Education in the USA

[crispybits]

This despite the fact that the US government on both sides of the R/D divide is further to the right than the vast majority of the rest of the world?

[Phatscotty]

This despite the fact that the US government on both sides of the R/D divide is further to the right than the vast majority of the rest of the world?

from your perspective I understand that. You should see how far left we think you are!

From here, both sides are moving in the same direction, wherever you want to call it, and they are both selling out the next generation at break-neck speed and burying them in debt and exponentially rising interest payments. We want to go the other way, away from that. Whatever direction you want to call that doesn't matter much to me.

[crispybits]

You're mixing up fiscal and social politics.

Liberals are nothing to do with financial politics. You get left wing fiscal liberals and right wing fiscal liberals. Similarly, you get left wing fiscal authoritarians and right wing fiscal authoritarians. Libertarians and religious conservatives are both right wing fiscally but have vastly different social policies. Communists and fascists are both left wing fiscally but also have vastly different social standpoints.

Education, at least the aspect you're railing against, is not a fiscal matter, it is a social one. Therefore the liberal agenda on this matter is for little or no government control over what is taught. A truly liberal education policy is one where teachers are free to teach whatever they wish however they wish. A truly authoritarian education policy is one where teachers are given little or no freedom over what to teach or how to teach it.

If you are claiming indoctrination, then this is not compatible with liberal politics. You may well be perceiving a real problem, but you're misidentifying it. If children are being indoctrinated in the education system to one particular viewpoint, then someone, somewhere is using authoritarian measures rather than liberal ones. It may well be the people that you call liberals (because I realise that the US seemingly uses different definitions for most words than the rest of the world) are the ones doing this, but you're not making a clear argument when you call it a "liberal agenda" or words to that effect.

Instead of making lazy arguments (and I'm desperately trying not to sound like BBS here) identify the actual people doing what you disagree with, identify exactly what it is they are doing that you disagree with, and argue based on those terms. When you throw liberal into arguments the way you do you muddy the waters tremendously (especially when you claim to be liberal (and fiscally right wing) yourself in virtually every political argument on this forum.

[Lootifer]

You're mixing up fiscal and social politics.

Liberals are nothing to do with financial politics. You get left wing fiscal liberals and right wing fiscal liberals. Similarly, you get left wing fiscal authoritarians and right wing fiscal authoritarians. Libertarians and religious conservatives are both right wing fiscally but have vastly different social policies. Communists and fascists are both left wing fiscally but also have vastly different social standpoints.

Education, at least the aspect you're railing against, is not a fiscal matter, it is a social one. Therefore the liberal agenda on this matter is for little or no government control over what is taught. A truly liberal education policy is one where teachers are free to teach whatever they wish however they wish. A truly authoritarian education policy is one where teachers are given little or no freedom over what to teach or how to teach it.

If you are claiming indoctrination, then this is not compatible with liberal politics. You may well be perceiving a real problem, but you're misidentifying it. If children are being indoctrinated in the education system to one particular viewpoint, then someone, somewhere is using authoritarian measures rather than liberal ones. It may well be the people that you call liberals (because I realise that the US seemingly uses different definitions for most words than the rest of the world) are the ones doing this, but you're not making a clear argument when you call it a "liberal agenda" or words to that effect.

Completely agree. Couldnt (and I have tried) to say it better myself.

Instead of making lazy arguments (and I'm desperately trying not to sound like BBS here) identify the actual people doing what you disagree with, identify exactly what it is they are doing that you disagree with, and argue based on those terms. When you throw liberal into arguments the way you do you muddy the waters tremendously (especially when you claim to be liberal (and fiscally right wing) yourself in virtually every political argument on this forum.

The problem is, to me, these anecdotal arguments are no less lazy. "Liberal indoctrination" does exist, just look at some of the terrible professors (they dont even deserve that title imo) in PS's earlier youtubes. However this does not prove system wide indoctrination in my opinion.

[Phatscotty]

I acknowledged there are some exceptions

[Phatscotty]

You're mixing up fiscal and social politics.

