Radical right-wing ideas poluting public education

[Jamisjockey]

Democrats in Texas are howling because......I say good job, Texans.  More than that, I'm bemused that the opposition considers these things to be far right fringe radicalism.  If they think these ideas are extreme, I can't imagine how they'd react if they ever encountered some real far right extremism.

Its a play from the left wing rule book.  When you don't get your way, scream, shout, and throw a tantrum that would embarass your average 4 year old. 

[MicroBalrog]

The truth is, the Left fears actual right-wing extremism more than anything. They want to exist in a universe where the only opposition they face are moderates – so that nobody challenges the actual existence of their system. People who want to abolish their welfare state altogether – whether to replace it with a libertarian, conservative, or other system – they hate and fear. This is why for them the worst accusation is 'extremist'. An extremist is a man who wants to abolish the system and replace it with something else entirely – his 'extreme' solution.

The liberals in this sense are the most conservative of all factions -they're like the 18th century French nobility whining about those pesky revolutionaries.

[Ned Hamford]

The liberals in this sense are the most conservative of all factions -they're like the 18th century French nobility whining about those pesky revolutionaries.

Well they are revolting 

[tyme]

On teaching religion, this is a symptom of the problem.  Hitchins is and always has been a clown.  Dawkins has clownish tendencies.  Why they would be picked to represent atheism when basically every giant of modern philosophy embraced atheism is telling as to the intellectual rigor of the public system: why on earth would you teach Dawkins on atheism when you could have your pick of Sartre, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein etc?

Why would I pick them?  For at least two reasons: first, good luck getting a high school student to read most of those other authors (except maybe Russell); second, the modern debate about religion has shifted and is no longer primarily about atheist philosophy vs religious philosophy, but instead is primarily concerned with the scientific and logical basis, or lack thereof, for concluding that a God or a particular God exists, or probably exists, or might exist.  Where past philosophical greats can contribute to such discussion, and there are plenty of areas where they can, they are readily invoked and cited.

And if you look at Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, he was very much not a clown by any definition at that point.  If anything it is the continuous stream of religious dogma floating his way that has shaped his current style of presentation.

Other than asking you to define "clownish tendencies", I can't do much but say that I do not think we agree on whether Dawkins, Hitchens are clowns, and I'm sure high school students would have differing reactions to them that do not match either of our impressions.

[SteveS]

This blogger references some of the discussion that occurred in the Board meetings:  http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/texas_boe_removes_jefferson_fr.php

What a mess.

[mellestad]

KZYN news reporting on a breaking story:  Partisan groups influence curriculum in favor of own beliefs.  Both idealogical groups were heard shouting the identical slogan, "But it isn't wrong when we do it because we're right and those other people are totally wrong!", more at 11!

Most of it I can see the argument for, but removing Jefferson and Paine and putting Aquinas in?  Yuck.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

KZYN news reporting on a breaking story:  Partisan groups influence curriculum in favor of own beliefs.  Both idealogical groups were heard shouting the identical slogan, "But it isn't wrong when we do it because we're right and those other people are totally wrong!", more at 11!

Most of it I can see the argument for, but removing Jefferson and Paine and putting Aquinas in?  Yuck.

It's a sad state of affairs when trying to do the right thing amounts to partisanship, no?

[De Selby]

Other than asking you to define "clownish tendencies", I can't do much but say that I do not think we agree on whether Dawkins, Hitchens are clowns, and I'm sure high school students would have differing reactions to them that do not match either of our impressions.

This is a good point, but the reader's digest version is usually what goes in high schools - even for pop authors like hitchens.  So it could be done with real arguments, instead of say, pop arguments, which are rarely as well developed.

Dawkins displays much more intellectual rigor than Hitchens, but I say "clownish tendencies" based primarily on "The God Delusion", wherein he picked random internet postings and other "serious" material to shoot down as his opponent in the debate.  It was ridiculous.

Hitchens....man, that screed on Mother Theresa was embarrassing.  His shift from being a radical leftist to a Bush neo-con wasn't exactly riddled with great insights either.

[MechAg94]

I believe I have heard one of those two interviewed on the radio and he seemed more anti-religion/Christianity than pro-atheist.  He was a good talker but a bit superficial as I remember.  I figure he was pretty good at influencing younger people who know little about their religion. 

[roo_ster]

I've got a soft spot for Hitchens.

Dude may be a misanthropic, trotskyite, anti-Christian,  drunk who picks on little old ladies from Calcutta, but he'll always have my respect for defacing Hezboallah propaganda signs in Hezboallah-controlled Lebanon and getting his *expletive deleted*ss kicked by Hez thugs in return.

Gotta respect that.

