A Case for Homeschooling

[LiberMama]

I think it is crucially important that the public education system in this country be protected, strengthened, and constantly improved. It is the one thing that keeps this country a true democracy, that all kids, no matter how poor their parents, or how blighted their childhoods, can go to school and have a chance. We cannot let that change.

YIKES! I strongly urge you to look at the history of the US Public Educational System, its based upon the Communist Manifesto to take over the educational system to indoctrinate the children to support their ideology. The second problem with public education is that its supposed to be a States Rights under the 10th amendment. Unfortunately Public Schools today are run and controlled by the strings of Federal Money. It is very unfortunate that as much as we loved Ronald Reagan, he was the one in office with the US Dept of Education was created....totally Unconstitutional. (Read Charlotte Iserbyts book: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/Mo ... oA.sml.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

To keep the public educational system working as it should to provide education for anyone no questions asked (albeit should be only for US Citizens and LEGAL Immigrants / residents) it requires LOCAL control, LOCAL parents involved and LOCAL school boards. One major factor in the running of schools becoming homogenized these days, is we've totally destroyed a true Classical Leadership Education that was once a force to be reckoned with and was already successfully being done in the one room schoolhouses of yesteryear. McGuffey Readers taught the rules of English Spelling, they were taught phonics and writing, along with moral tales of values and principles for living. What we have today is a travesty. the USA ranks below the top 20 nations in the world for education and that's a total embarrassment!

Lastly, we are NOT a Democracy. Democracy is mob rule of the few by the many. Our voting ID used to be by being a land owner...and as it should be...instead we have people voting for levies against personal property and they do not understand nor count the cost....just that 'its for the good of the children, or for the greater good in general" a mob mentality to vote and use the public treasury irresponsibly.

Our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic and our own US Military manuals used to teach this fact! I can't find my link to that, but this explains it quite well, esp the video. http://www.utahsrepublic.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KMCopeland]

I think it is crucially important that the public education system in this country be protected, strengthened, and constantly improved. It is the one thing that keeps this country a true democracy, that all kids, no matter how poor their parents, or how blighted their childhoods, can go to school and have a chance. We cannot let that change.

YIKES! I strongly urge you to look at the history of the US Public Educational System, its based upon the Communist Manifesto to take over the educational system to indoctrinate the children to support their ideology.

Now that's a new one.

The second problem with public education is that its supposed to be a States Rights under the 10th amendment. Unfortunately Public Schools today are run and controlled by the strings of Federal Money. It is very unfortunate that as much as we loved Ronald Reagan, he was the one in office with the US Dept of Education was created....totally Unconstitutional.

It's true that the right to a free public education is found in the various state constitutions and not in the federal constitution. It is, however, in those state constitutions. So we're on the hook for it either way. And I think it's crucial to ensure its quality -- and its availability to everyone.

Lastly, we are NOT a Democracy. Democracy is mob rule of the few by the many.

We certainly are a Democracy. You're straining at a gnat. Arcane arguments about Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy notwithstanding, this country is the oldest, and most successful, Democracy in the world. You should probably figure out a way to get used to that. Of course you can always move, if this country is so repugnant to you. Your freedom to do that is well protected here.

Our voting ID used to be by being a land owner...and as it should be...

So if you don't own land you don't have a say in what happens in your town, your county, your state or your country. Nice. Wonder what Jesus would have to say about that.

[lost ark]

...we live in a country where there is free public education for all, no questions asked. I think it is crucially important that the public education system in this country be protected, strengthened, and constantly improved. It is the one thing that keeps this country a true democracy, that all kids, no matter how poor their parents, or how blighted their childhoods, can go to school and have a chance. We cannot let that change.

You are so right. There is free public education for all, no questions asked. Nothing about whether the individual is here legally. Nothing about how much this is going to cost the taxpayers (maybe you're on the dole and you don't care). Maybe it doesn't matter because "it's all for the children" and you have a limitless supply of everybody else's money. No matter that the others have to cut back on what they feed their families, how they heat their homes, educational opportunities for their own children. Nothing about resources being taken away from those who are legally here to teach those who aren't in a myriad of languages (because learning English is for some reason a bad idea). Nothing about how much more bloated government will become to manage all this, because local leaders absolutely cannot. Because they have no clue and we need benevolent dictators to micromanage us. Wouldn't want people to start thinking on their own. Nothing about how when government taxes us, they keep 90% and only give 10% back. How exactly is a "public education system...protected, strengthened, and constantly improved" when government demands more and more money and gives less in return? When has government ever "protected, strengthened, and constantly improved" anything?

Never!

Again, you are right that educating all, whether they should be here or not, and especially in their own languages instead of in English, will ensure that we continue to have mob rule, i.e., a democracy. The republic is long dead and will not return. Thomas Jefferson promised us that we would have a republic until the people figured out that they could vote themselves benefits from the public treasury. Sometime in the last decade, we reached the point where we have more takers than producers. You and all those who feel as you do will ensure that public education/indoctrination will be available (forced) on all. For as long as possible.

You, and most members of the church, will continue to support the robbing and thieving of your neighbors' wallets. Protest all you like, but that is what it is when you vote for increasing taxes to support schools. Even if you don't vote for the increases, the fact that you use or even advocate the use of government schools indicates your approval of robbing your neighbor. You covet what he has and want him to pay for what you want. Pure and simple.

And you don't really care about the return on your investment, because it's not your money. It's other people's. If you considered it your money, you would demand a better return on your investment, instead of the sham you get with our government schools.

Regarding the previous two paragraphs--tell me where I am wrong. Tell me if you have ever donated any of your own money to your own public schools. Not money that is requested/demanded by your child's teacher, nor anything requested in a fundraiser. Money where you have walked into the administration offices, written out a fat check, and said basically, "You're so much smarter than I am. You decide how to use this money." If you have not, how do you justify demanding that others do so?

Have you even read President Benson's statements on the subject that are posted in this thread? Based on his statements, how do you excuse your thinking?

Have you ever considered that the only mention of government education in the Book of Mormon is a very negative one?

Have you considered the counsel of Brigham Young and John Taylor to the LDS that they send their children to the church schools and shun the government ones--and the reasons why? Or was that a different time and their counsel doesn't apply?

In your reply, if you dare, please note that I have not said anything against educating children.

[ChantDownBabylonNWO]

Our Branch President and his wife home-school their beautiful children. And they are awakened to our awful situation (Ether 8).

His counselors are also awakened, and the one young enough to have children at home does home-schooling.

A couple in a nearby ward have had pressure from their Bishop to NOT home-school... They have talked about "moving" to our Branch (probably renting in our area). This is an important issue to them.

Lezlee and I did home-schooling for the younger children, as we awoke.

DOUBLE-PLUS GOOD! I'm new to this forum so I'm not sure if you are the same physicist that wrote the quintessential paper on the horrific act carried out by the Secret Combination or someone posing as Dr. Jones? Yes I totally agree with you, Jack Monett and Ron Paul on the necessity of homeschooling for liberty to flourish.

Awakening to our awful situation will almost always lead to a family taking responsibility of their children's education back to the home, when they are able to.

My 2 sisters and I woke up partly because of the paper Dr. Jones wrote and they immediately began homeschooling here in southern Utah because of the obvious propaganda machine that they awoke to.

One of my sisters was an education major at BYU and she said that communist ideals were the backbone of the education department. She didn't know why BYU would uphold such ideologies as Communism which directly go against the Constitution which of course the Book of Mormon voices from the dust and the Lord declare to be the standard by which we should measure good governance.

PUBLIC SCHOOL is the 10th plank of Communism as perpetrated by Karl Marx
10. Free education for all children in public schools.

This lie of "Public Education" also is made possible by the 5th PLANK OF COMMUNISM
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve and the Federal Government are able to hold states hostage by offering "capital" to local public schools through money printing or inflating once the Government has spent all of the money it steals from the people which in turn will cause price inflation and decreases Liberty…But of course this idea of Public Schooling is another example of how the Gadiantons move toward overthrowing the Liberty of all lands and that is their ultimate goal.

We should stop upholding the secret combinations and end Communist Schooling in this fascist land of America. We need to stop calling it Public Schools and start calling it what it is, Communist Schools. Just as our economic system is now by definition, Fascism, and there is no free market left. We hear Gadianton media will sometimes call it Crony Capitalism which is in fact Fascism but don't say that F word!! The people don't say Communist Schools and replace that with the doublespeak description, "Public Schools".

This forum seems to attract the awakened and gives me hope so we can gather Zion and the remnant as we must do as laid out in D&C 101. There is still time but not much! Free-will and freedom of conscience must prevail!

[ChantDownBabylonNWO]

I didn't intend for what I wrote to be an attack against home schooling, though re-reading I can see it sounded like that. Home schooling is absolutely powerful when done well by parents that care and are willing to do the hard work day in and day out. When done poorly, by parents that don't have the drive or motivation to work at it every single day, it hobbles the children for years after.

I also agree that ages don't mean much, although that is used as an excuse all too often instead of facing reality. Our boys have definitely been slower to pick up reading than our girls, but public school standards are so ridiculously low that they've always easily been at par with their peers.

I agree the standards always drop. Promoting force on others to educate other people's children is by definition Communism. So anyone promoting or upholding "Public Schools" are saying that Communism and force by the State is a good thing. I know you weren't promoting it just want to make sure people can see the real definition of the propagandistic language we use when we say "Public Schools" because it is in fact Communist Schools.

PUBLIC SCHOOL is the 10th and final plank of Communism by Karl Marx.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.

[KMCopeland]

...we live in a country where there is free public education for all, no questions asked. I think it is crucially important that the public education system in this country be protected, strengthened, and constantly improved. It is the one thing that keeps this country a true democracy, that all kids, no matter how poor their parents, or how blighted their childhoods, can go to school and have a chance. We cannot let that change.

You are so right. There is free public education for all, no questions asked. Nothing about whether the individual is here legally.

That can be changed. No need to tank the whole system.

Nothing about how much this is going to cost the taxpayers

I'm most concerned about taxpayer money being wasted. It's wasted on many things. Not on education.

(maybe you're on the dole and you don't care).

Yeah. That's the only explanation you can think of for why someone would be a public education advocate. You should think a little harder.

Maybe it doesn't matter because "it's all for the children" and you have a limitless supply of everybody else's money.

I don't have a limitless supply of anybody's money.

No matter that the others have to cut back on what they feed their families, how they heat their homes, educational opportunities for their own children. Nothing about resources being taken away from those who are legally here to teach those who aren't in a myriad of languages (because learning English is for some reason a bad idea). Nothing about how much more bloated government will become to manage all this, because local leaders absolutely cannot. Because they have no clue and we need benevolent dictators to micromanage us. Wouldn't want people to start thinking on their own. Nothing about how when government taxes us, they keep 90% and only give 10% back. How exactly is a "public education system...protected, strengthened, and constantly improved" when government demands more and more money and gives less in return?

Okay. Just what are you really mad about? Are you mad about having a hard time paying your bills including your tax bill, or about the very real unfairness of US tax dollars going to educate people who are here illegally, about bloated government, benevolent dictatorship, or what?

When has government ever "protected, strengthened, and constantly improved" anything?

Many times. Many things. A few examples:


Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.

He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

You, and most members of the church, will continue to support the robbing and thieving of your neighbors' wallets. Protest all you like, but that is what it is when you vote for increasing taxes to support schools. Even if you don't vote for the increases, the fact that you use or even advocate the use of government schools indicates your approval of robbing your neighbor. You covet what he has and want him to pay for what you want. Pure and simple.

Nobody likes paying taxes. But you should understand who you should really be mad at. It isn't public education.


If you make $50,000/year, you pay:
$247.75 for defense
$3.98 for FEMA
$22.88 for unemployment insurance
$36.82 for SNAP (Food Stamps)
$6.96 for other Welfare programs
$43.78 for Retirement, and disability for government workers
$235.81 for Medicare
 $4,000 for corporate subsidies.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/23" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding the previous two paragraphs--tell me where I am wrong. Tell me if you have ever donated any of your own money to your own public schools. Not money that is requested/demanded by your child's teacher, nor anything requested in a fundraiser. Money where you have walked into the administration offices, written out a fat check, and said basically, "You're so much smarter than I am. You decide how to use this money." If you have not, how do you justify demanding that others do so?

I don't quite understand why you feel such a donation is required by someone who supports public education.


I don't demand anybody do anything that I'm not fully prepared to do. I pay taxes that support plenty of things I'm opposed to. I'm afraid that paying our taxes, which are levied by people we've both elected, to support laws that our legislative bodies have duly passed, isn't optional. You think you have a right to some kind of line item veto -- "I don't believe in this or that thing my taxes support, therefore I don't intend to pay taxes to support it." You don't. It doesn't work that way.

