Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You just have to read this astonishingly ridiculous column by Pat Boone at the Worldnutdaily. It's a hypothetical conversation between (presumably) Boone and Thomas Jefferson and it is so ridiculous that it can only be laughed at. Like this patently false claim:
"I see. Then, again, I'm embarrassed to tell you that you're not given much attention in our country any more, quoted very seldom, and all but erased from the history books provided to our school children. Most of us adults knew of you and George Washington and Ben Franklin and John Adams and our other Founding Fathers quite well. We learned about the Boston Tea Party, 'taxation without representation,' the 'midnight ride of Paul Revere,' and the passionate determination of our citizens to free. But our kids aren't being taught about those things today.""And why is that?"
"It's hard to say exactly, Mr. Jefferson, but we have teacher organizations that make the decisions about what will be taught, and what won't ... and they've decided that their new ideas of what America ought to be are more important now than how we actually came to be a free and independent democracy."
Flat wrong on both counts. What high school history textbook is he reading that doesn't mention taxation without representation, Paul Revere or the revolution against King George? I suspect these mythical books exist in the same bizarro universe where teacher's unions write the curriculum, which certainly isn't the universe the rest of us inhabit. Curriculum is written by state and local school boards and legislatures, not by teacher's organizations.
The stupidity continues:
"You're telling me that the teachers of today find our intentions, our sacrifices and our purposes of so little consequence that the younger generation doesn't need to know about them? How do they expect to preserve what we created? What will be their guide?""Oh, their newer ideas, more recent philosophies, what other countries and societies are doing. One of our most recent Supreme Court justices - a woman, which might surprise you, Mr. Jefferson - actually suggested we should learn from legal decisions and positions in Europe and try to conform to them."
"In Europe? Don't they realize it was precisely the conformist, humanist, even dictatorial philosophies of Europe we wanted to be free of? That America was intentionally founded on unique precepts that could guarantee the God-endowed rights of man and not dictate them? We worked hard and prayerfully to erect a structure that upheld the will and independence of the citizens, a system of law that enabled people to feel secure, yet equal on every level of society. Europe never knew that, nor did any previous nation. It's all spelled out specifically in the Constitution! Do these modern teachers disregard that document now?"
The notion that Jefferson, a renowned Francophile, would claim that the American revolution was a reaction to the "philosophies of Europe" is simply ridiculous. Jefferson knew what Boone clearly does not, that the ideas upon which he drew were, in fact, European philosophies. The men whose ideas they cited - Montesquieu, John Locke, Sidney, Hobbes - were all Europeans, for crying out loud.
And the notion that the ideas they rejected were "humanist" is even more ridiculous. What was the primary idea that the American revolution rejected? The divine right of kings. Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment, the primary period that saw the flowering of humanism precisely in response to the centuries of Christian governments in Europe. Boone's ignorance of history is boundless.
"Well, many of us feel they're not exactly ignoring the Constitution; they and some activists and even some judges on every level of our judicial system are reinterpreting it, warping it to conform to their own ideas of what they'd prefer America to be, not what you and our other founders intended. That's really what I wanted to ask you about, Mr. Jefferson. For instance, these revisionists have taken a statement of yours, a phrase you coined, 'separation of church and state,' and are using it in the courts, to remove any mention of God or the Bible from public property or government processes. Is this what you meant to convey with that phrase?""Of course not! How absurd! I used those words, borrowing somewhat from the much-respected Baptist minister Roger Williams who used almost that same phrase, in my letter to a Baptist congregation in Danbury, Conn., in 1802. As president, I was assuring them that Congress would never mandate a specific state religion, as had been done in England and even in Virginia earlier. That's clearly all I said, and all I intended. You say these revisionists are implying I meant something more?"
Again, pure and unadulterated ignorance. No one who has actually read the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson and his letter in reply could possibly make this claim. Jefferson did not write to them to assure them that Congress could never mandate a specific state religion; they already knew that. They had written to him to complain about their already existing state establishment in Connecticut and they explicitly said that while they knew he had no power to overturn that state establishment, they hoped that his views on church/state separation would spread to the state level and do away with such establishments.
