A self-described "instrument of God," former Montana Gov. Judy Martz Friday morning told a Tacoma Dome crowd of 2,800 - attending the 27th annual Pierce County Prayer Breakfast - that since mandatory prayer in public schools was abolished, teen XXbirthXX PREGNANCY rates have increased, and that this is one indication that "we have to get back to being a praying nation." More here from the Tacoma News Tribune (free reg. req.).
Among her comments:• On the removal of prayer from public schools since the early 1960s: It’s led to increased teen pregnancy, divorce and lower student test scores, she said. “We have to get back to being a praying nation.”
In fact, teen birth rates in the U.S. have declined significantly since the age of prayer in public schools ended. Compelled public school prayer was finally outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963. According to data from the Centers For Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics (National Vital Statistics Reports), teen birth rates age 15-19 peaked at about 96 per 1,000 in 1957 (interesting huh? was it Elvis's fault?) and were down to 43 per 1,000 in 2002. As you'll see here.
This chart, also drawn from National Vital Statistics Reports, allows a direct comparison between teen birth rates in 1963 (76.7 per 1,000) and 2003 (41.7 per 1,000).
(See UPDATE below - teen pregnancy and abortion rates been steadily declining, too).
Former Gov. Martz may tell evangelicals what they want to hear, but does herself and her party no favors making erroneous factual claims on teen XXbirthXX PREGNANCY rates, and ludicrously calling for the re-institution of mandatory prayer in public schools. Worse than that is the imputed causality: as if we could simply peg divorce and academic performance to lack of forced prayer in public schools. What planet is this woman from? This is not MY "big tent" GOP. But rather than run, I say flush out the zealots. We've been through the Ellen Craswell thing here in Washington State already, Gov. Martz, give us a break, OK?
If we are to "get back to being a praying nation," Gov. Martz, it should not, and will not be, because the government compels prayer in public schools, as in the instances leading to the '63 Supreme Court ruling. Such Nanny-Statism and religious authoritarianism, is antithetical to supposed GOP values of small government.
Martz was a big hit with the crowd, but was pinch-hitting for Laura Bush, who was travelling with the President. Somehow, I suspect that while striking all the right notes, the First Lady would not have called for mandatory prayer in public schools, or badly fluffed the data on teen birth rates.
UPDATE: Commenters have pointed out I mistakenly attributed to Martz a comment on teen birth rates, when in fact she said teen PREGNANCY rates rose since abolition of forced public school prayer, this remark coming as part of her call for re-instituing mandatory school prayer. I have entered a correction in two relevant paragraphs, above. However, teen birth rates ARE a very important part of the societal equation relating to teen sexual activity, and have been dropping precipitously. And not solely because of LEGAL abortion, either.
And as it happens, Martz was wrong about teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. They have also been declining, significantly, since peaking early in the previous decade, as this link shows.
Another link (to the Guttmacher Institute), provided by a commenter, also shows a decline in teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates.
Rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion among U.S. teenagers continued their downward trend in 2000. Nationwide, the teenage pregnancy rate declined by 2% between 1999 and 2000 (from 85.7 to 83.6 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19). From 1986 to 2000, the rate dropped by 22% and, more importantly, fell by 28% since peaking in 1990. The birthrate for teenagers also declined by 2% between 1999 and 2000 (from 48.8 to 47.7 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19). The 2000 rate was 5% lower than the 1986 rate and 23% lower than the peak rate of 61.8 births per 1,000 women reached in 1991.Teenagers’ abortion rate in 2000 was 24.0 per 1,000 women aged 15–19—some 3% lower than the 1999 rate of 24.7 per 1,000. From 1986 to 2000, the abortion rate dropped by 43%; during the same period, the proportion of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion fell from 46% to 33%-a decline of more than one-quarter (27%).
BOTTOM LINE: We can all agree that the nation, and most importantly, individual families (as opposed to taxpayer-funded schools) still face serious challenges in curbing harmful behavior by teens, including sexual activity, and especially teen sex resulting in teen pregnancies leading to either abortions (which are rightly legal but still tragic) or the birth of children to teen "parents" who are scarcely ready to parent. However, to urge the re-imposition of forced prayer in public schools to address such challenges, is, as I said in my original post, ludicrous. So far, commenters are evading the real issue: ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST RE-INSITUTING MANDATORY PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, as Martz suggested should occur? And exactly how would this be accomplished, given the 1963 Supreme Court decision? Further, and most importantly, WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF MARTZ'S YEARNING FOR THE DAYS OF FORCED PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS? Does this not play to the "extremist" image that only hurts the GOP? Personal responsibility and prevention of teen pregnancy is the business of families. Prayer is the business of individuals, families, and communities of worship. It is not the business of taxpayer-funded schools.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 08, 2005 12:03 PM | Email ThisIt is highly misleading to ignore the marriage factor. While society laments teen birth rates what we are actually concerned about is the out of wedlock birth rate.
