Oh Tyler, You must also be one of those who stand for nothing but “anti Romney”. You see that with the dems, who stand for nothing, and accomplish nothing except HATING BUSH. You would do your candidate more if you remind others what he or she has done that deserves the White House.
Do you think Rudy really supports the 1st amendment right to bear arms (yea I said the 1st amendment, but so did he).
This poll looks pretty good, relatively consistant with other. Romney might be a little low, Rudy might be a little high, but they are clearly close. Hopefully we can start to see more reliable polls out of MI, because it is fast becoming an extremely critical state.
Metro,
This polling firm is usually pretty reliable. It says they use both online and telephone surveys, and they’ve been usually pretty close to the other polls. Actually, this poll is pretty close to most of the recent polls of Michigan, with the exception of the one released yesterday, which had Rudy up by 20+ points and ARG, which is always whacky and had Romney up by 26%.
Metro,
I searched for that info, but was unable to find it. At last check, the poll was only released by Detroit news, and hadn’t been updated on the Mitchell site yet.
Tyler, you obviously consider someones religion as a disqualifier for office. Perhaps you should join the Taliban or Al Qaida, they have the same principles.
Romney hit some of the themes he needs to — he spoke on being a “Change Republican” and emphasized family values in particular. He also pointed out his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, with Thompson’s rejection of it, makes him unique among the major Republican candidates.
But then he says he’s going to move “In God We Trust” to the front of the new dollar coins instead of the side. Hmmm. I guess I’m all for it, but the crowd took a few seconds to applaud, and I think most people were as confused as I was. Is that a new campaign promise?
Plus, I haven’t seen his delivery this bad in quite a while. (I have seen it this bad before.) He was very slow winding up, and the speech has a lot of really, really lame applause lines. I couldn’t take much more after this one:
“I’ll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA.”
Yes, he actually did say that. I wish they’d given Huckabee his seat on the plane
I think that ACT is probably right, that this poll has Romney a little too low and Rudy a little too high. I hope that I’m right about that. Michigan is the key state if the calendar stays the same.
This poll has Rudy too high? What the heck are you talking about? Eleven of the last twelve polls out of Michigan (all the ones listed on RCP plus the MRG one that just came out) have Rudy at or above the 19% he has here! You’re deluding yourself if you think that Romney has anything other than a slight lead in Michigan. Prior to the ARG poll that came out in early September, Romney had never registered above 25%–you don’t think that that 39% was an extreme outlier?
This poll is probably about right. Romney in the lead with Giuliani in a close second, then Thompson in third, then McCain in a distant fourth.
What date(s) was this poll taken, by the way? I don’t see this poll on the MIP website, and all of the news articles that mention it fail to give a date.
JS,
Re: #22. My opinion is that Romney is somewhere in the mid 20’s, and that Rudy is in the mid teens. Can I prove that IL’m right? Of course not. Everything on this thread is a guess because of the inconsistency of the polling available. Anytime I’m sure that I’m right, I make a more declarative statement than “I hope I’m right about” this. My GUESS is that the last poll that came out with Mitt at 13% was a major outlier, and that this one is close to being on the money, but not quite. Time alone will tell which one of us is right about this.
Is it me or has Rudy completely forgotten about his 12 commitments?
I always felt 12 was too much. I would have gone with 10 maximum, or more to the point, 5.
The last one he talked about was community preparedness for hurricanes which no one really cares about and that was back in the 1st week of Septmber. Before that he talked about taxes back on August 25th. So that’s 2 in a month.
He still has 3 left. The govt accountability which no one cares about and school choice and nat’l security.
Maybe his campaign felt that milking the Hillary/MoveOn thing and the London trip was more important
But I thought it was a good idea to have the 12 as it provided structure for his campaign and he seems to have abandoned it.
OTOH, the school choice will be very popular with conservatives and women voters and the nat’l security is the reason for his campaign so maybe he’s saving the best for last.
There are quite alot of liberal countries that have survived quite adequately while “funding religious indoctrination of children”. England for one. Ireland. The Netherlands in particular. Granted, the Netherlands has some fairly horrifying problems with Islam currently, but there’s every reason to believe that’s a function of their immigration, economic, and assimilation policies, rather then their successful education system.
“You’re right. There’s nothing like the government-funded religious indoctrination of children.”
Nice try awakened. Vouchers are a way of letting parents opt out of public schools, and the taxes that fund them. How do you figure it’s “government-funded”, when that funding came from the opt-out taxpayer in the first place?
If I want to indoctrinate my children, I will. It’s my right! I won’t use other people’s money to do it, and I’d appreciate a voucher so that I’m not forced to pay twice for my child’s education.
You think the Government Accountability Commitment of Rudy’s is the one nobody cares about? Really? I think it’s the centerpiece of his campaign and probably the most important one! National security and that are the real issues these days.
As for Rudy “forgetting” about his 12 commitments, I don’t think so. There are three months left until the primaries begin and he’s got three commitments left to expand upon. That seems like a good pace.
I don’t think 12 is “too many” commitments either. I think he covered all the bases. Actually, your post reminded me of a hilarious dream I had last night where Rudy suddenly unveiled Commitments #13-100. In my dream, I remember thinking, “Gee that’s a lot.”
“There are quite alot of liberal countries that have survived quite adequately while “funding religious indoctrination of childrenâ€. England for one. Ireland. The Netherlands in particular. Granted, the Netherlands has some fairly horrifying problems with Islam currently, but there’s every reason to believe that’s a function of their immigration, economic, and assimilation policies, rather then their successful education system.”
Well, I don’t really think the standard of judging whether religious education funded by the taxpayers is appropriate or not is whether a country is “survived” — even “adequately.”
However, I don’t think that government education is superior to education with some religious content. I’m certainly not the typical product of a government school. The government school system has done all it can to tear my intellectual drive to pieces, in fact. No one serious thinks that private schools are inferior to public schools — even ones with a religious bent. As long as the government is going to shove itself into education, it should at least allow the parents some choice.
Oh, I thought this was about vouchers, too, Richard P.
Isn’t it? It should be, we don’t talk about it enough on R408. We’re constantly moaning about gay marriage or whatnot — let’s talk about something important for once!
Matt: ‘There are quite alot of liberal countries that have survived quite adequately while “funding religious indoctrination of childrenâ€. England for one. Ireland. The Netherlands in particular. Granted, the Netherlands has some fairly horrifying problems with Islam currently, but there’s every reason to believe that’s a function of their immigration, economic, and assimilation policies, rather then their successful education system.’
I never said that the country wouldn’t survive. Even the children who would be subjectd to religious education would survive, as I did. But that doesn’t mean that it’s right. Quite frankly, I don’t want to pay for some disordered Baptist school that teaches as facts young earth creationism, that condoms are the cause of AIDS, and so forth.
And do consider that there are millions of Muslims in America right now, unfortunately. If the goverment funds Baptist schools, it is obliged to fund Islamic madrassas.
Richard P.: ‘How do you figure it’s “government-fundedâ€, when that funding came from the opt-out taxpayer in the first place?’
They are not the equivalent of public schools. They are public schools + religious indoctrination. And the government shouldn’t be in the business of funding that.
‘If I want to indoctrinate my children, I will. It’s my right!’
Thank you for admitting that your ideas are so weak and pathetic that you have to force them on your children, instead of letting them compete in the marketplace of ideas. It really shows an admission of the weakness of your position.
P.S. I hope that your kids rebel and become scientists who lead the charge for evolution. Then, you will continue to be tormented.
‘I won’t use other people’s money to do it, and I’d appreciate a voucher so that I’m not forced to pay twice for my child’s education.’
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘The government school system has done all it can to tear my intellectual drive to pieces, in fact.’
And what makes you think that a religious school would be any different?
‘No one serious thinks that private schools are inferior to public schools — even ones with a religious bent. As long as the government is going to shove itself into education, it should at least allow the parents some choice.’
They should be free to choose private schools that are not religious. I don’t have a problem with that.
I’m willing to do whatever it takes in order to force the government schools to compete. Many, if not most, private schools have a religious bent. They also produce vastly superior students. All statistics show this. Look at average SAT scores, college admissions, etc — it’s all from private schools, many with a religious bent.
I want our government schools to have to compete. If that means injecting a bit of religion in there, so be it.
(Somewhat related: Anyone who doesn’t know about the Montessori method should look into that, by the way. All schools should be based on that.)
Paul8148,
NRO is rarely impressed with Thompson. With the exception of Geraughty, you get very little positive vibe about Thompson from the NRO blogs. Their response is predictably going to be less than enthusiastic.
“P.S. I hope that your kids rebel and become scientists who lead the charge for evolution. Then, you will continue to be tormented.”
I don’t have a problem with evolution man! I quite like the theory myself. I want my kids to study it!
Thank you for admitting that your ideas are so weak and pathetic that you have to force them on your children, instead of letting them compete in the marketplace of ideas. It really shows an admission of the weakness of your position.”
I should have put indoctrinate in quotations. The point is, we all indoctrinate according to our own views. If your kid joins a Madrassas, don’t tell me you won’t try to “indoctrinate” him out of it. Unless you’re going to let him go for it, as he’s just “competing in the marketplace of ideas”.
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘I’m willing to do whatever it takes in order to force the government schools to compete. ‘
I agree with that, but what’s wrong with forcing them to compete with regular private schools?
I think that most people who will use vouchers, will do so for religion and not performance related reasons. And I don’t want to give a dirt-poor fundamentalist family the opportunity the government-funded and -provided opportunity to keep their children as ignorant as they themselves are. It defies societal evolution. After all, they’re dirt-poor for a reason.
Richard P.: ‘I don’t have a problem with evolution man! I quite like the theory myself. I want my kids to study it! ‘
That’s a surprise. Then what is the foolishness that you wish to foist upon your children?
‘If your kid joins a Madrassas, don’t tell me you won’t try to “indoctrinate†him out of it. ‘
Your comparison is one of the dumbest I’ve seen on this blog. A madrassa would be the first to indoctrinate my kid. Even if someone practiced indoctrination as a countermeasure to the initial instance of indoctrination, that would be legitimate. However, I believe that the closing of the mind that takes place at such an institution can best be countered by trying to open the mind of the victim, and you can’t do that through indoctrination. But let’s look at what you said: you asserted, with indignation, that you have an inalienable (moral) right to indoctrinate your children, without them having been indoctrinated elsewhere. Can’t you tell the difference, or are you willingly blind to anything that does not suit your purposes?
I think that most people who will use vouchers, will do so for religion and not performance related reasons.
You’re totally ignorant as to why this is a big debate, then. Please go YouTube John Stossel’s report “Stupid in America” in which he recounts horror story after horror story about poor parents trying to get their kids into the top-rated public schools as they find out that their district has one with a poor rating. That’s certainly not about religion.
Richard P.: ‘If your kid joins a Madrassas, don’t tell me you won’t try to “indoctrinate†him out of it. Unless you’re going to let him go for it, as he’s just “competing in the marketplace of ideasâ€.’
Just in case that I haven’t made myself crystal-clear by now: any form of indoctrination makes it impossible for the victim to evaluate ideas that are ‘competing in the marketplace’. That’s why I oppose indoctrination, regardless of who is doing it. You get it?
Mcon: ‘ah…It is almost refreshing to see awakened ranting again on the evils of religion.’
I didn’t comment on religion, at all. I was merely commenting on the religious indoctrination of children, specifically on government-funded religious indoctrination of children. That shouldn’t be too difficult to see, even for the likes of you.
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘You’re totally ignorant as to why this is a big debate, then. Please go YouTube John Stossel’s report “Stupid in America†in which he recounts horror story after horror story about poor parents trying to get their kids into the top-rated public schools as they find out that their district has one with a poor rating. That’s certainly not about religion.’
I may or may not be ignorant, and I’m sure that there are plenty of public schools that perform abysmally (probably a majority), but citing one or several cases does not disprove what I said. I didn’t say that there aren’t any parents who wish to send their children to private schools because of the poor quality of public schools, I said that “most people” would use vouchers for religious reasons. Even today, most people who send their children to private schools do so for religious reasons, and they have to pay for it. I hardly expect that to change if vouchers are enacted.
That shouldn’t be too difficult to see, even for the likes of you.
That. Awfully condescending. Settle down!
one or several cases does not disprove what I said.
You never even proved what you said in the first place! And most private schools — even religious ones — are not about indoctrination. I have friends that go to private schools with religious orientations. Some of them don’t even believe and are just grateful to be going to a good school with a good local reputation. The prominent private school around here kicked everyone’s asses at the local We the People government group essay competition that I was in two years ago that my school participated in.
I’d certainly prefer my child go to a religious private school than a public school that I went to. I’d just make sure, at home, that he didn’t buy into it.
So this is what we’ve come to in America? I wish I could meet the guy that got everyone else to believe that everything belongs to the government, and we need to beg and barter for every scrap. I would head-butt him in the teeth.
School vouchers are about choice and competition, both of which are as American as can be.
Awakened, you have no right to tell ME where to spend my money or how to educated MY children. The government is not giving me anything; I am withholding payment to government for a service, public education, the value of which I don’t find commensurate to the cost. That money saved is then spent elsewhere. This is putting choice back in to the hands of the people whose money it is: OURS, not the government. We have every right to spend our money as we wish.
It has everything to do with giving parents better choices. It has nothing to do with gov funding of religious indoctrination and instead is about letting parents opt out of the crappy gov product we get. I was lucky enough to have a scholarship at a secular private school with loose religious connections and there just isn’t any comparison between public and private.
Awakened,
You insult all who you disagree with so why should I care.
So this is what we’ve come to in America? I wish I could meet the guy that got everyone else to believe that everything belongs to the government, and we need to beg and barter for every scrap. I would head-butt him in the teeth.
It really started with FDR. But it’s not very nice to headbutt a man in a wheelchair, now is it?
I haven’t seen too many people be condescending without being calm. Have you? So I think that you should settle on what accusation you want to throw at people. You calling on me to ‘calm down’ was especially amusing, since you also showed your own lack of calm by calling me a ‘little twat’. Litte twat? Coming from you, of all people? I practically had to phyically restrain my right hand to not comment on that.
Besides, I’ll reserve the right to be allegedly condescending when people make statements that aren’t true.
‘You never even proved what you said in the first place!’
Maybe not, but you didn’t contest my statement on that basis. Instead, you merely came up with a few examples in which people wanted to choose private schools for performance-related reasons, but that is of course fully consistent with what I said. There are people who want out of the public school system because of its poor performance, but that does not mean that they are not a minority.
‘And most private schools — even religious ones — are not about indoctrination.’
I guess it does depend on the definition of ‘indoctrination’.
MellowFellow: ‘Awakened, you have no right to tell ME where to spend my money or how to educated MY children.’
I’m not telling you, the American people is telling you. If you want to try to headbutt them in the teeth, that’s fine.
‘The government is not giving me anything; I am withholding payment to government for a service, public education, the value of which I don’t find commensurate to the cost.’
Well, I believe that you should have the right to pick a private school of your choice, as long as it isn’t a religious one. Otherwise, you shouldn’t expect the government to finance yur religious education – and however you want to twist it, it remains a fact that government funds will be used to fund religious indoctrination.
Mcon: ‘You insult all who you disagree with so why should I care.’
You shouldn’t care about anything anyone says. Regardless, I would still like to see a response to what I said. We weren’t discussing religion, yet you claimed that it was about religion. What’s the deal with that? Are you seeing things we don’t see? Hearing voices we don’t hear?
“I haven’t seen too many people be condescending without being calm. Have you? So I think that you should settle on what accusation you want to throw at people. You calling on me to ‘calm down’ was especially amusing, since you also showed your own lack of calm by calling me a ‘little twat’. Litte twat? Coming from you, of all people? I practically had to phyically restrain my right hand to not comment on that.”
Like with the use of force, you lost your right not to be condescended to once you were condescending. When I said calm down, I meant your emotions. You merited the title of ‘twat’ once you said ‘the likes of you’ to someone who hardly even said anything. A little quick to jump, there, I’d say.
There are people who want out of the public school system because of its poor performance, but that does not mean that they are not a minority.
You just pulled that out of your ass. You have absolutely nothing to back it up. I hate the South, religion, and government funding of it just as much as you do. But if you think that non-religious parents are happy with the public school system, you’re deluded.
Awakened,
I’m afraid you are really outnumbered here. I believe you are wrong about public schools vs private religious schools.
