Separation of school and state WAS An American history resource
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
>:|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!
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.
**********************************************
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
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|> "Julie A. Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|The need for Separation of Church and State and of School
>:|> >:|and State comes from very much the same place.
>:|>
>:|> Actually, they don't.
>:|>
>:|> They are pretty much unrelated to each other.
>:|
>:|See Wayne... *That's* the proper way to make and unsubstantiated
>:|claim. When are you ever going to learn. !Don't look -Mike-! ;)
>:|
>:|MaG
>:|
Huh?
You feel there is a problem with what was said?
That an unsubstantiated claim was made by someone?
Who might have made it?
Submission #1
>:|> "Julie A. Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|The need for Separation of Church and State and of School
>:|> >:|and State comes from very much the same place.
>:|>
Submission #2
>:|> Actually, they don't.
>:|>
>:|> They are pretty much unrelated to each other.
>:|
I can't speak for Julie, but I can (and have) support my claim if you wish.
Let's see, even before the Constitution which formed our present form of
government, there were colonies, then states that had compulsory public
school systems, tax supported, run by the community, etc.
The unamended constitution embodied into it the principle of church/state
separation or you could say government/religion separation. This was
further reinforced by the religious clauses of what became knows as the
BORs. You will find no separation of school/state, or education/government
embodied in the U.S. Constitution, nor any state constitution. In fact, you
will find clauses requiring public schools in the various state
constitutions and such clauses existed as far back as 1776 in some of those
constitutions.
You will also find ample historical evidence showing that many of the
founders wanted a national university, and that they also visualized a
common public schools system, nationally.
(much of that evidence I already posted, so you see, based on previous
posts, my comments were not unsubstantiated, if it were me you were
referring to. (If Julie, she will have to flesh out her own comments)
From your own personal thoughts and feelings, you may link separation of
church and state and separation of state and schools together, but those
who created the one (separation of church and state) did not share your
feelings, because they did not create the other (separation of school and
state) in fact, indicated quite strongly the exact opposite regarding the
other.
Julie A. Pascal
jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|
> >:|> "Julie A. Pascal" <ju...@pascal.org> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|The need for Separation of Church and State and of School
> >:|> >:|and State comes from very much the same place.
> >:|>
> >:|> Actually, they don't.
> >:|>
> >:|> They are pretty much unrelated to each other.
(...)
>
> I can't speak for Julie, but I can (and have) support my claim if you wish.
>
> Let's see, even before the Constitution which formed our present form of
> government, there were colonies, then states that had compulsory public
> school systems, tax supported, run by the community, etc.
>
> The unamended constitution embodied into it the principle of church/state
> separation or you could say government/religion separation. This was
> further reinforced by the religious clauses of what became knows as the
> BORs. You will find no separation of school/state, or education/government
> embodied in the U.S. Constitution, nor any state constitution. In fact, you
> will find clauses requiring public schools in the various state
> constitutions and such clauses existed as far back as 1776 in some of those
> constitutions.
The Constitution isn't the *source*. The principle of ensuring
that people were free of religious compulsion is very much
the same as the principle ensuring freedom of the press and
speech and assembly. This single principle could well be summed
up by "Freedom of Conscience". This principle and the reasons
that it is necessary exist prior to the Constitution. Freedom
requires... Freedom. Bluntly stated.
Our minds are the place where we are ultimately free or
bound.
> You will also find ample historical evidence showing that many of the
> founders wanted a national university, and that they also visualized a
> common public schools system, nationally.
> (much of that evidence I already posted, so you see, based on previous
> posts, my comments were not unsubstantiated, if it were me you were
> referring to. (If Julie, she will have to flesh out her own comments)
The principle exists before the founders who were merely seeking
to apply it. That the founders saw one application and not
the other does not mean that the two do not come from the same
source.
Unless you count the founders as the source. And who were
they but men?
> From your own personal thoughts and feelings, you may link separation of
> church and state and separation of state and schools together, but those
> who created the one (separation of church and state) did not share your
> feelings, because they did not create the other (separation of school and
> state) in fact, indicated quite strongly the exact opposite regarding the
> other.
