Charleston Voice: Family

Showing posts with label Family. Show all posts

Monday, January 26, 2015

Education is Too Important Not to Leave to the Marketplace

Written by Ron Paul
Sunday January 25, 2015

This week, events around the country will highlight the importance of parental control of education as part of National School Choice Week. This year’s events should attract more attention than prior years because of the growing rebellion against centralized education sparked by the federal Common Core curriculum.

The movement against Common Core has the potential to change American education. However, anti-Common Core activists must not be misled by politicians promoting “reforms” of the federal education bureaucracy, or legislation ending Common Core while leaving all other federal education programs intact. The only way to protect American children from future Common Core-like programs is to permanently padlock the Department of Education.

Federal programs providing taxpayer funds to public schools give politicians and bureaucrats

leverage to impose federal mandates on schools. So as long as federal education programs exist, school children will be used as guinea pigs for federal bureaucrats who think they are capable of creating a curriculum suitable for every child in the country.

Supporters of federal education mandates say they are necessary to hold schools “accountable.” Of course schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom?

Several studies, as well as common sense, show that greater parental control of education improves education quality. In contrast, bureaucratic control of education lowers education quality. Therefore, the key to improving education is to make schools accountable to parents, not bureaucrats.

The key to restoring parental control is giving parents control of the education dollar. If parents control the education dollar, school officials will strive to meet the parents’ demand that their children receive a quality education. If the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will bow to the demands of Congress and the Department of Education.

So if Congress was serious about improving education it would shut down the Department of Education. It would also shut down all other unconstitutional bureaucracies, end our interventionist foreign policy, and reform monetary policy so parents would have the resources to provide their children with an education that fits their children’s unique needs. Federal and state lawmakers must also repeal any laws that limit the education alternatives parents can choose for their children. The greater the options parents have and the greater the amount of control they exercise over education, the stronger the education system.

These reforms would allow more parents access to education options such as private or religious schools, and also homeschooling. It would also expand the already growing market in homeschooling curriculums. I know a great deal about the homeschooling curriculum market, as I have my own homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a rigorous program of study in history, economics, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. It also provides intensive writing instruction and an opportunity for students to operate their own Internet businesses. Of course, my curriculum provides students with an introduction to the ideas of liberty, including Austrian economics. However, we do not sacrifice education quality for ideological indoctrination.

It is no coincidence that as the federal role in education has increased the quality of our education system has declined. Any “reforms” to federal education programs will not fix the fundamental flaw in the centralized model of education. The only way to improve education is to shut down the Department of Education and restore control of education to those with the greatest ability and incentive to choose the type of education that best meets the needs of American children — American parents.

For information about the Ron Paul Curriculum go to ronpaulcurriculum.com.

Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

Related

US Military Training Overseas: Vast and Under-Reported - 16 April 2013

The Coming Non-Intervention Revolution - 16 April 2013

The Interventionist Failures and How To Fix Them - 17 April 2013

;Scenes From the Ron Paul Institute Press Conference - 22 April 2013

;Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty - 22 April 2013

SOURCE

Friday, January 9, 2015

"Standing with Israel" is Anti-Christian, Anti-Jewish & Anti-American (32m Documentary)

Posted by Charleston Voice

Christian Zionism: The Tragedy and The Turning, Part I (Full Documentary) from WHTT on Vimeo.

"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person." - Socialism

Friday, August 22, 2014

Suicide Rate Among American Soldiers Doubles

Posted by Charleston Voice

Does give one pause to wonder how many of our 535 congressmen can actually say to have honorably served a full enlistment of military duty doesn't it? JAG & non-combat officers don't qualify.

Kimberly Mitchell weeps at the grave of her husband, Chad Mitchell, at the Houston National
Cemetery. Chad, an Iraq War veteran, was one of hundreds of former service members from Texas who have died not in a war zone but after returning home. He died of an accidental overdose in 2010. PHOTO: Jay Janner

August 22, 2014 Patrick Kellen

According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, on average 22 veterans take their lives per day. This estimate though does not count states that did not participate in the study, including California, Texas and Illinois so that number is likely much higher. The estimate also does not take into account some additional situations such as homeless veterans that cannot be identified, or if there is no note along with the suicide.

An analysis by news 21 found that the suicide rate is more than twice as high among veterans vs the overall population. About 1 in 5 suicides in America is a veteran suicide. This problem is also getting worse, as suicides have increased 44 percent over the last two years of data available.

