The author of this BLOG finds no wrong-doing with this practice of ethnic awareness month celebrations, so long as two conditions are present: 1)all ethnic groups comprising the American scene are allowed--with mutual respect and honor--to engage in this practice, and therefore, 2)persons of dual or multiple racial ancestry will faithfully observe hommage to all sides of their personal racial heritage. God is not a respecter of persons(Acts 10:34-35), and it is sinful for us to show partiality for purpose of racial hubris over other ethnic groups.
As to American life itself, we must above all celebrate a commitment to equal justice under law by acknowledging all the nation's ethnic group contributions to its greatness. Finally, on these occasions, we are to celebrate the good that men do. The evil they have done before will live sufficiently beyond their own life-times, without effort of special notice from us.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Two More American Profiles In Courage
The late President John F. Kennedy, before becoming President, wrote a famous book called Profiles In Courage, a saga of Americans with extraordinary vision and resoluteness of character.
The author of this BLOG believes that two more names should be posthumously added to that celebrated book: those of U.S. Senators Ernest Gruening of Alaska, and Wayne Morse of Oregon.
Regardless of what one may think of the politics of American military involvement in Viet Nam during the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, the courage of these two United States Senators to stand rock-solid for their convictions against an overwhelming tide of contrary public opinion is hereby duly noted in this BLOG. It was these two U.S. Senators who, on August 7, 1964, stood alone to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This measure was used by President Lyndon Johnson and his Administration as a pretext to conduct open-ended warfare in Viet Nam: this, in context of the President's campaign promise to be a "peace candidate" on Viet Nam in opposition to the ostensibly "reckless" plans of Republican opponent Senator Barry Goldwater. At the time the vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was taken, these two U.S. Senators alone understood its fullest possible implications, while everyone else was blind to them.
By 1970, it was easy to oppose the American involvement in the Viet Nam war because public opposition to it had become popular by that time. But the reward for principled opposition to the war from the beginning, August 7, 1964, absenting popular approbation, belongs exclusively to these two senatorial profiles in American courage.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The author of this BLOG believes that two more names should be posthumously added to that celebrated book: those of U.S. Senators Ernest Gruening of Alaska, and Wayne Morse of Oregon.
Regardless of what one may think of the politics of American military involvement in Viet Nam during the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, the courage of these two United States Senators to stand rock-solid for their convictions against an overwhelming tide of contrary public opinion is hereby duly noted in this BLOG. It was these two U.S. Senators who, on August 7, 1964, stood alone to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This measure was used by President Lyndon Johnson and his Administration as a pretext to conduct open-ended warfare in Viet Nam: this, in context of the President's campaign promise to be a "peace candidate" on Viet Nam in opposition to the ostensibly "reckless" plans of Republican opponent Senator Barry Goldwater. At the time the vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was taken, these two U.S. Senators alone understood its fullest possible implications, while everyone else was blind to them.
By 1970, it was easy to oppose the American involvement in the Viet Nam war because public opposition to it had become popular by that time. But the reward for principled opposition to the war from the beginning, August 7, 1964, absenting popular approbation, belongs exclusively to these two senatorial profiles in American courage.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Friday, February 5, 2010
The WHY Of Education
Why go to school? Do not facts wear out and skills obsolesce, as new discoveries in science and technology are made and introduction of new socio-political values give us different perspectives on social sciences and humanities previously studied? Indeed, does yesterday teach us anything about today and tomorrow?
The strongest ostensible justification for the Education Establishment in society is to insure future financial independence of citizens, and even to increase money-earning capacities. Presumably, we must have school, lest ours be a nation of street bums, vagrants, criminals and other types of ne'er-do-wells. "Fitting into society" is the goal.
But this pretext raises two more issues: 1)Why is government compulsion required, to assure an educated society? 2)Why must collective society dictate educational priorities to individuals? Does not "no child left behind" also sound like "no child can get ahead"? Under this scheme, we all march lock-step together, because even as some people "get ahead", others, by automatic definition and comparison, "fall behind".
