Rand Paul Opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI)

[FrankRep]

Rand Paul Responds to Question on Common Core... (http://www.kentuckiansagainstcommoncorestandards.com/2013/04/rand-paul-responds-to-question-on.html)


Kentuckians Against Common Core Standards


Dear Mrs. XXXXX,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts regarding the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). I appreciate you reaching out to me with your concerns and suggestions.

President Obama has been focused on nationalizing what is taught in each of our nation's schools since he was sworn into office. The President's flagship "Race to the Top" competitive grant program was used to entice states to adopt the K-12 standards developed by a joint project of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Also, in the President's 2009 Blueprint for Education Reform, it is suggested that the adoption of these common standards could one day be a qualification for states wanting future Title I dollars for low-income schools.

I have many concerns about the constitutionality and transparency of the Common Core State Standards Initiative as well as the loss of local control of curriculum and instruction.

I want to bring power back to the states and local communities. There is too much of the federal government trying to tell the local governments and local school districts what to do. I believe each area and its needs are different- Tompkinsville is different than Bowling Green, which is different than Louisville. Therefore, we need to have more local decisions. I have more confidence in parents, teachers, and local school districts to make decisions than I do in Washington.

As I continue work on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, remain confident that I will take every possible opportunity to return the power of education back to the states, where local communities and parents can make decisions in students learning.

Again, thank you for reaching out to me with your concerns. It is an absolute honor to represent the people of Kentucky as their United States Senator. I took the oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States with great pride and it was a very important moment for me. I understand the gravity of the responsibility I have been entrusted with; I acknowledge the tremendous amount of work there is to undertake. I am quite optimistic about what can be accomplished and look forward to empowering the American people through legislative action.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator (http://www.paul.senate.gov/)

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/468bbd4655747221b422536f70cd11bc_M.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education)


Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite Education (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education)
08 August 2013


Common Core — new national education standards that the federal government is bribing and coercing states to adopt — will harm students, not benefit them.


Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16193-orwellian-nightmare-data-mining-your-kids)
08 August 2013


Being implemented hand in hand with the new national curriculum standards being pushed on schools, called Common Core, is government surveillance of students.



Action - Stop Common Core in Your State!
https://www.votervoice.net/JBS/2/campaigns/32764/respond

====


Ron Paul: 'Common Core' Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public School Curriculum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4so9LiFDzI)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4so9LiFDzI


Ben Swann Exposes Common Core Curriculum (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpjiywhSQU)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpjiywhSQU

[JCDenton0451]

Rand is pandering to Social Conservatives again. Common Core would make it more difficult to promote creationism in schools.

[FrankRep]

Rand is pandering to Social Conservatives again. Common Core would make it more difficult to promote creationism in schools.

Are Ron Paul and Ben Swann pandering also?


Ron Paul: 'Common Core' Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public School Curriculum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4so9LiFDzI

Ben Swann Exposes Common Core Curriculum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpjiywhSQU

[supermario21]

It doesn't matter what Common Core is/isn't promoting. It's just another stupid mandate from the federal government.

[Brett85]

It doesn't matter what Common Core is/isn't promoting. It's just another stupid mandate from the federal government.

JCDenton only cares about promoting social liberalism.

[JCDenton0451]

JCDenton only cares about promoting social liberalism.

The greatest danger to American education doesn't come from the federal government, unfortunately. It comes from religious fanatics in the Southern states trying to subvert the science curriculum and replace it with Creationism apologetics.

[FrankRep]

The greatest danger to American education doesn't come from the federal government, unfortunately. It comes from religious fanatics in the Southern states trying to subvert the science curriculum and replace it with Creationism apologetics.
God is not allowed in public Government schools, remember? Teachers have been fired for talking about God and intelligent design.


Government-controlled schools are the real danger here.

[LibertyEagle]

The greatest danger to American education doesn't come from the federal government, unfortunately. It comes from religious fanatics in the Southern states trying to subvert the science curriculum and replace it with Creationism apologetics.

Yes, that's why children are graduating from high school not knowing how to read, write or do arithmetic. :rolleyes:

[JCDenton0451]

Well, many children can't answer the question about how old the Earth is. And in some states like Louisiana creationism is taught in public schools, so yes, it's the real problem.

[eduardo89]

Rand is pandering to Social Conservatives again. Common Core would make it more difficult to promote creationism in schools.

Darwinian evolution isn't science.

[FrankRep]

Well, many children can't answer the question about how old the Earth is. And in some states like Louisiana creationism is taught in public schools, so yes, it's the real problem.

So you support Government-run schools and the Department of Education? You realize that Ron Paul is against Government-run schools right?

[matt0611]

Well, many children can't answer the question about how old the Earth is. And in some states like Louisiana creationism is taught in public schools, so yes, it's the real problem.

Lots of kids don't know "how old the Earth is", even here in progressive massachusetts, walk down any public high school hall and ask some kids at random how old the earth is and they will have no clue.

[FrankRep]

Lots of kids don't know "how old the Earth is", even here in progressive massachusetts, walk down a a public high school hall and ask some kids at random how old the earth is and they will have no clue.

JCDenton0451 is trying to derail this thread with religion, don't let him.

This thread is about the danger of Government-run schools.

[matt0611]

Rand is pandering to Social Conservatives again. Common Core would make it more difficult to promote creationism in schools.

There are plenty of good reason to be against common core in addition to that, even if you disagree with that one ( I don't)

[Natural Citizen]

Where do we rank now on the education scale relative to other countries...even third world ones? The old way don't work folks. We need leaders for tomorrow. Not reckless followers/consumers of plastic trinkets sitting around scratching their asses and surviving off of take out.

Going to have to approach change appropriately or get out of the way as it passes yuns by. Most argments I read or hear are purely and politically driven and usually just some dolt in a pr position passing on what those who manipulate infrastructure in it's current state want to spread around in hopes of snagging some useful idiots.

[jtstellar]

Well, many children can't answer the question about how old the Earth is. And in some states like Louisiana creationism is taught in public schools, so yes, it's the real problem.

stop lobbying for your interest here.. social conservatism/liberalism including abortion is way down the priority list for many of us,

yes we will pander if it means in exchange for 1st amendment, gun rights, state rights due process and privacy all of the above, don't like it, find another movement. spend your time lobbying social conservatives, when they change we will change our low priority issues as well. much more effective use of your time. you're not going to sway your intellectual near equal/superiors here, give up trying.

[JCDenton0451]

Darwinian evolution isn't science.

It's a long established and universally accepted scientific theory, backed by the mountains of empirical data.

Also, I read up and turns out Mike Huckabee is supporting Common Core! That's interesting because you don't get any more fundamentalist than Huckabee...Opposition to Common Core seems to be driven by the ignorant and paranoid faction of the Base. That's the kind of people who want the federal government to get its hands out of their Medicare.

[JCDenton0451]

stop lobbying for your interest here.. social conservatism/liberalism including abortion is way down the priority list for many of us,

yes we will pander if it means in exchange for 1st amendment, gun rights, state rights due process and privacy all of the above, don't like it, find another movement. spend your time lobbying social conservatives, when they change we will change our low priority issues as well. much more effective use of your time. you're not going to sway your intellectual near equal/superiors here, give up trying.

That's simply retarded strategy. Trying to marry libertarian agenda to the more ugly parts of the Conservatism is way to ensure it will lose in the general election. Due process and privacy are universally popular, creationism and abortion bans are not. Just because you're willing to sell your soul to gain the approval of the Social Conservatives, doesn't mean independents and moderates will be willing to look past these issues.