With the current VA crisis, there seems to be little combating this disturbing trend. This is another reminder of the real costs of our wars overseas. It was bad enough to lose thousands overseas in unnecessary wars, but to lose thousands every year back home is unacceptable. They deserve better treatment for their years of service.

War has exacted a heavy toll on the mental health of soldiers. We have seen the effects of war on our nation, but the human cost is the most devastating. We have seen our soldiers come home to unemployment, to homelessness and now to suicide. Why do we even consider engaging in more conflicts if we can't even take care of our soldiers when they return home?

In the past there used to be well-paying manufacturing jobs waiting for our soldiers when they returned home. Due to "free trade" agreements like NAFTA those jobs are gone. "Free trade" means unrestricted, uncontrolled access to our economy, tariff- and duty-free, for goods made for $4-per-hour or less. We cannot compete with these wages so we are forced to choose between going bankrupt, outsourcing nearly all of our manufacturing or simply selling out.

We need to wake up America! Can't we see the disease that is running through our country? These "free trade" agreements have sold us out. We must get rid of these agreements if we are ever to restore our nation.
via EconomyinCrisis

Monday, July 14, 2014

The Progressive Era and the Family - Murray N. Rothbard

Posted by Charleston Voice

From this post we get snapshots from Rothbard explaining how we got to where we are by knowing where we've been. These summary briefs tell us what we didn't learn in 'public' schools and certainly not in college which promised us a 'broad-minded' education which as it turned out was their view, not a truthful one.

You'll discover you're not sexist afterall, but are you a pietist?

Just knowing these few elements will fortify your literary armor for the uninformed or scornful remarks from leftists who must fall back on derogatory remarks because your knowledge flattens their argument into nonsense.

Maybe you're an Independent or libertarian Republican and didn't know it. Once apparent, you can then get the streaming vitriol from both Parties!

Mises Daily: Monday, June 30, 2003 by Murray N. Rothbard

[Originally from Joseph R. Peden and Fred R. Glahe (eds.), The American Family and the State (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 1986).]

While the "Progressive Era" used to be narrowly designated as the period 1900–1914, historians now realize that the period is really much broader, stretching from the latter decades of the nineteenth century into the early 1920s. The broader period marks an era in which the entire American polity—from economics to urban planning to medicine to social work to the licensing of professions to the ideology of intellectuals—was transformed from a roughly laissez-faire system based on individual rights to one of state planning and control. In the sphere of public policy issues closely related to the life of the family, most of the change took place, or at least began, in the latter decades of the nineteenth century. In this paper we shall use the analytic insights of the "new political history" to examine the ways in which the so-called progressives sought to shape and control selected aspects of American family life.

ETHNORELIGIOUS CONFLICT AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

In the last two decades, the advent of the "new political history" has transformed our understanding of the political party system and the basis of political conflict in nineteenth century America. In contrast to the party systems of the twentieth century (the "fourth" party system, 1896–1932, of Republican supremacy; the "fifth" party system, 1932–? of Democratic supremacy), the nineteenth century political parties were not bland coalitions of interests with virtually the same amorphous ideology, with each party blurring what is left of its image during campaigns to appeal to the large independent center. In the nineteenth century, each party offered a fiercely contrasting ideology, and political parties performed the function of imposing a common ideology on diverse sectional and economic interests. During campaigns, the ideology and the partisanship became fiercer and even more clearly demarcated, since the object was not to appeal to independent moderates—there were virtually none—but to bring out the vote of one's own partisans. Such partisanship and sharp alternatives marked the "second" American party system (Whig versus Democrat, approximately 1830 to the mid-1850s) and the "third" party system (closely fought Republican versus Democrat, mid-1850s to 1896).

Another important insight of the new political history is that the partisan passion devoted by rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans to national economic issues, stemmed from a similar passion devoted at the local and state level to what would now be called "social" issues. Furthermore, that political conflict, from the 1830s on, stemmed from a radical transformation that took place in American Protestantism as a result of the revival movement of the 1830s.

The new revival movement swept the Protestant churches, particularly in the North, like wildfire. In contrast to the old creedal Calvinist churches that stressed the importance of obeying God's law as expressed in the church creed, the new "pietism" was very different. The pietist doctrine was essentially as follows: Specific creeds of various churches or sects do not matter. Neither does obedience to the rituals or liturgies of the particular church. What counts for salvation is only each individual being "born again"—a direct confrontation between the individual and God, a mystical and emotional conversion in which the individual achieves salvation. The rite of baptism, to the pietist, therefore becomes secondary; of primary importance is his or her personal moment of conversion.