We have interpreted the provisions of the Constitution as
requiring the separation of Church and State, though it
doesn't say that *exactly* right out. It's a narrow definition
that excludes the other "most important" issues like
speech, assembly, press, and others. Separating religion
into it's own, unrelated, little category seems...
...well, separating religion from everything else is one
of the strongest messages taught by public schools today
so I guess it makes sense that the message has taken.
Freedom of Conscience is no more in the Constitution than
the Separation of Church and State... but it is just
as accurate a summation of the concepts defined by it.
I don't know why the idea of separating School and State
should offend you so.
--Julie
watwinc
news:37EFEE5C...@pascal.org...
in this thread to some degree. I worry about private schools when somebody
like Michael Farris appears in northern Virginia and declares in a
Washington Post interview that he's building a cadre college for religious
rightists to establish themselves in positions of power and influence. To do
this, Farris says he's using $5 million from the HSLDA - which we nearly
joined before we spotted the religious overemphasis. If we had done, I'd be
very unhappy about that money going to the Founder's pet project. And a
private college headed by anybody who was a founder member of the Coalition
on Revival and a Pat Robertson campaign manager is very bad news, especially
when it's in my neck of the woods.
Liz
--
Liz,
watwinc
news:rv205g...@corp.supernews.com...
> Is there no oversight in the HSLDA that they can spend money that way?
That has to be the question, doesn't it?
Anthony Angelucci
tilts the balance when 99% of them teach from a Godless, politically correct,
anti-Christian point of view. I had a college professor get up before the
nursing class and tell them that any one who believes in God and Creationism
will never get anywhere in this world because that ignorant belief will hold
them back. Have you ever looked into who is funding those colleges?
A new homeschooling Mom
Liz wrote:
> Is there no oversight in the HSLDA that they can spend money that way?
>
Liz
families not on evangelism. If they were open about where the money was
going I'd be fine with it. I spend thousands every year on missionary
activities but I do it for open missionary causes. This is an issue of
integrity.
--
Liz,
Anthony Angelucci <m...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:37F1FFBF...@mediaone.net...
Some member of the Douglas Family
> The HSLDA has a public trust to spend the dues on defending homeschooling
> families not on evangelism. If they were open about where the money was
> going I'd be fine with it. I spend thousands every year on missionary
> activities but I do it for open missionary causes. This is an issue of
> integrity.
Here are some other facts to consider before
argument continues on an issue that doesn't exist.
****
On Sunday, September 26, 1999, The
Washington Post ran an article by Hanna Rosin
about the new Patrick Henry College---
While we are pleased that The Washington Post
recognizes the newsworthiness of this innovative
approach to higher education, the article contains
some factual misstatements:
(1) Mike Farris never claimed to be "a founder
of the national home school movement," nor
"the father of home schooling." He is the founder
of the Home School Legal Defense Association,
and a home schooling father. Mr. Farris
recognizes the enormous difference between
those concepts, but is not sure that the reporter
does.
(2) Provost Brad Jacob is not the co-founder
of PHC, but was the first employee hired by the
college.
(3) Home School Legal Defense Association
has not given $5 million to Patrick Henry
College. HSLDA is spending approximately
$5 million to pay most of the costs of its own
headquarters building, located on the PHC
campus. This building is designed for HSLDA's
current and future needs, and space not needed
by HSLDA right away will be used by the
college during its early years.
We have asked The Washington Post to run a
correction, but have not seen action in this
regard as of yet. Nevertheless, we want to
officially set the record straight with you so that
you will have our side of the story should any
controversy arise from this misinformation.
Sincerely,
Rich Jefferson
Director of Media Relations
Home School Legal Defense Association
Gary Weimer
suppose to be defending home schoolers?
|> > > And a
|> > > private college headed by anybody who was a founder member of the
|> > Coalition
|> > > on Revival and a Pat Robertson campaign manager is very bad news,
|> > especially
|> > > when it's in my neck of the woods.
