We're Launching a K-12 School!

[carla8478]

Everyone has been doing a great job advancing our cause for liberty. Up until now the focus has been mostly on adults. But there's some great news!

My colleague and I are launching a k-12 constitutionally-minded school! We will be teaching the kids principles of liberty and the Constitution along with their academics. And the educational program itself is outside of the box and right up our alley. (Sorry for the idiom, I'm from the South ) The program is customizable and allows students to move at their own pace and parents control the amount of homework, allowing for more family time. No more stressing and trying to hit the stores at the last mintue to get supplies for some project that is due the next day.

We have access to a very unique curriculum written by family members of the man who wrote "The Making of America" and "The 5,000 Year Leap."

We are launching our first location in Louisiana, but we need everyone's help. Once we can get this location up and running successfully, it opens us up to expand to other locations across the U.S.

And this will benefit the adults too. Once we have the building we will be able to use it in the evenings to host Constitutional classes and seminars for adults too.

We have created a Facebook Fan Page so you can stay updated with developments on this project. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Denham...r/184605747697

We are negotiating on a lease space now, but we need to raise the funds to initiate the lease and pay for deposits, occupational licenses, etc. If we can raise millions and hundreds of thousands, I know we can raise a few thousand to create this opportunity for our kids. Once the school is up and going it will sustain itself and will not require continued contributions.

I know everyone is saving up for Rand Paul's money bomb and I do not wish to take anything away from this effort so we are just asking for everyone to contribute $5 or $10. If you want to use a debit or credit card, here is our ChipIn: http://dseducationcenter.chipin.com/education-project

If you would like to contribute by mail, please send them to: Carla Messina, 30677 John Dr., Denham Springs, LA 70726

Thank you everyone for your time. Please, please, please help us get this started, the children need this message too.

[talkingpointes]

Sounds like a good cause. Bump

[heavenlyboy34]

Good luck! :)

[NYgs23]

I like this. We should be talking about more alternatives in schooling. If I may repost my post on libertarian schooling:


Most people, even most libertarians, I'm sure, have a very tough time conceiving of alternative ways to educate children from the traditional "prison school" method of desks, chalkboards, textbooks, bells, exams, divided subjects, and age-segregation. Even most homeschoolers borrow this notion that education must be imposed on children from some authority. In fact, children learn instinctively, through the God-given method of playing. Children, like all human beings, have an amazing ability to run their own lives, if only we'd let them.There are other ways, ways that don't involve everyone being imprisoned and miserable for the better part of their first eighteen years.

Since 1921, democratic schools have attempted to instill the principle of learning through student freedom and choice, beginning with Britain's famous Summerhill School, where all courses are optional. In the United States, institutions like the Albany Free School attempt to put similar principles into practice. While the horrendous No Child Left Behind Act imposes an ever-growing welter of tests and arbitrary standards on the failing and increasingly centralized state-school system, at the Albany Free School, "there are no grades, no mandated curriculum, no standardized tests, no homework and unnecessary rules are generally avoided." Perhaps an even more radical alternative is the Sudbury Valley School and three-dozen offshoots worldwide. At Sudbury, a weekly meeting, in which all students from the age of 4 to 19 have an equal vote with the "staff members," decides nearly every aspect of school governance, including the hiring and firing of the staff members!

A related movement, though more problematic for free-market-supporting libertarians, is the anarchist free skool movement, which attempts to "share skills, information, and knowledge without the limitations of hierarchy and the sterile institutional environment of formal schooling." Many of these schools, brainchildren of the anarcho-syndicalist types, attempt to operate on the basis of a "gift economy" rather than a market economy.

Finally the homeschooling parallel to the the democratic education movement is no doubt the unschooling philosophy, by which children are more or less allowed to teach themselves. Radical unschooling is the more extreme version of this. Here, parents avoid punitive discipline and rule-setting in favor of cooperative and non-coercive methods of interacting with their children.

In the end, only the dynamic competition of a free and voluntary society can determine what methods of child-rearing and child-education are best. Nonetheless, I think it unlikely that the decrepit prison-school paradigm so loved by the central state would survive in such an atmosphere of educational competition. The children, no doubt, would boycott it.

[Oyate]

How high do you intend to launch it? What did you make it out of?

[t0rnado]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Uriel999]

Everyone has been doing a great job advancing our cause for liberty. Up until now the focus has been mostly on adults. But there's some great news!

My colleague and I are launching a k-12 constitutionally-minded school! We will be teaching the kids principles of liberty and the Constitution along with their academics. And the educational program itself is outside of the box and right up our alley. (Sorry for the idiom, I'm from the South ) The program is customizable and allows students to move at their own pace and parents control the amount of homework, allowing for more family time. No more stressing and trying to hit the stores at the last mintue to get supplies for some project that is due the next day.

We have access to a very unique curriculum written by family members of the man who wrote "The Making of America" and "The 5,000 Year Leap."

We are launching our first location in Louisiana, but we need everyone's help. Once we can get this location up and running successfully, it opens us up to expand to other locations across the U.S.

And this will benefit the adults too. Once we have the building we will be able to use it in the evenings to host Constitutional classes and seminars for adults too.

We have created a Facebook Fan Page so you can stay updated with developments on this project. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Denham...r/184605747697

We are negotiating on a lease space now, but we need to raise the funds to initiate the lease and pay for deposits, occupational licenses, etc. If we can raise millions and hundreds of thousands, I know we can raise a few thousand to create this opportunity for our kids. Once the school is up and going it will sustain itself and will not require continued contributions.

I know everyone is saving up for Rand Paul's money bomb and I do not wish to take anything away from this effort so we are just asking for everyone to contribute $5 or $10. If you want to use a debit or credit card, here is our ChipIn: http://dseducationcenter.chipin.com/education-project

If you would like to contribute by mail, please send them to: Carla Messina, 30677 John Dr., Denham Springs, LA 70726

Thank you everyone for your time. Please, please, please help us get this started, the children need this message too.

Very cool. Need teachers? :D

[jonahtrainer]

That is awesome. Keep up the good work!

[GunnyFreedom]

that is awesome. Keep up the good work!

+1776

[ClayTrainor]

This sounds great!

[Athan]

Sweet! I'm working on plans for the same type of school myself! Good luck!
For the Republic; For the Cause!

[GunnyFreedom]

I am sure you need instructors of marksmanship, logic, and literature... ;)

[carla8478]

How high do you intend to launch it? What did you make it out of?

Lol! Well let's see.... If I can find sturdy enough materials maybe we can put one on the moon. :)

[carla8478]

Thank you so much for all of your interest and support. And yes, of course we will need teachers. If anyone is in the Baton Rouge, LA area let me know. If we can get this location going we will eventually be looking for teachers in other areas as well.

Just found out today that a space we want to use to have meetings to get parents coordinated needs a $200 deposit. So please let everyone you know to make small contributions if they can. We need your help to make this happen. Pass the word on.

Thanks again everybody. :)

[andrewh817]

We need more causes like this because if kids are taught these principles early in life, we won't have to focus on adults (who are more resistant to change).

[dannno]

Kids working at their own pace based on the parents decisions??

Brilliant!!

This is like homeschooling for parents who don't have the time and/or ability to do it themselves!

I like it.

[dr. hfn]

awesome!

[carla8478]

Kids working at their own pace based on the parents decisions??

Brilliant!!

This is like homeschooling for parents who don't have the time and/or ability to do it themselves!

I like it.

You got it! It's a homeschooling environment at school. Just think, kids who know how to think for themselves..... What is this world coming to? :)

[carla8478]

We need more causes like this because if kids are taught these principles early in life, we won't have to focus on adults (who are more resistant to change).

