Radical home-schooling exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:6-9

[Hemustincrease]

It might also be helpful to bear in mind that public schools are largely run by civilians with a variety of beliefs: they are not going to be comprehensively effective at inculcating any particular agenda,

On the contrary, they are incredibly successful at delivering their chosen agenda, despite the different beliefs of teachers! Any belief contrary to humanism has to be subordinate, to the point of it being silenced during the school day.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom/knowledge. Any public school teacher who taught their discipline from that foundation would be quickly out of a job.

 

[stephen2]

I don't have a difficulty with them being humanist; that is in their nature. The problem is that education, along with many other western institutions, have been essentially built on Christian presuppositions and principles, and present day secular education is actively and consciously seeking to shed its "Christian" presuppositions and principles, thus making them actively and consciously non-Christian. These institutions are not simply non-Christian by some "natural" or "common" default setting. They are non-Christian by choice and effort. This is what makes them inimical to Christian values and gives rise to the desire for Christian alternatives insofar as Christians seek to live according to their values.

Matthew could you help me understand what you mean by,

I don't have a difficulty with them being humanist; that is in their nature.

Also you said,

They are non-Christian by choice and effort. This is what makes them inimical to Christian values and gives rise to the desire for Christian alternatives insofar as Christians seek to live according to their values

Historically this is not so - at least if we take the debate back to the 19th century US. When men like Dabney opposed state run schools they were not (at the time) combatting a secular system anything like our own. They stood against the notion of a secular state run form of education for the same reasons (as far as I can tell) that Jo in this thread is opposing them.

First, there is no Biblical ground for turning children over to the state to be educated. That is (everywhere in Scripture!) the parental responsiblity.

Second, there is no such thing as neutral education.

Third, if neutral education were even possible it wouldn't be desirable. Children should not just be learing math by itself as some neutral 'thing'. They should be learning that God made it and what it reveals about God.

There may be a recent home school movement but there really isn't anything new about it. Proponents are saying today what has been largely forgotten for the last 150 years, and which are fathers knew very well.

 

[Hemustincrease]

I’m not in any ‘circles’. I am simply a mother who loves the Lord, loves His Word and hates every false way. I haven’t chosen to home educate my children because I’ve been brainwashed by some ‘circle’ of Van Tillians (do they have three heads?).

Every false way does not merely refer to the current condition of public schooling; if you hate every false way then consistency demands that you must be equally (if not more) opposed to either heretical teaching among homeschoolers and to any dogma which would make homeschooling an absolute in all ages and places - which is a violation of our Christian liberty. But since you stated earlier in the thread that you were not advocating the extremist form of homeschooling espoused by some, then I do not see how we disagree.

The Puritans and Reformers would consider it utter madness to do what the majority of Christian parents do today. They would think we had all lost our heads (or grown two more).

Generally speaking, I would agree with you. However, I would also suggest that they would have frowned upon radical homeschooling as well. Since you do not agree with radical homeschooling, I think we are on the same page here.

Yes, I think we probably are on the same page for the most part. I’m rather glad about that. Good to keep the waters between Ireland and England smooth.

I’m not quite sure where you are headed with the heretical home schoolers though. If we desire true liberty, then there must be the liberty for people to teach their own children heresy as well as for us to teach our children truth. (No doubt many state schooled children are taught heresy when they get home from school, but what has that to do with me?)

I do agree that home education should not be made some kind of absolute rule in every age and place.
That said, I personally do not believe that it demonstrates wisdom for believers to support publicly funded education, whether good, bad or indifferent, for the simple reason that it will sooner or later go very, very bad and as we can see today, many will then choose to stay in the mess and try to reform that which cannot be reformed whilst their children are all the while suffering substantial loss. It would seem far wiser to me (if communal schooling is desired) for the church to undertake the education of her own children and to finance that herself. Public funding comes with far too many strings which are attached to those who most certainly do not have God’s glory in mind or the best for His believing community.

When the state is given the responsibility for the education of the next generation, where else can it end but in tyranny?

 

[a mere housewife]

Jo, you are spunky lady doing a difficult job with an admirable love for your children and I cherish what I know of you.

