I vote "slippery slope" for the following reasons:

a) Dominionists, by and large, already have legal alternatives (namely, dominionist-operated school systems including "homeschool" correspondence schools that are in most states totally exempt from any sort of certification or even testing; some curricula and programs even actively advertise proudly that they are unaccredited).

The educational requirements as is are so minimal that state university systems have started rejecting students because the students simply cannot hack it with the indoctrination they've had, and even the US Military itself has correspondence-school students on a lower recruitment tier than public school systems because the students even do poorly in the military (with the possible exception of chaplaincy, which is actively encouraged).

b) If anything is true about dominionism (and trust me, this is coming from a former dominionist who woke up and smelled the coffee), if one gives dominionist groups an inch not only will they take a mile, but the whole damned country if allowed.  (In dominionist circles it is expressly noted at points that the death of democracy they have planned IS a "death of a thousand cuts"--because "the Satanic forces will never allow us to take dominion all at once".)

c) This is a "stealth" campaign to eventually remove required curricula that are non-dominionist-friendly altogether (after finding out that first creationism, then creation science, and now "intelligent design" will not pass constitutional muster).

If they want to opt out, they can pull their kids out of public schools--there's nothing stopping them on that.  Just don't complain when your kid can't get into anything but a religious seminary or a "God-warrior" madrassa college like Patrick Henry or Whitefield College (which is a dominionist college that the CLASS curriculum affiliates with that is also unaccredited and offers at-home college courses--it's an at-home "God-warrior" college that is also a diploma mill) or Liberty University. :3  

(As an aside, many dominionists rearing up their "quiverfull o' future God Warriors" are actually sending their kids to public colleges in order to essentially force those colleges to adopt dominionist-friendly curricula--much as they're doing in schools with the whole "Intelligent Design" thing, exemptions from required curricula, etc.)

by dogemperor on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 02:23:38 PM EST

In conceiving the new right movement, Richard Viguerie and other strategists planned to base the movement in a cultural core that was radically separate from mainstream American culture and which would constitute an unassailable power base: think of the Communist Red Army's "Long March", under Mao, to Yunan. "Entirely destructive and entirely constructive" was the American new right's motto, and the idea was to destroy existing cultural institutions ( such as public schooling ) while building parallel institutions that would eventually supplant those cultural institutions which had been succesfully demolished.

In other words, I'm suggesting that "Slippery slope, or reasonable concession" amounts to a false dichotomy :

What would "reasonable concessions" to parents who want to teach their children premises at odds with basic science or who teach their kids that mainstream society amounts to an evil force to be conquered or destroyed amount to ?


by Bruce Wilson on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 06:01:25 PM EST

The issue is not whether religion is being inhibited in a religion class. The issue is whether science is being inhibited in a science class. Judge Jones's decision prohibited a religiously-motivated requirement that would force science teachers in public schools to present a particular religious notion in a science class. Keeping a science curriculum free from religious doctrine does not in any way inhibit religion. On the contrary, forcing science teachers to present a sectarian religious doctrine would inhibit the ability of public school students to learn science.

by jhutson on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:29:25 PM EST