Skip to comments.Common Core Rooted in Math Class Social Justice Indoctrination
Posted on 01/15/2014 4:20:15 AM PST by markomalley
While proponents of the Common Core claim that the new standards are focused on college and career readiness, more evidence is surfacing that a central purpose of the initiative is social justice and income redistribution indoctrination.
Social justice indoctrination in Common Core is not just limited to language arts.
Radical Math is a group founded by Jonathan Osler who teaches math and community organizing at a Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) high school in Brooklyn, New York. Its website states Radical Math is "a resource for educators interested in integrating issues of social and economic justice into their math classes and curriculum.
The CES reform movement, whose purpose is to indoctrinate students with a Marxist-Communist political and social ideology, had been supported and expanded through the efforts of President Obama and his fellow community organizer Bill Ayers when both worked on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the 1990s.
As Danette Clark wrote at EAG News, Common Core architect David Colemans Grow Network also worked with Chicago Public Schools, Obama, and Ayers during that time. In addition, Linda Darling-Hammond, who served as an advisor for the Bay Area CES, served as Obamas 2008 presidential campaign education advisor and has more recently been involved in the development of the Common Core assessments.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The funny part is that my differential equations prof was an exchange mathematician from the USSR...and he wanted no part of the above commie.
Interesting. Too bad the DE prof didn’t lecture the other guy.
I suppose that it’s not fair that not all quantities are equal. Perhaps someday 1 will be equal to 0. We can make it happen if we really try.
Then there are those pesky problems when deltas become small....
The concept is one that is begging to be hijacked by opportunists. One size fits all isn’t the wisest thing in the world. No child left behind ends up leaving more children behind than laissez-faire did. The answer would be better given in the form of spot tutoring in trouble areas, rather than wasting money on mismanaged schools.
A more robust faith needs to return to America if we want to see more robust blessings.
Socialism has every good intention in the world, except that it’s trying to BE God. If it were mistakenly trying to SERVE God, many of its evils would end up being ameliorated in practice. But when it gets into explicit loggerheads with God, its evils are starkly prominent.
I don't agree. Socialism, even so-called Christian Socialism, is pure evil.
As Pope Leo XIII said,
15. And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation.
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.
—Encyclical Rerum Novarum, 1891
Community of goods is just great as a “voluntary” system. This illustrious pope is not going to take on the bible is he?
Besides this is apples vs. oranges. Community of prevalent education is what is being spoken of here.
But anyhow we need to speak of concrete examples even here. There isn’t any such thing as pure evil. There is only abused goodness.
Operative word: voluntary.
Voluntary association and community of goods is the way that religious orders have operated since the time of the desert fathers in the 3rd century AD (long before the Edict of Milan). (And, as you allude, how the early Jerusalem Christians acted in Acts 4)
And that’s why I say that we have to bring up concrete examples.
This discussion at hand was about educational thrusts.
I agree: it’s evil. The problem is that Rome drifted away from that stance decades ago.
From “The Economic Crisis and the Papal Economic Offensive” by former priest Richard Bennett and Ronald Cooper:
“Most people recognize the financial crisis in the Western world. What is not acknowledged, however, is the Papal agenda that has worsened the situation; for example, the Vatican social teaching that denies the biblical meaning of private property. Accordingly, Pope John Paul II stated, Private property, in fact, is under a social mortgage, which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods. Benedict XVI wholly sanctions this principle of the universal ownership of all goods as he demonstrated the same policy in the writings of popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, and Paul VI. Another Vatican Council II document upholds the same principle of the universal ownership of all goods and emphatically teaches, If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others. The best evaluation of such policy is an overview of basic biblical economic principles.”
Pope Leo XIII’s opinion on socialism was proven many, many times over by real world, government attempts to impose equality and fairness. Have we forgotten how socialism resulted in far less wealth for everyone except party insiders? Have we forgotten the long lines at Soviet shops for a chance at a bit of meat at state mandated prices, because all incentives to produce that meat had been removed?
