# Higher Education



## JS116 (Oct 20, 2011)

First off I apologize for making 2 threads today,it makes me feel kinda selfish so I usually try to stick to one a day if possible haha.

I was reading back on some threads of christian education and It was a surprise to me to see some of the responses towards higher education.By higher education I mean at least a college/university or tech school degree.

I was reading and saw some were in favor for higher education if needed,while others feel it is essential to have a higher education in today's society.I wanted to know what is some of different views on it.Do you encourage your children,family or friends to pursue higher education why or why not?

Due to the fall it's common to non intentionally misinterpret what man is saying,so I just want to ask would those who careless about it,would you call it meaningless to pursue higher education if it's not dealing with your specific job?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm with Voddie Baucham, I think that most of higher ed is a scam. The prices are outrageous. It's obscene the way a school will keep adding majors just to keep kids in school to party, steal the parents money and prepare the kids for nothing but unemployment or protesting against whatever.

For the pastorate, higher ed is crucial. It depends, if you child has a good idea what he or she wants to be then you need to plot out a path that will get them there.

There are wonderful options today. College of the Ozarks is a wonderful idea, College Plus is a great idea. Just don't send you kids to college to see what's out there, have a destination in mind.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 21, 2011)

I have folks all the time tell me that they want to go to law school. I tell them they would be better off to seriously think about trade school. If you look at the median earnings of attorneys in the United States, versus the debt load, its scary. I am sure college prepared me for SOMETHING, since I learned more people skills, how to balance a checkbook, wash and iron my own clothes, and I met my wife. However, I got little more out of it than that, and a ticket to go on to law school. College did not prepare me for law school, and law school does not remotely prepare you for the business of practicing law. So, my view of higher education is that its more like a poll tax for job interviews than a meaningful "education" for life. your mileage may vary


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 21, 2011)

I was in my lawyer's office this week to tweak our wills and he was telling me of some Yale grads who are suing Yale Law School because they can't get jobs. Strange things are afoot.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 21, 2011)

BobVigneault said:


> I was in my lawyer's office this week to tweak our wills and he was telling me of some Yale grads who are suing Yale Law School because they can't get jobs. Strange things are afoot.



That isn't at all surprising... by and large the students in school the past decade are those who have been babied, coddled and given everything they want - and what is more pertinent to the case, told they deserve to be able to have the job that they want. The implication is that they are owed a job, and that when such is denied them for whatever reason, then somebody else is keeping them from it and should be held responsible. Nice society we've built.


----------



## moral necessity (Oct 21, 2011)

From my experience, a bachelor's degree in anything opens the door to so many more jobs. Many hire just for the presence of the degree alone, regardless of the field. Same is true for a master's degree. It's probably been one of the most important tools I've had in my bag, and has gotten me into places I never could have arrived at without it. I'd encourage most everyone to go as far as they can in education. To borrow the American Express slogan for a little humor: to the extent that you can, "Don't leave home without it."

Blessings!


----------



## Andres (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm not necessarily opposed to higher education, but I'm certainly not going to give it a blanket endorsement either. When I graduated from high school in 1998, all I heard from educators, family, and friends was how I had to get a college degree or I'd never be able to get a good job in the future. Baloney. 
I eventually earned a degree and guess what I do now? I work at a job where my degree is essentially obsolete! Now as Mark said, it's not that my college years were a waste, but if I could do it over again, I would definitely do things differently. 

I think being educated, well-read, and having life skills are very important. The question then becomes does one have to go to a four year college and spend tens of thousands of dollars to aquire these. I think not.


----------



## JS116 (Oct 21, 2011)

I agree! Certainly in America we tend to put over emphasis on higher education,while I do believe that if you have not already started a family,you want to to progress in what you do then college is a very helpful tool,too many times at my minimum wage jobs have I heard of people who are in their late 20's on up who wish they would have went to college while they had the opportunity.I don't necessarily believe it will make "successful" or but I do believe it will make you more qualified in alot more areas,I firmly believe God placed it here for a reason.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------




BobVigneault said:


> I was in my lawyer's office this week to tweak our wills and he was telling me of some Yale grads who are suing Yale Law School because they can't get jobs. Strange things are afoot.



Haha,the nerve of them,see I think it's funny people go to these Ivy league schools and think that they will get great jobs when they get out,think again buddy,if anything it will be debt you will be acquiring 

Ultimately I believe God has called some to be Astronauts,Biologists,Surgeons,Lawyers,Engineers and etc. that need higher education
ALSO God has called some people to run Family Businesses,learn trades,become farmers,salesman's and other technical jobs.

But I what I do think is wrong is for some discourage anyone from pursuing what they want to be,like telling them that a lower income job that they really desire will not be enough to provide or telling someone higher education is useless so pursue something else because it worthless,that there is where I draw the line.


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2011)

Here's my take:

There are three types of degrees: liberal arts, science, and ones that actually get you jobs. The ones that get you jobs will be obselete in ten years---no one will care. On the other hand, scientific and liberal arts degrees train skills that are useful in a variety of careers and prepare you for work in an ever-changing marketplace. Almost every industry needs folks who can think, communicate clearly verbally and in writing, and do careful analysis, which is what arts and sciences will teach you.

Now, should you get a degree? Depends on what you want to do. Any of the learned professions (medicine, clergy, legal) are obviously going to require a degree. In addition, if you're hoping to go into politics or high-level business, it's useful to have a degree. However, in many cases realize that the reason to go to college is not to get a job: it's to get an education. If all you want is a job, you're better off getting one now or even starting a business now. The reason to go to college is to become a better-rounded human being with sharper analytic skills through mentorship.

This is why I recommend smaller liberal-arts colleges because the faculty there tend to be ones who are more willing to engage with you one-on-one and actually like teaching in the classroom. You'll get a better education by far if you can find a mentor who cares about your progress both academically and personally.

Community college can be an option---however, be cautious with online options, particularly if you're hoping to do graduate work of any kind. The verdict is still out on the online stuff.


----------



## JS116 (Oct 21, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Here's my take:
> 
> There are three types of degrees: liberal arts, science, and ones that actually get you jobs. The ones that get you jobs will be obselete in ten years---no one will care. On the other hand, scientific and liberal arts degrees train skills that are useful in a variety of careers and prepare you for work in an ever-changing marketplace. Almost every industry needs folks who can think, communicate clearly verbally and in writing, and do careful analysis, which is what arts and sciences will teach you.
> 
> ...




I am VERY glad you posted that!I am myself at a community college planning to attend a university Like(UNC Charlotte)or a christian college such as Geneva or Covenant College.

They are very expensive but thank God my dad can afford to help me and I will be applying for scholarships.


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> The reason to go to college is to become a better-rounded human being with sharper analytic skills through mentorship.


 If that is the goal then we as a nation or doing it wrong somewhere. Most times, we are shipping our kids off to college but we think that is what they are supposed to do next and we have no better idea what to do with them. I agree with Bawb and Voddie as well. Most degrees are a cash grab these days. Every look at the some of the degrees that schools are giving out in the name of higher education? 

I am of the opinion that those goals in the quote above could be met better than going to a university anyway. Online options with focused mentorship is a much better options for many students these days. With the money that was spent on 4 years at college, so much education could be accomplished that would be so much better!


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2011)

JS116 said:


> I am VERY glad you posted that!I am myself at a community college planning to attend a university Like(UNC Charlotte)or a christian college such as Geneva or Covenant College.



If you happen to swing by Covenant, let me know and I'll be glad to talk.



nasa30 said:


> I am of the opinion that those goals in the quote above could be met better than going to a university anyway. Online options with focused mentorship is a much better options for many students these days.



You can't get good mentorship online---there's something about face-to-face that online can't quite equal. I have ideas on how the system could be improved (gleaned from observing a couple of institutions) such as tutorials, better seminars, and the great books method, but I don't think that the university as an institution is necessarily a bad model. The other thing to worry about is accreditation: having that degree shows not only that you have the skills and training in writing, thinking, etc, but that other people have recognized this.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Oct 21, 2011)

From my experience as a college student, I have found most or if not many of my friends have wasted their time by perusing the major they thought would make them happy at the school they thought would fulfill them. I personally think Higher Education is a great thing for some people. The people I think it's good for are people you are those who can keep up intellectually and are mature enough to handle their own finances and not blow there money going to an overpriced school. I know college can be done well, but I have mostly seen it done badly. If you are looking to go to a particular school just talk to people at the schools and see what they think of them.


----------



## Weston Stoler (Oct 21, 2011)

Dude pursue a major in philosophy or something like that if you don't have a career in mind. I am of the opinion that going to college for just a job is wasting your college career. Go for an education and to open your mind to new ways of thinking. Which is why I say if you don't have a carrer in mind major in philosophy. It can't hurt lol


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> JS116 said:
> 
> 
> > I am VERY glad you posted that!I am myself at a community college planning to attend a university Like(UNC Charlotte)or a christian college such as Geneva or Covenant College.
> ...



Oh, I could not agree more. The online portion is not for mentorship. Internship would be a component of mentorship. A good internship is 10x better then a prof/mentorship. It is focused, not limited by other students, one on one. Also, what kind of opportunities open up if we spent the kind of money that we spend on college on getting our student out there in internships, truly neat things could happen. Have a son that wants to lean finance and economics? Have him take some online courses on the subject and then spend the rest of that semesters "tuition" money on sending him New York, then to Europe for a month and then to South Africa to observe the markets, and meet with folks in the industry to teach him. 
Just one basic example but you get the idea.


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2011)

nasa30 said:


> Oh, I could not agree more. The online portion is not for mentorship. Internship would be a component of mentorship. A good internship is 10x better then a prof/mentorship. It is focused, not limited by other students, one on one. Also, what kind of opportunities open up if we spent the kind of money that we spend on college on getting our student out there in internships, truly neat things could happen. Have a son that wants to lean finance and economics? Have him take some online courses on the subject and then spend the rest of that semesters "tuition" money on sending him New York, then to Europe for a month and then to South Africa to observe the markets, and meet with folks in the industry to teach him.



