Some may not have heard of this story; however, I am sure that many have heard of similar stories.
Father of four in California makes his stand against alleged LGBT agenda in classroom-small excerpt:
Quote:
Monday’s meeting of the Capistrano Unified School District’s school board should offer more fireworks than usual.
At the meeting, Stan Wasbin, a father of four, plans to voice his complaint that local schools are becoming “re-education camps” because of an excessive focus on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, reports the San Juan Capistrano Patch.
Wasbin, a resident of the seaside suburb of San Clemente, asked in a three-page letter that his concerns about the supposedly agenda-driven politicization of the school curriculum be placed on the official board agenda.
Both the curriculum and Wasbin’s missive come in response to a new California law obligating social science classes to include the historical role played by gay, lesbian, bisexuals and transgender people.
“In our public schools, we want our children to learn math, music, science, English, art, American history and a foreign language or two,” Wasbin wrote, according to Patch. “That’s a lot, and that’s enough.”
“If someone has made an important contribution – and that person happens to be classified as LGBT — then by all means, let’s teach our children about that person — but not because of that person’s sexual identity group,” Wasbin reportedly added.
I note that in this article it states that the exposure to homosexual sex and that the propaganda promoting homosexual sex normalcy will be delivered to students in a social science class. I wonder, what is social 'science'? I know quite well of the recent innovation called social studies now widely being 'taught'.
Now, one could rationally argue that social studies could objectively provide a possible benefit to the common good and that there is never too much information. As well, one could rationally argue that the scientific methods associated with social studies would embody what might be termed a social science of sorts.
Yes, some could argue that social research is good. However, conclusions can be bad, conclusions can be subjective, and conclusions can be arbitrarily given preference. Of the many varied and in many cases conflicted conclusions, some of which the Church strongly condemns, who decides what is true or 'best' in an area that for all matters is subjective and philosophical in premise? The question would not matter and would be strictly academic if what was being discussed was only research. However, it is not research being discussed -it is conclusions; conclusions being taught as scientific 'gospel' in schools.
In my opinion, social science and or social studies that are taught today are in reality nothing but an indoctrination of preferred philosophy -what is evidenced is a philosophical tyranny over young minds in action.
Further reading for any interested:
Abolish Social Studies-small excerpt:
Quote:
Born a century ago, the pseudo-discipline has outlived its uselessness.
Emerging as a force in American education a century ago, social studies was intended to remake the high school. But its greatest effect has been in the elementary grades, where it has replaced an older way of learning that initiated children into their culture with one that seeks instead to integrate them into the social group. The result was a revolution in the way America educates its young. The old learning used the resources of culture to develop the child’s individual potential; social studies, by contrast, seeks to adjust him to the mediocrity of the social pack.
Why promote the socialization of children at the expense of their individual development? A product of the Progressive era, social studies ripened in the faith that regimes guided by collectivist social policies could dispense with the competitive striving of individuals and create, as educator George S. Counts wrote, “the most majestic civilization ever fashioned by any people.” Social studies was to mold the properly socialized citizens of this grand future. The dream of a world regenerated through social planning faded long ago, but social studies persists, depriving children of a cultural rite of passage that awakened what Coleridge called “the principle and method of self-development” in the young.
The poverty of social studies would matter less if children could make up its cultural deficits in English class. But language instruction in the elementary schools has itself been brought into the business of socializing children and has ceased to use the treasure-house of culture to stimulate their minds. As a result, too many students today complete elementary school with only the slenderest knowledge of a culture that has not only shaped their civilization but also done much to foster individual excellence.
In 1912, the National Education Association, today the largest labor union in the United States, formed a Committee on the Social Studies. In its 1916 report, The Social Studies in Secondary Education, the committee opined that if social studies (defined as studies that relate to “man as a member of a social group”) took a place in American high schools, students would acquire “the social spirit,” and “the youth of the land” would be “steadied by an unwavering faith in humanity.” This was an allusion to the “religion of humanity” preached by the French social thinker Auguste Comte, who believed that a scientifically trained ruling class could build a better world by curtailing individual freedom in the name of the group. In Comtian fashion, the committee rejected the idea that education’s primary object was the cultivation of the individual intellect. “Individual interests and needs,” education scholar Ronald W. Evans writes in his book "The Social Studies Wars", were for the committee “secondary to the needs of society as a whole.”
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