Absolutely! That's how we got in this mess to begin with. You should do some research on John Dewey and what he injected into our modern educational system. Not meaning to sound conspiratorial, but those who are in leadership tend to convey their values on their work and those around them and their values are not always the ideal.

(Which is why we need as many programs out there as we can get being run by those who believe in constitutional principles.)

Let's see if I can remember correctly... John Dewey was a relativist, no right or wrong, it's how you feel. So if I felt it was okay to walk up and hit someone... right or wrong was based on how I felt about it. Crazy hunh? Well anyway he worked with some others and actually founded one of the largest teachers colleges in the nation. So of course his beliefs were influential in the material taught.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'd love to help setup some curriculum for Economics that maybe I could teach via Webcam, etc. No, I don't have a fancy plaque that says I'm a PhD in orthodox Neo-Classical Economics, but I sure as hell know my Austrian Economics back and forth; looks at the pile of my Econ books (About 4 foot high :p).

[RevolutionSD]

Everyone has been doing a great job advancing our cause for liberty. Up until now the focus has been mostly on adults. But there's some great news!

My colleague and I are launching a k-12 constitutionally-minded school! We will be teaching the kids principles of liberty and the Constitution along with their academics. And the educational program itself is outside of the box and right up our alley. (Sorry for the idiom, I'm from the South ) The program is customizable and allows students to move at their own pace and parents control the amount of homework, allowing for more family time. No more stressing and trying to hit the stores at the last mintue to get supplies for some project that is due the next day.

We have access to a very unique curriculum written by family members of the man who wrote "The Making of America" and "The 5,000 Year Leap."

We are launching our first location in Louisiana, but we need everyone's help. Once we can get this location up and running successfully, it opens us up to expand to other locations across the U.S.

And this will benefit the adults too. Once we have the building we will be able to use it in the evenings to host Constitutional classes and seminars for adults too.

We have created a Facebook Fan Page so you can stay updated with developments on this project. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Denham...r/184605747697

We are negotiating on a lease space now, but we need to raise the funds to initiate the lease and pay for deposits, occupational licenses, etc. If we can raise millions and hundreds of thousands, I know we can raise a few thousand to create this opportunity for our kids. Once the school is up and going it will sustain itself and will not require continued contributions.

I know everyone is saving up for Rand Paul's money bomb and I do not wish to take anything away from this effort so we are just asking for everyone to contribute $5 or $10. If you want to use a debit or credit card, here is our ChipIn: http://dseducationcenter.chipin.com/education-project

If you would like to contribute by mail, please send them to: Carla Messina, 30677 John Dr., Denham Springs, LA 70726

Thank you everyone for your time. Please, please, please help us get this started, the children need this message too.


Was on board until I saw the Christian stuff. :(
Why can't we let children decide if they want to be religious or not? And if they want to be religious, why can't we let them pick their religion?

Makes zero sense to have a school where the idea is that the kids are free, and then force a religion on them!

[GunnyFreedom]

//

[carla8478]

Was on board until I saw the Christian stuff. :(
Why can't we let children decide if they want to be religious or not? And if they want to be religious, why can't we let them pick their religion?

Makes zero sense to have a school where the idea is that the kids are free, and then force a religion on them!

Thank you for your comment.

You know what you are absolutely right. The kids are absolutely free. We offer (not force) a program and they are free to choose to ignore or accept or ponder or feel however they want about what we teach. Their parents are free not to enroll them in our school if they are uncomfortable with Christian principles.

However in our experience (there have been a few of these schools launched in other locations) we have had students come from all different kinds of faiths. We have had Jewish students who used the Torah as their scriptures instead of the Bible, we have had Hindu students and others. They are all welcomed and treated with love and respect.

I wonder if maybe you have had negative experiences in the past? I understand, some people, not all (there some very nice people out there too), but some involved in religion can be very pushy and very zealous. However our program is nothing like that. We offer what we offer, but we would never force anybody.

Heck, one of the most beautiful things about this country is that we have a freedom of religion and a freedom of speech. Many people forget that while it gives us the freedom to agree, it also gives us the freedom to disagree too.

[Flash]

Good idea, but why do you have religion mixed into his?

[carla8478]

Good idea, but why do you have religion mixed into his?

Because I have the freedom to do that. And most importantly because I am not infringing upon anyone else's rights in doing that. Our school has no compulsory attendance. Again no one is forced into our program if they don't feel that it is the right place for them.

I believe that morality is key. Our founding fathers were very spiritual people. In teaching the history of the founding of our country, it's almost impossible not to discuss spirituality. Benjamin Franklin in the constitutional convention itself, asked the convention to take a break so that they might all have the opportunity for prayer because tensions were becoming high and they were having trouble resolving some issues.

We do not teach heavy religion at our school. That is for individual families and churches to decide what to teach. We only convey the basics. You know, such as the golden rule. We go off of Benjamin Franklin's guidelines as to what beliefs almost all religions share in common and which ones should be taught in school. They're pretty basic. That we're held responsible for our actions in this life and so on. Besides a student can opt out of the religion class with no harm to his or her grades.

Again no one is forced. I don't understand why this is such a big problem. It's almost as if you guys are saying more than just "don't force religion on me," which of course I would never do. It's as if you're saying I don't have the right to teach it in a private school that I open and people come to on a totally volunteer basis. It's not right to try to force you're beliefs on me either and the school I"m trying to build. :( If you're not interested that's absolutely fine and I respect your choice. But I would like to offer the opportunity for those that are. That's all. I mean no harm.

[Imperial]

Just make sure students are free to choose socialism or liberty in equal measure in the ideological or intellectual area. There are academic arguments in favor of socialism that can go toe to toe against libertarianism, even if I may agree with the latter more strongly than the former.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Because I have the freedom to do that. And most importantly because I am not infringing upon anyone else's rights in doing that. Our school has no compulsory attendance. Again no one is forced into our program if they don't feel that it is the right place for them.

I believe that morality is key. Our founding fathers were very spiritual people. In teaching the history of the founding of our country, it's almost impossible not to discuss spirituality. Benjamin Franklin in the constitutional convention itself, asked the convention to take a break so that they might all have the opportunity for prayer because tensions were becoming high and they were having trouble resolving some issues.

We do not teach heavy religion at our school. That is for individual families and churches to decide what to teach. We only convey the basics. You know, such as the golden rule. We go off of Benjamin Franklin's guidelines as to what beliefs almost all religions share in common and which ones should be taught in school. They're pretty basic. That we're held responsible for our actions in this life and so on. Besides a student can opt out of the religion class with no harm to his or her grades.

Again no one is forced. I don't understand why this is such a big problem. It's almost as if you guys are saying more than just "don't force religion on me," which of course I would never do. It's as if you're saying I don't have the right to teach it in a private school that I open and people come to on a totally volunteer basis. It's not right to try to force you're beliefs on me either and the school I"m trying to build. :( If you're not interested that's absolutely fine and I respect your choice. But I would like to offer the opportunity for those that are. That's all. I mean no harm.

If I could. In your religion studies, please please bring up the School of Salamanca theologians. These are the most important people of the past 500 years. Francisco De Vitoria, Thomas Aquinas, Diego de Covarrubias y Leiva, Martín de Azpilcueta, Luis Saravia de la Calle, etc. I can help in this area if you want.

If you would like some Economic lessons such as on various topics like Higher/Lower order of capital (Theory of Capital), Quantitative theory, Business Cycle, History of Money, Time Preference, subjective theory of value, Praxeology/Apriorism, Marginal Utility, Economic calculation and price mechanisms, etc. I'd be happy to contribute.

