Podcast: Marvin Olasky interviews the president of Rasmussen Reports on the necessity of accurate polling 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Should Obama’s speech be shown in Christian schools?
Craig Dunham, husband of WORLDmag.com writer Megan Dunham, teaches at a Christian school in the St. Louis area. Yesterday, his school received several phone calls from anxious parents wondering if President Obama’s speech to schoolchildren was going to be shown in the classrooms on Tuesday, with several parents threatening to keep their kids home if it were to be aired. The school doesn’t plan to show it—not out of protest but because of school policy concerning live events and conflicts with scheduled teaching. The negative reaction of parents, however, got Craig to thinking:
Am I missing something here? If it’s not in the home (and why a homeschooling family would not use this as an opportunity for discussion I have no idea – we are), I would think parents would at least want their kids engaging live presentations like President Obama’s in a Christian school, where I as a teacher am going to ask questions like “What can we affirm?” (importance of education, faithful study, etc.) or “What needs to be challenged?” (ideas different from Scriptural truth, etc.). It shouldn’t matter who the speaker is – these are the conversations I would think a parent would be PRAYING to take place. Why keep your kids home from them? This logic does not compute; after all, why are they/we here?
At some point, folks, Christians have got to stop putting the mental in fundamentalist and start interacting with the world. Teaching our kids to stick their heads in the sand and ignore anyone they may not totally agree with is, in a word, unChristian. Folks, we can’t counter the culture unless we encounter the culture, so let’s take off the blinders, read through Acts 17 again, and be some salt and light around here for crying out loud.
Read Craig’s post in its entirety on his Second Drafts blog.
back to top101 Comments to “Should Obama’s speech be shown in Christian schools?”
I haven’t read a lot about this controversy, but as I understood it, wasn’t the main objection having to do with the accompanying lesson plans that stressed support for “the president” (as opposed to perhaps a better choice of words being “your country”?).
I would tend to think that a speech from the president urging kids to study & work hard and to contribute to their communities shouldn’t be a problem (giving all those involved the benefit of the doubt, that it wouldn’t be a politicized event).
For private Christian schools and home schools, I agree with the link that it presents a good opportunity for discussion and to encourage students to exercise some critical/biblical thinking.
Report comment to moderator
A must remember. Mr. Obama is the president. Wait, listen, then quize your children on the subject, being sure that we are fair and balanced. Does this seem fair to anyone?
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Dictators are very adept at recruiting adults who are unable to think for themselves, into believing a lie – this is evidenced within our own country. Children need to be educated, but that doesn’t mean a president who has shown himself to be a socialist, ‘ETC’ should be trusted.
Children are taught to trust the President of the United States – however – IF YOU DON’T TRUST HIM, why would you let him speak to your child?
Report comment to moderator
President Obama has too much faith in talk. Does he have any other modes or assets? The campaign is over. It’s time for Obama to do more listening, in my view, and to work with both sides of the aisle and start respecting the American people, including the loyal opposition. To be honest, I do not trust his words. I wish America has looked at his voting record rather than only listen to his words during the campaign.
Report comment to moderator
Part of the uproar may have to do with Obama’s “cult” status during the campaign and some of the weirdness that went with it.
I agree with Krauthammer’s insightful column this week — the aura has largely dissipated over the past few months. Obama is, indeed, mortal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302859_pf.html
But I do think that’s part of the reason for lingering suspicions, and picking up also on Joel Mark’s comments about how much Obama himself has relied solely on image and speeches to persuade.
Reagan also knew well how to use the gift of speech, but I don’t recall the celebrity aura being ever so pronounced as it has around Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Certainly! If there were critical thought about working hard and being civic minded, then that would be a good discussion.
The problem is that Obama’s message is always about himself. He doesn’t even use the presidential seal. It’s always big brand ‘O’. This presidency is all about marketing himself and the radical remaking of America in his own image.
HR1388 is considering how to create an Obama Youth Corp. that will be as well funded as the US military. Rahm (the devil) Emanuel promises that there will be mandatory conscription into this army for all children.
I can understand parents who are wary of sending their kids to hear an inspirational speech from a man who wants to turn their children into little ACORN eco-warriors.
Report comment to moderator
Craig Dunham needs to clarify what he is talking about or justify his unfair stereotypes of “Christians.” Dunham seems to be far too judgmental.
Dunham wrote; “At some point, folks, Christians have got to stop putting the mental in fundamentalist and start interacting with the world.”
Huh? Who specifically is not interacting with the world? Don’t we all have different callings that inspire various levels and degrees of interaction with the world? And what’s wrong with “mental,” or what is he talking about?
Dunham wrote; “Teaching our kids to stick their heads in the sand and ignore anyone they may not totally agree with is, in a word, unChristian.”
Who is doing this? Please don’t speak in cliché’s. With respect, how does this situation merit this criticism? Does Dunham not respect the right of people, especially parents, to be particular about how their children are being taught? This idea of Obama’s was blatantly political from the start, as seen in the accompanying lesson plans. Now they may be backing off from that. GOOD. Let’s THANK the critics, not disparage them. Without them, it is likely, in my view, that we would have seen a shameless campaign pitch to kids.
Dunham wrote; “Folks, we can’t counter the culture unless we encounter the culture…”
Nice cliché’. True even. But where was Dunham when so many were showing enormous disrespect to President Bush? Where is Dunham now in response to Obama and the Democrats blatant refusal to encounter Republicans respectfully and sincerely?
Who has blinders on? Explain that, please. Frankly, I admire those who are patriotic and courageous enough to rise to express their concerns about Obama even in the face of much smearing we get–EVEN from fellow Christians.
__________
Report comment to moderator
DonnaJ: Don’t expect an answer to your question any time soon. I’m not sure anybody knows what this “controversy” is all about.
Review the responses, especially xion’s, thus far and you will find no there there.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I was going to just ignore Obama, as usual. Now, I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea to use his speech in our home schooling to discuss and critique.
My problem outside of the home school (or possibly Christian school) is that it will be shown without critique. In fact, going by the 90% plus Democratic leanings of most teachers in public school, it is likely to be praised, pushed, promoted, and swallowed whole without a critical thought being expressed.
Report comment to moderator
Public schools are already full of glowing portraits of President Obama in the halls and the classrooms. Nothing new here, including the typical hypocrisy given that I never saw one portrait of President Bush in a public school for his entire term. That’s anecdotal, true enough, but I think it is representative of a clear hypocrisy among liberals in places of influence.