Wisdom relates far more specifically to the doctrine of Christ, even in that verse. The church is the institution that is commissioned to teach us that wisdom. And the church's commission is not to teach geometry.

I believe the teachers feel largely helpless against the home situations, the peer pressures, and the chaos of the system itself to do more than try to inspire the brighter or more receptive kids. In some systems, they will be able to do that with a more open witness -- but even in other lines of work, we can't begin for instance, answering phones at an office with 'Greetings in the name of the Lord.' We would quickly be fired. Yet our belief in God gives us a hope in all we do. One public school teacher I know tried to provoke questions about his faith. He was not allowed to initiate conversation about it but was allowed to answer questions. I won't share your uncharitable assessment of him and others I know (without even knowing their situations).

I don't understand the open hostility to government here and elsewhere. It is not a NT attitude -- though their govt. was every bit as anti-Christ as ours. Neither do I understand where this idea of public schools as some vast efficient machine with a unified force of teachers effectually promoting the agenda of the govt comes from. It's like reading science fiction. Look at the many neighborhoods where children are going to school and learning nothing. If the govt's agenda is to be largely ignored, it's working brilliantly.

You have far more comprehensive control over your childrens' environment than a teacher at any institution could. Whatever you choose to promote is going to be far more effective in that environment than anyone else's agenda could be. Best to make sure then, that when your child comes to an age of greater critical thinking skills, they have been taught to think critically of your agenda (as Paul commended the Bereans for searching out the truth of what he himself said) with a respectful and generous attitude (as we ought to exercise towards all those in authority over us, like govt), without completely rejecting all that you have said out of hand when they inevitably recognise that your own agenda is also deeply fallible -- that it will inevitably fail in areas to reflect the true teaching of Scripture or the realities of the world around them.

None of this negates what I said in my first paragraph. I pray God will give you the blessing of your labors in your children. I won't go on arguing to no purpose here.

 

[Hemustincrease]

Then when real problems are pointed out in the homeschool community (and I plan to homeschool, For what it's worth), I'm told that is a fallacy and bringing up the sins of others. This is special-pleading with a vengeance.

An act of infidelity on the part of a man who happened to home educate his children does not equal ‘real problems in the homeschool community’ anymore than an act of immorality on the part of the milkman would equal ‘real problems in the dairy industry’.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Good to keep the waters between Ireland and England smooth.

Does it help that I am a unionist?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Just a general point: keep in mind that Baptists/Voluntaryist Presbyterians and Establishmentarian Presbyterians have a fundamentally different conception of the role of the state, with the latter holding a far more positive and paternalist view of the civil government. This doctrinal difference often lies at the root of the divergence between these groups on the question of magisterial maintenance of education.

This point is a bit , but I got the impression from Daniel Walker Howe's excellent book What hath God wrought: the transformation of American, 1815-1848 (OUP) that the Founding Fathers of the United States did not oppose the civil government funding education, though some/many of them argued that it was not the job of the federal government. Did the Voluntary Presbyterians initially adopt a similar position?

 

[Hemustincrease]

I won't share your uncharitable assessment of him and others I know (without even knowing their situations).

What uncharitable assessment of him?

I don't understand the open hostility to government here and elsewhere. It is not a NT attitude -- though their govt. was every bit as anti-Christ as ours. Neither do I understand where this idea of public schools as some vast efficient machine with a unified force of teachers effectually promoting the agenda of the govt comes from. It's like reading science fiction.

I am not hostile to God ordained government, but neither will I support that (humanism) which opposes (publicly and brazenly) Christ and the truth found in Scripture.

Have you read ‘Naked Communist’? Virtually every single goal they (humanists/communists) wrote down 60 some years ago has been achieved. More than that, is has been achieved without any resistance at all (or so little as not to be of any importance). Public schools have been the primary means (or certainly one of them, along with media etc) of achieving these things.

I’ll share some of the goals. The book they are found in, was first published in 1958

Goal 17: Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propoganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teacher’s associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Goal 26: Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural and healthy”.
Goal 28: Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state’
Goal 32: Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of culture-education, social agencies,welfare programs, mental health clinics.
Goal 40: Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
Goal 41: Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudice, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressing influence of parents.