It would be helpful, though, if there were a program that did this and had those contacts and could certify all that. The fact is that college students at reputable schools have the inside track on internships and the like. 

The other option that needs to come to America is the Oxbridge model of tutorial-based education, where professor and student meet regularly to discuss the work. Granted, it presupposes huge endowments and a massive library system to become affordable/workable.


----------



## JS116 (Oct 21, 2011)

Weston Stoler said:


> Dude pursue a major in philosophy or something like that if you don't have a career in mind. I am of the opinion that going to college for just a job is wasting your college career. Go for an education and to open your mind to new ways of thinking. Which is why I say if you don't have a carrer in mind major in philosophy. It can't hurt lol



Nahh,major in philosphy would be a waste,I'm thinking about going to be a computer engineer,so going to college is not optional for me,also since seminary is a grad school I have to obtain at LEAST 1 degree.

For those who think it is a waste,what advice would give to those who desire to get a better paying job leading to a career or move up to a management position?Hard work pays off but if your not qualified they simply are not going to give you a chance until you have met the requirements.A Higher education DOES NOT guarantee you a job,neither does not having one either,so you gotta do whats best and follow where God lead's and not the money,always strive to grow.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

Phillip,

What type of setting is covenant? What big city's is it near by?


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2011)

JS116 said:


> Nahh,major in philosphy would be a waste



If you're looking at seminary, it's one of the better options, actually, along with history, English, and, naturally, Biblical studies (Psychology is a good one too). Computer science is a good minor, given the fast rate of change in the industry, but what software/computing companies are looking for is practical skills, not necessarily the major.


----------



## JS116 (Oct 21, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> JS116 said:
> 
> 
> > Nahh,major in philosphy would be a waste
> ...



It would be a waste for me,I cant really use a degree in philosophy to fall back on as a trade or anyting unless I wanted to become a professor or something,going to a university to major in philosophy would be a bad idea for me because then I would be wasting money,I will certainly take philosophy classes and even world religions but philosophy as a major at these state universities,no think you i'll pass.


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2011)

JS116 said:


> It would be a waste for me,I cant really use a degree in philosophy to fall back on as a trade or anyting unless I wanted to become a professor or something,going to a university to major in philosophy would be a bad idea for me because then I would be wasting money,I will certainly take philosophy classes and even world religions but philosophy as a major at these state universities,no think you i'll pass.



I'm confused: are you looking toward seminary? In terms of fall-back careers, learn a trade: get a job working with your college's maintainance crew and see if you can't learn basic stuff about wiring or plumbing.



JS116 said:


> What type of setting is covenant? What big city's is it near by?



Covenant is located on top of Lookout Mountain (GA side) and is the college of the PCA. It's a fifteen minute drive down the mountain to Chattanooga, TN. It's also about a two hour drive from Atlanta, Nashville, Knoxville, and Birmingham. Probably a 6-8 hour drive from you (not familiar with the roads between Wilmington and Chatty). Chatt's a nice "small-town city" with a fair industrial presence (still) and a lot of start-up businesses (several of them started by Covenant College grads, actually). Not sure how else to describe it without showing.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Oct 21, 2011)

This kind of debate is one of the reasons why I'm contemplating dropping out of school when I get my A.A. in May.

I just don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth, and with the internet and a cheap way to obtain reading material, I don't know if it would be worthwhile to stick around as a Liberal Arts major. I'm pretty much getting everything I'm paying for at a far cheaper price (if not free).


----------



## Todd King (Oct 21, 2011)

In today's economic climate, higher education is, in my opinion, an incredibly unwise decision. First off, currently there are over 85% of college grads who are unable to get a job in their field. That's pretty poor odds. Second, for just a four year degree, one can expect to spend at least $40,000. If one works full time for the same four years, he will have earned probably $60,000 in that time. Then, 10 years to pay off the $40,000 loan, in which time, one who has already been working for a while will have gotten raises and be making more than their original 4 years. Finally, if one is entrepreneurial, then they can make considerably more money than the average job holder.

While money shouldn't be the primary concern of anyone deciding a career path, that is most certainly a valuable consideration. As far as needing higher ed to serve the Lord in a clergy situation, that is completely unnecessary. The apostles, in general, did not have higher education, nor did most of the early church fathers. While law and medical schools do require, by law, higher education, that is a relatively new development that was not a requirement 100 or so years ago. Patrick Henry, one of the greatest lawyers this country has ever seen, never had a degree, but worked as an apprentice to a lawyer after studying law independently.

So, all said and done, I personally think there are much better options and would discourage most from seeking higher ed unless they are able to do so debt free.


----------



## Gloria (Oct 21, 2011)

The total cost of my college education was about $21,000-$23,000 (all things considered). Most of it was paid by scholarships. I paid for other expenses by working. I lived on campus all four years (the least expensive situation at the time) and didn't own a car (walked or rode my bike EVERYWHERE). That being said, my ROI has been fine so far. I have SOME "school" debt, but it's debt I foolishly acquired in my senior year of college, when in a fit of rebellion, ignorance and deceit, I decided to take out a education loan to get a car. (don't ask)

I majored in production (radio/television). I can use the skills I learned in college to do event videography (still dabble in it). I'm using my degree and at the same time NOT using my degree. I wouldn't have been interviewed for my current position without it, but then again, I'm not editing video or standing behind a camera or mic. I've held my current position for 6 years.

I say get a degree at a reasonably priced college/university, in a field that is GROWING and you'll be fine to enter the market. After that, trust the Lord, pray and when he DOES bless you with a job, work unto Him! You'll hit some rough patches, but the Lord provides. I'd NEVER advise someone not to pursue a degree of some kind in today's world, especially not a man. Even it's a two year degree, get it done! If all else fails, major in business (management, finance, accounting, economics, information systems), something computers related (at least pursue the popular certifications), mathematics or chemistry. 

***This advice if for those of us who possess no particular artistic or entrepreneurial skills***

SN: I honestly can't see myself sending my children to a private school. They are simply TOO EXPENSIVE.


----------



## Philip (Oct 21, 2011)

Todd King said:


> The apostles, in general, did not have higher education, nor did most of the early church fathers.



This was because there was no such thing at the time. The Apostles actually had what was considered the equivalent at the time: they had followed a teacher. They were disciples---students. Likewise, the church fathers studied with mentors in the same way. The University developed in the Middle Ages.



Todd King said:


> Patrick Henry, one of the greatest lawyers this country has ever seen, never had a degree, but worked as an apprentice to a lawyer after studying law independently.



In some states, you can still read law in this way (though you still have to have a Bachelor's). Very few firms will do this, though, as it's time-consuming.



Todd King said:


> First off, currently there are over 85% of college grads who are unable to get a job in their field.



What's the percentage of non-graduates who can't get the job they want? Again, this is why a generic degree is actually better: it's more flexible and the skills more transferrable.

I'd say that you need to weigh the price of a school vs. the cost of a school. You can go to an online campus and pay very little---just remember that you get what you pay for. A small liberal arts school will be pricey, but you may decide that it's worth it for the kind of education that such an institution can provide you with.




O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:


> I just don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth



Then transfer to a school where you will. The trouble with reading on the internet is that it don't show up on a resume.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 22, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> This was because there was no such thing at the time. The Apostles actually had what was considered the equivalent at the time: they had followed a teacher. They were disciples---students. Likewise, the church fathers studied with mentors in the same way. The University developed in the Middle Ages.



Correct. This system won't work today why?



P. F. Pugh said:


> What's the percentage of non-graduates who can't get the job they want? Again, this is why a generic degree is actually better: it's more flexible and the skills more transferrable.



Correct again. A generic degree is much better than a specialized degree. But will that degree actually get you anything that you can't get through hard work, ingenuity, and creativity?



P. F. Pugh said:


> I'd say that you need to weigh the price of a school vs. the cost of a school. You can go to an online campus and pay very little---just remember that you get what you pay for. A small liberal arts school will be pricey, but you may decide that it's worth it for the kind of education that such an institution can provide you with.



Sometimes you do get what you pay for. Sometimes, after you've paid for what you've gotten, you continue paying. There are several free or low cost online colleges that are fully accredited. That list is growing on a regular basis. You can also take every single class that MIT has to offer for free. This won't allow for one to get a degree, but if one is entrepreneurial, this can give you all the education you would ever need to become a great businessman.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Then transfer to a school where you will. The trouble with reading on the internet is that it don't show up on a resume.



Correct yet again. However, during a depression, you will find that degrees will come to be valued just slightly lower than toilet paper. Those who are willing to work hard and who are honest will always have work if their pride will not prevent them from working.


----------



## JoannaV (Oct 22, 2011)

JS116 said:


> For those who think it is a waste,what advice would give to those who desire to get a better paying job leading to a career or move up to a management position?Hard work pays off but if your not qualified they simply are not going to give you a chance until you have met the requirements.



Slightly off topic, but it's sad how many people are in management solely because they have a degree yet have no management skills and also don't have a clue about the field they're working in :-(


Clergy only need a degree if churches hire based on resumes rather than preaching


----------



## jogri17 (Oct 22, 2011)

Here in Québec, they are most more reasonable about Higher Education than in the states. They want to maintain an high standard, so they developed CGEP. In CGEP you can pick a University route or a trade school route, thus university starts when people are 19 or 20, plus education is around 1400-1600 per semester. 

Personally I do not like the notion of independant Christian colleges without some sort of government standards. I know that is controversal, but accredidation ensures standards, and there needs to be some, and the government's role (on a state level) does that. That has also been the historical model that has worked since the middle ages, and most countries go by that (helps insure transfer of credis internationally also!) and the conservative thing is not to start tiny institutions separated from the wider academic community.


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 22, 2011)

JoannaV said:


> JS116 said:
> 
> 
> > For those who think it is a waste,what advice would give to those who desire to get a better paying job leading to a career or move up to a management position?Hard work pays off but if your not qualified they simply are not going to give you a chance until you have met the requirements.
> ...



