Warning! Public schools are teaching what!!

[M.J.]

14 hours ago, Lieblingskind said:

Delete

[M.J.]

3 minutes ago, BenJepthah said:

Well, their is the children’s book “ Antiracist Baby”. And then their is Oprah Winfrey’s statement about the “ System of White people”. ( AKA Satan’s system).  But other than that theirs is the thousands of pages of curriculum from BLM being promoted to school teachers currently.   And then Their is the 1619 project. 

I'll repeat: I've never seen any school county approved curriculum that demonizes white people. My comments, in reply to @Katty
were specifically about racial sensitivity training VS bashing white people. The 1619 project you mention is about teaching History, which is a whole other topic. History is always being revised and manipulated, it's practically inevitable. But to change a curriculum to focus more on black contributions and perspectives is not necessarily bashing white people. 

[BenJepthah]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/08/29/how-black-lives-matter-is-moving-into-the-schools/amp/
    This article is a year old. It already lists some school districts adopting this curriculum. I’d love to imagine this will be an entirely positive scholastic experience. But human nature just about guarantees otherwise.

[Katty]

4 hours ago, M.J. said:

I'll repeat: I've never seen any school county approved curriculum that demonizes white people. My comments, in reply to @Katty
were specifically about racial sensitivity training VS bashing white people. The 1619 project you mention is about teaching History, which is a whole other topic. History is always being revised and manipulated, it's practically inevitable. But to change a curriculum to focus more on black contributions and perspectives is not necessarily bashing white people. 

I agree. I think it's great to have a curriculum that promotes different racial and cultural perspectives. I benefited greatly from such a curriculum in school, myself. History, unfortunately, is generally told by the victors.
I didn't mean to come across as saying that critical race theory is taught in all public schools, as I don't know to what level it's actually taught at an elementary level, nor to make any kind of commentary as to whether or not I believe critical race theory and intersectionalism should or should not be taught at an elementary school level. I don't have an opinion on that particular topic, myself. I was only trying to clarify what people generally mean when they say they fear Marxism taking over the school curriculum.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Katty

[Katty]

4 hours ago, M.J. said:

I'm familiar with racial sensitivity training.  However, the government programs you're mentioning are allegedly teaching that white people are to blame for racism, and so Trump wants these programs cancelled, as the implication was that they are demonizing white people. However, news reports could not find anyone to indicate what specific programs he was referring to, and so it seems to be more of a political move. But anyway, I've never seen or heard this taught in public school education; racial sensitivity training, yes, but demonizing white people as part of the school county approved curriculum, that seems a bit of a stretch. 

This is true. Generally political stances are made for the benefit of gleaning more popularity and votes. I don't believe they demonize white people either. I have no opinion, personally, on whether or not this is something Trump should have done, merely that he had done it, nor do I have any opinion for or against this kind of training. I believe it's something that generally divides people in the world among political lines, as people do tend to feel very passionately about this kind of stance.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Katty

[Amygdala]

The elementary schools here go from grades 1-4, then middle school begins from grade 5, and goes to a minimum of grade 9-13, at which point, depending on the level of the student, they begin some kind of training school, apprenticeship, vocational training, or after completing gr.13 go into university education. This is depending on which type of level schooling they graduated from.  There are 3 types of middle school here. Main, Intermediate and Advanced middle schools. The main school students can finish at gr.9 and go into blue collar job training apprenticeships for another few years, Intermediate can finish at gr.10 and go into other apprenticeship trainings, and those who are in advanced are allowed entry into universities. Usually teachers recommend which type of middle school a child should go into. Also in order to apply for any apprenticeships or jobs in general here, you have to provide school grades.

 

Part of the curriculum here includes Math, German, Social Studies (which is a mix of different subjects, including European history), Religion, Art or Music, Sport, English, Sex-Ed, also included is Bicycle training and certification, Swimming lessons, a few night trip to youth hostels at the 3rd grade, and many other catholic traditions and marches observed as part of "education." But no race sensitivity training. I have only heard that in the US - not even in Canada.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Lieblingskind

[Amygdala]

Hauptschule (main), Realschule (intermediate), or Gymnasium (advanced) secondary school.

