Utah To Teach USA is a Republic, Not a Democracy 1277
0ryan0 writes "Utah lawmakers passed a bill today to force public school teachers to teach that the USA is a republic, not a democracy, because a 'Democracy' would have 'Democrat' in it." The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!
Technically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
P.S. Registered Democrat speaking here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they're not right. We are a representative democracy or a democratic republic. As in we have a representative government, but we vote for the representatives. A nation as large as the US does not function with direct democracy. There's just way too many issues for everybody to vote on everything the way that they do in some smaller countries.
Re:Technically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Technically... (Score:5, Funny)
We are a Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist Republic, technically. We have a Constitution, we use a Federal system of governance, we use democracy for elections, socialism for helping old or needy people, and we are a country of the people. So, technically, we are a Constitutional Federal Democratic Socialist Republic.
Re:Technically... (Score:4, Insightful)
(ob. Monty Python for the day)
A Constitutional Federal Republic (Score:5, Informative)
Important thing to note. Constitutional governments are one where there is a high binding law, above even the governing bodies, that isn't subject to change in the same manner as other laws. The reason to note it with regards to various governments is when you say a government is "Constitutional," it generally means "Has a functioning constitution that actually places some restrictions on the government." Also republics aren't the only kind of governments that can be as such, there are Constitutional Monarchies and so on.
But you are correct, the US is a republic, and always has been. There's a very strong democratic tradition in the US, more than many nations and at the state and lower level you see a lot more of that (like people directly voting on propositions) but it is a republic in structure and function.
One really good example of it that is more concrete to many people is presidential elections. You do NOT elect the president, you elect a person to go vote for the president. When you cast your vote, what you are doing is determining what electors you'd like to go and vote for the president. Who the electors are, the specifics of their choosing and so on varies state to state a bit, but that is how it works and how a president can win the popular vote but lose the election (And Bush v Gore isn't the first time it has happened).
Now I'm not saying that this bill is a useful thing, frankly the legislature shouldn't be concerned on this. However I don't think it is a bad idea to teach kids about different kinds of government and get them a good understanding of clear labeling.
Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic (Score:5, Informative)
US is a republic, yes. US is also a democracy. These two words are not antonyms today.
US is not unique, either. E.g. Germany is also a federal constitutional democratic republic. In fact, all Western states which are not constitutional monarchies are republics (though not all are constitutional, and not all are federal).
The whole idea that the word "democracy" is somehow bad is purely an American phenomenon. Everywhere else in the world - including other English-speaking countries - it means solely that government reflects the will of the people, and nothing more; from there it is detailed further (e.g. "direct democracy", "representative democracy" etc) as needed. I've never seen a European say that their country is "a republic, not a democracy".
In US, though, it seems to be some weird kind of shibboleth - especially interesting that I mostly notice it being used by less moderate conservatives and libertarians. Non-political people are perfectly happy with using "democracy" in its everyday, sane meaning.
Re:A Constitutional Federal Republic (Score:4, Informative)
In a democracy, "the people" vote on everything.
That's plainly false (which is the crux of the problem), and my reference is any English dictionary closest to you. E.g. from OED [oed.com]:
Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them.
A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.
In Modern English, what you describe is called "direct democracy". Plain unqualified "democracy" is an umbrella term for all kind of democracies, including "representative democracy". A subset of the latter is a "democratic republic".
Re:Technically... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, we are not a representative democracy. In a representative democracy majority rules all at all times. We do not have that by virtue of our constitution, making us a constitutional republic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're all wrong. We have a corporate run government with the illusion of an elected republic.I mean really? When was the last time the Government followed the people's wishes? Really.
Follow the money.It goes from our pockets to .... let's see .... hmmm.. maybe Wall Street?
All of the above (Score:5, Informative)
Does the US use democracy [wikipedia.org]? Yes.
Does the US have a constitution [wikipedia.org]? Yes.
So we're a democratic constitutional republic. Kind of like the thing about passwords, something we are, something we do, and something we have. So of course saying we're a democratic republic or a constitutional republic is also correct, though not as fully informative.
