Mental health funding in schools

[RDKirk]

Do you check under your bed every night in case some Critical Theory is lurking there? People become liberals who have never heard of or been influenced by Critical Theory. Many liberals, having heard of it dismiss it as silly. Do you really think that Critical Theory is such a threat that the liberal side of our cultural heritage should be stamped out?

I said: "You don't seem to realize that up to this century, AP culture was easily both "liberal" and "conservative." It's only been within the last 25 years, as Critical Theory has become the dominant liberal ideology, that there's even been a significant challenge to AP culture in the US. But it's still dominant. You don't seem to be able to see it any more deeply than overt religious presentations. Sanders exists quite comfortably in AP culture, and has all his life."

If I've said that AP culture was easily both "liberal" and "conservative," then I'm clearly not saying "the liberal side of our cultural heritage should be stamped out."

You are strawmanning.

 

[lismore]

There is no "Judeo-Christian worldview". There are Jewish worldviews; there are Christian worldviews. They are not the same as they are two DIFFERENT religions.

I'm not sure about that, in the New Testament 'Christianity' was seen as part of Judaism, the earliest believers met in the Temple Courts and Synagogues, referred to themselves as 'followers of the way' and were seen by outsiders as a sect of Judaism, for example Acts 25. As Jesus said 'Salvation is of the Jews', himself and all his Apostles being observant Jews. God Bless

 

[BCP1928]

I'm not sure about that, in the New Testament 'Christianity' was seen as part of Judaism, the earliest believers met in the Temple Courts and Synagogues, referred to themselves as 'followers of the way' and were seen by outsiders as a sect of Judaism, for example Acts 25. As Jesus said 'Salvation is of the Jews', himself and all his Apostles being observant Jews. God Bless

Maybe in the first century, but this is now and what we are arguing about is Anglo-Protestant culture and it's self-identification as "Judeo-Christian."

 

[Hans Blaster]

Laws and rules that were created a LONG time after the founding and after the creation of the constitution. Thats part of my point.

4 years isn't that long.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said: "You don't seem to realize that up to this century, AP culture was easily both "liberal" and "conservative." It's only been within the last 25 years, as Critical Theory has become the dominant liberal ideology, that there's even been a significant challenge to AP culture in the US. But it's still dominant. You don't seem to be able to see it any more deeply than overt religious presentations. Sanders exists quite comfortably in AP culture, and has all his life."

If I've said that AP culture was easily both "liberal" and "conservative," then I'm clearly not saying "the liberal side of our cultural heritage should be stamped out."

You are strawmanning.

CT is the dominant liberal ideology, eh? Someone should have told this liberal that. I never even heard of it until few years ago.

As for anglo-protestant culture, I still find it odd and alien having moved to an area where it is dominant.

 

[RDKirk]

CT is the dominant liberal ideology, eh? Someone should have told this liberal that. I never even heard of it until few years ago.

I'll say it more precisely and accuratedly: Critical Theory is the dominant ideology of Democratic Party leadership.
It's true that most of the rank-and-file haven't realized it yet.

As for anglo-protestant culture, I still find it odd and alien having moved to an area where it is dominant.

I could get into a deep discussion of what "culture" means, but I've done that in the past before in these forums.

Culture goes far deeper and broader than overt expressions of religion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'll say it more precisely and accuratedly: Critical Theory is the dominant ideology of Democratic Party leadership.
It's true that most of the rank-and-file haven't realized it yet.

Oh, I see. I didn't know about because I wasn't even a Democrat. Likely story.

I could get into a deep discussion of what "culture" means, but I've done that in the past before in these forums.

Culture goes far deeper and broader than overt expressions of religion.

Where did I imply it was only overt religion? I find the "Anglo" part at least as odd and alien as the "protestant" part. Their unfamiliar churches are just the start of it.

 

[BCP1928]

I'll say it more precisely and accuratedly: Critical Theory is the dominant ideology of Democratic Party leadership.
It's true that most of the rank-and-file haven't realized it yet.

