Utah's Republic

So, the conspiracy grows. Now JSD has joined ASD and BYU as evil entities who are promoting socialism to the children of Utah. I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight for fear that the Goodlad bogey monster will get me. I wonder if they give the teachers a lobotomy after they are hired so that they won't question JSD's socialist agenda and make sure to indoctrinate all the kids.
Let's see BYU (LDS run school) supports the Moral Dimensions and yet this website does not. So in other words, Oak knows more than the LDS leadership does about what is best for the education of our children. Sounds like Alpine is closer to God than Salt Lake City is. I think the believers in the ideas propagated on this website may want to fast and pray about their choice to follow Oak instead of the Church.
I wonder if JSD is just using the Moral Dimensions to follow Ezra Taft Benson's idea that: “Preparing for life means building personal integrity, developing a sound sense of values, increasing the capacity and willingness to serve. Education must have its roots in moral principles. If we lose sight of that fact in our attempt to match our educational system against that of the materialists, we shall have lost far more than we could possibly gain.” -Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson p. 297
This qoute clearly shows me that Benson would fully support the Moral Dimensions of:
1. Enculturating the young in a social and political democracy: Foster in the nation’s young the skills, dispositions, and knowledge necessary for effective participation in a social and political democracy
2. Providing access to knowledge for all children and youth: Ensure that the young have access to those understandings and skills required for satisfying and responsible lives
3. Practicing a nurturing pedagogy (the art and science of teaching): Develop educators who nurture the learning and well-being of every student
4. Ensuring responsible stewardship of schools: Ensure educators’ competence in and commitment to serving as stewards of schools
I know those things sound evil to the followers of this website, but I still don't get how they can be evil. They talk about stewardship of the educators (a great LDS value). They mention educators are focused on the well-being of every student (I guess that is socialism if the fact that the lord loves EVERY person equally is also socialism). They support students gaining knowledge to live a responsible life (Brigham Young taught the same things while he was the LDS prophet). Finally, they promote our students to be involved in the politics and society of our nation (like the 12th article of faith states). How can you people think these are bad things?

The four items that you list sound innocent, but there is a lot more meaning behind those words than what meets the eye. Progressives and socialists want to make everything the same for everyone…eliminating choices and freedoms, redistributing and manipulating. See the following:

About John Goodlad from the article (found on Google) The moral dimensions of teaching and preservice teachers: can moral dispositions be influenced? (Ethics and Teacher Education)
Journal of Teacher Education| September 01, 1997 | Yost, Deborah S.

“Enculturating the Young in a Social and Political Democracy

This aspect of Goodlad's (1990b, 1994) educative mission has two components: a deep understanding and commitment to the democratic ideal of equality for all citizens and an ability to extend to all individuals a sense of freedom to pursue their goals. Teachers must understand that schools play a critical role in the socialization of students to democratic ideals and moral justice with respect to equal educational opportunity. Soder (1990) emphasizes that this knowledge is vital because significant inequities exist within and among schools.”

Another excerpt from the same article:

“The moral mission Goodlad and others (Goodlad, 1990b; Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990) define is not derived from empirical research on teaching. These moral dimensions emerged from discussions about what is good for teaching. The mission is philosophically tied to the aims of education as Dewey (1944) defined them:…”

There is absolutely no way that President Ezra Taft Benson would ever support anything to do with John Goodlad's Moral Dimensions. Read President Benson's books. He was way ahead of all us in his awareness that progressivism would infiltrate into our lives.

We can read from Conference in 1970 the following:

“A Plea to Strengthen Our Families
Elder Ezra Taft Benson. General Conference, October 1970.

“As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. President Joseph F. Smith referred to false educational ideas as one of the three threatening dangers among our Church members. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children; and if they have become alert and informed as President McKay admonished us last year, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, Karl Marx, John Keynes, and others.”

Although Goodlad had many good ideas about teaching the youth, he was a progressive and followed the teaching of Dewey among others, who President Benson referred to as a deceptive man.

The home is the place where morals should be taught. The schools should teach the regular curriculum of math, science, English, health, art and music, sports, and history and get rid of the notion that the schools know what is best for the student. This responsibility lies with the parents.

Our country was founded as a republic. We shouldn't be teaching students that we are a democracy, because we are not. Students should be taught the truth, not propaganda from socialists.

Bonnie is exactly right. Goodlad has some good points but his goal is the elimination of God from daily life. He's a humanist. We're not criticizing the church, we're pointing out that his philosophy of moral relativism is poison and that a number of people aren't aware of his motives that go along with his educational philosophy.

Oak, as has been pointed out to you before, Goodlad did not want to rid God from schools. He wanted to rid any one single version of religion or one group's specific views of God from schools. He did not want one religious group to be able to force all of its beliefs on every child in education. The 5,000 year talks about this issue also- that our founding fathers did not want any one single religion to rule over the people but that all religion would have equal authority and access in our country (and our public educational system). Since the founding Fathers also created public education, I guess they did believe in socialism a little bit (at least Howard Stephenson would have us believe that public is an evil socialist plot).

Bonniepence, it is good to see that you know how to google. But you do not show original thought. Parroting Benson's quote from 1970 does not prove anything. Whenever looking at history you must understand the time period and the political, cultural, and economic circumstances surrounding and influencing that quote. Benson was at the time a John Bircher Republican who was living in the throes of anti-communism and so anything related to communism was viewed as evil. Also, his over-reaction to those men listed was politically motivated. There are lots of LDS leaders who have supported the ideas of those men over time. Benson was attacking them because communist sympathizers were using some of their teachings to promote the idea of collectivism. This is also around the time period of the Equal Rights amendment that the church stood out against in 1972. Benson was trying to attack the logic being used to promote that amendment.
Socialism has always existed in this country. We are not and have never been a pure Free-market capitalist society. There has always been government involvement in our economy. Pure capitalism is a fantasy that some people have. Some Socialism is required for a large group of people living together in harmony. Government involvement in our lives is a necessity. That is why the church has a 12th article of faith. Without government and rule there would be Chaos- which goes against the Lord's plan for us.

This whole Republic issue is being blown out of proportion. As Dallin H. Oaks (a lawyer) wrote in 1992 about the constitution, “To begin with, a direct democracy was impractical for a country of four million people and about a half million square miles. As a result, the delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional, representative democracy, what they called “a Republican Form of Government.” There were logistical problems to creating a pure democracy in our country not just that it was “evil.” Even this apostle points out what you people keep denying, a Republic is a Form of Democracy- you know the Democracy that BYU is promoting to the local school districts.

Oak, I can't believe you keep jumping to the conclusion that Democracy means mob rule. That is an overreaction. Dallin H. Oaks also said, “Perhaps the most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power.” And as Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
All I have ever spoken for is the people. You seem to feel that if the people have their way then our country will fall apart. You are trying to create fear of something (socialism) that does not exist to promote your own personal agenda.

Tupelo, Goodlad is a follower of John Dewey. Dewey was one of the original signatories of the humanist manifesto which was based on the communist manifesto. The humanist manifesto declares *itself* a RELIGION. Dewey and Goodlad are not about not forcing religion on people, they are all about forcing THEIR religion on people, that it's only the senses that can determine what is true. There is no spiritual side to anything.

If you've never researched how our Founding Fathers viewed public education, please do so. It's a far cry from the system we have today.

Tupelo, what you keep missing since you've obviously not read enough on this site, is that even though many people use the word democracy to mean representative government, the use of the word by Goodlad and folks like Bill Ayers is in the meaning that knowledge and morals should be democratic and voted on for public acceptance. If you're LDS I suggest you read Elder Christofferson's talk from April 2010 conference where he addresses this point.

The purpose of this site was to put the word republic back into the Utah state history standards so we don't forget what that word means. Then ASD came along and linked their website to a radical with whacked out beliefs and it opened a can of worms leading to John Goodlad who is a modern day Korihor. I suggest you read the quotes from Goodlad here. They are not the words of an altruistic individual.
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/democracy-media-fi…

The difference between Ezra Taft Benson's teachings and socialism (the counterfeit) is not always obvious, even to many Latter-Day Saints. There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of results. God's love for EVERY person is unconditional. His rewards are not.

Goodlad teaches that education is an “inalianable right”. He promotes “rights” without responsibility. He teaches that their should be no distinction between those who excel and those who do not.

Ezra Taft Benson said, “It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today.”

President Benson did not believe in “educative” leveling and Goodlad clearly does.

Religion (including humanism)should not be taught in the schools. While we ought to teach “character”, teaching morality (Goodlad's philosophy) is problematic. Who's “morality” should we teach? Mine, or yours? Should we teach that homosexuality is o.k. or that it is not?

Religion (including humanism)should not be taught in the schools. While we ought to teach “character”, teaching morality (Goodlad's philosophy) is problematic. Who's “morality” should we teach? Should we teach that homosexuality is o.k. or that it is not?

So now Goodlad is in the same company as Bill Ayers? This just gets better every day. What are you smoking? Next thing you know Osama bin Laden will come into the picture.

Buffy, is this a quote by Ezra Taft Benson the prophet or Ezra Taft Benson, the John Bircher in the Eisenhower administration?

So do you see a problem with forcing Christian views on non-Christian children?

So you are saying that Goodlad is guilty of being a Marxist because of guilt by association? That is dangerous territory if you are basing your arguments on such scanty connections. Monty Python made a parody out of guilt by association in their “Witchcraft” skit where a woman was condemned for witchcraft because she is made out of wood since wood floats in water and because ducks float in water they must certainly be made out of wood and therefore if a woman weighs the same as duck, she must be made out of wood and therefore a witch.

You have to do better than that Oak. If Goodlad supported Karl Marx or Bill Ayers (a domestic terrorist), please provide more evidence other than your long train of guilt by association connections.

Lewis, have you ever looked into why Ayers is so keen on education? He's all about transforming America into a true democracy. I never said Goodlad was a terrorist. Further, I've never brought teachers into this except where they have specifically and individually told students the United States isn't a Republic.

