of freedom associated with the taxes that pay for the spending. Unless there is an increase of freedom as a consequence of the spending, it isn't justified.

[davefoc]

thaiboxerken wrote:In the USA, anyone that doesn't agree with Bush and the Republican party is liberal. In otherwords, liberal is another name for "evil commie socialists" according to the GOP.

I think this might be far enough off topic that probably belongs in a different thread, but I agree with this completely. As something of a moderate I listen to pundits from both sides. Today, it is very common to hear people that hold my views described as leftists by conservative pundits. As a life long Republican voter this is a little strange, but it seems to be part of a conservative Republican strategy to marginalize the secular small government, social liberal wing of the party.

The problem that I see for the Republican party with this strategy is that the big spending, corrupt, social conservative wing won't be able to maintain a majority without its traditional base of fiscal conservatives and I don't think the Republican Party is going to be able to maintain the charade that it gives a crap about us for much longer.

[Upchurch]

Another requirement of liberalism is that the tolerance must be pretty pervasive. It's not enough to say, "I don't care what those people do in the privacy of their own homes. When they start doing it in public, it's not right, and there needs to be a law to protect the rest of us from it!" That's not very liberal, because it stigmatizes the group and forces them underground. You don't get to claim liberalism just because you won't search them out and arrest them.

Of course, by "those people", I meant Christians {snip}Evidence?

From where I am currently sitting, I can see at least one Christian church and I know there is another one just down the street that has its own school. We currently have an openly practicing Christian president and much of the congress are the same. When my wife and I go out to dinner with my in-laws, they prey before we eat.

How exactly are Christians forced underground?

[Darat]

For the USAians I would just direct them back to their "founding fathers" (and Thomas Payne), your country was, alongside with it's very close cousin France, part of the greatest liberal experiment ever undertaken.

[Meadmaker]

I don't think it's off topic. I think the reason they can get away with it is the Democratic Party doesn't really have a political philosophy. It has constituencies that it serves, and has some vague notion of "fairness" or "equality" that it strives for. I think that lack of philosophy allows the GOP to pick and choose the definitions. I think the Democratic Party ought to reclaim the word liberalism and adopt it as a politcal philosophy, but to do that, they would have to abandon some elements.

I want to bring up a topic that was part of what got me thinking, years ago, about liberalism and what it means. That topic is education. I think it's liberal to support education. Despite the massive cost of education, I think an educated society is more likely to be a free society. Also, education creates options, and options equal freedom. So, while we can't have unlimited education spending, I'm for education as a high priority, which means spending a bunch of money on it.

But what sort of education? Consider our public school system. (In the US that is, although I think the descriptions probably fit Europe at least as well or better.) It's monolithic, centrally administered, and gives people zero choices. Unless you are wealthy, or have some wealthy benefactors, it's a safe bet that your kid will go to a public school, where he will be exposed to exactly what the government approves of, and nothing else.

Along came school voucher initiatives. That would give people a choice. Among Democrats, they have pretty much zero support. Why? I don't want to argue that they are good or bad here, but are they liberal, or illiberal? Do they promote more freedom, or less? To me, the choice is obvious. They create more freedom. So why are "liberals" against them?

[drkitten]

When the government spends, it automatically raises taxes, because all those bills have to be paid.

Not necessarily, depending upon how strict a definition of "taxes" you have.

For example, the US Post Office is almost entirely self-funded and receives no support from the General Fund. Not is it supported by "taxes," in the legal definition. Instead, it operates on a fee-for-services model, where the cost of a stamp covers the cost of delivering the letter to which it is attached. The USPTO operates on a similar user-fee model.

Similarly, there are some forms of government spending that are literally investments; the economic benefits later will more than offset the spending now (including opportunity cost and interest), so taxes will not need to be raised. A well-documented example of this is early child-care development and education; every dollar spent will produce much more than a dollar savings later in reduced spendings on social programs and criminal proceedings. Similarly, every dollar spent on anti-smoking programs will usually produce more than a dollar savings in public heath care costs.

[Meadmaker]

How exactly are Christians forced underground?

I was mostly joking, but I do think it's a little funny when people blow a gasket when someone tries to put a Christmas carol into the "Winter Concert", or that case where the St, Paul Human Rights Director had someone remove the Easter Bunny from a city office.

Among society at large, Christians aren't forced underground, but plenty of JREF folks act persecuted if they have to listen to someone say "Jesus". I think those who act that way ought to lighten up. When someone acts that way, he isn't being liberal.

[drkitten]

I want to bring up a topic that was part of what got me thinking, years ago, about liberalism and what it means. That topic is education. I think it's liberal to support education.

Fair enough.

Despite the massive cost of education, I think an educated society is more likely to be a free society. Also, education creates options, and options equal freedom. So, while we can't have unlimited education spending, I'm for education as a high priority, which means spending a bunch of money on it.

I hope you don't mean this as naively as it sounds. Merely "spending a bunch of money on something" does not by any stretch of the imagination either improve it or make it a high priority. As a simple example, we could tear down all the public high schools in the United States and rebuild them, but using marble instead of brick.


But what sort of education? Consider our public school system. (In the US that is, although I think the descriptions probably fit Europe at least as well or better.) It's monolithic, centrally administered, and gives people zero choices.

... and effective.

Unless you are wealthy, or have some wealthy benefactors, it's a safe bet that your kid will go to a public school, where he will be exposed to exactly what the government approves of, and nothing else.

.... which in and of itself is not a bad thing. Especially since one of the things that the government approves of, as you pointed out earlier, is "an educated society is more likely to be a free society. Also, education creates options, and options equal freedom," which is why education is a public good, funded by the government.

Along came school voucher initiatives. That would give people a choice.

Merely giving people "a choice" is not necessarily a good thing.

For example, do you want the people to have "a choice" about whether members of your race can vote or not?

Do you want people to have "a choice" about whether the food they serve to you in a restaurant is safe to eat or not?

Do you want people to have "a choice" about whether or not they can drive drunk?

Choice, per se, is not in and of itself a desirable thing.

I don't want to argue that they are good or bad here, but are they liberal, or illiberal? Do they promote more freedom, or less?

Well, given that you've said that education promotes freedom, to the extent that government policy w.r.t. education is to promote freedom, an educational policy that differs from the government policy also specifically does not promote freedom.

So why are "liberals" against them?

Because they do not promote freedom. They promote the illusion of choice, while restricting freedom.

[drkitten]

Among society at large, Christians aren't forced underground,


but plenty of JREF folks act persecuted if they have to listen to someone say "Jesus".

Translation : if I can't force you to do what I want (such as listen to me) you're forcing me underground. Your refusal to obey me is a violation of my rights.

[Upchurch]

I was mostly joking, but I do think it's a little funny when people blow a gasket when someone tries to put a Christmas carol into the "Winter Concert", or that case where the St, Paul Human Rights Director had someone remove the Easter Bunny from a city office.That's because public schools are government institutions and the government isn't allowed to promote one religion over another, generally speaking.

Among society at large, Christians aren't forced underground, but plenty of JREF folks act persecuted if they have to listen to someone say "Jesus".For example?

I think those who act that way ought to lighten up. When someone acts that way, he isn't being liberal.Depends on your definition of "liberal"

[Meadmaker]

That's because public schools are government institutions and the government isn't allowed to promote one religion over another, generally speaking.

For example?

You provided your own example. If you think there's a legal issue involved in whether or not the Smallville Junior High School Boy's Choir can sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.

Oh no! It's a boy's choir!:eek:

[Upchurch]

You provided your own example. If you think there's a legal issue involved in whether or not the Smallville Junior High School Boy's Choir can sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.

Oh no! It's a boy's choir!:eek:
What "plenty of JREF folks" are involved in that?

[Tony]

I was mostly joking, but I do think it's a little funny when people blow a gasket when someone tries to put a Christmas carol into the "Winter Concert",

Watch how many gaskets Christians would blow if kids in schools were encouraged to sing "I love Mohammed" or "Jesus is a Fraud". Christians are hypocrites and cowards. They expect people to sit by and let them force their religion onto society while they cry when other try to do same.

or that case where the St, Paul Human Rights Director had someone remove the Easter Bunny from a city office.

The Easter bunny has nothing to do with Christianity.

[Meadmaker]

Watch how many gaskets Christians would blow if kids in schools were encouraged to sing "I love Mohammed" or "Jesus is a Fraud". Christians are hypocrites and cowards. They expect people to sit by and let them force their religion onto society while they cry when other try to do same.



The Easter bunny has nothing to do with Christianity.
Tell that to the St. Paul Human Rights Director.

What "plenty of JREF folks" are involved in that?
Well, Tony, at least. But I think we'll find a few more.

[Tony]

Translation : if I can't force you to do what I want (such as listen to me) you're forcing me underground. Your refusal to obey me is a violation of my rights.

That's about right. I've come to realize that when religious people (mostly christians and muslims) speak of "freedom". They really mean the "freedom" to force their beliefs on other people.

[Upchurch]

The Easter bunny has nothing to do with Christianity.I was going to point out that they share the "Easter" name, but that comes from a pegan goddess of spring and fertility. Oh, well.

[Upchurch]

Well, Tony, at least. But I think we'll find a few more.Tony? Let's test that out:

Tony, "Jesus"

What are you feeling right now?



:rolleyes:

[Tony]

Tony, "Jesus"

What are you feeling right now?


My foot hurts a bit, besides that, I'm cool.

[drkitten]

that case where the St, Paul Human Rights Director had someone remove the Easter Bunny from a city office.


More wonderful examples of "factual accuracy" from the right-wing.

From the St. Paul Pioneer press (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/14163580.htm):

The decorations — including the stuffed rabbit, Easter eggs and a handcrafted sign saying "Happy Easter," but nothing depicting the biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection — were put up this week in the office of the City Council by a council secretary.

"I sent an e-mail that Easter is viewed as a Christian holiday and advised that it be taken down," said Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director.

"I absolutely wonder how colored eggs and bunnies and chickens are Christian," Thune said. "I'm a little puzzled how people can be offended."

What was taken down was the entire Easter decorations, not just specifically the bunny. Decorations that were specifically only put up to in celebration of Easter.


City Hall does display holiday decorations near Christmas — including "Happy Holidays" banners — but they are not specific to a particular holiday.

.... so decorations are fine, as long as they are not specific to a particular holiday.

I can live with that. What other holidays, besides the celebration of Christ's ressurection, are celebrated in March and April with the display of colored eggs, bunnies, and chickens?

Can't think of any? Neither can I. Could it possibly that the displays are specific to a particular holiday? Coud it possibly be that the holiday to which they are specific is tied to a specific religion?

[Upchurch]

Can't think of any? Neither can I. Could it possibly that the displays are specific to a particular holiday? Coud it possibly be that the holiday to which they are specific is tied to a specific religion?
Pegan celebration of the spring equinox? Still it's pretty specific, you're either talking about Christianity or Peganism.

[Tony]

True. But two people sticking their fingers in their ears shouting 'nah nah I can't hear you' are no more meaningful than one.

Pick any of the positions I named and explain why it is not the "liberal" position on that issue.

For those who think pc'lib means anything other than standard issue US liberal, I disagree.

And why Meadmaker proposes

Position , True Liberal
"alternate lifestyles" , mostly .... it isn't conservatives who back them.

For the following, his "True Liberal positions" are US Conservative and have nothing to do with US Liberal philosophy:

Position , True Liberal
"alternate lifestyles" , mostly ... Er, 110% is mostly?
abortion , I think so ... Also 110%
higher taxes , no (but must pay the bills) ... no liberal I know of ...
affirmative action , no .... What?
blame society first, rarely .... Huh? Free Mumia!
appeasement , no .... LOL.
regulations , rarely .... Again.
responsibiltiy, yes

How in Ed's name did you conclude those are "liberal" positions???? :confused:

How in Ed's name can you conclude this is a coherant post?

[Upchurch]

Read, Hammy. I know my posts are long winded, so I forgive, but I'll summarize: A true liberal is open minded, and values freedom. That doesn't always characterize the democratic party or the American left.

Example: A true liberal would not impose regulations without a compelling reason, but a typical US "liberal" would.

{snip}

My point is that the Democratic party isn't truly liberal. In some ways, the Republicans can be more liberal than the democrats.
Wait a sec, the Republican party has tried to impose regulations without compelling reason. (see Flag Burning Amendment, Gay Marriage Amendment, the whole Terri Schiavo debacle)

[thaiboxerken]

You provided your own example. If you think there's a legal issue involved in whether or not the Smallville Junior High School Boy's Choir can sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.

Isn't Silent Night a religious song?

[Meadmaker]

Wait a sec, the Republican party has tried to impose regulations without compelling reason. (see Flag Burning Amendment, Gay Marriage Amendment, the whole Terri Schiavo debacle)

And in some ways, the Democrats are more liberal than the Republicans. I would agree that all those are examples of illiberal behavior by the Republicans, although there's a bit of room for debate about the second.

[thaiboxerken]

No, mead, there is no room of debate about gay marriage. There has yet to be one valid and compelling reason to ban gay marriage.

[Upchurch]

No, mead, there is no room of debate about gay marriage.Yes, there is.

There has yet to be one valid and compelling reason to ban gay marriage.No, there hasn't.

[Meadmaker]

Isn't Silent Night a religious song?
Last time I checked, yes.

And if you think that’s a good reason to ban it, I’m laughing at you.


But regardless of my amusement, let’s ask whether it’s liberal or not.

Is it open minded to have a “banned songs” list? Does it advance freedom when you censor the expression of certain ideas? It just doesn’t strike me as very liberal.

For what it’s worth, if you tell me that a school banned a Jewish song, and left “Silent Night” on the program, I think you would have a point. There aren’t exactly a lot of atheist “hymns”, but I’m sure that there are songs that Christians find offensive due to political or philosophical issues. If you ban them, but leave in “Silent Night”, then I think you would have a point.

If a choir director, school board, or principal decided it wasn’t right for their school, that would be a different issue.

And if you tell a kid he can’t be in the choir unless he sings “Silent Night”, you might have a point.

But when you say, “You aren’t allowed to sing that song!” I’m not going to give you the Liberal of the Year Award.

[Upchurch]

And if you tell a kid he can’t be in the choir unless he sings “Silent Night”, you might have a point.This would be the applicable argument.

[drkitten]

forum wierdness, ignore.

[drkitten]

And if you think that’s a good reason to ban it, I’m laughing at you.

Except it's not banned, your willful misunderstandings to the contrary notwithstanding.



But when you say, “You aren’t allowed to sing that song!”

No one is saying that.

They are saying "the official choir of a state-sponsored institution is not allowed to sing that song in an official capacity."

You can sing whatever you like, on your own time. In private, in public, whatever. You can get together with your friends and go carolling, even if your friends all happen to be members of the official choir.

[Upchurch]

They are saying "the official choir of a state-sponsored institution is not allowed to sing that song in an official capacity."

You can sing whatever you like, on your own time. In private, in public, whatever. You can get together with your friends and go carolling, even if your friends all happen to be members of the official choir.
That's probably more to the heart of the issue.

[UserGoogol]

Along came school voucher initiatives. That would give people a choice. Among Democrats, they have pretty much zero support. Why? I don't want to argue that they are good or bad here, but are they liberal, or illiberal? Do they promote more freedom, or less? To me, the choice is obvious. They create more freedom. So why are "liberals" against them?

