An American history resource
Gardiner
watwinc
news:37E1A8CA...@pitnet.net...
Well, you're certainly in the right marketplace, but your claim on that web
page that "... it can be shown that Christianity was largely the basis of
the principles and ideals upon which the U.S. was founded. ... This is not a
matter of religious bias or the authors' desire to proselytize the reader.
It is a matter of historical accuracy. of America" are grossly misleading
and overstated. In the threads on alt.history.colonial and elsewhere you've
consistently given a biased and highly adversarial presentation. While
hardly alien to the spirit of history - which has ever been a handmaid (or
bootlicker) to politics - it would at least be honest to say that this is a
very committed Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
critical attitude.
John Decker
watwinc wrote:
> <snip>.....it would at least be honest to say that this is a very committed
> Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
> coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
> critical attitude.
I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists- but
-now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal humanist'
view."
or how about " ......they were all deists and.......blah blah blah.........but
you must consider when listening to me I am a biased historical revisionist"
yeah, I hear that all of the time.
Gon
--
Life ------ is like music; it must be composed by ear,
feeling, and instinct, not by rule.
--Samuel Butler
watwinc
news:37E23F3D...@oio.net...
>
>
> watwinc wrote:
>
> > <snip>.....it would at least be honest to say that this is a very
committed
> > Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
> > coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
> > critical attitude.
>
> I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists-
but
> -now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal
humanist'
> view."
>
> or how about " ......they were all deists and.......blah blah
blah.........but
> you must consider when listening to me I am a biased historical
revisionist"
>
> yeah, I hear that all of the time.
>
> Gon
>
have to advertise that fact, but you aren't allowed to claim that you're
selling *fresh* fish.
I believe that in home schooling we have a responsibility to our children to
develop their critical thinking. (This is a major reason we keep them out of
the PS system, isn't it?)
I haven't read the Amos and Gardiner book (I'll be asking my local library
to get me a copy today), but the blurb on that web site and Gardiner's
postings on alt.history.colonial lead me to believe that the book is
thoroughly unsuitable for use in home schooling, unless you're using it to
study historical bias, or using other resources to highlight areas of
disagreement or inaccuracy.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
nation.
The book was written to "correct" that slight.
Problem is, they then did the exact same thing blamed the "establishment"
of doing and went the opposite extreme, finding Protestant Christianity in
everything, everywhere.
The problem with this book and others like it, if they are going to be used
for schooling is there has to be balance found somewhere.
The book presents a picture, that while there is truth to the picture
painted by this book, it is not the complete story.
If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
there is always at least two sides to all stories.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|
>:|watwinc wrote:
>:|
>:|> <snip>.....it would at least be honest to say that this is a very committed
>:|> Christian's view of those times and leave it to the reader to
>:|> coddle their own prejudices by reading you or adopt an appropriately
>:|> critical attitude.
>:|
>:|I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists- but
>:|-now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal humanist'
>:|view."
>:|
>:|or how about " ......they were all deists and.......blah blah blah.........but
>:|you must consider when listening to me I am a biased historical revisionist"
>:|
>:|yeah, I hear that all of the time.
>:|
And the above means what, exactly in regard to what the previous poster had
written?
John Decker
The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
J
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>
> Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
> because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
> that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
> nation.
>
> The book was written to "correct" that slight.
>
> Problem is, they then did the exact same thing blamed the "establishment"
> of doing and went the opposite extreme, finding Protestant Christianity in
> everything, everywhere.
>
> The problem with this book and others like it, if they are going to be used
> for schooling is there has to be balance found somewhere.
>
> The book presents a picture, that while there is truth to the picture
> painted by this book, it is not the complete story.
>
> If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
> that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
> there is always at least two sides to all stories.
>
> **********************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>
> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
> and
> Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
> Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
>
> Page is a member of the following web rings:
>
> The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>
> Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
>
> Legal Research Ring
> **********************************************
--
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|I of course,,,,,,,agree that all sides of an issue should be observed.
>:|
>:|The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
>:|contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
>:|^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
>:|for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
>:|supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
>:|expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
What school text books teach that a great number of the founders were
Deist?
Great number, or does it mention some were?
I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books. yet
some were Deist, a fair number were not orthodox Christians. I went to
school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who were not of
their faith here.
I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
contributed anything to this nation, or blacks. When indians massacred
whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
Having been involved with Gardiner since early March in "discussions" I see
a lot of what his book is about as being a return those inaccurate books I
studied history from when I was in school, grades 1-12 .
I have also found many of his positions to be incorrect, as I said before,
to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
is no better then seeing it nowhere.
>:|
>:|I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
>:|listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
>:|with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
>:|Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
It's called free speech and if you are referring to the news groups here on
the internet, it is a free market of ideas and most things most people post
die out with that post, never to be seen or read again.
Those that catch some attention are "discussed" back and forth for awhile
and most lurkers will make up their own mind about who they think are right
or not, or maybe they will actually go and do some independent research and
study on their own
No harm done, usually more than one side is being offered. That is not
quite the same as text books of any kind that are grossly slanted and end
up in public or private schools or in home schooling situations.
>:|
>:|So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
>:|
Kewl.
Scott Bryce
> >:|I hear this one every day---- "yeah, they a were all deists and humanists- but
> >:|-now, you must consider my opinion is that of an extreme 'liberal humanist'
> >:|view."
> >:|yeah, I hear that all of the time.
>
> And the above means what, exactly in regard to what the previous poster had
> written?
It means that your biases aren't any better than my biases.
--Scott
watwinc
news:37E28E10...@coastlink.com...
Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for home
schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
Some member of the Douglas Family
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>
> Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
> because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
> that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
> nation.[...]
> If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
> that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
> there is always at least two sides to all stories.
I've found an excellent website with tons of primary source documents. I use it regularly since
*all* histories are subject to bias. The URL is;
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
The USA has been a country of contrasting ideas from its roots and I find it a fabulous thing to
study in-depth. Like all complex issues it is very difficult to reduce it to something simple
enough to present to young children. That's why we focus on accurate facts, and then read exciting
stories while we tell the children that *everyone* sees what has happened in life from different
perspectives and in order to get the best picture you have to read and look at a variety of
sources. As followers of Jesus Christ my children are also encouraged to view the world in as
Christlike a perspective as possible. That of course, will change as they grow into a deeper
understanding of who Christ is and how he lived, meanwhile we all have to do the best we can with
our limited and fallible minds.
MaG
John Decker
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> John Decker <jde...@oio.net> wrote:
>
> >:|I of course,,,,,,,agree that all sides of an issue should be observed.
> >:|
> >:|The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
> >:|contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
> >:|^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
> >:|for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
> >:|supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
> >:|expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
>
> What school text books teach that a great number of the founders were
> Deist?
> Great number, or does it mention some were?
>
> I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books. yet
> some were Deist, a fair number were not orthodox Christians. I went to
> school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
> here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
> but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who were not of
> their faith here.
>
> I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
> contributed anything to this nation, or blacks. When indians massacred
> whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
> Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
So you are older than me. (28 this sunday)
>
>
> Having been involved with Gardiner since early March in "discussions" I see
> a lot of what his book is about as being a return those inaccurate books I
> studied history from when I was in school, grades 1-12 .
>
> I have also found many of his positions to be incorrect, as I said before,
> to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
> Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
> is no better then seeing it nowhere.
>
> >:|
> >:|I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
> >:|listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
> >:|with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
> >:|Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
>
> It's called free speech and if you are referring to the news groups here on
> the internet, it is a free market of ideas and most things most people post
> die out with that post, never to be seen or read again.
Don't tell me freedom is greater than responsibility. I mean, I know that mercy triumphs over judgment ,
but freedom over responsibility? No religion that I know teaches that, except for good old fashioned
selfish-ism. Occasionally a follower of which am I.
>
>
> Those that catch some attention are "discussed" back and forth for awhile
> and most lurkers will make up their own mind about who they think are right
> or not, or maybe they will actually go and do some independent research and
> study on their own
What am I to say ? thank you for explaining that ( ? ) I'm sure you don't feel like I have infringed on
your rights by attempting to shed a different light.
>
>
> No harm done, usually more than one side is being offered. That is not
> quite the same as text books of any kind that are grossly slanted and end
> up in public or private schools or in home schooling situations.
>
> >:|
> >:|So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
> >:|
>
> Kewl.
oh, I may read the book myself, I'm glad you mentioned it.
>
>
> **********************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
> "Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>
> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
> and
> Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
> Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
>
> Page is a member of the following web rings:
>
> The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>
> Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
>
> Legal Research Ring
> **********************************************
--
Angel Sparrow
If I recall my history rightly, as it pertains to the founding fathers,
the big ones tended toward deism.
It was the fashionable religion of the 18th century.
Let's see:
Ben Franklin: notorious member of the Hellfire Club.
Thomas Jefferson: Deist. Once wrote a New Testament
without miracles, divine intervention or reference to the supernatural.
John Adams and John Q Adams: Unitarians. (the taint
has affected my husband's family ever since)
Fundamentalism is very much a 19th century
event.
Angel
Scott Bryce
> Ben Franklin: notorious member of the Hellfire Club.
> Thomas Jefferson: Deist. Once wrote a New Testament
> without miracles, divine intervention or reference to the supernatural.
> John Adams and John Q Adams: Unitarians. (the taint
> has affected my husband's family ever since)
Is that why the British called it the Presbyterian uprising?
--Scott
Julie A. Pascal
watwinc wrote:
>
> Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for home
> schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
> significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
The point, it seemed to me, was that the *direction* of
bias ought to be acknowledged.
The response seemed to be, that other folks don't tend
to acknowledge their biases, either.
This seems a safe, even conservative (in the actual and not
political meaning of the word) stand to take.
It really is not possible to separate our world view from
what we do and what we teach and how we teach it. This is
as true for people who do not *claim* to make that attempt as
it is for people who do claim to not be biased.
(Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
ideologies.)
Anyway, the best advice I've heard from homeschoolers is to
get one's History from a variety of sources (rather than
just one State approved text) and to compare the differences.
Original sources are also highly recommended.
Do you have any favorite sources for American History
you might like to recommend?
--Julie
watwinc
news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>
>
> watwinc wrote:
> >
> > Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for
home
> > schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
> > significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
>
> The point, it seemed to me, was that the *direction* of
> bias ought to be acknowledged.
Not at all - the point was (and remains) simply that a book which is
thoroughly biased is not a good book for home schooling. At the least,
people need to be aware of the bias, which was the purpose of my original
response to Gardiner's advertisement.
> The response seemed to be, that other folks don't tend
> to acknowledge their biases, either.
>
> This seems a safe, even conservative (in the actual and not
> political meaning of the word) stand to take.
>
> It really is not possible to separate our world view from
> what we do and what we teach and how we teach it. This is
> as true for people who do not *claim* to make that attempt as
> it is for people who do claim to not be biased.
>
> (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> ideologies.)
>
> Anyway, the best advice I've heard from homeschoolers is to
> get one's History from a variety of sources (rather than
> just one State approved text) and to compare the differences.
> Original sources are also highly recommended.
>
> Do you have any favorite sources for American History
> you might like to recommend?
<grin> That's a bit broad! If you want to narrow the topic or period, I'd be
happy to talk about what I know (and what we've used).
> --Julie
>
>
watwinc
news:uUvRP3aA$GA.284@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
> >
> >
> > watwinc wrote:
> > >
> > > Which misses the point that the book was being touted as suitable for
> home
> > > schooling. My point - and jalisons's, I gather - is that the book is
> > > significantly biased, which makes it less suitable for home schooling.
> >
> > The point, it seemed to me, was that the *direction* of
> > bias ought to be acknowledged.
>
> Not at all - the point was (and remains) simply that a book which is
> thoroughly biased is not a good book for home schooling. At the least,
> people need to be aware of the bias, which was the purpose of my original
> response to Gardiner's advertisement.
On re-reading, I realise that "the point" could have been my original point
or John Decker's point. I took it as the latter, but I could be losing on
points here. (Never did ballet.)
> > The response seemed to be, that other folks don't tend
> > to acknowledge their biases, either.
> >
> > This seems a safe, even conservative (in the actual and not
> > political meaning of the word) stand to take.
> >
> > It really is not possible to separate our world view from
> > what we do and what we teach and how we teach it. This is
> > as true for people who do not *claim* to make that attempt as
> > it is for people who do claim to not be biased.
All this is self-evident. So I try to be aware of my own biases, acknowledge
them and give our children alternatives (if they haven't already thought of
them).
> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> > ideologies.)
Separation of school and state is a moral necessity? I confess I that went
right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
jal...@pilot.infi.net
Wonder who that might be, :o)
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|A new American history textbook for home-schooling; http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
>:|>
>:|> Here is a book that at least one of the authors has stated was written
>:|> because the "establishment" downplayed or left out all the contributions
>:|> that Protestant Christianity made in the creating and founding of this
>:|> nation.[...]
>:|
>:|> If you want to buy the book, do so, but also find other books or web sites
>:|> that also balance this books and give the rest of the story. Remember,
>:|> there is always at least two sides to all stories.
>:|
>:|I've found an excellent website with tons of primary source documents. I use it regularly since
>:|*all* histories are subject to bias. The URL is;
>:|
>:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>:|
Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant (bias)
=========================================================================
>:|> >:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|You can find a lot out about what the founding fathers said about religion
>:|> >:|> >:|first hand at http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> >:|a good resource is http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
A massive collection of the literature and documents which were most
relevant to the colonists' lives in America. If it isn't here, it probably
is not available online anywhere. Christianity is a pervasive theme
throughout these primary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Does that mean it if didn't have a pervasive theme it didn't get included)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardiner wrote:
A massive collection of Primary Sources for Early American
History: http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html demonstrating
the Christian Character of the birth of America. What do you think?
Other person wrote:
I think you've been given feed back, some of us like the website.I'm
beginning to think your purpose for continually asking for feedback is
promoted by the fact that you are the author of the textbook that uses the
information at the site and you are trying to get more people to go to the
site and see your ad. If that's the reason at least be honest about it. If
it's not I apologize for the tone of this post.
Gardiner wrote:
To my knowledge, yours is the first feedback that has been posted
here. Of course I would like folks to consider my book; but more than
that I think that the site really helps people see exactly how
Christianity permeated the birth of the nation. I have spent a lot of
time assembling the links on the site and I really hope it helps the
cause of Christian education online.
As I was working on the book, I ended up collecting a long list of
bookmarks for primary sources. Instead of dumping them, I thought it
might be helpful to share them with the world. I felt like this might
also provide a forum to get some exposure for the book. I wish that
you didn't see this as dishonest. I really do work hard maintaining
the Library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY, America's Inspired Birth
Summary
Christianity permeated the socio-cultural context of America at the time of
the founding. Regardless of the fact that a few of the founders were not
explicitly orthodox Christians, Christianity was deeply embedded into their
collective consciousness: the natural result of the ubiquity and
penetration of Christianity into every nook and cranny of the American
colonial experience. In the colonies the peoples' religion saturated every
aspect of their life. Their Christian theological suppositions impacted
their educational pursuits, their domestic standards, their nomenclature,
their love for science, and their basic concepts of law and rights that
gave rise to the American system. As a result, it can be shown that
Christianity was largely the basis of the principles and ideals upon which
the U.S. was founded. These are principles which most Americans, Christian
or otherwise, continue to hold dear.
This is not a matter of religious bias or the authors' desire to
proselytize the reader. It is a matter of historical accuracy. Therefore, a
commitment to historical accuracy demands that American history
teachers make this point more clearly. The aim of this textbook is
therefore to provide students an honest analysis of the political,
socio-cultural, legal, theological and philosophical context--the
incubator--of the United States of America. This book demonstrates, in
scholarly fashion, that the Christian roots of our nation are historically
evident, logically compelling, and beyond scholarly
dispute.
How does this book differ from the other textbooks?
Although most American history textbooks do discuss the role of
Christianity as a peripheral influence in the American colonies, they
ultimately fail to present the extent to which it permeated the founding.
Mainstream textbooks are not silent with regard to the influence of
Christianity in the colonies. Most textbooks acknowledge that the Pilgrims
and Puritans were devout Protestants. Most acknowledge that there was a
religious revival in the 1740's across the colonies which has been dubbed
"the Great Awakening." Many acknowledge some role of Christianity within
education. If one is simply looking for a resource which enumerates ways in
which Christianity had a peripheral place in American History, a
garden-variety textbook will probably provide that data. Although many of
these textbooks concede that the colonists and founders were members of
Protestant churches, they ultimately allege that the political ideas the
founders embraced had a non-Christian genesis. This text will challenge
those notions and revisit the thesis that the predominant influence upon
the founding of this nation was Christianity.
Therefore, this textbook is not just a peripheral discussion of the role of
Christianity in America, over and above what some consider the more
important and more relevant facts about our history. This book will
evidence the fact that Christianity was the most important and most
relevant factor involved in the conception of the nation.
The primary aim of this text is to present the political, social,
theological and cultural context of the founding of the United States,
especially since the relevant historical information has become clouded.
Of course it would be wrong and extreme to suggest that the influences upon
the founding of the United States were exclusively Christian. It is equally
wrong and extreme to suggest that Christianity was peripheral to the
founding. Since the prevailing scholarship errs toward the latter, this
book is an important contribution to a balanced education in American
History.
=======================================================================
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> John Decker <jde...@oio.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|I of course,,,,,,,agree that all sides of an issue should be observed.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|The potential wildfire that can be created with this persons slant on Earlier American Development
>:|> >:|contains no more *heat* than than the issue of what our modern Institutions teach which is
>:|> >:|^emphatically^ and **religiously** the opposite. Do you hold them responsible to your fairness?
>:|> >:|for instance, it is taught that a great number of our founding fathers were deist, while evidence
>:|> >:|supports that such a thing is quite possibly an exaggeration of some of the ideas that they
>:|> >:|expressed, or maybe a falsification of context?
>:|>
>:|> What school text books teach that a great number of the founders were
>:|> Deist?
>:|> Great number, or does it mention some were?
>:|>
>:|> I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books. yet
>:|> some were Deist, a fair number were not orthodox Christians. I went to
>:|> school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
>:|> here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
>:|> but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who were not of
>:|> their faith here.
>:|>
>:|> I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
>:|> contributed anything to this nation, or blacks. When indians massacred
>:|> whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
>:|> Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
>:|
>:|So you are older than me. (28 this sunday)
>:|
Yes, quite a bit.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> Having been involved with Gardiner since early March in "discussions" I see
>:|> a lot of what his book is about as being a return those inaccurate books I
>:|> studied history from when I was in school, grades 1-12 .
>:|>
>:|> I have also found many of his positions to be incorrect, as I said before,
>:|> to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
>:|> Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
>:|> is no better then seeing it nowhere.
>:|>
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|I'm thinking that the lack of social responsibility is NO less punctuated. If you don't agree; try
>:|> >:|listening to an early college student who spouts off his little 'facts' about 17,18th century deism
>:|> >:|with bull chip confidence and AmEriKAN splendor, fact is he knows less about it than I do, but the
>:|> >:|Professor of this world is on his shoulders.
>:|>
>:|> It's called free speech and if you are referring to the news groups here on
>:|> the internet, it is a free market of ideas and most things most people post
>:|> die out with that post, never to be seen or read again.
>:|
>:|Don't tell me freedom is greater than responsibility. I mean, I know that mercy triumphs over judgment ,
>:|but freedom over responsibility? No religion that I know teaches that, except for good old fashioned
>:|selfish-ism. Occasionally a follower of which am I.
Responsibility.
Tell me about responsibility in the following:
(I post this here because (1) Gardiner has been known to come to Barton's
aid, though i suspect he knows next to nothing about him, (2) People
frequently post bogus information on the net,. and one can point out they
are bogus, even provide the evidence they are bogus, and they continue to
post the bogus information Where is responsibility in that?
This particular piece I am posting to you was posted to
relw...@my-deja.com who posted
>:|THE MYTH OF
>:|
>:|"SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"
>:|
>:|UNMASKED
recently in this news group, and numerous other ones.
His replies were:
(1)
>:|Dear Friend:
>:|
>:|No, the evidence speaks for itself. That's why all one needs to do to
>:|combat your view of "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" is to quote the
>:|Founding Fathers themselves!
==========================================================================
(2)
>:|Dear Friend:
>:|
>:| The quotes are quite real. Look them up for yourself. No, do not take
>:|my word. I encourage you to research these matters directly yourself.
>:|
>:| Mr. Barton is certainly an excellent source re America's Biblical
>:|Heritage. However, there is much more info. on this. Two excellent books I
>:|suggest are:
>:|1. The Rewriting of American History by Catherine Millard
>:|2. America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations by William Federer
>:|
>:| I extend to you an invitation to visit my website where much of this
>:|info is available: www.c-.org/newmembers/rbaral/homepage/default.html
>:| As I said, you may then read for yourself.
==========================================================================
enough said)
Now, where lies the responsibility in the following?
***********************************************************************************
SEE:
Critique of David Barton's "America's Godly Heritage"
http://www.erols.com/bjcpa/pubs/barton.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
SEE:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
SEE:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq5.htm
Did John Quincy Adams ever say that the American Revolution
"connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government
with the principles of Christianity?"
Research by Jim Allison.
In the first edition of his videotape, America's Godly Heritage, David
Barton quotes John Quincy Adams as follows:
The highest glory of the American Revolution is this; it connected in
one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity.
While the quote doesn't appear in any of Barton's later works, it does turn
up in another popular Christian book, William J. Federer's, America's God
and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations, p. 18. Federer provides a date for
the quotation (July 4, 1821), and gives the source as follows:
John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860
(reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1860;1970), p. XXIX.
We recently located this source and now suspect that John Quincy Adams
never uttered these words. Here's what we found:
Pages X through XXXVIII of the Thornton book are a historical introduction
to the subject of religion in the New England States, with a special focus
on the state of Massachusetts. Throughout this introduction, Thornton
quotes various early Americans on the subject of religion. At least some of
the quotations are footnoted, and all of them appear to be enclosed in
quotation marks. Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for
emphasis.
The words attributed to John Quincy Adams appear on page XXIX. None of
these words are placed in quotation marks. Rather, the sentence reads as if
Thornton is making his own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams
believed. Thornton's sentence reads as follows:
The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams,
was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil
government with the principle of Christianity (italics in the
original).
No footnote for these words is given. Nor are the words attached to a date.
Hence, if these words are a quotation from Adams, it is impossible to trace
them back from Thornton's book to an original source. Elsewhere in the
book Adams' father (John Adams) is quoted properly, i.e., with footnotes
and quotation marks.
It appears, in other words, that somewhere down the line Thornton's
conclusions about John Quincy Adams were passed off as Adam's own remarks.
In Federer's case, his reproduction of the quotation doesn't edit out the
words "said John Quincy Adams" and replace them with ellipses; either he
knowingly misreports Thornton's words, or he didn't check his sources for
accuracy. It is, of course, possible, that the printer made a mistake and
forgot the quotation marks but, until somebody can locate the original
source of the quote, there is no ground whatsoever to treat these words and
Adams' own. The quote should be regarded as bogus.
Please note: even if Adams did say these words it wouldn't bolster the
accomodationist's case; as we suggest elsewhere, Adams would simply be
wrong to argue that the federal Constitution embodies the principles of
Christianity. It doesn't, and Adams' saying so doesn't prove a thing.
Rather, the real importance of this quote is as a demonstration of just how
far some popular Christian authors will go to prove their case. Nothing in
the Thornton book justifies taking the "indissoluble bond" quote as John
Quincy Adams' own words, but because it says something the right wants to
hear, the words are pressed into service anyway. This isn't good
scholarship, and the consumers of Barton and Federer's work should be aware
of just how poor their research is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misqidx.htm
Misquoting by the Religious Right:
Now let's turn to a list of quotations that frequently appear in religious
right literature, but are now admitted by religious right leaders to be
either doubtful or false. The source of this list is none other than David
Barton, an important accomodationist author we criticize extensively in our
responses to the quotations above, and elsewhere in this website. Briefly,
Barton has released a press statement stating that nine of the quotations
appearing in his book The Myth of Separation (including the first two
above) are of doubtful authenticity (one of these has since been
authenticated; see below). Additionally, he lists three others that are
popularly cited by other conservative authors, but are probably not true. A
good article summarizing Barton's list can be found in the July/August 1996
edition of Church and State, A separationist publication.
Barton lists the following quotations as unconfirmed (i.e., no one has been
able to trace them to an original source):
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! --Patrick Henry
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible. --George Washington
Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of
primitive Christianity will change the face of the world. --Benjamin
Franklin
The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and
administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its
authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority
of that book may be assessory [sic] to all the public disorders which
society is doomed to suffer. --Noah Webster
There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and
secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are
the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the
bayonet. --Noah Webster
The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in
morality and religion. --Abraham Lincoln
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the
philosophy of government in the next. --Abraham Lincoln
I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of
the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. --Thomas Jefferson
America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be
good, she will cease to be great.--Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in
America (Barton notes that this quote is "definitely not in the book," but
that it might perhaps occur in "other more obscure writings").
Additionally, Barton lists the following quote as inaccurate:
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and
embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it
should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extend, our civilizations
and our institutions are emphatically Christian. --The Supreme Court in
Holy Trinity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by
his service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
Research by Jim Allison
On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the following
claim:
Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the
first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used
the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. Notice
why Jefferson felt the Bible to be essential in any successful plan of
education:
I have always said, always will say, that the studious perusal of
the sacred volume will make us better citizens.
Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school
board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public Schools of Washington," in
the Records of the Columbia Historical Society, vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127.
Barton's quotation from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last
Words of Saints and Sinners, 1969.
Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was president
of the board for a school system that used the Bible for reading
instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this manner. In
fact, some readers of this web site have claimed in their e-mail
correspondence with us that Jefferson requested the Bible to be used for
reading instruction. But nothing in Barton's source supports either of
these claims. In fact, Barton's source suggests that someone other than
Jefferson was responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and
that this policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for
retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:
On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as
President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D.
C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city.
Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by
Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that
it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of
the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in
which:
...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar,
arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for
the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive
such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time
to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography
and in the Latin language.
As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious
education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might
add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public
education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency
(check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil
Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point). There is
nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to
the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in
the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an
answer to that question.
In 1812 the board of trustees established a school that used a curriculum
developed by the British educator Joseph Landcaster, who's system of
education was becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Wilson
describes Landcaster as an "enthusiastic but somewhat visionary
schoolmaster, who adopted an inexpensive method of educating, especially
the masses of the poor. The curriculum of his schools included reading,
writing, arithmetic, and the Bible." In an 1813 report to the board of
trustees, Henry Ould, the principle of the Landcasterian school, related
the progress his students had made in reading and spelling:
55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all
able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning
to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are
learning words of four and five letters. Of 509 out of the whole number
admitted that did not know a single letter, 20 can now read the Bible and
spell words of three, four, and five syllables, 29 read Dr. Watts' Hymns
and spell words of two syllables, and 10 words of four and five letters.
In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian
hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum
adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the
school board for retirement in Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied
claim, Jefferson was not president of the school board when the Bible was
being used for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want
his readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion that his own
source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or dishonest in his
use of evidence. Either alternative should cause the reader to question the
soundness of Barton's scholarship.
So what about Barton's quote from Herbert Lockyear's The Last Words of
Saints and Sinners? We tracked down the book and discovered that it had no
footnotes that direct the reader back to either Jefferson's own writings,
or to secondary accounts of Jefferson's life; the quote, in other words, is
untraceable. Moreover, we've never seen this quote referenced in any
scholarly work on Jefferson's attitude toward religion, or in any account
of Jefferson's death (the context of Lockyear's book). If Jefferson uttered
these words, it has apparently escaped the notice of most historians.
We have simply never encountered a legitimate scholar that reports an
unfootnoted quotation from a secondary source writing some 140 years after
the fact as the truth, especially when that quotation seems not to be known
to other scholars. If Barton wants us to accept this quote as authentic, he
should be able to indicate to where it can be found in Jefferson's works,
or else point us to a secondary source that provides the relevant
documentation. Barton does neither. It's hard to resist the conclusion that
this quote was fabricated by Lockyear, and that Barton reports it knowing
full well that there are questions as to its authenticity. [Newsflash:
Barton now admits this quotation is fabricated!
Finally, we draw your attention to a last, nagging inaccuracy in Barton's
passage. While it's true that Jefferson was elected president of the
Washington public school board in 1805, Wilson (Barton's source) goes on to
note that Jefferson was "prevented from ever discharging its duties by
others of paramount concern." Once again, Barton misreports his source; he
leaves out information that indicates that Jefferson was not as involved in
the work of the school board as the title "president" suggests. There is no
good reason for Barton to omit this information unless, of course, he wants
to mislead his readers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
In addiiton, to the above Barton is famous for misrepresenting the facts of
court cases, court decisions, meaning and impact of such court cases, etc.
Respected scholars, regardless of their position on this matter, cite the
works of other scholars and primary sources, etc in their footnotes and end
notes.
Perhaps, the biggest condemnation of Barton and his work is, rarely, if
ever do respected scholars cite any of his publications as any kind of
source.
Even those scholars who basically agree with his position, do not cite any
of his publications. They don't want to connect their names to his, because
of his reputation for shoddy research, inaccuracies, misrepresentations,
etc.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> Those that catch some attention are "discussed" back and forth for awhile
>:|> and most lurkers will make up their own mind about who they think are right
>:|> or not, or maybe they will actually go and do some independent research and
>:|> study on their own
>:|
>:|What am I to say ? thank you for explaining that ( ? ) I'm sure you don't feel like I have infringed on
>:|your rights by attempting to shed a different light.
>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> No harm done, usually more than one side is being offered. That is not
>:|> quite the same as text books of any kind that are grossly slanted and end
>:|> up in public or private schools or in home schooling situations.
>:|>
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So I like to see the score evened. Brings the truth out. More power to you in educating both sides.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Kewl.
>:|
>:|oh, I may read the book myself, I'm glad you mentioned it.
>:|
>:|>
>:|>
>:|> **********************************************
Some member of the Douglas Family
> Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
>
> >:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>
> Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
>
> Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant (bias)
If they are primary source documents, how can they be slanted in Gardiner's direction? Maybe by slanted you mean that he
only posts documents that support his view. Since I haven't read his textbook (and don't use textbooks) I have no comment
on it, but the primary source website contains links to *tons* of primary source documents at many different websites and
is an excellent resource.
MaG
watwinc
news:37E3DF75...@innova.net...
> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> > Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
> >
> > >:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
> >
> > Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
> >
> > Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant
(bias)
>
Gardiner's direction? Maybe by slanted you mean that he
> only posts documents that support his view. Since I haven't read his
textbook (and don't use textbooks) I have no comment
> on it, but the primary source website contains links to *tons* of primary
source documents at many different websites and
> is an excellent resource.
The word is "filtered", really. Not to lose sight of my point in all this,
there's nothing unusual in a biased history, and I'm certainly going to read
the Amos and Gardiner book (although not buy it), but it isn't suitable as a
core book in home schooling. In the case of Gardiner's links, they naturally
enough reflect his bias, where someone aiming at a more balanced
presentation would have more a balanced collection.
> MaG
>
Julie A. Pascal
watwinc wrote:
>
> watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uUvRP3aA$GA.284@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> > > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> > > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> > > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> > > ideologies.)
>
> Separation of school and state is a moral necessity? I confess I that went
> right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
> homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
> public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
> public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
I don't think it's valid to say that because it is *hard*
to comply with a moral dictate that we ought not to try.
It is as offensive to have government teaching ideologies
as it is to have government teaching overt religion. Consider
also the shocking conflict of interests involved in having
public schools teach Civics!
The practicalities of Separation should be viewed as
a challenge. The best way to work it all out isn't
going to be found without effort, at first glance, the
first time a person is presented with the idea.
--Julie
Wayne
>> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
>> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
>> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
>> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
>> > ideologies.)
> watwinc wrote:
>Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
Yup.
As surely as separation of church and state is.
But you then went on to talk about affordability (sp?) ------
>I confess I that went
>right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
>homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
>public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
>public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
The simple answer to the financing question is to simply look around
and see what education *actually * costs and what people can
*actually* afford.
There are materially rich people who *can't* afford private schools or
homeschooling yet many poor families can sacrifice to provide for
their children. Homeschoolers, private, and religious schools have
shown that government education is spending at least twice the amount
they have to be.
We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
grossly unfair and wastful it is.
http://www.sepschool.org/Questions/financing.html
Wayne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wayne Schissler
EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I don't want my children fed or clothed by the
state, but even worse would be for them to be
educated by the state." - Max Victor Belz
http://www.sepschool.org
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>:|>
>:|> Wow, how original, Gardiner's other web page. LOL
>:|>
>:|> Don't forget, in Gardiner's own words, that web page had the slant (bias)
>:|
>:|If they are primary source documents, how can they be slanted in Gardiner's direction?
Maybe you should ask him. After all, he is the one who said:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
A massive collection of the literature and documents which were most
relevant to the colonists' lives in America. If it isn't here, it probably
is not available online anywhere. Christianity is a pervasive theme
throughout these primary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Does that mean it if didn't have a pervasive theme it didn't get included)
========================================================================
>:|Maybe by slanted you mean that he only posts documents that support his view. Since I haven't read his textbook (and don't use textbooks) I have no comment on it, but the primary source website contains links to *tons* of primary source documents at many different websites and is an excellent resource.
I took his words.
I do know that there are "Tons" of materials available for this time period
that would not have a Religious or a Christian pervasive theme, yet were
and are important historical documents.
