We're Launching a K-12 School!

Not sure why you seem to be so upset. Are you Christian?

I simply oppose teaching religion to children. This is offensive to you. Teaching kids about freedom is great. Then forcing religious beliefs on them is doing the exact opposite. It's saying "You should be Free!" then saying "But you should believe in things that do not exist!"

Why can't you simply be honest and admit you hate religion? Clearly you do. If you didn't you would at least say "But you should believe in things that might not exist". Every honest atheist has to admit that he can't disprove God anymore than a Christian can prove Him.

I think kids should be free to learn about religion and atheism on their own, not have 1 belief forced on them. If you really want to have a free school, which teaches and lives free market principles, then why would you want to have the children learning Christianity as if it is the truth and the only way to go?

You're using "freedom" as a pretext. If you were truly interested in children having a "choice" you'd advocate for atheism to be taught along with religion instead of advocating that no religion be taught. The "I don't think it exists so it shouldn't be taught" argument is weak. How do we know black holes exist? Nobody's ever seen one. And sure scientist have made observations and predictions but we see how that's turned out with global warming.

Regardless this is yet another reason why I'm proud not to wear what some people hear call the "liberty" label. If this is what you call "freedom" I want no part of it. I doubt Ron Paul would want any part of it either because he believes in God and he taught his children to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Awesome, this is exactly what needs to be done

The nut bars have controlled education so long and that is what has allowed the populace to become so messed up, especially look at people of college age and they are often the most messed up. You have the few who had the ability to think for themselves, most of them joined the RP movement, but most that age are clueless.

I was wanting to eventually do something like this as well. Cheers.
 
:rolleyes:

Why teach the American form of government to kids? Are the kids being offered to choice to chose communism instead?

Why teach English to kids? Maybe children might chose spanglish or engrish or ebonics?

Why teach arabic numerals (child may prefer Roman or Mayan), western science (child may reject it and do fine in life), U.S. history (child may rather learn Guatemalan history) or anything?



If you wish to restrict a parent's freedom to teach kids whatever they wish to teach then you are restricting freedom. And you're doing it for not good reason. You have the freedom to teach your child islam or atheism or buddhism or whatever. I have the right to raise my child the way I wish, teach him what I wish and send him to schools that follow my values. At the end of the day parents have a responsibility to train a child the way they see fit. As the child gets older his responsibilities increase and his "freedom" increases proportionately.

Regards,

John M. Drake

You're using straw man arguments John. Not going to bite.

Last time I checked, rpf was not a religious site.

So the issue here is teaching Christianity to kids at said liberty school. I'm completely against this. I don't care if you want to go start your own Christian school and talk about liberty or whatever. But if we're talking about a liberty oriented school that was brought up right here on this thread, I'm going to speak up and say I'm against teaching religion to children, and ask further questions about it.

Why the hostility?
 
Why can't you simply be honest and admit you hate religion? Clearly you do. If you didn't you would at least say "But you should believe in things that might not exist". Every honest atheist has to admit that he can't disprove God anymore than a Christian can prove Him.

The onus is not on atheists to disprove God. The onus is on Christians to prove God. It's like if I said UFO's exist, and you asked me to prove it. Then I respond with "No, it's up to you to disprove it!"

I'm more than willing to listen to proofs of God. I would love to be wrong on this. So far, I have not seen this proof, let me know if you have any.

You're using "freedom" as a pretext. If you were truly interested in children having a "choice" you'd advocate for atheism to be taught along with religion instead of advocating that no religion be taught. The "I don't think it exists so it shouldn't be taught" argument is weak. How do we know black holes exist? Nobody's ever seen one. And sure scientist have made observations and predictions but we see how that's turned out with global warming.

I don't think atheism needs to be "taught", but certainly you would agree that children should be given a choice, to study religion or not?

Regardless this is yet another reason why I'm proud not to wear what some people hear call the "liberty" label. If this is what you call "freedom" I want no part of it. I doubt Ron Paul would want any part of it either because he believes in God and he taught his children to do the same.

