The Fourth Reich — From The Archives

“In honor of R. C. Sproul Jr’s upcoming London debate with Robert Reich on homeschooling I thought I would re-post a couple of exchanges I had two years ago with the honorable Dr. Reich.”

“If parents can control every aspect of the kids’ education, shield them from exposure to things that the parents deem sinful or objectionable, screen in only things which accord with their convictions, and not allow them exposure to the world of democracy, well the children grow up then basically in the own image of their parents, servile to their own parents’ beliefs.”

Robert ‘The Fourth’ Reich
Ph.D. Education “Expert”

This quote comes from a recent radio conversation roundtable on home schooling of which Reich was a part. The first thing that should jump out and strangle the reader is the understanding on Reich’s part that educations purpose is to insure that children are not allowed to grow up in their parent’s image. For Reich the only time that a child is allowed to embrace their parent’s image is if the parent’s image is the same as the schools to which they are sending them. Reich’s problem is not that children grow up in their parent’s image. Reich’s problem is that some children don’t grow up into his image, which he believes all parents should share and which is inculcated in the government schools.

Second what should be noticed is the covenantal character of this quote. Reich’s desire is the production of a uniform product, which can be achieved at the local educational factory, where conformity to the religion of humanism is the manufactured product. Reich’s desire is to mass-produce little adults (children) who will think in ways consistent with his statist ambitions and in the image of their Father in Washington. One must see through Reich’s euphemistic ‘world of democracy’ to understand the desire behind that phrase is to create a covenantal unity that is based on non-Christian thinking.

Third, note the incipient disdain that Reich has for parents. If children share their parent’s convictions then those poor children have become servile to their parents beliefs. Oh, the horror of it all that children would grow up to live lives with beliefs consistent with their parents. Surely, this is child abuse of the most grotesque nature. Also note the implicit disaster that Reich finds in parents actually taking parenting seriously. How dare parents shield out that which is sinful or objectionable while at the same time screening in that which is pure, noble, just or of good report. The contempt and disdain for home schooling parents that Reich has is the reason that many people like me become like snarling junkyard dogs in the presence of these people. They can have my children when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.

Fourth, such a quote should forever disabuse Christians from thinking that the schools are happy places of neutrality that have nothing to do with religion but are ‘only about education.’ Reich, in that quote, has told us that the intent of government education is to separate the worldview of children from the worldview of their parents. Let us speak plainly. If you as a Christian send your children to government schools the government school is going to work to subtly sanitize from your children’s thinking the idea of a personal Creator God to whom we are responsible and to whom we must give an account and replace Him with notions of ‘World of Democracy’. Now, the only reason a Christian parent wouldn’t find that particularly threatening is if they themselves weren’t particularly Christian, or if they didn’t yet understand the stakes.

Fifth, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that Reich’s mindset isn’t reflective of most of the epistemologically self-conscious educational establishment in America. America’s schools, by design, are geared to steal America’s children from America’s parents by rewiring them from the wiring they might otherwise get in the home and in good churches.

Sixth, and finally, as Christians we must be named vigilant and not take our home schooling freedoms for granted. Reich’s quote serves to reveal that the success of home schooling will not go unchallenged. I would contend that the State cannot forever allow home schooling to mushroom. If I were a Statist I would see home schooling, by epistemologically self-conscious Christians, to be an incredible threat to my dominion. If I were a Statist I would prioritize the destruction of the home schooling movement realizing what a threat that a citizenry of critically thinking people would be to my agenda. If I am smart enough to figure out that threat then you can rest assured that many people in the statist educational establishment are aware of the threat that home schooling is.

Cult & Cultus

“For religion is not one aspect of department of life beside the others, as modern secular thought likes to believe; it consist rather in the orientation of all human life to the absolute.”

John A. Hutchinson
Faith, Reason, and Existence — p. 210

“Religion is the substance of culture and culture the form of religion.”

Paul Tillich
The Protestant Era — p. 57

If religion were a zit and it were popped what would come out of the popped zit is culture.

One thing we try to communicate to people about Calvinism is that Calvinism doesn’t really have 5 points of Grace (TULIP) as if those 5 points of Grace were stand alone doctrines. In actuality Calvinism is one doctrine of grace which is taught as five interlocking and interdependent aspects that we call TULIP. This is why it is literally impossible to be anything but a 5 point Calvinist when it comes to the Doctrine of Grace. To contend that one is a 4 point or a 3 point Calvinist is to give up Calvinism on the Doctrine of Grace since the 1 point of Calvinism’s doctrine of grace requires all five aspects known as TULIP. The five points of grace together serve to define Calvinism soteriologically. (Calvinism as as a whole requires more then TULIP but we are here speaking of Calvinism as a soteriology.)

This can serve as an illustration for the way we understand culture. Culture has many points (economics, law, family life, politics, education, church, international relations, etc.) just as Calvinism is one soteriologically but as 5 aspects of grace (TULIP) so a culture has all of these different aspects of the one religion of a people.

Religion is what orients us a people to their absolute and once that people are oriented to their respective absolute that orientation reveals itself in culture.

This is a far different view of the relation of religion to culture that one generally finds in modernity. In modernity religion is but one aspect of culture. Religion gets listed as a department of culture and it is so denigrated by many that legion is the name of those who think we can get rid of religion and still have culture — as if religion is just a kind of extra that we would be better off without.

Of course the pursuit of eliminating religion from culture is merely a reflection of the religion of those writes who advocate such a silly thing.

This of course is why we can never speak of “secularism” as if the secular provided a sphere where religion was put on hold or was muted. Every sphere of life is conditioned by and is a reflection of some religion and there is no sphere that we may speak of as being “secular”, if by secular one means a sphere that is not the product of religion.