But if the specific church or creed becomes submerged in a vague Christian interdenominationalism, then the individual Christian is left on his own to grapple with the problems of salvation. Pietism, as it swept American Protestantism in the 1830s, took two very different forms in North and South, with very different political implications. The Southerners, at least until the 1890s, became "salvationist pietists," that is, they believed that the emotional experience of individual regeneration, of being born again, was enough to ensure salvation. Religion was a separate compartment of life, a vertical individual-God relation carrying no imperative to transform man-made culture and interhuman relations.

In contrast, the Northerners, particularly in the areas inhabited by "Yankees," adopted a far different form of pietism, "evangelical pietism." The evangelical pietists believed that man could achieve salvation by an act of free will. More particularly, they also believed that it was necessary to a person's own salvation—and not just a good idea—to try his best to ensure the salvation of everyone else in society:

"To spread holiness," to create that Christian commonwealth by bringing all men to Christ, was the divinely ordered duty of the "saved." Their mandate was "to transform the world into the image of Christ."1

Since each individual is alone to wrestle with problems of sin and salvation, without creed or ritual of the church to sustain him, the evangelical duty must therefore be to use the state, the social arm of the integrated Christian community, to stamp out temptation and occasions for sin. Only in this way could one perform one's divinely mandated duty to maximize the salvation of others. 2 And to the evangelical pietist, sin took on an extremely broad definition, placing the requirements for holiness far beyond that of other Christian groups. As one antipietist Christian put it, "They saw sin where God did not." In particular, sin was any and all forms of contact with liquor, and doing anything except praying and going to church on Sunday. Any forms of gambling, dancing, theater, reading of novels—in short, secular enjoyment of any kind—were considered sinful.

The forms of sin that particularly agitated the evangelicals were those they held to interfere with the theological free will of individuals, making them unable to achieve salvation. Liquor was sinful because, they alleged, it crippled the free will of the imbibers. Another particular source of sin was Roman Catholicism, in which priests and bishops, arms of the Pope (whom they identified as the Antichrist), ruled the minds and therefore crippled the theological freedom of will of members of the church.

Evangelical pietism particularly appealed to, and therefore took root among, the "Yankees," i.e., that cultural group that originated in (especially rural) New England and emigrated widely to populate northern and western New York, northern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois. The Yankees were natural "cultural imperialists," people who were wont to impose their values and morality on other groups; as such, they took quite naturally to imposing their form of pietism through whatever means were available, including the use of the coercive power of the state.

In contrast to evangelical pietists were, in addition to small groups of old-fashioned Calvinists, two great Christian groups, the Catholics and the Lutherans (or at least, the high-church variety of Lutheran), who were "liturgicals" (or "ritualists") rather than pietists. The liturgicals saw the road to salvation in joining the particular church, obeying its rituals, and making use of its sacraments; the individual was not alone with only his emotions and the state to protect him. There was no particular need, then, for the state to take on the functions of the church. Furthermore, the liturgicals had a much more relaxed and rational view of what sin really was; for instance, excessive drinking might be sinful, but liquor per se surely was not.

The evangelical pietists, from the 1830s on, were the northern Protestants of British descent, as well as the Lutherans from Scandinavia and a minority of pietist German synods; the liturgicals were the Roman Catholics and the high-church Lutherans, largely German.

Very rapidly, the political parties reflected a virtually one-to-one correlation of this ethnoreligious division: the Whig, and later the Republican, party consisting chiefly of the pietists, and the Democratic party encompassing almost all the liturgicals. And for almost a century, on a state and local level, the Whig/Republican pietists tried desperately and determinedly to stamp out liquor and all Sunday activities except church (of course, drinking liquor on Sunday was a heinous double sin). As to the Catholic church, the pietists tried to restrict or abolish immigration, since people coming from Germany and Ireland, liturgicals, were outnumbering people from Britain and Scandinavia. Failing that and despairing of doing anything about adult Catholics poisoned by agents of the Vatican, the evangelical pietists decided to concentrate on saving Catholic and Lutheran youth by trying to eliminate the parochial schools, through which both religious groups transmitted their precious religious and social values to the young. The object, as many pietists put it, was to "Christianize the Catholics," to force Catholic and Lutheran children into public schools, which could then be used as an instrument of pietist Protestantization. Since the Yankees had early taken to the idea of imposing communal civic virtue and obedience through the public schools, they were particularly receptive to this new reason for aggrandizing public education.

