Posted on 02/07/2005 3:46:06 AM PST by DaveTesla
The Humanist Mission of Our Schools.
I think the most important factor leading us to a
secular society has been the educational factor. Our
schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the
fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to
lead toward the elimination of religious superstition.
The average child now acquires a high school education,
and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other
myths of alleged history.
Humanist writer Paul Blanshard.
Extending State Control.
Humanists know that the future of our country rests
with our children. Therefore, in order to control the
future of our country, they must control the minds of
our children. And the easiest way to control our
children is to control the schools.
Radical left-wing writers, including Alexander Cockburn
and James Ridgeway, incessantly rail against
parental "interference" in schools, because, as they
openly acknowledge, "The Left can't survive politically
without a public school system to spread leftist
attitudes."[3]
The New Curriculum.
The future of any nation lies with its youth. So
corrupt them; since religion teaches moral virtue,
erode the churches and divert the young from religion.
Make them interested only in themselves. Get them
involved in drugs, alcohol, and sex. Get them addicted
to privileges and rights.
Vladimir Lenin's "Rule for Revolution" #1.
"Reading, writing and arithmetic" no longer figure
prominently in today's exotic public school curricula.
Children who attend public school will be compelled to
learn the following;
• that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable
alternative lifestyle;
.....SNIP......
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.
(Excerpt) Read more at prolife.ath.cx:8000 ...
Would you have me believe that if the message isn't explicit, it doesn't exist? Worldview is always conveyed from teacher to student. It has less to do with what's explicitly in the content than it does with what content is chosen, and how it is framed.
Even the format of modern public schools was/is deliberately chosen to promote an agenda. An original source for much of this thinking was John Dewey, for whom the Dewey Decimal System is named. Mr. Dewey felt that the purpose of public schools was to fit children to be the good socialists of the future. Hence the one-hour single-subject classes, punctuated by bells...that format exists to condition children to changing task and venue at the signal. It's an important trait to managing a blue-collar workforce.
Also, modern public schools emphasize rote learning over critical thinking. Classes are taught in a compartmentalized way, and the student's task is to master the information and regurgitate it on demand...no analysis is required or even desired. This too fosters a manageable workforce.
That book is about a Christian education. Having said that I looked at the classes offered as a "classical education" and my kids were exposed to all of them with perhaps the excepetion of of Bible study which I don't think is a public school teachers job anyway.
This is not to say that references and education about the Bible were not to be had just because it was a public school.
You're not paying attention, Alec. I told you you'd find the information you seek in that book, and you will, if you read it. Read Gatti, too, as directed elsewhere in this thread. You may agree or disagree with both authors, but the case against modern public education will have been clearly made.
Good question. From recent press, one would have to say "self-esteem" and sensitivity toward sexual deviants.
I'm involved in an effort to split our huge, awful school district.
If we are successful, then I may run for school board in the new district.
...Good question. From recent press, one would have to say "self-esteem" and sensitivity toward sexual deviants...
Public school is the nighmare we have put behind us. Good
riddance.
Here in NC we do annual CAT testing (California Achievement Test), and we belong to a local homeschool support group. I haven't heard of any of the kids of the group members having any problem with meeting the CAT standards. Frankly, most of the local public schools would have their hands full keeping up with the group's kids.
Our kids are not getting a partial education - they are getting a very rounded, excellent education, and at 4 and 8-years-old, they are grades ahead of their peers.
And in homeschooling, to summarize John Taylor Gotto, our kids are not indoctrinated from influential groups with complex social agenda aimed at their lives. In homeschooling, we have the best of two very important issues:
Food for thought...
I wouldn't say that.
Sometimes the good Lord has a different plan for you.
I know. My daughter got sick at 6 weeks old and had severe brain damage.
She needs public education because she needs special education services. There is no way that I can handle her educational needs. I am not at all qualified.
Well, I didn't ask you to. We all pays our money and takes our chances, as they say.
"When your kids do confront a homosexual what will their response be?
Within the context of schools: At what age should kids confront a homosexual?"
Answering a question with a question does not answer the question.
But to answer your question. The subject should be framed in a broader context and age appropriate.
Although it's darn hard to "preach" one thing in the home.....but be bombarded by something altogether different almost everywhere else.
You just hope and pray that you have "poured a good foundation"...and it withstands the wind, and the rain.
FRegards,
"I assume you mean to say that a different group, non-religious Jews for example are the victims of school bullys."
No I mean Jews who are non believers...don't believe Christ was the Savior, Lord etc..
As to the bullying, perhaps if more Germans were "tolerant" of and better understood the Jewish faith, Hitler would have been expelled instead of the Holocaust?
"You're not paying attention, Alec."
And I beg to differ. You can't answer the question.
Yes, worldview can and often is conveyed. If you look at a "classical education" espoused in the book you cite, it takes a world view.....unless of course you think art, philosophy, religion, leterature is confined to only the US.
I was asking for more information in regards to your question about children, homosexuality and schools. Since you didn't mention age in post 58, it would appear from post 76 that you have an appropriate age range for the subject of homosexuality at school. What is that age?
Yes, indeed. And parents have control over access to all of these media sources as long as the children are small.
We need only to look in the mirror for the solution.
Preach it, brother!
The most insidious lesson taught by the public school system is inculcated by its very existence, and that is this: That education is the responsibility of the state. It's not; that's a lie. Education of children is solely the responsibility of the parent or guardian. They can farm out the job to teachers of one kind or another, but they themselves are responsible to see that education happens, and that it is of the right kind.
You go girl.
Not sure where you're from, but it would be interesting to see if NY City and or DC could be split into different school districts and see if the resulting school districts could fair better than the horrible results they have now?
Perhaps you are correct, but it still is not the responsibility of the schools to teach the social agenda of the land. (Of course Hitler and the left use the schools of today to their ends, but it does not make it a good idea.)
BTW, even if the schools taught patriotism and conservative values I would disagree that that is what we want from the schools. I would like the schools to teach a history that is fair, and could teach comparative religions in a course designed for this, but teaching that homosexuality is a reasonable way of life for those who prefer it and we should be happy for them is not a lesson that should be taught in any class or school assembly.
I don't like it when taught at work or school. I simply resent the government telling us how we should think. I do not mind the many religions telling us how to think, thats where this stuff belongs.
You're asserting more than you know, Alec. I can, in fact, answer the question, but I'd have to write a book to do so. I'm not going to go to the trouble to do that for the sake of a single skeptical reader, particularly when the book has already been written several times over.
It's more accurate to say that I won't answer the question. The result (taking a chance on convincing you) isn't worth the effort I'd have to expend. If that makes you feel as though you've somehow won a point or even the whole debate, why, that's fine with me. Enjoy your triumph.
here is another post on this subject, for your interest:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1337131/posts
Of course it takes my side, in the debate.
Sorry I meant to ping you with post 99.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.