Can U.S. schools survive liberalism?

Sabastian

Regular
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=0AB37E1B-B04A-4C36-97DD-7C12E5843F4C

Can U.S. schools survive liberalism?

Ann Coulter
National Post


Friday, September 26, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT


David Limbaugh's new book, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, will make Americans cry for their country. Released this week, Limbaugh's copiously researched book documents how U.S. courts, universities, media, Hollywood and government institutions react to any mention of Christianity like Superman recoiling from kryptonite, Dracula from sunlight, or Madonna from soap and water. His straight, factual narrative of what is happening in American public schools makes one wonder how much longer America can survive liberalism.

In a public school in St. Louis, a teacher spotted the suspect, fourth-grader Raymond Raines, bowing his head in prayer before lunch. The teacher stormed to Raymond's table, ordered him to stop immediately and sent him to the principal's office. The principal informed the young malefactor that praying was not allowed in school. When Raymond was again caught praying before meals on three separate occasions, he was segregated from other students, ridiculed in front of his classmates, and finally sentenced to a week's detention.

Before snack time in her kindergarten class in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., little Kayla Broadus held hands with two of her classmates and recited this prayer: "God is good, God is great, thank you, God, for my food." The alert teacher pounced on Kayla, severely reprimanded her, and reported her to the school administration. In short order, the principal sent a sternly worded letter to Kayla's parents advising them that Kayla was not allowed to pray in school, aloud or with others.

The school board then issued a triumphant press release crowing about its victory over a kindergartner praying before snack time. Thus was creeping theocracy in Saratoga Springs stopped dead in its tracks! Kayla's mother brought a lawsuit, winning Kayla the right to pray out loud. But she was still prohibited from holding hands with others while she prayed. Hearing the G-word in kindergarten might interfere with the school's efforts to teach proper sexual techniques in the first grade.

Thanks to the vigilance of an alert teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School outside of Houston, two sisters carrying Bibles were prevented from bringing their vile material into a classroom. The teacher stopped the students at the classroom door and marched them to the principal's office. (Maybe it was just the sight of public school students carrying a book of any kind that set off alarm bells.) The sisters' mother was called and warned that the school intended to report her to Child Protective Services. When the mother arrived, the teacher threw the Bibles in the wastebasket, shouting, "This is garbage!"

In another display of tolerance at Lynn Lucas Middle School, school administrators snatched three students' books with covers displaying the Ten Commandments, ripped the covers off, threw them in the garbage, and told the students that the Ten Commandments constituted "hate speech." (Also, it would be insensitive to expose the Ten Commandments to students who had never been taught to count to 10.)

After the massacre at Columbine High School, students and families were invited to paint tiles above student lockers. The school district had taken all reasonable precautions, immediately deploying an army of secular "grief counselors" with teddy bears to descend on the school after the attack. Nonetheless, some students painted their tiles with "objectionable" messages, such as: "4/20/99: Jesus Wept" and "God Is Love." This would not stand: The school removed 90 tiles with offending religious messages.

A U.S. federal court upheld the school's censorship of the religious tiles. Of course, Columbine school officials had earned a measure of deference after having inculcated such a fine sense of morality in their students that two boys could walk into school one day and stage a bloody massacre. You don't argue with a track record like that.

Not all mentions of religion constitute "hate speech." In Tupelo, Miss., school administrators methodically purged all Christmas carols of any religious content -- and then led the children in a chant of: "Celebrate Kwanzaa!" At Pattison Elementary school in Katy, Texas, Christmas songs are banned, but students are threatened with grade reductions for refusing to sing songs celebrating other religious faiths.

Between issuing laws prohibiting discrimination against transgendered individuals and running up a US$38-billion deficit, the California legislature mandated a three-week immersion course in Islam for all seventh-graders. A "crash course" in Islam, you might call it, if that weren't so ironic. Students are required to adopt Muslim names, plan a trip to Mecca, play a jihad game, pray to "Allah, the Compassionate" and to chant "Praise to Allah! Lord of Creation!" They are encouraged to dress in Muslim garb. Students are discouraged, however, from stoning girls at the school dances, abusing their "Jew" math teachers or blowing up their classmates.

