PDA

View Full Version : Tell Me Again How Public Schools are Cesspools of Atheism



Buzzword
October 7th, 2015, 08:42 PM
Oh look, a public school teacher forcing.....RELIGION....upon students.
Child students, at that.
THIS is why some of us so vehemently defend the Wall of Separation.


A Georgia public school agreed to stop two teachers from praying in class and promoting their religious beliefs to children, but only after a secular group filed a lawsuit.

A kindergarten teacher and first-grade teacher at Swainsboro Primary School led students in prayer before lunch last year and then singled out students whose parents complained, reported Patheos.

The teachers ordered those children to sit outside the classroom in a hallway while other students prayed, and one of the teachers told students their classmates couldn’t recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the phrase, “under God.”

Another teacher told one child that he should “make a good decision” and join his classmates in prayer, according to a complaint filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The group also complained that first-grade teacher Katherine Brights told that same boy that he shouldn’t listen to his mother because she was “a bad person for not believing in God.”

The first-grader eventually was worn down by his teacher’s comments and joined his classmates in religious activities against his parents’ wishes.

Georgia School Pays Up After Teacher Tells First Grader His Mom Is Bad Because She Doesn't Believe in God (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/georgia-school-pays-up-after-teacher-tells-first-grader-his-mom-is-bad-because-she-doesnt-believe-in-god/)

aCultureWarrior
October 7th, 2015, 09:04 PM
Oh look, a public school teacher forcing.....RELIGION....upon students.
Child students, at that.
THIS is why some of us so vehemently defend the Wall of Separation.

Thanks for showing people that not all Christians have abandoned public education.

Oh and Buzz, we're going to take it back and start teaching children moral doctrine once again.

aditseth03
October 11th, 2015, 11:14 PM
Hats off to Richard Dawkins his words imply always ↓

"No child is a Christian , every child is son/daughter of a Christian"

patrick jane
October 11th, 2015, 11:17 PM
Hats off to Richard Dawkins his words imply always ↓

"No child is a Christian , every child is son/daughter of a Christian"

Wasn't he the host of Family Feud ? :chuckle:

aditseth03
October 11th, 2015, 11:19 PM
Wasn't he the host of Family Feud ? :chuckle:
Its was Richard Dawson , check out ur facts *smirks*

patrick jane
October 11th, 2015, 11:21 PM
Should we tell Buzzword again ?

Lon
October 12th, 2015, 12:25 AM
Hats off to Richard Dawkins his words imply always ↓:nono: I'm shocked that even and especially an atheist would like him or quote him.

"No child is a Christian , every child is son/daughter of a Christian"
Doesn't need to be a quote because it is observably true. You 'can' be born into the home of Christians. That doesn't 'make' you a Christian (unlike every other religion on the planet, if you are born into a Buddhist home, you are called a Buddhist).
ONLY God can make a Christian.

Jonahdog
October 12th, 2015, 06:57 AM
:nono: I'm shocked that even and especially an atheist would like him or quote him.

Doesn't need to be a quote because it is observably true. You 'can' be born into the home of Christians. That doesn't 'make' you a Christian (unlike every other religion on the planet, if you are born into a Buddhist home, you are called a Buddhist).
ONLY God can make a Christian.

So is it god's fault I am not a believer?

Jose Fly
October 12th, 2015, 09:52 AM
Funny how every time I see a headline like this, I always think "Which southern state is it this time?" :chuckle:

Quetzal
October 12th, 2015, 09:57 AM
Funny how every time I see a headline like this, I always think "Which southern state is it this time?" :chuckle:
We need one of those counters: X days since a southern state has embarrassed itself.

patrick jane
October 12th, 2015, 09:59 AM
Its was Richard Dawson , check out ur facts *smirks*

"you used to a hindu" - :rotfl:

aditseth03
October 12th, 2015, 10:02 AM
"you used to a hindu" - :rotfl:
Yea so?

aditseth03
October 12th, 2015, 10:03 AM
So is it god's fault I am not a believer?
Oh dear! That was brilliant!

Lon
October 12th, 2015, 01:35 PM
So is it god's fault I am not a believer?
Which god? You folks make reference to one a lot on TOL :think:

I think in your head, there is a connect that is meaningful to you, but I'm missing part of it here, but I'll try. I think 'fault' is wrong though. We are born one way, it is Adam's 'fault' curse. We are born, like Dawkins said (not needing to reference or quote him or even bring him into the conversation, except as correct on an observation you and I can make), without God on this planet. "Natural?" No, we all have a God-shaped void. More, we our existence is sustained by Him Colossians 1:17.

Your fault would be to hear the gospel, be convinced He exists, then walk away. There could be fault in you, simply from walking away without being wise to investigate such an eternal matter.

Both of us, before hearing anything, could have blamed Adam for our miserable condition. I don't think, however 'blame' could take it away, just give us someone to complain against. I hope I've drawn those connection and meaningfully addressed them. I do care. If you wanted to be a Christian, you'd have to ask Him. I 'think' that answers your question. -Lon

Angel4Truth
October 12th, 2015, 01:39 PM
So is it god's fault I am not a believer?

Nope, its yours.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.…

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

2 Timothy 4:3-4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

kiwimacahau
October 12th, 2015, 01:46 PM
Thanks for showing people that not all Christians have abandoned public education.

Oh and Buzz, we're going to take it back and start teaching children moral doctrine once again.

I sincerely hope not. Morality is learned from parents not imposed by a group which must be as secular as possible. Would you be equally happy if the teachers concerned were Muslims?

Lon
October 14th, 2015, 04:41 PM
I sincerely hope not. Morality is learned from parents not imposed by a group which must be as secular as possible. Would you be equally happy if the teachers concerned were Muslims?
No. Just like TOL, there is bias. Christianity, "yes." Anything else? "No."

Secular education is like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in Nebuchadnezzar's court, but they'd have been/were much better educated staying in the land of promise. Proverbs 22:6 God removed them for a season and used it BUT it wasn't the ideal. The 'ideal' was why they held strong in the faith 'against' a counter-education. They were ten-times better educated than the secular culture Daniel 1:20

keypurr
October 14th, 2015, 08:01 PM
Public schools is no place for teaching religion of ANY kind.

Do that in your daily life, in your home and in your church.

patrick jane
October 14th, 2015, 08:22 PM
Public schools is no place for teaching religion of ANY kind.

Do that in your daily life, in your home and in your church.

That's the Jehova Witness view

Buzzword
October 14th, 2015, 09:26 PM
That's the Jehova Witness view

Assuming that's true, even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Quincy
October 14th, 2015, 09:35 PM
Public schools is no place for teaching religion of ANY kind.

Do that in your daily life, in your home and in your church.

Great post. What you teach your children is what they take to school with them, it can improve the quality of public schooling.... or not, lol.

Seems to me that public schools that are in bad shape, are that way because too many parents are sending bad kids to them. Teachers should teach, not be parents or religious mentors.

Angel4Truth
October 15th, 2015, 02:59 PM
Great post. What you teach your children is what they take to school with them, it can improve the quality of public schooling.... or not, lol.

Seems to me that public schools that are in bad shape, are that way because too many parents are sending bad kids to them. Teachers should teach, not be parents or religious mentors.

Public schools are in bad shape because the adults that run them have determined that God doesn't belong there and they teach the children that they are nothing more than animals, so thats how the kids act, like animals.

Jose Fly
October 15th, 2015, 03:02 PM
So basically, you want US public schools to be Christian madrasas?

Lon
October 24th, 2015, 12:33 AM
Oh dear! That was brilliant!
.... :think:


Which god? You folks make reference to one a lot on TOL :think:

I think in your head, there is a connect that is meaningful to you, but I'm missing part of it here, but I'll try. I think 'fault' is wrong though. We are born one way, it is Adam's 'fault' curse. We are born, like Dawkins said (not needing to reference or quote Dawkins or even bring him into the conversation, except as correct on an observation you and I can make), without God on this planet. "Natural?" No, we all have a God-shaped void. More, our existence is sustained by Him Colossians 1:17.

Your fault would be to hear the gospel, be convinced He exists, then walk away. There could be fault in you, simply from walking away without being wise to investigate such an eternal matter.

Both of us, before hearing anything, could have blamed Adam for our miserable condition. I don't think, however 'blame' could take it away, just give us someone to complain against.

I hope I've drawn those connections and meaningfully addressed them. I do care.

If you wanted to be a Christian, you'd have to ask Him. I 'think' that answers your question. -Lon

1Mind1Spirit
October 24th, 2015, 01:19 AM
Public schools is no place for teaching religion of ANY kind.

Do that in your daily life, in your home and in your church.

One can step over the line, like tellin' the kid his/her mom was bad and going to hell, crazy hunh?

However.........


I reckon it could be studied some in history and social studies.

In particular American history?

It wouldn't hurt to teach children that George Washington believed in God and his son Jesus.

http://www.propheticroundtable.org/ForeFathers/GeorgeWashington/A%20Prayer.htm

Almighty God,

We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy Holy protection; and Thou wilt incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field.

And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

--George Washington

1Mind1Spirit
October 24th, 2015, 02:03 AM
So basically, you want US public schools to be Christian madrasas?

Nope, just teach that one of the reasons this country was established was so that people could serve God the father of Jesus Christ to the dictates of their own conscience.

All done within the confines of the Constitution.

Which by the way does not allow federal judges to make up laws and then single handedly enforce them.

All the Supreme Court did in the gay marriage deal is say laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional.

So then if a state brought somebody to court for issuing licenses contrary to the sate's law, the lower courts are obliged not to prosecute them.

One of the main problems in this country is judges thinking they can legally hold bench trials.

