In 6 years of asking the district to change the motto/slogan, nothing has changed. Then in February of this year we found that ASD had linked their official website to a radical nut job. The district got properly slammed for posting that link (and not even by me to begin with). When that hit the press, a few hundred people showed up at a school board meeting and asked that the sign be pulled down and questioned why the district linked themselves to an open radical. One individual spoke about what a republic was to teach the board. It was not aggressive, it was genuine concern. The board had a *very easy way out* but the majority on the board didn't want to change it. If they had changed it, the entire ASD controversy would have washed away in an instant. We'd have said “thank you very much” and gone about our business. I have offered olive branches several times before and they continually get tossed out the window.

Lewis, you never showed up at this website till the Daily Herald ran a story they made up which consisted of them saying I was accusing BYU and ASD of a socialist conspiracy. You can't find one place where I've ever accused either institution of a conspiracy. The DH made that up to sensationalize a story. The moment that story hit I published a denial and the truth of what I had said.

When BYU dropped their association with the NNER a couple months ago, I did take some credit for the collective actions from several people which I believed brought who Goodlad was to light, and thus caused the McKay School of Education to drop their association with him. It wasn't a gloat fest, it was acknowledging our efforts were successful. When BYU said they dropped it for financial reasons I could care less why they dropped it. If Caleb had called me back and said they claimed it was for financial reasons, I would have changed my statement to say, “regardless of the reason, I'm glad they're dropping it.” It is also very unfortunate that in that same article on BYU dropping the NNER, someone from the MSE strongly endorsed Goodlad.

Lewis, this is the last post I'm going to allow on this thread. This is getting ridiculous.

Yes, the phrase (motto) is troubling, but look at the school board. They are made up of individuals who are not trained in politics, government, or history either. They are just simple community members, similar to what you would find sitting on charter school boards. The same goes for the BYU's Dept of Education. They know education theories, but are weak in politics, history, and government. BYU dropped the program, stating they respect and support Goodlad, and blamed money as the culprit for the change. Of course, I don't believe that. I think you woke them up (BYU) to reality, but they found a way out without looking bad. The ASD School Board has not found a way out without egg on their faces and you need to give them a way to gracefully exit their support for Goodlad, but I don't believe you will give them a graceful way out of the predicament, which is why they don't drop it. Like any cornered animal, they will fight back and get extremely defensive. Think about it, Oak! If ASD dropped Goodlad's organization and blamed doing so on BYU's dropping of Goodlad rather than concede to you, would you let them? …or would you brag and gloat that you won? You credited yourself for BYU's about face on Goodlad, which caused some consternation at BYU and provoked a defensive reaction among some. Again, this time around, would you and supporters behave with civility and professionalism, or would continue to attack and celebrate? If ASD agreed to drop Goodlad and in return you would not gloat and declare victory, but drop the issue, would you do it? I think that is the problem. You won't give ASD the breathing room to make the change, that is possibly why this has gone on so long. Perhaps you need to offer an olive branch and help them find a way out and agree to tone down the rhetoric. ASD school board members were most likely guilty of being ignorant and they thought they were doing the right thing by aligning with BYU–a pretty safe and conservative thing to do in a conservative community. You have to give them some credit there. They are not bad people, they are not socialists or anti-Republic, they just got caught up in something they didn't fully understand. Treat the issue as such and you might get better results.

I've worked in the business world long enough to know that mission statements and motos are cute, frilly little things to justify why management and the bureaucracy gets a paycheck. It rarely translates to the employees or impacts their behavior. You have provided not one iota of evidence to this end. You have no district memo or email instructing teachers to brainwash kids to be Marxist socialists. In fact, most teachers didn't know the motto at all until you started complaining about it, which just had the effect of the motto being placed in more and more schools in order to spite you. You have had no teachers come forward and blow the whistle on the Marxist/Democracy conspiracy in ASD. This whole thing is a mountain being made out of a molehill. No matter what the district chooses as the motto, teachers are required by law to teach the state core curriculum and could care less what the School Board wastes their time doing until it directly interferes with them and their instruction. I know several teachers who would be kicking and screaming if they were forced to indoctrinate kids in the manner you are intimating. You know what I'm saying is true.

As for your other comments, there is no such thing as the rule of one or the rule of many. It may start that way but it's always going to morph into the rule of a few. A king has his counselors and the masses always have people that emerge from that mob-rule promising them justice and equity. The rule of law is the only thing that protects the freedoms of the people from the rule of man and right now we are being rapidly moved toward the rule of man in this country by the things being taught by Ayers, Goodlad and others who are in favor of moral relativism.

As for Alpine District teaching these things which you keep asking for proof of, I have a 40 foot sign on a wall that reads, “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.” Every teacher that walks into the professional development center for training sees that socialist sign. They become indoctrinated further by those at the district who continue to espouse Goodlad in their training.

When it comes to teaching students about forms of government, I would rather have them know that variations and nuances of government systems rather than it is either “one or the other.” That is more akin to indoctrination than real critical thinking and analysis. In fact, each form of governance has strengths and weaknesses depending on objectives. We can go further by suggesting that certain economic systems are a natural or better fit with certain government types.

As far as the Bible being full of examples of Republic forms of government, I beg to differ. The Bible is loaded with Kings and tyrants, that episodically or temporarily grant some some democratic freedoms or some form of hybrid governance, but that is the extent of it. One must not also forget that yes, we live in a Republic, but that Republic incorporates many principles of democracy in that people are given the power to elect their representatives. While pure democracy is a bad thing, limited democracy, underpinning our Republic, is a good thing. Without limited and controlled democracy supporting our Republic and providing a system of checks on our elected officials, we would turn into an oligarchy that mimics real, functioning Republics where voters get to choose from a slate of candidates that were “pre-approved” by those who are in power. The Islamic Republic of Iran (A Theocratic Oligarchy) for instance, holds those types of elections. We have seen this same type of thing crop up in Utah with the state school board election process that even Gov. Herbert called “screwy.” We have to be careful in safeguarding our Republic and support true democratic process that allow our Republic to function, otherwise our Republic will be corrupted like Rome and quickly descend into either totalitarianism or oligarchy.

I sometimes wonder whether Oak is attacking just “pure democracies” which is okay, or attacking the democratic process, which is not okay with me, and what I consider to be dangerous to our Republic. I think his insistence on just using the word “democracy” in his attacks is troublesome because in today's world, “democracy” is a general term that encompasses our democratic institutions that make our Republic possible. If he would be more specific and would sharpen his language on Athenian style democracy, direct democracy, or pure democracy he would gain more traction with readers and the community at large. It would be better to confront the ASD schoool board of embracing “direct democracy” as Goodlad, Dewey, and Ayers have done in promoting a socialist agenda.

Using the phrase “direct democracy” versus just “democracy” would help more people learn the distinction and make the argument against the district motto more palpable to a public that generally believes Oak wants some sort of a corrupt Republic without Democratic underpinnings where voters' freedom to choose elected officials become routine exercises that have no real worth.

That is my concern and that is the concern of many of my friends in colleagues and why we believe this movement to be just as dangerous to our Republic as the “socialists” out there.

Do you still “highly doubt clergy will have to perform gay marriages?”