Posted on 03/12/2010 11:19:03 AM PST by Jim Robinson
I expect that our Founding Fathers, if they could see the abomination of government schooling today, would have included complete separation of **school** and state in the First Amendment to the Constitution and in their state constitutions as well.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence for crying out loud.
Well, yes, and that’s what they’re trying to turn around. Sheesh.
To 16 - Jefferson lives! (at least in Texas)
That isn't the U.S. Constitution he cited. That is the Declaration of Independence.
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is as follows:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Wow. New to Western society/culture?
Guess we shouldn't teach our children about the founding of America, then, eh?
Laws of Man and laws of God, are what I’m familiar with.
I understand that this is an American interpretation of the same, by calling it the “laws of nature”.
Thanks for the correction!
Please read #27 ... holy moly...
I agree that it is history. History is not politically, culturally, or religiously neutral, and it is impossible to teach it in a religiously, politically, or culturally neutral manner.
It is best that government have nothing to do with teaching history or anything at all to children. It is best to privately decide these matters between the parents, and ( in a private setting of a private school) teachers, principals, and the board directors of the school.
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 schooling. Vouchers, tax credits, and charters might help in establishing the private infrastructure but the process must be continually in the direction of having families take full responsibility for educating their children.
...heh heh...
VERY American, indeed:
The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Oprah Winfrey is included in American History post 1877 and “Famous” Amos is proposed for Third graders. Really reaching there. Why no Clarence Thomas on either list?
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/AlphabetizedList_including.pdf
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/AlphabetizedList_such_as.pdf
No. Not at all a uniquely American "interpretation." Not at all. Common western culture from Burke to Santayana and beyond.
Common across the colonies and commonwealth.
Not trying to rag on you, bless your heart, but recommend immediately catching up on Russell Kirk's "Conservative Mind" and fan out from there.
You guys are doing alright as well:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2469388/posts
Now if you could just learn the joys of Frito Pie...
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." ~~Ronald Reagan
Completely wrong. Not uniquely American AT ALL.
This is a common western philosophical concept. Derived from pre-colonial western philosophical origins.
It goes back to Blackstone at least; I am well aware this.
I did not say “uniquely” American, I was trying to emphasize to the original poster that the phrase came from the Declaration.
Sorry for the confusion.
You mean, Natural Law, which goes all the way to the times of Aristotle? Perhaps that was what confused me.
I would presume “laws of nature” to suggest something entirely different.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification!
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.