[RevolutionSD]

Thank you for your comment.

You know what you are absolutely right. The kids are absolutely free. We offer (not force) a program and they are free to choose to ignore or accept or ponder or feel however they want about what we teach. Their parents are free not to enroll them in our school if they are uncomfortable with Christian principles.

However in our experience (there have been a few of these schools launched in other locations) we have had students come from all different kinds of faiths. We have had Jewish students who used the Torah as their scriptures instead of the Bible, we have had Hindu students and others. They are all welcomed and treated with love and respect.

I wonder if maybe you have had negative experiences in the past? I understand, some people, not all (there some very nice people out there too), but some involved in religion can be very pushy and very zealous. However our program is nothing like that. We offer what we offer, but we would never force anybody.

Heck, one of the most beautiful things about this country is that we have a freedom of religion and a freedom of speech. Many people forget that while it gives us the freedom to agree, it also gives us the freedom to disagree too.

Do you have any atheist students?
Do you offer the students the opportunity not to believe as well?

[GunnyFreedom]

Again no one is forced. I don't understand why this is such a big problem. It's almost as if you guys are saying more than just "don't force religion on me," which of course I would never do. It's as if you're saying I don't have the right to teach it in a private school that I open and people come to on a totally volunteer basis. It's not right to try to force you're beliefs on me either and the school I"m trying to build. :( If you're not interested that's absolutely fine and I respect your choice. But I would like to offer the opportunity for those that are. That's all. I mean no harm.

There is a small but very vocal group amongst RPFers who hate anything and everything "Christian" and will howl for days at volume setting "11" upon any encounter of the concept, no matter how minor or voluntary.

Most of us have learned to pretty much let them have their one post and ignore it, or otherwise if you try to explain such concepts as "freedom" and "liberty" with regard to Christianity, you will have to deal with being set upon like hyenas and howling banshees.

But don't fret, it's only a minor fraction of the RPF's who seem to think that liberty is for everyone BUT Christians. They just happen to be very vocal. Best practice here is to let them post their rant and ignore it. If you try and actually defend the idea that Christians should have freedom too, then this will go on for weeks, derail the thread, get it sent into Hot Topics, and become entirely counterproductive.

Most of the membership, even those that are not Christians, know that freedom is for all people, and not just "everybody but Christians," so really a defense is unnecessary. Defending the idea will simply ignite the banshee chorus and get you nowhere fast I'm afraid. :(

ETA: Probably one of the reasons people got upset is because you intend to feature "Christian Principles" in the school, without disclosing that fact up front in the original post seeking support. :shrug: You haven't lost my support, and I understand that this is basically because you actually separate "Christian Principles" from "Christian Doctrine" but some will look on that as having been deceptive. I know better, but they don't.

[ronpaulhawaii]

There is a small but very vocal group amongst RPFers who hate anything and everything "Christian" and will howl for days at volume setting "11" upon any encounter of the concept, no matter how minor or voluntary.

Most of us have learned to pretty much let them have their one post and ignore it, or otherwise if you try to explain such concepts as "freedom" and "liberty" with regard to Christianity, you will have to deal with being set upon like hyenas and howling banshees.

But don't fret, it's only a minor fraction of the RPF's who seem to think that liberty is for everyone BUT Christians. They just happen to be very vocal. Best practice here is to let them post their rant and ignore it. If you try and actually defend the idea that Christians should have freedom too, then this will go on for weeks, derail the thread, get it sent into Hot Topics, and become entirely counterproductive.

Most of the membership, even those that are not Christians, know that freedom is for all people, and not just "everybody but Christians," so really a defense is unnecessary. Defending the idea will simply ignite the banshee chorus and get you nowhere fast I'm afraid. :(

ETA: Probably one of the reasons people got upset is because you intend to feature "Christian Principles" in the school, without disclosing that fact up front in the original post seeking support. :shrug: You haven't lost my support, and I understand that this is basically because you actually separate "Christian Principles" from "Christian Doctrine" but some will look on that as having been deceptive. I know better, but they don't.


^^^ What he said :)

Thanks for everything you are doing. And for sharing here.

[RevolutionSD]

There is a small but very vocal group amongst RPFers who hate anything and everything "Christian" and will howl for days at volume setting "11" upon any encounter of the concept, no matter how minor or voluntary.

Most of us have learned to pretty much let them have their one post and ignore it, or otherwise if you try to explain such concepts as "freedom" and "liberty" with regard to Christianity, you will have to deal with being set upon like hyenas and howling banshees.

But don't fret, it's only a minor fraction of the RPF's who seem to think that liberty is for everyone BUT Christians. They just happen to be very vocal. Best practice here is to let them post their rant and ignore it. If you try and actually defend the idea that Christians should have freedom too, then this will go on for weeks, derail the thread, get it sent into Hot Topics, and become entirely counterproductive.

Most of the membership, even those that are not Christians, know that freedom is for all people, and not just "everybody but Christians," so really a defense is unnecessary. Defending the idea will simply ignite the banshee chorus and get you nowhere fast I'm afraid. :(

ETA: Probably one of the reasons people got upset is because you intend to feature "Christian Principles" in the school, without disclosing that fact up front in the original post seeking support. :shrug: You haven't lost my support, and I understand that this is basically because you actually separate "Christian Principles" from "Christian Doctrine" but some will look on that as having been deceptive. I know better, but they don't.

Your post is a collectivized ad hominem attack on anyone who believes in the freedom to choose, or giving children that same freedom.

We are simply asking questions. Why teach religion to kids? Are the kids being offered a choice to not believe?

That's it. Nobody is saying who deserves and doesn't deserve freedom, in fact, it's more encompassing than teaching Christianity to children.

[GunnyFreedom]

Your post is a collectivized ad hominem attack on anyone who believes in the freedom to choose, or giving children that same freedom.

We are simply asking questions. Why teach religion to kids? Are the kids being offered a choice to not believe?

That's it. Nobody is saying who deserves and doesn't deserve freedom, in fact, it's more encompassing than teaching Christianity to children.

Da, Komrade! My support for and defense of individual rights is awfully "collective" whenever it happens to include those awful stinkin' Christians, isn't it? :rolleyes: I mean, that whole nasty GROUP of them stinkin' Christians ought to have NO RIGHT to teach children anything in a free society right? :rolleyes: After all, if America were truly free, then we would just chuck every stinkin' Christian into the nearest gulag and be done with it! :rolleyes: rofl!

[mtj458]

Nobody is saying you don't have the right to teach religion in your school. A lot of us just wouldn't support the school if you did. I know I would never make a contribution to a school that teaches religion. It doesn't mean I disrespect your right to do it, I would just rather contribute my money elsewhere.

[GunnyFreedom]

Nobody is saying you don't have the right to teach religion in your school. A lot of us just wouldn't support the school if you did. I know I would never make a contribution to a school that teaches religion. It doesn't mean I disrespect your right to do it, I would just rather contribute my money elsewhere.

Quite proper and fair. But you are not the one who called me a "collectivist," nor am I the one making the school. :)

[Cowlesy]

Sounds great. Congrats and good luck!

[jmdrake]

Cool! Consider looking at these guys for ideas. They have their own biodiesal plant, support homeschoolers and have an ROTC program for the state militia.

YouTube - Eastwood Algae Biofuel Demo, Opelika AL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmhyV4yumAU)

http://site.eastwoodchristianschool.com/

[RevolutionSD]

Da, Komrade! My support for and defense of individual rights is awfully "collective" whenever it happens to include those awful stinkin' Christians, isn't it? :rolleyes: I mean, that whole nasty GROUP of them stinkin' Christians ought to have NO RIGHT to teach children anything in a free society right? :rolleyes: After all, if America were truly free, then we would just chuck every stinkin' Christian into the nearest gulag and be done with it! :rolleyes: rofl!