Have you even read President Benson's statements on the subject that are posted in this thread? Based on his statements, how do you excuse your thinking?

I excuse my thinking by pointing out that I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not the Church of Ezra Taft Benson, or Brigham Young, or John Taylor of Latter Day Saints.

Have you ever considered that the only mention of government education in the Book of Mormon is a very negative one?

If you want to get into a spraying match about scriptural support for contradictory philsophies, game on.

In your reply, if you dare, please note that I have not said anything against educating children.

Duly noted. Brave soul that I am.

[Army Of Truth]

We certainly are a Democracy. You're straining at a gnat. Arcane arguments about Constitutional Republic vs. Democracy notwithstanding, this country is the oldest, and most successful, Democracy in the world. You should probably figure out a way to get used to that.

America was established as a Consitutional Republic, not a democracy. In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated.

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. (NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)

[Rose Garden]

Public education was established by the founding fathers who recognized the need for education in order to maintain liberty. Like most things, it can be used for good or for bad. At this point, homeschooling is generally better than public education because of how the government is using the educational system as a tool to remove liberty.

You could use public education more as a tool to identify the state of our country, a measuring stick, if you will. Right now, government force is being used to make sure children are in school and that they are learning specific things. A system that promoted liberty would first and foremost honor liberty. The education could be provided by the government but without the need to force anyone to participate, therefore providing a strong tool to ensure liberty. Because of the element of force, it is preferable to educate your children outside of that system, if possible.

[KMCopeland]

Public education was established by the founding fathers who recognized the need for education in order to maintain liberty. Like most things, it can be used for good or for bad. At this point, homeschooling is generally better than public education because of how the government is using the educational system as a tool to remove liberty.

I would fight for anyone's freedom to school their children at home if they want to. But please, tell me how the government is using the educational system as a tool to remove liberty. Because I really don't think it is. I could be wrong of course. But please. Tell me how that's happening.

Right now, government force is being used to make sure children are in school and that they are learning specific things. A system that promoted liberty would first and foremost honor liberty. The education could be provided by the government but without the need to force anyone to participate, therefore providing a strong tool to ensure liberty. Because of the element of force, it is preferable to educate your children outside of that system, if possible.

What force are you talking about? And what does "honoring liberty" mean in this context?

[Rose Garden]

Public education was established by the founding fathers who recognized the need for education in order to maintain liberty. Like most things, it can be used for good or for bad. At this point, homeschooling is generally better than public education because of how the government is using the educational system as a tool to remove liberty.

I would fight for anyone's freedom to school their children at home if they want to. But please, tell me how the government is using the educational system as a tool to remove liberty. Because I really don't think it is. I could be wrong of course. But please. Tell me how that's happening.

The entire system as we know it is designed to reward those who conform with the expectations of those in authority and punish those who cannot or will not conform. If I give the "correct" answer, I am given the stamp of approval, an "A" or 100% or whatever. If I walk quietly in the halls, I am praised. If I am "wrong" or boisterous, I am disciplined.

There is an entirely different realm of existence. It is typified by the free-spiritedness of little children. In their world, there is no "right" or "wrong", there is no "true" or "false." Little children see things as they are. They don't condemn someone or something because it doesn't conform. They just accept it and try to make sense of it all. This is true liberty.

Our system, not just our educational system, is designed to stifle the childlike nature and mold people into individuals who function in an environment of force. We are pressured to give in to the expectations of those in authority in order to avoid the pain of social rejection.

Right now, government force is being used to make sure children are in school and that they are learning specific things. A system that promoted liberty would first and foremost honor liberty. The education could be provided by the government but without the need to force anyone to participate, therefore providing a strong tool to ensure liberty. Because of the element of force, it is preferable to educate your children outside of that system, if possible.

What force are you talking about? And what does "honoring liberty" mean in this context?

The force I am speaking of, besides the force spoken of above, is the threats leveled by the government on parents to educate their children. Parents are required to send children to school or file paperwork with the government in order to homeschool. In many states, parents have to agree to teach the government-approved topics in order to homeschool. If they do not, they are in danger of suffering negative consequences, even to the extent of having their children removed from their care.

Honoring liberty is honoring the individual's right to make their own choices, even if it means the individual is making the wrong choice or that their children will suffer because of their choices. We too often allow government to intervene between parent and child "in the interest of the child" forgetting that the child belongs first to God and he gave him to his respective parents. We would set ourselves up as Gods, trying to dictate what choices another can or should make concerning his own life and the lives of his offspring.

It is good to offer something to another person, but not good to force them to take it. It would be acceptable to arrange for education and make sure it is available for all who desire to attend. It is not acceptable to force people under threat of punishment to take advantage of the education offered. That is where the line is crossed between honoring liberty and enforcing tyranny.

[lost ark]

...we live in a country where there is free public education for all, no questions asked. I think it is crucially important that the public education system in this country be protected, strengthened, and constantly improved. It is the one thing that keeps this country a true democracy, that all kids, no matter how poor their parents, or how blighted their childhoods, can go to school and have a chance. We cannot let that change.

You are so right. There is free public education for all, no questions asked. Nothing about whether the individual is here legally.

That can be changed. No need to tank the whole system.

No. It cannot be changed. A bloated government--and the government education complex is the most bloated of the segments of the government--will not allow that too happen. The "public servants" will never allow themselves to be out of a job. They must find/create ever more needs to justify requesting ever more money from the treasury.

Nothing about how much this is going to cost the taxpayers

I'm most concerned about taxpayer money being wasted. It's wasted on many things. Not on education.

So you're all for sex ed, DARE, revisionist history, ever increasing standardized testing, poor curricula, teachers who can't actually teach, teachers who abuse emotionally, physically, sexually? Because all of this comes out of the education budget. I see all of this as a colossal waste, but then again, I went to public schools. Help me out here. How are all of these things not a waste?

(maybe you're on the dole and you don't care).

Yeah. That's the only explanation you can think of for why someone would be a public education advocate. You should think a little harder.

Maybe I have thought a little harder for a little longer than you have. Maybe I've spent a little more time trying to work with the system. Maybe I've got half the in-laws of a very large family all employed or formerly employed in the government schools and I get to hear their stories.

Maybe it doesn't matter because "it's all for the children" and you have a limitless supply of everybody else's money.

I don't have a limitless supply of anybody's money.

When one votes themselves benefits from the public treasury, the effect is about the same. One is spending his neighbor's money to get what he wants but doesn't want to pay for himself.

No matter that the others have to cut back on what they feed their families, how they heat their homes, educational opportunities for their own children. Nothing about resources being taken away from those who are legally here to teach those who aren't in a myriad of languages (because learning English is for some reason a bad idea). Nothing about how much more bloated government will become to manage all this, because local leaders absolutely cannot. Because they have no clue and we need benevolent dictators to micromanage us. Wouldn't want people to start thinking on their own. Nothing about how when government taxes us, they keep 90% and only give 10% back. How exactly is a "public education system...protected, strengthened, and constantly improved" when government demands more and more money and gives less in return?

Okay. Just what are you really mad about? Are you mad about having a hard time paying your bills including your tax bill, or about the very real unfairness of US tax dollars going to educate people who are here illegally, about bloated government, benevolent dictatorship, or what?

Actually, I've moved beyond all of that, believe it or not. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change any of that on my own. What makes me insane are the BofM-thumping people who think the warnings in the Book of Mormon to the people to awake to their awful situation are directed solely to those who have not yet been baptized.

When has government ever "protected, strengthened, and constantly improved" anything?

Many times. Many things. A few examples:


Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication.


Clean water standards began with local governments, not federal. Read your history. The tree-hugging liberals didn't fight for them, the upstanding members of the community did. The federal government has standards, highly mobile ones that they'll lower when business throws enough money their way.


His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.

You might consider looking into the pharmaceutical industry in this country. The FDA hasn't been doing their job with some of the bigger manufacturers. Lots of drugs are approved that do not work as advertised. But that's a whole different kettle of fish.

No, liberal union workers didn't fight for paid medical insurance. Educate yourself. Widespread employer-paid medical insurance came about post WWII after the government mandated wage controls. In an effort to attract and keep the best employees and work around the government, businesses began offering fringe benefits, including medical insurance. So again, you can thank your federal government for doing it's part to boost medical costs into the stratosphere.


He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

And now we have ranchers feeding antibiotics up the wazoo to their animals because so many meat packing plants are so filthy. Consumers were always free to shop elsewhere.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Well, the crybaby liberal may have fought for these things, but it hasn't necessarily worked out. The bottles are not always properly labeled. I can't recall ever seeing amounts or percentages listed in the ingredients, unless it's 100% lemon juice, tomatoes, whatever. Certainly never for shampoo. Companies still claim to be organic, when they are not. It's just that now people can sue with the government's blessing. Lawyers love it.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

I like clean air. We all like clean air. Aside from having very moral businessmen running the factories, I haven't quite figured out a way around this one. I'll concede this point. Of course, businesses couldn't figure it out, either. So they just shipped our factories to China and third world countries. Now they get our pollution. I don't feel good about that.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

I have to wonder if you're related to Harry Reid, noted for stating that the taxes we pay are voluntary contributions. Again, government cannot provide anything to anyone without first taking it from somebody. If a guy on the street were to reach into my purse and help himself to my cash, I could call the police and have him charged with robbery. If the government does it, I get the opportunity to be a contributor. Explain the difference to me. Use small words so that I can understand.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

So Joe couldn't get this kind of job and benefits without the government mandating that his employer provide them? Are you saying that Joe isn't the kind of employee that any employer would be happy to pay well in salary and benefits to retain?

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Some people really want a nanny state. The nanny state can only give what it has forcefully taken away from somebody else.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

You think your bank account is protected by the FSLIC/FDIC? =))

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe was a fool to take out student loans. It hasn't been until quite recently that people have begun to wake up to the scam. Without federally subsidized student loans, college would be a lot more affordable.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.

Our roads are the crappiest in the industrialized world. Cars were a lot safer when they were built like tanks.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

Joe's dad might live to regret that.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Do you honestly believe that Social Security and whatever pension/401K/retirement plan is going to be there for you? =))

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

You, and most members of the church, will continue to support the robbing and thieving of your neighbors' wallets. Protest all you like, but that is what it is when you vote for increasing taxes to support schools. Even if you don't vote for the increases, the fact that you use or even advocate the use of government schools indicates your approval of robbing your neighbor. You covet what he has and want him to pay for what you want. Pure and simple.

Nobody likes paying taxes. But you should understand who you should really be mad at. It isn't public education

No, it isn't. The problem is people who've gone through the public education system and yet are not educated.


If you make $50,000/year, you pay:
$247.75 for defense
$3.98 for FEMA
$22.88 for unemployment insurance
$36.82 for SNAP (Food Stamps)
$6.96 for other Welfare programs
$43.78 for Retirement, and disability for government workers
$235.81 for Medicare
 $4,000 for corporate subsidies.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/23" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding the previous two paragraphs--tell me where I am wrong. Tell me if you have ever donated any of your own money to your own public schools. Not money that is requested/demanded by your child's teacher, nor anything requested in a fundraiser. Money where you have walked into the administration offices, written out a fat check, and said basically, "You're so much smarter than I am. You decide how to use this money." If you have not, how do you justify demanding that others do so?

I don't quite understand why you feel such a donation is required by someone who supports public education.

Put your money where your mouth is. If it's such a great idea, why don't you pay more for it?

I don't demand anybody do anything that I'm not fully prepared to do.

So it's ok to compel others to pay for things as long as you approve of them. Got it.

I pay taxes that support plenty of things I'm opposed to. I'm afraid that paying our taxes, which are levied by people we've both elected, to support laws that our legislative bodies have duly passed, isn't optional.

No, I have not elected any of these people. Get that straight. TPTB represent the people that elected them, not those that did not.

You think you have a right to some kind of line item veto -- "I don't believe in this or that thing my taxes support, therefore I don't intend to pay taxes to support it." You don't. It doesn't work that way.

Believe it or not, I figured that out a long time ago. That doesn't mean that it is what is right.

Have you even read President Benson's statements on the subject that are posted in this thread? Based on his statements, how do you excuse your thinking?

I excuse my thinking by pointing out that I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not the Church of Ezra Taft Benson, or Brigham Young, or John Taylor of Latter Day Saints.

So counsel of modern prophets is not necessary on the matter? Do you consider any of their counsel, or just the counsel that you agree with?

Have you ever considered that the only mention of government education in the Book of Mormon is a very negative one?

If you want to get into a spraying match about scriptural support for contradictory philsophies, game on.

I think your answer on this one was a no.

[KMCopeland]

anyone promoting or upholding "Public Schools" are saying that Communism and force by the State is a good thing.

Non sequitur.

[KMCopeland]

The "public servants" will never allow themselves to be out of a job. They must find/create ever more needs to justify requesting ever more money from the treasury.

This is propaganda-induced paranoia. Not a legitimate fear in other words. Since "they" are simply people like you and me.


lost ark said: "So you're all for sex ed, DARE, revisionist history, ever increasing standardized testing, poor curricula, teachers who can't actually teach, teachers who abuse emotionally, physically, sexually? Because all of this comes out of the education budget. I see all of this as a colossal waste, but then again, I went to public schools. Help me out here. How are all of these things not a waste?"

I went to public schools too. And nobody, not even me, would argue that those things, if publicly funded, are not mere waste, but serious corruption. You and I differ only on the extent to which those things are actually found. You think if we find one smidgen of anything that isn't true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous or praiseworthy we should throw out the whole system. Which is ridiculous. You strive for perfection. You don't go nuts when you find out you didn't achieve it.

lost ark said: "Maybe I have thought a little harder for a little longer than you have. Maybe I've spent a little more time trying to work with the system. Maybe I've got half the in-laws of a very large family all employed or formerly employed in the government schools and I get to hear their stories."

Maybe. Or maybe not. Never draw conclusions based on facts not in evidence. You'll be wrong often.

lost ark said: "When one votes themselves benefits from the public treasury, the effect is about the same. One is spending his neighbor's money to get what he wants but doesn't want to pay for himself."

Again, you are guilty of non sequitur. When "one," meaning you, vote yourself benefits from the public treasury (which you've done over and over again, and which conclusion I draw by virtue of the high likelihood that you're a citizen of this country who votes) the effect is certainly not the same. It's you voting your conscience. In other words, if you're a voter, period, you've voted yourself benefits many times in your life. You've just been trained to only object to it when it promotes public education. You've been trained to help the evil and designing mostly men who simply cannot stand the fact that they don't yet have their greedy corporate hands on public education. They want it to be a for-profit enterprise. And they go to work in their precise, methodical way to get people, like you, to help them steal one of the last things left that they haven't stolen, which is public education, so they can begin to get not just public money, but also whatever you have left, because when they take over public education, you no longer will have a choice. You will send your children to wildly expensive private schools or they will not be educated -- because that's all that will be left if they get their way, like you're obviously helping them to do. If you want a conspiracy to object to, object to that one. People like me are not your enemy. We are your only friends.

lost ark said: "Actually, I've moved beyond all of that, believe it or not. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change any of that on my own. What makes me insane are the BofM-thumping people who think the warnings in the Book of Mormon to the people to awake to their awful situation are directed solely to those who have not yet been baptized."

Who thinks that? Certainly not me.

"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication."

lost ark said: "Read your history. The tree-hugging liberals didn't fight for them, the upstanding members of the community did."

Right. Like I said. Tree-hugging liberals/fine upstanding members of the community. Tomato/Tomahto.

"His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too."

lost ark said: "You might consider looking into the pharmaceutical industry in this country. The FDA hasn't been doing their job with some of the bigger manufacturers. Lots of drugs are approved that do not work as advertised. But that's a whole different kettle of fish."

Actually it's almost exactly the same kettle of fish. When the FDA was a purely tax-supported entity, it didn't owe anything to the huge, greedy drug companies who now own it. This is the evil of privatization. You remove accountability from someone whose job description is "make sure drugs are safe and effective" to someone whose job description is "make sure we make a profit." It's an insane thing to advocate.

lost ark said: "No, liberal union workers didn't fight for paid medical insurance. Educate yourself. Widespread employer-paid medical insurance came about post WWII after the government mandated wage controls."

You do your homework. Union workers most certainly did fight for that and much else that has made the American workplace so excellent until recently. Things that contributed to the historically unique, and totally wonderful rise of the once-mighty, now whimpering, American working class which is 99% of us. The violence the right has been doing to unions for 30 years or more is obscene. The day you and every single burdened employee in this country confesses that and adjusts their politics accordingly will be a very good day indeed for this country. And for all of them.

lost ark said: "In an effort to attract and keep the best employees and work around the government, businesses began offering fringe benefits, including medical insurance."

What naive nonsense. There are indeed, good, benevolent employers who are motivated by such things. Then there's the powerful CEO lobby, in an effort to pay themselves even more jillions of dollars in those utterly impossible to justify stratospheric salaries, went to methodical work to destroy unions, decades ago, so they could get away with plundering their employees' paychecks and benefits. There's nothing wrong with making a lot of money. As long as you remain accountable to the people who made that possible. Robber barons are the bad guys -- them and their stooges in Congress. Not liberals who are the only ones -- not Democrats, liberals only now -- calling them on their determined, methodical, diabolical, unchecked, greedy schemes to lay their hands on all the money in the world, with as few exceptions as they can manage. And they are very, very good managers.

lost ark said: "So again, you can thank your federal government for doing it's part to boost medical costs into the stratosphere."

You just couldn't be more wrong. What has boosted medical costs into the stratosphere is the unchecked private sector. In concert with the corporate-owned Congress. Only. Only that. You like the free market? Remove the stranglehold that corporate America has on Congress and you might begin to see glimmers of it again. Corporate America has removed all competition they might have to charge you whatever they want for whatever they want. There's no one to hold them back, in medical care or anything else. Except unions. Except liberals. And who do you all target, so obediently? Unions and liberals. Exactly as you're told to.

Medical care does not belong in the private sector. Government must be watched diligently. By people with no corporate loyalties. We must watch for greedy politicians, constantly. But of the two, the private sector or the public one, the public one at least has a prayer of protecting you from the ungodly greed of the private sector. You are out of your mind to protect the thieves and the moneychangers from those who would seek to throw them out of the temple.

"He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

lost ark said: "And now we have ranchers feeding antibiotics up the wazoo to their animals because so many meat packing plants are so filthy. Consumers were always free to shop elsewhere."

"Free to shop elsewhere?" Are you kidding me? How do you know if the animal you're making dinner out of wasn't force-fed the antibiotics you're talking about, not to mention God only knows what other toxins said animal had running through its system before it was turned into dinner? You think all you have to do is find another grocery store? As if THEY have a choice too? Get real with this nonsense. You're arguing for the bad guys here. You should stop it.

Food safety is another thing that has declined dramatically since the greedy, greedy, greedy private sector of THAT industry also, has sought to dismantle the safety and sanitary regulations which once protected all of us -- not perfectly, but well. You're on the wrong team. I wish you'd reconsider your loyalties here. You could do a lot of good. As opposed to a lot of bad.

"In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained."

lost ark said: "Well, the crybaby liberal may have fought for these things, but it hasn't necessarily worked out. The bottles are not always properly labeled. I can't recall ever seeing amounts or percentages listed in the ingredients, unless it's 100% lemon juice, tomatoes, whatever. Certainly never for shampoo. Companies still claim to be organic, when they are not."

And if people like you have their way that will never be addressed -- because addressing it will require the government. If you think the for-profit sector of the economy gives a rat's @#$ if you're pouring hydrocloric acid on your head if it makes them a profit, you're sadly mistaken. That kind of consumer protection requires government, period.

lost ark said: "It's just that now people can sue with the government's blessing. Lawyers love it."

You better be very glad that it's still legal to sue corporations when their horrible products hurt people. That's another group your message masters have instructed you to help them eliminate: trial lawyers. There may be a lot of sleazy lawyers. But there are far more good ones, and they are the very last line of defense against the soulless, godless, conscienceless machine that unchecked profit-making is. They can still help us hold that machine accountable. If you and yours succeed in hobbling them to the extent that you've succeeded in hobbling unions, you really can kiss effective, safe drugs goodbye for good.

"Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air."

lost ark said: "I like clean air. We all like clean air. Aside from having very moral businessmen running the factories, I haven't quite figured out a way around this one. I'll concede this point. Of course, businesses couldn't figure it out, either. So they just shipped our factories to China and third world countries. Now they get our pollution. I don't feel good about that."

And we have found common ground. It's always there, and we can always find it. If we don't give up.

"He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor."

lost ark said: "I have to wonder if you're related to Harry Reid, noted for stating that the taxes we pay are voluntary contributions."

I'm not related to Harry Reid except for the fact that we have both been adopted into the lineage of Abraham. But he is one public LDS figure that I am proud of. Him and Jon Huntsman. Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, and Mike Lee? Embarrassing.

lost ark said: "Again, government cannot provide anything to anyone without first taking it from somebody. If a guy on the street were to reach into my purse and help himself to my cash, I could call the police and have him charged with robbery. If the government does it, I get the opportunity to be a contributor. Explain the difference to me. Use small words so that I can understand."

You're very, very fond of the twin logical fallacies of argumentum ad absurbum and non sequitur. But this is getting long. If you genuinely hate government so much, you should move to Somalia. I understand they have little to no government there. Go for it. You'll be back in a week.

"Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union."

lost ark said: "So Joe couldn't get this kind of job and benefits without the government mandating that his employer provide them?"

I didn't say that. I said he had benefits that his employer was reluctant to dismantle because his employer was afraid of union pressure. Not of a law.

lost ark said: "Are you saying that Joe isn't the kind of employee that any employer would be happy to pay well in salary and benefits to retain?"

I'm sure he is. And small employers would respond to the accountability to Joe that genuinely small businesses still have. But huge employers (Wal-Mart, McDonald's, et alia) are perfectly delighted to fire Joe regardless of what a good employee he is, if he breathes a hint of requiring benefits and decent pay in favor of the hordes of people standing in line to take his job who will make no such demand they're so desperate - which distorted law of supply and demand is the result of Republican policies for the past 30 years. So no, Joe's very American belief that if he does what is necessary to make himself valuable to a prospective employer that he won't get fired for no good reason, is no longer something he can count on. Thanks to the corporate fascists in this country -- who have so successfully commandeered the irrational paranoia and almost genetic resentment of the nutcase right to help them accomplish their horrible goals.

"If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune."

lost ark said: "Some people really want a nanny state. The nanny state can only give what it has forcefully taken away from somebody else."

Your message masters have trained you to repeat "nanny state" every time the left almost succeeds in saving some vital protection from their insatiable greed. We are so far from a nanny state in this country it's ridiculous.

"It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression."

lost ark said: "You think your bank account is protected by the FSLIC/FDIC?"

Well, not for much longer. If the corporate lobby and it's right-wing oompah loompahs get their way.

"Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university."

lost ark said: "Joe was a fool to take out student loans. It hasn't been until quite recently that people have begun to wake up to the scam. Without federally subsidized student loans, college would be a lot more affordable."

There may be a connection. Student loans are after all, yet another huge bonanza for the private, for profit, banking sector. High college costs all but require student loans. Bingo! Score another massive taxpayer dollars windfall for the banksters/corporatists. The answer however, is not to get rid of student loans without also addressing the bizarre cost of a college education. Because if you do one without the other, you've made sure that nobody whose parents aren't zillionnaires will ever be educated in this country, ever again.

"Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads."

lost ark said: "Our roads are the crappiest in the industrialized world."

Well, not quite true yet. But we're getting there.

lost ark said: "Cars were a lot safer when they were built like tanks."

Why do you think the roads and bridges are in such horrible shape? I think it's because the corporatists and their right wing helpers have succeeded in dismantling federal support for infrastructure. Since, again, they want that money in their pockets. They don't care about roads and bridges. Roads and bridges are for peasants like us. And cars definitely used to survive crashes better than they do now. It's just that people didn't. Personally I despise all the bells and whistles in new vehicles, like the ones that order me to buckle my seat belt for instance. I drive a 1970 F100 -- it does have seat belts, but it doesn't have a pesky little chime ordering me to fasten it. You can thank the private insurance lobby for most of that -- but the fact is that seat belts, mandated by the government since I think some time in the 80's -- along with air bags and crash testing, have saved many, many lives. Go ahead and argue that purist libertarianism of yours. Anything, including libertarianism, in extremes goes bad quickly. Moderation in all things -- except justice and good sense of course. That should be your watchword. Not "kill all them lefties and hand the entire government over to the private sector" thing you all do so well.

"He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification."

lost ark said: "Joe's dad might live to regret that."

I don't think he will.

"He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to."

lost ark said: "Do you honestly believe that Social Security and whatever pension/401K/retirement plan is going to be there for you?"

I honestly do. It's not only one of the most successful social programs this country has ever enacted, it's one of the most fiscally sound. I know you don't believe that. It's quite true however. And Social Security too, is something the banksters are absolutely drooling over. They never get eneough. They want all the money in the world to be in their pockets so they can continue to take baths in Dom Perignon and pay the bills for their many mansions all over the world (does the phrase "Mitt Romney" come to mind?) and the rest of us can go straight to hell. There's a lot of money in the Social Security system. It's eating them alive that they haven't been able to get their greedy hands on it yet. So they do what they always do. They deputize the Karl Roves and Rush Limbaughs of the world to spring into action to tell you it's a bad system that should be privatized. They've already got you believing that first huge lie, that "private sector" trumps "public sector." So it's not a hard sell at all.

"Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

lost ark said: "You, and most members of the church, will continue to support the robbing and thieving of your neighbors' wallets. Protest all you like, but that is what it is when you vote for increasing taxes to support schools. Even if you don't vote for the increases, the fact that you use or even advocate the use of government schools indicates your approval of robbing your neighbor. You covet what he has and want him to pay for what you want. Pure and simple."

Nobody likes paying taxes. But you should understand who you should really be mad at. It isn't public education.

lost ark said: "The problem is people who've gone through the public education system and yet are not educated.

Definitely a problem. The solution for which isn't sell it/give it to the moneychangers.

lost ark said: "Tell me if you have ever donated any of your own money to your own public schools. Not money that is requested/demanded by your child's teacher, nor anything requested in a fundraiser. Money where you have walked into the administration offices, written out a fat check, and said basically, "You're so much smarter than I am. You decide how to use this money." If you have not, how do you justify demanding that others do so?"

I don't quite understand why you feel such a donation is required by someone who supports public education.

lost ark said: "Put your money where your mouth is. If it's such a great idea, why don't you pay more for it?"

I do pay for it. I not only pay every single tax that supports public education, I'm a fully involved supporter of public schools. Which means I'm constantly writing them checks. But that really, really, really isn't germane to this conversation. You don't think you should have to pay taxes for something you disapprove of. It simply, I repeat, does not work that way.

I don't demand anybody do anything that I'm not fully prepared to do.

lost ark said: "So it's ok to compel others to pay for things as long as you approve of them. Got it."

If you're talking about taxes that support public education, and I know you are, yes, it's okay. There are plenty of laws that have been passed by the Republicans that I disapprove of. I do not feel that I have the right to object to the portion of my taxes that go to pay for the laws that they pass. I have the right to oppose them in the next election. To campaign against them in between elections. I do not, I repeat, have to right to throw a temper tantrum about the fact that a law got passed that I don't like. And if you've ever voted for a Republican candidate, who then proceeded to pass some law that required tax support -- which all laws do -- and you thought it was just fine that my tax money went to support something that I disagree with, you too think it's okay to compel others to pay for things that you approve of whether they do or not. The Department of Defense is one of many examples. Lots of people in this country are genuinely opposed to any form of military action, no exceptions. They still pay the taxes that support the military or they go to jail. It's the only way any country, that anybody with any sense would ever want to live in, can possibly operate.

If you vote, you do it all the time. It's been being done for hundreds of years -- in this and in all civilized countries. The right in this country has only gotten excercised about it recently. You do the math.

lost ark said: "No, I have not elected any of these people. Get that straight. TPTB represent the people that elected them, not those that did not."

You've elected plenty of them. But that's not the point. Part of being a patriotic citizen is consenting to the result of legitimate elections. If you want to change things, change the next election. Agitate for better oversight of elections so they accurately represent the will of the people. But blaming TPTB is a huge cop out. And stomping your foot and saying "I didn't vote for that so I'm not going to pay whatever portion of my taxes support it" probably isn't going to do anything to make the world look more like you want it to look.

lost ark said: "Have you even read President Benson's statements on the subject that are posted in this thread? Based on his statements, how do you excuse your thinking?"

I excuse my thinking by pointing out that I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not the Church of Ezra Taft Benson, or Brigham Young, or John Taylor of Latter Day Saints.

lost ark said: "So counsel of modern prophets is not necessary on the matter? Do you consider any of their counsel, or just the counsel that you agree with?"

I consider all of their counsel. They are, all of them, wise and good men. It's just that when there's a contradiction between theirs and the Savior's, it's no contest for me.

lost ark said: "Have you ever considered that the only mention of government education in the Book of Mormon is a very negative one?"

If you want to get into a spraying match about scriptural support for contradictory philsophies, game on.

lost ark said: "I think your answer on this one was a no."

Then you didn't think very hard. It was a resounding yes. Assuming of course, that "consider" is not the same thing as "blindly, thoughtlessly accept without trying to discern first whether it's applicable or not.

[lost ark]

"So it's ok to compel others to pay for things as long as you approve of them. Got it."

If you're talking about taxes that support public education, and I know you are, yes, it's okay.


I wish I'd just scrolled to the end instead of wasting my time on the rest of your diatribe.



So you're all in favor of compelling others to do what you deem best for them.

Satan said the same thing. All would be forced to do the right thing. No one would be lost.

You believe in coercion. I believe in choice.

There is nothing further to discuss.

[KMCopeland]

"So it's ok to compel others to pay for things as long as you approve of them. Got it."

"If you're talking about taxes that support public education, and I know you are, yes, it's okay."

I wish I'd just scrolled to the end instead of wasting my time on the rest of your diatribe.

It was hardly a diatribe. It was a careful attempt to answer each of the questions you asked me.

So you're all in favor of compelling others to do what you deem best for them.

Not remotely. But I'm comfortable I was patiently clear about that. So we can part friends at this point. I hope.

Satan said the same thing. All would be forced to do the right thing. No one would be lost. You believe in coercion. I believe in choice. There is nothing further to discuss.

Yeah, I hear that tired "Satan's plan" argument against any law the person using it doesn't like. It's not really an honest argument.

If you believe in a system of laws to protect the rights of others, you believe in coercion too -- in coercing those who undertake to violate other peoples' rights, not to do it. Under pain of arrest, and often imprisonment. You better believe you believe in coercion.

[Chautauquan]

Again, you are guilty of non sequitur. When "one," meaning you, vote yourself benefits from the public treasury (which you've done over and over again, and which conclusion I draw by virtue of the high likelihood that you're a citizen of this country who votes) the effect is certainly not the same.

First off, madam, this is a clear fallacy fallacy. In other words, you're just trying to use rhetoric to cover an argument which could have valid reasoning, despite having a potential error. The fact that I disagree with you on that comment being a non sequitur not only illustrates the potential validity of the argument, but also your rhetorical failure to properly categorize an argument.

A non-sequitur would involve bringing up an argument which had no relevancy to the topic. The fact is, there are plenty of people who do not benefit from this system of public education (including a number of the graduates, to wit). So it is entirely relevant, and therefore not only are you guilty of a fallacy fallacy, but also of a red herring.

We could continue the writ of the entirety of this rather lengthy argument, but to wit, this is what seems to me to be a clear case of trying to avoid the issue by addressing the question you would rather deal with, not the one posed. You continue talking about how someone has been "trained" to not notice something when it is posed to give them benefits, but only object when it is regarding a or b. You ignore the potential that someone might actually object to something on principle, monetary benefits or no. A perfect example is my own case as regards our lovely "health care reform". Am I a student under 25? Yes. Accordingly, I was able to benefit exceedingly from being on my father's insurance when I needed to make a trip to the Mayo Clinic. Do I think that this reform is still abhorrent, unconstitutional, and, while ostensibly well-intended, destined to drive our health care industry (and research) into the ground? Even more assuredly! Just because you cannot fathom someone possessing principles beyond their own self-interest only shows that you managed to succumb to the very "training" which you assume others to possess.

My own case comes from Nevada, which has a nice standing in the union as being 49th out of 50 for "best schools". While the reasons for that could be an entire thread of their own, I shall not deign to go on a long tangent here, wanting to stay on topic. Quite frankly, there are a great many who could benefit from the system, perhaps, potentially, but have not applied themselves in the slightest, nor have any desire to do so. Adult literacy programs aren't just for those who are incredibly aged, after all.

I went to public schools too. And nobody, not even me, would argue that those things, if publicly funded, are not mere waste, but serious corruption. You and I differ only on the extent to which those things are actually found. You think if we find one smidgen of anything that isn't true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous or praiseworthy we should throw out the whole system. Which is ridiculous. You strive for perfection. You don't go nuts when you find out you didn't achieve it.

Throwing out the whole system might be a bit extreme, to your eyes, but then again, we could reference a little bit of mormonad that came out in my youth:


There are some things which are destructive to the point of not being worth it. As you correctly identified, there is a difference as to the magnitude of the issues dependent upon both area and local administration. But if even one soul were to end up somehow condemned through the influence of these corrupt powers, would you speak up for them in the last day? Granted, this argument can be flipped to the other side, as certainly there are those who read about "the Mormon Exodus" in a history book and got baptized after a couple of other meetings, but these aren't necessarily merely temporal ramifications in any case, but eternal. I dare not try to vouch for a program which has the potential to condemn a human soul.


lost ark said: "When one votes themselves benefits from the public treasury, the effect is about the same. One is spending his neighbor's money to get what he wants but doesn't want to pay for himself."

They want it to be a for-profit enterprise. And they go to work in their precise, methodical way to get people, like you, to help them steal one of the last things left that they haven't stolen, which is public education, so they can begin to get not just public money, but also whatever you have left, because when they take over public education, you no longer will have a choice. You will send your children to wildly expensive private schools or they will not be educated -- because that's all that will be left if they get their way, like you're obviously helping them to do. If you want a conspiracy to object to, object to that one. People like me are not your enemy. We are your only friends.

I'm singularly impressed how your response to a homeschooling thread completely ignores the concept thereof. Government control over any institution enables, not counters, private control. Unless you can figure out how to entirely eliminate all private business interaction with the state through lobbyists, campaign funding, and the like, you're simply a stepping stone before that very evil you claim to oppose.

Actually it's almost exactly the same kettle of fish. When the FDA was a purely tax-supported entity, it didn't owe anything to the huge, greedy drug companies who now own it. This is the evil of privatization. You remove accountability from someone whose job description is "make sure drugs are safe and effective" to someone whose job description is "make sure we make a profit." It's an insane thing to advocate.

I also like how this reference to the FDA isn't considered a non sequitur, because you had a response for it. However, I refer to the statement above. Government control over an industry is only a prerequisite to a monopoly asserting control. Only this time, they get cops to help them enforce their monopoly. Nifty!

You do your homework. Union workers most certainly did fight for that and much else that has made the American workplace so excellent until recently. Things that contributed to the historically unique, and totally wonderful rise of the once-mighty, now whimpering, American working class which is 99% of us. The violence the right has been doing to unions for 30 years or more is obscene. The day you and every single burdened employee in this country confesses that and adjusts their politics accordingly will be a very good day indeed for this country. And for all of them.

I almost hesitate to mention that it used to be that doctors advocated healthcare reform long before any of these issues. (Not only because it's another argument which you declined to label a non sequitur, but also because it has little to no relevance to the ideas of homeschooling and public education) During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were a plethora of bills introduced by doctors who had ended up in positions of legal authority on behalf of their fellow medical professionals, because they were sick and tired of being underpaid and under-appreciated. A fine example of how there were "unions" of a very different kind may be evidenced in such organizations as the Knights of Columbus and various Masonic lodges hiring out for a doctor. This doctor would be paid by the organization to care for all of the members therein (and sometimes their families as well, depending on the situation).

The doctor was obligated to be on-call for any of these needs, ranging from the emergency to the absurd. Now, for those who were absurd, the doctor would complain about the obscene nature of whatever ailment or "ailment" the afflicted possessed, and how it was a waste of both money and time. Considering that he was paid from the dues that each of these members paid, (often, the contract was formed not according to number of visits, but by number of subscribed patients) it was a risky thing to do.

However, quite often, rather than lose a skilled doctor, hypochondriacs were counseled to "get better soon" or face the consequences of losing their membership (and health benefits). Now, this does not address the issues of the indigent or those who would be denied access to these societies for a variety of reasons, but this has gone on long enough and STILL is irrelevant to schooling. But hey, let's enlighten and edify one another rather than slinging names, shall we?

What naive nonsense. There are indeed, good, benevolent employers who are motivated by such things. Then there's the powerful CEO lobby, in an effort to pay themselves even more jillions of dollars in those utterly impossible to justify stratospheric salaries, went to methodical work to destroy unions, decades ago, so they could get away with plundering their employees' paychecks and benefits. There's nothing wrong with making a lot of money. As long as you remain accountable to the people who made that possible. Robber barons are the bad guys -- them and their stooges in Congress. Not liberals who are the only ones -- not Democrats, liberals only now -- calling them on their determined, methodical, diabolical, unchecked, greedy schemes to lay their hands on all the money in the world, with as few exceptions as they can manage. And they are very, very good managers.

What naive nonsense. <--Argument from Incredulity, Ad hominem. I was tempted, considering your stringent efforts to point out how everyone is so much less trained in rhetoric and so much less educated than you, to go through the entirety of your post and do similar things. This particular one stuck out to me, and I decided to highlight it alone, not only for the glaring arrogance of it all, but also because there simply are not enough hours in the day to devote to a task like trying to point out every last error of someone's argument rather than respond to them in a rational, reasoned manner.

And I like how again, you take up the banner as humanity's last hope, protecting against business by the power of government, when you're pointing out in this self-same post how blatantly corrupt they are. Why not put in your lot with the libertarians and anti-federalists, and just try to ensure as little power is codified as possible? Empowering the government when the government is corrupt is just like checking to see if the gun is loaded before putting it in your mouth. It has a point, yes, but doesn't really do much for your cause.

lost ark said: "So again, you can thank your federal government for doing it's part to boost medical costs into the stratosphere."

You just couldn't be more wrong. What has boosted medical costs into the stratosphere is the unchecked private sector. In concert with the corporate-owned Congress. Only. Only that. You like the free market? Remove the stranglehold that corporate America has on Congress and you might begin to see glimmers of it again. Corporate America has removed all competition they might have to charge you whatever they want for whatever they want. There's no one to hold them back, in medical care or anything else. Except unions. Except liberals. And who do you all target, so obediently? Unions and liberals. Exactly as you're told to.

Medical care does not belong in the private sector. Government must be watched diligently. By people with no corporate loyalties. We must watch for greedy politicians, constantly. But of the two, the private sector or the public one, the public one at least has a prayer of protecting you from the ungodly greed of the private sector. You are out of your mind to protect the thieves and the moneychangers from those who would seek to throw them out of the temple.

"He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

lost ark said: "And now we have ranchers feeding antibiotics up the wazoo to their animals because so many meat packing plants are so filthy. Consumers were always free to shop elsewhere."

"Free to shop elsewhere?" Are you kidding me? How do you know if the animal you're making dinner out of wasn't force-fed the antibiotics you're talking about, not to mention God only knows what other toxins said animal had running through its system before it was turned into dinner? You think all you have to do is find another grocery store? As if THEY have a choice too? Get real with this nonsense. You're arguing for the bad guys here. You should stop it.

Food safety is another thing that has declined dramatically since the greedy, greedy, greedy private sector of THAT industry also, has sought to dismantle the safety and sanitary regulations which once protected all of us -- not perfectly, but well. You're on the wrong team. I wish you'd reconsider your loyalties here. You could do a lot of good. As opposed to a lot of bad.

This is the urbanite defense. An agrarian might suggest the local farmer's market, but who needs that when you have supermart? Admittedly it is significantly more difficult to get produce from the simple farmer to the common consumer, but I have personal experience that it is big agriculture working in concert with the government to make it happen. I used to grow corn in an effort to get money for school. I used entirely organic fertilizers and pesticides (like my thumb and my finger).

Now, I could not call my food organic, not without an inspector from the government, and a fee which alone would have been greater than my profits to the government. Who benefits from this system but big agriculture? I'm failing to see how this is good for the common man. This was a response to a non-sequitur, but didn't get labeled as such. Schade.

lost ark said: "Well, the crybaby liberal may have fought for these things, but it hasn't necessarily worked out. The bottles are not always properly labeled. I can't recall ever seeing amounts or percentages listed in the ingredients, unless it's 100% lemon juice, tomatoes, whatever. Certainly never for shampoo. Companies still claim to be organic, when they are not."

And if people like you have their way that will never be addressed -- because addressing it will require the government. If you think the for-profit sector of the economy gives a rat's donkey if you're pouring hydrocloric acid on your head if it makes them a profit, you're sadly mistaken. That kind of consumer protection requires government, period.

You are so right. I mean, where would we be without the government? It's not as if there is some non-profit organization like a Consumer's Union out there. They certainly don't keep up to date with Consumer Reports, in any case. And anything they did review with incredibly stringent guidelines would probably already have been outlawed by the government and they couldn't possibly offer anything to the public. (I am sorry for the sarcasm of this post. It is late, and my digestion suffers.)

lost ark said: "It's just that now people can sue with the government's blessing. Lawyers love it."

You better be very glad that it's still legal to sue corporations when their horrible products hurt people. That's another group your message masters have instructed you to help them eliminate: trial lawyers. There may be a lot of sleazy lawyers. But there are far more good ones, and they are the very last line of defense against the soulless, godless, conscienceless machine that unchecked profit-making is. They can still help us hold that machine accountable. If you and yours succeed in hobbling them to the extent that you've succeeded in hobbling unions, you really can kiss effective, safe drugs goodbye for good.

"Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air."

lost ark said: "I like clean air. We all like clean air. Aside from having very moral businessmen running the factories, I haven't quite figured out a way around this one. I'll concede this point. Of course, businesses couldn't figure it out, either. So they just shipped our factories to China and third world countries. Now they get our pollution. I don't feel good about that."

And we have found common ground. It's always there, and we can always find it. If we don't give up.

I'm trying to see the point here. Are we saying that it's a good thing we ship our pollution and production overseas, or that we're sad it happens?

Also, a little side note as regards clean air being a product of our champions of the proletariat: The EPA has found ways in which it can side with big companies to get money, as well as ostensibly protect the environment. I'm certain you've heard this argument before, but let us address the catalytic converter issue. The catalytic converter was invented by a French engineer who was a naturalized American. It was marvelously, spectacularly clean. American Automakers loved it. Now, of course, it was an easy thing to have the EPA mandate such nifty, beautiful devices for use on cars throughout the nation. Defenders of the Fatherland, unite!

Well, the ones who suffered were foreign automakers. If the EPA had mandated that emissions match those generated by a catalytic converter, or even beat it, there could be a fortune saved in precious metals as people developed new ideas during the technological booms of the era, including the space race just over a decade later. Instead, some automakers had to dumb down their designs by incorporating the converter. It's not to be found in use overseas today, and do we see those dirty, dirty Toyotas as smoke-belching whale-killing monsters? Hardly! Japan is magnificent in how clean they keep their air, which is impressive considering the population density. But American automakers benefited from the patent and forced adoption of that technology they loved. Government control is just a stepping stone to corporate control. I'm hoping this lesson will be learned.

Again, government cannot provide anything to anyone without first taking it from somebody. If a guy on the street were to reach into my purse and help himself to my cash, I could call the police and have him charged with robbery. If the government does it, I get the opportunity to be a contributor. Explain the difference to me. Use small words so that I can understand.

You're very, very fond of the twin logical fallacies of argumentum ad absurbum and non sequitur. But this is getting long. If you genuinely hate government so much, you should move to Somalia. I understand they have little to no government there. Go for it. You'll be back in a week.

Fallacy fallacy, argumentum ad absurdum, argument from incredulity. You seem very fond of these logical fallacies, as well as for some reason labeling non sequitur and argumentum ad absurdum as twins. Very curious as to your basis in formal logic there. But let's get back to the issue at hand. Power in the government derives from the consent of the governed. Unless there is a consent to any given situation, you're dealing with that same issue which was placed there. Robber barons benefit from governmental control. The East India Trading Company positively thrived during the periods of British Absolutism, and yet there seems to be some idea that government is fighting these entities rather than engaging in little arguments over whose turn it is to hold the puppet strings.

I'm sure he is. And small employers would respond to the accountability to Joe that genuinely small businesses still have. But huge employers (Wal-Mart, McDonald's, et alia) are perfectly delighted to fire Joe regardless of what a good employee he is, if he breathes a hint of requiring benefits and decent pay in favor of the hordes of people standing in line to take his job who will make no such demand they're so desperate - which distorted law of supply and demand is the result of Republican policies for the past 30 years. So no, Joe's very American belief that if he does what is necessary to make himself valuable to a prospective employer that he won't get fired for no good reason, is no longer something he can count on. Thanks to the corporate fascists in this country -- who have so successfully commandeered the irrational paranoia and almost genetic resentment of the nutcase right to help them accomplish their horrible goals.

I'm not going to repeat the argument you already know is coming. You deserve a chance to respond to the obvious. But you decided to insult people again in this post, and I just really can't seem to fathom how you consider yourself to be contributing to a debate when you are telling your debate partner that they are irrational or a nutcase. Almost makes one wonder what could possibly have blessed us with your presence when you so obviously deem us as nutcases. Until you can cure that ad hominem addiction, I can only suppose that you consider yourself to be above and beyond us mere mortals, and want to ascend to be among the stars.

Some people really want a nanny state. The nanny state can only give what it has forcefully taken away from somebody else.

Your message masters have trained you to repeat "nanny state" every time the left almost succeeds in saving some vital protection from their insatiable greed. We are so far from a nanny state in this country it's ridiculous.

Wow another ad hominem! To wit, how exactly does one define a nanny state? Perhaps we're dealing with a mere case of semantics, and we can easily define what a nanny state is upon coming to a conclusion together... Perhaps you can define this for us, Your Grace? (Yes, that was a blatant ad hominem. I am indeed tired.)

There may be a connection. Student loans are after all, yet another huge bonanza for the private, for profit, banking sector. High college costs all but require student loans. Bingo! Score another massive taxpayer dollars windfall for the banksters/corporatists. The answer however, is not to get rid of student loans without also addressing the bizarre cost of a college education. Because if you do one without the other, you've made sure that nobody whose parents aren't zillionnaires will ever be educated in this country, ever again.

This is a very, very interesting argument. I personally am involved in it, and have little doubt but that my lack of a stamp and paper (though I am striving to acquire it) will be used against me in an upcoming argument. But this almost looks like a situation of chickens and eggs; but it's not what I find interesting about it.

"you've made sure that nobody whose parents aren't zillionnaires will ever be educated in this country, ever again"

This, this is interesting. One presumes that an education costs money, and is determined by the size of your diploma. I choose to heartily disagree with this, but rather than go on some long-winded diatribe which is much more fitted to a discourse of philosophy where I expect a fair hearing from my fellow participants, I will simply use an example we should all be familiar with.

Joseph Smith was given all of a third grade-equivalent "education", formally. By the end of his short life, he had dedicated himself to the study of Greek, Hebrew, and German as well. He was fluent enough to converse with a recent convert (if the stories are to be believed) and to state that he considered the Luther translation to be the most accurate of all he had read. (Although missing quite a few articles, I wonder what his perception would have been of the Russian Bible). Now, using that as just the field which I am experienced in, I consider that to be markedly educated. He didn't just stick with this, though. Architecture, civil planning, design, politics, this man was incredibly bright, no doubt, but he also had to be what I would consider educated.

Despite these incredible gifts, he still felt insecure and deferred to a scribe for even his own journal, often. Define an education how you will, but for me, I find true learning (secular and divine) to be far superior to the black robes of a false priesthood.

Why do you think the roads and bridges are in such horrible shape? I think it's because the corporatists and their right wing helpers have succeeded in dismantling federal support for infrastructure. Since, again, they want that money in their pockets. They don't care about roads and bridges. Roads and bridges are for peasants like us. And cars definitely used to survive crashes better than they do now. It's just that people didn't. Personally I despise all the bells and whistles in new vehicles, like the ones that order me to buckle my seat belt for instance. I drive a 1970 F100 -- it does have seat belts, but it doesn't have a pesky little chime ordering me to fasten it. You can thank the private insurance lobby for most of that -- but the fact is that seat belts, mandated by the government since I think some time in the 80's -- along with air bags and crash testing, have saved many, many lives. Go ahead and argue that purist libertarianism of yours. Anything, including libertarianism, in extremes goes bad quickly. Moderation in all things -- except justice and good sense of course. That should be your watchword. Not "kill all them lefties and hand the entire government over to the private sector" thing you all do so well.

I'm reminded of Volvo's ads on safety. The fact of the matter, is that safety can sell. Consumer benefit is what sells, in the end. Now, how much benefit the consumer can see? That depends on the product designers and marketers. But the fact of the matter is that, despite your arguments about the worker providing money to the employer (all the union stuff, etc.), he doesn't. Consumers pay for all of this. The worker provides benefit, yes, but a box of robots can still make a business. I've yet to see computers consume things without a consumer running them, though. Corporations might be trying to get the printing presses to just fire cash at them, but it's not quite the same thing.... yet.

Roads and bridges are for peasants like us.

If those Porsches and Ferraris are flying literally instead of figuratively, I WANT ONE. Alternatively, Back to the Future promised us hoverboards by this point. I'll settle for that. But I'm very curious as to your reasoning on that one. Maybe you mean a personal mini-subway? I suppose you might mean a daily helicopter commute, but I somewhat doubt you have the evidence for that.

Moderation in all things -- except justice and good sense of course.

A nice sentiment, but you'll forgive me if I prefer Thomas Paine's. "Moderation in temper is a virtue; moderation in virtue is a vice." Now, while one would have to struggle to consider any political platform a virtue, a devotion to agency seems to be paramount to the Father's plan. How one expresses their devotion is entirely up to their interpretation. If I didn't believe that, what kind of agent of agency would I be? (Now, note, you can still be stupid about it, and I might comment on that. Re: Crusades)

Not "kill all them lefties and hand the entire government over to the private sector" thing you all do so well.

Hypocrisy is a personal pet peeve of mine. I'm really trying not to point out the fallacies here, but REALLY? REALLY? After all the pains you go through to point out other people doing their possible fallacies, you really have to make it so easy to find yours?

"He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification."

"Joe's dad might live to regret that."

I don't think he will.

This argument wasn't fully expressed in the earlier topics, but let's go over it here. Let's say that Joe's dad did have his home financed. I hope you're not calling this the free lunch deal of a lifetime, because there would definitely have been some issues had he not given his pound of flesh (or cash, whichever came first) to the government. And as for rural electrification? What if Joe's dad ended up going into debt because of that line out to his house, or... let's say he never used it. Let's say just one accident caused a fire in the fields which torched an entire season of wheat or corn. A farmer once told me that "farmers are the biggest gamblers in the world". Adding another variable which could destroy his crop just put the odds against Joe's father slightly more.

Considering the happiest of all worlds is fine for Professor Pangloss, but we ought to be more concerned for our brother than to simply assume, "Nah, they're fine." I mean, who needs home teachers anyway? I'm sure they'll be fine without us checking up on them every month.

I honestly do. It's not only one of the most successful social programs this country has ever enacted, it's one of the most fiscally sound. I know you don't believe that. It's quite true however. And Social Security too, is something the banksters are absolutely drooling over. They never get eneough.(sic.) They want all the money in the world to be in their pockets so they can continue to take baths in Dom Perignon and pay the bills for their many mansions all over the world (does the phrase "Mitt Romney" come to mind?) and the rest of us can go straight to hell. There's a lot of money in the Social Security system. It's eating them alive that they haven't been able to get their greedy hands on it yet. So they do what they always do. They deputize the Karl Roves and Rush Limbaughs of the world to spring into action to tell you it's a bad system that should be privatized. They've already got you believing that first huge lie, that "private sector" trumps "public sector." So it's not a hard sell at all.

I'm wondering why Romney is the target of these attacks, still. I certainly didn't vote for him as site mascot. What bearing does it have on this conversation? But let's consider a few things about social security... Like, why was it optional when FDR proposed it? Why was that a promise he made, and yet now one cannot even apply for a job without it? We've been literally handed a number by our government and that is our identity officially, moreso than our name. The tale of the man who held the 000-00-0001 number is not lost on you, I would hope, unlike his benefits.

But let's be frank: What the government giveth, the government taketh away. Governmental control is just a step to---you get the picture. We're making a hedge fund for the banksters by investing in it. A lovely nest egg, truly.

lost ark said: "You, and most members of the church, will continue to support the robbing and thieving of your neighbors' wallets. Protest all you like, but that is what it is when you vote for increasing taxes to support schools. Even if you don't vote for the increases, the fact that you use or even advocate the use of government schools indicates your approval of robbing your neighbor. You covet what he has and want him to pay for what you want. Pure and simple."

Nobody likes paying taxes. But you should understand who you should really be mad at. It isn't public education.

So, because the money was given to an orphan after it was taken from me, I shouldn't feel upset at the robber? It's a hard thing to consider, because quite frankly, I do think the orphan would likely need it, if there was one so desperate as to take from me to give to him. But it ignores the fundamental principle that the money was not the robber's to give. I would hope that my devotion to the Savior would encourage me to support a soul in need, as opposed to compel me by means of force. Before public education was a thing, there were still the Ben Franklins of the world. I'm sure you could paint him as the blessed scion of a wealthy family (hence his face on the big bill), but I somewhat doubt that characterization will stick.

At this point, I'm going to point out again the "Should, should, should" of your statements. If these statements are truly so sensible and logical, then one would expect that it wouldn't take the wheedling desperation of "shoooould" to convince. An argument can stand on its own merits when it is based on sound principles. Take this with a grain of salt, of course, but perhaps you should consider it in future discussion. It might be more convincing without the self-righteous holier-than-thou approach.

"The problem is people who've gone through the public education system and yet are not educated.

Definitely a problem. The solution for which isn't sell it/give it to the moneychangers.

This just in: Parents who educate their own children are moneychangers. You're ignoring the title of the thread in this post are you even serious anymore?

"Tell me if you have ever donated any of your own money to your own public schools. Not money that is requested/demanded by your child's teacher, nor anything requested in a fundraiser. Money where you have walked into the administration offices, written out a fat check, and said basically, "You're so much smarter than I am. You decide how to use this money." If you have not, how do you justify demanding that others do so?"

I don't quite understand why you feel such a donation is required by someone who supports public education.

I sincerely hope you mean support as in "pay taxes", not as in "defend in an online forum, or in spirit". That being the case, if you recognize the suffering of the public school system, and the needs for reform... why not?

I do pay for it. I not only pay every single tax that supports public education, I'm a fully involved supporter of public schools. Which means I'm constantly writing them checks. But that really, really, really isn't germane to this conversation. You don't think you should have to pay taxes for something you disapprove of. It simply, I repeat, does not work that way.

I don't demand anybody do anything that I'm not fully prepared to do.

Demand is one strong word. It fits in line with compel. But I would say that you're putting the force of government as being more involved and invasive than the government of God. Wow. I mean, really, nobody is compelled to pay tithing. There's no disciplinary court if you stop paying tithing. Will you lose the privilege of temple attendance? Yes. But this is where things get interesting. There's a difference between rights and privileges. Rights are something which exist to the self. You don't have a "right" to be employed by any one person. It's a privilege, quite honestly. You don't have a "right" to marriage, either. Otherwise, we'd see a significant, sudden decrease in the YSA population, and a sudden increase in the standard wards.

Rights cannot be used to force another's hand. They exist to the self. Privileges might compel another's hand; but this is quite off-topic, and I need to return to the salient point.

The government could theoretically take from you the privileges which it provides, should you fail to live up to the responsibilities. Tax-paying, we will assume for the point of this argument, is a responsibility. But then why are the laws not codified to be specific? One can support the justice system while feeling the postal service is inane. This being the case... stop sending them mail! Allowing for a selective system does present a danger, of course. If enough people decide the postal service isn't worthwhile, they'll just shut down entirely. This would be problematic for those who have no desire for a privatized system. On the other hand, it serves as a motivating factor for those thus employed in the postal service. If they are good, moral people, then this incentive to protect the weak is added upon their normal incentive to excel and remain competitive.

If anything is lovely or of good report, we seek after it. Why should we waste our time over those things which have no worth, or cast our pearls before swine? The merits of the public school system may be argued until eternity, but in the end, the individual determines their pearls, and what swine they behold. It is not our place to toss their pearls in for them, even if the mud pit they perceive is really the holy of holies.

"So it's ok to compel others to pay for things as long as you approve of them. Got it."

If you're talking about taxes that support public education, and I know you are, yes, it's okay. There are plenty of laws that have been passed by the Republicans that I disapprove of. I do not feel that I have the right to object to the portion of my taxes that go to pay for the laws that they pass. I have the right to oppose them in the next election. To campaign against them in between elections. I do not, I repeat, have to right to throw a temper tantrum about the fact that a law got passed that I don't like. And if you've ever voted for a Republican candidate, who then proceeded to pass some law that required tax support -- which all laws do -- and you thought it was just fine that my tax money went to support something that I disagree with, you too think it's okay to compel others to pay for things that you approve of whether they do or not. The Department of Defense is one of many examples. Lots of people in this country are genuinely opposed to any form of military action, no exceptions. They still pay the taxes that support the military or they go to jail. It's the only way any country, that anybody with any sense would ever want to live in, can possibly operate.

If you vote, you do it all the time. It's been being done for hundreds of years -- in this and in all civilized countries. The right in this country has only gotten excercised about it recently. You do the math.

I do not, I repeat, have to right to throw a temper tantrum about the fact that a law got passed that I don't like.

Ummmm, actually you do. First amendment. It's pretty clear as day. You have the right to as many temper tantrums as you can muster. The fact that you identify privileges as rights and vice versa startles me exceedingly.

And if you've ever voted for a Republican candidate, who then proceeded to pass some law that required tax support -- which all laws do -- and you thought it was just fine that my tax money went to support something that I disagree with, you too think it's okay to compel others to pay for things that you approve of whether they do or not.

First off, there's the idea of association. Voting for someone MUST mean I approve of all actions once said candidate is in office. This is especially true because no candidates ever lie about what they're going to vote about, and keep all of their campaign promises, and are singularly the gold people of our era, whilst we are of inferior metals....(Shut up, Plato)

To be responsible for the actions of another person seems to me to be counter to the Second Article of Faith. But I cannot stop you from believing this, nor others from believing as they do. Is there a degree of accountability for placing a wastrel in office? Yes, a degree. But we are still accountable for our own sins, and not the transgression of Harry, or Mitt, or Mahonri-Moriancumer. That argument doesn't add up, when considered.

Philosophically, you still act under the assumption that A) the people in the discourse have supported candidates and laws which have imposed their will on another, and that they still do. I am nigh unto certain that there are plenty of people on this site who intensely regret some of their decisions, both private and public, and especially in the political forum. Would you hold someone accountable of the evils they have forsaken and repented of? B) You're really that certain about someone else's voting habits? Creeper.

The Department of Defense is one of many examples. Lots of people in this country are genuinely opposed to any form of military action, no exceptions. They still pay the taxes that support the military or they go to jail. It's the only way any country, that anybody with any sense would ever want to live in, can possibly operate.

...I completely agree. So.... let's take away their money? I mean, if you really are that opposed to the wars in foreign countries, then make it known where it hurt----oh yeah, it's impossible because the government compels us. Why is this a good thing in some cases and not in others? Why can't it always be bad? I mean, I do think that civil disobedience is the key, but the incredible apathy, and the accompanying inertia, do make it rather unfeasible. So, how does one begin? The government has the power to take money from your accounts directly. That they can give that power to others is true, but why did we give the government that power in the first place?

"No, I have not elected any of these people. Get that straight. TPTB represent the people that elected them, not those that did not."

You've elected plenty of them. But that's not the point.

OH CRAP. YOU KNOW OUR VOTING RECORDS? WE ARE SO SCREWED. VOTING RECORDS ARE NOW PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, GUIS. GET AYN RAND ON THE PHONE STAT!

Part of being a patriotic citizen is consenting to the result of legitimate elections. If you want to change things, change the next election. Agitate for better oversight of elections so they accurately represent the will of the people. But blaming TPTB is a huge cop out. And stomping your foot and saying "I didn't vote for that so I'm not going to pay whatever portion of my taxes support it" probably isn't going to do anything to make the world look more like you want it to look.

"Patriotism" is such a dirty word in politics. Can be used to mean anything. I mean, technically, the Founding Fathers were unpatriotic by this definition. The elections in England were perfectly legitimate. The divine right to rule was arguably legitimate. So this legitimacy makes them traitors and fiends, if we go by this thinking. I daresay my definition differs.

"Have you even read President Benson's statements on the subject that are posted in this thread? Based on his statements, how do you excuse your thinking?"

I excuse my thinking by pointing out that I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Not the Church of Ezra Taft Benson, or Brigham Young, or John Taylor of Latter Day Saints.

Your argument could have been so much stronger here. You could have pointed out that certain statements are not church doctrine unless they go through the process of becoming so. Instead, you basically said you follow the prophet whenever you feel like it. So, do you have a shredder for your temple recommend whenever it's not in style?


[quote="lost ark] "So counsel of modern prophets is not necessary on the matter? Do you consider any of their counsel, or just the counsel that you agree with?"[/quote]

I consider all of their counsel. They are, all of them, wise and good men. It's just that when there's a contradiction between theirs and the Savior's, it's no contest for me.

I am incredibly curious as to how you can support and sustain someone while ignoring their counsel or calling it contradictory to the Savior. Some things might be higgedly-piggledy, but I'm certain that it is doctrine that the President of the Church is the only person authorized to receive revelation for the Church and the world. Now, I am curious as to where you draw the limits for the potential of Divine Guidance, and I'm not suggesting something like papal infallibility, but I do wonder at the credentials for someone making such a statement which would seem to invalidate temple attendance.

If you want to get into a spraying match about scriptural support for contradictory philsophies, game on.

Really? Am I allowed pseudoepigrapha too, or only the Standard Works? Can we outlaw eisegesis? I'm so up for this.

"Then you didn't think very hard. It was a resounding yes. Assuming of course, that "consider" is not the same thing as "blindly, thoughtlessly accept without trying to discern first whether it's applicable or not."

My only consideration here is whether or not the administration here has made that a no-no. Admittedly, it's been a few years since I'm brushed up on the T&C of this particular forum. But seriously, can we outlaw eisegesis, and require source material within the context of the times?

[KMCopeland]

First off, madam, this is a clear fallacy fallacy.

No madam, it isn't. At all.

In other words, you're just trying to use rhetoric to cover an argument which could have valid reasoning, despite having a potential error.

Not at all. Quite the opposite. I'm dumbing the whole thing down.

The fact that I disagree with you on that comment being a non sequitur not only illustrates the potential validity of the argument, but also your rhetorical failure to properly categorize an argument.

No, it just illustrates that you disagree with me.

A non-sequitur would involve bringing up an argument which had no relevancy to the topic.

No, a non sequitur is drawing a conclusion from something someone has stated as the reason he's drawing it, which doesn't support the conclusion he drew. “It doesn't follow” in other words. The poster I was arguing with said that anyone “promoting or upholding public schools” was saying therefore, that force by the State is a good thing. That conclusion did not follow from what he offered to support it. Classic non sequitur.

The fact is, there are plenty of people who do not benefit from this system of public education (including a number of the graduates, to wit). So it is entirely relevant, and therefore not only are you guilty of a fallacy fallacy, but also of a red herring.

Oh for Pete's sake. This is not a fallacy fallacy argument. It's an appeal to reason. Now, we can go back and forth and say “I know you are but what am I” infinity if you want to. Probably not a great idea though. Oppossed as you are to fallacy fallacy and all.

But seriously, can we outlaw eisegesis, and require source material within the context of the times?

I'm not sure I'm empowered to outlaw anything, but I'm game if you are. Assuming you don't get to, unilaterally, decide what either "source material" or "the context of the times" is.

[Chautauquan]

I suppose I should be grateful that you so clearly outlined wherein I was mistaken.

Firstly, I presumed you were aware of formal logic, due to your habits of using names of various logical fallacies to try to attack other people here on the board... I stand corrected, considering you didn't understand exactly what a "fallacy fallacy" is.

In formal logic, a "fallacy fallacy" is where one tries to prove their own viewpoint correct, by pointing out fallacies in the others they encounter. So, quite frankly, any time where you didn't address it, but just named a random fallacy, it is what you call a fallacy fallacy. The fact that the other person didn't use proper reasoning doesn't necessarily invalidate their argument. One must provide evidence, not just hot air.

Eisegesis is the practice of reading meaning into a text (in this case, the scriptures) wherein one applies the meaning as they personally understand it, they can draw whatever conclusion seems to fit best with their worldview and just wave it off as personal interpretation, twisting the words to mean whatever they feel like fits best.

Exegesis is where we're looking for what the individuals were saying within the context of their times. History, culture, tradition, linguistics, science, local politics, everything, coming to understand what is being said with as much accuracy as possible to the intended meaning, rather than straining at semantics over our own poorly-translated words.

I cannot give you a list of "approved 1st Century Christian works" or anything for getting that idea, but a foundation would be to have things like the Septuagint and Apocrypha, the writings of Josephus, and the Peshitta. It's a start, at least, to gaining a greater understanding of the Palestinian world of the Savior during this time frame. I consider this of utmost importance. If you find anything which is a firsthand resource from that time period, (or really, anything close, because it's so hard to get direct sources from the Savior) I will be more than happy to consider it. Secondhand revisionism only stands up in light of the primary sources.

Personal revelation, while entirely valid for personal decisions, cannot be used to determine the course of an argument. We ought to look directly at the source material as best we can. My Greek is flimsy at best, and I can only read a few verses out of John with difficulty, but I look at many different translations so as to come closer to a more pure understanding of His meanings.

The Book of Mormon? Well, divine translations stick as they are, but we ought to consider, aside from the Hebraic cultures which influenced the Nephites, the language of the time of Joseph Smith, so as to come to a complete clarity of the matter.

Now, to go back up to the above statement.

"Promoting or upholding public schools" > Force by the state is a good thing.

If we are to address it in formal logic, that statement, alone, without any context, would be a non sequitur. However, we have context and can extrapolate from data given to understand some of the corresponding reasoning. Granted, we're going to analyse this with formal logic, rather than informal, so in this case, it could stand, merely because there were statements left understood or unstated, relating to the nature of the discussion.

If you go back to the article which prompted this thread in the first place, we can begin piecing some of these ideas together.

One virtue of Madison’s response to Henry’s bill is that its principles and logic extend beyond church-and-state relations. In fact, the principles and logic of his argument apply seamlessly to the relationship of education and state. If we substitute the word “education” for “religion” throughout Madison’s text, we find a perfect parallel: first, parents have an inalienable right to educate their children according to their values; second, education must not be directed by the state; and third, education is corrupted by government interference or control. The parallel is stark, and the logic applies equally in both cases.

Just as Americans have a right to engage in whatever non-rights-violating religious practices they choose, so Americans have a right to engage in whatever educational practices they choose. And just as Americans would not grant government the authority to run their Sunday schools, so they should not grant government the authority to run their schools Monday through Friday.

So, admittedly, this is acting upon the source material to make conclusions. Considering that this is the topic of discussion, here in this thread, I daresay that this one little snippet, while not directly tied, lays the foundation for further arguments on the matter. Reading through, understanding the context of common knowledge, or common consent of understanding, at least, would require that you address these widespread opinions, lest you fall into the trap of just coming off as someone who doesn't really care what anyone else thinks. Now, at this point, having read your discourse with others on the board, I don't see why you stay, if not because you see yourself as some wifi Messiah or something, preaching to the horribly misled masses. It feels like me marching into the Budweiser brewery and immediately calling everyone to repentance for breaking the Word of Wisdom.

Whatever your intentions, the actions seem to communicate a marked disdain for your fellow forum members. Case in point: You ignored my arguments, and only pulled out one little snippet where you tried to pick things apart. I at least tried to give you the benefit of a full quote of context, sometimes more, in order to try to grasp a full understanding of the argument. I had hoped for similar courtesy.

[KMCopeland]

I suppose I should be grateful that you so clearly outlined wherein I was mistaken.

No. You should however, at least notice that I tried to answer your questions.

Firstly, I presumed you were aware of formal logic, due to your habits of using names of various logical fallacies to try to attack other people here on the board... I stand corrected, considering you didn't understand exactly what a "fallacy fallacy" is.

Firstly schmirstly. You've drawn this conclusion from 'facts' not in evidence.

In formal logic, a "fallacy fallacy" is where one tries to prove their own viewpoint correct, by pointing out fallacies in the others they encounter. So, quite frankly, any time where you didn't address it, but just named a random fallacy, it is what you call a fallacy fallacy.

Nothing frank at all about that. It's just a garden variety accusation, and one that ignores evidence that proves it's groundless.

The fact that the other person didn't use proper reasoning doesn't necessarily invalidate their argument. One must provide evidence, not just hot air.

Serious pot & kettle thing going on here.

Eisegesis is the practice of reading meaning into a text (in this case, the scriptures) wherein one applies the meaning as they personally understand it, they can draw whatever conclusion seems to fit best with their worldview and just wave it off as personal interpretation, twisting the words to mean whatever they feel like fits best.

Why thank you. I could tell you I'm painfully familiar with it -- but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hear it. So I won't.

Whatever your intentions, the actions seem to communicate a marked disdain for your fellow forum members.

I regret that. I have no such disdain for the members. I have major disdain for some of their positions, not to mention the idiotic things they reference to support them. It's the stock and trade of internet discussion groups. You didn't know that?

Case in point: You ignored my arguments, and only pulled out one little snippet where you tried to pick things apart.

Oh no I didn't. I carefully, and respectfully, tried to answer several of your questions, individually. I didn't attempt to answer them all. Because there are only so many hours in the day.

I had hoped for similar courtesy.

You got it. In spades.

[Ezra]

Martin Luther
I am much afraid that schools will prove to be great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures; engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the word of God must become corrupt.

Ezra Taft Benson PPNS p.302
Certain soldiers of public opinion in America who call themselves liberal in politics and economics and religion have virtually canonized and glorified three men…Charles Darwin with his origin of the species…Karl Marx published the communist manifesto…Maynard Keynes entered the liberal throne room…with his book The General Theory on Economics…The growing influence of these three men is visible in all segments of American life today (1969)….it has penetrated some of the vital centers of our government, educational system, and church life. If the doctrines of these three men were to become the basic philosophy of our way of life, we as a people would fail as has no other generation before us since the days of Noah.

Joseph Fielding Smith Signs of the Times p.87
Man has created God in his own image. I want to tell you that the world today is teaching this kind of philosophy. It is found in our schools.

H Verlan Andersen The Book of Mormon and the Constitution p.191
It is not at all unlikely that the massive destruction of faith in God, and the acceptance of false beliefs in the world today is largely attributable to the massive substitution of public education for that of the parents. D&C 93:40 & 39 But I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth. And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers. D&C 123:7 The influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion.

Hosea 4:6
Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge I will also reject thee that thou shalt be no priest to me; seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

David O McKay PPNS p.191 CN 3/12/52 RS-49:877 1962
The real tragedy in America is not that we have permitted the Bible to slip out of our public schools, but that we have so openly neglected to teach it in either the home or the church. Evidently the Supreme Court misinterprets the true meaning of the first amendment, and is now leading a Christian nation down the road to atheism. CN 6/22/63 PPNS p.187-188

Moses 6:5 & 6 proper schooling
And a Book of Remembrance (of the revelations of God) was kept, in the which was recorded in the language of Adam, for it was given unto as many as called upon God (prayed) to write by the spirit of inspiration; And by them (these scriptures) their children were taught to read and write, having a language which was pure and undefiled.

D&C 131:6
…it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

D&C 88:118
Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

Joseph Smith Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p.58
…whatsoever is not faith is sin.

Moses 6:41, 57; 7:1
My father (Jared) taught me in all the ways of God. Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men everywhere must repent…or not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore, I give you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children…Our father Adam taught these things

3 Nephi 27:11
But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.

Joseph Fielding Smith Man, His Origin and Destiny p.4 1954 PPNS p.191
Most of the textbooks written today boldly and impudently contradict the doctrines of the Bible and its history. No number of scholastic degrees conveys the right on the part of the teachers to attack religion in the public schools.

Boyd K Packer David O McKay Symposium 10/9/96 BYU
In many places it is literally not safe physically for youngsters to go to school. And in many schools---and it is almost becoming generally true---it is spiritually unsafe to attend public schools.

Ezra Taft Benson PPNS p.195 CR 10/64
Now these false educational ideas are prevalent in the world, and we have not entirely escaped them among teachers in our own system. There are a few teachers within the church who while courting apostasy still want to remain members in the church. For being a member makes them more effective in misleading the saints, but their day of judgment is coming.

H Verlan Andersen The Book of Mormon and the Constitution p.190
After comparing Satan’s cunning plan of free education today with the plan of enforced priestcraft described so often in the Book of Mormon, can it be doubted but that the Lord has placed those many stories in there to warn us against a danger we have succumbed to? Both plans provide for government control of education. Both plans force taxpayers to pay the cost of implementing them. Both prohibit the teaching of the gospel.

Ezra Taft Benson PPNS p.62 CR 4/62
We must protect…from idleness, subsidies, doles, and soft governmental paternalism which weakens initiative, discourages industry, destroys character, and demoralizes people. We must protect…from complacency, from the dangerous feeling that all is well, from being lulled away into a false security. We must protect this American base from the brainwashing increasingly administered to our youth in many educational institutions across the land, by some misinformed instructors and some wolves in sheep’s clothing. Their false indoctrination often perpetuated behind the front of so-called academic freedom, is leaving behind many faithless students, socialist-oriented, who are easy subjects for state tyranny.

Ezra Taft Benson PPNS p.311
Think of the impact for good we could have if we all united behind the prophet in preserving our constitution. Yet witness the sorry spectacle of those presently of our number who have repudiated the inspired council of our prophet when he has opposed federal aid to education and asked support for the right-to-work laws.

