| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2007 09:43:45 AM |
| Object: |
Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Citizen Jimserac" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
19 Nov 2007 11:29:02 AM |
|
|
On Nov 15, 10:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The full exposure of what ideas and ideologies lie at the foundation
of our current public school system
have been brilliantly listed by former New York School system teacher
John Taylor Gatto in his book "The Underground Guide to American
Education" (the entire book is online with nice chapter summaries at
THIS link:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm
You are indeed correct that there are varying interests and groups
bickering over this or that policy or principle.
But as to the fundamental principles, the deliberate DUMBING DOWN of
our students as part of a deliberate policy of creating docile,
obedient and unquestioning consumerists,
the book is right on the mark. The religion issue is covered as
well. Perhaps most interesting and indicative of the correctness of
Gatto's analyses, are his explanation
of the startling undercurrents of violence which have appeared in
several schools, in some cases, regretfully, leading to mass murders.
Citizen Jimserac
"According to all official analysis, dumbness isn't taught (as I
claim), but is innate in a great percentage of what has come to be
called "the workforce." Workforce itself is a term that should tell
you much about the mind that governs modern society. According to
official reports, only a small fraction of the population is capable
of what you and I call mental life: creative thought, analytical
thought, judgmental thought, a trio occupying the three highest
positions on Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Just how
small a fraction would shock you. According to experts, the bulk of
the mob is hopelessly dumb, even dangerously so. Perhaps you're a
willing accomplice to this social coup which revived the English class
system. Certainly you are if your own child has been rewarded with a
"gifted and talented" label by your local school. This is what Dewey
means by "proper" social order."
(from "The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor
Gatto).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
17 Nov 2007 05:48:41 PM |
|
|
On Nov 15, 7:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
If religion is to be taught in class rooms, it should be presented not
as fact but as belief and taught as mythology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
20 Nov 2007 09:15:32 AM |
|
|
On Nov 17, 5:48 pm, wrote:
If religion is to be taught in class rooms, it should be presented not
as fact but as belief and taught as mythology.
No, then you are only presenting a characterization of the system of
faith, not a factual representation. For instance, if you are going
to
have a presentation of one of the Eastern pantheistic religions, then
you must allow its inclusivity. If you are going to correctly present
Christianity, you must teach it as an exclusive system.
To teach anything as "myth" is to say that you are the absolute
ruler of Truth (though your system has no basis for Truth, only
products of a particular culture or historical setting) knowing all
things exhaustively, able to pronounce what is real reality and
what is not. In doing so, you nulify your right to speak in revealing
your lack of understanding, education, or powers of observation
of the reality of the situation. You have not addressed man's
finitude nor the incomprehensible nature of God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
21 Nov 2007 04:39:54 AM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 7:15 am, wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:48 pm, wrote:
If religion is to be taught in class rooms, it should be presented not
as fact but as belief and taught as mythology.
No, then you are only presenting a characterization of the system of
faith, not a factual representation. For instance, if you are going
to
have a presentation of one of the Eastern pantheistic religions, then
you must allow its inclusivity. If you are going to correctly present
Christianity, you must teach it as an exclusive system.
To teach anything as "myth" is to say that you are the absolute
ruler of Truth (though your system has no basis for Truth, only
products of a particular culture or historical setting) knowing all
things exhaustively, able to pronounce what is real reality and
what is not. In doing so, you nulify your right to speak in revealing
your lack of understanding, education, or powers of observation
of the reality of the situation. You have not addressed man's
finitude nor the incomprehensible nature of God.
Until you drag one of the many gods in front of a panel of scientists,
religion is mythology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
21 Nov 2007 09:25:04 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 4:39 am, wrote:
Until you drag one of the many gods in front of a panel of scientists,
religion is mythology.
Then He wouldn't be God, would He? You want a designer God. One
that you can poke and manipulate. You want what by definition you
can't have.
Also, your scientific ideological presupposition is wrong. Not every
thing is verifiable by a "panel of scientist" i.e. the new priesthood.
If God stands outside of creation because He is not only the Creator
but having existed before all things outside of Himself, then it is a
little silly and obtuse to expect to put Him in a bottle or to bring
Him
before your tribunal.
There are so many questions and dilemma's left for you to seek
an answer to when you deny His existence. You can NO explanation
for moral guilt. You have NO explanation for consciousness in an
unconscious, impersonal universe. You have no basis for law,
love, or society. At best you have the 51%. At best you have
only preferences instead of principles. You have no Grand Reason
to give meaning and purpose only a bunch of reasons, truths
without Absolute Truth.
But the saddest thing of all is that you don't have a system
that you actually live by. You are inconsistent in your application
of system of "truth." You don't require everything to be judged
by a panel of scientist. You only require what you arbitrarily
feel needs to be examined, making yourself out to be "god."
It is self orientation. Everything is about you. You are the
final reference point of the universe. ;-) "I will raise my
throne above the stars of heaven."
"There is nothing new under the sun."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
23 Nov 2007 05:01:49 PM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 7:25 am, wrote:
On Nov 21, 4:39 am, wrote:
Until you drag one of the many gods in front of a panel of scientists,
religion is mythology.
Then He wouldn't be God, would He? You want a designer God. One
that you can poke and manipulate. You want what by definition you
can't have.
Also, your scientific ideological presupposition is wrong. Not every
thing is verifiable by a "panel of scientist" i.e. the new priesthood.
If God stands outside of creation because He is not only the Creator
but having existed before all things outside of Himself, then it is a
little silly and obtuse to expect to put Him in a bottle or to bring
Him
before your tribunal.