My kids go the public schools. They are very good here in Vegas. But about eighty percent of the teachers somewhat lay their beliefs on my kids. About evolution, the only reason you go to church is because your parents force you to. The Spanish teacher is the lesbian gay pride leader of the area, and the biology teacher is the gay pride teacher in the area. The World History teacher is a feminist tree hugger, that doesn’t restrain herself at all. But like TLG says, I have taught my children at home the principles that I want them to live by. So no matter what they learn at school, they can know what we believe as a family. It is the same with a religious school. If it is a good school, then just make sure that you teach them at home your beliefs.
“I’m not telling you, the American people is telling you. If you want to try to headbutt them in the teeth, that’s fine.”
What do you think I am, if not a piece of the American people? What makes them tell me what I can do, but I can’t tell them? That is what this debate is. Actually, that’s what any debate is. I think we’ll win out, because your side can’t seem to say much besides “fundamentalists” are “indoctrinating”…their own children. I don’t want to be harsh, but that sounds insane to most people when placed in the context of their own neighborhoods and neighbors.
And, not to speak for Mcon, but when you say things like this:
“I believe that you should have the right to pick a private school of your choice, as long as it isn’t a religious one.”
…you can hardly fault him for assuming this has something to do with religion.
“91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn’t that make you feel worse that you didn’t get a perfect score?”
I probably didn’t score as a purist because I despise anarcho-capitalism and believe that the state should function for military, judicial, and law enforcement purposes. I also don’t tow the Libertarian Party line on immigration and defense, which is why I’m in the GOP and don’t support Ron Paul.
…Just to clarify, my little spiel there about “telling other people” was a nice couplet, but hardly explicative of my position on this issue. Of course, the issue here is whether or not other people should have the right to tell anyone else about how to educate their own children. I say no. Rather than telling other folks what to do, I’m reminding them of what they have no right to do. If you can see the difference.
Awakened, are you a libertarian, or what? Do you identify with any broad ideology that we would all recognize? I’m having trouble pinning you down. Maybe you don’t fit anywhere. That’s cool, too.
And just so you don’t think this is a trap if you answer, “libertarian,” I’ll disclose right up front that the reason I bring it up is that I don’t think your comment:
“I believe that you should have the right to pick a private school of your choice, as long as it isn’t a religious one.â€
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Like with the use of force, you lost your right not to be condescended to once you were condescending. When I said calm down, I meant your emotions.’
It’s amazing how everyone thinks that I’m an angry person. I’m not emotional at all.
‘You merited the title of ‘twat’ once you said ‘the likes of you’ to someone who hardly even said anything. A little quick to jump, there, I’d say.’
You’re right, he had hardly said anything, and already he had said the dumbest things in the entire thread. Besides, I already knew him – and he’s an entertaining little fellow.
‘But if you think that non-religious parents are happy with the public school system, you’re deluded.’
I’m not happy with the public school system, and I never claimed that non-religious parents are happy. Does that clear things up for you? However, I said that the majority of vouchers would probably be used for religious reasons.
51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much. “
Thanks Mellow. I think Aw’s dislike for religion doesn’t let him see the reality of the situation. As much as I disagree with TLG on issues I can’t say the same thing about him.
TLG,
I suppose I am a soft libertarian then. I am comfortable with that for now. This issue doesn’t really have to do with religion for me; it has to do with the government being incompetent at educating. Personally I want my children to attend the same mostly secular private school I graduated from.
M.T.: ‘I’m afraid you are really outnumbered here. I believe you are wrong about public schools vs private religious schools.’
There’s nothing wrong with being outnumbered. I enjoy it.
‘My kids go the public schools. They are very good here in Vegas.’
Be sure to tell them never to leave Vegas. After all, you don’t want their education to stay in Vegas while they leave it.
‘But about eighty percent of the teachers somewhat lay their beliefs on my kids. About evolution, the only reason you go to church is because your parents force you to. The Spanish teacher is the lesbian gay pride leader of the area, and the biology teacher is the gay pride teacher in the area. The World History teacher is a feminist tree hugger, that doesn’t restrain herself at all. But like TLG says, I have taught my children at home the principles that I want them to live by.’
That’s okay. I just don’t think that people have a right to expect the government to fund religious education slash indoctrination of children.
‘So no matter what they learn at school, they can know what we believe as a family. It is the same with a religious school. If it is a good school, then just make sure that you teach them at home your beliefs.’
Well, I wouldn’t be using the vouchers for that purpose in the first place, as no one is forcing me to. However, I don’t want to be responsible for funding religious schools either.
‘BTW, the gay pride thing…..(not that there’s anything wrong with that.)’
wow. when i posted about Rudy and school choice I had no clue it would touch off such a firestorm. I guess when he announces his plan it’ll really hit the fan.
Electorally, I think it’s a winner, especially with women voters.
MellowFellow: ‘What do you think I am, if not a piece of the American people?’
The majority appears to disagree with you. So when will you be headbutting them in the teeth?
‘…you can hardly fault him for assuming this has something to do with religion.’
Well, you’re wrong. The issue is government-sponsored indoctrination of children with religion, not religion in general. One might be a very devout Christian and yet believe that it is wrong to have taxpayer pay for Baptists who want their children to be just like they are.
‘Of course, the issue here is whether or not other people should have the right to tell anyone else about how to educate their own children. I say no.’
Islamic fundamentalists in America should have the right to send their children to Islamic schools (paid by the government) where they are indoctrinated with anti-American and anti-Jewish beliefs? Mmmkaay.
MCon — No, I really don’t think that anyone who scores below 50 on that test could even begun to be considered a libertarian. Libertarians like to pretend that their views are popular, but they’re really not. Statism is pretty much the norm. The questions in that test got more and more extreme as they went on. I happen to believe the last set — Murray Rothbard’s beliefs — are some of the most foolhardy applications of libertarian thought ever witnessed. I enjoy Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman’s works the most of the strands of libertarian thought that were used in the test.
Richard P — No foolishness at all, just a belief in God. That makes no sense!
Wasted money in the realm of 10K-13k with respect to our children in DC and Newark NJ, for example, should be an outrage for any low-income family (and the taxpayers who pay for it) to revolt againist the broken system of unions and tenure that is so entrenched within the public school system.
Private and parochial schools educate students successfully at half the cost. Let’s break this system of corruption for the children.
As far as an angnostic or an atheist goes, indoctrination is just as sure against God as those who propose a Creator. Catholic theory teaches that evolution is probable and at the same time is not to be looked at without God at it’s source.
‘BTW, the gay pride thing…..(not that there’s anything wrong with that.)’
LOL! I’ll just have to disagree with you there.
Yeah, I’ll have to disagree, too. As a bisexual, I find it insulting and degrading when someone suggests that I should be “proud” of my sexual urges, as if they’re accomplishments or something.
MellowFellow: ‘Awakened, are you a libertarian, or what? Do you identify with any broad ideology that we would all recognize? I’m having trouble pinning you down. Maybe you don’t fit anywhere. That’s cool, too.’
Not a libertarian. I don’t really identify with any label, but here are my beliefs:
- Economic matters: conservative in the most literal sense of the word, don’t rock the boat
- Social matters: government should protect people’s life, liberty and proterty; and that’s all
- Religion: just like the founders intended, government should neither promote religion nor hinder it
Scott — I agree — hey, we’re agreeing for once — completely that DC is a perfect example of why vouchers are excellent as an idea for reform.
Schools with religious affiliations, unlike what Awakened is saying, rarely are centers of indoctrination. I’m as hardcore an atheist as he is, but I’m afraid that he’s never had any experience with private schools in his life or has never bothered to do any research on them. Private schools — even ones with religious bents — are generally shining examples of what our schools should be doing. Montessori schools, as I’ve stated, are the best of all.
I think we should have an open thread just to post our political beliefs in. Not to argue them, but just to say what they are. I think it would be pretty interesting.
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Yeah, I’ll have to disagree, too.’
Just to be clear: I meant to say that there is something wrong with the despicable freakshows that are called ‘gay pride parades’, not with gay people.
Hey, TLG, I wasn’t trying to offend. Really. I am truly sorry. It goes against every thing that I am. I just thought that you might be offended that I brought up that my kids had gay teachers, and that you would be offended by it. I was trying to nake the point to Awakened that I have to deal with things at a public school, just like he would maybe have to deal with at a religious school. And BTW, the biology teacher is my daughter’s favorite teacher in the whole school, and there is absolutely no talk about sexual orientation.
Please forgive me and accept my apology.
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Awakened — and as for defense..?’
I knew I missed something.
Defense: increase funding for the military, in favor of victory in Iraq
‘I think we should have an open thread just to post our political beliefs in. Not to argue them, but just to say what they are. I think it would be pretty interesting.’
“Well, you’re wrong. The issue is government-sponsored indoctrination of children with religion, not religion in general.”
Indoctrination…you are such a drama queen
“Islamic fundamentalists in America should have the right to send their children to Islamic schools (paid by the government) where they are indoctrinated with anti-American and anti-Jewish beliefs?”
Try to stick with me this time around: Islamic families should be able to retain money for a service from the government they find to be unacceptable, by their standards. They are then free to do with that money what they wish in regards to their children’s education. If you want to make some auxiliary laws having to do with national security, that is another subject. If you are trying to insinuate that peace-promoting religious schools are a threat to national security, you have a long row to hoe.
Hey, TLG, I wasn’t trying to offend. Really. I am truly sorry. It goes against every thing that I am. I just thought that you might be offended that I brought up that my kids had gay teachers, and that you would be offended by it. I was trying to nake the point to Awakened that I have to deal with things at a public school, just like he would maybe have to deal with at a religious school. And BTW, the biology teacher is my daughter’s favorite teacher in the whole school, and there is absolutely no talk about sexual orientation. Please forgive me and accept my apology.
Oh, no, no, no — I wasn’t trying to suggest that you were trying to degrade gays at all from that. I figured that you meant that there was nothing wrong with being gay. I’m talking about the leftist gay lobby in general that wants gays and bisexuals to be “proud” of their orientation and to flaunt it; make their lives revolve around it. Really, there’s little difference between gays and straights — it’s just the sexual urges. People need to stop placing such an emphasis on gender and sexuality. The only people that do that now are fundamentalist Christians and the sexual left.
Try to stick with me this time around: Islamic families should be able to retain money for a service from the government they find to be unacceptable, by their standards. They are then free to do with that money what they wish in regards to their children’s education. If you want to make some auxiliary laws having to do with national security, that is another subject. If you are trying to insinuate that peace-promoting religious schools are a threat to national security, you have a long row to hoe.
He’s also trying to make the exception the rule. It’s essentially a straw-man argument, really. While schools like that would be legitimate concerns, they would be barred if any national security risk was present. He’s ignoring the larger point, which is that most private schools with religious affiliations are just superior centers of education, regardless of whether they believe that Jesus was divine. I know some people that attend religious private schools that consider themselves agnostic, so if they’re trying to indoctrinate, they’re not doing a very good job of it.
Not being mean to people actually makes you feel happier. Sarcasm is one thing — and one thing that I love — but you’re unusually mean, in an often unfunny way.
Occasionally I’ll laugh at something you write, but more often than not, it’s a miss, and the misses are usually vitriolic or uncalled for, not funny. There is a line of tastefulness that one shouldn’t cross pertaining to personal attacks.
MellowFellow: ‘Try to stick with me this time around: Islamic families should be able to retain money for a service from the government they find to be unacceptable, by their standards.’
So you’re a moral relativist.
‘They are then free to do with that money what they wish in regards to their children’s education. If you want to make some auxiliary laws having to do with national security, that is another subject. If you are trying to insinuate that peace-promoting religious schools are a threat to national security, you have a long row to hoe.’
No one but you talked about national security. If the government is to provide vouchers for Baptist and Catholic schools, it is obliged to do the same for Islamic schools. And we’ve seeen in Europe that these places, under the banner of religious freedom, promote hatred and intolerance of everyone else. The difference with the Baptist schools is that the Islamic folks actually act on their hatred – but no court will accept argument of ‘future probability of disaster’ compelling if you want to deny Islamic parents vouchers.
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Not being mean to people actually makes you feel happier. Sarcasm is one thing — and one thing that I love — but you’re unusually mean, in an often unfunny way.’
Well, when I’m ‘mean’ (boo hoo), I’m generally not trying to be funny. The two things are not very compatible.
‘There is a line of tastefulness that one shouldn’t cross pertaining to personal attacks.’
I’ve never crossed the line on tastefulness. Besides, I don’t think that people would care about something someone on the Internet writes about them.
“He’s also trying to make the exception the rule.”
Exactly. It’s like the old pro-abortion meme: what about rapes? What about a serious threat to the mother? etc., when those situations don’t describe the real topic: the propriety of abortion on demand (sorry ahead of time TLG for injecting into your phrase my pro-life leanings; I know you’re pro-choice. But perhaps you can still appreciate the correlation).
I’ve never crossed the line on tastefulness. Besides, I don’t think that people would care about something someone on the Internet writes about them.
“He’s also trying to make the exception the rule.â€Exactly. It’s like the old pro-abortion meme: what about rapes? What about a serious threat to the mother? etc., when those situations don’t describe the real topic: the propriety of abortion on demand (sorry ahead of time TLG for injecting into your phrase my pro-life leanings; I know you’re pro-choice. But perhaps you can still appreciate the correlation).
Quite alright, and you are right that it is a straw-man argument. Partial birth abortion is often used as a straw-man argument by the pro-life crowd, too. I oppose partial-birth abortion except in cases of risks to the mother’s health (which are very rare), as should anyone with an IQ above 12. But the main argument with abortion should pertain to the first two trimesters, where the baby does not have autonomy.
The idea of a voucher discussion, by way of a post would advance our collective republican discussion, in my opinion. I have a personal experience having grown up in NYC. If anyone would like to know what it is like to grow up in the wealthy area of Belle Harbor, NYC (a section of Queens), let me know. I and most (not all, but about 95%) were given fast tract, with the best teachers, consolidating 7-8th grade, etc.
Gosh, I missed 70% of this debate. And it seems to have been quite interesting. A couple of points. Indoctrination is an oft-abused word, which has lost any practical meaning. Anyone who chooses to teach a child something is, de facto, “indoctrinating” the student. Unless of course they chose to expose them to every single idea under the sun. If I’m teaching evolution, and not creationism, I’m distinguishing the too doctrines in a meaningful. I’m making a value judgment as to their veracity. And I’m choosing to pass that value judgment onto the next generation.
The fact that my value judgment may well be the accepted method, or as Awakened puts it, “a winner in the marketplace of ideas”, is irrelevant for indoctrination purposes. Indoctrination marks no distinction between right answers, and wrong answers. It’s a method of transmitting knowledge. And it’s a method specifically premised on privileging some ideas above others. I.e, it’s a necessary and recurrent feature of every educational system yet devised.
I don’t think indoctrination, as it’s generally situated, is desirable. That is to say, I don’t think that people ought to inculcated with the “wrong” ideas. But, I also believe that indoctrination, if we mean only privileging a certain set of ideas or modes of thought, is an entirely healthy thing. As I’ve said before, we can come to conclusions about our world, which actually reflect reality. Both morally and rationally (sometimes the two are intertwined). And when we do come to such conclusions, we’re obliged to spread them to the next generation. That doesn’t mean of course that we strip of their ability to evaluate competing arguments. But, it does mean we start them with a basic set of axioms and principles.
It seems to me, Awakened’s objection isn’t, in fact, that we shouldn’t “indoctrinate” children. Because, as I’ve explained, that’s an untenable idea. Rather, he seems to object to us “indoctrinating” children in ways that he doesn’t approve of. That’s fine. I feel quite the same way. But, I think it’s rather silly to pretend that objecting to the indoctrination of wrong principles, is equivalent to objecting to indoctrination period.
Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers. The government might say, for instance, that schools that preach violence, aren’t eligible for vouchers, as a fairly basic principle. That would certainly exclude radical Madrassas. The government might also require that such voucher approved schools have a maximum of say 1 hour of daily religiously instruction. Or simply 1 hour not related to the standard state curriculum subjects. A couple of broad regulations of this sort would filter out too much “bad indoctrination”.
Finally, religious schools have educated children wonderfully, for hundreds of years. Particularly Christian schools. It’s difficult to find a historical analogue for the sheer of education early Jesuit schools provided students in the 16th century and onward. The depth of learning students received is breathtaking by any standard. In other words, religiosity doesn’t automatically equate to “boorish Neanderthal”.