[Brett85]

Well, many children can't answer the question about how old the Earth is. And in some states like Louisiana creationism is taught in public schools, so yes, it's the real problem.

I had to answer that question on every test and every standardized test; 4.5 billion years. When I get to heaven, I hope that God forgives me for lying about how old the earth is in order to pass a test.

[Brett85]

The greatest danger to American education doesn't come from the federal government, unfortunately. It comes from religious fanatics in the Southern states trying to subvert the science curriculum and replace it with Creationism apologetics.

Then perhaps you should advocate abolishing public schools. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the so called "separation of church and state."

[Brett85]

It's a long established and universally accepted scientific theory, backed by the mountains of empirical data.

Also, I read up and turns out Mike Huckabee is supporting Common Core! That's interesting because you don't get any more fundamentalist than Huckabee...Opposition to Common Core seems to be driven by the ignorant and paranoid faction of the Base. That's the kind of people who want the federal government to get its hands out of their Medicare.

Huckabee supports common core because he supports big government and apparently doesn't understand the Constitution. 99% of the people who post here understand that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to be involved in education.

[neoreactionary]

JCDenton only cares about promoting social liberalism.

How can that be true when he favors mandatory abortions and ethnic cleansing? Social liberals are pretty strongly opposed to those policies.

[FrankRep]

How can that be true when he favors mandatory abortions and ethnic cleansing? Social liberals are pretty strongly opposed to those policies.

Labels aside, Kicking the federal government out of school should be an issue that all liberty minded people should come together on and support.

[Brett85]

Labels aside, Kicking the federal government out of school should be an issue that all liberty minded people should come together on and support.

JCDenton obviously isn't a liberty minded person. He's someone who wants the government to enact his socially liberally views into law. I'm glad that he supports Rand Paul, or at least says he does. Rand needs a broad coalition in order to win. But when you look at his views, he's in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion, in favor of federal involvement in education in order to stop local school districts from including intelligent design as part of their curriculum, etc. People say that social conservatives are in favor of big government, but I would argue that social liberals are often times in favor of bigger government than social conservatives.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand is pandering to Social Conservatives again. Common Core would make it more difficult to promote creationism in schools.

:rolleyes:

JCDenton only cares about promoting social liberalism.

Yep.


The greatest danger to American education doesn't come from the federal government, unfortunately. It comes from religious fanatics in the Southern states trying to subvert the science curriculum and replace it with Creationism apologetics.

:rolleyes:


God is not allowed in public Government schools, remember? Teachers have been fired for talking about God and intelligent design.


Government-controlled schools are the real danger here.

Yep.

Darwinian evolution isn't science.

Don't most Catholics believe in evolution?


I had to answer that question on every test and every standardized test; 4.5 billion years. When I get to heaven, I hope that God forgives me for lying about how old the earth is in order to pass a test.

lol. Yeah, I think you'll be forgiven:p

Then perhaps you should advocate abolishing public schools. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the so called "separation of church and state."

Yep.


Huckabee supports common core because he supports big government and apparently doesn't understand the Constitution. 99% of the people who post here understand that the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to be involved in education.

Yep.

There's no "Apparently" about it. Huckabee is a big government "Christian" fascist just like GWB.


JCDenton obviously isn't a liberty minded person. He's someone who wants the government to enact his socially liberally views into law. I'm glad that he supports Rand Paul, or at least says he does. Rand needs a broad coalition in order to win. But when you look at his views, he's in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion, in favor of federal involvement in education in order to stop local school districts from including intelligent design as part of their curriculum, etc. People say that social conservatives are in favor of big government, but I would argue that social liberals are often times in favor of bigger government than social conservatives.

It depends on the particular case. I'd call Gary Johnson a "social liberal" and I'd say he still supports less government than somebody like Mike Huckabee, who I would broadly define as "Socially conservative."

On the other hand, "Social liberal" Obama certainly supports more government than "Social conservative" Rand Paul.

It depends on the particular case.

[eduardo89]

Don't most Catholics believe in evolution?

So do most Mainline Protestants. What's your point? That doesn't make it scientific or correct.

[T.hill]

First of all Darwinian evolution is a widely recognized science. Disagreeing with it is one thing, but to say it's not a science is objectively false.

2ndly is there really people here for common core?

[FrankRep]

First of all Darwinian evolution is a widely recognized science. Disagreeing with it is one thing, but to say it's not a science is objectively false.

Evolution fits more into the "faith" category much like religion because neither one can be scientifically verified.

[neoreactionary]

Evolution fits more into the "faith" category much like religion because neither one can be scientifically verified.

Nothing can be "scientifically verified," that's not how science works. Science advances by subjecting an existing paradigm or theory to empirical tests in an attempt to falsify or disprove it. When such discoveries are made, new paradigms and theories are put forth in an effort to explain the new data. At no point can anything be "scientifically verified" - at most, we can say that a thing has not yet been disproven. Darwin's theory of natural selection/evolution has been a remarkably robust and powerful explanatory tool for over a hundred years now, and it is difficult for me to even imagine a way that it could be wrong. I think any doubts about its validity must stem in one way or another from a misunderstanding.

[Brett85]

2ndly is there really people here for common core?

Just JCDenton, because he thinks the federal government should declare war on social conservatives.

[LibertyEagle]

I think any doubts about its validity must stem in one way or another from a misunderstanding.

Yes, on the Darwinian side.

[Tinnuhana]

Back to Common Core: one thing it's feared will happen is that teachers will "teach to the test". Also, there is some sort of requirement for a lot of the education to be computer-driven, leaving families without the finances for computers, etc. at a disadvantage. If they are going to supply every student with the technology needed, that's a lot of taxpayer $$$. Also, behind the curtain, so to speak, are a couple of large corporations benefiting from all this...follow the money.
This is a topic that I've found has many former and present Obama supporters thinking twice. Teachers are now catching the drift that they have no input into this and that administrations at government behest are using "dephi techniques" to bring them on board.
The question seems to be whether to "nickel and dime" Common Core, starting with the expensive mandates and the hardships for economically disadvantages families/students, or trying to get rid of the whole monstrosity at once, sort of like defunding Obamacare.

[FrankRep]

Problems with Common Core (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FETOSytLous)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FETOSytLous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FETOSytLous

Dr. Duke Pesta describes what's wrong with the federalized, one-size-fits-all Common Core standards for American education. Dr. Pesta is academic director of FreedomProject Education (https://fpeusa.org/) and a contributor to The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/).

[neoreactionary]

Yes, on the Darwinian side.

No, that's not what I meant. The theory of natural selection's explanatory power isn't limited to biology, so invoking the "Darwinian" label is misleading. Capitalist economies evolve via natural selection. Cultural memes evolves via natural selection. In fact, the idea that there is anything wrong with or even questionable about the theory of natural selection is itself explicable as a result of natural selection.

So as I said, people with doubts about "Darwinism" suffer from confusion of one sort or another. But this isn't important, because a society doesn't need the masses to recognize the fact of biological evolution in order to flourish, and so there is no good reason to subsidize the teaching of it in public schools. The elite who specialize in the subject all come to the same conclusion once they study it, regardless of what they were taught as children, and this is sufficient.

Let's focus on our agreement that the CCSSI is terrible and it is good that Rand opposes it.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The doubt isn't so much that evolution exists, it's the idea that evolution explains everything. The religious Darwinists believe this with a zealous fervor, of course.

And if you don't believe in intelligent design, does that mean you don't believe in GMOs either? What's the difference? Darwinist dogma, amIrite?

