The purpose of education is to know God and to make Him known; therefore, we believe education, like religion, is a sacred pursuit outside the jurisdiction of the state.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2 would allow state funding for non-public education.
The Kentucky legislature passed Amendment 2 earlier this year. It will be on your ballot this fall. Amendment 2 will change the fabric of the state government by changing the Kentucky Constitution.
In a Nutshell
Amendment 2 can potentially compromise Education Independence. The language of the amendment and the existing authority by law could give taxpayer money to independent homeschoolers, leading to possible government oversight and regulation of their homeschools or legally changing the definition of the homeschooler in the state.
Below is a summary of the amendment’s language, concerns, and possible implications for Kentuckians. At the bottom of this news bulletin, you will find background information on government-funded homeschooling and resources.
âSection 2. IT IS PROPOSED THAT A NEW SECTION BE ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools. The General Assembly may exercise this authority by law, Sections 59, 60, 171, 183, 184, 186, and 189 of this Constitution notwithstanding.”
Concerns & Possible Implications
Section 186:“All funds accruing to the school fund shall be used for the maintenance of the public schools of the Commonwealth, and for no other purpose.“
Would Section 186 Necessitate Private and Homeschools to Become Public Schools?
We have seen instances in other states where homeschoolers opt in for a program, and they are no longer legally classified (with its protections) as homeschoolers.
In Arizona, for example, the student is legally referred to as an âESA studentâ and no longer qualifies as a homeschool student by law, as stated by the Arizona Department of Education. “ESA studentsâŚare not considered âhomeschoolâ students by state law.â
Section 189: “No portion of any fund or tax now existing ⌠shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school.”
Would Amendment 2 Contradict Section 189?
Section 189âs language seems to be very clear on this matter.
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) (Act) was unconstitutional for this reason.
Watch Out for Policy Creep
Although the amendment does not pass School Choice law, we must acknowledge that it provides the opportunity for such legislation and the opportunity for policy creep in Kentucky. To aid your understanding of Education Independence and School Choice, hereis an article to help you. In Addition, investigate the resources below before you vote on Amendment 2.
Protect the Constitution & Education Independence on Election Day
Kentuckians can protect the state constitution and Kentucky from future bad policy.
Before election day, explore the resources below and share this urgent information. Protect Education Independence in your state and vote against the public capture of private education.
You Are Invited!
Classical Conversations cordially invites members of the community to an open forum to discuss Amendment 2. This important event will occur on October 9, 2024, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Warren County Public Library, 175 Iron Skillet Ct., Bowling Green, KY 42104.
Join us for an engaging discussion led by Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations. This event serves as a conservative Christian rally for education independence.
Sadie Aldaya is the Manager of Research & Policy for Classical ConversationsÂŽ . Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadieâs passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.
In December of 1860, Frederick Douglas was slated to lead a discussion on the abolition of slavery for a Boston audience of fellow abolitionists. An angry mob opposing abolition took over the stage and shouted down the discussion. Six days later, in a gathering at Bostonâs Music Hall, Douglass ended his lecture with a brief address criticizing how the earlier event was handledâby the protestors, Bostonâs mayor, and even supporters of Douglass who expressed reluctance to criticize the mobâs clear violation of free speech. Douglass described the earlier meeting as having been âcaptured by a mob of gentlemen and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it…â1
Douglass went on to note the irony. These men who shouted him down were not rowdy, uneducated drunkards but “men who pride themselves upon their respect for law and order.” But as gentlemen proclaimed their âlaw of slavery,â he noted, the âlaw of free speech . . . [was] trampled under foot . . .â Douglass described this incident as âinstructive.â2
How so? What can we, the citizens of the same nation, learn from this seemingly minor historical event, which happened 164 years ago? Surely, we have grown to understand and appreciate our right to freedom of speech.
Enjoy Your Free Speech
Maybe not. On April 25, 2024, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, addressed the students and faculty at Columbia University, an institution he defines as “one of America’s preeminent academic institutions.â3 The purpose of his speech was to condemn the violent pro-Palestinian protests that had exploded on campus and to call for the resignation of Columbiaâs president, Minouche Shafik, for her failure to protect freedom of speech on Columbiaâs campus and enforce school policies protecting all students.