Do you see a problem teaching non-denominational morals from the Bible to all children?

Lewis, it's the philosophy of moral relativism and removing God from society that tie these all together. When Goodlad says “Most youth still hold the same values of their parents… if we do not alter this pattern, if we don’t resocialize, our system will decay,” I find that contradictory to a healthy society.

You are the one who used John Goodlad and Bill Ayers in the same sentence, I just pointed that out. When most people hear the name “Bill Ayers” they think of a violent activist, not an Athenian Democrat. You have a pattern of using associations such as Karl Marx and Bill Ayers to create a sense of alarm and urgency among your followers. Again, I just point it out. If you are going to lump extremists such as Bill Ayers into the company of John Goodlad, don't be surprised if people take it in ways you didn't anticipate.

No more than teaching non-denominational morals from the Koran, Tanakh (Torah), the Buddhavacana, the Vedas and Upanishads, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, etc. to all children.

Of course, it seems to be quite an oxymoron to teach non-denominational values out of denominational scriptures.

Of course after noticing some of the decayed values of many parents today, there might be some wisdom in Goodlad's quote. Maybe we need to instill some healthy values in our children since too many parents aren't doing this.

Buffy, are your religious beliefs so shallow that you truly believe a public school can undue all the teachings you have taught your children over their lifetime? I have no fears that my children know what is truth when it comes to God and the afterlife. Schools don't even deal with those issues, so how can a school “oppress” my children? There is morality in the world that is not based on Christian beliefs- ask any Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jew, or Jain. Which of those moralities shold be teaching in a public setting?
It is exactly your paranoia that scares me about this website and the people that follow Oak's misguided beliefs. Our schools are NOT promoting anything ungodly. Our schools are NOT promoting socialism or communism. There is no evidence to prove that they are. All Oak can do is cast dispersions against one of the only entities (public education) in our country that is trying to help our children fit into our society. People like you seem to want to a society where those who follow the “true path” will receive more than all others- here on earth and in the afterlife. That goes against the teachings of Christ- our reward will be just as great as everyone else's. Yes, you seem to want to enforce the division of heaven onto us now- but that is God's job, not yours. We are commanded to love our fellow man as he loves us. Charity, compassion, and love are the ways of God. The fear and hate created by people like Oak Norton, Glenn Beck, Kieth Olbermen, etc. is not what we are supposed to be following.

Lewis, I am glad to see that I am not the only person that sees Oak and his followers for who they are. You are using some of the same arguments I am. This gives me hope that not all people are sheep who follow a wolf in sheep clothing.

“Scripture tutors us in principles and moral values essential to maintaining civil society, including integrity, responsibility, selflessness, fidelity, and charity. In scripture, we find vivid portrayals of the blessings that come from honoring true principles, as well as the tragedies that befall when individuals and civilizations discard them. Where scriptural truths are ignored or abandoned, the essential moral core of society disintegrates and decay is close behind. In time, nothing is left to sustain the institutions that sustain society.” -D. Todd Christofferson April 2010
Oak, you are so good at twisting someone's words to your own perversions. Christofferson is not talking about our public schools. He is talking about people following the teachings of Man versus the teachings of scripture. To believe that BYU has been duped by Goodlad is rather arrogant of you. As I stated before, how can you claim to know more than the LDS leaders?
I can't help but believe that this quote is talking about the people who follow the teachings of news station and radio talk show hosts – Men who mingle scripture with truth. These men claim to be promoting morals but yet they actually are trying to push mankind against each other. This directly contradicts the morals and values listed in the above quote.
I agree with a post Lewis put earlier that our society is changing due to a change in parents involvement with their children and parental seflishness. I do believe that Christofferson is right that it is due to people turning away from scripture. I do not believe that our schools are promoting this change in society though. I cannot believe that if we had the word “Republic” instead of Democracy that society's ills would change our society for the better. That leap is so far beyond rationale thought I don't know where to start.

Tupelo, there are many adults who are confused about what truth is and I don't need their influence in my children's lives. I am particularly concerned about the homosexual agenda making it's way into the schools. And yes, teaching relative morality will oppress me and my children. For example, in states that gay marriage has been legalized, schools are mandating that grade schoolers are taught that homosexuality is good and normal. And parents are being threatened and thrown into jail for resisting. Christianity is being criminalized and there is hard evidence to prove it. I am glad you are sleeping well, but ignorance has always been bliss.

Schools WILL be teaching morality if Goodlad gets his way. That is part of his agenda (you can google that). And as you have mentioned, there are too many “moralities” (Buddhist, hindu, muslim, etc.) to choose from to favor only one(Goodlad's) in a public setting.

Also, where exactly in the Bible does Jesus teach that everyone will get the same reward?

Absolutely!

Ezra Taft Benson taught principles. Principles are true whether you are a prophet or a politician. But he was a member of the quorum of the twelve apostles when he gave the talk I referred to and it was given on April 12, 1977.

Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing, have you even researched the man you are taking so much time to defend? Lewis has not…

Absolutely!

That is certainly your opinion, but the church distanced itself from the John Birch society rhetoric as did Ezra Taft Benson after some of his initial comments were made. What is ironic is that Spencer W. Kimball did believe in an educative leveling as evidence by his policies in regards to native Americans. Kimball was also a prophet and it is interesting to note that Benson killed the Indian programs established by Kimball when he became prophet, so you are certainly right that Benson did not believe in educative leveling. So while you cherry pick Benson's ideologies to support your beliefs, I will cherry pick Kimballs' ideology to support mine. Of course, I wonder what God's opinion is concerning educative leveling. That still remains a mystery.

Actually I have read one of Goodlad's book, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching, but I never got a Marxist feeling from that first read. I'm planning on re-reading that book to try and understand why the alarmists in Alpine and Highland have their underwear in a wad. I would hardly call myself misinformed, but I would certainly like to understand where Oak is coming from. For example, I've read the 5,000 Year Leap a few times, but Oak and I get different things out of that book, and just because you have read a book doesn't make it the word of God or immune from debate and criticism.

Religious based character development doesn't necessarily maintain a civil society. The “Inquisition” is a great example, not to mention the “crusades” period. Basic values such as honesty, integrity, compassion, etc are okay, but religions also tend to push character values that can lead to intolerance and a breakdown in civility. Remember, religions tend to think of themselves as correct while others are incorrect, which tends to creep into the “character values” being taught. A good example is that at my local school a parent had a conniption fit that a teacher was a coffee drinker and that students shouldn't be subjected to the smell of coffee. For this parent, this was a values issue, but in reality this is not a value, but a specific religious belief for a particular religion. Our schools don't need this type of nonsense which is what will happen if you let local mobs determine values in school. It might just be easier to identify some core values that all stakeholders can agree upon, and not promote one particular religion or another because not all kids belong to the same religion or a religion at all.

Lewis, I appreciate your responses and your willingness to intelligently consider another perspective. Seriously, I have a lot of respect for that. I am very interested in your quotes by Kimball? I've never read anything by him that would contradict Benson. And I am curious if you view the issue of normalizing homosexuality as one of those nonsensical character values that would lead to “intolerance and a breakdown in civility.”

We are in complete agreement that values such as honesty, integrity, compassion, etc. (or character) are o.k. to teach. And that it would be oppressive to allow the coffee nazi to determine the rules for everyone (since her beliefs aren't “shared” by others.) So why aren't we in agreement that it would be just as nonsensical to allow Goodlad's “values” (not particularly shared by the rest of us) to determine what is taught in our schools, as it would be to promote the views of one particular religion?

Buffy, thanks again for proving that Oak's ideas of a Republic and not a Democracy is actually just a facade for ulterior motives. What the follower's/sheep of this website really want is to force their beliefs upon all people. Your paranoia confirms that this whole movement is based on emotion and not logic. Oak is simply trying to once again attack ASD to promote his personal biases and grudges against them. Once ASD and now apparently JSD and BYU change their evil ways, Oak will find a new axe to grind (I hope Oak and Mike don't find anything sexual about that metaphor) against ASD and anyone associated with them. He will never stop until, like Howard Stephenson desires, he can control everything about schools.
This so called “Homosexual agenda” you write of shows your ignorance and prejudice. God has said that Homosexuality is a sin; but it is no greater a sin than lying, stealing, coveting, or falsely judging others. So by your rationale everyone in the world is promoting their 'sins' as “good and normal” unless we all walk around with the big 'A' on our clothes identifying our sins. In god's eyes all sin is bad and will not be tolerated in his presence- whether it is homosexuality or sloth. You are not the judge of whose sin is greater. You have been commanded to love your fellow man and let God do the judging of sins.
Your fear that schools are teaching amorality are out of touch with reality. Public schools are the last bastions in our country to teach simple plain truth, values, and morality. Parents are so selfish now-a-days that the only thing left to teach our children is the schools. So common basic morals and values are taught in my kids local schools.
Oak is just like the news and radio talk show hosts that are playing on people's emotions to create fear and anger over things that are not really happening. Those of you that follow him are not doing the right thing- you are like a lemming following others into the abyss.

Lewis, don't mention the Mountain Meadows Massacre on Oak's website. He believes the false version of what happened that was presented in 1857 by those that killed those poor people; not the true account that was even upheld by the LDS church in 2007. He thinks Parley P. Pratt was killed by one of the Fancher-Baker wagon train even though every piece of historical evidence shows this is untrue. Then again, Oak has never shown that he believes in historical facts. He seems to only believe what he wants to pick and choose from. Quite frankly, I don't think he has actually read anything written by Goodlad or Dewey; he has only read things about them by people who wish to demonize these men. Oak does not appear to read things that might contradict his warped sense of reality- he only reads things that validate his beliefs. That way he can go through life without ever challenging his own beliefs and live in self-righteousness.

Tupelo, we are in agreement that all sin is bad and that God will do the judging. I'm not sure why we disagree, then, that teaching grade schoolers that homosexuality is NOT sin, is good.

