The Southern Baptist Convention is Finally 'Throwing in the Towel' on Government Schools

Exodus Mandate via Christian Newswire ^ | June 2, 2009 | Exodus Mandate

[Col Freeper]

But then again, the old boy may have had a point.

Oh, I've read that quote before. But my comment had to do, not with Dr. James Robertson, professor of the course, a Randolph-Macon alumnus (and proud of it).

Rather, my post was to the individual who decided it was "cute" enough to post on a thread about the serious issue of Baptists coming to grips with the problems in Government schools.

I'm left wondering what your point in posting it was, relative to the context of the thread.

I'll call a halt to this exchange now, and leave you with the opportunity to say/think "It was just a joke, doesn't he have a sense of humor?"

Hope you have a good evening.

[MARTIAL MONK]

Actually, I ran across that quote a few days ago and thought it was a good retort regardless of the denominations involved. Where better to post it than on a thread discussing Baptists and education? The quotation is two centuries old, it should draw a snicker from any but the most dour of Baptists.

I found the quote while looking at literacy and education levels in the South. That was part of an ongoing discussion of the future of the Republican Party. I was tracking down a racial breakdown of education levels, looking at the educational attainment of the white population. I hadn't considered a religious component to the argument but I guess that the predominant religions would parallel the population. The numbers for the general population aren't pretty.

The South is a tar baby we don't need. They have always been Democrats and they always will be. Since Nixon's Southern Strategy in '72 they have been determinative in three elections. One went to Carter and two went to Bush II. Otherwise, if the south had swung 100% for us or 100% against us it would not have affected the outcome. It is not worth the candle, especially if it alienates our base.

[polymuser]

And to think that the earliest government schools were founded in very large part so kids could read the bible and get a Christian education.

[achilles2000]

“And to think that the earliest government schools were founded in very large part so kids could read the bible and get a Christian education.”

I partly agree. While Mann and the Quisling orthodox Protestants such as Heman Humphrey (then President of Amherst College)sold the “common schools” as essentially Protestant schools, the underlying motives were different. In the case of Mann and the Unitarians, the purpose was to use the school system to establish, de facto, Unitarianism as the national religion. The orthodox quislings, on the other hand, wanted a compulsory system of Protestant “common schools” as a tool for forcibly “Protestantizing” the Catholic children of Irish immigrants. That is what eventually gave rise to the Catholic school system.

BTW, if you ever hear of a school bond issue anywhere, please let Paul (”The-Bond-Slayer”) Dorr know: Paul Dorr - Copperhead Consulting Services P.O. Box 188 Ocheyedan , IA 51354 Ph 712-758-3660 Fx 712-758-3475 ccs@iowatelecom.net ...

[polymuser]

The ‘earliest’ referred to New England Puritans, who believed local government should teach all children to read the Bible to defeat Satan.

Regardless, early American students were taught from the New England Primer, McGuffey Readers, and The Holy Bible - all very Christian resources. The Bible was routinely used in the public schools at the birth of the nation, and was not an issue in public schools until the mid-1900’s (when the leftist social indoctrination began in earnest).

I think if school vouchers happened, we’d see heavy equipment at most churches, groundbreaking for school wings.

[achilles2000]

The “local government” of the Puritans was effectively the church. Only full members of the church, who were selected by the pastors (think of them as being more like today’s “elders”), could vote. This is part of the reason why the Bay Colony was referred to as the “Bible Commonwealth”. This arrangement continued until towards the end of the reign of Charles II, who revoked the MBC charter.

The current public school system is really a creation of the 1830’s-40’s that was exported from MA.

Churches can offer an effective educational alternative to government schools now using existing technology for under $500 a year/student instructional cost. They already have a lot of space that is wasted currently that could be used for this purpose. There are lots of retired people who could keep the children safe and on task as a ministry. We don’t need more “schools” we need more education.

There will be no voucher, or, better, tax credit, solution in the foreseeable future. We need to act now to save what we can of our culture.

[achilles2000]

“haven’t they been throwing in the towel on government schools for the last ten years?”

Nope. The leadership had been resisting. That is starting to change. A shift of another 20% to 30% of children out of the government schools in an area would pretty much bring the system there down. We will see what happens.