Very true but thankfully this trend is starting to change in places because management is starting to wise up as well. I have seen a shift in our hiring practices over the last 20 years at my company to hiring folks with skills and not just on a piece of paper. I am in real estate accounting for a Real Estate Investment Trust.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Oct 22, 2011)

I graduated from the University of Toronto (St. Michael's College) in June of this year with an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree (philosophy, with a Book and Media Studies minor), and after four months of pounding the pavement every day I had a single, for me, 'career'-type bite (full-time, salaried, in a downtown office environment). Thankfully, the company decided to place its trust in me and I have now begun my professional career. Hopefully I can keep it together and succeed in this thing.

Two things: (1) I could have easily 'given up' and taken a job which does not require my education, such as a retail position, the kind of thing I was doing before and throughout my university days -- invariably part-time, at or hovering above minimum wage. I almost did. This is what many members of my graduating class are doing. (2) I can say with certainty that I would not have my current job without my degree (and maybe even without my _University of Toronto_ degree -- always an impressive credential in Canada; and I am a fellow alumnus of several of the top dogs at the company). Everyone, from the bottom (that's me) to the top, has at least an undergraduate degree. The personal recommendations from two of my professors did not hurt either.

As for my 'impractical' liberal arts degree, I was able to sell it. My position requires strong attention to detail, critical/analytical thinking, problem analysis and resolution, effective written and oral communication, organizational skills, working well under pressure, etc. That I developed these skills by way of intense study of the texts of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant and Hegel rather than, say, biochemistry textbooks, does not take away from my abilities in this regard, and in some ways this puts me ahead of 'practical' degree holders.


----------



## Philip (Oct 22, 2011)

Todd King said:


> This system won't work today why?



It more or less does: it's called a PhD, or the University of Oxford. Take your pick.



Todd King said:


> A generic degree is much better than a specialized degree. But will that degree actually get you anything that you can't get through hard work, ingenuity, and creativity?



No: you got the degree through hard work, creativity, and ingenuity. The degree merely shows that in a way that people understand.



Todd King said:


> There are several free or low cost online colleges that are fully accredited.



Again, I would submit that this model loses something. If you want to save money, enroll at a local college as an off-campus student.



Todd King said:


> However, during a depression, you will find that degrees will come to be valued just slightly lower than toilet paper.



Again, this is because you view it in monetary terms. As I suggested, academic mentorship (in theory, at least) is supposed to be in view here.



JoannaV said:


> Clergy only need a degree if churches hire based on resumes rather than preaching



This is untrue. Most denominations require a seminary degree for ordination.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 22, 2011)

I've seen liberal arts schools touted in this thread several times. They have their place. In my experience that place is the Humanities as well as usually providing a good pre-law or pre-med foundation depending on the college. However, unless things are drastically different in some other states, liberal arts colleges are considerably more expensive than state universities. In every case I can think of off the top of my head, it's at least 2x or 3x more expensive. There is certainly the lower student to teacher ratio (although this isn't an absolute rule with every class.) But some of those teachers also coddle their students in a way that few employers would. 

As a grad of a liberal arts school, I can look back and say that I wish that I would have considered a state university more seriously, as there is generally a much wider range of possibilities there. This is especially the case when it comes to science related degree programs as well as technical related disciplines. 

Is Higher Ed in some cases sort of a "scam?" I think it could be said to be the case. Tuition has been grossly inflated in recent decades due to the easy availability of student loans. It puts "sticker shock" on the back end, with the assumption that finding a good paying job will be no problem. 

N.F. Tyler and Gloria make good points. Although in retrospect it might have been better for me to have chosen a different path, my liberal arts degree has gotten my foot in the door at a number of jobs. Having ANY degree is helpful in that regard. This is despite the fact that only one of the opportunities had any relation whatsoever to my degree, which in 99.9% of cases would only be "useful" in the workforce if I have an advanced degree. That knowledge does however help enhance some of my internet forum posts.


----------



## Philip (Oct 22, 2011)

Chris, I agree that liberal arts colleges are more expensive: this is because smaller anything is more expensive to maintain. You also pay about a third more to get your bread at the local bakery rather than at the grocery store. Why? Because one is not mass-produced. I value my education enough that I don't want it mass-produced.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 22, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Chris, I agree that liberal arts colleges are more expensive: this is because smaller anything is more expensive to maintain. You also pay about a third more to get your bread at the local bakery rather than at the grocery store. Why? Because one is not mass-produced. I value my education enough that I don't want it mass-produced.



I definitely understand, especially if one is committed to studying in a particular liberal arts discipline or is deliberately going that route generally without regard to getting a degree that is going to directly correlate with a chosen career path. There are definitely advantages to that since it will tend to hone critical thinking skills for those who are interested in putting in some work. 

My point was that _some_ profs in _some_ of those schools will let some students get away with "The dog ate my homework" kinds of excuses, whereas a state university will usually just flunk you if you don't get the work in on time, etc. The latter case is more realistic for those who end up in the corporate world. This is simply based on my personal experience. your mileage may vary.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Oct 22, 2011)

My apologies Philip, but I didn't make myself clear with my previous post in here.

When I'm comparing the costs of obtaining the degree to the costs of obtaining lecture materials, books, supplemental materials, etc., it gives the indication that the only thing I'm paying for is a professor to lecture me for 50 minutes a day, three days a week, plus a handful of resources on campus, most of which I don't even use (i.e. math lab).

When the materials I can obtain on my own already do that, I can't help but wonder if the money I'm sending into getting a degree is going to waste in general. I could transfer, but I'll still be in this same issue. Plus by November 2012, I'll be sitting on at least $20,000 in debt.

Just can't help but wonder if I'm wasting my time here.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 22, 2011)

O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:


> My apologies Philip, but I didn't make myself clear with my previous post in here.
> 
> When I'm comparing the costs of obtaining the degree to the costs of obtaining lecture materials, books, supplemental materials, etc., it gives the indication that the only thing I'm paying for is a professor to lecture me for 50 minutes a day, three days a week, plus a handful of resources on campus, most of which I don't even use (i.e. math lab).
> 
> ...



Some of that may depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Do you have any particular career direction in mind? An honest appraisal of your gifts and interests is necessary, especially with this kind of time and money involved. Unfortunately, some can only learn what they're good at or what they like to do by experience in working various kinds of jobs. Running up that kind of debt with no clear direction in mind can indeed be counterproductive. 

If you can sell or have some kind of technical aptitude, then a degree in many cases isn't necessary. A lot of technical professions (which would include IT) do not require a 4 year degree, especially for entry-level work. In some cases, certifications can be obtained relatively quickly and with much less cost than traditional college or university education. There is a shortage in some of those fields, whereas as noted, some lawyers from very prestigious law schools can't find work. (Or at least not the kind of work they were expecting.)


----------



## Philip (Oct 22, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> My point was that some profs in some of those schools will let students get away with "The dog ate my homework" kinds of excuses, whereas a state university will usually just flunk you if you don't get the work in on time, etc. The latter case is more realistic if someone ends up in the corporate world. This is simply based on my personal experience. your mileage may vary.



True. On the other hand, I've had profs let me rework an assignment because I misjudged an author. In other words, some of what you perceive may be the prof actually caring about the student's progress and honing his skills. Again, the gold standard for this model is the Oxbridge system where the student is evaluated on progress over the course, not on the objective value of each assignment from the tutor.



O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:


> When I'm comparing the costs of obtaining the degree to the costs of obtaining lecture materials, books, supplemental materials, etc., it gives the indication that the only thing I'm paying for is a professor to lecture me for 50 minutes a day, three days a week, plus a handful of resources on campus, most of which I don't even use (i.e. math lab).



Part of this, I suppose, is the attitude that you take toward your education. Are you looking to make the most of the resources you have access to. I have taken pains to do extra-curriculars that I wouldn't otherwise be able to afford: things like classical music concerts, access to library materials, studying abroad, etc.


----------



## JBaldwin (Oct 22, 2011)

The most useful and practical higher education experience I had was the 10 months of language training I had in a France. There they managed to teach me in ten months what the head of the U of South Carolina language department said (after interviewing with me entirely in French for 30 minutes and reviewing my transcripts) was the equivalent of 6 years of education at their university. 

I consider the majority of my other 5 years of college experience a waste of my time. I learned in 4 hours of a choral conducting seminar what a unverisity couldn't teach me in a semester. I learned more about history reading and studying on my own than I ever learned in a college classroom. I could go on. 

Some of the most intelligent and brilliant leaders in US history did not have a college education. That should tell you something.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Oct 22, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Part of this, I suppose, is the attitude that you take toward your education. Are you looking to make the most of the resources you have access to. I have taken pains to do extra-curriculars that I wouldn't otherwise be able to afford: things like classical music concerts, access to library materials, studying abroad, etc.



I have been using some of the resources on campus. Been raiding my library regularly, using study rooms, attending lectures and club meetings whenever possible and able, etc. We're too small to be able to gain leverage on concert discounts (particularly in Atlanta), but one does pop up from time to time. The college has their own theatre group with a strong alliance with a major private theatre college in northern georgia, so I get discounted (and even free) tickets as a student. 

Study abroad will take a little more time, but if I stick around, I would love to go to UGA as a transient student for a summer and go study in Morocco.



Pilgrim said:


> Some of that may depend on what you're trying to accomplish. Do you have any particular career direction in mind? An honest appraisal of your gifts and interests is necessary, especially with this kind of time and money involved. Unfortunately, some can only learn what they're good at or what they like to do by experience in working various kinds of jobs. Running up that kind of debt with no clear direction in mind can indeed be counterproductive.



The schools I'm after don't exactly have what I want degreewise, the ones that do are way outside my ability to pay (at least nine grand a year, that's if I don't dorm). In addition, my parents would like for me to stay close at home, which I can't blame them for because some of the major colleges around here are INSANE, not to mention dangerous at night.