You have obviously been too busy judging to research the possibility that what Oak and others are saying could actually be true. And you have failed to show me in the Bible where Jesus teaches that we will all receive the same reward.

Let me know when you are ready to have an intelligent, informed and challenging discussion.

Yep Tupelo. The truth has set me free. Thanks so much for exposing views I've never even written about. I think I'll go ahead and set up my new Rameumptom 2000 XL (http://www.oaknorton.com/rameumptom.cfm) so I can start loudly declaring how God has saved me and doomed everyone else to hell. Let the truth ring out! Shout it from the rooftops!!!

Seriously though… “he thinks”? We've never had a conversation nor have I ever written about Parley Pratt. That's pretty impressive then that you know what I think about him. If you want to twist my words, at least find something I've actually written about. There's plenty to choose from on my websites.

Actions speak louder than words when you look at Kimball's Indian programs which came to a screeching halt when he died. Kimball was not one to make commentary on political matters as Benson was apt to do. Of course, Benson worked in the Federal Government and was part of the Eisenhower Administration and the fringe right wing group, The John Birch Society, as was Leon Skousen, the author of the 5,000 Year Leap and the Naked Communist. In fact Oak Norton's viewpoints are grounded in his revival of John Bircher rhetoric and literature. It is kind of funny in a way because when I was about 12 years old, I discovered some old John Birch literature in my grandparents' cupboard. I read it, and my grandmother proceeded to tell me how she was involved with the group for a time until she woke up to the realities of a group that is narrow in thought and vision and intolerant of others and their viewpoints. Oak's battle over the word “Democracy” is only a front for a much larger agenda that I have been working to peel away. Much of it is centered on public education as the record shows. Oak moves from issue to issue which have a common target: Alpine School District. The hullabaloo with the Lone Peak Boundary issues, Investigations Math, and now, an attack on governments where power is vested in the people–the dreaded “D” word. I wonder what is next, but I'm willing to bet that it will be centered on ASD and the public education idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by “normalizing” homosexuality. I really don't care what goes on in people's bedrooms as long as it stays in the bedroom whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. One thing is for certain, hate speech often turns into violent actions, so I do believe that tolerance should be taught in regards to Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill, the handicapped, and homosexuals. Of course I wouldn't want people engaging in sexual conduct in public, but that goes for all people and that should not be tolerated, but I'm comfortable enough with my heterosexual identity that homosexuals don't scare me and fear-mongering is a Nazi tactic that has no place in our Republic.

You know what's funny Lewis, you've brought up this Lone Peak boundary thing a couple times now or someone else brought it up and you're repeating it and I have no idea what anyone is talking about. If I was involved, I think I'd know and I'd certainly acknowledge it as I don't feel I have anything to hide from.

So my *movement* from “target to target” is really just math and civics. Since I live in ASD and I actually started this site without intentionally naming ASD but using a video of their sign on this site's home page, it's not really an accurate characterization to say that I was attacking them. I was pointing out that there are those in the education system that aren't teaching our children what a republic is anymore. In fact I discovered that the state standards didn't even have the word listed anywhere K-12. Odd don't you think?

It wasn't till someone else's email made the rounds and I got a copy about how ASD had linked their website to a radical who called our Founding Fathers “predatory elitists” that their name ever appeared on this website. So clearly, the intention of this website, and thus myself, was not to attack ASD, but actually to go to some length NOT to mention them (which would have been very easy to list in the video on the main screen) and just to remain focused on changing the state standards to include the word Republic.

ASD dragged themselves into the public spotlight in their effort to enculturate our children with revisionist radical history.

I would still like you to provide me with some factual evidence that President Kimball was doing something that did not align with the principles that President Benson taught. And with all due respect, your grandmother's personal views don't count.

I'm glad that you agree that Goodlad's philosophies should not be taught in our schools.

You say, “One thing is for certain, hate speech often turns into violent actions, so I do believe that tolerance should be taught in regards to Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill, the handicapped, and homosexuals.”

Sounds good…until you start enforcing it in our educational and judicial establishments. Here are a couple of examples of discrimination (against Christians) that will result from “anti-discriminatory” hate crime laws:

Statement by David Parker (April 27, 2005):

“I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.

“We have officially stated on many occasions—to the Lexington school administration—a request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising “spontaneously”.

“Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested.”

Here's another, from World Net Daily (our own government has passed similar legislation in the United States)
Posted: July 16, 2008
9:28 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Christians will face prison for speaking out against homosexuality if Brazil's Senate passes a bill approved unanimously by its House of Representatives.
The measure is considered the country's newest attempt to promote homosexuality, disguised as an act to combat discrimination, the Catholic News Agency reports.
If anyone prevents actions of “homosexual affection” in public or private locations open to the public, they could face up to five years in prison for doing so, the Association of the Defense of Life reports.
The bill also seeks to penalize private and public school administrators with up to three years in prison if they refuse to hire openly “gay” teachers.
According to the CNA, the measure will force prison time for any “moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological expression that questions homosexual practices.”

And one more

“Dr. Mary Calderone, the first president of the Tennessee Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), called on educators to prepare children to step into a new world: “To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality.”

You agree that one set of values ought not to be taught exclusively in schools. On the other hand, you think that we should teach tolerance and sensitivity (Goodlad's philosophy) toward those, like homosexuals, who believe differently(also Goodlad's philosophy). When you stop teaching character, and start teaching morality, or “tolerance” of amorality, you are left with Christian “intolerance.” You can't have it both ways.

Are you SURE you've figured out who the wolf is?

One more thing…it's rather fuzzy logic to say that we should be tolerant of those who believe differently (like those who practice homosexuality and drink coffee), on one hand. And in the same conversation insist that,

“there might be some wisdom in Goodlad's quote. Maybe we need to instill some healthy values in our children since too many parents aren't doing this. How many children come from abusive and split homes? Too many! How many parents are hooked on drugs, drink alcohol, profane, commit adultery, and neglect their children? Too many! Do we want the children who grow up in these homes to adopt these corrupt values that they learn in home?

I could easily say to you, “Who are YOU to say that these parents, teaching their kids profanity, drug abuse, adultery and divorce is wrong? I can't believe how judgmental you are being!

Unless you can admit that there IS absolute truth, tolerance of anything and everything goes. It will end civil society as we currently know it. You can't have it both ways.

Oak, I think most of this discussion is missing the point. No one should be trying to either attack or defend Goodlad or Dewey. They are entitled to their beliefs, philosophies, and agendas. Everyone else is entitled to agree or disagree. The real question here isn’t whether Goodlad and Dewey are atheists, humanists, communists, socialists, or blood-drinking Satanists. The question is whether atheism, humanism, communism, socialism, or blood-drinking Satanism is being taught (directly or indirectly) to children in public schools as a matter of policy. I would argue that they are not, despite any connection the public schools have to Goodlad’s book of educational philosophy or organization.
Let me offer an example of why this is a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS church. He associates himself with and espouses all of the Christian moral codes of conduct and philosophies of that religion. As governor of Massachusetts, did his Mormonism seep down through the government and slowly influence everyone in that state to convert? Did his leadership cause Massachusetts’ Lt. Governor, legislature, judges, and other government officials to espouse his beliefs? Obviously not. However, you, Mr. Norton, have made the assertion that a person’s political and/or religious beliefs are some sort of viral contagion that must inevitably spread from person to person regardless of any individual choice or intellect. You assert that coming into contact with the beliefs of another person is like coming into contact with infected body fluid as you posted earlier:
“You may not question our local educators, but they aren’t questioning the national ones putting poison in the well. That poison does seep down and teachers who don’t study these issues and aren’t aware of creeping socialism/progressivism are slowing drinking the kool-aid that comes from John Goodlad’s and John Dewey’s progressive philosophy. Drinking it in will slowly poison them until they too believe the other false doctrine Mr. Goodlad espouses which was based on John Dewey’s philosophy that education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques “previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil.”
Really? I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. This sounds an awful lot like the kind of baseless diatribe that Sen. Joseph McCarthy spouted in the 1950s. McCarthy couldn’t show his evidence either. ASD’s current connection with Goodlad has been in place for several years. We should be seeing that “seep” by now. Give me the names of the teachers, administrators, and board members who are preaching humanism to the students. Show me the students who have turned aside from their parents’ religions, politics, or morals as a direct result of being educated in ASD. Open up that mysterious briefcase, Oak, and show me that you’re not just drumming up support for yourself and your own philosophies by tearing others down.
Let’s push your ideas a little, and see how far you’d be willing to take them. If, for example, you discovered that an English teacher (who was faithfully teaching the English State Core) was an atheist, socialist, or humanist, your philosophy suggests you would want them fired. That, then, would also have to apply if he or she was Buddhist, Muslim, or Jewish because that teacher’s political or religious views would seep down like poison in the well and convert the children in the class. The problem with that thinking is clear. If you would want that person fired (or if you would pull your child out of that teacher’s class and put them into a nice Christian Republican or Libertarian’s) simply because of the teacher’s personal beliefs, then you are walking down the path to the fascism. If you think the teacher could effectively teach English regardless of personal beliefs or politics, then you have to admit that your argument against the public school’s association with Goodlad and Dewey is on very shaky logical ground. Now, if you can show hard evidence that the teacher is pushing his or her personal views as some sort of subversive agenda, you may have a case. So, if you can show hard evidence that ASD, JSD, or BYU is systematically pushing Goodlad’s social-human-atheism on the teachers and students, let’s see it. If you can’t, you need to be forthright that you’re working from conjecture and hypothesis rather than fact.
Have you read the comments that people are leaving when they sign your petition? They think the evidence is there. They think the district and its employees are, in fact, part of a big conspiracy to poison the minds of the children. You’re creating a fervor, here, that is getting out of your control. This is the dangerous sort of McCarthyism that cost innocent people their jobs, reputations, and families in the 50s. This is the dangerous sort of paranoia that cost nineteen people their lives in 1692 Salem. I would advise you to pull back on the reigns. Stop dealing in fear, and start dealing in fact. Work on the changes you would like to see in the social studies curriculum or district mission statements through reasoned discourse rather than media and public innuendo. Realize that, intentionally or not, you are accusing, insulting, slandering, and maligning thousands of innocent, moral, and patriotic people. Realize that your invective is doing more harm than good. If your heart really is in the right place, reexamine your logic and your methods.