Just more ad-hominem attacks do not further your argument.

Where did I post anything slamming Christians?
I asked a couple of simple questions about the openness of the religious teachings, and you jumped all over me.

Everyone has the right to teach whatever they want. But, we were discussing a particular school where teaching liberty is going to be a main component. If I question the teaching of Christianity, suddenly I'm ANTI-CHRISTIAN, and want Christians to have NO RIGHTS and want Christians to DIE?

How can you be expected to be taken seriously with baseless attacks like these?

[GunnyFreedom]

Your position was that Christian principles should not be taught at a liberty school. That means you are in essence calling Christianity "anti-liberty" which, IMHO, is a pretty intense "slam," especially around these parts.

Your quote:

"Makes zero sense to have a school where the idea is that the kids are free, and then force a religion on them!"

makes Christianity out to be "anti-liberty" which characterization is, well, to pretty much every single member of these forums, an attack.

For myself and many others, Christian principles incorporate the penultimate expression of personal liberty. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a concise statement of the NAP. "You reap what you sow" is an even more concise statement of the concept of blowback.

BUT ZOMG NOOOOO because Christians described the principles first we should just toss them out? No teaching of the NAP? No learning about the concept of blowback?

Or do you object more because they intend to refer to the concepts according to their Christian names... "The Golden Rule" or "The Law of Reaping and Sowing" ? I bet you would object a lot less if instead of "reaping and sowing" they called it "karma."

Why is every philosophy/religious principle OK, but as soon as it's ZOMG CHRISTIAN it has to be shut down, shut up, and basically mischaracterized as the antithesis of liberty?

Those who so desperately oppose Christianity are obviously unable to see what is flowing from their own expression. That's OK, I have seen deeper mysteries than that in my time. For instance, the New Hampshire Republican antiwar vote going to John McCain - it makes about as much sense to me, but I have given up on trying to make people see the lunacy of it. They will either see it, or they won't.

You, likewise, would apparently blow your top if someone taught your child that "you reap what you sow" but were someone to describe the concept of 'karma' to them then that would just be a cool way of learning about other cultures, and a good life's lesson along the way.

This school prefers to call it "reaping and sowing." So what? deal with it. If you don't like it, then don't send your kid there. Problem solved. 8-)

[RevolutionSD]

Your position was that Christian principles should not be taught at a liberty school. That means you are in essence calling Christianity "anti-liberty" which, IMHO, is a pretty intense "slam," especially around these parts.

Your quote:

"Makes zero sense to have a school where the idea is that the kids are free, and then force a religion on them!"

makes Christianity out to be "anti-liberty" which characterization is, well, to pretty much every single member of these forums, an attack.

For myself and many others, Christian principles incorporate the penultimate expression of personal liberty. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a concise statement of the NAP. "You reap what you sow" is an even more concise statement of the concept of blowback.

BUT ZOMG NOOOOO because Christians described the principles first we should just toss them out? No teaching of the NAP? No learning about the concept of blowback?

Or do you object more because they intend to refer to the concepts according to their Christian names... "The Golden Rule" or "The Law of Reaping and Sowing" ? I bet you would object a lot less if instead of "reaping and sowing" they called it "karma."

Why is every philosophy/religious principle OK, but as soon as it's ZOMG CHRISTIAN it has to be shut down, shut up, and basically mischaracterized as the antithesis of liberty?

Those who so desperately oppose Christianity are obviously unable to see what is flowing from their own expression. That's OK, I have seen deeper mysteries than that in my time. For instance, the New Hampshire Republican antiwar vote going to John McCain - it makes about as much sense to me, but I have given up on trying to make people see the lunacy of it. They will either see it, or they won't.

You, likewise, would apparently blow your top if someone taught your child that "you reap what you sow" but were someone to describe the concept of 'karma' to them then that would just be a cool way of learning about other cultures, and a good life's lesson along the way.

This school prefers to call it "reaping and sowing." So what? deal with it. If you don't like it, then don't send your kid there. Problem solved. 8-)

Not sure why you seem to be so upset. Are you Christian?

I simply oppose teaching religion to children. This is offensive to you. Teaching kids about freedom is great. Then forcing religious beliefs on them is doing the exact opposite. It's saying "You should be Free!" then saying "But you should believe in things that do not exist!"

I think kids should be free to learn about religion and atheism on their own, not have 1 belief forced on them. If you really want to have a free school, which teaches and lives free market principles, then why would you want to have the children learning Christianity as if it is the truth and the only way to go?

[jmdrake]

Your post is a collectivized ad hominem attack on anyone who believes in the freedom to choose, or giving children that same freedom.

We are simply asking questions. Why teach religion to kids? Are the kids being offered a choice to not believe?


:rolleyes:

Why teach the American form of government to kids? Are the kids being offered to choice to chose communism instead?

Why teach English to kids? Maybe children might chose spanglish or engrish or ebonics?

Why teach arabic numerals (child may prefer Roman or Mayan), western science (child may reject it and do fine in life), U.S. history (child may rather learn Guatemalan history) or anything?



That's it. Nobody is saying who deserves and doesn't deserve freedom, in fact, it's more encompassing than teaching Christianity to children.

If you wish to restrict a parent's freedom to teach kids whatever they wish to teach then you are restricting freedom. And you're doing it for not good reason. You have the freedom to teach your child islam or atheism or buddhism or whatever. I have the right to raise my child the way I wish, teach him what I wish and send him to schools that follow my values. At the end of the day parents have a responsibility to train a child the way they see fit. As the child gets older his responsibilities increase and his "freedom" increases proportionately.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Not sure why you seem to be so upset. Are you Christian?

I simply oppose teaching religion to children. This is offensive to you. Teaching kids about freedom is great. Then forcing religious beliefs on them is doing the exact opposite. It's saying "You should be Free!" then saying "But you should believe in things that do not exist!"


Why can't you simply be honest and admit you hate religion? Clearly you do. If you didn't you would at least say "But you should believe in things that might not exist". Every honest atheist has to admit that he can't disprove God anymore than a Christian can prove Him.



I think kids should be free to learn about religion and atheism on their own, not have 1 belief forced on them. If you really want to have a free school, which teaches and lives free market principles, then why would you want to have the children learning Christianity as if it is the truth and the only way to go?

You're using "freedom" as a pretext. If you were truly interested in children having a "choice" you'd advocate for atheism to be taught along with religion instead of advocating that no religion be taught. The "I don't think it exists so it shouldn't be taught" argument is weak. How do we know black holes exist? Nobody's ever seen one. And sure scientist have made observations and predictions but we see how that's turned out with global warming.

Regardless this is yet another reason why I'm proud not to wear what some people hear call the "liberty" label. If this is what you call "freedom" I want no part of it. I doubt Ron Paul would want any part of it either because he believes in God and he taught his children to do the same.

[ChaosControl]

Awesome, this is exactly what needs to be done

The nut bars have controlled education so long and that is what has allowed the populace to become so messed up, especially look at people of college age and they are often the most messed up. You have the few who had the ability to think for themselves, most of them joined the RP movement, but most that age are clueless.

I was wanting to eventually do something like this as well. Cheers.

[RevolutionSD]

:rolleyes:

Why teach the American form of government to kids? Are the kids being offered to choice to chose communism instead?

Why teach English to kids? Maybe children might chose spanglish or engrish or ebonics?

