Religious Understanding Must Exist Outside Relgious Practice

Concerning an article published last Saturday in the American Statesman, our friend Jenny Tran wrote strongly against Texas public school districts being required to offer a course on literature and the history of the Bible. The course was created by a law in 2007 and now falls into requirement. I think the main point of confusion for Jenny is that students will not be required take the course in their standard curriculum, and schools will not even be required to teach the course. That is to say, the district must offer the course as a possible elective - if the schools want it - and students may elect to take it.

I find it interesting, personally, that such a class would be created by law. Then again, I'm not completely sure about how a school curriculum is set up.

I can understand the argument made in the Statesman article that world religions are already covered in history and geography courses. In fact, it surprises me that no point is made of having the ability already to tie the Bible into literature in English classes. My own English classes did exactly this.

But I am surprised at the strong opposition. I suppose it may stem from fear of religious fanatics pushing their agenda, but the article refutes that thought:

"I first thought it would be devout kids who just wanted more Bible," Stratton said.

But the students want to take the course because they have an intellectual curiosity and understanding that the Bible is important to grasping literature, history and culture, said Gillory, an English and creative writing teacher at The Woodlands College Park High School.

We see that more often, children are eager to learn ways that their core classes are threaded together, and this class does just that.

As far as not being able to really teach literature and history without the Bible, I must also disagree with Jenny. By selectively deleting motivations and allusions in history and literature, you will lack full understanding of a subject. If you blindly ignore religious influences relevant to these courses, you are failing to consider and understand the concept, and understanding is what we all must strive for, especially when such contentious issues are at hand. Western society is riddled with the influence of Christianity, both in its structure and history; you don't have to be Christian to understand it.

I would say that if there is a demand for the class, why shouldn't it be offered?

One Good War Deserves Another

Yochi Dreazen and Peter Spiegel have posted a foreboding article in the Washington Post today: according to US General Stanley McChrystal, the Taliban have gained the upper hand in Afghanistan. What does this mean to the United States? A troop increase, of course - at least that's the suggestion. It looks like as the involvement in Iraq ramps down, involvement in Afghanistan with ramp up.
Our troops stand to face almost the same problem with this foretold troop surge: an elusive guerrilla enemy. Around 45 soldiers died last month in Afghanistan, and already this month we have lost 12. Often the cause of these deaths can be attributed to roadside bombs, random village encounters, and militants with rockets. How are we to ever control an enemy that attacks mostly in small numbers and sets up shadow governments that we have little to no information on?
My estimate: it is doubtful we can. We have set out to fight a war on terror, a war that sets out in vain to eliminate a concept. Not only are $4 billion dollars of taxpayer money going to the war in Afghanistan every month, but they are funneling into the most pompous of motivations. This, not the fact that we are "losing," is what I find to be foreboding.
The United States thinks quite highly of itself, deigning to clean up the government in Iraq by instituting for them a democracy. Continuing Cold War ideals of making sure our hand is guiding any unstable pocket of the world remains an important tenet of the collective government mind, and this hubris is the reason for much militant opposition to America today.
I don't remark that pulling our troops out will do Afghanistan any good, maybe the opposite, but we never belonged there in such great numbers in the first place. To find terrorists, you need special teams, not extensive armies. We were there to find first and foremost Osama Bin Laden, and we have failed to do this. If' he is the tactical mastermind that the government makes him out to be, he probably isn't hanging around the country where we'll have 68,000 troops by year's end.
I know the argument is that if we pull out our troops we'll seem to have been defeated rather than as acknowledging that the effort was ill-founded to begin with. The Taliban will gloat that America could not defeat them. They will have their words, but that is all. They will not have actually weakened us but in frustration at ourselves. If the influence of the Taliban increases, we have secret services that can take the missions as we have in the past, but we need not ramp up the Afghanistan war and sacrifice American lives perpetually for a symbolic war.

On Adapting the French Healthcare Model

Last Thursday, our friend Mediana wrote a blog entitled "Our Health Care and Our Country" about a potential health care reform proposal that she agrees with. That is, in a nutshell: some major European countries survive as world powers providing only free healthcare and no insurance, why shouldn't the US do the same?
Well, saying that the French do not have health insurance is untrue, but her overall idea still rings true. French health care is provided by the government and does not include extensive waitlists like those distastefully found in the Canadian system. In fact, according to Paul Dutton, the World Health Organization ranked France as #1 in healthcare in 2001, with the United States at #37.
The way Dutton paints it, French insurers aren't "out to get" their clients, the way Mediana makes it seem American insurers are. I understand generally that American insurance companies in general do "everything to deny a claim," as she says, but I do wish that she would provide a case in point. Otherwise it is hard to completely side with her.
Another point to address is that France pays a considerable $3,500 per capita to provide for their healthcare, and their taxes to help cover healthcare are rising. Compared to the US, however, which pays $6,100 per capita, France's price is almost a pittance.
Applying this in reality, we must take into account that the United States has about five times as many people as France and covers at least fifteen times more land. Our girth is a considerable factor in the strength of centralized enforcement of programs. That is, we may not be as apt to quickly spread these healthcare reforms as France was and would be.
Yet another unaddressed point is why American insurance companies are the major issue concerning health care. America's capitalism is its pride, and its economy is the best in the world. This is precisely because of the tenacity of business, for better or for worse. American insurance companies are going to be accommodated to some extent, at the very least they will not be completely abolished.
The same goes for changing healthcare policy in America. Many accommodations will have to be made for voters to side with any healthcare reform. No change so dire as complete government control or free healthcare will go over easily, much less a complete drop of an economic institution like insurance.