To all of these continuing aggressions by what they termed "those fanatics," the liturgicals fought back with equal fervor. Particularly bewildered were the Germans who, Lutheran and Catholic alike, were accustomed to the entire family happily attending beer gardens together on Sundays after church and who now found the "fanatic" pietists trying desperately to outlaw this pleasurable and seemingly innocent activity. The pietist Protestant attacks on private and parochial schools fatally threatened the preservation and maintenance of the liturgicals' cultural and religious values; and since large numbers of the Catholics and Lutherans were immigrants, parochial schools also served to maintain group affinities in a new and often hostile world—especially the world of Anglo-Saxon pietism. In the case of the Germans, it also meant, for several decades, preserving parochial teaching in the beloved German language, as against fierce pressures for Anglicization.

In the last three decades of the nineteenth century, as Catholic immigration grew and the Democratic party moved slowly but surely toward a majority status, the Republican, and—more broadly—pietist pressures became more intense. The purpose of the public school, to the pietists, was "to unify and make homogeneous the society." There was no twentieth century concern for separating religion and the public school system. To the contrary, in most northern jurisdictions only pietist-Protestant church members were allowed to be teachers in the public schools. Daily reading of the Protestant Bible, daily Protestant prayers and Protestant hymns were common in the public schools, and school textbooks were rife with anti-Catholic propaganda. Thus, New York City school textbooks spoke broadly of "the deceitful Catholics," and pounded into their children, Catholic and Protestant alike, the message that "Catholics are necessarily, morally, intellectually, infallibly, a stupid race."3

Teachers delivered homilies on the evils of Popery, and also on deeply felt pietist theological values: the wickedness of alcohol (the "demon rum") and the importance of keeping the Sabbath. In the 1880s and 1890s, zealous pietists began working ardently for antialcohol instruction as a required part of the public-school curriculum; by 1901, every state in the Union required instruction in temperance.

Since most Catholic children went to public rather than parochial schools, the Catholic authorities were understandably anxious to purge the schools of Protestant requirements and ceremonies, and of anti-Catholic textbooks. To the pietists, these attempts to de-Protestantize the public schools were intolerable "Romish aggression." The whole point of the public schools was moral and religious homogenization, and here the Catholics were disrupting the attempt to make American society holy—to produce, through the public school and the Protestant gospel, "a morally and politically homogeneous people." As Kleppner writes:

When they [the pietists] spoke of "moral education," they had in mind principles of morality shared in common by the adherents of gospel religion, for in the public school all children, even those whose parents were enslaved by "Lutheran formalism or Romish supersitition," would be exposed to the Bible. That alone was cause for righteous optimism, for they believed the Bible to be "the agent in converting the soul," "the volume that makes human beings men."4

In this way, "America [would] be Saved Through the Children."5
The pietists were therefore incensed that the Catholics were attempting to block the salvation of America's children—and eventually of America itself—all at the orders of a "foreign potentate." Thus, the New Jersey Methodist Conference of 1870 lashed out with their deepest feelings against this Romish obstructionism:

Resolved, That we greatly deprecate the effort which is being made by "Haters of Light," and especially by an arrogant priesthood, to exclude the Bible from the Public Schools of our land; and that we will do all in our power to defeat the well-defined and wicked design of this "Mother of Harlots."6

Throughout the nineteenth century, "nativist" attacks on "foreigners" and the foreign-born were really attacks on liturgical immigrants. Immigrants from Britain or Scandinavia, pietists all, were "good Americans" as soon as they got off the boat. It was the diverse culture of the other immigrants that had to be homogenized and molded into that of pietist America. Thus, the New England Methodist Conference of 1889 declared:

We are a nation of remnants, ravellings from the Old World. . . . The public school is one of the remedial agencies which work in our society to diminish this . . . and to hasten the compacting of these heterogeneous materials into a solid nature. 7

Or, as a leading citizen of Boston declared, "the only way to elevate the foreign population was to make Protestants of their children."8

Since the cities of the North, in the late nineteenth century, were becoming increasingly filled with Catholic immigrants, pietist attacks on sinful cities and on immigrants both became aspects of the anti-liturgical struggle for a homogeneous Anglo-Saxon pietist culture. The Irish were particular butts of pietist scorn; a New York City textbook bitterly warned that continued immigration could make America "the common sewer of Ireland," filled with drunken and depraved Irishmen.9