A popular student textbook, Across the Centuries, treats the Inquisition and Salem witch-hunts as typical of Christianity, but never gets around to mentioning the Muslims' conquest of Spain, the Battle of Tours, or the execution of Jews in Qurayza. Or 9/11.

There is no surer proof of Christ's divinity than that he is still so hated some 2000 years after his death. Limbaugh's Persecution covers it all in staggering, heartbreaking detail. His methodical description of what is happening in our public schools alone will call to mind the hate speech banned in Columbine: "Jesus Wept."
 
Sabastian,

Just as I believe that there are extreme Islamists and extreme Christians I also believe there are extreme "Leftists". If an extreme Christians says things like all rag heads (sorry, not my belief) should die, I hope that most normal people don't think that his views representative of mine.

My first thought is that the article is focusing on extreme "Leftists" and as such while sad does not alarm me as much as it would otherwise.

Having said that, the article could be 100% correct. How am I, an average Joe, to know this conservative's dooms day story from all of the left's dooms day stories? My world is quite small. I see neither of the dooms day stories in practice in my life. I work with Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Mormons, and Gays every day. We all get along quite well and get good work done. We don't hate each other, heck we don't rarely talk about our differing views all that often (mostly when we do it is because I might bring it up because of some question I have). I could very well be ignorant of these true conspiracy theories and as a result watch as my world erodes into something less that which I would want it to be.

As an average Joe, how am I to know. How am I to believe you vs. Natoma vs. ByteMe? There is so much information in this world today, so much of it is lies and half truths. What is to be believed?

/ponder
Dr. Ffreeze
 
To be fair, I try to only post stuff from credible sites and sources. Ann Coulter? Jeebus. The Devil Woman herself. ;)
 
I'm trying to find a link to an interview I saw the other night on the news on TV with Alan Dershowitz and David Limbaugh regarding Limbaugh's book, "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity". It was quite lively-and I have to say BOTH had good and interesting points to be made. Hope I can find it.
 
Ann Coulter? There are actually still sane people left who read her demented diatribes? She's a well-known serial liar. Considering that she constantly whines about all the lies liberals supposedly spread, she is actually quite amusing. If I didn't know better, I'd probably take her pathetic columns as a very clever satire on the American right.

This piece of written trash is no different, of course.

In a public school in St. Louis, a teacher spotted the suspect, fourth-grader Raymond Raines, bowing his head in prayer before lunch. The teacher stormed to Raymond's table, ordered him to stop immediately and sent him to the principal's office. The principal informed the young malefactor that praying was not allowed in school. When Raymond was again caught praying before meals on three separate occasions, he was segregated from other students, ridiculed in front of his classmates, and finally sentenced to a week's detention.

What really happened:

Superintendent David Mahan responds, however, that the boy "was disciplined for some matters that were totally independent of silent praying. We did a very thorough investigation. We talked to teachers, administrators, and also to some students, and we could not find any evidence of the allegations that the parent and the student made." Rev. Earl E. Nance Jr, a member and former chairman of the St. Louis school board, adds "I don't think the child was prevented from praying over lunch. I think the child was probably instructed in another matter and mistook that for understanding he couldn't pray over his lunch, and went home and told his parents." Nance is the pastor of Greater Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church. He characterized the lawsuit as simply "frivolous."

http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/gingrich.htm


Thanks to the vigilance of an alert teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School outside of Houston, two sisters carrying Bibles were prevented from bringing their vile material into a classroom. The teacher stopped the students at the classroom door and marched them to the principal's office. (Maybe it was just the sight of public school students carrying a book of any kind that set off alarm bells.) The sisters' mother was called and warned that the school intended to report her to Child Protective Services. When the mother arrived, the teacher threw the Bibles in the wastebasket, shouting, "This is garbage!"

In another display of tolerance at Lynn Lucas Middle School, school administrators snatched three students' books with covers displaying the Ten Commandments, ripped the covers off, threw them in the garbage, and told the students that the Ten Commandments constituted "hate speech."

What really happened:
District Superintendent Kay Karr said in a written statement Thursday the lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn by Florida-based Liberty Counsel and that "students of Willis Independent School District have not been told they cannot bring Bibles to school, and Bibles were never thrown into the trash."

http://www.adherents.com/misc/school_houston.html (This is a Christian site btw.)