I have no problem with his site and it being a reference site. I have
recommended it to others a time or two and even used it myself, but
couldn't find what I was looking for on it.
The problem I have with it is the Christian pervasive theme and what that
couild mean for documents that don't have such a theme.
The point still remains, he selected that phrase to describe the contents.
Kanga C.
stuff myself and I don't know anything about Gardner. I do try, appearances to
the contrary, to keep my mouth shut when I don't know *anythign* about the
thread.
But then Jalison said something about which I do know something:
>I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books.
Clearly a long time ago.
>I went to
>school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
>here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
>but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who
>were not of
>their faith here.
A *very* long time ago. I don't know that there are any public school texts
out there that don't mention the persecuting of others by Pilgrims and
Puritans. I know of at least one that school that taught their students the
Pilgrims had Thanksgiving to give thanks to the Indians- *no* mention of their
religious beliefs and motivations.
You really ought to pick up a few public school textbooks.
>
>I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
>contributed anything to this nation, or blacks.
Obviously not a good thing, but the state of affairs is hardly better today.
The Gablers of Texas reviewed a history textbook which devoted more time to
Marilyn Monroe than George Washington, and I don't think it mentioned Patrick
Henry at all.
>When indians massacred
>whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
>Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
Sounds like bad westerns to me, not like education today. Today we've simply
swung the pendulum as far to the opposite side as possible, still missing an
even sided coverage.
>to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
>Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
>is no better then seeing it nowhere.
I agree, but since *todays* public school textbooks do teach that it is
nowhere, Gardner *may* (don't know, haven't seen his stuff) provide a balance.
One difference I do see. Gardner's stuff is not sponsored by the government
nor is it paid for by tax dollars, not is it forcefed to little children who
must regurgitate it on tests in order to get a decent grade.
Blessings,
Kanga
If one child takes up all your time, then seven can't take anymore. Adapted
from Elizabeth Eliot's mother
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|I was going to avoid this thread, because I have some problems with Barton's
>:|stuff myself and I don't know anything about Gardner. I do try, appearances to
>:|the contrary, to keep my mouth shut when I don't know *anythign* about the
>:|thread.
>:|
>:|But then Jalison said something about which I do know something:
>:|
>:|>I went to school when no such thing was mentioned in schools books.
>:|
>:|Clearly a long time ago.
A few days ago.
>:|
>:|>I went to
>:|>school when the books told us all about the Pilgrims and Puritans coming
>:|>here for religious freedom, about how they had been persecuted in Europe,
>:|>but not a book spoke of these good folk persecuting those who
>:|
>:|>were not of
>:|>their faith here.
>:|
>:|A *very* long time ago.
Ahhh, well.
>:| I don't know that there are any public school texts
>:|out there that don't mention the persecuting of others by Pilgrims and
>:|Puritans.
The ones we had sure didn't.
>:| I know of at least one that school that taught their students the
>:|Pilgrims had Thanksgiving to give thanks to the Indians- *no* mention of their
>:|religious beliefs and motivations.
Well, we had books that explained how religious they were, how they walked
for miles through all weather to attend church, etc. The idealized
Americans. not a flaw among them.
>:|
>:|You really ought to pick up a few public school textbooks.
I should? Gee, for some reason this has been a week I have attracted to me
a surplus of people telling what I ought to do, think, feel, say, etc.
Interesting week.
>:|
>:|>
>:|>I went to school when history books rarely mentioned women as having
>:|>contributed anything to this nation, or blacks.
>:|
>:|Obviously not a good thing, but the state of affairs is hardly better today.
>:|The Gablers of Texas reviewed a history textbook which devoted more time to
>:|Marilyn Monroe than George Washington, and I don't think it mentioned Patrick
>:|Henry at all.
>:|
>:|>When indians massacred
>:|>whites and were savages, but Whites were civilized and never slaughtered
>:|>Indians or destroyed their cultures, etc.
>:|
>:|Sounds like bad westerns to me, not like education today. Today we've simply
>:|swung the pendulum as far to the opposite side as possible, still missing an
>:|even sided coverage.
>:|
>:|>to see Protestant Christianity (more exact Calvin, Congregationalism,
>:|>Presbyterianism form of that Protestant Christian religion) in everything
>:|>is no better then seeing it nowhere.
>:|
>:|I agree, but since *todays* public school textbooks do teach that it is
>:|nowhere, Gardner *may* (don't know, haven't seen his stuff) provide a balance.
Not really, his book puts Christianity everywhere in everything.
A quick glance through it at the Regent U Bookstore here in Va Beach, Va, I
found one bogus quote in it.
If current textbooks do not mention religion at all then going to the other
extreme is not exactly providing balance.
watwinc
Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:37e44876...@news.rcn.com...
> watwinc wrote in message <O8MYzdcA$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>
> >> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> >> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>
> >> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> >> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> >> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> >> > ideologies.)
>
> > watwinc wrote:
>
> >Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
>
> Yup.
> As surely as separation of church and state is.
Okay - why?
> But you then went on to talk about affordability (sp?) ------
Yes. You could talk about practical considerations, too.
> >I confess I that went
> >right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
> >homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
> >public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
> >public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
>
> The simple answer to the financing question is to simply look around
> and see what education *actually * costs and what people can
> *actually* afford.
>
> There are materially rich people who *can't* afford private schools or
> homeschooling yet many poor families can sacrifice to provide for
> their children. Homeschoolers, private, and religious schools have
> shown that government education is spending at least twice the amount
> they have to be.
Great. I am so tired of this American garbage where funding is kept local
with the result that schools in poor areas (private or public) lack basic
resources and schools in rich areas are funded to hell and gone, with
multiple gymnasia, Olympic size swimming pools, dissection labs, computers,
band practice rooms ...
> We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
> system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
> grossly unfair and wastful it is.
And the alternative?
watwinc
>
>
> watwinc wrote:
> >
> > watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:uUvRP3aA$GA.284@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > > > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> > > > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> > > > ideologies.)
> >
went
> > right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
> > homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private
or
> > public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That
leaves
> > public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
>
>
> to comply with a moral dictate that we ought not to try.
I didn't say anything about *hard* - I pointed out that not everybody *can*
homeschool. Are you disagreeing with that?
So that leaves either private schooling or public schooling.
Not everybody can afford private schooling.
Do you differ?
> It is as offensive to have government teaching ideologies
> as it is to have government teaching overt religion. Consider
> also the shocking conflict of interests involved in having
> public schools teach Civics!
Being an alien, I find it downright paradoxical that you should say that in
a country proclaiming a "government of the people, by the people and for the
people".
> The practicalities of Separation should be viewed as
> a challenge. The best way to work it all out isn't
> going to be found without effort, at first glance, the
> first time a person is presented with the idea.
I'm open to further argument.
> --Julie
>
Wayne
>
>Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:37e44876...@news.rcn.com...
>> watwinc wrote in message <O8MYzdcA$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>>
>> >> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
>> >> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>>
>> >> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
>> >> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
>> >> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
>> >> > ideologies.)
>>
>> > watwinc wrote:
>>
>> >Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
>>
>> Yup.
>> As surely as separation of church and state is.
>
>Okay - why?
The act of teaching speaks to a persons worldview/religion
even if it does it by omission. Teaching is inherently bound up with
opinion, bias, & culture. Why should this be the chore of the state?
It wasn't always this way, public schools are a relatively recent
thing in the US.
Parents are financially coerced to send their children to the
school that their taxes support. Never mind if they object to that
schools philosophy. An atheist might even be offended by a public
school's flag worshipping pledge, moments of silence, or positive
portrayal of the Puritans.
The government that may send our children to war is the same
one that is indoctinating them in their youth. Isn't there something
wrong with that?
Parents that send their children to private or religious
schools do so at great expense while still supporting the government
run system. The growing homeschool movement is to some degree the
"poor family's private school".
I would like to think that all freedom loving people could
agree that the best way to avoid having the state endorse any
particular philosphy/religion would be to endorse the concept of
separation of school & state. But then if the school is already
promoting your wordview, this may be unexceptable.
Here in Pennsylvania we have a religious freedom article in
our state constitution. It reads like this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God
according to the dictates of their own conciences; no man can of right
be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to
maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in
any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience,
and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious
establishments or modes of worship.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why shouldn't I be able to follow the dictates of my concience
in regards to education? What would be so wrong with the following
proposed amendment? -----------------------
"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to education according
to the dictates of their own conciences; no man can of right be
compelled to attend, erect or support any school, or to maintain any
school against his consent; no human authority can, in any case
whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no
preference shall ever be given by law to any education establisments
or modes of learning."
>> But you then went on to talk about affordability (sp?) ------
>
>Yes. You could talk about practical considerations, too.
>
>> >I confess I that went
>> >right by me the first time I read your message. First, not everybody can
>> >homeschool - for a wide variety of reasons. That leaves either private or
>> >public schooling. Not everybody can afford private schooling. That leaves
>> >public schooling or no schooling (the original "no brain" choice).
>>
>> The simple answer to the financing question is to simply look around
>> and see what education *actually * costs and what people can
>> *actually* afford.
>>
>> There are materially rich people who *can't* afford private schools or
>> homeschooling yet many poor families can sacrifice to provide for
>> their children. Homeschoolers, private, and religious schools have
>> shown that government education is spending at least twice the amount
>> they have to be.
>
>Great. I am so tired of this American garbage where funding is kept local
>with the result that schools in poor areas (private or public) lack basic
>resources and schools in rich areas are funded to hell and gone, with
>multiple gymnasia, Olympic size swimming pools, dissection labs, computers,
>band practice rooms ...
Well, that's something that us homeschoolers usually don't
worry about too much. We do more with less. And education is much more
than the things that you have listed.
Say, Watwinc --- do you homeschool?
>> We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
>> system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
>> grossly unfair and wastful it is.
>
>And the alternative?
The alternative is called personal responsibility.
Those who can afford it should pay for their child's
education.
And almost everyone can afford it --- if they can get it
through their heads that their child's education is more important
than another new car.
Those who can't afford (the genuine poor) it will be able to
find sponsors or scholarships. If the government has to be involved
(it shouldn't) it should be on the funding end, not the education end.
Having to pay or obtain funding for their child's education
should make everyone very aware of the awesome responsibility of
bringing a child into this world. It would be a step in the right
direction.
Wayne
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
-----------------------------------------------
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may
they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is
an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works."
--"The Law" by Frederick Bastiat 1850
watwinc
> watwinc wrote in message <OTiHlgtA$GA.242@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>
> >
> >Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:37e44876...@news.rcn.com...
> >> watwinc wrote in message <O8MYzdcA$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa03>...
> >>
> >> >> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> >> >> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
> >>
> >> >> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> >> >> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> >> >> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> >> >> > ideologies.)
> >>
> >> > watwinc wrote:
> >>
> >> >Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >> As surely as separation of church and state is.
> >
> >Okay - why?
>
> The act of teaching speaks to a persons worldview/religion
> even if it does it by omission. Teaching is inherently bound up with
> opinion, bias, & culture. Why should this be the chore of the state?
> It wasn't always this way, public schools are a relatively recent
> thing in the US.
Do you have any source for this bizarre claim? The British would normally
have installed public schooling (in the American sense), and there was
certainly public schooling in some states at least by the very early 1800s.
I agree that's recent in European terms ...
> Parents are financially coerced to send their children to the
> school that their taxes support. Never mind if they object to that
> schools philosophy. An atheist might even be offended by a public
> school's flag worshipping pledge, moments of silence, or positive
> portrayal of the Puritans.
Nobody's required to worship the pledge, there's nothing wrong with a moment
of silence, and slanted portrayals are universal in history. There are
complicated public finance problems in a pay-for-service approach to items
like schooling, policing etc.
> The government that may send our children to war is the same
> one that is indoctinating them in their youth. Isn't there something
> wrong with that?
"The government" - why not "my government"? Do you feel alienated from it?
> Parents that send their children to private or religious
> schools do so at great expense while still supporting the government
> run system. The growing homeschool movement is to some degree the
> "poor family's private school".
What about poor families who can't afford for one parent to stay at home -
or single-parent families (who are apparently the poorest group)?
> I would like to think that all freedom loving people could
> agree that the best way to avoid having the state endorse any
> particular philosphy/religion would be to endorse the concept of
> separation of school & state. But then if the school is already
> promoting your wordview, this may be unexceptable.
So what do you replace the state by? Who else runs the schools? You want a
profit-oriented group, the equivalent of an HMO to take over? The churches?
Neighbourhood groups? A nation of homeschoolers and charter schoolers?
Specifics, please.
> Here in Pennsylvania we have a religious freedom article in
> our state constitution. It reads like this:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
> All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God
> according to the dictates of their own conciences; no man can of right
> be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to
> maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in
> any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience,
> and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious
> establishments or modes of worship.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
Yup, "Religious Freedom", Section 3.
Coming back to the earlier point about public schools, I would point to Art.
IX "Local government", sections 9 and 10, which specifically mention school
districts.
> Why shouldn't I be able to follow the dictates of my concience
> in regards to education? What would be so wrong with the following
> proposed amendment? -----------------------
>
> "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to education according
> to the dictates of their own conciences; no man can of right be
> compelled to attend, erect or support any school, or to maintain any
> school against his consent; no human authority can, in any case
> whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no
> preference shall ever be given by law to any education establisments
> or modes of learning."
Who's compelled to "erect" a school? The funding is, as I said, a genuine
problem of the proper function of the state. I don't agree that education is
viable as a fee-paying service proposition.
Indeed. But they make a very considerable difference to the quality of life
for the students, and in the case of labs, libraries and computers they make
an enormous difference.
> Say, Watwinc --- do you homeschool?
Yes. Do you?
> >> We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
> >> system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
> >> grossly unfair and wastful it is.
> >
> >And the alternative?
>
> The alternative is called personal responsibility.
>
> Those who can afford it should pay for their child's
> education.
>
> And almost everyone can afford it --- if they can get it
> through their heads that their child's education is more important
> than another new car.
Who are they paying, if not the PS system?
> Those who can't afford (the genuine poor) it will be able to
> find sponsors or scholarships. If the government has to be involved
> (it shouldn't) it should be on the funding end, not the education end.
Who is the funding going to?
> Having to pay or obtain funding for their child's education
> should make everyone very aware of the awesome responsibility of
> bringing a child into this world. It would be a step in the right
> direction.
I don't think that consideration ranks very high in people's minds shortly
before children are conceived ...
Ladeebkwrm
> there's nothing wrong with a moment of silence
In your opinion. Obviously, not in everyone's.
>
>What about poor families who can't afford for one parent to stay at home
My hubby and I supported two kids on less than $15,000/yr for four years. Did
we drive a new car, live in an expensive apartment, or eat in restaurants? No.
But quite often, "I can't afford it" *really* means "I don't want to be
inconvenienced".
Peace,
Kristina
(Remove 'eandplay' to email me.)
watwinc
news:19990920023158...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> watwinc wrote:
>
> > there's nothing wrong with a moment of silence
>
> In your opinion. Obviously, not in everyone's.
Yes, of course "in my opinion" - this (new) thread is mostly a matter of
opinion.
> >
> >What about poor families who can't afford for one parent to stay at home
>
> My hubby and I supported two kids on less than $15,000/yr for four years.
Did
> we drive a new car, live in an expensive apartment, or eat in restaurants?
No.
> But quite often, "I can't afford it" *really* means "I don't want to be
> inconvenienced".
>
Could you have done it on the same income without him and homeschooled?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|watwinc wrote in message <OTiHlgtA$GA.242@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>:|
>:|>
>:|>Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:37e44876...@news.rcn.com...
>:|>> watwinc wrote in message <O8MYzdcA$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>:|>>
>:|>> >> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
>:|>> >> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>:|>>
>:|>> >> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
>:|>> >> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
>:|>> >> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
>:|>> >> > ideologies.)
>:|>>
>:|>> > watwinc wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> >Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
>:|>>
>:|>> Yup.
>:|>> As surely as separation of church and state is.
>:|>
>:|>Okay - why?
>:|
>:| The act of teaching speaks to a persons worldview/religion
>:|even if it does it by omission. Teaching is inherently bound up with
>:|opinion, bias, & culture. Why should this be the chore of the state?
>:|It wasn't always this way, public schools are a relatively recent
>:|thing in the US.
Some of the New England states had public schools in the 1600s.
The Northwest Ordinance passed into law by the Continental Congress in 1787
and repassed under the Constitution by the First Federal Congress in 1789,
called for public schools, supported by land sales and taxes, in all
townships of the territories and all newly formed states.
Washington D C had a public school system while Jefferson was president and
thereafter.
By the early to mid 1800s public schools were becoming rather common
throughout the states
>:| Here in Pennsylvania we have a religious freedom article in
>:|our state constitution. It reads like this:
>:|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:| All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God
>:|according to the dictates of their own conciences; no man can of right
>:|be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to
>:|maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in
>:|any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience,
>:|and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious
>:|establishments or modes of worship.
>:|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|
>:| Why shouldn't I be able to follow the dictates of my concience
>:|in regards to education? What would be so wrong with the following
>:|proposed amendment? -----------------------
>:|
>:|"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to education according
>:|to the dictates of their own conciences; no man can of right be
>:|compelled to attend, erect or support any school, or to maintain any
>:|school against his consent; no human authority can, in any case
>:|whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no
>:|preference shall ever be given by law to any education establisments
>:|or modes of learning."
>:|
Amendment to what?
BTW, all of the state constitutions have clauses guaranteeing religious
freedom.
All but three of the state constitutions also have clauses that prohibit,
in some form of fashion, the use of public funds to support private
religious schools.
Ladeebkwrm
>Could you have done it on the same income without him and homeschooled?
>
I was raised by a single mother. Obviously, I *wasn't* including single-parent
families in my response, which is why I didn't quote that part from you. I was
only responding to the "but, but (tm) we can't *afford* it" scenario, which, as
I pointed out, is *quite often* just a matter of priorities. (*Not* always, I
understand - again, obviously.)
watwinc
> >
> >Could you have done it on the same income without him and homeschooled?
> >
>
> I was raised by a single mother. Obviously, I *wasn't* including
single-parent
> families in my response, which is why I didn't quote that part from you.
I was
> only responding to the "but, but (tm) we can't *afford* it" scenario,
which, as
> I pointed out, is *quite often* just a matter of priorities. (*Not*
always, I
> understand - again, obviously.)
>
position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of)
education. Would you agree?
If not home schooling, then we're back to private school (we only have three
children, but at one point I was looking at $18,000 a year in fees plus all
the extras) or ... public school. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a whole vein
of good, affordable private schooling out there, run by ideological eunuchs
with no worldview at all?
Ladeebkwrm
position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of) education.
Would you agree?
>
I actually didn't want to get into this part of the debate. I only wanted to
address the one point. I don't have an opinion on what is being discussed here
right now. I'm still watching and waiting, listening to both sides, so to
speak, and *then* I'll make up my mind.
The only thing I would have to say is that maybe if our tax money wasn't going
to support public schools, than maybe more people would be able to afford
private school.
watwinc
> >Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now, everybody isn't in
a
> position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of)
education.
> Would you agree?
> >
>
> I actually didn't want to get into this part of the debate. I only wanted
to
> address the one point. I don't have an opinion on what is being discussed
here
> right now. I'm still watching and waiting, listening to both sides, so to
> speak, and *then* I'll make up my mind.
Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a discussion!
> The only thing I would have to say is that maybe if our tax money wasn't
going
> to support public schools, than maybe more people would be able to afford
> private school.
The problem is typically that the people who benefit most when taxes are cut
would be able to afford private schooling and are getting the benefit of
well-funded local public schooling. The people who don't benefit from tax
cuts are lower-income groups, and affordability isn't the only issue.
I'm seeing this line of thought for the first time myself, but I tend to
think with my mouth open (catch a lot of flies and a couple of feet that
way). If the debate really firms up, I'm going to have to do some research
on private school costs, income distribution, impact of tax cuts and so on.
It'd be good for me, but it would take some time.
Lee (Booklover)
> Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now, everybody
isn't in a
> position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of)
> education. Would you agree?
Scripture says in Philippians 4:13 that "I can do all things through
him who gives me power."
So if parents have the desire to homeschool, isn't the L-rd going to
honor that? Can't he give grace and help for parents to accomplish
that which He gave them the desire to do in the first place? Despite
finances, temperament, or lack of education?
(John, you're a baaaad influence! Here I am jumping in! Sheesh!)
--
In Messiah,
Lee
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
".....maybe there is woe enough yet to come, though still hope may
seem bright."
--Galadriel
http://home-educate.com/ Home Sweet Home-School
~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~
watwinc
news:7s6jbl$q...@netaxs.com...
> watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote
> > Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now, everybody
> isn't in a
> > position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of)
> > education. Would you agree?
>
> Scripture says in Philippians 4:13 that "I can do all things through
> him who gives me power."
> So if parents have the desire to homeschool, isn't the L-rd going to
> honor that? Can't he give grace and help for parents to accomplish
> that which He gave them the desire to do in the first place? Despite
> finances, temperament, or lack of education?
Great - a nation of carpenters ...
watwinc
> >So if parents have the desire to homeschool, isn't the L-rd going to
> >honor that?
>
> homeschool for a long time, but I started to see that it would be best for
my
> children. So I prayed about what I should do, and if He wanted me to
> homeschool them, and if it would be best, that He also give me the desire
to do
> so. It's amazing, really. Because I *really* valued that time alone that
I
> had. <big grin> But it doesn't bother me a bit that I've *lost* it.
G-d's
> amazing.
>
>
> Peace,
>
> Kristina
<big grin>
> "The ice we skate is getting pretty thin,
> the water's getting warm so you might as well swim."
>
> - from "All Star" by Smash Mouth
>
>
Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts
> Ladeebkwrm <ladee...@aol.comeandplay> wrote...
> > >Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now,
> > >everybody isn't in a position to home school, maybe
> > >because of temperament or (lack of) education.
> > > Would you agree?
> > I actually didn't want to get into this part of the debate.
> > I only wanted to address the one point. I don't have an
> > opinion on what is being discussed here right now. I'm
> > still watching and waiting, listening to both sides, so to
> > speak, and *then* I'll make up my mind.
> Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a discussion!
Hmm, that sounds a bit obnoxious, I hope it wasn't really meant
to be so. If she doesn't want to talk, it doesn't make her
less "worthy". As a matter of fact, that she speaks when she
has something to say, and then shuts up afterwards, declining
to swerve from topic to topic, says something admirable about
her.
> > The only thing I would have to say is that maybe if our tax
> > money wasn't going to support public schools, than maybe
> > more people would be able to afford private school.
> The problem is [...]
Actually, the problem is what was mentioned only in passing
earlier (or maybe it was given more discussion--the thread is
fraying), that fair government funding of education that it
doesn't then provide is problematic.
Perhaps (likely) I've missed it, but I don't remember a real
response to the earlier part of the thread, where you seem
to skirt past someone's (both Julie's and Wayne's I think)
proposed moral imperative for government to stay out of
ideological indoctrination in favor of worrying that the
specific details of implementation are too difficult.
Without concluding that open issue, I frankly don't think
it's worth addressing the details of potential solutions to
the implementation problem.
> I'm seeing this line of thought for the first time myself,
> but I tend to think with my mouth open (catch a lot of
> flies and a couple of feet that way). If the debate really
> firms up, I'm going to have to do some research on private
> school costs, income distribution, impact of tax cuts and
> so on. It'd be good for me, but it would take some time.
I think addressing the moral imperative first, before
addressing the sticky details, is the best way to approach
this issue, and it would probably save time too. _____Marty
watwinc
> watwinc wrote in message <#dYqXGyA$GA.266@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>
> >Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:37e59c3a...@news.rcn.com...
> >> watwinc wrote in message <OTiHlgtA$GA.242@cpmsnbbsa03>...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >news:37e44876...@news.rcn.com...
> >> >> watwinc wrote in message <O8MYzdcA$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa03>...
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
> >> >> >> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
> >> >> >> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
> >> >> >> > ideologies.)
> >> >>
> >> >> > watwinc wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup.
> >> >> As surely as separation of church and state is.
> >> >
> >> >Okay - why?
> >>
> >> The act of teaching speaks to a persons worldview/religion
> >> even if it does it by omission. Teaching is inherently bound up with
> >> opinion, bias, & culture. Why should this be the chore of the state?
> >> It wasn't always this way, public schools are a relatively recent
> >> thing in the US.
> >
> >Do you have any source for this bizarre claim? The British would normally
> >have installed public schooling (in the American sense),
>
> heard it. I would think that it was precisely this lack of
> indoctrination by government schools that allowed for a revolution to
> take place!!!
Er, no. Actually, there were a lot of educated English people who supported
the American colonists, and the American Revolution was incited and led by
the merchant classes. The ideas that justified the rebellion were directly
rooted in European political thinking going back to the Renaissance (and,
therefore, beyond).
> > and there was
> >certainly public schooling in some states at least by the very early
1800s.
>
> I just read jalison's contribution to this thread and it seems
> to be at variance with what I have written below. I'm not sure if the
> schools and laws he refers to were widespread, enforced, or
> compulsory. I am not the history wizard that he claims to be, I'm only
> recounting what I have read in the past. It would be interesting to
> know just when a majority of US children became government schooled.
> I'm also curious as to how these early gov't schools dealt with
> religion --- was the Bible used in school? Comparing them with today's
> schools may be misleading.
>
> I believe the first (compulsory gov't schools) started in the
> 1830's in New England. I'm also aware of riots in Philiadelphia over
> the Protestant "public schools" that were instituted to educate
> (convert?) Catholic Irish immigrant children --- late 1800's I
> believe.
Well, what about my reference to your own PA constitution? Suggestive,
surely?
> Universal, compulsorary(sp?), education came later, like I
> said --- *relatitivly* recent. The federal Dept. of Education became a
> cabinet post within my life time.
Oh, *cabinet* posts - hey, these guys aren't even in the Constitution!
> >I agree that's recent in European terms ...
> >
> >> Parents are financially coerced to send their children to the
> >> school that their taxes support. Never mind if they object to that
> >> schools philosophy. An atheist might even be offended by a public
> >> school's flag worshipping pledge, moments of silence, or positive
> >> portrayal of the Puritans.
> >
> >Nobody's required to worship the pledge, there's nothing wrong with a
moment
> >of silence, and slanted portrayals are universal in history.
>
> Not everyone agrees with that -----------
Which bit?
> The atheist & the Jehovah Witness child must both endure the
> Pledge to the flag at the begining of class. Yes, they may remain
> silent but they are then made to look different and abnormal. I could
> never understand why these children must go through this 180 days a
> year while grown adults are not supposed to be exposed to a judge
> opening his court session with a prayer.
Ask the bozos who came up with this junk in the mid-Fifties.
> The JW child must also resist the temptations of organized
> sports. The Christian Scientist (and similar beliefs) parents must
> worry about the involvement of the school nurse. Sex education goes
> against the tenents of many a religion, especially birth control in
> regards to Roman Catholics. Evolution offends the fundmentalist while
> being very compatible with Eastern religions. Ditto for any meditation
> or relaxation techniques that the school may use. Psychological abuse
> in the classroom see:
> http://www.voicenet.com/~sakossor/Pe3_19.html
I suffered organised sports, it never occurred to me to regard them as
temptations! I'm perfectly happy to see Christian Scientists, JWs and other
parents told to keep their beliefs to themselves so that their children's
right to life is sustained.
Fundamentalists can argue against evolution (stupid, but that's their right)
within the family. You can't possibly stop teaching the Big Bang as received
science just because some bunch of wackos think that a specific
mistranslation of a set of conflicting creation myths confabulated in
Genesis has priority over 5,000 years of science. Meditation is rather
useful, actually - I can't see why any religious group should object. If
they do, fine - opt out. I opted out of enough things in my schooling -
which was quite abusive enough, thank you.
> Moments of silence, portrayal (or lack of) of historical
> religious leaders, portrayal (or lack of) of current religious events,
> secularized holidays, etc etc ---.
>
> And this doesn't even touch the "conventional" problems of
> today's schools!
>
> > There are
> >complicated public finance problems in a pay-for-service approach to
items
> >like schooling, policing etc.
>
> Please do not confuse schooling with policing. Teaching is
> inherently bound up with opinion, bias, & culture while police
> protection is not.
I wasn't - I'm talking about the alternatives to public schooling and the
question of funding through fees, taxes etc.
> >> The government that may send our children to war is the same
> >> one that is indoctinating them in their youth. Isn't there something
> >> wrong with that?
> >
> >"The government" - why not "my government"? Do you feel alienated from
it?
>
> Only when "they" are wrong. :-)
Hey, it's your government! (I'm an alien.) And there's the right of
conscientious objection, no longer restricted to religious training and
belief.
> I do vote and I do 'participate'. I'm even on a government
> school reform committee. It's one of the things that convinced me that
> there should be separation.
Okay, this is the first time I've come across this idea. I don't think I'm
going to agree with it, but I've changed my mind before. You haven't
persuaded me yet, though.
> >> Parents that send their children to private or religious
> >> schools do so at great expense while still supporting the government
> >> run system. The growing homeschool movement is to some degree the
> >> "poor family's private school".
> >
> >What about poor families who can't afford for one parent to stay at
home -
> >or single-parent families (who are apparently the poorest group)?
>
> Americans are generous and caring. There will always be a
> 'safety net' whether its private or public. Don't confuse the safety
> net issue with the gov't ed issue.
So answer the big question: if the state isn't providing the schools, which
organisation(s) is/are? The churches? Doctor Dobson? Pat Buchanan? Cardinal
Whoever? At least with the state, you have a vote!
> >> I would like to think that all freedom loving people could
> >> agree that the best way to avoid having the state endorse any
> >> particular philosphy/religion would be to endorse the concept of
> >> separation of school & state. But then if the school is already
> >> promoting your wordview, this may be unexceptable.
> >
> >So what do you replace the state by? Who else runs the schools? You want
a
> >profit-oriented group, the equivalent of an HMO to take over? The
churches?
> >Neighbourhood groups? A nation of homeschoolers and charter schoolers?
> >Specifics, please.
>
> All of the above and certainly more. Whatever the customer
> wants.
The free market at work. Educational HMOs? Do you really want that?
> Not in the US constitution. And what did we do in PA before
> Art. IX "Local government", sections 9 and 10? I think we managed.
Yeah. You had school districts - these weren't "created" by the
constitution!
> Hmmm --- I wonder when that stuff was put in there????
Good question.
> > I don't agree that education is
> >viable as a fee-paying service proposition.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >> Say, Watwinc --- do you homeschool?
> >
> >Yes. Do you?
>
> On our fifth year. Oldest (9th grade) started going to a
> Christian school this month, youngest (7th grade) still homeschooled.
>
> *The oldest did K-4 in the government school
> *5-8 at home
> *9 to whenever in a Christian school --- And that's a parent controled
> non-denominational Christian school!!!!
>
> I agree with you that not everyone can homeschool. But I
> strongly feel there is a need to get every parent involved in their
> child's education. That is not happening under the current system of
> government schooling.
Tricky. I look at some parents around here and struggle with the thought
that they should have been shot at birth ...
> >> >> We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
> >> >> system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
> >> >> grossly unfair and wastful it is.
> >> >
> >> >And the alternative?
> >>
>
> *********************************************************
> The alternative is called personal responsibility.
> *********************************************************
> I can't stress that enough.
Good. Now explain the educational system - including funding - that this
implies. I'll watch with awe.
> >>
> >> Those who can afford it should pay for their child's
> >> education.
> >>
> >> And almost everyone can afford it --- if they can get it
> >> through their heads that their child's education is more important
> >> than another new car.
> >
> >Who are they paying, if not the PS system?
>
> Whatever they chose --- its their responsibility.
Ever heard of the supply side? Who else is out there providing this stuff?
> >> Those who can't afford (the genuine poor) it will be able to
> >> find sponsors or scholarships. If the government has to be involved
> >> (it shouldn't) it should be on the funding end, not the education end.
> >
> >Who is the funding going to?
>
> Where ever the student/parent wants to go to school. This is
> why gov't funding may not work, and why it's not desireable. Of couse
> I don't see the gov't banning the wefare client from buying Bibles or
> giving to the church --- why should they be able to control where the
> welfare money goes when it comes to education?
Which organisations, corporations, institutions are *supplying* the
education? You can't just say "not the state - somebody else" without saying
who that should be.
> >
> >> Having to pay or obtain funding for their child's education
> >> should make everyone very aware of the awesome responsibility of
> >> bringing a child into this world. It would be a step in the right
> >> direction.
> >
> >I don't think that consideration ranks very high in people's minds
shortly
> >before children are conceived ...
>
> Yeah, it would spoil the moment, wouldn't it?
Yup. Glad it didn't!
> Wayne
>
>
> Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
> http://members.aol.com/selah1998
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need
the society as it is."
> ---Ivan Illich in "Deschooling Society" 1970
Hmmm - did you ever see "If"? I went to a British "public" school ...
Julie A. Pascal
watwinc wrote:
>
> Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now, everybody isn't in a
> position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of)
> education. Would you agree?
>
> If not home schooling, then we're back to private school (we only have three
> children, but at one point I was looking at $18,000 a year in fees plus all
> the extras) or ... public school. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a whole vein
> of good, affordable private schooling out there, run by ideological eunuchs
> with no worldview at all?
The money presently funding the public school system would
not disappear from the economy if School and State were
separated.
Obviously, Americans believe education is important. There
is no reason at all to think that people would not continue
to fund schools simply because it was no longer compelled
but voluntary. Would schools continue to be funded to
the same level? Schools might be, even if people "gave"
less, since administrative costs would be less.