[neoreactionary]

The doubt isn't so much that evolution exists, it's the idea that evolution explains everything. The religious Darwinists believe this with a zealous fervor, of course.

You must be better acquainted with the religious Darwinists than myself. I have never encountered anyone who believed that evolution explains everything.


And if you don't believe in intelligent design, does that mean you don't believe in GMOs either? What's the difference? Darwinist dogma, amIrite?

This is my face right now: -_-

The difference is that we know GMOs were intelligently designed, but we do not know if humans were. However, we do know that they need not have been in order to exist.

I am not familiar with any Darwinist dogma. Perhaps you'd like to share some?

[Peace&Freedom]

No, that's not what I meant. The theory of natural selection's explanatory power isn't limited to biology, so invoking the "Darwinian" label is misleading. Capitalist economies evolve via natural selection. Cultural memes evolves via natural selection. In fact, the idea that there is anything wrong with or even questionable about the theory of natural selection is itself explicable as a result of natural selection.

So as I said, people with doubts about "Darwinism" suffer from confusion of one sort or another. But this isn't important, because a society doesn't need the masses to recognize the fact of biological evolution in order to flourish, and so there is no good reason to subsidize the teaching of it in public schools. The elite who specialize in the subject all come to the same conclusion once they study it, regardless of what they were taught as children, and this is sufficient.

Let's focus on our agreement that the CCSSI is terrible and it is good that Rand opposes it.

Both a creationist approach and a evolutionary approach explains the data. What makes the creation view scientifically better than evolution is that, from the initial premises of each model, it predicts what the data actually is better than evolution. The backflips evolutionists have to do to explain away data that does not fit its model shows that it is the inferior model. Under Occam, the model that needs to do the most explaining away or rationalizing is the inferior (or probably false) view, while the side that needs to do the least explaining away or predicts the data better, is the simpler model and thus more probably true.

So dogmatically asserting the evolution is the best explanation, excluding the main counter explanation from consideration, and condescendingly decreeing all objectors are "confused" is an irrational and irrelevant argument. What matters is which view fits the overall data better, not which one comes up with the most 'robust explanation' of the data. No wonder most major breakthroughs in science have halted since Darwinism became part of its operating framework. Society has in fact not flourished as a result of evolution dominating the sciences in the past century, in fact it has been arrested in many respects.

[FriedChicken]

I've seen plenty of good people get banned for less than what JCDenton does to every single thread he enters - he is either falsely accusing members of being zionist, arguing for a more powerful federal government that will force his way of thinking on others or constantly trying to stir up religion fights.

Doesn't matter what the topic is he will find a way to steer the conversation to one of the only topics he will discuss.
I'd say disruptive is putting it lightly.

I've seen mods take action action against and ban long time forum members before that I thought were very productive and couldn't understand what got them banned and had to believe it was some sort of isolated incident. I have to say that when you contrast JCD to other, more long term, members who have been banned ... I'm shocked that the mods seem to find his behavior acceptable.

Ole well.
At some point I think he'll "cross the line" and get banned.

Till then he will be on my ignore list. I don't come here to get an ear full of his crap and hear a self-proclaimed libertarian say that people having religious freedom is the true enemy and not the government. The trash this troll pukes onto this forum is pretty unbelievable- Somebody should make a punch list of what he views to be liberty positions regarding the federal government's role in the lives of individuals.

Anyways.
Those of you who are fed up should click the "ignore" button and ban him the old fashioned way :)

[presence]

Educational curriculum should only be discussed during parent / teacher / administrator conferences at private educational facilities. Scholarships to such facilities should be provided by private philanthropy. End of story. I don't believe in state indoctrination programs.

[neoreactionary]

Both a creationist approach and a evolutionary approach explains the data. What makes the creation view scientifically better than evolution is that, from the initial premises of each model, it predicts what the data actually is better than evolution.

No it doesn't. The creationist view is scientifically worse than evolution because it doesn't predict anything. All data can be perfectly retrofitted to the model after discovery, but hindsight is 20/20. The hallmark of a good theory is its ability to predict what the data will be before we test it. The theory of natural selection has this property. The creationist theory does not.


The backflips evolutionists have to do to explain away data that does not fit its model shows that it is the inferior model.

I am not familiar with any data that requires backflips to explain away or that does not fit the evolutionary model. It's possible you know something I don't, but I think it's far more likely that you are simply confused. Perhaps you'd be willing to share some of the data to which you refer here?


Under Occam, the model that needs to do the most explaining away or rationalizing is the inferior (or probably false) view, while the side that needs to do the least explaining away or predicts the data better, is the simpler model and thus more probably true.

You do not understand Occam's Razor. Hope this (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/) helps.


So dogmatically asserting the evolution is the best explanation, excluding the main counter explanation from consideration, and condescendingly decreeing all objectors are "confused" is an irrational and irrelevant argument. What matters is which view fits the overall data better, not which one comes up with the most 'robust explanation' of the data. No wonder most major breakthroughs in science have halted since Darwinism became part of its operating framework. Society has in fact not flourished as a result of evolution dominating the sciences in the past century, in fact it has been arrested in many respects.

Do you think teaching the theory of natural selection to children should be outlawed?

[FriedChicken]

Educational curriculum should only be discussed during parent / teacher / administrator conferences at private educational facilities. Scholarships to such facilities should be provided by private philanthropy. End of story. I don't believe in state indoctrination programs.

Exactly.
Of course we're a ways off from ever achieving what you've said as our ideal situation (though it should be our goal in this topic). In the meantime I'll be working to make as many decisions as possible/all the decisions regarding education (even public education) as localized as possible.
It should be between the parents and the teachers even in publicly funded education - even though I don't think that education should be carried out by the government in my ideal world.

[MelissaWV]

Well, many children can't answer the question about how old the Earth is. And in some states like Louisiana creationism is taught in public schools, so yes, it's the real problem.

How old IS the earth?

I had to answer that question on every test and every standardized test; 4.5 billion years. When I get to heaven, I hope that God forgives me for lying about how old the earth is in order to pass a test.

That's a generally-accepted answer at the moment. Just a blink of an eye ago, historically speaking, was 20-40 million years old. Even current analysis is based off of projections, with a baseline set at the age of early meteorites. There is no rock that's sitting there definitively aged at 4.5 billion years precisely.

So I would actually be far more suspicious of a child who answered with any certainty how old the earth is. It's excellent evidence they haven't been taught to question things, and that they are likely a product of "teaching to the test."

[FriedChicken]

So I would actually be far more suspicious of a child who answered with any certainty how old the earth is. It's excellent evidence they haven't been taught to question things, and that they are likely a product of "teaching to the test."

That is a really good point. Thanks for making it.

I think kids questioning what is considered unquestionable is a good thing - even if I think they're completely wrong. If my kid started to question whether 2+2=4 was REALLY true I'd actually consider it a sign they have a very healthy perspective/thought process even though I know that they're questioning a fact they won't disprove.
Everyone on this forum questions what society considers unquestionable on at least one topic or another - that is a positive, not a negative (exceptions can probably be found easily enough)

Questions are good.
Seek and you will find, as one might say.

[MelissaWV]

I've seen plenty of good people get banned for less than what JCDenton does to every single thread he enters - he is either falsely accusing members of being zionist, arguing for a more powerful federal government that will force his way of thinking on others or constantly trying to stir up religion fights.

Doesn't matter what the topic is he will find a way to steer the conversation to one of the only topics he will discuss.
I'd say disruptive is putting it lightly.

I've seen mods take action action against and ban long time forum members before that I thought were very productive and couldn't understand what got them banned and had to believe it was some sort of isolated incident. I have to say that when you contrast JCD to other, more long term, members who have been banned ... I'm shocked that the mods seem to find his behavior acceptable.

