Pulling the Kids out of Public Schools

When the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Nashville later this month, they will be considering a resoultion to encourage Baptists to pull their children out of public schools (hat tip: The Narrow):

Rev. Grady Arnold pastors an SBC church in Texas and heads up an organization called GetTheKidsOut.org. Along with fellow Baptist David Scarbrough, Arnold has submitted a resolution that calls on the denomination's churches "to lovingly warn all of their members concerning the toxic spiritual nature of the government school system."

Arnold says the vast majority of Christian children (88 percent) who attend public schools leave the church once they graduate. "Southern Baptists have been playing the 'ostrich with its head in the sand' routine long enough," the Texas pastor laments. "The time is way overdue that we acknowledge the devastating effects public school is having on the faith of our children."

He notes that while some in the SBC leadership maintain that sending their children to public schools is equivalent to being "salt and light" in a secular environment, data gathered by the denomination indicates just the opposite is happening.

"The public school system is officially godless," Arnold tells Associated Press. "Jesus Christ is divorced from history, from science, from every subject. We want an integrated faith where you can quote the Bible, talk about the Bible freely in any class and any subject."

A similar resolution last year called for the immediate pullout of children from public schools. That proposal failed to pass. The Arnold-Scarbrough measure stops short of that and, instead, calls on churches to become aggressive and pro-active in starting Christian schools and in supporting home schooling.

As I have discovered as I am reading Nancy Pearcey's excellent book Total Truth, the problem with our education system is not just that it omits God and the Bible from curriculum. It is that our public education system embraces a worldview that places no value on the absolute truth of the Bible. As a result, students leave school believing that truth is relative and a matter of personal judgement rather than an absolute, unchanging standard. It's about time that Christians wake up to the reality that our public schools are not the place to be sending our kids to learn. What public schools teach is not what any responsible Christian parent would want their children to learn.

Comments

[Sam]

A woman kills her abusive husband after the police refuse to deal with his constant abuse.

A man kills his wife because she didn't have dinner prepared for him on time.

Who gets the death penalty?

In case anybody's wondering, I think the notion that there's absolute truth is absolutely absurd, especially considering just how much of the Bible is ignored by Christians. Furthermore, the notion that public schools are at fault for children leaving their churches is insane. If churches showed any willingness at all to change with the times - instead of still believing that the moral values of the 1950's can somehow be willed to still be relevant in 2005 - they wouldn't lose so many of their younger parishioners. Instead, they're preaching about issues that just don't concern younger generations and then, when they can't reach those same younger generations, they don't blame themselves, or even look internally. They blame public schools.

That's a bunch of hogwash. The demise of some religion in this country is because churches have become bastions of anti-American hatred: hatred of freedoms, of choices, of rights. If those same churches would make any attempt to modernize, they wouldn't be dealing with the same issues. But they don't.

(The man who kills his wife should receive the death penalty. The woman who kills her husband should go free. Unfortunately, neither happens.)

[Sam]

And while I'm busy being pissed about this post, I'd like to point out Grady Arnold is a liar. He doesn't want a world in which the Bible CAN be discussed in public schools. He wants a world in which the Bible is the ONLY thing that can be discussed in public schools. He doesn't want evolution, birth control, or anything else that's allegedly anti-Christian to be taught in schools. He only wants Christianity taught in schools, and the kids that aren't Christians should be forced to sit through it.

Maybe if the man wasn't so damned dishonest, I'd have an easier time believing his nonsense.

[Aaron]

Are you absolutely sure there is no absolute truth, Sam? ;)

It is not that Christians want to force the values of the 1950's on today society. It is that Christians (and many other people) view certain values and unchangeable.

It is a deep and serious charge to make that churches are "bastions of anti-American hatred." I would ask you to give proof of that. Citing examples of Christains not agreeing with you on certain issues does not equate them as hating America. Unless you believe you hold the absolute truth on what being American means.

I don't agree with a lot of what Arnold says. I think he does want to go to an extreme that is not healthy, but again you find it very easy to appeal to some standard of truth when you call him a liar and his beliefs nonsense. Where do you get this objective standard that you can judge his statements by? To what do you appeal when making a judgment call on the truthfulness of Arnold?

[Sam]

To me, America is the land of freedom. The notion that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is something that I hold incredibly dear to my heart.