The dominant ideology of the Democratic party is neoliberalism.

I could get into a deep discussion of what "culture" means, but I've done that in the past before in these forums.

Culture goes far deeper and broader than overt expressions of religion.

It does, but as conservative posters sometimes assert, AP culture is "the vessel in which Christ's Gospel is to be brought to the world."

 

[RDKirk]

The dominant ideology of the Democratic party is neoliberalism.

Umm...no. You might want to look up "neoliberalism." It's meaning is counterintuitive.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were neoliberals.

It does, but as conservative posters sometimes assert, AP culture is "the vessel in which Christ's Gospel is to be brought to the world."

The Spanish Conquistadors thought the same thing, but they were not Anglo-Protestants.

 

[BCP1928]

Umm...no. You might want to look up "neoliberalism." It's meaning is counterintuitive.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were neoliberals.


The Spanish Conquistadors thought the same thing, but they were not Anglo-Protestants.

That's why Catholics were persecuted and discriminated against in this country for so long. But be careful with definitions. The "academic" definition of neoliberalism implies that neoliberals favor free markets. Right now, the only players on the political scene who are in favor of free market capitalism are Bernie and AOC--isn't that delicious? Both the Republicans and the Democrats hate them for it.

 

[rjs330]

Right. Anglo-Protestant culture is no longer the dominant or normative American culture, so Protestant prayer and Bible study have no unique Place in American public schools.

Which doesn't change the point that it was not the INTENT during the founding or the Constitution. It was a CHANGE brought about by court decisions.

 

[BCP1928]

Which doesn't change the point that it was not the INTENT during the founding or the Constitution. It was a CHANGE brought about by court decisions.

It was the increased religious and cultural diversity of the country which brought it about. All the courts did was make the government acknowledge it.

 

[rjs330]

4 years isn't that long.

1947 wasnt four years later.

 

[Fantine]

We are among the most mental health supporting countries in the world. In the US we have a Constitution that, when followed, would correctly keep mental health out of the schools. Constitutionally oriented Christians will read your sentence as the antithesis of what should happen.

I will further argue the re-introduction of the Judeo-Christian worldview into schools will prevent a lot of school shooting because - in time - it will lead to students with a sound, commonly shared ethic which, in turn, leads to parents raising their children in like manner so that both institutions (the family and public education) which, in time, will result in future educators and other professionals contributing to society with that same shared code of conduct.

Little or no need for mental health support.

If Christianity had not been hijacked by authoritarians whose main interest is in keeping everyone in line and holding them down then maybe I would agree with you. It seems as if you want religion to be the opiate of the people.

 

[RDKirk]

That's why Catholics were persecuted and discriminated against in this country for so long. But be careful with definitions. The "academic" definition of neoliberalism implies that neoliberals favor free markets. Right now, the only players on the political scene who are in favor of free market capitalism are Bernie and AOC--isn't that delicious? Both the Republicans and the Democrats hate them for it.

"Neoliberal" was invented by academicians, not politicians and certainly not voters. The big question is whether it actually meant anything in the first place, and the big fault is that those academician's thought process is convoluted enough that their definition of their word is so precisely counter-intuitive.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since someone else quoted this in reply, I finally noticed what you had said 5 weeks ago.

We are among the most mental health supporting countries in the world. In the US we have a Constitution that, when followed, would correctly keep mental health out of the schools. Constitutionally oriented Christians will read your sentence as the antithesis of what should happen.

The Constitution says nothing about mental health or schools. Schools are run by state and local governments which means it is up to them under the 10th (or is it 9th) Amendment what to do there on mental health for students, barring some violation of 1st Amendment rights, or the like. There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit counselors provided by the schools or mental health lessons.

 

[Josheb]

The Constitution says nothing about mental health or schools.

Exactly.

