Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Principles in Practice: April 2007

John Lewis's Talk at GMU by Alan Germani
Abortion Ban Should Have Been Overturned by ARI Media
California to Energy Producers: Not in Our State by ARI Media
The Religious Right's Culture of Living Death by Alex Epstein by ARI Media
Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West---Free video now on Web! A panel discussion featuring Daniel Pipes, Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan by ARI Media
The Dissolute Dogmatists by Christian Beenfeldt by ARI Media
The U.N. Human Rights Council's War on Human Rights by ARI Media
Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Support Our Troops by Alex Epstein by ARI Media
Don't Say Grace. Say Justice. by Craig Biddle
The Enemy of Prosperity by ARI Media
The VanDamme Academy Curriculum...On One Foot by Lisa VanDamme

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

John Lewis's Talk at GMU

Posted by Alan Germani at 1:53 PM

Last night, TOS contributor Dr. John Lewis delivered his speech “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” to a packed auditorium at George Mason University. Despite a coordinated effort by GMU’s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to disrupt the event, Dr. Lewis argued logically and persuasively that military measures along the lines of those employed by the United States against Japan in World War II are necessary to end the spread of political Islam. Political Islam seeks to enforce tenets of the Koran through police brutality—to eliminate the dissemination of Judaism, Christianity, secularism, and all other conflicting viewpoints—to destroy “sinful,” this-worldly Western culture—to keep homosexuals firmly in the closet—to keep women ignorant, unseen, and subservient to their husbands, fathers, and brothers—to subjugate all to the will of Allah. Such a political-religious movement, Dr. Lewis showed, is contrary to freedom and the requirements of human life and should therefore be quashed.

Members and supporters of SDS were, of course, unmoved by Lewis’s logic. Rather than listen to his arguments and challenge him with intelligent questions, these advocates of democracy stood with their backs turned to Dr. Lewis from the moment he began to speak and remained thus for the duration of the talk—fortifying their visual display with interruptive banter and childish snickering that made it difficult for others in the audience to stay focused on the content of the speech. Through their actions last night, members of SDS showed that they support the agenda of political Islam and that they—true to their brainless thuggery—are either unconcerned with or oblivious to the fact that, under an Islamic regime, protests such as theirs would be met with gunfire.

Given the widespread confusion concerning the concept “democracy”—used by some to mean liberty, by others to mean the right to vote, and by very few to mean mob rule (its actual meaning)—members of SDS should consider renaming their organization in order to accurately reflect that which they advocate. My suggestion? Students for Totalitarian Dictatorship (STD). Such mentalities are part and parcel of an ideological disease that, through actions like those taken last night, works studiously to infect the culture with Sharia Law—attacking the right to free speech and every other right on which human life depends. It is unfortunate that these pustules will also be saved from the Islamists if their American host ever heeds Dr. Lewis’s excellent advice.

Abortion Ban Should Have Been Overturned

Posted by ARI Media at 8:01 PM

Irvine, CA—The Supreme Court has upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which outlaws a particular method of late-term abortion. Speaking for the majority, Justice Kennedy declared that "the law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice."

"But it is not a proper function of government to dictate medical practices," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is for her and her doctor—not Congress or the judiciary—to decide which medical procedure is most appropriate.

"Is the 'Partial-Birth Abortion' ban constitutional? Not if the Constitution is meant to guarantee a woman's right to her life, liberty and the pursuit of her happiness."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

California to Energy Producers: Not in Our State

Posted by ARI Media at 7:59 PM

Irvine, CA—After an intense four-year struggle, Australian energy company BHP Billiton's attempt to build a Liquefied Natural Gas facility off the coast of California has been effectively killed by the state's Lands Commission, which voted 2-1 that its "Environmental Impact Report" was unsatisfactory.

