Why I vote democrat


Herb Sewell

Recommended Posts

Please forgive me for not using the quote feature, I'm still a little new to this,Is there a forum topic on it or could someone please walk me through it, If not I'll keep on trying.

Just hit "Reply" to the post you want to quote. If you want to quote two+ posts, hit "Multiquote" on each, then "Add Reply".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with Ninth. Given the material, our upbringing is what plays a huge part in what we incorporate from school teachings. Teachers add another layer. Though they are required to have X material in their lesson plans, they will put their own spin on things.

My worry lies in what's left out. As Michael pointed out, Kat's kids not knowing about Daniel Boone is scary. Leaving out pioneering individuals...geez!

It seems to me that if you localize school control to the state, the outcome will be much better. When management of anything is set too high on the ladder, how well can you see the bottom rung? And therefore, how can you possibly know what's needed? If today's trends are any indication, than the govt' is blind.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are we so sure your actual name is indeed Robert? may I see your birth certificate?

Thats beside the point, you have offered nothing to the argument, all you have done is put of pointless rhetorical questions with no basis in reality

Herb (or whatever),

And you are really sounding like the kind of snarky person I detest, as in my first impression.

This is a forum of ideas and, so far, I haven't seen you contribute any.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelly,

The really big issue the progressives are wound up about is the textbook change saying that the Founding Fathers were Christians, especially since it took them so long to erase that fact from the history books.

But before you simply quote newspapers like the Washington Post, which is on board with the progressive agenda, you should also look at what actually is being changed in the textbooks.

The man who was a linchpin in getting these changes effected was David Barton, an admitted Christian with a Christian mission. However, Barton has a quality you will not find much in his critics. The man is a monster at knowing his original sources with respect to the Founding Fathers, and later history for that matter. The progressive revisionist history books I have seen so far are very, very scarce on actual quotes and footnotes. The stuff I've seen--when compared side-by-side with Barton's stuff--just doesn't compare in terms of presenting documented facts.

Barton is documented up to his eyeballs. His critics and the progressive revisionist history books generally present a lot of opinions and "interpretations," and quotes from books about books about books, but not much in the way of original sources.

If you would like to read some of the original sources, here is Barton's website where you can find oodles of stuff: Wallbuilders. Look under "Historical Documents" and things like that. It's an eye-opener.

I have no problem with saying the Founding Fathers were Christian if that's what they were. And from their own writings I have read--in their own words, that's exactly what they were. I do have a problem with saying the Founding Fathers were not Christian since they were, and I have a problem with people who worked hard to make it appear that they were not Christians. The information that has already been taught to countless schoolchildren has been a colossal lie.

That bothers me. A lot.

Saying someone is or was a Christian does not mean you have to adopt that person's form of Christianity. So why the lie? Why lie to children, for God's sake? Why lie to children in school--the very place children are supposed to be taught facts?

Here. You don't have to wade through a lot of old documents if you don't want to. Wikiquote does quite nicely. Check these quotes out from George Washington, for example:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

---General Order, (9 July 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts

. . .

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

--General Orders (2 May 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343

. . .

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."

--Letter to Edward Newenham (20 October 1792)

On that same page of Wikiquote, here is a quote that is presented as wrongly attributed to Washington:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

The context and meaning of that quote was that since the USA is not a nation based on religion (in the sense that a Muslim nation can be), there was no threat of the USA making a religious war with a Muslim nation. Here is the explanation from Wikiquote:

This statement was made by an official representative of the U.S., but is actually a line from the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, initially signed by a representative of the US on 4 November 1796 during Washington's presidency, approved by Congress 7 June 1797 and finally signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. Article 11 of it reads:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,— as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,— and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The statement was written that way to calm down the excessive religious feelings of Muslims! It was to characterize the USA government as having separation of church and state, thus not a religious threat.

That is a far cry from using this as "proof" that Washington was not a Christian, but instead, as often stated, a Deist (in the modern meaning--not the meaning of the times--at that).

To repeat once again what I have been insinuating, but explicitly this time: There is nothing wrong with learning the truth. There is everything wrong with learning a lie.

I believe the corrections in the Texas textbooks will correct some fundamental lies and strategic omissions and "re-interpretations" that have been put there by a creeping progressive agenda.

The liberals are going nuts, too. The jig is up and they know it, so it's all over except the shouting. And shout they do. If they can present original sources showing that the textbook changes are false, they should. I am certain some measures can be done about it and that people like David Barton will welcome being corrected. (He may be religious, but he does have extremely high scholarly integrity standards.) So far, I have not seen too much that has impressed me in this respect.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kelly,

The really big issue the progressives are wound up about is the textbook change saying that the Founding Fathers were Christians, especially since it took them so long to erase that fact from the history books.

But before you simply quote newspapers like the Washington Post, which is on board with the progressive agenda, you should also look at what actually is being changed in the textbooks.

The man who was a linchpin in getting these changes effected was David Barton, an admitted Christian with a Christian mission. However, Barton has a quality you will not find much in his critics. The man is a monster at knowing his original sources with respect to the Founding Fathers, and later history for that matter. The progressive revisionist history books I have seen so far are very, very scarce on actual quotes and footnotes. The stuff I've seen--when compared side-by-side with Barton's stuff--just doesn't compare in terms of presenting documented facts.