Why teach arabic numerals (child may prefer Roman or Mayan), western science (child may reject it and do fine in life), U.S. history (child may rather learn Guatemalan history) or anything?



If you wish to restrict a parent's freedom to teach kids whatever they wish to teach then you are restricting freedom. And you're doing it for not good reason. You have the freedom to teach your child islam or atheism or buddhism or whatever. I have the right to raise my child the way I wish, teach him what I wish and send him to schools that follow my values. At the end of the day parents have a responsibility to train a child the way they see fit. As the child gets older his responsibilities increase and his "freedom" increases proportionately.

Regards,

John M. Drake

You're using straw man arguments John. Not going to bite.

Last time I checked, rpf was not a religious site.

So the issue here is teaching Christianity to kids at said liberty school. I'm completely against this. I don't care if you want to go start your own Christian school and talk about liberty or whatever. But if we're talking about a liberty oriented school that was brought up right here on this thread, I'm going to speak up and say I'm against teaching religion to children, and ask further questions about it.

Why the hostility?

[RevolutionSD]

Why can't you simply be honest and admit you hate religion? Clearly you do. If you didn't you would at least say "But you should believe in things that might not exist". Every honest atheist has to admit that he can't disprove God anymore than a Christian can prove Him.

The onus is not on atheists to disprove God. The onus is on Christians to prove God. It's like if I said UFO's exist, and you asked me to prove it. Then I respond with "No, it's up to you to disprove it!"

I'm more than willing to listen to proofs of God. I would love to be wrong on this. So far, I have not seen this proof, let me know if you have any.


You're using "freedom" as a pretext. If you were truly interested in children having a "choice" you'd advocate for atheism to be taught along with religion instead of advocating that no religion be taught. The "I don't think it exists so it shouldn't be taught" argument is weak. How do we know black holes exist? Nobody's ever seen one. And sure scientist have made observations and predictions but we see how that's turned out with global warming.

I don't think atheism needs to be "taught", but certainly you would agree that children should be given a choice, to study religion or not?


Regardless this is yet another reason why I'm proud not to wear what some people hear call the "liberty" label. If this is what you call "freedom" I want no part of it. I doubt Ron Paul would want any part of it either because he believes in God and he taught his children to do the same.

So freedom to you is equal to forcing children to believe in God and Christianity? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

[jmdrake]

You're using straw man arguments John. Not going to bite.

You started with the straw man claiming that those who want to teach their own beliefs are against "freedom".



Last time I checked, rpf was not a religious site.


The "RP" stands for "Ron Paul". Last I checked Ron Paul was a religious person. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but saying people who want to teach their children religion are "against freedom" goes against the spirit of supporting Ron Paul.



So the issue here is teaching Christianity to kids at said liberty school. I'm completely against this. I don't care if you want to go start your own Christian school and talk about liberty or whatever. But if we're talking about a liberty oriented school that was brought up right here on this thread, I'm going to speak up and say I'm against teaching religion to children, and ask further questions about it.

Why the hostility?

Yes. Why your hostility towards religion? That's only a question you can answer. You are free to start your own liberty school that doesn't teach religion. But to claim that a school can't teach religion and still be "pro liberty" goes against liberty. You're free to believe that. You're just wrong.

[RevolutionSD]

You started with the straw man claiming that those who want to teach their own beliefs are against "freedom".

I never said this. I said I didn't want to support the school if it is teaching Christianity, which I do not believe in.




The "RP" stands for "Ron Paul". Last I checked Ron Paul was a religious person. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but saying people who want to teach their children religion are "against freedom" goes against the spirit of supporting Ron Paul.

I definitely don't agree with RP about religion, but he is not going to force his religion on us if he became president, so that's irrelevant.




Yes. Why your hostility towards religion? That's only a question you can answer. You are free to start your own liberty school that doesn't teach religion. But to claim that a school can't teach religion and still be "pro liberty" goes against liberty. You're free to believe that. You're just wrong.

I'm not hostile. I simply do not want children at a liberty school brought up here having Christianity forced on them. I want them to be able to choose. Is that understandable now?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I never said this. I said I didn't want to support the school if it is teaching Christianity, which I do not believe in.





I definitely don't agree with RP about religion, but he is not going to force his religion on us if he became president, so that's irrelevant.





I'm not hostile. I simply do not want children at a liberty school brought up here having Christianity forced on them. I want them to be able to choose. Is that understandable now?

I guess you missed the part where the classes are voluntary, and secondly, having theologian classes are indeed pro-liberty. Mind you I'm an agnostic leaning atheist, but even I acknowledge the foundation of libertarianism came from Christianity and Spanish theologians. They came up with NAP, Natural Law, Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Read Rothbard's Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.

[jmdrake]

The onus is not on atheists to disprove God. The onus is on Christians to prove God. It's like if I said UFO's exist, and you asked me to prove it. Then I respond with "No, it's up to you to disprove it!"

Not really. If the atheist is suggesting that something shouldn't be taught because it doesn't exist then the onus shifts back to the atheist. It's one thing to passively not believe something. It's another thing to actively seek to suppress belief.



I'm more than willing to listen to proofs of God. I would love to be wrong on this. So far, I have not seen this proof, let me know if you have any.


I don't think you actually would love to be wrong on that. But I can't read your mind.



I don't think atheism needs to be "taught", but certainly you would agree that children should be given a choice, to study religion or not?


No. Parents should be given a choice on what schools to send their children to and schools should be given a choice what to teach. If I think my child needs to learn Shakespear I should send him to a school that teaches Shakespear or teach him at home. The child shouldn't have the "choice" to say "I really don't think I should learn that". Given a choice a lot of kids would sit around and watch Spongebob all day and learn absolutely nothing. As kids get older and more mature they have more choices. Ultimately when a child moves out he can choose whatever he or she wants. I simply don't buy this "children should make their own choices" nonsense when the parent is ultimately held responsible for those choices.



So freedom to you is equal to forcing children to believe in God and Christianity? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Freedom is something earned with responsibility. And you can't "force" anybody to believe anything. As the saying goes "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". The best a parent can do is to put his belief system out there for a child to observe and learn about. Ultimately the choice is the child's regardless of whether or not he is required to learn about it. A parent who believed in God and believed there were real consequences in another life would be grossly negligent to hide that belief from their child and hope he figured it out on his own.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

I never said this. I said I didn't want to support the school if it is teaching Christianity, which I do not believe in.


Great. Don't support it. Start your own alternative that I would never support. But I'm not going to call your school "anti liberty".



I definitely don't agree with RP about religion, but he is not going to force his religion on us if he became president, so that's irrelevant.


And this school isn't forcing their religion on anybody. Nobody is compelled to attend. But parents have a right to choose the school their children attend along with the right to choose religion for their children. That doesn't make those parents "anti liberty". Ron Paul most likely taught religion to his children. That doesn't make him anti liberty. The basic disagreement is that I see a fundamental difference between the state pushing a belief system and parents pushing a belief system. You seem to see the state and parents the same in this regard. I doubt Ron Paul would.



I'm not hostile. I simply do not want children at a liberty school brought up here having Christianity forced on them. I want them to be able to choose. Is that understandable now?

Then at your liberty school don't teach it. But that doesn't mean that a school that teaches Christianity isn't a liberty school. Besides, you can learn about a religion without it being "forced" on you.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[RevolutionSD]

I guess you missed the part where the classes are voluntary, and secondly, having theologian classes are indeed pro-liberty. Mind you I'm an agnostic leaning atheist, but even I acknowledge the foundation of libertarianism came from Christianity and Spanish theologians. They came up with NAP, Natural Law, Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Read Rothbard's Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.

