Posted on 07/28/2002 3:29:38 PM PDT by ppaul
My recent RazorMouth article on the Pledge of Allegiance was republished in two other venues, and I received a lot of angry email. One Christian mother from Florida wrote to tell me that, because her sister home-schooled her children, she had prayerfully re-evaluated whether she should do the same. Both she and her husband felt that God was clearly leading them to leave their children in the government schools. In her words:
one of the paragraphs in your article really angered and offended me. You stated, "and those Christian parents who insist on deluding themselves about the wonders of public education will remain where they are." Mr. Babka, if I am being "deluded" about the education of my children, then it is God who is doing the deluding, because it is His voice to which we are listening. She “shuddered to think of what our public school system, and the children in it, would be if ALL Christian parents pulled their children out.” She went on to point out the wonderful impact Christian kids have in government schools. Then she asked me, “How can my children be salt and light if they are doing their studies at the dining room table and not in a classroom full of kids who may have never heard the gospel?”
I understand her point, and appreciate her feeling that God is leading her, but we must remember that other parents likewise feel that God is also leading them to abandon the government schools. I would urge her to more prayer, because there are other issues to consider, and more than one way to provide salt and light to the world.
Young children are impressionable. They lack the experience for discernment. And it's a well-established fact that you only get back what you put in. The state has her children for more waking hours than she does. She can’t control whom they associate with, or what they hear, see, and read. Perhaps, because her children are teenagers, they’re already prepared to prosper in an atmosphere antagonistic to her values. But it seems risky to expect the same from an elementary school child.
More importantly, we must consider what would happen if all Christian parents removed their children from the government schools. I believe the system would fold for lack of business. Would this increase or decrease the salt and light we provide to the world? And what would be the state of our nation’s children?
Education would still continue, but now it would thrive—as it did before public schools were created 120 years ago (when having an 8th grade education meant that someone was ready for college). It would also cost far less and teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, and other social ills would almost certainly plummet. I believe this would add a great deal of salt and light to the world.
We also need to remember that schools teach according to their own institutional interests.
Catholic schools teach that the Pope, bishops, and priests, and their moral teachings, hold the answers, and that a sacramental life is pretty important.
Evangelical Christian schools teach that the Bible holds the answers, and that personal salvation and godly behavior are necessary.
Prep schools teach that the elites of science, business, and government hold the answers, and that hard work and academic success are necessary to join that elite.
So, what should we expect government schools to teach?
My thoughtful correspondent from Florida believes she is able to control what goes on at her local government school, because she is heavily involved in it. But she is just one person, and the stories of school districts thumbing their nose at parents are legion. Just because it's never happened to her doesn't mean it won’t. And given the power of teachers unions, does she believe she could force the school board to change its mind (especially in a major city)?
Now I'm not disputing that her children can be a godly example in their government school, but I do believe that the costs and the benefits don’t add up to a net increase for salt and light in the world. Quite simply, I don’t believe children are qualified to be missionaries, and they are therefore more likely to be corrupted by the godless environment of the government schools than to effectively change that environment.
Missionaries must meet certain qualifications before they're sent into a mission field. Children do not meet those qualifications. I would like my Florida correspondent, and other concerned parents like her, to seriously consider whether their children will be able to detect when they’re being brainwashed by environmentalism, drug-war propaganda, relative value systems, sex-ed, and diversity training.
Government schools naturally teach children to trust government, and learning to trust government means learning to question parental authority, worship Mother Earth, worship the state (hence the Pledge of Allegiance), and accept as normal that Heather Has Two Mommies.
It seems clear to me that home-schooled and Christian-schooled children can provide more salt and light to the world than government-schooled Christian kids for the simple reason that they are being trained all day, every day, to do exactly that.
Finally, we need to recognize that government schools are based on compulsion. They confiscate the wealth of people without children, and even worse, those who have kids but who are not using the system. In other words, Christian parents who feel God is leading them to teach their children elsewhere are forced to pay twice! The compulsion and confiscation of the government schools violates everything we Christians are supposed to believe in.
How can we end this immoral system?
If all Christian parents would remove their children then the system would collapse, and the money confiscated by the government schools would instead flow toward private, and godlier alternatives. This sea-change would be a sign that Christians have truly accepted their calling to be salt and light, and that God has jurisdiction over both the rearing of our children and our pocketbooks.
Link to article HERE.
This is one of the major reasons I decided, about a year ago, to devote most of my time to the "Religion"-related threads.
I began to increasingly believe that no significant restoration of Life, Liberty, Property, Family, and Morality will happen in America, save it come about through the Movement of the Church.
I began to believe that no significant Movement will arise from the Church, until the Church becomes uncomfortable.
Well, nothing makes a sinner, overcome by apostasy and moral sloth, uncomfortable like being told the Law of God is still the binding rule of Morality for him.
That goes double for the sinful, apostate, morally-slothful... American "Christian" Church.
Military, Judicial, and (to some extent) the Space Program are all dedicated to the Execution of Murderers (in some cases, foreign armies of murderers) and/or self-defense against murderers. Each could arguably be Justified by Genesis 9:6 or Romans 13:1-10.
