Republic or Democracy?
This post was superseded at one point and I’m not sure why this post wasn’t eliminated. Now that there are comments it probably won’t be removed. The actual post to read on this issue can be found here:
Republic vs Democracy
Posted in: Democracy
Some people would have us believe that using one word over another cannot change or create a society. That is what propaganda is all about, using words to deceive and confuse us until we aren’t sure what we believe in. Our Republic should be revered and honored as such, not changed to “Democracy” so that the up and coming generation have a distorted view of how and why our country became the “land of the free” to begin with. We are a Republic and not a Democracy. The difference may be subtle to some but makes a world of difference for the people who know the difference. Look up the words and ponder the impact that one has over the other. I say let the battle begin and am looking around for Patrick Henry to step in.
Quote: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
It seems apparent that you are Latter-day Saints. (You quote extensively from LDS leaders. You cite the Book of Mormon. Three of the four of the candidates went to BYU.) It makes me wonder: How do you square your apparent opposition to democracy with the fact that the Book of Mormon so robustly EXTOLS democracy, implying that it is the best system of government (other than theocracy, anyway)? Or how do you respond to statements like those of Hugh Nibley about democracy, in which he said that yes, democracy is terrible, but that the only thing that’s worse than democracy is every OTHER form of government?
I have a second question that occurred to me while watching the video which you embedded on this site. If a Republic is the rule of Law, where does that Law come from? Who MAKES the Laws in this idealized Republic?
One last question I have comes from looking up the definition of a “Republic” in the encyclopedia (since the definition in the video didn’t sound like what I thought “Republic” meant). It did indeed define our nation as a republic, which it defined as “a representative democracy”, which it distinguished from a complete democracy. What do you think about THAT kind of a Republic–viz. a representative democracy–as opposed to this threatening “Democracy” that you seem so opposed to?
I would love to know your thoughts on these questions.
Hi Craig,
Time is short so I’m going to point you to 2 articles which answer the majority of your comment.
This article addresses democracy vs. republic in the scriptures.
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/education/democracy-vs-republic-in-the-scriptures/
This article addresses where laws and rights come from.
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/education/a-revelation-on-rights-and-compulsory-schooling/
For an explanation about the real problem with democracy in ASD, please read this article.
http://205.134.251.128/~saveasd/asd%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cdemocracy%E2%80%9D-explained/
If that last link doesn’t work very well, use this short link to it.
http://bit.ly/duuwpR
Oak
In the link you sent me to about where laws come from (which didn’t actually address where laws come from so much as where rights and governmental powers come from), the only place that government gets its power is from the people. If it comes from the people, how is that NOT democracy?
I still see no response to the question of how is this idea of a Republic that you seem to espouse contrasted to the definition of “republic” that I learned in school, namely a representative democracy? If that is a valid definition of “republic”, then don’t we already have a republic without any need to upend the current structure of our government?
Hi Craig, hadn’t seen this post till now so here’s a brief response. Natural law comes from God. Governments are established so man can have protection for his rights under natural law. Man creates forms of government and laws in varying degrees of success to do this. In a republic, we elect representatives who go and exercise authority on our behalf. They do not ask for my vote when they do this. In a democracy, everyone votes on everything. That’s unworkable except in your neighborhood. Madison wrote a bit about this in Federalist 10 if you want to read the response to CH below. I’m not sure why you talk about upending the current structure of our government unless you’re under the false impression we are somehow trying to change our form of government. We are not. John Goodlad is. John Goodlad is the education consultant that Alpine School District has chosen to partner with. He wants a democracy as our form of government because that is the form of government that will turn us into a socialist/communist state. When everyone votes on everything, we find they vote for what benefits them and soon the treasury is exhausted and the nation is bankrupt, physically and morally.
James Madison, past President of the United States and a major contributor to the US Constitution, wrote that our form of government is a representative democracy. This is from the Federalist Papers #10. He certainly was not a progressive or socialist or whatever.