[achilles2000]

I agree, and that means depriving schools of bond money and, especially, as many little “revenue units” as possible.

[Paige]

They need to be privatized and remove the Unions.

[TheFourthMagi]

Southern Baptists should have been building their own school system years ago, as Roman Catholics and Mo. Synod Lutherans did.

It should happen now.

[TheFourthMagi]

There should be refundable tax credits for parents sending their kids to private schools.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

John Randolph, otherwise known as Randolph of Roanoke, was known for being eccentric and for having many powerful enemies, including Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson. He started politics as leader of Jefferson’s Republicans in the House. Speaking of another leading Congressman, Edward Livingstone, he said ‘He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. Like rotten mackerel by moonlight, he shines and stinks.’. He fell out with Jefferson because of the Louisiana Purchase and the political corruption concerning the Yazoo territory in the south. He was considered a founder of southern conservative political thinking and Russell Kirk wrote a political biography. A strange man and a brave one.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Why would one expect a “Christian” education from a secular institution?

Because in the past they provided a religious education, at least of a sort. In New York State up until the 1960's they had an official state prayer that was recited every day. They the USSC got into the act and we have the social morass in this country that we now have. By the way, in a different aspect of school governance, only property owners voted on school board elections or bond issues, and could vote in every district where they owned property.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I do wonder how the founding fathers managed, most being self taught.

I wonder where you got such a mistaken idea. Even Hamilton, a bast**d immigrant, went to Princeton.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The South is a tar baby we don't need. They have always been Democrats and they always will be. . .. It is not worth the candle, especially if it alienates our base.

Since New England, the Middle Atlantic States, the West Coast, the Upper Midwest, and increasing areas of the interior West and the lower midwest vote Democratic, I am intrigued if you can tell me where are base is?

[MARTIAL MONK]

This is roughly what the Democratic base looks like. Prior to Obama every successful Democratic campaign started with the South. The Republican base is the upper Midwest, the Rocky Mountain States and the Inland West. It is give and take from there.

The South gave us Jimmy Carter. In 1980 Reagan's weakest region was.....the South. New York, Connecticut and New Jersey went for Reagan by far greater margins than did Alabama, Mississippi or South Carolina. We are not going to reverse the colors on that map and whine and moan as the world closes in on us.

If we can reach an accomodation with the South or ally with them it is to both our advantages but they ain't us and we ain't them. We do have a common enemy. The South will bolt back Democratic at the drop of a hat and they will do it en masse. It's in the blood.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The Republican base is the upper Midwest, the Rocky Mountain States and the Inland West.

The Upper midwest is Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, which have not voted GOP in non landslide years in decades. You may be thinking of the northern Plains states: The Dakotas, Iowa, and Nebraska, which is more correct, but only totals less than 20 electoral votes. The Inland West and the Rocky Mountain states are two ways of describing the same place, and the only parts of that are still solidly Republican are Wyoming, Utah and Arizona, with the rest of the area as tossups. This adds less than 20 electoral votes to the GOP base, for a total of less than 40 out of 537 electoral votes, if I thought that was true I would emigrate right now. Meantime you say that a part of the country that always votes preponderately Republican, and has done so in nearly every election for the past 60 years and has one third of the country's population is somehow NOT part of the base because it was the home region of ONE Democrat candidate THIRTY YEARS ago!! LOL!

[MARTIAL MONK]

1952 Solid Stevenson

1956 Solid Stevenson

1960 Elected Kennedy

1964 Goldwater (To his embarrassment)

1968 Goober 5, Nixon 5, Humphrey 1

1972 Voted against McGovern

1976 Carter

1980 Narrowly Reagan

1984 Solid Reagan (along with the rest of the counrty)

1988 Voted against Dukakis

1992 Split for the Democrat

1996 Split for the Democrat

2000 Solid R

2004 Solid R

2008 Split

We're better off without them

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The simple fact is that in 2009, the Republican Party is nearly a 100% Southern Party.

[MARTIAL MONK]

No it isn't. Name one credible Presidential candidate from the South. You have the PREACHERMAN! If we get stuck in the South we lose credibility with the whole country. Like I said, we can ally with them but we cannot become them. We would be better off without them.