So freedom to you is equal to forcing children to believe in God and Christianity? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.
 
You're using straw man arguments John. Not going to bite.

You started with the straw man claiming that those who want to teach their own beliefs are against "freedom".

Last time I checked, rpf was not a religious site.

The "RP" stands for "Ron Paul". Last I checked Ron Paul was a religious person. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but saying people who want to teach their children religion are "against freedom" goes against the spirit of supporting Ron Paul.

So the issue here is teaching Christianity to kids at said liberty school. I'm completely against this. I don't care if you want to go start your own Christian school and talk about liberty or whatever. But if we're talking about a liberty oriented school that was brought up right here on this thread, I'm going to speak up and say I'm against teaching religion to children, and ask further questions about it.

Why the hostility?

Yes. Why your hostility towards religion? That's only a question you can answer. You are free to start your own liberty school that doesn't teach religion. But to claim that a school can't teach religion and still be "pro liberty" goes against liberty. You're free to believe that. You're just wrong.
 
You started with the straw man claiming that those who want to teach their own beliefs are against "freedom".

I never said this. I said I didn't want to support the school if it is teaching Christianity, which I do not believe in.



The "RP" stands for "Ron Paul". Last I checked Ron Paul was a religious person. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but saying people who want to teach their children religion are "against freedom" goes against the spirit of supporting Ron Paul.

I definitely don't agree with RP about religion, but he is not going to force his religion on us if he became president, so that's irrelevant.



Yes. Why your hostility towards religion? That's only a question you can answer. You are free to start your own liberty school that doesn't teach religion. But to claim that a school can't teach religion and still be "pro liberty" goes against liberty. You're free to believe that. You're just wrong.

I'm not hostile. I simply do not want children at a liberty school brought up here having Christianity forced on them. I want them to be able to choose. Is that understandable now?
 
I never said this. I said I didn't want to support the school if it is teaching Christianity, which I do not believe in.





I definitely don't agree with RP about religion, but he is not going to force his religion on us if he became president, so that's irrelevant.





I'm not hostile. I simply do not want children at a liberty school brought up here having Christianity forced on them. I want them to be able to choose. Is that understandable now?

I guess you missed the part where the classes are voluntary, and secondly, having theologian classes are indeed pro-liberty. Mind you I'm an agnostic leaning atheist, but even I acknowledge the foundation of libertarianism came from Christianity and Spanish theologians. They came up with NAP, Natural Law, Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Read Rothbard's Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.
 
Last edited:
The onus is not on atheists to disprove God. The onus is on Christians to prove God. It's like if I said UFO's exist, and you asked me to prove it. Then I respond with "No, it's up to you to disprove it!"

Not really. If the atheist is suggesting that something shouldn't be taught because it doesn't exist then the onus shifts back to the atheist. It's one thing to passively not believe something. It's another thing to actively seek to suppress belief.

I'm more than willing to listen to proofs of God. I would love to be wrong on this. So far, I have not seen this proof, let me know if you have any.

I don't think you actually would love to be wrong on that. But I can't read your mind.

I don't think atheism needs to be "taught", but certainly you would agree that children should be given a choice, to study religion or not?

No. Parents should be given a choice on what schools to send their children to and schools should be given a choice what to teach. If I think my child needs to learn Shakespear I should send him to a school that teaches Shakespear or teach him at home. The child shouldn't have the "choice" to say "I really don't think I should learn that". Given a choice a lot of kids would sit around and watch Spongebob all day and learn absolutely nothing. As kids get older and more mature they have more choices. Ultimately when a child moves out he can choose whatever he or she wants. I simply don't buy this "children should make their own choices" nonsense when the parent is ultimately held responsible for those choices.

So freedom to you is equal to forcing children to believe in God and Christianity? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Freedom is something earned with responsibility. And you can't "force" anybody to believe anything. As the saying goes "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". The best a parent can do is to put his belief system out there for a child to observe and learn about. Ultimately the choice is the child's regardless of whether or not he is required to learn about it. A parent who believed in God and believed there were real consequences in another life would be grossly negligent to hide that belief from their child and hope he figured it out on his own.