Barton is documented up to his eyeballs. His critics and the progressive revisionist history books generally present a lot of opinions and "interpretations," and quotes from books about books about books, but not much in the way of original sources.

If you would like to read some of the original sources, here is Barton's website where you can find oodles of stuff: Wallbuilders. Look under "Historical Documents" and things like that. It's an eye-opener.

I have no problem with saying the Founding Fathers were Christian if that's what they were. And from their own writings I have read--in their own words, that's exactly what they were. I do have a problem with saying the Founding Fathers were not Christian since they were, and I have a problem with people who worked hard to make it appear that they were not Christians. The information that has already been taught to countless schoolchildren has been a colossal lie.

That bothers me. A lot.

Saying someone is or was a Christian does not mean you have to adopt that person's form of Christianity. So why the lie? Why lie to children, for God's sake? Why lie to children in school--the very place children are supposed to be taught facts?

Here. You don't have to wade through a lot of old documents if you don't want to. Wikiquote does quite nicely. Check these quotes out from George Washington, for example:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

---General Order, (9 July 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts

. . .

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

--General Orders (2 May 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343

. . .

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."

--Letter to Edward Newenham (20 October 1792)

On that same page of Wikiquote, here is a quote that is presented as wrongly attributed to Washington:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

The context and meaning of that quote was that since the USA is not a nation based on religion (in the sense that a Muslim nation can be), there was no threat of the USA making a religious war with a Muslim nation. Here is the explanation from Wikiquote:

This statement was made by an official representative of the U.S., but is actually a line from the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, initially signed by a representative of the US on 4 November 1796 during Washington's presidency, approved by Congress 7 June 1797 and finally signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. Article 11 of it reads:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,— as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,— and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The statement was written that way to calm down the excessive religious feelings of Muslims! It was to characterize the USA government as having separation of church and state, thus not a religious threat.

That is a far cry from using this as "proof" that Washington was not a Christian, but instead, as often stated, a Deist (in the modern meaning--not the meaning of the times--at that).

To repeat once again what I have been insinuating, but explicitly this time: There is nothing wrong with learning the truth. There is everything wrong with learning a lie.

I believe the corrections in the Texas textbooks will correct some fundamental lies and strategic omissions and "re-interpretations" that have been put there by a creeping progressive agenda.

The liberals are going nuts, too. The jig is up and they know it, so it's all over except the shouting. And shout they do. If they can present original sources showing that the textbook changes are false, they should. I am certain some measures can be done about it and that people like David Barton will welcome being corrected. (He may be religious, but he does have extremely high scholarly integrity standards.) So far, I have not seen too much that has impressed me in this respect.

Michael

Michael,

I found nothing fractionally objectionable about the article I linked to. Whether the Times has a progressive agenda or not doesn't seem to matter in relation to the story. Plus the bias that newspapers like the Times exhibit generally have to do with the stories that they cover. I haven't run into them making up facts, it's more what facts they choose to report, and much the same could be said for just about all newspapers and news stations.

I have not heard of David Barton, I'll have to look into him. I, like you, am also very interested that just the truth be taught, which is why I was concerned with some of the changes to the textbooks. I Agree if some or most of the founders were religious Christians, which they were, teach it. But why downplay the role of T.Jefferson? He so much more important and influential than Washington. Both he and Madison were instrumental in leading the separation of church and state, why not report the facts on that? Why is is important to have Jefferson Davis's inauguration along side of Abraham Lincoln? Why change the name "slave trade" to Trilateral trade"? Many questions. I suspect that we are not correcting untruths here, just perpetuating more.

If you are looking for sources of work that perhaps challenge Bartons, I'd look into The Godless Constitution I read it years ago and remember being very impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found nothing fractionally objectionable about the article I linked to.

Kelly,

How about the date on the article, March 18, 2010? This was written before the changes were passed.

The thing about Jefferson is even amusing. In the article you linked to, what facts about Jefferson were being deleted, who was proposing it, etc., were not mentioned. (It seems like the old standards of Who What When Where Why and How are no longer in vogue at the Washington Post.)

So I Googled it. I saw a flurry of leftish publications, all dated about the end of March, claiming the deleted Jefferson from the school books mantra (allegedly because he supported separation of church and state and conservatives don't like that). So I started looking for articles dated after the measure was passed. The first I came across--dated May 24, 2010--was this: Thomas Jefferson Sneaks Back into Texas Textbooks.

Ho hum. What a miracle. What a sneaky sneaky miracle.

After looking more in depth at this, I read that the whole controversy was not about the role of Jefferson in USA history, but his importance to world history. I'm happy he is included in the list of influential political thinkers in world history.

I suspect that all of the objections in the Washington Post article you linked to had similar "miraculous" happy endings...

I will let you decide whether the rhetoric and journalistic patterns fit the criterion of objectivity. But if you want to make allegations of fact, you should at least check the dates of the articles you link to and, if they are older than current, check them against what actually happened.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

I understand that analogies are not meant to be exactly the same, however It just seemed like the scale was off for the analogy. It's like the difference between being shot by an bb gun or a shot gun, from the relatively tame United States to the overarching oppression of the Soviet Union.

The important thing, for me, is the essentials. Your views on how education should be run are like how the Soviets felt the economy should be run: top-down with one general plan. That's how I deployed the analogy. I'd hoped with such a comparison, you wouldn't so much bicker about the comparison but either agree that it's valid or show me why your views here are really not so centralized and authoritarian.