MellowFellow: ‘Exactly. It’s like the old pro-abortion meme: what about rapes? ‘
The difference is that you can prohibit abortions in general but allow them in cases of rape, but you can’t allow vouchers for Baptists and Catholics while disallowing them for Muslims.
I don’t understand what this means. What’s the alternative? Are you suggesting there is some external standard of education that is so self-evident we should all follow it? This is truly an absurd assertion, but if I accept that premise, and had to say one way or another, I guess I would concede that, yes, I’m a moral relativist in regards to education. I would say that to accept a standard that someone else has come up with, but with which I personally disagree, is lazy.
“No one but you talked about national security. If the government is to provide vouchers for Baptist and Catholic schools, it is obliged to do the same for Islamic schools. And we’ve seeen in Europe that these places, under the banner of religious freedom, promote hatred and intolerance of everyone else. The difference with the Baptist schools is that the Islamic folks actually act on their hatred – but no court will accept argument of ‘future probability of disaster’ compelling if you want to deny Islamic parents vouchers.”
You are going to have to pick: are we talking about national security or not? You say it’s just me, and then everything else you write is about national security. Now listen, this is getting absurd. The reason you don’t want there to be school vouchers is that you don’t want the government to fund terrorist dens? That is insane. It has nothing to do with this issue at all.
So, with that recognition, that we have now switched to another topic, national security, I will say a few things.
There are different divisions of Islam, many of them peaceful, and I for one believe that there may be some perfectly good schools with some kind of Islamic affiliation which should not be necessarily excluded solely based on that particular religious connection. Of course, the probability of finding a bad apple in that bunch is very much greater than among other religious schools. That (finding bad apples) needs to be done. What you are really addressing when you tell us what a court won’t do is talking about the difficulty of national security; what you should be promoting is some kind of national security bolstering. But not pretend it has to do with the school voucher debate.
If it is any comfort to you, all the terrorist dens I know are pretty well-funded and won’t be lobbying any time soon to get money from the Great Satan.
TLG,
Thanks, but you should have read some of the rant I threw at Sampo, Metro and Flap last week. I really lost it, and didn’t apologize. I even called Flap an idiot, then he called nme a class act.
Matt, you say that any transfer of knowledge is indoctrination. In my opinion, if schools can’t make factual assertions, they should at least mention that it is only generally accepted in particular communities. For example, it would be fine to say that Christians believe that Creationism is the way to explain how the world came into being, because you’re not teaching it as fact. Or that evolution is the scientific explanation for how humans came into being. Schools should not teach people what to think, but how to think. It’s an ideal that can never be reached, but that doesn’t mean that we should jettison any notion of it and just force our beliefs on children through government-funded schools.
Now I’m not talking about private schools, while I may object to what they do, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate and moral way of stopping them.
‘Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers. The government might say, for instance, that schools that preach violence, aren’t eligible for vouchers, as a fairly basic principle. That would certainly exclude radical Madrassas. ‘
Response: “We’re not preaching violence, we’re just saying that American society is Godless and decadence. If our students take that as meaning that they should commit violent acts, we can’t be held responsible for that.”
‘The government might also require that such voucher approved schools have a maximum of say 1 hour of daily religiously instruction.’
One hour is enough to indocrinate impressionable children, don’t you think?
‘Finally, religious schools have educated children wonderfully, for hundreds of years. Particularly Christian schools.’
Matt, you say that any transfer of knowledge is indoctrination. In my opinion, if schools can’t make factual assertions, they should at least mention that it is only generally accepted in particular communities. For example, it would be fine to say that Christians believe that Creationism is the way to explain how the world came into being, because you’re not teaching it as fact. Or that evolution is the scientific explanation for how humans came into being. Schools should not teach people what to think, but how to think. It’s an ideal that can never be reached, but that doesn’t mean that we should jettison any notion of it and just force our beliefs on children through government-funded schools.
Now I’m not talking about private schools, while I may object to what they do, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate and moral way of stopping them.
Matt: ‘Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers. The government might say, for instance, that schools that preach violence, aren’t eligible for vouchers, as a fairly basic principle. That would certainly exclude radical Madrassas. ‘
Response: “We’re not preaching violence, we’re just saying that American society is Godless and decadence. If our students take that as meaning that they should commit violent acts, we can’t be held responsible for that.”
‘The government might also require that such voucher approved schools have a maximum of say 1 hour of daily religiously instruction.’
One hour is enough to indocrinate impressionable children, don’t you think?
‘Finally, religious schools have educated children wonderfully, for hundreds of years. Particularly Christian schools.’
MellowFellow: ‘Are you suggesting there is some external standard of education that is so self-evident we should all follow it?’
What I said was that your belief that different standard are all legitimate, is absolute insanity.
‘You are going to have to pick: are we talking about national security or not?’
I never even mentioned national security, you did.
‘There are different divisions of Islam, many of them peaceful’
Correct, I would really prefer to be kidnapped by the peaceful ones. At least they would kill me by shooting a bullet in my head, instead of beheading me with a dull knife.
‘If it is any comfort to you, all the terrorist dens I know are pretty well-funded and won’t be lobbying any time soon to get money from the Great Satan.’
I’m sure Islamists are very worried that the Muslims who live in the Great Satan are being exposed to un-Islamic evils in public schools. So if they can get them indoctrinated with Islamist hate while having the Great Satan pay for it, why not?
Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers.
I don’t believe that the government has the right to tell anyone what their money can and cannot be spent on. I oppose government-sponsored education in the first place, but if the aim is to inject choice and competition into the education system, then the government can’t, in effect, say that private schools have to emulate government standards in order to compete. That’s a distortion of the entire principle the voucher idea is based upon. Parents should able to decide what they want their children to learn — certainly not the government.
“I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards”
I agree. Though I am a convicted moral relativist in the context of this discussion, it is important to stress that there does need to be some kind of external standardized testing, to allow parents access to the information they need to make responsible decisions when it comes time to choose which school is best. But then don’t most private schools already take most standardized tests?
M.T.: ‘Thanks, but you should have read some of the rant I threw at Sampo, Metro and Flap last week. I really lost it, and didn’t apologize. I even called Flap an idiot, then he called nme a class ac’
Nothing wrong with that. If I had to apologize for everything nasty I have every said, I would be busy until Judgement Day.
Mcon: ‘Nice link. I only scored an 88.3% but I suppose it isn’t that bad considering that was 35% better than the college senior mean score.’
I believe that was the exact score I got. Which questions did you get wrong?
Hey sorry Awakened, that last comment was meant for you. About how nice I was. I think it was you that settled me down a couple weeks ago when I was ranting on at Sampo, Metro and Flap. I even thought Kavon was going to kick me off this site when I called Flap an idiot. (which he is.)
I must say that I have known quite a few atheists in my day, and you are different. (atheist, pagan, whatever you are.) You seem to judge people fairly. You are pretty hard on Muslims, and surprisingly you stood up for the Mormon religion when it comes to evangilists not being able to vote for Mitt, etc. You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in. I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me.
“Correct, I would really prefer to be kidnapped by the peaceful ones. At least they would kill me by shooting a bullet in my head, instead of beheading me with a dull knife.”
I knew I’d get these gems after suggesting everyone that prays towards Mecca is not necessarily a terrorist. I’ve experienced this outrageous prejudice on many a Republican site. I wish you’d just take it from a guy who actually knows some modern and perfectly peace-promoting Muslims (me), but that’s not as fun, is it?
Out of curiosity, do you even have any Muslim acquaintances? It’s hard to believe that every Muslim you know personally is a terrorist-sympathizer, unless you live in a cave in Afghanistan.
“I’m sure Islamists are very worried that the Muslims who live in the Great Satan are being exposed to un-Islamic evils in public schools. So if they can get them indoctrinated with Islamist hate while having the Great Satan pay for it, why not?”
My comment for which this is the reply was meant to shed a little light on the absurdity of this conversation. You are trying to conflate two issues that have nothing to do with each other.
M.T.: ‘Hey sorry Awakened, that last comment was meant for you. About how nice I was. I think it was you that settled me down a couple weeks ago when I was ranting on at Sampo, Metro and Flap. I even thought Kavon was going to kick me off this site when I called Flap an idiot. (which he is.)’
Certainly, you have higher tolerance than I do. But if they were going to kick you off, they would have to kick someone like me off first. One of my posts was actually deleted by Kavon, after I commented on one of his blog-postings that no one gives a damn about the entire PhonyFred-affair – apparently, he thought it was personal.
‘I must say that I have known quite a few atheists in my day, and you are different. (atheist, pagan, whatever you are.) ‘
Agnostic, not a pagan, though I sometimes pretend to be.
‘You are pretty hard on Muslims, and surprisingly you stood up for the Mormon religion when it comes to evangilists not being able to vote for Mitt, etc.’
Well, I believe there is a big difference. The only measure by which I, as a non-believer, can judge a religion, is by its results. One religion has its followers blow up and behead others, regardless of whether it is mainstream or not in the religion. The other religion pushes people in a more compassionate, nice direction. Huge, huge difference. I assure you, if Mormons were blowing up buildings, I would come down hard on them, as well.
‘You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in.’
Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
‘I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me. ‘
M.T.: ‘Hey sorry Awakened, that last comment was meant for you. About how nice I was. I think it was you that settled me down a couple weeks ago when I was ranting on at Sampo, Metro and Flap. I even thought Kavon was going to kick me off this site when I called Flap an idiot. (which he is.)’
Certainly, you have higher tolerance than I do. But if they were going to kick you off, they would have to kick someone like me off first. One of my posts was actually deleted by Kavon, after I commented on one of his blog-postings that no one gives a damn about the entire PhonyFred-affair – apparently, he thought it was personal.
‘I must say that I have known quite a few atheists in my day, and you are different. (atheist, pagan, whatever you are.) ‘
Agnostic, not a pagan, though I sometimes pretend to be.
‘You are pretty hard on Muslims, and surprisingly you stood up for the Mormon religion when it comes to evangilists not being able to vote for Mitt, etc.’
Well, I believe there is a big difference. The only measure by which I, as a non-believer, can judge a religion, is by its results. One religion has its followers blow up and behead others, regardless of whether it is mainstream or not in the religion. The other religion pushes people in a more compassionate, nice direction. Huge, huge difference. I assure you, if Mormons were blowing up buildings, I would come down hard on them, as well.
M.T: ‘You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in.’
Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
‘I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me. ‘
Thankfully.
Sorry for posting 2 comments, but the server won’t accept long posts anymore – at least, not when I write them.
M.T: ‘You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in.’
Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
‘I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me. ‘
M.T: Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
And I’m thankful that I will not be able to offend you – since I’m prone to offending others.
Oh, I actually misread #1. Oops. So what’s 52/60? I’m too lazy to do the math. I knew #1. Jesus Christ. That’s what happens when you zoom through a quiz.
In that case, my apologies. Though it reads exactly the same as about a million comments I’ve read elsewhere, and the commenter is almost always 100% sincere.
“In my opinion, if schools can’t make factual assertions, they should at least mention that it is only generally accepted in particular communities. For example, it would be fine to say that Christians believe that Creationism is the way to explain how the world came into being, because you’re not teaching it as fact. Or that evolution is the scientific explanation for how humans came into being. Schools should not teach people what to think, but how to think. It’s an ideal that can never be reached, but that doesn’t mean that we should jettison any notion of it and just force our beliefs on children through government-funded schools.”
I think that’s silly. Of course schools have to teach students “what to think”. Let’s take your notion of teaching students “how to think” instead. I’m assuming this is some sort of philosophical proposition about how one gains knowledge. But, even here there’s no agreement. For instance, for a great many years, the principle “way of thinking”, was through something resembling the Socratic method. It’s still used in almost all law schools and, to a certain extent, in Philosophy classes. But, even this is hardly agreed upon.
Why should the Socratic method be, intrinsically, a better method of imparting knowledge, or rather, a better way to approach learning, then any other method? Why should a systematic questioning of theses, until they’re dismantled and a new one can be constructed from the ashes, be a better method of learning, then a method that teaches, as many have in the past, that we ought to consult our inner mind, to gain knowledge?
I’m not saying that one isn’t better then the other. I’m also not saying that one is wholly useful, and the other wholly useless. I’m simply pointing out that, if you’re going to pick some method of “learning” as superior, you’re still required to resort to proving the truth, or the superiority of such a method. In other words, you’re back in the same place you were when you rejected the idea of teaching children what to think. You haven’t advanced an inch.
I think that it’s entirely absurd to teach the FACT of the American Revolution, as something some particular group of people just happens to believe occurred. I think it’s perfectly lovely, to teach the American Revolution as though it were a real occurrence, independent of what someone else might happen to think of it.
And I think this for the same reason you’d undoubtedly prefer to teach students to learn with “Socratic instincts”, then teach them to learn by a rule that says, for instance, you acquire truth by picking every 7th idea you hear, and accepting that as truth: because we’ve both done what I’ll call “on the weight of the evidence” calculations. And my calculation of evidence has left me with the conclusion that the American Revolution really occurred. While yours has left you with the conviction that there’s no plausible reason to believe that accepting every 7th idea is likely to result in a coherent base of knowledge.
In short, you can’t teach anyone anything, whether it’s how to think, or what to think, without accepting, at some level of abstraction, a basic set of axioms. Or at the very least, attempting to prove a basic set of axioms. At some point you’re required to make a value judgment on the relative veracity of such and such a theory or such and such a method.
MellowFellow: ‘In that case, my apologies. Though it reads exactly the same as about a million comments I’ve read elsewhere, and the commenter is almost always 100% sincere.’
That ALL Muslims are terrorists? They can’t possibly be. I was commenting, however, on the fact that even ‘moderate Islamic’ theology tends to be extreme, if you compare it to Christian tehology. Bernard Lewis, the great historian of Islam, has gone so far as to say that there is no theological difference between modereates and fundamentalists, only in the methods they use.
More to the point, if it is a joke it does nothing to support your premise for disallowing certain schools to opt-in to the voucher system because they are Muslim, as you suggested in your posts #35 and #95.
“even ‘moderate Islamic’ theology tends to be extreme, if you compare it to Christian tehology. Bernard Lewis, the great historian of Islam, has gone so far as to say that there is no theological difference between modereates and fundamentalists, only in the methods they use.”
And yet, Mellow, Christians and Muslims are using the same criterion for evaluating the truth of their holy books: absolutely nothing — aka: “Faith.” Denotation: belief without evidence.
If you use faith as an acceptable means of evaluating evidence, then what qualms could you possibly have with Muslim “theology”?
Matt: ‘I’m not saying that one isn’t better then the other. I’m also not saying that one is wholly useful, and the other wholly useless. I’m simply pointing out that, if you’re going to pick some method of “learning†as superior, you’re still required to resort to proving the truth, or the superiority of such a method. In other words, you’re back in the same place you were when you rejected the idea of teaching children what to think. You haven’t advanced an inch. ‘
Oh, I believe you have advanced, and even more than an inch, because you have rejected the notion that schools are there to foist a particular ideology on children. For example, under your reasoning (if I understand it, which is unlikely), it would be perfectly legitimate for a school to force communism on children. After all, if you have to tell them what to think, why not do that? However, if you have accepted that the ideal school is one that teaches one how to think, that becomes untenable.
Now you say that I can’t prove that one method of thinking is better than another. But once you have accepted the premise that schools are not there for the promotion of certain ideologies, you can have a reasoned debate about what method would be the best. And people will disagree on that. It’s a lot better than what you propose, defend, or whatever it is you’re doing.
‘I think that it’s entirely absurd to teach the FACT of the American Revolution, as something some particular group of people just happens to believe occurred. I think it’s perfectly lovely, to teach the American Revolution as though it were a real occurrence, independent of what someone else might happen to think of it. ‘
For someone who (quite rightly) detests moral relativists, you sure have a tendency to make all things relative.
‘In short, you can’t teach anyone anything, whether it’s how to think, or what to think, without accepting, at some level of abstraction, a basic set of axioms. Or at the very least, attempting to prove a basic set of axioms. At some point you’re required to make a value judgment on the relative veracity of such and such a theory or such and such a method.’
I’m not sure that would be inconsistent with what I propose, but then again, I’m not sure about whether I can think straight after being hit with that post (not that there is anything wrong with it).
MellowFellow: ‘More to the point, if it is a joke it does nothing to support your premise for disallowing certain schools to opt-in to the voucher system because they are Muslim, as you suggested in your posts #35 and #95.’
I never said that they should be excluded. I’m aganst vouchers for all religious schools. But many of the Christian fundamentalists who favor vouchers (whose reason for favoring vouchers is that they want to send their children to a fundamentalist school, not that everyone who favors vouchers is a fundamentalist), oppose them for Muslims. You can’t do that.