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
Last edited:
I never said this. I said I didn't want to support the school if it is teaching Christianity, which I do not believe in.

Great. Don't support it. Start your own alternative that I would never support. But I'm not going to call your school "anti liberty".

I definitely don't agree with RP about religion, but he is not going to force his religion on us if he became president, so that's irrelevant.

And this school isn't forcing their religion on anybody. Nobody is compelled to attend. But parents have a right to choose the school their children attend along with the right to choose religion for their children. That doesn't make those parents "anti liberty". Ron Paul most likely taught religion to his children. That doesn't make him anti liberty. The basic disagreement is that I see a fundamental difference between the state pushing a belief system and parents pushing a belief system. You seem to see the state and parents the same in this regard. I doubt Ron Paul would.

I'm not hostile. I simply do not want children at a liberty school brought up here having Christianity forced on them. I want them to be able to choose. Is that understandable now?

Then at your liberty school don't teach it. But that doesn't mean that a school that teaches Christianity isn't a liberty school. Besides, you can learn about a religion without it being "forced" on you.

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
I guess you missed the part where the classes are voluntary, and secondly, having theologian classes are indeed pro-liberty. Mind you I'm an agnostic leaning atheist, but even I acknowledge the foundation of libertarianism came from Christianity and Spanish theologians. They came up with NAP, Natural Law, Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Read Rothbard's Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought.

The government also created the internet (sans Gore), but that doesn't make a case for the government.

I never said nothing good ever has come out of Christianity, but that I'm against teaching it to children. The bible also says we must follow laws and obey government officials, so you've got a big contradiction on your hands. Christians certainly did not invent the NAP.
 
Great. Don't support it. Start your own alternative that I would never support. But I'm not going to call your school "anti liberty".

Fine, do whatever you want, but stop lying about what I said.



And this school isn't forcing their religion on anybody. Nobody is compelled to attend. But parents have a right to choose the school their children attend along with the right to choose religion for their children. That doesn't make those parents "anti liberty". Ron Paul most likely taught religion to his children. That doesn't make him anti liberty. The basic disagreement is that I see a fundamental difference between the state pushing a belief system and parents pushing a belief system. You seem to see the state and parents the same in this regard. I doubt Ron Paul would.

I don't have a problem with starting a school and doing it however you'd like. But if someone is going to come in here on Liberty Forest and say they are starting a liberty school, and then say they are going to teach Christianity, I'm going to voice my opinion that I do not agree. You may agree, but there is no reason to get angry with me or make up things that I said. I would never teach kids religion as a parent or a teacher. I want to teach them things that actually exist, not unprovable fantasies.



Then at your liberty school don't teach it. But that doesn't mean that a school that teaches Christianity isn't a liberty school. Besides, you can learn about a religion without it being "forced" on you.

Never said it's anti-liberty, but that I have an issue with children being taught Christianity. That's the last time I'll say it and please stop changing my words. You can definitely learn about religion without it being forced on you. That's why I prefer kids not be taught religion, but rather, discover it on their own.
QUOTE]
 
The government also created the internet (sans Gore), but that doesn't make a case for the government.

I never said nothing good ever has come out of Christianity, but that I'm against teaching it to children. The bible also says we must follow laws and obey government officials, so you've got a big contradiction on your hands. Christians certainly did not invent the NAP.

Are you sure about that?

YouTube - 5/25/09 Broadcast "Romans 13 Explained by Pastor Steven Anderson (part 1 of 2)"

YouTube - 5/26/09 Broadcast "Romans 13 Explained by Pastor Steven Anderson (part 2 of 2)"
 
Fine, do whatever you want, but stop lying about what I said.

:rolleyes: Stop lying about what the OP is attempting to do.


