So, You’re A Christian, And You Send Your Child To Government Schools?

File Under: Go ahead and ask me why I hate public schools;

Any time you hear the term “education reform,” it’s critical to recognize that a system built on a faulty foundation can’t be reformed. It can only be demolished and replaced with a legitimate and worthy alternative.

This is from the founder of modern public education:

“There is no god and there is no soul. Hence, there is no need for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is dead and buried. There is no room for fixed and natural law or permanent moral absolutes.”

John Dewey
“The father of modern education”
Teacher Magazine

1.) It is Dewey’s religion that is serving as the prop for the above statement.

2.) If you will have no props of traditional religion you will have the props of non-traditional religion. (Though Dewey’s Humanism might well be easily considered a “traditional religion.”)

3.) Dewey talks about “dogma and creed being excluded,” and yet this Dewey’s desire for dogma and creed being excluded is built on Dewey’s own dogma and creed.

4.) Is it an immutable truth here from Dewey that immutable truth is dead and buried?

5.) Is Dewey giving us a fixed natural law when he insists that there is no fixed natural law?

6.) Is Dewey’s statement above regarding no permanent moral absolute itself a permanent moral absolute? Is it a permanent moral absolute that there is no such a thing as permanent moral absolutes?

By all that is righteous all Christ haters are profoundly stupid … without exception.

Tocqueville’s Prescient Gaze Into The Future

“Pondering what conditions might ever bring despotism to American democracy, Tocqueville imagined an America that would have seemed downright science-fictional in the 19th century – a nation characterized, on the one hand, by an ‘innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls,’ and, on the other, by the ‘immense, protective power’ of the state. In the 21st century, however, it begins to sound quite familiar;

‘That power is absolute, thoughtful of detail, orderly, provident, and gentle. It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man’s life, but on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood. It likes to see the citizens enjoy themselves, provided they think of nothing but enjoyment. It gladly works for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and judge of it. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures manages their principle concerns, direct their industry, makes rules for their testaments, and divides their inheritance. Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble and thinking and all the cares of living?’

Diana West
The Death Of The Grown-UP – pg. 88

1.) It is forever the case that if a people will refuse to look to God’s sovereignty and providential care that the result will be that the State will enter into that vacuum to play the god who will be sovereign and providential. This is where we have come to in 2025 and it will only get worse.

2.) The above quote is only an elongated version of Klaus Schwab’s “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” You’ll own nothing because the state will own it all and you’ll be happy because the state will provide “Bread and circuses,” to keep you amused just as Tocqueville observed above.

3.) Clearly, if the above is a proper definition of “despotism” we are currently living under despotism. However, there is nothing that says we can’t go from despotism unto despotism.

4.) This quote from Diana West was driven by the observation that the State becomes this way when the citizenry abandons its role as parents over children. If parents will not parent their children, if parents will not teach their children standards and responsibility, if parents will not teach their children right from wrong then the State, as God walking on the earth, will step in and teach them all this from a Statist/humanist world and life view. Children, may indeed, become more responsible if parents won’t parent, but it will be the kind of responsible child desired by Stalin or Mussolini, or some other despot. If parents will not parent, then the State will and if parents do not parent and the State does … well, God help us all.

5.) Above Tocqueville mentions how the God-State desires the citizenry to have their banal pleasures. This struck me in light of our “Sports-ball” culture. This struck me in light of how we now “do worship,” in our entertainment centers we call “churches.” Clergy amusing people is probably the best we can hope for anymore given how badly the citizenry has been dumbed down in light of the constant preoccupation with banal pleasures.

You really don’t think it is accidental that our culture only allows people banal pleasures do you? Long ago decisions were made that ensured that there would be no time for contemplation or thinking beyond what was being fed to the populace by the appointed propaganda outlets. Long ago it was decided that both man and wife would be put on a treadmill that would keep them so busy and exhausted all they could possibly long for were an occasional banal pleasure. Long ago, it was decided that the State would preoccupy the children in Government babysitting centers (called “public schools”) inculcating into the children the desire for a life of banal pleasures.

And so, here we are. Getting into this was far easier than even the thought of getting out of this.

Toby Sumpter’s Insistence That If Luther Were Alive Today He Would Repent

 “This sentiment (that Martin Luther would be excommunicated if he were alive today, which I’ve seen elsewhere) seems to suggest that we should not expect greater maturity over time and history. Many of the great heroes of the faith were immature in theology or morals because the Holy Spirit has been sanctifying the church over history. If a grown man continues to act like an 8 year old boy, that is a problem, don’t you think? But thank God for growth in holiness. I think it’s likely that Luther would not be excommunicated today because if he lived today he would have the benefit of the sanctification of the last 500 years. Cheers!”