Oak, I think most of this discussion is missing the point. No one should be trying to either attack or defend Goodlad or Dewey. They are entitled to their beliefs, philosophies, and agendas. Everyone else is entitled to agree or disagree. The real question here isn’t whether Goodlad and Dewey are atheists, humanists, communists, socialists, or blood-drinking Satanists. The question is whether atheism, humanism, communism, socialism, or blood-drinking Satanism is being taught (directly or indirectly) to children in public schools as a matter of policy. I would argue that they are not, despite any connection the public schools have to Goodlad’s book of educational philosophy or organization.
Let me offer an example of why this is a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS church. He associates himself with and espouses all of the Christian moral codes of conduct and philosophies of that religion. As governor of Massachusetts, did his Mormonism seep down through the government and slowly influence everyone in that state to convert? Did his leadership cause Massachusetts’ Lt. Governor, legislature, judges, and other government officials to espouse his beliefs? Obviously not. However, you, Mr. Norton, have made the assertion that a person’s political and/or religious beliefs are some sort of viral contagion that must inevitably spread from person to person regardless of any individual choice or intellect. You assert that coming into contact with the beliefs of another person is like coming into contact with infected body fluid as you posted earlier:
“You may not question our local educators, but they aren’t questioning the national ones putting poison in the well. That poison does seep down and teachers who don’t study these issues and aren’t aware of creeping socialism/progressivism are slowing drinking the kool-aid that comes from John Goodlad’s and John Dewey’s progressive philosophy. Drinking it in will slowly poison them until they too believe the other false doctrine Mr. Goodlad espouses which was based on John Dewey’s philosophy that education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques “previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil.”
Really? I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. This sounds an awful lot like the kind of baseless diatribe that Sen. Joseph McCarthy spouted in the 1950s. McCarthy couldn’t show his evidence either. ASD’s current connection with Goodlad has been in place for several years. We should be seeing that “seep” by now. Give me the names of the teachers, administrators, and board members who are preaching humanism to the students. Show me the students who have turned aside from their parents’ religions, politics, or morals as a direct result of being educated in ASD. Open up that mysterious briefcase, Oak, and show me that you’re not just drumming up support for yourself and your own philosophies by tearing others down.
Let’s push your ideas a little, and see how far you’d be willing to take them. If, for example, you discovered that an English teacher (who was faithfully teaching the English State Core) was an atheist, socialist, or humanist, your philosophy suggests you would want them fired. That, then, would also have to apply if he or she was Buddhist, Muslim, or Jewish because that teacher’s political or religious views would seep down like poison in the well and convert the children in the class. The problem with that thinking is clear. If you would want that person fired (or if you would pull your child out of that teacher’s class and put them into a nice Christian Republican or Libertarian’s) simply because of the teacher’s personal beliefs, then you are walking down the path to the fascism. If you think the teacher could effectively teach English regardless of personal beliefs or politics, then you have to admit that your argument against the public school’s association with Goodlad and Dewey is on very shaky logical ground. Now, if you can show hard evidence that the teacher is pushing his or her personal views as some sort of subversive agenda, you may have a case. So, if you can show hard evidence that ASD, JSD, or BYU is systematically pushing Goodlad’s social-human-atheism on the teachers and students, let’s see it. If you can’t, you need to be forthright that you’re working from conjecture and hypothesis rather than fact.
Have you read the comments that people are leaving when they sign your petition? They think the evidence is there. They think the district and its employees are, in fact, part of a big conspiracy to poison the minds of the children. You’re creating a fervor, here, that is getting out of your control. This is the dangerous sort of McCarthyism that cost innocent people their jobs, reputations, and families in the 50s. This is the dangerous sort of paranoia that cost nineteen people their lives in 1692 Salem. I would advise you to pull back on the reigns. Stop dealing in fear, and start dealing in fact. Work on the changes you would like to see in the social studies curriculum or district mission statements through reasoned discourse rather than media and public innuendo. Realize that, intentionally or not, you are accusing, insulting, slandering, and maligning thousands of innocent, moral, and patriotic people. Realize that your invective is doing more harm than good. If your heart really is in the right place, reexamine your logic and your methods.

So Oak, would that radical history be like the history our “radical founding fathers” created, or the history you disagree with and therefore it is radical – just like I disagree with you so I am clearly a Liberal. Wait, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin were the real liberals- overthrowing a government and all. Even Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ were liberals. SO I guess I will take the Liberal comments as great compliments to be put into those men's company. Thank you.

Oak, It's good to see that you actually do have a sense of humor. I got a good chuckle out of this posting.
Seriously though, while you may not see what you are doing the way I do, I have seen in my lifetime how people can ignorantly or not mislead people down a path of evil. Your followers are sheep and they are misinterpreting your pronounced ideals into something that I feel I must stand up against. You yourself are claiming through your words that you know what is best and the decision makers are all inept compared to you. That is arrogance and arrogance always leads to destructive forces in society.
Now, as for Parley P. Pratt- your memory is not quite what I had hoped for. When the Daily Herald printed the article about how you believe there is a conspiracy in BYU and ASD, someone pointed out that you probably also believe that Mountain Meadows Massacre was a conspiracy. Your response said that if we understood what had happened to Parley P. Pratt we would know the truth of that event. It was that comment that made me come see what this site was all about and to speak out against the ignorance you have of what has actually happened in history.

Buffy, unlike you I research everything I can. My views of the world change as I gain new knowledge and insight into our world. I used to be prejudice against homosexuals until I actually stepped out of myself and saw that prejudice in any form is wrong. You are obviously quite passionate and emotional about the issue. I would argue that while homosexuals want to be treated as equal members in society, they have every right to do so. Mormons were once persecuted (still are in many parts of our country) and have no room to be attacking any other group of people. I am all for speaking out against sin- but homosexuality is the least of my concerns. I am more concerned about pornography, greed, distrust of other humans, and others. These are sins that affect more people than homosexuality ever will.
As for God rewarding us equally- you apparently think that “the same” and “equally” are identical. Equally means you treat each person according to who their are and what they deserve it does not mean give everyone exactly the same thing. Christ has always claimed that we will receive equal reward in God's eyes- look at most of his parables. I am guessing though, that you are obsessed with the Sodom and Gomorrah homosexuality and have missed out on other things in the Bible.

So are you saying you believe our Founding Fathers were predatory elitists?

Sounds like you are a homophobe. You would make Adolf Hitler proud. Perhaps you will build death camps as well?

So you deny having any involvement in the Lone Peak boundary dispute or the Investigations Math dispute?

I'd have to see the conversation in context to really remember it. Without the context, my recollection is something about them blaming Brigham Young for the MMM and if Parley came up, which I honestly don't recall this, but some of the members of the church were quite upset about the Missourians driving them out of their homes and perhaps the murder of Parley Pratt so they took revenge. Honestly I am at a loss to know what I would have said that you associated with me.

Regardless, if you enjoyed that humor, you should try my comic strip site.
http://www.weaponsofmathdestruction.com

It came out of the Investigations math era to help keep parents sane. Look for the voodoo doll comic. It's a caricature of ASD's superintendent and me. I gave him a signed copy which he appreciated. :)

It's good to know my “followers” are sheep. I'm sure none of them actually read the petition on their own and decided it was a good thing for Utah. Just heard “Oak Norton has a petition” and ran out to sign it. :)

Your clarifications of equally and “the same” are not clarifications, unless you are saying what I originally said, that God has unconditional love for everyone, but that His rewards are conditional. Can you give me a SPECIFIC example of a parable that teaches that everyone will receive “equal rewards”?

Also, I am glad that you are “for” speaking out against sin. But since you've decided that prejudice and judging are always wrong, I'm not clear when you would take the opportunity to do that…unless it involves those (like Oak) who have the courage to actually speak out. Your logic sends the mind in circles.

As for homosexual “acceptance” being the least of your concerns, please see my conversation with Lewis to find out why it should be.

“Now, if you can show hard evidence that the teacher is pushing his or her personal views as some sort of subversive agenda, you may have a case.”

If it doesn't really matter what philosophies teachers “subscribe” to, why is Jordan School District making it an important part of the resume criteria? Why is it important that applicants “Demonstrate leadership in promoting all facets of the BYU/JSD Partnership?” Wouldn't you be suspicious if one of the criteria were that you had demonstrated leadership in promoting Moromonism?

Oak has clearly shown that Goodlad has a subversive agenda. And now they are hiring teachers on the condition that they have “demonstrated leadership” in promoting it. Do you still need “hard evidence”? Or are you going to continue attacking Oak and ignoring the facts that are already presented?

So you agree that Christians should go to jail for resisting homosexual indoctrination?

Good grief Lewis. I've explained this twice already. I have no idea what the Lone Peak boundary issue even is. I don't have any children in Lone Peak, so no, I don't have any involvement in it.

Investigations math on the other hand, I've already acknowledged I was one of the main movers. I even started a comic strip as I just posted to Tupelo. http://www.weaponsofmathdestruction.com.

Unbelievable!

Finally, an answer that isn't 1000 words long.

Oak, you and your lackeys are the biggest group of emotional reactionaries that I will probably ever encounter in my life. Predatory elitists? Where on earth do you get that out of Tupelo's comment? It is true that all revolutionaries, including our founding fathers and other agents of change, are considered liberal by those who wish to preserve the status quo. Conservatism is where you wish for time to stand still and keep things the way they are or were. All government systems have their beginnings in liberal ideology and then switch to conservative mode to preserve power or ideologies. This is just simple Poly Sci 101. Your continued attack on the word “Democracy” is steeped in your stubbornness to admit that the lexicon of the word “Democracy” has changed since the 18th century. What the founding fathers regarded as Democracy in the 18th century is now called “Direct Democracy, Pure Democracy, or Athenian Democracy.” Just get over yourself and admit it! I'm not sure what you do for a living, but you aren't impressing anyone who has a thinking brain with your amateurish diatribes. It is quite obvious that you are a hack in matters of political science.