Schools are run by state and local governments which means it is up to them under the 10th (or is it 9th) Amendment what to do there on mental health for students, barring some violation of 1st Amendment rights, or the like.

Exactly.

The federal government has no business in public schools. Since it has no business in public schools (which are supposed to be governed at the state and local levels) it has no business doing anything regarding mental health in the schools.

There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit counselors provided by the schools or mental health lessons.

There is nothing empowering the federal government to do so. The prohibitions to the federal government are articulated in the Constitution and, as you have just observed, the 10th Amendment keeps the federal government out of the schools the schools are to be governed by the states or the people. The Dept. of Education was always unconstitutional, and it has done a very poor job improving American education.

This is the fundamental dividing line between the conservative and liberal viewpoints. Conservatives look to ALL the societal institutions to solve problems, whereas the liberal sees the federal government as the chief institution for societal change.

 

[RDKirk]

Exactly.

Exactly.

The federal government has no business in public schools. Since it has no business in public schools (which are supposed to be governed at the state and local levels) it has no business doing anything regarding mental health in the schools.

There is nothing empowering the federal government to do so. The prohibitions to the federal government are articulated in the Constitution and, as you have just observed, the 10th Amendment keeps the federal government out of the schools the schools are to be governed by the states or the people. The Dept. of Education was always unconstitutional, and it has done a very poor job improving American education.

This is the fundamental dividing line between the conservative and liberal viewpoints. Conservatives look to ALL the societal institutions to solve problems, whereas the liberal sees the federal government as the chief institution for societal change.

Public schools are an agency of the state and the state is bound (in many ways) by the Bill of Rights, which is one way the federal government gets involved.

The second way the feds get involved is when the state wants federal funds.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Neoliberal" was invented by academicians, not politicians and certainly not voters.

It's possible, but more importantly, it is clearly not a term for Americans. It also may have come from the British economic/business press, for example.

The big question is whether it actually meant anything in the first place, and the big fault is that those academician's thought process is convoluted enough that their definition of their word is so precisely counter-intuitive.

It isn't if you use "liberal" in the sense that most non-American English speakers do -- economic liberalism (free trade, low regulation, government out of business interests, low taxes).

I don't know which comes first neo-conservative or neo-liberal, but as I recall the core "neo-cons" were generally 60s liberals/activists who'd taken positions of economic liberalism and interventionist foreign policy. Eventually that "ex liberal" aspect seems to have faded away. The "W" Bush admin was full of neo-cons.

The economic/business policy of the centrist and liberal wings of the Democratic Party is basically "liberal" (or neo-liberal) as opposed to the progressive wing of the party, not to mention the non-Democrats who call themselves "leftists" and "democratic socialists", who are not economic liberals.

I don't know what granted the "neo-liberals" the "neo" tag in the first place. There is usually some difference between groups that triggers a new label, and then the drift continues. Labels of this sort are always tricky.

 

[Josheb]

Public schools are an agency of the state and the state is bound (in many ways) by the Bill of Rights, which is one way the federal government gets involved.

The second way the feds get involved is when the state wants federal funds.

Think that through. Think it through via three avenues of thought. The first is the fact that the federal government has no constitutional power or authority given the Tenth Amendment and the establishment of the Department of Education has always existed in violation of that Amendment since its inception. The second fact is that schools are supposed to be providing an academic education, not a non-academic education AND an academic education that is preparatory and preventative, not one addressing problems it either created (through neglect of its purpose) that occurred in areas outside of its mandate and control. The third is the efficacy of prior practice. Schools do not do a very good job of providing effective mental health services and throwing more money at an already existing bad practice is not going to solve that problem because the problem is not financial.

There's a fourth avenues to consider: There are alternatives that will better serve, solve, and prevent the problem. The alternatives start with realizing the federal government is not anyone's messiah and it is fundamentally, presuppositionally, bad practice to think it is. We've got about a centuries' worth of modern history (90 years) to prove that fact beyond reasonable doubt.