Report comment to moderator
TRS
“… 90% plus Democratic leanings of most teachers in public school,…”
That’s IT – Obama knows it as well, that’s why he wants his speech shown in the public school – in my opinion that has ALWAYS been the reason – As you know, people home-school so that their children won’t be indoctrinated by left, socialist leaning teachers.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, I read DonnaJ’s fine comments but I wonder what you are talking about. What question, precisely? And I think a lot of people are quite clear on what the controversy is about, including DonnaJ — mainly, those lesson plans asking for support for Obama. It inappropriate.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, your second graph reflects an added concern of mine as well.
If it is purely a message to inspire kids to study hard and stay in school, I have absolutely no problem with that. He is the president of the United States.
But from what little I read, it seemed that there was (initially anyway) going to be a lot more tacked on to it all, with lesson plans and “suggested” essays for students to write about how they could support the president. That seems to cross the line a bit in my mind.
I believe they’ve dropped the additional lesson component, though?
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives who want to keep their children home are effectively teaching their kids to hate and fear Democrats and the black man who leads them. It’s not surprising that some conservatives fear brainwashing by the president, their kids already get orders of magnitude more brainwashing at home. God forbid they these kids be afforded an opportunity to see that Obama isn’t a monster set on destroying the country.
Report comment to moderator
It would be perfectly fine if the questions that are posed in the original post were asked. But does anyone have any illusions that those questions will be asked in a public school? I don’t. Do you really think public school teachers will ask what should be challenged? I don’t think so. It is more likely in a public school that the president will be treated as a celebrity. That is why I would object.
Report comment to moderator
KWatson,
I thought he was white.
Report comment to moderator
But he IS set on destroying the country and so are the Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
#14 KWatson “God forbid they these kids be afforded an opportunity to see that Obama isn’t a monster set on destroying the country. “
That is exactly what Obama is doing, but kids may be afforded no critical insight given the worshipful promotion of many teachers and the teachers union.
I would think most Christian schools would provide a realistic perspective and keep politics separate. In public school, politics is religion and the only one allowed.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
(re#17) ARRRGGGGGG!
Now that I got that out of my system….
I’m just a little wary of any president (either party) addressing all school children. But it is a teaching opportunity if you trust your teachers. Also Christian schools should remember that some of their students’ parents may be Obama supporters. So if they are going to talk about Obama’s policies, they should probably refrain from pushing the Obama-is-out-to-destroy-the-country point of view, since this is, after all, only an opinion. Parents won’t appreciate having their children indoctrinated, whatever their political leanings. And I strongly support the rights of parents to teach their children as they see fit.
Report comment to moderator
My son attends a conservative Christian school which probably won’t air this, but I may TiVo it, review and if I have no problems with it, show it to my son.
Report comment to moderator
How about a lesson plan from Truman regarding dropping two atomic bombs on Japan?
What about a lesson plan from George Washington directed at the children of the parents who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion?
What of a unit from Jefferson on how to spend, without congressional approval, 15 million for land we knew little about and really weren’t certain wholly belonged to Napoleon to begin with? We paid 15 mill for the French to leave but whether than transaction was legitimate remains anyone’s guess. But let us imagine what Mr. Jefferson would tell school children about it.
How about a lesson plan from Andrew Jackson about how to “deal with” Cherokees?
How about a lesson from John Adams on why we should distrust the French?
Hows about a unit from Honest Abe about making southern states “mind”? They could’ve “forced” the curriculum on children of confederates.
Why not a lesson plan from Woodrow Wilson about why we should go to war in Europe? It could have 14 points in it.
How about a lesson plan from Ronald Reagan about the need to stockpile a massive amount of nuclear arsenal and aim it at your enemy?
Why not a plan from Mr. Bush, Sr. about coming to the aid of Kuwait?
Maybe a plan from W himself about the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind? (Ah, well, the teachers at least got the plan for the latter there!)
I mean, come now people. This isn’t the worst thing that’s ever happened to our nation. I pretty much agree with the sentiments of the article.
Our school isn’t doing it. But not out of protest. Parents and their kiddos can watch the “tape delay” later on.
I shall now duck.
Report comment to moderator
This is one public school teacher that isn’t showing it in class. Why? My students have a test on Tuesday. Also, the President is not giving this speech in the target language. There are many other video presentations much more relevant to a foreign language class. Let the social studies teachers show it.
FYI, my school district has left it up to our individual discretion as teachers. However, if we decide to show it, we must first preview the video (or script, if one is released) and email the administration letting them know that we did so and explaining the activities and learning goals associated with the lesson. By board policy, students who do not wish/don’t have parental permission to participate in this lesson must be provided with an alternative learning activity.
Not all public schools are rushing to burn incense at the shrine.
Report comment to moderator
My post above about past presidents is not intended to be necessarily a critique of any one of those administrations. I admire the men and their accomplishments (as well as learn from their failures) and by no means am passing judgment. Rather, I’m ust pointing out that what history demonstrates has happened with previous Presidents makes this particular speech, in my opinion, hardly worth the hoopla its generated.
Tis all, just in case anyone was wondering.
Report comment to moderator
The public school where I teach is not showing it, but offering DVDs to any that want it. Could not a Christian school show it later? I would think a Christian school would want open minded students who can think for themselves, not mind numbed robots on the right.
Report comment to moderator
What’s the target language Sylvie?
Report comment to moderator
It was the tone of the lesson plans that I would have objected to and did in fact talked to my grandchildren’s mothers about. One daughter was already upset about it and trying to think what would be the best for her sons. The others also checked out the plans. The one who would have been affected contacted her Christian school which is not showing it, because the think it is too controversial. Her husband, BTW, is a public school teacher.
It is not always best to allow students to hear something and then critique it. All parents should be helping their children to learn to do that, regardless of type of schooling. However, that doesn’t mean they sit under every teaching that comes along. Some children are more impressionable and followers. Others are leaders and some are natural skeptics. Parents have to determine what is best for each child.
If the lesson plans had not had some things in it, there may not have been this big to do. Also, a better idea of what the President was going to talk about exactly may have lessened fears. Any student of history knows how easily children are influenced for political purposes.
The media wants to characterized this as mindless fear etc. from the right. It is no such thing.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for all the typos!
Report comment to moderator
Xion #25
I teach French. And I’ve not heard any rumors (founded or unfounded) that the President knows that language.
Report comment to moderator
Merci Beaucoup!
Report comment to moderator
My child’s mind does not belong to the State.
Report comment to moderator
The media wants to characterized this as mindless fear etc. from the right. It is no such thing.
Check. You’re confronting nothing less than a racist African who’s here illegally to kill Sarah Palin’s baby.