What people *would* be able to do is choose which school
they gave their money to.
That this would result in huge numbers of
sectarian schools and few, if any, secular schools
is unlikely. There are many people, parents and
teachers, who are uninterested in a sectarian, or
ideologically focused, education. Those people
would still exist. The present demand for schools
that attempt to avoid a worldview is met by the
public schools. That demand would still be
present after Separation, and it would still be
met... likely by the same teachers... possibly in
the same buildings.
Presently private schools seem divided between
church schools and a few alternative schools, and
the prestigious and very expensive secular private
academies. This may lead some to think that
secular private schools would continue to be
prohibitively expensive. Consider that presently
the expensive preparatory schools compete with
public schools by offering exclusivity. They
certainly have nothing different to offer
ideologically.
The ecological niche, so to speak, of the
reasonably priced secular education would
still exist. And in the way of nature and
capitalism, it will be filled. Certainly.
--Julie
Julie A. Pascal
watwinc wrote:
>
> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
> news:37E452C0...@pascal.org...
> > I don't think it's valid to say that because it is *hard*
> > to comply with a moral dictate that we ought not to try.
>
> I didn't say anything about *hard* - I pointed out that not everybody *can*
> homeschool. Are you disagreeing with that?
>
> So that leaves either private schooling or public schooling.
>
> Not everybody can afford private schooling.
> Do you differ?
Not everyone can, but far more *could* if they were not
taxed for it. I'm certainly paying for the public education
my children are not getting. :-) So are you. What
would happen if public schools were funded only on the
basis of financial need, and everyone else had to pay
tuition? Or if "public school" scholarships paid a
percentage according to financial need, so that some
families had to pay only 10%, others 50%, others 80%?
> > It is as offensive to have government teaching ideologies
> > as it is to have government teaching overt religion. Consider
> > also the shocking conflict of interests involved in having
> > public schools teach Civics!
>
> Being an alien, I find it downright paradoxical that you should say that in
> a country proclaiming a "government of the people, by the people and for the
> people".
Majority rule has it's limitations. Mostly, the fact
that the majority isn't equal to the whole.
The proclaimed
tradition of freedom in the US is often at odds with
government practice and with what is taught in public
schools. Freedom requires that people are free to be,
say, communists or whatever political theory takes their
fancy; Libertarians, or Greens, or Natural Law or
Progressives or whatever. When I graduated from high
school I knew about Republicans and Democrats and I was
confused about how they differed from each other.
> > The practicalities of Separation should be viewed as
> > a challenge. The best way to work it all out isn't
> > going to be found without effort, at first glance, the
> > first time a person is presented with the idea.
>
> I'm open to further argument.
That, in itself, is impressive. :-)
--Julie
Julie A. Pascal
"Lee (Booklover)" wrote:
>
> watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote
> > Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now, everybody
> isn't in a
> > position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of)
> > education. Would you agree?
>
> Scripture says in Philippians 4:13 that "I can do all things through
> him who gives me power."
> So if parents have the desire to homeschool, isn't the L-rd going to
> honor that? Can't he give grace and help for parents to accomplish
> that which He gave them the desire to do in the first place? Despite
> finances, temperament, or lack of education?
I'm not disagreeing, but I do think sometimes, that
we aren't meant to do all things in the context of
a nuclear family. I think that our intimate support,
(as in close as a brother, not sex), is meant to
consist of more than one other adult person. An
extended family (granted, a healthy one) would give
support financially and temperamentally, to those
who would really be quite beside themselves trying
to do it all alone.
--Julie
> >
Ladeebkwrm
>honor that?
Actually, He even provides the desire. Happened to me. I didn't want to
homeschool for a long time, but I started to see that it would be best for my
children. So I prayed about what I should do, and if He wanted me to
homeschool them, and if it would be best, that He also give me the desire to do
so. It's amazing, really. Because I *really* valued that time alone that I
had. <big grin> But it doesn't bother me a bit that I've *lost* it. G-d's
amazing.
Peace,
Kristina
"The ice we skate is getting pretty thin,
Wayne
>Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:37e59c3a...@news.rcn.com...
>> watwinc wrote in message <OTiHlgtA$GA.242@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>>
>> >
>> >Wayne <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>news:37e44876...@news.rcn.com...
>> >> watwinc wrote in message <O8MYzdcA$GA.293@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>> >>
>> >> >> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:37E343A4...@pascal.org...
>> >>
>> >> >> > (Which is why the Separation of School and State is a
>> >> >> > moral necessity. It is just *wrong* for the government,
>> >> >> > or any political majority, to be teaching or supporting
>> >> >> > ideologies.)
>> >>
>> >> > watwinc wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Separation of school and state is a moral necessity?
>> >>
>> >> Yup.
>> >> As surely as separation of church and state is.
>> >
>> >Okay - why?
>>
>> The act of teaching speaks to a persons worldview/religion
>> even if it does it by omission. Teaching is inherently bound up with
>> opinion, bias, & culture. Why should this be the chore of the state?
>> It wasn't always this way, public schools are a relatively recent
>> thing in the US.
>
>Do you have any source for this bizarre claim? The British would normally
>have installed public schooling (in the American sense),
And you you have any source for this? First this American has
heard it. I would think that it was precisely this lack of
indoctrination by government schools that allowed for a revolution to
take place!!!
> and there was
>certainly public schooling in some states at least by the very early 1800s.
I just read jalison's contribution to this thread and it seems
to be at variance with what I have written below. I'm not sure if the
schools and laws he refers to were widespread, enforced, or
compulsory. I am not the history wizard that he claims to be, I'm only
recounting what I have read in the past. It would be interesting to
know just when a majority of US children became government schooled.
I'm also curious as to how these early gov't schools dealt with
religion --- was the Bible used in school? Comparing them with today's
schools may be misleading.
I believe the first (compulsory gov't schools) started in the
1830's in New England. I'm also aware of riots in Philiadelphia over
the Protestant "public schools" that were instituted to educate
(convert?) Catholic Irish immigrant children --- late 1800's I
believe.
Universal, compulsorary(sp?), education came later, like I
said --- *relatitivly* recent. The federal Dept. of Education became a
cabinet post within my life time.
>I agree that's recent in European terms ...
>
>> Parents are financially coerced to send their children to the
>> school that their taxes support. Never mind if they object to that
>> schools philosophy. An atheist might even be offended by a public
>> school's flag worshipping pledge, moments of silence, or positive
>> portrayal of the Puritans.
>
>Nobody's required to worship the pledge, there's nothing wrong with a moment
>of silence, and slanted portrayals are universal in history.
Not everyone agrees with that -----------
The atheist & the Jehovah Witness child must both endure the
Pledge to the flag at the begining of class. Yes, they may remain
silent but they are then made to look different and abnormal. I could
never understand why these children must go through this 180 days a
year while grown adults are not supposed to be exposed to a judge
opening his court session with a prayer.
The JW child must also resist the temptations of organized
sports. The Christian Scientist (and similar beliefs) parents must
worry about the involvement of the school nurse. Sex education goes
against the tenents of many a religion, especially birth control in
regards to Roman Catholics. Evolution offends the fundmentalist while
being very compatible with Eastern religions. Ditto for any meditation
or relaxation techniques that the school may use. Psychological abuse
in the classroom see:
http://www.voicenet.com/~sakossor/Pe3_19.html
Moments of silence, portrayal (or lack of) of historical
religious leaders, portrayal (or lack of) of current religious events,
secularized holidays, etc etc ---.
And this doesn't even touch the "conventional" problems of
today's schools!
> There are
>complicated public finance problems in a pay-for-service approach to items
>like schooling, policing etc.
Please do not confuse schooling with policing. Teaching is
inherently bound up with opinion, bias, & culture while police
protection is not.
>> The government that may send our children to war is the same
>> one that is indoctinating them in their youth. Isn't there something
>> wrong with that?
>
>"The government" - why not "my government"? Do you feel alienated from it?
Only when "they" are wrong. :-)
I do vote and I do 'participate'. I'm even on a government
school reform committee. It's one of the things that convinced me that
there should be separation.
>> Parents that send their children to private or religious
>> schools do so at great expense while still supporting the government
>> run system. The growing homeschool movement is to some degree the
>> "poor family's private school".
>
>What about poor families who can't afford for one parent to stay at home -
>or single-parent families (who are apparently the poorest group)?
Americans are generous and caring. There will always be a
'safety net' whether its private or public. Don't confuse the safety
net issue with the gov't ed issue.
>> I would like to think that all freedom loving people could
>> agree that the best way to avoid having the state endorse any
>> particular philosphy/religion would be to endorse the concept of
>> separation of school & state. But then if the school is already
>> promoting your wordview, this may be unexceptable.
>
>So what do you replace the state by? Who else runs the schools? You want a
>profit-oriented group, the equivalent of an HMO to take over? The churches?
>Neighbourhood groups? A nation of homeschoolers and charter schoolers?
>Specifics, please.
All of the above and certainly more. Whatever the customer
wants.
>> Here in Pennsylvania we have a religious freedom article in
Not in the US constitution. And what did we do in PA before
Art. IX "Local government", sections 9 and 10? I think we managed.
Hmmm --- I wonder when that stuff was put in there????
> I don't agree that education is
>viable as a fee-paying service proposition.
>
<snip>
>
>> Say, Watwinc --- do you homeschool?
>
>Yes. Do you?
On our fifth year. Oldest (9th grade) started going to a
Christian school this month, youngest (7th grade) still homeschooled.
*The oldest did K-4 in the government school
*5-8 at home
*9 to whenever in a Christian school --- And that's a parent controled
non-denominational Christian school!!!!
I agree with you that not everyone can homeschool. But I
strongly feel there is a need to get every parent involved in their
child's education. That is not happening under the current system of
government schooling.
>> >> We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
>> >> system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
>> >> grossly unfair and wastful it is.
>> >
>> >And the alternative?
>>
*********************************************************
The alternative is called personal responsibility.
*********************************************************
I can't stress that enough.
>>
>> Those who can afford it should pay for their child's
>> education.
>>
>> And almost everyone can afford it --- if they can get it
>> through their heads that their child's education is more important
>> than another new car.
>
>Who are they paying, if not the PS system?
Whatever they chose --- its their responsibility.
>> Those who can't afford (the genuine poor) it will be able to
>> find sponsors or scholarships. If the government has to be involved
>> (it shouldn't) it should be on the funding end, not the education end.
>
>Who is the funding going to?
Where ever the student/parent wants to go to school. This is
why gov't funding may not work, and why it's not desireable. Of couse
I don't see the gov't banning the wefare client from buying Bibles or
giving to the church --- why should they be able to control where the
welfare money goes when it comes to education?
>
>> Having to pay or obtain funding for their child's education
>> should make everyone very aware of the awesome responsibility of
>> bringing a child into this world. It would be a step in the right
>> direction.
>
>I don't think that consideration ranks very high in people's minds shortly
>before children are conceived ...
Yeah, it would spoil the moment, wouldn't it?
Wayne
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
>:|The only thing I would have to say is that maybe if our tax money wasn't going
>:|to support public schools, than maybe more people would be able to afford
>:|private school.
>:|
Food for thought:
=========================================================================
A New Look At Vouchers.
(Permission of author to use this has been given)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: A new look at vouchers
From: ai...@unity.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
Date: 1 Aug 1995 19:13:36 GMT
This occurred to me the other day, while listening to a talk-show debate
on school vouchers.
Some people want a "rebate" on the money they give to the state to educate
their children, in order to spend that money in religious schools of their
choice. Fine, although that they get might not be what they expect.
The problem is, the money that a person pays into the system for schools,
via property taxes, sales tax, etc. is *NOT* for the education of their
own children, but for public education as a whole**. Many of the arguments
I've heard that support this is that public education is supposed to be
good for the community as a whole, hence everybody pays. I have no children
in the school system, yet I must pay to educate other people's children.
Other people, with children or not, do the same. The illusion inherent in
the system is that the money taken from them is taken for "their" children-
it is not.
If there is to be any "rebate", then the amount given back is *not* the
total amount contributed, but the percentage portion represented by their
children versus the entire system. If a person pays $5000 into a school
system with 1000 children, then the total amount of *their* money paying
for *their* children is $5 per child. That is all they should expect
back for removing their children from the public school system; the rest
is the "common good" payment. Any more than that, received either
through tax credits or voucher payments, means that they have unfairly
shifted the "common good" burden to other people.
If instead, you look at it from the point of the "total" amount of money
for each child following that child, then you have still have the problem
that the vast majority of that total is from *other people*, who cannot
legally be forced to contribute to sectarian institutions against their
will. Despite claims of "choice", it is *still not a free-market system*
as long as the people paying are not the people directly benefitting, and
I find it perverse that many otherwise capitalistic-free-market-preaching
conservatives have no problem with such a special welfare system, as long
as
its to *their* advantage.
Any voucher system, no matter how you cut it, is still almost entirely
*other people's money", and will remain a separation violation, as long
as the socialistic elements remain in the system.
[**] Whether people should be forced to contribute money for collectivist
social institutions or not is a separate issue altogether. As long as
the system exists, for better or worse, everyone has to be treated equally.
watwinc
From: Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts <alac...@csi.com>
Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.christian
To: watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: Separation of school and state WAS An American history resource
> Emailed too. watwinc wrote:
> > Ladeebkwrm <ladee...@aol.comeandplay> wrote...
>
> > > >Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now,
> > > >everybody isn't in a position to home school, maybe
> > > >because of temperament or (lack of) education.
> > > > Would you agree?
>
> > > I actually didn't want to get into this part of the debate.
> > > I only wanted to address the one point. I don't have an
> > > opinion on what is being discussed here right now. I'm
> > > still watching and waiting, listening to both sides, so to
> > > speak, and *then* I'll make up my mind.
>
> > Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a discussion!
>
> Hmm, that sounds a bit obnoxious, I hope it wasn't really meant
> to be so. If she doesn't want to talk, it doesn't make her
> less "worthy". As a matter of fact, that she speaks when she
> has something to say, and then shuts up afterwards, declining
> to swerve from topic to topic, says something admirable about
> her.
I didn't mean it (and don't find it) to be obnoxious. Anybody can make a
perfectly valid but limited point, and I try to do that myself rather than
launching into global issues. In this particular thread, I've already
acknowledged that some areas of public finance lead very far afield.
> > > The only thing I would have to say is that maybe if our tax
> > > money wasn't going to support public schools, than maybe
> > > more people would be able to afford private school.
>
> > The problem is [...]
>
> Actually, the problem is what was mentioned only in passing
> earlier (or maybe it was given more discussion--the thread is
> fraying), that fair government funding of education that it
> doesn't then provide is problematic.
The thread as I see it has split into the original section, which is more or
less dead, and the new "separation of school and state", which I'm seeing
for the first time. Actually, any government funding of [] that it doesn't
then provide is problematic, and this is a very interesting area of research
and politics. In the case of education, we have the educators themselves
muddying the waters. When my wife - a former administrator and teacher in
adult college education and further education - starts spitting fire over
having to deal with "Standards Of Learning", I know things are getting bad.
> Perhaps (likely) I've missed it, but I don't remember a real
> response to the earlier part of the thread, where you seem
> to skirt past someone's (both Julie's and Wayne's I think)
> proposed moral imperative for government to stay out of
> ideological indoctrination in favor of worrying that the
> specific details of implementation are too difficult.
I'm having a lot of trouble with this alienation from "The Government".
Isn't this a government of the people, by the people and for the people? (I
come from Europe, where we're more or less explicitly "subjects" of The
Government, you see.) Then, I don't understand how you can have a society
without ideology or ideologies. Me, I rather like multiculturalism and
pluralism, so long as nobody's going to stuff their culture, ideology,
religion or whatever down my throat. So I ask just *who* is going to provide
this non-ideological education.
> Without concluding that open issue, I frankly don't think
> it's worth addressing the details of potential solutions to
> the implementation problem.
Practicalities help focus the issue.
> > I'm seeing this line of thought for the first time myself,
> > but I tend to think with my mouth open (catch a lot of
> > flies and a couple of feet that way). If the debate really
> > firms up, I'm going to have to do some research on private
> > school costs, income distribution, impact of tax cuts and
> > so on. It'd be good for me, but it would take some time.
>
> I think addressing the moral imperative first, before
> addressing the sticky details, is the best way to approach
> this issue, and it would probably save time too. _____Marty
I disagree. Look to see what you've got to build a house before you design
it.
watwinc
>
>
> watwinc wrote:
> >
> > Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now, everybody isn't in
a
> > position to home school, maybe because of temperament or (lack of)
> > education. Would you agree?
> >
three
> > children, but at one point I was looking at $18,000 a year in fees plus
all
> > the extras) or ... public school. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a whole
vein
> > of good, affordable private schooling out there, run by ideological
eunuchs
> > with no worldview at all?
>
> The money presently funding the public school system would
> not disappear from the economy if School and State were
> separated.
What do you think the value of the capital invested in current public
schools might be? School buildings and equipment represent a major social
investment. This investment was made by past taxpayers, most of whom didn't
have children of school age for most of their taxpaying period. So what are
you going to do, sell the schools and their equipment to the new
institutions? What principles should govern the transfer of assets? Who
should receive compensation for the transfer of ownership?
> Obviously, Americans believe education is important. There
> is no reason at all to think that people would not continue
> to fund schools simply because it was no longer compelled
> but voluntary. Would schools continue to be funded to
> the same level? Schools might be, even if people "gave"
> less, since administrative costs would be less.
Arguable. And what about the point that schools would then have to be funded
by people whose children use them, and not funded by the community as a
whole?
> What people *would* be able to do is choose which school
> they gave their money to.
Or if they gave it at all, Julie! (And why should they?)
> That this would result in huge numbers of
> sectarian schools and few, if any, secular schools
> is unlikely. There are many people, parents and
> teachers, who are uninterested in a sectarian, or
> ideologically focused, education. Those people
> would still exist.
I don't think you'd have any real support for this, so the problems you
ignore would never arise. But this is a democracy, put an initiative
together. You won't have enough money anyway, unless you steal the existing
infrastructure wholesale.
> The present demand for schools
> that attempt to avoid a worldview is met by the
> public schools. That demand would still be
> present after Separation, and it would still be
> met... likely by the same teachers... possibly in
> the same buildings.
We're getting hopelessly confused here - I thought the point was to *have*
schools which avoid a worldview? Or is it to avoid a *worldview* you don't
support? ("The state's worldview"?)
> Presently private schools seem divided between
> church schools and a few alternative schools, and
> the prestigious and very expensive secular private
> academies. This may lead some to think that
> secular private schools would continue to be
> prohibitively expensive. Consider that presently
> the expensive preparatory schools compete with
> public schools by offering exclusivity. They
> certainly have nothing different to offer
> ideologically.
>
> The ecological niche, so to speak, of the
> reasonably priced secular education would
> still exist. And in the way of nature and
> capitalism, it will be filled. Certainly.
What's wrong with the public schools as providers of secular education
again? And what organisation would step in to replace the state? "In the
nature of capitalism" you'll get the educational equivalent of the HMOs,
with the parents reduced to lobbying for the state to enact a Bill of
Parents' Rights. I'd certainly enjoy the irony.
> --Julie
>
>
watwinc
> > > I don't think it's valid to say that because it is *hard*
> > > to comply with a moral dictate that we ought not to try.
> >
> > I didn't say anything about *hard* - I pointed out that not everybody
*can*
> > homeschool. Are you disagreeing with that?
> >
> > So that leaves either private schooling or public schooling.
> >
> > Not everybody can afford private schooling.
> > Do you differ?
>
> Not everyone can, but far more *could* if they were not
> taxed for it. I'm certainly paying for the public education
> my children are not getting. :-) So are you. What
> would happen if public schools were funded only on the
> basis of financial need, and everyone else had to pay
> tuition? Or if "public school" scholarships paid a
> percentage according to financial need, so that some
> families had to pay only 10%, others 50%, others 80%?
Public schools are funded from broadly based taxation because education is
regarded as a desirable social good and a highly profitable social
investment. It makes every kind of sense for society to invest in the
education of its future citizens, on most moral principles (there are some
sects that insist on ignorance). Part of the rationale for broad-based
taxation is the recognition that child-rearing typically means parents
spending a lot of time and money in a stage of their life when they have a
lower income and fewer assets. So the community has decided to spread the
load. Children are in publicly funded schooling for 10-16 years (depending
on the children and state policies) This represents one third of a typical
adult's taxpaying stage.
So if you shift the cost of education back to the parents of children of
school age, they'll have to pay three (or more) times as much.
> > > It is as offensive to have government teaching ideologies
> > > as it is to have government teaching overt religion. Consider
> > > also the shocking conflict of interests involved in having
> > > public schools teach Civics!
> >
> > Being an alien, I find it downright paradoxical that you should say that
in
> > a country proclaiming a "government of the people, by the people and for
the
> > people".
>
> Majority rule has it's limitations. Mostly, the fact
> that the majority isn't equal to the whole.
Don't confuse this system with majority rule.
> The proclaimed
> tradition of freedom in the US is often at odds with
> government practice and with what is taught in public
> schools. Freedom requires that people are free to be,
> say, communists or whatever political theory takes their
> fancy; Libertarians, or Greens, or Natural Law or
> Progressives or whatever. When I graduated from high
> school I knew about Republicans and Democrats and I was
> confused about how they differed from each other.
Freedom: use it or lose it. As for the Republicans and Democrats, I think
your confusion reflected a very accurate perception.
> > > The practicalities of Separation should be viewed as
> > > a challenge. The best way to work it all out isn't
> > > going to be found without effort, at first glance, the
> > > first time a person is presented with the idea.
> >
> > I'm open to further argument.
>
> That, in itself, is impressive. :-)
And Marty & Paola accuse *me* of being obnoxious!!
> --Julie
>
>
Some member of the Douglas Family
> What's wrong with the public schools as providers of secular education
> again?
Currently they are doing a poor job and
everyone is blaming everyone else. Parents send
off their children and expect the school to do its
job, but get irate when their little one is
reprimanded or isn't getting the grade mom and
dad think he should. Administrators try to pacify
the parents and the public at large, who can see
that the system isn't working well. They do this
by requiring more classes for & paperwork
from the teachers. The teachers try to teach but
they have paperwork in piles that reach the sky
that has little to do with the classes they teach
and students that would rather be talking,
watching TV or playing computer games. The
current system is a vicious circle of destruction
that is feeding itself. Other than that, nothing is
wrong with the public schools as providers of
secular education.
> "In the nature of capitalism" you'll get the educational equivalent of the
> HMOs,with the parents reduced to lobbying for the state to enact a Bill of
> Parents' Rights.
Since you keep bringing up this analogy let's
look at it.
An HMO is an organization that patients pay
money to so they can get health care. The
HMO doesn't provide the care they just parcel
out the money to the professionals that do.
BUT, the professionals have to follow the rules
that the HMO makes or they won't get any
money. Who makes the rules? The patients...
no. The health care professionals... no. The
HMO's... yes. If the patient is unhappy he has
to deal with it or take his money and leave the
HMO. If the professionals don't like the rules
they have to deal with it or they can market
directly to patients and leave the HMO. The
patients that are lobbying for a bill of rights are
the ones that are afraid to leave the system
because they can't or won't see that there are
other ways to get health care. Those patients
wrongly believe that there is no other game in
town and their only recourse is to stick with a
poor and failing system.
Now let's look at the current education system
in the USA. People pay money (taxes) to the
gov. and the gov. parcels it out to the
administrators in the schools. If the
administrators don't fill out the proper forms they
don't get the money. When the teachers need
supplies they need to fill out the proper forms or
they don't get the money. (Sometimes even
when they do fill out the forms they don't get the
money.) The forms are developed from the rules
that the gov. enacts. If the people don't like the
system they can't take their money and leave,
they can only leave. If the teachers and
administrators don't like the system they can find
different jobs elsewhere. If you look at the
current growing numbers of homeschools and
the current growing shortage of teachers, and
administrators it appears that that is exactly
what is happening. The problem is that although
many think the current school system is in
serious need of help all people are required to
support it with taxes.
Using your analogy, I'd take the HMO scenario
where I can take my money and go elsewhere.
MaG
Susan
> Could you have done it on the same income without him and homeschooled?
Yup, I am doing it.
--
@}-`-,-- @}-`-,-- @}-`-,-- @}-`-,-- @}-`-,--
Susan @}-`-,--
ICQ #39572982 AOL IM "susgeek"
Undernet Channel Op #oncochat
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of
the people all of the time, but you Can't Fool Mom.
watwinc
news:37E77B43...@innova.net...
> watwinc wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with the public schools as providers of secular education
> > again?
>
> Currently they are doing a poor job and
> everyone is blaming everyone else. Parents send
> off their children and expect the school to do its
> job, but get irate when their little one is
> reprimanded or isn't getting the grade mom and
> dad think he should. Administrators try to pacify
> the parents and the public at large, who can see
> that the system isn't working well. They do this
> by requiring more classes for & paperwork
> from the teachers. The teachers try to teach but
> they have paperwork in piles that reach the sky
> that has little to do with the classes they teach
> and students that would rather be talking,
> watching TV or playing computer games. The
> current system is a vicious circle of destruction
> that is feeding itself. Other than that, nothing is
> wrong with the public schools as providers of
> secular education.
And just how would this be improved by substituting some other organisation
as the education-provider?
If someone will kindly specify the type of organisations they envisage as
education providers, we can improve the analogy and analysis.
> Now let's look at the current education system
> in the USA. People pay money (taxes) to the
> gov. and the gov. parcels it out to the
> administrators in the schools. If the
> administrators don't fill out the proper forms they
> don't get the money. When the teachers need
> supplies they need to fill out the proper forms or
> they don't get the money. (Sometimes even
> when they do fill out the forms they don't get the
> money.) The forms are developed from the rules
> that the gov. enacts. If the people don't like the
> system they can't take their money and leave,
> they can only leave. If the teachers and
> administrators don't like the system they can find
> different jobs elsewhere. If you look at the
> current growing numbers of homeschools and
> the current growing shortage of teachers, and
> administrators it appears that that is exactly
> what is happening. The problem is that although
> many think the current school system is in
> serious need of help all people are required to
> support it with taxes.
No, that isn't the problem at all. There were and are good reasons for
supporting education from general taxation. The problem is the absence of
consensus on what schools should be doing and what education *is*.
Currently, we're looking at research which shows that PS children have
better grades and better attitudes if they start school close to 9 am
instead of 7.30. There seem to be three reasons why they start at 7.30
locally - (1) so that coaches have enough time for after-school sports
programmes, (2) so that teachers don't lose private time in the afternoon
and (3) so that the county can economise on school buses by running three
trips for three different school levels. In Minneapolis, they're taking the
research seriously and focusing on the kids. Here, the parents are letting
the kids go to the wall.
> Using your analogy, I'd take the HMO scenario
> where I can take my money and go elsewhere.
Fine. Tell me how this would work in education.
> MaG
>
watwinc
Susan <susa...@hotmail.comma> wrote in message
news:U8MF3.1044$8t2....@typ11a.deja.bcandid.com...
> watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uACBQn1A$GA.220@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > Could you have done it on the same income without him and homeschooled?
>
>
> Yup, I am doing it.
>
Kanga C.
>of good, affordable private schooling out there, run by ideological eunuchs
>with no worldview at all?
The point is not that it's an evil for educators to have a worldview at all.
It's that there are conflicts of interest when the worldview in question is
part of the indoctrination in schools that are government run, compulsory, and
funded by a confiscatory tax system.
In my ideal world people would *choose* where their education dollars went, and
therefore would not be forced to fund the indoctrination of children into a
worldview which they themselves did not support. And parents would *choose*
(usually with the input of their children and the best interests of the
children at heart) which system of education, which worldview, was best for
their children. And the government would have very little to say about it.
And the majority of us would homeschool=)
>> >Could you have done it on the same income without him and homeschooled?
I know single mothers who are doing or have done just that.
One of them is homeschooling five children right now, even though her husband
has abandoned them and has set up his money so it's all in China so that he
doesn't have to provide any reasonable amount of support.
Their income now is about 30 percent of what it was when he was home. She got
a part time job and she's still homeschooling.
Another single parent family homeschooled for a year with our assistance. We
kept the children for her during the day for free so that she could afford to
homeschool them. After the first year she decided it was too much trouble and
returned the boys to school.
I know *many* homeschooling families who would be willing to help single
parents out, both financially and in a more direct, hands on way.
Blessings,
Kanga
If one child takes up all your time, then seven can't take anymore. Adapted
from Elizabeth Eliot's mother
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> and there was
>:|>certainly public schooling in some states at least by the very early 1800s.
>:|
>:| I just read jalison's contribution to this thread and it seems
>:|to be at variance with what I have written below. I'm not sure if the
>:|schools and laws he refers to were widespread, enforced, or
>:|compulsory. I am not the history wizard that he claims to be, I'm only
>:|recounting what I have read in the past. It would be interesting to
>:|know just when a majority of US children became government schooled.
>:|I'm also curious as to how these early gov't schools dealt with
>:|religion --- was the Bible used in school? Comparing them with today's
>:|schools may be misleading.
>:|
>:| I believe the first (compulsory gov't schools) started in the
>:|1830's in New England. I'm also aware of riots in Philiadelphia over
>:|the Protestant "public schools" that were instituted to educate
>:|(convert?) Catholic Irish immigrant children --- late 1800's I
>:|believe.
>:|
>:| Universal, compulsorary(sp?), education came later, like I
>:|said --- *relatitivly* recent. The federal Dept. of Education became a
>:|cabinet post within my life time.
>:|
=========================================================================
"Since all men were born ignorant, larning to read became a necessary part
of every child's education. In requiring the establishment of reading
schools in each of the towns in 1647 the general Court stressed this
religious motive. . . "
(Source of Information: Colonial Massachusetts-A History, Benjamin W.
Labaree, KTO Press. pp 77
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually some towns had began required schools as early as 1642
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:| I just read jalison's contribution to this thread and it seems
>:|to be at variance with what I have written below. I'm not sure if the
>:|schools and laws he refers to were widespread, enforced, or
>:|compulsory.
Why don't you ask?
>:| I am not the history wizard that he claims to be,
Claims to be? I don't claim to be anything, I just post historical evidence
and let it speak for me.
>:|I'm only
>:|recounting what I have read in the past. It would be interesting to
>:|know just when a majority of US children became government schooled.
>:|I'm also curious as to how these early gov't schools dealt with
>:|religion --- was the Bible used in school? Comparing them with today's
>:|schools may be misleading.
Ask and you shall receive:
Let's start with the last item first.
==========================================================================
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg6.htm
Thomas Jefferson supported Bible reading in school; this is proven by
his service as the first president of the Washington D. C. public schools,
which used the Bible and Watt's Hymns as textbooks for reading.
Research by Jim Allison
On page 130 in his The Myth of Separation, David Barton makes the following
claim:
Thomas Jefferson, while President of the United States, became the
first president of the Washington D. C. public school board, which used
the Bible and Watt's Hymnal as reading texts in the classroom. Notice
why Jefferson felt the Bible to be essential in any successful plan of
education:
I have always said, always will say, that the studious perusal of
the sacred volume will make us better citizens.
Barton's reference for Jefferson's service on the Washington D. C. school
board is J. O. Wilson, "Eighty Years of Public Schools of Washington," in
the Records of the Columbia Historical Society, vol. 1, 1897, pp. 122-127.
Barton's quotation from Jefferson is taken from Herbert Lockyear, The Last
Words of Saints and Sinners, 1969.
Apparently, Barton wants us to conclude that, since Jefferson was president
of the board for a school system that used the Bible for reading
instruction, he must have approved of using the Bible in this manner. In
fact, some readers of this web site have claimed in their e-mail
correspondence with us that Jefferson requested the Bible to be used for
reading instruction. But nothing in Barton's source supports either of
these claims. In fact, Barton's source suggests that someone other than
Jefferson was responsible for introducing the Bible into the schools, and
that this policy was adopted after Jefferson had left Washington for
retirement in Virginia. Here are the facts:
On September 19, 1805, toward the end of Jefferson's first term as
President of the United States, the board of trustees of the Washington D.
C. public schools adopted its first plan for public education for the city.
Given its resemblance to a similar plan proposed several years earlier by
Jefferson for the state of Virginia, Wilson (Barton's source) suggests that
it is likely that "he [Jefferson] himself was the chief author of
the...plan." The plan called for the establishment of two public schools in
which:
...poor children shall be taught reading, writing, grammar,
arithmetic, and such branches of the mathematics as may qualify them for
the professions they are intended to follow, and they shall receive
such other instruction as is given to pay pupils, as the board my from time
to time direct, and pay pupils shall, besides be instructed in geography
and in the Latin language.
As you can see, there is nothing in this plan that mentions religious
education or the use of the Bible in reading instruction. Nor, we might
add, was the Bible mentioned in any of Jefferson's plans for public
education in the state of Virginia, either before or after his presidency
(check out an extract from Leonard Levy's book Jefferson and Civil
Liberties: The Darker Side for documentation on this point). There is
nothing, absolutely nothing, in Barton's source that connects Jefferson to
the practice of Bible reading. So how did the Bible come to be used in
the Washington public schools? Remarkably, Barton's own source provides an
answer to that question.