Yeah! What right do they have founding a private business based on their
own personal convictions? How dare they do this in America--the land of
the free... oh... ummm... never mind...
--
Gary Weimer
wei...@NOSPAM.kodak.com remove the obvious to reply
watwinc
news:7stf9a$gag$1...@news.news.kodak.com...
A bit free with HSLDA money, it would seem ...
watwinc
news:37F1FFBF...@mediaone.net...
> One college in this country trying to teach from a Christian perspective
hardly
> tilts the balance when 99% of them teach from a Godless, politically
correct,
> anti-Christian point of view.
That kind of wild overstatement destroys the credibility of valid points.
> I had a college professor get up before the
> nursing class and tell them that any one who believes in God and
Creationism
> will never get anywhere in this world because that ignorant belief will
hold
> them back. Have you ever looked into who is funding those colleges?
He was very foolish and totally out of line to say anything about a belief
in God. Creationism is another and more complex matter, not least because of
the different flavours of creationism. Generally, I'd agree with his
statement while objecting to his presentation, but there are people out
there making a good career out of presenting creationism. Of course, there's
a guy out there making money selling subscriptions to a perpetual motion
machine on a cross-country lecture tour ...
> A new homeschooling Mom
>
<snip>
Gary Weimer
|> Gary Weimer <wei...@NOSPAM.kodak.com> wrote in message
|> news:7stf9a$gag$1...@news.news.kodak.com...
|> >
|> > |> > > private college headed by anybody who was a founder member of the
|> > |> > Coalition
|> > |> > > on Revival and a Pat Robertson campaign manager is very bad news,
|> > |> > especially
|> > |> > > when it's in my neck of the woods.
|> >
|> > Yeah! What right do they have founding a private business based on their
|> > own personal convictions? How dare they do this in America--the land of
|> > the free... oh... ummm... never mind...
|>
|> A bit free with HSLDA money, it would seem ...
From what I've seen, they have not been free with any money. HSLDA is
spending $5M for a new office building and finishing part of the interior.
In exchange for a few years free rent, PHC is paying to finish the rest of
the interior. Sounds more like business agreement than free money.
Mike Marlow
circles by HSLDA for some time now. Just because you were not aware of it
is not a reflection of HSLDA violating any trust. And they do not have a
public trust. They only owe accountability to their dues payers. And
beyond that, they only have an obligation to function within their charter.
I'm not sure that what they are doing with PHC violates their charter.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Liz <nospamd...@bmi.net> wrote in message
news:rv45rr...@corp.supernews.com...
> The HSLDA has a public trust to spend the dues on defending
homeschooling
> families not on evangelism. If they were open about where the money was
> going I'd be fine with it. I spend thousands every year on missionary
> activities but I do it for open missionary causes. This is an issue of
> integrity.
>
> --
> Liz,
> Anthony Angelucci <m...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:37F1FFBF...@mediaone.net...
> > One college in this country trying to teach from a Christian perspective
> hardly
> > tilts the balance when 99% of them teach from a Godless, politically
> correct,
> > anti-Christian point of view. I had a college professor get up before
the
> > nursing class and tell them that any one who believes in God and
> Creationism
> > will never get anywhere in this world because that ignorant belief will
> hold
> > them back. Have you ever looked into who is funding those colleges?
> >
> > A new homeschooling Mom
> >
> > Liz wrote:
> >
> > > Is there no oversight in the HSLDA that they can spend money that
way?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Liz,
> > > > >
> > > > I'm wandering across the minefield of somebody else's debate, but we
> all
> > > are
> > > > in this thread to some degree. I worry about private schools when
> somebody
> > > > like Michael Farris appears in northern Virginia and declares in a
> > > > Washington Post interview that he's building a cadre college for
> religious
> > > > rightists to establish themselves in positions of power and
influence.
> To
> > > do
> > > > this, Farris says he's using $5 million from the HSLDA - which we
> nearly
> > > > joined before we spotted the religious overemphasis. If we had done,
> I'd
> > > be
> > > > very unhappy about that money going to the Founder's pet project.
watwinc
> In article <OxclXvqC$GA.70@cpmsnbbsa05>, "watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com>
writes:
> |> Gary Weimer <wei...@NOSPAM.kodak.com> wrote in message
> |> news:7stf9a$gag$1...@news.news.kodak.com...