 

There is also a Gesamtschule (comprehensive school that mixes students from all levels.)

 

If someone is in Realschule and has completed 10 years, but decides they want to continue studying to attend university, then he or she would have to attend another school to do years 11-13 before they could qualify to attend university. Bit harder then attending straight Gymnasium, as they would have to change the speed of their learning, and also get to know the teachers and students.

 

Whereas there is the option for someone in Gymnasium to finish studies at gr.10 and not continue on to gr.13 and just apply for an apprenticeship or vocational training, if they so desire, and do not attend university.

[Shawnster]

6 hours ago, Lieblingskind said:

But no race sensitivity training. I have only heard that in the US - not even in Canada.

Until this year I hadn't heard of race riots outside of the United States, either.  The feeling is the rest of the world has a better grip on race relations than the US.  That might be a wrong feeling, but that is the impression. 

 

It was only 60+ years ago in the US that whites and blacks could not use the same drinking fountain, lunch counter, school building, bus seat, etc...  There are people alive today who remember that time. Some fondly. 

[Ferb]

On 9/7/2020 at 5:46 AM, trottigy said:

I haven't seen anything that makes me think schools are trying to indoctrinate kids into Marxism. Exercising one's first amendment rights to speak out is not Marxism. Jehovah's witnesses exercise theirs every time they go in the ministry. And I wouldn't say because we teach our kids how to speak up and go in the ministry we are teaching them Marxism.

How much do you know about Marxism?  I'm not sure why you'd even associate it with freedom of speech.  You don't really have freedom of speech under a Marxist government.  Marxism is about making everybody equal - by force if necessary.  Have a read of The Communist Manifesto - it's a pretty short read.  Children must be school-educated because otherwise some children would be taught be smarter parents than others, and have an advantage, and not be equal - how can you think that's not what we're taught to believe when you're for some reason convinced of it yourself despite it not being what the Bible says?  Women must all have jobs regardless of whether that makes them happy, because otherwise they wouldn't be equal to men - you don't think that's what they're taught in school these days?  It's wrong for some people to have more money than others, regardless of how much harder those people work to earn the extra they have, because it's inequality - for some reason most young people believe that, where do you think they get the idea?

 

On 9/8/2020 at 3:00 AM, Katty said:

When people say Marxism, they generally are talking about internationalism.

I wouldn't say that.  Or was that an autocorrect from intersectionalism?  (I'd still think that's an oversimplification, but that would make more sense.)

 

13 hours ago, M.J. said:

I'm familiar with racial sensitivity training.  However, the government programs you're mentioning are allegedly teaching that white people are to blame for racism, and so Trump wants these programs cancelled, as the implication was that they are demonizing white people. However, news reports could not find anyone to indicate what specific programs he was referring to, and so it seems to be more of a political move.

I'm not sure if mere 'racial sensitivity training' refers to something more benign, but the memo specifically refers to 'white privilege' and, as Katty correctly said, 'critical race theory'.  It states:

Quote

employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that "virtually all White people contribute to racism" or where they are required to say that they "benefit from racism." ... In the meantime, all agencies are directed to begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on "critical race theory", "white privilege," or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either (1) that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or (2) that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.

 

I don't want to speak for or against any particular politician, but I am certainly against the teaching that any race or ethnicity is inherently evil.

 

I don't know if any official curriculum contains such material, though I have seen occasional news about it in schools, and the memo doesn't state that schools have been teaching it, it refers to government employees.  Certainly you can see detailed here some examples of how racist 'critical race theory' is, and how some adults have had to undergo training courses in it.

 

[M.J.]

29 minutes ago, Ferb said:

Delete

[M.J.]