"I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did."

I'm not trying to romanticize the period, I was just commenting on the quality of education over the last 50 years or so, and my , albeit uniformed, opinion on the matter was that the education system was turning out better educated children then as opposed to now. Perhaps you think this is incorrect?

I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. (And this is not from a general ignorance. I've read a few books on education in America and its history.) I also seriously doubt you do or most people weighing in on this issue do. I think many people just uncritically assume public education worked or worked well at one time and then it broke. Further, they seem to believe that if public education just went back to being like it was before it broke that all would be fine.

"This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?"

So you think that it's good to have radically different histories? Really. I expressed that I think it's a bad idea for Americans to be taught "radically" different versions of history, and from that you get that it's my way or the high way, and try to imply that "my way" (if you can even get "my way" from the few sentences' I posted) was close to the Soviet Model. Where did I mention that no on gets competing voices, or that everyone should accept my version?

There seem to be several assumptions packed in there. First is that we'd all be better off if everyone were taught the same version of history. Second, that somehow competing voices will survive despite this approved version being taught. Third, I'm just guessing is that history is already settled -- that it's merely a matter of teaching the correct history rather than that it might be the case that it's unsettled.

Do you see the danger of everyone being taught by the same institution (viz., public schools), the same history -- even if alternative voices aren't suppressed? (Just how alternatives are to be treated is going to be a big problem. I can just imagine an official list of approved alternative views being allowed and mainly ridiculed. I recall my high school American History class, where I voiced the alternative view that the central bank, perhaps, caused the Great Depression and the New Deal only made things worse. How would that view compete with the official view being taught -- which, I presume, almost everyone taught in US public schools today is taught?)

Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree? Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth? (If so, don't you think everyone who wants to force others to do something -- whether be taught a version of history, follow a production plan, not look at porn, or not smoke pot -- believes they know the truth or what's best for others and that this justifies their coercion? Why are you different than any of them?)

Edited by Dan Ust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found nothing fractionally objectionable about the article I linked to.

Kelly,

How about the date on the article, March 18, 2010? This was written before the changes were passed.

The thing about Jefferson is even amusing. In the article you linked to, what facts about Jefferson were being deleted, who was proposing it, etc., were not mentioned. (It seems like the old standards of Who What When Where Why and How are no longer in vogue at the Washington Post.)

So I Googled it. I saw a flurry of leftish publications, all dated about the end of March, claiming the deleted Jefferson from the school books mantra (allegedly because he supported separation of church and state and conservatives don't like that). So I started looking for articles dated after the measure was passed. The first I came across--dated May 24, 2010--was this: Thomas Jefferson Sneaks Back into Texas Textbooks.

Ho hum. What a miracle. What a sneaky sneaky miracle.

After looking more in depth at this, I read that the whole controversy was not about the role of Jefferson in USA history, but his importance to world history. I'm happy he is included in the list of influential political thinkers in world history.

I suspect that all of the objections in the Washington Post article you linked to had similar "miraculous" happy endings...

I will let you decide whether the rhetoric and journalistic patterns fit the criterion of objectivity. But if you want to make allegations of fact, you should at least check the dates of the articles you link to and, if they are older than current, check them against what actually happened.

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the links and yes I see that TJ is back in the books. Good News. I do take a little issue however with your analysis. You seem to (maybe) be insinuating that there was never any plan to exclude Jefferson in the first place. Sure the date was before the vote, and that was my fault for not following up and I'm happy that I was wrong. The article itself wasn't particularly scholarly, but not all articles are. When I said that I don't see anything factually inaccurate about the article, I meant that I did not believe the article was making up any facts and that indeed they were reporting on proposed changes to the textbooks. In fact, after following the link that you provided I read this "Burned by very bad publicity, social conservatives on Texas State Board of Education scrambled to undo an earlier vote to delete Thomas Jeffersonfrom a list of influential political thinkers in world history. After renewed debate today, the board reinserted Jefferson (but not James Madison, who didn't the cut) in the world history curriculum."

So they did vote to remove Jefferson prior to deleting the vote? Your right, miracles do happen and this one was indeed sneaky. :)

In truth I did believe that the conservative board was trying to remove Jefferson for reasons that he did not fit into their narrative of the founding fathers, and perhaps that is what they tried to do. I'm grateful to have a better picture now. That being said many of these conservative are not just "trying to get the truth out there" but are very good at trying to push there own false views.

One more thing. Remember I brought all this up in the context of discussing why I was concerned with the general trend of conservatives who appear to be pushing religion in the public sphere, and I still hold to that. I mentioned that there were efforts to excluded T.J. from the textbooks. The article that I linked to was just to illustrate that these things are occurring, I could have mentioned or linked to a Terry Schivo article, or Kansas education science standards article or something on the numerous people running for the house on a much more religious platform and perhaps in retrospect I should have.

Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

I understand that analogies are not meant to be exactly the same, however It just seemed like the scale was off for the analogy. It's like the difference between being shot by an bb gun or a shot gun, from the relatively tame United States to the overarching oppression of the Soviet Union.

