In the current political climate most Americans believe fiscal liberalism, i.e. massive government spending, is the main menace to our nation; however, the threat of social liberalism can't be dismissed. It's still there, devouring our families and traditional moral order. And here's the proof.
On tonight's edition of The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly revealed that the school board in Provincetown, MA has decided not only to give condoms to any student who asks but to deny parents the right to object. This would be outrageous even if we were talking about high school students, but the liberal educators in Provincetown have ok'd giving condoms to elementary school kids! And Mom and Dad can't say no. The arrogance of social liberals is mind boggling.
And just what justification did the Provincetown educational progressives have for distributing prophylactics to kids and trampling parental rights? I don't know; none of them could be reached for comment by the time the show aired. I think I know what these "concerned" school officials would say, though. They'd say that they're just trying to protect children from STDs and pregnancy, and I'd say, yeah, right.
Here's the deal.
Social liberals HATE the traditional, Bible-based morality that has guided America since its founding and even before. They particularly despise traditionalism's sexual ethic which defines moral sexual relations as only those that occur between a married man and woman. Liberals blame traditional sexual morality for everything from homophobia to wife beating. Only by replacing traditionalism with an anti-Biblical, free sex ethic, they believe, can we ensure an enlightened and egalitarian society. And traditionalism, liberals have found, can be quite easily replaced by teaching children their free sex ethic in public schools.
That's what Provincetown's condom give away,like all condom give aways, is really about: defeating Bible-based, traditional values, NOT protecting kids from pregnancy and disease. For social liberals it's a quasi-religious belief that defeating traditional values is necessary to create a just society. Consequently, they feel justified in using whatever means they can to ensure said defeat. Violating parental rights and authority comes naturally to social progressives since such rights and authority are part of the value system they're working to eliminate.
But what about dissenters from the progressive socio-sexual vision? Social liberals will respond to them the same way they responded to dissenters from health care "reform", namely, with contempt and arrogant paternalism. Unshakeably convinced that they alone know what's best for society, social liberals believe people will embrace their free sex ethic once it's been forced on them and they experience the resulting utopia. Until then, those who object to a sexualized childhood and anti-parent policies will be demonized as religious nuts, bigots, and/or ignorant defenders of outmoded thinking. And liberal educators' indoctrination of the nation's children will continue unabated.
As stated at the beginning of this post, massive fiscal irresponsibility IS a threat to the nation; I'm not trying to down play that. However, those of us who are conservative, who are traditionalist, must understand that progressives are waging a two front war on America. Their fight is fiscal AND social. Conservatives are gallantly fighting the fiscal war but too many seem to have surrendered in the social war. We can't do that. There's more at stake than the size of government or what happens to our money.
What good is a balanced budget if parents can't raise their children as they see fit?
What good are lower taxes if our history is rewritten and our heritage is smeared?
What good is smaller government if it can still undermine traditional values through the schools?
The actions of the Provincetown, MA school board show that progressives are determined to impose their Godless worldview on the whole of society. They will never stand down and neither should we. We must fight them on the social issues as tenaciously as we fight them on the fiscal issues. Our children and nation deserve nothing less.
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Universal Pre-K. Yes Or No?
It's part of Barack Obama's grand plan to change America. Universal pre-k. From what I understand, Obama plans to use federal money to make pre-kindergarten education available for all American children at no cost. Apparently, Obama doesn't plan to make it mandatory to send children to pre-k, just free and available for all parents who want it. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
I just don't see the need for formal, public pre-k education. When I was a child most kids didn't attend any kind of preschool or day care center. For my generation the first introduction to formal education was kindergarten, and we turned out pretty well. I've never understood what kids learn in pre-k that couldn't wait until kindergarten. I suspect that most of the parents who send their kids to public pre-k do so for monetary, not educational, reasons. They're trying to reduce their day care bill, and cutting the amount of hours a child spends in day care does just that. I don't blame such parents but I also don't think their financial concerns should drive public policy in this area. Kids should go to pre-k because it's good for them, not for their parents' wallets.
Most supporters of universal pre-k do say, of course, that it's wonderful for children. Such kids, we're told, obtain an academic advantage that they retain all through school. The key is early reading. Kids who learn the alphabet in pre-k become better readers and learners. That makes sense, but it doesn't convince me that pre-k is even necessary let alone that it should be universal.
Learning the alphabet is helpful for young children but schools aren't needed to teach them. Parents can teach their preschoolers the alphabet and even basic phonics at home. Indeed, the monumental success of hundreds of thousands of homeschooling parents proves that schools ARE NOT necessary for educational excellence. The push for universal pre-k is, it seems to me, more about collectivizing child rearing than guaranteeing academic success.
Since the feminist revolution in the '60's and '70's, left-leaning social engineers have been pushing the idea that raising children should be a social responsibility. Getting children away from their parents and into group care has been touted as "progressive". Parents have been systematically made to feel incompetent, and even like obstacles to the healthy development of their children. They are told that the state knows best. Parents don't even have the right to know what the state is teaching or giving their kids in it's instituitions called schools. Universal pre-k fits right in with this "progressive" thinking.
ABC's and 123's don't have to be taught to little kids by professionals. For generations parents taught them to their children just fine. They understood that passing on that basic knowledge was their responsibility. Today, too many parents have bought into the notion that teaching is for "experts". They've bought into the notion that the state knows best. It's not true. Moms and dads know best. Moms and dads can teach their little ones the alphabet. Schools and teachers with four year degrees aren't necessary for that. Universal pre-k, yes or no? I say, no.
I just don't see the need for formal, public pre-k education. When I was a child most kids didn't attend any kind of preschool or day care center. For my generation the first introduction to formal education was kindergarten, and we turned out pretty well. I've never understood what kids learn in pre-k that couldn't wait until kindergarten. I suspect that most of the parents who send their kids to public pre-k do so for monetary, not educational, reasons. They're trying to reduce their day care bill, and cutting the amount of hours a child spends in day care does just that. I don't blame such parents but I also don't think their financial concerns should drive public policy in this area. Kids should go to pre-k because it's good for them, not for their parents' wallets.
Most supporters of universal pre-k do say, of course, that it's wonderful for children. Such kids, we're told, obtain an academic advantage that they retain all through school. The key is early reading. Kids who learn the alphabet in pre-k become better readers and learners. That makes sense, but it doesn't convince me that pre-k is even necessary let alone that it should be universal.
Learning the alphabet is helpful for young children but schools aren't needed to teach them. Parents can teach their preschoolers the alphabet and even basic phonics at home. Indeed, the monumental success of hundreds of thousands of homeschooling parents proves that schools ARE NOT necessary for educational excellence. The push for universal pre-k is, it seems to me, more about collectivizing child rearing than guaranteeing academic success.
Since the feminist revolution in the '60's and '70's, left-leaning social engineers have been pushing the idea that raising children should be a social responsibility. Getting children away from their parents and into group care has been touted as "progressive". Parents have been systematically made to feel incompetent, and even like obstacles to the healthy development of their children. They are told that the state knows best. Parents don't even have the right to know what the state is teaching or giving their kids in it's instituitions called schools. Universal pre-k fits right in with this "progressive" thinking.
ABC's and 123's don't have to be taught to little kids by professionals. For generations parents taught them to their children just fine. They understood that passing on that basic knowledge was their responsibility. Today, too many parents have bought into the notion that teaching is for "experts". They've bought into the notion that the state knows best. It's not true. Moms and dads know best. Moms and dads can teach their little ones the alphabet. Schools and teachers with four year degrees aren't necessary for that. Universal pre-k, yes or no? I say, no.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Attack on Homeschooling
A couple of days ago a court in California issued a ruling that could end the majority of homeschooling taking place in that state. The Second District Court of Appeals (SDCA) ruled that parents don't have a constitutional right to homeschool their children and that education should be done only by credentialed teachers. How arrogant!
So, the SDCA thinks that only credentialed, i.e. approved by the state, teachers can educate children? Does it mean credentialed teachers who routinely turn out kids who can't read, can't think, and can't even find their own country on a map? Does it mean credentialed teachers who oversee a dropout rate of 30 per cent? Does it mean credentialed teachers who can't stop having affairs with their students? Does the SDCA mean those credentialed teachers? Give me a break! This ruling is a naked attempt to crush parental rights and keep children in the hands of the state so they can be indoctrinated in it's left-wing ideology. This has NOTHING to do with concern for kids' welfare or educational excellence.
If the Second District Court of Appeals was truly concerned with the educational well being of California's children it would be urging and facilitating more, not less, homeschooling. Study after study shows that, in all subjects, homeschooled kids regularly outperform their publicly educated counterparts. You'd think the state would consider that a good thing, but you'd be dead wrong. The liberal state of California wants control over the minds of the state's children. It wants to make sure they're taught a liberal worldview. Parents, particularly homeschooling ones, can't be trusted to do that, hence the SDCA's ruling.
Hopefully California's homeschooling parents, and those in other states, will rise up against this tyrannical decision. They have right and conscience on their side. In one way the court's ruling is correct. Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit, including educating them at home, doesn't come from any constitution. It is a DIVINE right. The Declaration of Independence clearly instructs us that this is so. Perhaps this is a truth that California's left-wing public schools want to eradicate all knowledge of and substitute the "truth" that rights come from government. The only way to have a citizenry that will believe that is to make sure education is state controlled. Are you now seeing the reasons for this attack on homeschooling? I hope so, and I hope you won't let it stand.
So, the SDCA thinks that only credentialed, i.e. approved by the state, teachers can educate children? Does it mean credentialed teachers who routinely turn out kids who can't read, can't think, and can't even find their own country on a map? Does it mean credentialed teachers who oversee a dropout rate of 30 per cent? Does it mean credentialed teachers who can't stop having affairs with their students? Does the SDCA mean those credentialed teachers? Give me a break! This ruling is a naked attempt to crush parental rights and keep children in the hands of the state so they can be indoctrinated in it's left-wing ideology. This has NOTHING to do with concern for kids' welfare or educational excellence.
If the Second District Court of Appeals was truly concerned with the educational well being of California's children it would be urging and facilitating more, not less, homeschooling. Study after study shows that, in all subjects, homeschooled kids regularly outperform their publicly educated counterparts. You'd think the state would consider that a good thing, but you'd be dead wrong. The liberal state of California wants control over the minds of the state's children. It wants to make sure they're taught a liberal worldview. Parents, particularly homeschooling ones, can't be trusted to do that, hence the SDCA's ruling.
Hopefully California's homeschooling parents, and those in other states, will rise up against this tyrannical decision. They have right and conscience on their side. In one way the court's ruling is correct. Parents' right to raise their children as they see fit, including educating them at home, doesn't come from any constitution. It is a DIVINE right. The Declaration of Independence clearly instructs us that this is so. Perhaps this is a truth that California's left-wing public schools want to eradicate all knowledge of and substitute the "truth" that rights come from government. The only way to have a citizenry that will believe that is to make sure education is state controlled. Are you now seeing the reasons for this attack on homeschooling? I hope so, and I hope you won't let it stand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
