"There is no such thing as metaphysical neutrality. If a society or an institution rejects the Bible's teaching about the nature of God, man and the universe, then it necessarily accepts, implicitly or explicitly, some other worldview, whether it be materialist metaphysics of secular humanism, the cosmic humanism of the New Age religions, or something else. Government schools are no exception."
Perhaps you disagree, or think: "Well, there are some subjects that can be taught religiously neutral, like Math, or Geology..." Even if I would grant that (and I don't) that leaves all the other subjects being taught as not religiously neutral. Or perhaps you are of the mind that all courses can be taught in a religiously neutral way, kind of like spraying anti-bacterial religious spray on a course so all dangerous "religion" is disinfected prior to teaching. Let's look at some others and their position on this topic.
First, this principle was communicated by Jesus Christ in Luke:
"A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher." - Luke 6:40
Seems pretty straightforward; Christ understood that those that were taught, ended up being like their teachers. (Putting this in context, Christ has just asked the people: "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?" To which we could respond about our government schools: yes, both teachers and students have fallen into the ditch)
Second, this principle was also understood by Marxist and social-engineer extraordinaire, Adolf Hitler:
“When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."” - Adolf Hitler [quote]
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." - Adolf Hitler [quote]
Third, this principle was and is understood by prominent secular humanists:
"[T]he battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity...These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith..." - John Dunphy, The Humanist magazine. Jan/Feb 1983, p 26
"[E]ducation is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?" - Charles F. Potter, signer of the first Humanist Manifesto, Humanism: A New Religion, 1930, p128
"Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lean toward the elimination of religious superstition" - Paul Blanchard, humanist author, as quoted by Blair Adams and Joel Stein, Who owns the Children?, 1984
"[P]ublic education is the parochial education for scientific humanism" - Joe R. Burnett, editor of The Humanist, 1961
From those quotes can anyone really honestly hold the absurd position that "education is religiously neutral?" As my friends from the country would say: "That dog just don't hunt!"
The part that complicates most people is the use of the word "religion." Over the years, that word has been re-defined to mean: belief in God, or gods. Because of that narrow definition, it is possible for a person who "doesn't believe in God or gods" to state truthfully: "I'm not very religious." However, originally the word "religion" did not have that narrow of a meaning; originally the word meant: "to go over again" or "to consider carefully" or "to reconnect" or "a system of faith and worship." Given that broad a definition, when you see the word "religion" you should replace it in your mind with the word "worldview." This replacement in your mind is critical, because as I stated earlier, in our culture today it is acceptable for a person to claim to "not be religious" but it would intellectually dishonest for a person to claim "I don't have a worldview."
So if you are sending your children to a government school, the question you should be asking yourself is: What worldview (or religion) are they teaching?
Enter Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.
As background, recognize that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits, among other things, both "the establishment of religion" and interference with "the free exercises" of religion by the federal government. As a negative document, the Constititution does not grant powers to the Congress or federal courts to interject themselves into state actions affecting religion.
This meant that states could do what they wanted regarding religion and remain unaffected by the federal government; this was as intended.
Everson was a simple case. A New Jersey school board resolution was passed that stated that all parents whose children must ride public buses to school (not school buses), had to be reimbursed for the amount of the fares. The problem was that some parents were sending their children to Catholic parochial schools. The plaintiff, Arch Everson, claimed that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (we will ignore the fact that Arch Everson was a member of the Junior Order of United American Mechanics, an organization closely tied to the Klan).
In Everson, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Establishment Clause had not been violated, it found that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applied to the states as a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It was in this landmark case that Justice Hugo Black laid down the well known doctrine that the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to erect "a wall of separation between church and state." (I suppose we can also ignore that Justice Black had been a member of the Klan prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court).
Attorney Bruce Shortt explains the impact of this ruling this way:
"As a practical matter, Everson made the federal courts the arbiter of what the states could and could not do in the area of religion. Never mind that for the roughly eighty years following the adoption of the 14th Amendment no federal court had claimed or noticed that it had this power. Never mind...that the Congress rejected a proposed Constitutional amendment known as the Blain Amendment, which had as its express purpose the application of the religion clauses to the states.