OTOH, his anti-theism is a bit clownish, as is that of the other two (Dawkins & Harris). 

"Clownish" is accurate in that they do not reconcile what science has to tell us about belief with their aims & arguments.  For folk who espouse a viewpoint based on materialism and scientism, that is a problem.

Also, they can play the atheist card all they want.  But, if they then go around touting voodoo or some such unprovable non-materialist notions, I am not going to take their arguments all that seriously any more than I would take seriously the theology of a preacher who snorts meth off the backside of a gay male prostitute*.






* I'd like to see a cage match between Ted Haggard & Sam Harris to see just who presents the more pitiful case.  It could serve as a warning to all compromised mediocrities.

[darius]

It may be technically incorrect to say we are a democracy but the principle of majority rule is still being used.  Isn't that a democratic concept?

Does democracy imply mob rule to some people?
l

[mellestad]

I've got a soft spot for Hitchens.

Dude may be a misanthropic, trotskyite, anti-Christian,  drunk who picks on little old ladies from Calcutta, but he'll always have my respect for defacing Hezboallah propaganda signs in Hezboallah-controlled Lebanon and getting his *expletive deleted*ss kicked by Hez thugs in return.

Gotta respect that.

OTOH, his anti-theism is a bit clownish, as is that of the other two (Dawkins & Harris). 

"Clownish" is accurate in that they do not reconcile what science has to tell us about belief with their aims & arguments.  For folk who espouse a viewpoint based on materialism and scientism, that is a problem.

Also, they can play the atheist card all they want.  But, if they then go around touting voodoo or some such unprovable non-materialist notions, I am not going to take their arguments all that seriously any more than I would take seriously the theology of a preacher who snorts meth off the backside of a gay male prostitute*.






* I'd like to see a cage match between Ted Haggard & Sam Harris to see just who presents the more pitiful case.  It could serve as a warning to all compromised mediocrities.

You should start a new thread so we can discuss their clownish arguments :)

[Ned Hamford]

It may be technically incorrect to say we are a democracy but the principle of majority rule is still being used.  Isn't that a democratic concept?

The difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is far from a technical one.  My favorite example of this comparison is the lynch mob vs legal process.  Lynch mob, doesn't get more democratic than that.  As for the rule of law, from the fair trial you will need the 12 juror vote and even a guilty verdict can be overturned by the court if not wholly honoring the rights of the accused.  I think most people accept the idea that there are rights that even a super majority shouldn't be able to deprive someone of.

Does democracy imply mob rule to some people?

Just anyone who knows what the word means.  You can hedge it with constitutional protections, but then you aren't talking about a pure democracy anymore. 

Going back to the philosophical arguments of the the ancient Greeks,  a democracy was viewed as the worst possible form of government.  The bread an circuses fault of democracy is largely credited with the fall of the Roman Empire. 

The American system isn't one of pure democracy, but rather of simple directed input. 

[Fjolnirsson]

Functionally, public education is just as much a right as free speech is. 

Wait, seriously? Free speech requires that one open their mouth and voice an opinion, or write something down, both actions completely performable by one human being, absent interference or assistance from any other human. It doesn't infringe on anyone, or oblige anyone to do anything.

Public education requires that someone provide that education. Now, unless you have a secret society of pro bono teachers in your pocket, that means someone has to pay the teachers in public education. Meaning it comes out of my gorram pocket via taxes.

A right does not inherently involve action on any other beings part beyond staying out of the way and allowing that right to happen. Right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to worship as we choose, those are "rights". Public education is NOT a right. I would agree that everyone has the right to seek knowledge to the limit of their abilities and influence.

As for the change in curriculum, I see it mostly as a reversal of the crap they've taught in public schools for years, and thus a good thing, were it not for the exclusion of Thomas Jefferson. I don't care if he buggered bunnies out behind the woodshed, or worshipped Satan, he is one of our Founders, and kids should be learning about him. If we have to have public schools, that is.

[Perd Hapley]

It may be technically incorrect to say we are a democracy but the principle of majority rule is still being used.  Isn't that a democratic concept?

Yes.  But thank goodness our system is more complicated than simple, pure democracy.  We owe much of our freedom to things that moderate the extremes of democracy, such as our Bill of Rights. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wait, seriously? Free speech requires that one open their mouth and voice an opinion, or write something down, both actions completely performable by one human being, absent interference or assistance from any other human. It doesn't infringe on anyone, or oblige anyone to do anything.

Public education requires that someone provide that education. Now, unless you have a secret society of pro bono teachers in your pocket, that means someone has to pay the teachers in public education. Meaning it comes out of my gorram pocket via taxes.