The same students, who had sought to silence and intimidate Jewish and pro-Israel students on campus, jeered and shouted, âWe canât hear you,â attempting to end Johnsonâs speech just as the mob of gentlemen attempted to shout down Douglass. Undaunted, Johnson responded, âEnjoy your free speech,â and, in a similar spirit to that of Douglass, continued his address.4
Three Lessons From Douglas on Free Speech
These two incidents of lawless attacks on freedom of speech are startlingly similar regarding both the words and actions involved and the supposedly enlightened, privileged status of the perpetrators. It seems, after all, we should revisit the instructive lessons from our past. In Douglassâ closing comments at the Music Hall, he outlined three lessons he drew from his experience of having that freedom attacked.
Every person, regardless of race, gender, social, economic, or educational status, has the same right to speak. No one is to be excluded. The freedom of speech is the common right of all men. Douglass stated, âNo right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech. It was in their eyes, as in the eyes of all thoughtful men, the great moral renovator of society and government.â5
It is the responsibility of governmental and institutional authorities to lawfully uphold, protect, and defend all citizens’ freedom to speak. The equal enforcement of the law is critical. After chastising Bostonâs mayor for capitulating to the angry mob, Douglass emphasized, âThere can be no right of speech where any man, however, lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.â6
Freedom of speech provides opportunities to hear as well as to speak. Douglass wisely understood that it is as important to hear other people express their ideas freely as it is for us to freely speak our own.Our right to freedom of speech offers us a double blessing. Douglass concluded his speech with this reflection: âTo suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.â7
Each of Douglassâs assertions have not only been confirmed and defended throughout Americaâs history, but policies protecting freedom of speech have been confirmed in liberal intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International.
A Universal Right That’s Not So Universal
The United Nationsâ Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to set âa common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations . . . fundamental human rights to be universally protected…”8Article 19, in particular, addresses freedom of speech and states that the individual must have the right to freely express their opinions and ideas “without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.â9Amnesty International, an independent, international, non-governmental organization, states that its mission includes the commitment to help fight abuses of human rights worldwide and to free people jailed just for voicing their opinion.
Both international organizations support freedom of speech for all people echoing Americaâs First Amendment right which was ratified in 1791. The First Amendment was written well before both the writing of United Nationsâ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the founding of Amnesty International in 1961 emphasizing America’s earlier declaration of our sacred right to freedom of speech.
The importance of Douglassâs second point that it is the responsibility of governmental and institutional authorities to lawfully defend a citizenâs freedom to speak has been exemplified by the widespread suppression of speech affirming conservative values, or in Columbiaâs case, pro-Israel values in university classrooms and on campuses across the country in recent months. The failure of university administrators to defend this freedom and the rationalizations used to justify their actions is symptomatic of our countryâs breakdown in protecting its citizens. This type of institutional cowardice and negligence has become blatantly obvious.
Douglassâ own response to this type of negligence was to strongly urge his Boston audience that â…the time to assert a right is the time when the right itself is called in question, and that the men of all others to assert it are the men to whom the right has been denied.”10
If We Are Brave, We’ll Win the Fight
Free speech requires a courageous defense not only from citizens but, most importantly, from the institutions responsible for upholding this freedom through equal application of the law, even in the face of threats and opposition. In an address to his organization, American Cornerstone Institute, Dr. Ben Carson states, “…if we are persistent…if we are courageous, if we are brave, we’ll win that fight.”11â the fight to avoid Americaâs movement toward being a totalitarian state where free speech is unsupported, or worse, opposed by law. Â
Douglassâs third point that freedom of speech provides opportunities for a citizen to hear as well as to speak, was articulated earlier in 1859 in the famous treatise, On Liberty, by the 19th-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill. He makes this point incisively.
“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. “12
This doctrine has come to be defined as the doctrine of counterspeechâ”…is one of the most important free-expression principles in First Amendment jurisprudence.”13It derives from the theory that audiences, or recipients of the expression, can weigh for themselves the values of competing ideas and, hopefully, follow the better approach.â14
Freedom of Speech Only Matters When You Don’t Like What Someone Has to Say
The danger of silencing speech has also been tested in our Supreme Court system. In the case of Whitney v. California (1927), Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeisâs concurring opinion advanced the protection of the freedom of speech and has become a “…critical justifications for safeguarding freedom of speech even under the most challenging conditions.â15 He wrote: âIf there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.â16
The closing instructive comments by Douglass in December 1860 are as applicable today as they were 164 years ago. Our fight to protect and defend our freedom of speech for every citizen in our nation is crucial.
