Home » News & Events » E-mail Alerts Archive » Church/State News
Thursday, February 3
CONTENTS
1. More vouchers, please
2. Inherit the Windbags
3. Work of God
4. Court voids rule shielding DCF from adoption reviews
1. More vouchers, please
By Peter Tannen
The Long Island Press
Thursday, February 3, 2005
The well meaning folks who want school vouchers may be onto a good thing.
After all, their thinking goes, why should they pay taxes for something they don’t use?
People who choose to send their kids to private or religious schools want the rest of us to help them pay their tuition – they want a tax break, or vouchers from the government.
It’s a seductive idea. But it seems that this is just the tip of the iceberg: lots of other Americans want a break, too.
In fact, pro-voucher groups are springing up like weeds all over the country. Here are just a few I’ve heard about:
“Citizens Against Highway Robbery,” a newly formed group in New York City, claims their members don’t own automobiles.
“Not a single person in this group owns a car – actually, you’d be nuts to have one in New York City. We have six million potential members in this city who only travel by subway. We don’t use highways -- so why should we have to pay a penny for building and fixing highways? It’s just a question of basic fairness.”
Citizens Against Highway Robbery wants the government to provide NYC subway vouchers – vouchers that will help them pay for fares that have risen dramatically over the last several years.
“The Veggie Voucher Committee.” This group of militant vegetarians, based in San Francisco, is angry that their taxes are being used to pay for Federal Government Meat Inspectors.
“Our members haven’t touched an ounce of meat in decades,” their brochure states. “So why in the world should we help pay for U.S. Government inspectors to inspect meat? The whole concept of eating animals is repulsive, anyway.”
With the price of organic vegetables climbing out of sight, they would like government vouchers to help them remain healthy through vegetarianism.
“Some of our lower income members are afraid that they may be forced to start eating meat again,” a spokesperson said, “which would not only affect their health, but would increase medical costs for the whole state. Keeping us healthy with Veggie Vouchers is a win-win situation.”
“Libraries R-Not-Us” has a grander goal. “Fewer and fewer Americans read books these days,” says their Chairman.
“Our group is heavy into watching cable and satellite TV – and with hundreds of channels to choose from, who needs to read a book?”
“We see millions of bucks being spent on public libraries our members never use. Our taxes go for this, and it just ain’t fair.”
“Libraries R-Not-Us” would use vouchers to help their members pay for additional high-definition TV channels.
It’s hard to disagree with all these impassioned people, and I sympathize with them.
The problem is, we’ll soon get to the point where there’s little money left for “the public good” – for public schools, or anything else that’s public, for that matter. And with less money, these public institutions will be diminished, and eventually die.
Which makes vouchers, to me, a very questionable idea. It’s downright un-American, if you think about it.
On the other hand, if the government will give me a voucher to help pay for my workouts at the gym, where I spend hours walking on the treadmill, I might reconsider.
I never walk in the parks, and don’t see why I should have to pay for them.
2. Inherit the Windbags
By Maureen Dowd
The New York Times
Thursday, February 3, 2005
Do male nipples prove evolution?
Not at all, according to a Web site for a planned Creation Museum devoted to showing that the Bible is literally true.
Nipples may be biologically de trop for men, an "expert" on the site notes, but that doesn't mean they resulted from natural selection. They could just as well be a decorating feature of the Creator's (like a hood ornament). Who are we to question His designs, since we cannot presume to comprehend His mind?
The virtual tour of the museum, to be built in rural Kentucky, says its exhibits will explain many such mysteries, like the claim that T. rex lurked around Adam and Eve - "That's the terror that Adam's sin unleashed!" - and how "Noah and his family survive 371 days alone on an animal-filled boat" ("a real 'Survivor' story").
The philosophy of the Creation Museum, part of the "Answers in Genesis" ministry, is summed up this way: "The imprint of the Creator is all around us. And the Bible's clear - heaven and earth in six 24-hour days, earth before sun, birds before lizards. Other surprises are just around the corner. Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all! God's Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There's no room for compromise."
Personally, I've decided to stop evolving. No point, really. Evolution is so 20th century.