Are we all of equal intellectual endowments and talents to begin with? Of course not!--Nor should we be. As the apostle Paul writes in the Bible, "Can the ear say to the eye, 'I have no need of thee'?, or can the heart say to the brain, 'I have no need of thee'?" Every individual talent has its purpose in a global scheme of things and, for the benefit of society-at-large, none should be supressed, or even temporarily "placed on hold" while other skills and knowledges are involuntarily acquired at state behest. Only when individuals are free, does society progress and benefit the most. In a climate of freedom are individuals most likely to strive with utmost enthusiasm in the realization of their dreams and visions for themselves.
What of the monetary gain aspect of education? Granting that personal financial independence is a valid concern, the Bible tells us man does not live by bread alone. Knowledges and skills put to use outside the context of one's money-earning career can be, and often are, of benefit to society. For example, understanding inter-personal relationships issues--especially those transcending boundaries of racial and national culture--are crucial to survival and success in an increasingly interdependent world. Corporations have learned this lesson by hard experience, in discovery that what sells in America may not always sell with equal success in foreign societal milieus. The reverse is also true. In any case, no amount of money can purchase the blessing of social harmony and concord. In this context, the folly of education exclusively for the sake of monetary gain becomes evident.
How, then, shall the success of education be measured? By the degree of financial prosperity of its graduates? The pornography industry has amply demonstrated ability to make vast monetary treasure by appeal to the lowest bestial side of the human character, rather than to its more noble impulses. Are Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Al Goldstein successful? Education clearly must serve more noble purpose than satiation of human material appetite. It must do much more than keep men out of jail, and enable them to say, "I did not have sex with that woman!" All the President's men graduated from the most challenging law schools in America, and still failed to learn that lessons as they went to prison anyway! Education too, thus failed in that instance.
What, then, is the final purpose of education, and how is its success to be measured? The successful teacher is the one who persuades his/her students to continue study in his/her academic discipline, long after they have left his/her classroom. Voluntarism based on enlightened self-interest, in pursuit of relevance to one's own life, is a far more powerful guarantor of academic perpetuity for a given discipline, than is state coercion based on presumptive plausibility not yet confirmed in the life of each individual student.
The why of education, then, is best summed up by demonstration of an appreciative relevance of the individual to the real and total world in which he or she lives.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The strongest ostensible justification for the Education Establishment in society is to insure future financial independence of citizens, and even to increase money-earning capacities. Presumably, we must have school, lest ours be a nation of street bums, vagrants, criminals and other types of ne'er-do-wells. "Fitting into society" is the goal.
But this pretext raises two more issues: 1)Why is government compulsion required, to assure an educated society? 2)Why must collective society dictate educational priorities to individuals? Does not "no child left behind" also sound like "no child can get ahead"? Under this scheme, we all march lock-step together, because even as some people "get ahead", others, by automatic definition and comparison, "fall behind".
Are we all of equal intellectual endowments and talents to begin with? Of course not!--Nor should we be. As the apostle Paul writes in the Bible, "Can the ear say to the eye, 'I have no need of thee'?, or can the heart say to the brain, 'I have no need of thee'?" Every individual talent has its purpose in a global scheme of things and, for the benefit of society-at-large, none should be supressed, or even temporarily "placed on hold" while other skills and knowledges are involuntarily acquired at state behest. Only when individuals are free, does society progress and benefit the most. In a climate of freedom are individuals most likely to strive with utmost enthusiasm in the realization of their dreams and visions for themselves.
What of the monetary gain aspect of education? Granting that personal financial independence is a valid concern, the Bible tells us man does not live by bread alone. Knowledges and skills put to use outside the context of one's money-earning career can be, and often are, of benefit to society. For example, understanding inter-personal relationships issues--especially those transcending boundaries of racial and national culture--are crucial to survival and success in an increasingly interdependent world. Corporations have learned this lesson by hard experience, in discovery that what sells in America may not always sell with equal success in foreign societal milieus. The reverse is also true. In any case, no amount of money can purchase the blessing of social harmony and concord. In this context, the folly of education exclusively for the sake of monetary gain becomes evident.