Saying that we're a republic and not a democracy is false, unless by democracy you actually mean "direct democracy [wikipedia.org]," and twisting words like that as part of an argument to use correct terminology as the Utah lawmakers seem to be trying to do is rather asinine.
Re: (Score:3)
The electoral college is a good example of our government not being a representative democracy. Thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Technically... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh good grief... does *anyone* remember what they were taught in government in junior high? [...] Yes, sometimes the elected President did not get the majority of the popular vote. The Electors are not bound by law (in all states) to cast their vote according to popular vote. This is one of the checks and balances, designed by the founders of the nation, that prevents popular will from overcoming individual freedom. We're all taught this in school.
Apparently you don't understand how the electoral college works any better than the people you're trying to teach, which makes you just like Glenn Beck. My 8th grade history teach taught that exact same tripe. He also constantly mispronounced words (which had pronunciation guides in the textbooks!), and corrected other people's mispronunciations with his own. If you want to understand government, you should probably go back to high school or college level classes, where things aren't simplified to the point of being wrong.
The years where the electoral college result didn't match the popular vote had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the electors can make their own choices. The instances where an elector has voted contrary to his/her state's popular vote has never affected the result of the overall election. What has made that difference is the fact that just like Congressmen, electors are divied out to each state based on population, plus an additional two electors purely by virtue of the state being a state. This means that smaller states get a slightly proportionately larger voice per capita than larger states. And that is why the electoral college results don't always match the popular vote.
Here's another bit of trivia you might not have known, which explains why electors normally stick with the voters in their state:
When you vote, you're not telling a set of electors which candidate to cast their vote for, because there's not just one set of electors per state. Each party organization in each state picks a set of electors, and the popular vote decides which party's set of electors gets to cast their votes. Electors chosen in the last election by the Democrat party in a state where the popular vote went to the Democrat would have been very unlikely to vote for a Republican candidate -- they were chosen specifically by their party because they would vote for the party's candidate!
The few instances where an elector has voted contrary to the popular vote (and contrary to their own party) in their state has been more of small symbolic act of protest, knowing that it won't change the election.
The workings of the electoral college do very little to emphasize the role that electors play as representatives, as they represent their own party more than anything else. What the electoral college does do is emphasize the importance of the power of individual states.
Re:Technically... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Technically... (Score:5, Informative)
Unknown because the "morphing" never occurred. That is the original meaning of the word.
Plato (Score:3)
Plato, in Athens, Greece [Where] in about 340 b.c. was the one who came up with the idea. And had some original thoughts on the issue. One may argue that "Democracy" means something different now [becaue words do change] but you should realize that the distinction is very old.
Re:Plato (Score:4, Interesting)
Plato, in Athens, Greece [Where] in about 340 b.c. was the one who came up with the idea. And had some original thoughts on the issue. One may argue that "Democracy" means something different now [becaue words do change] but you should realize that the distinction is very old.
Well, Plato did write what we commonly call in English The Republic, but that is considered an inaccurate translation of the original title Politeia. The republic/democracy distinction being established by Plato is also silly, because his distinction is democracy (by people)/monarchy (by one)/oligarchy (by the elite)/timocracy (by property owners).
And even Plato doesn't lump constrict democracy into "direct referendum on practically everything". It's a looser term in his work as well. No part of ancient athens even fits that definition, except possibly their secondary political body, which only included men over 20 anyway (this amounted to about 1/8th the population). The primary bodies of government were the public officials who were chosen by lottery.
Re:Technically... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong again, Bob.
From the fucking dictionary [reference.com]:
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
? This is what I just said. Right up there. I'll quote it for you:
A representative democracy with constitutional limitations to protect the individual is the very DEFINITION of a republic. Do some reading.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or are they only going to teach kids that USA==republic, and forget the inconvenient republics?
Re:Technically... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Economist had an article, 10+ years ago, about countries' names. They wrote, "People's Republics . . . usually aren't."
Re: (Score:3)
People's Republics . . . usually aren't.
Well, that settles it then. The United People's Republic of America, LLC it is!
Re:Technically... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, just like how the "Democrats" ram legislation that goes against the will of the people? They're hardly democratic.
