Before we begin: I am not a registered Republican, I did not vote for Donald Trump as I am a 3rd party voter and I do not watch FOX News. Therefore, I am not interested in the same old tired accusations.
Once again we have another article that is nothing more than irresponsible attempt to generalize institutions that obviously differ from Klein and Huff Post's ideology and in this case it concerns schools that benefit from vouchers. While Klein would probably deny my accusation since the author (I won't assume Klein is a "she" since a Huff Post employee might be horrified by the use of a gender identity) did admit that Huff Post researched other schools other than Evangelical Christian Schools I will show that Klein's method of presenting the material still sought to paint a general picture of all faith based schools that benefit from vouchers.
I Caught Your Bluff
If you look at the structure of the article it is more or less book ended by Klein's criticism of Evangelical Christian Schools. The middle section, which makes some mention of non-Evangelical Christian (and other religious) schools seems to be nothing more than a smoke screen and/or an attempt to appear diverse in the author's commentary while offering very little information in terms of what really goes on in these non-Evangelical Christian Schools. To quote Klein: We did not assess Catholic Schools, which made up 29 percent of Christian Schools, since there is already a large body of research on the outcomes of students who go to these schools. Now, let me explain why this statement was both irresponsible as well as convenient for Klein's agenda.
First off, anyone who works at or attends a Catholic School these days knows that some schools are Catholic in name only while others are much more orthodox. With that being said, I can assure you all that Klein would agree with most of what the Catholic Schools in name only teach their students since they reflect the views normally promoted by Huff Post and other left leaning entities. Of course that wouldn't serve Klein's article well so there was no need to share such a thing. Further, if one reviews official Catholic teaching there is no doctrine that calls for the hatred or condemnation of anyone. Let me repeat that carefully, there is no official doctrine that calls for the hatred or condemnation of anyone. That means that even if your local bishop says something disrespectful to an individual or a group of people that he is speaking on his own as a flawed human being and not offering an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. All one has to do is go to the Vatican website to access any official Church teaching because the Roman Catholic Church has never had a problem putting their official teachings in writing. In Klein's case, offering such a fact would not serve the author's purpose because the intent of this article was to disturb those who support vouchers to private schools due to the fact that they supposedly supporting some form of religious bigotry with their tax dollars. Further, if Klein did the author's homework the author would see that it's more of the teachers at the Catholic in name only Schools that can teach whatever they want than the orthodox Catholic Schools because the administrators at the in name only school won't stand up to political correctness and hold such teachers accountable for not following both the curriculum as well as what was signed in their teacher contract.
Second, Klein's unwillingness to post any data on the results of students who attend and later graduate from Catholic (and other religious) Schools was just another example of bad writing. What did we learn in school when it comes to writing a research paper or doing a class presentation: we present the data as if the person reading it or watching us knows nothing about the topic. Does Klein really think that each reader already knows the data of those who have attended Catholic Schools and/or will take the time to look up the data that has already been documented? Also, what were we told in high school and college about using anecdotal evidence? Therefore, it is not thoroughly convincing to make one's point based only on Ashley Bishop's experience but Klein and many other political activists for that matter know that what little information they provide, even if done carelessly, is all that's needed to warrant the emotional response that they are looking for.
The consequence in this case is that most readers might walk away thinking that most schools cited in this article are just like the Evangelical Christian School that Klein cited at the opening and ending of the article. How convenient. Sadly, this method works very well and the track record for success when it comes to getting one's point across in this way is without question. Take for example back when the media gave so much attention to the homophobia displayed by members of Westboro Baptist Church. It actually led many in our culture to assume that most Christians believed and acted the same as these bigots, even if other Christian Churches had documented evidence or made public statements that didn't agree with Westboro Baptist. In other words, mission accomplished!
So I ask now, is it really just an Evangelical Christian School that is guilty of brainwashing or does the media have a hand in this as well?
One other problem with Klein's supposed research is that it is so minimal that it presents Bishop's school like a chamber of brainwashing (sounds like a college, more on that later). I'm not saying that such things don't go on in some of these classrooms and I certainly would not agree with this type of teaching but Klein still failed to present all that we should know about this particular school because Ashley Bishop was not the only student to attend this particular school. For example, the left leaning Huff Post seems to be supportive of those liberal social justice warriors working in our society for the rights of those who are being mistreated and yet Klein didn't see (or chose not to report) if Bishop's school had any type of community service program, which of of course is a huge component among any type of Christian School. Or, did Klein seek out students who were peers of Bishop who might have had some positive things to say about their experience with the school along with how attending that school might have actually prepared them for success in their adult life? After all, does not the left support the idea of diversity and giving everyone a voice?
