The View From 1776

Puritanism: The Origin of Public Education

From the beginning of colonial life in British North America, Puritans insisted that every man, woman, and child be literate enough to read the Bible and to discuss theological questions.  From this came America’s first publicly funded elementary schools and our first colleges.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/23 at 11:25 PM
  1. Lo, how the colleges have strayed from their beginnings-Harvard, Trinity (Duke), Wesleyan, Princeton and many others. Far from being Christian, much less Puritanical, many are repositories for residual retrograge Socialism and strongholds of materialistic humnanism and securalarism. And worst of all, they are politically correct and many seem anti-U.S. They racially diverse and politically and socially monolithically liberal (not in the old meaning of that word that was dedication to individual freedom versus hereditary monarchy, but in the latter day meaning of reliance on big government to solve all social and econonic problems)
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  09/24  at  08:45 AM
  2. Additionally, today's emphsasis is on Collectivism: the elite and the masses. The intellectual minority of a leadership-royalty and the dullard sheep-like numbers of their ego-centric view and opinion.

    Pure unadulterated humanistic logic, whose criteria is man-made; whose consequences are regressive.

    Is life an I.Q. Test or what? [I've never encountered an iq test that wasn't a test of one's ability to make choices.] selah
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  09/24  at  09:30 AM
  3. The secularization of the public school system is an unfortunate side effect of the education of those who, while once educated and literate enough to read and discuss theology, chose to reject it's teachings and it's ultimate main focus - faith and devotion to Jesus.

    Today, millions of Christian families have made the sacrificial choice to bring their children home in order to educate them in not only the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, but in the theological teachings and lifestyle that are required for Christians to be enabled to live a godly life to glorify God. These essentials are not only not offered in the public schools, they are vehemently opposed citing "seperation of church and state." (A phrase which is, BTW, NOT found anywhere in the constitution.)

    The home schooling movements most rabid opponents are of course the NEA and the public school systems... they not only loose federal money for every child not in their clutches for 8 hours a day, but they loose control over the next generation of Christians. They are then unable to indoctrinate them in the ways of the purely secular and Godless society.

    People of faith are waking up. Millions of parents have now come to the realization that it is their responsibility to "raise up " their children so that they grow up with an understanding of the relevence of God's Word applied to their lives.

    My own children have experienced the ridicule and ostracization from "peer groups" (a.k.a. hierachical pecking orders where the strong bully the weak) simply because they refused to give in to the societal "norm" of sex at a very young age with multiple partners in the form of "hooking up", drugs, extreme behaviors, and blurting out the details of their sordid lives on the internet.
    When adults ask the stupid questions of my kids like, "Do you have a boyfriend/girlfriend yet?" and my kids look at them in their innocent prepubescence and tell them "I'm not OLD enough to have a boyfriend/girlfriend... and I'm not dating when I am."
    I've seen the looks... I can hear the thoughts... "Oh, you're one of those wierdo families who teach their kids to stay virgins until marriage."

    Sure beats experiencing STD's, "unplanned" pregnancies and broken hearts.

    The so-called women's movement has failed to do what it had originally set out to do. Why? Because they have removed God, the creator of women, from the picture. The now "liberated woman" is expected to perform sexually for men before they are deemed acceptable mates... making them sex objects once again. You have only to turn on MTV to see the evidence for that. The so-called "free love" sect has propagated the new, modernized form of sexual slavery.

    Christ showed the society he lived in the worth of women. He prevented the stoning of the adulterous (a mercy not afforded to the women of some other religion we know about... selah) and he spoke to the woman at the well and gave her hope and another purpose besides just being someones paramour. In those days it was not permitted of a Jewish Rabbi, which Jesus was called, to speak to women, and certainly not a Samaritan.
    When the uppity religious men he was speaking with criticized the woman who came and wiped Jesus' feet with her tears, he told them to leave her alone... he was full of grace and mercy.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  10:21 AM
  4. I didn't find this posting very interesting so I will deal with another issue, the Constitution:

    Bob said "As for the Constitution being a 'living breathing thing', it isn
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  01:14 PM
  5. The Founders used the meaning of the words at that time. Even though the language is dynamic and the meaning of words change, the meaning given by the Founders should not be subject to the vagaries of language.
    In their wisdom they put the amendment process so that the Constitution could be changed by the will of the people and not by nine people in black robes who chose and choose to be like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland, "The words mean what I want them to mean!"
    We also have the legislative process with the House and Senate and with the President either signing or vetoing the legislation.
    So I do not agree that the Constitution is a living breathing document in the sense that it is up for grabs as to the meaning to words in it.
    If everything can be reinterpreted without limit, then we really have no Constitution.
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  09/24  at  03:37 PM
  6. The natural evolution (dare I say the word in here) of "education for the sake of indocrination" was to spawn "education for the sake of thinking for yourself". Now, if you go to college, you learn how to analyze information critically as opposed to reeling with whatever gut, emotional response you get. You learn not "What to think," but "How to think." The only way that education will ever succeed in our times is if it raises a generation of children who can not only read, but read between the lines.