Most of the criticisms of school vouchers can easily be phrased as being pro-freedom. For instance, one argument is that it will hurt disadvantaged people because they won't be able to get into private schools even with the vouchers. Wealth and freedom are very tightly linked: the more money you have, the more things you are capable of doing, or in other words, the more freedom you have. If you skew education such that people who are already free get the good stuff and the people who are not-so-free get the worse stuff, then this might be a decrease in the overall freedom compared to the current situation.

Although I admit that American liberals are not completely the same as Liberals in the classical sense, this is an area where they can be considered to be so.

[Meadmaker]

Those of you who have issues with "Silent Night" are the face that people see when they think "liberal" in America today, which explains why no politician will admit to the label.

Most of the criticisms of school vouchers can easily be phrased as being pro-freedom. For instance, one argument is that it will hurt disadvantaged people because they won't be able to get into private schools even with the vouchers. Wealth and freedom are very tightly linked: the more money you have, the more things you are capable of doing, or in other words, the more freedom you have. If you skew education such that people who are already free get the good stuff and the people who are not-so-free get the worse stuff, then this might be a decrease in the overall freedom compared to the current situation.

Although I admit that American liberals are not completely the same as Liberals in the classical sense, this is an area where they can be considered to be so.

I think this is a common view, and it's one of the common arguments against vouchers, but I think it's horribly wrong. (Nothing personal meant there.)

Under the current system, only the rich can afford private schools. Under vouchers, everyone would be able to afford private schools, but the poor would be able to afford mediocre private schools, the middle class would be able to afford better private schools, and the rich would be able to afford the very best. (Assuming that there is a correlation between expense and quality, which we'll accept for the sake of argument. It's at least partly true.)

So, everyone gets more choices, but the more money you have, the better choices you can make. Somehow, that gets equated to "less freedom", but that's totally wrong. There is probably less equality, but there isn't less freedom.

It's easy to make everyone equal economically. Take away everyone's money. But that isn't liberal. Freedom and equality are not synonymous.

[Upchurch]

Those of you who have issues with "Silent Night" are the face that people see when they think "liberal" in America today, which explains why no politician will admit to the label.If that's an argument as to why a government-funded institution should promote a specific religion, I don't see it.

So, everyone gets more choices, but the more money you have, the better choices you can make. Somehow, that gets equated to "less freedom", but that's totally wrong. There is probably less equality, but there isn't less freedom.

It's easy to make everyone equal economically. Take away everyone's money. But that isn't liberal. Freedom and equality are not synonymous.
Are liberals only defined by promotion of freedom?

[thaiboxerken]

And if you think that’s a good reason to ban it, I’m laughing at you.

It's ok for you to laugh, since you have silly ideas.


Is it open minded to have a “banned songs” list?

They aren't banned songs.

Does it advance freedom when you censor the expression of certain ideas?

It's not censorship.



But when you say, “You aren’t allowed to sing that song!” I’m not going to give you the Liberal of the Year Award.

The issue is whether or not they can sing the song during public school time. Public schools should not be a battleground of religious ideas and theology. It promotes freedom of parenting to keep religion out of schools so that parents and not teachers, are the ones deciding what religion their kids are going to adopt.

[UserGoogol]

I think this is a common view, and it's one of the common arguments against vouchers, but I think it's horribly wrong. (Nothing personal meant there.)

Well perhaps, it's a complicated issue. I was merely arguing that they were still "liberal." If a person tries to be liberal but fails, he's still liberal, because "liberal" describes a person's ideological position.

So, everyone gets more choices, but the more money you have, the better choices you can make. Somehow, that gets equated to "less freedom", but that's totally wrong. There is probably less equality, but there isn't less freedom.

How do you define freedom? To me, the definition of freedom/liberty is the ability to do whatever you want (except harm people). Having your freedom restricted by an oppressive government is just as bad as having your freedom restricted by an oppressive reality. The former is easier to prevent, so it is not unreasonable to give a bit of focus on that side of things, but both are bad.

I think, and this is a completely unfounded conjecture, that a difference between left-liberalism and right-liberalism (by which I mean libertarianism) is that the left tends to be more consequentialist, whereas the right tends to be more deontological. The left is willing to sacrifice a little freedom here or there if it means a better increase in freedom overall, whereas the right feels that violating freedom is just totally wrong as a principle. Or at least, I'm consequentialist and Shanek was deontological, and that's enough anecdotal evidence for me. :D

[Dcdrac]

For me being liberal means doing my damndest to back up my views with evidence.

[hammegk]

Here in the US we call that position "conservative". :)

[Meadmaker]

Well perhaps, it's a complicated issue. I was merely arguing that they were still "liberal." If a person tries to be liberal but fails, he's still liberal, because "liberal" describes a person's ideological position.


That makes sense. If someone sincerely believes they are promoting more freedom, tolerance, and open mindedness, then I suppose they are liberal.

I agree whether or not we ought to have school vouchers is a very complicated issue, but as to whether or not it's liberal, I can't see both sides of the story. Maybe someone can explain why centralized bureaucracies in which there is no choice is "liberal" in any meaningful sense, but I don't get it.




To me, the definition of freedom/liberty is the ability to do whatever you want (except harm people).


With you so far.

Having your freedom restricted by an oppressive government is just as bad as having your freedom restricted by an oppressive reality.


I think I understand, and I think I agree. If government takes your money, leaving you with fewer choices, but buys an ambulance, which might keep you alive, your freedom goes up. Is that it?




is that the left tends to be more consequentialist, whereas the right tends to be more deontological. The left is willing to sacrifice a little freedom here or there if it means a better increase in freedom overall, whereas the right feels that violating freedom is just totally wrong as a principle. Or at least, I'm consequentialist and Shanek was deontological, and that's enough anecdotal evidence for me. :D

Wow, I actually had to use dictionary.com to look up a word I didn't know. Usually I use it to quote a definition about which there shouldn't be any dispute, but someone makes one anyway.

I think that's pretty much correct. Sometimes, in my opinion, though, the left doesn't do a good job of even aiming for good consequences. I think they are so bent on equality that even if everything is equally bad, that's ok.

[Meadmaker]

Are liberals only defined by promotion of freedom?

Broad mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of alternatives. These all define "liberal". I think all of those result in more freedom, don't they?

Example: I don't much like "Silent Night" or the religion it represents, but I will tolerate it, instead of whining to a judge and making them stop.

[gnome]

blame society first, rarely .... Huh? Free Mumia!

Rubbish. Supporters of Mumia do not claim he is innocent because society is to blame. They claim he is innocent because he didn't do it.

I'm not convinced, myself, that he is as innocent as they say. But they're not advocating a murderer be freed because it's ok to be a murderer. They're asking that someone they believe to be innocent be freed.

[gnome]

Among society at large, Christians aren't forced underground, but plenty of JREF folks act persecuted if they have to listen to someone say "Jesus". I think those who act that way ought to lighten up. When someone acts that way, he isn't being liberal.

You've misunderstood. It's not having to listen to someone say "Jesus."... metaphorically it's listening to someone in an official status go on about Jesus. It makes us nervous that Christianity will become part of official policy.

(Not incidentally, it makes Catholics, Jews, and people of other religions nervous too... most lawsuits about separation of church and state are not begun by Atheists)

[daenku32]

Liberal means willingness to toss anything old, known and good, for something we are pretty darn sure is even better.

Yes, I'm a liberal. Like a Kaizen project, society much less the government is never done.

[Cain]

Well perhaps, it's a complicated issue. I was merely arguing that they were still "liberal." If a person tries to be liberal but fails, he's still liberal, because "liberal" describes a person's ideological position.

How do you define freedom? To me, the definition of freedom/liberty is the ability to do whatever you want (except harm people). Having your freedom restricted by an oppressive government is just as bad as having your freedom restricted by an oppressive reality. The former is easier to prevent, so it is not unreasonable to give a bit of focus on that side of things, but both are bad.

I think, and this is a completely unfounded conjecture, that a difference between left-liberalism and right-liberalism (by which I mean libertarianism) is that the left tends to be more consequentialist, whereas the right tends to be more deontological. The left is willing to sacrifice a little freedom here or there if it means a better increase in freedom overall, whereas the right feels that violating freedom is just totally wrong as a principle. Or at least, I'm consequentialist and Shanek was deontological, and that's enough anecdotal evidence for me. :D

First of all, the greatest contemporary liberal philosopher, John Rawls, was a deontologist. Indeed, prior to the publication of _Theory_, most political philosophers were utilitarians, but afterward they shifted toward a rights-oriented view. Rawls of course makes the standard distinction between the formal ability to exercise one's rights, and the effective (or real) ability to exercise one's rights. As I've said in the past, the difference between a conservative/libertarian and a left-winger/liberal is that we (the latter) believe the outcome of a person's life ought to be based primarily on personal choices rather than arbitrary circumstances. This means people, particularly children, are entitled to certain things such as education and healthcare (primary goods), by virtue of being human.

Funny Shanek story. Victor D. once asked libertarians on this board to classify themselves as either deontologists or consequentalists. Shanek, in all of his wisdom, said he fell into both categories and insisted the distinction was a false one.

As far as vouchers go, people tend to overlook the basic premise that everyone agrees children have a right to an education. It still involves that greatest of evils, "redistributionism." The mechanism may be different, but again, there's an important domain distinction.

[Meadmaker]

You've misunderstood. It's not having to listen to someone say "Jesus."... metaphorically it's listening to someone in an official status go on about Jesus. It makes us nervous that Christianity will become part of official policy.

(Not incidentally, it makes Catholics, Jews, and people of other religions nervous too... most lawsuits about separation of church and state are not begun by Atheists)

I assure you, I get that. I totally understand the football prayer case, and the general prayer in school debate. I am very much opposed to teacher led prayer, or prayer selected by majority vote.

And if you think that the choir can't sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.

[Meadmaker]

As far as vouchers go, people tend to overlook the basic premise that everyone agrees children have a right to an education. It still involves that greatest of evils, "redistributionism." The mechanism may be different, but again, there's an important domain distinction.

I'm not following. I haven't read Rawls, so I don't have the philosophical background for the discussion, so this might be a bit remedial.

So, is redistributionism something that a liberal ought to see as bad? I see it as bad if that's your goal. However, funding of public projects, such as eduction, inevitably involves redistributionism, and I'm ok with that. In other words, redistribution of wealth, while not a worth goal, might still increase rights, freedoms, choices, etc. So, is that a liberal idea, or not? (according to Rawls and/or you?)

As for vouchers, is there more or less redistribution with vouchers? It seems to me that both plans (vouchers and traditional) involve satisfying the right to education, and neither plan redistributes more wealth. One of them provides choices, which I see as liberal, and the other does not, but other than that, they seem pretty similar.

[Upchurch]

Broad mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of alternatives. These all define "liberal". I think all of those result in more freedom, don't they?You don't find tolerance and acceptance an aspect of equality?

[thaiboxerken]

I assure you, I get that. I totally understand the football prayer case, and the general prayer in school debate. I am very much opposed to teacher led prayer, or prayer selected by majority vote.

And if you think that the choir can't sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.

Hymnals are just like prayers.

[JamesDillon]

So, is redistributionism something that a liberal ought to see as bad? I see it as bad if that's your goal. However, funding of public projects, such as eduction, inevitably involves redistributionism, and I'm ok with that. In other words, redistribution of wealth, while not a worth goal, might still increase rights, freedoms, choices, etc. So, is that a liberal idea, or not? (according to Rawls and/or you?)
I don't quite get that part either. Rawls's most fundamental principle regarding allocation of wealth was that the most just society is the one in which the people in the worst-off position are in the best position they can be in all possible worlds. In other words, the gap between rich and poor was of less significance to Rawls than the objective state of the poor under one system as compared to their state under all other possible systems. He certainly favored the downward redistribution of wealth insofar as it would put the worst-off in a better position than they would have been otherwise.

Regarding the Silent Night thing and all related issues, I think Rawls's oft-misunderstood principle of public reason could shed some light on the liberal position here. I don't have time at the moment to go deeply into detail (I wrote my M.A. thesis on this, so believe me, I could...), but the basic idea is that democracy, by definition, requires each citizen to treat each other citizen with respect as an autonomous political agent. One corollary of this, according to Rawls, is that political decisions must be made on the basis of reasons that all citizens, including those who disagree with the decision, could reasonably accept. That is to say, they must appeal to the limited set of values shared in the overlapping consensus of reasonable, political conceptions of justice held by all (reasonable) citizens. (Reasonable here being basically defined as a citizen who accepts the fundamental tenets of democratic government); this limited set of public reasons is distinguished by Rawls from what he calls "comprehensive" moral or religious beliefs that each person also holds, but which are not part of the overlapping consensus. Because they are not shared by all, reasons based on comprehensive views could not reasonably be accepted by all members of society, and therefore cannot be offered as a legitimate basis for government action. For example, laws against the consumption of alcohol on Sundays could not be justified by reference to the fact that Sunday is the Lord's day, because no atheist, Wiccan, or Jew (among others) could reasonably be expected to accept that justification for infringement upon their liberty. This Kantian conception of each adult member of a democratic society as political-end rather than political-means underlies the liberal commitment to, among other things, separation of church and state.

[Cain]

I'm not following. I haven't read Rawls, so I don't have the philosophical background for the discussion, so this might be a bit remedial.

So, is redistributionism something that a liberal ought to see as bad? I see it as bad if that's your goal. However, funding of public projects, such as eduction, inevitably involves redistributionism, and I'm ok with that. In other words, redistribution of wealth, while not a worth goal, might still increase rights, freedoms, choices, etc. So, is that a liberal idea, or not? (according to Rawls and/or you?)

No, redistributionism, as far as a typical modern American liberal is concerned, is not an intrinsically bad thing (as far as I know), nor is it a goal in it self.

Dillon writes: I don't quite get that part either. Rawls's most fundamental principle regarding allocation of wealth was that the most just society is the one in which the people in the worst-off position are in the best position they can be in all possible worlds.

Rawls' famous "difference principle," the second part of the second principle of justice concerns distributive justice. This follows from Rawls' "original position" thought experiment; also, Rawls first principle of justice has priority. Rawls' economic principle of justice has a specific social application; it is not a principle of morality in the sense that one ought to organize one's household in this manner. And as Rawls makes clear in _Law of Peoples_, he is opposed to a global difference principle.

As far as redistributionism is concerned, it is also justified in part by the fact that our native endowments are unearned (genetic lottery). Rawls' argument against utilitarianism, put as crudely as possible, is that it fails to appreciate the separatness of persons.

As for vouchers, is there more or less redistribution with vouchers? It seems to me that both plans (vouchers and traditional) involve satisfying the right to education, and neither plan redistributes more wealth. One of them provides choices, which I see as liberal, and the other does not, but other than that, they seem pretty similar.

I did not mean to suggest comparison as far as the level of redistribution is concerned. The central point is that redistributionism occurs because education is financed by the public.

