U.S. Constitution Translated for Kids (Dumbing down youth?)

http://npr.org ^ | 8-14-03 | OXENinFLA

[OXENinFLA]

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1395232

http://www.bookloons.com/Database/Teens_Review_of_Constitution_Translated_for_Kids_by_Travis.html

While listening to NPR this morning (yeah yeah, I listen to NPR sometimes, easy way to get the blood flowing in the morning.) and they had an interview w/ a Cathy Travis who has just published a new book for kids about the U.S. Constitution.

The book is (supposedly) a translation for younger minds written to help kids understand the strange and foreign language of our U.S. Constitution.

I figured this is a great topic to bring up here on FR.

My first reaction was: Why are we not teaching kids the proper meaning and proper usage of English language and grammar?

Instead this, Capitol Hill staffer, Mrs. Travis gives us "a 20th-century interpretation of an 18th-century manuscript: the U.S. Constitution."

I'll link the NPR audio once available.

[Drango]

nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

NPR is punishment enough...

[eyespysomething]

I have no problem with this. It would be a great learning tool to help children learn not only the Constitution and what it means, but also the meanings of some of the words in the Constitution. As long as they know the difference between the translation and the actual Constitution.

If it helps them to learn the Constitution - GOOD!

[Kenton]

Be interesting to see how they explain the Second Amendment.

[OXENinFLA]

I'll most likely buy the book, it does look like it would be a good teaching tool. I like the part about having both the original text and the translation on opposite pages.

I'll post any other snipits if I come across them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I wonder how badly they distorted the 2nd Amendment and the part of the First that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercize thereof"

[knarf]

"My first reaction was: Why are we not teaching kids the proper meaning and proper usage of English language and grammar?"

Probably because we are not teaching our kids. We've left it up to the NEA.

We, BTW, are homeschoolers and it is my opinion that the government schools are on their way out.

What frightens me is that if there is ever another 'revolution' in this country, it will be between those proponents of home school and the governmenters.

America is too cival and PC for any political revolution, but the war against stupidity is on-going and escalating.

The dumbing down of America is not merely a catchy phrase ... it is the socialists battle-cry and war plan and many people are becoming aware of it.

In this morning's local paper is an article about a mother, with three weeks remaining before school starts, trying to get her children into another school because it was recently (timing by the NEA?) reported that the school in her district was failing local and federal 'Leaver No Child Behind' parameters.

What she found was that she could indeed send her children to another school but it would be out of her district and the school would have to come up with a way to pay for transportation and, of course, that hasn't happened yet.

Time keeps on ticking, ticking, ticking ....

[BMiles2112]

Though I agree that this version, as far as I can tell, could be a valuable teaching tool for children about what is written in our Constitution, it could just as easily be translated and sold as truth by someone with an agenda who would like to redefine what is written. The second amendment would be the first to be redefined, likely as some right given to the states, not the individual. This could be harmful.

[Sender]

Be interesting to see how they explain the Second Amendment.

I was thinking the same thing. Probably something like:

'Some people have interpreted this to mean an individual right to bear arms, while the courts have generally not agreed with this theory.' Either that or they'll avoid it like stink.

[Tax-chick]

I didn't find the "translation" in the article any more understandable than the original text - it just used more words. My kids can understand the Bible (RSV), and have the sense to ask questions if they're confused. Same with the Constitution.

[bc2]

if there is a 2nd Revolution, it won't be just between homeschoolers and the govt, there will be a lot of other people involved as well.

[BMiles2112]

That's the second thing I didn't mention. The Constitution is not written in a foreign language. The dialect differs from today's, but it is written in proper English. If they need a translation, give them a dictionary.

[PaulJ]

Be interesting to see how they explain the Second Amendment.

Easy. They'll do it the way all liberals do it; they'll say "Militia" means the army, hence it is only the army that has a constitutional right to bear arms.

[knarf]

" ... there will be a lot of other people involved as well."

We would expect that.

[OXENinFLA]

That was my thoughts too.

I remembered back to Warrior's speech the other week and recalled him saying something very poignant. "The Constitution was not written to be understood by only the few, but rather it was written in a way so every common person could read and understand it",or something close to that.

I don't think the Founding Fathers thought the Constition would need any further translation.

[PaulJ]

it does look like it would be a good teaching tool.

If they don't "translate" it with a far left bias, which I find hard to believe they won't.
If they can convince grade schoolers that the 2nd amendment is only for the military and freedom to exrcise one's religion means seperation of church & state and the tenth amendment doesn't really count, than they will have won the battle for the minds of the next generation.

[Tired of Taxes]

Our children have a book called "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about American History" (or something like that). I picked it up at the bookstore after reviewing it all-too-briefly. It is a book approved by NY public school teachers, and I had to actually cross out a few lines, like the one about the colonists vs. the natives which read: "They used guns to take whatever they wanted. They thought they had the right to do this." Not only was the writing awkward, but it was a sweeping negative generalization about a large group of people.

Also the book has a "translation" of the Constitution, except that the original text isn't shown at all - just the translation. But, believe it or not, for the Second Amendment, the translation says something like: "People have the right to defend themselves using guns." Again, written clumsily, but surprising (though the translation still doesn't capture the full intent of that Amendment).

[Graybeard58]

"yeah yeah, I listen to NPR sometimes"

I do too...but just for the classical music.
I guess we have both "outed" ourselves now.

[ClearCase_guy]

I believe I recently saw this book (unless there are two such efforts being published now). I immediately turned to the 2nd Amendment and I was pleased with what I saw. It basically said that people in America could own guns, because self-defense is an important American value (or something along those lines).