The government also created the internet (sans Gore), but that doesn't make a case for the government.

I never said nothing good ever has come out of Christianity, but that I'm against teaching it to children. The bible also says we must follow laws and obey government officials, so you've got a big contradiction on your hands. Christians certainly did not invent the NAP.

[RevolutionSD]

Great. Don't support it. Start your own alternative that I would never support. But I'm not going to call your school "anti liberty".

Fine, do whatever you want, but stop lying about what I said.




And this school isn't forcing their religion on anybody. Nobody is compelled to attend. But parents have a right to choose the school their children attend along with the right to choose religion for their children. That doesn't make those parents "anti liberty". Ron Paul most likely taught religion to his children. That doesn't make him anti liberty. The basic disagreement is that I see a fundamental difference between the state pushing a belief system and parents pushing a belief system. You seem to see the state and parents the same in this regard. I doubt Ron Paul would.

I don't have a problem with starting a school and doing it however you'd like. But if someone is going to come in here on Liberty Forest and say they are starting a liberty school, and then say they are going to teach Christianity, I'm going to voice my opinion that I do not agree. You may agree, but there is no reason to get angry with me or make up things that I said. I would never teach kids religion as a parent or a teacher. I want to teach them things that actually exist, not unprovable fantasies.




Then at your liberty school don't teach it. But that doesn't mean that a school that teaches Christianity isn't a liberty school. Besides, you can learn about a religion without it being "forced" on you.

Never said it's anti-liberty, but that I have an issue with children being taught Christianity. That's the last time I'll say it and please stop changing my words. You can definitely learn about religion without it being forced on you. That's why I prefer kids not be taught religion, but rather, discover it on their own.
QUOTE]

[jmdrake]

The government also created the internet (sans Gore), but that doesn't make a case for the government.

I never said nothing good ever has come out of Christianity, but that I'm against teaching it to children. The bible also says we must follow laws and obey government officials, so you've got a big contradiction on your hands. Christians certainly did not invent the NAP.

Are you sure about that?

YouTube - 5/25/09 Broadcast "Romans 13 Explained by Pastor Steven Anderson (part 1 of 2)" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCVWoiAnDRw)

YouTube - 5/26/09 Broadcast "Romans 13 Explained by Pastor Steven Anderson (part 2 of 2)" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuZT2Rwycow)

[jmdrake]

Fine, do whatever you want, but stop lying about what I said.


:rolleyes: Stop lying about what the OP is attempting to do.




I don't have a problem with starting a school and doing it however you'd like. But if someone is going to come in here on Liberty Forest and say they are starting a liberty school, and then say they are going to teach Christianity, I'm going to voice my opinion that I do not agree. You may agree, but there is no reason to get angry with me or make up things that I said. I would never teach kids religion as a parent or a teacher. I want to teach them things that actually exist, not unprovable fantasies.


Who's angry? I'm not. I don't think you are being honest about what the OP is trying to do. You don't think I'm being honest in my assessment of your dishonesty. We're even.




Never said it's anti-liberty, but that I have an issue with children being taught Christianity. That's the last time I'll say it and please stop changing my words. You can definitely learn about religion without it being forced on you. That's why I prefer kids not be taught religion, but rather, discover it on their own.


:rolleyes: Then don't have a school at all and let the children "discover" everything. I'm not "changing your words" in the least. You're repeating the same fallacy that if a child is taught religion it is "forced" on them. It's no more being forced on them then teaching about black holes "forces" them to believe in black holes or teaching them about Einstein "forces" them to reject quantum mechanics (since relativity and QM are still in conflict). I'm not simply saying that children can learn religion without it being forced on them. I'm saying that teaching religion is not forcing it.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[GunnyFreedom]

Not really. If the atheist is suggesting that something shouldn't be taught because it doesn't exist then the onus shifts back to the atheist. It's one thing to passively not believe something. It's another thing to actively seek to suppress belief.



Change the terms and see if the logic holds. Say, to evolution.

If in the introductory phase of the idea, someone suggests that evolution should be taught in school, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution exists in order that it may be taught. If, once the idea becomes generally accepted someone suggests that the teaching of evolution should be suppressed, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution does not exist so that it can be removed from the curriculum.

Yup. It would seem that the logic holds. :)

Look, nobody is ever going to change SD's mind. He is blind to his own bias, and therefore perceives himself as unbiased. Because he believes himself unbiased, there is nothing in this universe that will change is manner of thinking on this.

It is much like the radical liberals living in an echo chamber who feed us the "news" on TV. They are blatantly and radically biased, but they honestly perceive themselves as though they were 'neutral.' SD will remain blind to his own bias no matter what anybody says, and any attempt to demonstrate this for him will only further derail this otherwise extremely outstanding thread.

I have gone rounds with radicals for decades, and I have learned that it becomes important to recognize when you are banging your head on a brick wall. I have come to a point now where I can generally tell by the "character" of obstinacy whether there will be any value in the debate. The only thing that can come out of arguing this with SD is angst for all rational beings.

I have no prejudice against atheists in any shape, way, or form. My closest ally in the RPNC group is an atheist. We get along like gangbusters because I hold no bias or prejudice against her or atheism, and she holds no bias or prejudice against me or my faith.

I recognize that AED does not believe in God, and he probably thinks that I am a bit backwards or maybe even self delusional for believing; but he holds no prejudice or bias against me, and likewise I hold no bias or prejudice against him, and we are fully capable of working together without animosity.

SD creates animosity whenever he encounters Christianity...specifically Christianity in any shape or form. A rational being will quickly therefore identify SD as the source of the bias/prejudice; but he himself will continue to perceive himself as unbiased no matter how many mirrors are held up in front of him.

So any attempt at a constructive debate is ultimately futile. Even if he has valid points which can and ought to be discussed, they are veiled behind a cloud of anti-Christian rage, and are therefore inaccessible to Christians. He will simply point to that lack of access as "further proof that Christians are idiots" never seeing that the problem lies in himself.

My advice is to just let him have his last word, recognize that his prejudice is overt and apparent to the vast majority of people reading the thread (even if he, himself can't see it) and put an end to this thread derail by leaving this profitless debate alone.

This is much like the debates to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. We say that the only honorable thing to do is to bring the troops home now, and they say, "But if we leave NOW then we will be seen as the losers! Cut and run!" Really, the only way to be the loser, is to just stay in those countries and to stay engaged in all this useless violence. We can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our "enemies" (right or wrong is irrelevant here) will continue to fight until the entire middle-east is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland.

Likewise, right or wrong, SD will continue to fight until the thread/forum is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland. It has nothing to do with him being an 'atheist' there are also Christians who act exactly like he does. It's just his personality, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Change the terms and see if the logic holds. Say, to evolution.

If in the introductory phase of the idea, someone suggests that evolution should be taught in school, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution exists in order that it may be taught. If, once the idea becomes generally accepted someone suggests that the teaching of evolution should be suppressed, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution does not exist so that it can be removed from the curriculum.

Yup. It would seem that the logic holds. :)

Look, nobody is ever going to change SD's mind. He is blind to his own bias, and therefore perceives himself as unbiased. Because he believes himself unbiased, there is nothing in this universe that will change is manner of thinking on this.

It is much like the radical liberals living in an echo chamber who feed us the "news" on TV. They are blatantly and radically biased, but they honestly perceive themselves as though they were 'neutral.' SD will remain blind to his own bias no matter what anybody says, and any attempt to demonstrate this for him will only further derail this otherwise extremely outstanding thread.