I don't have a problem with starting a school and doing it however you'd like. But if someone is going to come in here on Liberty Forest and say they are starting a liberty school, and then say they are going to teach Christianity, I'm going to voice my opinion that I do not agree. You may agree, but there is no reason to get angry with me or make up things that I said. I would never teach kids religion as a parent or a teacher. I want to teach them things that actually exist, not unprovable fantasies.

Who's angry? I'm not. I don't think you are being honest about what the OP is trying to do. You don't think I'm being honest in my assessment of your dishonesty. We're even.


Never said it's anti-liberty, but that I have an issue with children being taught Christianity. That's the last time I'll say it and please stop changing my words. You can definitely learn about religion without it being forced on you. That's why I prefer kids not be taught religion, but rather, discover it on their own.

:rolleyes: Then don't have a school at all and let the children "discover" everything. I'm not "changing your words" in the least. You're repeating the same fallacy that if a child is taught religion it is "forced" on them. It's no more being forced on them then teaching about black holes "forces" them to believe in black holes or teaching them about Einstein "forces" them to reject quantum mechanics (since relativity and QM are still in conflict). I'm not simply saying that children can learn religion without it being forced on them. I'm saying that teaching religion is not forcing it.

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
Not really. If the atheist is suggesting that something shouldn't be taught because it doesn't exist then the onus shifts back to the atheist. It's one thing to passively not believe something. It's another thing to actively seek to suppress belief.

Change the terms and see if the logic holds. Say, to evolution.

If in the introductory phase of the idea, someone suggests that evolution should be taught in school, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution exists in order that it may be taught. If, once the idea becomes generally accepted someone suggests that the teaching of evolution should be suppressed, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution does not exist so that it can be removed from the curriculum.

Yup. It would seem that the logic holds. :)

Look, nobody is ever going to change SD's mind. He is blind to his own bias, and therefore perceives himself as unbiased. Because he believes himself unbiased, there is nothing in this universe that will change is manner of thinking on this.

It is much like the radical liberals living in an echo chamber who feed us the "news" on TV. They are blatantly and radically biased, but they honestly perceive themselves as though they were 'neutral.' SD will remain blind to his own bias no matter what anybody says, and any attempt to demonstrate this for him will only further derail this otherwise extremely outstanding thread.

I have gone rounds with radicals for decades, and I have learned that it becomes important to recognize when you are banging your head on a brick wall. I have come to a point now where I can generally tell by the "character" of obstinacy whether there will be any value in the debate. The only thing that can come out of arguing this with SD is angst for all rational beings.

I have no prejudice against atheists in any shape, way, or form. My closest ally in the RPNC group is an atheist. We get along like gangbusters because I hold no bias or prejudice against her or atheism, and she holds no bias or prejudice against me or my faith.

I recognize that AED does not believe in God, and he probably thinks that I am a bit backwards or maybe even self delusional for believing; but he holds no prejudice or bias against me, and likewise I hold no bias or prejudice against him, and we are fully capable of working together without animosity.

SD creates animosity whenever he encounters Christianity...specifically Christianity in any shape or form. A rational being will quickly therefore identify SD as the source of the bias/prejudice; but he himself will continue to perceive himself as unbiased no matter how many mirrors are held up in front of him.

So any attempt at a constructive debate is ultimately futile. Even if he has valid points which can and ought to be discussed, they are veiled behind a cloud of anti-Christian rage, and are therefore inaccessible to Christians. He will simply point to that lack of access as "further proof that Christians are idiots" never seeing that the problem lies in himself.

My advice is to just let him have his last word, recognize that his prejudice is overt and apparent to the vast majority of people reading the thread (even if he, himself can't see it) and put an end to this thread derail by leaving this profitless debate alone.

This is much like the debates to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. We say that the only honorable thing to do is to bring the troops home now, and they say, "But if we leave NOW then we will be seen as the losers! Cut and run!" Really, the only way to be the loser, is to just stay in those countries and to stay engaged in all this useless violence. We can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our "enemies" (right or wrong is irrelevant here) will continue to fight until the entire middle-east is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland.