Thomas Jefferson wrote much on a democracy or democratic means of governance in forms of education and access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property). His party was originally the Democratic-Republicans which was the forerunner of the present day Democratic Party. Democracy in an educational arena mean equal access to quality education; it has nothing to do with politics.
Many describe our form of government as a democratic republic as the executive and legislative branches are elected by popular sovereignty. One could argue that the electoral college is the body that elects the President but it almost always follows the popular vote. One could argue that a republic cannot exist without democracy.
The men who founded our government saw our government as a republic with democratic rules and means of governance. The concept that “All men are created equal” is a democratic value. All have worth. All have a voice. This was not so in the past Greek and Roman Republics who had large slave populations. The Bill of Rights is essentially a grant of rights to the people not to elected officials which is essentially the base of a democracy or democratic form of government.
Our modern republic is supported by democratic procedure, means and ideals. It is not a pure democracy which is not mob rule. Mob rule is anarchy. It is also not a pure republic. I would argue that it is a mixture of both. I think that is how the founders intended it to be.
Charles, thank you for invoking the 10th Federalist Paper. Have you actually read it or did you write this based on something someone else said in a blog? Here’s a link:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
If you do a word search (ctrl-f) you will find 4 instances of the word democracy. None are preceded by the word “representative” and in fact, every instance deals with the advantages of a republic over a democracy. Here are the quotes:
“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction”
“A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.”
“The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.”
“Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, — is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.”
On the word democratic, we find this quote:
“The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government;”
On the word democracies we find this quote:
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
That should adequately cover Madison’s views on the problems of Democracies. I have to assume you hadn’t actually read the paper but relied on some blogger for your information.
On Jefferson, he said “The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.”
I am aware that many of the Founders referred to us as at times as a democracy with a little “d” (as in the voting principle, but not as the form of government), but that’s never been the issue. The point is, John Goodlad espouses and promotes a direct democracy. He wants socialism. He wants to change our form of government. Read his writings. They are in plain sight. He brought Bill Ayers in as the keynote speaker for his education conference last month (Oct. 2010) because they see eye-to-eye. Read up on Ayers. He wants to bring about global communism. These guys are birds of a feather. Why on earth are we associating with them? Don’t take my word for it, do you own homework and see if you come to the same conclusions. Look at Goodlad’s NNER homepage right now and you’ll see he’s all about social justice (redistribution of wealth) and having is in the classroom setting. Further down the page you’ll find he’s all about teachers pushing the gay agenda. (www.nnerpartnerships.org)
Oak, you have a nice spin, but Madison clearly defined his use of the word democracy as “pure democracy” in Federalist Paper #10. Now why would he want to make that distinction? He wanted to be clear that when he used the word “democracy” he was referring to pure democracy or direct democracy as practiced in Athens when a small number of citizens drew lots to be on a voting jury.
It appears that even in the times of our Founding Fathers they could make a distinction between a more broad term “Democracy” which encompasses democratic traditions such as voting, while in our time you are trying to narrow the definition of Democracy to mean Pure Democracy in all of it incarnations including those uses today. The Federalist Papers are easier to follow than you are because they can make those distinctions and clearly do so. Madison is not the only founding father/framer to use the phrase “Pure Democracy” when talking about Democracy either.
Think about it. What do you want school teachers to tell their students when they come across a quote by a U.S. President who uses the word “Democracy?” That they are misguided and that they don’t know what they are talking about? That they are using a code word for socialism and that they are traitors to the Republic? Why don’t we teach our kids the distinctions as our founding fathers knew them? I just saw Sarah Palin on Fox News use the word “Democracy” to describe our country’s government. Is she misguided and treasonous, ill-informed, or is she also using the word as it commonly means today in most dictionary definitions? We need to teach our kids things that make sense. I’m sorry, but you just don’t make sense and create a feeling of angst against anyone that used the word “democracy.”
I also want to note that this post was at one point superseded and I’m not sure why this post wasn’t eliminated. Now that there are comments it probably won’t be removed. The actual post to read on this issue can be found here:
http://205.134.251.128/~saveasd/asd-democracy-explained
Well, a lot of this is simply a semantic game.