Douglass concluded his final remarks with the statement, âThe principle [freedom of speech] must rest upon its own proper basis. And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston [and the United States of America] is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery.
A manâs right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the rightâand there let it rest forever.”17
Enjoy your free speech.
Amy Jones is an Instructional Designer for  Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She and her husband of 36 years raised four children in the beautiful foothills of the Tennessee Appalachian Mountains. Amy and Whit thoroughly enjoyed homeschooling their children through high school. During this journey, the Jones’ were blessed to participate in a  Classical ConversationsÂŽ community, even tutoring and directing several programs. Now blessed with nine grandchildren, Amy enjoys writing  Classical ConversationsÂŽ materials for young learners in the Scribblers tier.
Douglass, Frederick. âA Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).â National Constitution Center â Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. âŠď¸
Allen, Hugh. âMike Johnson Columbia Palestine Protest.â Rev, 2024, www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mike-johnson-speaks-at-columbia-university âŠď¸
Allen, Hugh. âMike Johnson Columbia Palestine Protest.â Rev, 2024, www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/mike-johnson-speaks-at-columbia-university âŠď¸
Douglass, Frederick. âA Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).â National Constitution Center â Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860 âŠď¸
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,media%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers. Accessed 12 Aug. 2024. âŠď¸
Douglass, Frederick. âA Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).â National Constitution Center â Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. âŠď¸
Carson, Ben. âDr. Ben Carsonâs Most Important Speech.â Rick Walker Podcast, YouTube, 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1Tj-Q6MxU&t=818s. âŠď¸
Mill, John Stuart. âJohn Stuart Mill.â Oxford Reference, 2024, www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00007298. âŠď¸
âCounterspeech Doctrine Archives.â The Free Speech Center, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/encyclopedia/case/counterspeech-doctrine/#:~:text=The%20counterspeech%20doctrine%20posits%20that,hopefully%2C%20follow%20the%20better%20approach. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024. âŠď¸
Serafin, Tatiana. âBrandeis Concurring with Holmes in Whitney v. California, 1927.â First Amendment Watch, 30 Sept. 2022, firstamendmentwatch.org/history-speaks-brandeis-concurring-holmes-whitney-v-california-1927/. âŠď¸
Douglass, Frederick. âA Plea for Free Speech in Boston (1860).â National Constitution Center â Constitutioncenter.Org, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/frederick-douglass-a-plea-for-free-speech-in-boston-1860. âŠď¸
Homeschool Days at the Capitol, Legislative Days, Capitol Days, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. Seize this excellent opportunity to teach your children the importance of the legislative process. Help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.
The chart below lists October Homeschool Days at the Capitol. Check your stateâs dates here if itâs not listed below.
âFor I know the plans I have for you,â declares the LordâŚâ Jeremiah 29:11(ESV)
Where were you on September 11, 2001?
We all remember where we were when we first heard the news of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001; the first pictures we saw that day of the destruction and devastation as nearly three thousand lives were lost.
These types of events (terrorist attacks, pandemics, recessions, assassination attempts on a president, etc.) change us. The world around us changes.
We see the wickedness of sin; the heinous acts against others bring sorrow to our souls. Where was I that fateful morning? What lasting impacts did that day have on my family?
Packing for a New Home
We were boxing up all our earthly belongings and moving halfway around the world to serve the Lord in Samara, Russia. The movers were at our house packing and loading the truck with our many boxes to be shipped to our new home. We were waiting for a friend to pick up our daughter that morning to watch her for the day. She called us to let us know she was running late because of the breaking news events of that day. What news? What events of the day? We rushed to unpack a small radio to listen to what had happened that morning.
The Heinous Act of Terror
Seeing pictures on the news that night of the destruction in New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania was overwhelming! How could such a heinous act happen? Why?
ââIslamistsâ see Islam as a guiding ideology for politics and the organization of society. That is, they believe that strict adherence to religious law should be the sole basis for a countryâs law, as well as its cultural and social lifeâŚIslamist extremists believe violence is acceptable to achieve these ends.â1
These Islamist terrorists planned this attack for some time. Using violence to fulfill their mission, to cripple the US.