Just to tell you the plan should I want to stay in school: Go into Journalism concentrating on Middle Eastern Affairs. That will mean getting a B.A. in History (minor in English) at Georgia Gwinnett College. The B.A. and Minor will not be sufficient to get where the plan needs to go, so I would have to supplement two M.A.s in Journalism and Middle Eastern Studies. University of Texas - Austin has a Dual M.A. program for both of those.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 22, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Here in Québec, they are most more reasonable about Higher Education than in the states. They want to maintain an high standard, so they developed CGEP. In CGEP you can pick a University route or a trade school route, thus university starts when people are 19 or 20, plus education is around 1400-1600 per semester.



Ah yes, the wonders of socialism, or legalized plunder. Stealing from all to help out some. I think the Bible has something to say about this.



jogri17 said:


> Personally I do not like the notion of independant Christian colleges without some sort of government standards. I know that is controversal, but accredidation ensures standards, and there needs to be some, and the government's role (on a state level) does that. That has also been the historical model that has worked since the middle ages, and most countries go by that (helps insure transfer of credis internationally also!) and the conservative thing is not to start tiny institutions separated from the wider academic community.



Government standards are truly a miraculous thing! They ensure that everyone works to achieve the lowest common denominator. Get rid of the free market; after all, the only thing it accomplishes is to ensure that everyone is working to the highest possible standard in order to ensure that they are competitive in the marketplace. That's all balderdash, we should all only strive to the minimally accepted standard so that we are all equal and nobody feels as though they are not worthy.


----------



## Rufus (Oct 22, 2011)

People generally need sometype of post-high school education to get by in todays world, what we need are (good, and well constructed, and theologically correct) Christian institutions that would have the gospel and Christ at the forefront while providing a deep and powerful education for the future of the student, as well as bringing Christian influences into fields of science, history, philosophy etc.


----------



## Philip (Oct 22, 2011)

O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:


> We're too small to be able to gain leverage on concert discounts (particularly in Atlanta), but one does pop up from time to time.



You have a music department?



Todd King said:


> Ah yes, the wonders of socialism, or legalized plunder. Stealing from all to help out some. I think the Bible has something to say about this.



Todd, don't confuse classical liberalism and libertarian economics with Christianity. I think you'd find the Puritans singing a different tune with regard to higher education as a public good. Since the 19th Century, this principle has been recognized throughout the western world, and it has only recently been questioned, largely due to dubious applications of the principle. The fact is that university educational standards are higher in other countries where universities are almost always public-private hybrids.


----------



## JBaldwin (Oct 22, 2011)

> The fact is that university educational standards are higher in other countries where universities are almost always public-private hybrids.



This makes brings up standards and types of education which is another whole topic. I think I'll start another thread...


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Oct 22, 2011)

Todd King said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Here in Québec, they are most more reasonable about Higher Education than in the states. They want to maintain an high standard, so they developed CGEP. In CGEP you can pick a University route or a trade school route, thus university starts when people are 19 or 20, plus education is around 1400-1600 per semester.
> ...



Aye, much better to stick with 'free market' Capitalism in all things, whereby The Boss exploits workers and their labor to generate profit, from which they, despite actually doing all of the work, receive a relative pittance -- _using human beings as means to an end_. I think the Bible has something to say about this as well. 

As for "ensuring that everyone is working to the highest possible standard," indeed, I am consistently floored by how enthusiatic, motivated and hard-working are the stock-boys and burger-flippers at the local Walmart and McDonald's, respectively! What could be a better ensurance of high standards than not providing them enough hours/wages to pay their bills, nor any kind of ownership/investment whatsoever in the productive property on which they labor, and treating them like easily-replaceable soulless numbers? It is hard to believe that such people would not give their all to the company at all times -- that they might just do what is minimally required of them to not get fired!

(I'm not saying that 'socialism' is the answer; just that Capitalism has its own set of problems.)


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Oct 22, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:
> 
> 
> > We're too small to be able to gain leverage on concert discounts (particularly in Atlanta), but one does pop up from time to time.
> ...



If you want to call it that. It's so tiny you'd think they'd be a subsection of the Arts department.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 22, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Todd, don't confuse classical liberalism and libertarian economics with Christianity. I think you'd find the Puritans singing a different tune with regard to higher education as a public good.



I never suggested that higher education is not a public good. On the contrary, I have suggested that one is better off getting their higher education through some other means that much more practical and useful.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Since the 19th Century, this principle has been recognized throughout the western world, and it has only recently been questioned, largely due to dubious applications of the principle.



This is my point exactly, thank you for helping to clarify it. The principle of higher education through the university model is being dubiously applied, as you have stated, which is why I cannot in clear conscience recommend university training to a young man during a depressionary economic cycle when it will only enslave him. Nowhere in scripture are we encouraged to seek to be life-long students, but we are rather encouraged to get out and work.



P. F. Pugh said:


> The fact is that university educational standards are higher in other countries where universities are almost always public-private hybrids.



I cannot speak to other countries, but in this country, the most highly sought after, and most difficult to receive acceptance into are the private universities such as Yale and Harvard. Some of these may have joined with the government to become public-private hybrids, but the standards in those instances were much higher prior to partnering up with the government.

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------




Reformed Thomist said:


> Aye, much better to stick with 'free market' Capitalism in all things, whereby The Boss exploits workers and their labor to generate profit, from which they, despite actually doing all of the work, receive a relative pittance -- _using human beings as means to an end_. I think the Bible has something to say about this as well.



Ah, my friend, you make a serious logical blunder here: that of confusing Corporatism with Capitalism. 



Reformed Thomist said:


> As for "ensuring that everyone is working to the highest possible standard," indeed, I am consistently floored by how enthusiatic, motivated and hard-working are the stock-boys and burger-flippers at the local Walmart and McDonald's, respectively! What could be a better ensurance of high standards than not providing them enough hours/wages to pay their bills, nor any kind of ownership/investment whatsoever in the productive property on which they labor, and treating them like easily-replaceable soulless numbers? It is hard to believe that such people would not give their all to the company at all times -- that they might just do what is minimally required of them to not get fired!
> 
> (I'm not saying that 'socialism' is the answer; just that Capitalism has its own set of problems.)



Here you make another logical blunder: that of blaming the employer for an employees lack of Christian zeal in his work. You might have an argument if the men and women who work at McDonald's or Wal-mart were forcibly abducted and held in small cells in their off time. However, the folks who work for these corporations have willingly contracted to work at said place of employment for a pre-agreed wage. They are welcome to accept a higher paying job elsewhere anytime they desire to do so. However, the employers you are referencing are doing society a great service by providing these people with employment so that they can pay their bills (or at least some of them), can buy groceries for their families. These corporations actually give these people enough dignity to continue to face the world rather than slinking through alleys and begging for scraps from passers-by. If the folks who work at such places do not want to work there, they have the option of pursuing higher education. They also have the option of pursuing a trade of some sort. Trades are easily acquired by attending trade school or by securing an apprenticeship with someone who works in that trade. Higher education, even 150 years ago, was most commonly pursued by such means. This works to not only prepare one for a higher paying job, but also trains ones character. The latter is something which no university professor undertakes.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Oct 22, 2011)

Todd King said:


> Ah, my friend, you make a serious logical blunder here: that of confusing Corporatism with Capitalism.



I smell a Ronulan. 

What Ron Paul and his fans calls 'corporatism' (I think they mean _corporationism_) is a necessary development of Capitalism. Call it a perversion, fine, but it's still part of its natural historical evolution (on the path to Socialism/Communism... if a violent Fascist movement, the only kind that can, doesn't stop the red threat when it gets big enough). 



Todd King said:


> Here you make another logical blunder: that of blaming the employer for an employees lack of Christian zeal in his work. You might have an argument if the men and women who work at McDonald's or Wal-mart were forcibly abducted and held in small cells in their off time. However, the folks who work for these corporations have willingly contracted to work at said place of employment for a pre-agreed wage. They are welcome to accept a higher paying job elsewhere anytime they desire to do so. However, the employers you are referencing are doing society a great service by providing these people with employment so that they can pay their bills (or at least some of them), can buy groceries for their families. These corporations actually give these people enough dignity to continue to face the world rather than slinking through alleys and begging for scraps from passers-by. If the folks who work at such places do not want to work there, they have the option of pursuing higher education. They also have the option of pursuing a trade of some sort. Trades are easily acquired by attending trade school or by securing an apprenticeship with someone who works in that trade. Higher education, even 150 years ago, was most commonly pursued by such means. This works to not only prepare one for a higher paying job, but also trains ones character. The latter is something which no university professor undertakes.



Is there really a substantial difference between a retail job and a higher-paying job, though? Above both you have CEO's and other execs reaping the real rewards while (_by way of_) paying the great bulk of their employees -- those who actually do the work -- relative peanuts. The educated, skilled workers just get a few more peanuts out of the deal (again relative to what the proverbial Donald Trumps at the top are making, most of whom got to their positions _via_ nepotism and cronyism). In the current economic system a 'high-paying job' and a 'low-paying job' aren't too disparate, when the bosses of both types of job-holder are living like royalty. They just _want_ you to believe that there is a substantial difference; that way you will be content with your extra peanuts and not demand more of the fruit of your labor from them.


----------



## jogri17 (Oct 22, 2011)

Todd King said:


> The apostles, in general, did not have higher education, nor did most of the early church fathers.


That is kind of a bad comparison. 2 millenia makes a bit of a difference there! Also Paul and Luke both would have had some level of High Education given their status as a doctor and pharisee. This is why their epistles read differently than John for example. But the CHurch in its catholicity has since the start of the universities emphesived the importance of higher education for at least the clergy.


----------



## Philip (Oct 22, 2011)

Todd King said:


> I never suggested that higher education is not a public good. On the contrary, I have suggested that one is better off getting their higher education through some other means that much more practical and useful.



I can see the utility, but not the practicality, given the way that current hiring practices are set up. Unless you're going into a trade or starting your own business, college is fairly practical in terms of getting your foot in the door. Now, if all you're doing is a business degree, it may be better to just find somewhere affordable. However, if you want to make connections, find better academics, and find contacts, it might be better to go for a private school---because while it's expensive, there's often money backing it.

