1) My friend argues that “[l]ife in America was made… safe and secure by adherence to basic conservative principles that are based in religious ideologies. There is compelling evidence that this is not true. As Brooke Allen points out in the excllent book Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers, “The eighteenth century was not an age of faith but an age of science and skepticism, and the American Founding Fathers were in its vanguard.” This is why, for instance, our founding fathers omitted any mention of God in our Constitution (I urge you to search for it). In fact, the First Amendment is a direct repudiation of the first Two Commandments. Consider: the first 2 Commandments are “You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall not make for yourself a carved image- any likeness of anything…” In direct contrast, the First Amendment expressly protects religious freedom and speech (expressive freedom). Finally, consider the words of Thomas Jefferson, who famously referred to the God of the Old Testament as a “being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.” Does this sound religious to you, Reader?

2) My friend argues that public school teachers are unwittingly helping to continue the evil design of pseudo-education in our country. I ask the Reader who might have children who have attended public schools, does this statement match your experience? Or, is it your experience that public school teachers effect a positive change in your childrens’ lives and intellects? How would my friend have us as a society teach children algebra, chemistry, and world history, for instance, as well as problem solving and critical thinking? What is his plan?

3) I ask the Reader to note the tone of the debate between my friend and me. He makes statements like “all of this is fact and inarguable,” or “proof is not needed” or “correct thinking.” I, from a more secular point of view, use phrases like “I find it” or “in my view” not to hedge, but to recognize the validity of opposing viewpoints. Which way of thinking is more intransigent, and therefore dangerous?

Despite my friend’s request (order?) that I go in peace (go away?), I will not because the spirit of Rob’s program is that all viewpoints are welcome. I (like the Founding Fathers) will remain a skeptical and questioning observer.

I’ll try to clarify. I understood your piece. I happen to disagree with the thesis. I (as a public school teacher) see no evidence that politicians and teachers are applying applying a program of pseudo-education. In contrast, I witness my colleagues in eveyr discipline challenging kids every day to think critically and problem solve at the deepest level of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Where I witness a lack of critical thinking is in religious arguments that unfortunately (in my view) permeate political arguments in extraordinarily harmful ways. In my view, policies on our war in Iraq, abortion, and gay marriage, for instance, are all influenced by religion rather than by what is harmful or beneficial to people.

As far as making preparations for our society’s problems, I make a difference in a classroom everyday on the front lines of education in an effort to better our society. As a liberal, I also happen to read conservative blogs and listen to views different from my own, and respond in an effort to promote debate. Arguing about religion, in my view, is an essential component of this debate.

Sigh, I’m glad someone called my attention to this. I’m not sure how I misled you and I’m sorry if I wrote so poorly that you got lost in it. I did not criticize our country for its lack of correct thinkers. I’m not sure how you came to think so.The entire piece was an indictment and a lamentation of how thoroughly this great nation has been undermined by self-serving politicians and their clever and well thought out use of the concept of public education. My closing remark of God being the only hope was part of a further lamentation about the unwillingness of my fellow man to get his mind right for what it will take to halt the effects of the psuedo education system, his unwillingness being yet another symptom of that system. He would much rather argue about religion than make preparations for the problems that are embodied by trying to set things right. Religion is simply another victim of the psuedo education system as your challenge demonstrated. Thanks for your assistance in helping to clarify the depth of the success of the psuedo education system.