Trusting God with Our Future
What would we do now? Would we still be moving to Russia? Would we be able to leave the US? Our flight was scheduled for September 17. All the airports were shut down, and no planes were allowed to fly over US airspace. Our friends were set to see us off at the airport, but was that still an option?
As we continued to prepare to fly out the following Monday morning, we prayed and trusted God for our future. We were in a waiting pattern. We finally heard on Saturday that the airports would open on Monday, and our flight was one of the first to depart from Los Angeles. We said our goodbyes in the church parking lot and headed to the airport twelve hours before our flight was set to leave. Only ticketed passengers were allowed at the airport with all the extra security measures. So, the farewell we had hoped for at the airport did not happen. Since 9/11, only ticketed passengers can go to the gate; there are many new security measures at the airports for âour protectionâ due to 9/11.
Godâs Plan is Best
Before we left for Russia, there were many questions and uncertainties about the future. But God knew and still knows what is best for us today; He is conforming us into the image of His Son, Jesus, and sanctifying us each day through His word, other people, and circumstances in our lives (Romans 8:28). We are reminded in James 1:2 that we will have trials; it is not âifâ we will have trials, but âwhen.â
God opened the door for many years of ministry in Russia, allowing us to link arms with the Russian believers to share the gospel, train pastors, and support the churches. What Satan may have tried to thwart through sinful men, Godâs plan is never thwarted! He is always victorious!
Continue reading an uplifting spiritual blog. This one was written by Jennifer’s husband, Paul.
Jennifer Bright is the Communication Manager for Research and Quality Assurance for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. Jenniferâs passions are classical Christian education and discipling the next generation to live for Christ. She supports homeschool families by tutoring their students with the classical tools of learning. Jennifer and her husband began their homeschool journey almost 20 years ago in Russia while serving as missionaries, and currently, they reside in Covington, Louisiana.
“Society may be formed so as to exist without crime, without poverty, with health greatly improved, with little, if any misery, and with intelligence and happiness increased a hundredfold, and no obstacle whatsoever intervenes at this moment except ignorance to prevent such a state of society from becoming universal.”
This utopian prediction was made by the worldâs first true socialistâRobert Owen.
Born in Wales on May 14, 1771, Robert Owenâs childhood was rather uneventful according to the standard upbringing of children in the 18th century. His hard-working father worked multiple jobs to support his wife and seven children, and like his peers, Owen was sent to a school that emphasized moral instruction above the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Owning largely to his knack for entrepreneurship, Owen became the manager of New Lanark, his father-in-law’s factory, at age 28. During his time in management, he became widely known for improving work conditions, providing opportunities for his employees, and increasing the productivity of his factory. His official slogan became “8 hours labor, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest.” This was a stark comparison to the 10â16 hours of work that children and adults alike were accustomed to.
With this reputation and list of accomplishments, Robert Owenâs future looked bright and promising. Such a background does not commonly lead a person to become a utopian, spiritualist, communistâbut as the Scriptures say, “Do not be misled:Â “Bad company corrupts good character.” 1 Corinthians 15:33
The Idea
In 1793, a bright-eyed and progressive Robert Owen joined the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society. Known today as Manchester Lit & Phil, this group of thinkers and theorists gathered together with the goal of attaining the end of progressivism, which is a globalized utopia. Far from being a casual attendee of these meetings, Robert was one of its leaders. Today, he is still recognized on the Manchester Lit & Phil website as “The father of the co-operative movement.”[1]
Briefly put, the Co-operative Movement was birthed out of the progressive movement and was the first infant school that emphasized character over moral instruction. This is the complete inverse of the schooling Owen had experienced as a child. His school even went as far as dismissing all moral teaching in favor of the instruction of dance and music. It was during this time that Owen adopted the views that he would hold for the majority of his life.
Robert Owen believed that all religion, specifically Christianity, was the stumbling block of social utopia and therefore, must be destroyed. He rejected individualism and worked to uphold social collectivism. He renounced the right to private property and was the first to call for free, public education as a means to establish a global utopia. Simply put, Owen was a good communist and a loyal atheist.
Interestingly, he would not have called himself a “communist” simply because the renowned Communist Manifesto had not yet been published. But regardless of the title, Owen had adopted the very ideas that would kill almost 100 million people in the 20th century alone.