"Oh, yes, sir! Even our Supreme Court seems to have been persuaded that you believed the First Amendment prohibited any recognition of God by either state or federal governments. The revisionists are rapidly succeeding in purging any public reference to 'God' from schools, open displays, ceremonies, anywhere, anytime! And they're quoting your phrase as justification!"Long pause.
"I'm offended beyond measure, good sir. Let me remind you of my own public statements, which you can verify and proclaim widely and consistently to the populace - and to the faces of the misguided jurists, in particular. It was I, while our blessed Constitution was an infant, who pointed out that the misguided opinion that judges have the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive in theirs, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. Obviously, that has occurred - sadly for America.
Oh look, Pat Boone almost stumbled upon a kinda-true statement, though he leaps to a false conclusion about it. It's true that Jefferson was opposed to having the Supreme Court have the authority to overturn laws, but he lost that argument. He argued against it from France, but those who actually wrote the Constitution (Jefferson was not there) nonetheless did give the power of judicial review to the courts. It's one of the few issues where Jefferson was clearly wrong at the time and he was on the losing side of history.
"None of us, sir, even the few who were deists or agnostics, denied the right - indeed the obligation - to publicly pay homage to our Creator, no matter how we individually understand Him. Have your contemporaries forgotten my very words in the Declaration of Independence: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'? And are they quoting only the first words of the First Amendment about the 'establishment of religion' - and ignoring the very next words 'nor restricting the free exercise thereof'?"How can good, intelligent Americans allow this perversion of intent?"
"Mr. Jefferson, I gather that you would then approve the inclusion of two words, 'under God,' in our current Pledge of Allegiance. ..."
"Young man, I shared these concerns you've mentioned even in the early days of the new republic. And I understand that these words of mine are inscribed on a Memorial in my honor in Washington, even today: God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
That first sentence is absolutely stunning. Jefferson absolutely denied that the government had any authority at all to declare an obligation to pay homage to any gods. It was Jefferson, unlike his predecessors as president, who resolutely refused to issue even non-binding proclamations of days of prayer and fasting, and he explained in no uncertain terms why he refused to do so. In a letter to Samuel Miller urging him to issue such proclamations he wrote:
Sir, -- I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
What Jefferson believed about an individual's obligations to God has nothing at all to do with what he believed about whether the government could require such obligations, or even to suggest them. He was adamantly opposed to the government having any say at all in what obligations an individual should think or do in regard to religion. He could not have said so any more plainly than he did.
Comments
Pat Boone and Chuck Norris. Awesome.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 3, 2008 10:02 AM
i went to wnd on a fluke this weekend, and i read the pat boone article... thinking about the fisking it would receive at the hands of dear ole ed made me moist and wanting... you did not disappoint...
Posted by: i.heart.ed | March 3, 2008 10:37 AM
My daughter is about to graduate from high school, and I can assure Mr. Boone that she received a _thorough_ grounding in the events and documents surrounding the founding of this nation. (In fact, her complaint has been that each year the teachers would start over again at the beginning so that more recent events--post World War II, especially--would be covered hastily, if at all.) This year, in Government, the teacher paid a great deal of attention to the Amendments to the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. Maybe my daughter should get together with Mr. Boone and explain them to Mr. Boone.
Posted by: Elf Eye | March 3, 2008 10:42 AM
Remember when Hillary Clinton said she sometimes had conversations (in her head) with Eleanor Roosevelt, and how wingnut media derided her?
Posted by: Bruce | March 3, 2008 10:51 AM
This is the epitome of the virulent ignorance you have written about time and time again.
Posted by: Cato | March 3, 2008 10:53 AM
Does anyone else remember the guy that would impersonate Jefferson on the radio, and give his views on current events? I remember hearing him a while ago and thought he was interesting to listen to. I wonder what he would say about this? He'd probably cry, I know I would.
