George W. Bush's latest buzz is a concept of questionable merit: a system of "moral education." Georgie boy wants our schools, evidently, to teach not just "reading and writing, but also … right and wrong."
Interesting idea. Haven't a clue how he proposes teachers pull this off.
Most likely, he'll point to the Ten Commandments, as is the way of non-thinking theists. "Thou shalt not kill," the kiddies will see, and they'll be told that killing is wrong. Any mention of killing in self-defense? What about killing someone to prevent others from being harmed? (And we won't even mention the many, many examples in the "good book" where the word of God is in direct violation of his own Commandment.)
"Thou shalt not steal." What about stealing food to prevent your children from starving? "Thou shalt not covet." What about capitalism? It's based on coveting. And on and on… Nothing is black and white. But the Ten Commandments are clear-cut, allowing no room for gray areas, of which children will encounter many in their lives. How is this in any way a good thing?
Bush also says, "Problems occur when adults do not defend the rules." Guess no one told him that just because there's a rule, that doesn't make it "right." Or maybe that's what this dim-bulb thinks. Wouldn't surprise me. Despite the "thousand points of light," his dad's a dim-bulb, too. Like father, like son.
A year or so ago, I was involved in a lengthy email exchange with a young man back East. Worked in the Pentagon, as I recall. Bright fellow, but we didn't see eye-to-eye on many issues. And one of these was the process of elections.
He was of the opinion (and staunchly so) that the general public shouldn't be trusted to elect Presidents. He viewed the mass of citizens as being simply too stupid to realize who would make a good President, and who would make a bad one. (And on that we disagreed, too… He hates Clinton and loved Reagan, while I despised Reagan and tolerate Clinton.)
Actually, we agreed on his point about the stupidity of the public, but where we disagreed was in how to approach it. I feel the answer is in education, and I don't mean just educating voters about the candidates, but in educating the public about everything. (Hello, Kansas? I'm including something called Science in that "everything.") His solution seemed to be to take away power from the people, to rely more heavily on flawed systems such as the Electoral College.
Of course, seeing how possible it could be for GWB to be our next Prez, it's hard to defend the right of the people to have who they want in office.
Another issue the two of us disagreed upon was the state of the country, politically. He felt the U.S. was on a wild swing back to the left. I just couldn't see it, and still can't. In fact, I see the opposite.
Despite Newt Gingrich stepping down, we still have lunatics running Congress. Despite a Democratic President, we still have atrocious violations of civil rights. Radical religious fundamentalism may be only a fringe minority, but some of their concepts are being adopted by more moderate theists. And religious conservatism is deeply entrenched in politics, which can only spell disaster for our country.
Take a look at Bush himself, and the people he associates with. The possibility of his election should scare the snot out of any sane citizen. But then, most people want to pass the buck, don't they? Bush's idea of having subjective concepts of things such as "right and wrong" taught in our public schools probably appeals to many families. Lazy parents (of which there are millions) would be more than happy to allow someone else to teach the kids the tough stuff.
Bush's idea is insipid. It's also demeaning. It undermines the importance of family, one function of which is to teach ideals and abstract concepts such as morality. To have such things taught in school could conceivably go against what is taught in the homes. I guarantee that if Bush's idea of "right and wrong" is taught in school, millions of Americans will have to un-teach the kids at home. Morality isn't universal, no matter what theists think, and one size definitely does not fit all.
Of course, once such legislation is in place, all other subjects will suffer. (Hello, Kansas? Meet all these other ignorant states.) You know as well as I do that if Bush is elected, we'll see budgets to the public schools slashed, whether from voucher use or financial cuts. The schools will have less money, but will be required to teach idiotic classes like Morality and Ethics and G vs. E. So say goodbye to any decent education (rare as it already is) in our public schools.
So let's sum it up, shall we?
George W. Bush wants the schools to teach morality, which undermines the role of family, so I guess you could say that he's against "family values."
George W. Bush wants the schools to branch out into these fields, but will most likely decrease their funding, so I guess you could say that he's anti-education.
George W. Bush would impose religion on children (I'm sure he likes the idea of the Ten Commandments in schools) and is a political figure strongly connected to fundamentalist preachers, which certainly invites a breach in the wall of separation between church and state, so I guess you could say that he's not in favor of our Constitutional freedom of and from religion.
In short, I guess you could say that George W. Bush is un-American.
Do we want him running this country?