Ole well.
At some point I think he'll "cross the line" and get banned.

Till then he will be on my ignore list. I don't come here to get an ear full of his crap and hear a self-proclaimed libertarian say that people having religious freedom is the true enemy and not the government. The trash this troll pukes onto this forum is pretty unbelievable- Somebody should make a punch list of what he views to be liberty positions regarding the federal government's role in the lives of individuals.

Anyways.
Those of you who are fed up should click the "ignore" button and ban him the old fashioned way :)

The mods do not read every single thread, though. They have to rely a bit on the people who are annoyed or see something damaging, clicking the little triangle with the "!" inside of it and reporting the post. If you haven't clicked that, then you really can't sit there and blame the mods for not moderating what they might not be aware of.

[Sola_Fide]

Rand is pandering to Social Conservatives again. Common Core would make it more difficult to promote creationism in schools.

Are you kidding me?

Well, I've said for years that atheists cannot be consistently for freedom. They are against the family structure (and therefore, by consequence, for some form of statism).

This issue of educational freedom is one of the litmus tests for libertarianism. If you agree with ANY kind of state education or ANY kind of state standard or curriculum, you are not a libertarian and are against freedom.

[neoreactionary]

Well, I've said for years that atheists cannot be consistently for freedom. They are against the family structure

This is wrong. I am an atheist and am not against the family structure.

[Sola_Fide]

No it doesn't. The creationist view is scientifically worse than evolution because it doesn't predict anything. All data can be perfectly retrofitted to the model after discovery, but hindsight is 20/20. The hallmark of a good theory is its ability to predict what the data will be before we test it. The theory of natural selection has this property. The creationist theory does not.

Are you kidding me? Darwinism is a religion that is imposed on the "facts" afterwards. It has NOTHING to do with predicting anything, and even if it COULD predict something, the conclusion wouldn't be valid. Why? Because the argument asserts the consequent. Correlation does not imply causation. You don't know what you're talking about.





I am not familiar with any data that requires backflips to explain away or that does not fit the evolutionary model. It's possible you know something I don't, but I think it's far more likely that you are simply confused. Perhaps you'd be willing to share some of the data to which you refer here?

That's right. You aren't aware of the inconsistencies and problems with Darwinism. Darwinism is your religion...a lens through which you view everything else. It is no surprise that a religious person like yourself would not be open to the problems of your worldview.



Do you think teaching the theory of natural selection to children should be outlawed?

No. There should be no government involvement in education.

[neoreactionary]

Do you think teaching the theory of natural selection to children should be outlawed?


No. There should be no government involvement in education.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your remarks, because this is the only one that strikes me as being worth commenting on. I have no respect for you or your worldview; I think you are stupid, and your arrogant ignorance is so egregious that I find it personally offensive. I don't like you, and I don't want to interact with you. Yet we would be perfectly capable of peaceably living side-by-side as neighbors if only we were each permitted to teach our children what we pleased without interference from the other. Isn't that neat?

[JCDenton0451]

Just JCDenton, because he thinks the federal government should declare war on social conservatives.

I'm worried that the concept of States Rights might be co-opted and abused by people who are in no way friends of Liberty, they're simply trying to carve a space for themselves where the rules of modern civilization don't apply. This problem isn't new: segregationist politicians used to evoke States Rights to justify Jim Crow. In the modern era some socons believe States Rights would enable them to establish a theocracy within their state. I'm not suggesting Social Conservatism is incompatible with the ideals of Liberty, but this is the danger we must be aware of.

[Brett85]

I'm worried that the concept of States Rights might be co-opted and abused by people who are in no way friends of Liberty, they're simply trying to carve a space for themselves where the rules of modern civilization don't apply. This problem isn't new: segregationist politicians used to evoke States Rights to justify Jim Crow. In the modern era some socons believe States Rights would enable them to establish a theocracy within their state. I'm not suggesting Social Conservatism is incompatible with the ideals of Liberty, but this is the danger we must be aware of.

You can move to a different state if you don't like the policies in a particular state. That's what the 10th amendment is all about, allowing people to live in an area of the country that best conforms with their political beliefs.

[JCDenton0451]

Then perhaps you should advocate abolishing public schools. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the so called "separation of church and state."
^^^
That's what I was talking about.
Are we to infer that you don't accept the separation of church and state?

[eduardo89]

^^^
That's what I was talking about.
Are we to infer that you don't accept the separation of church and state?

The Constitution does not mandate a separation of Church and state. Liberals like you have attached that meaning to it, however. The First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a state church by Congress or laws which hinder the free exercise of religion.

[neoreactionary]

I'm worried that the concept of States Rights might be co-opted and abused by people who are in no way friends of Liberty, they're simply trying to carve a space for themselves where the rules of modern civilization don't apply.

Which "rules of modern civilization" are these? As you may have gathered from my screen name, I am not often a fan of such rules. You needn't worry that States' Rights might be "co-opted and abused" by people who are not friends of Liberty; this outcome is guaranteed. The question is whether allowing the existence of a plurality of societies is better than seeking to create uniformity amongst all the peoples of the earth. I claim that because people are different, it is better if they are allowed to live differently. Failing (or refusing) to face the fact of human diversity is a recipe for disaster.


This problem isn't new: segregationist politicians used to evoke States Rights to justify Jim Crow.

Why is this a problem? Wondering it aloud may not make you popular, but were segregation and Jim Crow really so unjustifiable? A lot of people seemed to really like those things - enough to keep voting for politicians who promised to uphold them, at least. You yourself seem to want the US government to enforce segregation between brown people south of the border and (mostly) white people north of it. Personally, I oppose racial discrimination and immigration restrictions, but I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why people who feel differently should not be permitted to create a society with certain rules I wouldn't like. There are a few I'd object to strongly enough that I wouldn't feel bad about interfering with national sovereignty/States' Rights - genocide seems worth going to war to stop, for example - but keeping black and white people separate from one another doesn't quite clear the hurdle, imo. Hell, people in America STILL segregate themselves voluntarily to an astonishing degree (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157626354149574/). Would other countries be justified in invading us to stop this abominable practice (assuming they had the power to stop it)?


In the modern era some socons believe States Rights would enable them to establish a theocracy within their state. I'm not suggesting Social Conservatism is incompatible with the ideals of Liberty, but this is the danger we must be aware of.

Widespread recognition of States' Rights would enable socons to establish a theocracy within their state. Hardcore Social Conservatism is incompatible with the ideals of Liberty. So what? Not everybody shares your understanding of right and wrong. Many people would prefer to live in a place very different from where you would like to live. Why should this not be permitted?

[neoreactionary]

Are we to infer that you don't accept the separation of church and state?

Are we to infer that you think the separation of church and state is possible?

We already live in a theocracy - we are governed by the Cathedral. Calling it something else doesn't change its nature; a rose by any other name and all that.

You need a healthy dose of Moldbuggery, my friend. Do some browsing here for a bit: http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/

[FrankRep]

Are we to infer that you think the separation of church and state is possible?

We already live in a theocracy -

By "theocracy," you must mean people worship the Government. I hope that's what you mean.

[neoreactionary]

By "theocracy," you must mean people worship the Government. I hope that's what you mean.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

[LibertyEagle]

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. -- Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/12/ron-paul/the-war-on-religion/

[Sola_Fide]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your remarks, because this is the only one that strikes me as being worth commenting on. I have no respect for you or your worldview; I think you are stupid, and your arrogant ignorance is so egregious that I find it personally offensive. I don't like you, and I don't want to interact with you. Yet we would be perfectly capable of peaceably living side-by-side as neighbors if only we were each permitted to teach our children what we pleased without interference from the other. Isn't that neat?

