Godless Schools
If the abortion issue has taught me anything, it is that the law is incapable of being the sole expression of public policy or of fully articulating the values of a pluralistic society.
Other means, like free speech, press and assembly, must be unfettered and allowed to flourish if the power of moral (as opposed to merely legal) suasion are to have their most beneficial effect.
The one big and important area of public life in which the powers of moral suasion are indeed fettered and curbed by policy and practice is the public school system.
In the true spirit of the socialistic enterprise it is, the system is founded and functions on the totally fallacious premise that education and religion can be separated, that a child can be truly educated without dealing with the fundamental life question that philosophy and religion address but which cannot be answered by science.
Before the advent of the "common" school in the mid-1800s, education in America was, as in Europe, historically the province of the home and the church. Further, it is an historical fact that the population as a whole was in many ways better read and more learned than it is today. (See "Education in the United States," by Pierre Du Pont de Nemours, 1812, and "Democracy in America," by Alexis de Tocqueville, 1832.)
Today, we have Keith Geiger, the head of the National Education Association (in a blatantly self-serving political attempt to defend the public schools at any cost) advertising that the public schools are in fact teaching morals.
In my opinion, there is no way that you can teach "morals," outside of some philosophical context that speaks to where man fits into this universe in which he finds himself.
And, the context is either framed by religious belief or by secular humanism, the "non-religious religion" to which the public school system necessarily pays homage.
I then have to ask, what good is achieved in teaching children "about" morality unless you can also give them reasons to behave morally that transcend their own perceived self-interest?
Because the public schools have been "sanitized" of all religious influence as a result of various Supreme Court decisions from 1947 to 1963, it is clear to me then that the public schools can no longer be relied on to bring to bear the moral suasion which society urgently needs for our children.
And because true education and religion cannot be separated, we need to reconsider the whole idea of public schools and move as swiftly as prudence permits toward privatization.
We have to at least make sure that all parents have the financial means to access private education, whether through tax credits, parental rebates or vouchers.
John D. Schiavone
Kingsville
Urban Sprawl
Much of Lee R. Epstein's letter (Dec. 24) is correct regarding the pernicious affects of urban sprawl.
What I would add is the importance of the pervasive thought in American culture to "move to the country and get some land."
I grew up in a small community in southern Wisconsin that is not a part of a major urban area. It is surrounded with extraordinarily prosperous agricultural land.
While it has its share of problems, the searing problems commonly associated with life in a major metropolitan area are generally absent.
And yet, I see increasing sprawl each year that I return to visit my parents. A significant number of people prefer to leave for the countryside.
The more affluent move to expensive and often quite lovely developments just beyond the corporate limits of the community.
Those with less financial ability frequently buy a building lot off the perimeter of a farm along a country road.
There are myriad reasons why people desire to leave cities and established suburban areas. But until we as a society are willing to forego the desire to get away from established urban areas, it is unlikely that any decrease in urban sprawl will occur soon.
The siren call of relatively cheap land in (for a time) relatively
clean and crime-free countryside will continue to act as a powerful stimulus for both people and business to leave developed areas, instead of making those areas more desirable and attractive places to live.
Charles A. Ferraro
Baltimore
Outdated Tax
It seems to me that your recent editorial on the issue of 'D eliminating the snack tax was well wide of the mark.
This product of the severe recession of the early 1990s has run its course.
At the time, additional revenues were sorely needed. A snack tax seemed to be a viable solution.
Now, as Gov. William Donald Schaefer departs the scene, Maryland is in sound financial shape with a triple A bond rating, a $168 million surplus and a much improved economy.
For the following reasons, the snack tax should go and the sooner the better:
* It is unevenly applied and difficult to administer. Some obvious products which most of us would consider to be "snacks" are not even subject to the tax. Confusion among small merchants is an unfortunate byproduct.
* Maryland is the only state in the nation which imposes such a tax. Here is a legitimate, solvable business climate issue.
* Frito-Lay has established an important manufacturing operation Harford County. The site was selected with considerably more investment in mind. The snack foods market is booming. Frito-Lay must keep pace. That invites investment choices to be made among their more than 40 plants.
As many as 350 jobs and the related capital investment could flow to the Harford County campus. The only apparent issue: Maryland's status as the only state with a snack tax.
It would be smart business and public policy to eliminate this relic of the recession.
Mark L. Wasserman
Baltimore
The writer is Maryland secretary of Economic and Employment Development.
Misleading Defense of the NEA
I must applaud Amy L. Bernstein's ardent defense of the National Endowment for the Arts (Perspective article, Dec. 25).
She extolled the societal benefits of various NEA funding giving credence to the continuation of its existence.
The fear appeal, suggesting detrimental state-wide impact on artistic organizations and everyday people, was wonderfully orchestrated into a convincing argument.
However, despite a seemingly honest attempt to convey the possibly imminent, Ms. Bernstein craftily avoided the true controversy of the NEA.
Did she mention the NEA's consistent refusal to cease funding for highly objectionable "art" in the midst of justified opposition?
Did she mention that tens of millions of our dollars go to fund such "art" as:
* Photographs of a bull-whip lodged in, and extending from, a man's rectum.
* A corpse's head severed in two, with each half positioned so as to be caught up in a passionate kiss.
* A homoerotic exhibition in which the central figure, unclothed, is bathed in chocolate only to have every inch of him licked clean in a fiery orgy of men.
* A crucifix of a battered Christ submerged in a putrid glass of urine.
These and many more comprise the reason for which the NEA has come under much scrutiny.
Now, I don't advocate the complete dismantling of the NEA. But $167 million that empowers an organization to finance "works of art" that arrogantly insult my religious faith and concept of
American culture has me quite concerned.
Though staunch backers of the NEA would like to think these resources are but a "small portion of the federal budget," I contend that many more would agree that $167 million is a significant sum of money to an agency whose actions should be more closely examined.
To avoid the cyclical debate over who and what defines art, allow me to propose what is truly important.
As a taxpayer, it is my right to question, justify or oppose the means in which my government is utilizing my money.
As an artist, I see that the NEA has painted a magnificent front which belies the corrupted essence beneath.
As an antagonist, I view Ms. Bernstein's misleading defense of the NEA and deliberate avoidance of the true controversy as a gross distortion of truth, justice and the American way.
Ryal Scott Bomberger
Cockeysville