He had one other idea that must be understood in order to grasp the “why” and “how” of his later actions.
Even more importantly than understanding his communist views or anti-religious beliefs, we must recognize that Robert Owen was a utopian. Utopians have one simple premise that undergirds all of their reasoning: human beings are shaped purely by their environments, not by nature. Or, as Owen put it, “Man is a creature of circumstances.”
This premise leads to the following argument:
All humans are products of their environment.
Utopias are concerned with perfecting humanity.
Therefore, Utopians are responsible for perfecting the environment of humans.
To Christians who acknowledge the reality of sin nature, there is a clear problem with this thinking. The utopian argument puts the responsibility of perfecting humanity into the hands of imperfect men. Regardless, Owen, who rejected the Christian worldview, applied himself to perfecting the human race by attempting to perfect their environment.
New Harmony
By 1825, Robert Owen had left Europe and arrived in the United States of America with the aim of creating the perfect communist society. He purchased a piece of land in Indiana and named it New Harmony.
Though this image of New Harmony looks beautiful, I cannot help drawing a comparison between its great red walls and the cold, deadly red walls of the Kremlin in Communist Russia.
It was here that Robert applied his theories to the lives of other people. Consequently, the socialist motto “You will own nothing and be happy” was universally applied at New Harmony. There was no organized religion (though the citizens were able to personally practice whatever religion they chose), and there was no centralized authority in the government; rather, decisions were made in committee. Throughout its brief existence, 500â1,200 people lived in this radically progressive society.
Owen also established many social “firsts” in his communist commune, including the first public library, the first public civil drama club, and the first public school system.
In this supposed utopia, children were kept with their families until age three, when they would be handed over to the populous to be raised, educated, cared for, and trained to be productive members of society.
Tasks and jobs were divided up by age, not skill set or ambition. Children, along with adults, worked the whole day long and only saw their families at mealtimes.
Is this a Utopia?
Owen had successfully disjointed the traditional structure of civilization. No family, no private education, no private property, no organized religion, no accountable government structureâin other words, utopia, right?
Wrongâvery wrong. The problem with Owenâs theory is that it can only work in the mind of a madman.
Within two years, New Harmony collapsed. The capitalists say it was because people are not happy when they own nothing; the liberals say it was because New Harmony just needed more money so the committee could care for the populace; the conservatives say it was because the family unit was dissolved; the Christians say it was because of a lack of religious fervor.
Each of these factors may have played a part in the downfall of utopia, but Robert Owen rationalized his failures in a different way.
Because he was a loyal communist, New Harmony did not cause his convictions to sway. Rather than admitting that New Harmony was a destructive idea from the start, he reasoned that it must have failed because the members of his communist society had not been properly conditioned and educated to live in a utopia. He truly took his own advice when he said, “Never argue. Repeat your assertion.” That is exactly what he did.
“The thinking was that the commune failed not because of anything wrong with communism or collectivism, but because the people living there had not been properly socialized and ‘educated’ to be collectivists from childhood.”
From then on, Robert Owen applied himself to convincing his fellow theorists that if utopia is to be established, the population must be educated to accept communism. Therefore, all efforts should be made to design, establish, and control a public school system.
“To train and educate the rising generation will at all times be the first object of society, to which every other will be subordinate.”âRobert Owen.
Suddenly, the public schools were born.
The Prussian Public Schools
“According to Owenâs account, the Prussian ruler had “so much approved” of these ideas that he ordered his own government to create a national education system based upon them. And thus, the Prussian system of educationâschooling of the state, by the state, and for the stateâwas officially born.”
In 1843, a man named Horace Mann traveled to Prussia and observed the public school systemâwhich had been directly inspired by Owen. He instantly recognized the potential of the government overseeing the instruction of all future generations, so he instantly began working in the United States to see this very system implemented in the West.
Ultimately, thanks to the work of men like Horace Mann, John Dewey, and Herbert Marcuse, the schemes of Robert Owen were quickly and eagerly implemented in the freest country on earth.
The Legacies
After his failed American experiment, Robert Owen returned to England as a disgraced and broke man. Having sunk 80% of his wealth in New Harmony, he relied on his children for support until he died in 1858.
Before then, however, Owen also founded the National Equitable Labor Exchange in 1832. This was a union that sought not only to reform the working system but to upend and remake it all together through social transition. Does this sound at all familiar?