There are many other books which detail the beliefs and goals and achievements of communists (aka progressives) past and present of course, but this one certainly puts it in plain words.

Best to make sure then, that when your child comes to an age of greater critical thinking skills, they have been taught to think critically of your agenda (as Paul commended the Bereans for searching out the truth of what he himself said) with a respectful and generous attitude (as we ought to exercise towards all those in authority over us, like govt), without completely rejecting all that you have said out of hand when they inevitably recognise that your own agenda is also deeply fallible -- that it will inevitably fail in areas to reflect the true teaching of Scripture or the realities of the world around them.

My primary goal in the educating of my children (after urging them to Christ) is that they think for themselves. That they never become people who easily fall prey to deception. I finished reading Animal Farm last night and was discussing it with my children today. Part of that discussion included (what is a very frequent exhortation in this family) urging them to check everything against Scripture. Whether it comes from me as their mother, their Pastor, their neighbor, the government or whomever else. They must hold Scripture as their only rule, as the only absolute truth and be always on guard against deception both in and outside of the church (and family). My children are frequently publicly praised for their respect and obedience towards authority, whether towards myself or others and that is how it should be, but never do I want them to confuse proper Godward subjection to human authority with a supporting/partaking in that which is evil.

I appreciate your post Heidi and hope you won’t read my strength of opinion on this subject as a lack of Christian charity. It can be a fine line to walk but just as I don’t wish to forsake love I just as surely don’t wish to sacrifice truth.

 

[Miss Marple]

While individuals in the school system may be fine people, the actual agenda and activities by the teachers' unions are not.

I had a dear Aunt who had a career teaching in public schools, a fine and dedicated Christian lady. A good friend got his master's and entered the public school system as a principal, and he was a solid believer. I knew a man who had a career in the LA public schools who claimed he (illegally, I suppose), gave the gospel to every class. I think it is a great thing for a Christian adult to enter the system, avoid membership in those unions, and bless and teach the kids in the schools as best they can. I don't mean to undercut anyone doing that.

However, in the U.S. in this day and age, I have not observed, experienced, or heard of dedicatedly 'neutral' teachers. Anti-Christian thought is presupposed if Biblical beliefs are not attacked. If a parent thinks that is the best thing for their children; perceives of the threat as small or nonexistent; considers their children to be a type of missionary; or simply has no other choice due to circumstances and compulsory education laws, well, you do the best you can I suppose.

An example from my 6th grade science class: Mr. Fullerton, a kind and charismatic science teacher, taught us about the beginning of the universe. He taught the Big Bang and several variations upon it. After a week or two of learning this, we were asked to write an in-class essay as to which version we believed.

Creation was not mentioned or offered. Just variations on the Big Bang.

As a little atheist myself, I was surprised when a young man raised his hand and said, "Some of us believe God created the earth."

That could have ended badly. Mr. Fullerton could have mocked. But he kindly said, if that is what you believe, then write on that.

Good points: Mr. Fullerton was kind. The boy was bold. The atheist (me) was impressed that someone in this day and age could actually believe that.

Bad points: We were taught evolution as fact. The teacher could have been mean and really humiliated that kid. He was marginalized and made to feel like the oddball. I could not have written a paper credibly on anything other than evolutionary theory, as I had learned no alternate. No consideration was given by the teacher that others (whether Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or for that matter American Indians) might have a different belief.

This was in the 1970s, and it was in Silicon Valley. In 2013 in San Francisco, well, all my evidence is anecdotal, but it's bad out there.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

There may be a recent home school movement but there really isn't anything new about it. Proponents are saying today what has been largely forgotten for the last 150 years, and which are fathers knew very well.

That depends on what you mean by homeschooling. It is new in one sense (with respect to attitude) but old in another sense (as soon as a child is born he is being taught by his parents). As the term is normally used (and I've been around homeschoolers--and I homeschool--for almost 20 years) it was not as common as you may think. See my chapters on Christian Education in Uniting Church and Family.

As to what these people have been saying, I am not sure what you are referring to: the importance of family worship? That would be true. The requirement of homeschooling as over and against Christian schooling? That would be false.