Democracy – “Government by the people, expressed either directly or through their elected representatives”.
This is the American Heritage College Dictionary definition. Words do mean things. The fact is that the role of the people has come to matter more and more throughout our history. Many Progressive Era reforms such as the secrect ballot, the direct primary, the initiative, referendum, and recall have all made us more democratic than most of the founders intended. This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s simply a reflection of the fact that most Americans cherish and revere our democratic traditions.
I agree, Rob. You are correct about pro-pure democracy reforms, but at the state level for the most part. I don’t expect any initiatives, referendums, or recalls to be applied at the federal level any time soon. Our Republic was instilled with a “democratic” tradition when citizens were allowed to vote for their representatives. Some states have chosen to allow referendums or initiatives as a check on government power. It can work if done correctly (many states that allow referendums and initiatives are better managed than the Federal government that doesn’t allow direct/pure democracy), but as we’ve seen in California, their ease of getting initiatives and referendums on the ballot has created a mess of contradicting and self-serving laws.
Defining “Democracy” is definitely a semantic game. I don’t believe for an instant that the district use of the word “democracy” is a code for “socialism” as has been suggested on this website because a case hasn’t been made to that effect. A good case has been made that Goodlad and others have socialist leanings, but that doesn’t mean the district interprets Goodlad in that way or dwells on those particular aspects of Goodlad. If memory serves, a group of saveasd supporters quoted Karl Marx at a school board meeting. Does that make them Marxists for quoting Karl Marx in the affirmative? By the same logic they use on this website, it does; but I believe that logic to be flawed in the first place, so no, they are not Marxists, but then neither are the district officials socialists for using a Goodlad quote. I used to make fun of liberals for their “vast right-wing conspiracy” theories (remember Hillary Clinton), but now it seems local conservatives are offering their own vast left-wing conspiracy theories and using wordplay as a foundation to their beliefs. It is utter nonsense that most well-rounded, broad-minded, and informed thinkers can see through.
ASD does not just quote Goodlad, they use his educational ideas, participate with him in programs, and I believe, contribute money to his organization(s). In our home we see the outcome- our children don’t know math, can’t write, and are offended if a teacher asserts that something is true and right. I talk to students from other families whose parents have definite ideas of right and wrong, and these students deny certainty, and say that everyone has their own interpretation of words, the Bible, anything. The educationists are achieving their goal to lead our children to doubt God, patriotism, their parents, even here in happy valley. My sister lived here over 15 years ago and told me that the people here were very gullible and easy to lead, at least in education. Some at the district do not have socialist aims, but some do. For the life of me, I do not understand why.
As for semantics, if you look at the meaning of democracy at our founding, it was not a positive idea. Here we see the change of meaning (which I believe is a result of deliberate design) so that now it is accepted as a positive idea, and is being integrated more and more. Benjamin Franklin said we have a republic, “if we can keep it.” It’s amazing how many of the founders’ warnings were prescient.
If people who love freedom study the founding and the ideas and principles of freedom, and study socialism and read the educationists, they will see the truth and want nothing to do with Goodlad. Too many don’t even try to understand, it’s too hard to believe that our leaders would want socialism for our children.
I talked about Marx at a board meeting but don’t remember quoting him. I said that after reading him, it’s much easier to spot a socialist by their words. If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to read Marx and Dewey and any other socialist/marxist/humanist; it’s very enlightening.
I have most certainly read Marx. Have you? You must have a short memory concerning the invocation of Karl Marx at the school board meeting. Here is a web link to Susie Schnell’s speech given at the meeting:
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/issue-news/susan-schnells-speech-at-asd-board-meeting/
Let me check your understanding. Since you have read Karl Marx and are the expert on Karl Marx, what was the historical reference or example Karl Marx based his opinion on when he said “Democracy is the road to socialism?” In other words, what exactly did he mean by Democracy and what historical events contributed to his ideology concerning Democracy?