Report comment to moderator
Sylvie – 28
He speaks Arabic –
Those who find nothing wrong with Obama’s over the line approach are not only appalling, but questionable ….. and yes it is over the line, Obama doesn’t see any lines that he CANNOT CROSS, that’s one of his trademarks!
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone see Tucker Carlson on FOX tonight? – it was a masterpiece – the school system across America, the words and definitions which have been excluded from textbooks is unbelievable. Much of it is centered around Muslims and homosexuals – who would have ever guessed?
Report comment to moderator
‘FOX News Reporting: Do You Know What Textbooks Your Children Are Really Reading?’
September 04, 2009 FOX NEWS
FOX News Reporting investigated the $10 billion dollar-a-year textbook industry and how the drive to be politically correct might be taking over American schools.
Host Tucker Carlson, asked experts, teachers, publishers and parents the same question: “Do you know what is inside your children’s textbooks?” From kindergarten through college, we found staggering errors and omissions which may be pushing agendas, hidden and otherwise.
We spoke to the author of “The Language Police,” education historian Diane Ravitch, who said textbook publishers censor images or words they deem to be controversial in children’s textbooks. She told us that publishers pander to special interest groups, and assemble bias and sensitivity review committees. These committees decide what words to ban or redefine, and even what images are deemed offensive.
________________another excerpt_________________
The ISA is wholly owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and teaches students from textbooks, which according to a report by a Saudi scholar interviewed by FOX News, continues to “propagate an ideology of hate to the unbeliever.” FOX News Reporting obtained some of their current 2008-2009 textbooks which were supposed to be purged of inflammatory language. We found proof otherwise.
________________another excerpt_________________
And in California’s Alameda County, our cameras were there as parents were embroiled in a heated debate over a mandatory curriculum designed to teach students from grades K-5 about different types of families, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender lifestyles. After a vote by the Alameda Unified School District in May of this year, the second grade reading curriculum now requires a book about gay penguins.
FOX News Reporting examines what is really inside children’s textbooks.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545900,00.html
Report comment to moderator
Quote from Victoria #32:
“Those who find nothing wrong with Obama’s over the line approach are not only appalling, but questionable ….. and yes it is over the line, Obama doesn’t see any lines that he CANNOT CROSS, that’s one of his trademarks!”
About the people that you are referring to as appalling and questionable, are they the ones that are:
1-willing to let their children hear/see the address.
2-willing to TIVO the address for later viewing.
3-willing to make/buy a DVD of the address for later viewing.
4-in agreement that the address should be aired in Christian schools (including the school teacher cited in the article).
5-all of the above.
Report comment to moderator
“if you trust your teachers.”
Well, there you have it DJ — I DON’T trust the public school teachers. The entire union is liberal and sneers at Christianity. I would trust teachers in a Christian school, but not in a public school.
You seem to think that someone who is out to “change” the country will be doing it in one fell swoop. He/They won’t. The only thing that put any kind of hold on the Dems was the Republicans, who also weren’t thinking about the country. They had the perfect opportunity to do what the majority wanted with Bush’s immigration bill, but they, including the president (GWB) didn’t listen to the people. And now we all pay the price. Because BOTH parties played to the lobbyists, not what was good for the overall nation.
DJ, if you had taken the time to read my post at 17, you would have seen the phrase that I don’t think parents want their children indoctrinated WHATEVER the party. Public schools do that, and they favor the liberals. A Christian teacher would present the lesson, I think, more honestly. I suggest you read my post 15, because yes, my post at 17 is my opinion.
Kids are supposed to learn that the president is just a person, someone they should question. That’s their job as citizens. They aren’t taught that in the public schools unless the president is a Repub, specifically GWB. That hatred is still there, and if you want to teach something, that attitude has to change. Until then, there should be no unfair advantage.
Indoctrination is done incrementally. You start this will kindergarteners who are five, by the time Obama leaves office, assuming 2 terms, they will be 13. That’s a lot of indoctrination in an already leftist leaning public school system.
Report comment to moderator
And Scroopy, this phrase:
“You’re confronting nothing less than a racist African ….”
We might be. His green guy is certainly a racist.
Report comment to moderator
I like the way you think, NJLAWYER. I need to emulate that.
Report comment to moderator
Point 1 – Where is the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to be involved in education at all? This is the question no one asks. We’ve come to the place where we default to the Feds as our paternalistic caretaker. The Constitution was written by men who feared a strong centralized government.
Point 2 – Student’s of history understand that oppressive dictators take hold of the educational system. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Ming, Castro, Chavez, etc.. Yes, tut, tut. This cannot happen here.
Point 3 – There’s no Public in Public schools.
“I believe that … [public] education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform … this conception has due regard for … socialistic ideals.” and “There is no God and there is no soul. … There is no room for fixed … or moral absolutes.”
– John Dewey, father of modern public education and signer of Humanist Manifesto 1930
He is called the Father of Modern Education.
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
– C.F. Potter, signer of Humanist Manifesto 1930
It should be properly called government education. Who pays for it? Who chooses the curriculum? Who licenses the teachers? Who sets the standards?
Why do Christians believe there is some benign neutrality in Government education? It is energized by a world view hostile to Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve said all along my preference is for the text to be distributed and then students could read it. Turn it into a writing assignmt. Let them summarize it, outline it and perhaps even learn some fundamental logic concepts.
Passive TV viewing–even if it is the President–should not be done as frequently as some schools do it.
Report comment to moderator
JS
Hi. I would like to attempt to answer your points.
#1. What would you make of the Old Deluder Satan act which predates the Constitution by 100 + years? It was a mandatory educational law established by a Puritan community. It is considered to be the first cumpulsory education law in our country’s history. How might “promote the general welfare” be interpreted regarding education? Or the elastic/necessary and proper clause? To make the Constitution “rigid” would be to destroy the very essence of why it has survived. No the founders didn’t write in a public school clause, but they all believed in the necessity of education as a means to maintain the republic they were founding. Granted what we have presently isn’t “friendly” to “Christian values” but in this world, we are going to be constantly facing such things and must work hard not so much in fomenting opposition, but providing quality alternative solutions. But the Constitution is Caesar’s bible and he will interpret it as he sees fit. It is not upon that document we place our ultimate hope and well-being, but Scripture. The Constitution survives because it changes and can be changed. It reflects the nature of man. We can interpret and adapt it for our time. That was the genius of the founders’ intentional ambiguity. They left some wiggle room and we’ve taken advantage of that for better or for worse. The Scriptures survive first because God has willed it to be so and second simply because they do not change. It is not a text which has ever had to adapt itself or be reinterpreted to fit the age. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Putting our hope in a document which can be amended will only end up disappointing.
