Category: Government Schools

The introductory line may be the best thought of a 8 minute segment that is chock full of good thoughts.

“Schooling is a form of adoption. You give your child away at his or her most plastic years to a group of strangers. You accept a promise, sometimes stated, but more often implied, that the state, through its agents, know better how to raise your children and educate them than you, your neighbors, your parents, your community, your local traditions and that your child will be better off so adopted. By the time the child returns to the family or has the option of doing that very few want to. Their parents are some form of friendly stranger to them. And why not — in the key hours of growing up strangers have raised the child.”

Government schooling is a classic example of ritual being maintained long after it made any sense to begin with. Christians continue to send their children to government schools even though if they would only take a step back and try to look at the ritual with fresh eyes they would have to see how ridiculous the whole ritual is.

I mean would any sane person ever reason in such a way as to suggest that it is a great idea to put 200 15-18 year olds together in a building in the middle of their raging puberty years with scant supervision. Only habit and ritual keeps this insane practice going.

Would any sane person, ever reason that it is an acceptable idea for a parent to put their five year old on a bus with one driver and 70 other germ infested five year olds in order to ship them to educational concentration camps? We only think this normal because we have done it by habit for such a long time.

Would any sane person turn their children over to be raised and instructed by complete strangers for 8-10 hours a day? And yet we do that year by year and decade by decade only because that is the way we’ve been doing it year by year and decade by decade.

Would any sane person believe that their children are going to be genuinely educated in these holding tanks when the evidence for decades now has been screaming at us that government education is sub standard at best?

When a person takes a step back and looks at this whole American ritual and tries to see it again with fresh eyes they can only conclude that this is not something we would do if we were to think of good ways to educate our children.

Terri Schoolteacher wrote,

“1. I am not sure what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, has to do with Barack Obama, other than another opportunity to blame him for something. Canadian PM Stephan Harper supports it to.

2. Working in a school, I WISH the state would step in and save some of these kids, because THEIR OWN PARENTS can’t, or don’t make good decisions for them. Just because you do, doesn’t mean all do.

3. I am actually doing a unit of the UN Rights of the Child resolution with my class right now, and we are studying this document. And yes, there are parts that make me pause, but we have to remember that we have a very western view of things. That some of these things are in there because of the nature and of the vast number of countries and governments in the world. While maybe there is a bad instance, you should not blame the entire document, or the world leaders for supporting the overall theme.”

Dear Terri,

1.) Having worked with social workers over the years in cases where difficult family situations exist I can tell you that, generally speaking, a child is better off suffering at the hands of their family then the suffering they go through at the hands of the state when the state seizes them.

2.) The fact that other liberal leaders (and all leaders in the West are liberal / statist) support the UN doesn’t mean that Christians should support the UN’s Convention on the rights of Children. You can not come to truth by counting noses — not even the noses of the “leaders” of the West. If every leader of the West were for the UN’s Convention on the rights of Children it would provide no cover for people who believe the state has no business having jurisdictional teeth over the family.

3.) I would say that any child being in a government school is proof either that their parents don’t love them or that their parents are terribly confused over what constitutes parental responsibility. Consider Terri, when parents send their children to government schools they are basically putting them up for adoption to be raised by strangers. In light of that I don’t know why we would start picking on some subset of those who are unloved.

4.) If we have a very Western view it means we have a very right view of things. Non Western views of things come from countries where they burn widows with their deceased husbands or limit the population to one child per family or kill their wives by chopping their heads off.

5.) Of all the things for children to learn why in the world would any teacher worth her salt spend any time studying a UN resolution? How about studying the travels of Marco Polo or the impact of Christianity on the West or the rise of the Reformation or the development of the Long Bow or stirrup and the impact those technologies made upon the world, or any number of other things that might make for real knowledge?

I do blame the entire document. Lock stock and barrel. It is an attempt on the part of the global governance crowd to steal children from their familial jurisdiction. It is the same kind of thing that Hitler youth and the Stalin communist club were subjected to.

Terri, please keep in mind that as a government employee that you have a real interest in seeing this treaty pass.

http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2905

“‘Parent choice’ proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. ‘Family choice’ is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the ‘wants’ of a single family rather than the ‘needs’ of society.”

– Association of California School Administrators — Circa 1979

1.) Who gets to determine what the needs of a society are and by what standard are the needs measured?

2.) Here we have it in bold print. Education is not about education but rather about forcing people to work in a prearranged social order.

3.) If this is the way things operate than doesn’t it make sense for Christians to start thinking about what a “Biblical Social Order” looks like?

4.) Understand here that what is being advocated is that the decision of those concerned about the “social order” is seen to be more important then the decision of the parents for the good of their children.

5.) Concomitant with #4 is the idea that the social order is of higher importance then the family order.

6.) This quote communicates the idea that an individual is sustained more by his social order then his family or church context.

7.) Understand that as this type of thinking has won the day the result has been that those who have been saturated in Government Schools have almost universally adopted the premises of the social order as taught in Government schools. The implication of this is that those people will take the premises of the social order that they were taught and will shape and form their family orders and church orders to fit the social order that they have been brainwashed in.

8.)Parents wanting to raise and educate their children so that their children have their belief system and their value matrix are considered selfish. According to this ideology it is selfish for Parents to go against the social order.

People, if that quote doesn’t make you turn green from illness you need to go to the undertaker because you are dead.

Today a friend of mine, somewhere in the vast United States, sent me a note from his wife who is a medical professional and whose job often takes her to government schools. This morning this woman wrote her husband her observations upon her entrance into the propaganda center facility.

Her husband forwarded this note to me and I duplicate it here in its entirety,

Hi Honey,

This morning I walked into Scarlett and I feel really sick… The kids are all getting the first hour of school to decorate their home room halls for the inauguration. I walked in and there are red, white and blue stars hanging from the entry way ceiling and these groups of Barak Obama balloons with Barak’s face on them and the words U.S.A, change, hope, progress. Then in the cafeteria, they’ve set up an “inaugural ball” The kids are going to watch the inauguration on a big screen and have a party after. All the kids are dressed up. It’s really sickening to see the catechism at work.

I love you,

Henrietta (name changed)

Now, I don’t think that they should have but do you think they went to this bother for any other President’s inauguration?

Look, I don’t care how you slice it, this is the kind of behavior that you expect to find from schools and teachers in North Korea as they celebrate the great leader’s life. This is the kind of thing that you watch in videos where children of communist states are all lined up to sing the praises of the tyrant. This is bleeping sick, and it would be sick no matter who it was being done for.

Note also the brilliant last sentence of Henrietta’s letter. She realizes that this is all catechism. Another word for it might be propaganda. These children are being brainwashed into Obamaism.