As Michael Sandel notes in a compilation of essays, Rawls inspired not one but three debates. First there was argument for a rights view against utilitarianism. Second there are questions concerning issues of redistributive justice (primarily waged between libertarians and liberals). Finally, there is the so-called "communitarian" debate, involving Sandel, Taylor, and Walzer and others. Rawls subsequent work on political liberalism (the idea of public reason) deals with these arguments. As James says, public arguments must be political in nature and "free-standing" (meaning no appeals to one's comprehensive doctrine). I think the only term he did not explicitly mention (but describes) was the "fact of reasonable pluralism" (society will never reconcile itself to a single comprehensive doctrine such as Wicca, Judiaism, or atheism).

[Walter Wayne]

The word liberal was butchered long before the current blow hards put the "evil" spin on it. Liberal came to mean adherence, or lip service, to social liberalism and to some extent socialism (progressive taxes and the such). Where as conservatism came to mean adherence, or lip service, to economic liberalism. Liberal -> left wing; Conservative -> right wing.

I think the idea of tearing down trade barriers is liberal in the sense that for a substantial period of time now, countries have tried to control economic trade by a variety means. In the sense it is a very "new and broad-minded" liberal idea. However, the majority of protesters would put them selves as liberals, left wingers, as they see it as threat to social equality, the rich getting richer and such.

We have seen that perverted by both sides as well. Political liberals using the "progressive, tries new things" definition, now we see political right wingers putting an evil "destroy society" spin on liberal.

Many of the laws we have were enacted as part of political liberal left-wing pushes; how long until those ideas become conservative in the sense of being status quo. When they do are they suddenly part of the right wing "conservative" platform?

I think with the number of definitions of liberal and conservative floating around, whether descriptive of general attitudes, political attitudes or argumentative definitions, the word conveys very little in most cases.

Walt

[hammegk]

... As James says, public arguments must be political in nature and "free-standing" (meaning no appeals to one's comprehensive doctrine).
As liberal as it gets. ;)


I think the only term he did not explicitly mention (but describes) was the "fact of reasonable pluralism" (society will never reconcile itself to a single comprehensive doctrine such as Wicca, Judiaism, or atheism).
And in the next breath, why it cannot be accomplished (well, until we breed the humanness out of us, or control it before and after birth with electrodes & chemicals).

[senorpogo]

The Easter bunny has nothing to do with Christianity.

That's the story of Jesus! (http://www.deftone.com/archives/2003/04/thats_the_story_of_jesus)

Bill Hicks... anyone? anyone?

[Tony]

Here in the US we call that position "conservative". :)

I know it's wrong to laugh at retards but.

:dl:

[hammegk]

Didn't mama warn you about looking in mirrors? :D

[gnome]

I assure you, I get that. I totally understand the football prayer case, and the general prayer in school debate. I am very much opposed to teacher led prayer, or prayer selected by majority vote.

And if you think that the choir can't sing "Silent Night", I'm laughing at you.
I've never seen anything wrong with holiday school musicals including Christmas songs. It is one of the holidays, after all.

[President Bush]

What other holidays, besides the celebration of Christ's ressurection, are celebrated in March and April with the display of colored eggs, bunnies, and chickens?
The day (http://kisrael.com/journal.aux/2001.04.14.bunnybig.jpg) Jenna got her driver's license.

[Meadmaker]

I’m not as well read in philosophy as some of our other posters, but I’m going to attempt to discuss the “Silent Night” controversy in terms related to JamesDillon’s message about Rawls’ principle of public reason. It seems like a very good place to start when discussing such weighty issues as junior high Christmas carols.


I’ll quote a relevant section from JamesDillon’s post:


One corollary of this, according to Rawls, is that political decisions must be made on the basis of reasons that all citizens, including those who disagree with the decision, could reasonably accept. That is to say, they must appeal to the limited set of values shared in the overlapping consensus of reasonable, political conceptions of justice held by all (reasonable) citizens. (Reasonable here being basically defined as a citizen who accepts the fundamental tenets of democratic government); this limited set of public reasons is distinguished by Rawls from what he calls "comprehensive" moral or religious beliefs that each person also holds, but which are not part of the overlapping consensus.

I hesitate to agree with the excerpt, because I haven’t read enough to know the context of the idea, but it seems reasonable to me.

So, the circumstances of this controversy are that a choral director has announced that the chorus of a public school will participate in a concert, held at a public school, with the director being paid from tax dollars. Among the songs to be sung at said concert is “Silent Night”.

Let us accept that the choral director is an instrument of the government, and that his song selections represent a “political decision”, in the sense of the quoted paragraph.

Is his decision based on the limited set of values shared in the overlapping concensus of reasonable people, or from the comprehensive moral or religious beliefs of some individual or group of individuals?

For the sake of the discussion, we will assume that the act of having seventh graders perform choral concerts has been deemed a worthwhile aspect of social and educational development. The objection is not to the act of public singing, but merely to the inclusion of “Silent Night” in the song list.

If that is the case, then what is the objection to “Silent Night”? Having seventh graders perform is a good thing, we assume, and they have to perform something. Is it not possible that “Silent Night” is just a song that someone heard and liked? Is it not possible that his decision was based on the popularity of the song, regardless of why it is popular? Singing songs that audiences like seems to me something that would appeal to the limited set of values held by reasonable citizens. As such, the inclusion of the song fits our criteria for liberal political decisions.

As an aside, note that if people didn’t like the song, we’d have a different issue. If there were lots of people in the audience who hated “Silent Night”, we wouldn’t be discussing this.

So, the decision to include “Silent Night” in the program fits the liberal criteria. What about the decision to exclude it? That’s what we’re dealing with here as a political decision, aren’t we? We’re talking about cases where some people want to sing “Silent Night”, while other people want to stop them, and want to invoke some legal principle to prevent them from singing in the circumstances they want to sing.

What values shared in the overlapping consensus of reasonable political conceptions of justice held by all reasonable citizens would lead one to seek a court order banning an Austrian tune from the 19th century from performance by public school children?

I would welcome any answers, but the most commonly cited one might be “separation of church and state.”

Separation of church and state might indeed be something welcomed by the vast majority of Americans, but if that’s the reason for prohibiting school children’s performance of Silent Night at the Winter Carnival Concert, then there must be an awful lot of unreasonable people in America, because the reasonable citizens whose values are being invoked as justification would, by a substantial majority, say that separation of church and state is still possible, even if schoolchildren sing “Silent Night”.

More importantly, I think if questioned, they would not actually value separation of church and state as an end in and of itself. Rather, I think most people who give it some thought would say that it was a means to an end. The end goal is actually religious freedom. We must therefore ask if prohibiting the performance of “Silent Night” advances the cause of religious freedom.

And that is where I will end for the day. I would welcome discussion of why religious freedom is enhanced by prohibiting religious songs in public schools, or whether there is some other core value enhanced by such a prohibition. Or, for that matter, some other reason why anyone thinks such a policy is "liberal". It will not surprise anyone to find that I think it actually inhibits religious freedom when government makes such a policy, and I therefore consider it an illiberal policy.

[Meadmaker]

You don't find tolerance and acceptance an aspect of equality?

No. Or at least, I don't find equality to be an aspect of tolerance and acceptance.

Equality is all well and good if what you mean is that people who are equal be treated equally. So, demanding that black people and white people have equal rights strikes me as a good idea, because I can't think of any reason that skin color makes any difference. Likewise, the French revolutionaries demanded egalite, and Thomas Jefferson said "all men are created equal". They were referring to the artificial distinction created by treating nobility as inherently superior to commoners.

The problem comes when demanding equality for nonequals. One of the issues that got me started thinking about what it means to be liberal was an issue you don't hear much about anymore. Does anyone remember "comparable worth"? That was a ridiculous idea that was grounded in "equality". It would have demanded intervention by the government, telling people how to live their lives, all in a misguided effort to make equal those things that were not equal.

Tolerance and acceptance require people to accept differences. It does not require people to pretend there are no differences.

[thaiboxerken]

If that is the case, then what is the objection to “Silent Night”?

It's government endorsement of religion, specifically, the christian religion. It doesn't matter that it's the popular religion and that the hymnal is popular, it's still a matter of a government institution establishing a religion with public dollars.

So, the decision to include “Silent Night” in the program fits the liberal criteria.

No, it does not. The liberal criteria doesn't involve having public schools teaching religion.

That’s what we’re dealing with here as a political decision, aren’t we?

Yes, just like anything involving government, it's a political discussion. More accurately, it's a consitutional issue. Having public schools teaching children christian hymnals and having children sing those hymnals is a violation of the 1st ammendment exclusion clause. No on is arguing that people shouldn't sing the song, just that it shouldn't be done on government time with government dollars and that children should not be taught religious songs in public schools either.

We must therefore ask if prohibiting the performance of “Silent Night” advances the cause of religious freedom.

Yes, it does. Including religious hymnals as part of a public school performance and choir alienates children and parents that are not a part of that religion. It turns the public school into a battleground of religious ideals and propoganda. It tells people of the minority religious views that they're views don't matter and that they don't matter, it says that the only religion that matters is the popular one. I can see including religious hymnals as part of a choir medley if they included hymnals of every other religion, but it's probably just easier to leave religious hymnals out of the performance.

If you really want to put things into perspective, try this thought experiment. Instead of having the children sing "Silent Night", think of what would happen if the choir director had the kids singing "Inno A Satana", another religious hymnal, instead.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/RMInnoASatana.html

[JamesDillon]

The problem comes when demanding equality for nonequals...
Tolerance and acceptance require people to accept differences. It does not require people to pretend there are no differences.
I think that's a very good point; one of the most valid criticisms against much contemporary liberal thinking (especially of the "politically correct" variety, though I don't think anyone uses that term except as one of derision any more) is that its excessive egalitarianism undermines meritocracy and ignores legitimate value distinctions between people and ideas. I don't think it has to mean that, though; the tendency to go from "all men are created equal" to "all people are equal in every conceivable aspect" stems, I think, from a misunderstanding of the theoretical and academic foundations of liberalism. Certainly, Rawls's conception of liberalism in no way precludes a recognition that some people are more accomplished, and some ideas and values more praiseworthy, than others. In practice, I think most professed liberals understand this, but there remains a certain element that fails to grasp the distinction between abolishing a strict hereditary hierarchy and succumbing to a general relativism that refuses to accept the legitimacy of any normative valuations of people or ideas. The latter view is what frequently draws derision from the Limbaughs and Hannities of the world, and while it isn't quite a straw man since some people do hold it, I don't think it's a fair representation of classic liberalism.

[JamesDillon]

Many of the laws we have were enacted as part of political liberal left-wing pushes; how long until those ideas become conservative in the sense of being status quo. When they do are they suddenly part of the right wing "conservative" platform?
That's why I don't really like the pro-status quo/anti-status quo distinction between conservative and liberal that, while it may be accurate as to the original meanings of the terms, isn't very informative as to their current use as it conveys nothing about the content of the positions. Liberals don't challenge the status quo just because they like change, and conservatives don't defend it just because they don't. (And, as you point out, it isn't even true in all cases that liberals are the champions of change and conservatives the champions of stasis). In both cases, the motivations go to a set of affirmative and mutually inconsistent value judgments that inform the agendas of the competing political movements. Both major sides of the American political divide, whatever you want to call them, have relatively well-defined conceptions of the ideal society, and I don't think that defining the sides in reference to their attidude toward the status quo is very helpful (especially since they both want to change it significantly).

I think with the number of definitions of liberal and conservative floating around, whether descriptive of general attitudes, political attitudes or argumentative definitions, the word conveys very little in most cases.
That's true. It seems to be a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing at this point. I do think it might be possible to reduce each side to a relatively short list of underlying values and policy judgments upon which most of their specific agenda items are founded without grossly oversimplifying the issues.

[hammegk]

... In practice, I think most professed liberals understand this, but there remains a certain element that fails to grasp the distinction between abolishing a strict hereditary hierarchy and succumbing to a general relativism that refuses to accept the legitimacy of any normative valuations of people or ideas. The latter view is what frequently draws derision from the Limbaughs and Hannities of the world, and while it isn't quite a straw man since some people do hold it, I don't think it's a fair representation of classic liberalism.
What a classic case of useless double-speak. US voters choose or reject liberalism as they understand it as presented by politicians, pundits, media, etal. :rolleyes:

[gnome]

What a classic case of useless double-speak. US voters choose or reject liberalism as they understand it as presented by politicians, pundits, media, etal. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't make it a universal, but sometimes it seems like elections are decided by comparing the worst of the attack ads, and whoever got the most mud on them loses the election.

Everyone complains about negative campaigns, but we train our candidates to use them every time, by how we poll and how we vote.

[Meadmaker]

It's government endorsement of religion, specifically, the christian religion. It doesn't matter that it's the popular religion and that the hymnal is popular, it's still a matter of a government institution establishing a religion with public dollars.


This would only be true if a Christian song were treated differently than some other song. When I was in 7th grade, our choir sang "Hava Nagila", and I am absolutely certain there wasn't a Jew in the choir, and I doubt there was one in the audience. Were we establishing a religion? We all thought we were singing folk music.


If you really want to put things into perspective, try this thought experiment. Instead of having the children sing "Silent Night", think of what would happen if the choir director had the kids singing "Inno A Satana", another religious hymnal, instead.

I'm not familiar with the song, but I'm guessing it's very little known and not too many people want to sing it anyway. If there happened to be people who enjoyed Satanic music, I would say that it would be perfectly appropriate to sing it. More importantly, for this discussion, the liberal position would be to allow its performance.

[thaiboxerken]

This would only be true if a Christian song were treated differently than some other song. When I was in 7th grade, our choir sang "Hava Nagila", and I am absolutely certain there wasn't a Jew in the choir, and I doubt there was one in the audience. Were we establishing a religion? We all thought we were singing folk music.

Like I said, if the choir sang various hymnals of different religions, I could see that it shouldn't be a problem. Was this the case?


I'm not familiar with the song, but I'm guessing it's very little known and not too many people want to sing it anyway. If there happened to be people who enjoyed Satanic music, I would say that it would be perfectly appropriate to sing it. More importantly, for this discussion, the liberal position would be to allow its performance.

You seem to be confusing "liberal" position with "your" position. The liberal position is one that favors a seperation of church and state. The government should not be teaching children religious hymnals unless it's a study in anthropology.

[Meadmaker]

....The latter view is what frequently draws derision from the Limbaughs and Hannities of the world, and while it isn't quite a straw man since some people do hold it, I don't think it's a fair representation of classic liberalism.

Exactly.

[Meadmaker]

The liberal position is one that favors a seperation of church and state.

As I said earlier, I think the liberal position endorses religious freedom, and separation of church and state is a means to that end. I do not think having the government pick and choose what can be sung in chorus class constitutes much in the way of freedom, religious or otherwise.

[thaiboxerken]

. I do not think having the government pick and choose what can be sung in chorus class constitutes much in the way of freedom, religious or otherwise.

I agree, the government should not allow any religious hymnals to be taught in public schools. That would eliminate "picking and choosing." In the example case, a choir director is picking and choosing which religious hymnals he'll have sung in his choir. Disallowing religious hymnals would eliminate that choice and keep him to sticking to only secular songs.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I suppose you can't discuss liberal vs. (conservative or other nonliberal) in the USA without dealing with the elephant in the room, and that's gay marriage. The "wedge issue" extraordinaire.

