Posted on 01/15/2014 4:20:15 AM PST by markomalley
While proponents of the Common Core claim that the new standards are focused on “college and career readiness,” more evidence is surfacing that a central purpose of the initiative is social justice and income redistribution indoctrination.
Social justice indoctrination in Common Core is not just limited to language arts.
Radical Math is a group founded by Jonathan Osler who teaches math and community organizing at a Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) high school in Brooklyn, New York. Its website states Radical Math is "a resource for educators interested in integrating issues of social and economic justice into their math classes and curriculum.”
The CES reform movement, whose purpose is to indoctrinate students with a Marxist-Communist political and social ideology, had been supported and expanded through the efforts of President Obama and his fellow community organizer Bill Ayers when both worked on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the 1990s.
As Danette Clark wrote at EAG News, Common Core “architect” David Coleman’s Grow Network also worked with Chicago Public Schools, Obama, and Ayers during that time. In addition, Linda Darling-Hammond, who served as an advisor for the Bay Area CES, served as Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign education advisor and has more recently been involved in the development of the Common Core assessments.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The funny part is that my differential equations prof was an exchange mathematician from the USSR...and he wanted no part of the above commie.
Interesting. Too bad the DE prof didn’t lecture the other guy.
Marxist Calculus?
I suppose that it’s not fair that not all quantities are equal. Perhaps someday 1 will be equal to 0. We can make it happen if we really try.
Then there are those pesky problems when deltas become small....
The concept is one that is begging to be hijacked by opportunists. One size fits all isn’t the wisest thing in the world. No child left behind ends up leaving more children behind than laissez-faire did. The answer would be better given in the form of spot tutoring in trouble areas, rather than wasting money on mismanaged schools.
A more robust faith needs to return to America if we want to see more robust blessings.
Socialism has every good intention in the world, except that it’s trying to BE God. If it were mistakenly trying to SERVE God, many of its evils would end up being ameliorated in practice. But when it gets into explicit loggerheads with God, its evils are starkly prominent.
VERY insidious
I don't agree. Socialism, even so-called Christian Socialism, is pure evil.
As Pope Leo XIII said,
15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.
—Encyclical Rerum Novarum, 1891
Community of goods is just great as a “voluntary” system. This illustrious pope is not going to take on the bible is he?
Besides this is apples vs. oranges. Community of prevalent education is what is being spoken of here.
But anyhow we need to speak of concrete examples even here. There isn’t any such thing as pure evil. There is only abused goodness.
Operative word: voluntary.
Voluntary association and community of goods is the way that religious orders have operated since the time of the desert fathers in the 3rd century AD (long before the Edict of Milan). (And, as you allude, how the early Jerusalem Christians acted in Acts 4)
And that’s why I say that we have to bring up concrete examples.
This discussion at hand was about educational thrusts.
I agree: it’s evil. The problem is that Rome drifted away from that stance decades ago.
From “The Economic Crisis and the Papal Economic Offensive” by former priest Richard Bennett and Ronald Cooper:
“Most people recognize the financial crisis in the Western world. What is not acknowledged, however, is the Papal agenda that has worsened the situation; for example, the Vatican social teaching that denies the biblical meaning of private property. Accordingly, Pope John Paul II stated, “Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage,’ which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.” Benedict XVI wholly sanctions this principle of the universal ownership of all goods as he demonstrated the same policy in the writings of popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, and Paul VI. Another Vatican Council II document upholds the same principle of the “universal ownership of all goods” and emphatically teaches, “If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.” The best evaluation of such policy is an overview of basic biblical economic principles.”
Pope Leo XIII’s opinion on socialism was proven many, many times over by real world, government attempts to impose equality and fairness. Have we forgotten how socialism resulted in far less wealth for everyone except party insiders? Have we forgotten the long lines at Soviet shops for a chance at a bit of meat at state mandated prices, because all incentives to produce that meat had been removed?
This is exactly what is coming for Europe and the United States. The more power we give government to act as a fairness arbiter, the more of us will be impoverished. The more we allow government to control health care, the poorer quality care we’ll all receive (unless we’re connected to the centers of political power of course).
Socialism is a pernicious ideology based on greed and envy. No good can possibly come from an ideology that relies on the basest, negative human emotions. It’s a poison that will definitely kill the host, this host—the USA, if taken in too large a quantity. Again, it’s not like this is mere opinion. It’s backed up by history!