Liberals are nothing to do with financial politics. You get left wing fiscal liberals and right wing fiscal liberals. Similarly, you get left wing fiscal authoritarians and right wing fiscal authoritarians. Libertarians and religious conservatives are both right wing fiscally but have vastly different social policies. Communists and fascists are both left wing fiscally but also have vastly different social standpoints.

Education, at least the aspect you're railing against, is not a fiscal matter, it is a social one. Therefore the liberal agenda on this matter is for little or no government control over what is taught. A truly liberal education policy is one where teachers are free to teach whatever they wish however they wish. A truly authoritarian education policy is one where teachers are given little or no freedom over what to teach or how to teach it.

If you are claiming indoctrination, then this is not compatible with liberal politics. You may well be perceiving a real problem, but you're misidentifying it. If children are being indoctrinated in the education system to one particular viewpoint, then someone, somewhere is using authoritarian measures rather than liberal ones. It may well be the people that you call liberals (because I realise that the US seemingly uses different definitions for most words than the rest of the world) are the ones doing this, but you're not making a clear argument when you call it a "liberal agenda" or words to that effect.

Instead of making lazy arguments (and I'm desperately trying not to sound like BBS here) identify the actual people doing what you disagree with, identify exactly what it is they are doing that you disagree with, and argue based on those terms. When you throw liberal into arguments the way you do you muddy the waters tremendously (especially when you claim to be liberal (and fiscally right wing) yourself in virtually every political argument on this forum.

You are using Lootifer's words. I have tried not to use "liberal" here. I have tried to use Leftist.

[crispybits]

You've been using the two terms interchangably throughout the thread. If you mean leftist then stick to that but what you're actually arguing against is socialism not liberalism, and I could quote at least 3 posts just from the last few pages where you are staing that there is a liberal agenda.

socialism =/= liberalism

[Phatscotty]

You've been using the two terms interchangably throughout the thread. If you mean leftist then stick to that but what you're actually arguing against is socialism not liberalism, and I could quote at least 3 posts just from the last few pages where you are staing that there is a liberal agenda.

socialism =/= liberalism

Yeah I know ya can, but I have been trying not to.

[Lootifer]

Fair enough PS - ill give you the benefit of the doubt, but bear in mind that book by whats-his-face is trying to argue that it's liberal indoctrination, not leftist indoctrination; and many of your other examples have cited social or liberal indoctrination rather than left-wing indoctrination (things like global warming/feminism/gay rights etc etc are social issues, not fiscal).

[Lootifer]

Post 2) (reply to the above)

You are missing the correct perspective. But that's okay, you aren't in America and did not go through American education and do not have friends who all grew up to work in the education system, like I do

it is very true that the Left completely dominated our universities. Virtually all radicalism comes from the universities, but it's "education" so their radicalism gets mainstreamed through culture shock and emotional manipulation/control. There overall statement about Education in America is "we teach you what to think" and its NOT "we teach you how to think". That isn't to say there aren't great and wonderful teachers out there of either ideology, because there are. But it's the exception. You also need to understand I have witnessed first hand leftist brainwashing on more than a few occasions at universities and community colleges and high school I attended, my friends attended, my family attended.


If we can bring this angle full circle into how brainwashing political correctness is being indoctrinated into our children today, we see news stories everyday here in America, especially on local levels, of teachers calling students "murderers" for cutting a piece of paper into the shape of a gun, calling the police because a student bit a pop tart into the shape of a gun, suspending students for wearing 2nd amendment t-shirts, and expelling eagle scouts who left their rifle in the trunk of their car and did the right thing and notified someone that the situation needed to be corrected, but the panic came anyways. Our children are learning to fear the mention of the word "gun" in their schools, and those schools are dominated by the Left. I'm sure I don't have to go over the removal of God from schools, again, the Left makes the rules. [social issue even though you call it leftist]

