Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences. The ideas behind sex education have done more to destroy Biblically based moral values than any other secular force in America.
The first idea to become a battering ram against traditional sexual morality was Sigmund Freud's dictum that sexual repression causes neurosis. If sexual repression creates dysfunction, then the remedy, of course, is free sexual expression. That was not the cure Freud recommended, but Freud's ideas so strongly influenced American culture that clothes for women went from the trussed-up, sexually repressed fashions of 1900 to the loose, liberating flapper skirts of the Roaring Twenties — in only 20 years!
Greenwich Village bohemians and intellectuals took to Freud like ducks to water. It provided a scientific justification for their free-love promiscuity and disregard of middle-class Biblical morality.
The second major idea came from socialist Margaret Sanger, free-love advocate, who launched a campaign in 1916 to promote contraception and abortion in order to free women from the burdens of unwanted pregnancy.
Rick Boyer and his wife Marilyn are pioneer homeschoolers. Since 1980, they have educated their 14 children at home, having started when homeschooling was still illegal in Virginia. As a pioneer in the home education movement, Rick has written several books on the homeschool experience and has been a much-in-demand speaker at many homeschool conventions all across America. As devout Christians, Rick and his wife believe that Scripture provides a powerful model for the upbringing of children that, when followed, produces wise, proactive young Christian adults who are capable of achieving great works for the glory of God.
Rick also believes that God created the homeschool movement for a purpose: to raise up a new generation of young Americans who will “take back the land.” Mike Farris, the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College, called these new young homeschooled adults the “Joshua Generation,” because they are being called to do what Joshua in the Bible was called to do after the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery and the death of Moses: to take back the land of Canaan from the heathen, land that God had given to the Israelites. His mission was to lead the Israelites in battle to retrieve the land.
The situation is almost similar in America, which was founded by Christians and which grew and prospered as a Christian nation until the middle of the 20th century when the secular humanists, today’s heathens, took it over. The result is a nation in decline, awash in sin and pornography, with public schools destroying the minds and souls of millions of American children.
Just as young people were headed to universities across the nation and the K-12 back-to-school season was percolating in parents’ minds, a front-page Washington Times’ headline disclosed on August 17: “Scores show students aren’t ready for college — 75% may need remedial classes.”
A statistic like 75 percent gets people’s attention. Worse, the Times article quoted an education advocacy group’s finding that “80 percent of college students taking remedial classes [in 2008] had a high school GPA of 3.0 or better.” So apparently, even when students score well, they don’t know much. How is that even possible?
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, is moving to combat the ninth reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
Enacted as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s "War on Poverty," ESEA was a springboard for the federal government’s unbounded authority and expanding reach in American education. The act was originally chartered through 1970, but the government has reauthorized ESEA every five years since its passing.
NCLB has been tormented with problems and heavily condemned by educators and lawmakers, most visibly through controversial provisions such as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) — an academic measurement for schools and school districts based on standardized tests — and the requirement for all children to be proficient in math and reading by 2014. These provisions have led to serious unintended repercussions, one being the loss of transparency to parents and taxpayers about students’ real academic performance.
Most consequential is the federal government’s amplified role in the education system, as the law has severely diminished local control and influence.
"This is a story of our children and an ideological struggle in which our children are the prize. This is the story of the big yellow bus. This is the story of indoctrination." So begins the mesmerizing introduction to IndoctriNation: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America, a hard-hitting, 90-minute documentary presented by the Exodus Mandate and the Christian Liberty Academy School System.
The film features Colin Gunn, a homeschooling father of eight, who originally hails from Scotland but now lives in Texas. A camera accompanies him, his wife, Emily, and their children as they travel in a yellow school bus on an educational odyssey, throughout the United States, to examine the origins of American mass public schooling and its subsequent negative impact on the culture.
Gunn speaks to a large cast of writers, historians, educators, and ministers who are as articulate as they are provocative. (Familiar names to readers of this website include Sam Blumenfeld and John Taylor Gatto.)
While Gunn comes across as merely a curious interviewer, not condemning folks for their educational choices or singling them out, the documentary certainly has a bias and urgency in encouraging Christian parents (if they haven't done so) to "get their children out!"
With the release on October 10, 2011, of Roland Emmerich’s controversial film on the Shakespeare authorship mystery, Anonymous, I thought it might be a very appropriate time for me to enlighten my readers with an account of my own involvement in the authorship controversy before seeing the film and passing judgment on it.
As the author of The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection, which took seven years to write, I have been very much involved in the Shakespeare authorship problem for quite a long time. Indeed, I first became aware that there was an authorship problem back in the early 1960s when Calvin Hoffman, author of The Murder of the Man Who Was Shakespeare, came to my office at Grosset & Dunlap in New York, in the hope of getting us to publish a paperback edition of his book.