In 1812 the board of trustees established a school that used a curriculum
developed by the British educator Joseph Landcaster, who's system of
education was becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Wilson
describes Landcaster as an "enthusiastic but somewhat visionary
schoolmaster, who adopted an inexpensive method of educating, especially
the masses of the poor. The curriculum of his schools included reading,
writing, arithmetic, and the Bible." In an 1813 report to the board of
trustees, Henry Ould, the principle of the Landcasterian school, related
the progress his students had made in reading and spelling:
55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all
able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning
to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are
learning words of four and five letters. Of 509 out of the whole number
admitted that did not know a single letter, 20 can now read the Bible and
spell words of three, four, and five syllables, 29 read Dr. Watts' Hymns
and spell words of two syllables, and 10 words of four and five letters.
In other words, the first mention of the use of the Bible and a Christian
hymnal in the Washington public schools is in connection with a curriculum
adopted in 1812, three years after Jefferson has left Washington and the
school board for retirement in Virginia. Contrary to Barton's implied
claim, Jefferson was not president of the school board when the Bible was
being used for instruction. Barton simply omits information he doesn't want
his readers to know, and so allows them to draw an conclusion that his own
source refutes. Barton, we conclude, is either sloppy or dishonest in his
use of evidence. Either alternative should cause the reader to question the
soundness of Barton's scholarship.
So what about Barton's quote from Herbert Lockyear's The Last Words of
Saints and Sinners? We tracked down the book and discovered that it had no
footnotes that direct the reader back to either Jefferson's own writings,
or to secondary accounts of Jefferson's life; the quote, in other words, is
untraceable. Moreover, we've never seen this quote referenced in any
scholarly work on Jefferson's attitude toward religion, or in any account
of Jefferson's death (the context of Lockyear's book). If Jefferson uttered
these words, it has apparently escaped the notice of most historians.
We have simply never encountered a legitimate scholar that reports an
unfootnoted quotation from a secondary source writing some 140 years after
the fact as the truth, especially when that quotation seems not to be known
to other scholars. If Barton wants us to accept this quote as authentic, he
should be able to indicate to where it can be found in Jefferson's works,
or else point us to a secondary source that provides the relevant
documentation. Barton does neither. It's hard to resist the conclusion that
this quote was fabricated by Lockyear, and that Barton reports it knowing
full well that there are questions as to its authenticity. [Newsflash:
Barton now admits this quotation is fabricated!
Finally, we draw your attention to a last, nagging inaccuracy in Barton's
passage. While it's true that Jefferson was elected president of the
Washington public school board in 1805, Wilson (Barton's source) goes on to
note that Jefferson was "prevented from ever discharging its duties by
others of paramount concern." Once again, Barton misreports his source; he
leaves out information that indicates that Jefferson was not as involved in
the work of the school board as the title "president" suggests. There is no
good reason for Barton to omit this information unless, of course, he wants
to mislead his readers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BOOKS
The Palladium, JANUARY, 27, 1801
IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM, of late years, to put a number of little books into
the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. This is very
well, because it is right first to raise curiosity, and then to guide it.
Many books for children are, however, judiciously compiled; the language is
too much raised above the ideas of that tender age; the moral is drawn from
the fable, they know not why; and when they gain wisdom from experience,
they will see the restrictions and exceptions which are necessary to the
rules of conduct laid down in their books, but which such books do not
give. Some of the most admired works of this kind abound with a frothy sort
of sentiment, as the readers of novels are pleased to call
it, the chief merit of which consists in shedding tears, and giving away
money. Is it right, or agreeable to good sense, to try to make the tender
age more tender? Pity and generosity, though amiable impulses, are blind
ones, and as we grow older are to be managed by rules, and restrained by
wisdom.
It is not clear that the heart, at thirty, is any the softer for weeping,
at ten, over one of Berquin's fables, the point of which turns on a beggar
boy's being ragged, and a rich man's son being well clad. Some persons,
indeed, appear to have shed all their tears of sympathy before they reach
the period of mature age. Most young hearts are tender, and tender
enough; the object of education is rather to direct these emotions, however
amiable, than to augment them.
Why then, if these books for children must be retained, as they will be,
should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? its
morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the
sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably, if not
impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind. One consideration
more is important. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so
elegant; and by leaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the
Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith. A
barbarous provincial jargon will be banished, and taste, corrupted by
pompous Johnsonian affectation, will be restored.
Source of Information: Works of Fisher Ames, As Published by Seth Ames, Vol
I (1854)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I include the above because of its time period that it was written by a one
of the framers of the BORs. who lived in Mass. His comments, ** Why then,
if these books for children must be retained, as they will be, should not
the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?** shows that the
use of the Bible as a school book was in the decline.
MOVING ALONG:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 14, 1785
(Report of the committee consisting of Mr. Pierse Long, Mr. Rufus King,
Mr. David Howell, Mr. William Samuel Johnson, Mr. R.R. Livingston, Mr.
Archibald Stewart, Mr. Joseph Gardner, Mr. John Henry, Mr, William Grayson,
Mr. Hugh Williamson, Mr. John Bull and Mr. William Houstoun.
An Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the
Western territory.
Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled the
territory ceded by individual States to the United states which has been
purchased of the Indian inhabitants, shall be disposed of in the following
manner:
[SNIP]
There shall be reserved the Central section of every township for
the maintenance of public schools and the [Section] immediately to the
Northward for the suport of religion, the profits arising therefrom in both
instances to be applied for ever according to the will of the majority of
male residents of full age within the same.
[SNIP]]
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 28, pp
251-256)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above from the 1785 proposed Ordinace for the disposal of land in the
Northwest formed the basis of our real estate laws that still are in effect
today, in many respects.
Note the requirement about schools. and I included the portaiona bout
religion as well, bit don't get your hopes up, because that portion was
voted out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 23, 1785.
Congress assembled. Present as yesterday.
Congress proceeded in the consideration of the Ordinance for
ascertaining the mode of disposing of Lands in the Western Territory. An
on motion of Mr. [David] Howell, seconded by Mr. [Hugh] Williamson,
[SNIP]
So the question was lost.
The following paragraph in the Ordinance being under debate: "
There shall be reserved the central Section of every Township, for the
maintenance of public Schools; and the Section immediately adjoining the
same to the northward, for the support of religion. The profits arising
therefrom in both instances, to be applied for ever according to the will
of the majority of male residents of full age within the same." A motion
was made by Mr. [Charles] Pinckney, seconded by Mr. [Williaml Grayson, to
amend the paragraph by striking out these words, "for the support of
religion;" and in their place to insert, "for religious and charitable
uses." On which it was moved by Mr. [William] Ellery, seconded by Mr.
[Melancton] Smith, to amend the amendment by striking out the words
"religious and," so that it read "for charitable uses. "
And on the question, shall the words moved to be struck out of the
amendment, stand? the yeas and nays, being required by Mr. [Charles]
Pinckney,
NEW HAMPSHIRE, AY DELAWARE, AY
Mr. Foster, ay Mr. Vining, ay
Long, ay
Bedford, ay
MASSACHUSETTS, AY MARYLAND, NO
Mr. Holten, ay Mr. McHenry, no
King, ay J.
Henry, no
RHODE ISLAND, NO Hindman, ay
Mr.Ellery, no VIRGINIA, AY
Howell, no Mr. Monroe, ay
CONNECTICUT, NON-VOTE Lee, ay
Mr. Johnson Grayson,
ay
NEW YORK, DIV. NON-VOTE NORTH CAROLINA, NON-VOTE
Mr. Smith, no Mr.
Williamson, ay
Haring, ay Sitgreaves, no
PENNSYLVANIA, AY SOUTH CAROLINA, NON-VOTE
Mr. Gardner, ay Mr. Pinckney, no
W. Henry, ay GEORGIA, NON-VOTE
Mr.
Houstoun, ay
So the question was lost, and the words were struck out.
And thereupon, the motion of Mr. [Charles] Pinckney for the
amendment was withdrawn.
A motion was then made by Mr. [William] Ellery, seconded by Mr.
[Melancton] Smith, to strike out the following words in the foregoing
paragraph: [and the section immediately
adjoining the same to the northward, for the support of religion, the
profits arising therefrom in both instances, to be applied for ever
according to the will of the majority of male residents of full age within
the same." A division of the motion was called for by Mr. [Rufus] King: And
on the
question, shall the former pert stand? namely, "and the section immediately
adjoining the same to the northward, for the support of religion." The yeas
and nays being required
by Mr. [Melancton] Smith and Mr. [Rufus] King,
NEW HAMPSHIRE, AY DELAWARE, AY
Mr. Foster, ay Mr. Vining, ay
Long, ay
Bedford, ay
MASSACHUSETTS, AY MARYLAND, NO
Mr. Holten, ay Mr. McHenry, no
King, ay J.
Henry, no
RHODE ISLAND, NO Hindman, ay
Mr.Ellery, no VIRGINIA, AY
Howell, no Mr. Monroe, ay
CONNECTICUT, NON-VOTE Lee, ay
Mr. Johnson Grayson,
ay
NEW YORK, DIV. NON-VOTE NORTH CAROLINA, NON-VOTE
Mr. Smith, no Mr.
Williamson, ay
Haring, ay Sitgreaves, no
PENNSYLVANIA, AY SOUTH CAROLINA, NON-VOTE
Mr. Gardner, ay Mr. Pinckney, no
W. Henry, ay GEORGIA, NON-VOTE
Mr.
Houstoun, ay
So the question was lost, and the words were struck out.
A motion was then made by [Mr. Melancton] Smith to strike out
the following words "and the section to religion."
NEW HAMPSHIRE, AY DELAWARE, AY
Mr. Foster, ay Mr. Vining, ay
Long, ay
Bedford, ay
MASSACHUSETTS, AY MARYLAND, NO
Mr. Holten, ay Mr. McHenry, no
King, ay J.
Henry, no
RHODE ISLAND, NO Hindman, ay
Mr.Ellery, no VIRGINIA, AY
Howell, no Mr. Monroe, ay
CONNECTICUT, NON-VOTE Lee, ay
Mr. Johnson Grayson,
ay
NEW YORK, DIV. NON-VOTE NORTH CAROLINA, NON-VOTE
Mr. Smith, no Mr.
Williamson, ay
Haring, ay Sitgreaves, no
PENNSYLVANIA, AY SOUTH CAROLINA, NON-VOTE
Mr. Gardner, ay Mr. Pinckney, no
W. Henry, ay GEORGIA, NON-VOTE
Mr.
Houstoun, ay
Words are struck out.'
A motion was made by Mr. [William Samuel] Johnson, seconded by Mr. [Rufus]
King, farther to amend the paragraph by inserting after the word "Schools,"
the following words,"And the Sections immediately adjoining the same to
·the northward, for charitable uses;" so that the paragraph read thus;
"There shall be reserved the central Section of every Township, for the
maintenance of public Schools; and the section immediately adjoining the
same to the
northward, for charitable uses. "' And on the question to agree to this
amendment, the yeas
and nays being required by Mr. ~William Samuel] Johnson,
NEW HAMPSHIRE, AY DELAWARE, AY
Mr. Foster, ay Mr. Vining, ay
Long, ay
Bedford, ay
MASSACHUSETTS, AY MARYLAND, NO
Mr. Holten, ay Mr. McHenry, no
King, ay J.
Henry, no
RHODE ISLAND, NON-VOTE Hindman, ay
Mr.Ellery, no VIRGINIA,
AY
Howell, ay Mr. Monroe, ay
CONNECTICUT, NON-VOTE Lee, ay
Mr. Johnson Grayson, ay
NEW YORK, NO NORTH CAROLINA,
NON-VOTE Mr. Smith, no
Mr. Williamson, ay
Haring, no Sitgreaves, no
PENNSYLVANIA, NON-VOTE SOUTH CAROLINA, NON-VOTE
Mr. Gardner, ay Mr. Pinckney, no
W. Henry, no GEORGIA,
NON-VOTE
Mr.
Houstoun, ay
So the question was lost.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 28, pp
291-296)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 20, 1785
Friday, MAY 20, 1785.
Congress assembled. Present as yesterday.
Congress proceeded in the third reading of the Ordinance for
ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the western territory, and
the same being gone through, was passed as
follows:
An Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of disposing of Lands in the
Western Territory.
Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, that the
territory ceded by individual States to the United States, which has been
purchased of the Indian inhabitants, shall be disposed of in the following
manner:
[SNIP]
There shall be reserved for the United States out of every
township, the four lots, being numbered 8, 11, 28, 29, and out of every
fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be
found thereon, for future sale. THERE SHALL BE RESERVED THE LOT N 16, OF
EVERY TOWNSHIP, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WITHIN SAID TOWNSHIP
(Emphasis mine); also one third part of all gold, silver, lead and copper
mines, to be sold, or otherwise disposed of as Congress shall hereafter
direct.
[SNIP]
Know ye, That for the consideration of_____ dollars, we have
granted, and hereby do grant and confirm unto the township, (or fractional
part of a township, as the case may be) numbered____in the range____
excepting therefrom, and reserving one third part of all gold, silver, lead
and copper mines within the same; and the lots Ns 8, 11, 28, and 29, for
future sale or disposition, AND THE LOT N 16, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS (emphasis mine). To have to the said____ his heirs and assigns for
ever; (or if more than one purchaser, to the said_____ their heirs and
assigns forever as tenants-in Common.) In witness whereof, (A. B.)
Commissioner of the loan office, in the State of___ hath, in conformity to
the Ordinance passed by the United States in Congress assembled, the
twentieth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and eighty five, hereunto set his hand, and affixed his seal, this day of
in the year of our Lord and of the independence of the United States of
America
[SNIP]
Done by the United States in Congress assembled, the 20th day of
May, in the year of our Lord 1785, and of our sovereignty and
independence the ninth.
Charles Thomson, Secretary. Richard H. Lee, President
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 28, pp
375-381)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 29, 1785
TO JAMES MONROE.
Orange May 29 1785.
[SNIP]
It gives me much pleasure to observe by 2 printed reports sent me
by Col. Grayson that, in the latter Congress had expunged a clause
contained in the first for setting apart a district of land in each
Township for supporting the Religion of the majority of inhabitants. How a
regulation so unjust in itself, foreign to the Authority of Cong", so
hurtful to the sale of the public land, and smelling so strongly of an
antiquated Bigotry, could have received the countenance of a Committee is
truly matter of astonishment. In one view it might have been no
disadvantage to this State in case the Gen' Assess' should take place, as
it would have given a repellent quality to the new Country in the
estimation of those whom our own encroachments on Religious Liberty would
be calculated to banish to it. But the adversaries to the assess' begin to
think the prospect here flattering to their wishes, The printed Bill has
excited great discussion and is likely to prove the sense of the Comunity
to be in favor of the liberty now enjoyed. I have heard of several Counties
where the late representatives have been laid aside for voting for the
Bill, and not of a single one where the reverse has happened. The
Presbyterian Clergy too who were in general friends to the scheme, are
already in another tone, either compelled by the laity of that sect, or
alarmed at the probability of further interferences of the Legislature, if
they once begin to dictate in matters of Religion,
I am, Dr Sir, Yours affecly.
James Madison
The letter herewith inclosed is from Mrs. Carr sister of Mr. Jefferson.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Writings of James Madison, Edited by Gaillard
Hunt, Volume II, 1783-178,7 G P Putnam/s Sons, New York London 1901, pp 143
- 145
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will break this off at this point here, and will follow up with
additional information in probably two more posts.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|> and there was
>:|>certainly public schooling in some states at least by the very early 1800s.
>:|
>:| I just read jalison's contribution to this thread and it seems
>:|to be at variance with what I have written below. I'm not sure if the
>:|schools and laws he refers to were widespread, enforced, or
>:|compulsory. I am not the history wizard that he claims to be, I'm only
>:|recounting what I have read in the past. It would be interesting to
>:|know just when a majority of US children became government schooled.
>:|I'm also curious as to how these early gov't schools dealt with
>:|religion --- was the Bible used in school? Comparing them with today's
>:|schools may be misleading.
>:|
>:| I believe the first (compulsory gov't schools) started in the
>:|1830's in New England. I'm also aware of riots in Philiadelphia over
>:|the Protestant "public schools" that were instituted to educate
>:|(convert?) Catholic Irish immigrant children --- late 1800's I
>:|believe.
>:|
>:| Universal, compulsorary(sp?), education came later, like I
>:|said --- *relatitivly* recent. The federal Dept. of Education became a
>:|cabinet post within my life time.
=========================================================================
The following does not flow smooth, as it was complied from a series of
exchanges I had with another. However, it can be understood. One day I will
take the time to smooth it up.
*************************************************************************************
THE FOLLOWING IS A SHORT, GENERALIZED HISTORY OF EDUCATION AND THE
GOVERNMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, REGARDING THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
(much of this first section is an edited version of a series of posts that
I had exchanged in 1996 with Eleanor Rotthoff, Esq. She was blasting one
person (Zepp) for his comment that Article I Section 8 was one place that
gave the government authority to be involved in education. She had taken
the position that the government didn't have a right to be involved in
education, that there was nothing in the Constitution giving any such
rights, etc. When Zepp named Article I Section * as one source for
authority she loudly denounced such. My response to her comes first.)
The real question here is, what in the Constitution gives the federal
government any say in education? It has been said by many they can't find
the word education in the Constitution, therefore, the government can't say
or do anything about it one way or the other.
The fact is their are several ways that the federal government can get
their foot into the education business quite legally.
The government has every right to monitor how tax money it gives out is
used, and to have some say in its use
There is the old standby, the commerce clause. Schools order and buy books
and supplies from all over the country so Interstate Commerce is involved.
One of the arguments used by various people who didn't want to see the
Constitution ratified (anti-federalists), but also didn't want to be direct
about that fact, was the lack of a bill all rights and the part that would
play in regards to religious freedom, freedom of the press, etc. Those
who supported (federalists) and had been in many cases those who had
written the Constitution pointed out that there was nothing in the
Constitution that gave Congress any power over religion, the press, etc.,
in any manner, shape or form.
The anti-feds countered by pointing to the following clause and asking if
the feds could guarantee that at no time in the future this clause could
not be so construed as to mean Congress could make laws concerning
religion or the press, etc., or a host of other things that we understand
today they don't have to power or authority to do?
The federalists could not guarantee that a future Congress might not view
the Clause in question as a loophole, thus enabling them to take upon
themselves powers and authority not given in areas that they were not
intended to have such power and authority.
The clause in question is, "to make all laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States,
or in any department or officer thereof.
Therefore, that was one of the reasons we ended up with the religious
clauses and other clauses of what was then the third amendment, but later
became the first amendment of, the bill of rights.
Then we have the preamble to the Constitution. While it isn't law, as such,
it does set a direction and tone. "Promote the general welfare, and secure
the blessings of liberty."
From the very beginning a well educated citizenry was thought to be
essential to protect liberty and protect the general welfare.
Now, the clause you claim has no bearing at all, but which someone else
says: does (Zepp), the one you say is clearly ONLY a copyright protection.
(To promote the progress of science and useful arts)
Guess what, you are both right.
I would agree that at least one of the aims of that clause is a copyright
protection, but, and this goes hand in hand with our discussion about the
meanings of words, especially in legal thinking, the founders also viewed
it as having a possible meaning in regards to education.
In the Book PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES, FROM
REVOLUTION TO REFORM by R. Freeman Butts, he talks about how from even
before the founding of this nation, a universal government funded and
controlled educational system was the goal. Some of the colonies passed
laws requiring the education of all children in a government run and
controlled public education system. Several of the New England colonies
passed such laws in the mid to late 1600's .
(Of course during this same period church and state were interlinked in
most. of the colonies, so in effect they were state/church schools. As the
colonies declared their independence from England, and began to write their
own state constitutions, many incorporated clauses requiring a public
education, and most states ended public support of religion. By and large
church run schools had to fend for themselves, being supported totally by
donation and tuition. A dual school system, one still by and large
religious private and religious and one that was emerging that was a
common, free, public school system, run by the local communities.
Frequently required by the state. [There was still some cross-over, meaning
that many of these public schools maintained a connection with protestant
Religion, in that they frequently included reading from the King James
Bible, Protestant prayers, Protestant song, etc. However, there was some
lessening of same in some places as comments from Fisher Ames suggests.]
The overall course offerings and teaching in the Public schools, as the
19th century began and progressed, were less and less church or religious
related and more and more secular in nature, but were still government
operated with required attendance pretty much the norm)
"The notion grew but slowly that 'education for liberty' might mean
preparation to exercise and protect the basic freedoms of religion, press,
assembly, trial by jury, security of person, due process and other
guarantees of the Bill of Rights of 1791."
(page 9 of the aforementioned Butts book)
The first state constitutions of many of the various states had provision
requiring mass education of its citizens.
Jefferson, among many, saw the need from the beginning of having a
universal school system, run by the government, free from religious,
sectarian or private control, with an extensive elementary, secondary,
capped by a university system operated by the government.
(Paraphrased from pages 12, 13 of the Butts book)
At the Constitutional; Convention, " the only recorded mention of education
as a subject of debate in the convention was in a proposal by Charles
Pinckney of South Carolina that the new Congress be empowered to 'establish
and provide for a national university at the seat of government or the
United States.' In the later debates on the powers of Congress, Madison
supported Pinckney in advocating that the federal government 'establish
seminaries for- the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences.'
The convention's committee of Detail never reported out these proposals."
(page 19 of aforementioned Butts book)
On page 35 and 36 of Butt's book we get: to the heart of the matter in
many ways, for it on these pages where he writes about Washington's
efforts. In his annual message to Congress in 1790 Washington urged
Congress to promote science and literature. In May of 1790 a motion was
made in the House of Representatives to refer to Washington's proposals. It
went no where at that time but the one voice recorded in favor was that of
John Page, a lifelong friend and supporter of Jefferson and later Gov. of
Va. He urged a Constitutional amendment, IF, Congress did not already have
the right to promote science and literature.
( Paraphrasing from pages 35 and 36 of the Butts book)
Now while I do agree completely with you that the primary intent of the
Article I Section 8 wording was to promote the progress of science, etc,
wording which was and is concerned with intellectual property, it was also
looked at from almost the very beginning as a possible educational clause,
or at least a potential educational clause.
So, the claim made by Zepp is not as far out as you ( Eleanor Rotthoff)
seemed to want to make it appear.
I recommend the book by Butts. It is a hefty book but he is considered to
be one of the foremost experts on the subject.
There are a couple others here as well that go into extensive detail
concerning the history of education in this country, from its beginning to
the curent times. Bottom line is, a public national or universal system of
education run by the government, various combinations of local, state, even
national levels of government, with required attendance was something that
was understood (and desired by many) as being pretty much essential from
the very beginning to maintain liberty, democracy, freedom of and for our
type of government.
While the original 13 states were not subject to the Northwest Ordinance,
those states that did form, and eventually enter the Union under its
guidelines had already formed partnerships between government and
education. The fact that this Ordinance was renewed in 1789, under the
authority of the new Constitution, gave it the authority of that
constitution.
In all the years since, I am sure that if such authority had not been
granted by that renewal, someone would have challenged it in court (the
government's right to be involved in education) and at some point some
court would have so ruled.
To our meaning of words discussion, can the phrase, "to promote the
progress of science," be used to also mean to promote education, which of
course teaches science which is in turn a form of promoting science, etc.
They saw the possibility that in future times that clause, and some others,
could be used for a number of things, and they wanted to be sure that it
wasn't used in regards to certain things.
Education was not one of those certain things they elected to protect from
any interpretation of that clause.
Constitutional rights were being violated. Which rights? What were the
grounds that were used to send troops to various states to integrate
schools in the south in the 50's, and 60's, when troops were needed to
keep order and protect people and property? What rights were being
violated by denied by intergration?
That opened doors as well and involved the federal government, states, and
local governments. There had to be constitutional grounds to do all those
things.
Incorporation of some of the bill of rights opened altered a great many
things as did the Civil War amendments.
Promoting something can mean a variety of things, supporting it,
encouraging , allowing it, to be taught, and so on. To deny that fact is
taking an very narrow and incorrect view.
I suppose that a more orderly outline would be of greater help, so I will
begin here and give a very brief but accurate outline of how the government
got involved in public education is this county. I think it will answer
your question nicely.
The precedence for the federal government being involved :in public
education is found in a document that preexisted the Constitution. It's
called the Northwest Ordinance. It required a system of public education to
be established in each township formed under the Northwest Ordinance.
Adopted again in 1789 under the Federal Constitution, it remained in effect
long enough to see either 35 or 38 states admitted to statehood under its
directions and blueprint. While a territory, each future state was under
the control of Congress which was the governmental agency that was the
"boss" Therefore each of these public school systems were established and
ultimately watched over, somewhat controlled and regulated by the U S
Congress One regulation was that the 16th lot of each township was to be
used to generate monies (via selling, renting, being taxed, etc) to support
and maintain a public school system. In addition other land was to be
donated by the government to raise money to aid in supporting this school
system, and local taxes were to be raised as another way to support this
school system.- No one claimed at the time this was unconstitutional or
before the constitution, illegal or incorrect. (In 1785 when it was
suggested by some in the Cont,. Congress that lot # 29 of each township be
used for the same purpose, only to support religion, instead of public
schools. It was voted down overwhelming, with James Madison writing James
Monroe commenting on how out of order such a proposal had been.
I have already mentioned to you that Washington, who was; president of the
Constitutional Convention, and others of that time had urged federal
involvement in public education, both on the level of a national
university, and other schools, under the promotion of the science, etc.
clause. No one yelled that would have been unconstitutional. And let me
assure you, had Congress set up a national university, the door would have
been wide open for other forms of public schooling as well.
We now move to 1829
Congressman Joseph Richardson of Mass. proposed that the House of
Representatives establish a committee on education to carry out. the
Founder's vision of a republican education through federal effort as
IMPLIED BY THE GENERAL, WELFARE CLAUSE Of THE CONSTITUTION."
( PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES, FROM
REVOLUTION TO REFORM by R. Freeman Butts, pp 154)
It was not passed, and the argument was made that this should remain on the
local and state level, but it was not argued that Congress had no such
authority to do that.
That began a long series of such proposals that increased in frequency as
the years passed until after the civil war, when it became clear something
would have to be done.
At this Point I will give yo the two reasons why the federal government
became involved in public education. When everything is stirred up in the
pot, the pot is brought to a boil, cooled, and d drained, two things remain
in that pot, the two reasons. Default and invitation
Invitation covers two time frames, the first was ignored by Congress, the
second wasn't. (To keep this short I am providing you with only the barest
of information, rest assured, there is much more that could be given.)
Invitation period #1. "Congress all but ignored the clamor of the states
for common school systems during the Jacksonian period."
(Butts, page 149)
This brings us the second reason, default by the states, especially the
southern states. "The prime issue was whether Congress ought to be able to
prohibit segregated public schools in the several states." (Butts, page
149) (I might add that this was a battle that would be waged up until Brown
v Bd of Ed) but various bills were proposed that would give authority to
Congress to regulate education in some form or manner and more importantly
would compel action by the states to protect it's own citizens. In southern
states public schools were being closed and dismantled so fast that the
illiteracy rate among the coming generation would be 75% or better.
The southern states were so determined to shut blacks out of the
educational process, or if failing in that were going to make sure what
education that did get would be vastly inferior to the education the whites
would get in private schools.
"This was being done at a time when the 14th and 15th Amendments had just
declared the right of every citizen to take part in the administration of
the government."
(Butts pg 154)
(By the way most of this particular material is from the Butts book, both
the direct quotes and the paraphrasing) I might add that at this time
period the 1860's and into the 1870's local meant to locals the city or
town. Even state say in schools was resisted by the "locals" in many
places. (the tyranny of the majority over the minority that Madison had
repeatedly warned about that would take place on the local levels, local
meaning to him both the very local, and the local as in state levels)
In the midst of all this a national department of education had been
established, but it had little effect or authority at this time. Henry
Barnard was it's first head. He was followed by General John Eaten, who in
turn made a list of what the government could do and could not do which he
presented to the National teachers Association in 1871. "He argued that the
federal office should, of course, not violate the Constitution, or decrease
local or individual effort, but when it came to things that the government
MAY do, the list was much longer," than the side showing what the
government could not do. The list of what it could do covered, "everything
necessary to promote education for Washington D C, the territories, the
Indians (and I might add here, that the federal government was involved
with public schooling for the Indians from the very beginning), and
international relations, and to hold the states to account for their use of
federal funds. The government may take, as has been established, by
legislative and executive action, and
by the decisions of the courts, such exceptional action as exceptional
circumstances may require (a) for the public welfare (b) for the assurance
of a republican form of government (c) for the protection of liberty of
those lately slaves (d) for the security of their citizenship, (e) for the
free exercise-of the right to vote (E) for the equality of all men before
the law and (g) for the fitting of any citizen for any responsibility the
nation may impose upon him"
(Butts pg 157)
I will include one other item, then that will end this section, My point
having been established.
The second invitation phase was the passing of the Smith-Howard Act of
1917. A coalition of business, farm, labor and reform groups steered this
act through and got it passed, It called for the federal government to
cooperate with the states in the promotion of vocational schooling in
several areas and to match dollar for dollar the funds that private monies
and state monies equaled.
(Butts pg 217)
Child labor and the need for vocational training is what lay behind this
particular effort. Keeping children in school cut down on the child labor
problems, and teaching vocations allowed young adults a wider range of
choices for work when they did get out of school.
I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of' regulations that do
exist, imposed by the federal government on public education, exists
because of specific problems that the local/state governments couldn't or
wouldn't deal with.
The segregated unequal treatment of blacks continued until resolved finally
in the 50's, but very lightly covered here is the history of how and why
the federal government got into the education business. Actually as shown
they were never out of it, They were in it before there was a federal
government, and stayed in it in various ways and forms all along.
The burden is on you now, if you want to continue this discussion to
present a case built on facts, not opinions that proves they never had the
authority.
Most of those regulations exist for a reason, and the reason was there was
a specific problem or set of problems that the state and or local
governments couldn't or wouldn't
handle and solve.
They are not just a bunch of blanket regulations, requirements, etc that a
few people got together and decided to make, to pis" off the states or
parents in small towns across America.
I think you have misstated that somewhat. States have done things that
were questionable, and even later ruled unconstitutional, Presidents have
done things that have been questionable
and later ruled unconstitutional and finally Congress has been known to do
things that are very questionable and has at times been ruled
unconstitutional .
It is not in the hands of the aforementioned bodies to determine if
something is constitutional or not, that rests with the SC,
Has the SC ever ruled that the federal government being involved in public
education is unconstitutional? If not, despite what you think or your
wishes, it is not, and won't be until such a time as` they do make such a
ruling, and they won't do that.
The burden is not on me to show it is constitutional, it is on you to
"prove" it isn't.
But, despite that, I have presented evidence showing that they have had and
do have such authority, under various parts of the Constitution.
Yes, well that gives them authority as was the case concerning the south's
treatment in regards to blacks.
It has already been shown that the federal government had authority derived
from various parts of the Constitution to protect the interests of the
citizens of this nation, and if that included education, because of abuse
and default by some or all the states then it did just that.
In addition, they also had tradition stemming from actions taken by the
Cont. Congress and First federal Congress. And if you think that tradition
is not a valid reason to declare something constitutional, I suggest you
read the last sodomy ruling by the SC and the courts ruling on Chaplains in
Congress, etc. The decisions in both the above examples were heavily based
on historical tradition. (neat sidestep in reality) Luckily no one
questions the institution of slavery, it had deeper traditional/historical
roots than Chaplains in world history, as deep if not deeper roots than did
or does sodomy, especially since sodomy has had various meanings throughout
history.
Hmmmmm,, well this true the central government; was not the mom or dad and
the states the children, yet at the same time, the "state's rights" that
many seem to think were so clear and ultimate, weren't that ultimate, there
were negative's if you will that were included in the U.S. Constitution
that did give the central government some authority to "control" the states
if
needed .
There was as much distrust of the states by the members of others states as
there was a general mistrust of the central government.
After all, the Articles of Confederation .failed, and one of the big
reasons it had failed was because of the abuses wrought by the various
states on each other, and on the then so called central government.
The states missed by a mere single vote of being directly policed by the
central government, in regards to their ability to enact and pass laws.
Yes a single vote can make a big difference, but don't over look the
divided nature that single vote also indicates. The choice was between a
direct negative placed upon the states, or an indirect negative via
judicial review. The indirect method won by that single vote.
The ultimate power rests with the people, who in turn "lent out" some of
that power to government. The contract, compact whatever you wish to call
that document we now call the Constitution, was between the people and the
central government. In fact in some of the debates of the state ratifying
conventions that was a big issue. Some of the anti-federalists
demanded to know why it said we the people instead of we the states.
At any rate, the power that the people allowed the government to have was
divided between the central government, and the states. Some of that power
in some areas was shared between both, some was held by one, some was held
by the other. The ultimate bottom line is, the central government held the
ultimate negative. The people gave it via the Constitution the power to
over ride any state law or constitution, if need be.
Well, that isn't the issue, but I will point out to you that you will not
find anywhere in the Constitution the term separation of powers, yet
separation of powers is embodied in the Constitution.
You also won't find the term separation of church and state anywhere in the
Constitution, yet that principle is also embodied in the Constitution. A
universal public school system was envisioned by most of the Founders, many
wrote out various plans concerning it.
Some Colonies (future states) had required attendance public school systems
as early as the mid 1600's But again, that is not the real issue.
The federal government is not overstepping it's bounds .Schools are
locally run, following state guidelines, and if there is federal money
involved then yes the federal government does have some say as to how that
money is used.
In addition, there are several ways, outlined in the Constitution, that the
federal government could keep an eye on schools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some (Scholars) argue that there was a profound misunderstanding by the
delegates at the Constitutional Convention. Scholars such as Benjamin D.