Shame on you Matt for your intentionally misleading piece.
Posted by: Michael on May 8, 2005 12:27 PMIf she MEANT to say out-of wedlock, then she should have said that. But she said TEEN PREGNANCY, and she apparently wasn't too keen on giving folks the good news on that subject.
And besides, would you really prefer that a young single teen get married just so the child isn't born out of wedlock? I thought that foolishnes died out in the 1950's. She should get married because she wants to, forcing some dumb-ass kids into getting married isn't the solution. And yes, if you're a teenager and you're not practicing abstinence or at least safe sex you're a dumb-ass.
RM
While the statistics provided give figures for the ages of 15-19. I am fairly certain that the vast majority of those who gave birth in the 1950's & 1960's were between 17-19. While you choose to give a negative spin to young couples getting married, I am fairly certain that most married because they wanted to, not because they had to.
Posted by: Michael on May 8, 2005 12:56 PM
1) Go to Matt's Link: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193727.html
2) Scroll Down to Heading "Births to Teenagers and to Unmarried Women, 1940–2002"
And there you will find the statisitics I sued regarding Out of wedlock births. Do you still say "shame on" me?
Posted by: Michael on May 8, 2005 01:28 PMIt seems that his ONLY real point is that prayer should not be FORCED in schools which it never was to begin with......
God IS being remoced from the public arena and tothe detriment of the entire country and ALL it's citizens, legal and illegal.
Posted by: niceville on May 8, 2005 01:58 PMYou said "True.. out of wedlock teen birth has jumped from 13.4% to 78.8%, an almost 6-fold increase." You also said that " At the same time, out of wedlock birth rates have jumped from 4% to 33.2%, an over 8-fold increase"
Of course this negative trend dating back to the 1960's has impacted society as a whole. Do you think teens remain teens forever? Those who have been impacted by the changes in public education in the 1960's are the adults of today, and the beat goes on....
Posted by: Michael on May 8, 2005 02:02 PMTo which I respond..
Thank God
Posted by: Michael on May 8, 2005 02:09 PMReligious bigotry against Evangelicals
Posted by: JB on May 8, 2005 02:12 PMPraising the decline of society is downright disgusting. After all the good work being done by folks on this site, you should truly be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: Dave on May 8, 2005 02:45 PM"So far, commenters are evading the real issue: ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST RE-INSITUTING MANDATORY PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, as Martz suggested should occur?"
Actually, I am for mandatory prayer in schools. I believe our society would be far better off. How's that?
I also believe our legislature, our executive officials and our courts should bring prayer into their proceedings.
I gather that makes me an extremist in your belief system. More's the pity.
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 8, 2005 03:19 PMAnd if some such effort were mounted, do you think the net effect would: a) be successful; and b) if not, beneficial or harmful to the GOP?
Posted by: Matt R. on May 8, 2005 03:55 PM=>Ken, thanks for addressing the real issue behind my post. Let me ask then, respectfully: how would you propose to actually, legally, re-institute mandatory prayer in public schools?
The only way possible is to replace the people who banished prayer in the first place: secular judges. (The general populance would never have voted to eliminate prayers.) When that happens (it may take many elections), the destructive effects of the last 40 years of liberalism will be reversed.
Now, I that have answered your question, I will respectfully ask one of you. What damage was done to the US when mandatory prayers in schools were the norm?
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 8, 2005 04:16 PMOn the other hand I'm not too big on one size fits all public schools at all. We constantly have to figure out curricula that won't offend anyone regardless of their beliefs or uniformly chase after the latest societal preferences because there is so little choice. Anything that's taught is mandatory for the great majority since for most public school is the only economic option.
The left seems pretty comfortable with food stamps as a method of addressing hunger. Give folks stamps and let them shop where they choose for their food. We'll even provide dreaded state backing of religious practices by allowing them to buy Kosher food with the stamps. A few restrictions on buying stuff that doesn't provide effective nutrition, but no mandated menu.