Who cares what you think? You have nothing but ad hominems because you cannot deal with my arguments. They confound you, its obvious.

[neoreactionary]

Who cares what you think? You have nothing but ad hominems because you cannot deal with my arguments. They confound you, its obvious.

it's*

I'm sorry if my lack of interest in you is upsetting, but I just can't be bothered to deal with crackpots. As I've said before in this thread, it is not necessary for the masses to understand things, so I have no interest in educating you. Perhaps if you were more polite I might deign to address some of your criticism, but you are neither intelligent nor well-mannered, and so you will not have the benefit of that luxury. Instead you will receive only a stern scolding and a reminder to learn your place, boy.

Perhaps your sons will surpass you. Let us all hope for that.

[Sola_Fide]

it's*

I'm sorry if my lack of interest in you is upsetting, but I just can't be bothered to deal with crackpots. As I've said before in this thread, it is not necessary for the masses to understand things, so I have no interest in educating you. Perhaps if you were more polite I might deign to address some of your criticism, but you are neither intelligent nor well-mannered, and so you will not have the benefit of that luxury. Instead you will receive only a stern scolding and a reminder to learn your place, boy.

Perhaps your sons will surpass you. Let us all hope for that.

What do you think I need education in?

[Brett85]

^^^
That's what I was talking about.
Are we to infer that you don't accept the separation of church and state?

There's no such thing as the "separation of church and state." That phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. There's only the establishment clause of the 1st amendment which prohibits Congress from passing a law forcing people to attend a specific state sponsored church.

[neoreactionary]

What do you think I need education in?

I don't think you need anything.

[JCDenton0451]

You can move to a different state if you don't like the policies in a particular state. That's what the 10th amendment is all about, allowing people to live in an area of the country that best conforms with their political beliefs.

Does it mean that liberal states can ban private gun ownership too? After all you can always move...But if our inalienable rights are subject to majority rule in every state, then what's the point of the Constitution?


The Constitution does not mandate a separation of Church and state. Liberals like you have attached that meaning to it, however. The First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a state church by Congress or laws which hinder the free exercise of religion.

There's no such thing as the "separation of church and state." That phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. There's only the establishment clause of the 1st amendment which prohibits Congress from passing a law forcing people to attend a specific state sponsored church.

This is how you interpret it, and I think you're doing it wrong. There is no mention of God or Christianity in the Constitution either.

Screw the theocracy! You guys can move to Iran if you prefer this form of government. I don't need a bunch of religious buffoons in the government instructing me how I'm supposed to live my life.

[Brett85]

Does it mean that liberal states can ban private gun ownership too? After all you can always move...But if our inalienable rights are subject to majority rule in every state, then what's the point of the Constitution?

There actually is a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution that a state government can't infringe upon. On the other hand, there is no such thing as "freedom from religion," which is what you seem to want.


Screw the theocracy! You guys can move to Iran if you prefer this form of government. I don't need a bunch of religious buffoons in the government instructing me how I'm supposed to live my life.

I don't want a "theocracy." I just want to have a government that protects the life, liberty, and property of all people within the United States.

[JCDenton0451]

Do you even understand what the word "theocracy" means? It's a political regime where religious fanatics use the authority of the State to impose their religious doctrine on everyone else, which is what you seem to want. Separation of church and state that exists in the United States prevents that.

[Brett85]

Do you even understand what the word "theocracy" means? It's a political regime where religious fanatics use the authority of the State to impose their religious doctrine on everyone else, which is what you seem to want. Separation of church and state that exists in the United States prevents that.

I've never heard of any faction or group in American politics that wants to "impse their religion doctrine on others," and that's certainly not what I support. I just don't want to use the force of the federal government to declare war on social conservatives through unconstitutional laws. You have an extremely warped view of liberty if you support expanded federal involvement in education in order to stop social conservatives from pushing a certain agenda at the state level.

[JCDenton0451]

I've never heard of any faction or group in American politics that wants to "impse their religion doctrine on others," and that's certainly not what I support. So you never heard of Religious right, "moral majority" and a multitude of social conservative pols and organisations? I find that hard to believe.



I just don't want to use the force of the federal government to declare war on social conservatives through unconstitutional laws. You have an extremely warped view of liberty if you support expanded federal involvement in education in order to stop social conservatives from pushing a certain agenda at the state level. Their agenda involves establishing Christianity as the official religion (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/04/north-carolina-getting-a-state-religion-no/) in their state. That's what imposing a religious doctrine looks like.

And no, we don't need expanded federal involvement to stop them.

[neoreactionary]

Does it mean that liberal states can ban private gun ownership too? After all you can always move.

Yes, correct.


But if our inalienable rights are subject to majority rule in every state, then what's the point of the Constitution?

There is no such thing as an inalienable right. The point of the Constitution is very similar to the point of the Bible. It is a religious text that tells believers how they should behave.


Screw the theocracy! You guys can move to Iran if you prefer this form of government. I don't need a bunch of religious buffoons in the government instructing me how I'm supposed to live my life.

You already live in a theocracy, and you are yourself a religious buffoon trying to instruct others how they're supposed to live their lives.

[neoreactionary]

Do you even understand what the word "theocracy" means? It's a political regime where religious fanatics use the authority of the State to impose their religious doctrine on everyone else, which is what you seem to want. Separation of church and state that exists in the United States prevents that.

You live in a theocracy, and you want to continue living in one. You simply wish to change the religion being imposed on everyone else.

There is no separation of church and state in the United States. I agree that the separation of church and state is a good idea, but it does not exist.

[Brett85]

So you never heard of Religious right, "moral majority" and a multitude of social conservative pols and organisations? I find that hard to believe.

Sure, I've heard of them. I agree with them on some issues, but not necessarily on everything. It just depends on the issue. But, I've found that most social conservatives and most social conservative organizations are much less authoritarian than people who call themselves "social liberals." It's the "social liberals" who want to violate my conscience and steal money from me and spend it on abortion and on groups like Planned Parenthood which provide abortions. (And from what you've said you also hold this position.) It's the "social liberals" who want to violate the conscience of religious business organizations and force them to cover birth control as part of their insurance policies, violating their religious beliefs. It's the "social liberals" who want to create laws against "hate speech" that would throw pastors in prison for speaking out against homosexuality. This is already happening in Canada. It's people who call themselves "social liberals" who want to take away my right to keep and bear arms and leave me completely defenseless against criminals. So, I would certainly say that those who call themselves "social liberals" are much more authoritarian and much more anti liberty than social conservatives.


Their agenda involves establishing Christianity as the official religion in their state. That's what imposing a religious doctrine looks like.

Very few social conservatives are actually in favor of declaring Christianity the official religion of their state. I'm certainly not in favor of that. I'm simply in favor of restoring free speech rights for children who attend public schools. If a valedictorian wants to talk about God in their speech or say a prayer, they should be allowed to do that without fear of getting sued by the ACLU. And that doesn't just apply to Christians, but to members of every religion. If a Muslim student decided to pray to Allah after the end of their graduation speech, I wouldn't have any problem with that and would defend that as protected speech under the 1st amendment. That student should have the right to express his or her religious beliefs under the 1st amendment. It doesn't have anything to do with "establishing a religion."


And no, we don't need expanded federal involvement to stop them.

You seemed to be arguing in favor of that before. You seemed to be saying that you support the federal Common Care Standards in order to stop local school districts from teaching kids about creationism.

