Letters to the editor June 29
Secular values
Tim Wiley’s recent letter on public education perpetuates a fallacy regarding exposure to ideas and indoctrination. His claim is that those favoring charter and private schools wish to restrict the ideas to which their children are exposed and impair critical thinking. He is mistaken.
Most parents supporting charter and private schools do not wish to restrict the exposure of their children to ideas but rather to have that exposure occur within a moral framework based on their own values rather than a secular framework inimical to them.
All life and learning has a moral character. All education of children should and does have in some fashion a teaching of values or indoctrination if you will. Fully mature critical thinking requires complete cerebral development which does not occur until well into the third decade of life, if at all.
Critical thinking is not taught in a vacuum but upon a moral framework. Secularism is not value neutral and requires the disavowal of religious thought by definition. Imposing it in the absence of cerebral maturity has negative societal consequences, especially in a country with a dysfunctional view of individual freedom and the displacement of responsibility onto others.
Mr. Wiley fails to acknowledge this. He aptly describes his true fear which is a class of students graduating with a basis of critical thinking skills grounded in apologetics rather than secularism.
Parents are cognizant that teenagers engage in suicide, sexual activity, drug abuse, bullying, violence, crime and misuse of social media due in large part to their age-related impairment in critical thinking and not exclusively but more so in a setting of secular values.
Perhaps Mr. Wiley can reassess his position on what is best for youth education, and mental and emotional health in light of these devastating problems and come to support public funding according to parental choice.
And if that means changing the Montana Constitution, let us begin.
— Michael Boharski, Kalispell
Support the people
In 2018, less than half of the 435 representatives serving in Congress won their positions with 50% of the votes. Clearly, our traditional voting system fails to achieve majority support.
A simple alternative, ranked choice voting (RCV), has been implemented across the country. In an RCV system, voters rank candidates from first to last choice. Votes are initially counted based on the first-choice ranking. However, if no candidate wins 50% of the votes, the candidate in last place is removed, and their votes are transferred to the second-choice candidate for each ballot. This process repeats until one candidate holds 50% of the votes.
Today, I am writing to outline the benefits RCV can have for Montana.
One incredible advantage of RCV is its ability to mitigate negative campaigning and mudslinging. I’m sure we’ve all experienced the hostile advertisements that dominate political campaigns. Under RCV, candidates are encouraged to focus on highlighting their own strengths rather than tearing down their opponents, as securing higher positions on the ballot becomes important.
Still, the most significant impact of RCV is the elimination of the spoiler effect, or vote splitting. Voters often have to choose between voting for their preferred candidate and a candidate who has a realistic chance of winning. This makes it extremely difficult for third parties to achieve any real success. RCV effectively eliminates this issue by allowing voters to rank multiple candidates.
The movement for ranked choice voting is growing across Montana. It is time for the Flathead Valley to support a system that supports the people. Visit rcvmt.org and sign our petition to get RCV on the ballot. Donate to help us spread the word. Join our community of volunteers fighting for change. By adopting this innovative approach, we can foster a better political environment for all Montanans.
— Neila Lyngholm, Kalispell
Equal justice
I found the Sunday editorial cartoon insulting in its implication but true in its unintended meaning. There indeed is no equal justice because, if there were, Hunter Biden would never have been charged for what amounted to misdemeanors and are rarely ever prosecuted (according to actual prosecutors), while Trump would be sitting in jail, awaiting trial, as has every other person charged with the same offenses.
— Monica Martin, Whitefish