The whole thing was obviously made up by the kids and the parents. Thou shalt not lie (unless your Ann Coulter)?


That leaves that Kindergarten case which is the only one of those three that actually happened.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15721

U.S. District Judge David Hurd issued a temporary restraining order yesterday, saying the school may not prevent the girl from audible prayer at meal time or from inviting her friends to join in, even during school hours.

School officials said in a statement that they would recognize the order, adding that the district never prohibited silent prayer at any time. The issues will be reviewed by school attorneys and the Board of Education.

"The Constitution sometimes puts a school in a difficult position because the school must respect the religious rights of students and parents, while also protecting the rights of others to be free from religious interference during school hours on school premises," the district said.


Sounds to me like a rather innocent misunderstanding on the school's side trying to balance the child's right of prayer with the other right of religious non-interference. The issue at hand isn't prayer per se, it's whether audibly praying infringes the otherss rights which a court decided it doesn't. Big deal. That's hardly evidence of "liberals" kicking good old Jeebus out of schools.


It's funny that all they can come up with are a whooping three examples of Xian persecution and two of them a wholly bunk (= i.e. lies, remember, Coulter is a liar) while one is a mere misunderstanding about the way prayers may be conducted in schools (the right to pray itself was never challenged!).

This is typical right-wing fear mongering, really. They try to get Xians all worked up and angry at those darn "liberals" who are allegedly persecuting upright American Xians. It's pure FUD and lies.

I would love to know how many Americans actually believe that prayer in school is banned in the US.

It takes about 10 minutes on Google to find enough material to debunk that crap... honestly, what kind of journalist is Coulter? She obviously doesn't even bother to check her facts. Gotta marvel her jounalistic standards. And this kinda begs the question what kind of publication the "National Post" is.
 
Natoma said:
To be fair, I try to only post stuff from credible sites and sources. Ann Coulter? Jeebus. The Devil Woman herself. ;)

Nope. Sorry Natoma, but for the time being at least, that title has securely been taken over by Arianna Huffington. :LOL:
 
@L233: Fear mongering is a tactic used by both the left and the right. I get a good chuckle whenever I remember democrats accusing republicans of wanting to feed dog food to senior citizens, or wanting to poison the air, or push old people down a flight of stairs(ok im exagerating a little. :)), you get my point. Dont act like the left doesnt use the same tricks as the right.

Michael Moore is notorious for fudging facts to suit his agenda. Bowling for Columbine is more ficticious(sp?) than the average hollywood movie.

BTW Ann coulter is not a journalist or even a reporter. She is a commentator. Dont confuse the 2.

later,
epic
 
Sabastian said:
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=0AB37E1B-B04A-4C36-97DD-7C12E5843F4C

Can U.S. schools survive liberalism?

<snip>

Yet another one that don't know the meaning of the word "liberalism".

Liberal != leftist
Liberal != socialist
Liberal != anti-christianity
Liberal != atheist

etc. etc. etc ...

Liberal, from the word liberty, means freedom. The freedom to engage in any religion of your choice, or the freedom to abstain from religion. It's not about forcing or promoting a particular religion, and it's not about hindering people from religious acts either. All things in that article are far from liberal, in fact I think the title should be "Can US schools survive WITHOUT liberalism". Everything in there is anti-liberal, forcing a certain view on the kids. The school should not force christianity on the kids, that's true, but nor should it force atheism or secularism on people either. Just because you're not pro-christianity doesn't mean you have to be anti-christianity. The school is a neutral place. Textbooks and stuff in public schools should not promote a certain religion or atheism, but the school shouldn't stop people from praying or reading the bible or quran. That's the liberal view.
 
Humus said:
Liberal != leftist
Liberal != socialist
Liberal != anti-christianity
Liberal != atheist

In fact, most real socialists (i.e. not the watered-down European social-democrats) are rather authoritarian.

Real socialists are kinda like those archconservatives in terms of mindset. They want to interfere with people's lives.

(Marxist) Socialists want to tell you what to produce, how to spend your money and how to be a "good" member of society.

Archconservatives want to tell you who to worship, who and how to fuck and how to be a "good" member of society.

