Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 12, 2010, 10:43:52 PM
-
Democrats in Texas are howling because "far right wing extremists" managed to influence the official school curriculum a bit. Those dastardly "ultraconservatives" forced schools to include notions such as American exceptionalism, the benefits of limited government intervention in the free market, and calling the US a constitutional republic instead of a democracy.
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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100313/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_schools_social_studies
By APRIL CASTRO, Associated Press Writer April Castro, Associated Press Writer – 50 mins ago
AUSTIN, Texas – A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.
Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.
"We have been about conservatism versus liberalism," said Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas, explaining her vote against the standards. "We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it's appropriate."
Following three days of impassioned and acrimonious debate, the board gave preliminary approval to the new standards with a 10-5 party line vote. A final vote is expected in May, after a public comment period that could produce additional amendments and arguments.
Decisions by the board — made up of lawyers, a dentist and a weekly newspaper publisher among others — can affect textbook content nationwide because Texas is one of publishers' biggest clients.
Ultraconservatives wielded their power over hundreds of subjects this week, introducing and rejecting amendments on everything from the civil rights movement to global politics. Hostilities flared and prompted a walkout Thursday by one of the board's most prominent Democrats, Mary Helen Berlanga of Corpus Christi, who accused her colleagues of "whitewashing" curriculum standards.
By late Thursday night, three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left, leaving Republicans to easily push through amendments heralding "American exceptionalism" and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.
"Some board members themselves acknowledged this morning that the process for revising curriculum standards in Texas is seriously broken, with politics and personal agendas dominating just about every decision," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for religious freedom.
Republican Terri Leo, a member of the powerful Christian conservative voting bloc, called the standards "world class" and "exceptional."
Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).
In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.
Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."
Democrats did score a victory by deleting a portion of an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes."
Fort Worth Republican Pat Hardy, a longtime teacher, voted for the new standards, but said she wished the board could work with a more cooperative spirit.
"What we've done is we've taken a document that by nature is too long to begin with and then we've lengthened it some more," Hardy said, shortly after the vote. "Those long lists of names that we've put in there ... it's just too long.
"I just think we failed to keep that in mind, it's hard for teachers to get through it all."
-
God bless Texas.
-
In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.
To hell with the Bill of Rights, let's learn about 50 Cent.
-
Using public education to influence the minds of the next generation: only wrong when it's the lefties who do it. ;/
-
The article doesn't say exactly what ALL of the proposed changes are, but it's a good example of the pendulum effect. Public education (solely IMO) has been tilted well to the left for years. It's nice to see it coming back towards the middle. Of course, the pendulum won't stop there as the system always over-corrects.
.... to easily push through amendments heralding "American exceptionalism" and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers...
Nor that- there was indeed such an influence.
...but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.
Probably because the whole notion has been twisted into something unintended and absent a rather prolonged class on how it got twisted and is interpreted in today's society, it'd be hard to explain.
Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.
The former is true and the latter is something worth knowing.
In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
Both valid instruction for young minds. After all, they are there to learn and a basic primer on the BOR should be required instruction for all students. Now if they can pull off actually teaching exactly what those rights are without warping the intent, so much the better.
-
Using public education to influence the minds of the next generation: only wrong when it's the lefties who do it. ;/
I'm not sure what you are insinuating.
If the left teaches that America was founded as a democracy but the right teaches that we were founded as a representative republic, there is nothing ambiguous about that. The left is wrong and the right is correct. We were founded as a representative republic
If the left teaches that the founding fathers were opposed to religion and any religious influence in government but the right teaches that many of the founding fathers were in fact deeply religious, and their beliefs played a large role in the early years of this nation, there is nothing ambiguous about that either. The left would be wrong and the right is correct. The unbiased facts are simply that many founding fathers were very religious, and even the US Government itself was deeply intertwined with Christianity. The first session of the US Supreme Court was a 4 hour long prayer meeting. The teaching of religion was was actually required/encouraged for schools in Territories applying for Statehood (Northwest Ordinance, Section XIV, Article III, passed by the House, passed by the Senate and signed into law by President George Washington, August 7, 1789)
Micro, those are just 2 of the points in contention here. You seem to be trying to equivocate the left's view being taught in public schools with the right's. But no such comparison can be made. The things that Texas schools are trying to teach are just fact. They are not party lines, candidate sound bites, speech excerpts, or anything relating to a political party. They are just plain simple facts about this nation, the economy, history, etc. And that is what has the left upset. You Micro are falling right into their trap when you try to put their teaching of lies on the same level with the teaching of fact.