There are so many questions and dilemma's left for you to seek
an answer to when you deny His existence. You can NO explanation
for moral guilt. You have NO explanation for consciousness in an
unconscious, impersonal universe. You have no basis for law,
love, or society. At best you have the 51%. At best you have
only preferences instead of principles. You have no Grand Reason
to give meaning and purpose only a bunch of reasons, truths
without Absolute Truth.
But the saddest thing of all is that you don't have a system
that you actually live by. You are inconsistent in your application
of system of "truth." You don't require everything to be judged
by a panel of scientist. You only require what you arbitrarily
feel needs to be examined, making yourself out to be "god."
It is self orientation. Everything is about you. You are the
final reference point of the universe. ;-) "I will raise my
throne above the stars of heaven."
"There is nothing new under the sun."
That's pretty convenient. Gods who will not show themselves. Just
believe on faith.
Those things that are presented as absolutes I do require to be judged
by a panel of scientists. And after those scientists have reached a
conclusion, I demand that another panel of scientists check the first
panel's conclusions. And a third panel to check the seconds. And so
forth.
I have no illusion of being a god. I have very little control of my
own life. What I do control, I often foul up. In my world view,
there is no need for a god. The universe operates itself.
If I were to adopt your criteria for accepting ideas and beliefs, I
would have to belief in unicorns, faeries, and a giant flying
spaghetti monster. I can create any manner of monster and beast and
give it the power to create universes and there would be no way to
disprove it as long as I have this creature hide from all eyes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "answerman" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
29 Nov 2007 04:26:10 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 4:39 am, wrote:
On Nov 20, 7:15 am, wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:48 pm, wrote:
If religion is to be taught in class rooms, it should be presented not
as fact but as belief and taught as mythology.
No, then you are only presenting a characterization of the system of
faith, not a factual representation. For instance, if you are going
to
have a presentation of one of the Eastern pantheistic religions, then
you must allow its inclusivity. If you are going to correctly present
Christianity, you must teach it as an exclusive system.
To teach anything as "myth" is to say that you are the absolute
ruler of Truth (though your system has no basis for Truth, only
products of a particular culture or historical setting) knowing all
things exhaustively, able to pronounce what is real reality and
what is not. In doing so, you nulify your right to speak in revealing
your lack of understanding, education, or powers of observation
of the reality of the situation. You have not addressed man's
finitude nor the incomprehensible nature of God.
Until you drag one of the many gods in front of a panel of scientists,
religion is mythology.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I will pray for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
17 Nov 2007 10:53:49 AM |
|
|
On Nov 15, 9:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Interesting that this had to replies. I wonder if it is the liberal
refusal to acknowledge disunion in their own ranks or fear that people
might listen to the advice on how to teach religion in schools.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
19 Nov 2007 10:44:21 AM |
|
|
In article <df1b208d-2ab4-473b-8f82-8ee603bc7291@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Nov 15, 9:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Interesting that this had to replies. I wonder if it is the liberal
refusal to acknowledge disunion in their own ranks or fear that people
might listen to the advice on how to teach religion in schools.
What's to reply about?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
19 Nov 2007 11:10:20 AM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 10:44 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <df1b208d-2ab4-473b-8f82-8ee603bc7...@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Nov 15, 9:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Interesting that this had to replies. I wonder if it is the liberal
refusal to acknowledge disunion in their own ranks or fear that people
might listen to the advice on how to teach religion in schools.
What's to reply about?
-- cary- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
20 Nov 2007 09:38:56 AM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.
Ah, birds of a feather!
History. Yes, I know that history has not place in the postmodernist
system, but needs to if it is to survive itself. Modernism at least
afforded it a place of reference. Whereas modernism was a manifesto
of the greatness of man apart from God, humanism in all its self-
confident and self-gratulatory applause, postmodernism is a
confession of despair. Modernism with its humanistic orientation,
based everything on reason, science and technology. But one
lesson to be learnt from this is that when a society does away with
God, it also must necessarily do away with those things that only
"G"od can give meaning to. i.e. freedom, truth, justice, equality,
progress and beauty. Modernism based upon the myth of
"superman", has now historically evidence that it only ends in
dehumanizing and alientation.
Science had produced what? I
remember even in the 1950's being able to walk along a road
side and NOT finding pop cans, Mickey D wrappers, and a host
of other polutions. Though retired, I still work part time in a
chemical plant. What was their promo in the 60's & '70's?
"Better Living Through Science!" But the chemical industry
is one of the worst of all pollutant industries.
Technology has turned homes into theaters. It has turned
the family night out at the local dinner into either a non-event
or everyone talking (strike that. Texting) to someone on
their cell phones. The age of "word" is dead. Technology
even devalues that last vestage of what only God gives
meaning to.
Post modernism has not Truth. There is no final reality.
"It all depends on what your meaning of 'is' is." There
are no principles by which to moderate and distinquish
society only preferences. Whereas modernism discarded
God for grandious reason, postmodernism is left with only
reasons. Justice? That's a laugh. There is now only
special interests. It has gone where modernism feared
to go -absolute relativism.
Historically, not just "religion" but Christianity was
decreed to be taught in the public school system. Deny
it all you will but take some time at the Library of Congress
and research the early papers of the first secretary of
education. Even good ole' Ben Franklin confessed that
if the nation was not to self destruct at an early age,
the Bible must be taught in the public schools to secure
an adequate foundation for the ethnos of society. The
founders of nation were not naive. But then, you have
no place left for history to actually teach us anything,
do you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
20 Nov 2007 11:27:57 AM |
|
|
In article <eedc61ac-45e6-4c65-a311-07ba90dfe452@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> writes:
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.
Ah, birds of a feather!
History. Yes, I know that history has not place in the postmodernist
system, but needs to if it is to survive itself. Modernism at least
afforded it a place of reference. Whereas modernism was a manifesto
of the greatness of man apart from God, humanism in all its self-
confident and self-gratulatory applause, postmodernism is a
confession of despair. Modernism with its humanistic orientation,
based everything on reason, science and technology. But one
lesson to be learnt from this is that when a society does away with
God, it also must necessarily do away with those things that only
"G"od can give meaning to. i.e. freedom, truth, justice, equality,
progress and beauty. Modernism based upon the myth of
"superman", has now historically evidence that it only ends in
dehumanizing and alientation.
Science had produced what? I
remember even in the 1950's being able to walk along a road
side and NOT finding pop cans, Mickey D wrappers, and a host
of other polutions. Though retired, I still work part time in a
chemical plant. What was their promo in the 60's & '70's?
"Better Living Through Science!" But the chemical industry
is one of the worst of all pollutant industries.
Technology has turned homes into theaters. It has turned
the family night out at the local dinner into either a non-event
or everyone talking (strike that. Texting) to someone on
their cell phones. The age of "word" is dead. Technology
even devalues that last vestage of what only God gives
meaning to.
Post modernism has not Truth. There is no final reality.
"It all depends on what your meaning of 'is' is." There
are no principles by which to moderate and distinquish
society only preferences. Whereas modernism discarded
God for grandious reason, postmodernism is left with only
reasons. Justice? That's a laugh. There is now only
special interests. It has gone where modernism feared
to go -absolute relativism.
Historically, not just "religion" but Christianity was
decreed to be taught in the public school system. Deny
it all you will but take some time at the Library of Congress
and research the early papers of the first secretary of
education. Even good ole' Ben Franklin confessed that
if the nation was not to self destruct at an early age,
the Bible must be taught in the public schools to secure
an adequate foundation for the ethnos of society. The
founders of nation were not naive. But then, you have
no place left for history to actually teach us anything,
do you!
Check into Michelle Goldberg's "Kingdom Coming" for a discussion
of post-modernism as one defining characteristic of the
modern Evangelical Christian movement.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
20 Nov 2007 11:39:26 PM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 11:27 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <eedc61ac-45e6-4c65-a311-07ba90dfe...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> writes:
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.
Ah, birds of a feather!
History. Yes, I know that history has not place in the postmodernist
system, but needs to if it is to survive itself. Modernism at least
afforded it a place of reference. Whereas modernism was a manifesto
of the greatness of man apart from God, humanism in all its self-
confident and self-gratulatory applause, postmodernism is a
confession of despair. Modernism with its humanistic orientation,
based everything on reason, science and technology. But one
lesson to be learnt from this is that when a society does away with
God, it also must necessarily do away with those things that only
"G"od can give meaning to. i.e. freedom, truth, justice, equality,
progress and beauty. Modernism based upon the myth of
"superman", has now historically evidence that it only ends in
dehumanizing and alientation.
Science had produced what? I
remember even in the 1950's being able to walk along a road
side and NOT finding pop cans, Mickey D wrappers, and a host
of other polutions. Though retired, I still work part time in a
chemical plant. What was their promo in the 60's & '70's?
"Better Living Through Science!" But the chemical industry
is one of the worst of all pollutant industries.
Technology has turned homes into theaters. It has turned
the family night out at the local dinner into either a non-event
or everyone talking (strike that. Texting) to someone on
their cell phones. The age of "word" is dead. Technology
even devalues that last vestage of what only God gives
meaning to.
Post modernism has not Truth. There is no final reality.
"It all depends on what your meaning of 'is' is." There
are no principles by which to moderate and distinquish
society only preferences. Whereas modernism discarded
God for grandious reason, postmodernism is left with only
reasons. Justice? That's a laugh. There is now only
special interests. It has gone where modernism feared
to go -absolute relativism.
Historically, not just "religion" but Christianity was
decreed to be taught in the public school system. Deny
it all you will but take some time at the Library of Congress
and research the early papers of the first secretary of
education. Even good ole' Ben Franklin confessed that
if the nation was not to self destruct at an early age,
the Bible must be taught in the public schools to secure
an adequate foundation for the ethnos of society. The
founders of nation were not naive. But then, you have
no place left for history to actually teach us anything,
do you!
Check into Michelle Goldberg's "Kingdom Coming" for a discussion
of post-modernism as one defining characteristic of the
modern Evangelical Christian movement.
-- cary
You can read just about anything written by Os Guinness in the
last 12-15 yrs and get an even better overview. Guinness is not
Sunday supplement reading. Perhaps one of the best Evangelical
writers out there today. Sample....
"One fallacy comes from *describing* postmodernism wrongly - as
if modernity were only a set of ideas and not also a profound rev-
olution in our social structures and institutions. If modernism and
postmodernism are only sets of ideas, and if modernism has
collapsed and postmodernism has prevailed, then modernity- the
spirit and system of the world produced by modernism- is over
along with all its challenges and dangers. Christians, and other
religious believers and supporters of Western tradition, can breathe
a sigh of relief.
If however, modernity is not only a set of ideas but the product of
such grand structural revolutions as capitalism, industrialized tech-
nology, and telecommunications, no relief is on the horizon. Mod-
ernism -as a set of ideas- may have collapsed but modernity -as a
world system- is going strong.
