"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."- Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Oct 20
RSS feed
Wed, 12/10/2008 - 2:14pm
I must speak for the public schools, or at least the teachers in response to your comments about the control of the "system." Public school teachers are hired with an understanding that they are to follow the policies and curriculum guide lines of the district and state in which they work. It is local government that allocates tax-derived and usually property tax-derived money to run the local schools (which includes paying their employees). Jocularly then, this is a case of the "Golden Rule" - He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules. In all cases I believe that both the school board and the local government face election to their posts. Yes, the schools answer to government, but the government answers to the People, if the People choose. "They" have taken parent's authority away only because "We" allowed it.
The greatest majority of the teachers I have met in twelve years of teaching take the "in loco parentis" role very seriously. Most of the teachers I have worked with were parents themselves. Perhaps I have been lucky, but again, the greatest number of teachers I have worked with had their student's best interests at heart.
I beg you to spend time - real time, say several days, all day working with a public school teacher before you make broad statements about the public education system. Learn what your child's teacher is REQUIRED as a condition of continued employment to teach your children. I sincerely believe you will be surprized, nay, shocked at what is expected academically from sometimes very young children. Then use the democratic system we have and your rights of free speech to regain control of our future's education.
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 11:33pm
To John from TN
Anonymous Says:
Wed, 10/22/2008 - 10:03pm
You stated "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..." as a paraphrase. That is a correct citation from the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights clearly set out that only specific, and very limited, authorities and powers were granted to the federal government and all others "... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." It is clearly stated and was, according to the discussion at the time, that the federal government was not to establish a state religion, such as the Anglican Church. Nowhere in our founding documents does is government given any authority to remove, silence, or infringe upon the "...free exercise thereof..." with regard to religion. In fact, most of the colonies at the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did have designated religions. They, however, showed great wisdom by following Virginia's lead and adopted religious clauses, similar to the First Amendment. However, if you remove all references to God and his morality from our laws we would have no foundation upon which our government could rest.
Am I “seriously suggesting that our public education system is actually some left-wing conspiracy to corrupt our children?!” No, but I do believe that it has been taken over by the federal government and the teachers’ unions. It has been totally taken out of the control of the parents who founded and built our system of education. The first schoolrooms were generally found to be in the local church with the parson, pastor, or priest as the first teacher. As the schools grew the local families hired teachers and then built separate school buildings. They formed boards and committees to develop policies and procedures of operation. The first schools operated “in loco parentis” (in the place of the parent). Today, the schools seem to believe they operate under government and union authority instead of under the parents’ authority.
As far as a “separation of church and state” is concerned I will cite the Sixth District :
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky v. Mercer County , Kentucky
No. 03-5142 Argued: April 27, 2004; Decided and Filed: December 20, 2005
(Page 13; paragraph 3)"The ACLU's argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to "the separation of church and state." This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between the church and state. ... Our Nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgement (sic) and in some cases, accommodation of religion. ... ("There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement (sic) by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.") ... After all, "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
Second, the ACLU focuses on the religiousness of the Ten Commandments. No reasonable person would dispute their sectarian nature, but they also have a secular nature that the ACLU does not address. That they are religious merely begs the question whether this display is religious; it does not answer it.
Third, the ACLU erroneously--though perhaps intentionally--equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. ... the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff.”
LeRoy Paul; A man born out of time!
Fri, 10/24/2008 - 8:38pm
If men are not capable of governing themselves, they would not be capable of governing others. I assume that everyone would agree that kings are but men, and it follows that if men are not capable of governing themselves, kings are not capable of governing them either (if one would dispute that statement, one must adhere to the philosophical ideas of Thomas Hobbes. I would be willing at any time to correct the errors in such an individual's thinking). Ergo, if men are not capable of governing themselves, no one excepting God is capable of governing men, and we live in a state of anarchy. I would be willing to assert that we do not live in a state of anarchy, and consequently men are perfectly capable of governing themselves.