"When we in California experience our next energy crisis—or the next time we complain about our exorbitant gas and electric bills—we should remember the fate of BHP Billiton," said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "That company wanted to build a plant that could satisfy up to 15 percent of Californians' energy needs—a plant that did everything possible to maximize safety and minimize pollution. And what did it get in return? Nearly half a decade of obstruction from California's endless constellation of environmental bureaucracies—and seething opposition from environmental groups that oppose every single practical form of energy production, from coal to oil to gas to nuclear power. The message California sends to any would-be producers of plentiful energy is obvious: Not in Our State.

"California and many other states are riddled with laws based on environmentalist hostility toward industrial energy. These laws must be replaced with a respect for property rights and an appreciation for the incomparable value that is industrial energy. Fossil fuels and nuclear power are the lifeblood of our civilization; without them, the average American's food, clothing, shelter, and medical care would be impossible. And, contrary to claims that we must abandon fossil fuels to protect against alleged weather disasters caused by global warming, fossil fuels are vitally necessary to build the buildings and power the technologies that protect us from dangerous weather.

"The anti-industrial mentality of environmentalists must be rejected, in word and in law, by everyone who truly cares about human life."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Religious Right's Culture of Living Death by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 9:12 AM

Applauding the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, President Bush called it a victory for "building a culture of life in America."

The idea of a "culture of life" has been a rallying cry for religious conservatives in their opposition to all abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and in their opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. By doing everything possible to preserve embryos, fetuses, and the incurably ill or vegetative, they say, we will bring about a "culture of life." "The problem we face . . ." declares conservative icon Rush Limbaugh, "is . . . a culture of death. From abortion on demand . . . to embryonic stem cell research [to] assisted suicide . . ."

But what would life actually be like in their "culture of life"?

Consider a world in which abortion were illegal—which is the exact meaning of the President's pledge, following the Supreme Court's verdict, to "continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law." Pregnant women who rationally desired to abort—whether because of accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, or danger to their lives—would be forced to undergo 20 years of enslavement to the needs of children they did not want to give birth to, or attempt dangerous, back-alley abortions, the kind that crippled or killed untold numbers of women before Roe v. Wade. To prohibit abortion would be to sentence countless women to spiritual—and sometimes literal—death.

Or consider another staple of the "culture of life"—a world in which euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal. Individuals with incurable and unbearable diseases would not be able to die with dignity at a time of their own choosing, but would be subjected to a protracted existence of often unspeakable agony. Their loved ones would have to endure torturous months or years seeing what was once a vibrant human being persist as a mass of pain or as a vegetable—just as, in the now-famous case of Terry Schiavo, her husband Michael had to see his wife for 15 years in a state incapable of emotion, memory, or thought.

Finally, consider a world without embryonic stem cell research. The stem cells that can be extracted from microscopic, 150-cell embryos have the potential to become any other type of human cell—and thus, say scientists, be used in therapies that could save or enhance millions of lives. To stop stem cell research would be to deprive every one of these millions—including those with heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's—of the possibility of a longer, better life.

To uphold these positions in the name of the sanctity of life is a colossal fraud. A "culture of life" would not benefit human life, but cause massive suffering and death.

What could possibly justify the religious conservatives' crusade for such a world? "God's will," they answer. Our lives belong to a supernatural being, they say, and He commands us not to end them "unnaturally," no matter how unbearable they become. He sanctifies bits of protoplasm, they say, and thus commands young women to abandon their ambitions in order to raise unwanted children, and commands everyone to abandon the breathtaking promise of a new field of research.

This is the rise of the same medieval mentality that demanded rejection of the life-enhancing developments of anesthesia, the dissection of corpses, and birth control.

The religious conservatives do not value actual human life; they are consistent followers of the Christian ideal that human life is properly lived in sacrifice to a supernatural being, and that suffering is proof of virtue. The worship of suffering is fundamental to Christianity, a religion whose central figure is glorified for dying a horrific death for the sins of mankind. Several years ago, a prominent religious conservative said of the Schiavo case, "Terry Schiavo . . . is suffering in obedience to God's will." He added: "Isn't suffering in pursuit of God's will the exact center of religious life?"

This is the culture of death—of living death.