Needless to say, the latter is true. Modernity cannot be explained
by using the history of ideas alone.
P. 106 "Fit Bodies - Fat Minds"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
21 Nov 2007 02:23:19 PM |
|
|
In article <3bf24577-f679-46d8-b607-c91ab37f6e3c@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> writes:
On Nov 20, 11:27 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <eedc61ac-45e6-4c65-a311-07ba90dfe...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> writes:
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.
Ah, birds of a feather!
History. Yes, I know that history has not place in the postmodernist
system, but needs to if it is to survive itself. Modernism at least
afforded it a place of reference. Whereas modernism was a manifesto
of the greatness of man apart from God, humanism in all its self-
confident and self-gratulatory applause, postmodernism is a
confession of despair. Modernism with its humanistic orientation,
based everything on reason, science and technology. But one
lesson to be learnt from this is that when a society does away with
God, it also must necessarily do away with those things that only
"G"od can give meaning to. i.e. freedom, truth, justice, equality,
progress and beauty. Modernism based upon the myth of
"superman", has now historically evidence that it only ends in
dehumanizing and alientation.
Science had produced what? I
remember even in the 1950's being able to walk along a road
side and NOT finding pop cans, Mickey D wrappers, and a host
of other polutions. Though retired, I still work part time in a
chemical plant. What was their promo in the 60's & '70's?
"Better Living Through Science!" But the chemical industry
is one of the worst of all pollutant industries.
Technology has turned homes into theaters. It has turned
the family night out at the local dinner into either a non-event
or everyone talking (strike that. Texting) to someone on
their cell phones. The age of "word" is dead. Technology
even devalues that last vestage of what only God gives
meaning to.
Post modernism has not Truth. There is no final reality.
"It all depends on what your meaning of 'is' is." There
are no principles by which to moderate and distinquish
society only preferences. Whereas modernism discarded
God for grandious reason, postmodernism is left with only
reasons. Justice? That's a laugh. There is now only
special interests. It has gone where modernism feared
to go -absolute relativism.
Historically, not just "religion" but Christianity was
decreed to be taught in the public school system. Deny
it all you will but take some time at the Library of Congress
and research the early papers of the first secretary of
education. Even good ole' Ben Franklin confessed that
if the nation was not to self destruct at an early age,
the Bible must be taught in the public schools to secure
an adequate foundation for the ethnos of society. The
founders of nation were not naive. But then, you have
no place left for history to actually teach us anything,
do you!
Check into Michelle Goldberg's "Kingdom Coming" for a discussion
of post-modernism as one defining characteristic of the
modern Evangelical Christian movement.
-- cary
You can read just about anything written by Os Guinness in the
last 12-15 yrs and get an even better overview. Guinness is not
Sunday supplement reading. Perhaps one of the best Evangelical
writers out there today. Sample....
"One fallacy comes from *describing* postmodernism wrongly - as
if modernity were only a set of ideas and not also a profound rev-
olution in our social structures and institutions. If modernism and
postmodernism are only sets of ideas, and if modernism has
collapsed and postmodernism has prevailed, then modernity- the
spirit and system of the world produced by modernism- is over
along with all its challenges and dangers. Christians, and other
religious believers and supporters of Western tradition, can breathe
a sigh of relief.
If however, modernity is not only a set of ideas but the product of
such grand structural revolutions as capitalism, industrialized tech-
nology, and telecommunications, no relief is on the horizon. Mod-
ernism -as a set of ideas- may have collapsed but modernity -as a
world system- is going strong.
Needless to say, the latter is true. Modernity cannot be explained
by using the history of ideas alone.
P. 106 "Fit Bodies - Fat Minds"
Very good, and very well said. Like consciousness,
our wills and intellects are pretty much along
for the cultural and historical ride, as opposed to
directing things, and similarly like consciousness,
intellect devotes much of its time to maintaining the illusion
that we did these things, rather than that these things happened
to us.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Jimserac" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
20 Nov 2007 10:23:44 AM |
|
|
On Nov 20, 10:38 am, wrote:
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.
Ah, birds of a feather!
History. Yes, I know that history has not place in the postmodernist
system, but needs to if it is to survive itself. Modernism at least
afforded it a place of reference. Whereas modernism was a manifesto
of the greatness of man apart from God, humanism in all its self-
confident and self-gratulatory applause, postmodernism is a
confession of despair. Modernism with its humanistic orientation,
based everything on reason, science and technology. But one
lesson to be learnt from this is that when a society does away with
God, it also must necessarily do away with those things that only
"G"od can give meaning to. i.e. freedom, truth, justice, equality,
progress and beauty. Modernism based upon the myth of
"superman", has now historically evidence that it only ends in
dehumanizing and alientation.
Science had produced what? I
remember even in the 1950's being able to walk along a road
side and NOT finding pop cans, Mickey D wrappers, and a host
of other polutions. Though retired, I still work part time in a
chemical plant. What was their promo in the 60's & '70's?
"Better Living Through Science!" But the chemical industry
is one of the worst of all pollutant industries.
Technology has turned homes into theaters. It has turned
the family night out at the local dinner into either a non-event
or everyone talking (strike that. Texting) to someone on
their cell phones. The age of "word" is dead. Technology
even devalues that last vestage of what only God gives
meaning to.
Post modernism has not Truth. There is no final reality.
"It all depends on what your meaning of 'is' is." There
are no principles by which to moderate and distinquish
society only preferences. Whereas modernism discarded
God for grandious reason, postmodernism is left with only
reasons. Justice? That's a laugh. There is now only
special interests. It has gone where modernism feared
to go -absolute relativism.