As I said earlier (when I was in a terrible rush and unable to elaborate), I do not believe that governors ought to be held to a higher standard than that to which the governed are held. In my opinion, all citizens should be held to the same standard of civic virtue. Unfortunately I have no method to propose, as it is hardly a question of laws.
~ Publia
Thu, 10/23/2008 - 6:45pm
What a wonderful country we have! We have the protected freedom (at least for a while longer) to speak our minds privately and publicly despite strongly held differences. Mr. Jefferson would ask us to treat with respect the other voicing differing opinions. In the heat of debate one might sometime forget this. It is important that underlying any argument we remain faithful to the foundational Truth of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. All are created equal under the law. No one is more equal or less equal. When this kind of injustice occurs, it must be corrected. Else we build smoldering resentments and retaliation. More than courtesy is involved. The future for the greatest dream of government that ever came into being hangs in the balance. Because of the intellectual honesty and courage of our Founding Fathers, I for one, am most grateful. An American in Florida
Thu, 10/23/2008 - 6:38pm
Yes, John I agree that the American press has gone in the tank for the most left wing, radical liberal candidate in history. Why have any moral compass whatsover.After all the press is on the verge of electing a candidate that wouldn't even pass the backround test given to those people that would put their lives on the line for him. Jefferson as well as the other founding fathers are rolling over in their graves as to what this country has become.We need leadership that believes in family values, and yes a belief in God. Yup, its that three letter word that gets so many people up in arms. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Wed, 10/22/2008 - 10:03pm
The thoughtful reader will not require my response, as these responses serve effecrively to reinforce my points. I will nevertheless offer the following brief comments:
To Florida, I will say: It is not that the threat which matters, but how we respond. Fear-mongoring works very well in a political campaign, but it does not lead to rational solutions. The concept of Star Wars to create a missile defense system during the Reagan administration was an example, as was the attack on Iraq supposedly for sake of destroying imaginary weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the potential deployment of weapons of mass destruction represents a threat (albeit small, since the resources involved are often enormous), which we can not effectively defend against no matter how much of the federal budget we siphon to the defense and "homeland security" industry. The badly needed Statesman would instead seek an intellectual solution by examining history, determining root causes, and working with other nation states in partnership as a world citizen.
To Mr. Paul I will say: Are you seriously suggesting that our public education system is actually some left-wing conspiracy to corrupt our children?! I think I may in the end agree with you that the Age of Reason did not gain sufficient traction in the U.S. if you are indeed representative of the intellectual power of the conservative right. I also suggest you do a little more reading concerning Mr. Jefferson and the concept of constitutional law. How ironic to suggest that reason and enlightenment gained little traction in the U.S., and then refer to the constitution in support of your arguments! I will paraphrase for you, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' There is a whole body of constitutional interpretation from the judicial system which effectively establishes a separation of church and state in the U.S. Thank God (irony intended), because without it, the U.S would, like many other countries, be founded in quicksand, having institutionalized the right to arbitrarily discriminate based on arbitrary beliefs.
John from TN
Wed, 10/22/2008 - 2:49pm
A minor correction, if you will permit me. Jefferson did not usher in the "Age of Reason." Neither the "Age of Reason, the "Enlightenment," nor deism ever gained much traction in the colonies. Jefferson, himself, was corrupted by a Scottish professor at William & Mary who enlightened him. Our institutions of higher learning are today the bastions of these "European" philosophies and many students have been led into those philosophies through a 17th century European abomination,"scholastic theology."
Our young people are targets of determined and ill intentioned ideologues who set out to mislead generations of youth and destroy our great Constitutional Republic. These people are not educators, but social engineers, building socialism brick-by-brick.
John from TN: Please tell me where in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution or any of the twenty-seven amendments there is an establishment of a "division between church and state," to which you refer.
LeRoy Paul; A man born out of time!
Wed, 10/22/2008 - 12:10pm
John from Tn: Are you saying Communism was not (is not) a threat to the Republic? Are you saying terrorism is not a threat to the Republic? Are you concerned the Judeo-Christian principles evident throughout the founding documents of our country are a threat to our Republic? Are you concerned the teaching of our American history from prior to our founding, through our founding, and the unfolding events to the present day are a threat to our Republic? Are you concerned with revisionism of our history, the teaching the family is not important, and the teaching the government is better equipped to decide what and when the citizenry "gets or does not get"?