31 minutes ago, Ferb said:

How much do you know about Marxism?  I'm not sure why you'd even associate it with freedom of speech.  You don't really have freedom of speech under a Marxist government.  Marxism is about making everybody equal - by force if necessary.  Have a read of The Communist Manifesto - it's a pretty short read.  Children must be school-educated because otherwise some children would be taught be smarter parents than others, and have an advantage, and not be equal - how can you think that's not what we're taught to believe when you're for some reason convinced of it yourself despite it not being what the Bible says?  Women must all have jobs regardless of whether that makes them happy, because otherwise they wouldn't be equal to men - you don't think that's what they're taught in school these days?  It's wrong for some people to have more money than others, regardless of how much harder those people work to earn the extra they have, because it's inequality - for some reason most young people believe that, where do you think they get the idea?

 

I wouldn't say that.  Or was that an autocorrect from intersectionalism?  (I'd still think that's an oversimplification, but that would make more sense.)

 

I'm not sure if mere 'racial sensitivity training' refers to something more benign, but the memo specifically refers to 'white privilege' and, as Katty correctly said, 'critical race theory'.  It states:

 

I don't want to speak for or against any particular politician, but I am certainly against the teaching that any race or ethnicity is inherently evil.

 

I don't know if any official curriculum contains such material, though I have seen occasional news about it in schools, and the memo doesn't state that schools have been teaching it, it refers to government employees.  Certainly you can see detailed here some examples of how racist 'critical race theory' is, and how some adults have had to undergo training courses in it.

 

As I said previously:

 

the government programs you're mentioning are allegedly teaching that white people are to blame for racism, and so Trump wants these programs cancelled, as the implication was that they are demonizing white people. However, news reports could not find anyone to indicate what specific programs he was referring to, and so it seems to be more of a political move.

 

I really can't take time to sift through a 20+ min video to try to understand what your point was. 

 

[M.J.]

@Ferb

I just watched the first minute of the video out of curiosity and I can't believe you sent me such ridiculous babble. He makes wide sweeping stereotypical statements just to be provocative. His objective is politically motivated. Within 30 seconds I can see I definitely wouldn't rely on him for any clear objective information. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by M.J.

[Ferb]

1 hour ago, M.J. said:

@Ferb

I just watched the first minute of the video out of curiosity and I can't believe you sent me such ridiculous babble. He makes wide sweeping stereotypical statements just to be provocative. His objective is politically motivated. Within 30 seconds I can see I definitely wouldn't rely on him for any clear objective information. 

 

In the first minute, with him pointing out that these people believe that valuing hard work was racist, I think what particularly came to mind was a story he reported on regarding the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, which stated that having a work ethic was part of 'White Culture' - and bear in mind, this museum was set up to promote African American History and Culture.  Newsweek states:

 

Quote

The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture recently unveiled guidelines for talking about race. A graphic displayed in the guidelines, entitled "Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness in the United States," declares that rational thinking and hard work, among others, are white values.

In the section, Smithsonian declares that "objective, rational, linear thinking," "quantitative emphasis," "hard work before play," and various other values are aspects and assumptions of whiteness.

The Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture had no comment for Newsweek. They referred to the website's page titled "Whiteness" when asked for additional comment. The graphic was later removed from the page.

Notice on the infographic in the article (taken from the museum website, the one removed after it caused widespread outrage, but similar things exist in most race theory teaching course materials) that such biblical values as the husband being the head of a household are also regarded as 'white values' that have been imposed on black people.  (And being a national museum, this may well have been something used in school education, in field trips etc. and been government funded - exactly the kind of thing to which this memo would apply.)  This is why you should be aware of what critical race theory means - if such people have their way, you will be called racist for being a Christian, because as you can see, believing a man should be the head of the family is, in some convoluted way, deemed racist.  It is not something to let your children be taught.

 

So no, he's not making sweeping statements to be provocative.  If you've seen previous stories like these over the past year you know he's practically quoting these teaching materials verbatim.

[M.J.]

@Ferb

It's not the information itself that I have a problem with. It's good to learn new things, that both political parties hide to their benefit, which is why if you only watch one political news station/channel/website, you will be in a bubble. 

 

What I object to is the presentation. The emotionalism. The McCarthyistic style. The 'boogeyman is out to get you' fear being promoted. 