Buddhism actually has a precept that makes a lot of sense. In Buddhism it is regarded as self-destructive to obsess about the past and long for a mistaken perception that the past was some sort of utopia when in reality it wasn't. This is not 1776 or 1789. This is 2010 and our world is much more complex and complicated than our founding fathers ever imagined. In their wisdom, they left us with a living document, the Constitution, that maintains a degree of rigidity, but is flexible enough to be subject to judicial review and the amendment process to help our society adapt peacefully to the changes in the world and of society. Perhaps it will be amended out of its original intent and out of existence, but even Thomas Jefferson understood that when stated that, “Instead of considering what is past, however, we are to look forward and prepare for the future.”

Ummm, yes. Didn't you read the 3 examples? Answer the question.

Lewis,
1) “Predatory elitists” was a reference to the webpage that ASD linked to, not Tupelo's comments.
2) Nobody is arguing that the word “democracy” has changed in meaning. It has. It's widely accepted to mean something different than it did a couple hundred years ago.
3) The purpose of this site was to advocate that we not lose track of what a Republic is, since that IS our form of government and it is the only form of government mentioned in our founding documents.
4) (note, you can research this all you want but I'm going to really truncate the major points so please don't criticize me for not drawing all the connections) The reason the word “democracy” has caused a stir beyond item 2 is simply because ASD has in their professional development center a sign calling for “enculturating the young into a social and political democracy.” A social democracy is a transformation of society from capitalism to socialism. This phrase comes from John Goodlad who wants moral relativism. ASD has obviously bought into this philosophy because they linked to a radical mentioned in item 1 above where this William P. Meyers says “the Founding Fathers gave us a Republic but thankfully we're moving toward a Democracy.” He means a PURE democracy. The same thing John Goodlad and Bill Ayers want. The connection between these people is they want true democracy. I'm not saying ASD wants that (at least not to my direct knowledge), but they have bought into some other of Goodlad's bad philosophies without using their noggins like constructivist math, which is one glaring example of how Goodlad's group-think has been horribly involved in our children's lives.

If you disagree with this then we must agree to disagree. I really see little reason for you to waste either of our time in pointless discussion if you're just here to fill the comments section of these posts.

Actually, if a picture is worth 1000 words and there are over 100 pictures on that site, then that post could be over 100,000 words long. :)

Interesting that you decry conservatives. You say, “Conservatism is where you wish for time to stand still and keep things the way they are or were. All government systems have their beginnings in liberal ideology and then switch to conservative mode to preserve power or ideologies.” Sounds more like you. Now that we have slipped ever so slowly into being a socialistic society, you want to keep the status quo. You don't like us trying to change to a more free enterprise, capitalistic society. You don't want change from what we are now. Maybe, just maybe, today's conservatives, who are more in line with our Founding Father's philosophies, are really the liberals as they were. That of course would mean Democrats and Socialists are really conservatives trying to stop those of us who are trying to reestablish freedom based on personal responsibility, instead of the elite nobles in government guaranteeing everything and eventually, ruthlessly forcing it on everyone.

Interesting that you decry conservatives. You say, “Conservatism is where you wish for time to stand still and keep things the way they are or were. All government systems have their beginnings in liberal ideology and then switch to conservative mode to preserve power or ideologies.” Sounds more like you. Now that we have slipped ever so slowly into being a socialistic society, you want to keep the status quo. You don't like us trying to change to a more free enterprise, capitalistic society. You don't want change from what we are now. Maybe, just maybe, today's conservatives, who are more in line with our Founding Father's philosophies, are really the liberals as they were. That of course would mean Democrats and Socialists are really conservatives trying to stop those of us who are trying to reestablish freedom based on personal responsibility, instead of the elite nobles in government guaranteeing everything and eventually, ruthlessly forcing it on everyone.

I'm not so sure about “clearly.”

So everything is now in absolutes, either you agree with Goodlad or you are against him? How about with partly agreeing with him and partly disagreeing with him? I can understand your problems with Goodlad, but to supplant Goodlad completely with pure Christian dogma is basically doing the same thing that Goodlad wants to do, just different philosophies. You must be sensitive to people who challenge your thinking. Hurling insults? I haven't called you names. I've attacked your arguments, but I have not attacked you personally. In regards to your question: “Do you agree that Christians should go to jail for resisting “tolerance” education?” I can't really answer that question because you have not given an object to tolerance. Tolerance in regards to what? Are you referring to homosexuals and if so, what aspect of tolerance? Tolerate their existence, civil unions, or marriage? Also, exactly what do you mean by resist? Are you referring to peaceful resistance or violent resistance? If you can clarify your question, I then may be able to answer it.

I'm certainly not trying to keep the status quo, but I certainly don't want it replaced with something worse such as the theocratic dogma that Oak peddles. It is funny how you equate socialism with Democrats. Republicans have plenty of socialism of their own. If you are so capitalist, are you willing to give up the largest redistribution of wealth items on your tax forms: The child tax deduction and the mortgage deduction? A lot of Republicans like to say how capitalist they are, but they seem quite upset if they don't don't get those deductions that others must pay for.

Let's say the district has an agenda to brainwash our children to be mini-socialists. I have yet to see evidence of how that has translated into the classroom where the children are actually learning. Mottos and vision statements are a trendy thing that really means nothing to employees or children. Have you ever considered the possibility that nobody at the district level even knows what their motto actually means? If they aren't really pushing this agenda in the classroom, then why all the hullabaloo?

It's really not the same thing because I am not trying to force my Christian beliefs on anyone. Goodlad is. We've already agreed to the fact that no one particular view should be forced on anyone, though we are seeing evidence (in Massachusetts) that it is.

I will try to clarify my question one more time (Oh, and calling me a homophobe or insinuating that I'm a nazi, is hardly attacking my “arguments.”)

Do you agree that Christians should go to jail for peacefully resisting homosexual “tolerance” indoctrination? (indoctrination means “to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.”) So yes, that is the word I mean.

If Jordan school district isn't really pushing Goodlad's agenda, then why are they hiring teachers that “Demonstrate leadership in promoting all facets of the BYU/JSD Partnership?” Apparently they need more of this kind of influence. And you would go nuts and start a petition if they were hiring teachers who demonstrated leadership in promoting all facets of the Mormon faith. You and your lackeys and all the coffee drinkers would be making such a hullabaloo, we'd never hear the end of it.

Seriously. The EVIDENCE is right in front of you!

You are making the assumption that those young people being hired as teachers are viewing Goodlad and the BYU Partnership the same way as you do. Also, since BYU is a Mormon-run institution, there should be no difference in hiring those who promote all facets of the Mormon faith and those who espouse the BYU partnership. If BYU is promoting Goodlad, then the LDS chrurch is promoting Goodlad. Since I'm LDS, who am I to question the church leadership? If you are an active LDS member, who are you to question the church leadership?

Thank you for your clarification. Inserting the words peacefully and homosexual at least makes your question easier to answer. I'm not sure why you defined indoctrination. I'm quite aware of what that means. I fail to understand how homosexuals have been indoctrinating us. In reality, we are being indoctrinated by everyone and every group so why banning homosexual indoctrination while allowing other groups to have a free indoctrinating pass is okay just staggers the imagination. I wouldn't insinuate your Nazi like thinking if you didn't use their same political tactics of stifling the speech of one group in favor of the speech of another. I can't help but make the correlation. The last time I looked out my window, this was America where groups do have a right to vocalize their concerns and beliefs, no matter how much we don't like it. It is a part of living in a free society. It is obvious you have no tolerance of homosexuals so I it is a legitimate concern to understand your viewpoints. The point of this website is to change the district mission statement, but then one must ask, what ideology do you wish to use to indoctrinate the kids. Is it right to teach students to marginalize or abuse a segment of society (homosexuals) because of unfounded fear? That is what happened to the homosexuals in Nazi Germany as well as other groups. Once you start down this path, where will it stop?

To answer your question: If Christians or any group of people peacefully resists homosexual indoctrination, they should not go to jail. On the flip side, if homosexuals peacefully resist Christian indoctrination, then they should also not got to jail. I'm not sure why you are asking this question in the first place. I have not heard of Christians going to jail for peacefully resisting homosexual ideologies.

Now if you will reciprocate and answer my questions about your beliefs in regards to homosexuals. Should homosexual cohabitation be forbidden? Should homosexuals be denied the right to hospital visitations of their partners? Should homosexuals be incarcerated for engaging in sexual conduct with each other? Is homosexuality a choice or is it inborn? If homosexuality is a choice, why would so many choose to be unhappy since the suicide rate among homosexuals is quite high? If your own child said he/she was homosexual, would you ostracize or disown him/her?

P.S. Where on earth did you get the name “Buffy?”

NO, no. I am making the assumption that they DON'T view Goodlad and the BYU partnership the same way I do. Goodlad uses words and ideologies that don't make his intentions obvious. So he's going to have people promoting his views, either intentionally or ignorantly. It's going to do damage either way.

Also, we're not talking about who BYU hires. We are talking about who JSD is hiring. In fact, I think that someone could bring a discrimination law suit against them for hiring according to one particular ideology. Can you imagine the hullabaloo if they hired according to sexual orientation?!

As far as BYU hiring Goodlad…”even the elect can be deceived.” It is always our privilege and responsibility to discern our leadership. And even though they have been “called by church leadership”, there have been many leaders in the church who have fallen away.

Joseph Fielding Smith said, “An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be. . . .

I think I've got you figured out. When you realize you are wrong, you either
1. Insult people or
2. Change the subject

Why can't you just admit defeat and join Oak? We could use you :)

My mother.