Article 3 of the Constitution says ALL cases criminal and civil will be decided by trial by jury.

Just tossin' that out there, sorry for straying a little.

I understand your concern about unlearned Christian zealots over stepping their bounds, but they are no worse than you unbelievers wishing to do the same in the other direction.

keypurr
October 24th, 2015, 09:28 PM
One can step over the line, like tellin' the kid his/her mom was bad and going to hell, crazy hunh?

However.........


I reckon it could be studied some in history and social studies.

In particular American history?

It wouldn't hurt to teach children that George Washington believed in God and his son Jesus.

http://www.propheticroundtable.org/ForeFathers/GeorgeWashington/A%20Prayer.htm

Almighty God,

We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy Holy protection; and Thou wilt incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field.

And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

--George Washington

Holiness comes from the heart, not the State.
Keep ALL religion out of public schools.
That way no one steps on someone elses toes.

1Mind1Spirit
October 25th, 2015, 01:46 AM
Holiness comes from the heart, not the State.
Keep ALL religion out of public schools.
That way no one steps on someone elses toes.

All well and good.

But I wonder about yer ability to perform on a jury.

Just sayin' my friend. :)

Jose Fly
October 25th, 2015, 09:55 AM
Nope, just teach that one of the reasons this country was established was so that people could serve God the father of Jesus Christ to the dictates of their own conscience.

All done within the confines of the Constitution.

As well as people of other faiths who want to practice their religions, and people of no religion who want to be free to not have to abide by the rules of someone else's religion.


Which by the way does not allow federal judges to make up laws and then single handedly enforce them.

Good thing they don't then.


All the Supreme Court did in the gay marriage deal is say laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional.

So then if a state brought somebody to court for issuing licenses contrary to the sate's law, the lower courts are obliged not to prosecute them.

And if a same sex couple applies for a marriage license, there's no legal basis for the state to deny it to them. If the state does deny it, the state is violating the Constitutional rights of the couple (by denying them equal protection and due process).


I understand your concern about unlearned Christian zealots over stepping their bounds, but they are no worse than you unbelievers wishing to do the same in the other direction.

Such as.....?

patrick jane
October 25th, 2015, 10:01 AM
Almighty God,

We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy Holy protection; and Thou wilt incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field.

And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

--George Washington

Good Georgey quote !

Clete
October 25th, 2015, 10:13 AM
Oh look, a public school teacher forcing.....RELIGION....upon students.
Child students, at that.
THIS is why some of us so vehemently defend the Wall of Separation.



Georgia School Pays Up After Teacher Tells First Grader His Mom Is Bad Because She Doesn't Believe in God (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/georgia-school-pays-up-after-teacher-tells-first-grader-his-mom-is-bad-because-she-doesnt-believe-in-god/)
So let me get this straight...

You start a thread asking us to tell you how public schools are atheistic with an opening post saying that they aren't atheistic enough.

Do I have that right?


At any rate, the solution isn't to make public schools more atheistic, its to abolish them altogether. What you consider the removal of indoctrination into one religion I consider to be indoctrination into another. In other words, if the state can't force Christianity (or another theistic religion) down your throat, why do you think it can force atheism (the only alternative) down mine?

The only way your "wall of separation" can be maintained is for the government to get out of the schooling business.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jose Fly
October 25th, 2015, 10:21 AM
In other words, if the state can't force Christianity (or another theistic religion) down your throat, why do you think it can force atheism (the only alternative) down mine?

I'm always amused at how some people can only seem to think in black/white extremes, in this case where if a school doesn't indoctrinate students into any religion, that has to mean they're "forcing atheism".

You do understand there's a difference between the school saying "There are no gods" (atheism, which they don't do) and "whatever you believe about gods is up to you" (neutrality, which is what they do), don't you?

1Mind1Spirit
October 25th, 2015, 12:50 PM
[QUOTE=Jose Fly;4496904]As well as people of other faiths who want to practice their religions, and people of no religion who want to be free to not have to abide by the rules of someone else's religion.

So we are on the same page then?

Christianity may be taught from a historical point of view?




Good thing they don't then.

So nobody was jailed for contempt of a judge's order when he thought he could?


And if a same sex couple applies for a marriage license, there's no legal basis for the state to deny it to them.

Who is gonna make them issue them?



If the state does deny it, the state is violating the Constitutional rights of the couple (by denying them equal protection and due process).

This is merely an opinion offered by 5 judges.


Such as.....?

Trying to redefine marriage for one.

Jose Fly
October 25th, 2015, 01:08 PM
So we are on the same page then?

Christianity may be taught from a historical point of view?

Of course, along with other religions. That's how things are done in many schools today.


So nobody was jailed for contempt of a judge's order when he thought he could?

Contempt of court is not a law.


Who is gonna make them issue them?

There's no legal reason for them not to. If they don't, they are violating the Constitutional rights of the applicants, which carries specific consequences.


This is merely an opinion offered by 5 judges.

Under the US Constitution, the Supreme Court exists specifically to rule on Constitutional issues and their rulings are the final say. So no, their ruling is more than "merely an opinion".


Trying to redefine marriage for one.

You mean like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

1Mind1Spirit
October 25th, 2015, 01:32 PM
Of course, along with other religions. That's how things are done in many schools today.


What are these other supposed religions that affected the decisions of the men forming this country?





Contempt of court is not a law.

This is relevant to our discussion how?

Answer my question.




There's no legal reason for them not to. If they don't, they are violating the Constitutional rights of the applicants, which carries specific consequences.

If you would answer the question you would be listing these specifics, so what are they?




Under the US Constitution, the Supreme Court exists specifically to rule on Constitutional issues and their rulings are the final say. So no, their ruling is more than "merely an opinion".

If that's true then address my specific questions.



You mean like they did in Loving v. Virginia?

This has already been addressed in another thread, and shot down.

Yer not the sharpest pencil in the drawer are yuh?

Clete
October 25th, 2015, 02:03 PM
I'm always amused at how some people can only seem to think in black/white extremes, in this case where if a school doesn't indoctrinate students into any religion, that has to mean they're "forcing atheism".

You do understand there's a difference between the school saying "There are no gods" (atheism, which they don't do) and "whatever you believe about gods is up to you" (neutrality, which is what they do), don't you?

I understand that this the theory but I also understand it is self contradictory. The lack of a theistic education is, by definition, atheistic. That's what the word means.

This is not merely a question of linguistics but is true in practice as well. The neutrality you speak of is not possible to achieve in actual practice. There is no way to learn from a non-theistic perspective without thinking atheisticly. There is no way to compartmentalize your atheistic education away from the whole rest of the way you think about every other issue in your life.

This obvious fact is well known by those in power. It is the principle reason that progressives have always wanted a public school system.

1Mind1Spirit
October 25th, 2015, 02:38 PM
I understand that this the theory but I also understand it is self contradictory. The lack of a theistic education is, by definition, atheistic. That's what the word means.

This is not merely a question of linguistics but is true in practice as well. The neutrality you speak of is not possible to achieve in actual practice. There is no way to learn from a non-theistic perspective without thinking atheisticly. There is no way to compartmentalize your atheistic education away from the whole rest of the way you think about every other issue in your life.

This obvious fact is well known by those in power. It is the principle reason that progressives have always wanted a public school system.

:)

Jose Fly
October 25th, 2015, 02:40 PM
What are these other supposed religions that affected the decisions of the men forming this country?
In world history classes, the major religions of the world are covered.


This is relevant to our discussion how?
You're talking about Kim Davis, right? She was jailed for contempt of court.


If you would answer the question you would be listing these specifics, so what are they?
You're not making sense. You asked (I think, your question wasn't clear) who makes officials issue marriage licenses. That would be whoever enforces state law. And if in issuing or not issuing licences the person violates someone's Constitutional rights, then the federal government gets involved.


If that's true then address my specific questions.
What do you mean, "If that's true"? You don't know what the Constitution says? And what question are you talking about?


This has already been addressed in another thread, and shot down.
Where?

Jose Fly
October 25th, 2015, 02:53 PM
. The lack of a theistic education is, by definition, atheistic. That's what the word means.
Not atheistic in the sense that they are teaching students that gods don't exist, or any other positions regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. All they're saying is the school takes no position one way or the other on questions of religion. That seems fair.


The neutrality you speak of is not possible to achieve in actual practice.
Sure it is.


There is no way to learn from a non-theistic perspective without thinking atheisticly.
Yes there is. A student can think of 2+2=4 as theistically as they want.


There is no way to compartmentalize your atheistic education away from the whole rest of the way you think about every other issue in your life.

Not everyone is limited to such black/white thinking.


This obvious fact is well known by those in power. It is the principle reason that progressives have always wanted a public school system.
Ah yes... Public schools are a liberal plot. :chuckle:

1Mind1Spirit
October 25th, 2015, 06:41 PM
In world history classes, the major religions of the world are covered.


Not American history. The question was about this country. Do you really not have the capacity to carry on a conversation?


You're talking about Kim Davis, right? She was jailed for contempt of court.

Yep, by a judge who thought he had the authority to single handedly declare and enforce as law a supreme court decision.




You're not making sense. You asked (I think, your question wasn't clear) who makes officials issue marriage licenses. That would be whoever enforces state law. And if in issuing or not issuing licences the person violates someone's Constitutional rights, then the federal government gets involved.

Pay attention.

This is how supreme court decisions work.

The Supreme Court rules on appeals.

When they make a decision it governs how the lower courts can try cases.

In this case the 2 lesbians who sued her will have to take her back to court.

Unless they can get a jury to award them anything it is an exercise in futility.