I have gone rounds with radicals for decades, and I have learned that it becomes important to recognize when you are banging your head on a brick wall. I have come to a point now where I can generally tell by the "character" of obstinacy whether there will be any value in the debate. The only thing that can come out of arguing this with SD is angst for all rational beings.

I have no prejudice against atheists in any shape, way, or form. My closest ally in the RPNC group is an atheist. We get along like gangbusters because I hold no bias or prejudice against her or atheism, and she holds no bias or prejudice against me or my faith.

I recognize that AED does not believe in God, and he probably thinks that I am a bit backwards or maybe even self delusional for believing; but he holds no prejudice or bias against me, and likewise I hold no bias or prejudice against him, and we are fully capable of working together without animosity.

SD creates animosity whenever he encounters Christianity...specifically Christianity in any shape or form. A rational being will quickly therefore identify SD as the source of the bias/prejudice; but he himself will continue to perceive himself as unbiased no matter how many mirrors are held up in front of him.

So any attempt at a constructive debate is ultimately futile. Even if he has valid points which can and ought to be discussed, they are veiled behind a cloud of anti-Christian rage, and are therefore inaccessible to Christians. He will simply point to that lack of access as "further proof that Christians are idiots" never seeing that the problem lies in himself.

My advice is to just let him have his last word, recognize that his prejudice is overt and apparent to the vast majority of people reading the thread (even if he, himself can't see it) and put an end to this thread derail by leaving this profitless debate alone.

This is much like the debates to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. We say that the only honorable thing to do is to bring the troops home now, and they say, "But if we leave NOW then we will be seen as the losers! Cut and run!" Really, the only way to be the loser, is to just stay in those countries and to stay engaged in all this useless violence. We can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our "enemies" (right or wrong is irrelevant here) will continue to fight until the entire middle-east is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland.

Likewise, right or wrong, SD will continue to fight until the thread/forum is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland. It has nothing to do with him being an 'atheist' there are also Christians who act exactly like he does. It's just his personality, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it.

Well said. I consider Gunny an upstanding person and would be honored to work with him in any capacity. I don't consider you backwards or delusional, indeed I recognize the many achievements Christian theologians brought to us, even though the Church itself is an abominable tyrannous institution. Even Christ himself abhorred the idea of an organized religion. I am just too logical a person to ever believe in such notions, given that it has been said reason is god. All I can do is live the best life I can and to act as morally as possible from the foundation of reason, but I would never begrudge or hold any bias towards a person of faith.

You respect me, I'll respect you. :p

So, let's get this back on topic. Let me know OP if you need my help in any capacity!

[GunnyFreedom]

Well said. I consider Gunny an upstanding person and would be honored to work with him in any capacity.

In my fantasy world, I can actually live up to that. ;) Thanks. I have my own stubborn sticky points where I get amped up all out of proportion with reality or necessity, but I do try to recognize that impulse and subdue it. I have found you likewise to be sincere to a fault, and working with you will indeed be a true pleasure.


I don't consider you backwards or delusional, indeed I recognize the many achievements Christian theologians brought to us, even though the Church itself is an abominable tyrannous institution. Even Christ himself abhorred the idea of an organized religion.

If I have any disagreement here at all, it is that Yeshua took more of an issue with the practice of organized religion moreso than the idea of it. Mind you, that is really splitting hairs, and obviously within the context here it amounts to the exact same thing. The distinction is only going to be important to a small fraction of believers.


I am just too logical a person to ever believe in such notions, given that it has been said reason is god.

Perhaps this may explain why there is some compatibility here. I suppose I am an...unusual...believer. One of my primary focuses is on the /logos/ of God. The Messiah is said to be the physical embodiment of the divine /logos/. I use the Greek because it is more precise and encompasses FAR more conceptually than the English "word." Our word 'logic' is derived from the Greek /logos/, and it implies logic and reason and ordered thought produced in direct and unambiguous expression. For me, anything that is illogical is not /logos/, and therefore can not be Messiah.

Mind you, I do also recognize the extension of said /logos/-logic into the transcendental realm of eternity, which when taken within the realm of temporality alone can often appear broken, (as a limit of temporal perception rather than as a broken chain of reason). This causes the rational Christian to "look into" eternity to to discover the logic (/logos/) that is imperceptible without observations made outside of time.

Though I did spend time in a Southern Baptist church, and even studied at a Southern Baptist seminary, this was after learning much to my surprise (shock, really) that the SBC was one of the biggest supporters of "Hebrew Roots" or "Messianic Jewish" Christianity. My brand of faith, however, most resembles that which James taught at the Jerusalem church shortly after Yeshua's crucifixion. It is more like the "fulfillment" of pre-Messianic Judaism than some new religion altogether like most of what Christianity has become today.


All I can do is live the best life I can and to act as morally as possible from the foundation of reason, but I would never begrudge or hold any bias towards a person of faith.

You respect me, I'll respect you. :p

Now that's a deal!


So, let's get this back on topic. Let me know OP if you need my help in any capacity!

Hear here! I was serious about marksmanship instruction. All you'd need is a little 36 yard range with about 12 shooting positions, and about 14 10/22's in .22lr. It has only been recently that the idea of teaching gun safety and marksmanship to children has become repulsive to society. One could actually graduate whole classes of 12th graders who knew gun safety inside and out, and could hit a 12" circle at 500yds with a high-power. Nothing quite says "freedom" like the self-reliance of being able to acquire your own wild game and be able to shoot better than your average Marine. ;)

[romacox]

This is exciting. I am a Tutor for public schools, and home schools. Being in the front lines I see a big need for what you are doing. I also have some excellent curriculum for early readers that may be helpful.. Please feel free to visit my website, and contact me if you so choose. http://www.read-phonics.com/

[jmdrake]

Gunny you're right. Arguing in circles is a waste of time. I think beyond the religion issue SD and I fundamentally disagree on the role of family. I see the family as a basic unit of government with powers unto itself including the power to require subordinate units (children) to learn its values. I see that SD is an ancap so he may not believe in government units of any kind. Still that doesn't explain why single out one for of knowledge (religion) for non teaching. You could just teach a child to read and write, put him in a room full of books and say "go discover". :D

Back to the subject at hand, did you see the link I posted about the school with the state militia training? Good idea, or is it better for the training to be totally independent in your opinion?

http://site.eastwoodchristianschool.com/ALSDF_Cadet_Program_Info.html

[romacox]

Teachers are now the biggest influx into the home school venue. The reasons they give are very interesting:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Thinking-About-Homeschooling?-Teachers-Are&id=2499296

[tpreitzel]

Carla,

Please accept my apology for NOT following through with my intention of supporting this cause several months ago when you first proposed it. For that reason, I'm prioritizing and donating to your cause NOW.

BTW, please forward information on your school to Dr. Stanley Monteith of www.radioliberty.com . He frequently has one of the Skousen brothers on his radio show so I'm fairly sure that he'd be delighted to promote your project. Best wishes ...

[tpreitzel]

Furthermore, the mediocre response to Carla's request is appalling. I expect more from at least some of you. Granted, we don't know the legitimacy of Carla's request so we could be throwing money into the wind. I'm sure most of us have wasted much more money on other useless things than Carla's requesting here. Although I just donated to Carla's project and I have $20 reserved for Rand on Dec. 16th, I'm seriously thinking of donating Rand's allocation to Carla instead. Carla isn't asking for much money.

[tpreitzel]

bump

[nbhadja]

Change the terms and see if the logic holds. Say, to evolution.

If in the introductory phase of the idea, someone suggests that evolution should be taught in school, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution exists in order that it may be taught. If, once the idea becomes generally accepted someone suggests that the teaching of evolution should be suppressed, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution does not exist so that it can be removed from the curriculum.