The important thing, for me, is the essentials. Your views on how education should be run are like how the Soviets felt the economy should be run: top-down with one general plan. That's how I deployed the analogy. I'd hoped with such a comparison, you wouldn't so much bicker about the comparison but either agree that it's valid or show me why your views here are really not so centralized and authoritarian.

"I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did."

I'm not trying to romanticize the period, I was just commenting on the quality of education over the last 50 years or so, and my , albeit uniformed, opinion on the matter was that the education system was turning out better educated children then as opposed to now. Perhaps you think this is incorrect?

I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. (And this is not from a general ignorance. I've read a few books on education in America and its history.) I also seriously doubt you do or most people weighing in on this issue do. I think many people just uncritically assume public education worked or worked well at one time and then it broke. Further, they seem to believe that if public education just went back to being like it was before it broke that all would be fine.

"This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?"

So you think that it's good to have radically different histories? Really. I expressed that I think it's a bad idea for Americans to be taught "radically" different versions of history, and from that you get that it's my way or the high way, and try to imply that "my way" (if you can even get "my way" from the few sentences' I posted) was close to the Soviet Model. Where did I mention that no on gets competing voices, or that everyone should accept my version?

There seem to be several assumptions packed in there. First is that we'd all be better off if everyone were taught the same version of history. Second, that somehow competing voices will survive despite this approved version being taught. Third, I'm just guessing is that history is already settled -- that it's merely a matter of teaching the correct history rather than that it might be the case that it's unsettled.

Do you see the danger of everyone being taught by the same institution (viz., public schools), the same history -- even if alternative voices aren't suppressed? (Just how alternatives are to be treated is going to be a big problem. I can just imagine an official list of approved alternative views being allowed and mainly ridiculed. I recall my high school American History class, where I voiced the alternative view that the central bank, perhaps, caused the Great Depression and the New Deal only made things worse. How would that view compete with the official view being taught -- which, I presume, almost everyone taught in US public schools today is taught?)

Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree? Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth? (If so, don't you think everyone who wants to force others to do something -- whether be taught a version of history, follow a production plan, not look at porn, or not smoke pot -- believes they know the truth or what's best for others and that this justifies their coercion? Why are you different than any of them?)

Dan,

I think that it’s difficult to actually discuss ideas when engaged in these type of analogies, because rather than discuss the merits of an idea I have to explain why an idea is not like one of the most evil and destructive states in human history even when it's something as tame as educational standards. I get that you think in essentials, but why not say that it's like the US military or like NIKE, or a host of other centralized decision making entities. They're essentially the same right (top down authoritative structures), with a few differences, or shall we argue about which essentials are really the essential thing? It's been my experience that right from the bat when people throw out comparisons ,even in analogies , to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, that there is not much common ground for conversation because if asking teachers to teach a standardize curriculum is the same oppression I probably will be dismissed outright. Apologies if I misunderstood your intentions. I'm still relatively new to posting in a forum of ideas, so I'm having to transition from actual human interactions where I can pick up on tone and inflection, to this medium where I can imagine and assign intention.

All that being said I don’t want to answer to your analogy because it is indeed similar to what I'm saying. Somewhat. Yes it's a centralized decision making and it indeed takes a measure of perceived choice away. But I guess where I am arguing from is what we have today, not an imagined future where there is no state control of education. I think it's important that we do a better job of education kids, so I'm not opposed to some controls if they are effective. And what we have today is still a measure freedom of education, you can send kids to public school, you can send kids to private school or home school them, and perhaps there are other options that I'm not aware of as well. In regards to that freedom of choice, your analogy to the authoritative centralized soviet state is not correct. The public education system is public and is going to be at some level controlled buy a municipality or state. In so much as that exists, and I think it should, I think there should be standards.

I agree with you that there is a danger in teaching the same history, But this is the way that it goes. I think that we can all agree on many things in history, it's in the analysis that there are disagreements. It's always going to come down to the teachers and the way that they present the discussion

I'm talking about the public education system, as it is. You're talking about me have a desire to force people and coerce people into things, I'm talking about standards for teaching history or science or math.

You ask, "Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree?"

I agree. But If kids are going to go to public schools I think they should have some common standards. If they don't want to be coerced into learning, they have alternatives. The way you’ve set it up though it seems that all learning is coerced or forced.

You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"

No.

Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are we so sure your actual name is indeed Robert? may I see your birth certificate?

Thats beside the point, you have offered nothing to the argument, all you have done is put of pointless rhetorical questions with no basis in reality

Herb (or whatever),

And you are really sounding like the kind of snarky person I detest, as in my first impression.

This is a forum of ideas and, so far, I haven't seen you contribute any.

Michael

Let us not be so nasty shall we?

Please point out which parts of my posts you find objectionable as opposed to engaging in ad hominem

Thanks again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do take a little issue however with your analysis. You seem to (maybe) be insinuating that there was never any plan to exclude Jefferson in the first place.

Kelly,

That was not my intent. I was merely treating hype in the manner I believe hype should be treated.

If ever you are in doubt about a newspaper article, do the 5 W's and 1 H on it. If it fails that test, then you are reading opinion.

For example, the claim--in screaming headlines--that Jefferson was excluded from "the history textbooks" (as was done in several articles and blogs by the orchestrated liberal hype machine) is a bit misleading in light of what really went on, don't you think? The insinuation was that Jefferson was excluded from American history textbooks or even all history textbooks.

That's hype.