Thus, when social conservatives aggressively oppose the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (opposing gay marriage, for example), I can only assume that they must hate the notion of a free America.

I know I'm not being particularly fair for writing such a thing, but after being called a disgusting, America hating liberal by the right wing zealots who have never known me, I thought it'd be fun to write precisely the same thing about them. The only difference is that I'm right.

Finally, when I wrote that (some) churches hate America, I've gone on to explain my reasoning for doing so. Arnold would have us believe that ALL he wants is a place for the Bible in the schoolroom. I'd wager all of the money in my bank account (137 bucks) that he's writing that because he knows its a more decent position than the one that he actually holds, which is that Christianity should be taught to all children in public schools. He knows that'd never sell, so he changes his line. Needless to say, I feel vindicated in knowing that I've honestly explained why I do what I do. I don't think there's any chance that Arnold's going to do such a thing.

[Aaron]

Do you really want to get into a debate over the right to life?

Is opposing gay marriage stopping someone from life, liberty or pursuit of happiness?

I have never called you anything like what you say "right wing zealots" have called you. Again, you claim to be right, but I still don't know how you claim this. What makes you right and me wrong? Why is one thing (gay marraige) fair or right and another not so?

If Arnold actually believes that children should be coerced into Christianity while in a public school classroom, then he is wrong. But once again we don't know his motives so it is all speculation.

What I want to know is how you can claim to be "right" when you do allow for that be in existence? If there is no absolute truth and it can be made up on the fly or if it is "whatever is true for me" then you cannot claim rightness over me, Arnold or anyone else because an objective sense of rightness does not exists.

[Sam]

Aaron,

1. By now, you should know I'll debate anything, so if you want to debate life, let's make it happen.

2. Opposing gay marriage does infringe on one's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. For instance, if Jim and Steve would be happier knowing that they would be allowed to visit one another in the hospital because they were married, but they can't do so because they're not allowed to be married...

3. I know you didn't call me that, but the leadership of various socially conservative movements most certainly HAS suggested precisely what I'm saying they have.

4. I believe I'm right because others are free to disagree with my position. As I have argued numerous times, my system of beliefs allows for EVERYBODY to do as they'd please, assuming that sombody else isn't hurt in the process. In other words, you're as free to be a Christian as I am to be a guy who doesn't give two anythings about Christianity (except when it angers me). My position doesn't affect others, but it does allow others to do as they please.

5. The closest I think we get to truth in the world are those arguments that suggest that we should all be free to do as we please, so long as we don't hurt others. I know there are holes there, but no more than there are in anything anybody else believes.

6. Still, illogically as it goes, I happen to think I'm right. I know this isn't fair, but it's how I'm approaching the situation.

[Aaron]

1. Well if the right to life is something we all have (endowed by our Creator) and enshired as the purpose for our nation, how do we reconcile that with abortion? They do not get the right to life because they are deemed, similarly to blacks used to be, as not fully human.

2. We cannot take the "pursuit" of happiness" to mean anything that makes me happy. What if it makes me happy to have 10 wives? Or even worse molesting children? There must be limits on things and we have to appeal to something outside our own ideas to a system of right and wrong.

3. "leadership" of lots of movement have said stupid things. Liberal "leadership" say conservatives are Nazis all the time. None of that has any barring on any real discussion of issues.

4. As to your caveat that "somebody else isn't hurt in the process" that can be used to justfiy almost any limitation of freedoms. Take the smoking ban. Many people are saying that smoking should be banned in private businesses (like restaurants) because it harms people. Maybe somethings do not harm people on the surface but they have a detrimental effect on society. How do we determine who is right then? To what do we turn to solve the problem?

5. Why should be allowed to do as we please, why is this a positive thing? What makes it better than having the government tell us what to do?

6. What constitutes fair? Why would your argument not be "fair"?

I know what I am saying can be aggrevating (and it probably is), but I simply want to illustrate to you that while you are claiming there is no absolute truth you are appealing to an unspoken absolute truth: freedom is better than no freedom, there is a such thing as fairness, treating everyone with respect is better than not, etc. If you do not allow for an absolute truth that governs us all then you cannot appeal to it when arguing something.

it is similar to the guy who said there is no absolute truth, things are only wrong when you feel they are, until someone punched him in the mouth and stole his car. Then he appealed to fairness and a sense of right and wrong.