“Oh, I believe you have advanced, and even more than an inch, because you have rejected the notion that schools are there to foist a particular ideology on children. For example, under your reasoning (if I understand it, which is unlikely), it would be perfectly legitimate for a school to force communism on children. After all, if you have to tell them what to think, why not do that? However, if you have accepted that the ideal school is one that teaches one how to think, that becomes untenable.
Now you say that I can’t prove that one method of thinking is better than another. But once you have accepted the premise that schools are not there for the promotion of certain ideologies, you can have a reasoned debate about what method would be the best. And people will disagree on that. It’s a lot better than what you propose, defend, or whatever it is you’re doing.”
But, I think this all works from the assumption that ideology inherently has the potential to be more dangerous then thought. I disagree with that entirely. I think, if you teach someone that you can only acquire knowledge through your own thoughts, because you can’t know whether anyone but you really exists, then you’ve done as great as great a disservice to them, then if you’d taught them that Communism is an inherently virtuous system. I think it’s probably easier to wreck a person through teaching them silly ways of thinking, then silly things to think.
In other words, I don’t think focusing on “how to think” instead of “what to think” solves what you seem to think is the central dilemma of indoctrination. I think it just moves the goal posts back a bit, and does so in a way that frankly ruins an entire category of objective face.
“For someone who (quite rightly) detests moral relativists, you sure have a tendency to make all things relative.”
That response was hardly “relativistic”. My point was simply, that your method of teaching “how to think” instead of “what to think”, leaves me quite free to doubt the American Revolution as a mere fancy of my own.
Awakened,
I assure you, Mormons don’t strap bombs on their children and blow them up. We teach love, service and the good news of Christ. I fall short many times, like when I lose it on this site. I probably should just stay away, but I am compelled to share my opinion, and am passionate about getting Mitt elected. Or at least a republican.
I saw you got edited by Kavon, and I wondered what you said. I don’t think it was that bad, I’m glad he didn’t read my comments last week.
I was quoting Awakened there. I have zero qualms with Muslim theology as it is interpreted by peace-promoting Muslims today, and reject the premise that it always leads to violence, or that folks that have been exposed to it are in any way more prone to violence.
Faith is a theological topic I’d be happy to go into some day with more time and perhaps on another thread, but faith IS evidence, evidence of things hoped for, substance of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). It is a spiritual witness, rather than a physical one. But I doubt you’d still be interested in the discussion if we put it in a theological context.
Principally, I’m interested in addressing your question of whether or not I have any qualms with Muslim theology and, for personal reasons, it is important for me to make clear that I EMPHATICALLY believe in Muslims’ right to practice their faith to the fullest, and see much benefit to their communities and to American society by their so doing.
“Oh, I believe you have advanced, and even more than an inch, because you have rejected the notion that schools are there to foist a particular ideology on children. For example, under your reasoning (if I understand it, which is unlikely), it would be perfectly legitimate for a school to force communism on children. After all, if you have to tell them what to think, why not do that? However, if you have accepted that the ideal school is one that teaches one how to think, that becomes untenable.
Now you say that I can’t prove that one method of thinking is better than another. But once you have accepted the premise that schools are not there for the promotion of certain ideologies, you can have a reasoned debate about what method would be the best. And people will disagree on that. It’s a lot better than what you propose, defend, or whatever it is you’re doing.”
But, I think this all works from the assumption that ideology inherently has the potential to be more dangerous then thought. I disagree with that entirely. I think, if you teach someone that you can only acquire knowledge through your own thoughts, because you can’t know whether anyone but you really exists, then you’ve done as great as great a disservice to them, then you would have if you’d taught them that Communism is an inherently virtuous system. I think it’s probably easier to wreck a person through teaching them silly ways of thinking, as opposed to silly things to think.
In other words, I don’t think focusing on “how to think” instead of “what to think” solves what you seem to think is the central dilemma of indoctrination. I think it just moves the goal posts back a bit, and does so in a way that frankly ruins an entire category of objective face.
“For someone who (quite rightly) detests moral relativists, you sure have a tendency to make all things relative.”
That response was hardly “relativistic”. My point was simply, that your method of teaching “how to think” instead of “what to think”, leaves me quite free to doubt the American Revolution as a mere fancy of my own.
“I never said that they should be excluded. I’m aganst vouchers for all religious schools. But many of the Christian fundamentalists who favor vouchers (whose reason for favoring vouchers is that they want to send their children to a fundamentalist school, not that everyone who favors vouchers is a fundamentalist), oppose them for Muslims. You can’t do that.”
I don’t know about those “Christian fundamentalists,” and in fact have never met any, but I fully recognize that vouchers to private schools could not selectively discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. All the better!
What I said is that your dire warning, that you’d have to exclude Baptists if your excluding Muslims, holds no weight when you recognize you don’t have to exclude Muslims as a block.
Sigh, and now I’ve accidentally “selected” something else, and it appears to be lost. It’s too late to re-type it. It was a response to Awakened’s last post, and all I’ll say is, if it doesn’t appear, it was a doozy.
it is important for me to make clear that I EMPHATICALLY believe in Muslims’ right to practice their faith to the fullest, and see much benefit to their communities and to American society by their so doing.
Then why on Earth do you support the War on Terror? Or don’t you? That’s all the terrorists are doing — living out their faith.
Faith is a theological topic I’d be happy to go into some day with more time and perhaps on another thread, but faith IS evidence, evidence of things hoped for, substance of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). It is a spiritual witness, rather than a physical one. But I doubt you’d still be interested in the discussion if we put it in a theological context.
The denotation of faith is “belief without evidence.” So, no, faith is not evidence, at least according to the dictionary; if you have problems with that, don’t take it up with me. But it’s not a debate. Faith is not evidence.
I don’t believe in spirituality and don’t consider theology a legitimate branch of study, so no, I wouldn’t be interested in having a discussion like that. If you’d like to put forward some evidence for your belief in the Bible, that’d be just wonderful make me pleased as punch.
Took that Libertarian Purity test again and got a 100 this time instead of a 91. (Out of 160.) Still in the same category, though – “hardcore libertarian.”
M.T.: ‘I assure you, Mormons don’t strap bombs on their children and blow them up.’
You sure about that? Those Muslims who blow up children and behead people are not just disguised Mormons who are trying to give Islam a bad name?
‘We teach love, service and the good news of Christ. I fall short many times, like when I lose it on this site. I probably should just stay away,’
Absolutely not. Why should you stay away? I do wish, however, that people would take it less personally when their candidate is attacked. I know that you care about Romney, but I don’t think he would care much about what some obscure on a blog, who dislikes him, says about him.
‘but I am compelled to share my opinion, and am passionate about getting Mitt elected. ‘
That’s good. Unlike some others, you don’t spend most of your time trashing other candidates.
Matt: ‘But, I think this all works from the assumption that ideology inherently has the potential to be more dangerous then thought.’
Just to be clear here, I wasn’t talkinga bout the danger of teaching anything. In fact, I think that teaching children to doubt everything, something you used as an example, would probably be more dangerous than brainwashing them with Baptist theology. Unfortunately, it’s a fact that most people are probably too stupid to think for themselves. But teaching everyone to doubt everything wasn’t what I proposed in the first place, or at least, meant to propose.
‘I think, if you teach someone that you can only acquire knowledge through your own thoughts, because you can’t know whether anyone but you really exists, then you’ve done as great as great a disservice to them, then you would have if you’d taught them that Communism is an inherently virtuous system.’
I don’t disagree with that. But I seriously doubt that any reasonable person would think that this (teaching that you can only acquire…) a good idea.
‘That response was hardly “relativisticâ€. My point was simply, that your method of teaching “how to think†instead of “what to thinkâ€, leaves me quite free to doubt the American Revolution as a mere fancy of my own.’
Well, I should remind you that I was talking about things that are seriously disputed. No one but you disputes the fact of the American Revolution, indeed, Ronald Reagan was there when it happened and he assured us that it did happen. However, the truth of Southern Baptism is disputed, so I don’t think that children should be taught that as if it were the American Revolution. It’s relativistic to compare something that we can happened with near-certainty, with something that is as unprovable as religion. You’re taking it one step too far. Example, if you believe that both sides of everything should be taught: that would be like requiring schools to teach both sides of the holocaust – the real story and what the holocaust deniers made up. Some things are seriously disputed, and in that case, it can be helpful to teach both sides.
Matt: ‘Hmm, for some reason a particular post of mine is refusing to go through, no matter how many times I edit it.’
It’s driving me crazy, too. I would recommend splitting the post into two, when that happens. See where the problem is, if there is indeed a problem (it’s very strange).
MellowFellow: ‘I don’t know about those “Christian fundamentalists,†and in fact have never met any, but I fully recognize that vouchers to private schools could not selectively discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. All the better! ‘
Hah. You’re wrong, as usual. The Constitution does allow a state to exclude religious schools from voucher programs, as far as I know. Your personal interpretation of the Constitution is of no consequence, as is little you say or do.
‘What I said is that your dire warning, that you’d have to exclude Baptists if your excluding Muslims, holds no weight when you recognize you don’t have to exclude Muslims as a block.’
The warning was intended for you, not for me. I had no idea you were a Muslim apologist. I have other objections to voucher programs.
The problem is, Public Schools often serve as liberal indoctrination buildings. The often require students to learn about things that run contrary to the beliefs of their parents – which is compltely wrong. Parents should not be required to fund, and require their children to attend, school that contradict what a parent believes and teaches.
Diddo. Parents shouldn’t have to fund government provided crap. At the same time they should be able to choose who to educate their children. Vouchers are one way of addressing that issue without getting rid of public school completely.
“Hah. You’re wrong, as usual. The Constitution does allow a state to exclude religious schools from voucher programs, as far as I know. Your personal interpretation of the Constitution is of no consequence, as is little you say or do.”
This is so precious! I especially like the “You’re wrong, as usual” followed by a precocious little explication of constitutional law followed by “as far as I know.” There are few people today who can so ably couple such outrageous arrogance with an admission of ignorance and not even wink at the irony.
Well, although I have recently been informed that most of what I say and do is of little consequence (zing!), I suppose I’ll reply for your benefit, so that you realize that your sub-coherent tirade is not even applicable to what I said. I specified “selectively” discriminate against religion, meaning you can’t select CERTAIN religious groups to not be allowed to participate in the voucher system. That is, you can’t say yes to Baptists and no to Muslims. Which has pretty much been your argument for this entire thread, so I assume you actually agree with me. But, hey, you got to be condescending again, which feels oh, so good!
“I have other objections to voucher programs”
Any that don’t have to do with the possibility of religious “indoctrination”? If not, I think we’re done…
“Then why on Earth do you support the War on Terror? Or don’t you? That’s all the terrorists are doing — living out their faith.”
As I said in the same post you quote (# 145):
“I have zero qualms with Muslim theology as it is interpreted by peace-promoting Muslims today.”
Insofar as a certain Islamic faction or can be shown to be encouraging violence, obviously as the potential victims we have every right to intervene. That has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims today, particularly modern westernized Muslims.
The dictionary’s definition has no bearing on what I consider faith or on my own spiritual witness, or of the point of view of my particular theological community. That is precisely why it is a theological issue. We don’t all agree, not even with Daniel Webster (and why should we?). I repeat, faith IS evidence, just not physical evidence. It’s spiritual evidence.
If you don’t believe in spirituality – which is quite nearly unbelievable to me – than we literally can not have a conversation about faith. Or, if we do, you’d have to respect that I’m not here to “take it up” with anybody about my faith. In other words, I wouldn’t presume to take my spirituality into your completely secular court and expect to have a meaningful discussion about spirituality. It can’t be done. The spirituality of one person communicates with the spirituality of another (1 Cor. 2:14). I mean that as no disrespect to you, but that’s just how it is, at least from my perspective. I’d encourage you to read a few of these verses from the Bible, if only to see where I’m coming from.
But I think, and I think you’ll agree, that any further discussion on the meaning of the word “faith” would simply be a survey of our two very different world views.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
This can’t be true. How could so many people like Romney? He’s a Mormon, He’s a phoney. Ha, Ha,Ha.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Finally a poll that does not look like an outlier.
Never heard of this pollster, and I know pollsters. Bad sign.
“Interactive” means online poll = very bad.
So… probably worthless.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Metro,
The polling firm is called Mitchell Interctive. I don’t think it was an online poll.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Texas, yes, it is. Check their home page.
Just like Harris Interactive.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Oh Tyler, You must also be one of those who stand for nothing but “anti Romney”. You see that with the dems, who stand for nothing, and accomplish nothing except HATING BUSH. You would do your candidate more if you remind others what he or she has done that deserves the White House.
Do you think Rudy really supports the 1st amendment right to bear arms (yea I said the 1st amendment, but so did he).
http://mccainsc.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/giuliani-i-support-the-first-amendment-right-to-carry-bear-arms/
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Was Rudy for partial birth abortion before he was against it?
http://race42008.com/2007/02/10/rudy-flips-on-partial-birth-abortion/
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Why are there no good Michigan polls and why is there no consistency?
And what’s with these online polls?
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Ok.
Thanks for clearing that up Metro. I was a little confused.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
This poll looks pretty good, relatively consistant with other. Romney might be a little low, Rudy might be a little high, but they are clearly close. Hopefully we can start to see more reliable polls out of MI, because it is fast becoming an extremely critical state.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Metro,
This polling firm is usually pretty reliable. It says they use both online and telephone surveys, and they’ve been usually pretty close to the other polls. Actually, this poll is pretty close to most of the recent polls of Michigan, with the exception of the one released yesterday, which had Rudy up by 20+ points and ARG, which is always whacky and had Romney up by 26%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_republican_primary-237.html
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“Why are there no good Michigan polls and why is there no consistency?”
I can’t answer that, except to say that some states are extremely hard to get good polling out of – SC is roughly the same way.
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Tommy, do we know if this particular poll was online or telephone?
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Metro,
I searched for that info, but was unable to find it. At last check, the poll was only released by Detroit news, and hadn’t been updated on the Mitchell site yet.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Here we go again, the michigan mystery. i don’t think anybody knows whats going in michigan.
my guess is it is like new hampshire, a race between rudy and romney.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:12 pm
“Do you think Rudy really supports the 1st amendment right to bear arms (yea I said the 1st amendment, but so did he).”
Ronald Reagan called the Constitution the Declaration of Independence innumerable times.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Tyler, you obviously consider someones religion as a disqualifier for office. Perhaps you should join the Taliban or Al Qaida, they have the same principles.
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Will looks like Romney stink the joint up with his speech.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Romney hit some of the themes he needs to — he spoke on being a “Change Republican” and emphasized family values in particular. He also pointed out his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, with Thompson’s rejection of it, makes him unique among the major Republican candidates.
But then he says he’s going to move “In God We Trust” to the front of the new dollar coins instead of the side. Hmmm. I guess I’m all for it, but the crowd took a few seconds to applaud, and I think most people were as confused as I was. Is that a new campaign promise?
Plus, I haven’t seen his delivery this bad in quite a while. (I have seen it this bad before.) He was very slow winding up, and the speech has a lot of really, really lame applause lines. I couldn’t take much more after this one:
“I’ll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA.”
Yes, he actually did say that. I wish they’d given Huckabee his seat on the plane
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Romneyblogger — Yet another Rombot who can’t comprehend sarcasm.
Tyler’s on your side! …!
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Lib guy got it.
Go Romney!
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
TLG,
Not all Romneybots lack a sense of humor. I’m a pretty funny guy, though I don’t show it on R42008 very often.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I think that ACT is probably right, that this poll has Romney a little too low and Rudy a little too high. I hope that I’m right about that. Michigan is the key state if the calendar stays the same.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Dave,
This poll has Rudy too high? What the heck are you talking about? Eleven of the last twelve polls out of Michigan (all the ones listed on RCP plus the MRG one that just came out) have Rudy at or above the 19% he has here! You’re deluding yourself if you think that Romney has anything other than a slight lead in Michigan. Prior to the ARG poll that came out in early September, Romney had never registered above 25%–you don’t think that that 39% was an extreme outlier?