Also, before his death, Owen, who had been a staunch atheist all his life, converted to spiritualism in 1854 after meeting with Maria B. Hayden, the first witch to visit England after the awakening of spiritualism in the United States. Later on, he claimed to have communicated with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin via spiritual mediums. He believed they urged him “to prepare the world for universal peace and to infuse into all the spirit of charity, forbearance, and love.”
Interestingly, 13 years after his death in 1871, Robert’s son, Robert Dale Owen, claimed to have been visited by his father, who said he would share a set of “spiritual commandments” through a woman named Emma Hardings Britten, who was a supposed “spiritual medium.” These “spiritual commandments” were written down and are to this day are taught as the Seven Principles of Spiritualism.
His legacy also continued in the life of his son, Robert Dale Owen, who stayed in New Harmony after his father left. He later became a US Representative and helped found the Smithsonian Institute.
When reflecting on his life, Robert Owen said this: “My life was not useless; I gave important truths to the world, and it was only for want of understanding that they were disregarded. I have been ahead of my time.”
Happily for Owen and regretfully for mankind, time would catch up rapidly. Today, Americans are blissfully ignorant of the deceptive and unsuccessful roots of the public school system and send children off to the yellow school bus, completely unaware that the bus is there to advance the ends of a loyal communist and committed spiritualist.
As Alex Newman said, “History would gradually be forgotten as the rotten fruit of this system began to undermine traditional American values and ideas.”
The question that demands to be asked is, have we seen the utopian world promised to us by Robert Owen? The honest answer is absolutely not. So, rather than trying to revive New Harmony, I suggest that we check our premises before our society too collapses.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical ConversationsÂŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
[1] Manchester Lit and Phil (n.d.). Our History. Manchester Lit & Phil. Retrieved August 2, 2024, from https://www.manlitphil.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/
Adapted from Key’s correspondence, the story behind the Star-Spangled Banner
The collapse of Baltimoreâs Francis Scott Key bridge has opened discussions about its namesake. Adapting original sources and letters, I wrote about Francis Scott Key and how he came to write âThe Star-Spangled Bannerâ in my book, The Burning of the White House: James and Dolley Madison and the War of 1812.At the end of this article, Iâve included a notation to give you the historical context surrounding the controversy over two lines in the third verse.
Editor’s note: This blog is published in short. Read the full blog here.
Francis Scott Key, a lawyer who seemed to ponder his place in this world and author of The Star-Spangled Banner, was not pro-war. He was pro-emancipation. Key is credited with writing the Star-Spangled Banner after the 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, which he watched from a British ship with a spyglass.
A series of events led Key and Mr. Skinner to board the British admiralâs ship to secure Dr. Beanesâ release. As it turns out, Key was left out of the discussion that would result in Dr. Beanesâ release. History notes how well the American Army treated the British prisoners of war, and this was a key bargaining chip for Dr. Beanesâ freedom. Interestingly, Key was unimpressed with the British officers.
Key was unimpressed, as he later wrote: âNever was a man more disappointed in his expectations than I have been as to the character of British officers. With some exceptions they appeared to be illiberal, ignorant, and vulgar, and seem filled with a spirit of malignity against everything American. Perhaps, however, I saw them in unfavorable circumstances.â Indeed, he did.
During the attack on Fort McHenry, Key anxiously waited.
“What colors would he see as he placed his eye behind the spyglass and pointed it toward the fort? He didnât know which was worse, beholding the British Union Jack flag above Fort McHenry or the white flag of surrender. Both would mean victory for the British and capitulation once again from his countrymen.
Suddenly he noticed it. Gone was the American battle flag measuring 17 by 24 feet that had flown over the fort. Instead, he saw the most beautiful colors cast against a canvas of a multi-hue sunrise. The stars and stripes, fifteen of them to represent that nationâs fifteen states that had grown to eighteen by this time, flapped briskly from the fort that morning. The sight could only mean one thing. The Americans still held Fort McHenry.
The flag that Key saw that morning measured 42 feet by 30 feet. It was the largest flag ever flown at a U.S. fort. On that morning Key saw the larger flag, whose bright stars measured 24 inches from point to point. What he couldnât have heard that morning was the music at the fort. Because America lacked an official national anthem, the band played the popular Yankee Doodle.”