Posted by: McCoy | March 3, 2008 10:53 AM
As a British raised American, I find these laments about student knowledge of US history hilarious, if tedious. I went to an extremely good, extremely expensive private school in England, and about the only "founding history" I was formally taught was the Magna Carta and the Civil War. I've never taken a history exam in my life. I didn't learn about the Glorious Revolution, which forms the basis of the modern British constitution, until I read about it as context for my English literature course at university. My knowledge of 18th and early 19th century British history is still abysmal.
American students are taught more about the founding of their nation than probably any other nation on earth, with the possible exception of Turkey. Of course, a lot of what they're taught is semi-mythical, but that's exactly the history Boone wants taught.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 3, 2008 11:11 AM
Funny, not only do students learn about "Taxation without Representation" in school, many of them have commented on those very words, which are enshrined on my DC license plates.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 3, 2008 11:18 AM
As a parent of 3 children, I can surely say that what kids are taught in school and what some kids learn are two different things.
I also think this guy must be using a home school textbook.
Posted by: mr_p | March 3, 2008 11:24 AM
I seriously doubt that anyone could be born as stupid as Pat Boone appears to be and survive to adulthood. The degree of virulent stupidity he exhibits has to have come after many years of hard practice.
Posted by: James | March 3, 2008 11:45 AM
Did not Jefferson opine that a constitution should be revised every 20 years or so? The framers of India's constitution (drawing liberally from the US constitution and several others) are said to have considered Jefferson in drafting simple and fluid procedures for amending the constitution - and there have been over a 100 since the Indian Constitution was adopted in 1950.
Posted by: rimpal | March 3, 2008 11:51 AM
Ginger Yellow,
You had a better history education than was offered at UK state schools in the 90's. I got WWII two years running and dropped the subject when I realised I already knew more history from children's history books than I was getting taught. By the way if you're talking about the founding of the United Kingdom then you've missed out the Act of Union, which is the nearest we came to an official founding. Really though, founding history in the US sense can't be sensibly applied to the longer and more complex history of Britain.
Posted by: Matt | March 3, 2008 11:51 AM
I meant founding in the sense of how and why our institutions and form of government came to have the shape they do. The Act of Union is a fairly minor part of that story (at least from an English perspective).
"Really though, founding history in the US sense can't be sensibly applied to the longer and more complex history of Britain."
True, but my main point was that the idea that Americans don't learn about their history is absurd if you look at history education in other countries. Indeed, the criticism most commonly levelled at US education from outside is that it does nothing but teach children about America.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 3, 2008 12:06 PM
That people look to celebrities for anything other than entertainment, which for Pat Boone ended 30 years ago, disproves the premise of Intelligent Design.
Posted by: BobbyV | March 3, 2008 12:23 PM
Fair enough, I mentioned the Act because I was trying to think of a defining point after which there was a UK, analogous to the US declaration of independence. I'd agree it had little to do with how the structure of the government formed.
Anyway since I've gone off at a complete tangent to the original post I'll leave off now.
Posted by: Matt | March 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Au contraire, this screed is quite impure and notably adulterated, mixed with just enough factuality to flavor it with "truthiness" to make its intended audience feel they're in the presence of Deep Thinking.
The extended vocabulary and long, grammatically coherent (if factually and logically deficient) sentences in Boone's rant lead me to wonder if a certain senescent pop singer has called on the services of a ghost writer.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 3, 2008 12:32 PM
There is a lot here. Ed is an expert on the History of this and I think he makes good points about how Christians seek to use the word "Christian" and what it meant then to now and the Evangelical movement and are wrong. If this was a "Christian Nation" it is only in the same sense that nations in Europe were "Christian". In that it was the State Religion or the Religion of the majortity. The former is impossible in American and the latter still exists but most that call themselves "Christian" do not believe the same as what the Evangelical Movement does today. Ed is right in this argument.