The Supreme Court has no authority to try her, let alone have her locked up.

Nor especially a lower federal court judge.

The Judge had to let her go, or the Supreme court would end up having to rule on his authority to make and enforce laws.

In which case he would lose hands down.

Thereby opening himself up to a lawsuit.

Actually, depending upon her wanting to pursue it, and finding an honest judge that would let her in his court, he already has.

I'd surely welcome a chance to be on that jury.



What do you mean, "If that's true"? You don't know what the Constitution says? And what question are you talking about?

If I'm wrong, perhaps you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the Supreme Court can make and enforce laws.

:wazzup:

PureX
October 26th, 2015, 08:34 AM
State and federal legislators create the laws. Judges enforce those laws on an individual basis. If the individual does not believe he has been treated justly under that law enforcement, he can appeal to a higher court. And that court will either uphold the lower court's decision or set aside the lower court's verdict. And even that judgment can be appealed to a higher court, until it reaches the Supreme Court. At which point the decision cannot be appealed any further.

When a higher court determines such appeals, it sets a "precedent" that other lower court judges will then follow, so as not to have their decisions subjected to appeal in the higher courts.

No judge, anywhere, makes laws. They simply apply the laws that legislators have made to the situations brought before them. If you think judges are making laws, you have fallen for a lie, and you should stop doing that.

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 09:25 AM
Not atheistic in the sense that they are teaching students that gods don't exist, or any other positions regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. All they're saying is the school takes no position one way or the other on questions of religion. That seems fair.
This cannot be done!

If God exists and you ignore Him then you are tacitly teaching either that He doesn't really exist or something even worse than atheism.


Sure it is.
No, it isn't!

Whether God exists is the central question of ALL learning! Attempting to teach ANYTHING while ignoring a God that exists is akin to teaching painting while ignoring color.

Your "neutral" stance attempts to presume the answer to the question of God's existence without actually answering it. It is the quintessential eating your cake and having it too.

In other words a so called "neutral" stance looks exactly like what schools would look like if everyone was an atheist and the question of God's existence never came up. It is an atheistic system, by default, which is the reason why atheists are in favor of it.


Yes there is. A student can think of 2+2=4 as theistically as they want.
But they will not do so in an atheistic school system! They won't and the atheists know they won't! If you think atheists are neutral about the existence of God, you're wrong.


Not everyone is limited to such black/white thinking.
Right and wrong thinking. Only those who haven't recovered from their public school education think in shades of gray. The rejection of absolutes is a terrific example of just the thing I'm talking about. You cannot ignore the existence of God, which presupposes that there is no absolute truths and expect anything other than to graduate a bunch of kids that, at the very least question, if not outright reject the morals that hold civilized society together.


Ah yes... Public schools are a liberal plot. :chuckle:
If you think otherwise then you're just naive. It is the tenth plank in the Communist Manifesto and has always been a desire of the government (all governments) to control the education of its citizens. If you control the education system you control the population. Marx understood this well.

The public school system is the most Marxist thing about this nation and we have progressively (I use that term intentionally) become more and more liberal ever since their inception to the point where we now have what is effectively a fascist form of government.

Of course you don't know this because you were educated in a government school, which is precisely the problem with government schools! It is far too much power to put into the hands of the government. The society is overthrown without even understanding what is happening.

Not only that but public schools, by there very nature are socialistic. Kids that stand out are made fun of. The kids who finish their work first are told to go help the slower students. If part of the class misbehaves the entire class is punished as often as not. Its all about group think. Kids are pressured from a hundred different directions to not stand, to think as a member of the group and not as an individual. The kids are taught to follow the rules for the sake of following the rules, not because the rules make any sense. In fact, the less sense a rule makes the more strictly it is enforced. The result is a generation of citizens that do not think for themselves, believes it is their duty to be their brother's keeper and to comply with whatever those in authority say the rules are.

This is anything but "neutral" and it is the natural and unavoidable result of a school system that ignores the existence of God and therefore the basis and the very source of right and wrong. In a world where there is no ABSOLUTE right and wrong, there is no such thing as human RIGHTS. Your RIGHT to free speech is an issue of right and wrong. Your RIGHT to freedom of religion is a matter of right and wrong. Your RIGHT to a fair trial is a matter of right and wrong. All of your RIGHTS are a matter of morality. If you think that you can maintain a moral society by attempting to educate children while ignoring God then you deserve the totalitarian government that you'll end up producing and even supporting.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 09:27 AM
State and federal legislators create the laws. Judges enforce those laws on an individual basis. If the individual does not believe he has been treated justly under that law enforcement, he can appeal to a higher court. And that court will either uphold the lower court's decision or set aside the lower court's verdict. And even that judgment can be appealed to a higher court, until it reaches the Supreme Court. At which point the decision cannot be appealed any further.

When a higher court determines such appeals, it sets a "precedent" that other lower court judges will then follow, so as not to have their decisions subjected to appeal in the higher courts.

No judge, anywhere, makes laws. They simply apply the laws that legislators have made to the situations brought before them. If you think judges are making laws, you have fallen for a lie, and you should stop doing that.
This might be the way its supposed to be but if you think that the courts do not make defacto law in this country then you need to wake up to reality.

gcthomas
October 26th, 2015, 09:31 AM
This might be the way its supposed to be but if you think that the courts do not make defacto law in this country then you need to wake up to reality.

What you need, then, are lawmakers who know how to write a decent law that does not, and never will, need judicial interpretation.

Either that, or you leave judges to their proper task of interpreting laws.

PureX
October 26th, 2015, 09:34 AM
This might be the way its supposed to be but if you think that the courts do not make defacto law in this country then you need to wake up to reality.Courts don't make "defacto" laws or any other kind of laws. They apply the laws that have been written to the situations put before them. That's their purpose.

When people don't like their decisions, they whine and cry about them, and they make up lies about courts making "defacto" laws. But if anyone doesn't like a court's decision, they can always appeal it, even to the Supreme Court. Then when they still don't like the decision, they'll lie about that court, and those judges, too. Some people think the whole world is supposed to serve them, exclusively, and so they whine and cry and slander others when they don't get their way.

ok doser
October 26th, 2015, 09:39 AM
purexcrement's retarded version of what judges do:
No judge, anywhere, makes laws. They simply apply the laws that legislators have made to the situations brought before them.

gcthomas gets it:

Either that, or you leave judges to their proper task of interpreting laws.


judges interpret laws



now, if a judge chooses to interpret a law in a way that has never been done before, and that goes contrary to the will of the legislators who wrote that law and the people who voted those legislators into office, explain how that is not making law

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 10:39 AM
What you need, then, are lawmakers who know how to write a decent law that does not, and never will, need judicial interpretation.

Either that, or you leave judges to their proper task of interpreting laws.

What you suggest is not possible. Therefore, what you need if for people to stop writing laws - period.

Laws are not to be made, they are to be obeyed. God is the Law Giver, not man.

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 10:41 AM
Courts don't make "defacto" laws or any other kind of laws. They apply the laws that have been written to the situations put before them. That's their purpose.
Theoretically but this is not what we are living with in the country.


When people don't like their decisions, they whine and cry about them, and they make up lies about courts making "defacto" laws. But if anyone doesn't like a court's decision, they can always appeal it, even to the Supreme Court. Then when they still don't like the decision, they'll lie about that court, and those judges, too. Some people think the whole world is supposed to serve them, exclusively, and so they whine and cry and slander others when they don't get their way.
Head in the sand liberal!

Nevermind!


:wave2:

gcthomas
October 26th, 2015, 10:44 AM
What you suggest is not possible. Therefore, what you need if for people to stop writing laws - period.

Laws are not to be made, they are to be obeyed. God is the Law Giver, not man.

You and ISIS have a lot on common. But how do we decide exactly whose divinely inspired laws to obey? Do we make a judgement, or have a majority vote?

PureX
October 26th, 2015, 10:52 AM
You and ISIS have a lot on common. But how do we decide exactly whose divinely inspired laws to obey? Do we make a judgement, or have a majority vote?And like ISIS, he wants to destroy America, and create a dictatorial theocracy. We have labels for people like this.

ok doser
October 26th, 2015, 10:54 AM
And like ISIS, he wants to destroy America...

rather, unlike isis, he wants to save america from its slide into degradation and corruption and filth



..., and create a dictatorial theocracy. We have labels for people like this.

upstanding?

righteous?

moral?

intelligent?

gcthomas
October 26th, 2015, 10:57 AM
Anti-American.

Jose Fly
October 26th, 2015, 12:27 PM
Not American history. The question was about this country.

What specifically do you want taught?


Yep, by a judge who thought he had the authority to single handedly declare and enforce as law a supreme court decision.

Um.....all judges are required to uphold and enforce Supreme Court decisions. That's why they're called the Supreme Court. This is high school government class stuff (http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/role-supreme-court).

In the Kim Davis case, the Supreme Court had ruled that states cannot deny same-sex couples the ability to marry, because it violated their Constitutional rights. Thus, once the ruling was issued, when same-sex couples went into a government office and requested a marriage license, there was no longer a legal basis for refusing to give them one.

So in Kentucky, when Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, they sued her in federal court for violating their Constitutional rights. The judge agreed with them and issued a say, temporarily preventing Davis from refusing to issue marriage licenses. Davis tried to appeal that, but the 6th Circuit unanimously denied it. Davis then appealed to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear her appeal. This effectively ended Davis' attempt to continue to stop issuing marriage licenses. Yet she adamantly refused to issue any.

So Judge Bunning issued a court order for Davis to begin issuing marriage licenses again. She refused, so Judge Bunning found her in contempt of court and had her jailed.