And the point of my "public good" argument is to say that Public goods can have state support, particularly if they are inherently non-profit. Indeed, Adam Smith makes this very point in _The Wealth of Nations_. 



Todd King said:


> Ah, my friend, you make a serious logical blunder here: that of confusing Corporatism with Capitalism.



He's correct to call it Capitalism, which is defined as mostly private control of means of production. Corporate Capitalism is a form of Capitalism.



Todd King said:


> I cannot speak to other countries, but in this country, the most highly sought after, and most difficult to receive acceptance into are the private universities such as Yale and Harvard.



There are several reasons for this, but I think you'll find that a broader survey reveals that most of the most prestigious schools in this country are or were at some point state-funded to some degree. In the broader English-speaking world, of course, it's hard to find any institution of higher learning that is not state-funded.



Reformed Thomist said:


> Is there really a substantial difference between a retail job and a higher-paying job, though? Above both you have CEO's and other execs reaping the real rewards while (by way of) paying the great bulk of their employees -- those who actually do the work -- relative peanuts. The educated, skilled workers just get a few more peanuts out of the deal (again relative to what the proverbial Donald Trumps at the top are making, most of whom got to their positions via nepotism and cronyism). In the current economic system a 'high-paying job' and a 'low-paying job' aren't too disparate, when the bosses of both types of job-holder are living like royalty. They just want you to believe that there is a substantial difference; that way you will be content with your extra peanuts and not demand more of the fruit of your labor from them.



However, there's a middle class: entrepreneurs and small investors. These are the little guys who are getting bought out in this economy. I'm currently writing from Lookout Mountain, where a bunch of these folks live: they're the people who own the businesses of small towns and cities, serve on the boards of charitable foundations, and train their kids to do the same. They are "the rich" but not the super-rich. They don't have offshore accounts and so they suffer with everyone else when depression hits. These are often your doctors, lawyers, and bankers.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 23, 2011)

Reformed Thomist said:


> I smell a Ronulan.



Thank goodness for Google- I thought you were making some kind of reference to Star Trek!  I have been talking this way since before Ron Paul was popular, but I do respect and admire the man.



Reformed Thomist said:


> What Ron Paul and his fans calls 'corporatism' (I think they mean _corporationism_) is a necessary development of Capitalism. Call it a perversion, fine, but it's still part of its natural historical evolution (on the path to Socialism/Communism... if a violent Fascist movement, the only kind that can, doesn't stop the red threat when it gets big enough).



There really is no such word as "corporationism" but is actually "corporatism" which is defined by Webster as: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

If you truly believe that capitalism always must lead to corporatism which leads to socialism/communism, then you propose what other alternative? Cut out the middle man and go straight to socialism/communism? Even in the agrarian community as set up by God for his people, he knew that due to their fallen nature they would make bad decisions and lose their farms for various reasons, opening the door to capitalistic visionaries. So, in short, we see capitalism as God's design for a humanly economic structure. Once again, the Bible clearly states that socialism is not God's design. While greedy and unscrupulous men do often twist capitalism to their benefit and others detriment, this does not mean that capitalism does not work, it indicates that we need to be all the more diligent in our business dealings.




Reformed Thomist said:


> Is there really a substantial difference between a retail job and a higher-paying job, though? Above both you have CEO's and other execs reaping the real rewards while (_by way of_) paying the great bulk of their employees -- those who actually do the work -- relative peanuts. The educated, skilled workers just get a few more peanuts out of the deal (again relative to what the proverbial Donald Trumps at the top are making, most of whom got to their positions _via_ nepotism and cronyism). In the current economic system a 'high-paying job' and a 'low-paying job' aren't too disparate, when the bosses of both types of job-holder are living like royalty. They just _want_ you to believe that there is a substantial difference; that way you will be content with your extra peanuts and not demand more of the fruit of your labor from them.



You bolster my argument magnificently here. There really is not substantial difference between the general laborers and the degreed laborers. As such, there is little wisdom in today's society and economy to sacrifice for the higher education. I do not denigrate anyone who commits to doing so- if they can get through it debt free. If they cannot perform the task without incurring debt, then they are violating God's word and really should reconsider. In my humble opinion

Again, you revert back to your logical fallacy of blaming the employer. If I am a business owner (I am) who has worked hard for what I have and to be where I am. If I had the vision to take my company to the level that it is, had the fortitude to risk everything to get it there, and worked my tail off for years without pay to see it all come to fruition, then why am I suddenly become evil when I hire someone for an agreed upon low wage, and expect him to do the hard labor while I occupy myself with the business of running and growing a business? Even if I make an obscene salary, it is my business, I have earned the money, and I did work without pay for many years.

In fact, referring once again to your example of Wal-mart: they always pay more than minimum wage! So, how is it that they are evil for paying the worker bees too low of a salary while they are sitting back getting fat off the labor of others?

---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------




jogri17 said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> > The apostles, in general, did not have higher education, nor did most of the early church fathers.
> ...



Your argument actually proves the exact opposite of what you argue. First, you claim that 2000 years makes all the difference in the world, implying that higher education is now available when it wasn't back then. Then, you proceed to make the argument that Luke and Paul both received higher education. Certainly, if Luke and Paul were able to receive higher education, then it was available back then. And yet, none of the other apostles sought one, and Jesus in his earthly ministry did not encourage anyone to strive for one. And if higher education is essential for clergy, then why is it that in the Presbyterian church, the high clergy are allowing tings such as homosexuality when scripture clearly denounces such? Did that higher education that the PCUSA requires really help? I know many baptist clergy without higher education who have that one figured out.

---------- Post added at 11:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------


I can see the utility, but not the practicality, given the way that current hiring practices are set up. Unless you're going into a trade or starting your own business, college is fairly practical in terms of getting your foot in the door. Now, if all you're doing is a business degree, it may be better to just find somewhere affordable. However, if you want to make connections, find better academics, and find contacts, it might be better to go for a private school---because while it's expensive, there's often money backing it.

And the point of my "public good" argument is to say that Public goods can have state support, particularly if they are inherently non-profit. Indeed, Adam Smith makes this very point in _The Wealth of Nations_. [/quote]

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have state support for the "public good" without utilizing legalized plunder (aka- theft), the stealing of money from some to redistribute that wealth to others. That is not a Godly principle and is not a legitimate function of the state.



P. F. Pugh said:


> He's correct to call it Capitalism, which is defined as mostly private control of means of production. Corporate Capitalism is a form of Capitalism.



Actually, as pointed out above, he is not correct to call it capitalism. Capitalism is private individuals, sometimes in the form of corporations, to provide a good or service that they perceive they have a market for at whatever price and whatever level of quality they feel the market will bear. Corporatism is where these corporations entice government to set up regulations, taxing, etc. to benefit them over the small capitalist. This in turn leads to a suppression of the free market and true market economics where one goes out of business or changes if they have a flawed business strategy.



P. F. Pugh said:


> However, there's a middle class: entrepreneurs and small investors. These are the little guys who are getting bought out in this economy. I'm currently writing from Lookout Mountain, where a bunch of these folks live: they're the people who own the businesses of small towns and cities, serve on the boards of charitable foundations, and train their kids to do the same. They are "the rich" but not the super-rich. They don't have offshore accounts and so they suffer with everyone else when depression hits. These are often your doctors, lawyers, and bankers.



While it is the small business owner and entrepreneur who gets hit hard in a depression, it is also true that, in a depression, the very skills that come through skilled trades are the ones that will become the most valuable. An automobile mechanic will have work repairing everyone's broken down vehicles if is willing to do a good job and charge a fair price because nobody knows how to repair their own vehicle anymore. The welder, the electrician, the plumber, etc. will all be able to survive a depression because their services will still be needed while the video game programmers and computer repairmen will be starving. There will also be a resurgence of black market medicine if the economy gets bad enough because people will not be able to afford to see the doctor and he never works for a basket of eggs or bushel of green beans anymore. However, the law profession will be safe thanks to the hard work of lawyer lobbyists who have strove to implement laws requiring all lawyers to be college educated and bar certified.

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 PM ----------


I can see the utility, but not the practicality, given the way that current hiring practices are set up. Unless you're going into a trade or starting your own business, college is fairly practical in terms of getting your foot in the door. Now, if all you're doing is a business degree, it may be better to just find somewhere affordable. However, if you want to make connections, find better academics, and find contacts, it might be better to go for a private school---because while it's expensive, there's often money backing it.

And the point of my "public good" argument is to say that Public goods can have state support, particularly if they are inherently non-profit. Indeed, Adam Smith makes this very point in _The Wealth of Nations_. [/quote]

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have state support for the "public good" without utilizing legalized plunder (aka- theft), the stealing of money from some to redistribute that wealth to others. That is not a Godly principle and is not a legitimate function of the state.



P. F. Pugh said:


> He's correct to call it Capitalism, which is defined as mostly private control of means of production. Corporate Capitalism is a form of Capitalism.



Actually, as pointed out above, he is not correct to call it capitalism. Capitalism is private individuals, sometimes in the form of corporations, to provide a good or service that they perceive they have a market for at whatever price and whatever level of quality they feel the market will bear. Corporatism is where these corporations entice government to set up regulations, taxing, etc. to benefit them over the small capitalist. This in turn leads to a suppression of the free market and true market economics where one goes out of business or changes if they have a flawed business strategy.



P. F. Pugh said:


> However, there's a middle class: entrepreneurs and small investors. These are the little guys who are getting bought out in this economy. I'm currently writing from Lookout Mountain, where a bunch of these folks live: they're the people who own the businesses of small towns and cities, serve on the boards of charitable foundations, and train their kids to do the same. They are "the rich" but not the super-rich. They don't have offshore accounts and so they suffer with everyone else when depression hits. These are often your doctors, lawyers, and bankers.