Human life is sacred—not because of supernatural declaration, but because of the unique nature and glorious potential of the individual, rational human life: to think, to create, to love, to experience pleasure, to achieve happiness here on earth. A genuine culture of life would leave individuals free to pursue their own happiness—free from coercive injunctions to sacrifice themselves to religious dogma. Such a culture is what we must seek to create, as we do everything possible to fight religious conservatives' culture of living death.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West---Free video now on Web! A panel discussion featuring Daniel Pipes, Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan

Posted by ARI Media at 8:28 PM

Last week the Ayn Rand Institute co-sponsored, together with UCLA's Club L.O.G.I.C., a panel discussion titled Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West. This controversial and emotionally-charged event, which drew protests and widespread media attention, was a great success with a standing-room-only crowd of about 550 people. Now you can watch a video recording of this panel discussion, free of charge, on the Registered User page of the Ayn Rand Institute's Web site.

(If you are not a registered user, registration is free and easy, and gives you access to a wide variety of other free event videos and recordings—sign up now!)

Event Description

From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency—it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an "age of terror" and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory.

But is the conventional wisdom right? Join us for a panel discussion titled "Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West."

A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible?

While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: the real threat is Islamic totalitarianism, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it.

Panelists

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Wafa Sultan, writer and commentator
Moderated by Edwin A. Locke

For information on other upcoming events, visit ARI’s events page.

For more information:
Phone: 949-222-6550
E-mail: events@aynrand.org

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

The Dissolute Dogmatists by Christian Beenfeldt

Posted by ARI Media at 8:21 PM

Interest has recently been renewed in the puzzling phenomenon of Western-raised Islamic militants—in "Australian Taliban" David Hicks, who received a surprisingly light sentence for his armed involvement with al Qaeda; in "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, whose parents and lawyers are renewing their attempts to have his 20-year sentence for serving as a Taliban fighter commuted by President Bush; and in "Jihad Jack" Thomas, who also received al Qaeda training and was charged with being a terrorist "sleeper" agent.

These three men raise the paradoxical question of how freewheeling Westerners can possibly morph into fanatical Islamists.

All three men started out at what appears to be the opposite end of the spectrum from a hard-line religionist. Lindh grew up in the liberal, "anything-goes" culture of Marin County where he developed an early affinity for nasty rap music, Thomas was a beer-loving punk rocker, and Hicks was a high-school drop-out who, according to his former school mates, already in school was a heavy drinker and cannabis smoker.

Yet, all men ended up seeking out the dogmatism of radical Islam, traveling to far-away al Qaeda camps and receiving terrorist training.

How is this transformation possible? The freewheeling, anything goes type and the religious dogmatist are of course both familiar in today's culture—and they are generally considered to be diametrically opposed. But are they really?

Consider the typical "progressive" leftist, with his non-judgmental relativism. He is the embodiment of subjectivism: he holds that there are no absolute principles, that truth is "in the eye of the beholder," and that "what's right for you might not be right for me." He is the exponent of the belief that nobody can have objective knowledge or objective grounds for evaluating another person's beliefs or actions. On the premise that moral values are merely subjective preferences, he feels that there is no factual basis for moral judgment.

Thomas betrayed a residue of this sentiment when he stated that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And Lindh's Marin County parents certainly typified this philosophy with their non-judgmental attitude towards his affinity for repugnant rap music and his later conversion to radical Islam. Hicks's early life, as a drinker, dropout and deadbeat dad, seems to be the very embodiment of this approach.

The religious dogmatist, on the other hand, dismisses the "truth is relative" chorus of the subjectivists and has no qualms about making moral judgments. His philosophy, he says, espouses the unquestionable truth and advocates absolute standards of right and wrong.

It is only on the surface, however, that the dogmatist is opposed to the subjectivist; at root, the two share a fundamental similarity. In denying that there are any objective standards by which to choose how to think or act, the subjectivist makes clear that his choices are ruled by blind feelings. This is precisely also the basic policy of the religious dogmatist.