> |> >
> |> > |> > > private college headed by anybody who was a founder member of
the
> |> > |> > Coalition
> |> > |> > > on Revival and a Pat Robertson campaign manager is very bad
news,
> |> > |> > especially
> |> > |> > > when it's in my neck of the woods.
> |> >
their
> |> > own personal convictions? How dare they do this in America--the land
of
> |> > the free... oh... ummm... never mind...
> |>
> |> A bit free with HSLDA money, it would seem ...
>
> From what I've seen, they have not been free with any money. HSLDA is
> spending $5M for a new office building and finishing part of the interior.
> In exchange for a few years free rent, PHC is paying to finish the rest of
> the interior. Sounds more like business agreement than free money.
Waiting for more information, but I see no possible reason for the HSLDA to
need a $5 million office building, other than to house PHC. Sounds like
flimflam. But - let's wait for more information, by all means.
watwinc
news:7stphg$pvh$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> They are very open about it. This has been talked about in very public
> circles by HSLDA for some time now. Just because you were not aware of it
> is not a reflection of HSLDA violating any trust. And they do not have a
> public trust. They only owe accountability to their dues payers. And
> beyond that, they only have an obligation to function within their
charter.
> I'm not sure that what they are doing with PHC violates their charter.
I'd be very surprised if it did, as Farris is a lawyer (which didn't stop
him getting caught on the fringes of that antitrust case). As a homeschooler
I still find it infuriating that the highest profile HS organisation is
getting into bed (and paying for it, too) with a religious extremist cadre
training centre.
Anthony Angelucci
right of ALL to homeschool, and for a VERY small annual fee will come to your
legal aid, whether you are a Christian or not. They have been very open about
their funding of the college, and if you are not happy about it, withdraw your
membership. I'm sure it will cost a lot more to hire a lawyer privately. And
again, I believe you would be amazed if you knew who was funding the rest of the
colleges in the US. I'm SURE the groups that contribute money to these colleges
have no agenda.
V
Some member of the Douglas Family
> As a homeschooler
> I still find it infuriating that the highest profile HS organisation is
> getting into bed (and paying for it, too) with a religious extremist cadre
> training centre.
Can you please explain what you read that made
you come to the conclusion that PHC will be "a
religious extremist cadre training centre." <asked
with genuine puzzlement>
MaG
Mike Marlow
admission one of those "religious extremist" organizations. There's really
no inconsistency here at all. HSLDA may be the highest profile HS
organization out there, but does that mean that they should live up to your
preference or mine, for their activities, or should they not be free to
exercise their corporate freedom to build and support whatever they wish.
You do still have the right to dislike them for what they do, but you are
wrong to presume upon the organization a profile that you wish to see of
them, when that is not what they are all about. This has a ring of spoiled
child to it. Not directed at you personally, as an insult, but in the
manner of "I want it my way, just because that's what I want". Heck - they
are what they are, and they are very open about what they are. You
certainly have every right to dislike HSLDA for what it is, but to presume
upon them what they should be, just to satisfy you is wrong...unless you can
get elected to the Board of Directors....
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:O1V1pUsC$GA.161@cpmsnbbsa02...
> Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:7stphg$pvh$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > They are very open about it. This has been talked about in very public
> > circles by HSLDA for some time now. Just because you were not aware of
it
> > is not a reflection of HSLDA violating any trust. And they do not have
a
> > public trust. They only owe accountability to their dues payers. And
> > beyond that, they only have an obligation to function within their
> charter.
> > I'm not sure that what they are doing with PHC violates their charter.
>
> I'd be very surprised if it did, as Farris is a lawyer (which didn't stop
> him getting caught on the fringes of that antitrust case). As a
homeschooler
> I still find it infuriating that the highest profile HS organisation is
> getting into bed (and paying for it, too) with a religious extremist cadre
> training centre.