The use of soundbites and quotes out of historical context may sound convincing for some, but for those of us who are well-educated know better and understand the true meaning behind these quotes.
You are also running circles and not addressing my core argument over the exact meaning of Democracy as used by the framers. Answer this question. Why would Madison in Federalist Paper #10 take the time to define the meaning of Democracy as used throughout his writings as a “Pure Democracy?” He wanted to make that distinction clear. Why? If Democracy was simply…Democracy…why take the time to define it? The act of doing so gives strong evidence that the “Democracy” incorporated into the Federal Republic via the Constitution (the act of voting for representatives” may be misinterpreted by those who narrow the definition of “Democracy” (as saveasd has done) and in reality endanger our Federal Republic by eventually attacking the Democratic right to vote because it is a manifestation of “democracy.” This was a shot across the bow to those who would “love our constitution to death” and break its core foundation–the vote of the people–in an effort to defend it in its purity. Jefferson even warned against this.
I’m always amazed at the brilliance of our framers, particularly Madison, to predict these future debates and constrictive uses of the general term “democracy” even in the 21st century in North Utah County. Unfortunately, there are those who refuse to acknowledge his genius or his message.
Nobody has narrowed the definition of democracy. The problem you are having is you have already fixated on what you have been told our “issue” is (the “word” democracy) and then ignored what we’ve actually written about the real issue (the progressive agenda behind the word and those using it for evil ends (Ayers, Goodlad, etc…)). The Framers did use the word democracy but the difference was they hated the capital “D” Democracy (the form of government), but wanted the people to have a voice through lower case “d” democracy (the process of voting). I’ve explained this several times in different places. Here is one: http://www.utahsrepublic.org/get-educated/democracy-and-republic-quotes/. Still, even with wanting people to have a voice, they didn’t want a Democracy. The people didn’t popularly elect the president, and the state legislatures were to choose senators to represent the states. They also didn’t want the people voting on issues as a direct Democracy would entail because they could never hope to get educated on all the issues. That’s the job of the representatives we elect.
Let’s forget about the semantic games. Sounds great to me. I want to know and discuss what you, or others, think the primary public purpose of schooling is. BYU has decided, and passes this on through their partnership schools.
I don’t think I had really thought about it before. I send my kids to school to learn reading, writing, mathematics and other subjects. I also know they will benefit from social interactions and other things – but the main purpose I guess I had always felt were the subjects they would study which are graded and tested. I am concerned about what they are learning and that they understand. I keep up with them on their homework and grades.
Anybody else feel the same or differently? Whether I say primary purpose or primary public purpose of schooling, does it make any difference to you?
How about learning the ability to apply their “academic” knowledge, often known as thinking? Fortunately, many of our founding fathers were educated in a time where philosophy and rhetoric were valued in in education and academic circles. Fast-forward to the 21st century and it seems that people are intolerant of differing viewpoints and that nothing should be taught but mundane factual information with “MY” particular bias in how to apply it.
The great Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato blazed the trail in teaching philosophy and rhetoric. They taught their pupils to think about their thinking and why they think the way they do. Have we become afraid of this? Are we afraid that your own children may question our “perfect” thinking as parents or teachers? Imagine if our framers or founding fathers couldn’t think for themselves and never challenged the status quo? or that they couldn’t apply their knowledge of Greece and Rome to the creation of our Federal Constitutional Republic because they were not taught to think for themselves, but to conform to the King’s rule or the majority loyalists living in the colonies at the time? Schools are a place where students should be exposed to a myriad of ideas and opinions and beliefs, most often in their teen years when they are able to think abstractly. To do otherwise is simply indoctrination whether it is on the left or the right. Learning doesn’t stop at the school. Students should come home and explain what they have learned at school and parents should also engage in the thinking and give their opinions and beliefs rather than just let it happen in school. That is what I picture as an ideal education, but it will never happen because society has become politically polarized and are now engaged in a titanic struggle to control the minds of children in order to immortalize political platforms. Thomas Jefferson would be disgusted.