How, then, shall the success of education be measured? By the degree of financial prosperity of its graduates? The pornography industry has amply demonstrated ability to make vast monetary treasure by appeal to the lowest bestial side of the human character, rather than to its more noble impulses. Are Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Al Goldstein successful? Education clearly must serve more noble purpose than satiation of human material appetite. It must do much more than keep men out of jail, and enable them to say, "I did not have sex with that woman!" All the President's men graduated from the most challenging law schools in America, and still failed to learn that lessons as they went to prison anyway! Education too, thus failed in that instance.
What, then, is the final purpose of education, and how is its success to be measured? The successful teacher is the one who persuades his/her students to continue study in his/her academic discipline, long after they have left his/her classroom. Voluntarism based on enlightened self-interest, in pursuit of relevance to one's own life, is a far more powerful guarantor of academic perpetuity for a given discipline, than is state coercion based on presumptive plausibility not yet confirmed in the life of each individual student.
The why of education, then, is best summed up by demonstration of an appreciative relevance of the individual to the real and total world in which he or she lives.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Romans 5:8: Pass The Buck, Harry!
"There is none righteous; no, not one...for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God", the Bible declares in Romans 3:10-24. Harry S. Truman, America's 33rd President, had a famous sign on his White House office desk, saying "THE BUCK STOPS HERE!".
It is human nature, to shift blame for one's failures and deficiencies over to other persons, entities or circumstances, ruefully wring hands, and with cock-sure acridity, to expound upon all possible "if onlys..." that come to mind. Our nation's 33rd President was a man of great brass and bravado, to impute to himself a more masterful acumen by which to dispense with proverbial slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. "Passing the buck" was simply too far beneath good-old Harry's hubris, given the responsibilities of the nation's highest public office.
But God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts(Isaiah 55:8-9). God has chosen things which are not, to bring to nought the things that are, so that no man(including Harry S. Truman)will glory in His presence(I Corinthians 1:27-29). The sin-debt man owes to God requires payment totally free of all corruption--a quality possessed by no man except the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Could all responsibility for governmental debauchery, vice and irresponsible impropriety be finally placed onto the desk of any American President? Emphatically no, because he also is by nature sinful, and would "resolve" the troubles started by subordinate bureaucrats in a manner adding, rather than subtracting, sin from the equation. "Oh, Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walks, to correct his footsteps. Oh, Lord, correct me, but with judgement, not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing"(Jeremiah 10:23-24).
Pass the buck, Harry! Jesus Christ invites you to do that. He commended His love to you, in that while you were yet a sinner, Christ died for you(Romans 5:8). We walk by faith and not by sight, and so, you need not see evidence of this truth in order to believe it--even if you are from Missouri!
-LKM
It is human nature, to shift blame for one's failures and deficiencies over to other persons, entities or circumstances, ruefully wring hands, and with cock-sure acridity, to expound upon all possible "if onlys..." that come to mind. Our nation's 33rd President was a man of great brass and bravado, to impute to himself a more masterful acumen by which to dispense with proverbial slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. "Passing the buck" was simply too far beneath good-old Harry's hubris, given the responsibilities of the nation's highest public office.
But God's ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts(Isaiah 55:8-9). God has chosen things which are not, to bring to nought the things that are, so that no man(including Harry S. Truman)will glory in His presence(I Corinthians 1:27-29). The sin-debt man owes to God requires payment totally free of all corruption--a quality possessed by no man except the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
Could all responsibility for governmental debauchery, vice and irresponsible impropriety be finally placed onto the desk of any American President? Emphatically no, because he also is by nature sinful, and would "resolve" the troubles started by subordinate bureaucrats in a manner adding, rather than subtracting, sin from the equation. "Oh, Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walks, to correct his footsteps. Oh, Lord, correct me, but with judgement, not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing"(Jeremiah 10:23-24).