Francis Scott Key, Library of Congress
As he was set from the British ship and sailed back to land, ââŚhis emotion gave way to words, poetic words âŚâ
âO say, can you see, by the dawnâs early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilightâs last gleaming?â âWhose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fightâ as did the sight of the bombs and rockets. âOâer the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming! And the rocketsâ red glare, the bombs bursting in air.â
“Suddenly Fort McHenry didnât just represent Baltimore. It symbolized America, as did the 1,000 men who defended it. Suddenly the flag didnât just soar over Baltimore, it unfurled over the entire United States.”
âO say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave, Oâer the land of the free and the home of the brave?â
The verses poured from Keyâs pen, including lesser-known flourishes that reflected faith:
âO thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand, between their loved homes and the warâs desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land. Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.â Some were surprising for a man who seemed to oppose the war: âThen conquer we must when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: âIn God is our trust.ââ Each verse ended with the refrain âand the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave oâer the land of the free and the home of the brave!â
“Whether the words flowed easily for Key that day or came to him in bits and pieces to organize into a poetic pattern, one thing is for sure. The result spoke of the emotion that he and so many other Americans felt to learn that they had indeed once again defeated the British.
After the darkness of the burning of the U.S. Capitol and the White House came the dawn brought by the soaring multitude of phoenixes that awakened and defended Baltimore. Hope was brighter than ever. Maybe, just maybe, the Royal Navy would soon abandon Americaâs shores.”
“Historical context behind the third verse: In recent years, Americans have questioned the meaning of Keyâs reference to slavery in the third verse: âNo refuge could save the hireling and slave, From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave.â
Most of Keyâs lyrics are universal, especially in the first verse. The relief of an American victory can apply to Fort McHenry in 1814 and many subsequent victories in American history. The third verse, however, requires historical context to understand what Key meant.
Just a few months before Key wrote these lyrics, the British military had issued a proclamation promising freedom to slaves who would run away. There was a catch, however. The male slaves had to first fight as soldiers in the British army before they could receive their freedom in Canada or the Caribbean.
Key did not think the British army was a suitable place of refuge for slaves or hired mercenaries. By fighting in the British army, they risked both the âterror of flightâ and the âgloom of the grave.â Hence, these lyrics are not Keyâs opinion justifying slavery but a reflection of the stakes of being forced to fight in the British army.
It also helps, too, to understand why America and Britain were at war in the first place. The primary moral issue behind the War of 1812 was impressment. British sea captains were kidnapping American sailors and âimpressingâ or forcing them to serve in the British Navy against their will.”
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Womenâs Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
Social engineering is hardly novel. Whether in totalitarian states like North Korea or dystopian novels such as George Orwellâs 1984 and Animal Farm, this method of mass manipulation is widely recognized and feared throughout the free world as the silent killer of civilizations.
In his book, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis articulates the aim of social engineering: âTraditional values are to be debunked,” he wrote, “and mankind cut out into some fresh shape at the will of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it.â
Borrowing Lewisâs language, we can conclude that the aim of social engineering is to debunk traditional values in order to cut mankind into âsome fresh shapeâ according to the will of the powerful. The frightening fact is that we are one of those âlucky generationsâ that has learned how to do it.
There are many plausible methods of social engineering that our generation has at its disposal. To name a few: the creation of a mass social contagion through the internet, fostering a forgetfulness of history, and state infiltration into education. An argument could be made that those âlucky peopleâ with the power to engineer society are not allowing any of these methods to go to waste.
However, by examining the purpose of state education and the methods of academic manipulation used on children today, it will become clear which practice is most prominent in our modern ageâsocial engineering through state education.
The Purpose of State Education
There is a looming debate over public education. What is its purpose? Is it to effectively educate Americaâs youth or to indoctrinate upcoming generations? We do not have to wonder for long because the proponents of public education have told us exactly what their intentions are.
“The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client of the public school is not the parent, but the entire community, the public.â
The Michigan Democratic Party Facebook page
This quote might as well have been pulled from the dystopian novel The Giver. There can be no doubtâthe purpose of state education is, and always has been, to create an institution where âsome few lucky peopleâ can cut the minds of the youngest generation âinto some fresh shapeâ on the largest scale mankind has ever known.
The only question that remains is a practical oneâhow?