I'll deal with the Dabney assertion shortly.

thanks,

 

[Shawn Mathis]

This point is a bit , but I got the impression from Daniel Walker Howe's excellent book What hath God wrought: the transformation of American, 1815-1848 (OUP) that the Founding Fathers of the United States did not oppose the civil government funding education, though some/many of them argued that it was not the job of the federal government. Did the Voluntary Presbyterians initially adopt a similar position?

In the writings and speeches about the education crisis in Presbyterianism of the 1840s, I have run across an assumed stance that this was acceptable. It is even explicit at times. Of note: many of the Presbyterians were in favor of the soon-to-be parochial school system while Breckenridge and Thornwell (and others) were against it and tended to favor the local and/or state schools systems. See Thornwell's letter here.

"My mind has rather leaned to the side of State education but I have difficulties. Let me hear from you soon and do not omit to say distinctly whether in case of the failure of your health you will consent to becomo a South Carolinian. The Lord bless you and keep you."

 

[Mushroom]

I don't understand the open hostility to government here and elsewhere. It is not a NT attitude -- though their govt. was every bit as anti-Christ as ours.

Heidi, I'm not sure that what is often presented as the NT attitude toward government is as accurate as some believe. Seeing that it was the main persecutor of the Church at the time of the Apostle's writings, one would need to bear that in mind when reading their exhortations regarding government. There were no kingdoms bearing benevolence toward the faith at the time, so the words can't mean we should have a happy, trusting attitude in its regard. John the Baptist was beheaded for vocally rebuking a King of that day for his gross immorality, an immorality that would seem rather tame when compared alongside the slaughter of 56 million babies and the promotion of mass perversion seen in the present magistrate in this one nation. The currently popular interpretation seems borne more out of cowardice and obsequity, fortified with a pinch of self-interest draped in a pretty dress called patriotism, than a consistent exegesis.

J the B had the sand to stand. A vast majority of professing Christian men seem to be bereft of that commodity, particularly if having it might jeopardize their fullness of bread. It's almost a laugh to see them curling up as pets to such a bloody master while barking alarms and protests at their brethren who might deign to publicly note that sitting in his lap tends to redden their own ears. Men of stout courage, indeed.

 

[a mere housewife]

I was struck by this verse the other day: Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

Jo, I apologise sincerely if I read more into your comment than was meant. You seemed to imply that a Christian would have to compromise their faith to teach in a public school.

I hope this will not be seen as argumentative: just to suggest some other considerations in assessing the state of the public school system -- Others have also pointed out that parental nurture and involvement is a major variable in the differences from one school system to another. There are still public schools where children are encouraged to pray and where the teachers speak more openly about their faith: the parents in those systems are more religious, with more traditional values. Christian parents are increasingly less involved in the public school system and parents have increasingly simply abdicated their responsibilities (not of teaching their children math and literature: geometry was entrusted to the Greeks, but to the Jews were committed the oracles of God) but of taking their children to church, teaching them about God. The churches have majorly abdicated responsibilities (when the church is ordaining gay clergy, you can't expect the government to maintain a firm stand). Even with all the godless people being able to implement their agendas in this chaos, I think we can rest assured that the government has little ability to turn out a generation of well organised drones, as the school system stands. The government agenda from all we hear, is to tell teenagers to use condoms: that doesn't seem to be having a very powerful impact. It is often the mom's solution to tell the pregnant teenager to get an abortion. The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.

I have lived in neighborhoods where I would probably not send a child out to play (at least I would have to fight the desire to stand at the window and call them back in a few minutes) -- I would certainly not send them out all day into the schools. But I don't primarily blame the government. Orwell saw everything as fundamentally political -- even religion and morality. As Christians, we believe otherwise. We look for more profound causes: and they are often causes which reflect much more on our own souls: recognising and fighting with our own remaining sin (Duet 7), keeping a gospel focus in our own lives and in our churches, loving our neighbors even in our thoughts, submitting to our own authorities, showing children how to repent.