So, is it liberal, or not so liberal?

It certainly isn't conservative, so if that's the criterion, it's liberal. Also, support for gay rights, in the sense of ending laws which prevent them from working, teaching, etc. is clearly liberal.

But what about marriage? I have decided that on balance it's liberal to support gay marriage, but I want to explain why I don't think it's quite so obvious.

Marriage itself is a highly restrictive institution. It creates a restrictive covenant that interferes with our most personal activities. On the surface, it isn't very liberal at all. Historically, it was used in a highly non-liberal fashion, to restrict how and when you could have sex. In my opinion, the only reason such an institution can possibly be justified by a liberal is if somehow, some good comes of it. Not just some good, but some way of enhancing freedom..

You have made a couple of interesting points but I wanted to just take up this area for a minute.

One thing that I think tends to get ignored in this debate is what else marriage is about, which is family. One of the reasons for condemnation of sex before and outside of marriage is legitimacy of children of the marriage. It is also a hangover, I think, of the fact that marriage was not just a ceremony but also the transfer of property (dowry, not the bride herself..) with possibly large societal consequences in terms of influence and power.

I should say - lest it get lost in my verbiage - that I support the concept of gay marriage I do not like to think that some of my gay friends would be denied the security of a formal legal relationship merely because they are gay.

However I think the debate has been reduced to a couple of soundbites when it actually involves a lot more than that.

[Meadmaker]

However I think the debate has been reduced to a couple of soundbites when it actually involves a lot more than that.

I agree wholeheartedly.


But for a modern (pseudo) liberal, the only thing that matters seems to be "equality", and so any other discussion is cause for considering someone an ignorant bigot.

[Meadmaker]

I want to ask a question to anyone who agrees with Ken on the "Silent Night" discussion. The purpose of the question is to see where the objection to the song lies, and whether people have given it any real thought, as opposed to a simple knee - jerk reaction.

Which of the following do you think it is acceptable to perform at a public school concert?

An instrumental version of "Silent Night"?
An instrumental version of "What Child is This?"
An instrumental version of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy".
A vocal version of the same thing.
An English language vocal version.
"Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" (as far as I know, there are no lyrics in any language)
Handel's "Messiah".
"Here come's Santa Claus"
John Lennon's "Imagine".

If you don't want to go line by line, a discussion of how to select which songs are ok and which are not would suit me just fine. I think all of the above have religious implications, but the issues are slightly different for each one. More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

[thaiboxerken]

. More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

The ones that are religious aren't acceptable.

[JamesDillon]

What a classic case of useless double-speak. US voters choose or reject liberalism as they understand it as presented by politicians, pundits, media, etal. :rolleyes:
As I said in the language you quoted, most professed liberals, including most politicians, media, pundits, etc., do not hold the super-relativist bastardization of liberalism that I described. I never said they did. Therefore I don't see what you're getting at.

[Meadmaker]

The ones that are religious aren't acceptable.

OK. One vote for "knee-jerk".

[drkitten]

Which of the following do you think it is acceptable to perform at a public school concert?

[snip]

If you don't want to go line by line, a discussion of how to select which songs are ok and which are not would suit me just fine. I think all of the above have religious implications, but the issues are slightly different for each one.

You've answered your own question. If all of the above have religious implications, then none are acceptable.

I disagree. I don't think that they all have "religious implications" in any serious sense.

More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

Case law is pretty clear on this one. Under Lemon vs. Kurtzman, to be acceptable, a government action must pass a three-pronged test.

(From Wikipedia):

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


The selection of a religious song for a concert pretty much fails the first prong out of the box; why pick a hymn when there are plenty of non-religous songs around? What legitimate secular purpose is served by singing Silent Night instead of Jingle Bell Rock or I'll Be Home for Christmas?

[Tony]

OK. One vote for "knee-jerk".

How is that kneejerk? Do you think kids should be forced to sing songs about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard in public schools? That is the exact implication of what you're trying to argue.

[drkitten]

How is that kneejerk?

Probably because it disagrees with Meadmaker's opinion, and therefore cannot be well-thought out.

[gnome]

I actually find myself on the other side of this issue. When I was in junior high school, we were brought to the auditorium where there was a student production of holiday music and stage performances. One student performed a version of Silent Night that.... damn, it's messed up that I'm having trouble coming up with the words for it. It was a black-culture version of the song. I don't know if there is a preferred name for it and so I'll happily substitute in the future if someone offers it.

The point is, it was absolutely beautiful, and despite my being an atheist there was no offense whatsoever. I was exposed to the music and culture of other religions and cultures growing up--I don't see why including Christian songs crosses the line here. The problem is, I don't know where the line is. I wouldn't want your basic Christmas Pageant at a secular school, for example.

I wonder if applying something similar to the classic "obscenity" standard would help--that it has redeeming cultural or artistic value.

[Meadmaker]

How is that kneejerk?

Because it fails to address the question, which is how to decide whether a song is religious. All of the songs listed are religious songs, but do you really want to ban them all?

I like gnome's approach much better, myself.

[slingblade]

More important than your position, how should a liberal choose which are acceptable and which are not.

You limited the question to a school concert, but my answer to it is going to be more general.

Schools have enough to do without worrying about anyone's religion, except in an academic sense.

It's not PC; it's logistics. I have to teach your kids how to use computers and the Internet, and teach them the ever-changing geography of the post-modern world, in addition to all the things we've always taught. There will be more things to learn next year, more new techs to master, and I'm going to keep running out of time. And possibly brain cells.

I don't get on their backs for chewing gum: instead, I have to make them put up their cellphones, and quit playing games on their hand-helds. I have to be able to detect the iPod earphones lurking under high collars and long hair. I have to figure out why some of the girls are losing weight at an alarming pace, or why that boy's eyes are chronically red--is it chronic allergies, or just the chronic?

I don't have time to worry about religion, when it's not my place to give a crap how, who, or what any of you worship or don't worship. I'm there to make sure your kid can read well enough to understand his Bible, or Quran, or Vedas, or whatever he reads in his belief system, not to read it to him, or tell him what it means.

In order to be equitable, it has to be either all religions or none, in school. You can't leave anyone out, or make anyone feel discriminated against. Otherwise, you're going to have to waste even more precious time answering civil suits and outraged parents. That's time I don't have; I'm busy teaching.

So I vote "none at all," and ask that you just let me do my job. If you want your kid to be religious, that's your job.

[Morrigan]

A song being religious does not mean the government is endorsing religion... that's just stupid. Especially if it's for a christmas event.

Sometimes the hysteria goes too far. Celebrating christmas has nothing to do with christianity, anyway.

[slingblade]

A song being religious does not mean the government is endorsing religion... that's just stupid. Especially if it's for a christmas event.

Sometimes the hysteria goes too far. Celebrating christmas has nothing to do with christianity, anyway.

:dl:

[UserGoogol]

As I said earlier, I think the liberal position endorses religious freedom, and separation of church and state is a means to that end. I do not think having the government pick and choose what can be sung in chorus class constitutes much in the way of freedom, religious or otherwise.

But the government DOES pick and choose what can be sung in chorus class: public schools are a wing of government, although very much at the bottom rung of the system. Thus, everything that the school chooses to do is in a sense a choice of government.

I personally do not think there is a real problem in singing Christmas songs with religious content in school. The songs have cultural and aesthetic value and can be divorced from the content of their lyrics. But it is an issue which can't be waved away by saying "schools should be free to do whatever."

[Meadmaker]

In order to be equitable, it has to be either all religions or none, in school. You can't leave anyone out, or make anyone feel discriminated against.

I don't know if you can control how someone feels. No matter what you choose, somebody will feel discriminated against.

I am quite confident that if I looked at your reading list, I would find things objectionable to some religions, and I don't just mean that some weirdo wacko group might object. I mean that it is genuinely objectionable, contrary to the religious teachings of at least 5% of the population. Religious references are all around us and they pervade our culture. You can't get completely away. If you try, you'll be left with something so bland that it won't be worth learning.

The liberal approach would be to not banish anything from the classroom based on its religious content, but rather accept everything, and let the kids think for themselves.


And, whether or not you understood what she said, morrigan had a point.

[slingblade]

I don't know if you can control how someone feels. No matter what you choose, somebody will feel discriminated against.

I am quite confident that if I looked at your reading list, I would find things objectionable to some religions, and I don't just mean that some weirdo wacko group might object. I mean that it is genuinely objectionable, contrary to the religious teachings of at least 5% of the population. Religious references are all around us and they pervade our culture. You can't get completely away. If you try, you'll be left with something so bland that it won't be worth learning.

The liberal approach would be to not banish anything from the classroom based on its religious content, but rather accept everything, and let the kids think for themselves.


And, whether or not you understood what she said, morrigan had a point.

Last point first, I understood exactly what she said. I was laughing because the statement is too broad to make her point, especially to many christians.

Now, to address other points..."I" do not have a reading list. I am given a reading list, from which I may choose which books to teach. Sometimes I am required to teach certain books, like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Diary of Anne Frank." This probably varies in the U.S. from state to state, and even from district to district. But in my district, someone else makes up the reading list. There are many books I'd include and some I'd exclude, if asked, but I will not be asked.

Many kids are not taught to think. I wanted to have a short discussion about a couple of logical fallacies, and was informed it would be over their heads and I shouldn't even try. (I did it anyway, and they loved it.) I'm talking 17 and 18 year-olds here. Last chance for critical thinking before they enter the big, wide, fallacious world.....

Of course many texts (inclusive to mean anything one can read, including faces, advertisements, and cereal boxes) have some relationship to some kind of religion. The point is not to sanitize the classroom from all mention of any religion: the point is to make sure educators aren't promoting one religion (or for atheists, any religion) above others in such a way that students feel intimidated or discriminated against for having differing beliefs.

By "promoting," I mean conveying to students there is a "correct" way to believe, and saying or insinuating there is something "wrong" with a student who doesn't believe your way, or even at all.

I saw something very interesting during my student teaching fiasco last spring. In the classroom, my mentor was usually very careful to conceal her Christian beliefs, or to only discuss them when such discussion was truly relevant, which sometimes did happen with the various readings.

It was the "behind the scenes" action that surprised me. She was very judgmental about certain students she suspected weren't Christian, or weren't religious. She expressed pleasure to me that she had no "Muslins" [sic] in her classes, because she just didn't know how to act around "them." Certain other students simply didn't stand a chance with her, because she was sure they were not Christians by their behavior and dress. As far as she was concerned, these kids were just seat-warmers and would amount to nothing. I'm sure her attitude carried over into the classroom, as she virtually ignored these students. She just wasn't interested in teaching them.

She got on my case about my program director, who is lesbian. She actually got angry with me because I wouldn't denounce the woman and her "absence of morality."

What really blew her cork was finding out I'm atheist. Just a short time later, I was dismissed.

Then there was the middle-school teacher with whom I observed while she was teaching "Anne Frank." This lady had a Daily Prayer calendar displayed on her desk and turned towards the classroom. She had one of those clever carvings that reads "Jesus," but only when you look at it in just the right way. This was also on her desk.

During the study of Anne Frank, this teacher informed her class (long story, short) that Hanukkah is the day Jewish people celebrate the birth of Jesus. Not that it was a "Jewish kind of Christmas," or anything like that. It was the day the Jews celebrated Jesus being born. None of the students said a word, probably because they weren't Jewish and had not one clue. They just ate it up like....well, like gospel.

Yeah. Keep religion out of school.

[JamesDillon]

I could probably be persuaded that Christmas carols in school shows aren't really a big deal, and that no one is seriously harmed by them. But how do you draw a principled distinction between "Silent Night" in the talent show and a Nativity scene on the playground? School is a tricky situation because, to use Rawlsian concepts again, it is technically a part of the political realm, but it feels more like the background culture. While we may characterize the decision to, say, sing "Silent Night" in the winter pageant as a "political" one (and I think that characterization is ultimately accurate), it really isn't the sort of thing that one imagines is a cornerstone of the democratic process. Even though the strict principle of separation might seem unnecessarily draconian in this particular instance, it is well justified in general practice, and the fact that a few close cases exist does not, as I see it, warrant a departure from the general rule.

[Meadmaker]

OK. I usually associate the dog with mocking laughter, not genuine laughter. Most of the time I see it used on JREF, it's to make fun of what someone was saying. Sorry for the assumption.

My point about religion is that it is there. You can't teach "Anne Frank" successfully without teaching at least something about Judaism. The teacher who was trying was obviously doing a lousy job.

Sometimes, that might include going a little beyond the text, like explaining Jewish ritual and the effect of confinement on their ability to perform those rituals, and the signficance thereof. Sometimes, that might even involve singing a song, and that might offend someone. I say bring 'em on. Sing Silent Night, and follow it up with "Mi Chamoka" (it's not a holiday song, but it's a lot more Jewish than "Dreidl, Dreidl, Dreidl", and it sounds like "Chanukah")

But when you do that, there's going to be an awful lot of upset people around you. You had better have the law on your side when it happens.

And the standard objection would be that in a lot of communities, only Christian stuff would be sung. Yeah, that's true. But you've got to start somewhere. If you try to ban the whole thing, you're lost.

As a liberal, you want to be tolerant of eveyone. Too often, the problem of "equality" creeps in again. Instead of tolerance, you end up with equal amounts of intolerance toward everyone. Now, everyone's equal. That's the problem with banishing Silent Night out of the school districts. You start that way, and then you have to banish everything else, too. By the time you're done, everything that's left is innoffensive, like peanut butter on Wonder bread.

[JamesDillon]

I think there's a big difference between the academic study of religion, and the actual practice of it. I certainly agree that the study of religion's cultural and historic significance is an appropriate subject for the public schools; it would be impossible to develop an accurate understanding of the history of civilization without it. Certainly there would be nothing wrong with discussing the general beliefs and practices of Judaism while studying Anne Frank, and even singing songs or something like that would probaby be fine, and would almost certainly pass the Lemon test that drkitten discusses above.

It's an entirely different matter, though, when we're talking about the practice of religion. The principle isn't that we should avoid offending people, because you're right that that's too broad and subjective a standard. The principle is that the government must show respect for the individual consciences of citizens, and refrain from proselytizing or advocating for a specific religion over others. You might argue that singing "Silent Night" in school isn't really proselytizing, and, in light of my preceding post, I do see that point. However, the principle of separation is so important that it's worth preserving even against seemingly minor violations. Part of this is a slippery slope concern (which aren't always invalid), and part of it is the fact that singing Christmas carols in school really is an instance of state endorsement of a specific religious belief, and even if it's a relatively minor one, all the reasons that justify the principle of separation in the first place operate to preclude a permissive policy here.

[Meadmaker]

. But how do you draw a principled distinction between "Silent Night" in the talent show and a Nativity scene on the playground?

You don't. You respond to each the same way. You want Silent Night? No problem. We'll follow it up with "Imagine". Nativity Scene? No problem. Where can we put the Maypole? Demand inclusion, not exclusion. You can't actually exclude it all, anyway. In honor of Easter, the Skeptics Society will have a library display honoring Carl Sagan. Not appropriate? Talk to my lawyer.

One common response is that community and peer pressure will be against those demanding minority inclusion. You bet your sweet bippy it will be. Will there be fights? Yep. Bickering, strife. Yep. Those are all pretty liberal, too.

