gcthomas
New member
Now that sounds EXACTLY like ISIS. You just want the OT Christian version of Sharia law.
Tell Me Again How Public Schools are Cesspools of Atheism
- Thread starter Buzzword
- Start date
Now that sounds EXACTLY like ISIS. You just want the OT Christian version of Sharia law.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
only if you're retarded :idunno:
gcthomas
New member
Have any other playground insults? You are repeating on me. :carryon:
Ben Masada
New member
And what could be the other possibility in their heads, Atheism? You know where we are moving to. I hope you are not taking me as a fundamentalist.
Jose Fly
New member
In their heads, yes.
Where?
I'm not sure how to take you so far. Just being honest.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Make an argument or stop repeating yourself like an mindless moron.
That doesn't make what I said untrue. All truth claims - all of them - are either true or false. This is second law of reason. Its called the Law of Excluded Middle. All rational thought is black or white, right or wrong. If you attended public school, you'll have to look up the laws of reason and read in order to be able to respond intelligently to this point. It isn't taught in public schools.
Its far more than that. I can prove it. No thought is possible without presupposing the existence of God. Every atheist who attempts to debate anything tacitly concedes God's existence by showing up for the debate.
Don't be stupid.
Only atheists are capable of thinking that this is convincing. At BEST, and I mean if you really give it the benefit of every imaginable doubt, this tacitly teaches that all of these religions are equally valid, equally true and that truth is, as you keep implying, subjective and not absolute, which IS NOT NEUTRAL!!!!
The way it should be is that the government stays out of the education business! By what right does the government take my money (by force) and spend it on someone else's education?
The system is intentionally atheistic and so your question answers itself. Atheists can tolerate people with religions without becoming theists.
I read it correctly the first time. My response makes total sense.
No, that's not what I said at all, nor do I believe it. There are many eastern religions that open reject 'either/or' kind of reasoning but even they cannot escape the nature of reality. When they attempt to convince you that 'both/and' philosophy is superior, they are essentially attempting to tell you that is either 'both/and' or nothing. Either/Or thinking emerges no matter how hard you try to avoid it. This is because of the second law of reason, the Law of Excluded Middle. All truth claims are either true or they are false.
You don't know the first thing about what I want. Saudi Arabian law is extremely unjust, although not as much as our own.Ok then....I see by the rest of your posts that you are yet another Christian theocrat at ToL, who wants a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Let's just say I'm very glad that your views are an extreme minority.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Poisoning the well fallacy.
It only works on the weak minded and unrehabilitated former public school student (usually the same thing).
Neither. No man made government is capable of enacting a just legal system. When it is finally enacted, your question will answer itself.
Isaiah 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake;
He will exalt the law and make it honorable.
He will exalt the law and make it honorable.
However, the fact that no human government will ever be just, does not mean that we aught not advocate justice.
Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow.
Psalm 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psalm 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Stupidity!
I've never said any such thing! What the hell are you even talking about?
I would point out, however, it is this sort of reactionary stupidity that will, in the end, make Christianity illegal in America. That is where we are headed. Eventually, every thing that remains that looks even a little bit like biblical Christianity will be called extremist and hate speech or even terrorist. Hide and watch! That's where this society is headed. And we're headed there because of comments like the one made here by PureX and the mindless twits who say it, repeat it or believe it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Jose Fly
New member
Keep that in mind.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Mmmm hmmm.
Fantastic rebuttal.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
No, it's "here are all the major religions" and nothing more.
Because it's in the national interest to have a well-educated populace.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
You really have no idea what to do with that information, do you? The fact is, public schools all across the country allow students to form religious groups, practice their religion, bring religious books, have religious discussions, and believe whatever they like about gods. In many cases the schools actually provide material support (a place to meet) for these activities.
All of that is the exact opposite of an "atheistic school system".
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Good. Let's keep it that way. :chuckle:
PureX
Well-known member
You want to destroy the government. You want to destroy public education. You want to destroy the courts. You want to destroy anything and anyone that doesn't bow to your self-righteous religious dogma. How are you any different from the members of ISIS?
Nope.
I'd love for the public school system to be dismantled and replaced with a free market school system, yes.
Nope
Nope! A lot!
You're a lunatic.
Propaganda - at best.
Its in anyone's best interest to be educated. We do not need the government for that. This country became the greatest nation in the history of the world without a public school system.
Further, since when is it the governments job to decide what is my best interest? That's mine to decide, not yours, not the majority, not the government.