You and I have opposite opinions on many issues. If there is no absolute truth, no objective right and wrong, then they must be equally true. But how can both the positions of abortion is not murder, abortion is murder be true? It is not possible for both of them to be true, so then one is true and the other is not. Which one is true? We must appeal to something beyond ourselves and opinion. Even when someone argues for abortion they use absolute truth when they say "a woman's right to choose must be protected." They appeal to a sense of fairness in allowing a woman to choose what is done with her own body.

As an illustration of absolute truths, Sam I know that you despise child molestation and child abuse. Is it ever okay for a parent to beat their child or sexually molest them? Is it ever okay for a man to rape a teenage girl? Of course these actions are never acceptable because we KNOW that those things are wrong. We can appeal to a sense of right and wrong that transcends our own opinion. Those things are wrong not because we think they are, but simply because they are wrong in their nature.

[Louis]

How do you determine what is absolute truth and what is merely relative truth? From what I have seen, one man's absolute truth is another's relative truth or, even, evil. It seems to me that we must take this uncertainty into account when making law or ethical demands. I, myself, would want to err on the side of maximum freedom of choice and conscience for the individual because it takes into account this uncertainty about "absolute values." Thus, the gov't should be required to remain neutral whenever possible regarding moral, ethical and religious values, and seek to maximize the individual's freedom of thought, conscience and action - a secular gov't. In that way, I am libertarian in my view. I want a gov't which guarantees freedom of religion; I want xtians, as well as Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. to be able to practice their faith without interference. However, I also want a gov't which doesn't promote one religion or other demander of absolutes over another.

We must err on the side of individual liberty - the individual's right to decide how to live his or her life without interference from gov't or religion. "That government which governs least governs best."

[seeker]

Regarding pulling kids out of schools:

I think that Christians have the right and duty to pull their kids out of schools in order to rescue them from liberal, amoral and anti-religious secular teaching. I also think Christians have the right and duty to be salt and light in the schools by keeping their kids in the public schools, and supporting curriculums and policies that keep schools a safe and fair place for all to be educated. Each person must follow their convictions.

Baptists have a history of separatism from mainstream culture, but in this case, I am starting to agree with them for the following reason - secularists have gone too far, and are now anti-religionists. It's kind of like the feminist movement, which started out with meaninful reforms, but in its later years, was taken over by man-hating extremists.

Secularists initially wanted a fair and open intellectual environment, but now, they have gone to the extreme, teaching humanistic morality systems that encourage promiscuity in the guise of freedom of choice and "value neutral" sex education("just be safe"), remove the religious roots of our history (or painting them in a purely negative light), and norm homosexuality in the guise of "tolerance." I am not condoing intolerance, taunting, or hate towards gays, but I would not want my kid attending a system where my own values are so flagrantly contradicted by the schools.

While I am not an isolationist, I do believe that I want the best for my kids, including education. That's why my kids will attend, if I can afford it, a private school, or be home schooled by me. Kids from both have outperformed public schools in academics and social development, despite the few outliers.

I think the Baptists will take a lot of heat for their stand, but I think that it's a sign not that the "religious right extremists" are getting more extreme, but that they are having to take more extreme measures in order to protect their kids from the truly radical secular value system which is anti-religion, amoral (in the sense that they don't like to talk about right and wrong except when it comes to "tolerance", which is only a virtue if you balance it with "truth"), and self-righteous in its attacks on people of traditional faith and morals. These liberals illustrate the adage "so open minded, their brains fell out."

[seeker]

Regaring absolute truth:

The biblical position is that some things objectively true, black and white, while others are not. This is why we have the saying:

In the essentials (important objective truths), unity
In the non-essentials (less important gray areas), liberty,
In all things, charity (love).

The whole idea behind "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is that to the reasonable mind, some things are definitely morally good and bad, across time and cultures. To deny such is, IMHO, to not learn from history and the accumulated wisdom of those who have observed before us. That is, to be a fool.

And as I wrote previously, the bible does not spell out every right and wrong, only the major ones. It also instructs us on how to approach gray areas.