If they're so afraid of school vouchers destroying the system and so eager to promote public health why don't they eliminate the food stamp program and just set up government funded soup kitchens to address hunger? To make it even better folks can only get food that's good for them and if they appear too fat (in the judgement of the board appointed to oversee such things) they can just be denied high-calorie food. That's just the start of how we could enhance things. The public benefits are obvious.
Sounds good? Not to me either.
Mandated prayer or mandated sex education or mandated history lessons shifted to the left or the right or mandated singing of the national anthem or mandated disections of frogs or mandated environmental education or mandated whatever in schools keeps causing arguments because the choice has been taken out of the hands of the consumer.
The left would never tolerate this kind of approach as an answer to hunger. Why is it so tolerable as an answer to education?
Posted by: davmicro on May 8, 2005 04:18 PMIf Mass. wants to leave well enough alone, let them. If Texas wants to make it voluntary on a district by district basis, fine. Mississippi does what it damn well pleases anyway (there is prayer in school all over the state).
(I assume you all see the "states' rights" punchline coming at you full speed.) Just get out of the way. All the heathens can move to Wisconsin, Vermont, Mass., and the rest. The Bible belt can stop bowing to the more "enlightened" among us.
Posted by: Danny on May 8, 2005 04:33 PM"Mandatory prayer? How will this be enforced? By prayer police? Carrying guns? "
It will be enforced by whatever standards the community imposes. I suspect (as one poster has already staed) that it will vary from stste to state.
BTW, I will respectfully ask you the same question I asked Matt: What damage was done to the US when mandatory school prayers were the norm?
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 8, 2005 04:47 PMParticularly the 'diversity' mantra. Stefan nailed it years ago, observing that in PC terms it only extends as far as a box of crayons, strictly limited to skin color. Until diversity means 'include opinions beyond those approved by the NEA', it should be banished as rigorously as any Christian prayers have been.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 8, 2005 04:51 PMI believe you all have intentionally missed the boat. ("Enforced school prayer should indeed be abolished"...."I personally oppose mandetory prayer "...."strikes this Christian as a very wicked idea")
Mandatory prayers acknowledge a belief in a higher power. Period. They have not been used to favor one religion over another. Let's not mandate prayers in school? Well, then, where should they be allowed? The workplace? Well, gee...no we couldn't allow that. Public property? Ah..no, that really would be acceptable? General assemblies? Nah, some people might view that as being insensitive.
What you've missed is an organized destruction of the family over the last 40-50 years starting with attacks on religious cohesiveness in the schools, in the workplace and in every government institution. Once you say that God has no place in schools you start the slippery slide. Moral values and laws do come from some higher power. If they don't, we are in an "anything goes" culture.
If you have such little faith, what is the purpose of this blog? To get Rossi elected?
In case you have noticed we are in a war of moral values. If you don't have the fortitude to fight, stand aside.
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 8, 2005 05:51 PMThen again, I have no philosophical problem with an established church.
Posted by: ScottM on May 8, 2005 05:55 PMI graduated in 1959 and my wife graduated from the same school in the Olympia Area in 1961. Between us we can remember only 2 girls who got pregnant out of wedlock in the 6 years total, none under 17. There were virtually no abortions, they were quite Constitutionally illegal. Many girls got married right after high school and had their first child when they were late 18 or 19.
I am quite ashamed of sound politics, which has been on my quick links for daily reading, for allowing this garbage. Frankly, I must admit I couldn't read the entire post because Matt has ZERO knowledge of what he is talking about. It is like a classic liberal quoting out of context statistics creating a half truth that is in reality a lie.
Perhaps somewhere there was "forced prayer" but I doubt it was widespread. Occassionally there would be a prayer but no one was forced to participate.
Matt, you are a fool if you believe yourself. I suggest you discuss this with someone you trust who actually lived during that era.
Posted by: Ron A. on May 8, 2005 06:12 PMMAKING people pray in schools will not work but ALLOWING those who want to pray is the right of every American.
Posted by: A Prayer on May 8, 2005 06:54 PMMany times children don't want to volunterly follow the parents' teaching and religion. They find going to church 'boring'. That is not a reason to let them off the hook. As a responsible parent sometimes you need to 'force' your child to do this and that and obey your moral orders. They will understand it when they are older. As a responsible parent you should NOT to let them follow the liberal indoctrination to do 'whatever feels good or whatever makes them happy'. i.e. I was TOLD in my childhood that I MUST go to 'Rosary' every night for the whole month of MAY. As a result, even I found it kind of boring at that time - to this day I have the outmost respect for the 'higher power' of the Virgin Mary and of the religion I was born with. And although I am not always obeying the 10 commandments very rigorously I am ALWAYS aware of them and striving to do my best.