Like they say with gay marriage "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" the same can also be said for our right to bear arms "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" Because, as all young people who are indoctrinated will tell you (just ask them) they know all about the world they have never stepped a foot into, and are more than willing to confront their parents and elders about how they don't know anything, and their ways are wrong, and the young people who have no experience know what's best. It's the mark of brainwash

And yes that is happening. Students are failing more and more. In New York some high schools are producing graduates at levels of 80% that are illiterate. And yes the test are also changing. They are being "standardized", and the name of that program is Common Core if you want to understand what I'm talking about here

Blue is liberal/social
Red is leftist/fiscal

So if your argument follows the standard form of argument your statment part is using the "left" argument; but you explanation is describing "liberal" issues.

This is an annoying tangent, but you did start the argument describing social issues, not fiscal ones... (not trying to gotcha, its just a fact).

[thegreekdog]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

[waauw]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

[Symmetry]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

Nonsense.

[PLAYER57832]

Standardization could go against both flavors, but it won't. There is too much on the line for any honest reform. And it's working so well, I view commoncore as a consolidation of the leftist control. I mean, the government just monopolized all student loans, they are in the business now. They aren't going to "free up" education for real reform...on the contrary, they are locking it down.

Sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory and not a lot like a logical argument.

Standardization is an authoritarian concept. You are going to have to explain to me (or show me) why anyone liberal would be in support of such a regieme... (considering authoritarianism is the antithesis liberalism).

Sure this may very well be a government control thing; but my argument has never been about government control in this thread. I my question is the prevelance of liberal indoctrination, not governmental indoctrination.

And before you say they are the same thing i'll refer you to the above point: "Standardization is an authoritarian concept". That pretty clearly shows that they are not.

Whoever is in power. The issue transcends party. I don't care what side anyone is on, they are going to want to indoctrinate whatever ideology further progresses their power. Leftism is bigger than that, and I and others have argued Leftism is currently enjoying religion/worship status, promoted on all fronts (media, education, hollywood, culture, sports, government).

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

So, you truly believe that LIBERALS are currently in control in the US????

Pretty funny, since so few here, even fewer younger than 40 even understand what liberalism really means.

[Lootifer]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

Nah if you look at his original post he is clearly outlining liberal opinions on social issues; and accuses them of indoctrination.

He can try and back peddle all he like with this tangent. But as far as I am concerned this thread was answered pages ago.

[waauw]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

Nonsense.

No nonsense, my country is an example of this. We have quite an extensive social system(mostly cuz of our strong cultural relations with France). When I went to high school we had to follow informational classes about ecological technologies and global warming the same way we had to follow classes about sex, anticonception, etc.
Now I personally had no problem with solar energy but they were even propagating bio-oil which is a horrible way of creating energy, yet they wanted to propagate it to 14-15 yo kids who don't really know that much of the world yet. And I call it propaganda cuz they told us all the advantages and barely any of the disadvantages, which is not exactly how you create a critical mind.

and if my example is enough, go read the books of Friedrich Hayek

[Phatscotty]

Fair enough PS - ill give you the benefit of the doubt, but bear in mind that book by whats-his-face is trying to argue that it's liberal indoctrination, not leftist indoctrination; and many of your other examples have cited social or liberal indoctrination rather than left-wing indoctrination (things like global warming/feminism/gay rights etc etc are social issues, not fiscal).

Leftism has no interest in promoting social values? Why would something being social or liberal mean it cannot be leftist?

[Phatscotty]

I'm not exactly sure where I'm gonna go with this yet, but I know some answers lie here.

It is from Dewey's own words that you can see his true intentions. He wrote and helped write the Humanist Manifesto after returning from a trip to meet with others of like mind in eastern europe. Two books he wrote tell how he planned to accomplish the goals laid out in the Humanist Manifesto through America's public school system. The first title is Faith in Education and the second is Democracy and Education.