Historically, not just "religion" but Christianity was
decreed to be taught in the public school system. Deny
it all you will but take some time at the Library of Congress
and research the early papers of the first secretary of
education. Even good ole' Ben Franklin confessed that
if the nation was not to self destruct at an early age,
the Bible must be taught in the public schools to secure
an adequate foundation for the ethnos of society. The
founders of nation were not naive. But then, you have
no place left for history to actually teach us anything,
do you!
Interesting but your despair is misplaced.
That same technology that gives birth to "texting"
and the apparent devaluation of the written
word also gives us google book search
and the wonderful ability to download
entire books on any subject whose copyright
has expired.
The Internet itself, the very medium by which
we have this conversation has probably far
greater import for its smashing of the
information monopoly rather than for its
superb citizen and human to human
communication capability.
Do you remember how it was, not so long
ago, when one wanted medical information,
stock market information about a company,
school information, career information,
scientific information, information about
if the medicine that you were prescribed
was killing people and how many and
for what reason. All those information
monopolies were smashed by the Internet
and we are only starting to see the consequences,
some of them with grave political
consequences to the good old boy system
which so easily replaced our great revolutionary
accomplishements, even now.
If you would like greater understanding
of what exactly is happening and how
it happened and why -> I MOST strongly
suggest the following book, which
is totally online and free to read with nice chapter
summaries (see link below), which is
supposed to be a book about our education
system but which, for me, was a whole
lot more, so insightful and incisive are
the author's observations:
"The Underground History of American Education"
by John Taylor Gatto
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm
Even if you disagree with his idea of how our
educational "system" came to be as it is now,
despite his rather compelling documentation and
arguments, I suspect you will find his
social commentary, and explication of our
modern culture a revelation.
Those vast violence ridden boredom and envy filled social warehouses
that our education system has become, and the motivations
and theories of those who purposely designed it that way,
eventually substituting the dumbing down of the young
workers to be as a goal superiour to the popularly
expected one of educating the young, are all explained
though the perpetrators of this vast
self aggrandizing deception would probably
prefer to remain in the "background".
Citizen Jimserac
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "answerman" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
29 Nov 2007 04:25:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:44 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <df1b208d-2ab4-473b-8f82-8ee603bc7...@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Nov 15, 9:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Interesting that this had to replies. I wonder if it is the liberal
refusal to acknowledge disunion in their own ranks or fear that people
might listen to the advice on how to teach religion in schools.
What's to reply about?
-- cary- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well put, why teach religion in schools, just because our founding
fathers (excuse me, founding persons) developed our form of government
on religious values does not mean we should tell the children. Right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
29 Nov 2007 10:35:32 AM |
|
|
In article <bd574577-be6b-463e-a621-fa376d45892b@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> answerman <deputydick@gmail.com> writes:
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:44 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <df1b208d-2ab4-473b-8f82-8ee603bc7...@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Nov 15, 9:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Interesting that this had to replies. I wonder if it is the liberal
refusal to acknowledge disunion in their own ranks or fear that people
might listen to the advice on how to teach religion in schools.
What's to reply about?
-- cary- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well put, why teach religion in schools, just because our founding
fathers (excuse me, founding persons) developed our form of government
on religious values
They did?
Then why didn't they think to mention a thing about God, Scripture,
the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, or salvation when they wrote the
operator's manual for this new nation?
-- cary
does not mean we should tell the children. Right?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
19 Nov 2007 01:10:16 PM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 11:10 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:44 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <df1b208d-2ab4-473b-8f82-8ee603bc7...@b32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Nov 15, 9:43 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting a new thread series about religion in public schools.
For many years, I fell into the trap of letting stereotypes or history
define the agenda, relating to public schools. I bought into the lie
that liberals controlled the public schools (even up to recently).
The reality is that public schools, as well as Education unions, are
full of people that bitterly dispute with one another, regarding all
the major political issues. As part of my teacher training,
I...basically...had to side with one union or another to get classroom
insurance (a little device they use to gain members), and union
membership was very important, if one wants to get a public school job
(discrimination rampant, here). So, I chose NEA for their
conservative history (didn't even want to be called a union for many
years and, currently, contain over 1 million Republicans in their
ranks). That is not to say that I agree with everything the NEA says,
and that is the point of this post...here. NOTHING is settled. Even
NEA is at war with itself regarding religion in schools. For example,
while maintaining a defiance to the suggestion of vouchers, here is an
article at the NEA website, from an Education Week writer, suggesting
good ways to teach about religion, the Bible (with excerpts..gasp),
new testament parables, and papers on Bible figures IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL...
http://www.nea.org/classmanagement/ifc021210.html
As I continue with this series of posts, I will highlight articles
from various organizations and individuals continuing this war of
ideals.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Interesting that this had to replies. I wonder if it is the liberal
refusal to acknowledge disunion in their own ranks or fear that people
might listen to the advice on how to teach religion in schools.
What's to reply about?
-- cary- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well put, Cary. Since we have no shortage of Churches, Synagogues,
Mosques, Temples etc., what possible purpose could there be to
teaching religion in schools, other than to outlaw teaching anything
else? It's a non-issue.
So, you disagree with this NEA posted article by an Education Week
author?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
19 Nov 2007 03:18:06 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, you disagree with this NEA posted article by an Education Week
author?
It said nothing to agree with or disagree with. The author said that
he did certain things in a classroom. So what
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
20 Nov 2007 07:48:20 AM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 3:18 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, you disagree with this NEA posted article by an Education Week
author?