This is exactly what is coming for Europe and the United States. The more power we give government to act as a fairness arbiter, the more of us will be impoverished. The more we allow government to control health care, the poorer quality care we’ll all receive (unless we’re connected to the centers of political power of course).
Socialism is a pernicious ideology based on greed and envy. No good can possibly come from an ideology that relies on the basest, negative human emotions. It’s a poison that will definitely kill the host, this host—the USA, if taken in too large a quantity. Again, it’s not like this is mere opinion. It’s backed up by history!
Socialism has to pretend to have every good intention in the world. How else are they going to buy all that hippie manpower for a bottle cap and a paperclip? It’s all recruiting propaganda. In the end, the only real purpose of socialism is to create a new brand of aristocracy.
...”Socialism has every good intention in the world, except that its trying to BE God. If it were mistakenly trying to SERVE God, many of its evils would end up being ameliorated in practice. But when it gets into explicit loggerheads with God, its evils are starkly prominent”...
I agree with your description of socialism except for the “every good intention,” part. I do not believe that socialists have good intentions. I see them as lusting to take away the freedom of the masses and to steal everything for themselves. They believe everyone else should exist to serve them and those who are inconvenient or not cooperative will ultimately be killed. This happens when the attractive socialism turns to communism which it always does. The real God will take action at some point but usually not until unbelievable human suffering has taken place. I personally believe that Hell does exist for the Godless socialists among us. Justice will come in the hereafter.
That's the problem when you learn about Catholic doctrine from anti-Catholic sites rather than from studying actual Catholic doctrine.
The principle of the Universal Destination of Goods has nothing to do with socialism. It is a recognition that God created the world in order to sustain man (all of man) and that no rule of man can properly prohibit man from using the gift of God's creation for his sustenance. Reference Genesis 1:26-30:
 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.  And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.  And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:  And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
Also reference (indirectly) Matthew 5:45
That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
As John Paul II (one of the popes decried by your quote) stated:
The original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:28). God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth's goods. The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God's first gift for the sustenance of human life. But the earth does not yield its fruits without a particular human response to God's gift, that is to say, without work. It is through work that man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the earth and making it a fitting home. In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property. Obviously, he also has the responsibility not to hinder others from having their own part of God's gift; indeed, he must cooperate with others so that together all can dominate the earth.
In history, these two factors work and the land are to be found at the beginning of every human society. However, they do not always stand in the same relationship to each other. At one time the natural fruitfulness of the earth appeared to be, and was in fact, the primary factor of wealth, while work was, as it were, the help and support for this fruitfulness. In our time, the role of human work is becoming increasingly important as the productive factor both of non-material and of material wealth. Moreover, it is becoming clearer how a person's work is naturally interrelated with the work of others. More than ever, work is work with others and work for others: it is a matter of doing something for someone else. Work becomes ever more fruitful and productive to the extent that people become more knowledgeable of the productive potentialities of the earth and more profoundly cognisant of the needs of those for whom their work is done.
Encyclical Centesimus Annus (31), 1991
Bottom line, if you support the principle of the "Universal Destination of Goods" you support the ability of every person to acquire (not "be given" but "acquire") the goods needed to support himself and his family.
If you oppose the principle of the "Universal Destination of Goods", you are, in effect, saying that there are some who have no right to possess any property. (In other words, there are some people, despite how hard they work, should never be able to earn money, should not be able to purchase land, etc.)
Those who fulminate at suboptimal methodologies and condemn those who use them to hell, quite miss the point of heaven, hell, and earth.
Communism isn’t the devil. It’s a symptom, not the disease.
Get people believing in God and they won’t WANT communism. They will quickly identify it as a blessing squelcher.
Besides I really ought to say “every good intention” with tongue in cheek. It’s trying to do things that would be good if done towards God, and do them towards people. Won’t fly, never has, never will.
But it’s only a change of belief away from things that ARE godly.
