Here's Lindsay Boyd's last report from Grove City College ...

"The Religious Case for Seperating Church and State"

 Dr. T. David Gordon

 

Just as we hit the ground running this morning here in Grove City, Pennsylvania, so we will end the day (or at least my time here) in the same fashion. The events of the Center for Vision & Values' "Church & State 2008 Summit will continue into the evening, but regretably I must catch a plane in just a few hours so I conclude with this final report.

 

Remember the good ole' (and generally very wise) advice of steering clear from the topics of religion and politics at the dinner table? I think most would generally recommend this approach to those looking for invitations to dine at that same table in the future. But where's the fun in that?

 

Dr. T. David Gordon, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian (PCA) tradition, decided to "bring the fun". 

 

Given Dr. Gordon's religious background, one would probably expect a staunch defense of religious influence in state matters. However, as Dr. Gordon upheld, it is his faith and loyalty to it that prevents him from advocating the blending of these two institututions.

 

Since the Protestant movement began, Dr. Gordon reminds us, men and women of faith have advocated for the protection of the church from the state. He recalls the doctrines of the Honover Presbyterians of the 18th Century, the Scottish traditions, and the Westminster Confession of Faith- all of which argue against using coercive powers of the state to advance religious agendas.
Read More...

This week, Harvard Law School announced a new policy meant to bribe its students to choose careers in government or other forms of “public service.” Concerned over the low percentage (barely 10%) of graduates who choose to go to work as public defenders, prosecutors, or legal aid attorneys, the nation’s second-ranked law school (yeah, Yale still wins) decided to offer free third year tuition for any student who commits to five years of government or non-profit work, shunning the big bucks at the big firms. The saving in tuition fees for a full year of Harvard Law would typically amount to more than $40,000 – a tempting offer to some future legal eagles, no doubt. Elena Kagan, dean of the Law School, estimates that the new policy will likely cost Harvard some $3,000,000 a year, while providing only the intangible benefits of encouraging more “idealism” among the hard-grinding student body. 

With its legendarily lavish endowment, Harvard can certainly afford to give some third year law students a big break, and the university has every right to encourage its graduates to pursue careers deemed more valuable to society. Nevertheless, the new offer reveals one of the crucial mistakes of leftist thinking: the unquestioned (and, in some circles, unquestionable) assumption that government work is always and invariably more valuable than work in the private sector. 

Harvard obviously assumes that taking a job in some legal aid society, suing landlords or employers or polluters or some other designated “bad guys,” will benefit society more reliably than taking a job at a big firm and earning big money. But the corporate job will generate more tax revenue – and may well assist job-creating, wealth-producing businesses that help the community at large. Moreover, if a young man or woman comes out of law school and gets a well-paying job in the corporate world, that new attorney will bring himself or herself that much closer to the ability to start and support a family.  

It doesn’t take much imagination to think of government bureaucrats (at federal, state or local levels) whose work serves to impoverish people and to impede wealth creation, rather than enriching the larger community. Though it may sound like heresy to Harvard, there are government jobs that hardly deserve encouragement or subsidy. 

The instinctive assumption that students who select “public service” are better, more noble, and more worthy of reward than those who choose corporate work represents one of the false, dysfunctional values too often transmitted along with an Ivy League education. 

EC: I expect the California Supreme Court to take the case. This is an enormously important issue that certainly involves many people in California who are home schooling their children. And so I would be very surprised if the California Supreme Court doesn’t take the case.  

HH: And how do you expect they will rule, Erwin? 

EC: I think they’re going to reverse the California Court of Appeal here. I think based on the Supreme Court precedence we’re going to talk about, I think the California Supreme Court is going to say though the government has a compelling interest in making sure that children are well educated, there’s a way of achieving it that’s less restrictive of parents’ rights than completely outlawing home schooling.  

HH: John Eastman, your assessment of those two questions? 

JE: Yeah, I agree with that as well, but if the California Supreme Court doesn’t do that, I think it’s very likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would weigh in. There’s a huge federal Constitutional right that has been recognized of the parents to direct the upbringing of their children that’s implicated by this decision. And I think you could well see the U.S. Supreme Court weighing in if necessary. 

HH: Erwin Chemerinsky, what is the most important case or cases to the discussion of the issues raised in this in re Rachel? 

EC: Well, I think it’s the ones that we’ve talked about. Pierce v. the Society of Sisters, and Wisconsin v. Yoder. But there’s certainly more recent cases that more generally talk about the fundamental right of parents to control the upbringing of their children. Both of you remember Troxel v. Granville from 2000, that said a court can’t order grandparent visitation over a parent’s objections, because it violates the right of the parent to control the upbringing of the child.  

HH: John Eastman, any other cases you want to add to that list? 

JE: That’s a good list. Let’s let Erwin and I end on a point of agreement, as rare, but throughout this discussion.  

The Pacific Justice Institute is representing the charter school in the case, and you can donate to the PJI here.  Even a few bucks will help speed this decision towards reversal.

During today's debate, when Mike Huckabee said: "I had also the most, I think, impressive education record," Mitt Romney struck back by pointing out Massachusetts' test scores were superior to Arkansas scores.

But the question remains; how valid were the tests?  A Townhall staffer emails me his disturbing experience grading tests for the company that graded Massachusetts' standardized tests:

During the summer of 2005, I took a temporary job working as a test scorer, grading the English exams for fourth and eighth grade students from Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts.  Strange that, in this most recent debate, Romney mentioned how his state ranked first in both of these tests.  My experiences pertain to those tests taken during the 2004-2005 school year, but I doubt things have changed.
Read More...