It said nothing to agree with or disagree with. The author said that
he did certain things in a classroom. So what
lojbab
Actually, he specifically said HOW to teach religion in public
schools. You, yourself, have said religion should not be in public
schools in the past. So, do you agree with the NEA article or not?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
21 Nov 2007 02:05:43 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:18 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, you disagree with this NEA posted article by an Education Week
author?
It said nothing to agree with or disagree with. The author said that
he did certain things in a classroom. So what
Actually, he specifically said HOW to teach religion in public
schools.
No. He specifically said one ***cannot*** "teach religion". One must
teach "***about*** religion".
And in fact he only said what HE had done in his classes. It is not
clear that any or all of those things would be acceptable in any class
in some other school or district.
You, yourself, have said religion should not be in public schools in the past.
Please provide where I said this.
If one actually looks, one will find that I have in the past posted
links to much better descriptions of comparative religion classes that
have been taught and which pass constitutional muster. I have also
stated that I approve of such courses as electives.
I understand that these statements have probably gone over your head.
So, do you agree with the NEA article or not?
I have no basis for disagreeing with the author's statement that he
did certain things in his classes over several years.
Otherwise, there is nothing to agree or disagree with.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
21 Nov 2007 07:46:18 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 2:05 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:18 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, you disagree with this NEA posted article by an Education Week
author?
It said nothing to agree with or disagree with. The author said that
he did certain things in a classroom. So what
Actually, he specifically said HOW to teach religion in public
schools.
No. He specifically said one ***cannot*** "teach religion". One must
teach "***about*** religion".
Provide the quote where he said someone cannot teach religion. What I
read is him saying that a study of religion is ESSENTIAL for a well-
rounded education in a world of diversity. Do you disagree?
And in fact he only said what HE had done in his classes. It is not
clear that any or all of those things would be acceptable in any class
in some other school or district.
So, federal law is not against religion in school (federal law would
apply to this teacher, also)?
You, yourself, have said religion should not be in public schools in the past.
Please provide where I said this.
If one actually looks, one will find that I have in the past posted
links to much better descriptions of comparative religion classes that
have been taught and which pass constitutional muster. I have also
stated that I approve of such courses as electives.
I understand that these statements have probably gone over your head.
Well, then, thank you for agreeing (finally) with an idea (the
religious elective class) that I've been promoting for over 4 years
online (in threads that you opposed).
So, do you agree with the NEA article or not?
I have no basis for disagreeing with the author's statement that he
did certain things in his classes over several years.
So, you are saying the author was right or wrong in doing what he did?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Jimserac" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
21 Nov 2007 08:36:09 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 8:46 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob has interesting things to say
but then he hides behind unstated
philosophies and viewpoints while insulting
the intelligence of the repsondent.
Bob his hiding his fundamental viewpoints,
I think, and he reminds me very much
of a teacher who will tell his class
to OBEY because I said so and because
you are all not smart enough.
The "appeal to authority" is one of
the oldest of logical fallacies.
But we citizens do NOT obey anymore
because we have LOST respect for
"authority" of a government that regards
us as cogs in a great machine - as
a "workforce" to be replaced
as cheaply as possible and
to be used for spot wars
under the guise of "patriotism".
But the "globalist" era destroyed
the cogs and outsourced the machine
and now we are here wondering
what kind of government ignores
our livelihood, subverts our lives,
deceives our finances,
cheats our health
and bankrupts our economy
while violating our rights
by snooping on us
to prevent "terrorism"?
WE are going to re-establish the era in which
WE run the government - not the corporations,
not the social scientists, not the lobbyists,
not the military,
but WE THE PEOPLE.
That INCLUDES re-taking the school
system from whatever the hell
has controlled and subverted
it for decades now - all explained
in Gatto's book.
Citizen Jimserac
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
21 Nov 2007 01:42:34 PM |
|
|
Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:46 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob has interesting things to say
but then he hides behind unstated
philosophies and viewpoints while insulting
the intelligence of the repsondent.
You make the fallacious assumption that I have some unstated
philosophical position. I don't. I say what I think. I make no
attempt to have it be philosophically consistent. If I promote any
viewpoint other than the one I am explicitly stating, I cite it.
Bob his hiding his fundamental viewpoints,
Maybe I don't have any other than what I explicitly express.
But we citizens do NOT obey anymore
We do not obey any less either.
because we have LOST respect for "authority" of a government
That assumes that we had such respect in the first place/
that regards us as cogs in a great machine - as
a "workforce" to be replaced as cheaply as possible and
to be used for spot wars >under the guise of "patriotism".
Government doesn't regard us as any such thing. In fact, governments
don't "regard". The people who control the government, and the people
who elected those who control the government indeed do "regard" the
people as being just the sort of thing you describe.
But the "globalist" era destroyed the cogs and outsourced the machine
and now we are here wondering what kind of government ignores
our livelihood, subverts our lives, deceives our finances,
cheats our health and bankrupts our economy
while violating our rights by snooping on us
to prevent "terrorism"?
Actually I doubt that most of us are wondering any such thing. You
speak only for yourself.
WE are going to re-establish the era in which WE run the government
No, the royal YOU is not going to do any such thing, because YOU never
did run the government, and in fact probably couldn't get elected
dogcatcher.
not the corporations,
not the social scientists, not the lobbyists,
not the military,
but WE THE PEOPLE.
"We the people" don't have to do so, since "we the people" already run
the government.