Toby  Sumpter
Doug Wilson Lieutenant
Author of Blog — No Legs Still Walking

1.) Toby wants us to believe that the Church today is more mature than the Reformation Church of Martin Luther. That sentiment is to boggle the mind. Keep in mind also that Toby is saying here that not only is the Church today more mature than the Reformation Church of Martin Luther but old Toby is also saying that the Church today is more mature on this subject than the Christian Church has been for 2000 years. Luther’s position on this subject was the same as Chrysostom’s, the same as Augustine’s, the same as Calvin’s, the same as Origin’s, the same as St. Jerome’s, the same as Justin Martyr. If one scans the two books “Who is My Neighbor,” as well as Alexander Storen’s “A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition” one begins to see that Luther’s view on the subject at hand is a view that has been held by the Church in all times and in all places until the post-war consensus. One also has to consider all the Church councils that took place in Church history dealing with the Bagel problem. Old Toby would be wise to try and find a copy of Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against The Church,” and give it a read.

2.) Old Toby refuses to consider his other option on this matter. His other option is that Old Toby and his Federal Vision compatriots are the ones who are immature. It is possible that it is the Church today and not the Christian church throughout history that is in error regarding the Bagels.

3.) The idea that Martin Luther would, were he alive today, be a more mature man on the issue of the Bagels leaves one either incredulous or leaves one doubled over in laughter. Keep in mind that Luther only came to his conclusions regarding the Bagels after having great hopes for their conversion. It was only after seeing that they would not come into the Church that Luther wrote the book he wrote.

I would also recommend that Old Toby get a copy of E. Michael Jones’ “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit,” and give it a read.

Addendum;

This is a note left in the comments from Ron that I thought should be added here;

Note to Toby:

“When Luther departed for Worms, his friends warned him that he may lose his life and even the cause of the evangelism will be lost. To this Luther replied, “It is unimportant what happens to Dr. Martin, and I suppose it is possible that I may not be able to save the cause of evangelism, but the point is that the truth be heard.” It is equally inconsequential what happens to each of us personally … but rather that the truth be spoken in our time as well.” pp. 149-50.

Elias Simojoki, ‘The Burning Bush’, trans. Jarno Alander

Hardly sounds to me like a man that needs to grow up to your level of holiness.

Cheers!

Rich Lusk on Luther … McAtee on Rich Lusk

“Martin Luther did not operate with modern racial categories as we know them. Again, his opposition to the Jews stemmed from their theology and resultant practices, not their genetics or physical lineage. He was not a proto-Hitler arguing that Jews were an inferior race. He saw the Jewish religion (Judaism) as a false religion and, because Jews rarely converted in his day, a threat to the Christian society in which he lived.”

Rich Lusk
Heretical Federal Vision Clergy 

1.) Did Luther or did he not loathe the Bagels? If he loathed the Bagels then he was operating with modern racial categories.

2.) Why would Lusk make this kind of hard and fast distinction between a people’s genetic lineage and their theology and resultant practices? Now, to be sure, not all individual Bagels would be or will be Christ haters. Doubtless many individual Bagels love the Christ of the Bible. Praise God for them. But speaking in generalities, it is often the case that when one is speaking of genetic lines that there is overlay between genetic lineage, and theology and resultant practices. This is why, for example, Reformed Theologian Dr. Robert Godfrey could once speak about Dutch Calvinists being suspicious.

3.) Given what Luther says in his book, “The Bagels and Their Lies,” I’m pretty sure Luther, while perhaps not agreeing w/ Hitler about the Bagels being an inferior race would have had little problem with SOME of the actions that Hitler took regarding the Bagels. Luther also would have agreed with Hitler on the necessity of putting an immediate end to Kristallnacht, for example.

4.) And Bagels remain a threat to what is left of the Christian society in which we once lived and they understand that Biblical Christians are a threat to the world they have created.

Someone tell Rich Lusk that he does not understand either Luther or the times in which we are living.

Back When The White Man Understood That Being & Staying White Was Desirable

“The fundamental reason for the adoption of the White Australia policy is the preservation of a British-Australian nationality.

They knew that racial unity, though not necessarily racial homogeneity, was essential for national unity, for true national life. The union of a people depends on common loyalty to common ideals, and on a common belief as to the best course in general to pursue to attain these ideals.

‘A united race,’ said Mr. Alfred Deakin [Second Prime Minister of Australia] in 1901, speaking on the subject of a White Australia;

‘means not only that its members can intermarry and associate without degradation on either side, but implies one inspired by the same ideals, and an aspiration towards the same ideals, of a people possessing the same general cast of character, tone of thought, the same constitutional training and traditions-a people qualified to live under this constitution, the broadest and most liberal perhaps the world has yet seen reduced to writing; a people qualified to use without abusing it, and to develop themselves under it to the full height and extent of their capacity.’

 In the words of Sir Henry Parkes [Premier of New South Wales] it was;

‘a question of policy of the first magnitude to cement society together by the same principles of faith and jurisprudence, the same influence of language and religion, and the same national habits of life.'”

History of the White Australia Policy
Myra Willard · 1923