Higher Education

[nasa30]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Philip]

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]

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]

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

Wikipedia: Distributism.

 

[kvanlaan]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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 ----------

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.")

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 ----------

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!

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]

I hope I have clarified my thoughts adequately.

You have. Thank you.

 

[moral necessity]

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!