#2 What about adding Nebuchadnezzar to the list? What was Daniel’s response to a unreasonable and unjust law? He continued to do what he knew was right in a way that did not disparage the King himself. I think Christian witness in the realm of education should be similar. Let us do what is right. Let us go where God calls each of us – to a pagan land or in Babylon and serve the King as God allows. There will be a time for opposition and a time to obey God rather than man. Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon for me have served as examples that God’s people can work, serve and have favor with “Caesar”. There are also those times when, as in around 68-70 A.D. when Paul wrote the epistle, you had Nero on the throne. Reading Romans 13 and thinking of Nero makes me gape in wonder.
#3 – This could be argued differently. We work with our local school district at the private school in which I teach. The ISD’s in Texas are very communal, especially out in the more rural districts. You’ve got a school, a church, a HS football or basketball team, a favorite pizza place, volunteer fire department and a bunch of folks who’ve known each other for years. I’ve seen it myself. It is very public. Teachers,parents, students go to church together. The Pastor might be on the school board or part of the volunteer FD, etc. So “public” is relative to the community.
#4 I agree with you that Dewey is responsible for much of the separation of Christianity from our nation’s public schools. Dewey himself began in the church. I’ve read a great deal of his writings and have noticed that his final “break” with God seemed to come around the turn of the century around the time his wife died. It’s my own estimation that Dewey’s philosophy was a great deal of fist shaking at God about it. But that is no footnoted, researched conclusion, just a hunch. That being said, however, Dewey did provide a useful service early on to many youngsters whose families had moved from the rural, agrarian life to a life in the city. Children were no longer being taught the basics of farming and domestic things at home. Dewey’s “normal schools” gave many students skills needed for participation within the changing culture. Granted Christianity was no longer the a priori rationale in education for Dewey. His teacher training schools omitted the teaching of Hebrew and Greek. There was no longer an emphasis on Scripture in the classroom, although it continued to have a place of prominence for many teachers and schools even within the “progressive” era. Modern educational impulses of vocational training have their origins in Dewey and that’s not so bad. But Dewey did a disservice to our nation’s youth by not continuing an emphasis on the basics of rote learning in math, reading and the likes. A horrid omission I believe. The man was an agnostic/atheistic socialist to the core. This I readily acknowledge and had visionary hopes for education in transforming our country that mirrored socialistic regimes in other countries. But Dewey’s gone. His influence is still with us to some degree (teacher colleges, vo. tech, “hands-on” approaches to learning). Today, however, one has the option of going to teacher colleges based on a Christian or non-Christian worldview. Private homeschooling, quality Christian schools are demonstrating that they are far and away superior to Dewey’s progressivistic ideals. Most people after Sputnik believed progressivism had failed our nation in math and science, which it did.
Last few points. Sure it’s government education. But according to the Constitution, to whom does the government belong? It’s my own private thoughts on this matter, but I believe the expansion of federal jurisdiction that we’ve seen over the course of the last 170 years or so – going back to say Jacksonian Democracy, is in my estimation a fruit of a populace that began to neglect its own vigilance and participation. Folks were so happy to have Old Hickory in office they sort of let him do whatever he wanted. So he took upon himself a great deal more federal authority than had been exhibited in the previous 6 administrations. I like the old General, but he was indeed a bit of a monarch. Suffice it to say, it is more the lax of the demos than one particular Executive. The pursuit of wealth and material comforts distracted and continues to distract and trouble us. It is also a fruit of precisely what Plato describes in his Republic, namely that democracy is always one step away from tyranny. The democratic man is a little of this and a little of that. Discipline is not one of his better traits. Democratic man’s neglect of neighbor has resulted in Uncle Sam shouldering a burden beyond far beyond his ability to carry. I think it’s that simple, really.
I don’t believe in benign neutrality. Caesar has never advocated any sort of middle ground. “In this world you will have trouble. But rejoice, for I have overcome the world” Jesus tells us. He did. “Caesar” judged Him – through Pilate, Roman soldiers, through Festus, Agrippa, Herod, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Saul, and others, but Jesus triumphed over man’s judgment as He will over everything that troubles us and is contrary to sound doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
How frequently does the President tell kids to do their homework and stop making excuses, how frequently should he, and how frequently should kids watch him tell them?
Report comment to moderator
#33 Yes, I recorded Tucker Carlson’s expose’. It was quite good. I am going to watch it again. American text books portray America as the bad guy. The texts are geared toward creating little left-wing activists.
And so, government school children are already being indoctrinated through their curriculum. So I can see how the left doesn’t understand what the big deal is. Obama would simply be reinforcing the same message.
We went around to several public schools when our kids were about to go into 1st grade. Walking the halls and talking to the principal and teachers made it obvious that this was a left-wing indoctrination center.
A deep seeded theme of multiculturalism and environmentalism confronted us at every turn. Native Americans good. White man bad. They were teaching a pseudo-religious form of earth worship. Save mother earth. Big business and corporations were evil for harming the planet. Government was the answer. Conflicts were handled through psychology and mediation. Many of the kids were forced to take some mind altering drugs to keep them in line.
The President would just be giving more of the same. I am guessing that the speech will be quite demure at this point. But that doesn’t change his intentions. We know that the President wants to create an Obama Youth Corp out of these little eco-warriors.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark says,
I saw one in a number of classrooms in one of our local public high schools. It was this one.. President Bush was certainly not ignored.
Report comment to moderator
43
And Xion, you turned out ok. Praise God you’ve got the mind to understand the difference now. There will be generations of youngsters who will grow up and come to many of the same conclusions about their education.
One of my SEVENTH graders commented this way last week. He raises his hand and says, “Mr. Ray, did you know that on Fox News, on the O’Reily Factor, it said that the Democrats are putting lies into our text books?”
I wasn’t immediately sure how to respond. After a pause I said to him that it’s not a “democrat” but the human heart, which is desperately wicked, which is responsible for lies and untruths. That’s why historians have to read different perspectives on things to find the truth. I pointed out the fact that we still don’t know what happened to the lost colony of Roanoke in 1608, 400 years later. We must read different accounts to get an accurate perspective.”
I was more stricken with the fact this young man was seeing the trouble in the world as a political party rather than stepping back and taking into account a much broader vision of why man does what he does. I do not discourage my students from watching the news and I’m glad they do, but I must constantly remind them that the news is only one perspective that often completely ignores a Christian worldview. It is not O’Reily or Hannity or Limbaugh or Democrats, Republicans, etc, but “Moses and the Prophets”. We must not allow the culture to dictate the terms of our engagement with it.