-
Ragnar, that bit about religion is hardly an "unbiased fact." Some of the more influential founding fathers were either not really Christian (like Washington) or stridently anti-Christian, considering it to be an ancient superstition that kept humanity in ignorance (like Jefferson.) That is obviously relevant to the claim that the US was founded with "Judeo-Christian influences", whatever that means in relation to government. When you think about the constitution, the concept becomes a bit silly: Is free speech a judeo-christian thing? What about the separation of powers?
I think Micro is on to something here- we're all celebrating this curriculum. What will you all have to say when a national curriculum gets made that undoes it, and celebrates FDR and federal programs as the saviours of the nation? Then having ideologues monkey with the school curriculum won't look so good.
Sometimes process is more important than outcome in politics.
-
I think Micro is on to something here- we're all celebrating this curriculum. What will you all have to say when a national curriculum gets made that undoes it, and celebrates FDR and federal programs as the saviours of the nation? Then having ideologues monkey with the school curriculum won't look so good.
Say what? There already is a national (nation-wide) curriculum that seeks to undo traditional American concepts like liberty, constitutional government, individualism, capitalism, and personal rights. The ideologues have been monkeying with the school curriculum for half a century, and we're paying the price for it today with an ignorant electorate that believes in garbage like collectivism and keynesianism and hopechange.
This isn't monkeying with the curriculum, this is unmonkeying with the curriculum. It used to be that Americans were taught about economics, civics, history, and the goodness of America and the founding (and not only taught these things, but taught them correctly).
Y'all want your liberties back, right? The perversion of the public schools has had a causative affect on the loss of our rights. Can you not see how a truer, more liberty-minded public school system is a necessary component of any long-term strategy to recover our rights? The people who wrote each of our state constitutions surely did, that's why they all incorporated free, high-quality public schooling into each state's charter. Until the populace relearns history and American civics, we'll be fighting an uphill battle to regain our birthrights as Americans.
And I know that micro groks this concept, so I'm baffled why he objects to it. Maybe just an allergic reaction to anything perceived as "right wing"?
-
Some of the more influential founding fathers were either not really Christian (like Washington) or stridently anti-Christian, considering it to be an ancient superstition that kept humanity in ignorance (like Jefferson.)
Please cite sources that show which of the Founders were "stridently anti-Christian." If you want to say they weren't all fundie Baptists, or good little choirboys, fine. But I think you might be over-stating things.
All this reminds me of a book I just read, Lies My Teacher Told Me. Among other things he got wrong, the clumsy author is worried that our history textbooks might be telling children that their country is better than other nations. And I'm still trying to figure out what's wrong with that.
-
The people who wrote each of our state constitutions surely did, that's why they all incorporated free, high-quality public schooling into each state's charter.
You realize, of course, that mass public schooling in the form we know it today took decades to introduce and was not a Founder-era invention? (there were some compulsory education laws in 1752 in Massachusets, but it was only in the 1850's that mass, compulsory, schooling as we know it began to be introduced, state after state.).
Many state constitutions lack any mention whatever of public schooling to this day.
Now, granted:
This specific curriculum is better than the ardent leftist idiocy often encountered in schools.
But frankly, I just don't trust the government – any government, no matter how awesome – with the power of controlling the education of most of the country's children.
Do you think I'd be content if someone took over the schools, introduced school uniforms and caning, and started teaching the next generation some form of arch-social-conservative curriculum? Why would I be?
To be fair, I prefer a generation of children that respect the right to keep and bear arms and the free market. But I still am concerned when we get diverted into struggling with the Left over the form and function of public schools because I oppose public schools existing in the first place.
-
You realize, of course, that mass public schooling in the form we know it today took decades to introduce and was not a Founder-era invention? (there were some compulsory education laws in 1752 in Massachusets, but it was only in the 1850's that mass, compulsory, schooling as we know it began to be introduced, state after state.).
Many state constitutions lack any mention whatever of public schooling to this day.
Now, granted:
This specific curriculum is better than the ardent leftist idiocy often encountered in schools.
But frankly, I just don't trust the government – any government, no matter how awesome – with the power of controlling the education of most of the country's children.
Do you think I'd be content if someone took over the schools, introduced school uniforms and caning, and started teaching the next generation some form of arch-social-conservative curriculum? Why would I be?
To be fair, I prefer a generation of children that respect the right to keep and bear arms and the free market. But I still am concerned when we get diverted into struggling with the Left over the form and function of public schools because I oppose public schools existing in the first place.
I quite agree that government should not be involved in education.
However, so long as we're in a war for the future of our country, why not give liberals a reason to want the government out of education, too?
-
You realize, of course, that mass public schooling in the form we know it today took decades to introduce and was not a Founder-era invention? (there were some compulsory education laws in 1752 in Massachusets, but it was only in the 1850's that mass, compulsory, schooling as we know it began to be introduced, state after state.).
Early 1800's, yes. The ideas behind public schooling came about at about the same times as most of the American states came into being. The idea is that self-governance requires an educated populace. Most states list public education as a right of all state citizens. Even the states that don't include education in their constitutions certainly behave as if it was included. Functionally, public education is just as much a right as free speech is.
To be fair, I prefer a generation of children that respect the right to keep and bear arms and the free market. But I still am concerned when we get diverted into struggling with the Left over the form and function of public schools because I oppose public schools existing in the first place.
That's just the thing, this isn't a right vs left issue. This is a right vs wrong issue. Teaching that we're a constitutional representative republic and not a pure deocracy is right. Teaching that the founders were generally religious and that intervention in the markets doesn't help and that America is a Really Good Thing are all right. These things should be taught, and not because I'm a Republican and want right-leaning biases in the schools, but because I want schools to teach a complete and correct curriculum.
Don't be confused by the right vs left lingo in the original article. The Democrats in Texas (and the left-leaning reporters reporting on the Democrats in Texas) are doing their darndest to portray this as a partisan political issue rather than a teach-the-right-thing-not-the-wrong-thing issue. That's the only way they can get away with claiming that teaching hip hop is more important than teaching the constitution. (Why they'd want to teach hip hop over constitutional concepts is another matter entirely...)
If you have a gripe against public education existing at all, I'm afraid you're out of luck. Public education is an enshrined right here. People aren't going to be comfortable with eliminating it. But if nothing else, getting back to teaching the constitution and the philosophies that underpin our country will be a huge help in any future efforts to remove government from education. You won't eliminate public schooling as long as the current system is in place teaching everyone that government is a panacea.
-
If you have a gripe against public education existing at all, I'm afraid you're out of luck. Public education is an enshrined right here. People aren't going to be comfortable with eliminating it. But if nothing else, getting back to teaching constitutional rights and the philosophies that underpin our country will be a huge help in any future efforts to remove government from education. You won't eliminate public schooling as long as the current system is in place teaching everyone that government is a panacea.
To be certain, it won't come at once.
However:
1.The text of modern state constitutions does not reflect Founding-era views as much as modern views of the subject. There's been 150 state constitutions and 12,500 amendments since the Founding days. It's far easier to amend a state constitution that the Federal document.
2.Just because we can't have an up or down vote on the abolition of public schooling tomorrow doesn't mean we should give up on it altogether.
-
New York Times:
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone.
Seriously? No Thomas Jefferson?
-
No Thomas Paine either?
How much screeching do you think would emanate from the conservative moral majority on our Board of Education if someone proposed a comparative religion class, studying C.S. Lewis and other representative modern religious authors alongside Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris et al. as a counter-point?
-
If you matched up writers like C.S. Lewis against those three, I would expect all the students to emerge as solid theists. Wouldn't you?
Or was that the point?
-
From the NY Times:
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.
Sociology is the study of society, so if you are going to study those things in terms of sociology it would make sense to look at the relationship between the individual and society. I don't know what Ms Cargill is trying to correct, but teens, as a group, tend to be fairly influenced by 'society'. This is especially true when you look at something like eating disorders. Developing a positive snese of self is certainly important when it comes to those issues mentioned, but one can still look at the negative societal effects.
-
No Thomas Paine either?
How much screeching do you think would emanate from the conservative moral majority on our Board of Education if someone proposed a comparative religion class, studying C.S. Lewis and other representative modern religious authors alongside Dawkins, Hitchins, Harris et al. as a counter-point?