I am so grateful for parents who love their children and are involved in religious instruction and nurture day to day. And I deeply admire the moms who are dedicated enough to be taking on a huge extra load in homeschooling: I agree that often that is the best option a family has. The moms here who are doing that have my prayers and support. I tend to think that any honest person would have a feeling that they are doing it 'right' and others are getting it all wrong knocked away. I feel terrified when I think of how much my failures could impact a child: I recognise that my own 'agenda' is wildly full of blindspots and inadequacies. Yet in my experience, persevering in prayer, repentance and faith, steadfast love (part and parcel of religious instruction) is the best gift a parent could give, regardless of how a child is formally educated. My beloved parents have always given that to me and I am deeply, undeservedly, eternally blessed.

 

[Hemustincrease]

The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.

Abortion is peddled in public schools. One lady who used to work for planned parenthood (and was latterly saved) confessed that their entire goal in going into schools to give out contraceptives was because they knew very well that girls would not use them properly (forget to take the pill, not use the condom etc) but would still continue to live promiscuously (as encouraged to do so by humanistic philosophy) and so would very likely end up as ‘money' for the abortion industry. They were basically ‘selling abortion’. This was all done without any parental consent and teachers who had been ‘certified’ to teach such lessons were unashamedly stating that parents ought not to expect any say in such matters. If a child asked for contraception or an abortion and their parents were against that, the child would be supported 100% to rebel against God and their parents. (They did not say they were supporting rebellion, but obviously this is what they were/are doing.)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lessons-Depravity-History-Education-1918-2002/dp/0952993953

 

[a mere housewife]

Jo when I worked with teenage girls who did not use condom and had abortions, their families and friends were mentioned as pressuring them. Nobody talked in that connection about something they were taught at school or the influence of a teacher. My husband interviewed with a job at a pro life center and the lady who runs it told us that the most influential factor in pressuring the teenage girls they spoke with were their moms. I don't honestly see how it is possible to aggrandize the influence of the school to the extent that the family that is rebelled against (and families that are increasingly uninvolved, or have parents who are drug addicts, or abusive -- as in our old neighborhood) is nothing: and I am having trouble expressing what I was trying to above. The attitude that does aggrandise school to that extent seems to me in danger of shifting a central focus on the gospel as the real commission of the church, and the simplicity of gospel nurture as the real duty of the parent. Which probably circles the thread nicely back to the beginning.

I am sorry to have entered the discussion. I do think the Christian parents/teachers who are still involving themselves in various public school districts don't deserve to be looked down on. They are probably helping to keep those schools more decent, faith-friendly places for everyone. All the best.

 

[kvanlaan]

I don't know that a Christian who teaches in a public system is to be looked down upon, but I do think they're definitely going to need to gird up their loins and prepare for battle at every turn; they are missionaries in a hostile land, not teachers. Here in Canada, I cannot fathom believers sending their children to a public school; there may be those that are still not completely anti-religious, but I've not yet found them. They are indeed the new religious centres of learning, with clergy in the classroom - and secular humanism is the only thing taught. I have heard the same story about the abortion providers in the schools that Jo mentioned - if you watch the Gunn brothers' "Monstrous Regiment of Women" you see it there front and centre.

As for the power of the schools in childrens' lives, I can't imagine how it would escape detection. Looking at the average family, where both parents are working, everyone is out the door by 8 and no one is home until 3:30pm, and that is the kids alone (when they switch humanist agenda for the TV's godlessness). The parents are not usually back until 5 or so, and then there is homework and TV, so the average time spent with parents is an hour or so one-on-one (or less), while time spent with 'peers' and those instructing them is 6-8 hours. When every subject is steeped in humanism, sheer osmosis makes this worldview normal to them.

 

[Hemustincrease]

I am sorry to have entered the discussion.

I’m sorry, you’re sorry to have entered the discussion. I’m glad that you did.

 

[MW]

Matthew could you help me understand what you mean by,

I don't have a difficulty with them being humanist; that is in their nature.

Where education involves critical thinking, human development, and social integration, it is humanist by nature, whether it be Christian or secular.

First, there is no Biblical ground for turning children over to the state to be educated. That is (everywhere in Scripture!) the parental responsiblity.