Pass the buck, Harry! Jesus Christ invites you to do that. He commended His love to you, in that while you were yet a sinner, Christ died for you(Romans 5:8). We walk by faith and not by sight, and so, you need not see evidence of this truth in order to believe it--even if you are from Missouri!
-LKM
Monday, January 25, 2010
LKM On Jesus Christ: He Is The Real Deal!
This e-mail constitutes the personal testimony of this BLOG's author about his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. To make this testimony personal, the author has chosen to completely eschew trite platitudes every one else makes, concerning the King of kings and Lord of lords. The author has also chosen, for the purpose of this BLOG article, to set aside the scriptures of the Old Testament, as well as those New Testament letters of the apostles Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude. Instead, we shall focus exclusively upon the Word of Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded in the scriptures, to "hear God's Word directly from the horse's mouth", so to speak.
Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because there can be no other explanation possible but God, for His advent into the world, in perfect and complete fulfillment of several hundreds of prophecies made about Him in the Bible Old Testament, five centuries and more earlier. Even the cynics, who might argue that He, in conspiracy with other men, arranged His life to deliberately and consciously fulfill all those prophecies, will find their mouths stopped to explain prophecies on where He was to be born, from which tribe or clan lineage He was to come, how He would be hated, despised and rejected by most people of His time, and circumstances surrounding His death upon Golgotha's cross. Interesting: Psalm 22:14-18 prophesies the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; and yet, crucifixion as a punishment for crime was completely unknown in those Old Testament times. There is no other religious belief system which can and does make such a comparable historic-prophetic claim. NOT ONE!
Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He is "politically incorrect", i.e. did not fashion His gospel according to the popular thinking of men, but lived in perfect obedience to God His Father, regardless of what men may think or say. John 15:18-21. He was not a man of concession to the world, in order to make Himself popular, as evidenced in His rebuke to the church at Laodicea for being "luke-warm". Revelations 3:15-16.
The word "love" is widely bandied-about in our day, to mean many different things to many different people. Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He requires a higher standard of love to people from His followers, than is popular with the rest of the world. Matthew 5:43-48. It is popular, to just love those who love us. But Jesus put His standard higher, by saying His followers are nothing extraordinary to love like that. Thieves, harlots, tax-collectors and publicans do likewise. Jesus actually told His followers to love their enemies--something which goes strongly against the grain of morally-corrupt and fallen human nature.
All too many Christian churches today preach the gospel of a "cheap grace". Jesus Christ, contrary to popular belief, warned His followers that they will be judged by the same standard of judgement, by which they judge other people, and will not be given a "blank check" of unconditional forgiveness for their sins. Matthew 6:12, 14-15; Matthew 7:1-5. The Lord's prayer: "....forgive us our sins, (to the same measure) as we forgive those who sin against us..."
Finally, Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He commands His followers to demonstrate to the world by their actions, their fidelity to Him. Matthew 7:15-27. To whom little is given, little is required; but to whom much is given, much is required. Luke 12:43-48. Upon His return to earth, Jesus Christ will punish the most severely not those who know nothing of Him, but those who know Him well, but do not act affirmatively upon His divine mandates and teachings. To be sure, the Bible believer is not saved by any good works on his own initiative. They are instead saved unto the good works, to perform them, once saved, as visual evidence to the world of their salvation. Men do not light candles, only to hold them under bushel-baskets.
In summary, Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He stands out uniquely from the many almost-similar fakers, liars and pretenders of His era. Had He been just another one of them, His gospel would have been completely discredited and forgotten centuries ago before the life-time of this BLOG's author. Baloney does have its shelf life-time.
-LKM
Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because there can be no other explanation possible but God, for His advent into the world, in perfect and complete fulfillment of several hundreds of prophecies made about Him in the Bible Old Testament, five centuries and more earlier. Even the cynics, who might argue that He, in conspiracy with other men, arranged His life to deliberately and consciously fulfill all those prophecies, will find their mouths stopped to explain prophecies on where He was to be born, from which tribe or clan lineage He was to come, how He would be hated, despised and rejected by most people of His time, and circumstances surrounding His death upon Golgotha's cross. Interesting: Psalm 22:14-18 prophesies the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; and yet, crucifixion as a punishment for crime was completely unknown in those Old Testament times. There is no other religious belief system which can and does make such a comparable historic-prophetic claim. NOT ONE!
Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He is "politically incorrect", i.e. did not fashion His gospel according to the popular thinking of men, but lived in perfect obedience to God His Father, regardless of what men may think or say. John 15:18-21. He was not a man of concession to the world, in order to make Himself popular, as evidenced in His rebuke to the church at Laodicea for being "luke-warm". Revelations 3:15-16.
The word "love" is widely bandied-about in our day, to mean many different things to many different people. Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He requires a higher standard of love to people from His followers, than is popular with the rest of the world. Matthew 5:43-48. It is popular, to just love those who love us. But Jesus put His standard higher, by saying His followers are nothing extraordinary to love like that. Thieves, harlots, tax-collectors and publicans do likewise. Jesus actually told His followers to love their enemies--something which goes strongly against the grain of morally-corrupt and fallen human nature.
All too many Christian churches today preach the gospel of a "cheap grace". Jesus Christ, contrary to popular belief, warned His followers that they will be judged by the same standard of judgement, by which they judge other people, and will not be given a "blank check" of unconditional forgiveness for their sins. Matthew 6:12, 14-15; Matthew 7:1-5. The Lord's prayer: "....forgive us our sins, (to the same measure) as we forgive those who sin against us..."
Finally, Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He commands His followers to demonstrate to the world by their actions, their fidelity to Him. Matthew 7:15-27. To whom little is given, little is required; but to whom much is given, much is required. Luke 12:43-48. Upon His return to earth, Jesus Christ will punish the most severely not those who know nothing of Him, but those who know Him well, but do not act affirmatively upon His divine mandates and teachings. To be sure, the Bible believer is not saved by any good works on his own initiative. They are instead saved unto the good works, to perform them, once saved, as visual evidence to the world of their salvation. Men do not light candles, only to hold them under bushel-baskets.
In summary, Jesus Christ is the Real Deal because He stands out uniquely from the many almost-similar fakers, liars and pretenders of His era. Had He been just another one of them, His gospel would have been completely discredited and forgotten centuries ago before the life-time of this BLOG's author. Baloney does have its shelf life-time.
-LKM
Monday, January 18, 2010
Liberty-Based Education
Reference is made to James Ronald Kennedy's book, Reclaiming Liberty, pp. 147-161.
The Declaration of Independence states, "These truths we hold to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is a basic American core value that every citizen has a God-given inalienable right to guide and direct his/her own life as he/she sees fit, free of government interference, so long as he/she does not inflict physical injury upon the persons or properties of other people, and does not financially pick other people's pockets or bank accounts. Implicit in free choice is the understanding that individuals must take personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices, and not shift blame or responsibility to other people.
Compulsory government public education violates this basic American core principle, especially in that education establishment officials prescribe certain academic courses as "necessary" for children grades 1-12 to take, ostensibly "for their own good". In so doing, education establishment officials also violate the students' U.S. Constitution First Amendment freedom of assembly/association, by making students of incongruent personalities and social values to associate with one another, also ostensibly "for their own good". Such arrogance presumes parents to be too lacking in academic and intellectual acumen, i.e. stupid, to decide for themselves the education of their own children. Involuntary servitude in violation of the U.S. Constitution 13th Amendment? Maybe. But suffice it to say at least that the proposition that children are a gift from God to their parents is abrogated by the public school education establishment. This scenario is not consistent with American values, it is more like Nazi Germany, in the which Adolf Hitler and the Nazis told adults, "We do not care what you think, because we have your children."