As far as the schools today I think Pat Boone has a point. Teacher's Unions do have a great deal of influence over what is taught. Outcome based education is the only game in town. As a teacher, you have to take Pedagogical classes to get the degree to be certified. I took more classes in educational theory that were worthless than in my content area.
They bring you in and tell you that John Dewey and Horace man were the Father's of modern Education and then begin to teach you exactly what they said. If you disagree you will not get a job.
Let me illustrate. I have years of experience in urban education in one of the worst neighborhoods in the country. I want to get back into teaching and have had several interviews with the Charter School crusaders who are going to change the world. The one question they all ask in one way or another is : Can you guarantee that your children will learn, all of them? They want to here lies. They want to here, "Yes, my kids have Father's in jail or dead, five brother and sisters from different Father's, come to school hungry, and can go make more in a month than a can in a year selling drugs. But yes I can guarantee that even though I am not the parent and have no say on what goes on at home I can more a miracle here."
I will not lie to them. All I can do is my best. That is what I did for years. One of my kids still went to shoot up a school last month. I had him 7 years ago and did my best.
My point? John Dewey was a committed socialist. Socialism at its core wants all to be equal. Modern education is the same. That is why it is called "outcome based" and we have to right objectives on the board that start with "The student will be able to". We are writing lies. We cannot guarantee anything. Equality is not equality of outcome. Equality is equality of opportunity.
Now before you say that I am right wing and hate the poor and do not care about economic and racial inequality in this nation, I have to ask how many of you worked in the ghetto for little pay for years at least trying? I liked Ed's article about anti-intellectualism last week. But it got off into blaming the Humanists or Religionists. I have done it too.
It should be about asking why these schools are failing? Most teachers will point to No Child Left Behind. It is outcome based education at its core. It will never work. Some kids are going to left behind no matter what you do. They have it bad but they make choices. I cannot relate to all the conditions that they go through where I used to teach and hope to go back, but they do have a choice. I had it rough in some ways too growing up but I did have a choice. If we let them blame the schools they will do it.
It is time to start a discussion about this and less about atheism and theism.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 1:37 PM
Just in passing, I'd note that this article implicitly endorses the mythical version of the Paul Revere story due to Longfellow, rather than the accurate version.
Posted by: Edward | March 3, 2008 2:18 PM
Oy vey... I bet Boone's only exposure to Revere is the Longfellow poem.
Ed, I don't know if you have seen Robert Wuhl's Assume the Position on HBO, but I think you would find it tremendously funny and entertaining, and Paul Revere's midnight ride makes an appearance. It's available on DVD, and he did another one recently, but that's not out on DVD (Assume the Position 201).
Actually, I'm not sure if Revere is in the first HBO special or the second, but it's well worth checking out anyway.
Posted by: FishyFred | March 3, 2008 2:19 PM
I wouldn't blame it on the teachers, who are often doing their best with what they can. I'd blame the parents who don't talk about Thomas Jefferson at home and instead turn on "The Biggest Loser" and other such nonsense at night.
The passages you quote of Jefferson's are interesting in that they really emphasize that he believed in states' rights and that the federal government should not step on that power. I hadn't seen these specific passages before.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl | March 3, 2008 2:25 PM
The men whose ideas they cited - Montesquieu, John Locke, Sidney, Hobbes - were all Europeans, for crying out loud.
You have to wonder if Pat thinks they went around citing the Bible all day.
"Danbury Schamnbury, blah blah. Washington prayed on his knees for days at a time!!! Blah."
Posted by: 386sx | March 3, 2008 2:33 PM
"They bring you in and tell you that John Dewey and Horace man were the Father's of modern Education and then begin to teach you exactly what they said. If you disagree you will not get a job. "
I've worked as a teacher for four institution in the U.S. and I have never been asked what I thought about Dewey or Mann - either in job interviews or in any other venue.
Posted by: Phoca | March 3, 2008 3:17 PM
"I've worked as a teacher for four institution in the U.S. and I have never been asked what I thought about Dewey or Mann - either in job interviews or in any other venue.'