I received several semesters of comparative religion and abstract theology/philosophy in high school, including Lewis and Dawkins. I don't remember any Harris, but it's beena while. It was a Lutheran HS, and nobody there seemed to have a problem with rigorous study of religious matters, either pro or con. They also seemed to understand the difference between teaching about religions in general, and proselytizing their religion in particular.
I am a bit surprised by the lack of comparative religion classes in public schools. Religion is inseparable from daily life, culture, history, geography, and politics for the majority of the world's people, past and present. I'm not sure how you can omit any study on religion and still expect to have a well-rounded education.
-
I am a bit surprised by the lack of comparative religion classes in public schools. Religion is inseparable from daily life, culture, history, geography, and politics for the majority of the world's people, past and present. I'm not sure how you can omit any study on religion and still expect to have a well-rounded education.
You can't. And the Founding Fathers knew this, hence my citation of the Northwest Ordinance signed into law by George Washington.
-
If you matched up writers like C.S. Lewis against those three, I would expect all the students to emerge as solid theists. Wouldn't you?
Or was that the point?
So you don't mind omitting THOMAS JEFFERSON from the curriculum?
-
If you matched up writers like C.S. Lewis against those three, I would expect all the students to emerge as solid theists. Wouldn't you?
Or was that the point?
So you don't mind omitting THOMAS JEFFERSON from the curriculum?
Micro, I'm re-reading the quoted portion of text, and I am failing to see where fistful mentions being ok with Thomas Jefferson being omitted.
Maybe you saw something I didn't and can help me out here. Here's the quote you selected one more time
If you matched up writers like C.S. Lewis against those three, I would expect all the students to emerge as solid theists. Wouldn't you?
Or was that the point?
Care to point out where you saw him speaking about Thomas Jefferson?
-
What I find issue with is people attacking the argument they regard as weak, and ignoring entirely something that really is problematic with the new curriculum (i.e. Jefferson being removed).
-
Micro, if you're referring to this:
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone.
It doesn't sound like something I'd go in for, unless she could show me some really good reasons. Which I doubt.
I was responding to one comment from tyme, not supporting Cynthia Dunbar or anyone else in the article.
My point was that C.S. Lewis seems like a much more persuasive (and less histrionic) presenter than Dawkins, Harris or Hitchins. Though to be fair, I haven't gotten around to reading anything from the latter three.
-
Of course Jefferson would be removed - he spent lots of time building the "wall of separation" between Church and state, ridiculed the claim that Jesus was divine, was a major supporter of revolutionary France (ie, proto-socialism). His views were far too radical for dogmatic conservative education.
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?
C.S. Lewis was a great polemicist. But his work never approaches the level of detail or argument of the greats.
Anyway, here we are celebrating a content based victory when the whole problem in the first place is the process. It makes no sense. Being happy for this boardroom decision is the equivalent of being happy that the Government gives massive subsidies to free-market think tanks: ironic, and ultimately self-defeating.
-
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?
I don't know, either. It was an atheist who picked them. ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :lol:
-
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.
-
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 (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/texas_boe_removes_jefferson_fr.php)
What a mess.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That would be the idealist's approach, yes.
The pragmatist would suggest instead that you pick your battles wisely.
-
Why is it not pragmatic to apply an incrementalist approach to abolishing public education over several decades?
-
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.
-
Uh. School vouchers and support for homeschoolers is precisely what I'm talking about, in part. :D
-
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.
=D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
A right cannot be something the requires someone else to fulfill it.
This. With bells on it.
-
Let's stop and think about this for a sec.
Elections cost money. Trial by jury costs money, too. That money has to come from somewhere (unless there's a secret stash of pro-bono judges and poll workers and ballot-printers out there). Anyone wanna renounce their rights in these areas simply because they cost money?
Seems to me that, on its own, the fact that something costs money doesn't prevent it from being a right.
And don't forget that there are some things that citizens are expected to chip in for, such as a just court system and fair elections every few years (and roads, and a military, and police, and so forth). Public schooling is also one of the things we're expected to pay for as citizens. And as citizens we have every right to send our kids to those schools if we want to.
Now, whether public school should be one of the things we're expected to provide is a separate question.
-
Police protection is not a good example. For one, because police protection is not a right. SCOTUS even says so. Further, because it is possible (at least it has been done before) for communities exist without police, or with less police than we have now. Modern police coverage is a relatively novel invention.