B.F. Skinner jumped on the bandwagon, working to change the mold for American children through public schools and help that mold conform with many goals of the Humanist Manifesto. THE FATHER OF MODERN EDUCATION

John Dewey is recognized as the Father of modern education. The N.E.A. gave him high recognition for his works. Much of his changes to schools was made possible by the theory of evolution being so strongly accepted after the writings of Charles Darwin. John Dewey wrote a theory of education and democracy that was based on evolution.

The education theories of Dewey would not have been so acceptable to people had it not been for the previous acceptance of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.That theory was widely received around the world. Evolution praises change and declares the highest good is a positive change. Darwin's theory helped strengthen the ideas of relativism and positivism which had been around for ages but were reinforced by John Dewey.

John Dewey developed ideas of evolutionary democracy and evolutionary education and evolutionary law.

the rest

Spoiler

Those ideas had as their foundation the premise that nothing is constant. He said the only constant good is change for the good, ie positivism. He did not measure things from any absolute standards, but from a relative perception based on human desire.

Relativism denies absolutes. God is absolute. The word of God teaches absolutes. Evolution flies in the face of God's word.

Relativism and positivism are destructive ideologies that sheer men away from the truth a little at a time.

These ideas were used by John Dewey and Carl Marx and even Joseph Stalin to lead people astray.

Engels wrote that if you could remove a people from their roots, they could be easily swayed to your point of view.

This is happening in America with the destruction of our godly heritage in public school courses.

By omission the godly heritage is being lost to our children. The schools are simply not teaching the godly heritage of this nation.

Instead the schools are teaching children to become better citizens of the new world economic order. This focus is even seen in WFISD.

HUMANIST MANIFESTO

John Dewey was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto. Many give him credit for writing most of it.

Humanism would have men be their own gods. Humanism would make everything relative to what the individual perceives as improvement or detriment. Humanism denies the Salvation of God and replaces it with salvation by men.

John Dewey promoted humanism as a national way of life. Humanists in their zeal believe they are doing your children a favor to make them more happy by seeking to erode any faith in God and replacing it with a hope in their own efforts.

Humanism and relativism were revitalized with the upsurge of the oppositions of false science called The Theory of Evolution. Since Darwin popularized that theory in 1859, the idea of evolution has infected other areas of men's thoughts including law and its interpretation, society and its rules of conduct, economics and more.

John Dewey helped popularize the teaching of evolution since the idea of constant change reinforced his idea the foolishness of God and the Bible. Dewey believed in neither God or the Bible.

Since man was considered to have evolved from the slime, there could have been no fall of man from the perfection of Adam. With no fall of man, there would be no need for salvation. Thus evolution strikes at the root of Christian faith.

Those who think they can believe in God and also believe in evolution must realize that the system of evolution denounces any existence of God. If man evolved upward, then there certainly was no original sin which took him downward and the need for salvation is a joke.

Evolution would make the whole of Scripture meaningless. Those who clamor the loudest for evolution are aware how the poison works to erode any need for God by making man to be his own god.

Thus we have returned full cycle to the original deception, only this time the deception is organized on a global front, attacking not just one woman, but all children in our public schools.

The ultimate aim is not the betterment of mankind as the propaganda says, but rather the enslavement of mankind to a whole society serving Mammon in the name of money and power, ie the devil. It is Satan's work to serve money as your god, to let economic values determine your decisions, to let profits determine what you do. To judge right and wrong by how much money is gained or lost is to be serving the purposes of Satan.

The consequence of ignoring God's word is failure. There comes a point where that failure becomes eternal.

Many of our Founding Fathers believed that we should only elect men to serve us in office who held a faith in Almighty God who would judge men for their words and deeds. For they realized that only such men could have any restraint on what they considered right and acceptable.

Men without faith towards God through the mercy of Jesus do more easily persuade themselves to do anything if the end served their own desires. They would have realized the dangers of having a man like John Dewey as the designer of our education system. We need to wake up to the problem.

It is given to us by God that we are responsible to raise our children diligently in the Truth of God.

John Dewey was strongly opposed to anything that would help Christian faith in children.

How can we then teach them history void of reference to Christian testimony of great men? How can we teach science as chaos instead of ordered and according to His divine pattern? How can any in authority stand by and let such perversion proceed unchecked?

