Our system of "higher education" is turning out too many left-wing journalists and America-haters. These institutions of "higher learning" are hurting our war effort. Plus. who wants to send one's children to universities where conservative views are stifled and 99% of the professors hate America?
We need someone to start new,nondenominational universities that will hire conservative professors who do not hate America. We must break the liberal monopoly on universities by starting new institutions, just as Fox broke the liberal monopoly on cable news by launching a new network. Universities are vitally important because they influence so many people, including the individuals who will become reporters and editors.

 

Perhaps the Bush administration could learn something by studying the history of the only Muslim country in the world that has truly become a successful partner in the Western family of nations.Turkey, bridging Europe and the Middle East, has fully renounced Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Its government and the vast majority of its citizens are uninfected by the mental illness of Islamofascism.

Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 by Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, a general who successfully won full independence for his country after it was defeated in World War I and occupied by the Allies. Unlike President Bush, Attaturk was smart enough to realize that his country’s top priority was not achieving democracy and freedom, but the need to develop a strong economy and rid itself of Islamic fundamentalism. Attaturk reasoned that Turkey would never become a modern, successful country if it continued to be dominated by Islamic fundamentalism, which did not (and does not) promote or value economic productivity or secular education.

The Turkish president also realized that he could never abolish Islamic fundamentalism through democratic means. A majority of people would never agree to vanquish the ideology with which they had been infused since birth.

So Attaturk created a dictatorship, and enforced his decrees by force. He abolished the position of caliph, a religious figure that had previously exercised political power over the country, and took many measures to separate mosque from state. He also empowered the army to crush all opposition to his dictates, and ordered mass executions of rebels. Many rebels were quickly tried by judges that were loyal to Attaturk and his program.

More than 80 years later, Turkey has its problems in many spheres of life, but its economy, political structure, and overall society are by far the most advanced of any Muslim country, and it is a staunch, anti-terrorist ally of the West.

The lessons for modern-day Iraq are obvious. Emphasizing “freedom” and democracy in Iraq will only keep the religious fundamentalists in power. Freedom and democracy will continue to enable Iranians, Baathists, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic fundamentalists to continue fomenting terrorism and sectarian violence, making the Iraqi people slaves to chaos and mass murder. In this environment, freedom is only an illusion.

Before it is too late, the US needs to find a modern Iraqi Attaturk, a dictator who realizes that his country must forcefully stamp out religious fundamentalism in order to achieve any semblance of stability and prosperity. Of course, like Attaturk, this dictator must want the Iraqi economy to be modernized and his people to prosper. He must be pro-Western and pro-American, and he must be a US ally in the War on Terror. Embracing such a strong leader would allow us to withdraw our troops in the near future.

After Islamic fundamentalism and the forces of Islamofascism are wiped out in Iraq, the country can gradually become democratic. But until these goals are accomplished, freedom, democracy, and leniency will just produce chaos, death, and violence.

After all of the administration’s talk about the need for freedom and democracy in Iraq, it is probably too late for the US to overtly embrace a benevolent dictator in the mold of Attaturk. But that does not mean we cannot covertly find and support such a leader.

Most people have heard the arguments about why school choice is an excellent idea that will improve our education system and empower parents to decide how their children will be educated. And in 2002, the US Supreme Court finally ruled that providing school vouchers to parents for use in religious schools can, under certain circumstances, be constitutional.

However, a convincing argument can be made that the Supreme Court did not go nearly far enough in its 2002 ruling. Based on a 1963 US Supreme Court decision, contemporary events in our school system, and the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution it seems clear that the government must provide equal funding to parents who want to send their children to religious schools of their choosing.

In a 1963 decision, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania public school district to read Bible verses to students each day. However, the court’s majority noted that the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion does not only apply to traditional religions, but to secularism as well.

It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism”: in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

So a majority of the Court has recognized that there is such a thing as a “religion of secularism.” It further ruled that government cannot establish a religion of secularism that “shows hostility to religion.”

Unfortunately, since 1963 public schools throughout the nation have embraced a system of morality and ideas that have become, in many ways, a religion of secularism which is hostile to other religions, including Christianity and Judaism. By systematically promoting ideas such as moral relativism and the equality of homosexuality and traditional heterosexual marriages, public schools have systematically adopted a secularist religion that is anathema to other religions.

In a May 2006 article published on WorldNetDaily, Dr. Bruce Shortt writes that public schools are teaching students that there is really no such thing as universal morality. Many schools have incorporated a philosophy called “non-directive moral education” into their courses, he writes. This system of thought “indoctrinates children with the view that all moral values are purely subjective and that none are transcendent and universally applicable,” Shortt explains. Of course, this philosophy is totally antithetical to the core values of Judaism and Christianity. The basis of these religions is that there is a universal system of ethics, and a right and wrong way for people to conduct their lives.

We saw this system of moral relativism in our public schools at work in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead of condemning the attacks and terrorism in general as morally perverted, public school educators focused on the need for tolerance and understanding. For example, the National Educational Association (NEA), one of the largest teachers’ unions, suggested that educators focus on messages such as "violence and hate are never solutions to anger," and "groups of people should not be judged by the actions of a few.” The NEA exhorts teachers to prevent their students from blaming any group for the attacks. Incredibly, one NEA official even cited "a big need for materials that help explain terrorists' motivations.”

Public schools have also developed a systematic hostility to traditional religions’ teachings on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Whereas all Western traditional religions urge abstinence before marriage and condemn homosexuality, almost all public school districts today strongly suggest that both premarital sex and homosexuality are perfectly acceptable. With public schools’ systematic emphasis on moral relativism and endorsement of sexual practices that are anathema to traditional religions, there can be little doubt that government-run schools have adopted a “religion of secularism” that is hostile to traditional religions.

There are two ways to remedy this illegal situation. Parents, activists, and others can attempt to force school districts and educators to refrain from preaching their religion of moral relativism and secularism in the public schools. Unfortunately, this solution is probably impractical. Years of expensive litigation in dozens of districts would be needed, and there is a real question as to whether the government could effectively force educators to rein in their preaching. Meanwhile, the First Amendment rights of many public school students and their parents would continue to be violated, as long as the government’s secular religion continues to reign supreme in public schools.

The Fourteenth Amendment rights of these parents and students would also be violated. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from “deny(ing) to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By funding schools that teach the religion of secularism and refusing to support schools that teach other religions, states and cities are discriminating against parents who want their children to learn traditional religious values. This is a serious violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The easiest and most efficient way to remedy these infringements of the Constitution is to immediately create a comprehensive voucher system. Such a system would provide equal support to students of all religions, and prevent the government from forcing youngsters to be indoctrinated in a “religion of secularism” expressly prohibited by the US Supreme Court in 1963.