Weather forecasting and snow-clearing for military purposes would also fall under provisions for self-defense against murderers. There is no need that a GI who is protecting you from a Foreign Murderer should have been either Gubmint-skooled or home-schooled, but you do need him appropriately dressed for the weather conditions and able to reach the battlefield.
Weather Forecasting for the general public, however, can just as well be done by Private News agencies. And you can shovel your own driveway, too.
Well, America is a land in which millions of mothers kill their children via abortions; I suppose it is fitting that we also torture and pervert the little buggers who manage to escape the womb alive.
Or, if some redneck home-schooling throwbacks would rather cherish and nurture their children than torture and pervert them, at least they should be forced to pay for the torture and perversion of other folks' kids.
Genesis 9:6 has nothing to do with the government. Romans 13:1-10 does not specify that the government is responsible for preventing crime or protecting borders. And you have abandon all logic to include the space program as a government program that prevents murders.
Weather forecasting and snow-clearing for military purposes would also fall under provisions for self-defense against murderers. There is no need that a GI who is protecting you from a Foreign Murderer should have been either Gubmint-skooled or home-schooled, but you do need him appropriately dressed for the weather conditions and able to reach the battlefield.
No need for either program in the United States, since Mexico and Canada are unlikely to attack...
By the way, "Gubmint-skooled" is spelled government-schooled.
Weather Forecasting for the general public, however, can just as well be done by Private News agencies. And you can shovel your own driveway, too.
I clear my driveway and the sidewalk in front of my house. However, I don't have the time or equipment to clear the interstate.
Yeah, but it really needs its own thread.
Genesis 9:6 is the very institution of Government.
Romans 13:1-10 does not specify that the government is responsible for preventing crime or protecting borders.
If one man kills you (with malice aforethought) -- it's Murder.
If ten men get together and kill you (with malice aforethought) -- it's Murder.
If a million... etc.
QED.
And you have abandon all logic to include the space program as a government program that prevents murders.
National Missile Defense?
No need for either program in the United States, since Mexico and Canada are unlikely to attack...
Well, certainly, how much Military is required to protect against Foreign Murderers is always open to debate. But personally, I'd lean just a tad towards over-preparation; I'd hate to bring a knife to a gunfight, but nobody ever felt embarassed that they brought a gun to a knife fight.
I clear my driveway and the sidewalk in front of my house. However, I don't have the time or equipment to clear the interstate.
I'm sure your private Toll-way operator would be happy to clear the road so that you can drive to the toll-booth. (grin)
However, assuming we must have Government Roads, I'll make the exact same observation I have made several times already on this thread -- ALL highway funding is more-than-financed by the Gasoline Taxes. The users of Highways (those who buy gasoline) pay for the Highways; non-users (who buy no gasoline) do not pay for the Highways. I may not like the fact that Government does not have a specific Biblical authorization to build and maintain roads, but I do like the fact that they essentially only charge road users for the use thereof. By contrast, charging Home-Schoolers tax levies to subsidize the Government Schools is like charging a man who buys 1000 gallons of gas five hundred bucks in Gas Taxes for the gasoline he bought, and charging a hermit who doesn't own a car and never drives $500 in Gas Taxes for the gasoline he didn't buy.
If the State were to operate Government Schools purely on a tuition-basis, for example, only charging those who use the Schools, the situation would be more ethically-similar to Road Provision... at least you are not forcibly taking money from those who do not use the "service", but from those who voluntarily pay a "user fee" (their gasoline tax) for the service.
We would then be arguing about whether or not you should use MY government as your own personal service contractor, but at least you are not demanding that other people's money pay for the "services" which you want and which they do not.
Nope, not a singe message of the government in the entire chapter.
If one man kills you (with malice aforethought) -- it's Murder.
If ten men get together and kill you (with malice aforethought) -- it's Murder.
If a million... etc.
Still waiting for a verse specifying the government as the institution responsible for preventing and punishing murderers.
National Missile Defense?
Space exploration and the National Missile Defense are two different entities.
Well, certainly, how much Military is required to protect against Foreign Murderers is always open to debate. But personally, I'd lean just a tad towards over-preparation; I'd hate to bring a knife to a gunfight, but nobody ever felt embarassed that they brought a gun to a knife fight.
With Canada and Mexico you don't have to bring a knife.
If the State were to operate Government Schools purely on a tuition-basis, for example, only charging those who use the Schools, the situation would be more ethically-similar to Road Provision... at least you are not forcibly taking money from those who do not use the "service", but from those who voluntarily pay a "user fee" (their gasoline tax) for the service.
What about the poor who can not afford to pay the tuition?
"Government" is simply "The Moral Authority to execute those who commit Murder". This is the Institution of that authority, Genesis 9:6.
Still waiting for a verse specifying the government as the institution responsible for preventing and punishing murderers.
In addition to Genesis 9:6, Romans 13:1-10. Government, which is authorized to wield the sword against "evil" (Romans 13:1-4) therefore enjoys the authority to wield the sword against that which Paul defines as "evil" -- Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, Covetous Transgression, any form of aggression against your neighbor.