That INCLUDES re-taking the school
system from whatever the hell
has controlled and subverted
it for decades now
"WE THE PEOPLE" have controlled and subverted it.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Jimserac" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
22 Nov 2007 09:07:21 AM |
|
|
On Nov 21, 2:42 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:46 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob has interesting things to say
but then he hides behind unstated
philosophies and viewpoints while insulting
the intelligence of the repsondent.
You make the fallacious assumption that I have some unstated
philosophical position. I don't. I say what I think. I make no
attempt to have it be philosophically consistent. If I promote any
viewpoint other than the one I am explicitly stating, I cite it.
NO! everyone has a philosophy including you, and if your
last post to me is any example, you've got some pretty
well thought ideas which, even if I do not agree,
are interesting as hell.
Bob his hiding his fundamental viewpoints,
Maybe I don't have any other than what I explicitly express.
Your implicit position involves a , how can I put this,
DIFFERENT view of our history, but quite an interesting
one.
But we citizens do NOT obey anymore
We do not obey any less either.
because we have LOST respect for "authority" of a government
That assumes that we had such respect in the first place/
Hah YES, well said!!
that regards us as cogs in a great machine - as
a "workforce" to be replaced as cheaply as possible and
to be used for spot wars >under the guise of "patriotism".
Government doesn't regard us as any such thing. In fact, governments
don't "regard". The people who control the government, and the people
who elected those who control the government indeed do "regard" the
people as being just the sort of thing you describe.
Well that is quite correct but was implied in my usage, "government"
as a collective noun included all that PLUS the abstract conception,
you will pardon me for calling it "Prussianized" meaning the
false idea that we exist to somehow "serve" government and the state.
It is my belief that the most fundamental point of our revolution
was quite the opposite, that the state exists to serve us, and this
is QUITE UNIQUE even among western democracies. I know
you do not agree that the Declaration of Independence has political
force but I would hope that you would admit at least that it has
a philosophical import.
But the "globalist" era destroyed the cogs and outsourced the machine
and now we are here wondering what kind of government ignores
our livelihood, subverts our lives, deceives our finances,
cheats our health and bankrupts our economy
while violating our rights by snooping on us
to prevent "terrorism"?
Actually I doubt that most of us are wondering any such thing. You
speak only for yourself.
The election of November 2006 says otherwise. WE,
kicked out some republicans, supposedly because of the war
as a distraction to the real reasons which I said above.
Next election, WE are going to kick out lots more incumbents
of both parties!!! It's going to be fun!!!
WE are going to re-establish the era in which WE run the government
No, the royal YOU is not going to do any such thing, because YOU never
did run the government, and in fact probably couldn't get elected
dogcatcher.
You've got that right!!!!!!!!!!
not the corporations,
not the social scientists, not the lobbyists,
not the military,
but WE THE PEOPLE.
"We the people" don't have to do so, since "we the people" already run
the government.
Uh uh uh, tsk tsk tsk, I submit to you that whatever is running
the government now, is most certainly NOT "we the people"!!!!
That INCLUDES re-taking the school
system from whatever the hell
has controlled and subverted
it for decades now
"WE THE PEOPLE" have controlled and subverted it.
This is in part correct as even Gatto admits.
But what is not admitted is the actual GOALS of the education
system which Gatto claims split into two systems, one for the elite
rulers and one for the "workforce". I know you think there is NO
single unified goal and believe that it varies across states
and regions.
Citizen Jimserac
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
24 Nov 2007 02:19:10 AM |
|
|
Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2:42 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 8:46 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob has interesting things to say
but then he hides behind unstated
philosophies and viewpoints while insulting
the intelligence of the repsondent.
You make the fallacious assumption that I have some unstated
philosophical position. I don't. I say what I think. I make no
attempt to have it be philosophically consistent. If I promote any
viewpoint other than the one I am explicitly stating, I cite it.
NO! everyone has a philosophy including you, and if your
last post to me is any example, you've got some pretty
well thought ideas which, even if I do not agree,
are interesting as hell.
A philosophy which makes no attempt to assert self-consistency is not
a "philosophy", and certainly not an ideology.
I KNOW that I entertain contradictory ideas that I cannot, nor do I
attempt to, resolve. That violates the rules of philosophy as I
understand them.
I even make assumptions that contradict other assumptions, depending
on what is convenient for purposes of argument. This violates the
fundamental concept of ideology.
Bob his hiding his fundamental viewpoints,
Maybe I don't have any other than what I explicitly express.
Your implicit position involves a , how can I put this,
DIFFERENT view of our history, but quite an interesting
one.
But of course, I don't necessarily hold that different view of our
history. I merely entertain it as a possibility. It is useful for
looking at some historical phenomena and making sense of them. But it
is just as wrong as all other historical views, so I use other points
of view when they are useful, even though contradictory to this one.
that regards us as cogs in a great machine - as
a "workforce" to be replaced as cheaply as possible and
to be used for spot wars >under the guise of "patriotism".
Government doesn't regard us as any such thing. In fact, governments
don't "regard". The people who control the government, and the people
who elected those who control the government indeed do "regard" the
people as being just the sort of thing you describe.
Well that is quite correct
The people who control the government are "we the people".
You just agreed that we regard ourselves as cogs in a great machine.
And indeed enough of us so regard ourselves, a critical times, so as
to make it a useful way of looking at ourselves for some purposes.
but was implied in my usage, "government"
as a collective noun included all that PLUS the abstract conception,
you will pardon me for calling it "Prussianized" meaning the
false idea that we exist to somehow "serve" government and the state.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people". The
government exists to serves us. We are the government. We thus exist
to serve ourselves.
