VT Christian Homeschooling Mom Taken Away In Shackles!

The Curmudgeon: A Vermont Newsletter | 10/17/02 | Cindy Wade

[ApesForEvolution]

How Clintonian of you...

[AppyPappy]

How Clintonian of YOU...

[CyberCowboy777]

You should seriously revisit this statement.

The Founding Fathers recognized the need for public education particularly Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams.

Before you run your mouth you had better get the facts of the matter.

I would looked into the type of public system they endorsed and the regulation upon parents they endorsed if I where you.

The founding fathers endorsed taxation as well, that in no way legitimizes our current system of direct and in-direct taxation. Have you seen the history scores coming out of public schools? Did you go to a public school?

[ApesForEvolution]

Considering how 'stupid' this woman allegedly is, she knows more about her rights than 90% of the 'citizens' of this federal empire. EVEN IF part of this is true, she is still afforded her rights and due process.

LEOs should only receive the respect they command by following the law.

[ApesForEvolution]

And by what evidence, that you can show, does government schooling accomplish that better than homeschooling?

[ApesForEvolution]

With your blind and ignorant defense of government, communist schooling, paid for by stealing the fruit of labor from people that DO NOT allow their children to be raised by the state as well as those that do, one could only conclude that you are an out of work communist educator. How sweet.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson constantly pushed for the creation of the University of Virginia, a state controlled and funded school and considered its establishment as one of his greatest acts. In addition, he wanted public schooling which would feed into this university those talented but poor children. Their education was to be paid for by the State.
This was not done for decades after J.'s demise.

Washington and Hamilton early on recommended the establishment of a federally funded public university. It was rejected by Congress.

See 181 for information regarding my education. I have attended both public and private schools. My degrees are from State universities.

[ApesForEvolution]

The conduct of the JBTs and their alleged abuse of these persons and the law is independent of the alleged unfortunate mis-steps of Mrs. O'Dell in this case, would you not agree?

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you have anything significant to say please feel free. If ignorant, irrational screeds is all you are limited to, shut your pie hole.

I am not an educator and never have been. It is too much work, too much grief from idiot parents and too little pay for me to indulge in.

It would be amusing to watch someone like you try and teach a class. Of course, the pupils would suffer but watching you sputter and stutter vainly attempting to communicate a rational thought would be hilarious.

[CyberCowboy777]

Should we also stop the uneducated and goofy from the important task of having children?

If they are not fit to educate their children, how can they be fit to raise children at all?

Should the state mandate forced reproductive cessation?

[ApesForEvolution]

I'm speechless. The bald-faced communists will get my children only after ever tactic to defeat them is employed, peaceful and lawful or otherwise.

NUKE THE NEA!

The NEA is hazardous to the health of this Constitutional Republic and the children of America and has clearly annunciated its intentions to control and destroy America as we know it.

[agrandis]

What happened to MR. O'Dell? Did he die, or abandon his family?

[Spiff]

No. Socialism is the ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. Taxation is not socialism. Public education is not socialism. Mass inoculation against polio is not socialism either. Socialism means something specific- the ownership by the working class of the means of production. No private ownership. Hint: socialism is not just anything you dislike or disapprove of. It is an economic concept.

socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Hint: The term socialism is not as narrowly defined as you imply.

If you don't agree with my use of the term socialism, then replace the term throughout my questions with the term collectivism.

Education is a social process which serves the society as a whole as well as the state. Only with an educated electorate can a representative republic survive. Thus, there is a great need for education. So far public education has served our nation well. With proper reform it will continue to do so. Public education is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

If someone said:

Obtaining properly nutritious and environmentally friendly foods is a socially conscious process which serves the society as a whole as well as the state. Only with a properly fed electorate can a representative republic survive. Thus, there is a great need for state-mandated standards and state-provided food. So far, proper nutrition has served our nation well. With proper food production and distribution reform it will continue to do so. Proper nutrition and environmentally conscious food production is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

Would you accept that as sufficient argument to support having the state confiscate wealth from its citizens in order to feed all of the children within the boundaries of the state?

Here are my questions, reworded for you:

Do you believe that public schools are a form of collectivism?

If the state confiscated wealth from its citizens to provide food, clothes, or housing for all the children within its boundaries would that not be a form of forced collectivism? Why is it okay for the state to provide collectivist education but not okay to provide collectivist food, clothes, and housing to the children? Wouldn't a better term for public schools be "welfare schools" since they are meant for those children whose parents can't afford to send them to private schools or can't afford to teach them at home because both parents work?

Are you saying that a little bit of collectivism is okay? Where do you draw the line then? How much collectivism is too much collectivism? What if I don't agree? Will you force me to accept the little bit of collectivism you deem acceptable?

And a few more questions:

Are you familiar with the foundational concept of inalienable rights? Is it right to employ force to deny someone of their inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of their labor (ie - keep their property/money/etc) in order to fund a collectivist social scheme (like public schools) the state deems to be for the "common good of society"? Under that guise, what other collectivist schemes can be excused?

[CyberCowboy777]

They wanted public education available for all, not forced upon all. (Prep schools and Universities were the choice, schools a child would not attend until 10 or older)

Not 12 years of education based on politics and social engineering, not government RUN schools, not schools that limited religion or replaced parental authority. NOT forced and not to regulate choices of the parent.

You can see a vastly different view of what a "Public" education was to them.

