"FREEDOM of education, being an essential of civil and religious liberty . . . must not be interfered with under any pretext whatever," the party's national platform declared. "We are opposed to state interference with parental rights and rights of conscience in the education of children as an infringement of the fundamental . . . doctrine that the largest individual liberty consistent with the rights of others insures the highest type of American citizenship and the best government."
That was then, this is now:
When the [Democratic] party's presidential candidates debated at Dartmouth College recently, they were asked about a controversial incident in Lexington, Mass., where a second-grade teacher, to the dismay of several parents, had read her young students a story celebrating same-sex marriage. Were the candidates "comfortable" with that?
"Yes, absolutely," former senator John Edwards promptly replied. "I want my children . . . to be exposed to all the information . . . even in second grade . . . because I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children. . . . I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right." None of the other candidates disagreed, even though most of them say they oppose same-sex marriage.
(Read the rest of the excellent article decrying government-run education by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe here.)
What a dramatic shift in government policy and theory! For a presidential candidate to say, "I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children..." If a parent doesn't decide what's right for his or her family, then he'll just leave it up to the state? Is John Edwards really saying that it's not okay for a father to "impose on [his children] what it is that [he] believe[s] is right," but it's just fine for a teacher--a stranger--to impose his or her beliefs on our young children?!? This is ludicrous!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment