Letters and Comments

My limited reading of history tells me that the "separation of church and state" is meant to refer to using state power (i.e. laws) to influence/favor particular religious beliefs ["Obama's Notre Dame Speech Was an Alarming Violation of Church-State Separation," usnews.com]. Did President Obama pass some new law during his speech? Did he use the coercive force of the executive branch? Did I miss something or is the author of this article implying that to simply speak about religion is a violation? If this is his definition of violating church/state, then it is one that the Bush administration broke many times. Didn't President Bush say that it was our moral/religious duty to help the less fortunate in Africa? I guess that was a violation of church/state?

Comment by C. Roberts of CA

As a pro-life Catholic conservative, I found Mr. Obama's speech to be tolerable, for the most part I would definitely have gone, if given the opportunity or if he were my commencement speaker. I just wouldn't clap when he said something overtly political that I disagreed with. I'm fine with his message of "seeking common ground" but am anxiously waiting for him to allow for freedom of conscience protections on the abortion issue, to shift the conversation toward discouraging and regulating abortion, and being a better "seeker of common ground" on budgetary and economic issues. So far, he hasn't done so well.

Comment by Joe C. of VA

Continue reading »

As a prospective new math teacher, I believe our educational systems needs national standards and testing that create three distinct levels of achievement: college prep, vocational prep, and special needs prep ["Should All States Meet the Same Education Standards?" usnews.com]. The special needs prep certainly would be the most political divisive, but ultimately these students need their own guidelines and standards that should include more state control versus the vocational and college prep tracks. Moreover, the special needs prep standards should reflect realistic and measurable standards based on each type of learning disability. And most importantly, special needs funding needs to be sufficiently funded to ensure these students' learning needs including sufficient mainstreaming that produces a well-rounded special needs student.

Comment by Jay of GA

How can any group in Washington design a set of education standards that will apply to the culture of inner-city Chicago, suburban Los Angeles, multi-lingual San Francisco, etc. Each culture is distinct, has unique problems to overcome, and presents unique challenges to teachers and administrators. Is any thought being given to helping local school districts, their governing boards, and their front-line staff develop standards, strategies, and tools for meeting their own challenges, in their own time, within their own budgets? What we have now are standards being developed by people who are not familiar with local conditions, do not work under local constraints, and do not have to answer to local constituencies.

Comment by Art Simmons of MO

Continue reading »

James Dobson is exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party ["James Dobson's Political Surrender," usnews.com]. Every faction of the party worries about one or two issues and nothing else matters. With Dobson and the other Bible thumpers, it's anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, with Cheney it's national security, with the rich folks it's tax cuts, all of which are divisive for the party because they don't mesh well. You can't spend more on national security without raising taxes, and you can't govern based on a piece of religious literature. As soon as the Republicans figure out how to get past their own personal views and focus on what's best for all, even if it means making concessions to your own views, everyone will be better off.

Comment by Michael of CT

Continue reading »

The bar has been set pretty low for what is acceptable in America these days ["GOP Strategists to Cheney: Enough, Already," usnews.com]. If simulating death by drowning (waterboarding) is not torture, then I would hate to hear what Cheney and others consider to be torture. Seriously, effectiveness or the number of times the method was used aside, can a rational person say that the ends (information in this case) can justify the means (torture-enhanced interrogation)? That is a slippery road that doesn't end well for anyone. As a Republican, I'm afraid the United States is not done paying for the decisions and actions of the Bush/Cheney years.

Comment by Jeff of NC

I was a Democrat and followed the talking points until I realized that Dick Cheney has no motives to say what he believes except for his principles and beliefs. He and President Bush, whom I didn't vote for, kept us safe from terrorist attacks for almost eight years. I hope Obama can do this as well, but I am not sure. He did stop the release of the detainee photos, which was a good start. I hope Mr. Cheney keeps voicing his concerns so we can have a viewpoint that contrasts what we hear every day from the White House.

Comment by Andrea Fox of PA

Continue reading »