So Enlightened Thinker, when a group of parents actually do educate themselves with facts and then express their opinions which happen to be different than yours, and then start a website of those facts and opinions, all of a sudden we’re the ones who aren’t “thinking”? And we’re intolerant? In fact, I think Jefferson would be pleased that we’re studying the Founders’ words straight from source materials and boldly questioning the Progressive Education which has taken hold of government-run education. In fact the Founders never put Education in the Constitution…it was supposed to be run by state and local control according to the 10th Amendment, not by the Fed Govt. The National Dept of Education was only started in the 70’s under Jimmy Carter. Before that, we had more local control. Nowadays, people assume that education is a right and that the Fed has to control it. That is unconstitutional. Founders also believed in incorporating religion into a child’s education. George Washington said in the Northwest Ordinance that values should never be taught without religion, and yet this is exactly what is happening in the ASD. The danger comes when values and morals are relative and there becomes no such thing as right or wrong. We certainly have every right to discuss Democracy and Republic. In fact, this site and this national controversy has caused more people to educate themselves on REAL history and Constitutional principals and the true intent of the Founding Fathers than government-issued, watered down, revisionist history books that children and Liberal Universities have used for decades.
Also, Jennifer was not referring to my speech and she doesn’t have a short memory. She was the brave mother who got up in that crowd at the school board meeting, not prepared to do so, and discussed Karl Marx at length because she reads it to her children when they are old enough to understand it. Liberals speak of educating ourselves about all sides and doing our own critical thinking, and when we do and come out with a different understanding than they do, we’re chastised for it.
Also, this is an information site, not a site for contentious and long discourse with every parent that voices her or his opinion. Parents have never had an open forum like this to educate themselves and to discuss these issues which concern them. But we’ve had to deal with national Progressive Education being shoved down our children’s throats for decades. If you would like to start your own website with your own beliefs where you can debate with your own readers for hours, you are welcome to do so.
Susie, I’m trying to educate myself by coming to this website, but for some reason, when I pose difficult and probing questions or a different perspective, I’m basically called a liberal (which I am not) and then invited to start my own website for my “own” readers. I have received nothing but evasive, cryptic responses (if that) to my questions. How can you convince the “truly educated” when you are afraid to answer specific questions. You look at challenges to your beliefs as near treason instead of using those challenges to sharpen or refine your message. Why can’t Jennifer or Karen answer for themselves instead of having you or Oak run interference in their behalf with your usual, nonsensical talking points and snide attacks? Certainly Jennifer and Karen are intelligent adults that don’t need your help.
With that said, you replied to my reply to Karen, yet you never really said anything about my response to Karen.
Let me ask you one question in the hopes that you might answer it. Do you believe that students should be taught to think and reason or should they be taught only general facts? I brought up this issue on your forum about ASD. Alpine School District parents are wanting to know since this is a site for parents to discuss ASD issues.
ET, Actually parents have been posing the difficult and probing questions for years now without any ‘real’ answers from the district, so I understand your discontent. However, I don’t see that you are trying to educate yourself as much as you are trying to have the last word on every remark in which you disagree and much of the time your remarks are rude or contentious. That is not what our site is about. The audience might not be aware of the comments I’ve had to delete from you because of this. True, you ask many questions, but we have tried to answer many of them. No one has the time to answer every single one of the many questions you ask and we certainly don’t need the comment sections monopolized by one person. We are not evading your questions nor fearful of answering them. Quite the contrary, if we were fearful in the least we never would have taken on the big and spacious building of Progressive Education. By engaging you on every little thing, there is a never-ending contentious dialogue which no one has the time nor interest in. We do have lives.
Don’t make the assumption that our supporters are not “truly educated”. Quite the contrary.