Going against the will of the Republicans you mean? ... Silly rabbit.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article, it seems like the main thrust was a socialism witch hunt. Of course, what they don't tell you is that most oppressive socialist regimes in the past 100 years, and indeed most of the oppressive governments in general, were elected democratically. WW2 Germany, Russia, China has elections...
Boy it's reassuring that our elected officials are setting the rules on what our elected officials are to be called.
Re:Technically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
Or Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]:
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words [reference.com]:
democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
(Sorry for cross-posting this, but this nonsense has to stop).
Your own sources and US gov't contradict you ... (Score:4, Informative)
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary ... Merriam-Webster dictionary ... dictionary.reference.com ...
You should have looked up both "democracy" and "republic". You would have found that they both share the characteristics you emphasize:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic also includes:
- A head of state that is not a monarch. In contrast your sources specifically permit a monarchy in a democracy.
So "republic" is a better fit for the Unites States.
Furthermore your Merriam-Webster source includes:
Examples of REPUBLIC
when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
and your dictionary.com source includes:
Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today:
Country name:
conventional long form: United States of America
conventional short form: United States
abbreviation: US or USA
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html [cia.gov]
Re:Technically... (Score:5, Insightful)
Republic is to Democracy what Latin is to Greek. (Not exactly I admit, but it's pretty close.)
Usage of the words democracy and republic has certainly changed over the centuries. The US doesn't (at least officially) give more votes to rich people than to poor (a central feature of the roman republic) and it doesn't elect plebeian tribunes either. They are definitely not a republic in a strictly Roman sense. They are however a country whose founders were classically educated and drew on Roman traditions and terminology when drafting the constitution.
Today - anywhere in the world outside the US - the US would be described as a representative democracy. The same applies to any established dictionaries in use in the US.
What's the point of obscuring modern use and going back to terminology last used hundreds of years ago? I think it's a political motivation, suggesting that the Republican party is the natural ruling party of the country.
Re:Technically... (Score:4, Insightful)
The article never says anything about "because democracy would have democrat in it." I'm guessing the story submitter made that up.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you cite Wikipedia, then you share my confidence in its reliability for things like Slashdot debates. Therefore you should concede the point by looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States [wikipedia.org] and seeing that the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a "Representative Democracy".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is all well and good, but not really relevant to the United States. Which doesn't refer to the States' governments, but to the Federal government.
Note, of course, that referring to the USA as a Democratic Republic would be perfectly reasonable.
editorialize much? (Score:5, Informative)
This is completely unsupported by the linked article. Either include the proper links to back up your statements, or stop editorializing in your submissions.
Re: (Score:3)
(And don't let my high UID fool anybody, I only registered for the 10th anniversary parties, but I was reading from year one.)
As a Utah resident. . . (Score:5, Informative)
I was suprised to find that you are right about TFA.
Then. . .
But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.
“This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.
Ah, yes. That's the stuff.
Re:As a Utah resident. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
I was suprised to find that you are right about TFA.
Then. . .
But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum.
“This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said.
Ah, yes. That's the stuff.
And in some states children are indoctrinated in some crazy shit involving magic underwear and Jesus hanging out with Native Americans. ::shrug::
(I have Karma to burn. Which is rather apropos given the topic)
Re:editorialize much? (Score:5, Informative)
The article quotes a supporter:
"But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum."
They're making an entire law without backing up their statements over there, I bet that will have more ramifications than an editorializing slashdot submitter.
Re:editorialize much? (Score:4, Interesting)
You left out the bigoted addition from Cmdr Taco. Man what is next From the harder than getting money out of Jew department?
Really Cmdr Taco that is really just not cool.
Why start being correct now? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, the USA IS a republic... a (supposedly) democratically elected republic, but a republic nonetheless. Maybe we should leave the terms democratic and republic alone and rename the political parties. How about lazy jackasses and fat ugly elephants instead?
Re: (Score:3)
Whigs and Tories.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
1 down, 308 million to go. My plan is coming together ...
s...
l...
o...
w...
l...
y...