[Aaron]

Louis, this is one area where we totally agree. The government should do its best to get out of people's way and let them practice their religion as they see fit (which includes the public sector, by the way).

Somethings may be a gray area, but we only know they are gray because we know what black and white is. We know that we would not want to murder anyone, but we also know that policeman and military have to do that everyday. We don't view killing as a good thing, we still view it as bad, we simply allow for situations in which it may be the best possible thing. This does not remove the absolute truth from the situation. Even the gray areas show us that we view things in black and white.

I am back and forth on the public schools v. private/home school. There are benefits to each and I think each family should decide what is best for them and their children. That was one of the reasons why I was opposed to the resolution that Arnold proposed last time that called on every Southern Baptist to remove their child from public school. This one allows for more discretion on the part of the individual family and child.

[Sam]

Seeker,

You've managed to come off as a crazed right-wing Christian conservative who genuinely believes that your ability to be a good parent to your child(ren) will be undone by his or her schooling. With all due respect, that's insane.

So let's go through this again.

1. You don't want your kid learning about sex ed? Really? What if your child decides, despite all of your wait-until-marriage teaching, to become sexually active? Maybe its a spur of the moment teenager thing? (Remember, teenagers don't always have everything together when it comes to their firing hormones.) You'd rather your son or daughter have NO idea about contraception? Because I'll be honest - I don't want my daughter having sex when she's seventeen. But if she does, I'd much rather she be safe about it, doing as much as she can to avoid pregnancy or illness. Why on Earth you'd go on the other side of that fence is absolutely beyond me.

2. There are certain negatives about religion in our past. Burning witches. The Crusades. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done. People that justified slavery via the Bible. What you'd like is a sunshine-y presentation of religion (and by religion, you mean Christianity) that ignores all of the horrors associated with it, right?

3. What has any gay ever done to you? Anything? Ever? Then what is wrong with teaching tolerance? This is America after all. What's wrong with taking five minutes during one class period of one day during the year and saying, "Hey guys, there are gays in the world, probably this room, and honestly, its no big deal. Moving on..."

4. When you say your values are contradicted by the schools, you mean your values aren't TAUGHT by the schools, right? Which means that your closed worldview isn't taught to children. Shouldn't schools filled with religious students and secular students and foriegn students and native students strive to teach a neutral curriculum and leave anything else (dislike of sex, dislike of gays, whatever) to parents? Because for somebody who wants an uninvolved government that doesn't interfere in the way that our children are raised, you seem to be advocating a government that blatantly interferes and forces Christianity on everybody.

[seeker]

Perhaps I was not clear. And just because I don't use diplomatic language like my compatriots doesn't make me an extremist - except to those who have goats that are easy to get (like me ;)

1. I do want my kid to learn about sex, but from a scriptural point of view.
Current secular sex-ed programs are, in general, promoting a view of sex that is too permissive and value neutral (but not really). What I intend to teach is:
- sex is good. Sex was made to be pleasurable, and as a bonding experience between a married couple
- sex outside of marriage is a bad idea with real consequences, including degredation of the aforementioned bond. And let's not forget disease. A little stern morality about promiscuity would go a long way in countries ravaged by AIDS.
- chastity until marriage is a noble and realistic goal to strive for (Teens Who Make Virginity Pledges Have Substantially Improved Life Outcomes)
- the idea of courtship as opposed to dating is a preferred way of finding a mate - it is based on the principle of increasing levels of comittment preceding increasing levels of intimacy
- birth control is a fallback position that my kids should know about. I have no intention of hiding this from my kid, not sure what I wrote that made you *assume* such a position on my part
- homosexuality is a sin, a maladaptation based in childhood development

2. The History of Religion
Again, you *assume* that I am some sort of anti-intellectual child brainwasher, which is a parody based on extremist thinking on your part. I mean, when my kids study the reformation, they will see the difference between corrupt religion and true, between real faith and faith in name only.

They'll see that when we study Jesus' rebukes of the religious jews of his day. We'll see that when we study the history of modern revivals, and how church denominations become spiritually dead or isolationist and cultlike.

I won't paint a rosy picture of mankind nor of religion, but a balanced one. And I *will* teach my kid how to pick for herself, and how to evaluate faiths.