While it is the small business owner and entrepreneur who gets hit hard in a depression, it is also true that, in a depression, the very skills that come through skilled trades are the ones that will become the most valuable. An automobile mechanic will have work repairing everyone's broken down vehicles if is willing to do a good job and charge a fair price because nobody knows how to repair their own vehicle anymore. The welder, the electrician, the plumber, etc. will all be able to survive a depression because their services will still be needed while the video game programmers and computer repairmen will be starving. There will also be a resurgence of black market medicine if the economy gets bad enough because people will not be able to afford to see the doctor and he never works for a basket of eggs or bushel of green beans anymore. However, the law profession will be safe thanks to the hard work of lawyer lobbyists who have strove to implement laws requiring all lawyers to be college educated and bar certified.

---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------

My final thoughts, and then I will allow my contemporaries to have the last word if they so choose. Why, on a reformed board, are so many promoting secular humanistic fields of education? All of the "great" philosophers were atheists. Psychology is a purely secular humanistic field of science. The only type of history taught in university is revisionist history, and the science, while providing some limited value in teaching scientific method, is promoting Darwinian, evolutionary, secular humanistic science. I fail to comprehend the benefit in pursuing higher education in any of the aforementioned fields.


----------



## jogri17 (Oct 23, 2011)

Todd King said:


> Your argument actually proves the exact opposite of what you argue. First, you claim that 2000 years makes all the difference in the world, implying that higher education is now available when it wasn't back then. Then, you proceed to make the argument that Luke and Paul both received higher education. Certainly, if Luke and Paul were able to receive higher education, then it was available back then. And yet, none of the other apostles sought one, and Jesus in his earthly ministry did not encourage anyone to strive for one. And if higher education is essential for clergy, then why is it that in the Presbyterian church, the high clergy are allowing tings such as homosexuality when scripture clearly denounces such? Did that higher education that the PCUSA requires really help? I know many baptist clergy without higher education who have that one figured out.



1. That is 1 reason why I'm not a Baptist  
2. Even Conservative Reformed Churhces demand it. THe PCA, OPC, RPCNA, etc....
Seminary is in today's world an graduate school (MA, MDIV), We ought not to dumb down studying God's world. I personally believe that we ought not have pastors without some facility in the original language (at least to the point where they can use a good critical commentary). This is the standard of WCF:''The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39, 46) The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8 
3. There is no shame in not going into Higher education. But I am friends with many who go to Churches with uneducated Baptist pastors with good speaking abilities. And in some cases there is no problem. But in other's I have seen disasterous theology being presented from the pulpit. Same goes for my African and South-eastern christian friends.


----------



## Philip (Oct 23, 2011)

Todd King said:


> It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have state support for the "public good" without utilizing legalized plunder (aka- theft), the stealing of money from some to redistribute that wealth to others. That is not a Godly principle and is not a legitimate function of the state.



Do I smell Frederic Bastiat lurking here? The fact is that at least some public goods are public enough that we are willing to let the government tax us in order that they be maintained. Things like public safety, national defence, public road systems, municipal parks, sewers, even (to some degree) power grids are considered to be public goods that can be paid for by means of taxation. Why exactly is this use of taxation plunder? If our society considers education to be a public good of this kind, then it is legitimate for the state to use public funds to support it. Whether this is wise or prudent, you may, of course, dispute.



Todd King said:


> Actually, as pointed out above, he is not correct to call it capitalism. Capitalism is private individuals, sometimes in the form of corporations, to provide a good or service that they perceive they have a market for at whatever price and whatever level of quality they feel the market will bear.



Fair enough definition. So corporate capitalism (corporatism) is a corporation lobbying the government to skew the market in their favor. It's just as much capitalism as mercantile capitalism, Feudal capitalism, socialist capitalism (the norm in Europe), or even distributism. As long as the majority of the means of production are in private hands, it's capitalist.



Todd King said:


> Why, on a reformed board, are so many promoting secular humanistic fields of education? All of the "great" philosophers were atheists.



Let's start with this ridiculous assertion. I can assure you that many of the great philosophers were not only theists but Christians. Even leaving aside such luminaries as Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and the Scholastics, Descartes sought to prove the existence of God; Locke and Hobbes argued from the Bible; quite often, Bishop George Berkeley came up with subjective idealism in order to prove Christianity; Thomas Reid was a Church of Scotland minister who David Hume admitted was his most formidable opponent; Kierkegaard's philosophy was thoroughly Christian; even today, the Society of Christian Philosophers is one of the most active academic associations in the field.



Todd King said:


> Psychology is a purely secular humanistic field of science.



Highly debatable. You'll have to take that up with my college's Psych department.



Todd King said:


> The only type of history taught in university is revisionist history



Some history needs to be revised. Or do you want us to go on remembering the Puritans as judgmental hypocrites who were always on a witch hunt?



Todd King said:


> the science, while providing some limited value in teaching scientific method, is promoting Darwinian, evolutionary, secular humanistic science.



Tell that to the rather large number of scientists who are theists and Christians. Richard Dawkins doesn't speak for science as a whole, you know.

Why pursue these fields? Because all truth is God's truth wherever it is found.


----------



## Rufus (Oct 23, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Let's start with this ridiculous assertion. I can assure you that many of the great philosophers were not only theists but Christians. Even leaving aside such luminaries as Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and the Scholastics, Descartes sought to prove the existence of God; Locke and Hobbes argued from the Bible; quite often, Bishop George Berkeley came up with subjective idealism in order to prove Christianity; Thomas Reid was a Church of Scotland minister who David Hume admitted was his most formidable opponent; Kierkegaard's philosophy was thoroughly Christian; even today, the Society of Christian Philosophers is one of the most active academic associations in the field.



Plus all of the other philosophers who are known in the Christian community but not outside the Christian community (or even the Reformed Tradition) such as Van Til and Clark. There's many more too but there not coming to my mind. 



P. F. Pugh said:


> Why pursue these fields? Because all truth is God's truth wherever it is found.



Amen.


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 24, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> But I am friends with many who go to Churches with uneducated Baptist pastors with good speaking abilities. And in some cases there is no problem. But in other's I have seen disasterous theology being presented from the pulpit.



Besides being off of the OP topic, this is really a stupid statement if you mean this to be a justification of why you are not a Baptist. Really? So you are saying that no disastrous theology has been presented from the pulpit from someone that went to higher education?


----------



## Todd King (Oct 25, 2011)

I don't mean to be a liar, but just wanted to get clarification on a couple of points.



jogri17 said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> > And if higher education is essential for clergy, then why is it that in the Presbyterian church, the high clergy are allowing tings such as homosexuality when scripture clearly denounces such? Did that higher education that the PCUSA requires really help? I know many baptist clergy without higher education who have that one figured out.
> ...



So, are you saying that you aren't a Baptist because their less-than-adequately educated pastors are more theologically correct than the higher educated Presbyterian clergy on complex issues such as homosexuality? 


---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Do I smell Frederic Bastiat lurking here? The fact is that at least some public goods are public enough that we are willing to let the government tax us in order that they be maintained. Things like public safety, national defence, public road systems, municipal parks, sewers, even (to some degree) power grids are considered to be public goods that can be paid for by means of taxation. Why exactly is this use of taxation plunder? If our society considers education to be a public good of this kind, then it is legitimate for the state to use public funds to support it. Whether this is wise or prudent, you may, of course, dispute.



So is the 8th Commandment only applicable to individuals? And if so, then can the other 9 Commandments be completely disregarded by those in government? And since the Constitution does not allow for the state to directly tax its citizens, and the Constitution is the 'higher powers' mentioned in Romans 13, then do we just disregard Paul's teaching on this matter?

I appreciate any clarification.


----------



## jogri17 (Oct 25, 2011)

Todd King said:


> So, are you saying that you aren't a Baptist because their less-than-adequately educated pastors are more theologically correct than the higher educated Presbyterian clergy on complex issues such as homosexuality?


There are many baptists who support gay clergy and abortion (see Jimmy Carter). Liberalism is not Christianity so that is a complete strawman argument.


----------



## Philip (Oct 25, 2011)

Todd King said:


> So is the 8th Commandment only applicable to individuals? And if so, then can the other 9 Commandments be completely disregarded by those in government? And since the Constitution does not allow for the state to directly tax its citizens, and the Constitution is the 'higher powers' mentioned in Romans 13, then do we just disregard Paul's teaching on this matter?



Where is taxation defined as theft in the Scriptures? If government has certain duties, then it must also have power to do all that is necessary to perform those duties.


----------



## jogri17 (Oct 25, 2011)

nasa30 said:


> Besides being off of the OP topic, this is really a stupid statement if you mean this to be a justification of why you are not a Baptist. Really? So you are saying that no disastrous theology has been presented from the pulpit from someone that went to higher education?


 nope, just one reason out of many.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 25, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you saying that you aren't a Baptist because their less-than-adequately educated pastors are more theologically correct than the higher educated Presbyterian clergy on complex issues such as homosexuality?
> ...



I am not making a strawman argument, or any argument for that matter. I said that many of the highly educated clergy of the PCUSA were supporting queerism and that many of the baptist pastors without higher education had that one figured out. Your response was, "That's why I'm not a baptist." So, I was just asking for clarification. I assumed that that was not your true intent, but I didn't want to assume.

---------- Post added at 07:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:08 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> > So is the 8th Commandment only applicable to individuals? And if so, then can the other 9 Commandments be completely disregarded by those in government? And since the Constitution does not allow for the state to directly tax its citizens, and the Constitution is the 'higher powers' mentioned in Romans 13, then do we just disregard Paul's teaching on this matter?
> ...



Regardless of whether or not you think the government taking money from the fruits of my labor to distribute to your benefit is considered theft or not, there is another question here that you ignored that does deal directly with the question and issue at hand. That question is the last one I asked. The Constitution of the United States does not allow the federal government to directly tax its citizens for the "public good." This would include post offices, postal roads, public education (which is found as the 10th plank of the Communist manifesto, by the way, not in any American or Christian writing), common defense, or any of the other 'public goods' that you may have mentioned. Since it is not allowed by the Constitution, and according to Romans 13, we must obey the higher powers, which in America is the Constitution, then direct taxation is a violation of God's word, command, and will. So, is Paul wrong and we can just discard his writings, or do we believe the whole of Scripture?