Well, they are right. (Score:3)
The reasons behind it may be corrupt, but the United States is actually a republic, not a democracy.
"Congratulations gentlemen, you have a republic, if you can keep it"
-Benjamin Franklin,
at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787
Like Rome? (Score:3)
Democracy is... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system. The US is absolutely a constitutional republic with representative democracy - an attempt to avoid the common problems of both mob rule and dictatorships.
Re:Democracy is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Democracy is... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing inherently good about a democracy, nor anything inherently bad about even a dictatorship. The moral judgment comes from the actual actions of the members of government in either system.
Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination. That's exactly like saying slavery isn't inherently bad as long as the overseer is merciful.
Re:Democracy is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Democracy is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. Even a benevolent dictatorship violates the right of the people to self-determination.
Nonsense. I live in a country with a democratically elected government, and we've had three different parties involved in leading the country over the last decade and beyond. Nothing changes. That's not self-determination through democracy, that's giving people the illusion of being able to detemrine their destiny through democracy. I'm sure in many dictatorships the people on the street have just as much ability to decide their own fate as I do - they can change careers, can get married, can have kids, can buy a new car or choose to use public transport, and so on.
Democracy vs. Dictatorship is not as black and white as you're making out.
Re: (Score:3)
While a benevolent dictatorship might work for Linux, I don't think it would work well for a full government. You can't fork a country as easily, if you disagree with the decisions.
Representative Republic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You're correct out of context, but it's essential to understand that this *is* about partisanship.
Utah is simply taking a tactic from the Texas School Board; they were taken over by the religious right a few years back and have been dramatically reworking the curriculum to fit the right wing political and social agenda. The list of horrifies is long, but includes de-emphasizing Thomas Jefferson (because he strongly pushed for separation of church and state), as well as several non-white contributors to Amer
Re: (Score:3)
true democracy
Definition of DEMOCRACY [merriam-webster.com]
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
We are a representative democracy which is true democracy.
The issue at hand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sumary just a *teeny* bit biassed (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
HB220 would require schools to teach students that the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic and about other forms of government such as pure democracy, monarchy and oligarchy along with political philosophies and economic systems such as socialism, individualism and free-market capitalism.
Is it just me, or does that sound a just a little bit more defensible than the spin in the summary?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In related news that matters, very much... (Score:3, Informative)
.. and just as important, and relevant to Slashdot readers, if not more so..
The governor signed a bill to limit access to government records [sltrib.com]...
Now, I really don't give a shit what happens in Utah, but we should demand that all their representatives are removed from all national committees in Congress. His name is unmentionable..
Completely off topic (Score:3)
The good news must be that all issues of unemployment, finance and social service must be resolved in Utah for their legislature to spend time on this. It must be a utopia!
I searched for the 'like' button when I read that. I haven't had enough coffee yet.
Oh, I've long argued that... (Score:3)
This would cut into standardized test time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey Kids! Athens was a "Democracy". Rome, pre empire, was a "Republic"; both looked absolutely fuck-all like our government. How can this be? Let's talk about the differences between a "Republic" and a "Democracy" and what sorts of variations are possible within the broad heading of each... We may have to skip cramming names and dates for a week; but I think you'll learn something...
And hey, while we are at it, let's remember to mention that(depending on which historians you talk to), there have been at least five reasonably distinct periods during which different political parties, with different names(in some cases quite confusing, since they are the same as today's; but mean different things) vied for control... Raise your hands everyone who knows that the Democrats used to be the southern conservative party, and the Republicans the northern liberals? And that there was a "Democractic-Republican" party, (arguably the one whose name actually corresponded most closely with our governmental form), that hasn't existed in almost 200 years?
A Republic, For Whom Does It Stand? (Score:3)
Read some of the comments in TFA (Score:3)
I'd say that maybe clarifying the difference between a pure democracy and a republic for students isn't such a bad idea, although I do suspect that there's more to this behind the scenes than TFA states outright.
The two are not mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
I always find this argument hilarious because people act as if "democracy" and "republic" are terms that have one extremely precise meaning each, and are mutually exclusive.