So you see, no judge created new laws.


This is how supreme court decisions work.

The Supreme Court rules on appeals.

When they make a decision it governs how the lower courts can try cases.

In this case the 2 lesbians who sued her will have to take her back to court.

Unless they can get a jury to award them anything it is an exercise in futility.

The Supreme Court has no authority to try her, let alone have her locked up.

Nor especially a lower federal court judge.

The Judge had to let her go, or the Supreme court would end up having to rule on his authority to make and enforce laws.

In which case he would lose hands down.

Thereby opening himself up to a lawsuit.

Actually, depending upon her wanting to pursue it, and finding an honest judge that would let her in his court, he already has.

I'd surely welcome a chance to be on that jury.

There's so much wrong in that, it's not worth the time it would take to correct it all. Suffice to say, I'm sure you'll be stamping your feet and shouting at the TV as this case progresses and it doesn't go the way you think it should.


If I'm wrong, perhaps you can tell me where in the Constitution it says the Supreme Court can make and enforce laws.

As explained above, no judge made any new laws. Try and get the basic facts of a situation straight before you start to debate it.

Jose Fly
October 26th, 2015, 12:42 PM
This cannot be done!

Sure it can.


If God exists and you ignore Him then you are tacitly teaching either that He doesn't really exist or something even worse than atheism.

Again, not everyone is limited by black/white thinking.


Whether God exists is the central question of ALL learning!

No it's not. I'm sure that's what you believe, but that's all it is....something you believe.


Attempting to teach ANYTHING while ignoring a God that exists is akin to teaching painting while ignoring color.

Who said they're ignoring gods? Many schools cover world religions.


Your "neutral" stance attempts to presume the answer to the question of God's existence without actually answering it. It is the quintessential eating your cake and having it too.

Again we see the limitations of your black/white way of thinking. Look at it from the perspective of a school. Among its student population are Christians, Mormons, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and students who are "spiritual" but don't belong to any particular religion. So the school takes a "hands off" approach, where all those students are free to practice their religion as they see fit, even during the school day (provided it's not disruptive) and the school may even help them out (e.g., provide space and materials for a Christian club, provide a space where Muslim students can pray). But at no point does the school teach that one of those beliefs is right and the others are wrong.

And that's the way it should be.


In other words a so called "neutral" stance looks exactly like what schools would look like if everyone was an atheist and the question of God's existence never came up. It is an atheistic system, by default, which is the reason why atheists are in favor of it.

Then why do public schools have Bible Study Clubs, prayer at the pole events, and a host of other God-oriented functions? Would an atheistic system allow that?


But they will not do so in an atheistic school system! They won't and the atheists know they won't! If you think atheists are neutral about the existence of God, you're wrong.

That doesn't even make sense, given what you claim to be responding to (A student can think of 2+2=4 as theistically as they want).


Only those who haven't recovered from their public school education think in shades of gray.

Uh huh. There ya' go....anything other than absolutist, black/white thinking is atheistic!!! :kookoo:


If you think otherwise then you're just naive. It is the tenth plank in the Communist Manifesto and has always been a desire of the government (all governments) to control the education of its citizens. If you control the education system you control the population. Marx understood this well.

The public school system is the most Marxist thing about this nation and we have progressively (I use that term intentionally) become more and more liberal ever since their inception to the point where we now have what is effectively a fascist form of government.

Ok then....:rolleyes: I see by the rest of your posts that you are yet another Christian theocrat at ToL, who wants a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Let's just say I'm very glad that your views are an extreme minority.

Ben Masada
October 26th, 2015, 01:26 PM
IMHO, it is because in public schools, the atheists find inexperienced young people to easily plant their seed of spiritual irresponsibility when they themselves are frustrated for not being able to believe what they do not understand.

PureX
October 26th, 2015, 01:48 PM
IMHO, it is because in public schools, the atheists find inexperienced young people to easily plant their seed of spiritual irresponsibility when they themselves are frustrated for not being able to believe what they do not understand.I spent some years in both Catholic schools, and public schools, and not once in the public schools did anyone even mention religion to me, let alone suggest that I believe or disbelieve anything.

You people just make this stuff up out of your ignorance and bile. And you do far more harm to religion than any atheists.

Ben Masada
October 26th, 2015, 01:59 PM
I spent some years in both Catholic schools, and public schools, and not once in the public schools did anyone even mention religion to me, let alone suggest that I believe or disbelieve anything.

You people just make this stuff up out of your ignorance and bile. And you do far more harm to religion than any atheists.

I hope, albeit to me, you are addressing your post above to the poster who wrote: "Tell me again how public schools are cesspools of Atheism." What I meant is something like, If that's true, my opinion is that the reason is so and so. It means I had never heard it before. If it is true, what I said in my post remains for a fact.

Jose Fly
October 26th, 2015, 02:04 PM
I spent some years in both Catholic schools, and public schools, and not once in the public schools did anyone even mention religion to me, let alone suggest that I believe or disbelieve anything.

You people just make this stuff up out of your ignorance and bile. And you do far more harm to religion than any atheists.

You're not thinking like a fundamentalist. In their black/white world, if the schools aren't actively promoting and endorsing Christianity, then the only other alternative is that they are actively suppressing and denouncing Christianity. There is no room in their heads for any other possibility.

Ben Masada
October 26th, 2015, 02:11 PM
You're not thinking like a fundamentalist. In their black/white world, if the schools aren't actively promoting and endorsing Christianity, then the only other alternative is that they are actively suppressing and denouncing Christianity. There is no room in their heads for any other possibility.

And, are you implying that's when the season is open for the atheists to pit it in? Do you mean that the lack of promotion of Christianity is a sign for atheists to promote the doctrine that the Primal Cause does not exist?

Jose Fly
October 26th, 2015, 02:35 PM
And, are you implying that's when the season is open for the atheists to pit it in?

You'll have to explain further, because that doesn't make sense.


Do you mean that the lack of promotion of Christianity is a sign for atheists to promote the doctrine that the Primal Cause does not exist?

No, I was describing the fundamentalist mindset.

gcthomas
October 26th, 2015, 02:38 PM
rather, unlike isis, he wants to save america from its slide into degradation and corruption and filth

Now that sounds EXACTLY like ISIS. You just want the OT Christian version of Sharia law.

ok doser
October 26th, 2015, 02:40 PM
Now that sounds EXACTLY like ISIS.

only if you're retarded :idunno:

gcthomas
October 26th, 2015, 02:41 PM
only if you're retarded :idunno:

Have any other playground insults? You are repeating on me. :carryon:

Ben Masada
October 26th, 2015, 03:22 PM
You'll have to explain further, because that doesn't make sense.

No, I was describing the fundamentalist mindset.

And what could be the other possibility in their heads, Atheism? You know where we are moving to. I hope you are not taking me as a fundamentalist.

Jose Fly
October 26th, 2015, 03:31 PM
And what could be the other possibility in their heads, Atheism?

In their heads, yes.


You know where we are moving to.

Where?


I hope you are not taking me as a fundamentalist.

I'm not sure how to take you so far. Just being honest.

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 04:49 PM
Sure it can.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Make an argument or stop repeating yourself like an mindless moron.


Again, not everyone is limited by black/white thinking.
That doesn't make what I said untrue. All truth claims - all of them - are either true or false. This is second law of reason. Its called the Law of Excluded Middle. All rational thought is black or white, right or wrong. If you attended public school, you'll have to look up the laws of reason and read in order to be able to respond intelligently to this point. It isn't taught in public schools.


No it's not. I'm sure that's what you believe, but that's all it is....something you believe.
Its far more than that. I can prove it. No thought is possible without presupposing the existence of God. Every atheist who attempts to debate anything tacitly concedes God's existence by showing up for the debate.


Who said they're ignoring gods? Many schools cover world religions.
Don't be stupid.


Again we see the limitations of your black/white way of thinking. Look at it from the perspective of a school. Among its student population are Christians, Mormons, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and students who are "spiritual" but don't belong to any particular religion. So the school takes a "hands off" approach, where all those students are free to practice their religion as they see fit, even during the school day (provided it's not disruptive) and the school may even help them out (e.g., provide space and materials for a Christian club, provide a space where Muslim students can pray). But at no point does the school teach that one of those beliefs is right and the others are wrong.
Only atheists are capable of thinking that this is convincing. At BEST, and I mean if you really give it the benefit of every imaginable doubt, this tacitly teaches that all of these religions are equally valid, equally true and that truth is, as you keep implying, subjective and not absolute, which IS NOT NEUTRAL!!!!


And that's the way it should be.
The way it should be is that the government stays out of the education business! By what right does the government take my money (by force) and spend it on someone else's education?


Then why do public schools have Bible Study Clubs, prayer at the pole events, and a host of other God-oriented functions? Would an atheistic system allow that?
The system is intentionally atheistic and so your question answers itself. Atheists can tolerate people with religions without becoming theists.


That doesn't even make sense, given what you claim to be responding to (A student can think of 2+2=4 as theistically as they want).
I read it correctly the first time. My response makes total sense.


Uh huh. There ya' go....anything other than absolutist, black/white thinking is atheistic!!! :kookoo:
No, that's not what I said at all, nor do I believe it. There are many eastern religions that open reject 'either/or' kind of reasoning but even they cannot escape the nature of reality. When they attempt to convince you that 'both/and' philosophy is superior, they are essentially attempting to tell you that is either 'both/and' or nothing. Either/Or thinking emerges no matter how hard you try to avoid it. This is because of the second law of reason, the Law of Excluded Middle. All truth claims are either true or they are false.