The rest of your post was puerile and unresponsive and therefore ignored. (Go ahead, look up 'puerile', no own will know!)
glorydaz
Well-known member
Exactly. It's the brain washing the libs have undergone. They are without reason...total reactionaries.....fear mongering....without an ounce of common sense. I know them well. I live in Eugene, Oregon, and they never cease to amaze me.
gcthomas
New member
So you are right because you are right, and all those who disagree with you by definition must be wrong?
Fallacy of opposition. (Go on, look it up. I don't expect this was included in your schooling, was it?)
Buzzword
New member
Fallacy of Opposition
A bit of light reading.
Of course, Clete's been guilty of multiple other fallacies on this thread as well.
Among others.
Jose Fly
New member
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Here, educate yourself.
"After the Revolution, an emphasis was put on education, especially in the northern states, which rapidly established public schools. By the year 1870, all states had free elementary schools."
Pay close attention. I said it was in the nation's interest to have an educate populace. If you think being educated is not in your best interest, I'll let that speak for itself.
The vast majority of schools in this country while often funded by a pool of money (sometimes taxes but usually not) they were not controlled by the government. They were controlled by the parents of the students in that school.
This was an irrational response. It seems you didn't understand what I said. It doesn't matter. I really don't care what you think.
Some (most) of you on this thread seem incapable of separating what I actually say from some preconceived notion you have about what I must believe since I don't like the public school system.
The thread was started with a less than totally coherent argument about the public school system not being atheistic. For that reason I was making the argument that, in fact, the public school system is atheistic because the word 'atheistic' means "no religion" (i.e. it does not mean "anti-religion"). The rebuttals to my arguments universally contained within them (tacitly or otherwise) some attempt to convince me that the public school system provided an education that was non-religious, as though that somehow contradicted my position. I'll never understand how liberals live as long as they do. It would seem that if one's mind was malfunctioning to to such a degree, that they'd forget to eat or to breath or something. Anyway, I digress....
What I want to make clear with this post is simply that, while I don't like the idea of an atheistic school system, I do not object to the public school system primarily on that basis. In fact, I would be directly apposed to any attempt to "fix" the public school system by allowing prayer or by introducing creationism or whatever other misguided things many Christians have attempted over the years. I do not believe that the public schools system can be fixed any more than I believe Obama Care can be fixed. It is fundamentally flawed and is in opposition to freedom. The only "fix" is to abolish it. Indeed, if you are apposed to government healthcare, you aught to be apposed to government schooling for the same reasons.
The point being simply that this is not a religious issue! I am not apposed to either public schools nor public health care because I'm a Christian but because I'm an American that believes in individual freedom. To demonstrate that it is not a religious issue I submit the following essay from Ayn Rand - an atheist.
The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.
“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?
It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.
When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.
If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - What is Capitalism - pg 20
Resting in Him,
Clete
The thread was started with a less than totally coherent argument about the public school system not being atheistic. For that reason I was making the argument that, in fact, the public school system is atheistic because the word 'atheistic' means "no religion" (i.e. it does not mean "anti-religion"). The rebuttals to my arguments universally contained within them (tacitly or otherwise) some attempt to convince me that the public school system provided an education that was non-religious, as though that somehow contradicted my position. I'll never understand how liberals live as long as they do. It would seem that if one's mind was malfunctioning to to such a degree, that they'd forget to eat or to breath or something. Anyway, I digress....
What I want to make clear with this post is simply that, while I don't like the idea of an atheistic school system, I do not object to the public school system primarily on that basis. In fact, I would be directly apposed to any attempt to "fix" the public school system by allowing prayer or by introducing creationism or whatever other misguided things many Christians have attempted over the years. I do not believe that the public schools system can be fixed any more than I believe Obama Care can be fixed. It is fundamentally flawed and is in opposition to freedom. The only "fix" is to abolish it. Indeed, if you are apposed to government healthcare, you aught to be apposed to government schooling for the same reasons.
The point being simply that this is not a religious issue! I am not apposed to either public schools nor public health care because I'm a Christian but because I'm an American that believes in individual freedom. To demonstrate that it is not a religious issue I submit the following essay from Ayn Rand - an atheist.
“Common Good”
The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.
“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?
It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.
When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.
If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - What is Capitalism - pg 20
Resting in Him,
Clete
Here's an even better argument from Rand which is specifically on the topic of public education...
Should the government be permitted to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without the parents' consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve? Should citizens have their wealth expropriated to support an educational system which they may or may not sanction, and to pay for the education of children who are not their own? To anyone who understands and is consistently committed to the principle of individual rights, the answer is clearly: No.
There are no moral grounds whatever for the claim that education is the prerogative of the State—or for the claim that it is proper to expropriate the wealth of some men for the unearned benefit of others.