 

1 hour ago, Ferb said:

This is why you should be aware of what critical race theory means - if such people have their way...

Satan and his minions have been having their way for over 6 thousand years. I'm honestly not overly concerned about this museum and it's teachings. I keep continuing to remain separate from the world.

 

I went to the website and didn't find anything shocking or offensive. So they explain what stereotypes have existed about white people - so what? Your portrayal of the gravity of critical race theory is exaggerated. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by M.J.

[Katty]

We should remember that a lot of the ideas that are being promoted in government institutions do not originate with Jehovah, but originate with the world. When weighing out if we agree with such an ideology, we should look at them with the lens of Bible principles and do research, if necessary, on what the Bible teaches on a typical topic. The world has made the realm of political ideologies much more complex, and, honestly, I don't think keeping neutral is as simple as "I don't have an opinion on a particular candidate" anymore. In the absence of religious influence, political parties have taken the place of religious organizations in the hearts of most people. Each political party has become more like a religion with it's own tenets and beliefs, and not all of them in line with Bible principles.

I have to be very careful, myself, that what I say and think doesn't have a political bias. This is not as easy as it used to be. But I try to think about how Jesus was: He had disciples who were Jewish religious leaders, Samaritans, and even a Roman Centurion. If Jesus, when with the Jewish religious leaders started saying "Solidarity for the Jews! Let's get rid of these Roman tyrants!!!" he would have likely offended the centurion, of that sentiment had reached him. If when communication with the Centurion, Jesus said "These Jewish religious leaders are a nuicance!!" he would have offended the disciples he made who were Jewish religious leaders. If on either side of the fence between Jews and Samaritans, if he made a commentary on the unfair treatment of either side on the hands of the other, he could, again, have offended some of his disciples.

Some political ideas such as intersecionalism (not internationalism, sorry) are highly divisive, and they are divisive among partisan lines. If I say I agree with it's ideas and tenets, then I stand to offend many conservatives in my territory. If I say that it's a harmful ideology that should never be taught, and good on Trump for banning it, I stand to offend the leftists in my territory. Better to just leave it alone. I get what Ferb's doing: there are a lot of aspects to this, and a lot of other ideoologies that originate in the political realm that are highly incompatible with Bible principles. David does not verbally align himself with either side of the political spectrum, despite the fact that politics are involved with the difficulties we have in being together, in person. Tim Pool was merely reading and interpreting a headline. This is what the news source stated Trump said. We are not showing any mental or emotional support for what Trump is doing.

[BenJepthah]

2 hours ago, Ferb said:

 

In the first minute, with him pointing out that these people believe that valuing hard work was racist, I think what particularly came to mind was a story he reported on regarding the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, which stated that having a work ethic was part of 'White Culture' - and bear in mind, this museum was set up to promote African American History and Culture.  Newsweek states:

 

Notice on the infographic in the article (taken from the museum website, the one removed after it caused widespread outrage, but similar things exist in most race theory teaching course materials) that such biblical values as the husband being the head of a household are also regarded as 'white values' that have been imposed on black people.  (And being a national museum, this may well have been something used in school education, in field trips etc. and been government funded - exactly the kind of thing to which this memo would apply.)  This is why you should be aware of what critical race theory means - if such people have their way, you will be called racist for being a Christian, because as you can see, believing a man should be the head of the family is, in some convoluted way, deemed racist.  It is not something to let your children be taught.

 

So no, he's not making sweeping statements to be provocative.  If you've seen previous stories like these over the past year you know he's practically quoting these teaching materials verbatim.

I saw that info graphic while it was still up . And took a screenshot. Why? Because I figured it wouldn’t last. If that info graphic was being produced by any other source than the Smithsonian I would have thought it was on a White Supremist website.  It is nuts. What is more , it is almost totally in opposition to what the Bible says when take. As a negative.  A household should have a father .  Hard work is good. Reason and logical thought are valued. These are all presented as a bad thing.  So who are they really arguing against? 