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 25, 2011)

May I ask, then, if you pay taxes and (by your admission) violate God's word, command, and will? Also, what did Caesar do with the money that Jesus said was rightfully his to collect?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 25, 2011)

Todd King said:


> I don't mean to be a liar, but just wanted to get clarification on a couple of points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The 43% of Presbyteries of the preferred PB strawman for all things, the PCUSA, who voted against 10A, and voted down the preceeding 5 "gay clergy" initiatives that preceeded it must have been possessed of more highly educated ministers than the "highly educated Presbyterian ministers" being gigged here, huh?


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 25, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides being off of the OP topic, this is really a stupid statement if you mean this to be a justification of why you are not a Baptist. Really?* So you are saying that no disastrous theology has been presented from the pulpit from someone that went to higher education?*
> ...



What about my real question about your statement? I was not really looking/interested in why you are not a Baptist, just your ridiculous statement below.
You said


> But I am friends with many who go to Churches with uneducated Baptist pastors with good speaking abilities. And in some cases there is no problem. But in other's I have seen disasterous theology being presented from the pulpit.


----------



## Philip (Oct 25, 2011)

Todd King said:


> The Constitution of the United States does not allow the federal government to directly tax its citizens for the "public good."



According to the doctrine of implied powers as outlined in various cases under the Marshall court, the Federal Government may do what is necessary to fulfill its obligations. This could include direct taxation, which has been upheld by this principle.



Todd King said:


> This would include post offices, postal roads, public education (which is found as the 10th plank of the Communist manifesto, by the way, not in any American or Christian writing), common defense, or any of the other 'public goods' that you may have mentioned.



Several of these are under state jurisdiction anyway.

The question here is much more fundamental than state vs. federal anyway. If you really believe that all governmental taxation for purposes other than direct public order is legal plunder, then (logically) you should support ideas like selling private parks, privatizing and charging tolls on public roads, etc. Personally, I would much rather pay for most of my road travel all at once rather than pay a toll every time I have to go to the store.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 25, 2011)

Gentlemen, gentlemen! I was seeking clarification, not argument. I made my case for alternatives to higher education and my argument stands or it falls on its own merits. The argument made in response to me was that higher education is necessary for clergy so that they can rightly interpret scripture. It was also stated that Presbyterians require all clergy to have higher ed for this very reason. I merely pointed out an obvious and recent case to demonstrate the logical fallacy. I'm not privy to what actions transpired prior to the PCUSA choosing to allow queer clergy. I just know that it has done so
.
Steven, again, I was just asking for clarification on the argument that the government has the right to steal from me to give to thee. Certainly Christ did tell us to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, but he also told us to render unto God the things which are God's. My body belongs to God as does time. Therefore, the fruits of my labor which are a result of me utilizing the time and the body, which the Lord has entrusted to my stewardship, belong to him. This is demonstrated by Christ not having Peter pay out of his own pocket or sending him to work to earn it, but to leisurely fish and give Caesar what he demanded that resulted not of labor. Interestingly enough, our federal Constitution provides for 3 means by which our federal government can collect taxes: 1)they may tax states directly to cover such expenses as may arise in providing for the common defense; 2)they may assess an indirect tax where those who utilize a particular service pay for that service; for example, gas tax to build and maintain roads, or stamps to pay for postal delivery; and 3) income tax, which like our text, is gain that is not a direct result of labor; for example, interest earned on money deposited in a bank. There is no provision in the Constitution which allows the government to, by threat of force, take money from me to fund your child's education (just one of many examples). If we, collectively, think education of all is a good thing, then the Constitutional approach would be an indirect tax whereby those who use the school pay for the schools. The simple fact of the matter is that our higher power (Constitution) does not allow for anything outside these 3 possibilities, so anything outside of that is theft.

Also interesting to note, Christ was having Peter give Caesar what he demanded- dross. Peter was not required to give anything of real value- be it labor or precious metals.


----------



## Claudiu (Oct 25, 2011)

Andres said:


> I think being educated, well-read, and having life skills are very important. The question then becomes does one have to go to a four year college and spend tens of thousands of dollars to aquire these. I think not.


----------



## Claudiu (Oct 25, 2011)

Whatever you do in college, just make sure you can capitalize on it down the road.


----------



## Philip (Oct 25, 2011)

Claudiu said:


> Whatever you do in college, just make sure you can capitalize on it down the road.



And it doesn't have to be monetary.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 25, 2011)

> Is there really a substantial difference between a retail job and a higher-paying job, though? Above both you have CEO's and other execs reaping the real rewards while (by way of) paying the great bulk of their employees -- those who actually do the work -- relative peanuts. The educated, skilled workers just get a few more peanuts out of the deal (again relative to what the proverbial Donald Trumps at the top are making, most of whom got to their positions via nepotism and cronyism). In the current economic system a 'high-paying job' and a 'low-paying job' aren't too disparate, when the bosses of both types of job-holder are living like royalty. They just want you to believe that there is a substantial difference; that way you will be content with your extra peanuts and not demand more of the fruit of your labor from them.



I think a little bit of America is dying. In previous generations, only the pinkos would consider themselves 'wage-slaves' and would instead see a foot in the door at any level as a foot in the door, not a dead-end. They would get that foot in the door, then work themselves up the corporate ladder and/or learn the system and find holes in it, and then open their own business, plugging those holes and making their own success a product of the failings of the corporation they previously worked for. Now, something is different. Now, instead of seeing opportunity in each situation (and believe me, there is *always* opportunity - even a crash in the markets is a chance to sell short if that's what you're into), we pick up the paper, decide that we're victims, as the media tells us we ought to, and put in for pogey. That's not what made America great - America became great because anyone could grab a dream and run with it. To think that there are now more barriers to entry than there were, for instance, in the 1930's is not reasonable. Yes, there is more red tape, but Bugsy and his goon squad are not going to come smash up your fruit cart in the street.

Get a trade. Learn it well. Start your own company, working for yourself. Get out of bed on time and to work on time and you've already beaten 75% of tradesmen hands down. Do your work well. Take pride in the fact that you do better work than the next guy and that you therefore have too much business to handle by yourself and hire someone to help you. Then a second man. Voila, you are an American capitalist of the old school (and your apprentice can gripe about his low wages, etc.) Apply to any other good idea and hit the ground running. I saw an Audi R8 the other day with the license plate "JUSTAPLMR" or something close. And I know an electrician in the same boat - it still happens today.


----------



## Philip (Oct 25, 2011)

Why do I find myself surprised at the fact that the economic viewpoint of this thread is decidedly Distributist?

Wikipedia: Distributism.


----------



## kvanlaan (Oct 26, 2011)

One other thing - we actually teach our children the trade route as a strategy for education. We homeschool, so to start an apprenticeship when they're 16 is not a big deal. Then you are paid for the next 4 years of your 'education' and then receive your ticket in a trade. Following that, if one of the kids wants to go to university, they can, and without incurring debt. A journeyman electrician or plumber makes a decent dollar around here, enough to support a family, never mind putting themselves through school while single.


----------



## Todd King (Oct 26, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> According to the doctrine of implied powers as outlined in various cases under the Marshall court, the Federal Government may do what is necessary to fulfill its obligations. This could include direct taxation, which has been upheld by this principle.



Philip, you keep avoiding my question of whether we are to be obedient in observance of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13 or whether we are to just disregard his writings as so much claptrap. Unless, and please clarify, your argument is basically that because a few monkeys wearing robes told us that our governing documents don't matter and that we should simply allow them to do all of the thinking for us, constitutes adherence to Romans 13's admonition to submit to the higher powers. If this is your argument, may I point out that said governing document does not grant the Supreme Court (which really is not supreme) the authority to do so. Illegitimate authority is really no authority at all.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Several of these are under state jurisdiction anyway.
> 
> The question here is much more fundamental than state vs. federal anyway. If you really believe that all governmental taxation for purposes other than direct public order is legal plunder, then (logically) you should support ideas like selling private parks, privatizing and charging tolls on public roads, etc. Personally, I would much rather pay for most of my road travel all at once rather than pay a toll every time I have to go to the store.



I do support the idea of privatizing most of these things. Federal and state roads are paid for through the gasoline that we purchase, so this should not be an issue. Those who use them, pay for them. However, on the county level, the roads are paid through property taxes. Thus, as a property owner, I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of roads that I may not even use, that are driven on by non-property owners. This is the same principle with government indoctrination camps, I am forced to pay for their maintenance and upkeep even though I actually take responsibility for my own children's education, and thus receive no benefit from the gargantuan prison complexes that dot the county which house their adolescent inmates each day. Even in the times of the Puritans, the schools were decidedly Christian, not secular humanistic, and were paid for privately. If the community collectively paid, then it was by a collective community decision to do so, not by mandate of some self-impressed legislature with no knowledge or authority of local happenings.


----------



## Philip (Oct 26, 2011)

Todd King said:


> Unless, and please clarify, your argument is basically that because a few monkeys wearing robes told us that our governing documents don't matter and that we should simply allow them to do all of the thinking for us, constitutes adherence to Romans 13's admonition to submit to the higher powers.



These "monkeys wearing robes" as you call them are established by that constitutional authority to interpret the constitution. We cannot treat the constitution like the Bible because it isn't grace, it isn't inspired, it's fallible human law to be implemented by fallible humans. Romans 13 tells us to submit to the governing authorities duly established in law, which would be the courts. Sorry, your argument just don't fly in the discipline of constitutional law.



Todd King said:


> If this is your argument, may I point out that said governing document does not grant the Supreme Court (which really is not supreme) the authority to do so.



What of judicial review? Also remember that the Constitution itself is based in common law.



Todd King said:


> However, on the county level, the roads are paid through property taxes. Thus, as a property owner, I pay for the maintenance and upkeep of roads that I may not even use, that are driven on by non-property owners.