The doctrine that education should be controlled by the State is consistent with the Nazi or communist theory of government. It is not consistent with the American theory of government. The totalitarian implications of State education (preposterously described as "free education") have in part been obscured by the fact that in America, unlike Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, private schools
are legally tolerated. Such schools, however, exist not by right but only by permission.
Further, the facts remain that:
(a) most parents are effectively compelled to send their children to State schools, since they are taxed to support these schools and cannot afford to pay the additional fees required to send their children to private schools;
(b) the standards of education, controlling all schools,
are prescribed by the State;
(c) the growing trend in American education is for the government to exert wider and wider control over every aspect of education.
As an example of this last: when many parents, who objected to the pictographic method of teaching schoolchildren to read, undertook to teach their children at home by the phonetic method—a proposal was made legally to forbid parents to do so. What is the implication of this, if not that the child's mind belongs to the State?
When the State assumes financial control of education, it is logically appropriate that the State should progressively assume control of the content of education—since the State has the responsibility of judging whether or not its funds are being used "satisfactorily." But when a government enters the sphere of ideas, when it presumes to prescribe in issues concerning intellectual content, that is the death of a free society.
To quote Isabel Paterson in The God of the Machine:
"Educational texts are necessarily selective, in subject matter, language, and point of view. Where teaching is conducted by private schools, there will be a considerable variation in different schools; the parents must judge what they want their children taught, by the curriculum offered. Then each must strive for objective truth. . . . Nowhere will there be any inducement to teach the "supremacy of the state" as a compulsory philosophy. But every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later, whether as the divine right of kings, or the "will of the people" in "democracy." Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property, and mind in its clutches from infancy."
The disgracefully low level of education in America today is the predictable result of a State-controlled school system. Schooling, to a marked extent, has become a status symbol and a ritual. More and more people are entering college— and fewer and fewer people are emerging properly educated. Our educational system is like a vast bureaucracy, a vast civil service, in which the trend is toward a policy of considering everything about a teacher's qualifications (such as the number of bis publications) except his teaching ability; and of considering everything about a student's qualifications (such as his "social adaptability") except his intellectual competence.
The solution is to bring the field of education into the marketplace.
There is an urgent economic need for education. When educational institutions have to compete with one another in the quality of the training they offer—when they have to compete for the value that will be attached to the diplomas they issue—educational standards will necessarily rise. When they have to compete for the services of the best teachers, the teachers who will attract the greatest number of students, then the caliber of teaching—and of teachers' salaries—will necessarily rise. (Today, the most talented teachers often abandon their profession and enter private industry, where they know their efforts will be better rewarded.) When the economic principles that have resulted in the superlative efficiency of American industry are permitted to operate in the field of education, the result will be a revolution, in the direction of unprecedented educational development and growth.
Education should be liberated from the control or intervention of government, and turned over to profit-making private enterprise, not because education is unimportant, but because education is so crucially important.
What must be challenged is the prevalent belief that education is some sort of "natural right"—in effect, a free gift of nature. There are no such free gifts. But it is in the interests of statism to foster this delusion—in order to throw a smokescreen over the issue of whose freedom must be sacrificed to pay for such "free gifts."
As a result of the fact that education has been tax-supported for such a long time, most people find it difficult to project an alternative. Yet there is nothing unique about education that distinguishes it from the many other human needs which are filled by private enterprise. If, for many years, the government had undertaken to provide all the citizens with shoes (on the grounds that shoes are an urgent necessity), and if someone were subsequently to propose that this field should be turned over to private enterprise, he would doubtless be told indignantly: "What! Do you want everyone except the rich to walk around barefoot?" But the shoe industry is doing its job with immeasurably greater competence than public education is
doing its job.
To quote Isabel Paterson once more:
"The most vindictive resentment may be expected from the pedagogic profession for any suggestion that they should be dislodged from their dictatorial position; it will be expressed mainly in epithets, such as "reactionary," at the mildest. Nevertheless, the question to put to any teacher moved to such indignation is: Do you think nobody would willingly entrust his children to you and pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?
Ayn Rand - JUNE 1963.
Who here is in favor of public shoes?
Anyone?
Resting in Him,
Clete
PUBLIC EDUCATION
SHOULD EDUCATION BE COMPULSORY AND TAX-SUPPORTED, AS IT IS TODAY?
The answer to this question becomes evident if one makes the question more concrete and specific, as follows:SHOULD EDUCATION BE COMPULSORY AND TAX-SUPPORTED, AS IT IS TODAY?