But there is even something more important. You are assuming as an article of faith that the reason Jefferson was not initially included in the world history list was because he promoted the separation of church and state and that conservatives are opposed to that.

What have you read other than an opinion that backs that up? Have you read a statement by someone on the board who had excluded Jefferson--a statement bashing Jefferson for promoting separation of church and state? Or did you only read the opinion of those with an axe to grind?

I am not saying that this was or was not the reason, although I strongly suspect it was not since I am familiar with Barton's position--he thinks separation of church and state is not only correct--it is essential for keeping the republic healthy.

Now, are there religious conservative who are pushing for mixture of church and state? Yup. But that is another issue. I seriously doubt any long-term block of their efforts will be accomplished by the liberal hype machine lying, distorting issues and events, and presenting lopsided opinions as facts about people and committees that worked on a particular project.

Actually, the progressive hype machine people did initially convince you (and others of course) of their hype enough for you to post about it in public. But you did not support that argument with actual facts, since you relied on those folks as your source. And that makes you look careless when you encounter someone who does look at facts, even though I doubt that this was your intention.

Did you like being misled?

Think about it the next time you read these people. Or the conservative hype machine for that matter.

Facts are your friends, Kelly. And they start with 5 W's and 1 H, no matter who writes about them.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it's difficult to actually discuss ideas when engaged in these type of analogies, because rather than discuss the merits of an idea I have to explain why an idea is not like one of the most evil and destructive states in human history even when it's something as tame as educational standards.

I didn't focus on the Soviet system of torture and murder, but merely that of central planning. But if it bothers you so much, let's leave it aside.

I get that you think in essentials, but why not say that it's like the US military or like NIKE, or a host of other centralized decision making entities.

Fine, like the US military. (NIKE, if you mean the clothes maker, is not a coercive entity -- to my knowledge: it doesn't use coercion to get or keep customers. The military, however, essentially relies on coercion for its funding and continuance -- and is, in fact, an instrument of coercion for the US government.)

They're essentially the same right (top down authoritative structures), with a few differences, or shall we argue about which essentials are really the essential thing? It's been my experience that right from the bat when people throw out comparisons ,even in analogies , to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, that there is not much common ground for conversation because if asking teachers to teach a standardize curriculum is the same oppression I probably will be dismissed outright.

Correct me if I'm wrong: you were advocating against local control of schools and for continuance of the public school system -- just one with your preferred curriculum. If so, then the essential similarity with your view and those of, say, the US military is coercive enforced of a given plan.

Apologies if I misunderstood your intentions. I'm still relatively new to posting in a forum of ideas, so I'm having to transition from actual human interactions where I can pick up on tone and inflection, to this medium where I can imagine and assign intention.

What did you divine my intentions as? Merely curious...

All that being said I don't want to answer to your analogy because it is indeed similar to what I'm saying. Somewhat. Yes it's a centralized decision making and it indeed takes a measure of perceived choice away.

Perceived choice? How does that differ from choice? If someone else calls the shots, then you have no choice, no?

But I guess where I am arguing from is what we have today, not an imagined future where there is no state control of education.

But the thing you fear -- that some religious group might takeover and force feed kids their version of history, biology, etc. -- is easy under the current system: they have merely to capture the state (i.e., get control of the state). The thing you fear is partly caused by the present system.

I have no problem arguing for "an imagined future where there is no state control of education." (And there was a real past with no state control of education, so it's not societies have always had states that have always had their hands in education. Even the US didn't have government control of education for a large chunk of its history.)

I think it's important that we do a better job of education kids, so I'm not opposed to some controls if they are effective.

I see the issue a bit different than you. I don't start out thinking that freedom is optional and then look at the problem. Granted, I can entertain that idea, but when I look at the world I see that it's actual control that hasn't worked. And I see, as Rand and others did long before me, that those who see some problem rarely question that the problem might be caused by the controls and not by the remaining freedom. Surely, you see this in economic controls where some problem, real or imagined, is used to justify controls (think of, e.g., rent control, minimum wage laws, or calls for equal pay) and then when these controls create new problems ever more controls are advocated. (A fine example of this is the current recession: caused by meddling in the housing and credit markets, few are advocating getting rid of regulations and most are calling for (and have partly gotten) merely more regulations -- as if the problem were no regulation and as if the new regulations will somehow give regulators to foresee and forestall the next economic crisis.)

And what we have today is still a measure freedom of education, you can send kids to public school, you can send kids to private school or home school them, and perhaps there are other options that I'm not aware of as well.

Those options do exist now, but take homeschooling. That exists today because people "imagined [a] future" where parents could take more control over their child's education. This is almost the complete opposite of the model you advocate. It's one of rampant choice -- albeit the government still sets standards and tries to minimize the impact. (And, notably, the government still taxes homeschooling parents to pay for public education.) And the world is not standing still. While you might think these choices will always remain, it's possible that the government might clamp down on homeschooling (and even private schools) reducing the amount of choices available.

In regards to that freedom of choice, your analogy to the authoritative centralized soviet state is not correct. The public education system is public and is going to be at some level controlled buy a municipality or state. In so much as that exists, and I think it should, I think there should be standards.

I'm of a different opinion. I think the problem is that public mandatory schooling is the problem. As long as it exists, there will be a political football for different special interest groups to fight over for control of standards, curricula, and school monies (don't think those teachers unions and administrators are not motivated by financial considerations to a large degree).