I am glad that you agree that Christians should not go to jail for peacefully resisting homosexual “tolerance” indoctrination in schools.

And I'm especially glad that you thought it was a perplexing enough dilemma that you wanted me to offer a solution. I'd be happy to:

Teach character, not tolerance…I mean…homosexuality…I mean, “morality”. Oh, yeah, you already agreed with me on that too.

And, I am extraordinarily glad that you agree that John Goodlad's philosophies should not be exclusively taught in our schools.

Sounds like you and Oak have quite a bit in common…does that make you a lackey now?

And yes I will reciprocate, even though this is a completely different subject now. These are my personal views:
Should homosexual cohabitation be forbidden? Yes.
Should homosexuals be denied the right to hospital visitations of their partners? Of course not.
Should homosexuals be incarcerated for engaging in sexual conduct with each other? Yes. It is dangerous behavior and causes harm. Laws are made and enforced to protect people and society:

* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

* The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.” Fields, Dr. E. “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?” Marietta, GA.

Is homosexuality a choice or is it inborn? I think you always have a choice, no matter your dispositions.

If homosexuality is a choice, why would so many choose to be unhappy since the suicide rate among homosexuals is so high? I think the choice to succumb to that kind of disposition would be agonizing. I think that the self (or) other inflicted incriminations would be brutal. But I do believe that God can change any and all natures, including mine.

If your own child said he/she was homosexual, would you ostricize or disown him/her? Never. I would love them even more for having enough confidence in me to share something like that. I believe we are all down here to learn self-mastery and self-love and I would encourage them to cultivate both. I think these character traits grow hand in hand. I think we have to take responsibility for feeling good about ourselves and not blame others if we don't.

Where on earth did you get the name “Lewis?”

Since homosexuality is a choice, why not let them choose to shorten their life expectancy? Also, how do you plan on criminalizing homosexual sex? Placing a camera in everyone's bedrooms? Are you promoting an Orwellian type of government to monitor the sexual conduct of two consenting adults? What is next? Criminalizing unnatural sexual conduct between heterosexuals that certainly does not lead to conception? Also, isn't tolerance a “character” issue? Is it right to teach our children to marginalize and imprison people based upon private sexual conduct? You say that you would still love your children if they were admittedly homosexual. Do you love them enough to deny them some degree of happiness in finding a partner and living as normal of life as possible or do you love them so much that you would place them in prison to waste away in despair because they have same-sex attractions and desire sex just as much as the next person. Why should homosexuals be able to abstain when heterosexuals are unable to abstain. In conclusion, who really cares? In my long life, I've known of very few homosexuals. It seems they keep to their world, and I keep to mine. I don't feel threatened by them. I'm not going to turn gay because they might be in the same room. Why must they be discriminated against? Perhaps Goodlad is correct. Perhaps we should create a social democracy, because the version you are offering is downright scary and immoral in its own way.

I will never turn to the dark side!

I'm not trying to change the subject but probing deeper, because getting rid of one philosophy means that it will be supplanted by another. I'm under the assumption that Oak wishes to push his ideologies so therefore I'm trying to probe deeper in an effort to gain an understanding of his (and his followers) broader viewpoints. I'm a fervent believer of the separation of church and state and when someone pushes Christian views on those who are not Christian, my hair stands on end. I'm a Christian person but if one group is allowed to push their religious ideology, then it opens to the door for other groups to push their religious agendas in public schools. Do you really want to empower radical Islamic extremists to push their ideologies in public schools? That is exactly what will happen if it becomes legal for radical Christian ideologies to be promoted in public schools. For example, your support for the incarceration of those who engage in homosexual sex is one such example. That is the type of thing that they do in Iran, except they execute known homosexuals. Is a religious theocracy like that found in Iran something that you support? It seems like that to me.

Lewis, I have no idea where you're getting the notion I want to force Christian beliefs on everyone. I've never said that nor do I believe it's right. Removing the religious doctrine of humanism and replacing it with moral teachings is fine. If the stories were used out of the Bible, I'd have no problem with that, but nobody is advocating any type of religious teaching.

So, I am confused. I just read that Oak, you admit that the word “Democracy” has changed since the time of our Founding Fathers. You claim that you are fighting against ASD's mission statement. You claim that a 'social democracy' leads to socialism. You claim that Goodlad is trying to turn our society into socialism through public education.
So what is the BIG DEAL?
How are you connecting 'social democracy' to ASD? ASD's Mission Statement is “Educating All Students To Ensure The Future Of Our Democracy.” I don't see the word “Social” in there at all- do you? Obviously, ASD purposely did not include the word “social” for a reason. Yes Goodlad's Moral Principles do say “Enculturating the Young in a Social and Political Democracy” but you will clearly notice that ASD did not use that Moral principle word for word.
Claiming that Goodlad meant Socialism by using the word 'social' is ridiculous. I guess then every time my LDS ward uses the word 'social' in “ice cream social” they are also promoting Socialism. Maybe I should quit attending my church in case they are actually trying to enculturate me to socialism?
Can you imagine the outcry the people of Utah county would have if ASD had used the word “political” in connection to their mission statement? Good thing they avoided that one- otherwise the Board members might have been tarred and feathered if they did anything political.
Oak, you are a confusing man. I happen to agree with Tupelo that you are promoting FEAR and not TRUTH. You need to turn Glenn Beck off and read your scriptures more. You might realize that you should be focused on the positives going on in this world and not 'potential negatives' like ASD, BYU, and JSD are supporting socialism. Do you realize how many positive things are going on in our public schools? Can you see past your misperception to realize that Public schools are the only thing keeping our society as peaceful, harmonious, and tolerable as it is. We are a country of 300 million people and we some how come together on almost every issue there is. People like you and Glenn Beck and all those wacky radio personalities are tearing that unity apart. By creating emotional arguments and misstating facts people are living in fear that our world is falling apart due to small changes going on in our country. People in the LDS faith are not supposed to be tearing down our society but building it up. Public Education IS the foundation of our society. NO schools are not perfect and neither are the teachers (they are human after all)- but to tear down the only institution in our country that helps UNITE us is absurd. The people who have signed your petition don't really care about a Republic or not- they just want to destroy public education- Howard Stephenson, Gayle Ruzicka, Chris Buttars, etc. are great examples of my point.
Satan has attacked our homes and families forever so the next most important place for him to attack is our schools. The more you lead people away from supporting Public Education the more you allign yourself with the Adversary.

It sure sounds like Buffy is advocating Christian beliefs in our schools and since Buffy is one of your advocates, you therefore are promoting Christian beliefs. Isn't that the same type of logical fallacy you use to say that ASD is promoting socialism and Marxism–guilt by association?

Lewis, either you believe in right and wrong, and that it applies to everyone. Or you don't. If you believe that homosexuality and premarital sex and adultery are wrong, then they are wrong for everyone.

Or, you can take the opposing stance and say that right and wrong is whatever we decide that it is, and everyone can define that for themselves. If you take the latter stance, society is going to go down the toilet because even killing, theft, drug abuse, pedophilia, etc. will become “moral” based on somebody's personal view.

If you take the first, like our founding fathers did, you base law on morality (or absolute truth.) Did you know that there have been laws against homosexuality up until 1961? Did you know that there were laws and regulations against pre-marital sex until 1995? Did you know that adultery in Pennsylvania was punishable by up to 2 years in prison until 1972? Can you believe the audacity?! It's been nothing but mahem having these repressive Christian values on the books!

Either you believe in right and wrong, or you don't. You STILL can't have it both ways.

Bob, if you have something NEW to contribute to the conversation, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.

Lewis: “It sure sounds like Buffy is advocating Christian beliefs in our schools”

That's funny. I don't recall Buffy ever saying lets teach Christianity in our schools. Do you have a reference?

Bob, if you missed how ASD injected themselves into this issue, try reading this:
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/issue-news/asd-end…

Before ASD changed their motto to “Educating all Students to Ensure the Future of our Democracy,” they used to print the Goodlad phrase on all their district mailers. “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.”

If you saw the media storm and drew conclusions about what this site is about you really need to read more on this site. I suggest these pages.
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/democracy-media-fi…

Since you're LDS, why don't you compare Goodlad's phrases with Korihor's in Alma 30. They're birds of a feather. Hmmm, maybe studying the scriptures more to recognize these things IS a good thing since the Book of Mormon was *written for OUR day* right?

That's pretty funny you'd say Howard Stephenson & others want to destroy public education. I'll side with Howard any day of the week. He's tried to raise teachers salaries for years. If it wasn't for Howard we wouldn't have gotten the state math standards raised a couple years ago. Howard is perhaps the best advocate for BETTER education in this state.

BTW, just because Christians embraces absolute truth, the same truth that the laws have been founded on, doesn't mean they are forcing Christianity on everyone else. You can find absolute truth in many religions.

Owning a company and having a division that does things under their own division leadership is common. The church may own BYU but the departments are independent of the church. What BYU's education department does is quite independent of the church.

Holy cow Lewis, how many times are you going to talk about theocratic stuff? Nobody is espousing we start teaching theology in schools. As for the parties, you bet the republicans have socialists among them. I've criticized them plenty the last several years. As for redistribution of wealth, it's not the child tax deduction or mortgage deduction, it's the child tax credit that is a refundable credit even when you haven't paid taxes. That's redistribution of wealth. Give to those who have children that DON'T PAY taxes.

Try the constructivist Investigations math. Group work, low skills, low challenge, process oriented instead of result oriented, high on equality, promoted by…Goodlad. :)

Are you LDS Lewis? Do you believe the Book of Mormon was written for our day? Why is Korihor’s story there if not to expose the humanists such as Dewey and Goodlad. They are shining examples of his doctrine.