Should the government be permitted to remove children forcibly from their homes, with or without the parents' consent, and subject the children to educational training and procedures of which the parents may or may not approve? Should citizens have their wealth expropriated to support an educational system which they may or may not sanction, and to pay for the education of children who are not their own? To anyone who understands and is consistently committed to the principle of individual rights, the answer is clearly: No.
There are no moral grounds whatever for the claim that education is the prerogative of the State—or for the claim that it is proper to expropriate the wealth of some men for the unearned benefit of others.
The doctrine that education should be controlled by the State is consistent with the Nazi or communist theory of government. It is not consistent with the American theory of government. The totalitarian implications of State education (preposterously described as "free education") have in part been obscured by the fact that in America, unlike Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, private schools
are legally tolerated. Such schools, however, exist not by right but only by permission.
Further, the facts remain that:
(a) most parents are effectively compelled to send their children to State schools, since they are taxed to support these schools and cannot afford to pay the additional fees required to send their children to private schools;
(b) the standards of education, controlling all schools,
are prescribed by the State;
(c) the growing trend in American education is for the government to exert wider and wider control over every aspect of education.
As an example of this last: when many parents, who objected to the pictographic method of teaching schoolchildren to read, undertook to teach their children at home by the phonetic method—a proposal was made legally to forbid parents to do so. What is the implication of this, if not that the child's mind belongs to the State?
When the State assumes financial control of education, it is logically appropriate that the State should progressively assume control of the content of education—since the State has the responsibility of judging whether or not its funds are being used "satisfactorily." But when a government enters the sphere of ideas, when it presumes to prescribe in issues concerning intellectual content, that is the death of a free society.
To quote Isabel Paterson in The God of the Machine:
"Educational texts are necessarily selective, in subject matter, language, and point of view. Where teaching is conducted by private schools, there will be a considerable variation in different schools; the parents must judge what they want their children taught, by the curriculum offered. Then each must strive for objective truth. . . . Nowhere will there be any inducement to teach the "supremacy of the state" as a compulsory philosophy. But every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later, whether as the divine right of kings, or the "will of the people" in "democracy." Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property, and mind in its clutches from infancy."
The disgracefully low level of education in America today is the predictable result of a State-controlled school system. Schooling, to a marked extent, has become a status symbol and a ritual. More and more people are entering college— and fewer and fewer people are emerging properly educated. Our educational system is like a vast bureaucracy, a vast civil service, in which the trend is toward a policy of considering everything about a teacher's qualifications (such as the number of bis publications) except his teaching ability; and of considering everything about a student's qualifications (such as his "social adaptability") except his intellectual competence.
The solution is to bring the field of education into the marketplace.
There is an urgent economic need for education. When educational institutions have to compete with one another in the quality of the training they offer—when they have to compete for the value that will be attached to the diplomas they issue—educational standards will necessarily rise. When they have to compete for the services of the best teachers, the teachers who will attract the greatest number of students, then the caliber of teaching—and of teachers' salaries—will necessarily rise. (Today, the most talented teachers often abandon their profession and enter private industry, where they know their efforts will be better rewarded.) When the economic principles that have resulted in the superlative efficiency of American industry are permitted to operate in the field of education, the result will be a revolution, in the direction of unprecedented educational development and growth.
Education should be liberated from the control or intervention of government, and turned over to profit-making private enterprise, not because education is unimportant, but because education is so crucially important.
What must be challenged is the prevalent belief that education is some sort of "natural right"—in effect, a free gift of nature. There are no such free gifts. But it is in the interests of statism to foster this delusion—in order to throw a smokescreen over the issue of whose freedom must be sacrificed to pay for such "free gifts."
As a result of the fact that education has been tax-supported for such a long time, most people find it difficult to project an alternative. Yet there is nothing unique about education that distinguishes it from the many other human needs which are filled by private enterprise. If, for many years, the government had undertaken to provide all the citizens with shoes (on the grounds that shoes are an urgent necessity), and if someone were subsequently to propose that this field should be turned over to private enterprise, he would doubtless be told indignantly: "What! Do you want everyone except the rich to walk around barefoot?" But the shoe industry is doing its job with immeasurably greater competence than public education is
doing its job.
To quote Isabel Paterson once more:
"The most vindictive resentment may be expected from the pedagogic profession for any suggestion that they should be dislodged from their dictatorial position; it will be expressed mainly in epithets, such as "reactionary," at the mildest. Nevertheless, the question to put to any teacher moved to such indignation is: Do you think nobody would willingly entrust his children to you and pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?
Ayn Rand - JUNE 1963.
Who here is in favor of public shoes?
Anyone?
Resting in Him,
Clete
gcthomas
New member
I think that each citizen should arrange their own shoes for their own children. Home shoes for all!