Were we misled by Klein? Did Klein purposely leave out some important data? Does Klein have a specific agenda to push a specific form of thought? If we can say yes to any of these then guess who else can be identified as a being dishonest? Exactly. The author of this article.
What is the Real World?
Let's start this next section with an inconvenient fact about the various forms of non-religious thought in the secular world: they too are all subjective! That means, they cannot be proven. They are an educated guess, a well thought opinion and in some cases, a conclusion that was a result of brainwashing. Some say that they are based on reason but the fact is that there are various methods of thought. After all, were there not famous secular philosophers who made careers out of refuting each other? How could that happen if they all used reason as the source of their thinking?
The answer is simple: there is no universal form of reason. No form of thought has ever or could ever be put through the Scientific Method and proven to be, once and for all, true. Everyone has a worldview and every worldview is subjective because even if it is based on some type of research one's personal experience also influences the way one sees the world. That means everyone is subject to some form of belief whether it's in God, the existence of aliens, if there was in fact one shooter in the Kennedy assassination or in Bigfoot. And guess what? It's okay to believe something because that is part of what makes us human.
Religious leaders are not the only ones who can use their podium to influence the masses. All it takes is an audience that believes anything one would say without question (Hillary Clinton comes to mind since no matter what mess she seems to get herself into there are those out there who simply, don't care). Take theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss who is also a committed atheist. He pontificates around the world preaching his belief in the non-existence of God and does it in a way that looks a lot like a church setting. In that I mean that he speaks to groups of people who hang on every word he says based on the credibility he has in the minds of these people while he at times speaks of God's lack of existence as fact (plenty of You Tube examples to see). For his masses, that is enough because, after all, he is Dr. Krauss. However, when he speaks officially say in his book A Universe From Nothing he actually says: I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I'd much rather live in a universe without one.
So after all of this pontificating this is the empirical statement we get from this sacred cow of the world of non-belief? However, I must offer a genuine nod to Krauss since he was willing to admit this in any type of forum. Other leaders, including religious leaders, would have too much pride to do something like that. Meanwhile, the masses are still at the command of these very special people.
And that takes us back to Klein and others like the author who have enough readers begging to be influenced by their infallible words of wisdom. So let's go ahead and address another point, which is the separation of church and state. Klein states that the separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our democracy. False! It is an idea, not a law. Such words are not even in the Constitution as the idea of what it means today is a way of interpreting The Establishment Clause. Now I am not advocating a theocracy or anything similar to that but I am curious as to why one's subjective religious beliefs are excluded from interpreting the law but other subjective beliefs are welcome to be a part of the discussion. Well the answer is simple, many have taken on the task to demonize religious beliefs so we toss those beliefs without question because that is what we have been told to do. Meanwhile, we continue to allow two dangerous and corrupt political parties to interpret our Constitution even though it says nowhere in the Constitution that it must be interpreted and implemented solely by the Democrat and Republican parties. And we want to talk about religious people alone being brainwashed?
Some might say that we exclude religious beliefs because they are superstitious and that such beliefs are are not based on reason. I find that to be really amusing because the same person who has a problem with a biblical literalist believing that Jonah was swallowed by a whale has no doubt about the things said on a biased news network by an news anchor that has been caught on more than one occasion fabricating the news. Tell me again, who has more influence on public opinion these days? And, in looking at the two examples, why is one a form of superstition and the other is not? After all, do people not in fact watch a particular news network based on the fact that they believe it to be honest and trustworthy, even when it's caught misleading the public? How is that different from a bible-thumper who believes that the bible is the very Word of God? I would argue that there is in fact more information out there to prove the bias and dishonest methods of a media entity than there are arguments against the myths of a holy book.
Okay, so maybe it is religious people who are superstitious, I'll go with that. So what word would you use to describe someone who believes FOX News, CNN, MSNBC or even Huff Post without question, even if it on a rare occasion?
Still, there are those who will tell me that I am wrong and that religious people need to get with the times and embrace our modern ways of thinking. Okay, then let's look how many of these new ideas are sent forth. Sometimes we have powerful people like George Soros spending more money than any of us could ever dream of marketing the new idea in an attempt to make sure that everyone thinks the same way he does but again, that is somehow not a form of brainwashing. Then, as the idea takes flight it is further shoved down our throats by other political activists whether they are news casters or say, college professors.