Etymologically, "republic" comes from the Latin phrase "res publica", which means "common thing" or "common substance". It was meant to contrast the Roman state, which was the possession of the entire Roman citizen body, with foreign kingdoms that were (in the view of the Romans) "owned" by a single despot. The English phrase "commonwealth" is a more or less literal translation. (The Romans continued to use this name for their state well after the oligarchic system we call the "Roman republic" was replaced by the one-man rule we call the "Roman empire," by the way.)
Etymologically, "democracy" comes from a Greek phrase that means "people power", or, perhaps more accurately, "citizen body power" ("demos" referring to the body of people with citizen rights, not the population as a whole). It was used as a term of abuse even back in the days of ancient Athens, when the state went back and forth between various systems of government, some of which involves large-scale participation of the citizen body in day-to-day decisions, others not so much.
The two words have been used to describe an incredible variety of political systems over the past 2000 years or so. The modern use of the word "republic" probably emerged in the late 18th/early 19th century, when it came to specifically denote states that weren't monarchies (as this was a live question in that era). The modern use of the word "democracy" is similarly broad, denoting a system of government where the citizens have a significant say in how the country is run. Since there are virtually no instances of states run by direct democracy, the term is understood as being wholly compatible with representative government, in which citizens elect officials to run the state on their behalf.
You can have states that are democracies but not republics (e.g., the UK and Sweden), that are republics and not democracies (e.g., Syria, Belarus), that are both (e.g., the U.S., France), or that are neither (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Brunei).
Most of the responses here... (Score:3)
Most of the responses here show exactly why teaching that the United States is a Republic is a very good idea!
The US educational system is in drastic need of an overhaul! I find it entirely unsurprising that home schooled kids do better on standardized tests than the products of the public education system.
+America is a Social Democracy .... aka socialist! (Score:3, Insightful)
In the purist definition we are now a social democracy. Both republicans and democrats are socialists being that they support and vote to to continue social security and medicare and we have a redistributive tax policy and have had for as long as most people currently alive have been voting. So the hypocrisy of the socialism label is astounding.
Most Americans are socialist too. I don't see any mad rush to give back social security checks or turn down medicare for a free market solution.
The two questions are orthogonal (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot Summary False (Score:3)
Come on slashdot editors--
not a democracy, because a "Democracy" would have "Democrat" in it."
does not appear in the linked article.
Save your editorial commentary for, I don't know, the comment section?
Republic = Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
iiiis iiit ? so, france is also a republic. and there are no state rights or states there.
switzerland is also a republic, and the decentralization there is MUCH bigger than the one in usa.
these ignorants seem to think that 'republic'/'democracy' etc have anything to do with centralization/federalization/decentralization.
they do not. you can have fascism, yet it can be decentralized (like in feudal times), you can have a democracy/republic, yet it can be more centralized than anything else.
its all about who does the decision making. elected representatives of people, or else.
its appalling that even here there are fools that have the same misconception - hey, doing a google search and reading a wikipedia article with endless references to political science documents is not that hard ? why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo.
I thought we were an autonomous collective. (Score:4, Funny)
*Proceeds to stack more mud*
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:5, Insightful)
there's no evidence he was illiterate, and there's no evidence from the story that the recommendations are because the word democrat is offensive. The article makes no mention of the reason behind it, other than perhaps ACCURACY.
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:5, Informative)
"But on Monday, Senate floor sponsor Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, said in some states children are being indoctrinated in socialism via some curriculum. “This is happening at least in some places in our country, so I believe this is all the more important in this state, so that we can protect our children from such curriculum,” Madsen said."
Yo, Mark, I love that supporting evidence there. I can definitely see how having the legislature intervene to insure that politically sensitive issues are handled in a doctrinally correct manner will save the kiddies from socialism. Perhaps we can appoint a Political Commissar for each classroom, to make sure that our freedom remains ideologically pure?
Re: (Score:3)
Make that a "Freedom overlord", and let's go for it.
Re:Right-wingers (Score:5, Informative)
Having met many of these legislators (indeed, having previously been in a position where I would headdesk regularly at their antics), even if the article doesn't say it, I can vouch for the fact that those pushing the bill are in the ultra-conservative wing of Utah's already conservative (and controlling) Republican party.