But let's be real. Those things are going to happen one way or another. If the whole town is Christian, they aren't going to like the Jewish family more just because they were told they can't sing Silent Night.

And then, an awful lot of towns will banish those songs all by themselves. They'd rather not sing Silent Night, than allow you to sing them there Jew songs. It's a liberal approach. Everyone's free. "And tonight, we have a special request from a group of students who have prepared their rendition of 'Circles'. Let's welcome Skywise...."

Naive? Maybe, but I can "imagine".

[thaiboxerken]

The hymnal "Silent Night" is sung by christians to praise the birth of their zombie-god, I can't see how requiring kids to sing it in choir is not a violation of the 1st ammendment. Posting a nativity scene at a public schools is the equivalent of handing out bibles and requiring bible study.

[slingblade]

You don't. You respond to each the same way. You want Silent Night? No problem. We'll follow it up with "Imagine". Nativity Scene? No problem. Where can we put the Maypole? Demand inclusion, not exclusion. You can't actually exclude it all, anyway. In honor of Easter, the Skeptics Society will have a library display honoring Carl Sagan. Not appropriate? Talk to my lawyer.

Seriously, your example isn't out of the bounds of reality. The school I taught at did things like that. But Carl Sagan isn't the Pope. Or an Imam. Or the Dalai Lama. I'd love more inclusiveness and less exclusion, absolutely! But I'm telling you, seriously and for true, time is the biggest enemy in this. Society, or more accurately, the "community," is such a close second, it's almost a tie.

Bear in mind, you have parents now who not only object to what you leave out (their religion), but who will object to what you include (someone else's religion). And as inclusive as you try to be, there's simply too much out there to potentially include. If you are going to be inclusive, you have to include even the minorities of one. If just one parent insists that you must be inclusive of his belief system, you'll have to try to accommodate it under an "allow them all" policy. Have you any idea how many folks there are who will insist you include some esoteric representation of their obscure (or newly-created) religion just to screw with the system? And under an inclusive policy, I'd have to let them.

Think also that there are certain religions to which parents will object no matter what. "I don't want my kids exposed to that _________ crap! It's Satanic, it's evil, it doesn't reflect our family values, our religious values, our national values!" Argh.

But understand that my biggest objection to this is not whether the parents are right, wrong, or indifferent.

It's that I don't. have. time. I don't have the time to add one more thing to my teaching day, and yet I am constantly handed new things to add anyway. And you want to add another when there's really no need? When religion can be served just fine outside the classroom? You want to give me one more thing, one more very important thing, to be responsible for?

Give me a break, please! Please? Pretty please?

One common response is that community and peer pressure will be against those demanding minority inclusion. You bet your sweet bippy it will be. Will there be fights? Yep. Bickering, strife. Yep. Those are all pretty liberal, too.

Yeah, I know, but under an inclusive program, I'll have to include them or get tied up in court trying to defend why I won't include them, why I'm discriminating against an obvious minority...dude, please.

Maybe, but I can "imagine".

Oh, I hear you. Really, I do. But honestly, if it means that much, you can send your kid to a religious school. You can even start your own school, with just your kids, or the whole neighborhood, and call it a charter school. You have alternatives besides asking me to do a job I'm not trained to do and don't want.

Besides, the school is my workplace. I'm an atheist. I don't want to have to come to work dreading celebrating yet another holiday to some imaginary figure instead of trying to educate my students. How much religiosity do you have to tolerate at work? I imagine the answer varies widely, and I also imagine some people put up with far more than they'd care to, but have nowhere they may appeal. Others would like to see more religion in the workplace, as long as it's their religion. And others, like you, may welcome everyone.

I can't think of any ill that will be corrected by adding more religion to our public schools, but I can think of several that will be created.

[bignickel]

Dang! If ONLY there was a place for children to go to sing xmas songs! Then they wouldn't have to be singing them in the school concert.

I wish such a place existed.

If there was such a place, then we wouldn't even need to discuss this matter, since it would be fairly obvious that THAT PLACE would be all the place they would need to sing xmas songs in.

[Meadmaker]

The hymnal "Silent Night" is sung by christians to praise the birth of their zombie-god, I can't see how requiring kids to sing it in choir is not a violation of the 1st ammendment.

Substitute "allowing" for "requiring" in the above. Does it still make sense?

To me, a liberal ought to require very little and allow a great deal. That's what the word means to me.

Slingblade,
As a practical matter, you're right. I certainly wouldn't demand inclusion of religious instruction as part of the curriculum. I just think there's a balance somewhere, where the incidental incidence of religion isn't a matter for adjudication. If you happen to pick a religious song for a concert, or read a religious story in literature, it shouldn't be a matter for the courts.

And of course, I think vouchers are a liberal idea, and I would have no objection to inclusion of religious schools in the programs, so long as they make some marginal effort to keep funding for specifically religious instruction separate, and separately funded. It seems more liberal to me.

[drkitten]

Substitute "allowing" for "requiring" in the above. Does it still make sense?

No, it doesn't.

Children in a school choir aren't "allowed" to sing anything, since they don't select their own music. Even if they are permitted to suggest songs, the choir director still needs to approve them (in large part because she needs to be able to get the performance rights, get the sheet music, and so forth).

You could make an argument -- in fact, such arguments have been made -- that children should be "allowed" to sing Christmas carols in a more free-form event such as a school talent show. The argument basically runs that in a talent show, the content is chosen by the individual students and represents their views as individuals, not the school choir director's as an agent of the state. And as long as the school stays strictly out of this and does not exercise editorial control (e.g. hasn't already gone on record as vetoing other songs as being 'inappropriate'), the courts have usually been receptive to that argument. Similarly, if you want to have a quote from the Bible printed under your picture in the senior yearbook, that's fine -- you are "allowed" to do that, as long as someone else can have a quote from the Koran, and someone else can have a quote from Mein Kampf.

However, a choir, esp. one billed as the South Bumblyberg High School Choir, is not representing the individual views of the students. It's representing South Bumblyberg High, a public agency and therefore a government entity.

[gnome]

You don't. You respond to each the same way. You want Silent Night? No problem. We'll follow it up with "Imagine". Nativity Scene? No problem. Where can we put the Maypole? Demand inclusion, not exclusion. You can't actually exclude it all, anyway. In honor of Easter, the Skeptics Society will have a library display honoring Carl Sagan. Not appropriate? Talk to my lawyer.

One common response is that community and peer pressure will be against those demanding minority inclusion. You bet your sweet bippy it will be. Will there be fights? Yep. Bickering, strife. Yep. Those are all pretty liberal, too.

But let's be real. Those things are going to happen one way or another. If the whole town is Christian, they aren't going to like the Jewish family more just because they were told they can't sing Silent Night.

And then, an awful lot of towns will banish those songs all by themselves. They'd rather not sing Silent Night, than allow you to sing them there Jew songs. It's a liberal approach. Everyone's free. "And tonight, we have a special request from a group of students who have prepared their rendition of 'Circles'. Let's welcome Skywise...."

Naive? Maybe, but I can "imagine".

This is my solution as well...

A similar issue cropped up in my last workplace--they decided to ban all personal Christmas displays because "If we allowed employees to decorate for Christmas, we'd have to allow them to decorate for all of the religions".

Yes, and the problem there is????

Were I in charge, the policy would be to allow employees any tasteful holiday display in their own space that did not interfere with their work.

[gnome]

Bear in mind, you have parents now who not only object to what you leave out (their religion), but who will object to what you include (someone else's religion). And as inclusive as you try to be, there's simply too much out there to potentially include. If you are going to be inclusive, you have to include even the minorities of one. If just one parent insists that you must be inclusive of his belief system, you'll have to try to accommodate it under an "allow them all" policy. Have you any idea how many folks there are who will insist you include some esoteric representation of their obscure (or newly-created) religion just to screw with the system? And under an inclusive policy, I'd have to let them.

This is a potential problem--and yet I don't see it as insurmountable. I have attended schools with an inclusive policy where this disaster did not occur... so you want to sing about your newly made up religion in our holiday musical? Go ahead (leads the unprepared agitator onto the stage) go for it, sing.

[slingblade]

Ah, if only it were just about singing songs. ;)

[Meadmaker]

This morning I was on the road, so I was listening to talk radio,and a few issues relating to liberalism popped up.

First, there was the interview with the valedictorian whose microphone was turned off when she started talking about Jesus as a contributing factor to her academic success. Is that policy liberal? I think not.

Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. As a liberal, I think you have to support the existence of these camps, but I had to laugh at the Triangle Foundation representative who was agitated at the host's concerns. He insisted that these were normal teens except for their sexual orientation, but there was no cause for concern. Hello? Normal teens? No cause for concern? Are people really that naive?

I vaguely recall being a normal teenager, which means there ought to have been plenty of cause for concern. Of course, the thing that kept me from losing my virginity before gaining my high school diploma was fear. Specifically, fear of pregnancy and Jesus. (I gave up Jesus some time later.) Somehow, I doubt that either one of those is a concern at this camp.

I just thought it was funny that this guy could keep from busting a gut laughing when saying that there were no issues of ses involved when a whole bunch of people who profess a sexual attraction for each other are sharing sleeping quarters. However, from a liberal perspective, you have to allow it. Just don't have any illusions about what's going to happen.

Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective. Anyone else have thoughts on that?

[drkitten]

First, there was the interview with the valedictorian whose microphone was turned off when she started talking about Jesus as a contributing factor to her academic success. Is that policy liberal?


Yes, it is. A valedictory address is usually regarded as an official speech, at an official school address. The valedictorian was acting as an agent of the school in an official capacity, and as such, has responsibility to be neutral with respect to religion.

I think not.

You think wrong, then.



Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. [...]
I vaguely recall being a normal teenager, which means there ought to have been plenty of cause for concern.

Why is there concern about the possiblity of gay sex at camp, but not of heterosexual sex? Basically, if the concerns about gay sex are enough for people to not want to allow a summer camp for gays, why do we allow a summer camp for straights?

It's the traditional "conservative" double standard, and its why liberals tend to oppose such idiocy.


Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective.

Liberal doesn't mean stupid. To the extent that behavior detracts from the functioning of an organiztaion, regulation of that behavior is fine, under any framework except for knee-jerk libertarianism. Restaurant cooks need to wear hats or hairnets because of legitimate public heath and safety concerns, and "personal expression" can go take a hike.

In broad terms, that's the first prong of the Lemon test -- does the prohibition serve a legitimate (secular) purpose? If a student dress code will enhance student academic achievement (which is of course the whole reason for the school in the first place), then dress codes are fine.

You seem to have this fixation with the idea that "liberal" can be defined on the single characteristic of "supporting freedom." It can't, except to the extent that freedom itself is a public good. There are lots of cases where either liberals or conservatives are bang-alongside the idea of restricting freedom, specifically in cases where some other public good is served by the restriction. You've been making this mistake since the opening post -- and it's not been doing you a bit of good.

[Meadmaker]

This is a potential problem--and yet I don't see it as insurmountable. I have attended schools with an inclusive policy where this disaster did not occur... so you want to sing about your newly made up religion in our holiday musical? Go ahead (leads the unprepared agitator onto the stage) go for it, sing.

What sort of inclusive policy was there, and how did it affect student life? Were they private or public? In the US?

[slingblade]

This morning I was on the road, so I was listening to talk radio,and a few issues relating to liberalism popped up.

First, there was the interview with the valedictorian whose microphone was turned off when she started talking about Jesus as a contributing factor to her academic success. Is that policy liberal? I think not.

I don't know, to be honest. I wouldn't have wanted to listen to her, but that's personal preference. I can get my diploma without attending graduation, so strictly speaking, I don't have to attend if I object. But then, I would be choosing to miss out on my own graduation. Could I manage to tolerate a few words about Jesus from a fellow student? I suppose I could.

Not that you said this--you didn't--but the situation would be very different if the school principal were the one offering such speech. Then it would absolutely be a matter of the state endorsing a religion.

Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. As a liberal, I think you have to support the existence of these camps, but I had to laugh at the Triangle Foundation representative who was agitated at the host's concerns. He insisted that these were normal teens except for their sexual orientation, but there was no cause for concern. Hello? Normal teens? No cause for concern? Are people really that naive?

I think part of the thinking was that in most "all-girl" or "all-boy" sleepover camps, one assumes there will be no sex, because one assumes everyone's hetero. While an all-girl/boy homosexual camp would be equivalent to a mixed-gender hetero camp, where sex will obviously be going on every living minute of the day. I think that's naivete in the extreme--I went to an all-girls summer camp, and it was pretty obvious not every girl there was hetero, and not a few of them came to camp in hopes of meeting up. More power to 'em, I say. :)


Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective. Anyone else have thoughts on that?

Uniforms. Very liberal. Poor parents don't have to try to buy a closet full of new school clothes; their kids don't have to suffer the indignities of not being able to afford those clothes; and the rich kids don't get to be snots by showing off their $200 jeans and $300 shoes.

See, in my mind, liberal isn't all about or simply about letting everyone do their harmless thing. It's also about trying to make sure everyone, regardless of race, class, religion, politics, gender, etc. has an equal opportunity to the same advantages, the same education, the same opportunities.

Letting everyone try to do his thing seems, to me, to be more restrictive, not less. In order to be safe and equitable in such an environment, one has to have more rules, not fewer.

I've told this little story before, but it bears repeating. I came to my conclusions about religion in school at a very tender age, and while I was still fully immersed in the Christian world. We still had mandatory prayer in my grade school, and the one Jewish kid who wouldn't pray was punished every day until his parents complained. That taught me that religion doesn't belong in such an uneven power structure as school.

[Meadmaker]

Uniforms. Very liberal. Poor parents don't have to try to buy a closet full of new school clothes; their kids don't have to suffer the indignities of not being able to afford those clothes; and the rich kids don't get to be snots by showing off their $200 jeans and $300 shoes.

See, in my mind, liberal isn't all about or simply about letting everyone do their harmless thing. It's also about trying to make sure everyone, regardless of race, class, religion, politics, gender, etc. has an equal opportunity to the same advantages, the same education, the same opportunities.

Letting everyone try to do his thing seems, to me, to be more restrictive, not less. In order to be safe and equitable in such an environment, one has to have more rules, not fewer.



I think I agree, but only partly, and for different reasons. But your post made me think about why I agreed, so thanks.

First, I don't think liberalism ought to be aiming for "equality" as a goal, and in fact I think that's where modern liberals have gone wrong. Somewhere along the line, someone decided it wasn't fair that we were different, and they would try to fix it. I think the real problem is the law sometimes created differences where none exist, such as by stating that black people shouldn't drink out of fountains with white people. Blacks and whites drink pretty much the same, so there's no reason for a distinction to be made. However. when law recognizes or allows differences, such as between rich and poor, I don't see a problem.

So, dress codes that seek to limit rich kids from showing off 300 dollar shoes don't strike me as liberal, at least not on the grounds that they make something "fair" or "equal". They limit freedom and erase differences. It's not very open minded to say that you can't wear the clothes you like.

Also, several callers to the morning talk show expressed support for dress codes because "it wasn't right for kids to wear...." (fill in whatever happened to offend that caller. Usually it was clothes that were either too expensive or too sexy.) That seems to voice a personal preference, and forcing your personal view of right and wrong doesn't seem liberal.

