Weather Forecast


Letter to the editor: If you were in objective shoes

Ms. Dahlin, I attended public school (PHS), so forgive me if my writing skills are lacking. You misinterpreted my intentions.

First, I was not trying to argue, nor persuade those who benefit financially from passage of the levy. I was simply providing a free education to those who had been misinformed. Persuasion can only be achieved by presenting facts; those unwilling to examine the facts cannot be persuaded.

Second, referring to levy-proponents' dictatorial and smug approach as arrogant, intolerant and ignorant was not name-calling; rather I was using adjectives to describe their actions. Forcing everyone to pay for what you deem quality education is arrogant. Calling levy opponents evil and uncaring is arrogant. Presuming you know more than parents what's best for their children is arrogant. Limiting polling places is intolerant. Stealing signs is intolerant. Denigrating those who oppose your agenda is intolerant. Calling no-voters "dirt bags," asking them to leave town and advocating a boycott on businesses is intolerant. Being unaware of NEA and teacher union's liberal agenda is being ignorant. Being uninformed is ignorant.

It's good to get a proper perspective, but that perspective should be unbiased. Someone who profits financially from the levy would hardly qualify as impartial.

If you were in objective shoes, you would see that: 1) Public indoctrination does have a liberal agenda. 2) Everything liberals promote is unconstitutional and immoral. 3) The things our founding fathers feared are now upon us. 4) Many teachers and administrators are more concerned about their pocketbooks and their positions than what's best for the children. 5) Allowing poor teachers to keep their jobs while asking taxpayers to give more money to this broken system are totally related topics. 6) Being a Republican does not immune one from holding liberal views; i.e. Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, the Bushes, etc. 7) The American patriots, the early disciples, and Jesus himself were all radicals.

One of my favorite ways to practice my faith is to boldly and unashamedly proclaim the truth. If there is one thing I know, Jesus loves and cherishes the truth. All Christians are commanded to declare repentance, which those unwilling to change mistake for condemnation. Loving your neighbor also entails communicating truth and confronting evil, which many indoctrinators label as intolerant. Agreeing with Jesus that, "He is the only way," does not equate to 'my way is the right.'

If I were to volunteer at the school, as you suggest, my approach would be unacceptable. I believe, as did Noah Webster, that "Education is useless without the Bible."

In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed. The Bible was

America's basic textbook in all fields.

As for Ms. Yates, your whole premise is a misrepresentation of my position. Using a straw man's argument you create the illusion that I'm against education, which is a fallacy. You refute a position that you've crafted as if it was mine. You either chose to ignore the real issue or intentionally tried to misrepresent my position.

I said repeatedly that my problem with public indoctrination is that NEA, teachers unions and those in charge of the curricula have an obvious liberal social and economic agenda.

Government's monopoly on education forces every citizen to pay for its failing product. While costs have skyrocketed over the last 40 years, returns on our investments have diminished exponentially. If more money equated to better education, the U.S. would lead the world. Unfortunately, it does not.