There is an infinite number of opposing religious sects. How does the religionist decide which faith to embrace, which revelations to follow and which authority to obey? Does he scientifically gather the evidence, carefully weigh it, and then adopt the conclusion to which reason and logic point? Obviously not. He feels it. He feels that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, astrology or whatever, is the right faith for him.

As Thomas himself describes his conversion to Islam, after agreeing to fast for the month of Ramadan: "I just felt a link from all the prophets of Adam and Noah and Moses and Abraham and all the prophets coming from one God and Confucius and Buddha and all the people being messengers and all my whole world came together." He continued to follow his feelings to radical Islam, to terrorist training, and to the adoption of "Jihad" as his first name.

So while the religionist may claim to uphold absolute truths, his beliefs are as arbitrary and baseless as those of the subjectivist. Thus, the paradoxical conversions of Lindh, Thomas and Hicks—from subjectivist to religious dogmatist—aren't so paradoxical after all; in both cases, the switch was merely from one form of emotionalism to another.

What neither the subjectivist nor the dogmatist can fathom is the need for an objective approach—a method of seeking truth, acquiring knowledge, and defining moral standards, not by indulgence in emotions, but by a process of reasoning based on factual evidence alone. In every issue and area of its life, a mind on this premise is moved not by arbitrary whims, but by logical arguments that are grounded in directly perceivable facts.

What is needed, then, to avoid raising the "Jihad Jacks" and American or Australian "Talibans" of the future, is for our culture to reject emotionalism in all of its varieties—whether in the form of anything-goes subjectivism or of emotion-driven faith in mystical dogmas—in favor of the rational alternative: objectivity.

Christian Beenfeldt, MA in philosophy, is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The U.N. Human Rights Council's War on Human Rights

Posted by ARI Media at 10:22 PM

Irvine, CA—The U.N. Human Rights Council recently passed a resolution urging nations to pass laws prohibiting the dissemination of ideas that "defame religion." It appears that the resolution was partly a response to last year's Danish cartoon crisis, where hordes of angry Muslims rioted in violent protest of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

"The advocates of this resolution perversely equate those who drew the Danish cartoons with those who rioted and threatened to murder the cartoonists," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Both, they say, are guilty of a crime and should be restrained and punished by the government—with the unstated caveat that the cartoonists are guiltier, since they allegedly incited the violent mobs by defaming Islam.

"To morally equate the Danish cartoonists with the Muslim rioters is to wipe out the distinction between speech and force. It is to declare there is no essential difference between the filmmaker Theo van Gogh,and the Muslim who murdered him for producing a film that 'defamed Islam.'

"Freedom of speech means that individuals have the right to advocate any idea, without the threat of government censorship, regardless of how many people that idea may offend. To silence individuals in order to protect the sensibilities of mullahs and mobs is to wipe out this crucial right—and it is to whitewash the blood-stained hands of killers by declaring that they are no worse than those who peacefully criticize them.

"Yet this disgraceful moral equivalence is a symptom of the larger moral equivalence that pervades the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is based on the gross pretense that its members—including belligerent regimes such as Iran and Syria, and oppressive dictatorships such as China and Cuba—are champions of peace and individual rights. As a result, its main function is to provide a forum for thugs and dictators to criticize free nations such as the United States and Israel, while pushing their anti-freedom agendas.

"The United States should condemn this resolution—and the morally corrupt organization that produced it."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Support Our Troops by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 8:58 PM

Supporters and opponents of President Bush's Iraq War are clashing in a furious debate over who truly supports our troops. The President's critics say they are supporting our troops by setting a timetable to bring them home from an "unnecessary" war. Supporters of the Iraq war say they support our troops by supporting their "vital" mission in Iraq.

In fact, neither liberals nor conservatives truly support the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend America. For both, "support our troops" is a cheap, undeserved claim to patriotism—one that obscures their unwillingness to do what is truly necessary to protect America and its soldiers.