However, if liberal policies are those that allow us to advance our core values, as opposed to our individual concepts of ethics, then a policy that allowed us as a society to do that could be liberal. Education is a core value of our society. Therefore, anything that advances education could be a liberal policy. If student clothing is interfering with the ability to teach or learn, then it could reasonably be called liberal to regulate that clothing. It's liberal because it is open minded, tolerant, and advances freedom. Dress codes that remove distractions, whether social or sexual, could be considered liberal.

And I think that might be the key, for me, to the religion question. A liberal ought to tolerate religion, but depending on the culture of the school, the controversy surrounding Silent Night or Prometheus might be sufficiently distracting to just make the administration give up and declare a ban on everything, so as to avoid the distraction.

[gnome]

Then, there was the segment about the summer camp for gay and lesbian teens. The conservative talk show host expressed some concerns that there might be some sex going on at this camp. As a liberal, I think you have to support the existence of these camps, but I had to laugh at the Triangle Foundation representative who was agitated at the host's concerns. He insisted that these were normal teens except for their sexual orientation, but there was no cause for concern. Hello? Normal teens? No cause for concern? Are people really that naive?

I vaguely recall being a normal teenager, which means there ought to have been plenty of cause for concern. Of course, the thing that kept me from losing my virginity before gaining my high school diploma was fear. Specifically, fear of pregnancy and Jesus. (I gave up Jesus some time later.) Somehow, I doubt that either one of those is a concern at this camp.

I just thought it was funny that this guy could keep from busting a gut laughing when saying that there were no issues of ses involved when a whole bunch of people who profess a sexual attraction for each other are sharing sleeping quarters. However, from a liberal perspective, you have to allow it. Just don't have any illusions about what's going to happen.

Finally, there was an issue about which I had mixed feelings. It was dress codes in High School. As a liberal, I think I have to be open to people dressing how they wish, but again, as a practical matter, you have to acknowledge that if there is no dress code, some people will wear clothing that might inspire thoughts that are not conducive to academic achievement. I also think that some of the slogans on tshirts are just plain rude. I think I would favor dress codes that prevent revealing clothing, and which allow administrators to prohibit obscene words, but I'm not sure I can justify that from a liberal perspective. Anyone else have thoughts on that?

I don't think that, as a liberal, it's wrong to dissalow something when there's a proven practical reason to, rather than a political or discriminatory reason. One need not sacrifice practicality for an ideal. I too see a problem with a teen's camp for homosexuals, specifically regarding the sleeping quarters--for a "heterosexual" camp, you can separate the genders and keep a reasonable lid on things. Impossible for the opposite case.

On the other hand, I think the "liberal" solution would be to have a camp that wasn't exclusively for one or the other--take advantage of the practicality of separating by gender (since heterosexual is the majority), and count on supervision to handle most of the rest of the risk.

As far as slogans and dress code--there is nothing inherently "liberal" or "conservative" about choosing to disallow clothing or slogans that might reasonably cause disruption.

[gnome]

What sort of inclusive policy was there, and how did it affect student life? Were they private or public? In the US?
United States, public school. in my county, Christmas songs weren't banned, and we saw the occasional inclusion of alternate cultures or religions in our assemblies. While I'm sure there was an occasional controversy, it all seemed pretty reasonable to me. The only time I ever objected was when one of my Earth Science teachers was an avowed Creationist. He gave lip service to evolution, but set Biblical creation in opposition to it and presented them as equally valid. He specifically mentioned he preferred the Biblical story.

In all honesty, I didn't mind a teacher or two that didn't accept Evolution, but a science teacher, an Earth science teacher in particular, should have learned enough facts, and understand the scientific method well enough, that they know better.

My astronomy teacher in college had the best attitude--he pointed out that science and religion need not be in conflict... Science explains how something seems to have happened; and leaves the why to religion and philosophy.

[Nyarlathotep]

Being a liberal means you eat babies, just ask a conservative.

[brodski]

Being a liberal means you eat babies, just ask a conservative. I did, but I couldn't hear his answer because his moth was full of puppy. :p

[hammegk]

Being a liberal means you eat babies ....
Freshly aborted being first choice....



....just ask a conservative.
You did.

[brodski]

Freshly aborted being first choice....
Actually we prefer them still kicking and screaming, they keep their flavor better that way.

[Meadmaker]

I think gnome has a pretty sensible approach on the school issues.

I think (pseudo) liberals have gone too far when they equate having to deal with daily prayer, and having to deal with either singing a song or opting out.

In my high school, we had pretty much 0 religious minorities. We had a Christmas Concert every year, where we didn't sing any Hanukah songs. (Hava Nagilah was part of a world folk music set in junior high.) On the other hand, I can remember an occasional Christian complaint when we did "Dracula" and "Dark of the Moon" in theater. There weren't too many complaiints. No picketing or that sort of thing, and no one took them seriously. On the other hand, if we had not been allowed Christmas songs, I suspect there would have been a greater uproar.

For a more modern take on it, find the threads and news coverage of the Bennett Colorado music teacher fired for showing Faust this winter. At least, that's what the news coverage said. She was really fired for angering the community by not allowing Christmas songs, which led to a long standing dispute, making some people out to get her, and then latching on to anything they could. When she showed Faust, the outcry was more or less, "It's ok to show Satan, but not Jesus?!?" It's ridiculous, but when you start down that path of deciding what is and isn't ok, that's where you end up.

I can't come up with a logical reason why "Silent Night" is taboo, but "Faust" is ok.

[slingblade]

Freshly aborted being first choice....

Fer cryin' out loud, there's no meat on those! Barely an appetizer. An hors d'or...hors d'ove...an appetizer.

[thaiboxerken]

I can't come up with a logical reason why "Silent Night" is taboo, but "Faust" is ok.

Because Faust isn't a hymnal of religious worship, Silent Night is.

[hammegk]

I at least am not surprised you approve of schools presenting the Devil as existing as long as g*d isn't brought up.

[thaiboxerken]

Faust doesn't present the devil as an actual existant being, Faust is a fictional story and doesn't claim to be factual.

[hammegk]

That depends a great number of hidden assumptions, including how the question is asked, and who is asked the question. See the problem, yet? :)

[thaiboxerken]

That depends a great number of hidden assumptions, including how the question is asked, and who is asked the question. See the problem, yet? :)

Wrong. Faust is written for entertainment and, maybe, a "moral" message. It's not written as a hymnal to a deity.

[Meadmaker]

Please, the word is "hymn". A hymnal is a book that contains hymns.

Like Justice Stewart with obscenity, Ken can't define religious art, but he knows it when he sees it.

The problem with this is that people see different things. Any attempt to ban exactly that which is offensive inevitably leads to one of two things. Either a great deal is banned that you do not wish to be banned, or you set yourself up as final arbitrer of what is acceptable and what is not, and then impose your views on society.

Sadly, in this case "liberals" don't mind doing the latter.

I think a far better, and more liberal, approach, is to not exclude any art based on its religious content.


P.S. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" is, quite specifically, a religious hymn. Please, Ken, I would love to hear you say that its performance should be banned from public schools. I just would love to hear anyone trying to take your side on the subject.

[drkitten]

P.S. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" is, quite specifically, a religious hymn. Please, Ken, I would love to hear you say that its performance should be banned from public schools. I just would love to hear anyone trying to take your side on the subject.

A non-issue. I've never met a public school with the musical talent to pull Beethoven's 9th off. I've never known a public school music director stupid enough to try.

[Meadmaker]

Over in the conservative thread, they're (we're) talking about welfare. So, is welfare "liberal".

My personal view is that it can be. There are circumstances where some people for some reason can't manage to get money, and I think freedom is enhanced when you don't let them starve or, also in my humble opinion, if you let them go without medical care.

But you can take this sort of thing too far. If you think that all of their problems are the fault of (fill in the blank) and it's just not fair that they're poor, so rich people ought to give them money, that isn't very tolerant, or open minded, or freedom enhancing. I accept the conservative line on this that saying someone is incapable of supporting himself is a putdown and is offensive. Saying someone is incapable of taking care of himself isn't supporting him, it's enabling bad behavior.

So, I generally support welfare reform of the type introduced in the Clinton years, and I think it's liberal.

[Tony]

Over in the conservative thread, they're (we're) talking about welfare. So, is welfare "liberal".


I don't think it's either liberal or conservative.

[thaiboxerken]

P.S. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" is, quite specifically, a religious hymn.

Really? What words?

[Meadmaker]

Really? What words?

I called it Beethoven's "ode to Joy", but of course he just set it to music. The poem was written by Schiller. Here's part of the English translation:


Can you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.

Be embraced, Millions!
This kiss for all the world!
Brothers!, above the starry canopy
A loving father must dwell.

Can you sense the Creator, world?
Seek him above the starry canopy.
Above the stars He must dwell.


It's definitely neo-classical though, because joy is called a "daughter of elysium", and there are references to gods.

We played it in junior high school band. I guess the director had no sense of shame. We've sung a hymn set to the tune in church choir. "Joyful Joyful We Adore Thee".

[thaiboxerken]

I called it Beethoven's "ode to Joy", but of course he just set it to music.

So you admit that the piece doesn't have words to it. Thanks.

[drkitten]

So you admit that the piece doesn't have words to it. Thanks.

Of course "Ode to Joy" has words. More specifically, the piece commonly called "Ode to Joy" is the fourth movement of Beethoven's 9th "Choral" Symphony in D minor (Op. 125) and is scored for orchestra, chorus, and various soloists. Not only that, but Beethoven heavily edited the words of Schiller's "De Freude" to fit the theme better.

If you want to hear the words, I recommend the Deutche Grammofon recording. Walter Carlos did also a very good -- or at least, innovative and interesting -- version (with Rachel Elkind singing the lyrics) as part of the Clockwork Orange soundtrack.

[thaiboxerken]

Well then, if it is sung with words of worship to a god, then it shouldn't be required for kids to sing it.

[American]

Leftist parties are defined by the leadership and participation of revolutionaries who believe in hardcore communism.

Rightist parties are similarly infested with plutocrats, theocrats, and..... me.

Curtailing the extreme elements within both parties is key to moderate gain and electoral victory. (Note that "moderate gain" and "electoral victory" are directly opposing interests to a party's leadership.)


This is all pragmatic, of course. I am so bored with idealist definitions, which have no value or consequence.

[Meadmaker]

Well then, if it is sung with words of worship to a god, then it shouldn't be required for kids to sing it.

And of course, in America it's never required. It's offered as an option.

You ducked the question about which should be allowed and which should not. I can't say I blame you, but all of them posed different issues, and the question had a point.

For example, you are against a school chorus playing "Silent Night". Fair enough. What about a school band? No words, just a tune. In that case, any religious association is clearly in the mind of the players and/or audience, but almost everyone hearing it would recognize it as a Christmas song. That's why my next example was "What Child is This?". The key feature of that song is, just like Silent Night, that everyone playing and hearing the song, as an instrumental, would recognize it as a Christmas song in praise of Jesus. However, it isn't really. You could just as easily put "Greensleeves" in the program, which is a secular song. The band would be playing "Greensleeves", but the audience, and the band itself, would be hearing "What Child is This?"

Play Beethoven't Ninth (or the theme therefrom, which is what we played in 8th grade) and most people will hear an instrumental. Some would know it as a hymn. Does it matter if it's played or sung? If it's sung, does it matter in German or English? Is it a religious song if the people singing it don't understand the words they are singing?

What it comes down to is a song is a religious song if and only if the people singing and/or hearing it think it's a religious song. I'm perfectly capable of listening to or singing Silent Night and thinking of it as a quaint folk custom to which some people attach religious significance.



And so, with all these questions swimming in our heads, we are back to a problem. There's no way we can come up with a policy that accurately describes what performances are acceptable, and what are not. If you try to cover all religious performance, and you exclude Beethoven's Ninth and
Faust. Do anything less, and some people will be offended. No matter what you do, once you ban something, the people offended by the ban will try and sneak around it and daring you to enforce it. If you declared absolutely no Christmas Songs of any sort, band directors will play "Greensleeves", and dare you to turn out the lights.

Better, in my humble opinion, they should just give up trying to set policies, and let people sing. If the director only includes Christmas songs, then complain that he needs to let everyone else in who wants to be in as well. It's just not liberal to pick and choose music based on government policy.

[Meadmaker]

A word about welfare:

In America, welfare is closely associated with liberalism. I've wondered why.

I think it's because the welfare state arose out of egalitarian concerns. Clearly, in America, there is a huge gap between the haves and have nots. Some people began asking why. Among those people, one group said that all people were equal, and so the only explanation was that society must be treating some people differently than others, and they were going to fix the problem.

The premise was wrong. Not all people are equal, and giving someone money won't make them more like the rich people. I'm for welfare in its current, dramatically scaled back form, but the welfare state as it existed from the '60s to the '90s was really awful, and wasn't a triumph of liberal thinking.

[Deus Ex Machina]

A word about welfare:

In America, welfare is closely associated with liberalism. I've wondered why.

I think it's because the welfare state arose out of egalitarian concerns.



I disagree. The first instance (that I am aware of) of the "welfare state" was the public dole in Imperial Rome. That was instituted to control the mob. The poor houses of the 19th century were similarly a supposed antidote to the creation of a starving rebellious underclass.

Personally I think "welfare" is probably the "tax" for having a large, unemployable class of people. Welfare doesn't do anything to change the conditions and, in fact, it helps perpetuate them.

I think it is paternalistic - not egalitarian.

[drkitten]

Better, in my humble opinion, they should just give up trying to set policies, and let people sing.

That's exactly the problem, though. I don't know who "they" are, in this imaginary world of yours,... and I don't know who "people" are, but the problem is ....

If the director only includes Christmas songs, then complain that he needs to let everyone else in who wants to be in as well.

... to whom do you complain? To the music director? To the principal; of the school who employs the music director? To the superintendent of schools who employs the prinicipal? To the local school board? To the state Secretary of Education? To the governor?

And assuming that talking to the music director doesn't satisfactorially resolve the issue, to whom do you complain then? Because ultimately, it's an elected (government) official who makes the decision -- and the decision must be made in keeping with the law.

.... which, in turn, means that the ultimate avenue of complaint for public school misconduct is the court system. Even the governor is ultimately answerable to what the Constitution says.

All of the ACLU legal actions originated in complaints by local residents that could not be resolved by simple discussion with the people involved. Without exception. There's a very good reason for that -- the courts won't hear cases that don't involve genuine complaints that could not be resolved by discussion. So if "the ACLU" is sueing a local school district about the performance of a Christmas carol, then there's a genuine member of the community whose name appears somewhere on the paperwork -- a person who complained, was rebuffed, and, secure in the knowledge that s/he was actually correct, would not take "no" for an answer.

And the only reason that the ACLU wins cases is because the people they support are actually correct, and do have the law on their side.

[drkitten]

I disagree. The first instance (that I am aware of) of the "welfare state" was the public dole in Imperial Rome. That was instituted to control the mob. The poor houses of the 19th century were similarly a supposed antidote to the creation of a starving rebellious underclass.

I would be interested to see any writings from any reputable historian that supports this particular motivation.