Most of us of different faith , the ones who fight and try to prove that their religion is the ONLY RIGHT religion, we don't realize that we did not have a choice. OUR religion was assigned to us by the geographic area we were born under.
Posted by: E.W. on May 8, 2005 07:33 PMI'm an optimistic agnostic, which is to say that I don't claim to know that which is unknowable. I know of no proof that there either is or is not God, nor whether Jesus Christ was or was not God's son or part of a holy trinity. To be lead in a prayer or to be forced to waste my time while others pray is tyrannical to me and any student who thinks similarly. To non-Christians forced to listen to Christian prayer or waste their time while others chant their superstitious chants, mandatory prayer in school is tyranny.
Matt, thank you for your reason and logic. To the "evangelicals" (zealots) out there who ask what does it hurt to mandate prayer I ask what does it hurt to set up a totalitarian state that always does the right thing? Would you like to live in Plato's republic of Philospher Kings? Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of motive. And how many people since the death of Christ have DIED horrible deaths over the proper way to worship the proper God at the proper time? Better students in public school study that and ask "why?" than be transported metaphorically each day to the chapel of someone else's choice for their religious indoctrination.
Posted by: srogers on May 8, 2005 07:36 PMPerhaps it would just be better if the public schools would stop forbidding personal prayer and religion in the schools! It would certainly be better if the public schools dropped their excessive fascination with Sex and the extensive course study they cramm down our young childrens throats all year long!
It's not the lack of prayer in the schools that has caused the teen birth rate and STD's to rise - it's the flood of sex education - including obscene *alternative* sex and indirect references to sex in the schools* (* see example below) that have caused our young kids to become overly curious at inappropriate ages!
* Last month my 7 year old had a Report to Parents paper stapled to her work in her folder. The paper was put out by the National Association of Elementary School Principals. This particular report was supposed to be about *Name Calling* - however - my eyes quickly caught the words *sex* *Gay* *Lesbian* in several places in the report! The paper had a provocative illustration in the center. It was of a boy with and odd look on his face...enough to make my child want to look...This report had little to do with name calling and much to do with promoting sex and Homosexual lifestyles - and it went deep into discussion of gay and lesbian relationships etc..
My child is 7 years old! This is exactly how pedophiles begin the grooming process of their victims!- Capture their victims attention (using puppies, pictures,etc....) Open up the door to sex...get the kids to ask questions...make all appear natural...make them curious......ACK! In fact - because this report is from school authorities - it is giving the impression to our kids that if they DON'T embrace Sex, Gay and Lesbians in ANY capacity - they may get into trouble! My God! Every week we hear about another *Teacher* molesting our children!! How would a 7 year old know the difference? Why on earth would an elementary school send this home with my young kids? Why on earth would such an association feel that parents are so stupid they require an additional socialist education from them? What is their true agenda here? Make no mistake - This report was a blatant attempt to introduce our young children to Sex and to Gay and Lesbian lifestyles - under the guise of some *name calling* and *bullying* report! Why didn't they use *Four Eyes* or *Fatso* as examples of name calling? It would have been more effective!
If public schools can try to relate name calling and bullying with Sex - I shudder at the thought of how they would interject sex into daily prayer!
We need to get rid of all references to Sex in our schools - Let the parents be the ones to educate their children in this area. I guarantee the teen pregnancies would drop - the disease rate would fall and our kids would go back to being children again!
Posted by: Deborah on May 8, 2005 07:39 PM"From 1986 to 2000, the abortion rate dropped by 43%; during the same period, the proportion of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion fell from 46% to 33%-a decline of more than one-quarter (27%)."
Do you have data to compare abortion rates in the teenage population from before 1957 to those of 1986? Or do you just "believe" that there were fewer abortions per teen before 1957 because, well, it MUST be true?
What if I told you that the daughters and mistresses of wealthy English noblemen could and did, as early as the twelfth century, secretly visit midwives or others who had access to certain herbs and medicines that would cause a spontaneous miscarriage - in a time when, in the west ("Christendom") the Christian religion was more integrated into all levels of the culture than perhaps it has ever been? Neither you nor anybody else can stop abortions from occurring, even if you erect the most militaristic or tyrannical of States focused on preventing them; but you CAN fight to make abortions occur infrequently (through early education of teens on reproduction, sex, and the consequences of bad sexual decisions), that they occur early in preganancies (through strict application of the principles outlined in Roe v Wade), and that they occur safely (because they are legal).