Hoffman’s claim was that the actual author of the works attributed to Shakespeare was the great poet-playwright Christopher Marlowe, who was supposedly killed in a barroom brawl in 1593. But Hoffman had read all of Marlowe and all of Shakespeare and had come to the conclusion that they were all written by the same person. But the problem of Marlowe’s alleged death made that premise impossible, unless he was able to prove that Marlowe’s death was faked, and that he actually survived to continue writing plays in exile.
An Ohio judge has ruled against a public school science teacher who was fired for allegedly pushing his religious beliefs on his students, and for keeping a Bible on his desk. The Rutherford Institute, the legal advocacy group representing him in an appeal of the termination, insisted that the charge has more to do with the teacher’s efforts to get students to think critically about the issue of evolution.
According to the Associated Press, Knox County Common Pleas Judge Otho Eyster ruled on October 6 that the Mount Vernon, Ohio, school board was justified in dismissing John Freshwater, a 24-year teaching veteran with an exemplary record. “Eyster noted in his two-page decision that he reviewed more than 6,300 transcript pages from a hearing held before a state referee,” reported the AP. “That hearing officer recommended … that Freshwater’s contract be terminated, and the school board formally fired him within days.”
The Rutherford Institute explained that in 2008 the Mount Vernon school board voted to suspend the science teacher, citing concerns about his conduct and materials found in his classroom, specifically those related to his views and teaching on the issue of evolution.
Dr. Duke Pesta received his M.A. in Renaissance literature from John Carroll University and his Ph.D. in Shakespeare and Renaissance literature from Purdue University. He has taught at major research institutions and small liberal arts colleges, on a wide variety of subjects at the graduate and undergraduate level, including classes on Shakespeare, Renaissance literature, the Bible, Russian literature, and C.S. Lewis. He has been active in educational reform, and was instrumental in developing and implementing an elective Bible course that is currently available for public high-school students in Texas. He is a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, and the academic director of FreedomProject Education, an online school dedicated to providing students a classical education delivered through state-of-the-art technology. He was interviewed for The New American by Gary Benoit.
The New American: What are the benefits of homeschooling?
Dr. Duke Pesta: Besides the obvious advantages of convenience and the comforts and flexibility of the home environment, perhaps the biggest benefit of homeschooling is the ability to manage the message, so to speak. It is impossible to be an informed participant in the culture and not recognize the increasingly volatile politicization of American institutions, especially Hollywood, the media, and of course, academia. Homeschooling provides parents a level playing field, a safe place from which to interact with their children about the proper way to distinguish between important and unimportant information and identify the often one-sided methods by which information is delivered.
Before 1980 there was no U.S. Department of Education. Before 1964 there was relatively little federal involvement in education at all. But let a few Republican presidential candidates suggest that maybe Washington’s role in schooling ought to be scaled back somewhat, and the New York Times, reliable barometer of establishment opinion, finds cause for concern. Why, “even Mitt Romney,” the paper frets, “now says, ‘We need to get the federal government out of education.’”
“For a generation,” the Times writes, “there has been loose bipartisan agreement in Washington that the federal government has a necessary role to play in the nation’s 13,600 school districts, primarily by using money to compel states to raise standards.”
Of course, many observers note that the bipartisan consensus on any subject can be — and usually is — wrong. Constitutionalists point out that there is also a bipartisan consensus in favor of Social Security, Medicare, and an interventionist foreign policy — all of which, like federal involvement in education, are both unconstitutional and unwise. There is no shame, they say, in challenging Beltway orthodoxy.
We’ve all heard about the tactic of using children as human shields, as practiced by Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and others. The idea is that you place civilians — preferably women and children — at military targets to reduce the chances that your enemy will attack and so that, if he does, he’ll look like a heartless miscreant who targets the least among us. Morally, it’s the least of tactics.
Yet while we Westerners have made the practice illegal under the Geneva Convention, it’s not unknown in the United States — in our political battles. In the 1990s especially, it became common to claim that all and sundry must support a given statist policy “for the children.” As an example, when Republican-backed welfare reform was instituted, Ted Kennedy called it “legislative child abuse.” And when President G.W. Bush threatened to veto an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 2007, Democrats brought children to a press conference on the matter and later had a 12-year-old SCHIP recipient read a heartstring-tugging Democrat radio address about the program.
The latest use of this tactic was by Texas Governor Rick Perry in the Florida Republican debate when he invoked the welfare of the children to justify his granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.