Foray of a Feather Snake

This conversation didn’t exactly happen, but it was close.

“Guess what I discovered: it’s unconstitutional to require evolution to be taught in school.”

“Really? How so?”

“It contradicts the Christian story of creation. That means it directly attacks a main tenet of a major religion. The government isn’t supposed to promote any particular religion. Logically, it shouldn’t be allowed to inhibit any particular religion either.”

“Right. So what does that tell you about the government’s proper role in education?”

“Wait. You believe me?”

“Sure. Why shouldn’t I? You were serious, right?”

“...no. I was being silly.”

“You took two fairly evident and easily-defensible facts, drew a completely logical conclusion from them, and you say you’re not serious? How do you even do that? Why would you do that?”

“You understand politics. I don’t. I put an absurd notion forward so you’d tell me the simple, obvious factor I overlooked.”

“I don’t think you overlooked anything. Your reasoning seems sound. What do you think the error is?”

“It’s got to be something. The Supreme Court says it’s illegal for states to outlaw teaching evolution. Forbidding that subject favors Christianity.”

“First, you didn’t answer my question. I asked you to identify the flaw in your logic, not guess whether there is a flaw — and ‘a bunch of old white guys who went to fancy schools disagree with me’ is not a valid response to either of those anyway. Second, you see the conundrum. If government forbids teaching evolution, they favor a particular religion, and if they mandate teaching it, they disfavor a particular religion. Their only legal move is to do neither.”

“That’s crazy! If you go by that reasoning, there can’t be any government education requirements at all, in any subject, since they might teach something that contradicts some religious teaching.”

“Correct.”

“You are serious.”

“Absolutely. The federal government of the United States has no business forcibly educating any of its citizens that all or even part of his or her faith is false. Period. It’s that simple.”

“But the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming.”

“That’s utterly irrelevant. This isn’t about what theories are sound. It’s about what the government may force people to do.”

“So if my religion requires human sacrifice, I can just kill anyone I want? I mean, hey, the government can’t oppress me!”

“Oh come on. You know the answer to that. This is a case of conflicting rights. Your right to practice your religion loses priority to my right not to be murdered. You couldn’t legally sacrifice me unless I volunteered. But it’s an invalid analogy. There is no right to education in the U.S.’s highest legal documents. Now lift yourself out of grade school and give me a counterpoint that you don’t already know will fail.”

“Okay.... Widespread, quality education is necessary for the general welfare of the country, and the government is required to protect that.”

“Gah. The ‘general welfare’ clause is an ill-defined briar patch and always has been. It’s been used to justify almost all losses of freedom Americans have suffered.”

“So you don’t think education is crucial to a country’s very existence?”

“Oh, I do! It’s absolutely vital. But federal involvement and central control have made education worse, not better, and cost taxpayers billions in the process. The U.S. was globally competitive on the academic front for most of its existence, including the whole time before education became federally regulated and mandated. The current system is more concerned with keeping those billions of dollars flowing into it than with teaching. You’re getting worse education overall (and less religious freedom, as you yourself pointed out) than if Washington did nothing.”

“I said I wasn’t serious.”

“Uh-huh.”