Speaking of college professors, what better way to challenge Klein's claim that private schools do not have the same accountability and transparency rules as public schools? This was the funniest part of the article because if there was ever an educational institution that lacks accountability it's most American universities. (Do we also have time to discuss how Planned Parenthood refuses in many cases to inform parents of what they are teaching our children in our tax funded public schools? Criticisms from Klein or Huff Post for this lack of transparency?)
It is no secret that tenured professors sell their political and ideological biases in the name of academic freedom. Sure, being scholars means they can share their conclusions based on years of research and if this is done properly it also challenges students to really think for themselves and come to their own conclusions in the most responsible ways. Of course a good teacher will provide a specific rubric for each student to follow and the student should get a good grade if they do all that the teacher asked of them, even if they come to a different conclusion than the teacher, right? Wrong! Some professors will be disgusted at the ignorance of such a student who would have the audacity to disagree with them because they are so brilliant and give that student the "F" that they deserve. Do Klein and Huff Post agree with such methods at institutions that are also funded with our tax dollars?
That is why so many college students are forced to conform both socially and academically to both earn good grades and to be socially accepted in most American universities. To me this sounds like oppression and it's a heavy price to pay when some kids are leaving these institutions with 5-6 figures of debt. Meanwhile, Klein and Huff Post are silent on this issue because most universities that employ this method also lean more towards the Huff Post agenda, which is why they only have a problem with faith based schools that disagree with them.
Sadly, we don't see what we are creating in our next generation of young scholars. No wonder we need safe spaces, coloring books and cancelled mid-terms when someone like Donald Trump is elected to the presidency. After all, those who should be teaching these students how to wade through the real world of messy differences of opinion (that would be their professors) are big babies themselves! Did anyone stop to think that when universities all but shut down after the election results that they were in fact displaying a political bias? News flash folks, not all college students are liberal Democrats. Some are Republicans, some might even vote third party, some don't vote at all or are those wild rebels who identify as anarchists. Imagine that! What kind of society are we creating?
From what I can see Klein and Huff Post don't really despise brainwashing. They despise brainwashing if it creates people who would dare to go against their agenda.
Conclusion
The true cornerstone of democracy is the fact that all people do not agree and are still allowed to live within that society. Snow flakes need to accept that as do religious people who disagree with another person's lifestyle. All of these people have opinions and each person should be given a voice. Sometimes we will have gridlock and when that happens, hopefully we can come some sort of compromise. But to silence people and/or to misrepresent them is not only irresponsible but also dishonest so while Klein wants to call certain people liars I invite the author to expand the author's vision on what a liar is.
Finally, if I appeared to take great exception to what I read in this article it is because I am a theology teacher at a Catholic High School and I would love for Klein to come and see me teach for a week. I would love for the author to see how I employ as many disciplines as possible when I teach my classes. For example, I use astronomy & geology to reinforce what the Gospels say about the events that occurred the moment of Jesus' death along with references to physiology and psychological studies to reinforce the Church's teaching on human sexuality. I also welcome any questions from my students regardless of what they believe. I would also welcome Klein to speak to any of my current or former students to find out the type of language and teaching methods I used in class because in my case, I use the allow me to propose rather than impose method because I respect my students as individuals. Then ask my students who disagreed with my religious views on the grades they earned on their assignments. Did they get good grades if they did all that I asked of them? I know the answer because I strongly believe in this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Then, if Klein has time to go even further, I would invite the author to speak to my former college students who had me in the Philosophy and/or Ethics classes that I taught at a small secular college. What type of hat did I wear at that school? Did they even suspect that I also worked at a Catholic School? Did I also grade them based on what I asked of them or did I mark them down for disagreeing with me?
Yes, I took exception to the presentation in this article because this narrow minded attempt to generalize schools that Huff Post would probably like to shut down failed. Finally, I am sorry to say that it appears more and more that people are seeing through the methods of such entities like Huff Post, which means that they knew of fake news long before President Trump used to word to exhaustion.
Just be honest and respectful and it's amazing how far you can go.
Carlos Arthur Solorzano
@csolorzano18
Sources
If you can read this blog then you have access to Google and none of the data I presented will be hard to find because there is already a large body of research that has been done on such topics.
