Tag Archives: Fascism

News

Quebec forces homeschoolers to teach moral relativism and religious pluralism

1 Comment

Story from the National Post. (H/T Canbuhay)

Excerpt:

In a recent troubling judgment (Lavallee vs. Commission scolaire des Chenes), Quebec’s Superior Court ruled that parents do not have ultimate authority over the moral or religious education of their children, and that the state can impose a curriculum that conflicts with the moral codes parents strive to instill. The court rejected a claim brought by parents seeking to exempt their children from the “Ethics and Religious Culture” (ERC) course, which in 2008 became mandatory for all students from Grade 1 to Grade 11, including students in private religious schools.

[…][The province maintains, and the court accepted, that parents’ constitutional freedoms remain intact since they are still free to instruct their children in their own moral codes in the privacy of home. But even homeschoolers, who frequently opt out of government schooling precisely because they prefer to instruct their children in their own belief systems, will be required to teach the “even-handed” ERC course or an equivalent course. Imagine parents instructing their children about the importance of adhering to their own religious beliefs in the morning, then telling them that there are a dozen other religions to choose from, all equally valid, in the afternoon. It’s ludicrous for the province to argue that such a process respects freedom of belief.

This is exactly the problem I have with some fundamentalists who don’t see the need to raise their children to have an impact on the world as a whole. I don’t think that the secularists are going to leave Christians alone, so as a matter of self-defense, we need to be the best in our fields in order to have an influence at the highest levels.

Many of the most ambitious people tend to be rabidly secular because they are usually the people who are least likely to want to give up their autonomy to the demands of the moral law. The higher they rise, the less they respect any external restrictions on their selfish pursuit of pleasure.

It’s natural for influential non-Christians to use the law and the public schools to suppress things that seem to limit their autonomy and pursuit of happiness, such as free speech, parental rights, etc. It annoys them when we disagree with them, and that we teach our children things they don’t believe.

Rather than having a live and let live attitude, they are not at all shy about using the law and the public schools to attack our basic human rights. In order to prevent that, we need to make sure that Christians are in position where they can defend human rights for ourselves, and everyone.

Commentary

Is Thomas Friedman a liberal fascist?

1 Comment

Consider this post from extremely left-wing NYT.

Excerpt:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Our one-party democracy is worse….

Jonah Goldberg adds:

So there you have it. If only America could drop its inefficient and antiquated system, designed in the age before globalization and modernity and, most damning of all, before the lantern of Thomas Friedman’s intellect illuminated the land. If only enlightened experts could do the hard and necessary things that the new age requires, if only we could rely on these planners to set the ship of state right. Now, of course, there are “drawbacks” to such a system: crushing of dissidents with tanks, state control of reproduction, government control of the press and the internet. Omelets and broken eggs, as they say. More to the point, Friedman insists, these “drawbacks” pale in comparison to the system we have today here in America.

I cannot begin to tell you how this is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s. It is exactly the argument that was made in defense of Stalin and Lenin before him (it’s the argument that idiotic, dictator-envying leftists make in defense of Castro and Chavez today). It was the argument made by George Bernard Shaw who yearned for a strong progressive autocracy under a Mussolini, a Hitler or a Stalin (he wasn’t picky in this regard). This is the argument for an “economic dictatorship” pushed by Stuart Chase and the New Dealers. It’s the dream of Herbert Croly and a great many of the Progressives.

All of this is courtesy of Muddling Towards Maturity.

News

Democrat plan to indoctrinate students in government-run school to worship Obama

3 Comments

Story from Fox News. (H/T Andrew)

Excerpt:

Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on Tuesday, which will be the first day of classes for many children across the country. The address, to be broadcast live on the White House’s Web site, was announced in a letter to school principals last week by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

[…]But in advance of the address, the Department of Education has offered educators “classroom activities” to coincide with Obama’s message.

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.”

Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to “build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama.”

During the speech, “teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful.”

For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama’s speeches on education for their students to contemplate — and ask as questions such as “Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?”

Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students “what resonated with you from President Obama’s speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?”

What do libertarian critics think about this?

“In general, I don’t think there’s a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically,” said Neal McCluskey, associate director of Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.

[…]“It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that’s very problematic,” McCluskey said. “It’s very concerning that you would do that.”

Parents of public school students would also have to pay for that “indoctrination,” regardless of their political background, he said.

“That’s the fundamental problem. They could easily be funding the indoctrination of their children.”

And one more:

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the suggested lesson plans cross the line between instruction and advocacy.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for teachers to ask students to help promote the president’s preferred school reforms and policies,” Hess said. “It very much starts to set up the president as a superintendent in chief.”

[…]After reading the Department of Education lesson plans for the speech, McCluskey said he noticed several passages that should set off “alarm bells,” including language that attempts to “glorify President Obama” in the minds of young students.”It could be a blatantly political move,” he said. “Nobody knows for sure, but it gives that impression.”

McCluskey also noted that the lesson plans for young students contain suggestions to write letters to themselves on how they can help the president, but that suggestion is not in the lesson plan for middle and high schoolers — perhaps due to the likelihood of increased political ties at that age.

The Obama regime wants to force government-run schools to adopt lesson plans to be force-fed to impressionable young children, whose parents are compelled to subsidize this indoctrination by compulsory taxation. What could go wrong?

Oh well, at least his own children are exempt from this propaganda – they don’t attend public schools, you know. Neither did Obama.