As for standards, as I said before, if they're not coerced, I'm fine with them. But any government system is going to involve coercive standards. Surely, you can see that?

I agree with you that there is a danger in teaching the same history, But this is the way that it goes. I think that we can all agree on many things in history, it's in the analysis that there are disagreements. It's always going to come down to the teachers and the way that they present the discussion

I'm talking about the public education system, as it is. You're talking about me have a desire to force people and coerce people into things, I'm talking about standards for teaching history or science or math.

There are huge disagreements on any topic, including history. The problem is likely to be, as public educators might try to avoid these, they will present fairly bland "politically correct" versions of each topic. This will educate anyone, but make people think they understand a subject when, at best, they've memorized some facts, dates, and names. (As an aside, I always find it funny when some kid is presented on TV as intelligent because he's memorized all the presidents. This is no small feat, but it doesn't evince intelligence so much as a good memory and, maybe, an obsession with trivia.)

As for teachers doing as they want in the classroom, wouldn't this go against standards? I'm not a teacher, but were I teaching, say, American history what would this amount to? If I have a standard set by you to follow, then either I follow or I don't. If I don't, and you don't mind, why all the hullabaloo about standards if they can so easily be set aside? And if a teacher can set them aside, why not a student or a school?

You ask, "Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree?"

I agree. But If kids are going to go to public schools I think they should have some common standards. If they don't want to be coerced into learning, they have alternatives. The way you've set it up though it seems that all learning is coerced or forced.

You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"

No.

Haven't you clearly contradicted yourself? You want standards and those standards will be coercively enforced, no? If so, then you are for forcibly teaching people what you believe to be true, no?

I'm also afraid of millions of kids being taught exactly the same thing by the same institution. What do you think that will result in? Creative, independent thinkers? Or stunted, dependent subjects? Talking to people I run into daily, I see, sadly, many more of the latter and few of the former. Certainly, some of this might be due to factors other than public schooling, but I can't help but think that public schooling hasn't made things better.

"God is silent. Now if only we could get Man to shut up." -- Woody Allen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do take a little issue however with your analysis. You seem to (maybe) be insinuating that there was never any plan to exclude Jefferson in the first place.

Kelly,

That was not my intent. I was merely treating hype in the manner I believe hype should be treated.

If ever you are in doubt about a newspaper article, do the 5 W's and 1 H on it. If it fails that test, then you are reading opinion.

For example, the claim--in screaming headlines--that Jefferson was excluded from "the history textbooks" (as was done in several articles and blogs by the orchestrated liberal hype machine) is a bit misleading in light of what really went on, don't you think? The insinuation was that Jefferson was excluded from American history textbooks or even all history textbooks.

That's hype.

But there is even something more important. You are assuming as an article of faith that the reason Jefferson was not initially included in the world history list was because he promoted the separation of church and state and that conservatives are opposed to that.

What have you read other than an opinion that backs that up? Have you read a statement by someone on the board who had excluded Jefferson--a statement bashing Jefferson for promoting separation of church and state? Or did you only read the opinion of those with an axe to grind?

I am not saying that this was or was not the reason, although I strongly suspect it was not since I am familiar with Barton's position--he thinks separation of church and state is not only correct--it is essential for keeping the republic healthy.

Now, are there religious conservative who are pushing for mixture of church and state? Yup. But that is another issue. I seriously doubt any long-term block of their efforts will be accomplished by the liberal hype machine lying, distorting issues and events, and presenting lopsided opinions as facts about people and committees that worked on a particular project.

Actually, the progressive hype machine people did initially convince you (and others of course) of their hype enough for you to post about it in public. But you did not support that argument with actual facts, since you relied on those folks as your source. And that makes you look careless when you encounter someone who does look at facts, even though I doubt that this was your intention.

Did you like being misled?

Think about it the next time you read these people. Or the conservative hype machine for that matter.

Facts are your friends, Kelly. And they start with 5 W's and 1 H, no matter who writes about them.

Michael

With all due respect Michael, I think that this is a little beside the point. I explained why I linked to the particular story, and what my intent was for doing so. You don’t have to accept that if you don’t like, but I linked to it as any random example. It turned out that the link apparently struck a nerve on what you obviously passionately dislike, poor journalism, and some leviathan known as the liberal progressive hype machine.So wait, let me understand you, you think there is some kind of progressive agenda in the media? You haven't made yourself clear about that. :)

Do I like being misled? Oh, how I would like to argue this point, but I was sloppy in my posts and I'll pick other battles. Do I like being misled? All in all not so bad. But like most things it's more of a issue of confirmation bias than anything else. I've sat through enough conversations with religious conservatives to know that the founding was a truly religious experience and that they intended for the country to be based on the 10 commandments, hell even Sarah Palin thinks so. So please forgive me if I tend see red flags when I hear things like the Texas Board story.

Next time I post I'll have my MLA guide next to the computer and a few more minutes. :)

Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it's difficult to actually discuss ideas when engaged in these type of analogies, because rather than discuss the merits of an idea I have to explain why an idea is not like one of the most evil and destructive states in human history even when it's something as tame as educational standards.

I didn't focus on the Soviet system of torture and murder, but merely that of central planning. But if it bothers you so much, let's leave it aside.