Ok then....:rolleyes: I see by the rest of your posts that you are yet another Christian theocrat at ToL, who wants a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Let's just say I'm very glad that your views are an extreme minority.
You don't know the first thing about what I want. Saudi Arabian law is extremely unjust, although not as much as our own.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 04:58 PM
You and ISIS have a lot on common.
Poisoning the well fallacy.

It only works on the weak minded and unrehabilitated former public school student (usually the same thing).


But how do we decide exactly whose divinely inspired laws to obey? Do we make a judgement, or have a majority vote?
Neither. No man made government is capable of enacting a just legal system. When it is finally enacted, your question will answer itself.


Isaiah 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake;
He will exalt the law and make it honorable.

However, the fact that no human government will ever be just, does not mean that we aught not advocate justice.


Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.

Psalm 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 05:03 PM
And like ISIS, he wants to destroy America, and create a dictatorial theocracy. We have labels for people like this.

Stupidity!

I've never said any such thing! What the hell are you even talking about?


I would point out, however, it is this sort of reactionary stupidity that will, in the end, make Christianity illegal in America. That is where we are headed. Eventually, every thing that remains that looks even a little bit like biblical Christianity will be called extremist and hate speech or even terrorist. Hide and watch! That's where this society is headed. And we're headed there because of comments like the one made here by PureX and the mindless twits who say it, repeat it or believe it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jose Fly
October 26th, 2015, 05:08 PM
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Keep that in mind.


All rational thought is black or white, right or wrong.

Saying it doesn't make it so.


Its far more than that. I can prove it. No thought is possible without presupposing the existence of God. Every atheist who attempts to debate anything tacitly concedes God's existence by showing up for the debate.

Mmmm hmmm. :rolleyes:


Don't be stupid.

Fantastic rebuttal. :rolleyes:


Only atheists are capable of thinking that this is convincing.

Saying it doesn't make it so.


At BEST, and I mean if you really give it the benefit of every imaginable doubt, this tacitly teaches that all of these religions are equally valid, equally true and that truth is, as you keep implying, subjective and not absolute, which IS NOT NEUTRAL!!!!

No, it's "here are all the major religions" and nothing more.


The way it should be is that the government stays out of the education business! By what right does the government take my money (by force) and spend it someone else's education?

Because it's in the national interest to have a well-educated populace.


The system is intentionally atheistic

Saying it doesn't make it so.


Atheists can tolerate people with religions without becoming theists.

You really have no idea what to do with that information, do you? The fact is, public schools all across the country allow students to form religious groups, practice their religion, bring religious books, have religious discussions, and believe whatever they like about gods. In many cases the schools actually provide material support (a place to meet) for these activities.

All of that is the exact opposite of an "atheistic school system".


I read it correctly the first time. My response makes total sense.

Saying it doesn't make it so.


You don't know the first thing about what I want.

Good. Let's keep it that way. :chuckle:

PureX
October 26th, 2015, 08:23 PM
Stupidity!

I've never said any such thing! What the hell are you even talking about?


I would point out, however, it is this sort of reactionary stupidity that will, in the end, make Christianity illegal in America. That is where we are headed. Eventually, every thing that remains that looks even a little bit like biblical Christianity will be called extremist and hate speech or even terrorist. Hide and watch! That's where this society is headed. And we're headed there because of comments like the one made here by PureX and the mindless twits who say it, repeat it or believe it.

Resting in Him,
CleteYou want to destroy the government. You want to destroy public education. You want to destroy the courts. You want to destroy anything and anyone that doesn't bow to your self-righteous religious dogma. How are you any different from the members of ISIS?

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 08:46 PM
You want to destroy the government.
Nope.


You want to destroy public education.
I'd love for the public school system to be dismantled and replaced with a free market school system, yes.


You want to destroy the courts.
Nope


You want to destroy anything and anyone that doesn't bow to your self-righteous religious dogma.
Nope! A lot!


How are you any different from the members of ISIS?
You're a lunatic.

Clete
October 26th, 2015, 08:50 PM
Because it's in the national interest to have a well-educated populace.
Propaganda - at best.

Its in anyone's best interest to be educated. We do not need the government for that. This country became the greatest nation in the history of the world without a public school system.

Further, since when is it the governments job to decide what is my best interest? That's mine to decide, not yours, not the majority, not the government.



The rest of your post was puerile and unresponsive and therefore ignored. (Go ahead, look up 'puerile', no own will know!)

glorydaz
October 26th, 2015, 09:13 PM
Stupidity!

I've never said any such thing! What the hell are you even talking about?


I would point out, however, it is this sort of reactionary stupidity that will, in the end, make Christianity illegal in America. That is where we are headed. Eventually, every thing that remains that looks even a little bit like biblical Christianity will be called extremist and hate speech or even terrorist. Hide and watch! That's where this society is headed. And we're headed there because of comments like the one made here by PureX and the mindless twits who say it, repeat it or believe it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Exactly. It's the brain washing the libs have undergone. They are without reason...total reactionaries.....fear mongering....without an ounce of common sense. I know them well. I live in Eugene, Oregon, and they never cease to amaze me.

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 02:39 AM
Exactly. It's the brain washing the libs have undergone. They are without reason...total reactionaries.....fear mongering....without an ounce of common sense. I know them well. I live in Eugene, Oregon, and they never cease to amaze me.

So you are right because you are right, and all those who disagree with you by definition must be wrong?

Fallacy of opposition. (Go on, look it up. I don't expect this was included in your schooling, was it?)

Buzzword
October 27th, 2015, 07:30 AM
So you are right because you are right, and all those who disagree with you by definition must be wrong?

Fallacy of opposition. (Go on, look it up. I don't expect this was included in your schooling, was it?)

Fallacy of Opposition (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_opposition)
A bit of light reading.

Of course, Clete's been guilty of multiple other fallacies on this thread as well.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-bIjkOGtR880/VaAw2VrARVI/AAAAAAAAxS4/93i4GYywmFM/divine%2Bfallacy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kR3VptX.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Nc4sv00zGmpA-pnU-JoIF8029VtTGJZ6ItTQHx0B5Our=w381-h214-p-no
http://40.media.tumblr.com/af96b61d61bf1b40c237dd0381595216/tumblr_inline_nrl12zckWj1qifyvs_400.jpg

Among others.

Jose Fly
October 27th, 2015, 08:37 AM
Propaganda - at best.

Saying it doesn't make it so.


Its in anyone's best interest to be educated. We do not need the government for that. This country became the greatest nation in the history of the world without a public school system.


Here, educate yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#Growth_o f_public_schools).

"After the Revolution, an emphasis was put on education, especially in the northern states, which rapidly established public schools. By the year 1870, all states had free elementary schools."


Further, since when is it the governments job to decide what is my best interest? That's mine to decide, not yours, not the majority, not the government.

Pay close attention. I said it was in the nation's interest to have an educate populace. If you think being educated is not in your best interest, I'll let that speak for itself.

Clete
October 27th, 2015, 02:35 PM
Saying it doesn't make it so.



Here, educate yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#Growth_o f_public_schools).

"After the Revolution, an emphasis was put on education, especially in the northern states, which rapidly established public schools. By the year 1870, all states had free elementary schools."
The vast majority of schools in this country while often funded by a pool of money (sometimes taxes but usually not) they were not controlled by the government. They were controlled by the parents of the students in that school.


Pay close attention. I said it was in the nation's interest to have an educate populace. If you think being educated is not in your best interest, I'll let that speak for itself.
This was an irrational response. It seems you didn't understand what I said. It doesn't matter. I really don't care what you think.

Clete
October 27th, 2015, 02:57 PM
Some (most) of you on this thread seem incapable of separating what I actually say from some preconceived notion you have about what I must believe since I don't like the public school system.
The thread was started with a less than totally coherent argument about the public school system not being atheistic. For that reason I was making the argument that, in fact, the public school system is atheistic because the word 'atheistic' means "no religion" (i.e. it does not mean "anti-religion"). The rebuttals to my arguments universally contained within them (tacitly or otherwise) some attempt to convince me that the public school system provided an education that was non-religious, as though that somehow contradicted my position. I'll never understand how liberals live as long as they do. It would seem that if one's mind was malfunctioning to to such a degree, that they'd forget to eat or to breath or something. Anyway, I digress....

What I want to make clear with this post is simply that, while I don't like the idea of an atheistic school system, I do not object to the public school system primarily on that basis. In fact, I would be directly apposed to any attempt to "fix" the public school system by allowing prayer or by introducing creationism or whatever other misguided things many Christians have attempted over the years. I do not believe that the public schools system can be fixed any more than I believe Obama Care can be fixed. It is fundamentally flawed and is in opposition to freedom. The only "fix" is to abolish it. Indeed, if you are apposed to government healthcare, you aught to be apposed to government schooling for the same reasons.

The point being simply that this is not a religious issue! I am not apposed to either public schools nor public health care because I'm a Christian but because I'm an American that believes in individual freedom. To demonstrate that it is not a religious issue I submit the following essay from Ayn Rand - an atheist.




“Common Good”

The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.

“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.

“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?

It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - What is Capitalism - pg 20

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
October 27th, 2015, 03:27 PM
Here's an even better argument from Rand which is specifically on the topic of public education...



PUBLIC EDUCATION

SHOULD EDUCATION BE COMPULSORY AND TAX-SUPPORTED, AS IT IS TODAY?

The answer to this question becomes evident if one makes the question more concrete and specific, as follows:
Should the government be permitted to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without the parents' consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve? Should citizens have their wealth expropriated to support an educational system which they may or may not sanction, and to pay for the education of children who are not their own? To anyone who understands and is consistently committed to the principle of individual rights, the answer is clearly: No.