Public government schools eventually do benefit society-at-large, not only those having children who make use of them. Nevertheless, what of the future of individual students? There is a valid debate between the desirability of a "well-rounded education", versus that of high-powered specialization in one discipline. Nevertheless, the decision concerning this debate should be made by children's parents, not by any government education officials. Parents, not government education bureaucrats, are ultimately responsible for the education of their own children. In some cases, parents can and do pass on to their children all the necessary skills they(the children) will need, to economically survive and prosper in the future. Other parents may pass on to their children but some useful skills, and may wish to use public schools as a complementary tool, to guarantee their children's future financial success and survival. But this decision must be made exclusively by parents. In cases where students wish to seize academic initiative by studying through private resources topics similar to those taught in public schools, public schools must accept as academic credit towards graduation the private study of the student, pending the successful passing by the student of an exam in the academic subject designed and administered by the public school. Many universities and colleges in America already do this. Public schools should do likewise. The requirement for graduation from high school should be determined only by numbers of academic credit-hours taken, and not by completion of specific academic subject courses "for students' own good".
"The Lord loves a cheerful giver", states the Bible, in II Corinthians 9:7. So it must be with education: we want children in class-rooms who want to be there and are eager to learn, and not those who view education as a dreadful drudgery of abject abomination. Indeed, the truly successful teacher is the one who inspires his/her students to continue studying independently his/her academic subject, long after they have left his/her classroom. Persuasion, not coercion, will get this job done. Any idea requiring coercion for its realization is most likely a strongly undesirable one anyway.
"No child left behind" also sounds like no child can get ahead. It is a socialist concept mandating that all children march lock-step together academically, because as soon as some get ahead, others by definition will be left comparatively behind. Is it not true, that the greatest minds have been those of "up-stream swimmers" who went against the crowd? Where would America be today, had Henry Ford, the Wright brothers and Thomas Alva Edison been placed in a socialist educational environment in the which they were forbidden to "get ahead" of the common masses?
Public education must not be totally abolished, but perhaps placed into partnership with private education, in guaranteeing to each individual student his/her right to decide and direct his/her own future. Especially in times of severe budget cuts and restrictions to public schools, partnership with private supplementary education is key to successful achievement of this goal. In any event, it is time for professional educators themselves to go back to school, and learn that ours is to be a government by the people, and not a people by the government.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
The Declaration of Independence states, "These truths we hold to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is a basic American core value that every citizen has a God-given inalienable right to guide and direct his/her own life as he/she sees fit, free of government interference, so long as he/she does not inflict physical injury upon the persons or properties of other people, and does not financially pick other people's pockets or bank accounts. Implicit in free choice is the understanding that individuals must take personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices, and not shift blame or responsibility to other people.
Compulsory government public education violates this basic American core principle, especially in that education establishment officials prescribe certain academic courses as "necessary" for children grades 1-12 to take, ostensibly "for their own good". In so doing, education establishment officials also violate the students' U.S. Constitution First Amendment freedom of assembly/association, by making students of incongruent personalities and social values to associate with one another, also ostensibly "for their own good". Such arrogance presumes parents to be too lacking in academic and intellectual acumen, i.e. stupid, to decide for themselves the education of their own children. Involuntary servitude in violation of the U.S. Constitution 13th Amendment? Maybe. But suffice it to say at least that the proposition that children are a gift from God to their parents is abrogated by the public school education establishment. This scenario is not consistent with American values, it is more like Nazi Germany, in the which Adolf Hitler and the Nazis told adults, "We do not care what you think, because we have your children."
Public government schools eventually do benefit society-at-large, not only those having children who make use of them. Nevertheless, what of the future of individual students? There is a valid debate between the desirability of a "well-rounded education", versus that of high-powered specialization in one discipline. Nevertheless, the decision concerning this debate should be made by children's parents, not by any government education officials. Parents, not government education bureaucrats, are ultimately responsible for the education of their own children. In some cases, parents can and do pass on to their children all the necessary skills they(the children) will need, to economically survive and prosper in the future. Other parents may pass on to their children but some useful skills, and may wish to use public schools as a complementary tool, to guarantee their children's future financial success and survival. But this decision must be made exclusively by parents. In cases where students wish to seize academic initiative by studying through private resources topics similar to those taught in public schools, public schools must accept as academic credit towards graduation the private study of the student, pending the successful passing by the student of an exam in the academic subject designed and administered by the public school. Many universities and colleges in America already do this. Public schools should do likewise. The requirement for graduation from high school should be determined only by numbers of academic credit-hours taken, and not by completion of specific academic subject courses "for students' own good".