OH
Report comment to moderator
As a government official, the president belongs strictly to the public realm. He’s not a priest, or a patriarch, or even the next-door neighbor. Massive, targeted access to citizens’ children is an intrusion and arrogation of power, directly inserting Obama into the private realm and accessing children over the heads of their parents.
This isn’t just an official visiting a school and reading a book, it’s a national program in which Obama attempts a get schoolchildren to make a personal commitment to himself and his policies.
The studying advice is a figleaf–kids don’t need the president to tell them to study and it is demagoguery to ask for their “help”–at the expense of what, by the way, study time?
Report comment to moderator
Of course that last sentence will allow the more critically minded to pounce on me –
Why then permit public education to “dictate the terms” OH?
And I would hang my head in shame and say that I’ve publically created a contradiction within my own thought from which I cannot extract myself presently.
You all have the rope, I’m willing to go to the gallows of your chosing. This demonstrates I’m not done learning and thinking about the influence, participation and engagement with culture as a Christian. Both the media and public education to go to great lengths to dictate the terms, don’t they?
If one is grounded in the truth, engagement with education or the media isn’t anathema. But for now, since I’ve demonstrated my ignorance, I shall desist from the conversation. I’ve got a great deal more thinking and soul searching to do I guess. Sigh.
Report comment to moderator
Sin/flesh/spirt trying to live in and understand the world without being of it. I make no excuses. I have not all the answers. I don’t think complete withdraw is a solution, but I don’t think a full embrace of worldly means is going to work, either. The truth will set us free. It’s not a middle ground between two alternatives, but the way, the truth and the life.
What that is precisely supposed to look like in my life, I’ve yet to fully comprehend. So I admit I’ve contradicted myself, confess the sin of pride that says I must have an answer for everyone, admit I don’t know it all, and that even though I work in a Christian school, I still think there are redeemable qualities in a multitude of methods. I think we should not allow the culture to dictate the terms of our engagement with it but also believe that this is what in fact we do sometimes and good can come of it. Call me muddleheaded and confused and upon that I shall rightly agree.
Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that for which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus. – Philippians 3.12
A work in progress.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Wow I go away for a few weeks and kool aid becomes the most popular drink.
School teachers receive vast amounts of freebies from various gov’t agencies complete with DVDs, lesson plans etc. And more recently video on request on the internet. Most teachers don’t use the accompanying lesson plans simply because the p.r. person of the Ontario milk marketing board has no idea how to teach gr. 2. Similarly any lesson plans provided by the white house will be recycled, modified, and adapted by the preference of the teacher taking into account the school community.
As for the president addressing school children, I agree with Newt Gringrich.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWwPMWxatrs
And when the president delivers his perfunctorily speech, ie stay in school and do your homework, many of you will have to take off the tin foil.
Report comment to moderator
Hickory (45), very good points. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
#45 Thanks for your teaching efforts OH. Your answer was good, but it appears that you only answered half of the question. The truth is that YES, a leftist secular America-is-bad ideology pervades public school textbooks. A political agenda that includes multiculturalism, environmentalism and a distortion of history.
Textbook publishers admit to rewriting history from a very different perspective, namely one that denigrates America, whites, Christians, conservatives, capitalism, corporations and even Western Civilization. It is part of the politicization of American education.
The important lesson here though is the one you gave. The world is full of lies and we must be critical of what we hear and careful to research the facts. Most of what we see on TV is untrue or misleading, especially the news. News is biased and carefully edited for effect.
Years ago, I actually purchased a number of history textbooks in order to see what students were being taught. Some of it was pretty hilarious and outrageous. If I were teaching in a Christian school, I think it would be fun to get a hold of some of these nutty books and show your class how distorted they are.
My favorite one was about Thanksgiving. It said that the Pilgrims were just people who went on a journey. Not one mention about the religious purpose of their journey. The book later did mention the Puritan religion, but only to highlight that it caused them to execute people accused as witches.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a hilarious (and sad) look at words that are now banned in American textbooks. One banned word is ‘American’. Textbook authors are forbidden from using the word and instead must use ‘People of the United States’.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
I’m grateful you think me in possession of “half” an answer! That is more than I would attribute to knowning with any certainty myself.
Report comment to moderator
That is more than what I would attribute to myself with any certainty.
Oh, my grammar is terrible.
Report comment to moderator
XION – That’s almost as good as, “Indians are people who lived in our country before we got here.”
Report comment to moderator
Scroop
They really weren’t/aren’t Indians. That was a left-over epithet from European imperialism which began in 1492 or thereabouts.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#55 Scroop. Who says that?
Report comment to moderator
They aren’t “Native Americans” either because most of the tribal peoples who inhabited the continent before the arrival of Eurpeans never heard of Amerigo Vespucci. It would thus be doubtless that they would attach a name to themselves of which they’d never heard.
Takes some effort (and a great deal more respect) to call a man or a woman the name by which they are known.
It is much easier, however, to sort, classify, stereotype and dismiss when one generalizes erroniously about people they’ve never met or known of course. Makes one look better, you see.
Report comment to moderator
Of course someone will brand me a leftist because I view European colonization of the “New World” as a form of imperialism. This bird we call our nation is represented by an Eagle – which has two wings, left and right.
Admit I’m a swirl of both, in case anyone was wondering.
Both wings, regardless, are needed for flight. 1 Cor. 11:18-19 I think in some ways can be applied to our political lives.
“For first, when ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it. For there must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you.”
Report comment to moderator
On Aug 28, 2009, children at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington Utah were shown an Obama propaganda video called “I Pledge”, which recites the following oath “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama”.
Report comment to moderator
#52. We can’t blame the textbooks for our lack of a proper name.
The sad fact is, we are the people with no name, uniquely in the world. “Americans” are everybody in the western hemisphere, and who in the world was Amerigo? “United States” is no more a name than “Republic” or “Monarchy.” It’s a generic label for a form of government that names Mexico and several other countries in America, and Russia of all places, not just us.
On the other hand, our States have splendid names indeed.
Report comment to moderator
Where then lies our true identity, Scroop?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop –
Is your question about Amerigo rhetorical statement, as in “He’s a nobody” or do you really not know?
If the latter, he was a Italian explorer and navigator, believed to be the first gent to suggest the New World was in fact an “unknown” continent to Europeans rather than the Orient.
He is credited with being the first European as far as I know to have set foot on the continents, if you don’t count Ericson in 1,000 A.D.
A German mapmaker suggested naming the New World after Amerigo, and lo it was.
Report comment to moderator
Most Indians I know are just fine being called Indians. If they aren’t I call them whatever they want to be called.