If you teach in Public School you are taught their concepts and if you do not answer correctly in an interview about the Dimensions of Learning and other theories you will not get the job. I am not saying it is all bad but it does come from a perspective that all will succeed not all should be given the same opportunity to succeed. I think you missed my point.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:28 PM
King, I agree with most of what you said. When I was a child, still in elementary school, I was struggling with a subject. I don't remember which one. Like most children I got frustrated, threw my hands in the air, and cried out, "When am I ever going to need to know this?"
My father replied, "You probably won't. The reason you're learning it now is not so you'll remember it when you you're a grown up, but to practice the act of learning. Learning is a skill that's developed by practice. Most people, even many teachers, don't understand that the purpose of school is not to teach you facts. That's just useful byproduct. The most import thing school does help you learn how to learn. Approach everything from that perspective and you'll get the most out of school."
That advice has served me well my entire life. (Side note, that's also the day I learned what the word "byproduct" meant.) It gave me a love for education, and a desire to learn, that most of my classmates never knew. Problem solving, critical thinking, the scientific method, research and analysis, these are skills that will enrich anyone's life, regardless of vocation or status. This is exactly what's lacking from today's results based standards.
The focus on rote memorization in today's education standards does little to enrich a child's mind or prepare him or her to compete in this increasingly global marketplace. Assuming I'm right (who am I kidding, of course I'm right. /joking) what are we to do? This is a fundamental shift in the focus of education. It's difficult to teach and even more difficult to quantify progress. So how do we sell America on the idea? And how do we prepare educators for the task?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2008 3:32 PM
Abby Normal:
I watch Boston Legal a lot and this theme comes up all the time. I am not sure what to do about it. I do think that the trend toward State and Federal takeover of schools continues. D.C. Public Schools has tried more crap over the years that has not worked in the name of reform. Finally, they just let the mayor take over the schools. It sounds good but I think it is dangerous. it almost looks like these reforms set standards that are ridiculous so that the schools can fail and then more government intervention is warranted.
I love what you said about the love of learning. I have it too. I always taught my kids to think. We did projects and all. I am a Social Studies teacher who wants to get back in and have been turned down more than a few times because the Principal wanted to keep a sub in the class because Social Studies is not Math or Reading where the tests are measured. I heard a stat that said the only 28 states teach governmnent now. Why? This is not measured in the test scores. Jefferson would roll over in his grave.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 3:44 PM
"If you teach in Public School you are taught their concepts and if you do not answer correctly in an interview about the Dimensions of Learning and other theories you will not get the job."
Nope, never asked about the dimensions of learning either.
What school district conducts interviews in the way you claim?
Posted by: Phoca | March 3, 2008 4:02 PM
"Nope, never asked about the dimensions of learning either."
You have never been asked how you would get your students to use the higher order thinking skills in an interview? Aside from the interviews which is a side point what do you think about education and where it is going with the No Child Left Behind Act?
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 4:11 PM
"You have never been asked how you would get your students to use the higher order thinking skills in an interview?"
I think you are mistaken in the belief that all learning systems that emphasize critical thinking and intellectual skill growth derive from Dewey. Inquiry learning and the emphasis on the development of processes of thought were around before Dewey and not all his ideas about how they should be implemented are adopted wholesale.
With regard to No Child Left Behind, the central problem that I have with it is the use of a one-size-fits-all metric - specifically standardized tests, often multiple choice, to measure student performance and learning outcomes. I don't believe that academic accomplishment is best measured that way. I do think that No Child Left Behind has a good element of attempting to rigorously measure performance in a manner that can be compared across schools (and even states,) but there needs to be some admission that we need to develop a new way to do that - the current standardized tests allow for comparison at the expense of precision in measuring academic achievement.
Posted by: Phoca | March 3, 2008 4:47 PM
I second Pat Boone's suggestion that Jefferson be quoted more often in our schools. Here's a few to start with:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.."