Granted, almost everyone wants to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs: the best weapons, armor, provisions, and training available—as well as praise, gratitude, and encouragement. But for our government to truly support our troops, it must do far more than help them do their jobs; it must give them the right jobs to do—the jobs that will effectively defend America while minimizing the risk to their lives. Our government must place soldiers' lives at risk only when American freedom is threatened, and during war it must give them the objectives and tactics that will defeat the enemy as quickly as possible.

The conservatives' Iraq war does not meet this standard. It could have—if the war had been undertaken as a step in defeating the anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring regimes of the Middle East and thus rendering the region non-threatening. Instead, President Bush made the war's primary focus the welfare of Iraqis—above all, their "freedom" to elect whatever regime they wished, no matter how anti-American. Further sacrificing Americans to Iraqis, Bush and his subordinates imposed crippling "rules of engagement" (also supported by liberals) that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above our soldiers. Our hamstrung troops in Iraq have not been allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency; instead, they have been forced to suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy, while Islamic totalitarians worldwide rejoice in our defeat.

One does not support our troops by sending them to fight wars of self-sacrifice and then thanking their corpses. The conservatives' call to "stay the course" in Iraq—or to add 20,000 troops to that course—is harmful to America and its troops because the mission has been conceived and conducted in defiance of American interests.

If the conservatives do not support our troops, then do the liberals? Absolutely not.

Observe that while liberals criticize the Iraq war for killing our troops, they propose no alternative policy that would protect America against Islamic totalitarianism and its state supporters, including the militant, terrorist theocracy of Iran. Liberals' only policy proposal is that we not take military action in Iraq or in any other country beyond Afghanistan. Why? Because they believe that America has no right to defy the "international community" or "impose its will on the rest of the world"—i.e., to aggressively pursue its self-defense. They, like the conservatives, advocate self-sacrifice in foreign policy. Denying our right to an all-out military defense, liberals say we must engage committed enemies like Iran with endless "diplomacy," i.e., bribery, appeasement, and inaction.

One does not support our troops by keeping them home when their and our freedom requires military action. Our soldiers did not join the military to sit on their hands while Iran prepares for nuclear jihad.

If liberals were truly concerned with our troops in Iraq and the freedom our soldiers should be fighting for, they would call for our soldiers to smash the insurgency and move on to defeat our other enemies. Instead, they call for a self-effacing retreat from Iraq, followed by further kowtowing to the anti-Americans at the United Nations—actions that would greatly embolden the Islamic totalitarians.

Liberals oppose the Iraq war and other wars, not because they truly value our soldiers, but because they—like the conservatives—oppose our soldiers mounting an uncompromising, self-assertive defense of America. But such a defense is required to defeat the threat of Islamic totalitarianism. We must adopt a foreign policy of self-interest and commit to defend ourselves using our full, unmatched military might. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals support this, and thus they end up sacrificing our troops and our freedom.

Do not let the conservatives or liberals pose as defenders of America or its military. Demand that they start truly protecting America and its soldiers—or be scorned as traitors to both.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Don't Say Grace. Say Justice.

Posted by Craig Biddle at 5:32 PM

The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged “God” for the productive accomplishments of actual men.

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medication that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God (who does not exist) is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any of them? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone's life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from here out—don't say grace; say justice: Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they're through. It's the right thing to do.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, April 06, 2007

The Enemy of Prosperity

Posted by ARI Media at 11:26 AM

Irvine, CA—In his forthcoming book, the Pope claims that the West, in its pursuit of earthly prosperity, has "plundered and sacked" Africa and other poor regions. "We see how our lifestyle, the history that involved us, has stripped them naked and continues to strip them naked," he writes.

"Contrary to the Pope's statements, the Third World is not impoverished because of Western 'exploitation,'" said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "It is impoverished precisely because it has failed to embrace Western ideals—the very ideals rejected by Christianity.

"The root of the West's prosperity is its distinctive values of reason, science, and capitalism. Rational minds, free to pursue material prosperity, have produced an explosion of wealth and technology—from electricity to automobiles, from medicines to personal computers—that has improved our lives and extended our lifespan.