[gnome]

I disagree. The first instance (that I am aware of) of the "welfare state" was the public dole in Imperial Rome. That was instituted to control the mob. The poor houses of the 19th century were similarly a supposed antidote to the creation of a starving rebellious underclass.

Personally I think "welfare" is probably the "tax" for having a large, unemployable class of people. Welfare doesn't do anything to change the conditions and, in fact, it helps perpetuate them.

I think it is paternalistic - not egalitarian.
Calling a nation a "welfare state" ties its entire identity to its public assistance budget. It doesn't seem very accurate for the US if one actually looks at what percentage of the national budget goes to public assistance.

[Mickey1215]

Hey guys. I'm totally new to these boards and being a soon-to-be college student, I certainly don't pretend to know much about anything except for muwsic and movies (Roxy Music and the Big Lebowski).

It seems to me though that issues of religion in public school, sex education in public school, gay issues in public school, and other school-related issues all involve a common demonimator: public schools.

These issues are so volitile because we as taxpayers fund public school and we don't want our tax dollars funding thinks we believe are immoral. Understandable.

But these issues become moot when the American taxpayer has no stake in the matter. We don't have heated discussions about prayer in religious schools because they are privately owned.

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.

With the school system completely privatized, these arguments disappear. Athiests don't have to worry about prayer in school becasue they will send their kids to secular schools. Christians won't have to worry about sex education and "Heather Has Twoo Mommies" because they will send their kids to religious schools.

A privatized school system creates competition among schools and education would be open to much more experimentation. Parents would be able to vote with their feet and take their kids out of a school that they feel is inferior. It seems to logical because we are surrounded by open markets in the rest of our lives. There isn't one public restaurant system where people have to battle over the menu. People spend their money at whichever restaurant fits their needs, and so it should be with schools.

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

[Elind]

In the United States, the Democratic Party is generally considered "liberal" while the Republicans are generally "conservative". These two words are often used as if they were opposites, but are they? I like to think of myself as liberal, but I frequently find myself on the opposite side of many other liberals.


You read the news too literally. If a Republican talk show host disagrees with you you are a liberal (or maybe a secularist), if a Democrat disagrees with you you are a right wing conservative, or worse.

[Elind]

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.



Hi,

I like your getting-down-to-the-basics parts, but for all smart solutions there are usually stupid problems. Who pays for the schooling of those who don't want to spend money on their kid's school, for example? What if all the "religious" schools are full, and the non religious are unacceptable to the parents, or vv? What if the parents can't afford the tuition, or pretend they can't?

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.;)

[Tony]

Hey guys. I'm totally new to these boards and being a soon-to-be college student, I certainly don't pretend to know much about anything except for muwsic and movies (Roxy Music and the Big Lebowski).

It seems to me though that issues of religion in public school, sex education in public school, gay issues in public school, and other school-related issues all involve a common demonimator: public schools.

These issues are so volitile because we as taxpayers fund public school and we don't want our tax dollars funding thinks we believe are immoral. Understandable.

But these issues become moot when the American taxpayer has no stake in the matter. We don't have heated discussions about prayer in religious schools because they are privately owned.

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.

With the school system completely privatized, these arguments disappear. Athiests don't have to worry about prayer in school becasue they will send their kids to secular schools. Christians won't have to worry about sex education and "Heather Has Twoo Mommies" because they will send their kids to religious schools.

A privatized school system creates competition among schools and education would be open to much more experimentation. Parents would be able to vote with their feet and take their kids out of a school that they feel is inferior. It seems to logical because we are surrounded by open markets in the rest of our lives. There isn't one public restaurant system where people have to battle over the menu. People spend their money at whichever restaurant fits their needs, and so it should be with schools.

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

How would industry/universities measure whether or not someone was educated? They have a degree, sure, but how can the integrity of that degree be guaranteed? Why should a child with loony parents be forced to endure a life of ignorance because his parents made him attend "Bob's School of Flat Earth Studies"? I think your solution give too much power to parents.

[thaiboxerken]

I like Mickey's idea, although it isn't original. Has anyone here read "Jennifer Government?"

In that book, the corporations actually educate people. Of course, one corporation decides to kill people to up the marketing hype of their product as well.

[Meadmaker]

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

Agreed.

Although, your approach is a bit simplistic, but you're young. It's supposed to be. I think publicly financed education is liberal, but with parent choice. I'm a voucher guy, myself. However, you're still stuck with public money going to fund things that makes people angry. I don't think there's any way to get away from that. I, personally, think vouchers are the best compromise, with parochial schools required to make an honest effort to separate out specifically religious teaching from other teaching, and not allowing discrimination in enrollment. To me, that's liberal.

ETA: Oh,yeah. you also need to have some sort of performance monitoring and regulation. Otherwise, you won't end up actually educating people, and that is the liberal reason for funding the schools in the first place.

[Mickey1215]

Good issues, though I'm not sure what me being young has anything to do with it. Maybe it's because I tend to be pretty disillusioned with public education. As for simplicity, the basic idea is simplistic, but so is the basic idea of freedom. People have the right to live their lives the way they want without hurting anyone else.

Now down to the criticisms. Elind: As for unaffordable tuition, I'm no economics expert, though I hope to be one, but this all comes down to supply and demand. Same thing with the amount of religious vs. non-religious schools. It a lot of parents want to send their kids to religious schools, there will be a lot of religious schools, and vise versa. If there is no demand for a secular school in say, rural Alabama (not to pick on Alabama), no secular school will spring up. There will be as many seats in schools as there is demand from parents.

As for tuition, there is a pretty valid misconception that all private schhols are expensive and only rich parents can send their kids to private schools. that seems to be the case today, with the near government monopoly on education. But in a market environment, schools would have to cater to their clients (parents and students) both curricularly (?) and financially. A school in the Hamptons could have high titon costs, but not out of the price range of the residents there.

A school with a very high tuition obviously couldn't stay in business in downtown Detroit (not to pick on Detroit, ok maybe a little bit), since no one could afford the tuition. The tuitiion at that school would be at whatever price parents would be willing to pay. Most people in inner-city Detroit can't afford to buy giant yachts, so there isn't a thriving yacht business in Detroit.

As for judging the merits of a high school diploma (if it has any merit at all), you can look at the ABA or the AMA, or any professional organization. Colleges look at test scores, grades and other activities in deciding whom to admit. They don't need the government to decide for them.

Tony, if Ave Maria Law School can't be approved by the ABA, what is the likelihood that "Bob's School of Flat Earth Studies" would be licensed by anyone? People should certainly have the choice to go to BSFES (Gotta find a better acronym), but they will need to realize that people will think that they are crazy. And a school might deicde that getting accreditated might be better for the school and it might attract more students. Businesses always work in their own best interests, and in this case, a school would want to work in the best interest of it's students.

And thaiboxerken, I haven't read Jennifer Government, but in this system you wouldn't have 2 or 3 corporations running the show. You would have many competing schools vying for students. And why would a corporation kill off it's customers? Seems like a bad business move.

[thaiboxerken]

And thaiboxerken, I haven't read Jennifer Government, but in this system you wouldn't have 2 or 3 corporations running the show. You would have many competing schools vying for students. And why would a corporation kill off it's customers? Seems like a bad business move.

You would probably have many corporations teaching kids to become employees of the corporation. McDonald's schools, for example, wouldn't teach kids too much about rocket-science. Basically, it would lock families into the corporation for generations.

[Mickey1215]

That's true, McDonalds wouldn't teach rocket science, but why would they need to? A degree in rocet sceince isn't exactly a prerequisite for work at McDonalds. And I don't see why families would be locked into McDonalds. unlike the governemnt, McDonalds can't force people to go to their school. You seem to be thinking of the Pullman0esque railroad towns of olde, where one corporation controlled the town and everyone worked for the corporation. You mean to tell me that McDonalds or Wal-Mart would gobble up whole cities and force everyone to to to their schools? Ricidulous.

And by the way, McDonalds does have their own college, Hamburger University. It is outside of Chicago and have about 6000 students. And they have a course in Hamburgerology, which is sweet.

[Earthborn]

Most people in inner-city Detroit can't afford to buy giant yachts, so there isn't a thriving yacht business in Detroit.So you are basically saying that if no school can educate children for a price their parents can afford, those children won't be educated?

you can look at the ABA or the AMA, or any professional organization.You'll have to explain which organisations you refer to with those accronyms. There are many different organisations that use those.

You seem to be thinking of the Pullman0esque railroad towns of olde, where one corporation controlled the town and everyone worked for the corporation. You mean to tell me that McDonalds or Wal-Mart would gobble up whole cities and force everyone to to to their schools? Ricidulous.Explain how that is ridiculous, even though you admit that it has happened in the past.

[thaiboxerken]

And I don't see why families would be locked into McDonalds. unlike the governemnt, McDonalds can't force people to go to their school.

Because McDonald's probably won't want to give out scholarships to people from Burger King. In otherwords, McDonald's might make it part of an employee contact to educate their children, but only at a McDonald's school.


You seem to be thinking of the Pullman0esque railroad towns of olde, where one corporation controlled the town and everyone worked for the corporation.

This seems to be the type of society you are pulling for. I think it would be a nice society, as long as I was upper management.


You mean to tell me that McDonalds or Wal-Mart would gobble up whole cities and force everyone to to to their schools?

Not at all. They just would encourage their employees to attend only their schools and hospitals and parks and such.

[thaiboxerken]

Personally, I think the public education system should be based on a meriticracy system. Children should all start out in the same system, regardless of upbringing. Rich parents shouldn't be able to buy their kids into college and presidency. Everyone should start out at the same spot and their success based only on merit, not color, skin, family status or religion.

But, that's about as unrealistic as corporations funding all eduation.

[gumboot]

I like to think of myself as liberal, but I frequently find myself on the opposite side of many other liberals.



No doubt someone has already mentioned this, apologies if it has already been addressed.

Liberal and Conservative aren't really absolutes, they're a sliding scale. I'm not an American, but based on other democratic countries dominated by two major opposing parties, you'll probably find that Democrats aren't really that far along the "liberal" scale and Republicans aren't really that far along the "conservative" scale. Both are probably somewhat off-centre.

However people supporting each group may be further along the scale than their party, especially in particular issues. There is no doubt extremist liberals and extremist conservatives.

The problem with extremism is it becomes very hard to distinguish differences in the scale.

An extreme leftist cannot distinguish between somone slightly left of centre, someone slightly right of centre, and an extreme rightist.

In that regard, while yourself being left, other people who are more extreme in their leftist views may perceive you as being right wing.

This is typical of ALL extremists - hence why Islamic terrorists will as readily attack muslims as they will Jews - because in their mind there's little difference between a moderate muslim, a moderate Jew and an extremist Jew.

It is a part of man that makes life pretty miserable for more moderate people such as myself. You are forever attacked by both extreme camps for being part of the other extreme camp.

Is so frustrating to enter a discussion, for example, about Palestine/Israel and get tagged a murdering Islamic Terrorist by one side and a Zion-loving "Jew-dog" by the other, for a single comment!

*sigh*

-Andrew

[Darat]

...snip...

And by the way, an open market in education would be a liberal idea. In the classical sense of the word and not the pro-teacher uniona and anti-student approach modern US liberals have.

Why do you say it is a "classical" liberal idea?

[Meadmaker]

Gumboot,

When I say, "I'm a liberal", what I mean is that when confronted with a difficult issue, where I'm conflicted on what to support, I try to steer toward what I think is the more liberal position. I try to use it as a guiding philosophy.


Mickey,
About Earthborn's question. What would you do for kids in the City of Detroit? If there were no public funding for the private schools, they simply wouldn't go to school. Is that what you are advocating? Some radical Libertarians think that's a good idea. I don't, but some people do.

Earthborn,

ABA=American Bar Association. AMA=American Medical Association. They set standards for doctors and lawyers, respecitively.

[drkitten]

I seem to be beating around the bush. The solution is: Get rid of public schools.

With the school system completely privatized, these arguments disappear.

As does the idea of an educated population.

The United States has enough problems with school attendance and pupil achievement levels already, without making education itself optional.

To every problem, there is an easy, obvious "solution" that will actually make things much, much worse. You just found one.

[drkitten]

And thaiboxerken, I haven't read Jennifer Government, but in this system you wouldn't have 2 or 3 corporations running the show.

How would you guarantee that? Corporations naturally seek a monopoly -- that's why Wal-Mart and McDonalds exist in the first place.

[Mickey1215]

Wal-Mart and McDonalds exist to make a lot of money. But so do Burger King and Costco. Monopolies don't exist with out the help of governments (federal and local) that impinge upon the marketplace. There would be schools to tteach kids in inner city Detroit because there would be demand.

thaiboxerken- I guess I don't understand the idea of "people from Burger King." Are these Burger King employees? Why would McDonalds not want their business? And McDonalds might put in a contract that someone would need to send their kid to a McDonalds school, but that person could obviously turn down the contract. Not the case with government schools.

thaiboxerken- I think you are misunderstanding the idea of Hamburger University. This isn't a "school" in that it educated students on the 3 R's. It is a school for wannabe McDonalds managers to get training. In that sense, I think it is a good thing. People go there to get job training and it is likely that with training from HU you would be able to rise in the McDonalds corporate ladder. An actual McDonalds school wouldn't seem to work becasue most middle-class parents would not want their children to be stuck in a McDonalds system.

And for truancy, I think (and this is speculation) that in a market environment, more kids would be likely to go to school. Under the one-size-fits-all public school policy, the studnets hurt most are the poor ones. they get the worst facilities and teachers and students have no reason to go to school. I really think that im my system, school would have the incentive to get kids to go to their school, by offering scholarships, interesting classes, and good facilities. Public schools don't have this incentive.

Maybe I'm too optimistic about the human race, but I think that every person has the capability to be educated. Most aren't. Soe people are easy learners and these people are successful.

Other people, people that need an extra push, are that ones who are destroyed by public schools. 27% of all freshmen in Detroit school end up getting diplomas. 27%! the 27% that do graduate get a worthless diploma that won't help them at all. The solution to this problem can't be more funding, because public schools on average spend more money per student than private schools. The reason public schools don't work as well as private schools is that private schools are run like businesses and public schools are run like bureaucracies.

[Mickey1215]

According to Wikipedia (not the most valid source)- is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

Des that sound like the Democratic Party platform? These are the ideas that influenced the American and French revolutions.

I would consider a market education system a classically liberal idea.

[thaiboxerken]

Wal-Mart and McDonalds exist to make a lot of money. But so do Burger King and Costco. Monopolies don't exist with out the help of governments (federal and local) that impinge upon the marketplace. There would be schools to tteach kids in inner city Detroit because there would be demand.

Actually, it's government interference that helps to prevent monopolies. Without government interference, it's likely that the only PC's you can buy would have Microsoft Windows on it and the only store you can go to buy one or any other item would be Wal-Mart.


thaiboxerken- I guess I don't understand the idea of "people from Burger King." Are these Burger King employees? Why would McDonalds not want their business?

It would be "free" education for them to send their kids to the school of the corporation they work for. The other companies would charge a fee.

And McDonalds might put in a contract that someone would need to send their kid to a McDonalds school, but that person could obviously turn down the contract. Not the case with government schools.