Stickney, Lawrence R. Marcus and Americo D. Lapati contend that there was
strong support among the delegates for a federal role in education. They
point to such influential figures as Madison, Hamilton, Washington,
Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster and Samuel Knox as wanting 'the national
government to oversee a national system of education.' (footnoted: Benjamin
D. Stickney and Lawrence R. Marcus, THE GREAT EDUCATION DEBATE: WASHINGTON
AND THE SCHOOLS, Springfield, ill. CC Thomas, 1984 page 6) They argue that
this role was indeed the intent of the makers of the Constitution.
Admittedly a minority view among education and constitutional scholars,
this interpretation has strong evidence in its favor. The most plausible
case has been made by Benjamin Stickney and Lawrence Marcus. They reason
that the delegates did consider education to be a national responsibility,
although no specific clause regarding education had been inserted in the
Constitution. They point to James Madison's journal of the convention as
evidence. Madison, often regarded as the leading spirit of the
Constitution, recorded in his journal that the delegates understood
education to be implied under the General Welfare Clause--Article I,
Section B. That article States 'that Congress has the power to provide` for
the general welfare of the United States.' (Footnoted: Stickney & Marcus,
THE GREAT EDUCATION DEBATE, page 104) Consequently, according to Madison,
the delegates felt no need to spell
out further a national mandate for education.
However, confusion evidently set in after the convention. Madison's Journal
of the proceedings was not published until 1 840--well after the
convention. The founding fathers then interpreted the lack of a specific
clause regarding education to mean, under Article 10, that it should become
the
province of the states.
Nevertheless, Madison's account was corroborated by Alexander Hamilton. In
his REPORT ON MANUFACTURES, issued in 1 791 , Hamilton wrote that 'there
seems to be no room for doubt that whatever concerns the general interests
of learning...all are within the sphere of the national councils.
(footnoted: Henry Cabot Lodge, ed, THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON,
Vol 4, New York: GP Putnam & Sons, 1904, pp 151-52) Washington later argued
for a national system of education.
There is also evidence regarding the creation of a national university.
Charles C. Pickney, a delegate from SC, proposed a resolution to establish
a national university, Madison seconded the idea. However, Governor Morris
from Penna successfully defeated that resolution on the grounds that THIS
POWER WAS ALREADY IMPLIED IN THE CONSTITUTION
(Footnoted: James Madison, JOURNAL. OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, Freeport NY
Books for Libraries Press 1970, pp 726)
Moreover, the first six presidents approved a national university, and
four--Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison recommended it to Congress.
(American Presidents and Education, Maurice R. Berube, Page 4)
Other sections of the book mention about Madison's repeated efforts to get
Congress to establish a national university while he was president. There
is no doubt he felt Congress had such power concerning education, be it
higher education or the lower levels of education.
There is also a great deal of other like type of evidence presented in the
above mentioned book from others of that time period who felt the same way.
The thought of the total education system controlled from the national
level, covering college level secondary level and elementary levels of
schooling was not an alien thought to these people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 1
The Bank of the United States: A Case Study
This chapter studies one of the first constitutional questions confronted
b!· the new federal government: whether chartering a national bank was
within the powers delegated to Congress by Article I. We move from the last
decade of the eighteenth century, when the issue came before the
legislative and executive branches, through the early decades of the
nineteenth century, when it was faced by the Supreme Court and again by the
President. Besides introducing the issue of federalism, Chapter 1 presents
some themes that pervade the course, including the strategies of
constitutional interpretation and the allocation of decisionmaking
authority among the branches of government.
I. Early Background
"There is nothing in the Constitution about banks and banking, though there
might well have been, for the subject was already of both economic and
political importance when the Constitution was being written."(1) In 1781,
the Continental Congress had chartered the Bank of North America. Probably
few members of that Congress disputed James Madison's assertion that this
exceeded Congress authority under the Articles of Confederation(2) Rather,
the bank was Justified by its sheer necessity in helping finance the war
for independence against Great Britain.
At the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, Madison himself proposed that
Congress be authorized "to grant charters of incorporation where the
interest of the U.S. might require & the legislative provisions of
individual States may be incompetent." Rufus King of Massachusetts objected
to the proposal on the ground that the "States will be prejudiced and
divided into parties by it"; King referred specifically to the concerns of
the New York and Philadelphia banking and business communities that
Congress might charter a competing banking institution.' "Other advocates
of the power held back from putting the question to a vote lest it be lost
and the record be definitely against it, whereas if not acted on it could
be held . . . that the power existed." Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania
dissuaded his colleague, Robert Morris, from proposing a national bank lest
such a provision in the Constitution jeopardize its ratification." The only
related proposal brought to a vote, a motion to authorize Congress to
charter corporations for the construction of canals, was defeated eight to
three.
II. The First Bank of the United States
In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, banks served two
main functions. First, they were depositories for money. Second, they
issued bank notes, on deposits qr on other security, which served somewhat
the same function as paper money in the absence of a national currency. In
December 1790, soon after ratification of the Constitution, Secretary of
the Treasury Alexander Hamilton submitted a plan for a national bank to be
chartered , by Congress and
owned jointly by private shareholders and the United States. The bank would
strengthen the national government: it would aid in the collection of taxes
and administration of the public finances and would provide loans to the
government." The Senate, half of whose 20 members had attended the
Philadelphia Convention, unanimously adopted Hamilton's proposal."
(While the above regards a bank, it is still valuable to show how the First
Congress thought and acted. How they "played" politics. In addition, the
instance involving G. Morris and R. Morris takes place at the same time G.
Morris stated that a vote on a National University was not required,
because such a power had already been granted Congress.)
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING, Cases
and Materials, Second Edition, Paul Brest & Sanford Levinson, Little, Brown
and Company, Boston-Toronto, 1983, pp 9-10. This was the Constitutional
Law textbook used to teach Constitutional Law at the UVA School of Law.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Diamond is trying to prove here is: that the Founders lowered the
ends of government (to accommodate, of course, a "profoundly democratic"
society). This he attempts to do by contrasting The Federalist with the
political theories of pre-modern philosophers, theories which emphasized
the noble ends on which The Federalist is "silent." From this "silence"
Diamond infers that the regime established under the Constitution is
essentially democratic. Now it may be noted in passing that at least one
pre-modern philosopher, again Aristotle, would have questioned such an
inference. For this philosopher thought that even in regimes which do not
make the encouragement of excellence a matter of law or public policy,
there may still be found individuals who are of good repute and esteemed
to be of high quality; so that a regime which pays regard to wealth and
numbers, but which also recognizes excellence, may be called
"aristocratic."" Yet Diamond overlooks more pertinent facts. For while it
is true that The Federalist is silent about education, it is also true
that during the debates of the Federal Convention, James Madison and
Charles Pinckney proposed to invest Congress with the power to establish a
national university; that the motion was supported by James Wilson; that
it came very close to being adopted; and that it failed of adoption
perhaps because some delegates agreed with Gouverneur Morris that the
motion was unnecessary, unnecessary because, in his opinion, Congress could
establish
a university, the~"silence" of the Constitution notwithstanding."
Furthermore, Diamond forgets that this Constitution does not explicitly
reflect the entire character of the American regime. For the people of that
regime were also to be governed under tile constitutions of the several
states, many of which provided for education and religion-some of the very
ends of government on which The Federalist is silent!" Finally, let it be
said here, awaiting the evidence of later
chapters, that The Federalist is not silent--not silent at all-- on some of
the noble ends to which Diamond refers." But however this may be, to
contrast such a work, which in part
is a work of political rhetoric, with the theoretical disquisitions of
political philosophers, and to conclude from the "silence" of the former
concerning the noble ends of the latter, that the Founding Fathers intended
to establish a mitigated democracy, is a dubious method of constitutional
exegesis. Let me therefore offer an alternative method, one which has led
me to conclude that the Founders intended to establish a mixed regime.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, A
Reinterpretation of the Intentions of the Founding Fathers, by Paul
Eidelberg, 1986, University Press of America, pp 27-28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAY 29, 1787
DEBATES OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
SOME OF THE PROPOSALS (known as the Virginia Plan) INTRODUCED Mr. RANDOLPH
TO THE CONVENTION ON MAY 29, 1787, REGARDING THE POWERS OF CONGRESS.
ARTICLE VI.
The legislature of the United States shall have the power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;
To regulate commerce with all nations, and among the several States.
To borrow money and emit bills of credit
To establish post-offices.
To raise armies;
To build and equip fleets;
To pass laws arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia of the
United States
To subdue a rebellion in any State, on application of its Legislature
To coin in money, and regulate the value of all coins, and fix; the
standard of weights and measures.;
To provide dockyards and arsenals, and erect such fortifications as may be
necessary for the United States, and to exercise exclusive jurisdiction
therein;
To appoint a Treasurer by ballot;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To establish post and military road
To establish and provide for a national university at the seat of
government of the United States;
To establish uniform rules of naturalization;
To provide for the establishment of a seat of government for the United
States, not exceeding-------miles square, in which they shall have
exclusive Jurisdiction;
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Tuesday May 29, 1787. In Convention.
Bicentennial Edition NOTES OF THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
1787, Reported by James Madison, W.W. Norton & Company New York-London
1987, pp 27- 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUST 18, 1787
DEBATES OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
In Convention Mr. MADISON submitted, in order to be referred to the
Committee on Detail, the following powers, as powers. to be added to those
of the General Legislature:
'' To dispose of the unappropriated lands of the United States.
"To institute temporary governments for new States arising therein.
" To regulate affairs with the Indians, as well within as without the
limits of the United States.
"To exercise exclusively legislative authority at the sent of the
General Government, and over a district around the same not exceeding ----
square miles; the consent of the Legislature of the State or States,
comprising the same, being first obtained.
To grant charters of corporations in cases where the public good may
require them, and the authority of a single State may be incompetent.
"To secure to literary authors their copy-rights for a limited time.
" To establish a university.
"To encourage by premiums and provisions the advancement of useful
knowledge and discoveries.
"To authorize the Executive to procure, aud hold for the use of the United
States, landed property for the erection of forts, magazines, and other
necessary buildings."
These propositions were referred to the Committee of Detail which had
prepared the report; and at the same time the following, which were moved
by Mr. PINCKNEY --in both cases unanimously:
" To fix and permanently establish the seat of government of the United
States, in which they shall possess the exclusive right of soil and
jurisdiction.
" To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts
and sciences.
"To grant charters of incorporation.
"To grant patents for useful inventions.
"To secure to authors exclusive rights for a certain time.
"To establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the
promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Saturday, August 18, 1787 In Convention.
Bicentennial Edition NOTES OF THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
1787, Reported by James Madison, W.W. Norton & Company New York-London
1987, pp 477- 478
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SEPTEMBER
14, 1787
DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION
(Entering the discussion in the middle of the debate over Banks, canals,
etc.)
Mr.. MADISON suggested an enlargement of the motion into power "to grant
charters of incorporation where the interest of the U.S. might require &
the legislative provisions of individual States may be incompetent." His
primary object was, however, to secure an easy communication between the
States, which the free intercourse now to be opened seemed to call for. The
political obstacles being removed, a removal of the natural ones as far as
possible ought to follow.
Mr. RANDOLPH seconded the proposition.
Mr. KING thought the power unnecessary.
Mr. WILSON. It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing the,
general welfare.
Mr. KING. The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it.
In Philadelphia and New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a
bank, which has been a subject of contention in those cities. In other
places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.
Mr. WILSON mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals the
communication with tire Western settlements. As to banks, he did not think
with Mr. KING, that the power in that point of view would excite the
prejudices and Parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies, they
are already included in the power to regulate trade.
Col. MASON was for limiting the power to the single case of canals. He
was afraid of monopolies of: every sort, which he did not think were by any
means already implied by tile Constitution, as supposed by Mr. WILSON
The motion being so modified as to admit a distinct question specifying
and limited to the case of canals,--
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia, aye -- 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, no -- 8.
The other part fell of course, as including the power rejected.
MR.. MADISON and Mr. PINCKNEY then moved to insert, in the list of
powers vested in Congress, a power "to establish an University, in which no
preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of religion."
Mr. WILSON supported the motion.
. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. It is not necessary. The exclusive power at the seat
of government, will reach the object.
On the question,--
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
aye--4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey Delaware, Maryland,
Georgia, no -- 8; Connecticut, divided,
(Doctor JOHNSON, aye; Mr. SHERMAN, no.)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Friday September 14, 1787. In Convention.
Bicentennial Edition NOTES OF THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
1787, Reported by James Madison, W.W. Norton & Company New York-London
1987, pp 638- 639
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM TOM PETERS
:>:|
>:|McPeter's and crowd seem hung up on the idea that the Federal
>:|government has no authority to provide money for education. In fact,
>:|I've run across some info that *strongly* suggests that the "general
>:|welfare" clause (Article 1, Section 8) was *intended* to cover
>:|educational spending. Here's the scoop (taken from Paul Mort,
>:|_Federal Support for Public Education_, 1936; he's quoting from a
>:|article titled "Federal Financing of Education," by William Russell,
>:|published in "School and Society," August 19, 1933):
>:|
>:|On August 18 1787, in the Constitutional Convention, James Madison
>:|and James Pickney both proposed additional powers for the General
>:|Government. Madison's proposals included the power to establish a
>:|university, and Pickney's proposals included the power to establish
>:|semenaries of learning for the promotion of literature and the arts,
>:|and to establish institutions for the promotion of agriculture,
>:|commerce, trade, and manufacture. These proposals were refered to a
>:|committe headed by Rutledge. The Committee reported back to the
>:|Convention on August 22. The Committee adopted four of the proposals,
>:|and then recommended, in addition to those proposals, an early
>:|version of the general welfare clause to be attached to the end of
>:|section 7 (later to become section 8).
>:|
>:|By the end of the Convention, another six of the August 18 proposals
>:|has been written into the Constitution. Additionally, the general
>:|welfare clause has been moved from the end of the section to the
>:|*beginning* of section. The six August proposals *not* specifically
>:|adopted by the Convention all dealt with either education or public
>:|works.
>:|
>:|Here's Russell's commentary on the evidence:
>:|
>:|"The remaining proposals had to do with internal improvements, public
>:|works, and education. The convention could have omitted the General
>:|Welfare Clause, but it did not. In fact, it was moved from the end of
>:|the section to the begining. This must be significant. Either the
>:|convention, in trying to settle certain miscellaneous problems, hit
>:|upon the clse, and thought it a good idea worth prerpetuating; or
>:|else, rather than force the issue of federal support of public works
>:|and eduation, deliberately left the gate open."
>:|
>:|Looks to me that there is good reason to think that the General
>:|Welfare clause was not a dead letter or a mistake. It looks to me
>:|like it was created explicitly to cover spending needed for the
>:|General Welfare of the country.
>:|
(What follows is a discourse that someone presented to me thinking that it
was going to totally shoot down the claims that Madison and others thought
the authority to be involved in schools was to be found in the
Constitution. I deleted their name, have no idea now who they were, nor
would I have any problem including this in an article because it is
doubtful they would ever remember having written it almost a year ago, if
they ever read it in that article.)
>:|It is also clear that Madison himself felt that the "General Welfare
>:|Clause" gave congress no power whatsoever except to tax.
>:|--------------------------------
>:|
>:|expressed in Madison's veto of Bonus Bill, March 3, 1817:
>:|
>:| ------------------------
>:|
>:|Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act
>:|to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,"
>:|and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and
>:|canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to
>:|facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the
>:|several States, and to render more easy and less expensive means and
>:|provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable
>:|difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the
>:|United States to return it with the objection to the House of
>:|Representatives, in which it originated.
>:|The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated
>:|in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it
>:|does not appear that the power proposed to be exorcised by the bill is
>:|among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation
>:|within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into
>:|execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the
>:|government of the United States.
>:|
>:|"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not
>:|include
>:|a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of
>:|water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a >:|commerce
>:|without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of
>:|the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led
>:|to
>:|the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
>:|
>:|To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for the common
>:|defense and general welfare" would be contraty to the established and
>:|consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special enumeration
>:|of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view
>:|of the Constutution would have the effect of giving to Congress a
>:|general
>:|power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto
>:|understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general
>:|welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a
>:|legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the
>:|Constitution and laws of the several States in all Cases not
>:|specifically
>:|exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly
>:|declared
>:|"that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance
>:|thereof shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of
>:|any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the
>:|Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial
>:|authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the
>:|boundary between the legislative powers of the General and State
>:|Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare,
>:|being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial
>:|cognizance and decision.
>:|
>:|A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and
>:|general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the
>:|expenditure
>:|of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all
>:|the great and most important measures of Government, money being the
>:|ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
>:|
>:|If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the
>:|navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto,
>:|be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode
>:|provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which
>:|the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of
>:|Congress are those specified and provided in the Constitution.
>:|
>:|I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the
>:|improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in National
>:|Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage
>:|to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not
>:|expressly
>:|given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from
>:|any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and
>:|a reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent
>:|success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers
>:|between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate
>:|land-marks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers
>:|of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withold
>:|my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial
>:|objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the
>:|same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution
>:|in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself
>:|a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
The above doesn't surprise me, and the reason is as follows:
Friday September 14th, 1787
Article 1, Section 8, a power 'to provide for cutting canals as deemed
necessary.'
Mr Wilson seconded the motion
Mr Sherman objected. The expense in such cases will fall on the United
States, and the benefits accure to the places where the canals may be cut.
Mr Wilson Instead of being an expense to the United States, they may be
made a source of revenue.
Mr Madison suggested an enlargement of the motion into a power 'to grant
charters of incorporation where the interest of the United States might
require, and the legislative provisions of individual states may be
incompetent' His primary object was, however, to secure an easy
communication between the states, which the free intercourse now to be
opened seemed to call for. The political obstacles being removed, a
removal of the natural ones as far as possible ought to follow.
Mr Randolph seconded the motion
Mr. King thought the power unnecessary
Mr Wilson it is necessary to prevent a STATE from obstructing the GENERAL
welfare (highlighted words are highlighted in original)
Mr King The states will be prejuduced and divided into parties by it. In
Philadelphia and New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a
bank, which has been the subject of contention in those cities. In other
places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.
Mr Wilson mentioned the importance of facilitating by canals the
communication with the western settlements. As to banks, he did not think
with Mr King, that the power in that point of view would excite the
prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies, they are
already included in the power to regulate trade.
Col. Mason was for limiting the power to the single case of canals. He was
afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any
means already implied by the Constitution as supposed by Mr Wilson
The motion being so modified as to admit a distinct question specifying
and limited to the case of canals.
The vote was 3 yea's 8 no's
The other part fell of course, as including the power rejected." (Journal
of the Federal Convention, kept by James Madison. Edited by E H Scott p
726)
What you included as your argument has nothing at all to do with what
Madison might have thought concerning education and the Constitution. Of
course, he would have vetoed that bill thinking it would be
unconstitutional. He was present and a part of the discussion which dealt
with situations just like that, canals, etc, and was present for the vote
which denied that power to Congress. (though the vote was by state and
Virginia voted yea, along with Penna and Georgia.) So of all people, he was
one who knew full well that Bill would have been unconstitutional.
But, as I have already stated, what you have posted has nothing to do with
what he felt or thought about any powers for the central government to be
involved in education, nor did my response back to you.
On May 29th 1787 a proposed outline was presented of how to "repair" the
Articles of Confederation. This outline was the Virginia Plan and was
actually the outline for creating a whole new
government.
Included in this outline was a list of powers that Congress should have. I
won't list the entire list, but will list those that are important to the
discussion. "To establish and provide for a national university at the seat
of government of the United States."
The men assembled began work on the whole outline.
On August 18th 1787 Madison submitted the following list of proposed powers
of congress, again I will only list those which are important to this
discussion
"To secure to literary authors their copy-rights for a limited time."
"To encourage by premiums and provisions the advancement of useful
knowledge and discoveries"
At this point Mr Pinckney of South carolina added the follwoing proposals
"To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and
sciences"
"To secure to authors exclusive rights for a certain time"
"To establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities for the
promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures."
This was turned over to a committee.
Sept 18th 1787 ( If I remember right, the date for this section is
downstairs, but it is within this time period.
After discussing the issue about canals, etc, and after some of the
delegates played some manipulating games, Madison and Pinckney
brought up the issue of inserting "in the list of powers vested in
Congress, a power to establish a university, in which no preference or
distinctions should be allowed on account of religion." "Mr Wilson
supported the motion."
"Mr Gouverneur Morris, It is not necessary. The exclusive power at the seat
of government will reach the object."
the vote on the question as taken and was passed in the negative 4 states
and one additional delegate for 6 states and one delegate against. (the
vote went by states, unless a state was divided, at
which case the actual delegate vote was placed in the proper column.
Seems like that should be the end of it, huh? it was proposed, and it was
voted down, no power for congress over schools, huh?
Well not quite, The above two questions would be very clear if Morris
hadn't spoke. But he did speak. In addition to that, there is another
detail.
I will explain it, then comment on why they are important in light of that
vote.
In Susan's Constittional law book the one she used while in law school has
this neat little comment about this same day, and about the vote that took
place right in front of the vote on a
university.
They are talking about banks, monopolies, canals, etc, "Other advocates of
the power held back from putting the question to a vote lest it be lost and
the record be definitely against it, whereas if
not acted on it could be held that power existed. Gouverneur Morris of
penna dissuaded his Colleague, Robert Morris, from proposing a national
bank lest such a provision in the Constitution
jeopardize its ratification. The only related proposal brought to a vote, a
motion to authorize Congress to charter corporations for the construction
of canals, was defeated 8 to 3"
Remember, between Madison and Picnkney there was a list of proposals of
which a university was only one, and the first one on Madison's list. (Also
on Madison's list was the power to dispose of
unappropriated lands of the U.S and to regularte the affairs with the
Indians. I mention this because neither of those items were brought to a
vote yet Congress did in fact do both, had been doing
it, continued to do it, and still does it.)
We have two questions presented to us here, the first is, Did the vote go
against the university because of what Morris said, and an additional
clause would only be repeating what was already given
or because it was felt Congress shouldn't have such a power?
Had Morris not spoken, it would have been easy to answer that question, but
since he did, it isn't so easy.
A second question also presents itself, Madison was an acomplished fighter
and politician, did he see that the first vote didn't go good and decide
not to bring up the rest of the list as had
happened in the discussion and vote preceeding this one. After all, there
were several other items on that list that involved various forms of what
would be schools, insitutions of learning and
knowledge.
was it an honest misunderstanding or was it a manipulated event so that a
misunderstanding could be claimed later and that the power was there or was
intended to be there.
20 years later Madison still believed the power for schools was in the
Constitution.
Washington, the only other man who became president who was also at the
Constitutional Convention believed the power was there, either under
genaral welfare or under the liturature and science
clause. Both Madison and Washingotn proposed schools, in fact the first six
presidents did and only Jefferson and Monroe felt that there might be a
Constitutional problem
My vote goes with the idea that Madison and other took what Morris said as
factual and did not pass another bill that would duplicate what already
existed.
the part about Hamilton agreeing that such a power existed is true, I have
copied the original source for that.
In fact Hamilton in the same document says that the general welfare clause
was intended to cover many things not actually named.
Hamilton also discovered the implied powers clause, yes there really is
one, and realized what it meant. He used it to get the power to create the
First national bank, and which Marshall upheld the
principle of implied powers being in the Constitution in the McCulloch v
Maryland case. The implied powers clause is also under Article I, Section
8.
So we actually have general welfare, implied powers, or science and
liturature clause generally known as the copy-right clause.
When the bill was passed by Congress for the national bank, about half of
those who voted for it in Congress had been members of the Constitutional
Convention, had been there and voted on those
issues that day. remember also that anything concerning a bank was never
brought to a vote, only the issue of single canals. (Morris was steering
that discussion too)
This is just a a fast going over, not in deep detail.
Other men who had been at the Constittional convention over the next few
years also proposed bills for schools and cited the general welfare clause
or the copy-tight clause as the one giving the
power. So it does appear that we have a case on mass misunderstanding or
mass correct understanding, such a power was there, had been given or at
least was one of the implied powers.
=========================================================================
watwinc
news:19990921110945...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
> >Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a whole vein
> >of good, affordable private schooling out there, run by ideological
eunuchs
> >with no worldview at all?
>
> The point is not that it's an evil for educators to have a worldview at
all.
> It's that there are conflicts of interest when the worldview in question
is
> part of the indoctrination in schools that are government run, compulsory,
and
> funded by a confiscatory tax system.
"Indoctrination" - what does this mean here?
The schools aren't exactly "government run", there's major diversity in this
nation - nor are they compulsory (remember, I come from Europe where they
really *are* compulsory).
"Confiscatory tax system". What tax systems - or what purposes - do you find
acceptable? (I don't mean to provoke, I just don't understand why or what
you object to.)
> In my ideal world people would *choose* where their education dollars
went, and
> therefore would not be forced to fund the indoctrination of children into
a
> worldview which they themselves did not support. And parents would
*choose*
> (usually with the input of their children and the best interests of the
> children at heart) which system of education, which worldview, was best
for
> their children. And the government would have very little to say about
it.
> And the majority of us would homeschool=)
Who would provide the other systems of education and worldviews?
> >> >Could you have done it on the same income without him and
homeschooled?
>
> I know single mothers who are doing or have done just that.
> One of them is homeschooling five children right now, even though her
husband
> has abandoned them and has set up his money so it's all in China so that
he
> doesn't have to provide any reasonable amount of support.
> Their income now is about 30 percent of what it was when he was home. She
got
> a part time job and she's still homeschooling.
But you aren't preaching compulsory home schooling, are you? So - what
schools should such people send their children to, and how should these be
funded?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:| I believe the first (compulsory gov't schools) started in the
>:|1830's in New England. I'm also aware of riots in Philiadelphia over
>:|the Protestant "public schools" that were instituted to educate
>:|(convert?) Catholic Irish immigrant children --- late 1800's I
>:|believe.
Try 1840s
BOB!! Williams
> So answer the big question: if the state isn't providing the schools,
> which organisation(s) is/are? The churches? Doctor Dobson? Pat
> Buchanan? Cardinal Whoever? At least with the state, you have a vote!
A better question to ask would be, which organizations *aren't*? All the ones
you mentioned, for-profit companies established strictly for the purpose of
education, for-profit companies running schools as a sideline because they
want to have an educated labor base to hire from, for-profit companies doing
so for philanthropic reasons, religious organizations, etc. Essentially,
everyone who has an economic, ethical, moral or other reason for educating the masses.
With all these organizations, you also have a vote. If you don't like the
education they're providing, you vote with your feet (or more accurately, your
children's). If you don't like the education they're providing other people's
children, you start a competing school, or lobby an organization whose
educational methods you like to start one in your area.
Regards,
BOB!!
watwinc
news:37E7CFDD...@pinn.net...
> watwinc wrote:
>
> > So answer the big question: if the state isn't providing the schools,
> > which organisation(s) is/are? The churches? Doctor Dobson? Pat
> > Buchanan? Cardinal Whoever? At least with the state, you have a vote!
>
ones
> you mentioned, for-profit companies established strictly for the purpose
of
> education, for-profit companies running schools as a sideline because they
> want to have an educated labor base to hire from, for-profit companies
doing
> so for philanthropic reasons, religious organizations, etc. Essentially,
> everyone who has an economic, ethical, moral or other reason for educating
the masses.
> With all these organizations, you also have a vote. If you don't like the
> education they're providing, you vote with your feet (or more accurately,
your
> children's). If you don't like the education they're providing other
people's
> children, you start a competing school, or lobby an organization whose
> educational methods you like to start one in your area.
>
> Regards,
>
> BOB!!
Now I'm *really* starting to worry about indoctrination!
Helen White
poor ignorant stranger.
You sweet fellow, you, all you need to do is study the history of this
delightful country and discover that for something like the first 200 to
250 years of its existence, schools were government funded and privately
run!
That was the rule when our wonderfully wise founders passed the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That made one (Oh, what do they call it?)
square mile out of every group of thirty or so available for support of
the schools. These homey little places were funded by the government,
and public in that they were open to the public, but they were run by
parents, or churches, or local little communities.
This ridiculous system of government run schools only began around 1848
or something, back east, I think it was in New England somewhere.
Anyway, that way of doing things took care of all these silly little
problems we have nowadays. And the very people who wrote the
Constitution thought it was all right--in fact it was all they knew.
Course, you can't help it you don't know that, being an alien and all.
Most Americans aren't aware of it. We're so eager to mimic Europe that
we don't see what a mess they've had over there for the last several
centuries at least.
We wouldn't have to change any of our tax laws to change who ran the
schools. It's just so easy for most parents to abandon their children to
the care of others. Shameful, I know, but, there it is.
Now, don't be so difficult. Go and study a little American history, let
the fever die down in your socialistical little head, and you'll feel
better.
Mom superior
Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts
> Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote ...
> > watwinc wrote:
> > > Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote ...
[...]
> > > I'm open to further argument.
> > That, in itself, is impressive. :-)
> And Marty & Paola accuse *me* of being obnoxious!!
It was only Marty, not Paola, as you will see when you read
my .sigs. Also, me Marty didn't accuse you of *being*
obnoxious, but pointed out the *appearance* of you being so.
You've denied intent re that occasion, and I've apologized
(these posts may be timestamped identically as I post
everything together when I get back online).
However, your intolerant comments on an occasion or two make
me wonder if you aren't actually quite happy to be obnoxious.
If this is not true, please take no umbrage, but reflect on
that your manner is your calling card. ________________Marty
P.S. Pascal expressing impressment over your "openmindedness"
could very well actually be a compliment that you are so,
in pleasant contrast to the usual naysayer we have visiting
here (m.e.h-s.Christian). I really don't see how her statement
could be interpretted as an insult, or otherwise obnoxious to
you.
Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts
> > > Ladeebkwrm <ladee...@aol.comeandplay> wrote...
> > > > >Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now,
> > > > >everybody isn't in a position to home school, maybe
> > > > >because of temperament or (lack of) education.
> > > > > Would you agree?
> > > > I actually didn't want to get into this part of the
> > > > debate. I only wanted to address the one point. I
> > > > don't have an opinion on what is being discussed
> > > > here right now. I'm still watching and waiting,
> > > > listening to both sides, so to speak, and *then*
> > > > I'll make up my mind.
> > > Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a discussion!
> > Hmm, that sounds a bit obnoxious, I hope it wasn't really
> > meant to be so. If she doesn't want to talk, it doesn't
> > make her less "worthy". As a matter of fact, that she
> > speaks when she has something to say, and then shuts up
> > afterwards, declining to swerve from topic to topic,
> > says something admirable about her.
> I didn't mean it
Then my apologies for kinda thinking it probably was meant.
>(and don't find it) to be obnoxious. Anybody can make a
> perfectly valid but limited point, and I try to do that
> myself rather than launching into global issues. In this
> particular thread, I've already acknowledged that some
> areas of public finance lead very far afield.
It had nothing to do with your scope, but rather your seeming
implication that Kristina was somehow at fault or lesser for
saying her piece and declining to accept your invitation to
stray further. But that's behind us now.
> > > > The only thing I would have to say is that maybe
> > > > if our tax money wasn't going to support public
> > > > schools, than maybe more people would be able to
> > > > afford private school.
> > > The problem is [...]
> > Actually, the problem is what was mentioned only in passing
> > earlier (or maybe it was given more discussion--the thread is
> > fraying), that fair government funding of education that it
> > doesn't then provide is problematic.
> The thread as I see it has split into the original section,
> which is more or less dead, and the new "separation of school
> and state", which I'm seeing for the first time. Actually,
> any government funding of [] that it doesn't then provide is
> problematic, and this is a very interesting area of research
> and politics. [...]
Shure thing, glad you see it this way. Remember, something
that makes it even more fascinating is that the moral
imperativity (TM) of separating school from state has nothing
to do with its facility.
> In the case of education, we have the educators themselves
> muddying the waters. When my wife - a former administrator
> and teacher in adult college education and further education
> - starts spitting fire over having to deal with "Standards
> Of Learning", I know things are getting bad.
> > Perhaps (likely) I've missed it, but I don't remember a real
> > response to the earlier part of the thread, where you seem
> > to skirt past someone's (both Julie's and Wayne's I think)
> > proposed moral imperative for government to stay out of
> > ideological indoctrination in favor of worrying that the
> > specific details of implementation are too difficult.
> I'm having a lot of trouble with this alienation from "The
> Government".
Well, good luck sorting it out, then.
Oh, ok. I'm glad to discuss the concept of alienation with
you, but am not going to go back and bone up on the thread as
it stands. You'll have to apply whatever you get from me to
the rest of the thread yourself, if they differ. Personally,
I find it extremely easy to understand how one can feel
alienated (estranged) so. For example, I am pro-life, and
am policially and socially active, but I see that my politicians
are not responsive to me. As a matter of fact, due to the
political climate I live in, I see that they couldn't care less
whether I exist or not. In this sense I feel alienated from my
government. Entiendes esto?
> Isn't this a government of the people, by the people and for
> the people?
Kinda, but only kinda. It would be really naive to think that
in a country of 250+ million people everyone would have an
audible voice in the government of the country, or even that
every responsible, active, citizen would. In a true democracy,
I think everyone would be voting on lots more things than we
do. We're more of a representative democracy, and that leaves
even more room for the type of estrangement that I think people
are probably talking about.
>(I come from Europe,
Neat. Where abouts?
