Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists. The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.
He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana. For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student. The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs. The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.
Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design. Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.
Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.
Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding. To a degree, they have. The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes. People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding. If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.
To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding. Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church. What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.
Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion. While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it.
Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment. Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state. (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities. Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property. Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.
Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches. The more obvious roles include welfare and charity. A less obvious role is education.
While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent. This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.
In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.
Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis.
A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to. A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to. Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to. The government has no business telling people what they need to learn. Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.
Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references. These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.
Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives. While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?
If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.