A right does not inherently involve action on any other beings part beyond staying out of the way and allowing that right to happen. Right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to worship as we choose, those are "rights". Public education is NOT a right. I would agree that everyone has the right to seek knowledge to the limit of their abilities and influence.

For better or worse, my "home" state is constitutionally required to fund a public education system, and students of appropriate age have a right (perhaps even a legal obligation) to attend those schools without tuition.  Alas, your gorram wallet isn't granted constitutional protection from funding the public schools.

Article 8, Indiana State Constitution:

Section 1. Knowledge and learning, general diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it should be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, intellectual scientific, and agricultural improvement; and provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shall without charge, and equally open to all.

Many other states have similar constitutional requirements for public schools, and even those that states that don't enumerate public education as a right certainly behave as if it were a right.  Public schooling is as entrenched in our society as free speech or free religion, and much more entrenched than other rights like RKBA.  C'est la vie.

[MicroBalrog]

Many other states have similar constitutional requirements for public schools, and even those that states that don't enumerate public education as a right certainly behave as if it were a right.  Public schooling is as entrenched in our society as free speech or free religion, and much more entrenched than other real rights like RKBA.  C'est la vie.

Then what we need to do, obviously, is start working to change that. There are no inalterable political realities.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That would be the idealist's approach, yes.

The pragmatist would suggest instead that you pick your battles wisely.

[MicroBalrog]

Why is it not pragmatic to apply an incrementalist approach to abolishing public education over several decades?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Because all resources, even political resources, are finite.  They are best applied where they have the highest probability of success and the most beneficial outcomes.  Seeking to abolish the public schools is impractical.  You won't succeed at it.  

You say you want liberty in your lifetime, right?  If you pursue this route, you'll wind up with neither.  You'll find yourself decades hence with no more liberty than you have today, and much of your life will have already been spent.

There are any number of alternatives to abolishing the public schools that provide much the same benefits without the impractical political costs.  School vouchers, local control over the curricula (well done, Texas), eliminating the teachers unions, allowing parents to choose which particular public school to send their children to, supporting homeschoolers, etc.  

[MicroBalrog]

Uh. School vouchers and support for homeschoolers is precisely what I'm talking about, in part. :D

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ah, ok.  I guess I don't see how that amounts to eliminating the public schools, but whatevs.  So long as we're on the same side.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Look.

Right now 11% of America's children are in private schools, and  3% are homeschooled. They're not evenly distributed - some states no doubt have less, and some have more.

Maybe in ten years, we can get this number to 20% and 5% respectively, and some school district can shut down because in that locality, there's no need for it (again, numbers will be different locally). Then we can grow from there.

[Fjolnirsson]

Public schooling is as entrenched in our society as free speech or free religion, and much more entrenched than other rights like RKBA.

Agreed. Doesn't mean we should aid the further entrenchment by referring to education as a "right". There's a difference between a natural "right" and a government granted entitlement.

Anyway, I see that we're on the same side. Personally, I ended up using a charter school for my daughters education(currently, that may very well change soon), which is partially funded through the public system, but not entirely. It's very likely we will go back to homeschooling, as I am experiencing some of the very problems I anticipated and my wife poo-pood prior to enrollment. In the mean time, my property taxes are paying for it, so I make the best of a bad situation.

Meanwhile, we also homeschool, and work with other homeschoolers and homeschool organization.

As far as choosing one's battles, I agree, but choosing to fight in other places doesn't mean we aid the culture war by paying lip service to the anti freedom culture's talking points.

[taurusowner]

Wait, seriously? Free speech requires that one open their mouth and voice an opinion, or write something down, both actions completely performable by one human being, absent interference or assistance from any other human. It doesn't infringe on anyone, or oblige anyone to do anything.

Public education requires that someone provide that education. Now, unless you have a secret society of pro bono teachers in your pocket, that means someone has to pay the teachers in public education. Meaning it comes out of my gorram pocket via taxes.

A right does not inherently involve action on any other beings part beyond staying out of the way and allowing that right to happen. Right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to worship as we choose, those are "rights". Public education is NOT a right. I would agree that everyone has the right to seek knowledge to the limit of their abilities and influence.

This.  It doesn't matter what people "think" is a right.  More and more people are thinking health care is a right too.  They're wrong.  A right cannot be something the requires someone else to fulfill it.  You have a right to free speech.  Not a right to be listened to.  You have a right to defend yourself.  Not a right to be defended by others.  These things do not required others to make them reality.  Rights exist within you, and must be fulfilled by you.  If the work, effort, thought, time, and money of anyone else needs to be involved in order for you to have your "right", than it is not a right at all.

You have no right to any aspect of anyone else's life but your own.