Pretty much anyone from Utah County, including Sen Madsen (R-Eagle Mountain), Sen Dayton (R-Orem) and Sen Stephensen (sp?; who sits just across the north border of the county) are at the extreme conservative end of the political spectrum, and regularly introduce legislation designed to disrupt public education. For example, a couple of years ago, Sen Dayton (on the word of a single constituent who thought alike, and despite resistance from every education-saavy person I know) went on a crusade against the International Baccalaureate program, decrying it as a socialist takeover of state's rights (never mind that each school, and thus each locally elected school board, must choose to opt in).
The representatives from the same area (unsurprisingly) act similarly, and most of them would like to see a complete dismantling of public education in favor of a completely market-based approach. Now that's a whole different kettle of fish, but it provides some insight into why they are so consistently disruptive--and I don't mean in the positive innovation-friendly sort of way, but rather the time-consuming, prevent-actual-innovation-because-of-extra-work sort of way.
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:4, Informative)
Jews have always had a pretty large emphasis on being able to read.
No, they haven't. That's a relatively modern thing, which evolved long after AD 70 (when modern Talmudic Judiasim was effectively born). Country Jews in Jesus's time were nothing like modern Jews.
Re: (Score:3)
It only became a Federation after we discovered the warp drive... :)
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:4, Informative)
Federation - A collection of semi-independent substates
Republic - A government run by a group constrained by the laws of the government, where the governed have some method within the laws of the government, to affect the ruling group.
Democracy -A government run by the vote of the people.
We are a Federation - each state has a relatively high level of independence.
We are also a Democratic Republic - We have a Republic form of government, enabled by a democratic process (the ruling individuals are selected directly or indirectly by the people, but the majority of decisions are NOT made by the general population).
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it's a constitution-based federal republic. The CIA World Factbook says so.
It's perfectly acceptable to use more than one word to describe something.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All that aside, it's the Democrat party, people. Not the Democratic party.
No. It's "democratic party" See here [wikipedia.org]
"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:5, Informative)
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming that there's any accuracy at all to the stories in the Bible (a big assumption I'll grant you) he was likely literate. He's often called "Rabbi" in the text and has a much greater understanding of the Torah and supporting literature than an illiterate man would be likely to have. Joseph is typically portrayed as a very prosperous carpenter, and a leader in his community. The whole bit with the manger wasn't becasue they couldn't afford a better room, there just weren't any available. Part of the reason it's considered so odd that he makes friends with fisherman, thieves, and laborers is becasue he wasn't one himself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Never mind the actual fact that the form of Government here in the United States is a Representative Republic.
Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...
I mean, what next? Are we going to force teachers to teach that 2+2=4? What of little Johnny's self esteem? Shouldn't we validate his feelings that 2 + 2 = Cookie?
This is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:5, Insightful)
> Heaven forbid teachers we required to teach things that are factually correct...
Even better would be if they would actually teach some of the fundamentals of our form of government. Teach what a Republic is and what a Democracy is and the important differences between them. Teach the difference between the Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution entails and what the Rule of Men we now have is and why that is important to them.
Hell, these days if the kids graduate knowing we have three branches of government and can actually name them correctly they are ahead of the average voter.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought it was a Democratic Republic. Either way, yes, the government is still a Republic, not a democracy.
Representative Republic seems moderately redundant.
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoken like a true post-modern mush head. Most Congress Critters are fine upstanding citizens. The problem isn't so much them, the problem is us. The first candidate that comes along and says he/she will raise taxes and cut benefits to fix the deficits will get voted down because Americans still think they can get something for nothing.
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a CONSTITUTIONAL representative Republic, with a bicameral house, an executive and a judicial branch.
Two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner is democracy.
Sharia is democracy.
Also, the Senate was purposely designed to be obstructionist and to give small states as much power as large states.
