LETTERS.

Heritage Foundation Says Public Schools Are Failing

Church & State has done its readers a disservice by mischaracterizing the school choice article by Adam Meyerson from the January/February issue of Policy Review ("America's Public School System: Is It An 'Evil Empire'?," February Church & State). You apparently chose to demagogue Meyerson because you cannot rebut his main point: School choice deserves to be tried because the public school system is failing our children.

If, as you claim, "public education is America's greatest success story," why are 57 percent of fourth-graders unable to read? How can the fact that the United States ranks near the bottom in math and science among industrialized nations even remotely be considered a "success"? And if school choice is "a threat to the very core of the American way of life," why are more and more educators and state legislators finally admitting it's time to give school choice a try?

Paul Gallagher 

Senior Writer The Heritage Foundation

Editor's Note: Church & State contacted Dr. David C. Berliner, coauthor of the book The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud and the Attack on America's Public Schools and asked him to respond to Paul Gallagher's letter. Berliner says Gallagher's assertion that 57 percent of American fourth-graders cannot read is "nonsense" and adds, "1 do not believe there is any data whatsoever that would say that 57 percent of fourth graders are unable to read."

According to Berliner, Gallagher's claim that U.S. students rank near the bottom in math and science in international comparisons "is not true." In fact, Berliner says, the latest comparison shows U.S. fourth graders above the international average in math and science; eighth graders were above average in science and a little below in math.

Christian Reconstructionists: Big Fans Of Democracy?

I would like to comment on your critique of the article by the "Pennsylvania Preacher" appearing in the January 1999 edition of Chalcedon Report ("Spare The Rock, Spoil The Child, Says Reconstructionist," People & Events, March Church & State).

With all due respect, the author did not do his homework. Neither the Chalcedon Foundation nor any of its authors is against "democracy" and it is poor reporting at best, and slanderous at worst, to say that they are. To say that Chalcedon is "against" democracy is to imply the Foundation encourages some sort of tyrannical, religious dictatorship. To the contrary, every edition of the Chalcedon Report on the inside front cover carries this statement, "A guiding principle of Chalcedon ... is its devotion to maximum individual freedom under God's law."

Furthermore, from that same Chalcedon vision statement comes this important distinction; "We believe that the source of godly change is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not revolution by the violence of men.... No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God's sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed, it must be embraced."

Hence the means of social change, according to Chalcedon, is through men coming to saving faith in Christ and then voluntarily ordering every area of lite to His law. Such men will democratically elect people who share their views, values and beliefs and democratically establish a Christian nation.

Critique us certainly. But at least critique us for what we really believe and not the imaginations of someone too lazy to read the inside front cover of the magazine.

Brian M. Abshire

Modesto, Calif.

Editor's Note: Rousas J. Rushdoony, the dean of Christian Reconstructionism and founder of the Chalcedon Foundation, has written, "Christianity is completely and radically anti-democratic; it is committed to a spiritual aristocracy." Rushdoony has also called democracy the "great love of the failures and cowards of life." Gary North, another prominent Reconstructionist, has stated, "The modern world has been threatened by the rise of mass democracy, the politics of one man, one vote." We at Church & State are not comforted to hear that the Reconstructionists will wait until they have the support of 51 percent of the population before they start executing blasphemers, "unchaste" people, homosexuals, "witches" and worshippers of "false gods."

The Aequus Institute And Christian Science 

In the article, "Doubting Thomas" (March 1999 Church & State), we appreciated the reference to The Christian Science Monitor's recognition of the importance to religious faiths in this nation of the "wall of separation." However, a point that needs clarification is the implication that the Aequus Institute is affiliated with The First Church of Christ, Scientist. The fact is that this institute is not an activity of the Church. Therefore, Aequus' support of other institutions, including its financial contributions, should not in any way be construed as representing the Church's standpoint.

Gary A. Jones, Manager Christian Science Committees on Publication

Boston, Mass.

Church & State welcomes letters to the editor. Although not all correspondence can be published, readers' opinions are appreciated. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all letters for brevity and clarity.