Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 1 of 27
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.
DTL
"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare," the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue."
I thought the primary purpose of the educational system was... something else.
Anyone else creeped out by the "loyalty to the state" thing?
Anyway, parents in CA now face possible criminal charges if they teach without proper credentials, which means homeschoolers there face possible criminal charges.
Land of the free, indeed.
--------------------------
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
--Henry David Thoreau
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I thought the primary purpose of the educational system was... something else.
Good point. It's also for churning out obedient little consumers. The silly judge forgot that part.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...the suppression of individualism within collective societies causes counterrevolutions" - Dipak Gupta Path to Collective Madness: A Study in Social Order and Political Pathology
teach your children well... Steven Stills
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is interesting that the authors of the article chose to include that quote as it has absolutely nothing to do with the court's decision.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In this whole argument on either side, I've heard about the rights of parents and the needs of the state but not a whit about the needs of the children. I think BOTH sides are treating children as property. The only fight is whether they "belong" to the parents or the state. It's a pissing match about authority, and I find the parents are being just as authoritarian as the state.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. I actually don’t think loyalty to the state is a bad thing. In fact, I’m actually puzzled by why you chose to highlight this phrase, which has nothing to do with the issue and then treat the really troubling stuff as an afterthought:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Anyone else creeped out by the "loyalty to the state" thing?
Quote:This is what creeps me out.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Anyway, parents in CA now face possible criminal charges if they teach without proper credentials, which means homeschoolers there face possible criminal charges.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To teach the half of the truth that's not hidden.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I thought the primary purpose of the educational system was... something else.
Quote:Nah, I was creeped out by Bush Sr.'s "New World Order"- since then it's more like uhhh-yep.
Anyone else creeped out by the "loyalty to the state" thing?
Quote:An economic thing, certainly. Follow the money.
Anyway, parents in CA now face possible criminal charges if they teach without proper credentials, which means homeschoolers there face possible criminal charges.
Chrisisall
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The only fight is whether they "belong" to the parents or the state.
Yup, and I win. My kids don't belong to the state, they "belong" to me. If you want to characterize that as inhumane or callous feel free. But if you come to take my kids from me, you'd better be well armed. :)
edit to clarify:
I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights. The real issue is that children, by their very nature, are dependent and incapable of making decisions for themselves. The 'fight' is over who has the right to make decisions on their behalf. I believe that decision should be heavily weighted in favor of the biological parents, to the point that, unless outright abuse can be proven, there is no decision to be made. The parents win.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually I concur with Siggy - no one bothered to ask the kid, did they ?
Not sayin that the kid should have the final decision, but you know, might be a good idea to treat them like a human being and have their input on the process.
Unless there is some drastically compelling reason however, the primary part of the decision should fall on the parents as a family is a naturally occuring environment proven beneficial to those involved for the most part, and those bonds are more important to the mental health of a child than ones created by an organisation that is not beneficial to the mental health of anyone involved (Government) for it's own use and purposes irrespective of what those at the other end think of them.
All that said, I *did* ask the niece about it - to which her reply was that she knew her teachers were mostly full of it, but the convenience of educational materials all under one roof for her use was a lot simpler than trying to build a library at home, and if she didn't learn to get along with people and deal with them on a daily basis she'd wind up as antisocial and crabby as her dear old uncle.
She could leave, any time she wanted to, and I would fully support it, but she means to use THEIR educational system for HER purposes.
I guess the apple never does fall too far from the tree, does it ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reminds me of a funny story I heard on the radio a few days ago:
http://infowars.net/articles/march2008/060308Pennies.htm
Quote:
Kids Shut Down School Lunch By Paying With Pennies
Ann Shibler
JBS
Thursday, March 6, 2008
In an effort to draw attention to their dislike of a shortened lunch period, some seventh- and eighth-grade New Jersey students paid for their lunch in pennies, causing school officials to overreact.
Last week in Readington Township, New Jersey, 29 middle school students decided to pay for their $2 lunchwith 200 pennies, as a way to attract attention to a policy they disagree with — a shortened 30-minute "lunch hour." In what can only be described as sketchy details, the Associated Press relates that it started out as a "prank," but that it turned into a "protest." It did slow the lunch line to a slow crawl.
School "do-as-you-are-told-or-else" officials decided that it was neither funny nor a protest, and that the students "disrespected" lunch aides and therefore needed to be put on detention for two days.
There has been more than a little fallout since the story went public, with one headline shouting "Free the Readington 29." The school has since rescinded its orders for detention for those students whose parents’ don’t wish it, as many parents deemed the punishment too harsh. Superintendent Jorden Schiff commented that he was "concerned" about all the national media attention, hence the reason for the reprieve.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME