The Manufacturing Industry's Secret Success Story
This won't be a big surprise for regular CD readers, but today's Investor's Business Daily features a front page story on the recent strength of American manufacturing:
"If you listen to politicians these days, you'd think the country's manufacturing industry was on its last legs. President Obama told Congress in his State of the Union speech that "we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back," and offered a wide range of tax breaks, worker training programs and other federal projects to do so.
At the other end of the spectrum, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum talks about the need to "revitalize" the industry. "We went from about 21% of jobs in this country when I was a kid being in manufacturing down to 9%. We lost those jobs overseas. We need to bring them back," he said.
Obama has proposed a big tax break for domestic manufacturers. Santorum wants to zero them out altogether. But the data show that, despite the picture painted by politicians, manufacturing is a success story at the moment."
Read more here, and also see Nick Gillespie's related blog post on "America's Unsung Industrial Might."
Also, see related Huffington Post article from yesterday on the American manufacturing revival.
76 Comments:
it's funny how "overseas" the % of manufactuing jobs has been dropping too.
if we are losing these jobs to "overseas" you'd expect them to show up somewhere.
perhaps there is a vast, secret low cost manufacturing facility on atlantis or some such.
manufacturing is behaving just like farming. productivity goes up and fewer people are needed to make all the goods we require. just as with agriculture, this is a GOOD THING. it's a sign of plenty.
there seems to be this odd disconnect between all the people who are pro productivity but want to "save manufacturing jobs". they seem unable to see that the two are at odds.
There have been millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs lost to overseas facilities -- and possibly undersea locations such as "atlantis or some such".
One of the most compelling job creating phenoms has been reshoring. One of America's leading economics explains why manufacturing jobs are being reshored; in addition to more competitive wages:
" "There are other economic factors contributing to the reshoring of production, including long delivery times and rising delivery costs for overseas production, quality control issues, the physical separation of design and production personnel and a lack of safeguards on intellectual property outside the U.S."
Mark Perry
Buddy: "One of the most compelling job creating phenoms has been reshoring. One of America's leading economics explains why manufacturing jobs are being reshored; in addition to more competitive wages: "
Translation: Atlantis isn't immune to the problems suffered by the rest of the world.
BTW, Dr Perry should run some odds on Santorum. He is rallying.
Brush up on you Bible lessons friends, we may live in a theocracy yet!
Benji,
I'll take Santorum's brand of religion over Reverend Wright's any day.
"Translation: Atlantis isn't immune to the problems suffered by the rest of the world."
Translation: If Global Warming continues, the rest of the world isn't immune to the problems suffered by Atlantis. :>)
Well, there might be 2 things going on as far as politicians are concerned (we all understand why manufacturing output and number of jobs are different things):
1) Rick Santorum is an unequivocal moron.
2) Obama is playing smart politics. He says he will focus on manufacturing, and since manufacturing output is already going up on its own, he can later claim that "look! my plan to bring back manufacturing is clearly working!" Politicians do this all the time.
The GOP would do well to school some numbskulls like Rick on basic economics, preferably one of the other candidates at a debate. Unfortunately, doing so would not add much value to the said candidate since the listeners of these debates probably have as much understanding of input-output as Rick Santorum.
PS: Does anyone else, like me, get a sudden urge to punch the TV whenever Rick Santorum appears and speaks?
These posts about manufacturing doing fine are mostly accurate but the jobs data are not properly handled. As Mark's own charts show, US manufacturing jobs have gone down by 6 million in the last 15 years. Showing that they've now regained 400k over the last couple years and trumpeting that is just silly when compared to the millions of jobs lost. It is funny how he had no problem going back to 2000 for the profits data, but somehow doesn't show the jobs data that far back also. :) As Gillespie says, perhaps we'd be better off if we got rid of US manufacturing altogether, and that's exactly what's happening. Good riddance, if you ask me.
morganovich, do you have any data to back up your claim that the overseas percentage of manufacturing jobs are dropping also? Mark has posted charts showing that overseas manufacturing revenue as a percentage of GDP is also dropping, which was surprising to me, but revenue is not the same as jobs. The Chinese may be employing many more people to get that dropping revenue, and so their manufacturing jobs could be going up as a percentage of their workforce, even if revenue as a percentage is dropping. Also, there's no disconnect about productivity and "saving" manufacturing jobs, as most of those people are too dumb to even consider productivity gains. We shouldn't care if productivity gains come from the brand new quad-core Android tablet or from Asians willing to work for $3/hour: that's more money in our pocket and more time for leisure, but many either don't realize that or overrate the importance of those who can't find jobs in the current recession.
There are two big problems that are causing the current jobless rate. One is long-standing: the education system is completely broken and has been teaching worthless crap for so long, that most workers are almost completely unprepared for the information economy that we're transitioning to. The other big problem is that the techies who are pushing the information transition are as yet too dumb to figure out how to bring a lot more people into the system and pay them, ie how to create a lot more information jobs. Both will take time to implement, but there are smart entrepreneurs out there who already know the solutions to both: they just need time to build the future. :)
What is the difference between Wright and Santorum?
According to the Bible, usury is a dark art. Gee, I thought that was one of the pillars of capitalism.
So, do you believe what Christ said, or the Wall Street bankers?
"The New Testament continued the prohibition of usury: "In the fullness of time the Messiah came, and no part of the moral law was abrogated. The prohibition of usury as to the Jew was extended, to include mankind, and the permit as to the stranger was declared inoperative and void. The Jew was taught to sympathize with strangers remembering that they were once strangers in Egypt." Id. at 9-10.
Jesus taught (Luke 6:34-35) "love ye your enemies, and do good and lend, hoping for nothing again." Id. at 10. Usury was the basis for Jesus's calling the money changers thieves: "The commerce of the world is conducted on principles as much at variance with the teachings of the master, as are the practices of a sneak thief or burglar. So the Master taught, as with whip of cords, he indignantly drove its representatives, from the sacred precincts of the Temple, denouncing them as thieves. Every well-informed mind knows that the money changers in the Temple, on that startling occasion, were at the very center of the Jewish Banking system, and of the pitiless and grinding commerce of Palestine." Id. at 19."
Gee, will Santorum will outlaw usury, in a WWJD moment?
"Translation: If Global Warming continues, the rest of the world isn't immune to the problems suffered by Atlantis. :>)"...
Well buddy funny you should mention that little detail...
Walter Russll Mead reminds us that the Dems and bunny squeezers are fighting the 'good' fight in Pa.
The pseudo benny ever striving to scale new heights in stupidity says: "What is the difference between Wright and Santorum?"...
Golly gee pseudo benny if Santorum ever ranted and raved like the Rev. Wright don't you think the msm would've covered that?
Benji,
"What is the difference between Wright and Santorum?"
I didn't really need to read any more after that idiocy. You've obviously done as much research on both men as you did your boyfriend before you voted for him in '08.
Buddy: "Translation: If Global Warming continues, the rest of the world isn't immune to the problems suffered by Atlantis. :>)"
LOL!
I don't think I was heading in that direction. :)
This post isn't about manufacturing, it's about the endless list of crap that our dear leaders are selling to unqualified, uneducated and/or ill-informed voters. Unfortunately, there are more of them than there are of us. File manufacturing in the same drawer as everything else that was "so much better in the good ole days"...
"According to the Bible, usury is a dark art. Gee, I thought that was one of the pillars of capitalism."
But, do you know why it was forbidden?
"Usury was the basis for Jesus's calling the money changers thieves ..." -- "Benji"
There is nothing in Christian teaching that condemns capitalism.
The Jews were required to pay the annual Temple tax in gold shekels, yet they conducted their daily affairs using Roman currency. The money changers had established a monopoly and charged worshipers exorbitant exchange rates knowing that they would have to suffer them in order to fulfill their religious obligations. It was this injustice that angered Jesus, leading him to expel the money changers from the Temple.
Usury is not “charging interest on a loan” : “You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest” -- (Matt 25:27; Luke 19:23)
Usury is profiting from something which produces nothing, without any effort or risk. Something like THIS comes to mind.
The biblical verses that condemn the charging of interest do so in the context of taking advantage of the borrowers condition in order to reap a unjust gain. What today we would call extortion. These injunctions warn against attempting to profit by exploiting the poor and the innocent.
Jesus was not a socialist. He taught that charity was an individual obligation, something that one does of his own free will, out of love and concern for ones fellow man, and not in response to state coercion. He also taught that individuals had a responsibility to work and provide for themselves and their families, and not look to others for their needs: "Even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat." -- (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the founders were, for the most part, religious men who would have found nothing exceptional about Rick Santorums religious beliefs. And unlike your secular political friends, who have managed only to establish one evil, murderous regime after another, the founders established the freest and most tolerant nation in the history of the world.
" You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the founders were, for the most part, religious men who would have found nothing exceptional about Rick Santorums religious beliefs. And unlike your secular political friends, who have managed only to establish one evil, murderous regime after another, the founders established the freest and most tolerant nation in the history of the world."
And they did it without placing a single word in the constitution about the imposition of their "family values" upon others. They focused on limiting and defining government power, not by limiting and defining ours.
Rick Santorum is exceptionally unlike the founding fathers. He thinks the appropriate conversation for a president, or government official, is about someone's personal life and relations. Not to mention that he is unlike the founding fathers in that he hasn't seen a government program and pork that he didn't want to expand.
The U.S. was only surpassed as the world's number 1 manufacturer last year, and it is still very close. We are also number 3 (I think) in exports of manufactured goods.
The numskulls that need educating are the American public - the leftist economic propaganda of the left has largely been unchallenged for years, and people now believe all sorts of populist nonesense.
We will have our new Reagan when someone can explain simply and believably that the tax base needs to be broadened, income inequality isn't a problem, we are the world's strongest manufacturer, and unions are bad.
Although, U.S. manufacturing lost 30% of its workforce over the past 10 years, the U.S. share of world manufacturing output has remained roughly constant at 20% (even with larger U.S. trade deficits, which boosts foreign manufacturing).
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
•The United States is the world's largest manufacturing economy, producing 21 percent of global manufactured products. China is second at 15 percent and Japan is third at 12 percent.
•U.S. manufacturing produces $1.7 trillion of value each year, or 11.7 percent of U.S. GDP.
•Manufacturing supports an estimated 18.6 million jobs in the U.S.—about one in six private sector jobs...Nearly 12 million Americans (or 9 percent of the workforce) are employed directly in manufacturing.
•In 2009, the average U.S. manufacturing worker earned $74,447 annually, including pay and benefits. The average non-manufacturing worker earned $63,122 annually.
•U.S. manufacturers are the most productive workers in the world—twice as productive as workers in the next 10 leading manufacturing economies.
•U.S. manufacturers perform two-thirds of all R&D in the nation, driving more innovation than any other sector.
There's a detailed report:
The Facts About Modern Manufacturing - The Manufacturing Institute - 8th Edition
Re Christianity, I always like to point out that Christ was not a community organizer - we have no record of him ever attempting to enter politics or advocating reform of or over throw of the (oppressive) Roman system. He seems to have made it pretty clear he wanted nothing to do with politics. I agree with Che Is Dead on this one very strongly. Several of Christ's parables deal with making money, and don't have clear prohibitions. He said it was difficult to get a rich man into heaven, but not possible. In fact he suggested giving away all your possessions to the poor as an 'extra' thing you could do to help yourself, but I frankly have never thought there is even a clear requirement to give to charity.
Anyway, while I am not a Santorum fan, I would like to see one case where he arguing for litigation that would impose 'family values' on anyone. We all know that is just code words for anti-religious bigotry.
"Not to mention that he is unlike the founding fathers in that he hasn't seen a government program and pork that he didn't want to expand"...
Well aig not only is your Santorum analysis flawed but I'm wondering if you have something credible (wiki, NYT aren't) to back that last statement about programs and pork...
The Club for Growth White Paper notes that Santorum had some serious spending problems though...
Do you have something different?
aig says: "He thinks the appropriate conversation for a president, or government official, is about someone's personal life and relations"...
You mean like Obama does with the use of extorted tax dollars to fund infanticide?
"And they did it without placing a single word in the constitution about the imposition of their "family values" upon others. They focused on limiting and defining government power, not by limiting and defining ours." -- AIG
What about the lefts abuse of the public school system to impose their "family values" on other peoples children, are you equally as outraged over that? Or, is imposition of their values alright because you happen to agree with them?
"You mean like Obama does with the use of extorted tax dollars to fund infanticide?"
Saying Obama does it doesn't let "us" off the hook.
"What about the lefts abuse of the public school system to impose their "family values" on other peoples children,"
Saying the left does it doesn't excuse "us" for doing it too.
"are you equally as outraged over that? Or, is imposition of their values alright because you happen to agree with them?"
Saying that because they do it, "we" can do it too, doesn't convince me.
"Anyway, while I am not a Santorum fan, I would like to see one case where he arguing for litigation that would impose 'family values' on anyone. We all know that is just code words for anti-religious bigotry."
School prayer, no fault divorces, abortion, drug war, stem cell research. Just what I can think off in a couple of seconds. Santorum has zero other arguments other than economic anachronisms and religious preacher-y. Since I have no patience for either...
"Well aig not only is your Santorum analysis flawed but I'm wondering if you have something credible (wiki, NYT aren't) to back that last statement about programs and pork...
The Club for Growth White Paper notes that Santorum had some serious spending problems though...
Do you have something different?"
Serious spending problem, serious Union support problem, serious cronyism and subsidies problems, among others. These are much more serious flaws than any other candidate has.
I understand why some "conservatives" may have problems with what Mitt did when he was a Governor. Totally agree. But then some of you take a guy who is 10 times worst than Romney as far as any fiscal and government constraint, and elevate him to "the only true conservative in the field"? All of that because you agree with his social conservatism, and are willing to forgo economic freedom or limited government in the name of "stopping abortions". (and yes I have read "conservatives" say exactly that, which is very worrying)
Forgive me if I ain't biting. As much as I absolutely despise Ron Paul and every single one of his fans, even I am forced to say that in this field, he's the only one I trust to make the needed changes. But Santorum is the last person I would vote for. Want to bet how many voters who would vote Republicans, this man will instantly turn off?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Saying that because they do it, "we" can do it too, doesn't convince me." -- AIG
So, you cannot or will not answer the question. And, I notice that you conveniently avoid condemning the lefts use of the public school system to impose their "family values", while loudly condemning Santorum for his. I think that that pretty much sums up where you stand. The use of the coercive power of government to impose a state sanctioned set of moral values on other peoples children without their approval is alright as long as those values are consistent with yours.
One more question, if the government seeks to create and impose an alternative set of moral values, inconsistent with those of the society at large, which are drawn almost exclusively from pre-existing religious moral teaching, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause?
BTW, I happen to agree with you that Santorum is not a fiscal conservative. So, this is not about that.
"Saying Obama does it doesn't let "us" off the hook"...
Didn't answer the question I see aig...
"Serious spending problem, serious Union support problem, serious cronyism and subsidies problems, among others. These are much more serious flaws than any other candidate has"...
So you still have nothing credible back up your statement...
I can get this sort of factless nonsense in the New York Times...
This comment has been removed by the author.
... if the government seeks to create and impose an alternative set of moral values, inconsistent with those of the society at large,...
=================================
Two rather large assumptions, AND a pretty big if. About that time, I stop reading.
the tax base needs to be broadened, income inequality isn't a problem, we are the world's strongest manufacturer
=================================
The way to broadent the tax base is to have the lower class earn enough to pay taxes. In pbrazil the middle and upper class have grown, while those considered to be in the lower class have shrunk.
And Apple manufactures much of its stuff in China, where the average wage has increaded 35% a year since 2005. Granted it is a low base, but there are other ways to increase manufacturing profits than taking it out of the wages of the workers.
America had very energy efficient manufacturing, and labor efficient manufacturing. Europe has succeding in cutting energy use, but at the cost of GDP production and standard of living.
We are on our way to one giant plant that produces everything with zero human input: no labor union required and no labor required. what will income inequlaity mean then?
And wasn't Reagan President of the Screen Actors Guild, before he became Actor in Chief?
"Two rather large assumptions, AND a pretty big if. About that time, I stop reading." -- Hydra
And thinking too, apparently.
"So, you cannot or will not answer the question. "
Of course I can. But it is irrelevant.
"Didn't answer the question I see aig..."
I did.
"And, I notice that you conveniently avoid condemning the lefts use of the public school system to impose their "family values", while loudly condemning Santorum for his."
I went to public school. I never remember the principle of the school calling us into the auditorium to give us a lecture on how drugs were cool, sex was awesome, pass out condoms and then tell us to go flip off a church and burn a US flag.
I have seen Santorum and the likes of him call for religious indoctrination in schools, call for banning this or that sort of behavior etc.
The "conservative" approach to this would be very simple; the government SHALL NOT...not the government shall not ALLOW...
" The use of the coercive power of government to impose a state sanctioned set of moral values on other peoples children without their approval is alright as long as those values are consistent with yours."
That is precisely what is NOT going on in public schools. Saying that if you want to preach your religious and other values, you cannot do it at a state-sponsored institution, is the definition of NOT imposing your values on other people's kids who do not agree.
Your argument, and Santorum's argument, and the argument of people like him...is that somehow their "freedoms" are being limited by not being able to impose their religious and "family" views upon the rest of society THROUGH the power of government.
Their problem isn't that there are any religious or "family" values being taught in public schools, its that none are being taught in public schools. And they can't stand the fact that their views aren't being imposed.
AIG,
"Serious spending problem, serious Union support problem, serious cronyism and subsidies problems, among others. These are much more serious flaws than any other candidate has."
All of thise could be said about O bama X 10. I don't really care for Santorum either, but there's no possible way he could be as bad as the Alinskyite currently in the White House. Anyone who casts a vote for Obama in 2012, give his past destructive 3 years, is either a radical or a moron.
"One more question, if the government seeks to create and impose an alternative set of moral values, inconsistent with those of the society at large, which are drawn almost exclusively from pre-existing religious moral teaching, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause?"
Which moral values is the "government" trying to impose upon you?
Saying that you cannot use a public institution to preach your values upon others, isn't a limitation of your first amendment rights.
"BTW, I happen to agree with you that Santorum is not a fiscal conservative. So, this is not about that."
But its everything about that. Too many "conservatives" will willingly give up limited government and economic freedom, if the right religious person that they agree with can take over. This is the mentality of theocracies in Iran. The fact that Santorum, the most awful candidate when it comes to limited government and fiscal restraint, is the favorite candidate for "conservatives", ought to seriously put in question the sincerity of that movement.
You people are making me vote for Ron Paul. Have you no shame?
"All of thise could be said about O bama X 10."
Obama does it isn't an argument for why we should vote for someone who does it too.
"but there's no possible way he could be as bad as the Alinskyite currently in the White House"
Wanna bet?
"So you still have nothing credible back up your statement..."
He's got a voting record that is public. All I mentioned there are things he has voted for.
"That is precisely what is NOT going on in public schools." -- AIG
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted " -- Vladimir Lenin
Poilitical Indoctrination:
Occupy Kiddie Play Comes To Elementary School
The National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union in the country, offered a $5,000 Learning and Leadership Grant to two Wisconsin teachers who intended to use the funds to “help first and second grade students” become “activists.”
Wisconsin: 4th-grade teacher allowed students to take part in political protest"
The California Federation of Teachers thinks it’s important for kids to learn how to run a business ... not from the perspective of an entrepreneur, but rather a disgruntled employee.
A “Labor Studies Curriculum for Elementary Schools,” entitled “The Yummy Pizza Company,” takes up to 20 classroom hours over a two-week period ... 40% of the curriculum is about forming Pizza Makers Union Local 18. That’s right – the program is focused on teaching kids to unionize ... Students are assigned the task of designing a union logo and membership cards ... calculating “union dues as a percentage of wages.”... the finer points of collective bargaining. Members of the Pizza Makers Union may “vote to accept offer, negotiate further or strike.” ... "Unions in the real world,” where “Students will learn about a real union and how it helped its members,” as well as “some labor history and a few prominent labor leaders." -- Big Government
Union Teachers Explain How to Push Marxism in the Classroom
'Revolution' one of the R's taught in Tucson
Shocking bigotry and anti-capitalist rhetoric in high school ethnic studies textbook
The racial madness that has left-wing America in its thrall finds its apogee in the Berkeley, California public schools. Berkeley High School is now poised to eliminate science laboratory classes because "science labs were largely classes for white students." -- American Thinker
It's getting so bad, that even some liberals cannot take it anymore:
Life in an American Fourth Grade: Why One-Sided Indoctrination?
"Which moral values is the "government" trying to impose upon you?" -- AIG
Cultural Indoctrination:
Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion. Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed. "Who would have ever thought that we would be handing out pornography in public schools?" asked Lora Sue Hauser, executive director of North Shore Student Advocacy, and a Deerfield parent. -- CNS News
Following parent complaints, a middle school on the outskirts of the Bay Area has reversed course and canceled a cross-dressing or "gender switch" day. The mother of a seventh-grade student at Adams Middle School was alarmed when she heard that on the last day of the school's "Spirit Week," students were being encouraged to dress like the opposite sex. Perhaps even more disturbingly, parents were given virtually no advance notice from the school and found out about the event after flyers were posted throughout the campus. -- News Busters
Details about the new sex education curriculum in New York City public schools are out -- and some are concerned the lessons are too racy. The New York Post obtained workbooks that will be used for the new recommended curriculum, which begins in middle schools and high schools around the city next spring. Parents, they say, may be shocked by details of the work. Middle school students will be assigned "risk cards" that rate the safety of different activities, the paper says, from French kissing to oral sex. The workbooks for older students direct them to a website run by Columbia University, which explores topics such as sexual positions, porn stars, and bestiality. The lessons explain risky sexual behavior and suggest students go to stores to jot condom brands and prices. -- NBC New York
(Note: 43.9 percent of New York City students met or exceeded the English proficiency standard. In math, 57.3 percent of city students were proficient.)
Gender Confusion Taught in Public Schools
Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents. -- WND
Wanted: condom czar. The city Health Department is looking to hire a condom coordinator to keep the city’s public high schools stocked with free birth control. The former condom czar, Amrita Harbajan -- the first person to hold the position since its 2005 creation -- no longer works for the agency, which runs the program with the Department of Education. The city is offering up to $88,000 a year. -- NY Post
continued ...
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Their problem isn't that there are any religious or "family" values being taught in public schools, its that none are being taught in public schools." -- AIG
Religious Indoctrination:
In our brave new schools, Johnny can't say the pledge, but he can recite the Quran. Yup, the same court that found the phrase "under God" unconstitutional now endorses Islamic catechism in public school.
In a recent federal decision that got surprisingly little press, California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it's OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:
Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . ."
Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger."
Chanting "Praise be to Allah" in response to teacher prompts.
Professing as "true" the Muslim belief that "The Holy Quran is God's word."
Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.
Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.
Parents of seventh-graders, who after 9-11 were taught the pro-Islamic lessons as part of California's world history curriculum, sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment. They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam.
But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told them in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another "culture." -- FrontPage
In the Holt World History book, the Islamic World chapter covers the roots of Islam, Islamic beliefs and practices, Islamic empires and cultural achievements. (14 pages of Islam compared to three pages of Christianity). Christianity was covered in one section under the Roman empire chapter. Furthermore, the chapter of Islam was whitewashed from clearly explaining the aspects of Sharia Law, the treatment and rights (or lack thereof) of women, and how Islam is "tolerant" (or not so much) toward other religions. The textbook glosses over the spread of Islam through bloodshed of non-Muslims and points out that trade "helped" non-Muslims convert (page 363). The post 9/11-issued book explains that jihad is "to make an effort, or to struggle." Only in the last sentence was jihad also translated as "holy wars." Although 96 percent of all social studies text books have been revised since that horrifying historic event, one-third of the textbooks make no mention of 9/11 according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Another disturbing discovery, the textbook refers to Allah as God several times. As a Christian, I find the interchanging of "Allah" and "God's" name offensive. Any studied Christian or Muslim would attest that the two religions believe in two different beings as God. Why, then, are the two different beliefs of God being presented as one? -- Campus Watch
continued ...
continued ...
In Georgia Campbell Middle School, students in a seventh grade class had to complete an assignment that included a fictional letter from a Saudi woman advocating Sharia Law. “Women in the West do not have the protection of the Sharia as we do here. If our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for … I feel very fortunate that we have the Sharia,” the text reads. -- MDJ
New textbooks are being swayed by pressure from the Council on Islamic Education which has virtual censorship powers on California textbooks. Textbook publishers if they want to sell to the large California school system must follow the state guidelines; therefore California guidelines have an inordinate effect on textbooks sold to other states.
Terms such as Jihad are taken out for they might offend. History is being rewritten to accommodate objections from many groups in the name of multiculturalism. Minor figures in history are given equal billing to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Other forms of government are said to be equally as good as the liberal democracies of the west. Christian religion is faulted and other religions elevated. Paganism anyone? sacrifice of virgins to the sun god? Western battles to fight fascism are denigrated while the unfavorable aspects of U.S. history are given center stage. We are the American Peoples not the American People. Do we need to come together and embrsace the ideals of the country or is division the goal. -- EPPC.Org
There are hundreds of these articles out there. Maybe you could provide a link to just one where the public school involved was promoting Christianity and requiring that the students not inform their parents>
Of course, that's just the light stuff. The real assault starts in higher ed:
The late Richard Rorty, the philosopher and devout atheist, is refreshingly honest. He argued that secular professors like himself need to “arrange things” so that incoming students who enter college “as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists” will “leave college with views more like our own.” The goal of education, said Rorty, is to help these youth “escape the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.” Rorty was bracingly candid in his message to parents: “We are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.” -- National Review
Che wrote: "... if the government seeks to create and impose an alternative set of moral values, inconsistent with those of the society at large,..."
Hydra wrote: "Two rather large assumptions, AND a pretty big if. About that time, I stop reading."
Too bad. You should have continued reading, as it's an interesting question. What do YOU think "establishment" means?
You must have also skipped over Che's previous statement that pretty much defines the problem:
"The use of the coercive power of government to impose a state sanctioned set of moral values on other peoples children without their approval is alright as long as those values are consistent with yours."
I suspect that most people believe it's THEIR job to teach moral values to their children, not the job of the schools, which has a much more limited role.
The answer seems obvious, and can be summed up in three words:
vouchers vouchers vouchers
"He's got a voting record that is public. All I mentioned there are things he has voted for." -- AIG
That's not what you've done. All that you have done here is give voice to your intense anti-religious bigotry. You've provided no evidence that Santorum has sought to change any law in a way that imposes some new "conservative moral standard" on anyone. In fact, what he has consistently argued is that the existing standards should be upheld. It is people, like you, who are trying to impose a new, state sanctioned set of values on the American people. And you are doing that in the most disgusting and dishonorable way - by the indoctrination of their children in state run schools.
The irony of Obama claiming credit for any sort of manufacturing rebound would be incredible:
http://www.wvmetronews.com/index.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=50837&type
I'm sure the Democrat media will try to sell it, though.
"The way to broadent the tax base is to have the lower class earn enough to pay taxes. In pbrazil the middle and upper class have grown, while those considered to be in the lower class have shrunk."
And the way to have the lower class earn enough to pay taxes is for them to *produce* something others are willing to trade for.
"And Apple manufactures much of its stuff in China..."
...several more irrelevant comments...
"And wasn't Reagan President of the Screen Actors Guild, before he became Actor in Chief?"
As hard as I try, I'm unable to see a connection between this, and the subjects being discussed on this thread.
"Which moral values is the "government" trying to impose upon you?" -- AIG
Cultural Indoctrination:
Parents in Deerfield, Ill., are upset that a local high school is using books in advanced English classes this spring that they say are laced with graphic sexual content, pervasive expletives and mockery of religion. Worse, the books - "Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes (Parts 1 & 2)" - are required reading for advanced placement English students at Deerfield High School, but a parents' group wants them removed. "Who would have ever thought that we would be handing out pornography in public schools?" asked Lora Sue Hauser, executive director of North Shore Student Advocacy, and a Deerfield parent. -- CNS News
Following parent complaints, a middle school on the outskirts of the Bay Area has reversed course and canceled a cross-dressing or "gender switch" day. The mother of a seventh-grade student at Adams Middle School was alarmed when she heard that on the last day of the school's "Spirit Week," students were being encouraged to dress like the opposite sex. Perhaps even more disturbingly, parents were given virtually no advance notice from the school and found out about the event after flyers were posted throughout the campus. -- News Busters
Details about the new sex education curriculum in New York City public schools are out -- and some are concerned the lessons are too racy. The New York Post obtained workbooks that will be used for the new recommended curriculum, which begins in middle schools and high schools around the city next spring. Parents, they say, may be shocked by details of the work. Middle school students will be assigned "risk cards" that rate the safety of different activities, the paper says, from French kissing to oral sex. The workbooks for older students direct them to a website run by Columbia University, which explores topics such as sexual positions, porn stars, and bestiality. The lessons explain risky sexual behavior and suggest students go to stores to jot condom brands and prices. -- NBC New York
(Note: 43.9 percent of New York City students met or exceeded the English proficiency standard. In math, 57.3 percent of city students were proficient.)
Gender Confusion Taught in Public Schools
Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a “gay” indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents. -- WND
Wanted: condom czar. The city Health Department is looking to hire a condom coordinator to keep the city’s public high schools stocked with free birth control. The former condom czar, Amrita Harbajan -- the first person to hold the position since its 2005 creation -- no longer works for the agency, which runs the program with the Department of Education. The city is offering up to $88,000 a year. -- NY Post
continued ...
Schools have been piling on social services for decades, yet the illegitimacy rate continues to rise, most cataclysmically among blacks (73 percent) and Latinos (53 percent). (Teen birth rates have gone down since the early 1990s, though they are still magnitudes higher than in Europe and Asia.) The social dysfunction that results from this spiraling illegitimacy rate provides the pretext for further increasing the school social work bureaucracy. -- Weekly Standard
Alarmed by a recent well-publicized study showing that abstinence education succeeded while “safe sex” and “comprehensive” sex-ed programs failed, the Left has abandoned its “abstinence doesn’t work” claim and drawn up a new line of defense.
First, abstinence programs teach that teens should abstain from sex until they have at least finished high school. Ninety-one percent of parents agree. But the “comprehensive” sex-ed programs promoted by House Speaker Pelosi and President Obama teach that it’s okay for teens to have sex as long as they use a condom. Only 9 percent of parents agree.
Second, abstinence curricula teach that sex should be linked to “love, intimacy, and commitment” and that these qualities are most likely to be found in marriage. Again, 90 percent of parents support this message. But the Left is appalled at “privileging” marriage over casual relationships, cohabitation, or “hooking up.” The “ideological” message of abstinence has to go!
Finally, abstinence education teaches (with special emphasis for poor, at-risk youth) that marriage can be beneficial to children, adults, and society. The black out-of-wedlock birth rate in the U.S. now hovers at 70 percent; the overall out-of-wedlock birth rate is nearly 40 percent. Non-marital births overwhelmingly occur to the least-educated parents, and out-of-wedlock childbearing is the strongest cause of child poverty in the United States. Therefore, one might think that mentioning the benefits of marriage to at-risk youth would be good idea.
Wrong! Nothing outrages the Left’s sex-ed advocacy industry more than telling at-risk youth that healthy marriage might be a good thing for them. (Safe bet: No sex-ed curriculum funded by the current Congress will say anything positive about marriage.) -- National Review
Google Blogger seems to be blocking some of my posts. I guess that even thay cannot stomach the cultural indoctination that the left feels is just fine for school kids.
"You've provided no evidence that Santorum has sought to change any law in a way that imposes some new "conservative moral standard" on anyone."
Right. Abortion and gay marriage are things no one has ever heard about.
As for all the links to supposed "social agendas" etc are all examples of individuals, or individual organisations associated with public education. They are not systemic policies of a public education system.
Teachers unions, individual teachers etc etc. I agree that none of that SHOULD be allowed to happen, but that is NOT the argument YOU or Santorum are making. You simply want to replace the practices of some groups associated with public education that you don't agree with, with official policies of public education that you agree with.
The argument that they should to be allowed to happen is an argument for following the rules on the book more strongly, which would also mean that YOU can't do those things either. But that's not really what the intentions of social conservatives are.
Neither is appropriate, as far as I'm concerned.
Of course, picking and choosing a dozen examples out of THOUSANDS of public education units in the country, is a pathetic attempt to prove a significant pattern. I can find you hundreds of examples of individual teachers or groups associated with public education that do the opposite and push programs of social conservatism (which are also allowed in violation of most laws of most public education institutions)
Che: "The National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union in the country, offered a $5,000 Learning and Leadership Grant to two Wisconsin teachers who intended to use the funds to “help first and second grade students” become “activists.”
From the article:
"The students will create their messages around issues important to their lives."
Limited government, free markets, individual liberty, learning family values from parents - sounds good. What other possible issues could these teachers imagine concern 1st and second graders? :)
"Abortion and gay marriage are things no one has ever heard about." -- AIG
According to the polls, Santorum is representative of the majority when it comes to these two issues. Every Democrat candidate for president in the last 20 years, including Barack Obama, has come out against gay marriage. And every Democrat candidate has said that we must find a way to reduce abortions. So, your argument seems to be that Rick Santorum sides with the majority of Americans on social issues and that makes him an extremist. Pathetic.
Either way, these two issues have nothing to do with what we have been discussing, which is the lefts use of the public school system to impose their political and social values on other peoples children. Nothing could be more disgusting or dishonorable.
"... that is NOT the argument YOU or Santorum are making. You simply want to replace the practices of some groups associated with public education that you don't agree with, with official policies of public education that you agree with." -- AIG
This is just more bullshit. I am not arguing that the state mandate the teaching of Christianity or any other religion. I do, however, recognize that the molar standards that exist in our society are the legacy of a thousand plus years of Judeo/Christian influence. The left, through the coercive power of the state, is currently trying to impose a set of moral values that is wholly at odds with those which are generally accepted and that have prevailed throughout our history and the history of Western civilization and which represent the very foundation of our code of law. They have sought to cleanse the school curriculum of any reference to the role of religion in the American founding, the fight to end slavery, the civil rights movement and more. They have penalized students for individual expressions of faith. That anyone can look at this behavior and not find it offensive is astounding.
So, you're right, I don't agree with any of that and I reject the notion that they had sought anything like a public consensus for this abhorrent activity. Instead, they are trying to indoctrinate that "consensus" into the next generation. This is tyranny. It is absolutely no different from what Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and every other socialist scumbag throughout history has tried to do, and it is an affront to very notion of individual liberty and the sanctity of the family.
"... picking and choosing a dozen examples out of THOUSANDS of public education units in the country, is a pathetic attempt to prove a significant pattern. -- AIG
First, the examples I cited (many of which have been blocked) were not of individual teachers acting outside the guidelines of their school. The schools in question, as a matter of policy, actively sought to indoctrinate these children without the consent of their parents, in many cases, deliberately instructed students not to tell their parents about these programs. What's pathetic is that people, like you, find ways to justify and excuse this dishonorable behavior.
"I can find you hundreds of examples of individual teachers or groups associated with public education that do the opposite and push programs of social conservatism." -- AIG
You have provided absolutely no evidence to support your paranoid bigotry. Like I said, find just ONE.
AIG: ""I can find you hundreds of examples of individual teachers or groups associated with public education that do the opposite and push programs of social conservatism." -- AIG"
I too would be interested reading some of those examples. Please differentiate between advocacy and actual implementation.
"You have provided absolutely no evidence to support your paranoid bigotry. Like I said, find just ONE."
In high school I had a substitute teacher in history class one day, who wanted to make us pray in class. This being NYC, she didn't get a lot of us to comply. Was this against the rules? Absolutely. did anyone complain? Nope.
"According to the polls, Santorum is representative of the majority when it comes to these two issues. "
And the US Constitution, and the founding fathers, were interested in allowing the will of the majority to determine the freedoms of the minority...right?
RIGHT??
"So, your argument seems to be that Rick Santorum sides with the majority of Americans on social issues and that makes him an extremist."
Absolutely it does. It goes against the founding principles of this country. Heck Che, I wasn't even born here, and yet I'm here defending the principles of this country more so than you.
"Either way, these two issues have nothing to do with what we have been discussing, which is the lefts use of the public school system to impose their political and social values on other peoples children. Nothing could be more disgusting or dishonorable."
You do the exact same thing.
" I am not arguing that the state mandate the teaching of Christianity or any other religion."
Santorum seems to think that abortion should be outlawed based on Christian teachings. He's also cried a very large river on school prayer, etc. What is school prayer if not the teaching of Christianity by a public institution?
" I do, however, recognize that the molar standards that exist in our society are the legacy of a thousand plus years of Judeo/Christian influence"
Well a lot of people make that argument, and it is plainly a ridiculous and false argument. Western European culture is the byproduct of Greco-Roman civilization and culture, not Middle Eastern mysticism. Middle Eastern mysticism was changed enough by the rebirth of Greco-Roman culture during the Renaissance to dilute it enough to allow a rebirth of concepts of individualism, a concept which is completely alien to Middle Eastern mysticism.
The founding fathers based the model of this government on their readings of Greco-Roman history, lets not fool ourselves here.
"The left, through the coercive power of the state, is currently trying to impose a set of moral values that is wholly at odds with those which are generally accepted and that have prevailed throughout our history and the history of Western civilization and which represent the very foundation of our code of law"
Our code of law has nothing to do with Middle Eastern mysticism. Its the same as I said above. British Common Law wasn't build on the 613 commandments of Judaism. It was build on Roman Law.
But either way, there is not a single public educational institution in the US which has as a stated goal, or as an allowable goal, ANYTHING of what you said there.
So all you can do is take individual isolated examples which go against the rules of these institutions, to demonstrate your point. But that makes it a very weak point, because if it were so, the argument should be to enforce those rules which PROHIBIT the imposition of anyone's religious values, including yours.
But you just want to replace their's, with your's.
"They have sought to cleanse the school curriculum of any reference to the role of religion in the American founding, the fight to end slavery, the civil rights movement and more."
That's just a lie. Nothing more to say about that.
"They have penalized students for individual expressions of faith"
That is also, a lie.
" and I reject the notion that they had sought anything like a public consensus for this abhorrent activity. "
We are a nation of laws, not of public consensus.
"This is tyranny."
Saying that the majority of the people agree that other people should not be allowed a particular freedom over their lives, and therefore it should be law, is tyranny.
"It is absolutely no different from what Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and every other socialist scumbag throughout history has tried to do, and it is an affront to very notion of individual liberty and the sanctity of the family."
The sanctity of family is for me to decide, for myself. The character on those political debates that remind me more of a totalitarian oppressive populist, is Santorum (yes I know you're going to say, But Obama is worst!. Yes, and to get back at him, we should vote for the guy who is closest to him as possible)
"First, the examples I cited (many of which have been blocked) were not of individual teachers acting outside the guidelines of their school. The schools in question, as a matter of policy, actively sought to indoctrinate these children without the consent of their parents, in many cases, deliberately instructed students not to tell their parents about these programs. What's pathetic is that people, like you, find ways to justify and excuse this dishonorable behavior."
And in every single case, the LAWS regulating the behavior of that school, would have prohibited that sort of behavior. Period. So I agree with you that those things should not be allowed, but this is an issue of following the laws already in place, not of "them" changing the laws to allow their social engineering and prevent yours.
There is plenty of social conservative social engineering going on in public schools, which are equally against the laws of those institutions...which you find no problem with and find no reason to collect a list of.
"I too would be interested reading some of those examples. Please differentiate between advocacy and actual implementation."
Ron, Che made no attempt to differentiation between actual implementation, and advocacy.
But I certainly won't do that.
One example, as I gave above, was a personal one.
Here's another:
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/anderson-v-chesterfield-county-school-district
Here's another:
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-says-giles-county-school-boards-decision-post-ten-commandments-violates-religio
And another:
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-and-americans-united-file-lawsuit-over-public-school-graduations-church
And another:
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-questions-proposed-regulations-implementing-anti-evolution-louisiana-science-ed
And another: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/federal-judge-approves-order-requiring-santa-rosa-fl-schools-abide-first-amendment
etc etc
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-applauds-decision-ending-bible-distribution-public-school-students
Look I got no problem with your religion. All the more power to you. I do have a problem when some presidential candidate's only point of interest is to act as a national preacher. I do have a problem when social conservatives think that its perfectly ok to give up individual freedom and economic freedom in the name of religion.
Religion is a personal experience. Keep it to yourself.
The fact that Santorum enjoys such huge support from "conservatives" for the one and only reason that he is a social conservative...is a very troubling fact that does not inspire me about the future of this country.
"And the US Constitution, and the founding fathers, were interested in allowing the will of the majority to determine the freedoms of the minority...right?" -- AIG
Are you really this dense? The point I was making was that his views on abortion and gay marriage are not extreme, as you suggest, and well within the mainstream of public opinion.
As for the US Constitution, it is silent on these issues. And, yes, I think that the founders would have rejected the idea that the nine unelected justices of the Supreme Court were endowed with the power to impose their personal moral values on the citizenry at large. Constitutionally, these are matters for the individual states to decide and that is where the resolution of these issues resided prior to the Supreme Courts activism. Abortion was legal is some states prior to Roe V. Wade and would no doubt be legal in some if that decision were struck down.
"Heck Che, I wasn't even born here, and yet I'm here defending the principles of this country more so than you." -- AIG
I really don't know what principles you think that you are defending. You seem to reject the limited authority of the federal government and the separation of powers, in which the power to create and pass laws resides with the legislative branch. You operate under the delusion that the president has the power to impose his personal moral values on the citizenry without consideration of the law or recourse to judicial review.
"Santorum seems to think that abortion should be outlawed based on Christian teachings. He's also cried a very large river on school prayer, etc. What is school prayer if not the teaching of Christianity by a public institution?" -- AIG
Obviously his religious views inform his opinions when it comes to the question of abortion and gay marriage. So, what? He has every right to argue that abortion should be illegal, and to present whatever arguments he thinks are relevant. The abolitionists - most of whom attended public schools where prayer was sanctioned and routine - grounded their arguments in Christian teaching as well. Presidents throughout our history have made appeals to religious teaching, specifically Christian teaching, to support their arguments. Does that suggest that we have been living in a theocracy?
The founders opinions on individual liberty and the importance of moral virtue to a free society were also informed by their religious beliefs. The separation of church and state comes from the Christ's injunction to "... render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods."
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” -- Patrick Henry
"Western European culture is the byproduct of Greco-Roman civilization and culture, not Middle Eastern mysticism. Middle Eastern mysticism was changed enough by the rebirth of Greco-Roman culture during the Renaissance to dilute it enough to allow a rebirth of concepts of individualism, a concept which is completely alien to Middle Eastern mysticism." -- AIG
Gibberish. "Western civilization", the term I used, is a post enlightenment term that came into popular use about a century ago, before that the term used by people in the West was "Christendom". And while the term "Western civilization" is certainly meant to encompass the classical world, Christianity was the foundation of the only universal value system held by the peoples of what we came to call the West.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"The founding fathers based the model of this government on their readings of Greco-Roman history, lets not fool ourselves here." -- AIG
Yes, in large part, but any cursory reading of the founders reveals that they were heavily influenced by Judeo/Christian teaching. James Madison said that he arrived at the idea for a tricameral gonernment from his reading of the Bible, specifically, Isaiah 33:22, which he read aloud to the Constitutional convention in 1787.
"There is plenty of social conservative social engineering going on in public schools, which are equally against the laws of those institutions ... which you find no problem with and find no reason to collect a list of." -- AIG
I followed the links to all of the ACLU cases that you provided. I acknowledge that the first one, if true, is completely wrong and should not have been tolerated. And, it was not. Juxtapose that with the example I offered of the imposition of Islam in a public school setting which was upheld by the courts. The others are mostly nonsense. Demanding that schools remove plaques listing the Ten Commandments is not a fight for religious liberty. Nor, is the presence of such a plaque the establishment of a state religion. If it were the ACLU should be arguing for the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court building.
"So I agree with you that those things should not be allowed, but this is an issue of following the laws already in place, not of "them" changing the laws to allow their social engineering and prevent yours." -- AIG
I have not been arguing that the state should be involved in the instruction of any religious teaching - quite the opposite. I asked you whether or not the left had the right to use the public schools as an instrument for imposing a new, state sanction set of values, mirroring their own, and at odds with the pre-existing and widely held values of the greater citizenry without having achieved a consensus for such a change. And I presented examples of their efforts to do just that.
I also asked whether the imposition of such a new set of values constituted a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. You have, first, skirted the issue, and then tried to excuse and justify their behavior. I'm glad that, now, you a least agree that "those things should not be allowed".
Aig,
"Obama does it isn't an argument for why we should vote for someone who does it too."
You're sounding like a ROn Paul fanboy now. It will come down to 2 candidates in November: the Alinskyite socialist vs. the imperfect GOP candidate.
"Wanna bet?"
Absolutely. Santorum will do everything he can to trash Obamacare. He will not appoint radical leftists to the Supreme Court. He will have a GOP Congress and probably Senate to work with in rolling back some of the damage Obama has done.
What is your solution if he wins the nomination? Stay home? You might as well just vote for Obama (again.)
School choice. Vouchers.
"You're sounding like a ROn Paul fanboy now. It will come down to 2 candidates in November: the Alinskyite socialist vs. the imperfect GOP candidate. "
No I would venture to say that any of the other candidates on that stage are better than Santorum on these issues. Santorum, in my view, is the most populist anti-free market big government politician on that stage.
"Absolutely. Santorum will do everything he can to trash Obamacare. He will not appoint radical leftists to the Supreme Court. He will have a GOP Congress and probably Senate to work with in rolling back some of the damage Obama has done"
He will continue spending increases, he will spend his 4 years (as there's no chance of that guy getting re-elected) trying to pass social conservative restrictions, and this country will continue down the road of bankruptcy.
"What is your solution if he wins the nomination? Stay home? You might as well just vote for Obama "
I will most certainly stay home. And that responsibility falls on yo for nominating the worst possible choice, not on me for refusing to participate.
"Are you really this dense? The point I was making was that his views on abortion and gay marriage are not extreme, as you suggest, and well within the mainstream of public opinion. "
Again, what does public opinion have to do with it? Are you suggesting that it is ok to pass laws restricting the freedom of other people, because it is ok in mainstream public opinion?
If so, this is why I say that people like Santorum have more in common with the Ayatollahs of Iran, than the founding fathers of this country.
"As for the US Constitution, it is silent on these issues. And, yes, I think that the founders would have rejected the idea that the nine unelected justices of the Supreme Court were endowed with the power to impose their personal moral values on the citizenry at large."
Judges determining that a law is unconstitutional, is not the same as them "imposing" their will upon you. Clearly, it was you imposing your will on others, that was unconstitutional in the first place.
Of course the constitution is silent on these issues. It has broad freedoms defined, which is why it has longevity and relativity today.
"Constitutionally, these are matters for the individual states to decide"
And that fits in with Santorum wanting to BAN abortion, how? If this was a state right's issue, make that case. That is clearly not the case being made.
"I really don't know what principles you think that you are defending. You seem to reject the limited authority of the federal government and the separation of powers, in which the power to create and pass laws resides with the legislative branch. You operate under the delusion that the president has the power to impose his personal moral values on the citizenry without consideration of the law or recourse to judicial review."
You've just described Santorum's views, and attributed them to me.
"He has every right to argue that abortion should be illegal, and to present whatever arguments he thinks are relevant."
And I have every right to say his opinions go against the fundamental principles of this country.
" The abolitionists - most of whom attended public schools where prayer was sanctioned and routine - grounded their arguments in Christian teaching as well."
Yes, because Christianity was the first, and only method, of reaching an anti-slavery opinion. Its not as if the contradiction of slavery with individual freedom wasn't pointed out since the days of Justinian. But I see what you 're trying to do there ;)
"Presidents throughout our history have made appeals to religious teaching, specifically Christian teaching, to support their arguments. Does that suggest that we have been living in a theocracy?"
Congratulations for making a nonsensical argument
"The founders opinions on individual liberty and the importance of moral virtue to a free society were also informed by their religious beliefs. The separation of church and state comes from the Christ's injunction to "... render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods.""
Sure. It probably had nothing to do with the experience of England.
"“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” -- Patrick Henry"
Yes. I remember the Bible talking about the limitations of natural law and private property regimes...right in between the proper punishment of thy slave, and the proper method of beating thy wife. I know what you're trying to do, but for it to work, one would have to be dearly ignorant of the debates that went on during the founding of this country. They had very little to do with concepts of Christianity, other than religion shall stay outside of the scope of the federal government. They had a lot to do, however, with the historical experiences and theories of the classics.