Posted by: srogers on May 8, 2005 08:19 PMKing County is the worse offender in this regard and, surprise, surprise, it has the worse teenage problems.
What I don't understand is why smart people like you, Matt, don't seem to even recognize the real cause of the problem.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 8, 2005 09:18 PMI think you missed the most important point coming out of the Pierce County Prayer Breakfast, namely it was the biggest turnout ever. Sure, attribute that to the First Lady being scheduled to speak, but she cancelled out weeks ago.
What was important to report about the event is that so many people would show up in "Godless" Washington to PRAY on a Friday morning. That the good governor made a few statements outside the FACTS has not been picked up by any MSM (to my knowledge). I guess that is a credit to your reporting skills that you took isue with her facts and checked them ;0) However, I don't think it is EXTREME to say that prayer and religion are BEING RAILED AGAINST by the left, and that what we are really fighting for is the right to continue free excercise.
Religion has become privatized in the U.S., and to some degree conservatives have become complacent with this; the prayer breakfast is a show of strength in an otherwise weak nation. That is what you failed to report, and that is why your post is only half valid.
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on May 8, 2005 09:37 PMThe only solution is for responsible parents to stop trying to squeeze blood out of turnips, take their kids out of government schools and put them into parent-controlled private schools that reflect the values that those parents wish to pass on to their children.
One might object to the cost of a private education, but you have to ask yourself if it is worth it to save some money by allowing the government teach whatever it wants to teach to your children.
Posted by: Gary Love on May 8, 2005 10:12 PMI support your right to require your own children to pray. I also support giving you tax breaks to send your own children to private schools, including religious schools.
But the idea that government teachers in government schools forcing their students to recite government-authorized prayers is the right approach to teen pregnancy or any other social problem, is as lunatic as any idea from the liberal thought police.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 8, 2005 10:18 PMIt would be better to abolish public education all together. But just try to get Republicans or Democrats to buy into it. If public schools were abolished, the private schools would have to compete for students by showing that they produce results for which their customers (parents) would pay. Some would be evangelical schools, of myriad denominations, and some would be secular. There would be no way to force any belief system on anyone.
The state could further its interest in prividing a minimum education for everyone (and we do all benefit if the state does that) by issuing vouchers to subsidize the tuition for those parents unable to pay for even the least expensive schools. School boards, school districts, the NEA - all would be gone. Accreditation and qualifying applicants for vouchers would be the only function government would play. Alas . . . I won't live to see it.
Patrick Bell, by arguing against mandatory prayers in public schools, there is no railing against free exercise. It is one thing to prevent Christian groups from meeting and praying together after school when other groups are allowed to to do so, which to my mind would violate the free exercise clause, and it is another to prohibit a teacher from turning into a pastor and reciting a prayer during school hours. I am RAILING AGAINST prayer and religion in that context only, and from the RIGHT, not the left.
Posted by: srogers on May 8, 2005 10:33 PMThe Craswell's of the GOP need to step away from the microphone. I heard that nut job speak in the 80's and its no wonder the left took control ever since with that kind of leadership.
Here's the real destruction of family:
30% of kids are born out of wedlock-->No DAD with any parental rights, except to pay $$
50% of marriages end in divorce and according to the latest census 84% of fathers lose all parenting rights except to pay $$$
This equates to kids growing up in one parent families (I'm picturing that nice baby momma with big tat on the small of the back). In Ireland these nice women are called brides of the state. See a trend here?
Christians-> this is the result of alienating so many people over to the left. It's a woman's body argument seems to win for every argument to do with family whether it has anything to do with her body or not. It's hip/cool/liberating/empowering to remove 'dad' from family (except for the pay garni$hment for support) by whatever means necessary.
God gave you two ears and one mouth, please use them in those respective ratios.
(1) I am with Matt R., Stefan, and to varying degrees a few other people on this one.
(2) When Matt asked:
" ....: how would you propose to actually, legally, re-institute mandatory prayer in public schools?"
One response was:
"The only way possible is to replace the people who banished prayer in the first place: secular judges."
Let's say for argument that somehow the entire Federal Judicial Branch all of a sudden removed all restraints against required, state mandated prayer in public schools (note the key words here are STATE MANDATED and PUBLIC).
Then what ??...
Who would write the "official", government-authorized prayer (public schools are a government entity) ??..
The Feds (one size fits all for the entire Country) ??