3. On Gays
Gays have done nothing to me. I'm not on a crusade against gays, but I am on a crusade to bring the healing truths of reparative therapy, and masculine identity work for hetros, to the public because these ideas have transformed my life, and the lives of some of my friends.

The gay extremists have tried to prohibit my ex-gay friends from seeking a hetero life, and rejected and ostracized them. They are seeking to supress the ideas behind reparative therapy because it offends them. Too bad!

They are also trying to mainstream their maladaptation (read "perversion") and pull my culture, the one my kids get to live in, further into the gutter (read "depravity"). Tolerance of individuals and fair treatment is commendable, until you start taxing me to pay for promoting an unblical, harmful idea. You are free to preach adultery or islam in the public market, and believe and practice those things in your own private world. But if you want to make it the law of the land, you're up for a contest of ideas and wills.

I am not against giving domestic partner rights to gays and other non-married people who are close to one another so that they can make medical decisions, inherit wealth, etc (although a simple will or power of attorney could accomplish such things). But I haven't thought that through entirely. Maybe I'm not even for domestic partnerships.

But I am against the public sanction of gay marriage because of the message it sends - that the state thinks homosexuality is a normative, healthy behavior. This will inexorably lead to the mandate that the law of the land be taught in the schools. In my lifetime, that will never be so, for the sake of my country and children.

4. Values in School
No, I mean that
(a) more and more of the values and ideas taught in public schools contradict what I believe to be the truth, and what I teach in my home
(b) many of the values i hold dear are omitted from public education, when they should be *integrated* into the curriculums so that my child rightly understands how the disciplines hang together. Hence such books as The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, and others.
(c) some of the values taught in public schools, of course, are fine with me.

While you may characterize my reaction as extreme, I am merely reacting to the extreme value shifts in public education. As we saw in the last election, I am not an extreme, but a norm. And the only reason that the "extreme right" has been gaining power is because the extreme left has been overplaying its cards for too long. When you resist balanced truth, you always give fuel to the extremists to rise up and counter the extremists in power. But I digress.

I mainly want to give my kids a education that is holistic in its appproach, tailored to my child, sufficiently aggresive, and well integrated. My experience with public school was not so. I skipped a grade and went into advanced classes very young, but the system couldn't handle my emotional needs (I was younger than my peers), and did not really maximize my learning around my gifts, nor did it help me develop skills in my weaker areas - I had to fend for myself, mostly.

Characterizing a Xian world view as "closed" may seem accurate to you, but it's ignorant of the logical beauty, completeness, and intellectual complexity of the xian world view. What you consider as the xian world view is most likely a charicature. Go read Francis Schaeffer, or maybe start with Total Truth. Then criticize the xian world view.

5. Government Involvement in Schools
Well, there is no such thing as value-neutral educational system. The value system of today's public schools has erred too much towards sexual permissiveness and abortion rights, and anti-religious sentiment (kids not allowed to study or read the bible as part of Western Civ, etc.). I don't want a Xian public school system. But one that reflects common sense values, which these are not.

But again, I'm not really taking my kids out of public school for such moral reasons alone. I also want a more excellent education for my kids, I am concerned about weapons and drugs in the grade schools, and the negative influence of popular culture on my kids. My kids will have exposure to popular culture, but very controlled in the early years. They don't need to be begging me for the latest toys because the commercials create a desire for them. They don't need to see adults in foreplay before the pre-teen years (if then). And I want to provide them with a vibrant counterculture in which they can grow and experience themselves and others without the hyper-sexed, hyper-consumerized, hyper-violent culture we live in. Thank God for the healthy churches that provide the counterculture in which teen chastity, honesty, devotion to God, and freedom exist.

[Louis]

seeker (a misnomer if there ever was one) wrote:

"While you may characterize my reaction as extreme, I am merely reacting to the extreme value shifts in public education. As we saw in the last election, I am not an extreme, but a norm. And the only reason that the "extreme right" has been gaining power is because the extreme left has been overplaying its cards for too long. When you resist balanced truth, you always give fuel to the extremists to rise up and counter the extremists in power."