This poll is probably about right. Romney in the lead with Giuliani in a close second, then Thompson in third, then McCain in a distant fourth.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
What date(s) was this poll taken, by the way? I don’t see this poll on the MIP website, and all of the news articles that mention it fail to give a date.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
JS,
Re: #22. My opinion is that Romney is somewhere in the mid 20’s, and that Rudy is in the mid teens. Can I prove that IL’m right? Of course not. Everything on this thread is a guess because of the inconsistency of the polling available. Anytime I’m sure that I’m right, I make a more declarative statement than “I hope I’m right about” this. My GUESS is that the last poll that came out with Mitt at 13% was a major outlier, and that this one is close to being on the money, but not quite. Time alone will tell which one of us is right about this.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Romney’s barely leading in his home state? That can’t be good.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Is it me or has Rudy completely forgotten about his 12 commitments?
I always felt 12 was too much. I would have gone with 10 maximum, or more to the point, 5.
The last one he talked about was community preparedness for hurricanes which no one really cares about and that was back in the 1st week of Septmber. Before that he talked about taxes back on August 25th. So that’s 2 in a month.
He still has 3 left. The govt accountability which no one cares about and school choice and nat’l security.
Maybe his campaign felt that milking the Hillary/MoveOn thing and the London trip was more important
But I thought it was a good idea to have the 12 as it provided structure for his campaign and he seems to have abandoned it.
OTOH, the school choice will be very popular with conservatives and women voters and the nat’l security is the reason for his campaign so maybe he’s saving the best for last.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Dave: ‘My opinion is that Romney is somewhere in the mid 20’s’
Do you realize how stupid it sounds when you make a factual claim and start it with “My opinion is”?
‘My GUESS is that the last poll that came out with Mitt at 13% was a major outlier’
I think so, too.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Jim: ‘OTOH, the school choice will be very popular with conservatives ‘
You’re right. There’s nothing like the government-funded religious indoctrination of children.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Awakened,
There are quite alot of liberal countries that have survived quite adequately while “funding religious indoctrination of children”. England for one. Ireland. The Netherlands in particular. Granted, the Netherlands has some fairly horrifying problems with Islam currently, but there’s every reason to believe that’s a function of their immigration, economic, and assimilation policies, rather then their successful education system.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
“You’re right. There’s nothing like the government-funded religious indoctrination of children.”
Nice try awakened. Vouchers are a way of letting parents opt out of public schools, and the taxes that fund them. How do you figure it’s “government-funded”, when that funding came from the opt-out taxpayer in the first place?
If I want to indoctrinate my children, I will. It’s my right! I won’t use other people’s money to do it, and I’d appreciate a voucher so that I’m not forced to pay twice for my child’s education.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
ah..ignore my post. I though the topic was on vouchers. Looking back though, I’m not sure where I got that from. Sorry about that!
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
jim #26:
You think the Government Accountability Commitment of Rudy’s is the one nobody cares about? Really? I think it’s the centerpiece of his campaign and probably the most important one! National security and that are the real issues these days.
As for Rudy “forgetting” about his 12 commitments, I don’t think so. There are three months left until the primaries begin and he’s got three commitments left to expand upon. That seems like a good pace.
I don’t think 12 is “too many” commitments either. I think he covered all the bases. Actually, your post reminded me of a hilarious dream I had last night where Rudy suddenly unveiled Commitments #13-100. In my dream, I remember thinking, “Gee that’s a lot.”
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Matt —
“There are quite alot of liberal countries that have survived quite adequately while “funding religious indoctrination of childrenâ€. England for one. Ireland. The Netherlands in particular. Granted, the Netherlands has some fairly horrifying problems with Islam currently, but there’s every reason to believe that’s a function of their immigration, economic, and assimilation policies, rather then their successful education system.”
Well, I don’t really think the standard of judging whether religious education funded by the taxpayers is appropriate or not is whether a country is “survived” — even “adequately.”
However, I don’t think that government education is superior to education with some religious content. I’m certainly not the typical product of a government school. The government school system has done all it can to tear my intellectual drive to pieces, in fact. No one serious thinks that private schools are inferior to public schools — even ones with a religious bent. As long as the government is going to shove itself into education, it should at least allow the parents some choice.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Oh, I thought this was about vouchers, too, Richard P.
Isn’t it? It should be, we don’t talk about it enough on R408. We’re constantly moaning about gay marriage or whatnot — let’s talk about something important for once!
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Matt: ‘There are quite alot of liberal countries that have survived quite adequately while “funding religious indoctrination of childrenâ€. England for one. Ireland. The Netherlands in particular. Granted, the Netherlands has some fairly horrifying problems with Islam currently, but there’s every reason to believe that’s a function of their immigration, economic, and assimilation policies, rather then their successful education system.’
I never said that the country wouldn’t survive. Even the children who would be subjectd to religious education would survive, as I did. But that doesn’t mean that it’s right. Quite frankly, I don’t want to pay for some disordered Baptist school that teaches as facts young earth creationism, that condoms are the cause of AIDS, and so forth.
And do consider that there are millions of Muslims in America right now, unfortunately. If the goverment funds Baptist schools, it is obliged to fund Islamic madrassas.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Richard P.: ‘How do you figure it’s “government-fundedâ€, when that funding came from the opt-out taxpayer in the first place?’
They are not the equivalent of public schools. They are public schools + religious indoctrination. And the government shouldn’t be in the business of funding that.
‘If I want to indoctrinate my children, I will. It’s my right!’
Thank you for admitting that your ideas are so weak and pathetic that you have to force them on your children, instead of letting them compete in the marketplace of ideas. It really shows an admission of the weakness of your position.
P.S. I hope that your kids rebel and become scientists who lead the charge for evolution. Then, you will continue to be tormented.
‘I won’t use other people’s money to do it, and I’d appreciate a voucher so that I’m not forced to pay twice for my child’s education.’
You’ll pay twice and you’ll like it.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘The government school system has done all it can to tear my intellectual drive to pieces, in fact.’
And what makes you think that a religious school would be any different?
‘No one serious thinks that private schools are inferior to public schools — even ones with a religious bent. As long as the government is going to shove itself into education, it should at least allow the parents some choice.’
They should be free to choose private schools that are not religious. I don’t have a problem with that.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
well it looks like Fred did not do to well either according to NRO.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Awakened —
I’m willing to do whatever it takes in order to force the government schools to compete. Many, if not most, private schools have a religious bent. They also produce vastly superior students. All statistics show this. Look at average SAT scores, college admissions, etc — it’s all from private schools, many with a religious bent.
I want our government schools to have to compete. If that means injecting a bit of religion in there, so be it.
(Somewhat related: Anyone who doesn’t know about the Montessori method should look into that, by the way. All schools should be based on that.)
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Paul8148,
NRO is rarely impressed with Thompson. With the exception of Geraughty, you get very little positive vibe about Thompson from the NRO blogs. Their response is predictably going to be less than enthusiastic.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
“P.S. I hope that your kids rebel and become scientists who lead the charge for evolution. Then, you will continue to be tormented.”
I don’t have a problem with evolution man! I quite like the theory myself. I want my kids to study it!
Thank you for admitting that your ideas are so weak and pathetic that you have to force them on your children, instead of letting them compete in the marketplace of ideas. It really shows an admission of the weakness of your position.”
I should have put indoctrinate in quotations. The point is, we all indoctrinate according to our own views. If your kid joins a Madrassas, don’t tell me you won’t try to “indoctrinate” him out of it. Unless you’re going to let him go for it, as he’s just “competing in the marketplace of ideas”.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Tommy, you need to be more vocal about Fred in the comments. He’s become a quite unpopular man around here lately.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Quite an unpopular man, rather.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘I’m willing to do whatever it takes in order to force the government schools to compete. ‘
I agree with that, but what’s wrong with forcing them to compete with regular private schools?
I think that most people who will use vouchers, will do so for religion and not performance related reasons. And I don’t want to give a dirt-poor fundamentalist family the opportunity the government-funded and -provided opportunity to keep their children as ignorant as they themselves are. It defies societal evolution. After all, they’re dirt-poor for a reason.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Richard P.: ‘I don’t have a problem with evolution man! I quite like the theory myself. I want my kids to study it! ‘
That’s a surprise. Then what is the foolishness that you wish to foist upon your children?
‘If your kid joins a Madrassas, don’t tell me you won’t try to “indoctrinate†him out of it. ‘
Your comparison is one of the dumbest I’ve seen on this blog. A madrassa would be the first to indoctrinate my kid. Even if someone practiced indoctrination as a countermeasure to the initial instance of indoctrination, that would be legitimate. However, I believe that the closing of the mind that takes place at such an institution can best be countered by trying to open the mind of the victim, and you can’t do that through indoctrination. But let’s look at what you said: you asserted, with indignation, that you have an inalienable (moral) right to indoctrinate your children, without them having been indoctrinated elsewhere. Can’t you tell the difference, or are you willingly blind to anything that does not suit your purposes?
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
ah…It is almost refreshing to see awakened ranting again on the evils of religion.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Awakened —
I think that most people who will use vouchers, will do so for religion and not performance related reasons.
You’re totally ignorant as to why this is a big debate, then. Please go YouTube John Stossel’s report “Stupid in America” in which he recounts horror story after horror story about poor parents trying to get their kids into the top-rated public schools as they find out that their district has one with a poor rating. That’s certainly not about religion.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Richard P.: ‘If your kid joins a Madrassas, don’t tell me you won’t try to “indoctrinate†him out of it. Unless you’re going to let him go for it, as he’s just “competing in the marketplace of ideasâ€.’
Just in case that I haven’t made myself crystal-clear by now: any form of indoctrination makes it impossible for the victim to evaluate ideas that are ‘competing in the marketplace’. That’s why I oppose indoctrination, regardless of who is doing it. You get it?
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Mcon: ‘ah…It is almost refreshing to see awakened ranting again on the evils of religion.’
I didn’t comment on religion, at all. I was merely commenting on the religious indoctrination of children, specifically on government-funded religious indoctrination of children. That shouldn’t be too difficult to see, even for the likes of you.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Oh, calm down, you little twat.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘You’re totally ignorant as to why this is a big debate, then. Please go YouTube John Stossel’s report “Stupid in America†in which he recounts horror story after horror story about poor parents trying to get their kids into the top-rated public schools as they find out that their district has one with a poor rating. That’s certainly not about religion.’
I may or may not be ignorant, and I’m sure that there are plenty of public schools that perform abysmally (probably a majority), but citing one or several cases does not disprove what I said. I didn’t say that there aren’t any parents who wish to send their children to private schools because of the poor quality of public schools, I said that “most people” would use vouchers for religious reasons. Even today, most people who send their children to private schools do so for religious reasons, and they have to pay for it. I hardly expect that to change if vouchers are enacted.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:27 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Oh, calm down’
Assuming that this was directed at me: I am calm. What made you suspect otherwise?
‘you little twat.’
Heh.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Awakened –
That shouldn’t be too difficult to see, even for the likes of you.
That. Awfully condescending. Settle down!
one or several cases does not disprove what I said.
You never even proved what you said in the first place! And most private schools — even religious ones — are not about indoctrination. I have friends that go to private schools with religious orientations. Some of them don’t even believe and are just grateful to be going to a good school with a good local reputation. The prominent private school around here kicked everyone’s asses at the local We the People government group essay competition that I was in two years ago that my school participated in.
I’d certainly prefer my child go to a religious private school than a public school that I went to. I’d just make sure, at home, that he didn’t buy into it.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
So this is what we’ve come to in America? I wish I could meet the guy that got everyone else to believe that everything belongs to the government, and we need to beg and barter for every scrap. I would head-butt him in the teeth.
School vouchers are about choice and competition, both of which are as American as can be.
Awakened, you have no right to tell ME where to spend my money or how to educated MY children. The government is not giving me anything; I am withholding payment to government for a service, public education, the value of which I don’t find commensurate to the cost. That money saved is then spent elsewhere. This is putting choice back in to the hands of the people whose money it is: OURS, not the government. We have every right to spend our money as we wish.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Awakened and Mellow,
It has everything to do with giving parents better choices. It has nothing to do with gov funding of religious indoctrination and instead is about letting parents opt out of the crappy gov product we get. I was lucky enough to have a scholarship at a secular private school with loose religious connections and there just isn’t any comparison between public and private.
Awakened,
You insult all who you disagree with so why should I care.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Mellow –
So this is what we’ve come to in America? I wish I could meet the guy that got everyone else to believe that everything belongs to the government, and we need to beg and barter for every scrap. I would head-butt him in the teeth.
It really started with FDR. But it’s not very nice to headbutt a man in a wheelchair, now is it?
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘That. Awfully condescending. Settle down!’
I haven’t seen too many people be condescending without being calm. Have you? So I think that you should settle on what accusation you want to throw at people. You calling on me to ‘calm down’ was especially amusing, since you also showed your own lack of calm by calling me a ‘little twat’. Litte twat? Coming from you, of all people? I practically had to phyically restrain my right hand to not comment on that.
Besides, I’ll reserve the right to be allegedly condescending when people make statements that aren’t true.
‘You never even proved what you said in the first place!’
Maybe not, but you didn’t contest my statement on that basis. Instead, you merely came up with a few examples in which people wanted to choose private schools for performance-related reasons, but that is of course fully consistent with what I said. There are people who want out of the public school system because of its poor performance, but that does not mean that they are not a minority.
‘And most private schools — even religious ones — are not about indoctrination.’
I guess it does depend on the definition of ‘indoctrination’.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
MellowFellow: ‘Awakened, you have no right to tell ME where to spend my money or how to educated MY children.’
I’m not telling you, the American people is telling you. If you want to try to headbutt them in the teeth, that’s fine.
‘The government is not giving me anything; I am withholding payment to government for a service, public education, the value of which I don’t find commensurate to the cost.’
Well, I believe that you should have the right to pick a private school of your choice, as long as it isn’t a religious one. Otherwise, you shouldn’t expect the government to finance yur religious education – and however you want to twist it, it remains a fact that government funds will be used to fund religious indoctrination.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Mcon: ‘You insult all who you disagree with so why should I care.’
You shouldn’t care about anything anyone says. Regardless, I would still like to see a response to what I said. We weren’t discussing religion, yet you claimed that it was about religion. What’s the deal with that? Are you seeing things we don’t see? Hearing voices we don’t hear?
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Awakened –
“I haven’t seen too many people be condescending without being calm. Have you? So I think that you should settle on what accusation you want to throw at people. You calling on me to ‘calm down’ was especially amusing, since you also showed your own lack of calm by calling me a ‘little twat’. Litte twat? Coming from you, of all people? I practically had to phyically restrain my right hand to not comment on that.”
Like with the use of force, you lost your right not to be condescended to once you were condescending.
When I said calm down, I meant your emotions. You merited the title of ‘twat’ once you said ‘the likes of you’ to someone who hardly even said anything. A little quick to jump, there, I’d say.
There are people who want out of the public school system because of its poor performance, but that does not mean that they are not a minority.
You just pulled that out of your ass. You have absolutely nothing to back it up. I hate the South, religion, and government funding of it just as much as you do. But if you think that non-religious parents are happy with the public school system, you’re deluded.
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
On a side note TLG, you might enjoy this if you haven’t seen it already.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
I scored a 26.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Awakened,
I’m afraid you are really outnumbered here. I believe you are wrong about public schools vs private religious schools.
My kids go the public schools. They are very good here in Vegas. But about eighty percent of the teachers somewhat lay their beliefs on my kids. About evolution, the only reason you go to church is because your parents force you to. The Spanish teacher is the lesbian gay pride leader of the area, and the biology teacher is the gay pride teacher in the area. The World History teacher is a feminist tree hugger, that doesn’t restrain herself at all. But like TLG says, I have taught my children at home the principles that I want them to live by. So no matter what they learn at school, they can know what we believe as a family. It is the same with a religious school. If it is a good school, then just make sure that you teach them at home your beliefs.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“I’m not telling you, the American people is telling you. If you want to try to headbutt them in the teeth, that’s fine.”
What do you think I am, if not a piece of the American people? What makes them tell me what I can do, but I can’t tell them? That is what this debate is. Actually, that’s what any debate is. I think we’ll win out, because your side can’t seem to say much besides “fundamentalists” are “indoctrinating”…their own children. I don’t want to be harsh, but that sounds insane to most people when placed in the context of their own neighborhoods and neighbors.
And, not to speak for Mcon, but when you say things like this:
“I believe that you should have the right to pick a private school of your choice, as long as it isn’t a religious one.”
…you can hardly fault him for assuming this has something to do with religion.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Mcon — I scored a 91.
“91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn’t that make you feel worse that you didn’t get a perfect score?”
I probably didn’t score as a purist because I despise anarcho-capitalism and believe that the state should function for military, judicial, and law enforcement purposes. I also don’t tow the Libertarian Party line on immigration and defense, which is why I’m in the GOP and don’t support Ron Paul.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
BTW, the gay pride thing…..(not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
…Just to clarify, my little spiel there about “telling other people” was a nice couplet, but hardly explicative of my position on this issue. Of course, the issue here is whether or not other people should have the right to tell anyone else about how to educate their own children. I say no. Rather than telling other folks what to do, I’m reminding them of what they have no right to do. If you can see the difference.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Awakened, are you a libertarian, or what? Do you identify with any broad ideology that we would all recognize? I’m having trouble pinning you down. Maybe you don’t fit anywhere. That’s cool, too.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
‘On a side note TLG, you might enjoy this if you haven’t seen it already.’
Your score is…
36
31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.
–
This might be yet another test that calls everyone a libertarian.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
And just so you don’t think this is a trap if you answer, “libertarian,” I’ll disclose right up front that the reason I bring it up is that I don’t think your comment:
“I believe that you should have the right to pick a private school of your choice, as long as it isn’t a religious one.â€
…is very libertarian of you.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Like with the use of force, you lost your right not to be condescended to once you were condescending. When I said calm down, I meant your emotions.’
It’s amazing how everyone thinks that I’m an angry person. I’m not emotional at all.
‘You merited the title of ‘twat’ once you said ‘the likes of you’ to someone who hardly even said anything. A little quick to jump, there, I’d say.’
You’re right, he had hardly said anything, and already he had said the dumbest things in the entire thread. Besides, I already knew him – and he’s an entertaining little fellow.
‘But if you think that non-religious parents are happy with the public school system, you’re deluded.’
I’m not happy with the public school system, and I never claimed that non-religious parents are happy. Does that clear things up for you? However, I said that the majority of vouchers would probably be used for religious reasons.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Hmm.
“84
51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much. “
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Thanks Mellow. I think Aw’s dislike for religion doesn’t let him see the reality of the situation. As much as I disagree with TLG on issues I can’t say the same thing about him.
TLG,
I suppose I am a soft libertarian then. I am comfortable with that for now. This issue doesn’t really have to do with religion for me; it has to do with the government being incompetent at educating. Personally I want my children to attend the same mostly secular private school I graduated from.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“That’s a surprise. Then what is the foolishness that you wish to foist upon your children?”
No foolishness at all, just a belief in God. And if I think that can be better achieved at a private school, so be it.
“you asserted, with indignation, that you have an inalienable (moral) right to indoctrinate your children”
Yes, I do assert this. Though I think our definitions of indoctrinate are a bit off.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 pm
M.T.: ‘I’m afraid you are really outnumbered here. I believe you are wrong about public schools vs private religious schools.’
There’s nothing wrong with being outnumbered. I enjoy it.
‘My kids go the public schools. They are very good here in Vegas.’
Be sure to tell them never to leave Vegas. After all, you don’t want their education to stay in Vegas while they leave it.
‘But about eighty percent of the teachers somewhat lay their beliefs on my kids. About evolution, the only reason you go to church is because your parents force you to. The Spanish teacher is the lesbian gay pride leader of the area, and the biology teacher is the gay pride teacher in the area. The World History teacher is a feminist tree hugger, that doesn’t restrain herself at all. But like TLG says, I have taught my children at home the principles that I want them to live by.’
That’s okay. I just don’t think that people have a right to expect the government to fund religious education slash indoctrination of children.
‘So no matter what they learn at school, they can know what we believe as a family. It is the same with a religious school. If it is a good school, then just make sure that you teach them at home your beliefs.’
Well, I wouldn’t be using the vouchers for that purpose in the first place, as no one is forcing me to. However, I don’t want to be responsible for funding religious schools either.
‘BTW, the gay pride thing…..(not that there’s anything wrong with that.)’
LOL! I’ll just have to disagree with you there.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
wow. when i posted about Rudy and school choice I had no clue it would touch off such a firestorm. I guess when he announces his plan it’ll really hit the fan.
Electorally, I think it’s a winner, especially with women voters.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
MellowFellow: ‘What do you think I am, if not a piece of the American people?’
The majority appears to disagree with you. So when will you be headbutting them in the teeth?
‘…you can hardly fault him for assuming this has something to do with religion.’
Well, you’re wrong. The issue is government-sponsored indoctrination of children with religion, not religion in general. One might be a very devout Christian and yet believe that it is wrong to have taxpayer pay for Baptists who want their children to be just like they are.
‘Of course, the issue here is whether or not other people should have the right to tell anyone else about how to educate their own children. I say no.’
Islamic fundamentalists in America should have the right to send their children to Islamic schools (paid by the government) where they are indoctrinated with anti-American and anti-Jewish beliefs? Mmmkaay.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
MCon — No, I really don’t think that anyone who scores below 50 on that test could even begun to be considered a libertarian. Libertarians like to pretend that their views are popular, but they’re really not. Statism is pretty much the norm. The questions in that test got more and more extreme as they went on. I happen to believe the last set — Murray Rothbard’s beliefs — are some of the most foolhardy applications of libertarian thought ever witnessed. I enjoy Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman’s works the most of the strands of libertarian thought that were used in the test.
Richard P — No foolishness at all, just a belief in God. That makes no sense!
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Awakened — Be sure to tell them never to leave Vegas. After all, you don’t want their education to stay in Vegas while they leave it.
I lol’d.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Wasted money in the realm of 10K-13k with respect to our children in DC and Newark NJ, for example, should be an outrage for any low-income family (and the taxpayers who pay for it) to revolt againist the broken system of unions and tenure that is so entrenched within the public school system.
Private and parochial schools educate students successfully at half the cost. Let’s break this system of corruption for the children.
As far as an angnostic or an atheist goes, indoctrination is just as sure against God as those who propose a Creator. Catholic theory teaches that evolution is probable and at the same time is not to be looked at without God at it’s source.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
And…
‘BTW, the gay pride thing…..(not that there’s anything wrong with that.)’
LOL! I’ll just have to disagree with you there.
Yeah, I’ll have to disagree, too. As a bisexual, I find it insulting and degrading when someone suggests that I should be “proud” of my sexual urges, as if they’re accomplishments or something.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
MellowFellow: ‘Awakened, are you a libertarian, or what? Do you identify with any broad ideology that we would all recognize? I’m having trouble pinning you down. Maybe you don’t fit anywhere. That’s cool, too.’
Not a libertarian. I don’t really identify with any label, but here are my beliefs:
- Economic matters: conservative in the most literal sense of the word, don’t rock the boat
- Social matters: government should protect people’s life, liberty and proterty; and that’s all
- Religion: just like the founders intended, government should neither promote religion nor hinder it
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Richard P.: ‘No foolishness at all, just a belief in God. And if I think that can be better achieved at a private school, so be it. ‘
That’s fine with me. But don’t expect the government to fund it.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Scott — I agree — hey, we’re agreeing for once — completely that DC is a perfect example of why vouchers are excellent as an idea for reform.
Schools with religious affiliations, unlike what Awakened is saying, rarely are centers of indoctrination. I’m as hardcore an atheist as he is, but I’m afraid that he’s never had any experience with private schools in his life or has never bothered to do any research on them. Private schools — even ones with religious bents — are generally shining examples of what our schools should be doing. Montessori schools, as I’ve stated, are the best of all.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Awakened — and as for defense..?
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I think we should have an open thread just to post our political beliefs in. Not to argue them, but just to say what they are. I think it would be pretty interesting.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Yeah, I’ll have to disagree, too.’
Just to be clear: I meant to say that there is something wrong with the despicable freakshows that are called ‘gay pride parades’, not with gay people.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Admin, Vouchers would be a welcome subject of a post for those of us at R4′08!
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hey, TLG, I wasn’t trying to offend. Really. I am truly sorry. It goes against every thing that I am. I just thought that you might be offended that I brought up that my kids had gay teachers, and that you would be offended by it. I was trying to nake the point to Awakened that I have to deal with things at a public school, just like he would maybe have to deal with at a religious school. And BTW, the biology teacher is my daughter’s favorite teacher in the whole school, and there is absolutely no talk about sexual orientation.
Please forgive me and accept my apology.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Awakened — and as for defense..?’
I knew I missed something.
Defense: increase funding for the military, in favor of victory in Iraq
‘I think we should have an open thread just to post our political beliefs in. Not to argue them, but just to say what they are. I think it would be pretty interesting.’
Agreed. I also saw an American ‘civics literacy test’ that was pretty interesting. http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
“Well, you’re wrong. The issue is government-sponsored indoctrination of children with religion, not religion in general.”
Indoctrination…you are such a drama queen
“Islamic fundamentalists in America should have the right to send their children to Islamic schools (paid by the government) where they are indoctrinated with anti-American and anti-Jewish beliefs?”
Try to stick with me this time around: Islamic families should be able to retain money for a service from the government they find to be unacceptable, by their standards. They are then free to do with that money what they wish in regards to their children’s education. If you want to make some auxiliary laws having to do with national security, that is another subject. If you are trying to insinuate that peace-promoting religious schools are a threat to national security, you have a long row to hoe.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
mt –
Hey, TLG, I wasn’t trying to offend. Really. I am truly sorry. It goes against every thing that I am. I just thought that you might be offended that I brought up that my kids had gay teachers, and that you would be offended by it. I was trying to nake the point to Awakened that I have to deal with things at a public school, just like he would maybe have to deal with at a religious school. And BTW, the biology teacher is my daughter’s favorite teacher in the whole school, and there is absolutely no talk about sexual orientation. Please forgive me and accept my apology.
Oh, no, no, no — I wasn’t trying to suggest that you were trying to degrade gays at all from that. I figured that you meant that there was nothing wrong with being gay. I’m talking about the leftist gay lobby in general that wants gays and bisexuals to be “proud” of their orientation and to flaunt it; make their lives revolve around it. Really, there’s little difference between gays and straights — it’s just the sexual urges. People need to stop placing such an emphasis on gender and sexuality. The only people that do that now are fundamentalist Christians and the sexual left.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Mellow –
Try to stick with me this time around: Islamic families should be able to retain money for a service from the government they find to be unacceptable, by their standards. They are then free to do with that money what they wish in regards to their children’s education. If you want to make some auxiliary laws having to do with national security, that is another subject. If you are trying to insinuate that peace-promoting religious schools are a threat to national security, you have a long row to hoe.
He’s also trying to make the exception the rule. It’s essentially a straw-man argument, really. While schools like that would be legitimate concerns, they would be barred if any national security risk was present. He’s ignoring the larger point, which is that most private schools with religious affiliations are just superior centers of education, regardless of whether they believe that Jesus was divine. I know some people that attend religious private schools that consider themselves agnostic, so if they’re trying to indoctrinate, they’re not doing a very good job of it.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
M.T.: ‘Please forgive me and accept my apology.’
Just to comment on this: it’s amazing how nice you are.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Awakened –
Not being mean to people actually makes you feel happier. Sarcasm is one thing — and one thing that I love — but you’re unusually mean, in an often unfunny way.
Occasionally I’ll laugh at something you write, but more often than not, it’s a miss, and the misses are usually vitriolic or uncalled for, not funny. There is a line of tastefulness that one shouldn’t cross pertaining to personal attacks.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
MellowFellow: ‘Try to stick with me this time around: Islamic families should be able to retain money for a service from the government they find to be unacceptable, by their standards.’
So you’re a moral relativist.
‘They are then free to do with that money what they wish in regards to their children’s education. If you want to make some auxiliary laws having to do with national security, that is another subject. If you are trying to insinuate that peace-promoting religious schools are a threat to national security, you have a long row to hoe.’
No one but you talked about national security. If the government is to provide vouchers for Baptist and Catholic schools, it is obliged to do the same for Islamic schools. And we’ve seeen in Europe that these places, under the banner of religious freedom, promote hatred and intolerance of everyone else. The difference with the Baptist schools is that the Islamic folks actually act on their hatred – but no court will accept argument of ‘future probability of disaster’ compelling if you want to deny Islamic parents vouchers.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Not being mean to people actually makes you feel happier. Sarcasm is one thing — and one thing that I love — but you’re unusually mean, in an often unfunny way.’
Well, when I’m ‘mean’ (boo hoo), I’m generally not trying to be funny. The two things are not very compatible.
‘There is a line of tastefulness that one shouldn’t cross pertaining to personal attacks.’
I’ve never crossed the line on tastefulness. Besides, I don’t think that people would care about something someone on the Internet writes about them.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“He’s also trying to make the exception the rule.”
Exactly. It’s like the old pro-abortion meme: what about rapes? What about a serious threat to the mother? etc., when those situations don’t describe the real topic: the propriety of abortion on demand (sorry ahead of time TLG for injecting into your phrase my pro-life leanings; I know you’re pro-choice. But perhaps you can still appreciate the correlation).
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Awakened –
I’ve never crossed the line on tastefulness. Besides, I don’t think that people would care about something someone on the Internet writes about them.
Hey! The INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Internet_is_serious_business
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Mellow –
“He’s also trying to make the exception the rule.â€Exactly. It’s like the old pro-abortion meme: what about rapes? What about a serious threat to the mother? etc., when those situations don’t describe the real topic: the propriety of abortion on demand (sorry ahead of time TLG for injecting into your phrase my pro-life leanings; I know you’re pro-choice. But perhaps you can still appreciate the correlation).
Quite alright, and you are right that it is a straw-man argument. Partial birth abortion is often used as a straw-man argument by the pro-life crowd, too. I oppose partial-birth abortion except in cases of risks to the mother’s health (which are very rare), as should anyone with an IQ above 12. But the main argument with abortion should pertain to the first two trimesters, where the baby does not have autonomy.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
The idea of a voucher discussion, by way of a post would advance our collective republican discussion, in my opinion. I have a personal experience having grown up in NYC. If anyone would like to know what it is like to grow up in the wealthy area of Belle Harbor, NYC (a section of Queens), let me know. I and most (not all, but about 95%) were given fast tract, with the best teachers, consolidating 7-8th grade, etc.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Gosh, I missed 70% of this debate. And it seems to have been quite interesting. A couple of points. Indoctrination is an oft-abused word, which has lost any practical meaning. Anyone who chooses to teach a child something is, de facto, “indoctrinating” the student. Unless of course they chose to expose them to every single idea under the sun. If I’m teaching evolution, and not creationism, I’m distinguishing the too doctrines in a meaningful. I’m making a value judgment as to their veracity. And I’m choosing to pass that value judgment onto the next generation.
The fact that my value judgment may well be the accepted method, or as Awakened puts it, “a winner in the marketplace of ideas”, is irrelevant for indoctrination purposes. Indoctrination marks no distinction between right answers, and wrong answers. It’s a method of transmitting knowledge. And it’s a method specifically premised on privileging some ideas above others. I.e, it’s a necessary and recurrent feature of every educational system yet devised.
I don’t think indoctrination, as it’s generally situated, is desirable. That is to say, I don’t think that people ought to inculcated with the “wrong” ideas. But, I also believe that indoctrination, if we mean only privileging a certain set of ideas or modes of thought, is an entirely healthy thing. As I’ve said before, we can come to conclusions about our world, which actually reflect reality. Both morally and rationally (sometimes the two are intertwined). And when we do come to such conclusions, we’re obliged to spread them to the next generation. That doesn’t mean of course that we strip of their ability to evaluate competing arguments. But, it does mean we start them with a basic set of axioms and principles.
It seems to me, Awakened’s objection isn’t, in fact, that we shouldn’t “indoctrinate” children. Because, as I’ve explained, that’s an untenable idea. Rather, he seems to object to us “indoctrinating” children in ways that he doesn’t approve of. That’s fine. I feel quite the same way. But, I think it’s rather silly to pretend that objecting to the indoctrination of wrong principles, is equivalent to objecting to indoctrination period.
Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers. The government might say, for instance, that schools that preach violence, aren’t eligible for vouchers, as a fairly basic principle. That would certainly exclude radical Madrassas. The government might also require that such voucher approved schools have a maximum of say 1 hour of daily religiously instruction. Or simply 1 hour not related to the standard state curriculum subjects. A couple of broad regulations of this sort would filter out too much “bad indoctrination”.
Finally, religious schools have educated children wonderfully, for hundreds of years. Particularly Christian schools. It’s difficult to find a historical analogue for the sheer of education early Jesuit schools provided students in the 16th century and onward. The depth of learning students received is breathtaking by any standard. In other words, religiosity doesn’t automatically equate to “boorish Neanderthal”.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
MellowFellow: ‘Exactly. It’s like the old pro-abortion meme: what about rapes? ‘
The difference is that you can prohibit abortions in general but allow them in cases of rape, but you can’t allow vouchers for Baptists and Catholics while disallowing them for Muslims.
You understand?
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“So you’re a moral relativist.”
I don’t understand what this means. What’s the alternative? Are you suggesting there is some external standard of education that is so self-evident we should all follow it? This is truly an absurd assertion, but if I accept that premise, and had to say one way or another, I guess I would concede that, yes, I’m a moral relativist in regards to education. I would say that to accept a standard that someone else has come up with, but with which I personally disagree, is lazy.
“No one but you talked about national security. If the government is to provide vouchers for Baptist and Catholic schools, it is obliged to do the same for Islamic schools. And we’ve seeen in Europe that these places, under the banner of religious freedom, promote hatred and intolerance of everyone else. The difference with the Baptist schools is that the Islamic folks actually act on their hatred – but no court will accept argument of ‘future probability of disaster’ compelling if you want to deny Islamic parents vouchers.”
You are going to have to pick: are we talking about national security or not? You say it’s just me, and then everything else you write is about national security. Now listen, this is getting absurd. The reason you don’t want there to be school vouchers is that you don’t want the government to fund terrorist dens? That is insane. It has nothing to do with this issue at all.
So, with that recognition, that we have now switched to another topic, national security, I will say a few things.
There are different divisions of Islam, many of them peaceful, and I for one believe that there may be some perfectly good schools with some kind of Islamic affiliation which should not be necessarily excluded solely based on that particular religious connection. Of course, the probability of finding a bad apple in that bunch is very much greater than among other religious schools. That (finding bad apples) needs to be done. What you are really addressing when you tell us what a court won’t do is talking about the difficulty of national security; what you should be promoting is some kind of national security bolstering. But not pretend it has to do with the school voucher debate.
If it is any comfort to you, all the terrorist dens I know are pretty well-funded and won’t be lobbying any time soon to get money from the Great Satan.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
TLG,
Thanks, but you should have read some of the rant I threw at Sampo, Metro and Flap last week. I really lost it, and didn’t apologize. I even called Flap an idiot, then he called nme a class act.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Matt, you say that any transfer of knowledge is indoctrination. In my opinion, if schools can’t make factual assertions, they should at least mention that it is only generally accepted in particular communities. For example, it would be fine to say that Christians believe that Creationism is the way to explain how the world came into being, because you’re not teaching it as fact. Or that evolution is the scientific explanation for how humans came into being. Schools should not teach people what to think, but how to think. It’s an ideal that can never be reached, but that doesn’t mean that we should jettison any notion of it and just force our beliefs on children through government-funded schools.
Now I’m not talking about private schools, while I may object to what they do, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate and moral way of stopping them.
‘Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers. The government might say, for instance, that schools that preach violence, aren’t eligible for vouchers, as a fairly basic principle. That would certainly exclude radical Madrassas. ‘
Response: “We’re not preaching violence, we’re just saying that American society is Godless and decadence. If our students take that as meaning that they should commit violent acts, we can’t be held responsible for that.”
‘The government might also require that such voucher approved schools have a maximum of say 1 hour of daily religiously instruction.’
One hour is enough to indocrinate impressionable children, don’t you think?
‘Finally, religious schools have educated children wonderfully, for hundreds of years. Particularly Christian schools.’
Hehehe, wonderful students like me.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Test
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Matt, you say that any transfer of knowledge is indoctrination. In my opinion, if schools can’t make factual assertions, they should at least mention that it is only generally accepted in particular communities. For example, it would be fine to say that Christians believe that Creationism is the way to explain how the world came into being, because you’re not teaching it as fact. Or that evolution is the scientific explanation for how humans came into being. Schools should not teach people what to think, but how to think. It’s an ideal that can never be reached, but that doesn’t mean that we should jettison any notion of it and just force our beliefs on children through government-funded schools.
Now I’m not talking about private schools, while I may object to what they do, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate and moral way of stopping them.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Matt: ‘Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers. The government might say, for instance, that schools that preach violence, aren’t eligible for vouchers, as a fairly basic principle. That would certainly exclude radical Madrassas. ‘
Response: “We’re not preaching violence, we’re just saying that American society is Godless and decadence. If our students take that as meaning that they should commit violent acts, we can’t be held responsible for that.”
‘The government might also require that such voucher approved schools have a maximum of say 1 hour of daily religiously instruction.’
One hour is enough to indocrinate impressionable children, don’t you think?
‘Finally, religious schools have educated children wonderfully, for hundreds of years. Particularly Christian schools.’
Hehehe, wonderful students like me.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 pm
MellowFellow: ‘Are you suggesting there is some external standard of education that is so self-evident we should all follow it?’
What I said was that your belief that different standard are all legitimate, is absolute insanity.
‘You are going to have to pick: are we talking about national security or not?’
I never even mentioned national security, you did.
‘There are different divisions of Islam, many of them peaceful’
Correct, I would really prefer to be kidnapped by the peaceful ones. At least they would kill me by shooting a bullet in my head, instead of beheading me with a dull knife.
‘If it is any comfort to you, all the terrorist dens I know are pretty well-funded and won’t be lobbying any time soon to get money from the Great Satan.’
I’m sure Islamists are very worried that the Muslims who live in the Great Satan are being exposed to un-Islamic evils in public schools. So if they can get them indoctrinated with Islamist hate while having the Great Satan pay for it, why not?
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Awakened,
Nice link. I only scored an 88.3% but I suppose it isn’t that bad considering that was 35% better than the college senior mean score.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Matt — I agree with everything except this –
Now, on to the question of vouchers in particular. I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards, beyond perhaps even the basic educational criteria, as to what can or cannot be taught in schools that are eligible for the use of vouchers.
I don’t believe that the government has the right to tell anyone what their money can and cannot be spent on. I oppose government-sponsored education in the first place, but if the aim is to inject choice and competition into the education system, then the government can’t, in effect, say that private schools have to emulate government standards in order to compete. That’s a distortion of the entire principle the voucher idea is based upon. Parents should able to decide what they want their children to learn — certainly not the government.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
“I think it’d be perfectly acceptable for the government to set some sort of standards”
I agree. Though I am a convicted moral relativist in the context of this discussion, it is important to stress that there does need to be some kind of external standardized testing, to allow parents access to the information they need to make responsible decisions when it comes time to choose which school is best. But then don’t most private schools already take most standardized tests?
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
*addendum to 111:
The part I agree with is the standardization. ACT, SAT’s, etc. I think are excellent. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be government.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
M.T.: ‘Thanks, but you should have read some of the rant I threw at Sampo, Metro and Flap last week. I really lost it, and didn’t apologize. I even called Flap an idiot, then he called nme a class ac’
Nothing wrong with that. If I had to apologize for everything nasty I have every said, I would be busy until Judgement Day.
Mcon: ‘Nice link. I only scored an 88.3% but I suppose it isn’t that bad considering that was 35% better than the college senior mean score.’
I believe that was the exact score I got. Which questions did you get wrong?
In my case: 1, 14, 27, 36, 43, 58
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Hey sorry Awakened, that last comment was meant for you. About how nice I was. I think it was you that settled me down a couple weeks ago when I was ranting on at Sampo, Metro and Flap. I even thought Kavon was going to kick me off this site when I called Flap an idiot. (which he is.)
I must say that I have known quite a few atheists in my day, and you are different. (atheist, pagan, whatever you are.) You seem to judge people fairly. You are pretty hard on Muslims, and surprisingly you stood up for the Mormon religion when it comes to evangilists not being able to vote for Mitt, etc. You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in. I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me.
That Vegas comment……pretty funny man.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Mco’n: ‘Nice link. I only scored an 88 3% but I suppose it isn’t that bad considering that was 35% better than the college senior mean score.’
I believe that was the exact score I got. Which questions did you get wrong?
In my case: 1, 14, 32, 36, 43, 58.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“Correct, I would really prefer to be kidnapped by the peaceful ones. At least they would kill me by shooting a bullet in my head, instead of beheading me with a dull knife.”
I knew I’d get these gems after suggesting everyone that prays towards Mecca is not necessarily a terrorist. I’ve experienced this outrageous prejudice on many a Republican site. I wish you’d just take it from a guy who actually knows some modern and perfectly peace-promoting Muslims (me), but that’s not as fun, is it?
Out of curiosity, do you even have any Muslim acquaintances? It’s hard to believe that every Muslim you know personally is a terrorist-sympathizer, unless you live in a cave in Afghanistan.
“I’m sure Islamists are very worried that the Muslims who live in the Great Satan are being exposed to un-Islamic evils in public schools. So if they can get them indoctrinated with Islamist hate while having the Great Satan pay for it, why not?”
My comment for which this is the reply was meant to shed a little light on the absurdity of this conversation. You are trying to conflate two issues that have nothing to do with each other.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
M.T.: ‘Hey sorry Awakened, that last comment was meant for you. About how nice I was. I think it was you that settled me down a couple weeks ago when I was ranting on at Sampo, Metro and Flap. I even thought Kavon was going to kick me off this site when I called Flap an idiot. (which he is.)’
Certainly, you have higher tolerance than I do. But if they were going to kick you off, they would have to kick someone like me off first. One of my posts was actually deleted by Kavon, after I commented on one of his blog-postings that no one gives a damn about the entire PhonyFred-affair – apparently, he thought it was personal.
‘I must say that I have known quite a few atheists in my day, and you are different. (atheist, pagan, whatever you are.) ‘
Agnostic, not a pagan, though I sometimes pretend to be.
‘You are pretty hard on Muslims, and surprisingly you stood up for the Mormon religion when it comes to evangilists not being able to vote for Mitt, etc.’
Well, I believe there is a big difference. The only measure by which I, as a non-believer, can judge a religion, is by its results. One religion has its followers blow up and behead others, regardless of whether it is mainstream or not in the religion. The other religion pushes people in a more compassionate, nice direction. Huge, huge difference. I assure you, if Mormons were blowing up buildings, I would come down hard on them, as well.
‘You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in.’
Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
‘I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me. ‘
Thankfully.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
awakened,
I got 18, 19, 36, 44, 50, 54, and 60 wrong. The last three are a little embarrassing condisering my major is economics.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
M.T.: ‘Hey sorry Awakened, that last comment was meant for you. About how nice I was. I think it was you that settled me down a couple weeks ago when I was ranting on at Sampo, Metro and Flap. I even thought Kavon was going to kick me off this site when I called Flap an idiot. (which he is.)’
Certainly, you have higher tolerance than I do. But if they were going to kick you off, they would have to kick someone like me off first. One of my posts was actually deleted by Kavon, after I commented on one of his blog-postings that no one gives a damn about the entire PhonyFred-affair – apparently, he thought it was personal.
‘I must say that I have known quite a few atheists in my day, and you are different. (atheist, pagan, whatever you are.) ‘
Agnostic, not a pagan, though I sometimes pretend to be.
‘You are pretty hard on Muslims, and surprisingly you stood up for the Mormon religion when it comes to evangilists not being able to vote for Mitt, etc.’
Well, I believe there is a big difference. The only measure by which I, as a non-believer, can judge a religion, is by its results. One religion has its followers blow up and behead others, regardless of whether it is mainstream or not in the religion. The other religion pushes people in a more compassionate, nice direction. Huge, huge difference. I assure you, if Mormons were blowing up buildings, I would come down hard on them, as well.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Civics Quiz — You answered 51 out of 60 correctly — 85.00 %
Almost all of the questions I missed were about Colonial America.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
M.T: ‘You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in.’
Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
‘I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me. ‘
Thankfully.
Sorry for posting 2 comments, but the server won’t accept long posts anymore – at least, not when I write them.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
M.T: ‘You have your issues, but I find you extremely rational, and this site has become so much more tolerable for me since you jumped in.’
Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
‘I actually enjoy your sense of humor too, and I don’t think anything you say could offend me. ‘
Thankfully.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
M.T: Good. At least there’s one person who finds this site more tolerable since I’m in. I actually came here by accident, but it’s really enjoyable, since the people here are far more intelligent than on other conservative blogs.
And I’m thankful that I will not be able to offend you – since I’m prone to offending others.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
MellowFellow: ‘I knew I’d get these gems after suggesting everyone that prays towards Mecca is not necessarily a terrorist.’
It was a joke.
‘Out of curiosity, do you even have any Muslim acquaintances?’
No.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I got 1, 5, 7, 9, 35, 39, 42, 43, and 54 wrong.
#1 is quite embarrassing, and I changed my answer from the right one on 42.
Oh, well. Still pretty good. I just need to brush up on my early American history…
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Mcon: ‘I got 18, 19, 36, 44, 50, 54, and 60 wrong. The last three are a little embarrassing condisering my major is economics.’
LOL! But how did you get 18 wrong? “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. I made some stupid mistakes myself, but what did you think it was?
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Oh, I actually misread #1. Oops. So what’s 52/60? I’m too lazy to do the math. I knew #1. Jesus Christ. That’s what happens when you zoom through a quiz.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
He probably thought it was the Constitution, Awakened. And I’m quite sure he really knows it’s the Declaration…lol.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
TLG,
Out of curiosity which ones did you miss? It was actually a bit harder than It would be.
awakened,
58 was a little tricky.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
awakened,
I was a little doltish when I said it was the preamble to the consitution. lol
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
“It was a joke.”
In that case, my apologies. Though it reads exactly the same as about a million comments I’ve read elsewhere, and the commenter is almost always 100% sincere.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘#1 is quite embarrassing’
Well, I got #1 wrong without misreading it. I win the ‘get it wrong’-contest!
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
And therefore, not really all that funny…
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Awakened,
“In my opinion, if schools can’t make factual assertions, they should at least mention that it is only generally accepted in particular communities. For example, it would be fine to say that Christians believe that Creationism is the way to explain how the world came into being, because you’re not teaching it as fact. Or that evolution is the scientific explanation for how humans came into being. Schools should not teach people what to think, but how to think. It’s an ideal that can never be reached, but that doesn’t mean that we should jettison any notion of it and just force our beliefs on children through government-funded schools.”
I think that’s silly. Of course schools have to teach students “what to think”. Let’s take your notion of teaching students “how to think” instead. I’m assuming this is some sort of philosophical proposition about how one gains knowledge. But, even here there’s no agreement. For instance, for a great many years, the principle “way of thinking”, was through something resembling the Socratic method. It’s still used in almost all law schools and, to a certain extent, in Philosophy classes. But, even this is hardly agreed upon.
Why should the Socratic method be, intrinsically, a better method of imparting knowledge, or rather, a better way to approach learning, then any other method? Why should a systematic questioning of theses, until they’re dismantled and a new one can be constructed from the ashes, be a better method of learning, then a method that teaches, as many have in the past, that we ought to consult our inner mind, to gain knowledge?
I’m not saying that one isn’t better then the other. I’m also not saying that one is wholly useful, and the other wholly useless. I’m simply pointing out that, if you’re going to pick some method of “learning” as superior, you’re still required to resort to proving the truth, or the superiority of such a method. In other words, you’re back in the same place you were when you rejected the idea of teaching children what to think. You haven’t advanced an inch.
I think that it’s entirely absurd to teach the FACT of the American Revolution, as something some particular group of people just happens to believe occurred. I think it’s perfectly lovely, to teach the American Revolution as though it were a real occurrence, independent of what someone else might happen to think of it.
And I think this for the same reason you’d undoubtedly prefer to teach students to learn with “Socratic instincts”, then teach them to learn by a rule that says, for instance, you acquire truth by picking every 7th idea you hear, and accepting that as truth: because we’ve both done what I’ll call “on the weight of the evidence” calculations. And my calculation of evidence has left me with the conclusion that the American Revolution really occurred. While yours has left you with the conviction that there’s no plausible reason to believe that accepting every 7th idea is likely to result in a coherent base of knowledge.
In short, you can’t teach anyone anything, whether it’s how to think, or what to think, without accepting, at some level of abstraction, a basic set of axioms. Or at the very least, attempting to prove a basic set of axioms. At some point you’re required to make a value judgment on the relative veracity of such and such a theory or such and such a method.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
TLG,
that’s 86%
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Mcon: ‘I was a little doltish when I said it was the preamble to the consitution. lol’
That sure beats saying that it’s from the Communist Manifesto…
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Why thank you, Mcon. Haha. I didn’t expect anyone to actually do the math for me. See #121 for the ones I missed.