To answer your question, of course students should be taught to think and reason along with learning true facts. That is what we are asking parents and their children to do. Don’t just believe everything your teacher or book says. Question it boldly. There’s a lot of science fiction in current science books and a lot of revisionist history in history texts. Many school texts fill their pages with moral relativism, global governance, social justice and social equity. Many book authors and teachers have a humanistic and socialist viewpoint so students are adversely graded when they dare to think and reason using true principles and absolute morals. Why is critical thinking only allowed in public schools when it is used against parental upbringing and religion? Under the guise of “critical thinking”, some teachers are encouraging students to boldly question their religion and traditional beliefs to the point where those teachers think of themselves as successful if they undo these original beliefs. Some elitist educrats have even said that children are ‘handicapped’ or ‘mentally ill’ at the age of 5 when they enter school because of their traditional upbringing and belief in a supernal Being. They say it is the teacher’s job to ‘make them well’. That is most certainly John Goodlad’s goal and he is the mentor of this district. This is not a teacher’s job. Teachers are hired by parents through tax dollars and are delegated the responsibility of educating this future generation. Academics is the delegated task, not grossly changing a child’s political, religious and social views about life. Delegation is not the same as usurping the parent’s rights. Teachers walk on dangerous grounds when they think their role is to enculturate children into a completely different social and political state.
Susie, I just picked up Goodlad’s book on Education and Democracy to see for myself what all the fuss is about.
Excellent! Check out the quotes on this site from John Goodlad and Bill Ayers too, buddies who teach the same philosophies. Read up on their mentor, John Dewey, father of Progressive Education who co-authored the Humanist Manifesto. While you are at it, pick up a copy of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt. Parents think their children go to school for academics. Hah! These men all tell you that schooling is all about social engineering and political activism to change the nation from evil capitalism to social democracy (the gradual change from capitalism to socialism by democratic means). The articles and stories on this site are real-life examples of how this is done at the national and local levels.
I want my children the facts, and the principles upon which our country was founded. Those principles are not being taught, and the founders are even depicted as selfish and basically evil (I don’t think that word is used, but the students come away with that idea). My student, and those of my friends, are washed of certainty, right and wrong, truth and error, and we are very worried. School now is more about “democratic education,” which is social justice, homosexuality, and diversity. That social aspect is taught more than facts, and many of the facts are false.
Sometimes it seems that if one doesn’t agree with an answer, one claims that the question has not been answered. I have every right to seek an appropriate education for my child, whether or not everyone agrees with it. And I have every right to tell a school not to teach my children error. I am the master of my children’s education.
Jennifer, would you care to share a specific example of how a local ASD school is more about homosexuality than it is about teaching “facts?” What kind of facts are you referring to? Are all schools promoting this or just a few? If so, how are they promoting homosexuality? Is it in Health class? Please don’t get defensive. It seems that many others on this web site get defensive when they are asked to clarify what they say or provide more information. I ask tough questions because I want to explore all viewpoints, perspectives, and opinions before coming to my own conclusions.
Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “social justice.” It seems to be a nebulous term. Diversity? Please explain that as well. Do you mean schools should not champion the diversity of race, religion, or other outward factors common among students or do you mean a diversity of opinion? I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be rude or anything. I just don’t understand what you are getting at without something more concrete. I’m trying to understand though.
ET, I’ll let Jennifer reply, but to let you know, both Jennifer and I came from CA where our kids were bombarded with these agendas in their schools. Utah is a few steps behind so people don’t see it as easily as we do if they’ve lived here all their lives. We lived through this and know how it comes in so we feel like watchmen on the tower so Utah doesn’t make the same mistakes as CA. It sounds crazy to some, but we saw first hand how the radical gay agenda is pushed into the schools under the Safe Schools, Diversity, Bullying and Tolerance Acts (school programs and legislation). That’s their window of opportunity after these programs are set up in schools. We’re only seeing the beginning stages now and they are the same national programs. Absolutely nothing is wrong with teaching tolerance and diversity of religions, race, etc., but we saw first hand how these programs eventually stifled traditional family and religious rights and forced children to not only tolerate, but to embrace things which were against their own values.