“A truly secular culture has never been found, and it is doubtful whether American materialism can be called “secular.” Even communism, like Nazism, has its gods and devils, its sin and salvation, its priests and its liturgies, its paradise of the stateless society of the future. For religious faith always transcends culture and is the integrating principle and power of man’s cultural striving.”

Henry Van Til
Calvinistic Concept Of Culture — p. 39

In every sphere of culture and in every aspect of our living man is pursuing, incarnating, and living out his religion.

Try to think of it this way. The cultus (religion) is that which animates the culture. The cultus (religion) is to the culture what the soul is to the body. As the soul gives life to the body, the cultus gives life, meaning and direction to the culture. Change a person’s soul and you change the person. Change a culture’s cultus and you change the culture. The cultus is the first animated ripple of the spiritual relationship between a man, men and God. Out from that first animated ripple comes the successive ripples that comprise, form, and make up culture.

This is why protecting the purity of worship as being where we find a sense of the vertical, and where we find Word and Sacrament as central is so important, for if and when we lost our way in the cultus the consequence will be that we will lose our way in the culture. Further, the restoration of a culture gone astray will only be seen when the cultus is restored so that worship is pleasing to God…. and the cultus will only be restored where man’s spiritual relationship to God is revitalized.

However it is also absolutely necessary to understand that there is a distinction between the cultus and the culture. If we make them one in the same then we run the danger of suggesting that the cultus is over the culture or that all of the culture finds its meaning only when it is in submission to the cultus. Just recently I read of this mistake being made by somebody moving into a new residence. Before they actually started living there they needed a priest to come by and bless the house and the rooms. This is to lose the distinction between the cultus and the culture. But there is an opposite extreme that we as Westerners are more prone to and that is to totally separate the cult from the cultus so that a denial arises that religion is significant for life. (Of course such a denial would spring forth from religious presuppositions.)

If it is true that by changing a cultus one can change the culture it is also true that one can change the cultus by attacking the culture…. but even here those who attack the culture in order to change the cultus are attacking the culture with a cultus of their own which is springing from an alien religion from that of the culture that they are seeking to transform.

Since the cultus is that which animates the culture the most important aspect of a culture is that which is responsible for the cultus. Historically, in Christendom, that which has been responsible for the cultus is the Church. The Church protected the theology and doxology of the the cultus and the cultus gave strength and vitality to the culture. However in the last 150 years of so in the West the cultus in America can no longer be identified as having the Christian Church be responsible for it. The reason this is so is because the religion which animates our culture any more is no longer Christianity but rather it is some form of the religion of humanism. As such, if we were to look for the cultus that is responsible for our modern culture we no longer must look to the Christian church but rather we must look to the humanist church which takes up residence in the public schools in these united States.

Sanford’s Political Suicide

Mark Sanford should resign because he is to stupid to be a Governor of a State. I mean think about this for a minute. Here is a Governor of a State who actually thought that, without getting busted, he could take a state vehicle to the Atlanta airport and hop on a plane for another Continent and pass through customs and spend six days lounging around Buenos Aires with “The Girl from Ipanema,” and then get back on a plane and go through customs again and tell his staff that if anybody questions his whereabouts to just tell them that he “just went for a hike on the Appalachian trail.” I mean he obviously concluded that he could do all that without getting busted. Word has it that next month he planned to fly to the Arctic circle to hook up with a hot Inuit babe he met while at a UN conference on the plight of baby seals.

Nobody this stupid should be allowed to govern a car, never mind a whole state. I’d rather be governed by the mother of Le-a then be governed by Mark Sanford. Her story makes more sense then Sanford’s.

The stupidity of all this really has to be an issue. I mean if Sanford wanted to cavort with strange flesh besides his wife he certainly could have been far more clever about it then taking off for freaking Argentina. What US Public official, not suffering from insanity, goes to Argentina to get laid? Not even any of Joseph Kennedy’s sons were that hormonal. I mean at least Idaho Senator Larry Craig realized that you didn’t have to leave the airport Men’s Bathroom to get a little action.

Mark Sanford should resign because if a man would break his vows to his wife there is no reason to think he will not break his vows to the state. Mark Sanford should resign because if a man will treat his sons the way that Sanford’s has treated his it is unspeakable to think how he would treat the citizens that he is supposed to be serving. Mark Sanford should resign because he obviously has no self control. Do you want somebody governing a state that is being governed by their genitalia?

Man, I hope that Argentina woman was worth it, because at age 49 this trip to meet up with his little Lolita is going to be the memory he carries with him the rest of his life and that memory will have to be his satisfaction for the rest of his life since nothing in his career from here on out will be giving him any satisfaction.

Sin never makes sense.

Never.

But sometimes it makes a little less sense then other times.

This is one of those times.

The Queen’s English?

Internet Legend — Said to have Happened in different locales

Subject: Name pronunciation

How would you pronounce this child’s name; “Le-a”?

Leah?? NO

Lee – A?? NOPE

Lay – a?? NO

Lei?? Guess Again.

The child (Le-a) in question attends a school in Detroit, Michigan and in Detroit Michigan, this child’s mother is irate because everyone is pronouncing her child’s name wrong.

It seems that the child’s name is to be pronounced as “Ledasha.”

When the Mother was asked how Le-a could be pronounced “Ledasha,” the mother said,

“the dash don’t be silent.”

So, if you see something with a dash in it come across your desk from Detroit, Michigan remember to pronounce the dash.

And if they axe you why…

Just tell them that — “the dash don’t be silent.”

Status Of The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

“Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely-accepted treaty.”

Report From Michael Ferris

For more information on what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is,

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1