    "Truth resides in the unity of facts not in their negation."
    -Rabindranath Tagore
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  04:12 PM
  7. It's interesting to see the cyclical reactions of society as it sways down a rocky path toward balance and unity. As order is imposed on chaos, a measure of chaos becomes necessary to prevent tyranny, oppression, and stagnancy; and as chaos takes hold, order becomes necessary to prevent violence and social decline. The radical upheaval of the 1960's, for example, was a necessary response to a society that had become robotically dedicated to increasingly lifeless social institutions. Hypocrisy, discrimination, and corruption were stewing in the ever hardening pots of tradition, and someone needed to clean them out. However, in response to the scum that was collecting on the inside, much of society responded with the near complete abandonment of these traditional social structures and values, replacing them with hedonism, greed, and relativism. In it's wake, this social revolution necessitated a new response which both conserved the healthy aspects of family values and social accountability, while allowing breathing room for the fresh air of the new utopia to present itself...for truly, at it's heart--every political model is utopian dream.

    Over this almost fifty year cycle, there have been many responses which have tried to spearhead such a transition...the Environmental movement, Evangelical Christianity, Women's liberation, etc...and when boiled down, each of these has at its core all the best intentions.

    The problem is that, in trying to pull the entire vehicle in a different direction, each one of these movements succumbs to a sort of myopic focusing effect where all other issues get pushed to the sidelines. You end up with people voting only on the grounds that a candidate opposes late term abortion, or only that he or she refuses to drill in Alaska. In turn, people completely overlook all the other actions that their political support is fueling. I.E...."What difference does it make that the CIA has a long history of financing illegal prisons, arms, and drug trading, so long as intelligent design is being taught in school?"

    Mita can pine away as long as she likes about the necessity of Christ in our children
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  04:15 PM
  8. Do you really think that all ideas are examined in higher education? When 90% of the faculties (at least in the libeal arts (as opposed to the "hard" sciences) vote Democratic and are and call themselves liberal, can there be an even playing field for ideas? Promotion depends on toeing the liberal line and a conservative or Republican will have a hard time in the academic world.
    It is my perception that many of tenured professors are stuck in the same mindset that they had in the student revolt anti-Vietnam war days and long for the return of such days.
    Posted by Donald W. Bales  on  09/24  at  04:21 PM
  9. Hi David,

    Well, I think you are wrong when you say that some people in this forum would have preferred that women and slaves to not have been emancipated. Being a woman, I couldn't disagree with you more. And seeing that well over half of my close friends and acquaintances are of African descent, (and just less then half of those are in mixed-race marriages heartily approved of by our church as a matter of fact) there is another point where you are wrong. I can't speak for everyone else, but I'd wager some money that they don't feel that the slave trade should have been retained either.

    If you will review your history even a little bit, it was some of the great men of God who not only spoke out against slavery, but also actively worked to help slaves become free and get an education.

    For instance, take William Wilberforce.

    He was a Methodist minister and an evangelical. His work and Christianity was essentially responsible for the abolition of the British slave trade.

    Christians all over the U.S. hid slaves who had escaped, and many risked loosing their livelihoods and families by speaking out against slavery. The Quakers were often those who stood out against what one Quaker, Benjamin Lay, called the "notorious sin" of slavery and addressed in a publication those who "pretend to lay claim to the pure and holy Christian religion." Another Quaker, Anthony Benezet, contended that slavers on both sides of the Atlantic were guilty... There are Africans, he alleged, "who will sell their own children, kindred, or neighbors." Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan Walker (of The Branded Hand), abolitionist poet John Greenleaf Whittier who immortalized Walker's deed in this verse: "Then lift that manly right hand, bold ploughman of the wave! Its branded palm shall prophesy, 'Salvation to the Slave!'" - all evangelical Christians. The Sunday School Union published tracts which told the stories of real-life slave children - their mistreatment and separation from their families - to illicit sympathy for their plight among white children.

    The Republican Party was established at Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 by a group of former members of the Whig Party, the Free-Soil Party and the Democratic Party. Its original founders were opposed to slavery and called for the repeal of the Kansas-Nebraska and the Fugitive Slave Law.

    Two female members of the Christian organization, Society of Friends, Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, went to London as delegates to the World Anti-Slavery Convention. Lucretia's husband was also a supporter. Many, many Christian men who advocated abolishing slavery also supported women's Suffrage.