Likewise, right or wrong, SD will continue to fight until the thread/forum is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland. It has nothing to do with him being an 'atheist' there are also Christians who act exactly like he does. It's just his personality, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it.
 
Change the terms and see if the logic holds. Say, to evolution.

If in the introductory phase of the idea, someone suggests that evolution should be taught in school, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution exists in order that it may be taught. If, once the idea becomes generally accepted someone suggests that the teaching of evolution should be suppressed, then the onus is on the advocate to prove that evolution does not exist so that it can be removed from the curriculum.

Yup. It would seem that the logic holds. :)

Look, nobody is ever going to change SD's mind. He is blind to his own bias, and therefore perceives himself as unbiased. Because he believes himself unbiased, there is nothing in this universe that will change is manner of thinking on this.

It is much like the radical liberals living in an echo chamber who feed us the "news" on TV. They are blatantly and radically biased, but they honestly perceive themselves as though they were 'neutral.' SD will remain blind to his own bias no matter what anybody says, and any attempt to demonstrate this for him will only further derail this otherwise extremely outstanding thread.

I have gone rounds with radicals for decades, and I have learned that it becomes important to recognize when you are banging your head on a brick wall. I have come to a point now where I can generally tell by the "character" of obstinacy whether there will be any value in the debate. The only thing that can come out of arguing this with SD is angst for all rational beings.

I have no prejudice against atheists in any shape, way, or form. My closest ally in the RPNC group is an atheist. We get along like gangbusters because I hold no bias or prejudice against her or atheism, and she holds no bias or prejudice against me or my faith.

I recognize that AED does not believe in God, and he probably thinks that I am a bit backwards or maybe even self delusional for believing; but he holds no prejudice or bias against me, and likewise I hold no bias or prejudice against him, and we are fully capable of working together without animosity.

SD creates animosity whenever he encounters Christianity...specifically Christianity in any shape or form. A rational being will quickly therefore identify SD as the source of the bias/prejudice; but he himself will continue to perceive himself as unbiased no matter how many mirrors are held up in front of him.

So any attempt at a constructive debate is ultimately futile. Even if he has valid points which can and ought to be discussed, they are veiled behind a cloud of anti-Christian rage, and are therefore inaccessible to Christians. He will simply point to that lack of access as "further proof that Christians are idiots" never seeing that the problem lies in himself.

My advice is to just let him have his last word, recognize that his prejudice is overt and apparent to the vast majority of people reading the thread (even if he, himself can't see it) and put an end to this thread derail by leaving this profitless debate alone.

This is much like the debates to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. We say that the only honorable thing to do is to bring the troops home now, and they say, "But if we leave NOW then we will be seen as the losers! Cut and run!" Really, the only way to be the loser, is to just stay in those countries and to stay engaged in all this useless violence. We can't win in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our "enemies" (right or wrong is irrelevant here) will continue to fight until the entire middle-east is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland.

Likewise, right or wrong, SD will continue to fight until the thread/forum is just a scorched, smoking, radioactive wasteland. It has nothing to do with him being an 'atheist' there are also Christians who act exactly like he does. It's just his personality, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it.

Well said. I consider Gunny an upstanding person and would be honored to work with him in any capacity. I don't consider you backwards or delusional, indeed I recognize the many achievements Christian theologians brought to us, even though the Church itself is an abominable tyrannous institution. Even Christ himself abhorred the idea of an organized religion. I am just too logical a person to ever believe in such notions, given that it has been said reason is god. All I can do is live the best life I can and to act as morally as possible from the foundation of reason, but I would never begrudge or hold any bias towards a person of faith.

You respect me, I'll respect you. :p

So, let's get this back on topic. Let me know OP if you need my help in any capacity!
 
Well said. I consider Gunny an upstanding person and would be honored to work with him in any capacity.

In my fantasy world, I can actually live up to that. ;) Thanks. I have my own stubborn sticky points where I get amped up all out of proportion with reality or necessity, but I do try to recognize that impulse and subdue it. I have found you likewise to be sincere to a fault, and working with you will indeed be a true pleasure.

I don't consider you backwards or delusional, indeed I recognize the many achievements Christian theologians brought to us, even though the Church itself is an abominable tyrannous institution. Even Christ himself abhorred the idea of an organized religion.

If I have any disagreement here at all, it is that Yeshua took more of an issue with the practice of organized religion moreso than the idea of it. Mind you, that is really splitting hairs, and obviously within the context here it amounts to the exact same thing. The distinction is only going to be important to a small fraction of believers.

I am just too logical a person to ever believe in such notions, given that it has been said reason is god.

Perhaps this may explain why there is some compatibility here. I suppose I am an...unusual...believer. One of my primary focuses is on the /logos/ of God. The Messiah is said to be the physical embodiment of the divine /logos/. I use the Greek because it is more precise and encompasses FAR more conceptually than the English "word." Our word 'logic' is derived from the Greek /logos/, and it implies logic and reason and ordered thought produced in direct and unambiguous expression. For me, anything that is illogical is not /logos/, and therefore can not be Messiah.

Mind you, I do also recognize the extension of said /logos/-logic into the transcendental realm of eternity, which when taken within the realm of temporality alone can often appear broken, (as a limit of temporal perception rather than as a broken chain of reason). This causes the rational Christian to "look into" eternity to to discover the logic (/logos/) that is imperceptible without observations made outside of time.

Though I did spend time in a Southern Baptist church, and even studied at a Southern Baptist seminary, this was after learning much to my surprise (shock, really) that the SBC was one of the biggest supporters of "Hebrew Roots" or "Messianic Jewish" Christianity. My brand of faith, however, most resembles that which James taught at the Jerusalem church shortly after Yeshua's crucifixion. It is more like the "fulfillment" of pre-Messianic Judaism than some new religion altogether like most of what Christianity has become today.

All I can do is live the best life I can and to act as morally as possible from the foundation of reason, but I would never begrudge or hold any bias towards a person of faith.

You respect me, I'll respect you. :p

Now that's a deal!

So, let's get this back on topic. Let me know OP if you need my help in any capacity!

Hear here! I was serious about marksmanship instruction. All you'd need is a little 36 yard range with about 12 shooting positions, and about 14 10/22's in .22lr. It has only been recently that the idea of teaching gun safety and marksmanship to children has become repulsive to society. One could actually graduate whole classes of 12th graders who knew gun safety inside and out, and could hit a 12" circle at 500yds with a high-power. Nothing quite says "freedom" like the self-reliance of being able to acquire your own wild game and be able to shoot better than your average Marine. ;)
 
This is exciting. I am a Tutor for public schools, and home schools. Being in the front lines I see a big need for what you are doing. I also have some excellent curriculum for early readers that may be helpful.. Please feel free to visit my website, and contact me if you so choose. http://www.read-phonics.com/
 
Gunny you're right. Arguing in circles is a waste of time. I think beyond the religion issue SD and I fundamentally disagree on the role of family. I see the family as a basic unit of government with powers unto itself including the power to require subordinate units (children) to learn its values. I see that SD is an ancap so he may not believe in government units of any kind. Still that doesn't explain why single out one for of knowledge (religion) for non teaching. You could just teach a child to read and write, put him in a room full of books and say "go discover". :D

Back to the subject at hand, did you see the link I posted about the school with the state militia training? Good idea, or is it better for the training to be totally independent in your opinion?

http://site.eastwoodchristianschool.com/ALSDF_Cadet_Program_Info.html
 
Carla,

Please accept my apology for NOT following through with my intention of supporting this cause several months ago when you first proposed it. For that reason, I'm prioritizing and donating to your cause NOW.

BTW, please forward information on your school to Dr. Stanley Monteith of www.radioliberty.com . He frequently has one of the Skousen brothers on his radio show so I'm fairly sure that he'd be delighted to promote your project. Best wishes ...
 
Back
Top