Also, curiosity leads me to ask what you, John, would have done on September 12, 2001? An American in Florida
Tue, 10/21/2008 - 11:45pm
I dare say he is spinning, but surely not because the populace has become weak, greedy, and entitlement dependent. Jefferson was always a public advocate, and would instead find fault in a government that is bought and sold by major business interests, and has become despotic. He may even have become a modern-day rebel, urging overthrow or separation for causes and crimes far more severe than those inflicted upon the colonies in the 18th century by the British.
As for the public, it would be the re-emergence and even dominance of irrationality in American discourse that would disturb Jefferson. I believe he would find fault, however, in the American press which is supposed to guard our freedom rather than acting as an agent for the special interests which now control government action.
As the man who ushered in the Age of Reason in the colonies, and U.S. history's greatest radical liberal, Jefferson would be gravely concerned about the right-wing intolerance which has gripped America since the Republicans won the White House in 1980. Republican fear mongers attempt to capitalize on the public fear of (communism first, then) terrorism by resurrecting the simple-minded Reagan-era concept of evil empires, tieing them to the muslim culture/religion, and then labeling the democratic candidate a co-conspirator. All of this against the backdrop of exploding evangelism in the U.S. (and profound ignorance of scientific principles which are readily available to the masses, unlike they were in the 1700's) and a right-wing attack on liberal (read as intellectual) education in the United States by emphasizing standardized performance (which suppresses intelligent discussion and learning in favor of rote memorization), and through thinly veiled attempts to introduce religion into public schools (the most important vehicle for equal opportunity), thus attempting to blur the division beteween church and state which was perhaps the greatest manifestation of the Enlightenment in U.S. history.
I can not imagine how any rational person could vote for a man such as George Bush to be President, let alone do so twice in the face of overwhelming evidence that the war in Iraq was prosecuted under false pretenses and handled incompetently with disastrous results. I can only conclude that those who did vote for Bush's re-election did so out of a fear of admitting a mistake, perhaps combined with an innated desire to be perceived as "holier than thou", since piddly, so-called "family value" issues such as gay marriage seem to dominate the Republican landscape.
How would the voters of the 19th and early 20th centuries have reacted to such a government, except with outrage?
John from TN
Tue, 10/21/2008 - 11:37am
Ah, Mr. Jefferson who believed so much in the goodness of Man. Education, refinement, freedom to improve the quality and happiness of one's life would motivate a people towards unbounded good will. But then, he lived in a time, though with ills of its own making, wherein (to quote Mr. Adams) "civility, morality, responsibility" were the goals Man wanted to express in the intercourse of their personal and business lives. The governed would be the guide and overseer of the governing.
Turn now to the 21st C and listen to the goals of too many Americans: entitlements, golden parachutes, redistribute the wealth. Now the governing PROMISE everything to everyone -- medical and health care, college education, jobs, and rebate checks for all who are not considered wealthy. Mr. Jefferson must be spinning! An American in Florida
Mon, 10/20/2008 - 7:05pm
We certainly expect more from the governors than from the governed, but should we not hold everyone to the same standard? Perhaps we should require everyone to live up to the standard we wish public figures to adhere to.
In re Mr. Jefferson's question about angels: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
~ Publia
Mon, 10/20/2008 - 2:54pm
I think we do and I think we should. Our leaders are supposed to be of strong character. Every man has his faults and shortcomings. That is humanity, but I think those who do and and those who wish to lead must show a strength of character. Petty flaws are one thing, but to abuse the power of the office you are given for personal gain, whether it be for you and your family or for friends, is a whole different matter altogether.
Our leaders are entrusted with this country, no matter what office they hold. And they must strive to put aside selfishness and pride and work to the betterment of the country as a whole, not for themselves or their political parties. Our leaders need to be an example to the people. Their lives, personal and political, reflect their character and strength of character is what is sorely needed in Washington.
Post new comment