"The Lord loves a cheerful giver", states the Bible, in II Corinthians 9:7. So it must be with education: we want children in class-rooms who want to be there and are eager to learn, and not those who view education as a dreadful drudgery of abject abomination. Indeed, the truly successful teacher is the one who inspires his/her students to continue studying independently his/her academic subject, long after they have left his/her classroom. Persuasion, not coercion, will get this job done. Any idea requiring coercion for its realization is most likely a strongly undesirable one anyway.
"No child left behind" also sounds like no child can get ahead. It is a socialist concept mandating that all children march lock-step together academically, because as soon as some get ahead, others by definition will be left comparatively behind. Is it not true, that the greatest minds have been those of "up-stream swimmers" who went against the crowd? Where would America be today, had Henry Ford, the Wright brothers and Thomas Alva Edison been placed in a socialist educational environment in the which they were forbidden to "get ahead" of the common masses?
Public education must not be totally abolished, but perhaps placed into partnership with private education, in guaranteeing to each individual student his/her right to decide and direct his/her own future. Especially in times of severe budget cuts and restrictions to public schools, partnership with private supplementary education is key to successful achievement of this goal. In any event, it is time for professional educators themselves to go back to school, and learn that ours is to be a government by the people, and not a people by the government.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Vox Populi Vox Humbug!
In the beginning of America's national history, its founders established the nation not as a democracy, but rather, as a constitutional republic in the which individual citizens shall be extended certain individual liberties to exercise as they please, regardless of either partisan government wish or majority public opinion. The nation's founders both understood and feared the potential tyranny of absolute majoritarian democracy. This concept is consistent with the Bible scripture of Matthew 18:11-14, where Jesus Christ tells of the good shepherd who leaves his flock of 99 sheep, to look for one which is lost. In the sight of God, every individual is supremely valuable: "Even so, it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matthew 18:14). Thus today, we have in the U.S. Constitution the Bill of Rights, which are granted to individual citizens against either mobocracy or government encroachment upon them. Freedom is unfortunately not automatically self-enforcing, and individuals, above all, need the shield of the law to protect them against majoritarian popular opinion.
Are majorities always right? Individual inventors have often been ridiculed in their own life-times by collective majority opinion against them, saying their ideas are nonsensical and thus worthy of summary dismissal. Yet the courage of inventors to "swim upstream" against popular opinion at the time has greatly advanced civilization-at-large in later generations. Suppose Henry Ford and the Wright brothers surrendered to popular majority opinion of their day, where would America be today without the automobile and the airplane? In the early years of American military involvement in Viet Nam, nearly all members of Congress voted to approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Only two members of the U.S. Senate--Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska--had the courage of their personal convictions to vote against the resolution, to say American involvement in Viet Nam was a political mistake from the beginning. Only as the war continued into the next decade with increase of American death and expenditure of money for the war, with no apparent satisfactory conclusion in sight, did Americans in large numbers find the courage to jump onto the band-wagon and say, "me-too", as opposition to the American misadventure in Viet Nam became more popular. But the credit for true, principled bravery goes to those two United States Senators, who from the beginning defied overwhelming majority opinion and voted their honest consciences on the war question.
The Bible records that Jesus Christ was crucified with majority opinion popular approval. That same majority voted to have released from prison a criminal named Barabbas, saying Jesus Christ should be crucified in his place. (Matthew 27:15-26) This same Jesus Christ also said that the road to destruction is wide, while the road to salvation in God's kingdom is narrow, and few would find it. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" to Jesus Christ will enter God's kingdom, but just those who do God's will. (Matthew 7:13-27) He warned His followers that even as He is unpopular, His followers likewise would be hated by the world, and would suffer persecution at its hands. (John 15:18-20) The wide popularity of certain publicly-prominent individuals claiming to be Christian is therefore a sure sign and stamp that they are not of God. God has a reason for preference of the unpopular over the popular, as stated by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 1:23-29: "...that no flesh should glory in His presence."