Nobody turns children over to "the State." They are born in "the State." They are not the exclusive property of parents. Children are primarily the responsibility of their parents. Civil government also has a responsibility with regard to both parents and children.

Second, there is no such thing as neutral education.

Obviously there is not; but when it comes to social responsibility there must be common ground on which every individual can function according to a good faith basis.

Third, if neutral education were even possible it wouldn't be desirable. Childrena should not just be learing math by itself as some neutral 'thing'. They should be learning that God made it and what it reveals about God.

I agree. I see no reason why this could not be done by even a nominal Christian State, as was once the case.

 

[RamistThomist]

The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.

Abortion is peddled in public schools. One lady who used to work for planned parenthood (and was latterly saved) confessed that their entire goal in going into schools to give out contraceptives was because they knew very well that girls would not use them properly (forget to take the pill, not use the condom etc) but would still continue to live promiscuously (as encouraged to do so by humanistic philosophy) and so would very likely end up as ‘money' for the abortion industry. They were basically ‘selling abortion’. This was all done without any parental consent and teachers who had been ‘certified’ to teach such lessons were unashamedly stating that parents ought not to expect any say in such matters. If a child asked for contraception or an abortion and their parents were against that, the child would be supported 100% to rebel against God and their parents. (They did not say they were supporting rebellion, but obviously this is what they were/are doing.)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lessons-Depravity-History-Education-1918-2002/dp/0952993953

It's peddled in some schools, not in others. I don't necessarily work in a Christ-friendly environment, but abortion is definitely frowned upon (to put it mildly). Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

When I was in first year at high-school, a Christian man from the United States came and spoke to the pupils. In the midst of his talk about his conversion and other things, he happened to mention something about the Bible and prayer being excluded from most public schools in the United States. Even as a 12 year old I was stunned, literally stunned, that such a thing could take place in a country with so much Christian influence. Of course, it was more shocking to me as one who went to state schools were the Bible was taught in both the assemblies and in the class-room, the teachers were Christians, and the local (Protestant) clergy spoke at the assemblies and on other occasions.

 

[Hemustincrease]

Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.

Is every single school exactly the same? No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.

 

[RamistThomist]

Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.

No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.

Since we have not yet risen above the level of assertion, I will again assert, "No, it isn't."

 

[Gforce9]

Jo when I worked with teenage girls who did not use condom and had abortions, their families and friends were mentioned as pressuring them. Nobody talked in that connection about something they were taught at school or the influence of a teacher. My husband interviewed with a job at a pro life center and the lady who runs it told us that the most influential factor in pressuring the teenage girls they spoke with were their moms. I don't honestly see how it is possible to aggrandize the influence of the school to the extent that the family that is rebelled against (and families that are increasingly uninvolved, or have parents who are drug addicts, or abusive -- as in our old neighborhood) is nothing: and I am having trouble expressing what I was trying to above. The attitude that does aggrandise school to that extent seems to me in danger of shifting a central focus on the gospel as the real commission of the church, and the simplicity of gospel nurture as the real duty of the parent. Which probably circles the thread nicely back to the beginning.

I am sorry to have entered the discussion. I do think the Christian parents/teachers who are still involving themselves in various public school districts don't deserve to be looked down on. They are probably helping to keep those schools more decent, faith-friendly places for everyone. All the best.

The issues surrounding teenage pregnancy and abortion are still very much tied to a family's values.

Abortion is peddled in public schools. One lady who used to work for planned parenthood (and was latterly saved) confessed that their entire goal in going into schools to give out contraceptives was because they knew very well that girls would not use them properly (forget to take the pill, not use the condom etc) but would still continue to live promiscuously (as encouraged to do so by humanistic philosophy) and so would very likely end up as ‘money' for the abortion industry. They were basically ‘selling abortion’. This was all done without any parental consent and teachers who had been ‘certified’ to teach such lessons were unashamedly stating that parents ought not to expect any say in such matters. If a child asked for contraception or an abortion and their parents were against that, the child would be supported 100% to rebel against God and their parents. (They did not say they were supporting rebellion, but obviously this is what they were/are doing.)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lessons-Depravity-History-Education-1918-2002/dp/0952993953

It's peddled in some schools, not in others. I don't necessarily work in a Christ-friendly environment, but abortion is definitely frowned upon (to put it mildly). Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.