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 3, 2008 4:56 PM
Is anything put out by Worldnetdaily not astonishingly ridiculous?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 3, 2008 5:10 PM
"I do think that No Child Left Behind has a good element of attempting to rigorously measure performance in a manner that can be compared across schools (and even states,) but there needs to be some admission that we need to develop a new way to do that - the current standardized tests allow for comparison at the expense of precision in measuring academic achievement."
We used to have CAT tests and others when I was in school. It was not the emphcize though. My problem is with the Title itself. Beauocracy in education is the greatest ill. It takes money and spends it on "reforms" and "experts" to implement them. The fads last two or three years and then the next guy comes in and brings in his reforms. The whole thing is broken and where to go about fixing it I do not know.
I think I just need to go back to the classroom and worry about my students and do the best I can. The problem is that there are jobs I am certified for that have subs in the class as we speak and they will more than likely stay to save money while I sit by and wait.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 5:21 PM
It's entirely possible that the 82 year-old Jefferson would refer to the 74 year-old Pat Boone as "young man," but only if his vision had failed him before his death. I assume, of course, that spirits remain the same age when they die. Young man. Pat Boone wasn't young when when he was a toddler.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 3, 2008 5:26 PM
I thought judicial review wasn't in the constitution, but it was "created" in Marbury vs. Madison.
Posted by: Democritus | March 3, 2008 5:33 PM
KoI: I'm curious (and if it's too personal feel free to ignore it, I don't want to offend) but what did you teach?
Posted by: jba | March 3, 2008 5:37 PM
I taught Elementary outside my certification area for three years because I liked the neighborhood I was in. It was high crime and all. I also taught a year of World Cultures in Middle School. My content area is Social Studies in general and History more specific.
I have been appalled at how hard( though I left what I was doing before in August and was late starting to look) it is for someone with my experience in Urban Education, knowledge of the world, and Praxis test scores to find a job when so many people say we cannot find good teachers. I was one and left out of frustration and want to go back. I could make twice as much selling something. Or I could get my own TV preaching program and make a bundle (just kidding).
I was a preacher who got my head out of my ass and dedided to do something more real. I was your worst enemy before. I taught Science a little in Elementary and left out the part I did not like. I was wrong and you do have to watch people closely from Evangelical churches at times. The 'spiritual' aspect can overshadow real world problems in some circles and get crusaders with their heads up the asses who are virulently ignorant. I agree with Ed on most of what he says. More than you wanted to know I am sure but I want people to know where I am coming from.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 3, 2008 5:45 PM
KoI "More than you wanted to know I am sure but I want people to know where I am coming from."
Not at all, the reason I asked was so I would know a bit more about where you are coming from. Thanks for answering.
Posted by: jba | March 3, 2008 5:52 PM
"Mr. Jefferson, what do you think about pat boone and worldnutdaily in general?"
"(W)ithout a well-informed public, our liberty itself is in peril."
Posted by: ron | March 3, 2008 6:03 PM
"I've worked as a teacher for four institution in the U.S. and I have never been asked what I thought about Dewey or Mann - either in job interviews or in any other venue.'
If you teach in Public School you are taught their concepts and if you do not answer correctly in an interview about the Dimensions of Learning and other theories you will not get the job. I am not saying it is all bad but it does come from a perspective that all will succeed not all should be given the same opportunity to succeed. I think you missed my point.
This is patently false. I've taught in multiple school districts in multiple states and have not run into this. What I have seen is the question, "What will you do to give all of your students the opportunity to succeed," precisely what you claim they should, but aren't doing.
The problem you are running into is that social studies teachers are a dime a dozen. The reason is, we (myself included) include a number of people educated in other areas but had enough "social studies" credits or education to gain a certificate. Many of these teachers don't last long, because they fell in to education rather than chose it as a profession, but they still muck up the field. With so many people in an area, it is easy to replace someone or to pick and choose people who have more certificates (I have four) or certificates in specific areas (IE Econ and psych).