"It is obvious that the third world has failed to embrace these values, and has instead remained mired in mysticism and tribalism. But Christianity rejects them as well; it teaches us to scorn science and earthly success in favor of prayer and religious asceticism. As Jesus counseled his followers, 'Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth.' It is bizarre to suggest that the solution to the third world's rampant poverty is a philosophy that idealizes poverty.

"In rejecting the preconditions and goal of prosperity, the Pope makes it clear that his aim is not to see the Third World advance—it is to condemn the West for its commitment to improving and enjoying life on this earth.

"Those who desire better lives for themselves and their families should reject the Pope's immoral message and embrace the values of reason and freedom."

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Sunday, April 01, 2007

The VanDamme Academy Curriculum...On One Foot

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 9:46 PM

First, I highlight the fact that ours is a core knowledge program.

Nowhere in our schedule will parents see the array of time wasters that clutter a typical grade school curriculum, classes that range from the traditional Phys Ed, Home Ec, and Wood Shop to sundry modern incarnations like Tech Ed, Sex Ed, AOL (Awareness of Other Languages), and Conflict Resolution.

At VanDamme Academy, we do not regard all subjects as created equal. We are ruthlessly possessive of the school day, and will give time only to those subjects essential to the child’s development into an informed, intelligent, rational adult capable of making good judgments and leading a fulfilled life.

We teach them history, so that they learn on a grand scale the consequences of men’s ideas and actions, and can bring that understanding to bear on everything from their political opinions to their personal lives; we teach them great literature, so that they are introduced to an array of intriguing situations, masterfully drawn characters, and insightful world views, and can then face their own lives equipped with this wealth of knowledge and experience. We teach them science, so that they come to recognize their world as an orderly, law- governed place that can be harnessed for man’s welfare. We teach them math, so that they grasp the power of gauging, scaling, and measuring the physical world and appreciate the value of precise, logical thinking. We teach them the language arts, so that they become thoughtful, logical, articulate writers (which means thinkers), who can consider and express the knowledge they have gained with clarity and precision.

I then point out how the content of the classes differs radically from that of today’s schools.

We do not teach social studies, we teach history. Rather than a random assortment of facts, figures and dates that bore a child to tears and leave him always questioning, “Why do I have to know this?” we teach a purposeful and compelling story of mankind. As we present it, the story is integrated and causal and offers profoundly valuable moral lessons. So, the feeling of a VanDamme Academy graduate is, “How could anyone not know this?”

We do not teach an English class, cramming literature, writing, grammar, vocabulary and spelling into a single period and consequently doing a woefully inadequate job of all of them. Instead, we devote a significant portion of the day to these subjects—to ensure that students have ample time to discuss, digest, analyze, write about and enjoy the literature they read, to see to it that they have plenty of time to learn, practice, and master the art of essay writing, and to allow them the time necessary for developing the precision of expression that comes from a thorough study of grammar, vocabulary, and spelling.

We do not, in place of a meaningful understanding of scientific truths, offer them abstract jargon to be memorized (“in protein synthesis... ribosomal subunits attach to the messenger RNA and amino acids are joined to form a polypeptide or a protein through a process called translation”), political propaganda (“evaluate the social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits arising from the methods of electrical energy production”), or purposeless “hands-on” activities designed to engage students by blurring the line between science class and recess playtime. We teach them scientific facts that are age-appropriate and accessible and that make real to them the order and intelligibility of the physical world.

Hearing this presentation, most parents sigh in a sort of melancholy recognition that this is what constitutes a real education and lamentation of their own and their children’s lost years. The majority then enroll their children, and ask with a smile (as if they are the first) whether we also enroll adults.

For now, VanDamme Academy offers an educational oasis to ninety Southern California students and a physics course for adults. In time, as the number of products grows, as the quality of the curriculum continues to improve, and as the school’s philosophy spreads, I hope we will help pave the way for an educational revolution.

Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy's free, weekly e-newsletter: "Pedagogically Correct." Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post