[Legend1104]

I hate common core as a teacher. It is stupid and most states were bribed into a bag of goods and only after discovered that it was going to cost way more than it was worth and promised.

[JCDenton0451]

Test Scores Plummet After New York Adopts Common Core Standards (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/09/Test-Scores-Plummet-After-New-York-Adopts-Common-Core-Standards)
It seems the new tests based on common core standards are really hard.

Student test scores on New York state exams plummeted this year following the state’s adoption of the Common Core national standards. According to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/nyregion/under-new-standards-students-see-sharp-decline-in-test-scores.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20130808&_r=1&), in New York City, 26 percent of students in third through eighth grade passed the state English exam, and only 30 percent passed the math test, compared to 47 percent and 60 percent, respectively, last year.


The Times indicates that city and state officials were expecting the significant drop in scores. Nevertheless, educators and parents reportedly expressed shock when the test results were released.


Chrystina Russell, principal of Global Technology Preparatory in East Harlem, said she was unsure what to say to parents. At her middle school, seven percent of students were rated proficient in English and 10 percent in math on the new tests, while, last year, the proportion passing were 33 percent and 46 percent, respectively.

“Now we’re going to come out and tell everybody that they’ve accomplished nothing this year and we’ve been pedaling backward?” Russell said (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/nyregion/under-new-standards-students-see-sharp-decline-in-test-scores.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20130808&_r=1&). “It’s depressing.”



ROFL


The Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/nyregion/under-new-standards-students-see-sharp-decline-in-test-scores.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20130808&_r=1&) that the exam results show large achievement gaps between black and Hispanic students and white students. In math, 15 percent of black students and 19 percent of Hispanic students passed the test, while 50 percent of white students and 61 percent of Asian students passed.

That means the test is doing its job: differentiating the students based on ability. Honestly, how can you argue that the standards are "dumbed down", when only 15% of black kids can pass the test? The Asians on the other hand are doing fine, as you'd expect.


The Obama administration has been highly supportive (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/22/What-American-Parents-Should-Know-About-The-Common-Core-Standards) of Common Core and its alleged “rigorous academic standards” that it believes will raise the bar for students to be better prepared for college and career readiness. That is logical. When less half of students in the NYC schools can pass the English test, clearly there is lots of room for impovement. I can also understand why some teachers oppose it: Common Core means more hard work for them.


However, conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/12/questionable-quality-of-the-common-core-english-language-arts-standards) and the Heartland Institute (http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-15-13_common_core_revised_policy_brief_version.pdf) have objected to the federal overreach into education, arguing that, whether states opt out of Common Core or not, the standards are already being used to write the table of contents for textbooks in math and English, a situation that creates pressure for states to adopt the standards. Pfffft.:confused:

Hate to say it, but I'm with Obama, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee on this one. Tougher standards can only be a good a thing. Who knows maybe it will motivate some of the NYC kids to learn proper English.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you seriously going to sit there and willingly hand over even more control of our schools to the frickin' federal government??? Our schools were much better before the federal government stuck their big noses into education. We used to be number 1 and look where the hell we are now. Outcome-based education, School-to-Work, No child left behind... ALL of them. Huge frickin' failures.

Get the feds out of it and return our schools back to the states, local governments and the parents. Stop forcing them to mainstream kids and teach to the lowest common denominator, stop worrying more about their self-esteem and more about whether they know how to read, write and do Arithmetic and stop forcing them to teach illegal aliens.

The federal government has caused these problems and you want MORE of it? Give me a frickin' break.

[Brett85]

Pfffft.:confused:

Hate to say it, but I'm with Obama, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee on this one. Tougher standards can only be a good a thing. Who knows maybe it will motivate some of the NYC kids to learn proper English.

It doesn't seem like you have any understanding of the Constitution at all, specifically the 10th amendment and the limited, enumerated powers the federal government is supposed to have. What part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to be involved in education?

[JCDenton0451]

Are you seriously going to sit there and willingly hand over even more control of our schools to the frickin' federal government??? Our schools were much better before the federal government stuck their big noses into education. We used to be number 1 and look where the hell we are now. Outcome-based education, School-to-Work, No child left behind... ALL of them. Huge frickin' failures.

Get the feds out of it and return our schools back to the states, local governments and the parents. Stop forcing them to mainstream kids and teach to the lowest common denominator, stop worrying more about their self-esteem and more about whether they know how to read, write and do Arithmetic and stop forcing them to teach illegal aliens.

The federal government has caused these problems and you want MORE of it? Give me a frickin' break.

There so many things wrong with your post, I don't know where to begin...

For starters Common Core does NOT hand over the control to the federal government. Each state adopted the standards voluntarily and can abandon them at any time. Common Core was developed by the National Governors Association, a nonprofit organization.


Get the feds out of it and return our schools back to the states, local governments and the parents. Stop forcing them to mainstream kids and teach to the lowest common denominator, stop worrying more about their self-esteem and more about whether they know how to read, write and do Arithmetic and stop forcing them to teach illegal aliens. That's not what Common Core does. Hello? You're beating on a strawman.

Our schools were much better before the federal government stuck their big noses into education. We used to be number 1 and look where the hell we are now. True, but the systems beating us now are all highly centralized government-controlled. The government can be highly efficient at teaching kids basic Arithmetic. The real reason we're not number 1 anymore is this:

The Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/nyregion/under-new-standards-students-see-sharp-decline-in-test-scores.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20130808&_r=1&) that the exam results show large achievement gaps between black and Hispanic students and white students. In math, 15 percent of black students and 19 percent of Hispanic students passed the test, while 50 percent of white students and 61 percent of Asian students passed Falling test scores have more to do with rising diversity in the classroom than anything else. Back when the US was still number 1 in education, NYC was still 75% non-hispanic white. Blacks and Hispanics now make up over 60% of the school age population in the NYC, and given their atrocious performance, it's no wonder they're dragging the average down. I'm surprised that you as a paleocon cannot wrap you mind around that. Pat Buchanan can. (http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2012/11/06/the_coming_age_of_austerity/page/full)

[FrankRep]

There so many things wrong with your post, I don't know where to begin...

For starters Common Core does NOT hand over the control to the federal government.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Ben Swann all say you're wrong.

[Sola_Fide]

Falling test scores have more to do with rising diversity in the classroom than anything else. Back when the US was still number 1 in education, NYC was still 75% non-hispanic white. Blacks and Hispanics now make up over 60% of the school age population in the NYC, and given their atrocious performance, it's no wonder they're dragging the average down. I'm surprised that you as a paleocon cannot wrap you mind around that. Pat Buchanan can. (http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2012/11/06/the_coming_age_of_austerity/page/full)


So you're a racist and a statist? This going from bad to worse.

[JCDenton0451]

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Ben Swann all say you're wrong.

I don't about you, but I don't rely on politicians to tell me how I'm supposed to think on the issues.


So you're a racist and a statist? This going from bad to worse.

Wrong on both counts. You disappoint me Sola_Fide. Didn't you say you don't care about PC bullshit? Now, you try to shame me for stating facts about racial achievement gap in education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_achievement_gap_in_the_United_States). It's disingenuous and lame.

[FrankRep]

I don't about you, but I don't rely on politicians to tell me how I'm supposed to think on the issues.

Your thoughts/opinions don't rely on facts and logic either. You seem to make stuff up as you go along.