The 50 individual States (one size per State) ??
Individual counties ??
Individual school boards ??
I grew up in a rural Midwest county that was almost 100 percent Norwegian, and therefore almost everybody's grandfather and grandmother came from a background which included membership in the state-sponsored Lutheran Church in Norway.
But that is not where most of the USA is today:
We truly are a melting pot of many religions; even if some are relatively small minorities in most (but not all) areas.
So what would a Government-written mandated prayer look like ??.. Some kind of amalgamation of words that would be an "average" of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, and Muslim prayers ??.. oops: And how about Native American prayers ??
Nah: I think any Government-sponsored attempt to mix-master the beliefs from all recognized religions in this county would end badly.
And if the follow-on is that all Government-mandated official prayer in public schools should be derived exclusively from the teachings and beliefs of just ONE of those religions, then we have a REAL problem (which the courts are NEVER going to accept in any case (nor should they)):
How would that be done ??.. Would the majority belief in each school district determine the content of the "official" prayer in that district ??.. How about if there are school districts with a majority of Muslim students, would Christian and Jewish and other children be excused while the official and traditional Muslim morning and evening call to prayer took place ??
I make my last above point to highlight what I think is the issue that would immediately come up if somehow establishment of official, State-mandated prayer was actually contemplated: While it is rarely said in so many words, it seems pretty clear that those who are pushing hardest to institute mandatory, official, government-sponsored prayer in public schools want and expect and would in fact try to insist that THEY in effect get to write the prayer to match their particular religious beliefs.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That should NOT be interpreted as freedom FROM religion (which is what the radical left-wing seems to want). But it also should not be government-written, formalized, and required prayer in public schools.
SUMMARY:
A minute or two or whatever number of minutes of silence in public schools is fine. And voluntary student organizations sponsored by their church or synagoge or mosque should get equal access and use of school facilities along with secular groups.
But the government getting into the business of writing and then MANDATING the use of a particular prayer in public school will end either in mush or unconstitutional.
Plus there seem to be ongoing and available options for those who feel strongly about their children getting a particular religious viewpoint in school: They can send their children to private religious schools. I am not Catholic, but I recognize that the Catholic Church has established and run a pretty successful private school system for many years. Sooo....: For those pushing for official prayer in public schools, how about supporting vouchers instead. THAT should in my opinion be the big-tent GOP answer to this question.
Methow Ken
Allowed or (God forbid) mandated prayer in public schools won't be able to overcome all the other ideological messages that accompany current government delivered education. In my view the only solution is choice. So in this category anyway, put me down as pro-choice. Given the economic realities without vouchers this choice is limited only to certain economic classes. Not a good thing in my view.
Any time we have government delivered services it starts to get in the way of individual freedom. I may not agree with them, but I believe I need to grant others the right to send their kids to a school that teaches that all religion is nonsense and that putting on a condom is the most critical skill one can acquire. I just would like to be able for anyone (myself included) to choose a school that teaches otherwise.
Private institutions allow for this currently and demonstrate we can still set some limits to ensure solid education without getting in the way of a wide range of approaches. Unfortunately economics don't allow this level of choice for many. Again I find vouchers a hard approach to beat.
Folks could choose schools that reject religion totally or embrace a particular religion wholeheartedly. In other words the state would take no position at all regarding religion - thought that was the idea.
Posted by: davmicro on May 9, 2005 12:05 AM(1) Education, in the natural sense, is meant to support young people as they develop the skills they need to succeed in life.
(2) Morality and decency are necessary supports to a productive life. --George Washington, very roughly paraphrased
(3) Life is best understood from a holistic perspective, that is, your sense of morality is inseparable from your view of the world -- including your religious views.
My point is this: In order for education to succeed in its primary purpose, that is, to help young people succeed in life, it must be under-girded by a moral compass that is both strong and true. Further, because our Bill of Rights protects freedom of religion, and because our society supports public funding for education, the logical conclusion is to provide each family, and each child, with the funds necessary to support their education.
Please note that freedom of religion allows individual choice, thus public support for private choice can hardly be considered un-Constitutional. Either society as a whole determines the moral framework of education, or parents make that determination. I prefer parental choice.
In short, I believe that prayer is good and necessary for education, but only in those environments where the parents choose to be setting that example.
Posted by: Daniel Kauffman on May 9, 2005 02:01 AMIf there are still pop quizzes and hard exams, there will always be "prayer in school".