J Reuben Clark PPNS p.190 5/18/38
…Some of our colleges, both state and privately endowed, including among them some of the best known and the widest reputation are become hotbeds for the propagating of un-American theories of our constitution and the American form of government.

Ezra Taft Benson CR 11/86 p.46-47
Every priesthood holder should make learning a lifetime pursuit. While any study of truth is of value, the truths of salvation are the most important truths any person can learn. The Lord’s question “For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26) can be applied to educational pursuits as well as the pursuits of worldly goods. The Lord might also have asked, “For what is a man profited if he shall learn everything in the world and not learn how to be saved?” (Now President Benson quotes President Kimball) Youth, beloved youth, can you see why we must let spiritual training take first place? …secular (learning) without the foundation of the spiritual (learning) is but like the foam upon the milk, the fleeting shadow? The study of the scriptures ahead of the study of man written texts; ordinances of the temple are more important than the PHD or any other academic degrees?

Ezra Taft Benson PPNS p.309 BYU 12/10/63
Yes, the Fabian socialists are as busy as bees rolling out the red carpet which leads inevitably to communism. Faces with this situation our first duty is that of education. Starting with ourselves we must become familiar with the broad outlines of our movement toward destruction. We must, as President McKay urged, become alerted and informed. After becoming informed ourselves, we must carry the word to all within hearing or seeing range, so that they, too, can become awakened. Take every opportunity to pass sound literature and books around so that your neighbors and their neighbors will awaken before it is too late. We are literally in a race against time and we must take every opportunity to spread the word.

Russell M Nelson BYUI Devotional January 2010
While you search for education and wisdom, I need to offer a serious word of caution. Choose carefully what you will learn, whose teachings you will follow, and whose purposes you will serve. And don’t place all your intellectual eggs in the solitary basket of secular learning. Remember this warning from the Book of Mormon. (2 Nephi 9:28 & 29) The vainness, and the frailties, and the foolish of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (D&C 6:7) Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich. In retrospect, I can see that mankind’s general and pervasive lack of knowledge of the scriptures has handicapped great numbers of people for long periods of time. The suffering that has resulted from such ignorance is truly tragic. (Lev. 15:8-15) (2 Tim. 3:1-7) (2 Nephi 28:30) (D&C 50:24) (D&C 88:67) (D&C 93:28) So to build your eternal destiny, you cannot, you must not, limit your lessons only to those lessons that are warped by the world to exclude the truth from God. (Jacob 4:10) (D&C 45:29-33) (D&C 87:6)

H Verlan Andersen The Book of Mormon and the Constitution p.189
…The type of religion being taught in our public school system is far worse than any type known because instead of teaching freedom of worship, it teaches that everyone must support a religion the worst feature of which is the use of force to compel attendance and compel every taxpayer whether a believer in socialism, atheism, enforced priestcraft, etc. to support the system and impose it on little children. It teaches only the precepts of men, evolution, a false interpretation of history, and no faith in God, all of which destroy faith. Is there any scheme more evil than this cunning socialist scheme?

J Reuben Clark CR April 1949 CN 6/15/40 p.10
Our government, with its liberty and free institutions, will not long survive a government educated trained and supervised youth. Such a youth can be a revolutionary machine. The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood…we should be careful of them.
Ezra Taft Benson PPNS p.269 12/13/63
To take over our schools the educational system will first have been federalized and then prostituted entirely to serving the propaganda needs of the state planners with absolutely no regard for truth, or scholarship or tradition.

I Shannon Pearce
Mortal accounts of history will be but graffiti on the walls of time. Human indifference to God has caused all suffering.

Joseph Fielding Smith CR 10/1915:4
I hope that I may be pardoned for giving expression to my real conviction with reference to the question of education in the State of Utah. The government of the State has provided for the common schools up to the eighth grade, and meets the general expenses of these schools…In addition to these, we are having forced upon the people high schools throughout every part of the land. I believe we are running education mad. I believe that we are taxing the people more for education than they should be taxed. This is my sentiment. And especially is it my sentiment when the fact is known that all these burdens are placed upon the tax payers of the state to teach the learning or education of this world. God is not in it. Religion is excluded from it. The Bible is excluded from it. And those who desire to have their children receive the advantages of moral and religious education are excluded from all these state organizations, and if we will have our children properly taught in principles of righteousness, morality and religion, we have to establish Church schools or institutions of education of our own, and thus the burdens of taxation are increased upon the people. We have to do it in order that our children may have the advantages of moral training in their youth. I know that I shall be criticized by professional ‘lovers of education,’ for expressing my idea in relation to this matter.

John Taylor JD 20:107-8
I am told in the revelations to bring up my children in the fear of God…Now we are engaged…in building our temples…that we may become united and linked together by eternal covenants that shall exist in all time and throughout eternity. And then when we have done all this go and deliberately turn out children over to whom? To men who do not believe the Gospel, to men who, according to your faith, are never going to the celestial kingdom of God…And you will turn your children over to them. And you call yourselves Latter-day Saints, do you? I will suppose a case. You expect to be saved in the celestial kingdom of God. Well. Supposing you expectations are realized, which I sometimes doubt, and you look down, down somewhere in a terrestrial or telestial kingdom, as the case may be, and you there see your children, the offspring that God had given you to train up in his fear, to honor him and keep his commandments…And supposing they could converse with you…what would be their feelings towards you? It would be, Father, Mother, you are to blame for this. I would have been with you if you had not tampered with the principles of life and salvation in permitting me to be decoyed away by false teachers, who taught incorrect principles. And this is the result of it. But then I very much question men and women’s getting into the celestial kingdom of God who have no more knowledge about the principles of life and salvation than to go and tamper with the sacred offspring, the principle of life which God entrusted to your care, to thus shuffle it off to imbibe the spirit of unbelief, which leads to destruction and death. I very much doubt in my mind the capability of such people getting there. (Mosiah 23:14) And also trust no one to be neither your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments. I

H Verlan Andersen The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil p. 148
Using the force of government, the devil compels all parents to send their children to his church for training. There he permits nothing to be taught except the precepts of men and the wisdom of the world. His doctrines of organic evolution, atheism, materialism, and socialism are thus forced upon all children. No one is permitted to teach in his church until they have first been to college and there been indoctrinated with his philosophies. By reason of this learning and their own vainness, frailty, and foolishness, they tend to become proud of their degrees and status, and consequently refuse to hearken unto the counsel of God, or to be guided by the Holy Ghost. (2 N 9:28) ….parents are compelled by the devils’ church to finance with their tax money the corruption of their own children.

H Verlan Andersen The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil p. 148
If evolution, atheism, materialism, socialism, and similar philosophies of men which are being taught by the public schools today are not the doctrines of Satan, one will find it difficult to find a set of teachings better calculated to serve his purposes, and if socialized education is not his “cunning plan”, to spread these false teachings, one will also find it difficult to design a plan which does the job more effectively and completely…if this is his plan, he “deceiveth the whole world”. (Revelations 12:9) …because there are few who regard socialized education as such. In fact, socialized education has become so universally accepted that the suggestion that it promotes the plan of the evil one may shock some. Teachers especially who have spent so many years and so much of their means obtaining credentials for employment

H Verlan Andersen The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil p. 121, 122
Instead of using government to finance and compel the worship of a Supreme Being, they use it to compel and subsidize the worship of the state and its evil leaders; rather than advocating that compulsion be used to satisfy spiritual needs, they advocate that compulsion be used to satisfy material needs; in place of the doctrine that man is a child of God who is answerable to his creator for his sins, they teach that he is merely an animal with no higher goal than to satisfy the lusts of the flesh; instead of imposing their abominable creed merely on adults on the Sabbath, they take the children from their parents at an early age and place them under the tutelage of a priestly class hired to corrupt their tender minds all throughout the week. But whether priestcraft is enforced by communists or religionists, the central evil is the same: the power of government is used to abolish freedom and compel the people to finance their own enslavement by supporting teachers who are paid to deceive them into believing that the particular brand of priestcraft they are subsidizing is the only true religion. It is veritably true that there is no principle of the communist manifesto more essential to the success of Satan’s plan than that of socialized education. If all children can be forcibly taken from their homes where the Lord intended they be trained, and during the innocence of youth their unsuspecting and defenseless minds are indoctrinated with a belief in organic evolution, atheism, materialism, and socialism the perpetuation of these satanic doctrines is systematized and imposed uniformly upon each succeeding generation.

H Verlan Andersen The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil p.142
It has been that organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in this dispensation in his attempt to destroy the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is a contemptible plot against faith in God and to destroy the effective belief in the divine atonement of our Redeemer…There is not and cannot be any compromise between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the theories of evolution. Were evolution true, there could be no remission of sin. In fact, there could be no sin.

Joseph F Smith Man His Origin and Destiny p.4, 10 H Verlan Andersen The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil p. 142
…it is assumed by most teachers with scholastic degrees, that those degrees place those who bear them in a superior class with academic freedom to teach what they will and to criticize and condemn by virtue of his freedom any doctrine or theory destructive of the faith of religious people. This idea that the teacher belongs to a superior class and his learning grants him immunity from showing respect for religious doctrines is a fallacy not sustained by justice or constitutional law. Most of the textbooks written today boldly and impudently contradict the doctrines in the Bible and its history…I know of no history published today (1954) dealing with ancient peoples that does not start out with a false conception in relation to the origin of man, the age of the earth, and the historical development of the human race.

[KMCopeland]

Public education was established by the founding fathers who recognized the need for education in order to maintain liberty. Like most things, it can be used for good or for bad. At this point, homeschooling is generally better than public education because of how the government is using the educational system as a tool to remove liberty.

You could use public education more as a tool to identify the state of our country, a measuring stick, if you will. Right now, government force is being used to make sure children are in school and that they are learning specific things. A system that promoted liberty would first and foremost honor liberty. The education could be provided by the government but without the need to force anyone to participate, therefore providing a strong tool to ensure liberty. Because of the element of force, it is preferable to educate your children outside of that system, if possible.

But the element of force that you're talking about, isn't forcing children to go to public school. If it were you wouldn't have the option of educating them outside that system.

[KMCopeland]

Okay Ezra, you have decisively proven that a whole bunch of church leaders have decried the absence of religious teaching in public schools. I thank God for two things: that we live in a country that requires universal public education because education is the way out for many, many poor kids whose parents could never afford either private school or home schooling, and that will also protect our right to take our kids to church and Seminary, and to teach them at home if we're unhappy with public education. Don't you?

[Fiannan]

On this one I agree with you (mostly) KMCopeland. The USA does offer a lot more freedom than, let's say, Germany (or Sweden which followed its example) that in the 1930s, under Hitler, banned home instruction and placed private religious schools under strict government control over what is taught there. In such nations the state owns the children in the ideological sense.

The USA has its problems though. In many schools if you had an opening for a math teacher and a guy like Einstein was competing with a guy with mediocre math skills but could promise a winning football team if he were coach the latter would get the job. There is also a culture of conformity and obedience that is taught in the USA as well as very little emphasis on critical thinking skills.

Maybe we need to look at successful nations. If you look at Sweden and Finland you find that Sweden has declining educational performance and low abilities in science and math as opposed to the USA. On the other hand Finland ranks quite high in freedom for students but also the youth there score right up there with China, Japan and Singapore in math and science. Liberals in the USA often look to Sweden as some sort of utopian society but it is far, far from it. Yet while Finland is not a utopian dream it seems to have a better school system than the rest of the western world.

[lost ark]

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson

[KMCopeland]

On this one I agree with you (mostly) KMCopeland. The USA does offer a lot more freedom than, let's say, Germany (or Sweden which followed its example) that in the 1930s, under Hitler, banned home instruction and placed private religious schools under strict government control over what is taught there. In such nations the state owns the children in the ideological sense.

The USA has its problems though. In many schools if you had an opening for a math teacher and a guy like Einstein was competing with a guy with mediocre math skills but could promise a winning football team if he were coach the latter would get the job. There is also a culture of conformity and obedience that is taught in the USA as well as very little emphasis on critical thinking skills.

Maybe we need to look at successful nations. If you look at Sweden and Finland you find that Sweden has declining educational performance and low abilities in science and math as opposed to the USA. On the other hand Finland ranks quite high in freedom for students but also the youth there score right up there with China, Japan and Singapore in math and science. Liberals in the USA often look to Sweden as some sort of utopian society but it is far, far from it. Yet while Finland is not a utopian dream it seems to have a better school system than the rest of the western world.

We are in total agreement on this. Common ground. I love it.