[LibertyEagle]

True, but the systems beating us now are all highly centralized government-controlled. The government can be highly efficient at teaching kids basic Arithmetic. The real reason we're not number 1 anymore is this:
Falling test scores have more to do with rising diversity in the classroom than anything else. Back when the US was still number 1 in education, NYC was still 75% non-hispanic white. Blacks and Hispanics now make up over 60% of the school age population in the NYC, and given their atrocious performance, it's no wonder they're dragging the average down. I'm surprised that you as a paleocon cannot wrap you mind around that. Pat Buchanan can. (http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2012/11/06/the_coming_age_of_austerity/page/full)

How in hell do you think the government is going to solve the above? If blacks and hispanics are not performing as well in school, the answer is with the teachers and more importantly, the parents. It most certainly is not with government. :rolleyes:

[JCDenton0451]

Honestly, if you think Big Government causes this, you're just as naive and clueless as George W Bush:

SAT Reading, Writing Test Scores Drop to Lowest Levels (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-24/sat-reading-writing-test-scores-drop-to-lowest-levels.html)

Average reading and writing SAT scores for high school students declined to their lowest levels while math results stalled in the exam used for admission at most U.S. colleges.


For the class of 2012, the average critical reading score fell 1 point to 496 from a year earlier, the lowest since data became available in 1972, according to a report released today by the New York-based College Board (http://topics.bloomberg.com/college-board/), which administers the test. The average score for writing dropped 1 point to 488, the lowest since writing was added to the exam in 2006. Math results were unchanged at 514. Scores can range from 200 to 800.


A record 1.66 million students from the class of 2012 took the exam. The same number took the rival ACT test, owned by ACT Inc. of Iowa City, according to that company’s report released in August (http://media.act.org/documents/CCCR12-NationalReadinessRpt.pdf).


The drop in scores reflect the fact that more lower-income students with less access to high-quality education are taking the test, the College Board said today in a briefing. Minority students made up 45 percent of the test pool, the most diverse ever, according to the nonprofit College Board, whose members include universities.

[FrankRep]

Honestly, if you think Big Government causes this, you're just as naive and clueless as George W Bush:

SAT Reading, Writing Test Scores Drop to Lowest Levels (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-24/sat-reading-writing-test-scores-drop-to-lowest-levels.html)


http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/223032885035b58f8b697739a98b29ca_M.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16056-the-benefits-of-a-classical-education)



While a “progressive” education highlights perceived societal flaws and teaches what to think, a classical education emphasizes cultural bulwarks and teaches how to think.


The Benefits of a Classical Education (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16056-the-benefits-of-a-classical-education)


The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
25 July 2013


Since the end of the Second World War, and especially since the mid-1960s, America has been deluged with seemingly endless stories of the failure of its educational system. Testing reveals that there exists a significant percentage of high-school graduates who cannot identify the Pacific Ocean on an unlabeled map of the world, who do not know that Abraham Lincoln served as president of the United States after George Washington, who confuse the American Civil War with World War I, and who believe that Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in the 18th century, which examples are typical of the horror stories repeated year after year. Ever fewer young people, even those who have graduated from colleges and universities, are properly able to express themselves verbally or in writing. In response, liberal educators have come up with various nostrums that were supposed to turn things around by means of revolutionary new teaching methods. Not surprisingly, they have all failed. Characteristically, politicians have sought solutions by throwing taxpayers’ money at the problem and by further centralizing control in Washington, which, if anything, have only made matters worse.

So, what can be done to insure that our children and young people receive a genuine education that will serve them well for the remainder of their lives? Let us now delve into the past to discover how our ancestors were educated.

The great Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt gave praise to the ancient Greeks by commenting that “all subsequent objective perception of the world is only elaboration on the framework the Greeks began. We see with the eyes of the Greeks and use their phrases when we speak.” European culture and civilization, of which our own country is a part, are rooted in ancient Greece. Their educational methodology, though more than 2,500 years old, is still as relevant now as it was in the time of Plato and is known as classical education.

First, let us consider the objectives of classical education. The first objective is to transmit to our progeny, that is, to future generations, the knowledge, culture, and traditions preserved and passed on to us by our forebears. This is in contrast to so-called progressive education, which focuses on the flaws of the past (e.g., slavery) while ignoring the progress (e.g., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the elimination, in America, of an institution that had existed throughout human history).

Second, classical education aims to provide students with the tools that will enable them to become their own teachers throughout their lifetimes. A vast, inexhaustible world of learning is opened and, furthermore, the student is equipped to discern between that which is wholesome — contributing therefore to the uplifting of the mind — and that which is corrupting or debilitating. In other words, the student will be able to think critically and independently. Progressive-minded teachers in government education, of course, despite claiming to support diversity, prop*agandize instead on behalf of a humanist, statist doctrine.

Third, classical education is, by its very nature, broad-based. The renowned Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset and the American philosopher and historian Richard M. Weaver both decried the excessive specialization that, in modern education, produces men and women who are educated in one field only, and who are, in other fields, largely ignorant. Weaver referred to this as the “fragmentation” of knowledge. Classical education produced scholars who, he wrote, “stood at the center of things because [they] had mastered principles,” whereas “progressive education” produces people who have “acquired only facts and skills” and who are thus unable to achieve a general synthesis, that is, to integrate data from various fields into a cohesive whole.

In early Colonial America, students were taught to read both Greek and Latin with fluency. Of what value was that in the 17th or 18th century? To mention only one of many things, our ancestors were able to read the ancients in the original languages and were thus able to identify errors in judgment with respect to early experiments in self-governance. As Jacob Burckhardt put it regarding the Greeks, we must “study the Greeks; if we ignore them we are simply accepting our own decline.” That is true also of the Romans, so that we may understand how and why the Roman Republic was gradually transmuted into the Roman Empire, with a once-mighty senate that became a mere shadow of its former self, a powerless agency of a government ruled by an all-powerful emperor.

Now, let us explore the components of classical education. Of what does it consist? First, we must understand that the methodology of the Greeks was refined by the Romans and, later, when Christianity became the religion of Europe, further refined by medieval thinkers. The trivium was the foundation of classical education. The Latin word “trivium” refers to “the three paths,” which are grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Grammar teaches us how to read and how to understand what we are reading, and it teaches us the rules for writing intelligibly, according to the rules of a particular language. Logic teaches us how to think, how to reason analytically, so that we are not misled by fallacious arguments. As Aristotle said, “Some reasonings are genuine, while others seem to be so but are not” despite that there is “a certain likeness between the genuine and the sham.” The study of logic enables us to distinguish between the two. Rhetoric teaches us how to express ourselves, to convey information accurately and, most especially, to be persuasive in discussions. Aristotle put it in the following words: “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.” And so, the trivium arms the student with a thoroughgoing understanding of his language, the ability to reason critically, and the ability to express thoughts convincingly.

The next step in the process of classical education is called the quadrivium. This word refers to arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. Arithmetic obviously deals with basic mathematics. Geometry deals with the measurement of various shapes, the relation to one another of points, lines, and surfaces, and the properties of space. The definition of music in ancient times is rather different from what we call music today. The word “music” derives from the Greek “mousike,” which, according to the myths of the ancients, comprised all of the arts of the nine Muses, including literature, all forms of art, and the sciences. Somewhat later, the term came to encompass specifically the arts of poetry and music. In contemporary terminology, music is the art and science of combining and organizing the sounds of human voices or musical instruments, using melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre, to create structurally complete and expressive compositions. Astronomy, again obviously, is the study of the heavenly bodies: the sun, moon, planets, and stars, a field in which the ancients were surprisingly advanced. Beyond the quad*rivium, students went on to study philosophy and, after the rise of Christianity, theology. That final phase of formal education was quite demanding, yet by means of the trivium and quadrivium, students had been thoroughly prepared.