There are no moral grounds whatever for the claim that education is the prerogative of the State—or for the claim that it is proper to expropriate the wealth of some men for the unearned benefit of others.

The doctrine that education should be controlled by the State is consistent with the Nazi or communist theory of government. It is not consistent with the American theory of government. The totalitarian implications of State education (preposterously described as "free education") have in part been obscured by the fact that in America, unlike Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, private schools
are legally tolerated. Such schools, however, exist not by right but only by permission.

Further, the facts remain that:
(a) most parents are effectively compelled to send their children to State schools, since they are taxed to support these schools and cannot afford to pay the additional fees required to send their children to private schools;
(b) the standards of education, controlling all schools,
are prescribed by the State;
(c) the growing trend in American education is for the government to exert wider and wider control over every aspect of education.

As an example of this last: when many parents, who objected to the pictographic method of teaching schoolchildren to read, undertook to teach their children at home by the phonetic method—a proposal was made legally to forbid parents to do so. What is the implication of this, if not that the child's mind belongs to the State?

When the State assumes financial control of education, it is logically appropriate that the State should progressively assume control of the content of education—since the State has the responsibility of judging whether or not its funds are being used "satisfactorily." But when a government enters the sphere of ideas, when it presumes to prescribe in issues concerning intellectual content, that is the death of a free society.

To quote Isabel Paterson in The God of the Machine:
"Educational texts are necessarily selective, in subject matter, language, and point of view. Where teaching is conducted by private schools, there will be a considerable variation in different schools; the parents must judge what they want their children taught, by the curriculum offered. Then each must strive for objective truth. . . . Nowhere will there be any inducement to teach the "supremacy of the state" as a compulsory philosophy. But every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later, whether as the divine right of kings, or the "will of the people" in "democracy." Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property, and mind in its clutches from infancy."

The disgracefully low level of education in America today is the predictable result of a State-controlled school system. Schooling, to a marked extent, has become a status symbol and a ritual. More and more people are entering college— and fewer and fewer people are emerging properly educated. Our educational system is like a vast bureaucracy, a vast civil service, in which the trend is toward a policy of considering everything about a teacher's qualifications (such as the number of bis publications) except his teaching ability; and of considering everything about a student's qualifications (such as his "social adaptability") except his intellectual competence.
The solution is to bring the field of education into the marketplace.

There is an urgent economic need for education. When educational institutions have to compete with one another in the quality of the training they offer—when they have to compete for the value that will be attached to the diplomas they issue—educational standards will necessarily rise. When they have to compete for the services of the best teachers, the teachers who will attract the greatest number of students, then the caliber of teaching—and of teachers' salaries—will necessarily rise. (Today, the most talented teachers often abandon their profession and enter private industry, where they know their efforts will be better rewarded.) When the economic principles that have resulted in the superlative efficiency of American industry are permitted to operate in the field of education, the result will be a revolution, in the direction of unprecedented educational development and growth.

Education should be liberated from the control or intervention of government, and turned over to profit-making private enterprise, not because education is unimportant, but because education is so crucially important.

What must be challenged is the prevalent belief that education is some sort of "natural right"—in effect, a free gift of nature. There are no such free gifts. But it is in the interests of statism to foster this delusion—in order to throw a smokescreen over the issue of whose freedom must be sacrificed to pay for such "free gifts."

As a result of the fact that education has been tax-supported for such a long time, most people find it difficult to project an alternative. Yet there is nothing unique about education that distinguishes it from the many other human needs which are filled by private enterprise. If, for many years, the government had undertaken to provide all the citizens with shoes (on the grounds that shoes are an urgent necessity), and if someone were subsequently to propose that this field should be turned over to private enterprise, he would doubtless be told indignantly: "What! Do you want everyone except the rich to walk around barefoot?" But the shoe industry is doing its job with immeasurably greater competence than public education is
doing its job.

To quote Isabel Paterson once more:
"The most vindictive resentment may be expected from the pedagogic profession for any suggestion that they should be dislodged from their dictatorial position; it will be expressed mainly in epithets, such as "reactionary," at the mildest. Nevertheless, the question to put to any teacher moved to such indignation is: Do you think nobody would willingly entrust his children to you and pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?

Ayn Rand - JUNE 1963.




Who here is in favor of public shoes?

Anyone?


Resting in Him,
Clete

gcthomas
October 27th, 2015, 03:36 PM
Who here is in favor of public shoes?

Anyone?

I think that each citizen should arrange their own shoes for their own children. Home shoes for all!

Clete
October 27th, 2015, 03:40 PM
I think that each citizen should arrange their own shoes for their own children. Home shoes for all!

I presume that you're okay with the idea of someone getting really good at making shoes and deciding to exchange his surplus shoes for something else of value so that not everyone has to spend the time it takes to make shoes for themselves - yes?

1Mind1Spirit
October 27th, 2015, 06:16 PM
What specifically do you want taught?


American history.


Um.....all judges are required to uphold and enforce Supreme Court decisions. That's why they're called the Supreme Court. This is high school government class stuff (http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/role-supreme-court).

That's what I said.

You fail to realize a judge's limitation of power.


In the Kim Davis case, the Supreme Court had ruled that states cannot deny same-sex couples the ability to marry, because it violated their Constitutional rights. Thus, once the ruling was issued, when same-sex couples went into a government office and requested a marriage license, there was no longer a legal basis for refusing to give them one.



So in Kentucky, when Kim Davis refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, they sued her in federal court for violating their Constitutional rights. The judge agreed with them and issued a say, temporarily preventing Davis from refusing to issue marriage licenses. Davis tried to appeal that, but the 6th Circuit unanimously denied it. Davis then appealed to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear her appeal. This effectively ended Davis' attempt to continue to stop issuing marriage licenses. Yet she adamantly refused to issue any.

So Judge Bunning issued a court order for Davis to begin issuing marriage licenses again. She refused, so Judge Bunning found her in contempt of court and had her jailed.

So you see, no judge created new laws.

Dude, this is a complete mess.


There's so much wrong in that, it's not worth the time it would take to correct it all. Suffice to say, I'm sure you'll be stamping your feet and shouting at the TV as this case progresses and it doesn't go the way you think it should.

IOW, you can't.:wazzup:


As explained above, no judge made any new laws. Try and get the basic facts of a situation straight before you start to debate it.

All you did was make a mess. :confused:

1Mind1Spirit
October 27th, 2015, 06:56 PM
Saying it doesn't make it so.

LOL.


Here, educate yourself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States#Growth_o f_public_schools).

"After the Revolution, an emphasis was put on education, especially in the northern states, which rapidly established public schools. By the year 1870, all states had free elementary schools."

You're discounting a hundred years of no government forced education.

The Revolutionary war was 100 years before 1870, so Clete saying your argument doesn't hold water still applies.




Pay close attention. I said it was in the nation's interest to have an educate populace. If you think being educated is not in your best interest, I'll let that speak for itself.

Nobody's disputing that.

The dispute is over whether the government's interest takes precedent over the right of the people.

I know you don't like or listen to this guy, but never the less try and learn something here.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Clete
October 27th, 2015, 08:33 PM
The public school system in any form similar to what we know today did not exist until the mid to late 19th century.


The History of Education in America (http://www.chesapeake.edu/Library/EDU_101/eduhist_19thC.asp)

It (public schooling) was not responsible for the brilliance of the founding fathers.
It was not responsible for the brilliance of those business men who built America from nothing to true greatness.
I was not responsible for the unimaginable influx of people from all over the world to these shores.

It, if anything, has been the undoing of all of those things!

You do not need the government! Not for your schooling, not for your shoes, not for your food, not for your health care, not for anything other than protection from the thug who would take what belongs to you by force.

But thanks, in large measure, to the public school system, we've accepted and even helped to put in place a government which is itself the thug we need protection from.

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand

Resting in Him,
Clete

Tambora
October 27th, 2015, 09:45 PM
The public school system in any form similar to what we know today did not exist until the mid to late 19th century.


The History of Education in America (http://www.chesapeake.edu/Library/EDU_101/eduhist_19thC.asp)

It (public schooling) was not responsible for the brilliance of the founding fathers.
It was not responsible for the brilliance of those business men who built America from nothing to true greatness.
I was not responsible for the unimaginable influx of people from all over the world to these shores.

It, if anything, has been the undoing of all of those things!

You do not need the government! Not for your schooling, not for your shoes, not for your food, not for your health care, not for anything other than protection from the thug who would take what belongs to you by force.

But thanks, in large measure, to the public school system, we've accepted and even helped to put in place a government which is itself the thug we need protection from.

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand

Resting in Him,
CleteThank you, Clete, for all your posts on this.
Makes one think.

Jose Fly
October 28th, 2015, 10:13 AM
The vast majority of schools in this country while often funded by a pool of money (sometimes taxes but usually not) they were not controlled by the government. They were controlled by the parents of the students in that school.

Nice moving of the goalposts there. :rolleyes:


This was an irrational response. It seems you didn't understand what I said. It doesn't matter.

Yes, I can see how someone such as yourself doesn't understand how an educated populace is a good thing.


I really don't care what you think.

Hey, we finally agree on something! :chuckle:

Clete
October 28th, 2015, 09:08 PM
Nice moving of the goalposts there. :rolleyes:
I haven't moved the goal post. If you didn't understand what I support and what I don't, how is that my problem?

The government has no right and no proper role in educating children - period. The government doesn't have its own money, it has to take money from those who earn it (by force) in order to give away to someone else who didn't earn it. It's theft! Not only that but they force me to be a "beneficiary" of their theft.

If, however, a group of private citizens want to voluntarily pool their money to provide their children an education then that's their right!