> where we're more or less
> explicitly "subjects" of The Government, you see.) Then, I
> don't understand how you can have a society without ideology
> or ideologies. Me, I rather like multiculturalism and
> pluralism, so long as nobody's going to stuff their culture,
> ideology, religion or whatever down my throat. So I ask just
> *who* is going to provide this non-ideological education.
I think you're misunderstanding, tho I again deny that I'm
necessarily arguing the same point everyone else is. I'm
starting afresh (or more or less so).
To the extent that I understand the SeparationOfSAS position,
I think the point is *not* that education ought to be *free*
of ideological content, but rather (ok, 2 points) that the
government ought not be the one providing the ideological
content, and second that the people ought thus to be free to
choose where they get their education.
> > Without concluding that open issue, I frankly don't think
> > it's worth addressing the details of potential solutions to
> > the implementation problem.
> Practicalities help focus the issue.
See below.
> > > I'm seeing this line of thought for the first time myself,
> > > but I tend to think with my mouth open (catch a lot of
> > > flies and a couple of feet that way). If the debate really
> > > firms up, I'm going to have to do some research on private
> > > school costs, income distribution, impact of tax cuts and
> > > so on. It'd be good for me, but it would take some time.
> > I think addressing the moral imperative first, before
> > addressing the sticky details, is the best way to approach
> > this issue, and it would probably save time too. _____Marty
> I disagree. Look to see what you've got to build a house
> before you design it.
Again, look to see whether the house ought to be built *first*.
In this case, you seem to be struggling with the idea
that it's too impractical to separate state and school
(analogous to deciding whether it's impractical to build
the house). I think that before you solve the problems
with, or reconcile yourself with the impossibility of,
building the house, you ought to decide whether there's
a *need* for the house to be built at all (analogous to
addressing the moral imperative for separating the state
away from education).
Hope that came out straight, and that everyone understand me.
_______________________________________________________Marty
Julie A. Pascal
watwinc wrote:
>
> BOB!! Williams <en...@pinn.net> wrote in message
> news:37E7CFDD...@pinn.net...
> > watwinc wrote:
> >
> > > So answer the big question: if the state isn't providing the schools,
> > > which organisation(s) is/are? The churches? Doctor Dobson? Pat
> > > Buchanan? Cardinal Whoever? At least with the state, you have a vote!
> >
> > A better question to ask would be, which organizations *aren't*? All the
> ones
> > you mentioned, for-profit companies established strictly for the purpose
> of
> > education, for-profit companies running schools as a sideline because they
> > want to have an educated labor base to hire from, for-profit companies
> doing
> > so for philanthropic reasons, religious organizations, etc. Essentially,
> > everyone who has an economic, ethical, moral or other reason for educating
> the masses.
> > With all these organizations, you also have a vote. If you don't like the
> > education they're providing, you vote with your feet (or more accurately,
> your
> > children's). If you don't like the education they're providing other
> people's
> > children, you start a competing school, or lobby an organization whose
> > educational methods you like to start one in your area.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > BOB!!
>
> Now I'm *really* starting to worry about indoctrination!
Why?
Quite seriously, why?
Plurality and Diversity are considered *good* things, are
they not?
Why would every person voting with their feet, a vote
with immediate and noticeable affect, be more troublesome
than a paper vote? If this government *is* by the people
and for the people, then the expression of popular will
is as valid, even without all the middle-men and monkey-
business.
I'm not the least troubled by a hypothetical Flat Earth
school, or a Wiccan school, or by the (possible) chain
of Reform Party schools funded by Ross Perot. Given
small, reasonably priced, secular schools after Separation,
Church schools would probably *loose* students since so
many parents who send their children to church schools
don't really care much for the "church" part of it.
The truly wacked out folks... the New Agers channeling
aliens or the survivalist militias, *already* have their
children outside of the public system.
As far as civil peace is concerned... it really isn't
a problem if someone believes the Earth is Flat. (And
it will not be *possible* that any child so taught
would be unaware that most people think otherwise.)
It would be a telling thing if democracy can not
survive without controlling and dictating the
education of other people's children.
Parents *today* are expected to be watchdogs at
their child's school. Parents today need to
examine text books and curriculum materials.
Certainly this would not change. Accountability
isn't lacking, it's total. Schools run by
ideological fringe groups will not survive, or
at the least, will remain very small. Academic
schools, science academies, and such, will likely
do very well.
And if certain folks don't like the fact that
the poor are served mostly by religious
organizations, they can put their *own* money
where their ideologies lay, and start their
own scholarship schools for the poor.
--Julie
BOB!! Williams
> That was the rule when our wonderfully wise founders passed the
> Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That made one (Oh, what do they call it?)
A section.
> square mile out of every group of thirty or so available for support
> of the schools. These homey little places were funded by the
Each township consisted of 36 sections, each 640 acres (1 square mile) in
area. Section 16, at the center of the township, was designated the school
section. A diagram is the easiest way to show how the sections of the
townships were numbered:
6 5 4 3 2 1
7 8 9 10 11 12
18 17 16 15 14 13
19 20 21 22 23 24
30 29 28 27 26 25
31 32 33 34 35 36
Regards,
BOB!!
Card-carrying member of the AAG
watwinc
Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts <alac...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:37E83D7E...@csi.com...
> Emailed too. watwinc wrote:
> > From: Marty & Paola Addamiano-Carts <alac...@csi.com>
> > > Emailed too. watwinc wrote:
> > > > Ladeebkwrm <ladee...@aol.comeandplay> wrote...
>
> > > > > >Okay, let's get back to the two-parent families. Now,
> > > > > >everybody isn't in a position to home school, maybe
> > > > > >because of temperament or (lack of) education.
> > > > > > Would you agree?
>
> > > > > I actually didn't want to get into this part of the
> > > > > debate. I only wanted to address the one point. I
> > > > > don't have an opinion on what is being discussed
> > > > > here right now. I'm still watching and waiting,
> > > > > listening to both sides, so to speak, and *then*
> > > > > I'll make up my mind.
>
> > > > Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a discussion!
>
> > > Hmm, that sounds a bit obnoxious, I hope it wasn't really
> > > meant to be so. If she doesn't want to talk, it doesn't
> > > make her less "worthy". As a matter of fact, that she
> > > speaks when she has something to say, and then shuts up
> > > afterwards, declining to swerve from topic to topic,
> > > says something admirable about her.
>
> > I didn't mean it
>
> Then my apologies for kinda thinking it probably was meant.
Don't see how you got that from the wording, but maybe it's one of those
English-American misunderstandings.
>
> >(and don't find it) to be obnoxious. Anybody can make a
> > perfectly valid but limited point, and I try to do that
> > myself rather than launching into global issues. In this
> > particular thread, I've already acknowledged that some
> > areas of public finance lead very far afield.
>
> It had nothing to do with your scope, but rather your seeming
> implication that Kristina was somehow at fault or lesser for
> saying her piece and declining to accept your invitation to
> stray further. But that's behind us now.
Still puzzled by your original take on this, but okay.
> > > > > The only thing I would have to say is that maybe
> > > > > if our tax money wasn't going to support public
> > > > > schools, than maybe more people would be able to
> > > > > afford private school.
>
> > > > The problem is [...]
>
> > > Actually, the problem is what was mentioned only in passing
> > > earlier (or maybe it was given more discussion--the thread is
> > > fraying), that fair government funding of education that it
> > > doesn't then provide is problematic.
>
> > The thread as I see it has split into the original section,
> > which is more or less dead, and the new "separation of school
> > and state", which I'm seeing for the first time. Actually,
> > any government funding of [] that it doesn't then provide is
> > problematic, and this is a very interesting area of research
> > and politics. [...]
>
> Shure thing, glad you see it this way. Remember, something
> that makes it even more fascinating is that the moral
> imperativity (TM) of separating school from state has nothing
> to do with its facility.
Don't agree yet with the moral imperative claim (what *is* TM?)
No. Because of the curiosities of national legislation I've been without a
vote for the past 25 years. One of the things I admire about the USA is the
way people get together to promote their causes - even when I disagree with
them. The Creationist push in Kansas is a recent successful instance.
> > Isn't this a government of the people, by the people and for
> > the people?
>
> Kinda, but only kinda. It would be really naive to think that
> in a country of 250+ million people everyone would have an
> audible voice in the government of the country, or even that
> every responsible, active, citizen would. In a true democracy,
> I think everyone would be voting on lots more things than we
> do. We're more of a representative democracy, and that leaves
> even more room for the type of estrangement that I think people
> are probably talking about.
>
> >(I come from Europe,
>
> Neat. Where abouts?
UK to start, Germany later.
> > where we're more or less
> > explicitly "subjects" of The Government, you see.) Then, I
> > don't understand how you can have a society without ideology
> > or ideologies. Me, I rather like multiculturalism and
> > pluralism, so long as nobody's going to stuff their culture,
> > ideology, religion or whatever down my throat. So I ask just
> > *who* is going to provide this non-ideological education.
>
> I think you're misunderstanding, tho I again deny that I'm
> necessarily arguing the same point everyone else is. I'm
> starting afresh (or more or less so).
>
> To the extent that I understand the SeparationOfSAS position,
> I think the point is *not* that education ought to be *free*
> of ideological content, but rather (ok, 2 points) that the
> government ought not be the one providing the ideological
> content, and second that the people ought thus to be free to
> choose where they get their education.
Who sets the government's ideology, though? As for the "free to choose", the
alternatives increasingly look to be sectarian schools or commercial
for-profit schools (some could be both, of course). I get uneasy at the
thought of sectarian schools, because of the potential for ideology control
there. My feeling is that if ministers or priests want to set politics, they
should stand for election.
I see no moral imperative. Nor do I see any attractive alternatives being
advanced which might convince me of the benefits.
watwinc
news:37E80D55...@yahoo.com...
> I've been lurking for, oh, so long, but I just can't resist helping this
> poor ignorant stranger.
>
> You sweet fellow, you, all you need to do is study the history of this
> delightful country and discover that for something like the first 200 to
> 250 years of its existence, schools were government funded and privately
> run!
>
> Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That made one (Oh, what do they call it?)
> and public in that they were open to the public, but they were run by
> parents, or churches, or local little communities.
>
> This ridiculous system of government run schools only began around 1848
> or something, back east, I think it was in New England somewhere.
>
> Anyway, that way of doing things took care of all these silly little
> problems we have nowadays. And the very people who wrote the
> Constitution thought it was all right--in fact it was all they knew.
>
> Course, you can't help it you don't know that, being an alien and all.
> Most Americans aren't aware of it. We're so eager to mimic Europe that
> we don't see what a mess they've had over there for the last several
> centuries at least.
>
> We wouldn't have to change any of our tax laws to change who ran the
> schools. It's just so easy for most parents to abandon their children to
> the care of others. Shameful, I know, but, there it is.
>
> Now, don't be so difficult. Go and study a little American history, let
> the fever die down in your socialistical little head, and you'll feel
> better.
>
> Mom superior
Funny you should write this - I've been "studying a little American
history", on the web and elsewhere. I recommend to your condescending and
ill-informed consideration:
http://www.arc.org/Pages/Etimelin.html
and several of jalinson's postings in this thread, which include references
that make mincemeat of your assertions.
To be ignorant is not to be stupid. To remain ignorant is.
watwinc
> Helen White wrote:
>
> > That was the rule when our wonderfully wise founders passed the
> > Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That made one (Oh, what do they call it?)
>
>
> > square mile out of every group of thirty or so available for support
> > of the schools. These homey little places were funded by the
>
> area. Section 16, at the center of the township, was designated the
school
> section. A diagram is the easiest way to show how the sections of the
> townships were numbered:
>
> 6 5 4 3 2 1
> 7 8 9 10 11 12
> 18 17 16 15 14 13
> 19 20 21 22 23 24
> 30 29 28 27 26 25
> 31 32 33 34 35 36
>
> Regards,
Do you know why they started numbering from top *right* and not top *left*?
watwinc
It's a good question, and It demands an effort to provide a good answer.
(And, of course, if these were easy questions they'd have been answered long
ago.) As a first shot, because I don't trust any of the alternative schools
(religious or otherwise) to encourage critical thinking or present ideas
hostile to their own cause.
> Plurality and Diversity are considered *good* things, are
> they not?
But there's no scope for plurality and diversity where, for example, the
value of pi or the radioactive decay constants are concerned.
> Why would every person voting with their feet, a vote
> with immediate and noticeable affect, be more troublesome
> than a paper vote? If this government *is* by the people
> and for the people, then the expression of popular will
> is as valid, even without all the middle-men and monkey-
> business.
That's easily answered: people voting with their feet is potentially hugely
wasteful of scarce resources. You don't want to waste all that energy and
capital setting up schools with fluctuating student populations, teaching
staffs and other resources.
> I'm not the least troubled by a hypothetical Flat Earth
> school, or a Wiccan school, or by the (possible) chain
> of Reform Party schools funded by Ross Perot. Given
> small, reasonably priced, secular schools after Separation,
> Church schools would probably *loose* students since so
> many parents who send their children to church schools
> don't really care much for the "church" part of it.
"Small, reasonably priced, secular schools". If they're reasonably priced,
how do you ensure they have the resources? Why not reduce the size of
existing public schools?
> The truly wacked out folks... the New Agers channeling
> aliens or the survivalist militias, *already* have their
> children outside of the public system.
I know - we home school too <grin>
> As far as civil peace is concerned... it really isn't
> a problem if someone believes the Earth is Flat. (And
> it will not be *possible* that any child so taught
> would be unaware that most people think otherwise.)
Creationists have a distressing readiness to dismiss scientists as either
gullible or fraudulent, and dismiss lay opponents as the dupes of these
scientists. (For evidence of this, monitor talk.origins for any length of
time.)
> It would be a telling thing if democracy can not
> survive without controlling and dictating the
> education of other people's children.
It's not so much a question of dictating, I see this as (a) a political
issue - you do have the ability to influence education here, and (b) an
economic issue - I don't see at the moment that alternative solutions are
actually feasible. Now, I may well be wrong, and I can imagine ways that I
might be. Even those could be implemented within a PS system, but it's
conceivable that the system is so resistant to change (Pappert has something
to say about this) that it has to happen outside.
> Parents *today* are expected to be watchdogs at
> their child's school. Parents today need to
> examine text books and curriculum materials.
> Certainly this would not change. Accountability
> isn't lacking, it's total. Schools run by
> ideological fringe groups will not survive, or
> at the least, will remain very small. Academic
> schools, science academies, and such, will likely
> do very well.
I wish I felt more confident about that.
> And if certain folks don't like the fact that
> the poor are served mostly by religious
> organizations, they can put their *own* money
> where their ideologies lay, and start their
> own scholarship schools for the poor.
That was one of the motivations for creating the public school system, I
seem to recall.
> --Julie
>
(PS I'm enjoying this debate, which is making me think about new things and
about old things in a new way. Thank you for introducing me to these ideas.)
watwinc
> Emailed too. watwinc wrote:
> > Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote ...
> > > watwinc wrote:
> > > > Julie A. Pascal <ju...@pascal.org> wrote ...
>
> [...]
>
> > > > I'm open to further argument.
>
> > > That, in itself, is impressive. :-)
>
> > And Marty & Paola accuse *me* of being obnoxious!!
>
> It was only Marty, not Paola, as you will see when you read
> my .sigs.
> Also, me Marty didn't accuse you of *being*
> obnoxious, but pointed out the *appearance* of you being so.
Just to be obnoxious, this is what Marty actually wrote:
"Hmm, that sounds a bit obnoxious, I hope it wasn't really meant
to be so. "
> You've denied intent re that occasion, and I've apologized
> (these posts may be timestamped identically as I post
> everything together when I get back online).
And the whole process of newsgroup propagation means I may not see one or
the other message for a while anyway!
> However, your intolerant comments on an occasion or two make
> me wonder if you aren't actually quite happy to be obnoxious.
> If this is not true, please take no umbrage, but reflect on
> that your manner is your calling card.
Moi? Intolerant? Never! Since you managed to distort my perfectly
straightforward statement to Julie ("Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a
discussion!") into an implication that limiting her response made her "less
'worthy', I think you should reconsider your assessments of my comments and
manner generally.
And some of it's cultural, and some of it's the problem of written
conversation, and some of it quite genuinely is my fault, because I'm
miserly with emoticons and lacking experience in conducting what I still
tend to think of as a person-to-person exchange but which is actually a
public conversation.
________________Marty
>
> P.S. Pascal expressing impressment over your "openmindedness"
> could very well actually be a compliment that you are so,
> in pleasant contrast to the usual naysayer we have visiting
> here (m.e.h-s.Christian). I really don't see how her statement
> could be interpretted as an insult, or otherwise obnoxious to
> you.
>
It can't. So my response can't be taken at face value. But see my final
sentence above.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Helen White <momsu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>:|news:37E80D55...@yahoo.com...
>:|> I've been lurking for, oh, so long, but I just can't resist helping this
>:|> poor ignorant stranger.
>:|>
>:|> You sweet fellow, you, all you need to do is study the history of this
>:|> delightful country and discover that for something like the first 200 to
>:|> 250 years of its existence, schools were government funded and privately
>:|> run!
>:|>
>:|> That was the rule when our wonderfully wise founders passed the
>:|> Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That made one (Oh, what do they call it?)
>:|> square mile out of every group of thirty or so available for support of
>:|> the schools. These homey little places were funded by the government,
>:|
LOL
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|I've been lurking for, oh, so long, but I just can't resist helping this
>:|poor ignorant stranger.
>:|
Ignorant stranger.
Hmmmm, a graduate of the insult one to get their attention school of
thinking?
>:|
>:|You sweet fellow, you, all you need to do is study the history of this
>:|delightful country and discover that for something like the first 200 to
>:|250 years of its existence, schools were government funded and privately
>:|run!
"study the history of this delightful country and discover that for
something like the first 200 to 250 years of its existence. . . "
What date are you thinking of for when this country came into existence?
Common public schools began in Mass, as early as 1642. They were set up by
the towns, as required by law. I'm not quite sure that qualifies ad
privately run.
Several of the original and early state constitutions required a public
common school system to be established.
Washington D C had a public school system that began while Jefferson was
President.
During the 1840s in several Northeastern cities riots broke out between
Protestant and Catholics over the use of Protestant bibles and prayers in
the public schools.
As early as the 1860s State Supreme courts were, in some cases, ruling that
required daily prayers and bible reading in public schools were
unconstitutional.
By the late 1800s most states were writing in clauses or already had
clauses in their state constitutions forbidding the use of public funds to
support religious schools or religious institutions.
Private schools have existed from the beginning of this nation, but public
schools were not that far behind them in coming into being.
>:|
>:|That was the rule when our wonderfully wise founders passed the
>:|Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That made one (Oh, what do they call it?)
>:|square mile out of every group of thirty or so available for support of
>:|the schools. These homey little places were funded by the government,
>:|and public in that they were open to the public, but they were run by
>:|parents, or churches, or local little communities.
Sorry, but the above, at least the last sentence is not quite correct.
>:|
>:|This ridiculous system of government run schools only began around 1848
>:|or something, back east, I think it was in New England somewhere.
Incorrect.
>:|
>:|Anyway, that way of doing things took care of all these silly little
>:|problems we have nowadays. And the very people who wrote the
>:|Constitution thought it was all right--in fact it was all they knew.
Yea, right
>:|
>:|Course, you can't help it you don't know that, being an alien and all.
>:|Most Americans aren't aware of it. We're so eager to mimic Europe that
>:|we don't see what a mess they've had over there for the last several
>:|centuries at least.
>:|
>:|We wouldn't have to change any of our tax laws to change who ran the
>:|schools. It's just so easy for most parents to abandon their children to
>:|the care of others. Shameful, I know, but, there it is.
>:|
>:|Now, don't be so difficult. Go and study a little American history, let
>:|the fever die down in your socialistical little head, and you'll feel
>:|better.
>:|
>:|
I think you might want to do some study yourself.
Kanga C.
>
>UK to start, Germany later.
Hey, you and Paul Danaher(sp??) have a lot in common.
Ladeebkwrm
("Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a
>discussion!")
Actually, I think that was to me (Kristina). By the way, I didn't think you
were being obnoxious.
Peace,
Kristina
"The ice we skate is getting pretty thin,
the water's getting warm so you might as well swim."
- from "All Star" by Smash Mouth
Ladeebkwrm
>Private schools have existed from the beginning of this nation, but public
>schools were not that far behind them in coming into being.
>
OK, I have a question. Public schools may have been around for a long time,
(apparently), but when did attendance start being compulsory? (And not just
compulsory education, but compulsory education according to the state's
requirements and at the state's institutions.)
It's not a question (to me) of "should there be public schools" or not. But we
*have* to send our children there unless we *get permission* to do something
else!
In Arizona, we're lucky. All I have to do is register, and I don't even have
to begin *formal* schooling until my children are 8. (I have an 8 year old boy
and 7 year old girl). But in other states, they require a certain number of
*hours* to be spent homeschooling. And that's *after* you jump through all
sorts of hoops just to get *permission* to educate *your* child in the way that
you see is best for them!
The Amish had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get *permission* to not
educate their children past the eighth grade. Because of their lifestyle, they
believe that is all the education (from schools - all life is an education)
they need.
In California, your child *has* to go to school at age six. I read in the
newspaper recently that some people want that lowered to age five.
I have a *real* problem with the state being able to tell me where, when, and
how I educate my children.
Parents aren't given the benefit of the doubt in regards to their own children.
(And I know there are people who don't deserve it - believe me, I know that
*personally*) But most parents aren't like that.
All right, have at it. <grin>
(Any and all typos are to be attributed to a lack of caffeine. It's not my
fault - the soda made me do it.)
watwinc
> >> Neat. Where abouts?
> >
> >UK to start, Germany later.
>
> Blessings,
Oops - sorry, Kanga (and everybody else), I didn't realise my software had
reset my name on the NG from PaulDanaher to watwinc when I changed ISP
accounts!
watwinc
news:19990922140139...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >Since you managed to distort my perfectly straightforward statement to
Julie
> ("Okay, I don't mean to drag you into a
> >discussion!")
>
> Actually, I think that was to me (Kristina). By the way, I didn't think
you
> were being obnoxious.
>
>
> Peace,
>
> Kristina
I feel like Costello - "I don't even know who I'm talking to!"
John Decker
watwinc wrote:
> Kanga C. <mailto:kanga...@aol.comWA.rez> wrote in message
> news:19990922121715...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> > >> Neat. Where abouts?
> > >
> > >UK to start, Germany later.
> >
> > Hey, you and Paul Danaher(sp??) have a lot in common.
> > Blessings,
>
> Oops - sorry, Kanga (and everybody else), I didn't realise my software had
> reset my name on the NG from PaulDanaher to watwinc when I changed ISP
> accounts!
>
> > Kanga
> >
> > If one child takes up all your time, then seven can't take anymore.
> Adapted
> > from Elizabeth Eliot's mother
> >
--
Life ------ is like music; it must be composed by ear,
feeling, and instinct, not by rule.
--Samuel Butler
JRice43497
In various of his posts dated 20 & 21 September, 1999, "watwinc"
<wat...@email.msn.com> wrote, in part:
> It makes every kind of sense for society to invest in the education of its
future citizens <snip>
There is widespread agreement among humans, obviously, that education is a good
thing. It is also obvious that a great deal of "investment" is required, over
and above whatever happens at the level of "we breathe, we learn." It may
*limit* us, though, to think in terms of "society" as the entity which
"invests."
There's one large bit of humor happening in this thread ... this conversation,
which is *clearly* being brought forth out of watwinc's intention to *learn*
... and/or his desire to be part of *our* educational process ... is *not*
taking place in a "school."
For a *long* time, we've thought of "school" as requiring a "place" (e.g., the
traditional school building). We have also thought of school as the location
at which a *great* percentage of "education" occurs. As evidenced by the
participation in this newsgroup, to mention just one simple example, the
relationship between "school" (the place) and "learning" is *really* breaking
down. One might point to the increasing movement of students from school to
school, as our population became more mobile ... suddenly, for example, people
began to notice that "third grade" in one place did not necessarily correspond
to "third grade" in another place. But even when, for example, thirty children
in the same classroom had "the same" encounter with a particular curriculum,
they were *receiving* that educational experience in *highly* varriable ways.
Educational theoreticians (I'm thinking, at this moment, of people such as John
Holt and Howard Gardner, but also of such people as John Taylor Gatto) began to
point to the fact that learning occurs in the individual, and must be
individualized to be highly effective.
Watwinc, when most of us in this newsgroup talk about "the public schools," at
least in the "modern" form which has become predominant, we are making
reference to the concept "school, in service to society," in the form which was
rather zealously imported into this country from Germany. The key is neither
colonial or constitutional history, but the impact of such individuals as
Horace Mann, in the 1840's, who was known as "the Father of the Common
Schools"; and John Dewey, particularly as his work evolved in the 1920s and
1930s. Especially given your interest in history (generally), watwinc, and
your obviously genuine interest in the history of education in the United
States (specifically), I *strongly* urge you read *The Messianic Character of
American Education*, by Rushdoony. The book goes in *depth* into the writings
and (published) speeches of the individuals who actually *created* the "modern"
system of education in this country. For purpose of this post, I'll simply
comment upon the obvious, that the schools eventually came up with a fairly
"standard" curriculum which "all" students were (and, for the most part, still
*are*) expected to spend *years* studying. It is not my purpose to criticize
"the way it's been in the past" ... or even the way it still tends to be *now*,
for that matter. Rather, it is my purpose to suggest that a new trend is
already emerging which is bypassing that "old" path, and that the implications
for our "educational institutions" are *immense*. [As you are perhaps aware,
when Isaac Newton attended Cambridge, as a student, in ... what, about the
1660s, iirc, he was at first required to study a curriculum which had been in
place for approximately 300 years ... he nearly flunked out, due to his massive
disinterest ... eventually, he was allowed to pursue "his thing." In U.S.
society, *freedom* (the "idea") has begun to translate into the notion that an
education, to be effective, must bring forth the particular gift, or profound
passion, or calling, or however one might say that, of *each* individual, and
that the individual should be able to *pursue* her or his "ideal educational
path," instead of being warped into a "one size fits all" curricular straight
jacket. There is even the thought, increasingly articulated and understood,
that "society" will best benefit from a system of education which most
powerfully cultivates the most glorious potential which lives in each
*individual*. Of course, to gain access to such possibilities, one must get
past the outdated and limiting notion that "efficiency" in education requires
such things as "age grouping" and "school as factory assembly line" which arose
from the "industrial" model upon which our "modern" system has been based.]
A major *exception* to the notion that "education happens in schools" has
existed for a *long* time in the domain of learning music. Except at the level
of "introduction to music," a tremendous amount of music education (as watwinc
obviously well knows) has involved private teachers, as well as a rather large
menu of other "alternatives."
Here in Arizona, a genuinely revolutionary model is beginning to form, based
upon "the model of the music teachers." In Arizona, there are now over 50,000
piano students. An organization of piano teachers formed, dedicated to giving
students access to the highest possible quality music education. About 600 of
our state's piano teachers are in the organization, which sponsors
competitions; creates educational ventures to make sure the students have
access to *theory*; does all it can to move "students showing promise" along to
the very best teachers; provides scholarships and other forms of financial
assistance along the way; etc.
A group of math and science teachers here have begun to consider forming just
such an organization for teachers within *their* set of disciplines. As it
currently stands, many states allow home schoolers access to "the public
schools" for purpose of participation in various academic, athletic and other
pursuits. We are beginning to think of "schools" *not* as "where children go
to get educated," but rather as *resource centers*! Thus, for instance:
"society" can create wonderful science labs at these "resource centers" (in the
way they are doing at, for example, certain public, charter and magnet
schools). Parents will be made aware of this excellent group of math and
science teachers. Just as has *long* been done with *music* students, children
will increasingly be evaluated (at the request of their *parents*) for interest
and ability in the domains of math and science. The teachers plan *many*
"forms" of privately available teaching. You should *hear* the *stunning*
array of creative ideas these teachers have been coming up with. The "forms"
are *truly* only limited by the imagination! "Society" (via taxation, etc.)
can *more* than "do its job" by providing such things as the physical plants
which watwinc referred to earlier in this thread. Parents will be able to
explore this emerging "free market," and begin to have previously unheard of
choices about teachers, approaches, etc., just as they have done for so long in
the domain of music. One *very* important aspect: teachers will be able to
ability-group students, if they and the parents agree of this approach, and
move at the optimal pace for each student, instead of the current age-grouped
approaches, which tend to so severely retard the progress which *could* be
occurring in the very best of the math and science students. (I hope it is
clear that I am only using the domain of math and science as an *example* of
what is coming into existence, *not* that I am saying such things will *only*
be done in the fields of math and science!) It is thrilling, I must tell you,
to both the parents and teachers who are looking at ideas such as these, to
contemplate the same degree of *partnership* (amongst parents and students and
teachers) in such domains as math and science as has long been experienced in
the domain of music!
Sidebars: the above approach has allowed one wonderful young student to be
admitted to university here, where he is under the direct tutelage of the head
of the department of chemistry. The student is now 12. (As I have mentioned
before, our two sons were each taken as students by the director of the
university's cello studio ... he accepted each of them as his student when they
were six years old.) Note: our society has become increasingly specialized,
and an early start can be a tremendous advantage in *many* fields. Yet a
specialized, intense start does not preclude a student's participation with
*other* subject matters (including "childhood!")... However, the "where" of
such broader encounters has become a *variable*. Literature, or history, for
example, can be studied at a *different* "resource center" or "learning center"
(which can certainly include the warmth of one's own home!) ... and "teachers"
can be drawn from *so* many places, including the internet! Obviously, of
course, not all students will discover their "specialized area" (or calling, or
whatever we might choose to call it) at a young age. For *many* students ...
perhaps even *most* ... the early years are a time of *inquiry* into what it is
possible to *do* with one's lifetime. With just a shift in *emphasis*,
currently existing "schools" can be among the resource centers for the process
of inquiry itself: "resource centers" in which parents can enroll their
children in the hope that they will be given a "tour" of domains and
disciplines. (I would argue this *has* been one of their primary roles, in any
case, although they have been terribly ill-designed to fulfill this purpose,
and have been grossly inefficient and ineffective in providing a superb
introduction to life's domains and disciplines ... they have, for example, due
to "the law of their make," unnecessarily "turned students off" to *so* many of
the domains and disciplines in which extraordinary lives can be passionately
constructed.)
The great key is *choice*! Do we, as parents, want to place our (young)
children into a particular setting? If so, are our children to be in that
setting pursuant to an extended "general encounter" (day after day, and perhaps
year after year) with the domains of education? Or, e.g., might home schooled
students simply opt into a program which would, for some finite period of time,
occupy some portions of their afternoons with study of algebra and French? By
raising such questions as these (as we home schoolers have discovered), the
issue of "curriculum" can be *totally* opened up ... scope and sequence, for
instance, can be individualized. Perhaps "values" would be taught at the
"resource center" which an individual *family* is, or that a *church* can be!
(I do not mean to ignore, in my comments about the available role of *parents*,
the heartfelt desires of our *children*, or the choices in which *they* can and
should participate!)
Watwinc, as to "funding" ... many approaches to funding are now determined by
"head count" ... the state issues funds to schools based upon number of
students in attendance. Unlike the conditions now, in which "government
schools" hold a near-monopoly relationship to the market, and are thus
(arguably) less than ideally inclined to be as responsive as other, freer
markets, a school would have to *really* do all it can to make its departments
*wonderful* places ... which parents, students, and even excellent teachers,
*flock* to, even if only for the limited purpose of a course or two each year.
Of course, our community college systems have developed much along these lines.
They can only survive by making themselves attractive to the public. As a
practical matter, as you seem to be suggesting, watwinc, the public *is* going
to continue sponsoring "government schools," at least into the near (and
probably intermediate) future ... if only to allow for the "safety net" which
has been mentioned in this thread. *Attendance* at these schools/resource
centers, though, does *not* have to be an "all or nothing" thing, which
requires a student to attend from 8:30 to 3:30 (or whatever) every day, year
after year. People are more and more inclined to *choose* the education which
best fits not only their *children*, but also *themselves*! The "control" in
the system is decreasingly the necessity to bow one's knee to someone's "good
idea" of a curriculum, etc., but rather the desire to "get a life," including
"educating" oneself and ones children in such a way that, for example, college
will not be precluded. As has *always* been the case, there will be children
who will not get the education they would *love* to have. Perhaps they will be
guided into "the family business," and other options will be ignored, as has
happened through history. Education, though, is increasingly a lifelong
pursuit. Changes in careers throughout a lifetime, alone, require people to
return to education. In such circumstances, most people search out the
resource centers (or whatever else they might be called) which might best serve
them. This model is well established and well tested ... it simply has not
filtered down to the grade school and high school levels. But the process is
well underway.
Back, for a moment, to the issue of funding: some of the the math and science
teachers I have been talking about currently teach in the government schools
... others have taught in a variety of settings, and many have been or are
active participants in the corporate world. As a group, they are willing to
take extraordinary steps to *find* students who are interested in their domain
(by making presentations to individuals and groups, advertising, many etc's),
and also to make sure that ... one way or another ... those students will be
able to participate in the most advanced possible educational process. They
envision asking corporate assistance, both financial and in terms of
facilities, to make sure that (e.g.) books and computers are available, as well
as scholarships and internships. They anticipate partnership with currently
existing "resource centers" of *all* sorts. They plan to ask their respective
churches to provide funding for students who would otherwise be unable to
participate. Even their plans to assure *transportation* have been remarkable.