    The oldest non-sectarian (continuing) women's organization in the world is the WCTU, or the Women's Christian Temperance Union. They not only fought to combat the effects of alcohol abuse on the family, but they also fought for women's Suffrage.
    The founders were mainly from The Friends Society.

    The Bible doesn't advocate slavery. It only instructs Christian people who happen to be slaves in how they should act toward their masters. Today, there are many Christian organizations which actually use their influence to buy the freedom of modern day slaves in Sudan and other nations that still have that horrid practice and other equally abhorrent practices such as female genitalia mutilation, child brides for 60 year old men, stoning of adulterous women (not the men
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  05:26 PM
  10. Changing the subject will not change the facts that our educational system has gone from a forum for training in good citizenship and righteousness to a liscentiousness indoctrination center. I know it has because I have children. My choice happened to be not to subject them to what my first child had to endure... riotous classrooms where children can't think straight, lessons that included instruction on how to apply a condom to a banana, teachers who would have preferred me to leave the educating to them without question and who openly ridiculed her Christianity in class after my PRIVATE meeting with them asking for her to be exempted from a lesson that was in direct opposition to our religious beliefs, classmates who purposefully spat the F-bomb in her face because they knew it offended her, and the list goes on.

    You see, David, nothing we have talked about today is isolated - it all trickled down from the transition from a society that at least TRIED to maintain some order and morality to one which advocates a "do-what-you-please-without-consequences" attitude. Even though some of what the founding fathers advocated like the continuation of slave trade and suppression of women was what we all now consider backwards thinking, I believe in time even they would have come around to oppose those institutions as ungodly.

    And I was very interested in what you had to say, David.

    As far as what Adam Walsh had to say about me "pining away",
    and religion propagating violence... yeah, I guess I am pining a little bit. Because I remember how it was when I was in public school... a lot nicer and more educational than it is now.

    And as far as religion bearing violence? Yes,
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  05:36 PM
  11. And from there, do we follow the God in Christ or the Jesus in man? Are we led second hand into the promised land, or are we already there. The Kingdom of God is at Hand, no?
    Here our conceptual Jesus can ironically be the last obstacle to a genuine and direct relationship with the Alpha-Omega, the Great All, the Divine I am that I am. Because as long as God is "out there" and "other" we can have no union. This is the heart of all mystical teachings...that God is the very ground of being itself. And from that knowing comes an ability to perceive and appreciate the divine in all that exists.

    Before everything, we must teach peace, love, and truth...but we must especially teach this.... that education is not just about teaching our children, but learning from them, not just indoctrinating them, but freeing their minds.

    Mita says:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  09:07 PM
  12. Hi Adam,

    I appreciate your response. You said - "Basically, whoever can recognize that God is in all people, in every language, every culture, every rock and tree on this earth, they alone can start treating everything around us with the love, compassion, and respect it deserves"

    Well, I can understand what you are saying, however, what you think you are saying is incompatible with evangelical, orthodox Christianity. While God did create everything, he is not "in all people" as you put it. The Bible says that no man can even see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. This is something that no other religious organization on earth claims. The "all roads lead to heaven" is a belief system called pantheism, which is basically the philosophy Star Wars had running as the main theme. Everything is all one... the "impersonal energy force that runs throughout the universe" is the pantheistic view of God.

    The Bible specifically tells believers in Christ to avoid idolatry (I Corinthians 10:14) which is practiced by many of the world's most well known religions. So the Bible specifically eliminates idolatry as a way to God. The Bible also condemns the worship of angels... or following false messiahs. If all roads lead to God, wouldn
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  11:34 PM
  13. Loving someone - whether it is a single person or a people group - doesn't mean you should be in agreement with his or her belief system. Otherwise, you would be in constant conflict in your own beliefs. Jesus told people to repent all the time, meaning they believed things that were false and followed ways that were leading them on the wrong path. Repent is a word that in the original language means
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/24  at  11:39 PM
  14. "There are boundaries and rules for everything. When we go outside the boundaries we get into error
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/27  at  01:09 AM
  15. Okay, Adam, if you say so.

    But Adam, please tell me - What is Truth? Do you believe in Heaven? How DO you get to heaven? If I am a good enough person, why shouldn't I be able to go there even if I don't profess to be a Christian? How good is good enough to get in there, Adam? More importantly, how bad do you have to be to be excluded? If I do enough good stuff, will it outweigh the bad stuff I've done? Where do you go if you can't get in?

    Was God's "essence" in Hitler? Did God's "essence" tell Hitler to kill all those Jewish people? What DID tell him to do all that nasty stuff?

    Or could you possibly you believe there could be an evil force that is at work in the universe, like "The Dark Side"... an eternal "Darth Vader", so to speak? Or perhaps you think there is a little dark in everyone and a little light - all living in the same convenient package.