No Child Left Behind is horrendous. It is a perfect example of people who hate government putting together a program to destroy a function of government (IE public education). The format makes it ultimately impossible for schools to succeed. It also pushes schools to "teach to the test," to ignore areas that aren't tested, etc., all in the name of keeping in operation long enough to hopefully teach kids. You can't help anyone if your school has been closed down and your teachers fired.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 3, 2008 6:52 PM
KoI said: "Beauocracy in education is the greatest ill." Does he really think that rule by "men excessively interested in fine clothes and social etiquette"? Sounds like a job for Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
Seriously I would not like to have someone who can't spell bureacracy or know the difference between hear and here.
No Child Left Behind was one of George Bush's gifts to this country. He never wants anyone to be smarter than he is.
Posted by: wrpd | March 3, 2008 8:13 PM
Second paragraph should be: Seriously I would not like to have someone who can't spell bureacracy or know the difference between hear and here teaching my kids.
Posted by: wrpd | March 3, 2008 8:23 PM
"Does anyone else remember the guy that would impersonate Jefferson on the radio, and give his views on current events? I remember hearing him a while ago and thought he was interesting to listen to. I wonder what he would say about this? He'd probably cry, I know I would."
I am all caught up on the podcasts of the "thomas jefferson hour" by Clay Davis. http://www.jeffersonhour.org/?id=26
I asked him to come here and comment. Maybe with some more encouragement he just might...
Posted by: Kevin | March 3, 2008 10:16 PM
Ron, I'll do you one better:
"Mr. Jefferson, what do you think about Pat Boone and WorldNutDaily in general?"
"My good sir, they are fucking lunatics."
Posted by: CHV | March 3, 2008 10:41 PM
Ed, this is great stuff. The "America's Providential History" nonsense of my childhood is slowly being washed away with each new post.
wrpd, you're a letter off as well. It is "bureaucracy".
Posted by: holomorph | March 4, 2008 12:08 AM
Damn
Posted by: wrpd | March 4, 2008 1:36 AM
Pat Boone: Mr. Jefferson?
Passerby: Huh?
Pat Boone: I'm trying to talk to Mr. Thomas Jefferson...Mr. Jefferson?
Passerby: Really? Uh..you know he's dead. Do you talk to a lot of dead guys?
Pat Boone: Oh, yes. Many. Mainly Jesus though.
Passerby: I see. What do they say to you?
Pat Boone: Things I want to hear.
Passerby: Uh huh. Hey, wait here a sec...HEY OFFICER! I got a live one.
Posted by: B8ovin | March 4, 2008 4:00 AM
"borrowing somewhat"? WTF?
Pat Buffoon wouldn't know Roger Williams if the man walked up and bit him. After being kicked out of Massachusetts for his radical ideas, Williams founded not only a church but an entire colony based on his desire to untangle religion and government from one another.
He left his "Baptist" church - the beginnings of my denomination - two years after its founding, when he saw it sliding back toward the old entanglements. He spent most of the rest of his life away from Rhode Island, much of it in England obtaining a charter for the colony and defending his colony's integrity.
I wish there were some way to bring back Roger Williams and send him on a speaking tour of American megachurches. But he'd shock their socks off and probably be condemned as an agent of Satan, so maybe it wouldn't do any good. I'm sure he'd have a stroke if he saw what "his" church was doing.
My favorite Williams quote: "Forc't Worshipp stincks in God's nostrills."
Posted by: themadlolscientist | March 4, 2008 4:31 AM
"Did not Jefferson opine that a constitution should be revised every 20 years or so? The framers of India's constitution (drawing liberally from the US constitution and several others) are said to have considered Jefferson in drafting simple and fluid procedures for amending the constitution - and there have been over a 100 since the Indian Constitution was adopted in 1950." Rimpal
Pat Boone would probably respond by saying that the US Constitution is founded on good old Juedeo-Christian values and therefore needs no correction whereas India's is a Godless concoction of Satanists and secularists (assuming he distinguishes between the two).
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 4, 2008 9:23 AM
King of Ireland: "If you teach in Public School you are taught their concepts and if you do not answer correctly in an interview about the Dimensions of Learning and other theories you will not get the job."
"Nope, never asked about the dimensions of learning either.
What school district conducts interviews in the way you claim?"
Posted by: Phoca
If a guy comes up claiming to be Napoleon, and babbling nonsense, the conclusion is obvious. I vote for granting the same status to Mr. KoI, here.
Posted by: Barry | March 4, 2008 9:46 AM
"If a guy comes up claiming to be Napoleon, and babbling nonsense, the conclusion is obvious. I vote for granting the same status to Mr. KoI, here."
Go take a History of Education course at a Teacher's college. Dewey and Mann will be mentioned and their ideas taught. Then look at the cirriculum in the Public Schools and anyone who cannot trace many of the modern ideas about Education back to Dewey I would question what they were looking at.
As far as the interviews I know what I was asked when I went. I can also see in the very Title No Child Left Behind a Egalitarian message. It sounds good on paper to say that we are going to make sure all children get an education. The problem is that the factors that go into that usually have little to do with what the government is trying to fix when it gets involved. These programs just create more Beaurocrats and waste more money that could be given to build better schools and pay teachers more.
As far as the Dimensions of Learning that was an older concept from years ago and I should have stated that. But we were told time and time again that to go into an interview and not mention the Dimensions of Learning was suicide. Again I am not saying all that Dewey stood for was wrong but to not see his foot print on Modern education is not dealing with reality.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 4, 2008 12:57 PM
I believe that Jefferson was an Epicurean. The Epicureans take a very scientific approach to life with reason, instead of faith, as their central driver. This would explain his desire to remove religion from government.
Posted by: TenTenTwo.com | March 4, 2008 7:56 PM
Jefferson did indeed declare himself an Epicurean.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 4, 2008 8:05 PM
Well, they certainly don't choose the textbooks, which is what Pat Boone is bitching about. That's done entirely by state or local school boards, depending on where you are.
And I don't think the unions have any influence on how any teacher uses the books in class, as far as what they emphasize or ignore.
Teachers' unions do prevent crappy teachers from getting fired, and fight to shift larger percentages of school funding to their own salaries. But that doesn't have much to do with curriculum.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 4, 2008 8:46 PM
Let's ask Miss S. Carolina what she thinks.
"I personally believe that US Americans don't know about Jomas Tefferson because some people out there in our nation don't have teachers and uh I believe that our education like such as South Africa and Iraq and everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the US should help the US or help South Africa or should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future." Thank you South Carolina
Posted by: GNOC | March 4, 2008 10:43 PM
gnoc... That's just STUPID!
Thanks for the lols
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 4, 2008 11:11 PM
As a European(Dutch)citizen I am aware of the advancing secularization in my part of the world and this is no doubt also due to the great influence of philosophers of The Enlightenment such as Baruch Spinoza, a name I haven't seen in the above comments. Perhaps because his ideas were not popular in the Us (and England) thanks to the dominant empiricist climate in these countries.
Pat Boone's - not so stupid - 'conversation' with Thomas Jefferson could be interpreted differently. Let's face it, the US nowadays can no longer pride themselves on being an example to the rest of the world. Being made aware in this manner of what's ailing could, and should, lead to sorely needed introspection.
Posted by: Patti Harkmans | March 30, 2008 9:34 AM
As a European(Dutch)citizen I am aware of the advancing secularization in my part of the world and this is no doubt also due to the great influence of philosophers of The Enlightenment such as Baruch Spinoza, a name I haven't seen in the above comments. Perhaps because his ideas were not popular in the Us (and England) thanks to the dominant empiricist climate in these countries.
Pat Boone's - not so stupid - 'conversation' with Thomas Jefferson could be interpreted differently. Let's face it, the US nowadays can no longer pride themselves on being an example to the rest of the world. Being made aware in this manner of what's ailing could, and should, lead to sorely needed introspection.
Posted by: Patti Harkmans | March 30, 2008 9:34 AM