Posted by: Big M on May 9, 2005 08:26 AM"But the idea that government teachers in government schools forcing their students to recite government-authorized prayers is the right approach to teen pregnancy or any other social problem, is as lunatic as any idea from the liberal thought police."
Lunatic? Your words are not very friendly. Would you also describe the ideas and goals of our founding fathers as lunatic? Do you think they had an aversion to prayers in school?
The history of this country is replete with a belief in a higher power. It has led this nation to come to the correct (hopefully) moral decisions on many of its biggest problems.
Your belief that school is not an appropriate place to acknowledge a higher power is misplaced.
Posted by: Ken Muller on May 9, 2005 08:49 AMAn interesting side note: my mother quoted the 'Christmas Story' (from Luke) this last Christmas. She memorized it in grade school (Selah, WA). She graduated in 1965. It's amazing how much has changed in our public schools over the last 40 years.
Posted by: Kevin Jackson on May 9, 2005 10:33 AMIf every parent who wanted such a thing were to take a step of faith and pull their kids out of government schools, it would force the issue overnight. The government school system would start to collapse and there would be a rush to accomodate school choice in order to keep the government system from going belly up. Any good "public" school teachers facing layoffs would be grabbed up by the private schools needing more teachers to satisfy the upsurge in demand for more classrooms. Parents win, children win, teachers win and the only losers I can foresee in this scenario would be educational bureaucrats.
BTW, it's amazing how many public school teachers I know that have sent their own kids to private school or home-schooled them. They know how dangerous it is to turn their kids' minds over to the government. We should follow their example.
Posted by: Gary Love on May 9, 2005 10:33 AMAnd since we're exploring ridiculous extremes why impose any limits at all? I say anything goes. Who is the state to say what is right and what is wrong? If my neighbor bothers me who is the state to say I can't just shoot him? Who needs arbitrary traffic laws? I have a big car. If somebody wants right of way on the road let give it a shot. I'll flatten him if I don't blow him away with my RPG first. I don't think gays are normal, let's string 'em up. Hetero's are the majority! And to hell with regulation of products or environmental impact. If my product maims babies, don't buy it. If I dump plutonium on MY property who are YOU to say what I'm doing is wrong.
Excuse me?
I don't think that turning the knob to 11 and saying the extremes are outrageous is really a very compelling argument. It is just as easy to do for a left, right or anarchistic viewpoint.
Collectively deciding on and imposing some limitations on behavior is intrinsic to any civilization. Not everyone will be happy with where the society decides to draw the line, and sometimes it gets drawn in the wrong place but refusing to draw the line anywhere isn't an option for a civilization.
Posted by: davmicro on May 9, 2005 08:54 PMA special note to Poster A PRAYER: You should study Psalm Two. Who do you think it is that is bound? Whose chains do they propose to throw off? Then to get a feel for the past read some classic literature as a follow-up to your Pslamic studies. Or watch some old Western's. I suggest Treasure Island and Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Then report back on whether or not pray and societal belief has an effect on the earthly behavior of the unrepentant.
Posted by: Jericho on May 9, 2005 09:12 PMBy the early part of the 19th Century the focused had changed to the endurance of the Republic.
At the end of that century public virtue was slipping against the cry for indiviudal 'rights.'
By World War Two it was an attitude of 'getting the job done.'
And by the late 20th century it had devolved into "It's the economy stupid."
Now the point is, 'This will hurt the GOP.'?
God help us and God forgive us!
Posted by: Jericho on May 9, 2005 09:20 PMA was for Adam. It went right on through the alphabet each letter cooresponding to the Biblical account of creation, fall, crucifixion and redemption.
Another point on the founder's position is that they passed the Northwest Ordinance, one of the first acts of Congress under the Articles of Conferation with the language that education in the schools was for the purpose of religious and moral instruction (I paraphrase) {Google it to get the exact quote - sorry I'm too lazy and too much of a techno-peasant to link it.)
Posted by: Jericho on May 9, 2005 09:29 PM"Come let us reason together, says the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow, though they be red like crimson they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18.
Oh and the Lord doesn't take kindly with those who will not reason with Him, for He goes on to say in the next few verses, "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land, but if you refuse and rebell you shall be devored by the sword for the mouth of the Lord has spoken."
So I agree let us teach reason to our children. Here is one place to start teach the reasoning of the theories of special creation by God versus the widely discredited, but still taught, theory (big lie) of evolution. Yes, yes, bring on reason, please!
Posted by: Jericho on May 9, 2005 09:43 PMIt is wholly unpeculiar that among the tactics used against Christian apologists are ridiculing Christian morality as a form of tyranny.