    What you are saying is that you think that God is in everyone.
    Like - living there, all up in their stuff. Just sitting there, not trying to do anything exept hoping that you discover him through some form of meditation or religious mantra... or just by chance while we're thinking deep thoughts.

    That is what I read up there.

    So, when a guy in the Middle East is beheading a reporter, God's essence is in the guy doing the beheading? SO God is taking part in the beheading? Or just sitting in the heart of the beheader going, "Hmmm... that's sure gonna leave a mark."

    You ask if you shouldn't listen to a person of another religion simply because he or she is not Christian. Would you listen to a Christian? Ir to Christ? Do you follow all religions? Or None? How do you decide who is right ir wrong? Or is no one wrong? Or maybe Christianity is just all wrong in your estimation?

    Here is a dialog you need to examine. Please let me know which one is the truth...

    Christ said basically (paraphrased) "Turn the other cheek and forgive and pray for your enemies."

    A person from another unnamed, religion says, "Kill your enemies. They are worthless dogs..."

    Which one should you listen to? Who is telling the truth?
    Should I listen to both?

    One religion says, "A husband must be loving and kind to his wife and love her like Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her..."

    Another religion says, and this is just a made up, no-named religion, "Your women have no rights. You must beat them when they disobey and divorce them when they don't please you. They are only good for breeding and are nothing more than property."

    So how should a wife be treated using the criteria of both religions, both of which are "truth"... aren't they? What's so bad about a woman being property, Adam? Why shouldn't a man beat his wife?

    How do you decide what truth is? Does truth only exist when it is comfortable or convenient? Is truth only true as long as you believe it to be true based on your current philosophy? Should I find a truth that agrees with the desire of my own heart, which is an untrustworthy organ if there ever was one?

    Every philosophy is not based in truth.

    You seem to look at truth as some intangible, unknowable thing that is in a white box with black letters. No brand name. Just
    like generic instant rice or macaroni and cheese mix. Add water, butter, stir, serve.

    Let's say you do run across the street to another culture and they are teaching the exact same parables from Christianity... are they talking about Christ as the savior? Or someone ELSE from their unnamed culture who was also hanged on cross by the Romans because he claimed to be the sinless Son of God who could bring salvation to the world and who was threatening the status quo of the local tribal leaders who were in power because the people would quit going to the temple because that other nameless guy said...

    It is not the stories that make Christianity what it is. It is not just some guy who showed up in Galalee one day and told the people how to be nice to one another.

    It is CHRIST who Christians follow. Not just his teachings. He was not just some "good man"... He is the one who came to die for you because before the earth was ever created, he loved you. He volunteered to give up His high throne with God in Blissful Heaven to live a dusty, dirty, hard, sweaty, stinky struggle of a life on earth. And to be murdered in the most degrading of manners like a low-life. For me and for you - the same.

    What are you going to do with that? Tell me another religion that has that. Tell me about someone else who has done that
    for you. You either accept it or reject it. You'll either believe it as truth or reject it as a lie... It's that simple.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/27  at  04:27 PM
  16. Mita,

    Thank you for taking on David's smearing of conservatives. He knows full well none of us harbor the sentiments he attributes to us. As usual, he says these things to get a reaction and based on a bigotry he's convinced is common to conservative and Judeo-Christian thinking.

    If anyone is bigoted here, it is David. He amply demonstrates his bigotry each time he makes this sort of unfounded and vile accusation. Really, David, you need to hear yourself as others do. At best what you accuse us of is uncharitable, at worst it is slander. Is this how you want others to see you, a pitiful bigot who resorts to slander with which to silence others?

    He can, of course, find people who call themselves conservative who fit his description of us; just as we can find so-called
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/27  at  09:15 PM
  17. Hi Bob,

    Yes, David and I have had a few discussions here, but I haven't had the pleasure of conversing with him lately. Life is hectic. I'm sure he's a nice person... in person. I pray he has a blessed week. And Adam, too. grin

    The Wall Builders is a fantastic organization. I'll be including a lot of their material in my children's education.

    If I had the time I probably would have made a longer list... but I was pressed for time. Thanks so much for this link - I'll have a good bit of reading material for this weekend! I've seen some of it, but I hadn't read it all before. Just snippets.

    This material just makes the point that Mr. Brewton was trying to convey in the article attached to this discussion. You would not find this information being taught at most of the state-supported colleges in the U.S. Liberals do not want people to know about the crucial role that Christianity played in the founding of this great country.

    Socialist-minded people would like to wipe any positive mention of Christ or Christianity from the historical records so that people will try to turn to the cradle-to-grave socialist government they seek to implement to do what only Christ and his kingdom can do... bring in the righteousness and peace that God desires for those He loves, and offer the salvation only He can provide. grin

    Peace! M
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/29  at  12:44 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.