Who would feed their children to the flames of evolution and its consequence, Humanism?

Would convenience or comfort lead some to stand by quietly while their children passed through the flames of modern humanist philosophies that oppose God? Would safety of job, or esteem of men gag the tongue of those who should speak out first because they saw it first?

Brave New World, a novel, depicts a society where God is forgotten and the children are raised by the state system to serve economic needs. Let us take a hint and quit rewriting history by omission of Christian references in the public school system. Else John Dewey's vision will increase more and more.

John Dewey introduced strong ideas about accepting multi-values. This is in agreement with the denial of absolute values. Please note that too many children today do not believe in absolute right and wrong. Instead they believe in relative answers, based on personal needs. That is a direct goal fulfilled by John Dewey and all like him.

It is now printed in school system literature how the students need to be raised up so they can be better citizens of the new world economic order. Country, family, and God are no longer the goals to be achieved but are instead seen as causes of bigotry, narrow mindedness, prejudice, and intolerance: thus deserving to be done away.

After all says Humanism, all roads lead to Rome. We're all seeking a better life, and if you do it in the name of Jesus, that's OK so long as you don't teach your child that in school.

President Abraham Lincoln contradicts John Dewey and reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said,
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent
a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal."

Of course he was referring to these words from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; "

Declaration of Independence contradicts John Dewey, the father of this contemporary education system.

Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court's change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court's actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of "the laws of nature and of nature's God" established in the Declaration of Independence.

Founding Fathers Contradict John Dewey.

The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment. He also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America's classrooms. John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that "education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder's lack of pluralistic intent when it declared:

"Christianity ...was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."

Words and sentiments of other founding fathers can be given to fill a library; but these few show the whole idea to anyone to is willing to hear.

" You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington

" Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Quincy Adams

A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.

97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools. 187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible. The money was printed, "One Nation Under God."

Webster originally wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained. He did this so children and parents could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people. How often do you hear this in public school today?!

You could hardly find a school in America that wasn't Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830's. That was when a humanist named Horace Mann worked for ten years to deceive the state of Massachusetts to produce its own state supported schools and leave the Bible out of those schools.

As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.

During the next hundred years humanism grew bolder in its attack against the founding fathers ideas of education and more and more schools omitted the Bible. Fewer and fewer remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools.

Then in the early 1930's John Dewey taught his new theories on evolutionary education at Peking University in China, and after that in Turkey. Those governments wanted help on establishing state schools to indoctrinate the children as wards of the state instead of their parents.

You know how Russian children were encouraged to turn on their parent's values.

Then upon his return to the U.S.A, John Dewey wrote the Humanist Manifesto. He was a very important figure in the national education association. The socialistic and communistic ideology of Karl Marx was growing vigorously through such men as endorsed John Dewey's philosophies of education.

A Harvard professor has written that children are sick when they enter kindergarten. Sick with the parent influenced ideas of love, family values, national pride, and loyalty to elected officials. He says the children need to be re-educated away from those traditional values of their parents so they can become better citizens of the new world order. So that is the extent of secular humanism and its goals for our children. It is rapidly assaulting our traditional values of Christian family, home, and nation under God.

John Dewey knew there was a battle raging in the classroom for the hearts and minds of children. Do you?

Join the battle which has been declared. It is a battle for your children. It is your battle to fight, to win. When Jonah preached to Ninevah he declared the soon coming destruction. Jonah didn't make any if's and's or but's. He plainly said because of your sins, destruction is coming. That's the way it is in America today.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE contradicts John Dewey. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; "

The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase "protection of divine providence". Five to those who can admit the phrase "created equal" means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

The Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent documents. The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. The men who wrote it declared within it their undying faith towards God for all generations to see and follow.

We should follow the founding fathers of this great nation rather than shallow thinking men who came along later to change things.

"The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building.

Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed! How can we withhold God and His truth from our educational classrooms for children today? The humanist and atheist groups following the path of John Dewey rob our children of this great national heritage. One Nation Under God. United we stand together with Christ.

Our founding fathers erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children's children: for all men who would pursue life, liberty, and happiness...they pointed us to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. They desired that their posterity might look again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth, justice, mercy, and all Christian virtue not be extinguished from the schools of this land.

If anyone has taught you doctrines conflicting with the light shining through our Declaration of Independence, come back to the truths that were written then for you to see again now.

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

SUPREME COURT decision of 1897:

Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Humanists, positivists, and relativists, and socialists who deny God, also contradict the history words of those who wrote the Constitution. Why? Because they desire to replace God with man as the ultimate force is they want to say that man's desires whatever they are should be fulfilled. They deny any absolute truth of God and they deny His natural law as a basis for government and legal law.

DEWEY SAYS IT IS WRONG TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT CAN NOT CHANGE

John Dewey was a leading relativist and humanist. In 1927 he made clear their new way of thinking. He explained that the Constitution as it had been interpreted was a stumbling-block. He said it was wrong to believe in something that could not change.

John Dewey mocked the beliefs of the Founders. He ridiculed those who put their trust in traditional understanding of law and Constitution by saying they were so wrong. (See John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 1927, page 34)

What the people of America called the corner stone of their republic, John Dewey called a stumbling block. He ridiculed, mocked, and scorned the traditions of the people of America, the efforts of our Founders, our form of government, and the belief in absolute values.

After John Dewey and Langdell got through with their prestigious campaign in the eyes of power and money and glory from men,... any teacher who still held for absolute values was mocked and driven out of position to teach. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law was widely discarded.

Blackstone taught that certain rights and wrongs did not change. Especially those related to human behavior. Blackstone had been the main text in law since before the Declaration of Independence. Great preachers had come out of law to preach the gospel after reading all of Blackstone's Biblical references to his understanding of law. Blackstone taught that law came from God. The courts were now going to change those traditional ideas of law which had been held true and unchangeable since the Magna Carta of England.

Roscoe Pound (1870-1964) strengthened the new philosophy of "positivism" that had been birthed by Langdell at Harvard. Pound made "positivism" the new way of thinking that everybody had to follow if they wanted to graduate. Now there are universities where professors say if you find any one is not an evolutionist, don't let him graduate with a degree in biology. Roscoe Pound was able to accomplish his goal of dictating terms for graduation by serving at four different law schools as professor and as Dean of Harvard and the University of Nebraska. Biology professors are able to teach evolution as fact because of the liberalizing of education done by John Dewey.

He infected many who in turn taught others their new ways of evolving the law and the interpretation of our Constitution. He said we have the same task in jurisprudence that has (already) been achieved in philosophy, in the natural sciences, and in politics. We must rid ourselves of this sort of legality. We must take a new and flexible approach. We must adopt our means to fit our ends. To attain an evolving legal science based on the sociology of people is our goal. There is nothing fixed except our goal and anything we do to attain what we want must therefore be right.

Pound said the goal of law is to become a legal force to influence society in growth and development. He forgot those Founder's words which would have warned him that God Almighty to which they appealed in the Declaration and the Constitution had already given the law and clearly stated that it does not change.

1916- Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) urged the Court to be bold in leading society to change. He wanted the reason of men to be the ultimate rule, not the law of God nor the ideas of the Founders. These are the kind of ideas upon which John Dewey built his theories.

1930's - Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law widely discarded because it was absolute instead of relative. Relativism allowed for change. Relativism became a new term, more 'intellectual' for describing the positive changes needed for evolution of law and society. (the positivism of Roscoe Pound). Absolute values were discarded.

1930's- John Dewey was an esteemed humanist. He was a prominent leader of new ideas in education. He wrote much on the effects of Darwin's theory of evolution on science, education, man and society. His premise can be summarized as saying that nothing is ultimately good in itself except positive change for the better. To this goal he rejected absolute values of God, the Bible, and men who believed in God.