I have to applaud the black man I heard recently on tv saying he was not an African American, but just an American. Most of us could say we are —-,—–American, but we usually don’t. My children would have a long list.
We have gotten childish and ridiculous in most of this political correctness.
Many textbooks were bad when my children were in school. It alerted me immediately to problems. They are no grown with their own children and it has only gotten worse.
We did all kinds of corrective measures to teach what is right. Parents must do that no matter what kind of schooling they do. Each type has its challenges and blessings. Beware thinking because you put them in a christian school, that their teachers won’t teach some things that are not good.
OH98: It was good that you corrected the thinking of that student that it is only Democrats that put questionable things in textbooks. We need to be encouraged to “think”! Not listen to one party or another.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link Xion #60
Report comment to moderator
KI that’s the rub. Where’s the blame fall? One of the resultant fruits of the fall is blame. God’s first conversation with our first parents dealt directly with their passing the buck of responsibility. Note in the context of Genesis, no one took responsibility. God had to point it out. And the remarkable thing in Genesis is you don’t see any of them repenting of it or ever agreeing with God.
My comments about Indians were more technical, of course. Sort of, “Well, technically that’s really not who they are. But we’ve grown so accustomed to the nominclature its a tad bit unreasonable to start suggesting we alter our texts to suit such strict identification procedures of each individual tribe and tribe members in their native tongue. I agree KI with your sentiments. I was perhaps being too exact.
OH
Report comment to moderator
#52,
One banned word is ‘American’. Textbook authors are forbidden from using the word and instead must use ‘People of the United States’.
So then you merely object to accuracy?
As #61 points out, we are American, but so, of course are Canadians, Mexicans, Guatemalans etc. and so on. My friends in Toronto and Hamilton love to point this out!
Try crossing the border, sometime – when asked citizenship or nationality, “American” has never been the proper response. I and everyone I know, always respond to the question “Citizenship?” with the proud answer “United States.”
And yes, I would like that level of specificity and accuracy in textbooks, when speaking about this country.
Report comment to moderator
I guess there’s no such thing as African American either, huh?
And don’t ever say the United States of (blank) or USA. Both forbidden.
Maybe that’s why no one minds children pledging allegiance to the big ‘O’, since pledging allegiance to America is now a forbidden word.
Anybody ever read 1984? Are kids required to read that anymore or is that banned too? Too bad, because maybe they would learn something about newspeak and the censorship of words.
Report comment to moderator
Xion 52
If you listen to the video you link the news anchor is careful to say “they are trying to” eliminate these words. In other words, it has yet to happen and probably won’t but this allows for a little bit of fear mongering.
Report comment to moderator
A miscellany:
Indians — the common term in their language is a variation of The People. E.g. the Anishnabe if you’re Ojibwe/Odawa/Potawatomi.
Xion @ 60 — that’s some video, huh. Though its graphics (and speakers) all suggest that this came from the Obama campaign organization. My guess is that it was a post Nov, “what else can you do” wrap up video.
HRW — glad to see you’re back. Missed your voice.
Report comment to moderator
#62 : Our true identity is that which we contest, OH. We try to pretend that our identity was defined once and for all at our origination (our contest has always been so savage). In my view, that original identity was a vicious theocracy, called Zion, which in due course metamorphosed into a slave republic, The Land of Cotton. Throughout much of the South and the contemporary Republican Party, it’s still 1865, a smoldering state of resentment. Mainstream politicians from Paliin to Perry draw upon secessionist inspirations, as if we can master our own fates, let alone that of the others we’d like to control. As the lunacy of the Republican party became more dramatic, I’ve held on to the alternate vision of a democracy arisen out of the republic, incubated by Jefferson and Jackson, given birth by Lincoln (Moses!), educated by FDR, and issued its drivers license by MLK. That’s still the dream of many of us who voted for Obama. However, our land swarms with people who have migrated back and forth across the continent for 19,000 years, and they’ve not yet had their say about our identity. Our white people didn’t exactly come here with Adam and Eve’s genius for naming the place. It just seems inevitable therefore that our identities as decadent descendants of the Mayflower or Ellis island will be replaced by our identities as descendants of the ancients who crossed the land bridge from Asia, long before Palin took up her watch over the route. More Africans have immigrated freely than were brought in chains, and the most profitable international air route is Lagos-Atlanta. So, down with McKinleyism up with “Thanatopsis” and “Leaves of Grass.” IMHO
Report comment to moderator
#69 HRW. Of course. No sane person would listen to this nonsense. But then again, the text book publishers relish the insanity. In their world, there will be …
No more “God Bless America”. No more “Proud to be an American”. No more “Pledge Allegiance to the United States of America” etc.
Report comment to moderator
71. Strange that you would praise Jackson and lament the fate of the native American in the same paragraph.
Report comment to moderator
KBells
Haven’t you yet to figure out that I am strange? You are just now realizing this?!
Jackson is each one of us. A tyrant-king, battle-hardened solider but a loving husband and uncle who treated several of his slaves like family. A political firebrand but one who knew he needed forgiveness and who knew he needed to forgive but struggled intently with it. A man who mercilessly ordered Cherokees “out”, who lived with a bullet inches from his chest, who was miraculously spared from an assassination attempt at point-blank range, who refused to clean the boots of a British officer, but who also delighted in the simple comforts of domestic pleasures and who knew what and who the Word of God was and its importance for our nation – confessing so on his death bed.
In the end KB, like my praise and lament of Jackson in the same paragraph, I too have lots of contradictory impuses with this paragraph I call my life, just like Jackson. If God forgave that man, which I believe He did, there’s hope for me yet. Welcome to my cyber-pseudonym.
OH
Report comment to moderator
Oh, good heavens, KB, you were talking to Scroop! I thought you were for some reason referring to my comments I’d made about Jackson earlier somewhere. Good grief. My bad.
Report comment to moderator
#43 Amen! Exactly. I worked there.
As for United States of America, or United States or American…come on, people. When you say you’re an American, there isn’t a person in the world who is going to mistake you for a Canadian or a Mexican. When you say you’re from the United States, no one thinks you’re from the United States of Mexico. Let’s get real here.
I suppose we could go with “Yankee” or “Yank” but we’d just upset our southerners.
“American” is fine.
Report comment to moderator
OH68,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
The necessary/proper clause does not give the Federal Govt. unlimited leeway. Otherwise the rest of the Constitution would be unnecessary. It refers to those other responsibilities specifically given to the Feds.
Per General Welfare: Madison, who is generally regarded as the Father of the Constitution, noted that this did not give the Feds unlimited power, either.