As with Iraq, President Bush has applied his doctrine of pre-emption on evolution, cutting it off before it can pose a threat to our well-being.
Ever since he observed during his 2000 campaign that "on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth," Mr. Bush has been reeling backward as fast as he can toward the Garden of Eden, which, if creationists are to be believed, was really "Jurassic Park."
Seeing the powerful role of evangelicals in getting Mr. Bush re-elected, teachers across the country are quietly ignoring evolution, even when the subject is in their curriculums.
Many teachers take the hint on evolution even without overt pressure, Cornelia Dean wrote this week in Science Times: "Teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests."
On eBay, you can even find replicas of the stickers that a Georgia county put on science textbooks to warn that evolution is "a theory, not a fact." Talk about sticker shock.
So much for the Tree of Knowledge. Mr. Bush gives us the Ficus of Faith.
I knew the president, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich wanted to wipe out the psychedelic "if it feels good do it" post-Vietnam 60's and go back to the black-and-white 50's - a meaner "Happy Days."
They wanted to yank us back in a time machine to a place before Vietnam was lost, free love was found, Roe v. Wade was enacted; they could roll back science to smother stem cells' promise. (Since it was reported last week that all human embryonic lines approved for federally financed research are tainted with a foreign molecule from mice, the administration can't even feign an interest in scientific progress. Who'd a-thunk that science's great hope would turn out to be Arnold Schwarzenegger?)
I misunderestimated this ambitious president. His social engineering schemes in the Middle East and America are breathtakingly brazen.
He doesn't just want to dismantle the 60's. He wants to dismantle the whole century - from the Scopes trial to Social Security. He can shred one of the greatest achievements of the New Deal and then go after other big safety-net Democratic programs, reversing the prevailing philosophy of many decades that our tax and social welfare systems should equalize the distribution of wealth, just a little bit. Barry Goldwater wouldn't have had the brass to take a jackhammer to that edifice.
The White House seems to think Social Security was corrupt from the moment it was enacted in 1935. It wants to replace it with private accounts that will fatten the wallets of stockbrokers and put the savings of Americans who didn't inherit vast fortunes at risk.
Mr. Bush and his crew not only want to scrap the New Deal. By weakening environmental and safety protections and trying to flatten the progressive income tax, they're trying to eradicate not just one Roosevelt but two, going after the progressive legacy of Theodore.
With their brutal assault on history and their sanctimonious manner, they give a whole new meaning to Teddy's philosophy of the presidency. Bully pulpit, indeed.
3. Work of God
Popes should have the option of voluntary, not compulsory, retirement
London Times editorial
Thursday, February 3, 2005
The condition of the Pope seemed, thankfully, to improve yesterday. His most recent health scare and his public struggle with Parkinson’s disease among other ailments has led a number of senior cardinals to wonder whether future pontiffs should be subject to a compulsory age for retirement. They are concerned at the physical strains imposed on a Pope who attempts to maintain himself in office despite adversity and to consider the consequences of devolving power to backroom figures in these circumstances. Their interest in reform is understandable. The remedy proposed, however, is not desirable.
To move in this direction would involve a number of significant disadvantages. It would be hard to reconcile with the unique role of the pontiff, a man picked after much prayer by his peers in the College of Cardinals; this is not conventional employment subject to workplace regulation. Whatever the age chosen, a limit would be arbitrary. Some Popes in solid health would be obliged to stand down, while others who were younger but still frail could continue. It would mean that a Pope approaching the moment of his departure may be left a “lame duck” or the spiritual equivalent. This could be as destabilising for the Church as the arrangements made for an ill pontiff.
It would be better for Roman Catholics to reach back into their history for a solution. The notion of voluntary abdication is one which has deep roots in the traditions of the faith. Any doubt as to its legitimacy was silenced by a decree issued by Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), which was then incorporated into the Corpus Juris Canonici. At least four Popes have exercised that right, with a case to be made that another three in the early years of the papacy probably did so. Another, Pius VII, signed an instruction of abdication if he were imprisoned in France while en route to crown Napoleon.
