'Social democracy' a dangerous idea

In response to Brian Jackson's op-ed piece ("Political sentiment is far from reason," June 2), I would like to respond as one of the chief "McCarthyites" he chastises for taking issue with the Alpine School District's mission statement, "Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy."

This is ironic. Jackson, an English professor at BYU, is defending a man (John Goodlad) who redefined the term social democracy and is apparently completely OK with that. Then Jackson ridicules parents who mentioned a definition for "social democracy" from Wikipedia. Perhaps Jackson would like these similar definitions better from Merriam-Webster's: "(1) a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means. (2) a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices."

What Goodlad openly espouses is that we should vote on not just candidates for office, but as a society we need to vote on knowledge and morals. In his atheistic view there is no God, so we as a people need to determine what truth is and what morals we should subscribe to based on their relative current value to society. This is called moral relativism.

In 1966, Goodlad wrote in the NEA Journal, "The curriculum of the future 'will be what one might call the humanistic curriculum.' " The Humanist Manifesto was written based on the Communist Manifesto, and John Dewey was one of the original signatories. The Manifesto actually declares itself a "religion" that espouses atheism and moral relativism. I wonder if Jackson would be OK if educators were given LDS, Jewish, or Muslim teachings in their professional development training? No? Then why humanism? It's simply another religion.

In 2001, Goodlad wrote in "Developing Democratic Character in the Young" that "parents do not own their children. They have no 'natural right' to control their education fully."

From "Education for Everyone: Agenda for Education in a Democracy," Goodlad says, "In the quest for learning, educators must resist the quest for certainty. If there were certainty there would be no scientific advancement. So it is with morals and patriotism." This is utterly ridiculous. If we have no certainty then how do we measure and confirm "scientific advancement?" If we have no certainty then we have no basis for measurement.