Improperly educated people of today, largely devoid of critical thinking skills and the ability to abstract concepts (e.g. banning smoking is a gateway to ALL statutory behavior modification, seems like its serving the greater good but its a gateway to a radical totalitarian authoritarian police state controlled by oligarchical collectivists), gladly subscribed to things that were clearly outlined in book like:
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
We - Yevgeny Zamyatin
Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury
Animal Farm - George Orwell
1984 - George Orwell.
Given IPADs and Kindles, its shocking people aren't reading more of this material.
Re:These are people who still believe Joseph Smith (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. I'm not sure what the hell any of this is supposed to mean. A republic isn't defined by how the executive and/or legislative branches are chosen, and you can have dictatorial, autocratic and democratic republics, or some combination thereof.
The United States is a representative democracy, with a bicameral legislature elected by popular vote and a presidency chosen by an electoral college, so is somewhat indirectly democratically elected. The United States is a democracy.
Oh wey, goyische post (Score:4, Informative)
Sarcasm aside, Jesus's father was a carpenter who could afford to travel. He was a solid middle-class citizen, therefore. And this being in Israel, not the majority of the Middle East, being a solid middle class citizen meant that your son learnt to read. We are talking here about a culture that elevated the printed word to a very high level, not one like Rome that tried to reserve literacy to the Patrician class.
In addition, the NT does not describe Jesus as a god, nor did he claim to be (or the Gospels wouldn't have got written.)
Personally, I'm a complete agnostic theologically, but lazy religion-bashing (with the smallest scent of anti-semitism) still annoys me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:More Accurate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The point of the Pledge of Allegiance is not to actually teach kids anything, but to indoctrinate them into being good loyal patriotic Americans ready and willing to do incredibly stupid things (e.g. sign up for the army to go fight in a country they've never heard of who poses no threat to us) on behalf of their country. It's the same sort of instinct that led my schoolteacher to use class time to force me and my classmates to make yellow ribbons and care packages for soldiers back during the 1991 Gulf War
Re:More Accurate? (Score:5, Informative)
Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:[7]
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity[6] but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.[8]
Also amusing:
One objection[18] states that a democratic republic built on freedom of dissent should not require its citizens to pledge allegiance to it, [...] Another objection lies in the fact that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools, cannot really give their consent or even completely understand the Pledge they are taking
Most people can't even completely understand the pledge, amusingly most people don't even associate the term pledge with an oath. It's just "something you do" and "you're supposed to."
I'm amused that there's actually controversy over this; but dismayed that most complaints are due to religion and the use of the term "God." The other arguments seem more legitimate, and I really did think I was the only one that noticed.
Re:More Accurate? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.
Re:More Accurate? (Score:5, Informative)
a democracy is where everyone makes every decision
Wrong. What you're thinking of is direct democracy [wikipedia.org]. Contrast that with, say, representative democracy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:More Accurate? (Score:5, Informative)
We're going to ignore the fact that this is more accurate, as a democracy is where everyone makes every decision, which is impractical on any large scale, while a republic is where we elect people to make decisions for us.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary (emphasis mine):
democracy |dimäkrs|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives (...)
Or Merriam Webster [merriam-webster.com]:
democracy noun \di-mä-kr-s\
plural democracies
Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (...)
Or other popular but authoritative sources of information on the definition of words [reference.com]:
democracy
[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (...)
Regardless of that, it must be noted that the article makes no mention of Utah making the decision because "democracy" suggests a relation to the "Democratic" party.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why you'll never find anybody teaching that we're a representative republic. We're a representative democracy, we have elected officials that vote for us, which is typically what they mean by representative democracy rather that being a republic. It's also why a lot of people refer to the US as a democracy because we are a type of democracy, even if not always directly. And despite what the founding fathers thought, the constitution ended up forming a representative democracy, which to be fair to t
Re: (Score:3)
They can, but when it's some sort of bullshit like this which the legislature shouldn't be doing at all, the resources should be spent elsewhere. Just because you can do more than one thing at a time, doesn't mean that wasting time on stupid things like this isn't harmful.
Re: (Score:3)
I loath to repeat myself but Slashdot tends to bury conversations you don't follow directly.
More accurately, the correct term for the United States Government is neither democracy or republic. It is a federation. Each State ( emphasis on "State" ) is a constitutional republic.