The Constitution was written to limit Federal power, and let the States decide how to handle items like education. This resolution from the Indiana State House reflects my idea on this topic…
Jan 13, 1947
This bill was first time by title and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Mr. Speaker: I offer the following concurrent resolution and move its adoption:
Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, Indiana needs no guardian and intends to have none. We Hoosiers-like the people of our sister states-were fooled for quite a spell with the magician’s trick that a dollar taxed out of our pockets and sent to Washington, will be bigger when it comes back to us. We have taken a good look at said dollar. We find that it lost weight in its journey to Washington and back. The political brokerage of the bureaucrats has been deducted. We have decided that there is no such thing as “federal” aid. We know that there is no wealth to tax that is not already with the boundaries of the 48 states.
So we proposed henceforward to tax ourselves and take care of ourselves. We are fed up with subsidies, doles and paternalism. We are no one’s stepchild. We have grown up. We serve notice that we will resist Washington, D. C. adopting us.
Be it Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, the Senate concurring: That we respectfully petition and urge Indiana’s Congressmen and Senators to vote to fetch our county courthouse and city halls back from Pennsylvania Avenue. We want government to come home.
Resolved, further, that we call upon the legislatures of our sister states and on good citizens everywhere who believe in the basic principles of Lincoln and Jefferson to join with us, and we with them to restore the American Republic and our 48 states to the foundations built by our fathers.
The topic at hand, education, is a perfect example of the usurpation of State’s rights and an oppressive paternalistic Fed.
Not quite sure what the Puritans have to do with things unless your argument is the Puritans were for compulsory education, so it must be ok.
No argument about the Scriptures. But the Constitution is no wax nose either. The amendment process is rather stringent. What has happened is that Feds have just ignored it and done as they please and so we’ve arrived at the place where are rights are endowed by the Fed rather than our Creator; where life, liberty and pursuit of happiness belongs to the oversight of DC bureaucrats rather than to my own individual responsibility.
As for the false dichotomy you offer about opposition and alternatives; it is not either/or, it is both/and. Alternatives which maximize personal freedom, liberty have been offered; and then pooh, poohed and ignored. Have we become so lazy, dull and dependent on the Feds to tend to our every need that we cannot find other (and better) options at a State or local level?
Well, I’ve prattled on long enough. Must get on to other things.
Report comment to moderator
HRW: “School teachers receive vast amounts of freebies from various gov’t agencies complete with DVDs, lesson plans etc”
In Canada, perhaps, but the Dept of Education does NOT hand out lesson plans. They did here at the direction of the White House which provided the ideas for the lessons.
Report comment to moderator
JS
Thanks for taking the time to prattle!
What though was the “false dichotomy” I offered? I was trying to come at it from a both/and I thought. But alas, my thoughts are often trailing and unfinished. It’s hard to communicate clearly in here without some misunderstanding. I always know what I’m trying to say most of the time, but it never quite comes out the way I’d like, so I keep trying. Sort of like finding the right words for a poem or something. Suffice it to say, I agree with you, it is a both/and not an either/or no matter how muddleheaded my prose was up there. That is something with which I wholeheartedly agree.
My only intent about the Puritans was to point out that cumpusory ed didn’t begin with the fed. but predated it by a century through a Christian community. Didn’t intend to mean that was good or bad necessarily.
Thank you for the stuff about Indiana. That was neat to read. Although if I had to do some Executive conjuring, I wouldn’t necessarily call back Jefferson. He didn’t leave us with much of a military. He neglected to “provide for the common defense” in my estimation, eventhough he had to deal with 19th century “terrorists” in N. Africa.
In answer to your last question, yes. I think in many ways we have become lazy as a body politic. Not everyone mind you, but overall. It is interesting reading in The Education of Henry Adams to see how he talks of his grandpa (John Quincy Adams) as an end of an era and voices a great many concerns about the political climate of the U.S. that could’ve been written today as a conservative op ed piece somewhere in small-town America. Goes back to what I mentioned about Jackson up there.
I’ve see lots of affluent families who sort of believe “paying” for a quality education virtually equates to being involved in the intellectual development of their children. But often times, the neglect there can potentially be far worse. Just paying for something doesn’t get things fixed or changed. There has to be flesh and blood, boots on the ground, continuous daily effort, etc.
But if you haven’t JS, take a second or two and flip to the back of Plato’s Republic and see if what he says about democracy doesn’t sound similar to the problems of democratic man today.
Good stuff, sir. Thanks.
OH
Report comment to moderator
NJ -
The fed does hand out lesson plans. Lots of them.
http://free.ed.gov/
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS/OH
We have to fight with the army we have rather than the army we’d like, so
Democrats have no alternative but to acknowledge their inner “jackass”, disgusting as he was in many ways. He expanded the franchise and put the spoils of political power into the hands of the common white man, but he’s no less a reminder of the cruelty of democracy.
Even today, we Democrats share in that cruelty by our cowardly participation in the imprisonment and injury of 2.5 million people at any given time. A brother-in-law of mine, a fine Democrat, demanded the death penalty as a prosecutor — though he has avoided imposing it as a judge (in CA).
I’m not that much into Jackson as a symbol of the moral contradictions inherent in human nature, nor as a testimony to the elective grace of the Presbyterian faith. The latter P.O.V. seems incoherent, actually. “If Jackson can be saved, anyone can be” is false assurance from the Presbyterian perspective, no? However helpful it may be psychologically to compare oneself with Jackson, it’s theological perilous, for it’s a sign that you don’t rely on grace, and are not therefore its beneficiary. IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
Of course they are technically NOT directly from the Department of Education, but from various and sundry federal agencies llinked to ed.gov.
So in that sense, you are correct. That’s probably what you meant, I bet.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop.
There is no such thing as a humble opinion with you.
My comparing Jackson to myself is simply this. I know how stubborn and contradictory I can be. God had mercy on him. God can and does have mercy on me too. If God can handle Jackson, He can handle me. Simple. But I will admit I do and say lots of theologically perilous things and am often having to recant, repent and restate.
There are lots of signs I do not rely on grace much, you are right. Come watch how little I pray, Scoop. Never was trying to impress you with my analogies of Jackson or think you or anyone else would find them at all useful or encouraging necessarily, but it was simply an insight into my screen name.
I lived in TN for 13 years and have been to Old Hickory’s place multiple times for fun and for field trips. Stood at his and Rachel’s graves in the garden there. I admire the man, cringe at his humanity, but find in the end that God had his way with one of the toughest and outspokenly tyrannical generals/presidents we’ve ever had.
Nice chatting with you.