Whatever reasons given by the Supreme Court for its actions in Everson, the truth of the matter is that the Court simple decided that it was time for the federal courts to force the transformation of American culture and its institutions -- including the government schools....A transformation in which Justice Black's 'wall of separation' language was to be intepreted eventually as requiring the elimination of all traces of a Christian worldview from government schools and, more generally, the public policies of the federal government and the states. In effect, Everson made the thorough secularization of government schools a mission of the federal courts."
Next time a person proposes that we need to "reform the public school system" remind them that it is currently the mandated mission of the federal court system to vehemently resist and thwart any such "reform" that would bring back "Christianity" into the public school system.
Curious as to how that "mission" has manifested itself in the policies of the government school system? Following are the guidelines as outlined by a report produced by the American United Research Foundation entitled: "Religion in the Public School Curriculum: Questions and Answers."
- The school's approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
- The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any religion.
- The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion.
- The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view.
- The school educates about all religions, it does not promote or denigrate any religion.
- The school informs the student about various beliefs, but it does not seek to conform students to any particular belief.
But is it? As any teacher or student could attest, overt hostility toward Christianity is common in todays government schools. Currently, Department of Education attorney, Brian Jones, is trying to "bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law" which is legal-speak for: "do our best to halt some of the egregious hostility toward Christianity in government schools across the country." As expected, liberal groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State are opposed to such "reforms."
So to recap, the current federally mandated "mission" is to achieve "religious indifference," what we have is "overt hostility to Christianity" and our current attempts to return to "religious indifference" are now being viewed as controversial by liberals. It is to this place that 85% of Christian parents send their children?
So what is the "worldview" being taught? We know it isn't Christian, but what is it?
The two most common are: secular humanism and New Age.
As you look at the two descriptions below, see if you recognize any of their "beliefs" in what you know is being taught at your child's government school.
Secular Humanism
The worldview of secular humanism is fairly easy to define because they defined it for us. The following are some of the key points of this worldview as outlined in the Humanist Manifesto (now in it's third revision).
- Regarded the universe as self-existing and not created
- Believed that man is a part of nature and that he emerged as a part of a continuous evolutionary process.
- Held an organic view of life and rejected mind/body dualism
- Rejected as scientifically unacceptable any purported supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values
- Were convinced that the time had passed for religious views such as theism and deism.
- Considered the complete realization of human personality to be the purpose of man's life.
- Advocated establishment of a "socialized and cooperative economic order."
- Asserted that the purpose and program of humanism is the intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of all associations and institutions for the fulfillment of human life.
New Age
New Age is largely a worldview that stems from the work of such psychologists as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Their views of "transpersonal psychology" mixed with eastern mysticism and the occult created the worldview that we commonly call: New Age. Wikipedia describes New Age this way:
The New Age (also known as the New Age Movement, New Age spirituality, and Cosmic Humanism) is a decentralized Western social and spiritual movement that seeks "Universal Truth" and the attainment of the highest individual human potential. It combines aspects of cosmology, astrology, esotericism, alternative medicine, music, collectivism, sustainability, and nature. New Age spirituality is characterized by an individual approach to spiritual practices and philosophies, while rejecting religious doctrine and dogma.
There is a general and abstract idea of God, which can be understood in many ways; seen as a superseding of the need to anthropomorphize deity. Not to be confused with pantheism.
Gods, angels, Ascended Masters, elementals, ghosts, faeries, Spirit guides and extraterrestrials can spiritually guide a person, if they open themselves to their guidance.[24]
As you can see, the New Age worldview denies the existence of our transcendent God. In the New Age worldview, "all is god" or "all is becoming god." The New Age worldview will not lead your children toward the truth, it will lead them away from it by confusion and obfuscation.
The current basic practice of New Age is to deceive parents into accepting their theories by merely changing the terminology. As Dick Sutphen, a prominent New Ager, has written:
"One of the biggest advantages we have as New Agers is, once the occult, the metaphysical and New Age terminology is removed, we have concepts and techniques that are very acceptable to the general public. So we can change the names and demonstrate the power. In doing so, we open the New Age door to millions who would not be receptive."
