Total Hypocrisy in Education
It's perfectly okay, according to the United States government, the government of Idaho, and the education establishment in America, to tell captive students to assassinate those who vote Republican. According to the members of the ruling class and the education bureaucracy, that's fine because it's "to get ... students to think."
However, if someone tries "to get them [students] thinking" -- but DARES to refer to the Bible, you're out the door as fast as the very same people can throw you. Can someone please explain to me how this is not a double standard? If the educrats are trying to induce students to think, why is it okay to suggest murder to get one to think, but not okay to refer to a book that's sold more copies than any other book in the history of the world? Go ahead, try and convince me that Christianity isn't under attack in America. Someone please explain to me that suggesting outright slaughter of vast numbers of people in America is fine, while using a book that has provided a pathway to freedom, prosperity, and peace for millions is bad. Once again -- when government gets involved where they should not be -- education -- they can do absolutely nothing but make a horrible mess of it. This provides yet more evidence that government is completely incapable of education. They cannot do it. They were never authorized to educate the populace. They should not be in the business because they absolutely stink at it. Go ahead, trust your children to be educated by a system that openly despises the Bible, yet praises those who suggest mass murder.
Comments
1
I don't trust them... not one centimeter.
That prof is just predicting the future. When the Dems get hold of government again, they will rewrite our laws to reflect socialist values and we'll become another USSR. Isn't that what the USSR did? Assassinate political dissenters when they got their hands on them?
And yet, when I say we're headed for another civil war people think I'm crazy even though the proof of the future is in front of their faces and in their ears.
That prof is just predicting the future. When the Dems get hold of government again, they will rewrite our laws to reflect socialist values and we'll become another USSR. Isn't that what the USSR did? Assassinate political dissenters when they got their hands on them?
And yet, when I say we're headed for another civil war people think I'm crazy even though the proof of the future is in front of their faces and in their ears.
Posted by: Steph at March 20, 2007 02:09 PM (AC9Dc)
2
I don't know that we're headed for a civil war because there would have to be people willing to fight. And I just don't think there's enough today in America that are willing to. As long as they get little Johnny to soccer practice on time, they're happy slaves.
Posted by: Ogre at March 20, 2007 03:02 PM (oifEm)
3
Well, the thing about that willingness is: A lot of people just don't realize what the situation is and how bad it's going to get. I have a feeling that when reality does strike there are going to be a lot more willing than unwilling.
Posted by: Steph at March 20, 2007 05:19 PM (AC9Dc)
4
Denial is a POWERFUL emotion and ability. Denial of reality is a hallmark of the left and those who oppose freedom.
You see, the natural state of man is free. People long to be free. If they can convince people they are free, even if it's an illusion, people will believe that. Look how many people believe we live in the "Land of the Free" today.
You see, the natural state of man is free. People long to be free. If they can convince people they are free, even if it's an illusion, people will believe that. Look how many people believe we live in the "Land of the Free" today.
Posted by: Ogre at March 20, 2007 05:26 PM (oifEm)
5
I hope you like the opinions of old dead guys as much as I do:
"The members of a civil state or society do retain their natural liberty in all such cases as have no relation to the ends of such a society. In a state of nature men had a right to read Milton or Lock for their instruction or amusement: and why they do not retain this liberty under a government that is instituted for the preservation of their persons and properties, is inconceivable. From whence can such a society derive any right to hinder them from doing that which does not affect the ends of that society? Should a government therefore restrain the free use of the scriptures, prohibit men the reading of them, and make it penal to examine and search them; it would be a manifest usurpation upon the common rights of mankind, as much a violation of natural liberty as the attack of a highwayman upon the road can be upon our civil rights."
Elisha Williams, The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants, 1744
"The members of a civil state or society do retain their natural liberty in all such cases as have no relation to the ends of such a society. In a state of nature men had a right to read Milton or Lock for their instruction or amusement: and why they do not retain this liberty under a government that is instituted for the preservation of their persons and properties, is inconceivable. From whence can such a society derive any right to hinder them from doing that which does not affect the ends of that society? Should a government therefore restrain the free use of the scriptures, prohibit men the reading of them, and make it penal to examine and search them; it would be a manifest usurpation upon the common rights of mankind, as much a violation of natural liberty as the attack of a highwayman upon the road can be upon our civil rights."
Elisha Williams, The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants, 1744
Posted by: Dana at March 21, 2007 04:43 AM (AKUBA)
6
Very nice. It seems many who lived before this century really understood freedom. And few who live now do.
Posted by: Ogre at March 21, 2007 09:28 AM (kft0e)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0058 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0043 seconds, 14 records returned.
Page size 7 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.