Socialism has to pretend to have every good intention in the world. How else are they going to buy all that hippie manpower for a bottle cap and a paperclip? It’s all recruiting propaganda. In the end, the only real purpose of socialism is to create a new brand of aristocracy.
...”Socialism has every good intention in the world, except that it’s trying to BE God. If it were mistakenly trying to SERVE God, many of its evils would end up being ameliorated in practice. But when it gets into explicit loggerheads with God, its evils are starkly prominent”...
I agree with your description of socialism except for the “every good intention,” part. I do not believe that socialists have good intentions. I see them as lusting to take away the freedom of the masses and to steal everything for themselves. They believe everyone else should exist to serve them and those who are inconvenient or not cooperative will ultimately be killed. This happens when the attractive socialism turns to communism which it always does. The real God will take action at some point but usually not until unbelievable human suffering has taken place. I personally believe that Hell does exist for the Godless socialists among us. Justice will come in the hereafter.
That's the problem when you learn about Catholic doctrine from anti-Catholic sites rather than from studying actual Catholic doctrine.
The principle of the Universal Destination of Goods has nothing to do with socialism. It is a recognition that God created the world in order to sustain man (all of man) and that no rule of man can properly prohibit man from using the gift of God's creation for his sustenance. Reference Genesis 1:26-30:
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
Also reference (indirectly) Matthew 5:45
That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
As John Paul II (one of the popes decried by your quote) stated:
The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:28). God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth's goods. The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God's first gift for the sustenance of human life. But the earth does not yield its fruits without a particular human response to God's gift, that is to say, without work. It is through work that man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the earth and making it a fitting home. In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property. Obviously, he also has the responsibility not to hinder others from having their own part of God's gift; indeed, he must cooperate with others so that together all can dominate the earth.
In history, these two factors — work and the land — are to be found at the beginning of every human society. However, they do not always stand in the same relationship to each other. At one time the natural fruitfulness of the earth appeared to be, and was in fact, the primary factor of wealth, while work was, as it were, the help and support for this fruitfulness. In our time, the role of human work is becoming increasingly important as the productive factor both of non-material and of material wealth. Moreover, it is becoming clearer how a person's work is naturally interrelated with the work of others. More than ever, work is work with others and work for others: it is a matter of doing something for someone else. Work becomes ever more fruitful and productive to the extent that people become more knowledgeable of the productive potentialities of the earth and more profoundly cognisant of the needs of those for whom their work is done.
Encyclical Centesimus Annus (31), 1991
Bottom line, if you support the principle of the "Universal Destination of Goods" you support the ability of every person to acquire (not "be given" but "acquire") the goods needed to support himself and his family.
If you oppose the principle of the "Universal Destination of Goods", you are, in effect, saying that there are some who have no right to possess any property. (In other words, there are some people, despite how hard they work, should never be able to earn money, should not be able to purchase land, etc.)
Those who fulminate at suboptimal methodologies and condemn those who use them to hell, quite miss the point of heaven, hell, and earth.
Communism isn’t the devil. It’s a symptom, not the disease.
Get people believing in God and they won’t WANT communism. They will quickly identify it as a blessing squelcher.
Besides I really ought to say “every good intention” with tongue in cheek. It’s trying to do things that would be good if done towards God, and do them towards people. Won’t fly, never has, never will.
But it’s only a change of belief away from things that ARE godly.
Whatever. For every quote you find I can find an opposing quote. Your popes and your church has been pushing socialism for decades. Perhaps you believe what you want to believe.
By the way, Richard Benett was an Irish priest for decades, a Dominican I believe. His family remains Catholic. He isn’t anti-Catholic at all. He ministers to Catholics. When somene finds the Truth they want to share it with the people they love most.
“Waaah, Protestants told you so” isn’t much of an answer if it’s true. Granted, we need to put it in context. Partisans in Protestant and Catholic camps are both guilty of cherry picking.
In being what they view as fulfilling the church role as “pillar and foundation of truth” they actually elbow God aside, figuring that once they have what looks like a pillar and foundation, it actually is.
I assert that earthly churches do this imperfectly. The Roman Catholic stance is that the Roman Catholic church does it perfectly and ought to be listened to as the head authority by any Christian anywhere.
Ceding imperfection ironically allows for a better approach to perfection. You got to admit you have a problem before you can fix it!
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.