>
> > -Mike-
> > mike....@usa.net
> >
> >
> > Liz <nospamd...@bmi.net> wrote in message
> > news:rv45rr...@corp.supernews.com...
Liz
are not neat and tidy has money left over to build expensive buildings. Do
they anticipate needing a 5$million building in the future? Berkshire
Hathaway doesn't spend that kind of money on office space.
--
Liz,
Some member of the Douglas Family <doug...@innova.net> wrote in message
news:37F21CB2...@innova.net...
> Liz wrote:
>
> > The HSLDA has a public trust to spend the dues on defending
homeschooling
> > families not on evangelism. If they were open about where the money was
> > going I'd be fine with it. I spend thousands every year on missionary
> > activities but I do it for open missionary causes. This is an issue of
> > integrity.
>
Liz
They present themselves politically as speaking for all homeschoolers.
When I got their information packet it did not say anything about never get
involved in custody cases where homeschooling was the justification for
removing custody.
In addition Christian is nowhere in their name. People who do not read
their literature have no way of knowing they are a Christian Homeschooling
Legal defense association. In fact they support a narrow branch of
Christianity.
I did not join the HSLDA because they requires a structured curriculum and
I'm an unschooler. As I became more educated I realized I was completely
protected by the law here and there was no need for them.
--
Liz,
Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:7stphg$pvh$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> They are very open about it. This has been talked about in very public
> circles by HSLDA for some time now. Just because you were not aware of it
> is not a reflection of HSLDA violating any trust. And they do not have a
> public trust. They only owe accountability to their dues payers. And
> beyond that, they only have an obligation to function within their
charter.
> I'm not sure that what they are doing with PHC violates their charter.
>
> -Mike-
> mike....@usa.net
>
>
> Liz <nospamd...@bmi.net> wrote in message
> news:rv45rr...@corp.supernews.com...
> > The HSLDA has a public trust to spend the dues on defending
> homeschooling
> > families not on evangelism. If they were open about where the money was
> > going I'd be fine with it. I spend thousands every year on missionary
> > activities but I do it for open missionary causes. This is an issue of
> > integrity.
> >
Dorothy Sacks
Anthony Angelucci wrote in message <37F1FFBF...@mediaone.net>...
>One college in this country trying to teach from a Christian perspective
hardly
>tilts the balance when 99% of them teach from a Godless, politically
correct,
>anti-Christian point of view.
Goodness, I had no idea that the private colleges (many of the Catholic)
were so anti-Christian. Of course, colleges, unless you are planning to be
a scholar of theology or philosophy don't often mention God and religion
at all. Never heard any of that in my math classes nor in my history,
science
or language classes. I really wonder why.
> I had a college professor get up before the
>nursing class and tell them that any one who believes in God and
Creationism
>will never get anywhere in this world because that ignorant belief will
hold
>them back. Have you ever looked into who is funding those colleges?
>
One professor's opinion does not tar the entire college he teaches at much
less all secular colleges. When will people learn to stop generalizing so
broadly anyway?
>A new homeschooling Mom
>
Do you think that an organization designed to defend homeschooling ought
to be funding this sort of college? After all homeschoolers are not all
Christians
either, you know.
Dorothy
Jeff Wilcox
In article <rv45rr...@corp.supernews.com>, "Liz" <nospamd...@bmi.net> writes:
> The HSLDA has a public trust to spend the dues on defending homeschooling
>families not on evangelism. If they were open about where the money was
>going I'd be fine with it. I spend thousands every year on missionary
>activities but I do it for open missionary causes. This is an issue of
>integrity.
>
>--
>Liz,
No, this is an issue of poor reporting on the part of the Washington Post
followed by poor assumptions viz their accuracy. Although I'm not sure you'd
accept HSLDA's statements regarding the matter as trustworthy. So maybe it's
a matter of who do you trust more (or less) : the Post, or HSLDA?
God bless,
Jeff
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't have to turn our brains off to appreciate the glory and miracles of
God's universe, from the smallest subatomic particles to the greatest galaxies.