Google social justice. It’s all over the place. I believe it’s the big umbrella term for redistribution of wealth, gay agenda, illegal immigration, and all the Progressive social programs. Whether or not you agree with any of these programs is irrelevant. Our point is for the schools to mainly concentrate on academics and excel with that. When they get so wrapped up in social reform, they lose sight of the original reason for schooling: academics. The purpose of schooling for ed reformers IS social reform. That’s where the conflict comes in between the two sides…What is the purpose of education?
ET, my children are not in ASD schools. When we first moved here 5 years ago, they were, then I moved them all to charter schools. The teachers there, as in CA, told me that they don’t need to learn to write; we own a business and employ high-schoolers, who also tell us that they don’t need to write legibly. My fifth grader didn’t know the multiplication table and had not started division. Fifth grade. I knew he didn’t do his homework very well, but when I got his report cards with B’s and C’s, and he passed to the next grade, I figured he must know enough. During the summer I discovered his ignorance, and I am now homeschooling him and my 7th grader. When basketball is over, I will be homeschooling my 10th grader also. My senior is finishing at a charter school. She believes there are no absolutes, everyone has their own ideas. Other parents are seeing the same in their children. In CA when my children were taught “tolerance” I told them it was to prepare them to tolerate more serious ideas as they got older. I told them we don’t “tolerate” people who are of a different color than us, or different religion, or the like. We love all people. We “tolerate” our little brother’s singing, and things that we don’t like. In fourth grade they began learning “cultural relativity” so that when the history channel talks about the “seemingly gruesome practice of child sacrifice” we don’t judge that culture. I teach my children that some ideas are better than others and some are even right or wrong. Social justice, according to the educationists, means income redistribution, or socialism. You can hear that one on tv. Educationists say that our diversity is what has made us strong. I teach my children that values such as rights, hard work, self-reliance, and morality makes us strong. I just read the other day of a Founder (I can’t remember which) who said that the free-er a nation is, the stronger it is. Go onto the NNER site where you can read the educationist’s ideas. ASD and Mr. Henshaw are/were heavily involved in NNER, which means our money went to them. These are all things that I see at the schools and in my children. Can you refute them? You seem to have come to this site with conclusions, not the open mind you claim. I will direct my children’s education, and work to rectify problems that I see in our community.
The softening of academics and the idea of no absolutes are to prepare us for socialism, humanism, anything but the country our founders gave us. I don’t think that answering your questions is defensive, and I will work for what I believe is right. I will defend our constitution and bring up my children to do so for themselves and their children.
Jennifer,
Why is everything either-or? Can’t our diversity be a source of our strength along with values, , rights, hard work, self reliance and morality?
Good question, Rob Murphy. The CIA World Factbook calls us a “Constitution-based federal republic” with a “strong democratic tradition.” In other words, the CIA uses both republic AND democracy to describe America. I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but if I understand Susie correctly I believe she would think this means the CIA is somehow in on the Goodlad-Ayers conspiracy and/or that the CIA is very very ignorant because of its use of the term “democratic.” Correct me if I’m wrong, Susie.
I have to admit I have a hard time understanding how diversity makes us a strong country, because I understand that term to refer to cultural diversity. I prefer hispanic’s view and treatment of children over my American family’s, but that did not make us a strong and prosperous country. I always get comments about my mexi-melt children’s beauty, but I always hope that they are judged by the content of their character and not their color or beauty. I see that diversity of abilities and ideas advance technology and living conditions, but I don’t think those were lacking before the “diversity” crusade. Diversity is the spice of life, but I believe that the puritan values of hard work, self-sufficiency, honesty, and the Christian-Judeo ethic are what protects our rights and creates prosperity. I think multiculturalism is used to replace those American values and don’t see the purpose in the enormity of its presence in today’s education, except as a means to institute socialism. You’ll find that socialists use any means, even some that seem unrelated to their goals. I see multiculturalism more important than math and writing in my children’s schools. I’d like the schools to return to academics and truth, especially concerning our founding and history. But I know the word truth brings up the hackles on some.