The difficulty with papal abdication, in truth, lies partly with the name itself, which is taken to be akin to abandoning a position of responsibility, but also with past practice. No Pope has, so far, stood down because of physical incapacity. Benedict IX (in 1044) led a dissolute life that brought scandal on Christendom. His successor, Gregory VI, was believed to have bribed him to depart and was himself encouraged to relinquish his authority. Celestine V (in 1294) had been a hermit before his unexpected elevation and swiftly realised that prayer, not Church politics, was his passion. Gregory XII quit as part of a process of healing schisms.
These distant examples should not besmirch the noble decision that infirmity can no longer be ignored. Abdication really needs to be redefined as retirement. A further period of contemplation and reflection on Christ could be an appropriate way to end a lifetime of prayer, having left the Vatican. It is unlikely that this Pope will want to avail himself of the option, though it would be understandable and honourable if he eventually thought that his health was harming the Church. A future pontiff might come to a different conclusion. The Church would not be weaker for a voluntary retirement.
Click here to view story.
4. Court voids rule shielding DCF from adoption reviews
By Maya Bell
The Orlando Sentinel
Thursday, February 3, 2005
Foster parents hoping to adopt children in their care scored a legal victory this week when an appellate court voided a rule that forbids them, or anyone else, from challenging adoption decisions made by the state Department of Children & Families.
The agency quietly eliminated a long-established procedure for challenging adoption placements in 2003, enraging child advocates who charged that the agency acted illegally to insulate its decisions from review.
In a 13-page opinion issued Monday, the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee agreed. A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the department overstepped its authority by changing its adoption rules to bar would-be adoptive parents from filing what's known as an administrative appeal if DCF turned down their application to adopt a particular child.
A Volusia County couple, Denise and Ivar Baklid, challenged the rule after the department removed a baby boy they hoped to adopt from their home after 16 months, awarding him to a distant cousin instead.
Grief-stricken, the Baklids appealed to an administrative judge, asking her to make sure the department followed it own rules in placing the child with another family. In response, the department, citing its new rule, argued the couple was not entitled to seek such an appeal and asked that it be dismissed.
The administrative judge, Suzanne F. Hood, agreed with the Baklids' lawyers that the new rule was invalid because the department had no authority to exempt the selection of adoptive homes from administrative review. It was her decision that the appellate court upheld Monday.
A Volusia County circuit judge has since ordered the Baklids' foster child returned to them, a decision that's under appeal in state court but made their administrative appeal moot. Still, Denise Baklid expressed delight Wednesday that their battle will help protect the rights of other perspective adoptive parents.
"It is an honor to be part of history," she said. "They tried to take our constitutional right to be heard away, but now the rights of everybody to be heard are protected."
Her attorney agreed, saying the ruling also helps keep the agency in check.
"The department wanted to anoint itself God, making them the only one who can make decisions," said Richard D'Amico, a Daytona Beach lawyer. "Well, let me tell you, their decisions can be antiquated and cruel."
A spokesman for the department declined to address D'Amico's comments. Neither could she say whether the agency would appeal. But Lotta Mapp issued a statement from Alan Abramowitz, district administrator in Volusia and Flagler counties, saying the department was exploring its legal options and the implications of the opinion.
At issue was the system of administrative hearings the Legislature created in 1974 to give people "substantially affected" by a state agency's ruling the right to challenge the decision. Such challenges are heard by independent administrative judges who preside over hearings that resemble traditional trials.
Until the department overhauled its adoption rules in 2003, lawyers said, foster or custodial parents who applied to adopt a child in their care but were turned down in favor of another family could challenge the decision administratively, and routinely did so.
DCF officials argued that adoption applicants never had a right to appeal adoption decisions, and the new rule simply made that clear. Child advocates countered they always had the right.
"It's bad enough kids don't get lawyers before being removed from homes in which they've lived for years," Miami lawyer Alan Mishael said, in applauding the appeal court ruling. "But it's intolerable that DCF can place itself above the law in how it makes these decisions."
Larry Helm Spalding
ACLU Legislative Counsel
Tallahassee, Florida
"Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world.
In fact, it is the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead
