Socialist War On Society Begins in Schools

[Bonnie]

Socialist War on God Continues
By Steve Farrell (09/20/05)

So the courts have struck down The Pledge of Allegiance in three Sacramento, California elementary schools. So what else is new?

A little history as to how this hostility toward God in our schools began begs our review.

In 1932, it was Communist Party USA founder, William Z. Foster, in his book, Toward Soviet America, who outlined “the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution.”

His target: America’s schools. His strategy:

tudies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society. Present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. (1)

There is much to behold in that 1932 statement, and it has all come to pass – religion and patriotism replaced with materialism, internationalism, the ethics of socialism, and the scientific pedagogy – can anyone doubt it?

But let’s not stop there. As to those “other features of the bourgeois ideology” that were to be ‘cleansed,’ the traditional family was at the top of the list.

Recall, if you will, Communist Founder Karl Marx bragged that he and his fellow communists would “Abolish the family!” Why? Because the traditional family was the transmission belt of Christian and Capitalist values. Plain and simple. The traditional family had to go – and with it, home schools, private schools, and old styled public schools (where parents were the employers, the curriculum chiefs, the bosses over the neighborhood school). (2)

“The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child …[is] disgusting,” Marx wrote. His plan? “We destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education with social.” (3)

To make this a reality, confusion as to who really pays teachers had to be created. Thus in plank 10 of the Communist Manifesto, Marx called for “Free education for all children in public schools.” (4) This was a ploy – the beginning of a propaganda war in favor of the nonsense that the government, not the parents who are taxed by the government, pays the bill.

To strengthen their nonsensical case, the communists and their fellow travelers then worked unceasingly to centralize, wherever and whenever possible, the paymaster, curriculum, testing, teacher education, and teacher licensing laws. To help bring this about, Communist Party Chief Foster envisioned the day when all “the schools, colleges, and universities [would be] coordinated and grouped under the National Department of Education.” (5) Why? Because he recognized, as all dedicated Marxists must, the more things appear to flow from the center, the more teachers and principals will look away from parents and towards Big Brother – and likewise, the more parents feel disenfranchised, the more parents will tend to shy away from involvement in the public school system.

It’s only natural. It was destined to work – and it did.

The U.S. Department of Education came into being in 1980, under President Jimmy Carter, but movement toward a fully empowered, department level agency began in earnest during World War II, under President’s Roosevelt and Truman, with the 1941 Lanham Act, the 1944 G.I. Bill, the 1946 George-Barden Act, and the 1950 Impact Aid laws. Thus, with the institution of federal funds for education on a massive scale, and federal agencies to administer those funds, the Supreme Court was by 1961 ready to start playing God over parent and child. Classroom prayer had to go, they ruled. The rationale, “that which the federal government subsidizes, it has the right to control.” (6)

The removal of prayer was followed by the removal of God from every textbook and the replacement of the Judeo-Christian viewpoint with the humanistic, ‘progressive’ ideology of Karl Marx, and John Dewey, a viewpoint that would, step by step, tolerate everything and anything in the classroom, anything and everything but Judeo-Christian values.

Needless to say, Communist Party USA founder, William Z. Foster, called for that hypocritical and hostile approach, as well. “Freedom will be established for anti-religious propaganda,” (7) he wrote.

That’s where we are today. ‘Christians and Jews shut up! – All you atheists, agnostics, communists, humanists, adulterers, homosexuals, and abortionists – your speech is protected! Your take on religion and morality will be in the textbooks, and shouted from the house tops. Criticism of your perspective will be prosecuted as hate speech!’

And so it has.

Private Christian schools are next. Wrote Foster, “The churches will remain free to continue their services, but their special tax and other privileges will be liquidated. Their buildings will revert to the State. Religious schools will be abolished and organized religious training for minors prohibited.” (8)

One thinks of the University of California’s rejection of high school credit from schools that study history, literature, and science from a Christian perspective (presently before the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles). (9) One thinks of the N.E.A’s opposition to school vouchers because “85 percent of private schools are religious,” and because, such a groundswell of students turning to religion “would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society.” (10) That’s right, the N.E.A., the largest teacher union in America, would strongly suggest that the Churches parents take their kids to, are divisive enemies of the state.

Only fully trained, dutifully certified, under-Big-Brother’s-thumb public school teachers can unify and bring peace on earth.

A far cry from the educational goal Horace Mann expressed in a speech published by the N.E.A. in their 1941 “American Citizens Handbook,” wherein Mann called for “an order of teachers, wise, benevolent, [and] filled with Christian enthusiasm.” (11)

http://www.americandaily.com/article/9364

 

[Gunny]

Socialist War on God Continues
By Steve Farrell (09/20/05)




http://www.americandaily.com/article/9364

It's a crying shame that the very ideals/laws that are our greatest strength are allowed to be transformed into hollow perversions of what they were intended to suit wannabe intellectuals/people who believe in absolutely nothing, and stand for the same.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think it should be noted that not only the socialists were advocating free public schooling. Alot of Christian groups last century wanted public schooling so children could learn to read the Bible and be educated Christians.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There it is in black and white - the communist agenda - which is aided and abetted by the useful idiots of the various liberal advocacy groups.

Excellent article Bonnie! (your rep is full)

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The rationale, “that which the federal government subsidizes, it has the right to control.”

This is exactly why school vouchers won't work in the long term. If parents yank their kids from government schools en masse, it won't stop our politicians from dictating the curriculum for schools. The correct answer is to abolish government-funded education entirely. How many parents could homeschool their kids or send them to private schools if they weren't paying such high property taxes in the first place? How many people could afford to donate to private scholarship funds, for those who can't afford tuition?

It would also have the nice effect of ending the whole prayer in school debate once and for all. If you want to teach christian, athiest, or whatever values...you can. No more one size fits all solutions.

 

[Bonnie]

This is exactly why school vouchers won't work in the long term. If parents yank their kids from government schools en masse, it won't stop our politicians from dictating the curriculum for schools. The correct answer is to abolish government-funded education entirely. How many parents could homeschool their kids or send them to private schools if they weren't paying such high property taxes in the first place? How many people could afford to donate to private scholarship funds, for those who can't afford tuition?

It would also have the nice effect of ending the whole prayer in school debate once and for all. If you want to teach christian, athiest, or whatever values...you can. No more one size fits all solutions.

Welcome to the board Baron

 

[William Joyce]

Fuck the system. Home school your kids. Teach 'em Jesus, teach 'em whatever you WANT. Make a leftist squirm.

 

[Annie]

Fuck the system. Home school your kids. Teach 'em Jesus, teach 'em whatever you WANT. Make a leftist squirm.

Not often that I echo WJ. However, I teach in a parochial school. We teach "Jesus", "love", "golden rule" on top of the 'basics.' I teach jr high, current count of 6-8th=53 kids. We have 78 working online laptops. Each of the 3 classrooms have 2004 encyclopedias. Our library at school suks for the jr high, though good for under 5th. The city library is excellent and the kids have access to college library through county.

Home school your kids, if possible. At MY school the 7th grade includes 5 BD students, 2 sociopaths. I'm NOT joking. Luckily for me, one of the 2 sociopaths parents recognizes a problem, is pulling the kid and sending to a military academy. I hope it helps, though I think the problem is deeper than discipline. I may be wrong and sincerely hope so.

 

[Gunny]

Not often that I echo WJ. However, I teach in a parochial school. We teach "Jesus", "love", "golden rule" on top of the 'basics.' I teach jr high, current count of 6-8th=53 kids. We have 78 working online laptops. Each of the 3 classrooms have 2004 encyclopedias. Our library at school suks for the jr high, though good for under 5th. The city library is excellent and the kids have access to college library through county.

Home school your kids, if possible. At MY school the 7th grade includes 5 BD students, 2 sociopaths. I'm NOT joking. Luckily for me, one of the 2 sociopaths parents recognizes a problem, is pulling the kid and sending to a military academy. I hope it helps, though I think the problem is deeper than discipline. I may be wrong and sincerely hope so.

The problem with a sociopath is not necessarily a lack of discipline .... it's a lack of conscience beyond one's own self-serving desires.

 

[Annie]

The problem with a sociopath is not necessarily a lack of discipline .... it's a lack of conscience beyond one's own self-serving desires.

Exactly, which is why I worry for the parents, though they are trying. Imagine having a 12 year old, you are afraid of?

 

[Gunny]

Exactly, which is why I worry for the parents, though they are trying. Imagine having a 12 year old, you are afraid of?

Interesting prospect. How DOES one teach a person without a conscience to have one?

 

[Annie]

Interesting prospect. How DOES one teach a person without a conscience to have one?

I teach middle school. If they haven't a conscience by then, I can't help. It comes waaaayyy before my grades.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Why is it such a big deal to you guys if "under God" is taken out of the pledge? As we all know, the phrase was added during the Communist scare in the 50s, so it's not like it has always been there. And some people find it unfair that a government sanctioned pledge, that their kids are forced to say, includes religious wording that they don't believe in. The constitution states clearly that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. "Under God" clearly has religious connotations, so it's unconstitutional to force kids to say it if they believe something else. It's not like they're forcing religion out of the schools. They've included a mandatory "moment of silence" in most, if not all states for those who want to say a prayer or be religious or whatever after they say the pledge. I think this is a beautiful golden mean. If it's unconstitutional, it's out. What's the controversy about?

 

[Annie]

Why is it such a big deal to you guys if "under God" is taken out of the pledge? As we all know, the phrase was added during the Communist scare in the 50s, so it's not like it has always been there. And some people find it unfair that a government sanctioned pledge, that their kids are forced to say, includes religious wording that they don't believe in. The constitution states clearly that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. "Under God" clearly has religious connotations, so it's unconstitutional to force kids to say it if they believe something else. It's not like they're forcing religion out of the schools. They've included a mandatory "moment of silence" in most, if not all states for those who want to say a prayer or be religious or whatever after they say the pledge. I think this is a beautiful golden mean. If it's unconstitutional, it's out. What's the controversy about?

The constitution states clearly that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. "Under God" clearly has religious connotations, so it's unconstitutional to force kids to say it if they believe something else.

You really don't see it, do you? You are forgiven, your ignorance is apparent.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

No! Unapologetically I don't. It's unconstitutional. It clearly violates the first amendment. Therefore it should go.

 

[theim]

Why is it such a big deal to you guys if "under God" is taken out of the pledge? As we all know, the phrase was added during the Communist scare in the 50s, so it's not like it has always been there. And some people find it unfair that a government sanctioned pledge, that their kids are forced to say, includes religious wording that they don't believe in. The constitution states clearly that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. "Under God" clearly has religious connotations, so it's unconstitutional to force kids to say it if they believe something else. It's not like they're forcing religion out of the schools. They've included a mandatory "moment of silence" in most, if not all states for those who want to say a prayer or be religious or whatever after they say the pledge. I think this is a beautiful golden mean. If it's unconstitutional, it's out. What's the controversy about?

You people always seem to forget that right after the bolded phrase comes "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Last I checked it didn't read "Congress shall never have anything to do with religion, ever. People may practice whatever they wish, as long those Jesus Freaks keep it in the church."

 

[theim]

No! Unapologetically I don't. It's unconstitutional. It clearly violates the first amendment. Therefore it should go.

It is by no stretch of the imagination unconstitutional, and you know it. There is no way you honestly beleive that those "dead white men" in the 18th century looked at the possibility of God being mentioned on Federal Property and saw the rampant trampling of liberty.

This is just another socialist attempt to strip away religious liberty and have the State be the arbiter of what is right and just. Thankfully, Judge Roberts will soon put you socialist imbeciles back on the lunatic fringe where you belong.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Why is it such a big deal to you guys if "under God" is taken out of the pledge? As we all know, the phrase was added during the Communist scare in the 50s, so it's not like it has always been there. And some people find it unfair that a government sanctioned pledge, that their kids are forced to say, includes religious wording that they don't believe in. The constitution states clearly that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. "Under God" clearly has religious connotations, so it's unconstitutional to force kids to say it if they believe something else. It's not like they're forcing religion out of the schools. They've included a mandatory "moment of silence" in most, if not all states for those who want to say a prayer or be religious or whatever after they say the pledge. I think this is a beautiful golden mean. If it's unconstitutional, it's out. What's the controversy about?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In order to violate the Establishment clause, if we give the framers' words the most logical, direct interpretation, the government would have to be establishing a religion. With the logical outcome being that it would somehow force people to believe that religion's tenets and forsake all others. If you need an example of what that means, study up on what happened to those in England under Bloody Mary's rule who were accused of being non-Catholic. The Clause was "intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding."

And on a more practical note, exactly which religion does "under God" establish? Is there a "god" religion that I am not aware of? How do you know which "god" a particular child is thinking of when they recite those words? What freedoms will be lost to any child who speaks, or even hears, those two little words? Will they be carted off to the Tower of London? Burned at the stake?

 

[xen]

Personally, I DONT believe there is a communist agenda. There is NO reason why ANY American could believe in communism in any form.

BTW,
Steve Farrel is from newsmax, so i wouldnt doubt that its all fake.
Sorta like the the weekly standard, which I use to get ahead on con talking points, before the cons even us them!. Because: if its in the standard, it is the standard. Thats my motto.

 

[theim]

Personally, I DONT believe there is a communist agenda. There is NO reason why ANY American could believe in communism in any form.

Except these guys of course