OH
Report comment to moderator
NJL @#36: I DON’T trust the public school teachers.
Would you clarify that for me? You as a lawyer should know better, NJL. I am disappointed in you. I and others on this blog are Christians who are public school teachers. I know of others, such as my brother, brother-in-law (retired), pastor (small church, he needs some income source), his daughter, another friend (quit to raise her children) and on and on. You lump us all together with the non-Christian unionists when many do not agree with or belong to the union (I do because of Illinois law). There are several teachers at my school who do not support everything the NEA says and does, but alas, we are a minority. So, clarify and say “I DON’T trust the NEA and other teachers’ unions, nor their memebers who support them 100%.
[/Rant]
Report comment to moderator
Peter L, thank you for reminding us that not all public school teachers are flaming liberals who cannot be trusted.
Report comment to moderator
When you say you’re an American, there isn’t a person in the world who is going to mistake you for a Canadian or a Mexican.
TRS: Calling ourselves Americans can actually be quite offensive to others from the Americas. For example, I know a few Argentinians who prefer to call us USAers.
Report comment to moderator
Apparently the transcript of the president’s speech will be available in advance today on the White House website.
Report comment to moderator
A member of my family did the same thing, against strong medical advice. She had enough time for a live photograph and a teary hello-goodbye, and mercifully no more. She didn’t choose life, she chose between two forms of death. She chose spina bifida.
There’s a difference between following your heart and giving in to sentimentality. I smell narcissism. Not to mention $100k worth of self-contradictory and contraindicated medical care.
Report comment to moderator
Xion #71
Of course. No sane person would listen to this nonsense. But then again, the text book publishers relish the insanity. In their world, there will be … No more “God Bless America”. No more “Proud to be an American”. No more “Pledge Allegiance to the United States of America” etc.
So textbook manufactures, these paragons of bureaucratic capitalism, deliberately set out to alienate their customer base? The Texas Dept. of Education sets the textbook standards form most of the country and I hardly think its in the best interest of the publisher to annoy the good people of Texas. For if they do the wonderfully efficient capitalist system could easily provide an alternate publisher.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, #44, thanks. That’s fine. I’m not surprised. My point is anecdotal and so is yours. I am simply sharing true personal observations along with my opinion that exposure is way out of balance. And I have been in many schools. Anyone can disagree. It’s my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
#78 NJL
In Canada, perhaps, but the Dept of Education does NOT hand out lesson plans. They did here at the direction of the White House which provided the ideas for the lessons.
The provincial ministry of education does not hand out lesson plans. However various gov’t agencies will create materials for teachers, for example, Elections Canada provides grade 5 civics teachers with maps, booklets, CDs, DVDs and even mock election materials. In addition they give out suggested lesson plans which most teachers disregard since a bureaucrat working for elections Canada has little knowledge of how to teach. Similarly, I’m sure teachers will disregard or modify any lesson plans given to them by either the dept. of education or the white house.
This raises a salient point more related to the original post — if parents spend thousands of dollars to send their children to a Christian school, would they not trust the teachers to properly present a president’s welcome back to school message. If you don’t trust your Christian school to accomplish this minor task, why then do you send your child there?
Report comment to moderator
#86
The term I hear bantered about is USian. On the other hand, many Canadians get annoyed when referred to as Americans by Europeans. Although Europeans will point out this is technically correct, it will do little to placate Canadians. Given that service dramatically improves once the error is discovered, Canadians generally are adamant to be recognized as Canadian.
Watching a French passport officer deliberately and arbitrarily berate and harass an American traveling with me while ignoring my passport taught me the value of my passport. Hotel, restaurant and tourist staff were also more accommodating in places like Vienna, Moscow, St. Petersburg
Report comment to moderator
This does represent a nice opportunity for some Christians who want to curry favor with secularist ideologues who are already in power and appear to be very open-minded to criticize fellow Christians who show the courage of their convictions.
Report comment to moderator
Who is doing that, Joel Mark?
Report comment to moderator
Xion:
HRW has an excellent point. Textbook censorship is not done by the government, but by private publishing companies who want to offend as few customers as possible.
I’ve read an article (can’t remember where) and heard a talk about that being a primary cause for history texts in particular being so bland. The largest textbook markets are Texas and California. Publishers want to sell their books to both the conservatives in Texas and the liberals in California, so they carefully neuter history of anything controversial.
And… voila! Another triumph of the free market. Just like 24 hours news and reality TV.
(Tongue-in-cheek humor aside, I’m not against the free market for most things. I just think in some things, the profit motive destroys the integrity of what’s being offered.)
Report comment to moderator
The preferred term I heard most recently was “American Indian.”
I have no problem calling people what they prefer to be called. Unfortunately, I often don’t know what that is, so I’m immediately awkward and unsure, and would just prefer to simply ignore race altogether, which one recent study said most blacks interpret as itself a sign of racism. A real Catch-22.
But I think Morgan Freeman is very compelling on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO214IFRW1M
I’m not convinced that racial inequities are so far erased that we can simply “stop talking about,” but I hope we soon arrive there.
Report comment to moderator
HRW-#92: How is “USian” pronounced phonetically?
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I don’t think you should assume. I have traveled in India, Australia, and England with my husband, and he has traveled alone in Germany, Sweden and a few other places. And, we (nor he) have ever been treated poorly because we were US Americans and had US American passports.
Really. Everyone was plenty nice, and this was during the Bush administration.
Perhaps your friend had something about him/her (besides being a US American) that upset people, or perhaps you’re just an especially likable, friendly-seeming guy, or perhaps you were reading more into the exchanges than was there.
Report comment to moderator
“USian”– In parts of Latin America they use the adjective estadounidense to describe someone from the US. It literally translates to “Unitedstatesian”.
Report comment to moderator
HRW #89 and JJF #95. If you viewed Tucker Carlson’s piece, it is clear who the customer is, namely the government. Along with the government comes political correctness, nonsensical regulation and agenda based pressures. Public school textbooks are the work of liberal extremists in cooperation with politically motivated government mandates.
Report comment to moderator
Good exchanges between JS and OH. Lots of things to think about.
I’m glad for the Republican opposition to the Obama speech. As originally proposed it would have been a blatant propaganda piece with lesson plans and pledges to support the President—aiding leftist public school teachers in molding our school children into little eco-warriors and Democrat, Obama worshipers.
Now that the White House has backed down and removed most of the blatant Obama propaganda, they have taken the disingenuous line that the speech is just a bi-partisan appeal for the kids to study hard and persevere in school. True enough, now, but it would not have been so had the Democrats been able to present the speech and lesson plans as originally proposed.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!