The growing influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe toward the end of the nineteenth century seemed to pose even greater problems for the pietist progressives, but they did not shrink from the task. As Elwood P. Cubberley of Stanford University, the nation's outstanding progressive historian of education, declared, southern and eastern Europeans have served to dilute tremendously our national stock, and to corrupt our civil life. . . . Everywhere these people tend to settle in groups or settlements, and to set up here their national manners, customs, and observances. Our task is to break up these groups or settlements, to assimilate and amalgamate these people as a part of our American race and to implant in their children. . . the Anglo-Saxon conception of rightousness, law and order, and popular government. . . . 10

PROGRESSIVES, PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND THE FAMILY: THE CASE OF SAN FRANCISCO

... Finish reading article


	Stanley Levison: The Jewish Communist behind Martin Luther King vid						1/2/15
	SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER (SPLC): Subversive Tax-Exempt 501c(3) Foundation						12/15/14
	JULIAN BOND of the Radical Left - THE MAN UNDER THE HOOD NAACP Chairman of the Board						11/10/14
	Judaism is not Zionism						9/20/14
	DoD Asked to Stop Using SPLC Hate Group's Anti-Christian Training Materials						7/7/14
	Confederate Flag In Citadel Chapel Has To Go Or NAACP Will "Intervene"						6/14/14
	Holder to create homegrown terrorism task forceAnti-Americanism,						6/4/14
	Communist Highlander Folk School, Monteagle, TN & Charleston, SC: Extensive Historical Photo Collage, Eleanor Roosevelt						5/9/14
	Why the Left Hates Confederate Symbols and Flags						3/15/14
	Is The Regime Afraid Of Its Subjects And Ultimately Of God?						10/21/13
	Tracking random hate crime mob attacks and murders in July						8/4/13
	Morris Dees - SPLC Fact Sheet						7/11/13
	The Soros-supported Southern Poverty Law Center						7/9/13
	The SPLC Collaborates With The DOJ: It Is NOT A Coincidence!						7/9/13
	Industry Insider: IRS Reporting Rules for Cash Transactions and Precious Metals						7/9/13
	Herald Meyerson: Separate the South with border fence						6/29/13
	Map of Intolerance: Groups that Promote Anti-Southern, Anti-Christian Agendas						6/7/13
	Spotlight & Liberty Lobby: Marxist & anti-Semitic - Page 1 of 4						5/15/13
	Southern Poverty Law Center Teaching Tolerance (TT) in Schools						4/30/13
	The Neocons Are Spitting Mad by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.						12/30/12
	SPLC Exposed for Homosexual Activism in Public Schools						10/8/12
	Feds Take Aim at the Republic for the u(sic)nited States of America						10/2/12
	CNN and SPLC Attempt to Demonize, Blackball Patriots						9/29/12
	Racist Agitators Whipping Up a Rampage of Hate in Selma, Alabama						9/24/12
	Here's How the Media/FBI/Police Apply the SPLC Training Doctrine to Provoke Homefront Terrorism videoFBI, Media						8/27/12
	Government Corruption: For Profit "non-profit" Hijacks Justice Department and Homeland Security vid						8/26/12
	Southern Poverty Law Center Gave ‘license' for Shooting at Family Rsch Council						8/16/12
	EXODUS MANDATE-WV - Flight from Public (Govt) Schools Needed Now!						8/2/12
	Southern Poverty Law Center: Calls free speech hate speech and veterans "potential terrorists" - vid						6/23/12
	Smear Artists for the Total State: Tom DiLorenzo on the libelers of the left						6/2/12
	Van Jones group plans American’s “Arab Spring”						4/7/12
	SPLC: Scamming for Power, Lucre, and Control						10/5/11
	Protecting Rights: Loyal Americans Targeted by the SPLC						10/5/11
	Racial Racketeering for Fun and Profit: The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam

Charleston Voice

All Post Links

Search Blog Posts

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore again advises probate judges they are not bound by same-sex ruling

Monday, January 26, 2015

Education is Too Important Not to Leave to the Marketplace

Friday, January 9, 2015

"Standing with Israel" is Anti-Christian, Anti-Jewish & Anti-American (32m Documentary)

Friday, August 22, 2014

Suicide Rate Among American Soldiers Doubles

Monday, July 14, 2014

The Progressive Era and the Family - Murray N. Rothbard

Blog Archive

Contact Us

AmungUs

Total Pageviews