"Liberal", which is usually understood as pretty much centrist elsewhere, somehow became "leftist" in the USA and what's considered left-winged in most places is totally off the political chart in the USA. American mainstream conservativism would probably be considered "traditionalist conservativism" in most of Europe and the American extreme right (the Coulters, Limbaughs, Buchanans and assorted fundie Xians) only exists in homeopathic doses in the rest of the "free world", thank Jeebus.

And since Americans for some reasons that truely escape me renamed "leftist" as "liberal" they had to come up with the bogus term "libertarian" describing the political philosophy that is actually liberalism of a very slightly more pronounced form! Makes no sense to me.

Britannica defines liberal as:
political philosophy emphasizing the value of individual liberty and the role of the state in protecting the rights of its citizens

Merriam-Webster (an American publication) as:
of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives


No difference here. So why on earth do many Americans associate "liberal" with the political left? Because many leftists hold some liberal views on various issues? Well, that makes them leftists with liberal views but not liberals, in which case they would not be leftists.

Anyway, I too find it rather curious that "liberal" became synonymous with "left-winged" in the USA. This is probably because all political discourse in the USA became so incredibly skewed to the right.

So could maybe an American enlighted me when "liberals" became leftists in the USA. Individual freedom, economic freedom, political participation etc... are those the evil "liberals" I am constantly hearing conservative Americans complaining about?
 
epicstruggle said:
@L233: Fear mongering is a tactic used by both the left and the right. I get a good chuckle whenever I remember democrats accusing republicans of wanting to feed dog food to senior citizens, or wanting to poison the air, or push old people down a flight of stairs(ok im exagerating a little. :)), you get my point. Dont act like the left doesnt use the same tricks as the right.

I highly doubt any politician or journalist in the US accused Bush of wanting to feed dog food to the elderly or push old people in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs.

At least the latter one I recognize. Wasn't that a political cartoon? That's not to be taken literally.

There IS a difference between political satire and political commentary. The first one contains the message in an exaggerated, humerous manner, the latter is pretty much straight forward.

Michael Moore is notorious for fudging facts to suit his agenda. Bowling for Columbine is more ficticious(sp?) than the average hollywood movie.

Yeah but Michael Moore's work is partly of satirical nature. The point of satire is exaggerating things to ridicule them. Compare "Stupid White Men" to Coulter's "Treason" and you cannot miss the difference. Coulter is dead serious. Plus, even Moore's more absurd claims don't even come close to Coulter's hateful lies and rants.

That said, I think that people who take Moore literally are idiots, just as much as Coulter's or Limbaugh's ditto-heads.

It's a bit of a shame that Michael Moore became the poster child of the American left. He does not deserve that kind of status. His cause might be good but his work is sloppy, of questionable journalistic standards and in the long term probably more damaging to the American left than helpful.

But even Moore doesn't even come close to the amount of spin, outright lies and outrageous claims of Coulter's vitriolic diatribes. Moore is bad, Coulter is much, much worse.


BTW Ann coulter is not a journalist or even a reporter. She is a commentator. Dont confuse the 2.

She publishes political articles. Her sloppily researched books are bestsellers. That means one can hold her to at least some basic standards and probably the most basic standard is that you to not lie or spin to an extend where what's written does not even come close to match reality anymore.

Just look at the article at the beginning of this thread. It contains more lies and misinformation than facts. It draws a grossly distorted picture of reality.


There are two interesting articles over at spinsanity.org:

One Moore stupid white man - With his factually challenged bestseller, Michael Moore becomes an unfortunate poster boy for dissent
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

Screed: With Treason, Ann Coulter once again defines a new low in America's political debate
http://spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html
 
I don't recall Michael Moore saying those things in Stupid White Men.... makes me wonder if they read the book or they themselves are taking liberties...

One of my criticisms of the book centred on Michael's call for the Palestinians to go 'non-violent'. Well, the did. His name was Mubarak Awad and was one of the first people expelled by Israel at the beginning of Intifada I.
 
Willmeister said:
I don't recall Michael Moore saying those things in Stupid White Men.... makes me wonder if they read the book or they themselves are taking liberties...