So what's your point? I'd personally rather contribute to paying for everyone's roads and not have the inconvenience of going through a tollbooth whenever I have to pop over to the store for a jug of milk.



Todd King said:


> If the community collectively paid, then it was by a collective community decision to do so, not by mandate of some self-impressed legislature with no knowledge or authority of local happenings.



So is there no local school board in your area? At least in the places I've lived, the schools were run on a county or city level.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Oct 26, 2011)

JBaldwin said:


> Some of the most intelligent and brilliant leaders in US history did not have a college education.



On the other hand, many did. And that would indicate to me it is usually too simplistic to write off higher education. What can come out of it does depend upon the school, teachers, etc. (and today's universities, at least many in America, seem to _not _be the best examples of good higher education). And it depends upon what the student tries to get out of it. And of course, there are those who don't need higher education at all (either due to intelligence and life experience or job needs).


----------



## Todd King (Oct 26, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> These "monkeys wearing robes" as you call them are established by that constitutional authority to interpret the constitution. We cannot treat the constitution like the Bible because it isn't grace, it isn't inspired, it's fallible human law to be implemented by fallible humans. Romans 13 tells us to submit to the governing authorities duly established in law, which would be the courts. Sorry, your argument just don't fly in the discipline of constitutional law.



I don't treat the Constitution like the Bible. However, the Bible says in Romans 13: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

The higher powers in America, where you and I live, is the Constitution. Therefore, we are to be subject unto it since it is ordained of God. If this is true, then we ought to be knowledgeable of what the Constitution says, both in its allowances and its limitations. There are limitations on the courts in there. In fact, the courts are the 3rd article while the executive is 2nd and legislative is 1st. This indicates that the legislative has the most power of the 3. There are very clear limits on the legislative written into that text, and it clearly goes on to state that the legislative then can further limit the other two lesser branches.



P. F. Pugh said:


> What of judicial review? Also remember that the Constitution itself is based in common law.



Judicial review is a)only for checking Constitutionality of new laws, not for reinterpretation of the Constitution itself. For Constitutionality, the only way to determine that is to look at the intent of the law-giver. This means reading, understanding and referencing the federalist papers in regards to the Constitution itself, and to the anti-federalist papers in regards to the first 10 amendments; b)able to limited by Congress under the provision allowing them to withdraw appellate jurisdiction.



P. F. Pugh said:


> So what's your point? I'd personally rather contribute to paying for everyone's roads and not have the inconvenience of going through a tollbooth whenever I have to pop over to the store for a jug of milk.



You have that right. You can voluntarily pay for everyone's roads so that poor little you isn't inconvenienced. However, it is wrong of you to rob me so that you may not be inconvenienced.



P. F. Pugh said:


> So is there no local school board in your area? At least in the places I've lived, the schools were run on a county or city level.



Your point is what exactly?!? The laws requiring me to pay for my neighbors child's education are handed down by the state. Just because they give a semblance of local control through so called school boards does not mean that I have a choice in the matter. It merely means that someone local will make some minor decisions on how they will spend some of the money that has been plundered from me. The Biblical way would be for small neighborhoods or communities to come together- as neighbors- talk about their desires and concerns, and then to decide as individuals if they want to contribute to this service. Those who don't want to don't have to pay. Those who don't pay, cannot receive benefits of the service. The first instance of government run education is found in Daniel 1:4,5. The purpose has not changed since 607b.c. 

Personally, I do not appreciate my children's inheritance being stolen from me so that you or your children can be educated according to this pagan custom.


----------



## Philip (Oct 26, 2011)

Todd King said:


> The higher powers in America, where you and I live, is the Constitution. Therefore, we are to be subject unto it since it is ordained of God. If this is true, then we ought to be knowledgeable of what the Constitution says, both in its allowances and its limitations. There are limitations on the courts in there. In fact, the courts are the 3rd article while the executive is 2nd and legislative is 1st. This indicates that the legislative has the most power of the 3. There are very clear limits on the legislative written into that text, and it clearly goes on to state that the legislative then can further limit the other two lesser branches.



Granted. So does this negate the fact that the court is intended as a check and balance on the legislative? If not, the court has judicial review and has the power to interpret the Constitution. Constitutional law, like common law, is only in force insofar as it is interpreted by the courts: where there are no courts there is no law.



Todd King said:


> The Biblical way would be for small neighborhoods or communities to come together- as neighbors- talk about their desires and concerns, and then to decide as individuals if they want to contribute to this service.



Where does it say this in Scripture?



Todd King said:


> You have that right. You can voluntarily pay for everyone's roads so that poor little you isn't inconvenienced. However, it is wrong of you to rob me so that you may not be inconvenienced.



Is taxation robbery? Where in Scripture do we have warrant for this assertion? You're assuming a Lockean framework here that I simply don't: I'm a Burkean and think that government can and should provide essential services---and you'll be hard-pressed to find a Christian outside the US who disagrees with me.

Also, don't forget that postal services and roads are, in fact, Constitutionally mandated.

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------




Todd King said:


> Judicial review is a)only for checking Constitutionality of new laws, not for reinterpretation of the Constitution itself. For Constitutionality, the only way to determine that is to look at the intent of the law-giver. This means reading, understanding and referencing the federalist papers in regards to the Constitution itself, and to the anti-federalist papers in regards to the first 10 amendments; b)able to limited by Congress under the provision allowing them to withdraw appellate jurisdiction.



Neither the federalist nor anti-federalist papers have legal force. Original intent, as any legal scholar can tell you, is very tricky business. You are also forgetting the judicial and precendential basis for the common law that (I would argue) is even more basic than the Constitution. Where common law and the Constitution conflict (precious few places, actually) common llaw should win.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Oct 26, 2011)

Todd King said:


> The first instance of government run education is found in Daniel 1:4,5. The purpose has not changed since 607b.c.



Hello Todd,

Philip can continue his discussion with you (although that should probably be another thread). I just want to point out the error of your historical point. The book of Daniel is not the first instance of "government run education" depending on what you mean by that phrase. 2 Chronicles 17:7-9 is the first instance of "government run education":

"5 Therefore the LORD established the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah gave presents to Jehoshaphat, and he had riches 
and honor in abundance. 6 And his heart took delight in the ways of the LORD; moreover he removed the high places 
and wooden images from Judah.

7 Also in the third year of his reign _he sent_ his leaders, Ben-Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel, and Michaiah, to teach in the cities of Judah. 8 And with them he sent Levites: Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah, and Tobadonijah -- the Levites; and with them Elishama and Jehoram, the priests.

9 So they taught in Judah, and had the Book of the Law of the LORD with them; they went throughout all the cities of Judah and taught the people. 10 And the fear of the LORD fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, 
so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat."

Note the generally favorable description of the king in this chapter (vs.4-6, 10) and the prosperity by God's grace (v.12). The details of the program are missing but _that _the King initiated some form of kingdom-wide education program is clearly stated. And I believe favorably described (note the contrast of the previous kingship, 15:3: "3 "For a long time Israel has been without the true God, without a teaching priest, and without law.")

Now, you may think this is no longer relevant with the passing away of the Jewish state. But that is another matter all together.


----------



## moral necessity (Oct 26, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I'm a Burkean and think that government can and should provide essential services---and you'll be hard-pressed to find a Christian outside the US who disagrees with me.
> 
> Also, don't forget that postal services and roads are, in fact, Constitutionally mandated.



Brother Phillip,

Pardon my responding, but in America, Federal Government is not to provide services, but to protect rights. Anything beyond this is unconstitutional. 

To that end, Federal Government is limited to these things:

1. establish justice
2. ensure domestic tranquility
3. provide for the common defense
4. promote the general welfare
5. secure the blessings of liberty

I'm for cleaning house and getting back to that. Sorry that I am off topic from the OP.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## Todd King (Oct 26, 2011)

Shawn Mathis said:


> Hello Todd,
> 
> Philip can continue his discussion with you (although that should probably be another thread).



You're correct, Shawn. I have allowed it to get off topic. 



Shawn Mathis said:


> I just want to point out the error of your historical point. The book of Daniel is not the first instance of "government run education" depending on what you mean by that phrase. 2 Chronicles 17:7-9 is the first instance of "government run education":
> 
> "5 Therefore the LORD established the kingdom in his hand; and all Judah gave presents to Jehoshaphat, and he had riches
> and honor in abundance. 6 And his heart took delight in the ways of the LORD; moreover he removed the high places
> ...



When I talk about government education, I am talking about secular humanistic teaching that separates the children from the family for the purpose of being indoctrinated into the government's philosophy. What is being described here in 2 Chronicles is the king sending some of his representatives throughout the land to teach all of the citizens. This is most probably in a familial setting or in a community setting where full families are together. Please don't misinterpret what I am saying to be an endorsement of, or a desire for discussion on FIC. 

What we see occur in the passage I referred to in Daniel, is that the children are separated from their families so that they can be taught subjects that the king thought were important to develop good workers for the kingdom. They were separated from their parents so that they would not be hampered by loyalty to family or be exposed to teaching that contradicted the known and accepted teaching of the king and his curriculum. This is still the model and the agenda today, and is why I choose to home educate. I hope I have clarified my thoughts adequately.

Thank you for your input.

---------- Post added at 11:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 AM ----------




moral necessity said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a Burkean and think that government can and should provide essential services---and you'll be hard-pressed to find a Christian outside the US who disagrees with me.
> ...



Charles, thanks for your input. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does list 18 things that Congress may do. These 18 were specifically chosen because they were deemed to be all that was necessary to establish justice, etc. as you are referring to.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Oct 26, 2011)

Todd King said:


> I hope I have clarified my thoughts adequately.



You have. Thank you.


----------



## moral necessity (Oct 27, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Also, don't forget that postal services and roads are, in fact, Constitutionally mandated.



Just for clarity's sake, these are "post roads", (ie. roads for transporting the mail between post offices), and they are mandated in the sense that authority to build them is granted to the government, but not in the sense that they must be built.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------