To head off any forthcoming attacks the Witch Trials, the Spanish inquisition, the religious wars and persecution in England and Germany are of note for their lack of faith among the leadership in command at the occasion rather than any faith held. The lifting of these incidents as occasion to bash Christians shows as much ignorance of the particulars of them as the Jew shows who becries the Christian assualt by the German regime upon his World War Two era bretheran.
Posted by: Jericho on May 9, 2005 09:58 PMBased on your sorry attempt to "reason", I doubt you understand what the word means. Your understanding of the progression of American history is senseless. You seem to know the Bible, but why do you think anyone else, or specifically me, should be impressed? Anyone can quote the Bible. Your statement to Matt is presumptuous, pompous, and childish. Finally, I ridicule you because based on your own writing, you appear to be an idiot; I do not "ridicule Christian morality as a form of tyranny." The Constitution protects against religious tyranny: it does not prevent you from practicing your religion in any way you want, until you act on behalf of the government to indoctrinate with your faith the children of people who do not already share your faith.
I tend to avoid quoting scripture as a compelling argument to those who don't think it holds much merit. However I hope it can be useful just as quotes of the constitution can be useful to illuminate the principles which underly my viewpoint and even provide a basis for proving my reasoning (yes reasoning) to be unsound
In my reading of the old and new testament it seems pretty obvious to me that God wanted people to choose. If we ascribe to Him the sovereignty most Christians believe in He could have made Adam and Eve automatons incapable of sinning, but He didn't. Interesting. Freedom to choose is central.
It seems that God only felt that relationship with Him was meaningful only if voluntary. You want to reject God? In my view that's your God given right. That doesn't mean I think you made the right call, but it's your call.
This approach strikes me as pretty scripturally and constitutionally sound(what a coincidence).
It doesn't mean that I don't have any opinion about your choice or have to remain silent either. I may think your choice is misguided or even sinful, but your and my right to choose is sacrosanct.
To quote outside of scipture...
I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. --Voltaire
If you are honerable I hope that you will reciprocate.
Posted by: davmicro on May 10, 2005 12:04 AMFor the record, I haven't rejected God; I hope He exists and I envy people who are truly convinced He does. I just don't know. I certainly don't know which Religion is right (if any). My parents baptized me in the Methodist church, and as a child, I believed what I was told in Sunday school. But later I studied biology, chemistry and physics and learned to look for evidence to support my beliefs; I studied history and the bloody role religion has played on the historical stage; I beheld the horror of the middle eastern conflicts and the related horror of 9/11; I visited Indochina and met Buddhists and Hindus; and now I am very uncertain about God and Religion. But after 45 years of life, I still wonder and search for answers in my own way, and yes, I would defend to the death your right to speak freely and exercise your religion.
Posted by: srogers on May 10, 2005 09:05 AMAs an aside, my birth in 1959, coupled with Ivy's data, assures that I will be among those destined to realize the least from my forced "investment" in Social Security, and if the Democrats have their way, to pay the most. Damn FDR and his packed court of thieves! . . .
Posted by: srogers on May 10, 2005 09:15 AMSo Matt's original contention was flawed when he wrote that: However, teen birth rates ARE a very important part of the societal equation relating to teen sexual activity.
The article also notes the trend of 'unmarried teens' with children. In 1950, 12% of pregnant teens were unmarried. In 2000, 80% of pregnant teens were unmarried.
Posted by: Kevin Jackson on May 10, 2005 09:52 AMMy use of the term "you" was not intended to be personal only hypothetical. I should have more properly said "If one elects to reject God", etc. I just prefer slightly less formal speech.
Sorry if this seemed a personal remark. Not intended.
Anyone who struggles to find God even while doubting His presence is in my view engaged in a very noble human endeavor. Jesus' disciples themselves struggled to believe and demonstrated profound doubt even after all they saw. I suspect this too in intrinsic to our nature. I certainly don't have the answers and still sometimes struggle with doubt myself, but I have seen enough to persuade me to trust and believe.
I have no disregard for anyone who doesn't. I disagree and hope they will find the truth, but at least I have enough faith to not be threatened.
Thanks for your remarks.
Posted by: davmciro on May 10, 2005 12:52 PMThere is no comparison of this & todays condition, where teen women have babies with men they have no true attachment too, who will not be part of the childs life. This has had a massive negative impact on our society as a whole.
Posted by: Bob on May 11, 2005 11:29 AM