Throughout the Greco-Roman age, education was conducted in relatively small schools or under private tutors. With the collapse of the Roman Empire in Western Europe, monasteries became oases of learning in a world where civilized life had all but disappeared. Historian Professor C.W. Previté-Orton of Cambridge University calls the time “an eclipse of civilization” during which civilized law, security, public works, and intercommunication failed and in which “literacy almost vanished outside the Church.” Hence, monastery schools became the only centers of learning.

The idea of the all-inclusive university first appeared in Constantinople in 425 A.D., during the reign of Theodosius II. It was known as the Pandidakterion and, like the universities that came later in the West, was comprehensive in its many schools, having 31 chairs and teaching in both Latin and Greek. That city retained its reputation as a center of learning, despite the many vicissitudes through which it passed, until its conquest by the Turks in 1453. In both the East and West, the classical system was carefully preserved, producing countless scholars who enriched the civilized world by their efforts, painstakingly rediscovering and then preserving the wisdom of earlier ages.

Beginning late in the 19th century, critics of classical education claimed that its methodology was “elitist,” with its emphasis on Latin, Greek, and other subjects that a majority of young people would never need in their lives. What these critics ignore is that not all students are created equally. Some are brighter and more motivated, some less so. Yet, one of the purposes of this mode of education is that, whatever the future may bring to the individual student, it disciplines the mind and prepares it to receive all other types of learning throughout life. At the same time, it produces a body of highly trained men and women equipped with the knowledge to love truth, to discern truth from falsehood, and to uplift society with ever more wondrous works of individual creativity. Neither Washington Irving, Edgar Allen Poe, nor Charles Dickens were university graduates, but the rigorous traditional education they received early in life prepared them to produce works of literature that have endured and will continue to be read with pleasure hundreds of years from now.

The classical system is still alive and well in many educational institutions in our country and abroad. Its fundamentals are unchanged. Students are taught the basics through memorization, a way of learning that was of great importance in ancient times, since before the invention of printing, books were not readily available. It is still of prime importance since it is the method by which crucial information is permanently stored in the mind and which, for the young especially, is enjoyable and relatively easy.

The trivium is still the foundation in modern institutions of classical learning. The grammar stage is the first in the learning process, involving the absorbing of data that includes not only language skills (phonics, spelling, grammatical rules, and so forth), but also information in other areas of knowledge: data about the world, past and present, about nature, about the difference between right and wrong. The logic stage is next, in which the student is taught to organize the data he has learned and to analyze facts from history, geography, and science. Students so educated have no difficulty finding the Pacific Ocean, Japan, Europe, or any other place on a map of the world. The beginning of higher mathematics is generally taught during this stage. During this phase also, the student develops a sense of the concept of time, so that he is able to grasp, for instance, that Columbus discovered the New World in the last decade of the 15th century, that the War for American Independence was fought in the 18th century, that Abraham Lincoln lived in the 19th century, and that Theodore Roosevelt was president in the early years of the 20th century. The final stage, rhetoric, teaches the student to write and speak beautifully and convincingly, to develop a style that is unique to that student. Here the student can reach into the great fund of knowledge that he has acquired through his diligence as a scholar, and enlarge it, continuing to teach himself and others.

The classical system is ideal for homeschooling, and a number of institutions offer programs that educate children and young people from kindergarten through the 12th grade. An excellent example is FreedomProject Education (https://fpeusa.org/), which offers a superb, Christian-based homeschooling program through the use of the Internet.

Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.” What he meant is that the truly educated man is humbled by an understanding that whatever knowledge his education has conferred upon him, that knowledge is always limited, since learning is a quest that is never finished, never complete, but continues until the very end of one’s life.

[JCDenton0451]

How in hell do you think the government is going to solve the above? If blacks and hispanics are not performing as well in school, the answer is with the teachers and more importantly, the parents. It most certainly is not with government. :rolleyes: I don't know if these problems can be solved... But tougher education stardards certainly wouldn't hurt. The problem with education are lazy students, disengaged parents and the teachers pandering to the lowest denominator. Tougher stardards may be a way to motivate them, at least some of them.

[JCDenton0451]

While a “progressive” education highlights perceived societal flaws and teaches what to think, a classical education emphasizes cultural bulwarks and teaches how to think.

Well, it's about time you showed us that you can think for yourself FrankRep, instead of just quoting your authority figures and the New American articles.

[FrankRep]

Well, it's about time you showed us that you can think for yourself FrankRep, instead of just quoting your authority figures and the New American articles.

Says the guy who ignores facts and logic when making opinions.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is Ron Paul and Ben Swann pandering also?


Ron Paul: 'Common Core' Nationalizes and Dumbs Down Public School Curriculum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4so9LiFDzI

Ben Swann Exposes Common Core Curriculum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrpjiywhSQU
That should be "Are Ron Paul and Ben Swann pandering also?".

[heavenlyboy34]

How in hell do you think the government is going to solve the above? If blacks and hispanics are not performing as well in school, the answer is with the teachers and more importantly, the parents. It most certainly is not with government. :rolleyes:
One more 4-10 year plan will fix EVERYTHING. ;)

[FrankRep]

That should be "Are Ron Paul and Ben Swann pandering also?".

Fixed

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know if these problems can be solved... But tougher education stardards certainly wouldn't hurt. The problem with education are lazy students, disengaged parents and the teachers pandering to the lowest denominator. Tougher stardards may be a way to motivate them, at least some of them.

No, you don't fix it by the federal government, in all their non-wisdom, setting some arbitrary standard. Where do you think the mainstreaming came from, which caused teaching to the lowest common denominator? Where do you think putting kids' self-esteem over their learning, came from? It came from the federal government, that's where. You don't fix something that the federal government caused by having them interfere more. What you do is remove all the crap they dictated and get them out of the education business altogether.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'm a teacher (as well as an atheist) so I already have experience working with Illinois state standards, NCSS (National Council for Social Studies), and Common Core.

They're all a waste of time and money. Any idiot can manipulate the standards and make it appear to school officials that their lesson plans/curriculum reflect Common Core. Not to mention that the standards and benchmarks that state and federal DOEs develop are common sense to begin with so it's not as if educators were clueless (never said they weren't lazy).

If you want students to truly succeed within a public system that isn't going away anytime soon, untie the educators' hands and allow them to facilitate creativity and critical thinking among students. Otherwise you'll never escape the worksheets, quotas, and grade inflation.

[JCDenton0451]

No, you don't fix it by the federal government, in all their non-wisdom, setting some arbitrary standard. Where do you think the mainstreaming came from, which caused teaching to the lowest common denominator? Where do you think putting kids' self-esteem over their learning, came from? It came from the federal government, that's where. The same place political correctness came from. This kind of leftist crap is developed at the elite educational institutions, then gets adopted voluntarily at the lower levels. It's kind of like a religion. Federal and state governments are infected with it in equal measure.



You don't fix something that the federal government caused by having them interfere more. What you do is remove all the crap they dictated and get them out of the education business altogether.

You don't seem to understand what Common Core is and what it does. All you seem to have against Common Core is a knee-jerk opposition to federal government as the source of all evil in our society. Needless to say, it's very narrow-minded view.

[FrankRep]

You don't seem to understand what Common Core is and what it does. All you seem to have against Common Core is a knee-jerk opposition to federal government as the source of all evil in our society. Needless to say, it's very narrow-minded view.

The entire point of Common Core is to standardize education at a national level and that means the federal government will be in control of Common Core. I don't see how you misunderstand this.