Questioning what you hear doesn't mean you lack faith or don't love God; it
just means you want to know the truth - Peter B. Steiger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob LeChevalier
so long as they do not break the laws that give them tax-exempt status.
The oversight comes from the people (I want to say idiots) who contribute
to provide organizations without demanding accountability. However in the
case of th HSLDA, I suspect that most of said id-people WANT what Herr
Leader wants.
lojbab
"watwinc" <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Liz <nospamd...@bmi.net> wrote in message
>news:rv205g...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Is there no oversight in the HSLDA that they can spend money that way?
>
>That has to be the question, doesn't it?
>
>> --
>> Liz,
>> > >
>> > I'm wandering across the minefield of somebody else's debate, but we all
>> are
>> > in this thread to some degree. I worry about private schools when
>somebody
>> > like Michael Farris appears in northern Virginia and declares in a
>> > Washington Post interview that he's building a cadre college for
>religious
>> > rightists to establish themselves in positions of power and influence.
>To
>> do
>> > this, Farris says he's using $5 million from the HSLDA - which we nearly
>> > joined before we spotted the religious overemphasis. If we had done, I'd
>> be
>> > very unhappy about that money going to the Founder's pet project. And a
>> > private college headed by anybody who was a founder member of the
>> Coalition
>> > on Revival and a Pat Robertson campaign manager is very bad news,
>> especially
>> > when it's in my neck of the woods.
----
lojbab ***NOTE NEW ADDRESS*** loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
see Lojban WWW Server: href=" http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/ "
Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.
Hamlet!
Liz <nospamd...@bmi.net> wrote in message news:rv5m3g...@corp.supernews.com...
> Mike,
>
> They present themselves politically as speaking for all homeschoolers.
> When I got their information packet it did not say anything about never get
> involved in custody cases where homeschooling was the justification for
> removing custody.
>
> In addition Christian is nowhere in their name. People who do not read
> their literature have no way of knowing they are a Christian Homeschooling
> Legal defense association. In fact they support a narrow branch of
> Christianity.
>
> I did not join the HSLDA because they requires a structured curriculum and
> I'm an unschooler. As I became more educated I realized I was completely
> protected by the law here and there was no need for them.
>
> --
> Liz,
I agree and for the very same reasons......I don't regard scare tactics
as a measure of worth from them any more than I enjoy it from the
local school district....being informed is the best possible resource...
know the laws of your state and comply....or seek to have the laws
changed.....as Ed Dickerson has always proposed....I also unschool.....
so to join would be a waste of money.........
it's all those things that DON'T make it to the papers you need to worry
about.....and there are plenty so I've read from other sources........
I know of "umbrella" schools that insist that you join the HSDLA or you
can't join their group......so we are independent.........:c)
...........................Hamlet!
> Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:7stphg$pvh$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > They are very open about it. This has been talked about in very public
> > circles by HSLDA for some time now. Just because you were not aware of it
> > is not a reflection of HSLDA violating any trust. And they do not have a
> > public trust. They only owe accountability to their dues payers. And
> > beyond that, they only have an obligation to function within their
> charter.
> > I'm not sure that what they are doing with PHC violates their charter.
> >
> > -Mike-
> > mike....@usa.net
> >
> >
> > Liz <nospamd...@bmi.net> wrote in message
> > news:rv45rr...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > The HSLDA has a public trust to spend the dues on defending
> > homeschooling
> > > families not on evangelism. If they were open about where the money was
> > > going I'd be fine with it. I spend thousands every year on missionary
> > > activities but I do it for open missionary causes. This is an issue of
> > > integrity.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Liz,
> > > Anthony Angelucci <m...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:37F1FFBF...@mediaone.net...
> > > > One college in this country trying to teach from a Christian
> perspective
> > > hardly
> > > > tilts the balance when 99% of them teach from a Godless, politically
> > > correct,
> > > > anti-Christian point of view. I had a college professor get up before
> > the
> > > > nursing class and tell them that any one who believes in God and
> > > Creationism
> > > > will never get anywhere in this world because that ignorant belief
> will
> > > hold
> > > > them back. Have you ever looked into who is funding those colleges?
> > > >
> > > > A new homeschooling Mom
> > > >
> > > > Liz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is there no oversight in the HSLDA that they can spend money that
> > way?
> > > > >
watwinc
> watwinc wrote:
>
> > As a homeschooler
> > I still find it infuriating that the highest profile HS organisation is
> > getting into bed (and paying for it, too) with a religious extremist
cadre
> > training centre.
>
> you come to the conclusion that PHC will be "a
> religious extremist cadre training centre." <asked
> with genuine puzzlement>
>
> MaG
>
As he [Farris] imagines it, the secluded campus will act as a training
ground for the future Christian vanguard. Just as the Highlander Folk School
turned out civil rights activists like rosa Parks in the 1960s, Patrick
Henry will prepare the next generation of young Christian agitators.
Pamphlets lay out the school's mission bluntly: All the students will be
government majors, triving to "transform America" by finding high-level
staff positions in overnment as a preparation to run for office. "PHC
graduates," one brochure boasts, "will eventually hold some of the highest
offices in the land".
Would you describe Farris as a religious moderate, perhaps?
watwinc
> But don't you see - you shouldn't be so upset. HSLDA is by their own
> admission one of those "religious extremist" organizations. There's
really
> no inconsistency here at all. HSLDA may be the highest profile HS
> organization out there, but does that mean that they should live up to
your
> preference or mine, for their activities, or should they not be free to
> exercise their corporate freedom to build and support whatever they wish.
> You do still have the right to dislike them for what they do, but you are
> wrong to presume upon the organization a profile that you wish to see of
> them, when that is not what they are all about. This has a ring of
spoiled
> child to it. Not directed at you personally, as an insult, but in the
> manner of "I want it my way, just because that's what I want". Heck -
they
> are what they are, and they are very open about what they are. You
> certainly have every right to dislike HSLDA for what it is, but to presume
> upon them what they should be, just to satisfy you is wrong...unless you
can
> get elected to the Board of Directors....
>
> -Mike-
Yes <sob>, you're right - I've been a fool, a silly little fool. They're not
the helpful people I was told, it was all a front, a pose to lure me in.
They only wanted me <sob> for my money. I suppose I should be grateful, and
perhaps some day I will be. But now, I just - need to be alone.
> mike....@usa.net
>
>
> watwinc <wat...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:O1V1pUsC$GA.161@cpmsnbbsa02...
> > Mike Marlow <mike....@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:7stphg$pvh$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > They are very open about it. This has been talked about in very
public
> > > circles by HSLDA for some time now. Just because you were not aware
of
> it
> > > is not a reflection of HSLDA violating any trust. And they do not
have
> a
> > > public trust. They only owe accountability to their dues payers. And
> > > beyond that, they only have an obligation to function within their
> > charter.
> > > I'm not sure that what they are doing with PHC violates their charter.
> >
> > I'd be very surprised if it did, as Farris is a lawyer (which didn't
stop
> > him getting caught on the fringes of that antitrust case). As a
> homeschooler
> > I still find it infuriating that the highest profile HS organisation is
> > getting into bed (and paying for it, too) with a religious extremist
cadre
> > training centre.
> >
Some member of the Douglas Family
> doug...@innova.net wrote...
> >
> > Can you please explain what you read that made
> > you come to the conclusion that PHC will be "a
> > religious extremist cadre training centre." <asked
> > with genuine puzzlement>
> >
> A quote from the article (which the HSLDA response did not object to):
> <snipped quote>
You mean the same article that has already been
proven to contain factual errors?
It would seem that just as one wouldn't look at
an historical work that contained factual errors
and an extremely biased position as a good
source of information, one also wouldn't look
at a modern work that contained factual errors
and an extremely biased position as a good
source of information.
> Would you describe Farris as a religious moderate, perhaps?
I don't know what you mean by religious
moderate, so I couldn't use that term to describe
anyone. Also, I try not to label anyone or
catagorize people based on a few things I
happen to know, or think I know about them.
That tends to discourage a free exchange of
ideas.
MaG