Edited September 9, 2020 by BenJepthah

[BenJepthah]

2 hours ago, M.J. said:

 

I went to the website and didn't find anything shocking or offensive. So they explain what stereotypes have existed about white people - so what? Your portrayal of the gravity of critical race theory is exaggerated

Here is the problem with the info graphic. It takes many ideas that actually originate with Jehovah and labels them as tenets of “ White Culture”. From the perspective of White people it could  be flattering .  But it also presents a harmful idea. That these Tenets ( which are found in the Bible) are exclusive to White Culture and therefore somehow not acceptable to any other culture.  It is the sort of thing a White supremist might promote. It’s ugly and it’s ultimately very very wrong.  
           1. “ White Culture “ no such thing.  2. Take any preChristian Culture and what do you see? The Goths,The Romans, The Greeks,The Egyptians, The various Mongols under he Khans ,  The Various tribes of the Western Hemisphere , the Vikings , Picts, the various African people’s All would have some of the values but not all found in that info graphic to some degree. “ Because the man of the Nations who does the law while not under the law” certainly exists among each Culture.  But in truth that infographic barely touches on any preChristian cultures values. Even the Hebrew people’s directly under he anointed Kings of Israel could barely keep themselves from slipping into the chaos outside the Bible principals implied in that info graphic.    So is that an accurate statement of “ White Culture”? No, White Culture ( or rather the wildly differing cultural systems that have been Lumped under that phrase ) only glancingly corresponds to the various aspects presented in that info graphic.  
      So what are they actually saying? It seems to me to be disparaging the many good principles presented . It is  subtly promoting the idea that work ethics are bad ( because they are white) << a lie on both counts. That The idea of a family as ideally being one man , one woman, responsible for raising their own children is bad ( because it’s white) <<< another lie on both counts . And that if anyone who isn’t “ white” is promoting linear thought they are acting in collusion with white culture ( which is bad) <<< again an entirely faulty premise all around.  
      Why do this? Why take clear truths as found in the Bible and present them as bad and link them to any one culture ( even a made up one)? Remember this was presented by the Smithsonian institute. It wasn’t a mistake. 

[M.J.]

1 hour ago, BenJepthah said:

Here is the problem with the info graphic. It takes many ideas that actually originate with Jehovah and labels them as tenets of “ White Culture”. From the perspective of White people it could  be flattering .  But it also presents a harmful idea. That these Tenets ( which are found in the Bible) are exclusive to White Culture and therefore somehow not acceptable to any other culture.  It is the sort of thing a White supremist might promote. It’s ugly and it’s ultimately very very wrong.  
           1. “ White Culture “ no such thing.  2. Take any preChristian Culture and what do you see? The Goths,The Romans, The Greeks,The Egyptians, The various Mongols under he Khans ,  The Various tribes of the Western Hemisphere , the Vikings , Picts, the various African people’s All would have some of the values but not all found in that info graphic to some degree. “ Because the man of the Nations who does the law while not under the law” certainly exists among each Culture.  But in truth that infographic barely touches on any preChristian cultures values. Even the Hebrew people’s directly under he anointed Kings of Israel could barely keep themselves from slipping into the chaos outside the Bible principals implied in that info graphic.    So is that an accurate statement of “ White Culture”? No, White Culture ( or rather the wildly differing cultural systems that have been Lumped under that phrase ) only glancingly corresponds to the various aspects presented in that info graphic.  
      So what are they actually saying? It seems to me to be disparaging the many good principles presented . It is  subtly promoting the idea that work ethics are bad ( because they are white) << a lie on both counts. That The idea of a family as ideally being one man , one woman, responsible for raising their own children is bad ( because it’s white) <<< another lie on both counts . And that if anyone who isn’t “ white” is promoting linear thought they are acting in collusion with white culture ( which is bad) <<< again an entirely faulty premise all around.  
      Why do this? Why take clear truths as found in the Bible and present them as bad and link them to any one culture ( even a made up one)? Remember this was presented by the Smithsonian institute. It wasn’t a mistake. 

Information presented is one thing.  How many people believe it is another. It depends on what circles you run in. Some people, based on what they feed off, are obsessed about these topics, and will happily spend tons of time debating the points. 