Yes, I can see how someone such as yourself doesn't understand how an educated populace is a good thing.
This is a genuinely idiotic thing for you to have said.

What was the point of spouting such stupidity? Who are you trying to convince, yourself? I don't get it.

If you support public education then make an argument! I have! I also posted an argument from an atheist. Why not respond to the arguments instead of showing off your asininity?

Of course, in order to do that, you'll have to have actually read the arguments and understood them.


Hey, we finally agree on something! :chuckle:
It isn't about me though, is it?

If you aren't going to contribute to the discussion in some rationally coherent manner then why do you bother to show up here in the first place? I can't imagine how bored I'd have to be to spend my time coming here attempting to get the stupid post of the day award.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
October 28th, 2015, 09:14 PM
Thank you, Clete, for all your posts on this.
Makes one think.
You're quite welcome! :)

Unfortunately, they seem to be mostly getting ignored though.

I'm considering starting a new thread with Rand's public education argument at center stage. I want to give this thread a bit more time before I do though.

Tambora
October 29th, 2015, 08:44 AM
You're quite welcome! :)

Unfortunately, they seem to be mostly getting ignored though.

I'm considering starting a new thread with Rand's public education argument at center stage. I want to give this thread a bit more time before I do though.Wonderful. I look forward to it.

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 09:32 AM
I haven't moved the goal post.

Yeah you did. You first argued that the US "became great without a public school system", but after I showed that one of the very first things the states did after independence was set up public schools, rather than admit your error you changed to "they weren't controlled by the government" (another unsupported assertion on your part).

That's been the extent of this discussion. You make assertions with no evidence, wave away inconvenient facts, and call everyone who disagrees with you stupid. That's why I don't take you at all seriously.


The government has no right and no proper role in educating children - period. The government doesn't have its own money, it has to take money from those who earn it (by force) in order to give away to someone else who didn't earn it. It's theft! Not only that but they force me to be a "beneficiary" of their theft.

I'm sure that's what you believe, but that only matters to you. Yours is an extreme minority belief that has almost no public support, and thus virtually zero chance of ever being enacted.


If you support public education then make an argument!

I have. It's in the national interest to have a well-educated populace, and the best way to ensure that is a public school system. If you disagree, then show a country that relies on a private system and gets better results.


I have! I also posted an argument from an atheist. Why not respond to the arguments instead of showing off your asininity?

You copied someone else's arguments....so what? Any 10 year old can do that.

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 09:44 AM
... I showed that one of the very first things the states did after independence was set up public schools...


well, no

educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 09:52 AM
I already posted that. From that link...

"After the Revolution, an emphasis was put on education, especially in the northern states, which rapidly established public schools. By the year 1870, all states had free elementary schools.[44] The US population had one of the highest literacy rates at the time."

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 09:59 AM
I already posted that. From that link...

"After the Revolution, an emphasis was put on education, especially in the northern states, which rapidly established public schools. By the year 1870, all states had free elementary schools.[44] The US population had one of the highest literacy rates at the time."

right, they began the process shortly after the revolutionary war

it didn't become universal and spread beyond limited urban centers until after the civil war

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 10:12 AM
Yep, almost immediately after independence there were public schools, a system which spread across the country. That directly contradicts Clete's claim that the US became a great nation without public schools.

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 10:20 AM
Yep, almost immediately after independence there were public schools, a system which spread across the country. That directly contradicts Clete's claim that the US became a great nation without public schools.

we didn't become a great nation until after the civil war?

because universal public schooling was a post civil war phenomenon

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 10:24 AM
we didn't become a great nation until after the civil war?

because universal public schooling was a post civil war phenomenon

Did Clete say "universal public schooling", 'cause I don't remember that. I remember him saying "This country became the greatest nation in the history of the world without a public school system", which as we've seen, is wrong. :think:

The Horn
October 29th, 2015, 10:30 AM
How the heck does this have anything to do with "atheism "? The problem is that our schools are supposed to be SECULAR institutions whose job is to educate kids whose parents belong to ALL faiths, as well as atheists and agnostics .
They are supposed to be places for TEACHING , not preaching .
For your information, there have also been numerous incident of kids who were NOT Christians who were harassed by teachers and principals for refusing to participate in Christian prayer & Bible readings, as well as condemned for not being Christians and the victims of blatant attempts at proselytizing .
Teachers and principals ave absolutely no right to do this !
No kids are being told they "must be atheists " and cannot or should not be Christians .
If parents want to put their kids in private Christian schools, they should do so at their own expense .

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 10:42 AM
How the heck does this have anything to do with "atheism "?

Fundamentalists have a tendency for black/white thinking. Under that framework, if the schools aren't preaching any religion, then they must be promoting atheism. There is no middle ground for them.


The problem is that our schools are supposed to be SECULAR institutions whose job is to educate kids whose parents belong to ALL faiths, as well as atheists and agnostics .
They are supposed to be places for TEACHING , not preaching .

Why....that's just crazy talk! :chuckle:

Ben Masada
October 29th, 2015, 11:25 AM
How the heck does this have anything to do with "atheism "? The problem is that our schools are supposed to be SECULAR institutions whose job is to educate kids whose parents belong to ALL faiths, as well as atheists and agnostics .
They are supposed to be places for TEACHING , not preaching .
For your information, there have also been numerous incident of kids who were NOT Christians who were harassed by teachers and principals for refusing to participate in Christian prayer & Bible readings, as well as condemned for not being Christians and the victims of blatant attempts at proselytizing .
Teachers and principals ave absolutely no right to do this !
No kids are being told they "must be atheists " and cannot or should not be Christians .
If parents want to put their kids in private Christian schools, they should do so at their own expense .

I absolutely agree with you Horn, as long as the treatment be the same to non-Christian parents who demand that their children be thought that human beings originated from the monkey. They must attend private schools at their own expenses. I am as well against proselytism of any sort.

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 12:05 PM
I absolutely agree with you Horn, as long as the treatment be the same to non-Christian parents who demand that their children be thought that human beings originated from the monkey. They must attend private schools at their own expenses. I am as well against proselytism of any sort.

How exactly do you think science curricula should be set?

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 12:48 PM
Did Clete say "universal public schooling", 'cause I don't remember that. I remember him saying "This country became the greatest nation in the history of the world without a public school system", which as we've seen, is wrong. :think:

and we did become a great nation well before most of the population had access to public schooling

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 01:06 PM
By what measure was the US a "great nation" between independence and the Civil War?

Ben Masada
October 29th, 2015, 01:17 PM
How exactly do you think science curricula should be set?

With the truth as long as it is possible. If a teacher or a professor is not sure of what he wants to say, he or she must add, according to this or that source and never leave the students certain that what he or she said is for a fact. Besides, both sides of the issue must be mentioned if one is to be mentioned at all. Students have freewill too and the right to make their own choices of the view they want to adopt.

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 01:22 PM
By what measure was the US a "great nation" between independence and the Civil War?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V_zsRrVZd4w/T_B-rIF6v7I/AAAAAAAAGhE/JdlSo4iwtGU/s1600/Economic+history+of+world.png


by the civil war we had a greater share than france and looks like we tied with britain and india


china's a monster :noway:

1Mind1Spirit
October 29th, 2015, 01:34 PM
and we did become a great nation well before most of the population had access to public schooling

Not only that, the schools that were here were started by Christians and the bible was at the heart of the Curriculum.

http://barlowvincentchurchofchrist.com/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/THE-BIBLE-IN-EARLY-AMERICAN-SCHOOLS-AND-COLLEGES


AMERICAN HISTORY.............:think:

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/educationamerica.html

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 02:15 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V_zsRrVZd4w/T_B-rIF6v7I/AAAAAAAAGhE/JdlSo4iwtGU/s1600/Economic+history+of+world.png


by the civil war we had a greater share than france and looks like we tied with britain and india

So let's use that to evaluate Clete's claim that the US became a great nation without public schools. As the Wiki page we've both linked to explains, prior to the civil war there were public schools in the northern states, but it wasn't until about the Civil War era that public school systems became widespread across all the states. Now, compare the US GDP between about 1750 and 1850 (100 years) to the GDP between 1870 and 1970 (100 years). Adopting your reasoning where GDP is a measure of a country's greatness, and is a way to evaluate the efficacy of its education system, then we must conclude that the public school system in the US has been a fantastic success.

Thanks for making my point for me. :up:

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 02:32 PM
So let's use that to evaluate Clete's claim that the US became a great nation without public schools. As the Wiki page we've both linked to explains, prior to the civil war there were public schools in the northern states, but it wasn't until about the Civil War era

no, well after

1870's


that public school systems became widespread across all the states. Now, compare the US GDP between about 1750 and 1850 (100 years) to the GDP between 1870 and 1970 (100 years). Adopting your reasoning where GDP is a measure of a country's greatness, and is a way to evaluate the efficacy of its education system, then we must conclude that the public school system in the US has been a fantastic success.

Thanks for making my point for me. :up:

your point was that since 1950 the us public school system has been progressively failing?

:thumb:

PureX
October 29th, 2015, 02:35 PM
By what measure was the US a "great nation" between independence and the Civil War?That was the era of the plantation owners. We were selling tobacco and hemp by the boatloads, and thanks to slave labor, the big plantation-owners were raking in the dough hand over fist. What really made us "great" in the years between 1776 and 1860 was slavery. Not education.

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 02:37 PM
no, well after

1870's

So compare 1770-1870, to 1870-1970.


your point was that since 1950 the us public school system has been progressively failing?

And this is why I don't bother much with you.