Funny, really. You defend the present power of the extreme right as a "balancing" needed to counter what you (mis-)characterize as the over-reach of the "extreme left." Well, look out buddy, your words will come back to bite you. When the vast majority of thinking people - the moderate majority - wake up to the depredations you right-wingers are presently perpetrating on our country, you'll be out on your collective ears. And that last election didn't prove your extremism is now the norm. Several factors came into play (among them, fear of terrorism), but the fact remains that Bush only won by 3 percent. Kerry got 59,028,109 to Bush's 62,040,606 - almost half the voting public opposes you (not exactly the "norm"). Analysis I saw after the election disproved the notion that the election was mainly about values. On the contrary, it was about security and the war on terror. Kerry was too weak to overcome Bush's image as a tough guy able to protect us against the diaper-heads. If 50,000 or so votes had shifted in Ohio, we'd have seen a very different result. So you should cut down on the hubris (as you know what happens to those types).

But that aside, your entire little credo above does, indeed, out you as an extremist, almost a caracature of evangelical wingnutism. For their sakes, I only hope none of your kids turns out to be gay because there'll be a lot of tears spilled in a shrink's office otherwise.

Oh, as regards your misconceptions about homosexuality, which is it exactly that you believe? Is it a sin or a maladaptation based on childhood development? You can't seem to make up your mind. Are you a bible-thumping fundie believer or an adherent of pseudo-science?

What I find marvelously funny about the ex-gay movement is that they cloak their obviously unprovable religious claims in the dubious claims of their pseudo-science. They have their dogmas to protect (ie, homosexuality is bad and an abomination) so they tailor their science to the fit of their preconceptions. Bad science. Sort of like the creationist wingnuts. And, of course, if anyone challenges their claims, they make a big show of indignance, accusing their opponets of all sorts of wondrous things. Any gay who opposes them is an extemist who is only trying to advance the "radical gay agenda" (whatever that is). And, of course, the entire scientific community is in a cabal to hide the truth. Of course, it's not really funny at all - preying on the desperate and terrorized, they very people you've created. You've poisoned their souls and then handed them a poisoned chalice as a "cure." Evil.

From what I've observed over decades of life, religion is in the business of the denial of reality and its substitution with a fantasy designed to keep certain people and certain ideologies in power. You've only served to convince me even further of the truth of my postulate. Thanks.

[seeker]

Louis,

Homosexuality, imo, is both a maladaptation and a sin. That's why I use both terms. However, your claims of "bad science" fall on deaf ears (mine) because you are obviously well convinced that the ex-gay movement is a fraud, and are not even open to the possibility. You attribute bad motivations to all of your opponents (which makes you a mind and heart reader), which in my mind, means you are less interested in science and logic than ad hominem attacks. May you turn from your foolishness to Christ, who can show you how deep your self-deception goes.

I was a little clumsy in my explanation of the election. What I meant to say was that
(1) far right wing adherents have more traction these days because we have swung so far to the left
(2) conservatives who are not far right (can you distinguish them, or are they "all the same" to you?) are more the norm than your high-minded leftist democrat.

In fact, 20 years ago, the democrats were much more conservative. But over the years, these people have been sidelined by the Dick Gephardt radical leftists. Only now that the dems are losing popular support (remember, they didn't just lose the white house but both houses of the Congress), are they trying to be more inclusive. For example, now pro-life Democrats, formerly ostracized and sidelined and silenced in the party, are getting some air time in the hopes that they will pull in the "values voters." How convenient, er, I mean, open minded.

True, there are plenty of left and right moderates. I hope we hear more from them.

[Louis]

Of course my comments fall on deaf ears. That's the whole point, isn't it? You put your fingers in your ears and yell so nothing can get in which calls into question anything other than your biases. I'm not interested in your motivations either: I'm interested in the results of your actions & beliefs, and in their distance from reality. If you think that's an "ad hominem" attack...well, there's nothing much to be said, is there? Sincerity is no measure of the value of your ideas, results are. And the suffering and destruction caused by conservative xtianity is quite measurable.

You mention Christ. Maybe someday you'll have to answer to him as well.

[mycroft]

As National Socialists we are not afraid to fight against this plague within our own ranks. Just as we have readopted this ancient Germanic approach to the question of marriage between alien races, so, too, in our judgment of homosexuality—a symptom of racial degeneracy, destructive to our race—we have returned to the guiding Nordic principle that degenerates should be exterminated.
Heinrich Himmler, speech, Oct. 10, 1934