Right and wrong cannot be decided by substitution of numbers in place of absolute principle. Ethnic and religious minority groups who have had a history of persecution at the hands of a hostile majority can well-testify to this proposition, not just in America, but world-wide. What, then, about protection for the smallest of all minorities, the individual? What would the majority of people say of Jesus Christ today, were He to return to earth in the flesh now, and start up His ministry as He first did two thousand years ago? Is it not true that popular ideas, truths, practices and organizations begin as a vision in the mind of just one individual? If we could transport all Christians of our modern times back to Israel in the time of Jesus Christ, and He called out those transported Christians of today to be His first twelve apostles, how many of them would have the courage to answer His call and step up to the plate in the face of overwhelming popular unbelief?
We in America today must be careful not to outlaw actions and behaviours of other people just on the basis of their unpopularity alone. In so doing, our society-at-large may kill the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, and lose valuable insight to the advancement of human civilization.
-LKM
Are majorities always right? Individual inventors have often been ridiculed in their own life-times by collective majority opinion against them, saying their ideas are nonsensical and thus worthy of summary dismissal. Yet the courage of inventors to "swim upstream" against popular opinion at the time has greatly advanced civilization-at-large in later generations. Suppose Henry Ford and the Wright brothers surrendered to popular majority opinion of their day, where would America be today without the automobile and the airplane? In the early years of American military involvement in Viet Nam, nearly all members of Congress voted to approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Only two members of the U.S. Senate--Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska--had the courage of their personal convictions to vote against the resolution, to say American involvement in Viet Nam was a political mistake from the beginning. Only as the war continued into the next decade with increase of American death and expenditure of money for the war, with no apparent satisfactory conclusion in sight, did Americans in large numbers find the courage to jump onto the band-wagon and say, "me-too", as opposition to the American misadventure in Viet Nam became more popular. But the credit for true, principled bravery goes to those two United States Senators, who from the beginning defied overwhelming majority opinion and voted their honest consciences on the war question.
The Bible records that Jesus Christ was crucified with majority opinion popular approval. That same majority voted to have released from prison a criminal named Barabbas, saying Jesus Christ should be crucified in his place. (Matthew 27:15-26) This same Jesus Christ also said that the road to destruction is wide, while the road to salvation in God's kingdom is narrow, and few would find it. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" to Jesus Christ will enter God's kingdom, but just those who do God's will. (Matthew 7:13-27) He warned His followers that even as He is unpopular, His followers likewise would be hated by the world, and would suffer persecution at its hands. (John 15:18-20) The wide popularity of certain publicly-prominent individuals claiming to be Christian is therefore a sure sign and stamp that they are not of God. God has a reason for preference of the unpopular over the popular, as stated by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 1:23-29: "...that no flesh should glory in His presence."
Right and wrong cannot be decided by substitution of numbers in place of absolute principle. Ethnic and religious minority groups who have had a history of persecution at the hands of a hostile majority can well-testify to this proposition, not just in America, but world-wide. What, then, about protection for the smallest of all minorities, the individual? What would the majority of people say of Jesus Christ today, were He to return to earth in the flesh now, and start up His ministry as He first did two thousand years ago? Is it not true that popular ideas, truths, practices and organizations begin as a vision in the mind of just one individual? If we could transport all Christians of our modern times back to Israel in the time of Jesus Christ, and He called out those transported Christians of today to be His first twelve apostles, how many of them would have the courage to answer His call and step up to the plate in the face of overwhelming popular unbelief?
We in America today must be careful not to outlaw actions and behaviours of other people just on the basis of their unpopularity alone. In so doing, our society-at-large may kill the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, and lose valuable insight to the advancement of human civilization.
-LKM
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