Whatever. For every quote you find I can find an opposing quote. Your popes and your church has been pushing socialism for decades. Perhaps you believe what you want to believe.
By the way, Richard Benett was an Irish priest for decades, a Dominican I believe. His family remains Catholic. He isn’t anti-Catholic at all. He ministers to Catholics. When somene finds the Truth they want to share it with the people they love most.
“Waaah, Protestants told you so” isn’t much of an answer if it’s true. Granted, we need to put it in context. Partisans in Protestant and Catholic camps are both guilty of cherry picking.
In being what they view as fulfilling the church role as “pillar and foundation of truth” they actually elbow God aside, figuring that once they have what looks like a pillar and foundation, it actually is.
I assert that earthly churches do this imperfectly. The Roman Catholic stance is that the Roman Catholic church does it perfectly and ought to be listened to as the head authority by any Christian anywhere.
Ceding imperfection ironically allows for a better approach to perfection. You got to admit you have a problem before you can fix it!
For every quote I find I, too, can find an opposing quote. Particularly from the USCCB.
But the fact of the matter is that the papal magisterium (the official teaching of the Church) does not, in any way, support socialism. Period. I would run through a whole list of quotes from every pope from Leo XII through Benedict XVI (the current pope has not yet made any Magisterial statements as of yet)
One of my favorites, by the way, is from John XXIII:
Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.
Encyclical Mater et Magistra (34), 1961
One other thing, on the topic of He isnt anti-Catholic at all. His ministrations are designed to encourage Catholics to defect from the Faith. In my book, that is "anti-Catholic." Anti = opposed to.
It isn't true, and that's the point. An actual study of the Papal Magisterium (whether you choose to subscribe to it or not) would easily show that.
Granted, we need to put it in context. Partisans in Protestant and Catholic camps are both guilty of cherry picking.
Of course. I know of so many people who would be lazy and attribute the beliefs of Presbyterians to those people who are Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, or (one of the many subsets of) Charismatics. In fact, I know many who would attribute the actions of the PCUSA to all Presbyterians. That isn't any more fair than attributing the actions of Westboro Baptist to all Baptists. And worse would be to use what Karl Keating (a fairly well-known Catholic apologist and former Baptist) says about Baptists rather than to find out what Baptists actually believe from Baptist sources.
If a rich guy makes a billion dollars a year in capital gains and only pays 20% of it in taxes,
A) at $1000 per family per year how many poor middle class hungry families can get food stamps if we raised his tax rate to just 40%?
B) How much money will the rich guy still get at the new tax rate?
"This illustrious pope is not going to take on the bible is he?"
Careful reading of the two paragraphs cited will reveal that Pope Leo XIII agrees with the Bible--- and with you.
Well, when half your proofs start with a simple acceptance of the assumption of inequality (”Let epsilon be greater than zero”) then we have a subject that is ripe for the social justice b******s to come in and pervert.
Everyone’s answers are correct. Everyone gets the highest grade made, in the class, on their tests.
I assume the outcomes to all problems are the same?
“half your proofs...”
Reminds me about two line segments of unequal lengths. Which segment contains the greater number of points, the shorter or the longer?
Answer: Since a line segment contains an infinite number of points, they both contain the same number of points.
Now that we have established that any two line segments contain an equal number of points, just how do we apply this?
Communist Core is nothing else besides forcing the leftist agenda down childrens throats
I think your head is in the wrong eternity if you are absolutely unable to get a clue.
Satan is tickled pink when he gets you to think of all downside. Recognizing upside of everything is the first step to redemption... not to excuses (we are given no choice tub to move on Godward), but to redemption... it’s so easy to say damn someone and kick um down the stairs until that someone turns out to be ourselves. Who helped elect this fool the captain, except the crew of the ship of fools?
You too... situations whose upsides are ignored can not be redeemed (by those who are ignoring them, at least).
