Replies

The community fellowships that used to be called mainline churches embraced relativism decades ago. They ignored the following:

"But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." - Matthew 5:37

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; [What? No middle ground of relativity? - ed.] therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;" - Deuteronomy 30:19

"Seek good and not evil, that you may live; And thus may the LORD God of hosts be with you, Just as you have said! Hate evil, love good, And establish justice in the gate!" - Amos 5:14

Along with the "relativism" came the so-called "progressive" movement, a movement which has dominated what came to be known as "education" in America.

Referenced below is a document from the year 1886,

"Poison drops in the federal Senate: the school question from a parental and non-sectarian stand-point: an epitome of the educational views of Zach. Montgomery on account of which views a stubborn but fruitless effort was made in the United States Senate to prevent his confirmation as Assistant Attorney General (1886)."

Readers here may be familiar with it, but if you haven't seen it in a while, Montgomery's conclusions about the consequences of what he aptly called the "anti-parental" system of education being pursued by legislators of the day were shocking for that time; and his words are even more pertinent today.

Looking back, we can see the date coincides with the beginnings of the "liberal," now "progressive" movement which dominates the Administration, media, and much of academia today.

Montgomery's work bears a certain relationship and provides historical background for the subject of this thread.

Prior to Montgomery's "Poison Drops. . . " publication, he had been passed over by the U. S. Senate for an important federal government post as a result of his outspoken, well-documented, well-informed and principled ideas on the subject of what was and continues to be labeled as "public" education.

Now, almost one hundred thirty years later, his work proves to be a valuable piece of commentary. His statistical analysis from actual government records to that date, as well as his philosophical analysis of then-actual and what he saw as potential future societal consequences of such a system are remarkable.

The complete work can be read here

Sample excerpts:

"My countrymen, disguise the fact as we may, there is in this country to-day, and in both the political Parties, an element which is ripe for a centralized despotism. There are men and corporations of vast wealth, whose iron grasp spans this whole continent, and who find it more difficult and more expensive to corrupt thirty odd State Legislatures than one Federal Congress. It was said of Nero of old that he wished the Roman people had but one head, so that he might cut it off at a single blow. And so it is with those moneyed kings who would rule this country through bribery, fraud, and intimidation.
"It is easy to see how, with all the powers of government centered at Washington in one Federal head, they could at a single stroke put an end to American liberty.
"But they well understand that before striking this blow the minds of the people must be prepared to receive it. And what surer or safer preparation could possibly be made than is now being made, by indoctrinating the minds of the rising generation with the idea that ours is already a consolidated government ; that the States of the Union have no sovereignty which is not subordinate to the will and pleasure of the Federal head, and that our Constitution is the mere creature of custom, and may therefore be legally altered or abolished by custom.
"Such are a few of the pernicious and poisonous doctrines which ten millions of American children are today drinking in with the very definitions of the words they are compelled to study. And yet the man who dares to utter a word of warning of the approaching danger is stigmatized as an enemy to education and unfit to be mentioned as a candidate for the humblest office.
"Be it so. Viewing this great question as I do, not for all the offices in the gift of the American people would I shrink from an open and candid avowal of my sentiments. If I have learned anything from the reading of history, it is that the man who, in violation of great principles, toils for temporary fame, purchases for himself either total oblivion or eternal infamy, while he who temporarily goes down battling for right principles always deserves, and generally secures, the gratitude of succeeding ages, and will carry with him the sustaining solace of a clean conscience, more precious than all the offices and honors in the gift of man."