Note who I quoted. If it did not exist before the Civil War, then
that critical idea about the nature of government certainly has been a
key concept of American ideals since that little speech over a
graveyard in Gettysburg.
It is my belief that the most fundamental point of our revolution
was quite the opposite, that the state exists to serve us, and this
is QUITE UNIQUE even among western democracies.
But of course that was NOT what the revolution was about. The
revolution was about getting rid of a king who would not respect the
proper limits on government, the violations of which took up almost
all of the Declaration.
I know
you do not agree that the Declaration of Independence has political
force
It has no legal force. Not the same thing.
but I would hope that you would admit at least that it has
a philosophical import.
ANYTHING can have philosophical import.
But the "globalist" era destroyed the cogs and outsourced the machine
and now we are here wondering what kind of government ignores
our livelihood, subverts our lives, deceives our finances,
cheats our health and bankrupts our economy
while violating our rights by snooping on us
to prevent "terrorism"?
Actually I doubt that most of us are wondering any such thing. You
speak only for yourself.
The election of November 2006 says otherwise.
I don't pretend to interpret the Nov 2006 election as saying anything
other than that certain people were elected to office.
There is no way to prove any greater meaning than the simple one, and
it is probably completely wrong to do anything else.
WE,
kicked out some republicans, supposedly because of the war
as a distraction to the real reasons which I said above.
You are doing the supposing. I don't make any such supposition as to
why - at least not in terms of favoring or opposing any particular
ideology.
Next election, WE are going to kick out lots more incumbents
of both parties!!!
I'm sure that we will. I am not sure that we know which ones. And I
am quite sure that no one will know WHY we did what we did, because I
don't think most of us have any single reason why, and many of us have
contradictory reasons for electoral decisions.
It's going to be fun!!!
I see it as being a deep responsibility. Fulfilling my civic duty is
"satisfying", but I don't think of it as "fun".
not the corporations,
not the social scientists, not the lobbyists,
not the military,
but WE THE PEOPLE.
"We the people" don't have to do so, since "we the people" already run
the government.
Uh uh uh, tsk tsk tsk, I submit to you that whatever is running
the government now, is most certainly NOT "we the people"!!!!
I contend that you are quite wrong. It just happens that most of the
time "we the people" run things by letting them run themselves. That
isn't just true of how we run government, but how we run all of our
lives.
"WE THE PEOPLE" have controlled and subverted it.
This is in part correct as even Gatto admits.
But what is not admitted is the actual GOALS of the education
system
There are no goals of "the education system", because there is no
education system.
which Gatto claims split into two systems,
It started out as 50+ systems and it remains 50+ systems.
one for the elite rulers
There are no elite rulers. Those who think of themselves as elite and
who can afford it often choose private schools and thus eschew "the
system" that is local to them. But those private schools do not
constitute a system either.
and one for the "workforce".
We are all the workforce, including the elite.
I know you think there is NO
single unified goal and believe that it varies across states
and regions.
Indeed. And across people within a state, or even in a family. If
you think the kid attending school has the same goals in attending as
his parents, you are truly off in never-never land.
And of course the goals that the kids have are more important than the
goals their parents have, since education is subject to the old adage
about leading horses to water but being unable to make them drink.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Jimserac" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
24 Nov 2007 05:50:34 AM |
|
|
On Nov 24, 3:19 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
OK fine, good observations. My first task is to re-examine the civil
war, and in particular Lincoln's speech. I have for a lifetime
unthinkingly thought of the civil war as an ECONOMIC issue
regarding slavery and that the economy of the south was based on it.
But your comments have awakened me to the idea that this is a gross
oversimplification and that quite a bit more
is (was) involved and that the full explication and presentation of
this "quite a bit" more is NOT in the interest of the post civil war
governments.
Seeing the civil war as a kind of great bifurcation between two
possible paths, one involving a loyalty
to a way of life and a truer adherence to the principles of the
revolution, despite the slavery and the other involving the blind
regimentation and dehumanized industrialization which I have come to
despise, now THAT is an intriguing concept which begs to be analyzed.
I had formerly thought that the Declaration was the key
to everything because of its allowance, even insistence, on popular
revolution should the formed government become destructive of certain
rights which the authors of the declaration pay lip service to the
theology of the times by using the phrase "endowed by their creator".
Lastly, on a side topic,
May I inquire of your opinion on this "Golden Compass"
movie. I've heard that some religious group (s?) is/are
up in arms over it. What is the big hullabaloo
all about? From the looks of the previews, the visuals
are beautiful.
Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in Public Schools, pt 1 |
24 Nov 2007 01:23:46 PM |
|
|
Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@gmail.com> wrote:
May I inquire of your opinion on this "Golden Compass"
movie. I've heard that some religious group (s?) is/are
up in arms over it. What is the big hullabaloo
all about? From the looks of the previews, the visuals
are beautiful.
I have no idea about the movie. I can comment on the book. The
trilogy was originally marketed as kid books because the main
character is a pre-adolescent girl, and several of the ideas
introduced in the first book seemed to be designed to appeal to a
younger imagination (talking armored polar bears, kids that have a
personal animal "familiar" that reflects their personality, etc). But
the language is rather difficult for kids books - a goodly number of
big words that aren't in common dictionaries or which coined from
greek roots. More importantly, the books are extremely heavy with
allegory and symbolism based on numerous medieval theological and
philosophical concepts - not all of which I understood. Understanding
the story at the deepest level apparently requires familiarity with
"Paradise Lost". I found the story interesting and somewhat moving,
but the ending was a bit difficult and even perplexing.
Given that you like to think about philosophy, you might enjoy the
books as a philosophical | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