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 02:39 PM
That was the era of the plantation owners. We were selling tobacco and hemp by the boatloads, and thanks to slave labor, the big plantation-owners were raking in the dough hand over fist. What really made us "great" in the years between 1776 and 1860 was slavery. Not education.

I know that, you know that, and most sane people know that. But remember, we're adopting Clete and doser's reasoning here that the way to measure both the US's greatness and educational system is by GDP.

It's silly, but then look who we're dealing with.

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 02:42 PM
That was the era of the plantation owners. We were selling tobacco and hemp by the boatloads, and thanks to slave labor, the big plantation-owners were raking in the dough hand over fist. What really made us "great" in the years between 1776 and 1860 was slavery. Not education.

:doh:

read The Age of Jackson by Schlessinger and appreciate the rise of industrialism in the north and its impact on the slavery position in the pre-war period, especially wrt the desire by working class whites to not compete with freed blacks for scarce jobs


what really made us great was immigration, a supply of labor cheaper than slavery

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 02:45 PM
I know that, you know that, and most sane people know that. But remember, we're adopting Clete and doser's reasoning here that the way to measure both the US's greatness and educational system is by GDP.

you asked me "by what measure"

gdp was the first thing that came to mind


you got something better?

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 02:47 PM
And this is why I don't bother much with you.

awww, gee, you don't like it when i notice that you moved the goal posts and i move them in a different direction, eh? :chuckle:

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 02:47 PM
you asked me "by what measure"

gdp was the first thing that came to mind

And it ended up contradicting Clete's argument.


you got something better?

Maybe you should ask Clete, since he's the one who made the claim in the first place.


you don't like it when i notice that you moved the goal posts and i move them in a different direction

Didn't do that at all.

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 02:54 PM
And it ended up contradicting Clete's argument.

it showed that we grew great during the pre-1870 period before universal public education







Didn't do that at all.

of course you did

you went from arguing against Clete's claim that the US became a great nation without public schools, which my gdp graph proved to be true, to arguing that the us continued to become greater later

and you thought it wouldn't be noticed :chuckle:

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 03:11 PM
it showed that we grew great during the pre-1870 period before universal public education

LOL! And by the same measure, we grew really, really, really great once universal public education was established.


you went from arguing against Clete's claim that the US became a great nation without public schools

Which we know is false because 1) there were public schools during that period, and 2) by your chosen measure (GDP) the effect multiplied immensely as public education spread and became commonplace.


which my gdp graph proved to be true

If you really think that, there's something fundamentally wrong with you.


to arguing that the us continued to become greater later

No, it's the same argument. Remember, Clete argued that the US became great without public schools. My argument is that he's wrong, and we know this because 1) there were public schools during that period (independence to the Civil War), and 2) by your chosen measure (GDP) the effect multiplied immensely as public education spread and became commonplace.

I know your tribalism and pride won't allow you to admit that you've lost this one, but this is pretty straight forward. If you're going to argue that the GDP growth between 1770 and 1870 is an indication of the US's greatness and its education system, then you have to accept that by your own measure (GDP growth), the US became even greater once public education became universal.

Well, I suppose you can keep denying it if you like, but all that does is provide entertainment fodder. :Popcorn:

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 03:16 PM
LOL! And by the same measure, we grew really, really, really great once universal public education was established.

which doesn't disprove clete's claim :idunno:

and, you're ignoring the inflection point at 1950



Which we know is false blablablabla

sorry jo, i forgot you were a retard :loser:

oatmeal
October 29th, 2015, 03:19 PM
Oh look, a public school teacher forcing.....RELIGION....upon students.
Child students, at that.
THIS is why some of us so vehemently defend the Wall of Separation.



Georgia School Pays Up After Teacher Tells First Grader His Mom Is Bad Because She Doesn't Believe in God (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/georgia-school-pays-up-after-teacher-tells-first-grader-his-mom-is-bad-because-she-doesnt-believe-in-god/)

What wall of separation?

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 03:33 PM
What wall of separation?

the one that sez Christians can only be Christians in their homes and their churches

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 03:37 PM
sorry jo, i forgot you were a retard :loser:

And this is why you're seen as a troll around here. Thanks for your time.

Clete
October 29th, 2015, 04:00 PM
Yeah you did. You first argued that the US "became great without a public school system", but after I showed that one of the very first things the states did after independence was set up public schools, rather than admit your error you changed to "they weren't controlled by the government" (another unsupported assertion on your part).
Please read the thread!

The public school system did not exist in this country in any form similar to what exists today until the mid to late 19th century. I posted a link that has the whole history of the public school system.

You're the only one repeating unsupported propaganda.


That's been the extent of this discussion. You make assertions with no evidence, wave away inconvenient facts, and call everyone who disagrees with you stupid. That's why I don't take you at all seriously.
I only call people stupid when they say stupid things - like the quote above.

You clearly haven't bothered to read the thread, idiot!


I'm sure that's what you believe, but that only matters to you.
Where did you learn that rights are a matter of opinion?

Let me guess!

Public School!


Yours is an extreme minority belief that has almost no public support, and thus virtually zero chance of ever being enacted.
That doesn't make it wrong.


I have. It's in the national interest to have a well-educated populace, and the best way to ensure that is a public school system.
Only stupid, former public school students would think this is an argument. That is not an argument, its an assertion and a completely unsupported one at that.

Educating people is a service just like any other service. There is no reason to believe that the private market place wouldn't do a better job of performing this service than the government does. In fact, there is every reason to believe that the government does a terrible job of educating people! The public school system sucks by virtually any metric you care to name!

It's just like government is with anything else. The can't stand for someone to have anything better than anyone else because its not fair, so they get involved and make sure that everyone is equally mediocre or miserable. The public school system is as good an example as any and, if we don't stop it, the government will do the same the the health care system as well.


If you disagree, then show a country that relies on a private system and gets better results.
This idiotic statement presumes that if it has never been done (or isn't being done elsewhere), it cannot be done at all. If that logic were valid, this country would never have been founded in the first place.

This country is the counter example I offer you. There was no nation wide compulsory public educational system in the country that was funded by taxes nor regulated by the government until the mid to late 1800's. Public education was not responsible for the education of the greatest American's that ever lived. Men like, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, J.D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, etc, etc, etc.


You copied someone else's arguments....so what? Any 10 year old can do that.
I agree with the argument 100% and I have no qualms about admitting that I could not have articulated it as well as Rand did. Further, an important point of having quoted Rand is the fact that she was a strident atheist and thus it removes from you the opportunity to blow the argument off as "religious".

I can't tell you didn't bother to read it. Any other posts from you that do not directly respond to Rand's argument will most likely go ignored. You're a waste of my time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 04:08 PM
And this is why you're seen as a troll around here. Thanks for your time.


i'm not bothered that the retards here think i'm a troll :idunno:

Clete
October 29th, 2015, 04:16 PM
Okay, Jose is the only one on this thread defending public schools. That means this conversation is a waste of time.

I'm outa here!


I'll likely post Rand's argument in a new thread so that those participating can't ignore it.

:wave2:

glorydaz
October 29th, 2015, 04:19 PM
Okay, Jose is the only one on this thread defending public schools. That means this conversation is a waste of time.

I'm outa here!


I'll likely post Rand's argument in a new thread so that those participating can't ignore it.

:wave2:

Please do...a fresh thread on this issue. :thumb:

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 04:21 PM
Okay, Jose is the only one on this thread defending public schools. That means this conversation is a waste of time.

arguing with retards like jo usually is :idunno:

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 04:29 PM
The public school system did not exist in this country in any form similar to what exists today until the mid to late 19th century.

You keep moving the goalposts. First it was the US "became great without a public school system", but after I showed that one of the very first things the states did after independence was set up public schools, now it's "The public school system did not exist in this country in any form similar to what exists today".

Your dishonesty is noted.


Educating people is a service just like any other service. There is no reason to believe that the private market place wouldn't do a better job of performing this service than the government does.

Then go somewhere and try it.


This idiotic statement presumes that if it has never been done (or isn't being done elsewhere), it cannot be done at all.

It means your assertions that a private system would be better are unfounded speculation.


This country is the counter example I offer you.

Nope. As has been shown, one of the first things the northern states did after independence was set up public schools. They were so successful, by the 1800's they'd become nationwide.

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 04:34 PM
Retard, stupid, idiot, moron.....these are the rebuttals from the fundamentalists at ToL.

What a haven of intellectual thought this place is. :chuckle:

Clete
October 29th, 2015, 04:39 PM
Retard, stupid, idiot, moron.....these are the rebuttals from the fundamentalists at ToL.

What a haven of intellectual thought this place is. :chuckle:

They aren't rebuttals, idiot!

Jose Fly
October 29th, 2015, 04:40 PM
Thanks for illustrating my point so well. :up:

ok doser
October 29th, 2015, 04:53 PM
You keep moving the goalposts. First it was the US "became great without a public school system", but after I showed that one of the very first things the states did after independence was set up public schools....

"system" being the operative word that you seem to be unable to understand


Retard, stupid, idiot, moron.....these are the rebuttals from the fundamentalists at ToL.

What a haven of intellectual thought this place is. :chuckle:

don't let the door hit you in the butt :wave2:

musterion
October 29th, 2015, 08:38 PM
Retard, stupid, idiot, moron.....

You forgot troll, fool, imbecile, bloviant, blowhard, halfwit, nitwit, simian, dummy, dope, dupe, derp, knave, twit, dunce, boob, boor, bore, punk, numbskull, knucklehead, loudmouth and ***. But then, you - uniquely and ironically - would.

Clete
October 29th, 2015, 09:27 PM
New thread started here...

Public Education is a Terrible Idea! (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113916)