As for Howard, you clearly don’t understand the nature of lobbying. When you are a member of the legislature and lobby the legislature and vote on legislation you are lobbying for, that would clearly be a conflict of interest. But Howard is not a lobbyist to the legislative branch. He is a lobbyist to the executive branch and so his actions in the legislature do not fall into the same conflict of interest. How many other people have access to speak with the governor and actually register as lobbyists. Clearly, Howard is among those following the rules most stringently by publicly announcing his intention, whilst those who fail to register are clearly the ones in the wrong.

Are you saying Goodlad doesn’t fit the mold? Isn’t an anti-Christ? He’s an avowed atheist and humanist.

Alma 30:17 “[Korihor]…telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength;…”

Humanism is the elevation of man over deity. The belief that there is no God, but just what the senses can detect. There is no plan for man, only how man fares in life according to the intelligence and strength of the individual. Not only that, but just like Korihor who had an agenda to spread to the populace, so today John Dewey had an agenda to spread using the education system as the vehicle of transmission. Goodlad follows in Dewey’s footsteps.

As I’ve said before, it’s not like everything he says is wrong. Much of it is just fine. It’s the fact that he has a stated agenda to push children away from parents, and steer children toward humanism. If you don’t believe or accept that, we just really disagree. I encourage you to read the quotes posted on this page again:
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/democracy-media-fiasco/

There’s really not anything else to discuss about this.

It is our perception that I'm backed into a corner, but I certainly don't feel like it. I'm quite aware there were laws against all sorts of “sex crimes.” However, most states never enforced those laws since you would have half of the population behind bars. Nobody said that I was trying to have it both ways, but the world is full of gray areas and everything is not in absolutes or black and white. This notion of either “you are with us or you are against us” is silly and indicates two dimensional thinking. Of course, as you accuse me of not answering your questions, you apparently could not answer any of the questions I asked in my previous post. Perhaps they would reveal your true nature.

I'm not surprised! You seem to always read and remember those thing that you want to see and hear. Perhaps you need to reread the posts. Buffy is pretty much all about Christianity versus the world.

Now Goodlad is being compared to Korihor? Give me a break! As my old BYU history professor used to say in response to ridiculous things, “Jesus, come quick and save us!”

Howard Stephenson is the epitome of ethical corruption. Isn't it wrong to be a sitting legislator and concurrently run a lobby group “The Utah Taxpayers Association” that actively solicits and influences state law in the legislature. If that isn't a conflict of interest, what is?

So the education department at BYU is completely independent of BYU? I find it hard to believe that the church would allow a pariah department to run amuck, completely unnoticed for all these years. Have you tried contacting the church to let them know that an anti-christ (Korihor)(Goodlad) is spreading falsehoods on their very flagship campus? You have it all figured out don't you? I'm actually laughing so hard that my sides hurt.

When you say Christians are you referring to Mormons because many Christian faiths don't believe Mormons are Christians? How does that fit in the pursuit of truth?

I think there is a big difference in someone who doesn't believe in Christ and an an agent of Satan, an anti-Christ. Adolf Hitler is an anti-Christ, not John Goodlad. Personally attacking John Goodlad in this manner is extreme at best. Yes, I'm LDS and a former BYU student, but I consider myself to be a rationale LDS person who believes in being “in” the church but not “of” the church. I can keep my head more clear if I don't sell my soul to a group of people who blend politics and church together to further a personal political agenda. It may sometimes come off that I'm not LDS but that is because I challenge the thinking of my peers.

I fervently believe in a separation of church and state. It is ironic how Republicans believe that the Democrats want to dismantle our right to bear arms, but at the same time Republicans want to blur the lines between the separation of church and state. Public schools are government entities, and no matter how much I would like to see the values I personally believe in (Christian values) taught in public schools, it isn't appropriate under our Constitution. Why not find shared values among various groups and religions and call it character education?

Do you seriously believe that the Utah Taxpayer Association doesn't have any influence over the legislative branch? Are you aware that the Executive Branch does have the power to sign a bill into a law or veto a law, so that even though the Utah Taxpayer Association may only solicit the Executive Branch, they can still influence legislation? Apologize all you want for Howard Stephenson, but this state has real problem with unethical conduct and with people such as you making excuse for it. I also want to get rid of the Caucus system. Delegates are democratically elected with caucus meetings often being overrun by a mob of people who, in the meeting I attended, booed and hissed and intimidated a fellow conservative who had the fault of being a teacher. You are right that pure democracy can lead to mob rule and that is exactly was is happening in Utah. I am assuming that you support an end to the caucus system because of its democratic nature? Even Carl Wimmer pointed out a weakness in the caucus system by suggesting that Republicans crash the Democratic caucus. Isn't that an example of a mob?

The UTA certainly does have influence in the legislature, but Howard isn't a paid lobbyist to the legislature.

As for caucuses, Wimmer's point was that for years the Democrats have been telling the Republicans they needed to have “open caucuses” so anyone could come vote. That's stupid. Wimmer's comment, although not one I support, merely points out this fact and takes advantage of the Dems open caucus. The parties should put forth their own delegates and candidates and not make caucuses open.

Lewis, an anti-Christ isn't just someone who is very publicly denounced as evil. Korihor had free reign to go around preaching to people. He wasn't putting anyone to death. He was a normal citizen with an agenda to get people to stop believing in God. It was ancient humanism the same as modern day humanism. Read Elder Christofferson's talk from last conference. Why did he feel the need to share this doctrine? I don't think it was for modern day Hitlers.

Did you read my writeup on the separation of church and state? Just curious. I'd like to know your definition of it since that phrase doesn't appear in the constitution or founding documents.

So Oak, you once again Cherry pick from a book- this time it is Alma.
Alma 30 versus 9 and 11: “Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him. . . For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.”
You would have us treat Goodlad and Dewey as criminals and evil men like Korihor and yet you miss obvious doctrine in the same scripture. The above quote shows you cannot do this- at least if you believe that the BofM was written for our times, otherwise why would this scripture be in there? Those men committed no crime and yet you condemn them to hell for promoting ideas you disagree with.
Also, your notion of Humanism is inaccurate. It is not meant to put man above god but show the glory of man- God's greatest creation. Without Humanism Europeans would have never left the Dark ages. It is the celebration of man. Yes, it can lead to some people feeling they are superior or equal to God but that does not mean that all followers of Humanistic ideals feel that way. The early notions of Humanism were started by the Ancient Greeks. Your attack on this philosophy shows your limited understanding of history. By attacking Humanism you are basically all of Western civilization- including your beloved Republic (Greek idea also).
Of course if you want to argue that words- like Humanism or Democracy- can have their meanings change over time, then I guess you could say any word can have multiple meanings and intentions based on the perception of the reader of that word. And therefore your whole premise of this website is based on nothing.

Oak, is Buffy your wife? Maybe Howard Stephenson is your bedfellow instead. I can't tell who you are more in love with.
Stephenson has not ever been a friend of education. Talk about indoctrinating our youth into misled beliefs. He does not care about teachers and has actually tried to pass many laws that hurt our teachers not help them. My friends and neighbors who are involved in education have been harmed by Stephson many times. He has personally told me that public education is a monopoly that needs to be broken. How is a comment like that helping education in anyway? Like Bob said below, anyone who attacks public education is an enemy to the people of our state and country. I know public education is not perfect, but it needs to be improved not torn down like Stephenson wants. If we have an uneducated people, we will be like every other 3rd world country in the world.
Stephenson has also helped pass the tax cuts that mostly harmed public education and other public works but benefited legislators and their pet projects- which Stephenson has many of. He support the notion of steal from the poor to feed the rich. Keep defending this man and his selfishness and greed- it only shows what kind of person you are.

Tupelo, I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong. Go research the humanist manifesto that Dewey was one of the original signers of. Goodlad has been a keynote speaker at John Dewey conferences and has won the John Dewey award. They are birds of a feather.

If the whole premise of this website is based on nothing, why is it of any interest to you to post here? Obviously it's striking a chord or you'd just ignore it.

Lewis, are you changing the subject again? Where exactly is the gray line between
1. There is absolute truth that applies to everyone. And
2. There's no such thing as absolute truth, so we can all define our own morality, according to our own “perceptions”?

Buffy, get over the change the subject thing. I'm simply responding to other posts and use a variety of examples or situations to make my point. If you want to go back and re-read your own posts, you will see that you have done the same thing. I'm simply trying to ferret out the political and religious beliefs of those who wish to supplant one ideology with their own. Believe me, I don't want our kids to be taught to be god-less socialists but I so don't want them to be taught to be religious oligarchs either.

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That is your separation of church and state and our Supreme Court, also created by the Constitution, has the duty to review all laws, and our Supreme Court has shown time and time again through precedent that there is a separation between church and state. Obviously, our laws are going to be filled with Christian values because most people are Christian, but to discriminate against groups of people or teach students values straight of a particular religious text is flirting with preferring one religion over another–something our framers did not want our government involved with. This is a republic, not a theocracy.

So you are saying that Stephenson has not financially benefited by one cent through having a “controlling” interest in the UTA? The UTA has never weighed in on the charter school debate, whose very creation has benefited Stephenson and his family personally? Stephenson may be within the bounds of the law, but those laws ought to be changed. A legislator should not be in the business of passing legislation that can personally benefit him/her down the road–something that seems to happen quite a lot in Utah. That, my friend, is unethical. Like Bennett, Stephenson has been in office too long and needs to be tossed out.

Lewis, are you changing the subject AGAIN? YOU said,

“the world is full of gray areas and everything is not in absolutes or black and white.”

Where exactly is the gray line between
1. There is absolute truth that applies to everyone. And
2. There's no such thing as absolute truth, so we can all define our own morality, according to our own “perceptions”?

You won't answer it because there are no gray areas here. You either want absolute truth taught in our schools and protected by the laws, or you want amorality (the idea that there is no absolute truth) to be the ruling philosophy. You can't have it both ways.

Check mate.

Is it really showing up in Greek? Mine is all English. How do I fix that?!