One can opt out of public schooling.

An actual McDonalds school wouldn't seem to work becasue most middle-class parents would not want their children to be stuck in a McDonalds system.

That's if you think in today's real-world terms. In this fictional, hypothetical world where corporations run the schools, it would likely actually be the case.


And for truancy, I think (and this is speculation) that in a market environment, more kids would be likely to go to school.

Based on what?

Under the one-size-fits-all public school policy, the studnets hurt most are the poor ones.they get the worst facilities and teachers and students have no reason to go to school. I really think that im my system, school would have the incentive to get kids to go to their school, by offering scholarships, interesting classes, and good facilities. Public schools don't have this incentive.

So you think that charging them to go to school will solve the problem?! Can you tell me how poor people paying lower dollars to a school than the government does will improve that school? Where would this mystery money come from to fund the scholarships, good facilities and interesting classes?


Maybe I'm too optimistic about the human race, but I think that every person has the capability to be educated. Most aren't. Soe people are easy learners and these people are successful.

IN the USA, everyone has opportunity to be educated. It's false to state that easy learners are the only successful ones. There's some rich guy that dropped out of college who seems to be somewhat successful.... name is Gates.

The reason public schools don't work as well as private schools is that private schools are run like businesses and public schools are run like bureaucracies.

That, and private schools are funded by the rich people who take more of an interest in the education of their children. If you can figure out a way to get poor people into private schools, feel free to share.

[Earthborn]

I really think that im my system, school would have the incentive to get kids to go to their school, by offering scholarships, interesting classes, and good facilities.All these things cost money. In your system poor people will have to pay that money, so there is no reason to assume that those schools will be able to afford such things.

I think that every person has the capability to be educated. Most aren't.You contradict yourself.

Other people, people that need an extra push, are that ones who are destroyed by public schools. 27% of all freshmen in Detroit school end up getting diplomas. 27%! the 27% that do graduate get a worthless diploma that won't help them at all.On this board we usually demand evidence for such definite claims.

I would consider a market education system a classically liberal idea.I don't think so. Completely privatising education sounds more like a libertarian idea to me. While there are certainly many similarities between classical liberalism and libertarianism, I don't think I have ever heard a classical liberal complain about the concept of government funded public education.

Des that sound like the Democratic Party platform?Yes, it does.

[Darat]

According to Wikipedia (not the most valid source)- is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

...snip...

I don't particularly disagree with that as a summary of some of the policies that tend to form out of liberal ideology however one of the phrases you uses answers why a liberal state would be involved in education i.e "..constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals..." - therefore it is a very liberal idea that the state would be involved in the education of children since that is protecting individual autonomy.

[slingblade]

Just one thought about so-called "corporate" schools:

Businesses need consumers. Good consumers, in order to be good, cannot think; thought is antithetical to consumerism.

Schools run by corporations would be in the business, literally, of churning out good, non-thinking consumers. Critical thought would be avoided, because critical thinkers can't be persuaded to buy the next useless thing that comes down the pike, few or no questions asked. Good consumers, however, have only to be shown the location of the nearest store.

And you think this would be an improvement?

eddatted fer speeling

[Mickey1215]

Darat- I don't think that using tax money to fund a failing system is protecting individual autonomy. Individual autonomy would have to include choice, and the public school system doesn't include choice.

earthborn- I'm sorry, the correct graduation rate is 21.7%, from the June 20 issue of USA today.

How do I contradict myself when I say that every person has the capability to be educated, but most aren't? When I say "educated" I mean actually educated, not forced to sit in a class and learn nothing.

As for money, ya know poor people wouls be a hell of a lot better off if the government didn't take their money and have them live in horrible public housing (obviously not the case for all the poor- a hyperbole). Poor people want their kids to succeed in life jsut as much as rich people and to say otherwise seems to be pretty mean. The sad thing is that the government is very good at hurting poor people and helping well-connected rich people. I can agree with most liberals on that.

And you are probably right about classical liberalism vs. ibertarianism. certainly a classical liberal would not be hapy with the current state of public education, but the privitization of schools is a pretty libertarian idea. Not that that's a bad thing.

thaiboxerken and slingblade- Now I wasn't the one who brought up the idea of corporate schools, I believe it was thaiboxerken. And I am definately not in favor of having a couple corporations run all the schools. but I just don't think it would happen. Contrary to what thaiboxerken might think, not everyone in the world works for or wants to work for a corporation. People will always continue to be doctors and lawyerss and artists and dockworkers adn they wold have little need for a McDonalds school. A McDonalds school wold only interest people who wanted to go into a career at McDonalds. As long as there is demand for a liberal arts education, there will be suply.

thaiboxerken- poor people will go to private schools if they are better than public schools. There is a misconception that all private schhols are for rich kids, but this just wouldn't be true in this system.

And you are right about easy and slow learners, though I don't think it's fair to hold up Bill Gates as an exaple of the typical high school dropout.

You also seem to be confused about monopolies. In a totally free market, it is possible that people will only buy PC's with Windows, but that would only be becasue no one would ever want to buy Macs. That obviously isn't true, since people will buy Macs, even though they are usually more expensve.

slingblade- Wow Che, it's intersting to hear that we are all shepp. Tell me: how is that any diferent than government run indocrinat...sorry, public schools?

And once again, to make this perfectly clear, I never advocated for the idea of "corporate schools"

[Darat]

Darat- I don't think that using tax money to fund a failing system is protecting individual autonomy. Individual autonomy would have to include choice, and the public school system includes choice.

...snip...

It protects the child's individual autonomy (or rather the potential full member of society), that is why it is a liberal concept that children should receive an education -regardless of what the parents or anyone else may try to impose on the child.

[Mickey1215]

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be able to teach their children? I would think that parents know what's better for their wn children than some faceless bureaucrats in Washington

[Earthborn]

As for money, ya know poor people wouls be a hell of a lot better off if the government didn't take their money and have them live in horrible public housingI think you'll have to prove that.

The sad thing is that the government is very good at hurting poor people and helping well-connected rich people.Even if that is true, it does not prove that the government should not help poor people.

A McDonalds school wold only interest people who wanted to go into a career at McDonalds. As long as there is demand for a liberal arts education, there will be suply.The problem you are ignoring is that when an employer provides education to its employees' children it has an influence over the demands those children will have. You still haven't explained what prevents "McDonalds or Wal-Mart to gobble up whole cities and force everyone to go to their schools".

Tell me: how is that any diferent than government run indocrinat...sorry, public schools?It really isn't that different. A company wants to raise uncritical consumers and a government wants to raise obedient citizens. And that is the most important problem with your plan: it is in the interest of the government to supply its population with education, and therefore it is pretty unlikely that it will give it up and privatise it.

[Meadmaker]

thaiboxerken- poor people will go to private schools if they are better than public schools. There is a misconception that all private schhols are for rich kids, but this just wouldn't be true in this system.


Welcome to the firing line.

One of the great things about JREF is the ability to test reaction from a wide variety of sources to your ideas. If you use it correctly, this can serve you well in college. On the other hand, don't confuse JREF with a well rounded cross section of society.

I'm still unclear on something. Are you advocating compulsory unfunded education, compulsory government-funded education provided by private providers, or voluntary unfunded education.

The first strikes me as regressive taxation. The second is basically vouchers, which I support. The third is unrealistic. A lot of people won't go to school if they have a choice not to, especially if it isn't paid for.

[thaiboxerken]

thaiboxerken- poor people will go to private schools if they are better than public schools. There is a misconception that all private schhols are for rich kids, but this just wouldn't be true in this system.

Private schools are expensive, who would pay for the poor people to go to these expensive schools?

[slingblade]

Private schools are expensive, who would pay for the poor people to go to these expensive schools?

And you know what, it doesn't even matter if they aren't expensive. The poor want the best education for their kids, just like the rich do. If we could pay for it, we would be. We aren't, because we can't. If it's not something we can get into our budgets (HA!) voluntarily, why would we be able to do it just because we have no choice? What shall we eliminate? Food, clothes, the doctor, the dentist? Cause honey, something has to go if something has to be added.....

Remember, some of us don't earn enough to pay income taxes, and we don't own homes so we can't be taxed in that way, either. Some of us in this democratic society are educating our kids on your dime in the hope that we can get them out of poverty, and so they won't be a burden but a contributor.

If you make us pay, our kids will just have to go without one more thing. Would you like to choose which one for us?

[Mickey1215]

thaiboxerken- "Private schools are expensive, who would pay for the poor people to go to these expensive schools?"

Now I understand that the idea of private schools for poor kids seems oxymoronic, but I have already explained why poorer families would be able to afford private schools in earlier posts and I am too lazy to rehash those arguments.

earthborn- I agree with you that it is unlikely that the government would ever want to give up power. When has government ever given up power voluntarily? What's that quote by Lord Acton?

And I want to make something really clear to thaiboxerken adn earthborn. This issue isn't about "corporate schools" adn I'm not sure how it even got brought up. Of course there would be schools run to train future workers, but is that nesesarily a bad thing? Are apprenticeships bad?

But there is just no way that you couldn't find a school that wouldn't teach standard academics, becasue there will always be demand for that type of education, much more so than demand for "corporate schooling."

Meadmaker- Firing line indeed. I'm grateful for it though. The JREF boards definately aren't a good cross-section of the population. Because of that, I think you could find a fair number of people who agree with me on this issue (just not on this thread, of course).

I agree with you on a number of points. Unfunded governemtn education is much worse than our current system of badly-funded education, and it is regressive taxation.

I agree with you on vouchers and I think that they would be a great temporary measure, but a number of hardcore libertarians would rip me to shreads for saying that.

As for the issue of truancy, I use the example of Detroit. If 21.7% of all students who go into the high school system end up graduating, that leaves 78.3% dropping out after 16 (I think the age is 16). So these kids choose not to go to school, even though it is funded by the government.

Oh, and GO DETROIT SUBURDS! WHOO HOO!

[Meadmaker]

I've started several pro-voucher threads over the last couple of years. The only ones who agree with me are the hard core libertarians. (Although Shanek prefers tax credits.)

ETA: Here on JREF, most people are aghast that the voucher schools might have prayers, and might not teach evolution. Them's fightin' words in these parts.

[Mickey1215]

Sad that people who are so open to great scientific and rational ideas but are so unable to alow other people to have crazy wacked-up beliefs.

I'm an athiest, but I believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever crazy stuff, and that includes schools teaching kids stuff that I might object to.

[thaiboxerken]

thaiboxerken- "Private schools are expensive, who would pay for the poor people to go to these expensive schools?"

Now I understand that the idea of private schools for poor kids seems oxymoronic, but I have already explained why poorer families would be able to afford private schools in earlier posts and I am too lazy to rehash those arguments.

You haven't done this in any sensible way.

[slingblade]

Sad that people who are so open to great scientific and rational ideas but are so unable to alow other people to have crazy wacked-up beliefs.

And how, exactly, do the scientific and rational stop people from having crazy, wacked-up beliefs?

I'm an athiest, but I believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever crazy stuff, and that includes schools teaching kids stuff that I might object to.

Really? I'm a teacher; exactly what "stuff" are you talking about?

[Darat]

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be able to teach their children? I would think that parents know what's better for their wn children than some faceless bureaucrats in Washington

Not at all, I am saying that if we went by a liberal ideology then we would conclude that the parents' rights over their child are secondary to the rights the child inherently has in a liberal society. Therefore the state not allowing parents to screw-up their child's education is based on liberal ideology even though at a first glance it seems to be non-liberal, but that is only a matter of viewpoint.

[UserGoogol]

Are you saying that parents shouldn't be able to teach their children? I would think that parents know what's better for their wn children than some faceless bureaucrats in Washington

False dillema. Nobody has any ****** idea how to raise a child. The system of child-raising being mostly done by approximately two parents is probably preferable to (for example) sort of communal kibbutz-like system is, but I don't see why we should just give parents free reign to do whatever. What makes parents so special? Children aren't slaves, they have interests of their own which parents can ignore or act against.

Checks and balances are a basically liberal idea, and if they work for government, I don't see why they can't work for children.

[Meadmaker]

Not at all, I am saying that if we went by a liberal ideology then we would conclude that the parents' rights over their child are secondary to the rights the child inherently has in a liberal society. Therefore the state not allowing parents to screw-up their child's education is based on liberal ideology even though at a first glance it seems to be non-liberal, but that is only a matter of viewpoint.

Well said.

When it comes to education, I would insist that any school receiving public money, directly or indirectly, should be required to teach a core curriculum, and that would include evolution in high school. I just wouldn't get all bent out of shape if the biology teacher at Watchtower High said, "The evil satanists who control our government demand that we teach you this stuff. We do so in order that you will know the work of the evil one."

At that point, it's up to the kids, or the adults they will shortly become, to sort out which part of the teacher's speech was a lie.

I might say that it's liberal to demand that all the horses be led to the water, but not liberal to force them to drink.

[Darat]

Well said.

When it comes to education, I would insist that any school receiving public money, directly or indirectly, should be required to teach a core curriculum, and that would include evolution in high school. I just wouldn't get all bent out of shape if the biology teacher at Watchtower High said, "The evil satanists who control our government demand that we teach you this stuff. We do so in order that you will know the work of the evil one."

At that point, it's up to the kids, or the adults they will shortly become, to sort out which part of the teacher's speech was a lie.

I might say that it's liberal to demand that all the horses be led to the water, but not liberal to force them to drink.

I think you've highlighted one of the key places where the USA idea of liberalism diverges from "classical" liberalism.

You state that a school "...receiving public money, directly or indirectly..should be required to teach a core curriculum...", for classical liberalism whether the provider of the education is private or publicly funded would make no difference as they would be obligated (forced) by the state to provide the appropriate education for the child, because it is the child's right to receive the appropriate education (if a liberal society had decided that was one of the rights of a child of course).

This division of the world into "public" and "private" and the idea that the state can only protect rights in the "public" arena is not classical liberalism (in my opinion of course and happy to be proved/shown I'm wrong).

[Meadmaker]

Good point.

[JamesDillon]

Sorry to drag this back from the dead, but I was reading an essay by Tom Nagel last night that I thought shed some light on the difficulty in pinning down a definition of "liberal" and why Americans and Europeans tend to view it differently:

'Liberalism' means different things to different people. The term is used in Europe by the left to castigate the right for blind faith in the value of an unfettered market economy and insufficient attention to the importance of state action in realizing the values of equality and social justice.... In the United States, on the other hand, the term is used by the right to castigate the left for unrealistic attachment to the values of social and economic equality and the too ready use of government power to pursue those ends at the cost of individual freedom and initiative. Thus, American Republicans who condemn the Democrats as bleeding-heart liberals are precisely the sort of people who are condemned as heartless liberals by French Socialists.
Thomas Nagel, "Rawls and Liberalism," in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Samuel Freeman ed. (2003).

[Meadmaker]

Doesn't anyone use the term with good connotations anymore?

I suppose I would be more likely to be condemned by French Socialists than American Republicans. I'm not all that familiar with French politics, but my guess is that the right wing in France isn't all that right wing, and that those French right wingers are inded what I would call liberal, and I would say it's a good thing. That, however, is only a guess. I'm not sufficiently acquainted to say for sure.