"Gibberish. "Western civilization", the term I used, is a post enlightenment term that came into popular use about a century ago, before that the term used by people in the West was "Christendom"."
Yes. Well done.
"And while the term "Western civilization" is certainly meant to encompass the classical world, Christianity was the foundation of the only universal value system held by the peoples of what we came to call the West."
Absolutely not. That "universal value system" existed before Christianity, was greatly eroded by Christianity during a little epoch called the Dark Ages, and was reborn once Christianity was mainly relegated to little more than a cultural ritual.
These values exist only in countries and cultures formed through the Greko-Roman tradition. It does not exist in other Christian countries, even in Europe, which were not influenced by Greko-Roman tradition, or had it eroded over time. Case in point, the Slavic nations, or Middle Eastern Christianity.
"Yes, in large part, but any cursory reading of the founders reveals that they were heavily influenced by Judeo/Christian teaching. James Madison said that he arrived at the idea for a tricameral gonernment from his reading of the Bible, specifically, Isaiah 33:22, which he read aloud to the Constitutional convention in 1787."
Yes I see how Isaiah 33:22 "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." explains that. Its so clear, and obvious. Silly me I thought it had something to do with the experiences of previous republics and drawing from their limitations, with the intention of limiting the power of government. It never crossed my mind to think of Isaiah 33:22.
Come on man.
"I followed the links to all of the ACLU cases that you provided. I acknowledge that the first one, if true, is completely wrong and should not have been tolerated. And, it was not. Juxtapose that with the example I offered of the imposition of Islam in a public school setting which was upheld by the courts. The others are mostly nonsense. "
Then you problem is the judges. Appeal.
"Demanding that schools remove plaques listing the Ten Commandments is not a fight for religious liberty. Nor, is the presence of such a plaque the establishment of a state religion. If it were the ACLU should be arguing for the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court building."
It probably should.
"I have not been arguing that the state should be involved in the instruction of any religious teaching - quite the opposite."
And Mr. Rick Santorum??
" I asked you whether or not the left had the right to use the public schools as an instrument for imposing a new, state sanction set of values,"
But its not state sanctioned, anymore than the social conservative practices within schools are state sponsored. If you have a problem with them, SUE. That is the purpose of the legal system.
"and at odds with the pre-existing and widely held values of the greater citizenry without having achieved a consensus for such a change"
Concensus has nothing to do with it. Law does. if you believe their activities are in violation of the charters of those public school systems, you are more then welcome to SUE them.
"I also asked whether the imposition of such a new set of values constituted a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. You have, first, skirted the issue, and then tried to excuse and justify their behavior. I'm glad that, now, you a least agree that "those things should not be allowed"."
I always said that such things are no systemic attempts to change the laws in their favor, but are in almost all cases individual actions in violation of the existing laws governing those institutions.
You just chose to think this is some grand conspiracy to impose a "state sponsored morality", when it is clearly no such thing. Public school systems are typically localized, and pretty independent. And they are controlled mainly by governing bodies made up of residents of those communities. There are tens of thousands of such entities. To find a dozen examples and say "this is a deliberate pattern put in place and supported by governments of various levels", is ridiculous.
"School choice. Vouchers."
Yes. Agreed. That is the solution.
But that is not the argument being put forward, unfortunately. Rick Santorum is a person who thinks it funny to ridicule classical liberal principles on TV.
"I will most certainly stay home. And that responsibility falls on yo for nominating the worst possible choice, not on me for refusing to participate."
The responsibility is on YOU to understand Obama's background and stealth plans for this country. You didn't do your research in 2008 and you obviously still haven't gotten around to it given you think Santorum is either the same or worse than Obama.
"And I have every right to say his opinions go against the fundamental principles of this country."
Really? Show me where Jefferson or Washington endorsed abortion. Obama worked on behalf of infanticide in Chicago. What "fundamental principles" was he upholding when he was defending the practice of stuffing living, suffering babies in utility rooms until they had the good manners of dying a horrific death?
Yeah, Santorum is the bad guy.
"Yes I see how Isaiah 33:22 "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us." explains that. Its so clear, and obvious. Silly me .." -- AIG
"For the LORD is our judge (Judiciary) , the LORD is our lawgiver (Legislative) , the LORD is our king (Executive) ; it is he who will save us."
You truly are slow. When even the most basic elements of an argument require explanation, there really is no reason to continue.
"For the LORD is our judge (Judiciary) , the LORD is our lawgiver (Legislative) , the LORD is our king (Executive) ; it is he who will save us."
You truly are slow. When even the most basic elements of an argument require explanation, there really is no reason to continue."
Yes because the concept of a judiciary, of a legislature and executive did not exist in any other political philosophy outside of the bible (it certainly didn't exist in the bible, but anyway).
"The responsibility is on YOU to understand Obama's background and stealth plans for this country."
Obama is Obama. I have no responsibility to vote for Santorum, however. You keep deflecting the point that Snatorum, in all likelihood, will lead this country to disaster just as fast as Obama.
"You didn't do your research in 2008 and you obviously still haven't gotten around to it given you think Santorum is either the same or worse than Obama."
I didn't vote in 2008, because I wasn't going to vote for an imbecile like Sarah Palin, either. Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum, are the sort of candidates you are forcing through, and alienating large chunks of people who otherwise would have voted Republican.
That...is your fault, because you are perfectly willing to sacrifice everything else in the name of social conservatism. I am not.
Do you think in 2008 if the GOP candidate had been Mitt Romeny, once the economic crises hit, that Obama would have had a better or worst chance of winning? I'd say worst. I'd have voted for Mitt in 2008.
"Really? Show me where Jefferson or Washington endorsed abortion."
The premise of this question is pointless. The point of a Constitution, and of a federal government, is to lay out basic and broad rules. Certainly today's social issues would have been pretty alien to them at the time, so its a ridiculous question.
Your approach is very similar to the approach LEFTISTS take when approaching the US constitution and law; tell me where it says the government can't do that! You say the same thing. And both approaches completely miss the point.
But I'm not surprised that social conservatives are more closely related to Leftists in method, if not in content, than anything else.
"What "fundamental principles" was he upholding when he was defending the practice of stuffing living, suffering babies in utility rooms until they had the good manners of dying a horrific death?"
The mother has, under the law of this country, the right to determine the outcome of her pregnancy up to a certain point. You know...laws...
"Yeah, Santorum is the bad guy."
He is a populist ignorant big-government anti-free-market anti-individual freedom train-wreck.
THIS is the guy that you supposed "true conservatives" hail:
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture"
These words could have come out of the mouth of Nancy Pelosi. In fact, I'm pretty sure at least 95 of these words have come out of her words.
What interests me is how some of you are capable of going out on the street protesting against Obama for precisely stamping on these principles of individualism and limited government, can complain about Mitt Romeny about it too, but then are perfectly willing to actively ignore Santorum's transgressions all because he wants to get into other people's bedrooms and impose rules that YOU like.
That says a lot about why "conservatives" are likely to continue loosing the "war" in the US.
PS: The US CONSTITUTION and the US of the founding fathers is precisely that government and society which he mocks.
Post a Comment
<< Home