Oak, I am not wrong about Humanism or anything else I have written here. You just don't like anything that goes against your personal interpretations- so you call them wrong. Everything you have ever posted on here has proven that! You refuse to look outside yourself and see that you might be wrong on some things. Your arrogance is amazing.
Your words make the claim that you know more than the Church leadership does. You claim that BYU's education Dept. is being misled by Goodlad and Dewey and only YOU know the truth. You want to stick to your interpretation of Benson's quotes as proof that BYU is now lost to the Dark side. You want to push your version of truth as truth even when people closer to God than you don't agree with you. If that doesn't qualify YOU as Korihor, I don't know what does. Your words do prove that you know what this world is supposed to be and BYU- which is run by the Church leadership ultimately, doesn't know the Lord's plan. Have you gone to the Church about this issue? I am betting they will have a very different interpretation than you do.

As I once pointed out before, the Gospel is true no matter what form of government or economy people live under. Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be. A Democracy (direct or not) is not the great evil you believe it to be. The 12th Article of Faith proves this. The great evil in this world is those who wish to lead others down a path of fear and anger. I have seen how you have accomplished this with your little group of petition signers.

The only chord your website has struck in me, is that I saw an ignorant and self-righteous man misleading people for his own personal ego trip.

One other thing, on a personal note, …and then I will not be responding because I feel that I've said my peace. Though you like to insist that things are gray, the world is quickly polarizing into black and white and you won't always enjoy the leisure of being “in” the church but not “of” it.

Just after Joseph Smith died, the Council of the Twelve said,

“As this work progresses in its onward course, and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interest, . . . no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual, will stand neutral. All will . . . be influenced by one spirit or the other; and will take sides either for or against the kingdom of God.”

Which side will you be on, Lewis?

Do teachers who are in the legislature have a conflict of interest when education related issues come up? Do they excuse themselves from a vote? No way. They're voting for teachers. Everyone who is in the legislature is subject to things that may or may not benefit themselves.

As for charter schools and Stephenson, I think you've got the wrong person. Howard has no involvement financially with charter schools.

Tupelo: “Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be.”

You've said it all right there Tupelo. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

Lewis, note who the first amendment is limiting. “Congress.” The U.S. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's the separation. The federal body has no right to dictate anything that has to do with religion. That's where Pelosi stepped over the line telling the Catholics to start talking about immigration reform. Where people get into trouble is when they say a church has no right to express political views. They have every right to free speech as an organization that a person does. Individuals can espouse anything they want to. If you didn't read my other reply to you when we were discussing Franklin and the other Founders and that they were not mostly deists, then you missed how Massachusetts and Connecticut actually HAD state religions when Jefferson wrote his famous and mis-interpreted letter to his minister friend in Danbury, CT.

Another part of the constitution that talks about religion is article 6 that says there shall be no religious test for office. This comes from the horrid influence of the Church of England which you had to be a member of to hold political office in England. That essentially meant you had no freedom of conscience in order to hold office since you had to subscribe to their beliefs.

Lastly Jefferson clearly understood that the 10th amendment was in play on this issue as well. Religion itself was not authorized in article 1 section 8 as one of the enumerated powers so the 10th amendment would specifically forbid the federal government from doing anything related to religions and Jefferson would have viewed it as a state right.

I keep saying over and over that I am not advocating that we teach any particular theology in schools, but technically, it would be up to a state to do it if they wanted. Congress and the federal government are the bodies under limitation. Jefferson knew this because as state governor he signed a bill for a day of prayer and fasting but when he was president he wouldn't because he believed it would violate these points since it was a religious issue that would emanate from the federal body. As president he did nothing and said nothing against MA and CT that had state religious laws because that was acceptable to him. It was a state right.

Today, nobody is going to advocate a state religion (OR again teaching a particular set of beliefs in schools), but it is quite misunderstood when people say a church can't say anything about government. People view the “wall” as 2 way but it's not. It prevents federal action on religion but prevents no one else from speaking out on any issue that may be related to politics (ie. the LDS church had every right to speak out on Proposition 8 and were under no limitation).

Buffy, get over the change the subject thing. I'm simply responding to other posts and use a variety of examples or situations to make my point. If you want to go back and re-read your own posts, you will see that you have done the same thing. I'm simply trying to ferret out the political and religious beliefs of those who wish to supplant one ideology with their own. Believe me, I don't want our kids to be taught to be god-less socialists but I so don't want them to be taught to be religious oligarchs either.

I'm not sure where to find your write-up, Oak.

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That is your separation of church and state and our Supreme Court, also created by the Constitution, has the duty to review all laws, and our Supreme Court has shown time and time again through precedent that there is a separation between church and state. To pass laws based on one particular religions set of values could in effect be endorsing or establishing a religion in a de facto manner. This is a very touchy subject since there are so many different religious beliefs in America. Obviously, our laws are going to be filled with Christian values because most people are Christian, but to discriminate against groups of people or teach students values straight of a particular religious text is flirting with preferring one religion over another–something our framers did not want our government involved with. This is a republic, not a theocracy.

So you are saying that Stephenson has not financially benefited by one cent through having a “controlling” interest in the UTA? The UTA has never weighed in on the charter school debate, whose very creation has benefited Stephenson and his family personally? Stephenson may be within the bounds of the law, but those laws ought to be changed. A legislator should not be in the business of passing legislation that can personally benefit him/her down the road–something that seems to happen quite a lot in Utah. That, my friend, is unethical. Like Bennett, Stephenson has been in office too long and needs to be tossed out.

Lewis, are you changing the subject AGAIN? YOU said,

“the world is full of gray areas and everything is not in absolutes or black and white.”

Where exactly is the gray line between
1. There is absolute truth that applies to everyone. And
2. There's no such thing as absolute truth, so we can all define our own morality, according to our own “perceptions”?

You won't answer it because there are no gray areas here. You either want absolute truth taught in our schools and protected by the laws, or you want amorality (the idea that there is no absolute truth) to be the ruling philosophy. You can't have it both ways.

Check mate.

Oak, I am not wrong about Humanism or anything else I have written here. You just don't like anything that goes against your personal interpretations- so you call them wrong. Everything you have ever posted on here has proven that! You refuse to look outside yourself and see that you might be wrong on some things. Your arrogance is amazing.
Your words make the claim that you know more than the Church leadership does. You claim that BYU's education Dept. is being misled by Goodlad and Dewey and only YOU know the truth. You want to stick to your interpretation of Benson's quotes as proof that BYU is now lost to the Dark side. You want to push your version of truth as truth even when people closer to God than you don't agree with you. If that doesn't qualify YOU as Korihor, I don't know what does. Your words do prove that you know what this world is supposed to be and BYU- which is run by the Church leadership ultimately, doesn't know the Lord's plan. Have you gone to the Church about this issue? I am betting they will have a very different interpretation than you do.

As I once pointed out before, the Gospel is true no matter what form of government or economy people live under. Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be. A Democracy (direct or not) is not the great evil you believe it to be. The 12th Article of Faith proves this. The great evil in this world is those who wish to lead others down a path of fear and anger. I have seen how you have accomplished this with your little group of petition signers.

The only chord your website has struck in me, is that I saw an ignorant and self-righteous man misleading people for his own personal ego trip.

One other thing, on a personal note, …and then I will not be responding because I feel that I've said my peace. Though you like to insist that things are gray, the world is quickly polarizing into black and white and you won't always enjoy the leisure of being “in” the church but not “of” it.

Just after Joseph Smith died, the Council of the Twelve said,

“As this work progresses in its onward course, and becomes more and more an object of political and religious interest, . . . no king, ruler, or subject, no community or individual, will stand neutral. All will . . . be influenced by one spirit or the other; and will take sides either for or against the kingdom of God.”

Which side will you be on, Lewis?

Do teachers who are in the legislature have a conflict of interest when education related issues come up? Do they excuse themselves from a vote? No way. They're voting for teachers. Everyone who is in the legislature is subject to things that may or may not benefit themselves.

As for charter schools and Stephenson, I think you've got the wrong person. Howard has no involvement financially with charter schools.

Tupelo: “Socialism is not the great evil you believe it to be.”

You've said it all right there Tupelo. You and I will have to agree to disagree.

Lewis, note who the first amendment is limiting. “Congress.” The U.S. Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That's the separation. The federal body has no right to dictate anything that has to do with religion. That's where Pelosi stepped over the line telling the Catholics to start talking about immigration reform. Where people get into trouble is when they say a church has no right to express political views. They have every right to free speech as an organization that a person does. Individuals can espouse anything they want to. If you didn't read my other reply to you when we were discussing Franklin and the other Founders and that they were not mostly deists, then you missed how Massachusetts and Connecticut actually HAD state religions when Jefferson wrote his famous and mis-interpreted letter to his minister friend in Danbury, CT.

Another part of the constitution that talks about religion is article 6 that says there shall be no religious test for office. This comes from the horrid influence of the Church of England which you had to be a member of to hold political office in England. That essentially meant you had no freedom of conscience in order to hold office since you had to subscribe to their beliefs.

Lastly Jefferson clearly understood that the 10th amendment was in play on this issue as well. Religion itself was not authorized in article 1 section 8 as one of the enumerated powers so the 10th amendment would specifically forbid the federal government from doing anything related to religions and Jefferson would have viewed it as a state right.

I keep saying over and over that I am not advocating that we teach any particular theology in schools, but technically, it would be up to a state to do it if they wanted. Congress and the federal government are the bodies under limitation. Jefferson knew this because as state governor he signed a bill for a day of prayer and fasting but when he was president he wouldn't because he believed it would violate these points since it was a religious issue that would emanate from the federal body. As president he did nothing and said nothing against MA and CT that had state religious laws because that was acceptable to him. It was a state right.

Today, nobody is going to advocate a state religion (OR again teaching a particular set of beliefs in schools), but it is quite misunderstood when people say a church can't say anything about government. People view the “wall” as 2 way but it's not. It prevents federal action on religion but prevents no one else from speaking out on any issue that may be related to politics (ie. the LDS church had every right to speak out on Proposition 8 and were under no limitation).