As a private move, Common Core was a mixed bag. Had it stayed private, its follies could have been straightened out by a process of sorting by merit. And it had plenty of follies. But it got caught in Caesar’s gears, and Caesar just wants to be bowed down to, he has long forgotten God. It’s time to remind everybody of God.
I’m being a BIT tongue in cheek here.
In general, the bible assumes that what we call capitalist is, in fact, normal for the unsaved world.
We’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent or two.
One of those tangents is what can people do privately by agreement. Both inside and out of the world of explicit worship there are plenteous examples.
Another one is what about schools? If there are to be public schools at all, what ought they to be like?
If it is of any consolation to anybody, if I was king I would abolish the public school and make schools private, supported by a combination of private charity and tuition as applicable.
Oh... and Christ is, when push comes to shove, capitalist.
He “bought us with a price.”
No mediocre communism here and thank goodness.
Thank, man, think.
Everyone knows his life. He abused himself by ingratiating himself with cockamamie views of life, when he wasn’t being abused by being raised in weird “families” and being treated as a grand political pawn.
Parents, or at least someone credible, who care with the care of the Lord and whose care is accepted, are the answer to such abuse.
This is not the half inch deep liberal view of abuse. This cuts right down to Original Sin and factors in genuine Redemption which can only be worked by God.
So yes. Barack Obama is also abused goodness. And I just explained how.
Well I meant to say Think when I said Thank, but don’t forget to Thank the Lord as well for what good things He creates. Then we can concern ourselves with how to better the situation. And it ain’t by pulling up on our own bootstraps. You will howl in vain for another Ronald Reagan, say, if you hold God in very light repute.
>> Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.
Which is precisely what happened to the settlers of this country.
The pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock where led by Governor William Bradford whose book, Of Plimouth Plantation, chronicles their experiences. Bradford relates how the Pilgrims set up a communist system in which they owned the land in common and would also share the harvests in common. By 1623, it became clear this system was not working out well. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.”
A meeting was held to decide what to do. “At last after much debate of things, the governor gave way that they should set corn everyman for his own particular... That had very good success for it made all hands very industrious, so much [more] corn was planted than otherwise would have been”. The Pilgrims changed their economic system from communism to individual enterprise.
Bradford wrote that their experience taught them that for society as a whole, communism, or sharing all the production, was vain and a failure:
“The experience that has had in this common course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the Vanities of the conceit of Plato’s and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of propertie, and bringing into commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”
>> ocialism has every good intention in the world, except that its trying to BE God.
See post 38
Just so everyone is on the same page...
‘Social Justice’ is nothing more than a euphemism for Socialism.
Yeah,... they think 1+1=3
You may find this article interesting
Of course he is against the Catholic faith, he is a born-from-above Christian. He has been gloriously saved. As such he has tremendous concern for Roman Catholic people, and rightly so.
This is a matter of perspective. I personally consider 2 Thes 2 when thinking of people like him.
I will simply pray that he will repent and plead with God for mercy while he still has time to do so.
What if you are wrong and the former Father Bennett is right?
It doesn't really matter much if I'm right or wrong. What matters is if "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" is right or not. And per the words of Christ, it is. And if it wasn't, then that would mean (God forbid) Christ is a liar about one point. And if a liar about one point than who can trust anything else?
If we can't trust all the words of Christ then we would be in the situation described by St Paul: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
So, given a choice between standing with Christ and the Church He personally founded and the Church that has Him as its head, that "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (as St Paul described it) or to stand with some malcontent whose mission it is to draw people away from that church, I think the choice is fairly obvious from a risk management point of view.
You misunderstand what Christ said and Christian history. I will continue to pray for you.
You must allow for the notion that your total understanding is off.
Well thanks, I will continue to pray for you as well.
St Irenaeus had an interesting thing to say about our little dilemma, written back in 185 AD:
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." (1 Corinthians 2:6) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.
2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.
Of course. I am not so arrogant as to think that my little pea brain knows everything or anywhere close.
That is why I am so thankful that God didn't just leave us on our own to be "carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14).