National Missile Defense? ~~ Space exploration and the National Missile Defense are two different entities.
Two intimately-related entities, but I'd agree that many aspects of Space Exploration are non-military in purposes and should be executed by private commercial operations -- which many are. Albeit looking ahead, when America's entrepreneurs expand into Space their property and interests will have to be defended, of course.
Well, certainly, how much Military is required to protect against Foreign Murderers is always open to debate. But personally, I'd lean just a tad towards over-preparation; I'd hate to bring a knife to a gunfight, but nobody ever felt embarassed that they brought a gun to a knife fight. ~~ With Canada and Mexico you don't have to bring a knife.
(Grin) I'd agree. As I said, I lean towards over-preparation, but the amount of Military required to protect against foreign murderers is always open to debate.
What about the poor who can not afford to pay the tuition?
Well, you know that they won't be quite so poor after we zero-out all the (regressive) Sales Taxes and Property Taxes (which do affect the Rents of even non-property owners) which pay for Guvmint Skools.
But, even after that boost in their financial standing, the fact that Joseph is poor does not make it a MORAL Action for you to threaten to beat up Zacharias, take his money by force, and go high-tailin' it down to the stable and elbowing your way past the three wise guys to present the baby Jesus with your "gift".
Jesus don't want your stolen money. Jesus don't want you to steal.
If Joseph is too poor to afford Caesar's schools, Mary will just have to home-school Baby Jesus herself, I guess. Hopefully He'll turn out alright, as the Bible specifically promises to Bless those Parents who personally educate their children... regardless of their financial condition. It would be a most UnBiblical thing to argue that we should STEAL monies to subsidize a system which seeks to DENY these blessings to parents.
We'd give you back your Tax-share of the $7,000 per-child, per-year the Government spends on the Publik Skools, but I'm afraid that without the "contributions" of you and people like you, our system would fold.
By the way, we will, of course, require even more of your money next year, and the year after that... etc. Here, lemme help you fasten that yoke on a little tighter for you. There's a good mule.
If you enjoy breaking the Law of God, anyone who tells you to stop is going to be "wrong" in your eyes.And, "judgmental", "intolerant", and of course - horrors - "un-Christian"!
...until conservatives, and Christian conservatives in particular, wake up and put a stop to the wholesale indoctrination of our citizenry through the government "schools". Or, at least put a stop to their own children being thusly inculcated with the "amoral" value syetm of the of the State and modern civil religion.
Our Supreme Court addressed his facile arguments more than a century ago.
"We cannot say judicially that Kelly received no benefit from the city organization. These streets, if they do not penetrate his farm, lead to it. The water-works will probably reach him some day, and may be near enough to him now to serve him on some occasion. The schools may receive his children, and in this regard he can be in no worse condition than those living in the city who have no children, and yet who pay for the support of the schools. Every man in a county, a town, a city, or a State is deeply interested in the education of the children of the community, because his peace and quiet, his happiness and prosperity, are largely dependent upon the intelligence and moral training which it is the object of public schools to supply to the children of his neighbors and associates, if he has none himself."--U.S. Supreme Court, KELLY v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 104 U.S. 78 (1881) 104 U.S. 78
"If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, they will not believe though one should rise up from the dead." We all have our blind spots, areas where we cannot, or will not, see what's right in front of us. For most Americans, public education is a normal feature of civic life. This presupposition is so firmly held (without examination) that scriptural information to the contrary simply does not get processed. It's kinda like JavaScript input testing that automatically discards data that does not match restrictive selection criteria.
"The gospel is like a group of men hearing a joke. And one man smiles." Also sprach my favorite marxist jesuit, Ivan Illich. At some point, the words of our Lord come into play: "Leave them alone." "Go to another city." Head-butting confrontations lose utility when the party you are arguing with simply cannot process the scriptural information you present.
SO: maybe we need to shop our message in other markets. Or find other ways to package it. Your parable is a good example. Nathan smuggled his message around David's blockaded conscience with a little story.
We live in a baptistic culture that confines "religion" to the individual soul, and the Almighty. Covenantal realities, such as the family, the church, the nation, and even sometimes the Trinity, fall outside the scope of this tunnel vision. We have a long ways to go. Christian supporters of public education do not have the theological sophistication, the cognitive undergirding, to see the issue in its larger context. For them, there is no larger context.
How can we best help our fellow saints see the bigger picture?
You are kidding, right?
(If not, please see the words of Jesus, throughout the Gospels, as He denounces wickedness and sin.)
Today's "christians" don't like being told that it is not acceptable to live exactly like their pagan neighbors, they don't want to be a "peculiar" people, they want to continue to practice their pet sins, and heaven forbid that any "intolerant" person tell them otherwise.
It has been a long time since anyone could accuse publik skools of instilling either intelligence or moral training. This alone is enough to advocate the abolition of these immoral cesspools of waste.
What ya' got against Baptists? Not sure what you describe is a Baptist distinctive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.