Based on the residences listed in your profiles, I think your broader view may be limited. Here in the People's Republic of Illinois, this garbage is a daily occurrence. We have a school district close to here that, 15 years ago, had a class of 3rd graders being read Heather Has Two Mommies or something like it, without parental consent. Another local school had kids, without parental consent, participate in a "play" featuring men with desires for one another. There is no parental notification required for the murder of babies by teenagers and school officials will (and have) carted mere children off to Indiana to have the "procedure".
The public schools and government here are enemies of God and of the family, without shame or repentance and with sheer brazen arrogance. Does that mean every place is as bad as another? Probably not, but surveys are not available before you sign up. A non-believing, single (without children) friend of mine commented to me "Sending kids to public schools here is child abuse". Unfortunately, I tend to agree with him.......

 

[Mushroom]

Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.

No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.

Since we have not yet risen above the level of assertion, I will again assert, "No, it isn't."

Not sure what you're attempting to demonstrate here, Jacob. Are you saying that public schools are not by and large given over to humanism and sexual perversion due to the fact that there exists a few that are not? Or are you trying to say that public schools are by and large friendly to Christ in spite of the fact that there are a few that aren't? Or, is it that you think it impossible and erroneously presuppositional to determine anything to be by and large true concerning public schools?


It would be easier to swallow the defenses put forth if 1) they didn't fly in the face of legal decisions, established curriculum, and what we read daily in news reports, and 2) if it weren't coming from a man whose bread is dependent upon the particular entity defended.

 

[Hemustincrease]

It would be easier to swallow the defenses put forth if 1) they didn't fly in the face of legal decisions, established curriculum, and what we read daily in news reports, and 2) if it weren't coming from a man whose bread is dependent upon the particular entity defended.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Of course, it was more shocking to me as one who went to state schools were the Bible was taught in both the assemblies and in the class-room, the teachers were Christians, and the local (Protestant) clergy spoke at the assemblies and on other occasions.

Wow. What a different world. The version of separation of church and state in America devolved to separation of Christian morality and the state. Part of this transformation was easy because many Christian Americans were no longer comfortable with the type of integration of religion with the schools they way you had growing up. It was also the influx of non-Protestants into the common schools in the early 1800 (Roman Catholics) and then the nominal Protestants on the other hand (against "sectarian" Protestants (eg. Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) teaching their views in the schools). The only hold outs from nominal religion or anti-religion from the State are homeschoolers, private schools and parochial schools. And, today, they are mostly splintered and not cooperating much with each other.

Back to the OPC: radical homeschoolers do not help this patchwork educational environ in America. They should be open to private and parachial schools in terms of helping and encouraging each other toward Christian nurture. My five cents worth.

 

[RamistThomist]

Again, you are using anecdotal evidence from a few situations and drawing a universal conclusion from them.

No. But the exact same philosophy which leads to these great evils is pervading all state schools.

Since we have not yet risen above the level of assertion, I will again assert, "No, it isn't."

Not sure what you're attempting to demonstrate here, Jacob. Are you saying that public schools are not by and large given over to humanism and sexual perversion due to the fact that there exists a few that are not? Or are you trying to say that public schools are by and large friendly to Christ in spite of the fact that there are a few that aren't? Or, is it that you think it impossible and erroneously presuppositional to determine anything to be by and large true concerning public schools?


It would be easier to swallow the defenses put forth if 1) they didn't fly in the face of legal decisions, established curriculum, and what we read daily in news reports, and 2) if it weren't coming from a man whose bread is dependent upon the particular entity defended.

I am saying it is different in different areas. That's all.

 

[py3ak]

[Moderator]
Thread closed. Once the door is opened to attributing people's positions to their defects or situations, there is no logical reason not to do that to everyone. So if you would like to say that I am closing this thread because I was once run over by a bicycle, I can live with that; but in fairness you should realize that on that basis, your position as to why I'm closing the thread is itself caused by some trauma of your own. At that point, argument essentially becomes impossible, for every reason can be dismissed with "Well of course X would say or do Y."
[/Moderator]