Yup. It would seem that the logic holds. :)

Look, nobody is ever going to change SD's mind. He is blind to his own bias, and therefore perceives himself as unbiased. Because he believes himself unbiased, there is nothing in this universe that will change is manner of thinking on this.

It is much like the radical liberals living in an echo chamber who feed us the "news" on TV. They are blatantly and radically biased, but they honestly perceive themselves as though they were 'neutral.' SD will remain blind to his own bias no matter what anybody says, and any attempt to demonstrate this for him will only further derail this otherwise extremely outstanding thread.

I have gone rounds with radicals for decades, and I have learned that it becomes important to recognize when you are banging your head on a brick wall. I have come to a point now where I can generally tell by the "character" of obstinacy whether there will be any value in the debate. The only thing that can come out of arguing this with SD is angst for all rational beings.

I have no prejudice against atheists in any shape, way, or form. My closest ally in the RPNC group is an atheist. We get along like gangbusters because I hold no bias or prejudice against her or atheism, and she holds no bias or prejudice against me or my faith.

I recognize that AED does not believe in God, and he probably thinks that I am a bit backwards or maybe even self delusional for believing; but he holds no prejudice or bias against me, and likewise I hold no bias or prejudice against him, and we are fully capable of working together without animosity.

SD creates animosity whenever he encounters Christianity...specifically Christianity in any shape or form. A rational being will quickly therefore identify SD as the source of the bias/prejudice; but he himself will continue to perceive himself as unbiased no matter how many mirrors are held up in front of him.

So any attempt at a constructive debate is ultimately futile. Even if he has valid points which can and ought to be discussed, they are veiled behind a cloud of anti-Christian rage, and are therefore inaccessible to Christians. He will simply point to that lack of access as "further proof that Christians are idiots" never seeing that the problem lies in himself.

My advice is to just let him have his last word, recognize that his prejudice is overt and apparent to the vast majority of people reading the thread (even if he, himself can't see it) and put an end to this thread derail by leaving this profitless debate alone.

This is much like the debates to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. We say that the only honorable thing to do is to bring the troops home now, and they say, "But if we leave NOW then we will be seen as the losers! Cut and run!" Really, the only way to be the loser, is to just stay in those countries and to stay engaged in all this useless violence. We can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our "enemies" (right or wrong is irrelevant here) will continue to fight until the entire middle-east is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland.

Likewise, right or wrong, SD will continue to fight until the thread/forum is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland. It has nothing to do with him being an 'atheist' there are also Christians who act exactly like he does. It's just his personality, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it.

The difference is that evolution has been proven in labs. We have witnessed bacteria evolving.

That itself doesn't prove the theory of life originating and developing from evolution but at least it does prove that evolution exists and that the theory is based on something that exists.

[nbhadja]

I think people are misunderstanding SD.

He is giving his opinion on what he thinks a liberty school should be about.

[RevolutionSD]

Well said. I consider Gunny an upstanding person and would be honored to work with him in any capacity. I don't consider you backwards or delusional, indeed I recognize the many achievements Christian theologians brought to us, even though the Church itself is an abominable tyrannous institution. Even Christ himself abhorred the idea of an organized religion. I am just too logical a person to ever believe in such notions, given that it has been said reason is god. All I can do is live the best life I can and to act as morally as possible from the foundation of reason, but I would never begrudge or hold any bias towards a person of faith.

You respect me, I'll respect you. :p

So, let's get this back on topic. Let me know OP if you need my help in any capacity!

Thanks. He just slammed me with some ad hominem attacks. I never attacked Gunny personally, just gave my opinion of what a liberty school should be. I see no point in continuing the debate as it's obviously personal to him and there appears no way to change that.

[RevolutionSD]

I think people are misunderstanding SD.

He is giving his opinion on what he thinks a liberty school should be about.

Exactly! Thanks, it's that simple.

[Stop Making Cents]

Is your school going sacrifice children to the cult of multiculturalism and diversity? Is it going to teach children that white males are the cause of all the world's problems? If not, i doubt the powers that be will allow it to operate.

[jmdrake]

I think people are misunderstanding SD.

He is giving his opinion on what he thinks a liberty school should be about.

And others are simply giving there opinion that teaching religion to your children is not a violation of liberty. No misunderstanding. Just a fundamental difference in belief of what liberty is all about. I don't believe that if you teach something someone is "forced" to believe it. Take your evolution example. Almost nobody argues against the idea of bacteria can change in a petri dish. But, as you concede, that doesn't prove the Darwin theory of the origin of the species. Similarly hardly anyone would argue that religion hasn't had positive effects in the lives of some individuals. That doesn't prove God exists or that religion is better or worse in the aggregate. In either case you could just teach the small part that is "proven" or you could put out the entire scope of the information and let the individual decide what to do with the information once it has been received.

Now if SD wants to be consistent he could say "Don't teach the children anything. Give them petri dishes, some microscopes, some a library full of books on all subjects, and let them discover whatever truth it is they may come up with". If so then he's got Montessori on steroids. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is singling out religion. And again it's not a problem if he wants to do that for his liberty school. Really, I wish he'd just start a thread talking about the liberty school he wants to start instead of lecturing others about liberty. In fact I'm tired of everyone who tries to lecture others about liberty. That's very UNliberating IMO.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[RevolutionSD]

And others are simply giving there opinion that teaching religion to your children is not a violation of liberty. No misunderstanding. Just a fundamental difference in belief of what liberty is all about. I don't believe that if you teach something someone is "forced" to believe it. Take your evolution example. Almost nobody argues against the idea of bacteria can change in a petri dish. But, as you concede, that doesn't prove the Darwin theory of the origin of the species. Similarly hardly anyone would argue that religion hasn't had positive effects in the lives of some individuals. That doesn't prove God exists or that religion is better or worse in the aggregate. In either case you could just teach the small part that is "proven" or you could put out the entire scope of the information and let the individual decide what to do with the information once it has been received.

[QUOTE]Now if SD wants to be consistent he could say "Don't teach the children anything. Give them petri dishes, some microscopes, some a library full of books on all subjects, and let them discover whatever truth it is they may come up with".

John,
I agree with this wholeheartedly. What you described is Unschooling, which I believe is the best form of schooling there is.

But, if we're talking specifically about the OP's idea for a liberty school (which is what we've been discussing), where there will indeed be subjects taught, there is no reason to teach religion. Not personally attacking anyone, just giving my opinion here pertaining to the subject matter at hand.

[jmdrake]

John,
I agree with this wholeheartedly. What you described is Unschooling, which I believe is the best form of schooling there is.

But, if we're talking specifically about the OP's idea for a liberty school (which is what we've been discussing), where there will indeed be subjects taught, there is no reason to teach religion. Not personally attacking anyone, just giving my opinion here pertaining to the subject matter at hand.

Well I would say there's no reason not to teach religion. More precisely, having religion as a subject does not an "unliberty school" make.

[RevolutionSD]

Well I would say there's no reason not to teach religion. More precisely, having religion as a subject does not an "unliberty school" make.

Fine, we just don't agree on this, no hard feelings okay?

[jmdrake]

Fine, we just don't agree on this, no hard feelings okay?

No hard feelings.

[tropicangela]

I might be sending my son to live with my mom in a different state where he would have the opportunity to attend a Sudbury School in the next couple weeks. There aren't any by me.

[A. Havnes]

Man, once I get my liscence I want to teach at that school! Granted, I don't know how many people want to learn Japanese or have an interest in linguistics, but still.