 

Other people may have only a vague idea of these concepts, and feel more concerned with  their immediate everyday life struggles.

 

I just don't feel the need to get worked up about it. This type of stuff has been going on for 6 thousand years, as part of Satan's system. I'm pretty sure Satan couldn't care less about my dismay at the problems that exist. So instead of giving him the satisfaction of seeing my frustration, I spend my time sharing the Kingdom news. (And commenting here lol)

[Luisabola]

On the teaching children LGBT and gender issues thing, my little brother-in-law is home educated here in the UK. He gets 6 monthly checks by the council, and part of the question he gets asked (without his parents present, well in the other room) are whether he knows what all that stuff is. So, his parents (my in-laws) have to teach him, in part, what it is. Obviously would be better teaching kids about this stuff by the parents rather than by teachers at school, but just because they’re homeschooled it doesn’t mean they’re completely sheltered about these issues. In a way, it’s good he’s having to understand what it is, so when he does go to the workforce in a few years he won’t be blindsided by it all. 

[EccentricM]

5 hours ago, BenJepthah said:

      Why do this? Why take clear truths as found in the Bible and present them as bad and link them to any one culture ( even a made up one)? Remember this was presented by the Smithsonian institute. It wasn’t a mistake. 

Satan's new tactic... tying the morals of the Bible to racism or otherwise some form of "intollerance", to demonise all things "Biblically good", with a false notion of justice behind it. "Angel of light" at play again.

Edited September 10, 2020 by EccentricM

[BenJepthah]

16 hours ago, EccentricM said:

Satan's new tactic... tying the morals of the Bible to racism or otherwise some form of "intollerance", to demonise all things "Biblically good", with a false notion of justice behind it. "Angel of light" at play again.

This is rather ironic because Marxism in any form is sourced from Karl Marx whom the evidence suggests was a literal Satanist.  He even wrote a satanic play the name of which I will not repeat here and do not endorse searching unless you wish to be assaulted by Satanic imagery.  The man was a Racist and may have inspired the suicide of two of his daughters. What anyone would give his thoughts any serious consideration is difficult to understand. Yet here we are.

Edited September 10, 2020 by BenJepthah

[Old]

5 hours ago, BenJepthah said:

This is rather ironic because Marxism in any form is sourced from Karl Marx whom the evidence suggests was a literal Satanist.  He even wrote a satanic play the name of which I will not repeat here and do not endorse searching unless you wish to be assaulted by Satanic imagery.  The man was a Racist and may have inspired the suicide of two of his daughters. What anyone would give his thoughts any serious consideration is difficult to understand. Yet here we are.

 

What evidence? There would be no need to suggest he was a Satanist if he literally was. Perhaps you could provide a source for him being "a literal Satanist." I have read his play and did not find in Satanic but boring by todays standards. I do not see how the name of the play would assault one with Satanic imagery. There must be more  to your assertions than meet the eye. Can you provide a source for these assertions?

[M.J.]

One daughter lost all her three children in death as minors. Her and her husband made a suicide pact because they felt they had nothing to live for.

The other daughter found out the man she loved secretly married another. 

They seemed to have committed suicide for these reasons.

Edited September 10, 2020 by M.J.

[BenJepthah]

9 hours ago, Old said:

 

What evidence? There would be no need to suggest he was a Satanist if he literally was. Perhaps you could provide a source for him being "a literal Satanist." I have read his play and did not find in Satanic but boring by todays standards. I do not see how the name of the play would assault one with Satanic imagery. There must be more  to your assertions than meet the eye. Can you provide a source for these assertions?

My guess is you looked up something other than the play I am thinking of. And yes, googling images associated with it will bring Satanic images.  

Edited September 11, 2020 by BenJepthah

[BenJepthah]

biographers Campbell and Wurmberg both separately make the case  that Karl Marx was a Satanist. The play by Marx I reference is not Das  Capital . And I am not encouraging anyone to look it up by naming it. The name itself is a kind of distorted twisting of the name Emanuel.