I get that you think in essentials, but why not say that it's like the US military or like NIKE, or a host of other centralized decision making entities.

Fine, like the US military. (NIKE, if you mean the clothes maker, is not a coercive entity -- to my knowledge: it doesn't use coercion to get or keep customers. The military, however, essentially relies on coercion for its funding and continuance -- and is, in fact, an instrument of coercion for the US government.)

They're essentially the same right (top down authoritative structures), with a few differences, or shall we argue about which essentials are really the essential thing? It's been my experience that right from the bat when people throw out comparisons ,even in analogies , to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, that there is not much common ground for conversation because if asking teachers to teach a standardize curriculum is the same oppression I probably will be dismissed outright.

Correct me if I'm wrong: you were advocating against local control of schools and for continuance of the public school system -- just one with your preferred curriculum. If so, then the essential similarity with your view and those of, say, the US military is coercive enforced of a given plan.

Apologies if I misunderstood your intentions. I'm still relatively new to posting in a forum of ideas, so I'm having to transition from actual human interactions where I can pick up on tone and inflection, to this medium where I can imagine and assign intention.

What did you divine my intentions as? Merely curious...

All that being said I don't want to answer to your analogy because it is indeed similar to what I'm saying. Somewhat. Yes it's a centralized decision making and it indeed takes a measure of perceived choice away.

Perceived choice? How does that differ from choice? If someone else calls the shots, then you have no choice, no?

But I guess where I am arguing from is what we have today, not an imagined future where there is no state control of education.

But the thing you fear -- that some religious group might takeover and force feed kids their version of history, biology, etc. -- is easy under the current system: they have merely to capture the state (i.e., get control of the state). The thing you fear is partly caused by the present system.

I have no problem arguing for "an imagined future where there is no state control of education." (And there was a real past with no state control of education, so it's not societies have always had states that have always had their hands in education. Even the US didn't have government control of education for a large chunk of its history.)

I think it's important that we do a better job of education kids, so I'm not opposed to some controls if they are effective.

I see the issue a bit different than you. I don't start out thinking that freedom is optional and then look at the problem. Granted, I can entertain that idea, but when I look at the world I see that it's actual control that hasn't worked. And I see, as Rand and others did long before me, that those who see some problem rarely question that the problem might be caused by the controls and not by the remaining freedom. Surely, you see this in economic controls where some problem, real or imagined, is used to justify controls (think of, e.g., rent control, minimum wage laws, or calls for equal pay) and then when these controls create new problems ever more controls are advocated. (A fine example of this is the current recession: caused by meddling in the housing and credit markets, few are advocating getting rid of regulations and most are calling for (and have partly gotten) merely more regulations -- as if the problem were no regulation and as if the new regulations will somehow give regulators to foresee and forestall the next economic crisis.)

And what we have today is still a measure freedom of education, you can send kids to public school, you can send kids to private school or home school them, and perhaps there are other options that I'm not aware of as well.

Those options do exist now, but take homeschooling. That exists today because people "imagined [a] future" where parents could take more control over their child's education. This is almost the complete opposite of the model you advocate. It's one of rampant choice -- albeit the government still sets standards and tries to minimize the impact. (And, notably, the government still taxes homeschooling parents to pay for public education.) And the world is not standing still. While you might think these choices will always remain, it's possible that the government might clamp down on homeschooling (and even private schools) reducing the amount of choices available.

In regards to that freedom of choice, your analogy to the authoritative centralized soviet state is not correct. The public education system is public and is going to be at some level controlled buy a municipality or state. In so much as that exists, and I think it should, I think there should be standards.

I'm of a different opinion. I think the problem is that public mandatory schooling is the problem. As long as it exists, there will be a political football for different special interest groups to fight over for control of standards, curricula, and school monies (don't think those teachers unions and administrators are not motivated by financial considerations to a large degree).

As for standards, as I said before, if they're not coerced, I'm fine with them. But any government system is going to involve coercive standards. Surely, you can see that?

I agree with you that there is a danger in teaching the same history, But this is the way that it goes. I think that we can all agree on many things in history, it's in the analysis that there are disagreements. It's always going to come down to the teachers and the way that they present the discussion

I'm talking about the public education system, as it is. You're talking about me have a desire to force people and coerce people into things, I'm talking about standards for teaching history or science or math.

There are huge disagreements on any topic, including history. The problem is likely to be, as public educators might try to avoid these, they will present fairly bland "politically correct" versions of each topic. This will educate anyone, but make people think they understand a subject when, at best, they've memorized some facts, dates, and names. (As an aside, I always find it funny when some kid is presented on TV as intelligent because he's memorized all the presidents. This is no small feat, but it doesn't evince intelligence so much as a good memory and, maybe, an obsession with trivia.)

As for teachers doing as they want in the classroom, wouldn't this go against standards? I'm not a teacher, but were I teaching, say, American history what would this amount to? If I have a standard set by you to follow, then either I follow or I don't. If I don't, and you don't mind, why all the hullabaloo about standards if they can so easily be set aside? And if a teacher can set them aside, why not a student or a school?

You ask, "Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree?"

I agree. But If kids are going to go to public schools I think they should have some common standards. If they don't want to be coerced into learning, they have alternatives. The way you've set it up though it seems that all learning is coerced or forced.

You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"

No.