(For instance, they plan to urge free bus passes for students who would be
able to make good use of that particular mode of transportation.) *All* of the
teachers involved agree that part of their "professional code" will include
"pro bono" work on behalf of students who could not otherwise afford private
and group teaching formats. They also plan to encourage businesses to provide
*jobs* so that students can fund their *own* education, when they begin to be
old enough to do so. (One of our family's daughters, age 17, has been so
deeply motivated to study *photography* that she took a job as a nanny for six
children, and later began to work for a local "coffee house" [she's calls
herself "the mocha mama" ... :-)] ... she has been *very* intent on "paying her
own way" ... her teacher has taught at all levels of education, and currently
teaches in the government schools ... she works with him privately, and our
daughter has been *very* determined to pay an amount for her lessons which she
feels they are *worth* ... which is a *lot* ... this has, of course, assisted
the particular teacher in having an income better than the one provided by the
government schools. It requires him to work *very* hard, but he is *deeply*
willing to work with students who are actually *passionate* about photography!)
We don't have to make the *next* generation of educational ventures as
difficult to fund as the (often deeply unpopular) ventures which have existed
up to this point. The current approaches have often set themselves apart,
almost "island" fashion, and have *not* been designed to elicit society's
fullest participation. *Least* of all have the current approaches elicited the
fullest participation of the *students*. I can tell you with great certainty
that our dear daughter would *not* have been willing to go to work to pay for
the "education" she was receiving at our local "middle school" before she
pulled *herself* out in favor of "home schooling!" We can do *far* better than
has been done, and funding will *follow*! It's just a matter of taking
responsibility for *creating* the full range of funding possibilities. Music
teachers have been successful at this for *years*. Our local math and science
teachers saw what was possible *so* quickly ... at least they saw it after they
stepped "outside the box" of thinking that the *future* of education would have
to be like the past or present. You might say, to use a bit of our local
jargon, watwinc, that we "took them to school" on the subject. But not
"school" as in "place!" :-)
> So answer the big question: if the state isn't providing the schools, which
organization(s) is/are?
> If someone will kindly specify the type of organizations they envisage as
education providers
It seems to me, watwinc, that once "we parents" discover that "we" ... as
individuals, as families, and in conjunction with "others" ... cannot only be
*envisioned* as "education providers," but that we *are* "providers," and
providers who are producing quite excellent results (!!!) ... well, what we
have here is a *variable*. The simple answer is: we get to make it up! What a
*gorgeous* creative challenge! It is possible ... although we are only now
beginning to take *responsibility* for this ... to provide an *enthralling*
education for *each and every* child. There are *so* many ways to do it. It
used to be "one way or the highway." And then we became a mobile nation, and
*lots* of us headed out onto the highways ... and we have discovered that the
"vehicles" for education, and the "destinations," make "going to school" as
outdated a concept as the arranged marriage!
Hamlet!, in a gorgeous recent post into the thread about unit studies, proved
the good descendent of her ancestor, the famous discoverer "Captain James
Cook." He took his ships out into charted and uncharted waters, on a *quest*
... and Hamlet! suggested *just* such a quest within the domain of education.
And she was, in that particular thread, just talking about one little unit
study!!! The *vast* majority of parents, once they realize what is *possible*,
not only in the domain of education, but also in relating to their children
(once it is no longer a "requirement" that they, in effect, hand their young
children over to a "school") ... can and *will* follow the path being blazed by
such courageous parents as Hamlet! With a beautiful array of *choices* before
them, they will increasingly *engage* in the process of educating their
children. They will seek out the best possible partners in such pursuits, just
as Captain Cook chose his crews, as well as his other venture-partners, as
zealously as possible for *his* voyages!
With our family's love to you and yours,
John
watwinc
detail - thank you.
This is one example for me of a major reason why I'm here in the USA rather
than somewhere in Europe - the American determination and ability to get
something like this Arizona project going.
Rushdoony, eh - good grief, another book to read... I've just asked the
library to find a couple by R. Freeman Butts, too.
JRice43497 <jrice...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:19990922171414...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> (posted, and e-mailed to watwinc and Hamlet!)
>
<snipped for bandwidth>
>
> With our family's love to you and yours,
Thank you - and ours to you.
> John
Wayne
<snip>
>> >
>> >Do you have any source for this bizarre claim? The British would normally
>> >have installed public schooling (in the American sense),
>>
>> And you you have any source for this? First this American has
>> heard it. I would think that it was precisely this lack of
>> indoctrination by government schools that allowed for a revolution to
>> take place!!!
>
>Er, no. Actually, there were a lot of educated English people who supported
>the American colonists, and the American Revolution was incited and led by
>the merchant classes. The ideas that justified the rebellion were directly
>rooted in European political thinking going back to the Renaissance (and,
>therefore, beyond).
Of course the ideas go back to Europe and beyond. My point was that
Colonial children where not educated according to the dictates of
England.
<snip>
>Well, what about my reference to your own PA constitution? Suggestive,
>surely?
I seriously doubt if that was in the original, after all the thing was
reworked and amended a few times.
>> Universal, compulsorary(sp?), education came later, like I
>> said --- *relatitivly* recent. The federal Dept. of Education became a
>> cabinet post within my life time.
>
>Oh, *cabinet* posts - hey, these guys aren't even in the Constitution!
Yeah, I know ----- I hate that!!!!
<snip>
Your responses to the school problems that I listed:
>> >
>> >> Parents are financially coerced to send their children to the
>> >> school that their taxes support. Never mind if they object to that
>> >> schools philosophy. An atheist might even be offended by a public
>> >> school's flag worshipping pledge, moments of silence, or positive
>> >> portrayal of the Puritans.
>> >
>> >Nobody's required to worship the pledge, there's nothing wrong with a
>moment
>> >of silence, and slanted portrayals are universal in history.
>>
>> Not everyone agrees with that -----------
>
>Which bit?
>
>> The atheist & the Jehovah Witness child must both endure the
>> Pledge to the flag at the begining of class. Yes, they may remain
>> silent but they are then made to look different and abnormal. I could
>> never understand why these children must go through this 180 days a
>> year while grown adults are not supposed to be exposed to a judge
>> opening his court session with a prayer.
>
>Ask the bozos who came up with this junk in the mid-Fifties.
<Have to agree with you there -- but I'm not looking to blame, just
showing the difficulties it has left us with>
>
>> The JW child must also resist the temptations of organized
>> sports. The Christian Scientist (and similar beliefs) parents must
>> worry about the involvement of the school nurse. Sex education goes
>> against the tenents of many a religion, especially birth control in
>> regards to Roman Catholics. Evolution offends the fundmentalist while
>> being very compatible with Eastern religions. Ditto for any meditation
>> or relaxation techniques that the school may use. Psychological abuse
>> in the classroom see:
>> http://www.voicenet.com/~sakossor/Pe3_19.html
>
>I suffered organised sports, it never occurred to me to regard them as
>temptations! I'm perfectly happy to see Christian Scientists, JWs and other
>parents told to keep their beliefs to themselves so that their children's
>right to life is sustained.
>Fundamentalists can argue against evolution (stupid, but that's their right)
>within the family. You can't possibly stop teaching the Big Bang as received
>science just because some bunch of wackos think that a specific
>mistranslation of a set of conflicting creation myths confabulated in
>Genesis has priority over 5,000 years of science.
FWIW --- I know many a public school teacher that doesn't believe in
evolution. One's a high school biology teacher --- he never seems to
find enough time to get to that chapter!
> Meditation is rather
>useful, actually - I can't see why any religious group should object. If
>they do, fine - opt out. I opted out of enough things in my schooling -
>which was quite abusive enough, thank you.
>
>> Moments of silence, portrayal (or lack of) of historical
>> religious leaders, portrayal (or lack of) of current religious events,
>> secularized holidays, etc etc ---.
>>
>> And this doesn't even touch the "conventional" problems of
>> today's schools!
Now I can't help to notice that you don't have too much problem with
the things I've listed. The "opt out" option and the do "damage
control" at home seem to be sufficient to you.
It looks like you must homeschool for the positives you find in it
rather than the negatives you might see in the government system.
That's great!
I'm asking you to exercise some empathy. Imagine sending your children
(and/or tax money) to a school where quite a bit of what's going on
does disturb you. And you can't afford anything else (or think you
can't). And even if you have no children, your tax money may be going
to teach things you find repugnent. Remember -- unlike the functions
of government specifically listed in the constitution, education, like
religion, speaks to issues of the conscience. If the money that is
normally funneled to the institution that you find repugnent could be
applied to the sort of education you chose -- wouldn't that be a good
thing??
>> > There are
>> >complicated public finance problems in a pay-for-service approach to
>items
>> >like schooling, policing etc.
>>
>> Please do not confuse schooling with policing. Teaching is
>> inherently bound up with opinion, bias, & culture while police
>> protection is not.
>
>I wasn't - I'm talking about the alternatives to public schooling and the
>question of funding through fees, taxes etc.
OK -- just don't bring in policing, etc, and I won't be confused about
what you mean! :-}
>> >> The government that may send our children to war is the same
>> >> one that is indoctinating them in their youth. Isn't there something
>> >> wrong with that?
>> >
>> >"The government" - why not "my government"? Do you feel alienated from
>it?
>>
>> Only when "they" are wrong. :-)
>
>Hey, it's your government! (I'm an alien.) And there's the right of
>conscientious objection, no longer restricted to religious training and
>belief.
>
>> I do vote and I do 'participate'. I'm even on a government
>> school reform committee. It's one of the things that convinced me that
>> there should be separation.
>
>Okay, this is the first time I've come across this idea. I don't think I'm
>going to agree with it, but I've changed my mind before. You haven't
>persuaded me yet, though.
Hmmmmm
>> >> Parents that send their children to private or religious
>> >> schools do so at great expense while still supporting the government
>> >> run system. The growing homeschool movement is to some degree the
>> >> "poor family's private school".
>> >
>> >What about poor families who can't afford for one parent to stay at
>home -
>> >or single-parent families (who are apparently the poorest group)?
>>
>> Americans are generous and caring. There will always be a
>> 'safety net' whether its private or public. Don't confuse the safety
>> net issue with the gov't ed issue.
>
>So answer the big question: if the state isn't providing the schools, which
>organisation(s) is/are? The churches? Doctor Dobson? Pat Buchanan? Cardinal
>Whoever? At least with the state, you have a vote!
You seem to be missing the entire point.
The person that is in charge of you child's education is the one you
chose. That is your vote. Actually we have that vote now, but with the
"free" gov't school reminding everyone to register their 5 y.o. for
kindergarten, the pay as you go options don't look so good. But that
"free" school is actually quite expensive --- over $7,000 a year, and
that doesn't count capital expenditures. Or the abdication of parental
responsibility that it engenders (the gov't will teach that to my kid
-- I don't have to be bothered with it -- It's not my job) is the
hidden cost.
>> >> I would like to think that all freedom loving people could
>> >> agree that the best way to avoid having the state endorse any
>> >> particular philosphy/religion would be to endorse the concept of
>> >> separation of school & state. But then if the school is already
>> >> promoting your wordview, this may be unexceptable.
>> >
>> >So what do you replace the state by? Who else runs the schools? You want
>a
>> >profit-oriented group, the equivalent of an HMO to take over? The
>churches?
>> >Neighbourhood groups? A nation of homeschoolers and charter schoolers?
>> >Specifics, please.
>>
>> All of the above and certainly more. Whatever the customer
>> wants.
>
>The free market at work. Educational HMOs? Do you really want that?
What I want is ilrelevant (sp? --- don't worry, my wife teaches the
spelling & grammer here!!). That's the whole point. Er -- the
ilrelevency(sp), not my spelling.
<snip>
>>
>> I agree with you that not everyone can homeschool. But I
>> strongly feel there is a need to get every parent involved in their
>> child's education. That is not happening under the current system of
>> government schooling.
>
>Tricky. I look at some parents around here and struggle with the thought
>that they should have been shot at birth ...
Yup, --- but that's no way to make them responsible parents!!!
Now carefully take the bullets out of your weapon ---------------
>> >> >> We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
>> >> >> system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
>> >> >> grossly unfair and wastful it is.
>> >> >
>> >> >And the alternative?
>> >>
>>
>> *********************************************************
>> The alternative is called personal responsibility.
>> *********************************************************
>> I can't stress that enough.
>
>Good. Now explain the educational system - including funding - that this
>implies. I'll watch with awe.
Don't stare at this spot too hard 'cause I don't pretend to have all
the answers. Could you at least agree that having those who can afford
to pay for the education of their brood would free up quite a bit of
money for those who truely can't?
>> >>
>> >> Those who can afford it should pay for their child's
>> >> education.
>> >>
>> >> And almost everyone can afford it --- if they can get it
>> >> through their heads that their child's education is more important
>> >> than another new car.
>> >
>> >Who are they paying, if not the PS system?
>>
>> Whatever they chose --- its their responsibility.
>
>Ever heard of the supply side? Who else is out there providing this stuff?
>
>> >> Those who can't afford (the genuine poor) it will be able to
>> >> find sponsors or scholarships. If the government has to be involved
>> >> (it shouldn't) it should be on the funding end, not the education end.
>> >
>> >Who is the funding going to?
>>
>> Where ever the student/parent wants to go to school. This is
>> why gov't funding may not work, and why it's not desireable. Of couse
>> I don't see the gov't banning the wefare client from buying Bibles or
>> giving to the church --- why should they be able to control where the
>> welfare money goes when it comes to education?
>
>Which organisations, corporations, institutions are *supplying* the
>education? You can't just say "not the state - somebody else" without saying
>who that should be.
Sorry, I am. What, the state has a lock on the education business? You
think the teachers will all fall over dead or give up if the state
didn't run things?
>> >
>> >> Having to pay or obtain funding for their child's education
>> >> should make everyone very aware of the awesome responsibility of
>> >> bringing a child into this world. It would be a step in the right
>> >> direction.
>> >
>> >I don't think that consideration ranks very high in people's minds
>shortly
>> >before children are conceived ...
>>
>> Yeah, it would spoil the moment, wouldn't it?
>
>Yup. Glad it didn't!
>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>> Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
>> http://members.aol.com/selah1998
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need
>the society as it is."
>> ---Ivan Illich in "Deschooling Society" 1970
>
>Hmmm - did you ever see "If"? I went to a British "public" school ...
Was it anything like "Them"?????
BTW --- You sound like Paul D. with a different handle & ISP
Wayne
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
http://members.aol.com/selah1998
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"School is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is."
---Ivan Illich in "Deschooling Society" 1970
Wayne
<37fdd6f9...@news.pilot.infi.net>...
>x...@xxx.xxx (Wayne) wrote:
>
>>:| I believe the first (compulsory gov't schools) started in the
>>:|1830's in New England. I'm also aware of riots in Philiadelphia over
>>:|the Protestant "public schools" that were instituted to educate
>>:|(convert?) Catholic Irish immigrant children --- late 1800's I
>>:|believe.
>
>
>Try 1840s
Thank you! I saved a lot of the info you have posted.
But was the part about the public school's attempt to 'Protestantize"
the Irish true?? Were gov't schools actually Protestant schools to a
large extent? And now the pendulem has swung to where they are
secular/atheist?
Methinks the schools that were publically funded in the past were a
very different animal than what we see now. Was there any tuition
needed, -- were they 'fully funded'? Any requirements upon entry ---
like knowing how to read? Were they genuinly locally controlled
instead of being cookie cutter copies of every other school?
Do I ask a lot of questions?????
:-)
Wayne
>
>**********************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
>"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>
> Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
> and
>Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
>Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
>
> Page is a member of the following web rings:
>
>The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>
> Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
>
> Legal Research Ring
>**********************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wayne Schissler -- EMAIL:schisslerATerolsDOTcom
watwinc
> watwinc wrote in message <#yuoUI#A$GA.190@cpmsnbbsa05>...
>
> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >Do you have any source for this bizarre claim? The British would
normally
> >> >have installed public schooling (in the American sense),
> >>
> >> And you you have any source for this? First this American has
> >> heard it. I would think that it was precisely this lack of
> >> indoctrination by government schools that allowed for a revolution to
> >> take place!!!
> >
> >Er, no. Actually, there were a lot of educated English people who
supported
> >the American colonists, and the American Revolution was incited and led
by
> >the merchant classes. The ideas that justified the rebellion were
directly
> >rooted in European political thinking going back to the Renaissance (and,
> >therefore, beyond).
>
> Of course the ideas go back to Europe and beyond. My point was that
> Colonial children where not educated according to the dictates of
> England.
And my point was that the English supported public schooling four centuries
ago, in some colonies according to the "dictates of England" (i.e.
established church).
> <snip>
>
> >Well, what about my reference to your own PA constitution? Suggestive,
> >surely?
>
> I seriously doubt if that was in the original, after all the thing was
> reworked and amended a few times.
Do you want to quote the original?
> >> Universal, compulsorary(sp?), education came later, like I
> >> said --- *relatitivly* recent. The federal Dept. of Education became a
> >> cabinet post within my life time.
> >
> >Oh, *cabinet* posts - hey, these guys aren't even in the Constitution!
>
> Yeah, I know ----- I hate that!!!!
Yeah!
> <snip>
>
> Your responses to the school problems that I listed:
>
> >> >
> >> >> Parents are financially coerced to send their children to the
> >> >> school that their taxes support. Never mind if they object to that
> >> >> schools philosophy. An atheist might even be offended by a public
> >> >> school's flag worshipping pledge, moments of silence, or positive
> >> >> portrayal of the Puritans.
> >> >
> >> >Nobody's required to worship the pledge, there's nothing wrong with a
> >moment
> >> >of silence, and slanted portrayals are universal in history.
> >>
> >> Not everyone agrees with that -----------
> >
> >Which bit?
> >
> >> The atheist & the Jehovah Witness child must both endure the
> >> Pledge to the flag at the begining of class. Yes, they may remain
> >> silent but they are then made to look different and abnormal. I could
> >> never understand why these children must go through this 180 days a
> >> year while grown adults are not supposed to be exposed to a judge
> >> opening his court session with a prayer.
Pity it ever got introduced... But we're home schooling in part because
we're "nonconformists" (lower case), and I've spent most of my life bucking
the system. (I tend to feel the system's winning on points, but I'm still in
there slugging.)
> >
> >Ask the bozos who came up with this junk in the mid-Fifties.
>
> <Have to agree with you there -- but I'm not looking to blame, just
> showing the difficulties it has left us with>
Okay.
> >
> >> The JW child must also resist the temptations of organized
> >> sports. The Christian Scientist (and similar beliefs) parents must
> >> worry about the involvement of the school nurse. Sex education goes
> >> against the tenents of many a religion, especially birth control in
> >> regards to Roman Catholics. Evolution offends the fundmentalist while
> >> being very compatible with Eastern religions. Ditto for any meditation
> >> or relaxation techniques that the school may use. Psychological abuse
> >> in the classroom see:
> >> http://www.voicenet.com/~sakossor/Pe3_19.html
> >
> >I suffered organised sports, it never occurred to me to regard them as
> >temptations! I'm perfectly happy to see Christian Scientists, JWs and
other
> >parents told to keep their beliefs to themselves so that their children's
> >right to life is sustained.
> >Fundamentalists can argue against evolution (stupid, but that's their
right)
> >within the family. You can't possibly stop teaching the Big Bang as
received
> >science just because some bunch of wackos think that a specific
> >mistranslation of a set of conflicting creation myths confabulated in
> >Genesis has priority over 5,000 years of science.
>
> FWIW --- I know many a public school teacher that doesn't believe in
> evolution. One's a high school biology teacher --- he never seems to
> find enough time to get to that chapter!
There's a LOT wrong with the way teachers are educated - but I don't know
what's in That Chapter. I looked with horror at the (?) National Association
of Biology Teachers statements about evolution a couple of years back,
complete with exaggerated atheist claims about evolution being unguided and
purposeless. Now, I'm an atheist - but I don't believe for an instant that
science can prove *those* claims, even if I don't believe them myself.
> > Meditation is rather
> >useful, actually - I can't see why any religious group should object. If
> >they do, fine - opt out. I opted out of enough things in my schooling -
> >which was quite abusive enough, thank you.
> >
> >> Moments of silence, portrayal (or lack of) of historical
> >> religious leaders, portrayal (or lack of) of current religious events,
> >> secularized holidays, etc etc ---.
> >>
> >> And this doesn't even touch the "conventional" problems of
> >> today's schools!
>
> Now I can't help to notice that you don't have too much problem with
> the things I've listed. The "opt out" option and the do "damage
> control" at home seem to be sufficient to you.
I survived.
> It looks like you must homeschool for the positives you find in it
> rather than the negatives you might see in the government system.
> That's great!
I suffered under other systems.
> I'm asking you to exercise some empathy. Imagine sending your children
> (and/or tax money) to a school where quite a bit of what's going on
> does disturb you. And you can't afford anything else (or think you
> can't). And even if you have no children, your tax money may be going
> to teach things you find repugnent. Remember -- unlike the functions
> of government specifically listed in the constitution, education, like
> religion, speaks to issues of the conscience. If the money that is
> normally funneled to the institution that you find repugnent could be
> applied to the sort of education you chose -- wouldn't that be a good
> thing??
I don't know. I come from societies where what I value in education is
(theoretically) valued by the educational system.
> >> > There are
> >> >complicated public finance problems in a pay-for-service approach to
> >items
> >> >like schooling, policing etc.
> >>
> >> Please do not confuse schooling with policing. Teaching is
> >> inherently bound up with opinion, bias, & culture while police
> >> protection is not.
> >
> >I wasn't - I'm talking about the alternatives to public schooling and the
> >question of funding through fees, taxes etc.
>
> OK -- just don't bring in policing, etc, and I won't be confused about
> what you mean! :-}
Actually, you're way out of line if you *really* think that policing isn't
affected by "opinion, bias, & culture"!!
> >> >> The government that may send our children to war is the same
> >> >> one that is indoctinating them in their youth. Isn't there something
> >> >> wrong with that?
> >> >
> >> >"The government" - why not "my government"? Do you feel alienated from
> >it?
> >>
> >> Only when "they" are wrong. :-)
> >
> >Hey, it's your government! (I'm an alien.) And there's the right of
> >conscientious objection, no longer restricted to religious training and
> >belief.
> >
> >> I do vote and I do 'participate'. I'm even on a government
> >> school reform committee. It's one of the things that convinced me that
> >> there should be separation.
> >
> >Okay, this is the first time I've come across this idea. I don't think
I'm
> >going to agree with it, but I've changed my mind before. You haven't
> >persuaded me yet, though.
>
> Hmmmmm
(Quote from the "Crash Test Dummies"?)
> >> >> Parents that send their children to private or religious
> >> >> schools do so at great expense while still supporting the government
> >> >> run system. The growing homeschool movement is to some degree the
> >> >> "poor family's private school".
> >> >
> >> >What about poor families who can't afford for one parent to stay at
> >home -
> >> >or single-parent families (who are apparently the poorest group)?
> >>
> >> Americans are generous and caring. There will always be a
> >> 'safety net' whether its private or public. Don't confuse the safety
> >> net issue with the gov't ed issue.
> >
> >So answer the big question: if the state isn't providing the schools,
which
> >organisation(s) is/are? The churches? Doctor Dobson? Pat Buchanan?
Cardinal
> >Whoever? At least with the state, you have a vote!
>
> You seem to be missing the entire point.
Yes.
> The person that is in charge of you child's education is the one you
> chose. That is your vote. Actually we have that vote now, but with the
> "free" gov't school reminding everyone to register their 5 y.o. for
> kindergarten, the pay as you go options don't look so good. But that
> "free" school is actually quite expensive --- over $7,000 a year, and
> that doesn't count capital expenditures. Or the abdication of parental
> responsibility that it engenders (the gov't will teach that to my kid
> -- I don't have to be bothered with it -- It's not my job) is the
> hidden cost.
Okay, the point I'm trying to make people aware of here is that there are
major costs involved in shifting from one school to another, even greater
costs from one educational system to another. Voting with your feet can cost
you a MINT, whether you're with a bank, an insurance company, a health
insurance scheme or a school system.
> >> >> I would like to think that all freedom loving people could
> >> >> agree that the best way to avoid having the state endorse any
> >> >> particular philosphy/religion would be to endorse the concept of
> >> >> separation of school & state. But then if the school is already
> >> >> promoting your wordview, this may be unexceptable.
> >> >
> >> >So what do you replace the state by? Who else runs the schools? You
want
> >a
> >> >profit-oriented group, the equivalent of an HMO to take over? The
> >churches?
> >> >Neighbourhood groups? A nation of homeschoolers and charter schoolers?
> >> >Specifics, please.
> >>
> >> All of the above and certainly more. Whatever the customer
> >> wants.
> >
> >The free market at work. Educational HMOs? Do you really want that?
>
> What I want is ilrelevant (sp? --- don't worry, my wife teaches the
> spelling & grammer here!!). That's the whole point. Er -- the
> ilrelevency(sp), not my spelling.
See my previous comment.
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >> I agree with you that not everyone can homeschool. But I
> >> strongly feel there is a need to get every parent involved in their
> >> child's education. That is not happening under the current system of
> >> government schooling.
> >
> >Tricky. I look at some parents around here and struggle with the thought
> >that they should have been shot at birth ...
>
> Yup, --- but that's no way to make them responsible parents!!!
> Now carefully take the bullets out of your weapon ---------------
Hey, I'm (a) an alien and (b) a European. I don't have either a weapon OR
bullets!
> >> >> >> We are so used to living in this back-assed middle class welfare
> >> >> >> system that we never take the time to step back and see just how
> >> >> >> grossly unfair and wastful it is.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And the alternative?
> >> >>
> >>
> >> *********************************************************
> >> The alternative is called personal responsibility.
> >> *********************************************************
> >> I can't stress that enough.
> >
> >Good. Now explain the educational system - including funding - that this
> >implies. I'll watch with awe.
>
> Don't stare at this spot too hard 'cause I don't pretend to have all
> the answers. Could you at least agree that having those who can afford
> to pay for the education of their brood would free up quite a bit of
> money for those who truely can't?
I don't pretend to have all the answers either. I must say, however, that
the notion of "confiscatory taxes" doesn't leave much room for taxing "those
who can afford to pay" etc to help "those who truly can't".
It used to be called "buying a pig in a poke" - or voting for Richard Nixon,
who had a plan (to be disclosed later) for ending the Vietnam War. Tell me
what you're proposing, then I can decide if I support it.
Ted Johnson
>
> watwinc wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with the public schools as providers of secular education
> > again?
>
> Currently they are doing a poor job and
> everyone is blaming everyone else. Parents send
> off their children and expect the school to do its
> job, but get irate when their little one is
> reprimanded or isn't getting the grade mom and
> dad think he should. Administrators try to pacify
> the parents and the public at large, who can see
> that the system isn't working well. They do this
> by requiring more classes for & paperwork
> from the teachers. The teachers try to teach but
> they have paperwork in piles that reach the sky
> that has little to do with the classes they teach
> and students that would rather be talking,
> watching TV or playing computer games. The
> current system is a vicious circle of destruction
> that is feeding itself. Other than that, nothing is
> wrong with the public schools as providers of
> secular education.
>
As a teacher who has worked for the last several years in schools that
are performing badly by any system of measurement, I feel the need to
respond here. Yes, there are badly performing public schools. There
are public schools that perform well. This is true of any group of
schools. This district (Chicago) is a good example. Within the same
district, we have world-class schools and schools that Tibetan hill
people would find objectionable. This district is also a good example
that the circle is not necessarily feeding itself. Chicago has
instituted any number of reforms and student achievement has stopped its
precipitous decline and begun to climb (my school doubled its TAP scores
in math and reading in the last year). Schools that have not met the
district's minimum standards have been taken over (reconstituted) by the
district, and the minimum standards increase each year. Our TAP scores
would have gotten us off probation last year, but fell short of this
year's minimum.
We do have an obscene paper load her in Chicago (it took me a week to
realize that the attendance procedure explained to me was real and not
some cutesy trick they were playing on the new guy <g>), but this
district is not typical in my experience.
The statements you made above are a gross generalization and not what
I've come to expect of one of my favorite homeschoolers....
> ...If the people don't like the
> system they can't take their money and leave,
> they can only leave. If the teachers and
> administrators don't like the system they can find
> different jobs elsewhere.
Or they can stay and fight for change, as many of us do. There are many
people that believe that problems are not solved by walking away from
them, or "dumping the baby with bathwater" form of problem solution.
>If you look at the
> current growing numbers of homeschools and
> the current growing shortage of teachers, and
> administrators it appears that that is exactly
> what is happening. The problem is that although
> many think the current school system is in
> serious need of help all people are required to
> support it with taxes.
>
It may appear that way, but 1) all forms of education are increasing in
numbers, not just homeschooling; 2) the growing shortage of teachers is
due to a number of factors (a big chunk of teachers are approaching
retirement age, new teachers are not always properly prepared to deal
with the kind of students in today's schools and there is a large
attrition rate in the first couple years, schools have a hard time
competing in the areas of salaries/benefits with other areas of the
workforce, etc.) and employee shortage is not just in education - the
workforce is shallow in several areas.
We are required to support many things, whether or not we agree with
them. I am obliged to support things with my tax dollars that I find
repugnant. That's one of the major the country was founded - to have
some say in the taxation process. Sometimes our viewpoint is in the
majority. Sometimes it is not. That's how our system works... and I've
heard a number of people tout it as a pretty darn good system.
> > "In the nature of capitalism" you'll get the educational equivalent of the
> > HMOs,with the parents reduced to lobbying for the state to enact a Bill of
> > Parents' Rights.
>
> Using your analogy, I'd take the HMO scenario
> where I can take my money and go elsewhere.
That assumes that one is allowed to change HMOs. In Chicago we can (but
only at a given time during the year) because the size of the district
allows for a number of providers. In smaller districts and private
schools, very often there is one provider and there are no other
options. There ain't nowhere to go with your money.
tj
Some member of the Douglas Family
What's wrong with the public schools as
providers of secular education again?
I (MaG) replied with:
A generalization explaining what I see that's
wrong with government schools
To which, tj responded:
As a teacher who has worked for the last
several years in schools that are performing
badly by any system of measurement, I feel
the need to respond here. Yes, there are
badly performing public schools. There are
public schools that perform well. [...]
The statements you made above are a gross
generalization and not what I've come to
expect of one of my favorite home-
schoolers....
And now I (MaG) will explain myself:
My reason for pointing out what was wrong was
because Paul (watwinc) asked what was wrong
with them. I am quite well aware that there are
government schools that are doing a decent job
and some that are actually excelling. I was
generalizing the objectionable points of
government schools, not trying to say that they
are all bad. I can see how someone would easily
assume that since this is a group of home-
schoolers and they, as a group do have a
tendency to see only the bad in government
schools and not the good.
As far as being your favorite homeschooler...
I hate being on pedestals because I get vertigo.
It's also very easy to fall from that position,
which I am likely to do since I am not pedestal
material.
I (MaG) also wrote:
...If the people don't like the system they
can't take their money and leave, they can
only leave. If the teachers and administrators
don't like the system they can find different
jobs elsewhere.
And tj took me to task for another generalization
when he wrote:
Or they can stay and fight for change, as
many of us do. There are many people that
believe that problems are not solved by
walking away from them, or "dumping the
baby with bathwater" form of problem
solution.
And of course, I (MaG) have a comment:
You are absolutely right that there are people
that fight to change the system and make it
better. (Our family also does that.)
In my earlier post, I (MaG) also wrote:
If you look at the current growing numbers
of homeschools and the current growing
shortage of teachers, and administrators it
appears that that is exactly what is happening.
Which prompted tj to comment:
It may appear that way, but 1) all forms of
education are increasing in numbers, not just
homeschooling; 2) the growing shortage of
teachers is due to a number of factors
<snipped statements the support that there
is a teacher shortage>
My (MaG's) reply is:
I have heard other forms of education are on the
rise, but I only have facts to support home-
schooling's increase so I didn't want to make a
claim I couldn't support. (Where do you think I
learned that?) And again, you are right that there
are other reasons along with dissatisfaction with
the system that is causing teacher and
administrator shortages.
In my earlier post, I (MaG) also wrote:
I'd take the HMO scenario where I can take
my money and go elsewhere.
Eliciting this statement from tj:
That assumes that one is allowed to change
HMOs. In Chicago we can (but only at a
given time during the year) because the size
of the district allows for a number of
providers. In smaller districts and private
schools, very often there is one provider and
there are no other options. There ain't
nowhere to go with your money.
To which I (MaG) reply:
Here is where I get to point out that you missed
my point, which is; You don't have to be part of
the health care racket at all. It is possible to opt
out of employee insurance programs and use that
money in another way for your health care. I'm
not going into that issue for a variety of reasons;
1) I was an insider in the health care racket and
don't care to relive that part of my life at the
moment. 2) It's off topic for this group. 3) I don't
have the time., and 4) I don't have the energy.
So you can either take it at that or debate with
someone else.
To sum things up.... You were right that I
generalized several things to make my point
in that analogy; Having most favored home-
schooler status in anyone's life is not my goal.
(Although I'll admit it flatters my vanity.); and
I made statements about HMOs based on
insider information and I'm not discussing health
care on this list any further.
And as they say when they finished the morning
announcements at dh's old school....
That is all, have a nice day. :)
MaG
Some member of the Douglas Family
> the same thing twice.
Were you just making sure everyone saw you post? ;)
MaG
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|>
>:|>Private schools have existed from the beginning of this nation, but public
>:|>schools were not that far behind them in coming into being.