Dewey's most positive value is positive change for the better. He was so recognized as a leader of new ideas concerning humanism ie synonym for socialism that he was invited to teach on establishing state schools for the betterment of the state. He taught in China at the University of Peking and in Turkey. Upon Dewey's return to California, he wrote an Americanized version of Karl Marx philosophies called "The Humanist Manifesto". He believes in the collective society like socialist of Russia and China being more important than any individualism. He views people as members of the larger society, to the exclusion of individual rights when the perceived needs of society would require the exclusion of personal rights. This thinking permeates the N.E.A today as a result of his works and others who followed in his footsteps. The state rights over individual rights is associated with the recent event in Pennsylvania where state authorities forced fifty young girls to be spread eagled on an examination table, for genital inspection, without parent's knowledge or consent. Such is the consequence of giving up individual rights to the state system.

1

1945-1953 - radical social change achieved by wide spread "positivists" or secular humanists.

John Dewey wrote an amerikanized version of the Communist Manifesto. Dewey's version was called the Humanist Manifesto. He helped introduce socialism step by step into the American culture. Read his ideas on an evolving democracy. They are very different from the Founding Fathers.

[Lootifer]

Blergh, really dont want to go down the religion in education path...

[Phatscotty]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

no but the problem is that socialism is a beast that is hard to controll once you let it go. Politicians have the tendency to pull more and more power to themselves. Now overall this doesn't show a bad intent per sé. However the more power a politician has, the less he'll have the propensity to listen to what the opposition says. In extreme cases where socialism has progressed so far that the government has too much power, it often does lead to indoctrination.

But even in these cases the socialist leaders might not have bad intents. They want kids to learn good moral values. Though what they consider good moral values, may not be what others consider good moral values and that's where the conflict arrises.

An argument often used on the liberal side is that the government shouldn't teach kids moral values whatsoever. It's up to the parents to teach that to their children

That's what this was all about

[Phatscotty]

Blergh, really dont want to go down the religion in education path...

then take the religion out of it or skip it, and focus on the J. Dewey parts. I didn't want to break it all up

I don't think it's possible to understand the history of our education without the religion in education "path". That is our history

[thegreekdog]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

Nah if you look at his original post he is clearly outlining liberal opinions on social issues; and accuses them of indoctrination.

He can try and back peddle all he like with this tangent. But as far as I am concerned this thread was answered pages ago.

I agree that this thread ended pages ago (since I ended it motherfucker).

Phatscotty uses the terms "liberal" and "socialist" and "Democrat" interchangeably. In his defense, many people do this and do it the other way too ("conservative" and "libertarian" and "Republican" and "Tea Party [whatever]") interchangeably.

[Phatscotty]

He should probably use the term "Democratic" rather than liberal or socialist. I don't think socialists are necessarily in favor of indoctrination through education either.

Nah if you look at his original post he is clearly outlining liberal opinions on social issues; and accuses them of indoctrination.

He can try and back peddle all he like with this tangent. But as far as I am concerned this thread was answered pages ago.

I agree that this thread ended pages ago (since I ended it motherfucker).

Phatscotty uses the terms "liberal" and "socialist" and "Democrat" interchangeably. In his defense, many people do this and do it the other way too ("conservative" and "libertarian" and "Republican" and "Tea Party [whatever]") interchangeably.

Which is why, again, I am using the term Leftism. Look at the original statement, and look at the top of this page and the last page. I've hardly even used the term Democrat or Socialist even. You are reading someone else's post and juxtaposing it on me. I swear you do this on purpose. You are the one who introduced "Democrat" just a bit ago, so wtf is your deal in saying I have been using those terms? (I haven't)

[crispybits]

What does "leftist" mean then if it isn't "democrat" or "socialist" or "liberal" PS?

[Phatscotty]

What does "leftist" mean then if it isn't "democrat" or "socialist" or "liberal" PS?

Leftism - The ideology of the political left.

Your point does not in any way mean I have been using terminology that I have not been using/trying not to use. Everyone is trying to use it