I’d be scared to see how the general population would do.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
MellowFellow: ‘In that case, my apologies. Though it reads exactly the same as about a million comments I’ve read elsewhere, and the commenter is almost always 100% sincere.’
That ALL Muslims are terrorists? They can’t possibly be. I was commenting, however, on the fact that even ‘moderate Islamic’ theology tends to be extreme, if you compare it to Christian tehology. Bernard Lewis, the great historian of Islam, has gone so far as to say that there is no theological difference between modereates and fundamentalists, only in the methods they use.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
130 is a very good post. Read it!
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
More to the point, if it is a joke it does nothing to support your premise for disallowing certain schools to opt-in to the voucher system because they are Muslim, as you suggested in your posts #35 and #95.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“even ‘moderate Islamic’ theology tends to be extreme, if you compare it to Christian tehology. Bernard Lewis, the great historian of Islam, has gone so far as to say that there is no theological difference between modereates and fundamentalists, only in the methods they use.”
I see. More later…
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
And yet, Mellow, Christians and Muslims are using the same criterion for evaluating the truth of their holy books: absolutely nothing — aka: “Faith.” Denotation: belief without evidence.
If you use faith as an acceptable means of evaluating evidence, then what qualms could you possibly have with Muslim “theology”?
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Matt: ‘I’m not saying that one isn’t better then the other. I’m also not saying that one is wholly useful, and the other wholly useless. I’m simply pointing out that, if you’re going to pick some method of “learning†as superior, you’re still required to resort to proving the truth, or the superiority of such a method. In other words, you’re back in the same place you were when you rejected the idea of teaching children what to think. You haven’t advanced an inch. ‘
Oh, I believe you have advanced, and even more than an inch, because you have rejected the notion that schools are there to foist a particular ideology on children. For example, under your reasoning (if I understand it, which is unlikely), it would be perfectly legitimate for a school to force communism on children. After all, if you have to tell them what to think, why not do that? However, if you have accepted that the ideal school is one that teaches one how to think, that becomes untenable.
Now you say that I can’t prove that one method of thinking is better than another. But once you have accepted the premise that schools are not there for the promotion of certain ideologies, you can have a reasoned debate about what method would be the best. And people will disagree on that. It’s a lot better than what you propose, defend, or whatever it is you’re doing.
‘I think that it’s entirely absurd to teach the FACT of the American Revolution, as something some particular group of people just happens to believe occurred. I think it’s perfectly lovely, to teach the American Revolution as though it were a real occurrence, independent of what someone else might happen to think of it. ‘
For someone who (quite rightly) detests moral relativists, you sure have a tendency to make all things relative.
‘In short, you can’t teach anyone anything, whether it’s how to think, or what to think, without accepting, at some level of abstraction, a basic set of axioms. Or at the very least, attempting to prove a basic set of axioms. At some point you’re required to make a value judgment on the relative veracity of such and such a theory or such and such a method.’
I’m not sure that would be inconsistent with what I propose, but then again, I’m not sure about whether I can think straight after being hit with that post (not that there is anything wrong with it).
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
MellowFellow: ‘More to the point, if it is a joke it does nothing to support your premise for disallowing certain schools to opt-in to the voucher system because they are Muslim, as you suggested in your posts #35 and #95.’
I never said that they should be excluded. I’m aganst vouchers for all religious schools. But many of the Christian fundamentalists who favor vouchers (whose reason for favoring vouchers is that they want to send their children to a fundamentalist school, not that everyone who favors vouchers is a fundamentalist), oppose them for Muslims. You can’t do that.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“Oh, I believe you have advanced, and even more than an inch, because you have rejected the notion that schools are there to foist a particular ideology on children. For example, under your reasoning (if I understand it, which is unlikely), it would be perfectly legitimate for a school to force communism on children. After all, if you have to tell them what to think, why not do that? However, if you have accepted that the ideal school is one that teaches one how to think, that becomes untenable.
Now you say that I can’t prove that one method of thinking is better than another. But once you have accepted the premise that schools are not there for the promotion of certain ideologies, you can have a reasoned debate about what method would be the best. And people will disagree on that. It’s a lot better than what you propose, defend, or whatever it is you’re doing.”
But, I think this all works from the assumption that ideology inherently has the potential to be more dangerous then thought. I disagree with that entirely. I think, if you teach someone that you can only acquire knowledge through your own thoughts, because you can’t know whether anyone but you really exists, then you’ve done as great as great a disservice to them, then if you’d taught them that Communism is an inherently virtuous system. I think it’s probably easier to wreck a person through teaching them silly ways of thinking, then silly things to think.
In other words, I don’t think focusing on “how to think” instead of “what to think” solves what you seem to think is the central dilemma of indoctrination. I think it just moves the goal posts back a bit, and does so in a way that frankly ruins an entire category of objective face.
“For someone who (quite rightly) detests moral relativists, you sure have a tendency to make all things relative.”
That response was hardly “relativistic”. My point was simply, that your method of teaching “how to think” instead of “what to think”, leaves me quite free to doubt the American Revolution as a mere fancy of my own.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Awakened,
I assure you, Mormons don’t strap bombs on their children and blow them up. We teach love, service and the good news of Christ. I fall short many times, like when I lose it on this site. I probably should just stay away, but I am compelled to share my opinion, and am passionate about getting Mitt elected. Or at least a republican.
I saw you got edited by Kavon, and I wondered what you said. I don’t think it was that bad, I’m glad he didn’t read my comments last week.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
TLG
I was quoting Awakened there. I have zero qualms with Muslim theology as it is interpreted by peace-promoting Muslims today, and reject the premise that it always leads to violence, or that folks that have been exposed to it are in any way more prone to violence.
Faith is a theological topic I’d be happy to go into some day with more time and perhaps on another thread, but faith IS evidence, evidence of things hoped for, substance of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). It is a spiritual witness, rather than a physical one. But I doubt you’d still be interested in the discussion if we put it in a theological context.
Principally, I’m interested in addressing your question of whether or not I have any qualms with Muslim theology and, for personal reasons, it is important for me to make clear that I EMPHATICALLY believe in Muslims’ right to practice their faith to the fullest, and see much benefit to their communities and to American society by their so doing.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I took that quiz. I got 55/60, 91.66. I got 9, 50, 55, 58, and 60 wrong. I know nothing about economics.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
“Oh, I believe you have advanced, and even more than an inch, because you have rejected the notion that schools are there to foist a particular ideology on children. For example, under your reasoning (if I understand it, which is unlikely), it would be perfectly legitimate for a school to force communism on children. After all, if you have to tell them what to think, why not do that? However, if you have accepted that the ideal school is one that teaches one how to think, that becomes untenable.
Now you say that I can’t prove that one method of thinking is better than another. But once you have accepted the premise that schools are not there for the promotion of certain ideologies, you can have a reasoned debate about what method would be the best. And people will disagree on that. It’s a lot better than what you propose, defend, or whatever it is you’re doing.”
But, I think this all works from the assumption that ideology inherently has the potential to be more dangerous then thought. I disagree with that entirely. I think, if you teach someone that you can only acquire knowledge through your own thoughts, because you can’t know whether anyone but you really exists, then you’ve done as great as great a disservice to them, then you would have if you’d taught them that Communism is an inherently virtuous system. I think it’s probably easier to wreck a person through teaching them silly ways of thinking, as opposed to silly things to think.
In other words, I don’t think focusing on “how to think” instead of “what to think” solves what you seem to think is the central dilemma of indoctrination. I think it just moves the goal posts back a bit, and does so in a way that frankly ruins an entire category of objective face.
“For someone who (quite rightly) detests moral relativists, you sure have a tendency to make all things relative.”
That response was hardly “relativistic”. My point was simply, that your method of teaching “how to think” instead of “what to think”, leaves me quite free to doubt the American Revolution as a mere fancy of my own.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 pm
“I never said that they should be excluded. I’m aganst vouchers for all religious schools. But many of the Christian fundamentalists who favor vouchers (whose reason for favoring vouchers is that they want to send their children to a fundamentalist school, not that everyone who favors vouchers is a fundamentalist), oppose them for Muslims. You can’t do that.”
I don’t know about those “Christian fundamentalists,” and in fact have never met any, but I fully recognize that vouchers to private schools could not selectively discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. All the better!
What I said is that your dire warning, that you’d have to exclude Baptists if your excluding Muslims, holds no weight when you recognize you don’t have to exclude Muslims as a block.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
*you’re
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Hmm, for some reason a particular post of mine is refusing to go through, no matter how many times I edit it.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Sigh, and now I’ve accidentally “selected” something else, and it appears to be lost. It’s too late to re-type it. It was a response to Awakened’s last post, and all I’ll say is, if it doesn’t appear, it was a doozy.
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 am
Mellow –
it is important for me to make clear that I EMPHATICALLY believe in Muslims’ right to practice their faith to the fullest, and see much benefit to their communities and to American society by their so doing.
Then why on Earth do you support the War on Terror? Or don’t you? That’s all the terrorists are doing — living out their faith.
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
Mellow –
Faith is a theological topic I’d be happy to go into some day with more time and perhaps on another thread, but faith IS evidence, evidence of things hoped for, substance of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). It is a spiritual witness, rather than a physical one. But I doubt you’d still be interested in the discussion if we put it in a theological context.
The denotation of faith is “belief without evidence.” So, no, faith is not evidence, at least according to the dictionary; if you have problems with that, don’t take it up with me. But it’s not a debate. Faith is not evidence.
I don’t believe in spirituality and don’t consider theology a legitimate branch of study, so no, I wouldn’t be interested in having a discussion like that. If you’d like to put forward some evidence for your belief in the Bible, that’d be just wonderful make me pleased as punch.
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 am
Hm, apparently this board doesn’t allow for strikeouts. “be just wonderful” should be struck out.
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 am
Took that Libertarian Purity test again and got a 100 this time instead of a 91. (Out of 160.) Still in the same category, though – “hardcore libertarian.”
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 am
Romney seems to be doing well in another early state. That was his strategy. I wonder if he can develop Florida as well?
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 am
M.T.: ‘I assure you, Mormons don’t strap bombs on their children and blow them up.’
You sure about that? Those Muslims who blow up children and behead people are not just disguised Mormons who are trying to give Islam a bad name?
‘We teach love, service and the good news of Christ. I fall short many times, like when I lose it on this site. I probably should just stay away,’
Absolutely not. Why should you stay away? I do wish, however, that people would take it less personally when their candidate is attacked. I know that you care about Romney, but I don’t think he would care much about what some obscure on a blog, who dislikes him, says about him.
‘but I am compelled to share my opinion, and am passionate about getting Mitt elected. ‘
That’s good. Unlike some others, you don’t spend most of your time trashing other candidates.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 am
Matt: ‘But, I think this all works from the assumption that ideology inherently has the potential to be more dangerous then thought.’
Just to be clear here, I wasn’t talkinga bout the danger of teaching anything. In fact, I think that teaching children to doubt everything, something you used as an example, would probably be more dangerous than brainwashing them with Baptist theology. Unfortunately, it’s a fact that most people are probably too stupid to think for themselves. But teaching everyone to doubt everything wasn’t what I proposed in the first place, or at least, meant to propose.
‘I think, if you teach someone that you can only acquire knowledge through your own thoughts, because you can’t know whether anyone but you really exists, then you’ve done as great as great a disservice to them, then you would have if you’d taught them that Communism is an inherently virtuous system.’
I don’t disagree with that. But I seriously doubt that any reasonable person would think that this (teaching that you can only acquire…) a good idea.
‘That response was hardly “relativisticâ€. My point was simply, that your method of teaching “how to think†instead of “what to thinkâ€, leaves me quite free to doubt the American Revolution as a mere fancy of my own.’
Well, I should remind you that I was talking about things that are seriously disputed. No one but you disputes the fact of the American Revolution, indeed, Ronald Reagan was there when it happened and he assured us that it did happen. However, the truth of Southern Baptism is disputed, so I don’t think that children should be taught that as if it were the American Revolution. It’s relativistic to compare something that we can happened with near-certainty, with something that is as unprovable as religion. You’re taking it one step too far. Example, if you believe that both sides of everything should be taught: that would be like requiring schools to teach both sides of the holocaust – the real story and what the holocaust deniers made up. Some things are seriously disputed, and in that case, it can be helpful to teach both sides.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Matt: ‘Hmm, for some reason a particular post of mine is refusing to go through, no matter how many times I edit it.’
It’s driving me crazy, too. I would recommend splitting the post into two, when that happens. See where the problem is, if there is indeed a problem (it’s very strange).
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:55 am
MellowFellow: ‘I don’t know about those “Christian fundamentalists,†and in fact have never met any, but I fully recognize that vouchers to private schools could not selectively discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. All the better! ‘
Hah. You’re wrong, as usual. The Constitution does allow a state to exclude religious schools from voucher programs, as far as I know. Your personal interpretation of the Constitution is of no consequence, as is little you say or do.
‘What I said is that your dire warning, that you’d have to exclude Baptists if your excluding Muslims, holds no weight when you recognize you don’t have to exclude Muslims as a block.’
The warning was intended for you, not for me. I had no idea you were a Muslim apologist. I have other objections to voucher programs.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
The problem is, Public Schools often serve as liberal indoctrination buildings. The often require students to learn about things that run contrary to the beliefs of their parents – which is compltely wrong. Parents should not be required to fund, and require their children to attend, school that contradict what a parent believes and teaches.
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
#161 — I agree.
Aww, look at us coming together here when we’re not arguing about something dumb like gay marriage.
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
#161 and #162,
Diddo. Parents shouldn’t have to fund government provided crap. At the same time they should be able to choose who to educate their children. Vouchers are one way of addressing that issue without getting rid of public school completely.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
ACT Blog: ‘The often require students to learn about things that run contrary to the beliefs of their parents ‘
Like what? No racism? That’s offensive to a lot of Southern parents.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Aww, look at us coming together here when we’re not arguing about something dumb like gay marriage.’
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to celebrate…
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
“Hah. You’re wrong, as usual. The Constitution does allow a state to exclude religious schools from voucher programs, as far as I know. Your personal interpretation of the Constitution is of no consequence, as is little you say or do.”
This is so precious! I especially like the “You’re wrong, as usual” followed by a precocious little explication of constitutional law followed by “as far as I know.” There are few people today who can so ably couple such outrageous arrogance with an admission of ignorance and not even wink at the irony.
Well, although I have recently been informed that most of what I say and do is of little consequence (zing!), I suppose I’ll reply for your benefit, so that you realize that your sub-coherent tirade is not even applicable to what I said. I specified “selectively” discriminate against religion, meaning you can’t select CERTAIN religious groups to not be allowed to participate in the voucher system. That is, you can’t say yes to Baptists and no to Muslims. Which has pretty much been your argument for this entire thread, so I assume you actually agree with me. But, hey, you got to be condescending again, which feels oh, so good!
“I have other objections to voucher programs”
Any that don’t have to do with the possibility of religious “indoctrination”? If not, I think we’re done…
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“Then why on Earth do you support the War on Terror? Or don’t you? That’s all the terrorists are doing — living out their faith.”
As I said in the same post you quote (# 145):
“I have zero qualms with Muslim theology as it is interpreted by peace-promoting Muslims today.”
Insofar as a certain Islamic faction or can be shown to be encouraging violence, obviously as the potential victims we have every right to intervene. That has nothing to do with the vast majority of Muslims today, particularly modern westernized Muslims.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
TLG
In regard to the faith question:
The dictionary’s definition has no bearing on what I consider faith or on my own spiritual witness, or of the point of view of my particular theological community. That is precisely why it is a theological issue. We don’t all agree, not even with Daniel Webster (and why should we?). I repeat, faith IS evidence, just not physical evidence. It’s spiritual evidence.
If you don’t believe in spirituality – which is quite nearly unbelievable to me – than we literally can not have a conversation about faith. Or, if we do, you’d have to respect that I’m not here to “take it up” with anybody about my faith. In other words, I wouldn’t presume to take my spirituality into your completely secular court and expect to have a meaningful discussion about spirituality. It can’t be done. The spirituality of one person communicates with the spirituality of another (1 Cor. 2:14). I mean that as no disrespect to you, but that’s just how it is, at least from my perspective. I’d encourage you to read a few of these verses from the Bible, if only to see where I’m coming from.
But I think, and I think you’ll agree, that any further discussion on the meaning of the word “faith” would simply be a survey of our two very different world views.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
MellowFellow: ‘Any that don’t have to do with the possibility of religious “indoctrinationâ€? If not, I think we’re done…’
We’re done.