Haven't you clearly contradicted yourself? You want standards and those standards will be coercively enforced, no? If so, then you are for forcibly teaching people what you believe to be true, no?

I'm also afraid of millions of kids being taught exactly the same thing by the same institution. What do you think that will result in? Creative, independent thinkers? Or stunted, dependent subjects? Talking to people I run into daily, I see, sadly, many more of the latter and few of the former. Certainly, some of this might be due to factors other than public schooling, but I can't help but think that public schooling hasn't made things better.

"God is silent. Now if only we could get Man to shut up." -- Woody Allen

Dan, your patience is all but unbounded. It is awe-inspiring.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with Herb's voting tactics, I do agree that creationism teaching religious conservatives are more dangerous than Obama care. It's one thing to stifle motivation and socialize medicine, it's another thing altogether to deny science outright, and leave things to god. There are many western countries that have socialized medicine, and while that Is not an optimal policy, there is still science and progress.

Yep, there was still science and progress in Nazi Germany too even though genocide wasn't "optimal policy" either.

--Brant

reductio!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

And one word forms my political position: liberty. That implies no government, of course. Those who want government will get less liberty ultimately -- even if that's not what they intend.

And one word for me: freedom. That's because I'm not an anarchist like you and the hatefuls JR and GHS! (Joke! Joke! Joke!) Those who want liberty will get less freedom ultimately--even ....

--Brant

liberty: that's so French!

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us not be so nasty shall we?

Herb,

Nah. I'll keep it nasty for now.

I don't like you.

Michael

May I inquire as to why?

You seem awfully quick to judge, not a very attractive character trait.

Your name is a lie. Off that foundation nothing else is going to work. It's one thing to make up a screen name like Doggie or Tenth Doctor or Lover, it's quite another to put up a name that seems to be a real name but it isn't yours. You also write like a troll might write, but I can't tell if you are one or it's just that distortion of that lie you came here with and stuck right into our faces.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did you divine my intentions as? Merely curious…

I figured that you were throwing out the soviet union reference just to attach my idea to the soviet union and all that weight that that comes with, as it's something I've witnessed from objectivist in the past.

If someone else calls the shots, then you have no choice, no?

Right. Someone else is almost always calling the shots, and unless it's your school, your probably not calling the shots. I figure we're talking about a choice that's not much of a choice.

You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"

No.

Haven't you clearly contradicted yourself? You want standards and those standards will be coercively enforced, no? If so, then you are for forcibly teaching people what you believe to be true, no?

Children should all learn when the American revolution occurred, or The Civil war was fought between the North and the South? or that in math 2+2=4? If these are true things, then yes I hope that they are forcibly and coercively taught to those who, by choice, choose to go to public schooling institutions.

I have no problem arguing for "an imagined future where there is no state control of education." (And there was a real past with no state control of education, so it's not societies have always had states that have always had their hands in education. Even the US didn't have government control of education for a large chunk of its history.)

The educational system and the federal takeover of education is not something that just happened for no reason. There is a tendency to discount that as societies grow large and more advanced there is pressure for states to take over things like this and regulate trade. I suspect that it's largely from businesses or trade unions or guilds. I think it's a function of societies, and it's pretty typical in governments. When or where has that trend been reversed? If it has, then I'm sorry for describing it as a imagined future.

I've been arguing, un-successfully, on your ground in the sense that I haven't challenged your assumptions, because I'm familiar with objectivism (I'm assuming of course that you are an objectivist or libertarian) and was more interested in the standards discussion. It's difficult for me to layout my whole belief system, if it could be called that, in an effort to defend my positions. It's not going too well. Thanks for your patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

Let me clarify something. The military is governed by a civilian force. We cannot make decisions to act unless given permission by that civilian force. We can advise on military matters, as through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with regard to strategic endeavors. But we cannot move on that advice without prior consent.

The way the government uses us, as you pointed out, can be coercive. I would agree to that, but not the military being coercive. Make sense?

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

Let me clarify something. The military is governed by a civilian force. We cannot make decisions to act unless given permission by that civilian force. We can advise on military matters, as through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with regard to strategic endeavors. But we cannot move on that advice without prior consent.

The way the government uses us, as you pointed out, can be coercive. I would agree to that, but not the military being coercive. Make sense?

~ Shane

The military is coercive. That's just a fact. The police are coercive. Fact too. The government is coercive. It's all the same package. That a bunch of soldiers are sitting around playing cards instead of shooting down bad guys changes that not a whit.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The military is coercive. That's just a fact. The police are coercive. Fact too. The government is coercive. It's all the same package. That a bunch of soldiers are sitting around playing cards instead of shooting down bad guys changes that not a whit.

--Brant

Brant, my impression from Dan was that he was stating the military as a whole is coercive. That is not something I've ever seen. Has a unit under crappy leadership done questionable things in a time of war? You bet. I'm not saying the military is exemplary in its dealings abroad, but I wouldn't lump the whole military as coercive.

Now if the definition of coercive is that we use force to meet an objective, then yes. But that's not all we do.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

In light of all the replies being pushed, I'll source your reply (#29). I checked out the Wallbuilders link, and found an article with a YouTube link to Jay Leno's Jaywalkers video about 4th of July. Astounding!

If this isn't a prime example of failed schooling, I don't know what is...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37922

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now