A blatant example of the introduction of "New Age" thought into the public school systems is the adoption of the Waldorf curriculum, a curriculum based upon the New Age doctrines of Rudolph Steiner. The Waldorf curriculum has its roots in "Anthrosoposphy." In Anthrosopophy, Lucifer is regarded as the "god of light," his nemisis is Ahriman, the "god of darkness." According to Steiner, Christ came to earth as a sun god to balance the forces of light and darkness. The following is a snippet from The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide:
"Most of that which contributes to our work as teachers, preparation work, artistic work, even meditative work, is under the guardianship of Lucifer. We can become great teachers under his supervision, for he is responsible for much that has blossomed in the unfolding of the civilization and culture in the past."
A reporter researching the "Waldorf School Curriculum" sat in a government school in California and observed some of the more chilling components of the Waldorf liturgy. Before meals, children recite the following: "Earth, who gives to us this food, sun who makes it ripe and good. Dear sun, dear earth, by you we live, our living thanks to you we give."
Does this sound like teaching "religion" to you? It does to me, and yet the Waldorf program is considered by most school boards to be "non-religious" and has been spreading in government schools primarily through the charter school movement. WaldforfAnswers.org contains a list of the more than 35 Public Waldorf schools in America (3 are in Oregon).
And if it's not "Waldorf" it might be "Earthkeepers" quoted by one mother as being "more like a three-day introduction to Wicca and Deep Ecology than a program about environmental science."
Again, Bruce Shortt provides insight:
"Are you still convinced that sending your children to government schools is harmless? Is it plausible to think that given Wiccans, secular humanists, Gaia worshipers, and sundry purveyors of Easter religions or Islam the opportunity to proselytize your children through classroom instruction, textbooks, assemblies, field-trips, peer-pressure, extracurricular activities, and adult example for at least 35 hours a week makes no difference to their faith?
Evidence that Christians have failed to transmit their faith and values to their children is everywhere. Within two years of graduation from high school, between 70% and 88% of teenagers from evangelical families stop attending church."
Consider a study by the Nehemiah Institute that found a significant difference between those children attending government schools and those attending private Christian schools. For example, only 35.3% of the Christian children in government schools strongly agreed that "the foundation of all government is self-government under God," while 67.4% of the children attending private Christian schools strongly agreed.
The following contrast was even more disturbing: "Because human nature is constantly changing, values and ethics will also change. Therefore, each generation should be free to adopt moral standards appropriate to their preferences." 74.3% of Christian children attending private Christian schools strongly disagreed, which is still sad. But only a shockingly low 14.7% of Christian children attending government schools strongly disagreed with that statement!
If you still think there is nothing wrong with sending a child to be educated for 28,000 seat-hours by godless secular humanists you are either not paying attention, or are not being intellectually honest with yourself.
Ask yourself this simple question: Who benefits more by you sending your children to a government school: you or them? (if it helps, create two columns and chart the benefits for each).
When Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy, he wrote:
"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier." - 2 Tim 2:4
We are in a battle, and the stakes are high. Isn't it time the church took a stand on the issue of childhood education and began instructing its members on the dangers inherent in "entangling ourselves with the affairs of this life?" Or will the church continue to be silent, and allow another generation to fall. In that same letter that Paul wrote to Timothy, he also wrote the following:
"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." - 2 Tim 2:24-26
As servants of the Lord, we "must not quarrel" with our brothers and sisters in Christ who blindly send their children to government schools being unaware of the dangers, but we instead "must be gentle to all" and "correct those in opposition" alerting them to the dangers, educating them to the truth, that all education by its very nature teaches a "worldview", so that "they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." Only by doing so will be obedient to the commands of the Lord.
1 comment:
Hey, I randomly found your blog while checking out fellow Total Truth fans who use blogger. I like your site. I am a seminary student in Chicago, and an aspiring writer with a blog of my own (rjmoeller.com). Check it out some time. Take care.
Post a Comment