[Cultural Jihad]

Public education is not socialistic. Your bandying about that term so losely only undercuts your credibility.

[CyberCowboy777]

Here is a example of Jefferson's Idea of education, you will notice the lack of fluff and how far it is from current government schools.

NOTE: Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1785. In the same letter, Jefferson advises young Peter to take at least two hours every day away from studies for exercise, and warns him against sitting up too late!

... I have long ago digested a plan for you, suited to the circumstances in which you will be placed. This I will detail to you, from time to time, as you advance. For the present, I advise you to begin a course of ancient history, reading everything in the original and not in translations. First read Goldsmith's history of Greece. This will give you a digested view of that field. Then take up ancient history in the detail, reading the following books, in the following order: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophontis Anabasis, Arian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, Justin. This shall form the first stage of your historical reading, and is all I need mention to you now. The next will be of Roman history.[*] From that, we will come down to modern history. In Greek and Latin poetry, you have read or will read at school, Virgil, Terence, Horace, Anacreon, Theocritus, Homer, Euripides, Sophocles. Read also Milton's "Paradise Lost," Shakespeare, Ossian, Pope's and Swift's works, in order to form your style in your own language. In morality, read Epictetus, Xenophontis Memorabilia, Plato's Socratic dialogues, Cicero's philosophies, Antoninus, and Seneca. ... The plan I have proposed is adapted to your present situation only. When that is changed, I shall propose a corresponding change of plan....

---

* Livy, Sallust, Caesar, Cicero's epistles, Suetonius, Tacitus, Gibbon. [Jefferson's footnote]

[CyberCowboy777]

The battle between parents and the state is over 25 centuries old. Here are some interesting, sometimes quite candid, comments by leaders of yesteryear. These were proponents of Government run education.


"Neither must we suppose that any one of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the state." — Aristotle (d322 BC)


"Make me the master of education, and I will undertake to change the world." — Baron Gottfried von Leibnitz (d1716)


"Let our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property... He must be taught to amass wealth, but it must be only to increase his power of contributing to the wants and demands of the state... [Education] can be done effectually only by the interference and aid of the Legislature." — Benjamin Rush (1786)


"The nation alone has the right to educate children." — Robespierre (d1794)


"The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense." — Karl Marx (1848)


"The secret of the superiority of state over private education lies in the fact that in the former the teacher is responsible to society... [T]he result desired by the state is a wholly different one from that desired by parents, guardians, and pupils." — Lester Frank Ward (1897)

[justshutupandtakeit]

As the world becomes more complicated and more information accumulates it requires more time to assilimate that knowledge. Of course, we have a vastly different educational course of study now than 200 yrs. ago. How could we not? There are whole cultures that this era knew nothing of. No knowledge of the beginnings of civilization in the Fertile Crescent, little knowledge of Ancient Egypt, almost nothing about China or India or Japan.

200 years ago there was no science taught to speak of, no American history except the Revolutionary period, no American literature, little art, no study of statistics or calculus, physics was in its infancy as was chemistry and biology.

Now even 12 yrs. is not sufficient to do more than learn the basic. A Batchelors Degree is just scratching the surface in most disciplines. Education back then was heavy on Greek, Latin, the classics, philosophy, rhetoric, logic and Theology most of which is essentially irrelevant to modern life. Such an education today would prepare one for nothing though I might enjoy it.

Public schools back then, as now, were run by local authorities. Schools are as close to the people as any institution in American life. When you condemn public education you are, in fact, condemning participatory democracy. That is fine but let's be honest as to what is implied here.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no doubt that the precise use of terms around here has become more and more sloppy and incorrect. Socialism meant exactly what I quoted. It has now been expanded to such a point (according to your quote) that it means almost nothing or everything and is useless unless a common meaning can be agreed upon.

"Collectivism" is another imprecise word which has a wide variety of meaning from totalitarianism to association of citizens for a common purpose. Traditionally limited to Communism or Fascism now it has expanded to include anything that the disgruntled malcontents who hate any State activity want to include. Is a church now collectivist?

Schools are not collectivist in the traditional meaning nor any meaning I will accept. Common efforts to educate the youth are no more collectivist than a football team is collectivist. Nor are high taxes necessarily collectivist since as we know from the cartoon King John oppressed his subjects with high taxes.

Since the government is established to promote the general Welfare of the people taxes can be collected by Law for many purposes. Or are you one of those "constitutionalists" who ignore what they don't like in the document yet claim to approve of the "specified" powers? State constitutions also establish the legal ability for the States to be involved in their citizens' welfare.

One of the most nebulous concepts bandied about by the ideologues is that of "inalienable rights." How many of these are there? Does that include the right to contempt of court, to drive without a license, to shoot a gun anywhere one wishes, to do whatever they wish? Irish Travelers believe it is their inalienable right to treat everyone else as sheep to be preyed upon. DemocRATS believe it is their inalienable right to have everyone else pay for their health care, their housing and their food.

The concept has lost most of its meaning if it was ever anything other than a rhetorical device with which to agitate the populance. After all the idea came from the English constitution and was roundly ignored when it came to the colonies.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You will also note the complete lack of any reference to science, mathematics not even Euclid, or languages. What J. is recommending here is essentially a course in the Classics, history and poetry but it is limited to only that. I might like it but would not demand anyone else study it today. However, it should also be noted that this curriculem was outdated even during his day. It is interesting that J. did not mention Aristotle. Wonder why?