>:|>
>:|
>:|OK, I have a question. Public schools may have been around for a long time,
>:|(apparently), but when did attendance start being compulsory? (And not just
>:|compulsory education, but compulsory education according to the state's
>:|requirements and at the state's institutions.)
Did you happen to read:
THE FOLLOWING IS A SHORT, GENERALIZED HISTORY OF EDUCATION AND THE
GOVERNMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, REGARDING THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
that I posted in this thread?
I think it answers your question.
Compulsory schools existed in Mass as early as 1642
Several State Constitutions required common public schools which kids had
to attend in their original constitutions (1776-1789)
Riots were taking place in some North Eastern cities in the 1840s because
of the Protestant religious practices in public schools.
Required attendance existed in most if not all of those places.
The important thing here is the following:
Pierce v.Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
You can read about this case in the chart at:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table1.htm
The chart was prepared by an attorney, and then you can double click on the
case name and read the actual decision.
There have been a couple other cases further strengthening the legal
concept that you do not have to send your child to public school. Your
child does have to be schooled, but there are choices legally available
beyond just public school.
I do think that the government does have a right to be certain that
whomever is doing the schooling is qualified to do so.
>:|
>:|It's not a question (to me) of "should there be public schools" or not. But we
>:|*have* to send our children there unless we *get permission* to do something
>:|else!
Not quite, see above.
watwinc
news:19990922171414...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
>
> In various of his posts dated 20 & 21 September, 1999, "watwinc"
> <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote, in part:
>
> > It makes every kind of sense for society to invest in the education of
its
> future citizens <snip>
>
> Especially given your interest in history (generally), watwinc, and
> your obviously genuine interest in the history of education in the United
> States (specifically), I *strongly* urge you read *The Messianic Character
of
> American Education*, by Rushdoony.
Rushdoony - that's Rousas John Rushdoony, the author of "Institutes of
Biblical Law". Hmm. Do you feel the two books are on the same level of
insight and scholarship?
<snip>
Ted Johnson
>
Nope. After I replied, I realized that I had missed a paragraph of your
post. I went back to the newsgroup and clicked on the remove button -
Netscape *claimed* to have removed the first post.
::sigh:: It's so hard to find good help nowadays.... :)
tj
JRice43497
On Thursday, the 23rd of September, 1999, "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com>
wrote, in part:
> JRice43497 <jrice...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote
>> Especially given your interest in history (generally), watwinc, and your
obviously genuine interest in the history of education in the United States
(specifically), I *strongly* urge you read *The Messianic Character of American
Education*, by Rushdoony.
> Rushdoony - that's Rousas John Rushdoony, the author of "Institutes of
Biblical Law". Hmm. Do you feel the two books are on the same level of insight
and scholarship?
I have not read *Institutes*, nor do I plan to read it. I am most emphatically
*not* a "fan" of Rushdoony, generally speaking ... nor, in recommending *The
Messianic Character of American Education*, am I in *any* way endorsing the
man's general view of the world or his politics. For what it is worth ... the
book I recommended was written approximately 20 years before *Institutes*,
iirc. I gather that R became ... uhm ... to put it politely ... rather
strident ... in his later years.
As to the book I recommended: Rushdoony (as I said in my earlier post) reviews
the writings and speeches of many of the individuals who were most influential
in creating the "modern" system of education in the United States. Obviously,
as a historian, you may well prefer to go behind the Rushdoony review to the
cited published works themselves. [Of course, this will require you to read
*lots* more books. :-)] I am familiar with some of the individuals cited ...
John Dewey more than the others. The Rushdoony presentation of the points of
view with which I am familiar is certainly fair ... in terms of scholarship, I
don't think he has done anyone a major injustice. As to Rushdoony's insight,
commentary, etc., I would not presume to suggest what "conclusions" you
"should" reach! I think you will find his thesis fascinating, at a minimum,
though, and also very useful in understanding issues underlying current
debates.
I gather you appreciate J Allison's scholarship. I do, too. I assume there
will always be arguments in this country over where, precisely, lines must be
drawn with regard to the separation of church and state. Beyond that issue,
though, lies an obviously-important question about the *impact* of separation
of church and state. It was never a fundamental intention of "separation of
church and state" that *individuals* be separated from their religions. Nor
was the intention (save, I suppose, in some distant corner or another) to
create a religious separation between parents and their children. (There *was*
an intention ... in *many* of the "key players" who influenced the terms upon
which our "modern" system was based ... to create, using the vehicle of the
system of schools, a separation between parents and their children, in terms of
religion and otherwise ... but that was not the intention of the "separation of
church and state" doctrine itself!) In simple fact, though, by creating a
system of schools which have been (at least in major regards) a
"religion-neutral" zone, there has been *massive* impact upon the religious
experience of families and their children. It has been quite a bit like what
happens when non-English-speaking people move here from another country. Once
the children of those families begin to attend U.S. schools, it is often *very*
difficult to keep the children fluent in their native language. That is not
only because of the sheer number of hours, etc., spent speaking English in the
schools, but also due to the pressures to conform ... e.g., the taunting which
can occur about "accents," etc. Of course, most immigrant families are well
aware of the necessity that their children will have to become *very* fluent in
English in order to succeed in this society, and in that sense, they "vote"
(one way or the other) to forgo preferences concerning language when they move
here. *Many* families, though, do *not* vote to have their *religions*
subjected to some "melting pot" effect. I have seen this issue from several
points of view ... I grew up in a Jewish home, and know how embarrassing and
humiliating it can be to be forced to openly decline, in the presence of my
"peer group," to pray a prayer or sing a song which "*nobody* could possibly
object to." I also saw the child of atheist parents absolutely brutalized, to
the point that the parents eventually moved away from the community. I also
saw the birth of Jesus trivialized into secularity. Similarly, I saw two
children repeatedly beaten up by school bullies because they (and their
families) *cared* about math and science to the point of "preoccupation" ...
why, these children didn't even *care* how the local *sports* teams did! It is
one thing for a society to set up systems which homogenize *milk* ... it is an
entirely different matter to attempt to homogenize *children*. It is bad
enough that our school system, in the rigor of the homogenization process, has
created a condition in which a family's choices of *clothing* can (and *does*)
come under attack ... to be "in," one must make the "right" selections of
apparel ... and music ... and "friends." The impact upon religion, though, is
arguably *far* more pernicious! And it is certainly not only Christianity
which has felt the impact, but *all* religions! The Rushdoony book goes a
*long* way to clarifying the manner in which the undermining of religion came
about in our country's schools, and also the undermining of each family's
relationship to the religious development of its children.
As I said in my previous post, it very much seems to me that there is emerging
a new system of education which *promotes* diversity, by opening up resources
to individuals, families, and groups of all sorts, instead of severely
restricting access and forcing families and their children into a venue which
has extracted such a *high* price. We no longer live in a world in which it is
an "easy" thing to *isolate* ourselves from "others," or from *ideas*! As home
schoolers, we know the absurdity of the "socialization" bogey man, especially
as put forth by people whose children have been so largely isolated from
society at large by being forced into age segregated classrooms for most of
their youth. I suggested the Rushdoony book because, at least in my opinion,
it offers great insight into the system we have had in place, but which we are
now replacing. The old system isolated people from *so* many things, so many
*potentials*, which we are now actually beginning to realize. Among these
potentials is a much greater ability to participate and express ourselves in
the domain of religion, as individuals and within our families. The separation
of church and state is a good thing, in many regards an *imperative* thing. It
is, however, a very *bad* thing ... including in Constitutional terms ... to
impede, dilute, frustrate, and otherwise undermine the religious hopes,
aspirations and participations of our individuals and families. Our government
schools have played an unfortunate, and sometimes devastatingly negative role
in this regard ... and ... if one reads the published writings and speeches of
the individuals who were most influential in creating the "modern" system of
education in the United States ... it is clear that *much* of this negative
impact was *intentional*.
With our family's love to you and yours,
John
watwinc
"Institutes" is shown (Books In Print) as published in 1973, and the
earliest reference I've managed to find on the web for "Messianic" is 1963.
> As to the book I recommended: Rushdoony (as I said in my earlier post)
reviews
> the writings and speeches of many of the individuals who were most
influential
> in creating the "modern" system of education in the United States.
Obviously,
> as a historian, you may well prefer to go behind the Rushdoony review to
the
> cited published works themselves. [Of course, this will require you to
read
> *lots* more books. :-)]
Too kind - but I make no claim to be a historian, just interested.
As a would-be-immigrant, I shall read this with interest.
I have no opinion on the impact of schools on religion in the USA, as I know
nothing about them. If I didn't want a different life for my family, I
wouldn't be here.
Hamlet!
JRice43497 <jrice...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message news:19990922171414...@ng-fj1.aol.com...
> (posted, and e-mailed to watwinc and Hamlet!)
>
> In various of his posts dated 20 & 21 September, 1999, "watwinc"
> <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote, in part:
>
> Hamlet!, in a gorgeous recent post into the thread about unit studies, proved
> the good descendent of her ancestor, the famous discoverer "Captain James
> Cook." He took his ships out into charted and uncharted waters, on a *quest*
> ... and Hamlet! suggested *just* such a quest within the domain of education.
> And she was, in that particular thread, just talking about one little unit
> study!!! The *vast* majority of parents, once they realize what is *possible*,
> not only in the domain of education, but also in relating to their children
> (once it is no longer a "requirement" that they, in effect, hand their young
> children over to a "school") ... can and *will* follow the path being blazed by
> such courageous parents as Hamlet! With a beautiful array of *choices* before
> them, they will increasingly *engage* in the process of educating their
> children. They will seek out the best possible partners in such pursuits, just
> as Captain Cook chose his crews, as well as his other venture-partners, as
> zealously as possible for *his* voyages!
>
> With our family's love to you and yours,
>
> John
<Hamlet! looks around rather incredulously> ummm... thanks :c)
Thought I bungled it rather badly....misspellings et al....
Courageous....kudos' to any and all parents that attempt to navigate
the uncharted waters that will become their child's future.......
......hsing allows us to be better enlightened perhaps......stepping back from
the "crowd" does give rise to a whole new outlook...and given a fresh
perspective.....better understanding.....liken it to arranging your child's dinner
plate to make it more palatable....interest....invites learning.....and a full belly...
.............................Hamlet!
Who is grateful that she inherited Cook's sense of adventure....
but that the genes governing the nose...have been "watered" down a bit..<g>
BroDa Varidel
>Hamlet!, in a gorgeous recent post into the thread about unit studies,
proved
>the good descendent of her ancestor, the famous discoverer "Captain James
>Cook." He took his ships out into charted and uncharted waters, on a
*quest*
>... and Hamlet! suggested *just* such a quest within the domain of
education.
Ahhh. The good Captain Cook. Bored with life in the 'Old Country', no
longer welcome in 'The Colonies (the future USA), nagging wife at home and
to top it all off - a Queen on the thrown. So, off he trots in an effort to
circumcise the world.
Half way though his epic voyage round the world, what does he bump into - a
great big island. Dark brown in the middle, fringed with palm trees and
sand islands, deep inviting harbours. What a find. The good captains
recommendation the his boss - dump all the 'useless dregs of society
there!!!! "It will make a good prison, no-where for them to run to."
An so the wonderful Land of Oz was foundered. Out came the prisoners
(justly accused and innocents side by side), the guards who drew the short
straws and a few long term thinkers. Together they set out on the one-way
voyage of a lifetime.
When they arrived they soon discovered the land of milk and honey (actually
the land of bananas and sugar cane) and a chance at a new beginning. From
these simple beginnings grew a mighty nation of shy, quite people who have
contributed so much to the world at large. Have you ever heard of these
guy's?
Tim Edison. During the time of candles he discovered that he could run a
current though a wire in an airtight glass container. When energised, the
room brightened noticeably and so the "Dark-Sucker" was born. Due to lack
of funding, he sold his idea to his brother in the USA, who, luckily, fell
in with some marketing people and renamed the device in a more palliative
manner. Unfortunately, the outcome of their campaign is that we have mixed
up the direction of light-flow, and most children believe that light comes
*out* of the globe! Imagine that.
Bill Witttle. Loved those baked beans. Really loved them. Used to ride a
bike, and noticed an almost constant tailwind. His uncle, holidaying from
the UK, noted this effect and sat and though long about the net result.
Upon return to Briton (during the darkest days of the war), he started work
with an aircraft firm and, as they say in the classics, the rest is history.
Edmond Hillary. A New Zealand fellow (NZ is like a state of Australia), he
was always being told to "take a hike" by compatriots in the pub. So he
did. Left him a little breathless, but he thought the view was worth it.
Andrew Gore. Pinned up a statement of facts (from his point of view) on a
board outside his house. A neighbour, with a different opinion, drew on the
statement. Another passer-by pinned another note on the end of the first
*reversing* the intention of the Andrews original message! Then, a man with
a bagpipe under his arm came along and drew a smiley face on that!!!!!
Andrew's cosine (Al) was visiting, and watched the proceedings with great
interest. He returned home and hooked his PC up to the telephone line and
now we have newsgroups.
Too many other examples to list. So, using Amlett!'s analogy, we may think
our "Educational Oddesy" has discovered a pile of brown rocks, when in fact
we have laid the foundation many great things.
BTW, please check the 'facts' listed above with a reputable source. My
memory is not what it used to be, and some things are a little hazy ....
Regards,
David W. Varidel
dvar...@optusnet.com.au
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~dvaridel
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting;
it has been found difficult and not tried."
G.K. Chesterton.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote in message
>:|<37fdd6f9...@news.pilot.infi.net>...
>:|
>:|>x...@xxx.xxx (Wayne) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:| I believe the first (compulsory gov't schools) started in the
>:|>>:|1830's in New England. I'm also aware of riots in Philiadelphia over
>:|>>:|the Protestant "public schools" that were instituted to educate
>:|>>:|(convert?) Catholic Irish immigrant children --- late 1800's I
>:|>>:|believe.
>:|>
>:|>
>:|>Try 1840s
>:|
>:|Thank you! I saved a lot of the info you have posted.
>:|
Wait till you get my bill. LOL
>:|But was the part about the public school's attempt to 'Protestantize"
>:|the Irish true??
Public schools were public schools. They did not, per se teach religion.
There were in some schools passages from the King James Bible read, and
there were protestant prayers said. Catholics objected to this, in the
1840s there were even riots in some cites in the North east part of the
U.S. with deaths resulting. If was for this reason that Catholics later
began their own school system.
As early as the 1860s State courts began to find required Bible reading and
daily classroom prayer in public schools to be unconstitutional In many
cases these suits were brought by Catholic families.
Anti-Catholic sentiment, sure has been since the early to mid 1700s up to
and well into this century. Still is to some degree. There are still a
great many Protestant sects that are not running with open arms to welcome
Catholics, and the catholic church doesn't bend over backwards to any great
degree co-operating with Protestants on a lot of issues.
>:|Were gov't schools actually Protestant schools to a
>:|large extent?
Nope, not really.
Not in the manner in which you are trying to imply.
They didn't teach religion as such, those that had daily prayer and Bible
reading, and not all did, in fact very few states had laws that actually
required it. the Bible used was the King James Version, and the prayers was
those of a Protestant flavor. When they had musicals and if and when
religious music was played or sung it would be of a Protestant flavor.
>:|And now the pendulem has swung to where they are
>:|secular/atheist?
No.
>:|
>:|Methinks the schools that were publically funded in the past were a
>:|very different animal than what we see now.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted. Do you have any evidence to support
what you said?
>:|Was there any tuition
>:|needed, -- were they 'fully funded'? Any requirements upon entry ---
>:|like knowing how to read? Were they genuinly locally controlled
>:|instead of being cookie cutter copies of every other school?
>:|
Go back and read what was posted, your questions, at least the ones that
might be bona fide are answered there.
Perhaps you would like a posting of early state constitutions that
established public schools.
Didn't you mention the Penna Constitution and when someone countered you
with some info on it you said that you didn't think that his information
pertained to the first Constitution. But of course you weren't sure. Seems
to me you have formed some pretty strong opinions without doing a lot of
valid research.
Seems to me you found some people saying what you wanted to hear, and that
was good enough for you, you din't need anything else. never mind those
folks were not giving all the facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x...@xxx.xxx (Wayne) wrote:
>:| Here in Pennsylvania we have a religious freedom article in
>:|our state constitution. It reads like this:
>:|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:| All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God
>:|according to the dictates of their own conciences; no man can of right
>:|be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to
>:|maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in
>:|any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience,
>:|and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious
>:|establishments or modes of worship.
>:|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION-1776
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Pennsylvania
SECT. II. That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship
Almighty God according to the dictates of their Own consciences and
understanding: And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend
any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or
maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and
consent: nor can anyman, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly
deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account or his
religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship: And that no
authority can or ought to be vested in, or assumed by any power whatever,
that shall in any case interfere with, or In any manner controul, the right
of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.
SECT. VII. . . . Nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of
bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent,
. . .
SECT. 10. A Quorum Of the house of representatives shall consist of
two-thirds of the whole number of members elected; and having met and
chosen their speaker, shall each of them before they proceed to business
take and subscribe, as well the oath or affirmation of fidelity and
allegiance hereinafter directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz
I _____ do swear (or affirm) that as a member of this assembly, I
will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall
appear to me injurious to the people; abridge their rights and privileges,
as declared in the constitution of this state; but will in all things
conduct myself as a faithful honest representative and guardian of the
people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities.
And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe
the following
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe,
the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine
inspiration..
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be
required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state.
SECT. 44. A school or schools shall be established in each county by the
legislature, for the convenient instruction of youth, with such salaries to
the masters paid by the public, as may enable them to instruct youth at low
prices: And all useful learning shall he duly encouraged and promoted in
one or more universities.
SECT. 45. Laws for the encouragement of virtue, and prevention of vice and
immorality, shall be made and constantly kept in force, and provisions
shall be made for their due execution: And a11 religious societies or
bodies of men heretoFore united or incorporated for the advancement of
religion or learning or for other pious and charitable purposes, shall be
encouraged and protected in the enjoyment of the privileges, immunities and
estates which they were accustomed to enjoy or could of right have enjoyed,
under the laws and former constitution of this state.
Penna revised its Constitution again in 1790.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>:|Do I ask a lot of questions?????
>:|
What you are trying to do is find some sort of loopholes in what you have
been presented to make your theory or make what you want to believe stand
up.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|(posted, and e-mailed to Paul)
>:|
>:|On Thursday, the 23rd of September, 1999, "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com>
>:|wrote, in part:
>:|
>:|> JRice43497 <jrice...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote
>:|
>:|>> Especially given your interest in history (generally), watwinc, and your
>:|obviously genuine interest in the history of education in the United States
>:|(specifically), I *strongly* urge you read *The Messianic Character of American
>:|Education*, by Rushdoony.
>:|
>:|> Rushdoony - that's Rousas John Rushdoony, the author of "Institutes of
>:|Biblical Law". Hmm. Do you feel the two books are on the same level of insight
>:|and scholarship?
>:|
>:|I have not read *Institutes*, nor do I plan to read it. I am most emphatically
>:|*not* a "fan" of Rushdoony, generally speaking ... nor, in recommending *The
>:|Messianic Character of American Education*, am I in *any* way endorsing the
>:|man's general view of the world or his politics. For what it is worth ... the
>:|book I recommended was written approximately 20 years before *Institutes*,
>:|iirc. I gather that R became ... uhm ... to put it politely ... rather
>:|strident ... in his later years.
Why be polite?
Why not call it what it is, and was even in the 60s?
8. RECONSTRUCTIONISTS
Reconstructionism in its broadest sense describes the rebuilding by
Christians of' every aspect of` Western civilization according to biblical
strictures, beginning in the United States. It is founded on the belief
that God's laws, as described in the Bible, pertain to all people
throughout history and comprise the only legitimate basis for culture.
According to their literature and statements, reconstructionists
would raze most of the structures of American life; a streamlined society
would be rebuilt according to the Mosaic code, which is considered an exact
blueprint for social order. This effort to remake America as ancient Israel
entails the abolition not merely of` the federal government and public
education, but also, as sociologist Anson Shupe has written in The Wall
Street Journal, of the entire Western liberal tradition, including
"popular sovereignty, civil liberties, and 'natural rights' concerned with
such things as freedom of conscience and separation of church and state."
As Shupe notes, there would be no place in this reformed society for Jews,
Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Baha'is, humanists, atheists, or even
non-reconstructionist Christians. Movement founder Rousas John (R.J.)
Rushdoony has stated that "in the name of toleration, the believer is asked
to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the
pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions."
Indeed, the writings of leading members of the movement suggest
that any dissenters could be "eliminated." Gary North, Rushdoony's
estranged son-in-law and one of reconstructionism's most militant
spokesmen, has asserted that "the perfect love of God necessarily involves
the perfect hatred of God's enemies." North also declares: "That's how our
King wants us to pray against His enemies: let them he destroyed."
Such a destruction may be abetted by reconstructionism's most
controversial concept: the installation of the legal code of the Hebrew
Bible as the basis for civil law. This idea has led the most rigorous
reconstructionists, those associated with the teaching of Rushdoony, to
espouse the death penalty as a possible punishment for adulterers,
homosexuals, blasphemers, incorrigible juvenile delinquents, and
propagators of false doctrines, among others. Non-capital offenses could
be punished by slavery
In addition to fostering Godly families, "the purpose of the law is
to suppress, control, and/or eliminate the ungodly..." Rushdoony has
declared.'
THE PROBLEM WITH RECONSTRUCTIONISM
Absolutism and parochialism may be virtues in a religious system,
but not in a pluralistic democracy. And while reconstructionism's core
adherents are neither particularly numerous (roughly 40,000, according to
Gary North) nor unified, many of its teachings -- and teachers -- have been
absorbed into the religious right movement.
This fact should not be overstated. The r-eligious right is not
primarily reconstructionist, and most of those who do adopt some
reconstructionist teachings reject its more extreme views (and its
postrnillennialism). Christianity Today and other observers maintain that
most churchgoers have probably never heard of Rushdoony. Religion professor
James Manis states, "One often hears fundamentalist leaders articulate the
denial,' I'rn not a Reconstructionist, but...,' and then proceed to expound
a Reconstructionist tenet or two."
Reconstructionism's influence among Christian activists dates to
the 1960s and 1970s, when reconstructionists were elucidating an
evangelical political philosophy even as evangelicals began to turn to
politics after a half-century of abstention. This philosophy drew on
historic themes of dominion -- the: notion that believers are called to
exercise control over all the earth -- that came to undergird the religious
right's efforts. In 1981, Newsweek named Chalcedon, Rushdoony's Vallecito,
California, reconstructionist center, as the religious right's leading
thinktank. Robert Billings, founder of the pioneering National Christian
Action Coalition and later a Moral Majority leader, reportedly stated: "if
it weren't for [Rushdoony's] books, none of us would be here."
Rushdoony's impact on the religious right is especially disturbing
because, in addition to their theocratic intolerance, his hooks have
maligned Jews, Judaism, and Blacks, and have engaged in Holocaust
"revisionism." Other leading reconstructionists have also attacked Jews.
And though their unflinching theocratic rhetoric keeps these thinkers off
of major forurns, their association with major religious right figures and
groups underscores the apparent insensitivity of many of the "pro-family"
movement leaders.
R.J. RUSHDOONY
Rushdoony was born in New York City in 1 916, the son of Armenian
immigrants whose ancestry reportedly traces an unbroken succession of
ecclesiastics dating to the fourth century. He earned a Ph.D. in
educational philosophy, and served as a Presbyterian pastor; a missionary
to Native Americans, and a John Birch Society activist. In 1959, he
launched reconstructionism with By What Standard?, an interpretation of the
apologetics of the late Calvinist theologian Cornelius Van Til
(while Van Til is considered the "patron philosopher" of
Reconstructionism, he reportedly opposed the movement).
In 1964, Rushdoony established Chalcedon (cal-see-don), named for a
fifth century church council, to disseminate his ideas. The author of
dozens of books, he pumped out reconstructionist volumes in relative
obscurity throughout the 1960s. At the same time, he continued to cultivate
his arch-conservative secular credentials: in July 1965, according to The
John Birch Society Bulletin, he shared a conference podium with former
Noire name law school dean and popular far-right radio and television
propagandist Clarence Manion, wile once declared that the U.S. government
had adopted "in whole or in part" eight of the ten commandments of the
Communist Manifesto.
THE MOVEMENT TAKES HOLD
In 1973, Rushdoony published his massive tome, The Institutes of
Biblical Law, a 900-page exposition of the Ten Commandments (whose title
evoked John Calvin's epochal institutes of the Christian Religion). The
work became reconstructionism's benchmark text. Rushdoony's views were
absorbed by a younger and often fractious coterie, who in turn est:ablished
their own reconstructionist thinktanks and churches. The busiest enclaves
include Tyler, texas, the site of Gary North's Institute for Christian
Economics (North holds a Ph.D. in history), and Atlanta, home to both Gary;
DeMar's , American Vision and Joseph Morecraf't's Chalcedon
Presbyterian church.
RECONSTRUCTIONISM'S DISCONTENTS
The movement that Rushdoony sired has never disguised its disdain
for modern liberal govarnance and culture. "The state is a bankrupt
institution," Rushdoony asserts. The only alternative to this bankrupt
"humanistic" system is "a God-centereed government": "The choice," says
Rushdoony acolyte David Chilton, "is Christian morality or no morality."
Rushdoony believes that "every Law-system must maintain its
existence by hostility to every other- Law-system and to alien religious
foundations...." He and his kinsmen consider democracy to be "heresy"
Rushdoony calls it "the great love of the failures and cowards of` life."
lie insists that "Christianity is completely and radically
anti-detnocratic; it is committed to a spiritual aristocracy."
This aristocracy foregoes noblesse oblige, however. North says:
"People who use the phrase 'the universal brotherhood of man' to Prove an
underlying unity based mutual respect and love are rnisusing the Bible's
testimony. The universal brotherhood of man is a brotherhood of` death and
destruction."
Many Christians have failed to grasp this notion, according to
Byron Snapp. a Virginia reconstructionist. "[T]]he Christian must realize
that plualism is a myth." he maintains. "At no point in Scripture do we
read that God teaches, supports or condones pluralism. To support pluralism
is to recognize all religions as equal."
North goes even further: he encourages the likeminded to use
America's religious liberty to destroy itself:
"We must use this doctrine of religious liberty to gain
independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people
who know that there is no religious neutrality. . . Then they will get busy
in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which
finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
(Source of Information: The religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance &
Pluralism in America, A publication of the Anti-Defamation League. (1994)
pp119-122)
>:|
>:|As to the book I recommended: Rushdoony (as I said in my earlier post) reviews
>:|the writings and speeches of many of the individuals who were most influential
>:|in creating the "modern" system of education in the United States. Obviously,
>:|as a historian, you may well prefer to go behind the Rushdoony review to the
>:|cited published works themselves. [Of course, this will require you to read
>:|*lots* more books. :-)] I am familiar with some of the individuals cited ...
>:|John Dewey more than the others. The Rushdoony presentation of the points of
>:|view with which I am familiar is certainly fair ... in terms of scholarship, I
>:|don't think he has done anyone a major injustice. As to Rushdoony's insight,
>:|commentary, etc., I would not presume to suggest what "conclusions" you
>:|"should" reach! I think you will find his thesis fascinating, at a minimum,
>:|though, and also very useful in understanding issues underlying current
>:|debates.
Knowing what is known of the man today (he may be dead for all I know, he
should be about 83, but his movement is alive and well. The Rushdoony of
the 1990s, is pretty much the same man of the 80s, 70s, 60s, and 50s, If
you were not aware of that, then you should be now.
I would have some serious reservations about his treatment of education,
considering his under laying agenda.
if you think its fair, wonderful, but then you are the one recommending the
book, aren't you?
>:|
>:|I gather you appreciate J Allison's scholarship. I do, too. I assume there
>:|will always be arguments in this country over where, precisely, lines must be
>:|drawn with regard to the separation of church and state. Beyond that issue,
>:|though, lies an obviously-important question about the *impact* of separation
>:|of church and state. It was never a fundamental intention of "separation of
>:|church and state" that *individuals* be separated from their religions.
Who is advocating this? In what manner do you feel they are advocating it?
>:|Nor
>:|was the intention (save, I suppose, in some distant corner or another) to
>:|create a religious separation between parents and their children.
Oh brother, and who is doing this and in what manner are they doing this?
>:|(There *was*
>:|an intention ... in *many* of the "key players" who influenced the terms upon
>:|which our "modern" system was based ... to create, using the vehicle of the
>:|system of schools, a separation between parents and their children, in terms of
>:|religion and otherwise ... but that was not the intention of the "separation of
>:|church and state" doctrine itself!)
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted
Do you have anything to point to what you are even talking about here?
>:|In simple fact, though, by creating a
>:|system of schools which have been (at least in major regards) a
>:|"religion-neutral" zone, there has been *massive* impact upon the religious
>:|experience of families and their children.
Do I detect some reconstructionist thinking here?
Massive impact upon the religious experience of families and their
children?
>:|It has been quite a bit like what
Based on the above you seem to have a great many "gripes." Much of what
you comment on above is the fault of whom and what, if there is a fault.
What exactly does it have to do with this particular subject. It would be
nice if humans were perfect, they aren't. Lots of prejudices, biases,
fears, hates, etc are carried around by people, and passed from one
generation to the next by some of those people.
I don't know of anyone who has come up with a method to change or stop
that yet, that actually works all that well.
>:|The Rushdoony book goes a
>:|*long* way to clarifying the manner in which the undermining of religion came
>:|about in our country's schools, and also the undermining of each family's
>:|relationship to the religious development of its children.
>:|
I'm sure it does and is very much in line with his radical thinking as
well.
The man was and is, if he is still alive, a very radical far right ultra
conservative religious, "nut" I say nut because his teaching about religion
doesn't fit any Christian theology that I am aware of. I believe that one
of the standards of most Christian denominations is that the coming of
"christ" did away with the Old Testament Laws.
I would have a serious problem with trusting the man's opinions on much of
anything.
>:|As I said in my previous post, it very much seems to me that there is emerging
>:|a new system of education which *promotes* diversity, by opening up resources
>:|to individuals, families, and groups of all sorts, instead of severely
>:|restricting access and forcing families and their children into a venue which
>:|has extracted such a *high* price. We no longer live in a world in which it is
>:|an "easy" thing to *isolate* ourselves from "others," or from *ideas*! As home
>:|schoolers, we know the absurdity of the "socialization" bogey man, especially
>:|as put forth by people whose children have been so largely isolated from
>:|society at large by being forced into age segregated classrooms for most of
>:|their youth. I suggested the Rushdoony book because, at least in my opinion,
>:|it offers great insight into the system we have had in place, but which we are
>:|now replacing.
>:| The old system isolated people from *so* many things, so many
>:|*potentials*, which we are now actually beginning to realize. Among these
>:|potentials is a much greater ability to participate and express ourselves in
>:|the domain of religion, as individuals and within our families. The separation
>:|of church and state is a good thing, in many regards an *imperative* thing. It
>:|is, however, a very *bad* thing ... including in Constitutional terms ... to
>:|impede, dilute, frustrate, and otherwise undermine the religious hopes,
>:|aspirations and participations of our individuals and families.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted
>:|Our government
>:|schools have played an unfortunate, and sometimes devastatingly negative role
>:|in this regard ... and ... if one reads the published writings and speeches of
>:|the individuals who were most influential in creating the "modern" system of
>:|education in the United States ... it is clear that *much* of this negative
>:|impact was *intentional*.
The libertarians that have advanced this argument have said the idea was to
produce mindless robots to be used by business owners to stock their
factories etc.
There are only two groups of people on the net that I have found advancing
this form of argument. Ultra religious right types and libertarians who
want a separation of state and school constitutional amendment.
That is kind of interesting.
Public schools have existed in this nation for a long time. Do they make
mistakes, sure they do, have they gone down some wrong roads, sure they
have. They have done something else too. The vast majority of the people
who have been educated in this nation, at least since probably the early to
mid 1800s have been educated in public schools. What has this countery
managed to achieve? In addtion to that, this nation probably has the most
people of any naiton on the face of this earth who willingly and freely
practice some form of their religion on a regular basis.
I don't usually get into anti-public school arguments, my interest is
church/state. But there are times when someone puts forth something that is
totally out of step with the actual facts and results. I usually say
something then.
watwinc
JRice43497 <jrice...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> (posted, and e-mailed to Paul)
>
> On Thursday, the 23rd of September, 1999, "watwinc"
<wat...@email.msn.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> > JRice43497 <jrice...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote
>
With reference to the question of reallocating educational funding, this
caught my eye:
http://www.slate.com/code/BallotBox/BallotBox.asp?Show=9/22/99&idMessage=366
5
Stainless Steel Streetrat
<dvar...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>Andrew Gore. Pinned up a statement of facts (from his point of view) on a
>board outside his house. A neighbour, with a different opinion, drew on the
>statement. Another passer-by pinned another note on the end of the first
>*reversing* the intention of the Andrews original message! Then, a man with
>a bagpipe under his arm came along and drew a smiley face on that!!!!!
>Andrew's cosine (Al) was visiting, and watched the proceedings with great
>interest. He returned home and hooked his PC up to the telephone line and
>now we have newsgroups.
I *knew* it! LOL!
-----------------------------
Stainless Steel Streetrat
"*Living* is the best revenge" - Conan the Barbarian
-----------------------
Ultimate Guide to Christian Resources: Homeschooling
http://members.aol.com/stretrat/homeschool/states.html