One of my criticisms of the book centred on Michael's call for the Palestinians to go 'non-violent'. Well, the did. His name was Mubarak Awad and was one of the first people expelled by Israel at the beginning of Intifada I.

And it is somehow israel's fault that the most popular palestinian leader is a terrorist hate monger? Perhaps if the palis had taken israel's invitations of citizenship in '48 they wouldn't be living in those illegal settlements of theirs.
 
oh come on, if you can't even spell the word you should surely know better than to try to use it to unjustly slander a person.

How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"

http://www.geocities.com/evil_spoon/articles/bowlingforlockheed.htm
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021208
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html

Talk basic ethics. Is that what you teach your kids? Truth and lies are ultimately the same, all that matters is whether you're good at it?

And don't give me the claim that filmmaking is somehow different, all filming departs from reality, so truth and lies exist for written media and not for film. All communication is symbolic; the use of verbal and written symbols to convey ideas. If anything, a documentary film purports to be less symbolic and more real: the viewer is shown things, and assumes he is himself seeing reality, rather than hearing a speaker's description, possibly unfair or deceptive, of it. If anything, this should imply a greater duty to avoid conscious deception than would apply to the written and spoken word.

Equally to the point: Moore himself repudiates these defenses, insisting that every iota of his film is objectively true. "I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact.... [F]aced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film ュ or resorting to character assassination."

http://www.hardylaw.net/critiques.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/4thinternational.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/omitted.html

Never mind the fact that Lockheed produces fighter jets, bombs, and other weapons, including most of the "smart bombs" currently being dropped on Iraq. Yes, shame on Moore, for not mentioning all the other things Lockheed manufactures.

Reply: Moore's claim was that having a Lockheed "missile plant" near Columbine might somehow have motivated the killers, since the killers have might been inspired by "Dad" making things for "mass destruction." The plant actually makes rockets to launch communications satellites and space missions, and turns former military missiles into one usable for civilian purposes. That's hardly a thought that'd drive a person to mass homicide.
 
And just how did I say that Arafat is Israel's fault? Arafat is an incompetent self-interested leader who signed flawed deals with an occupier for a title, a willing Judenrate leader for Israel. (And people wonder why Palestinians find Hamas and IJ palatable!)
 
Willmeister said:
And just how did I say that Arafat is Israel's fault?

You seemed to be implying that isreal lead to the current palistian leadership by forcing a seemingly more moderate leader out of their country.

Arafat is an incompetent self-interested leader who signed flawed deals with an occupier for a title,

You mean the palistinians who are occupying land they do not own. Remember the jews of israel are as much palestinians as any of these arabs are,

a willing Judenrate leader for Israel. (And people wonder why Palestinians find Hamas and IJ palatable!)

possibly because they are morally corrupt and or ignorant of the facts? Perhaps the pali propaganda is to blame.

http://www.toviasingershow.com/audio/Sep_16_FIRST_hour.ram

http://www.toviasingershow.com/audio/Sep_16_SECOND_hour.ram

http://www.toviasingershow.com/RadioArchives.aspx
 
Mubarak wasn't a leader of anything other than a broad apolitical movement really.

Israel invaded the territories. Arafat was a resident of that territory. He had as much intrinsic right to be a leader of the population as any other. Arafat has more of a right to the territories than Israel does. That's been the central tenet of Israeli negotiation from the start, and it's flawed anyway you approach it: The territories are Israel's to give back. It's pedantic and it treats the Palestinians as children. This betrays the Israel official position that they're negotiating in good faith. Negotiation requires that both parties view the other as an equal, which Israel clearly has shown an unwillingness to do so. Of course, they won't, they're negotiating from a position of military strength...



Remember the jews of israel are as much palestinians as any of these arabs are,

I disagree. Jews born in the Bronx has as much 'right' to return as a Palestinian born in Queens. But don't tell the Israel government that. As a Jew, he/she has an automatic right to move to Israel regardless of origin. If your Palestinian and wish to return to your home for which you still have the key for, you're wasting your time. Once the Israelis have a Palestinian out, you can't get back in as a resident even if it's your home. Why does an occupational force allowed the right to deport anyone?

Let's get back to the topic.

Ann Coulter is a nut.
 
Back
Top