The Methods of Academic Manipulation
There are three practical methods of manipulation that are employed in our schools:
Mass indoctrination
Data mining
Installation of Father Government
Mass Indoctrination
Cambridge Dictionary defines indoctrination as âthe process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question.â It also involves banning certain ideasâthose that are contradictory to the ideology of the indoctrinatorâfrom the public square.
These two ideas combinedâthe forceful instillation of ideas and the banning of contrary thought and expressionâmake up the most essential tool of social engineering. To put it another way: in order to control a population, you must first control their thoughts.
In the 1963 case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp,[1] the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and prayer in public schools would be unconstitutional. By banning scripture and the expression of religion from schools (ideas that contradict progressive thought), the Court seemed to say, âLet the indoctrination begin.â
Since then, the religion of the Left has been unleashed and forcefully taught in all public schools around the country. DEI initiatives, books like Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, and Critical Race Theory have all been introduced to the K-12 curriculum. This is what schools are really teaching our children.
Whatâs more, Students who reject these ideas are demonized, teachers who refuse to comply are fired, and parents who object are ignored or condemned as âdomestic terrorists.â
Society, through state education, insists on indoctrinating children with the idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys, white people are evil and black people oppressed, the weather is going to end the world, religion is bigoted and intolerant, capitalism is wicked and communism benevolent, America is systemically racist, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a Christian nationalist, MAGA, fascist extremist.
Our state schools are not places of wonder and free thought. Rather, they are prison cells designed to keep both truth and the will of parents locked away so that the minds of children will remain captive and submissive to what âsociety needs them to know.â
Data Mining
Commonly used to predict investment planning and to track internet analytics, data mining uses technology to sort through large quantities of data on a subject in order to determine patterns and characteristics. Although it seems like basic computer interaction, it is being used for much more than simply organizing numbers and symbols.
This powerful technology has been unleashed on every child in the public school system by the state to collect, organize, analyze, and micromanage their academic performance and personal information.
If your child is in the public schools, their grades, academic history, confidential information, address, family members, personal beliefs, strengths and weaknesses, social tendencies, extracurricular activities, and more are deeply known by the state.
Alex Newman, author of Indoctrinating Our Children to Death and co-author of Crimes of the Educators, details the depth of this dangerous method of child monitoring and explains how other countries, such as China and Sweden, have used this technology to exponentially advance social engineering and further corrupt education.
With this information, the powerful few who are pulling the strings of education will know exactly who your child is and how to shape them into a âcreature of the state.â[2]
Father Government
In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce vs Society Sisters that it is both the right and the duty of parents to direct the education and âdestinyâ of their children independent of the state.
âThe fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.â[3]
This fundamental right of parents should be self-evident. However, in recent decades there has been a drastic shift in western civilization away from parent-controlled education towards state-controlled education.
The Michigan Democratic Party said, âNot sure where this ‘parents-should-control-what-is-taught-in-schools-because-they-are-our-kids’ is originating⌠The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught.â[4]
James Dwyer, a professor at the William & Mary School of Law, stated in an interview, “The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a childâs wellbeing.â
Even President Joe Biden said in a speech to public school teachers, âThey arenât someone elseâs, they are all our children.â[5]
According to those with the power to engineer society, parents are no longer welcome to participate in their childrenâs upbringing, well-being, or educationâthat is the role of Father Government.
When powerful people tell you they intend to take your parental rights away, it is best to believe them.
This philosophy is the policy of the political Left in America. We see this in the way that homeschooling, which is the enemy of Father Government, has been heavily restricted and aggressively regulated across the states; teachers have begun to take the place of parents as the mentor and confidant of their students; and schools have shamelessly implemented teachings that contradict the beliefs of the majority of American parents.
Gradually, parents have been conditioned to believe that their job is simply to drop their children off at school. By accepting this lie, they invite Father Government to mold their children into âsome fresh shapeâ until they are âa mere creature of the state.â
The Solution
The purpose of state education has always been to divorce parents from the upbringing and education of their children so that the state can âteach [children] what society needs them to know.â As parents or simply lovers of liberty, it is our duty to strongly oppose the dangerous methods of mass manipulations that millions of children in our country are subjected to daily.
Social engineering requires power and influence to manifest in a society. Currently, it has both. In order to evade the effects of engineering, we must recognize its deeply dangerous influence in state schools and, once again, educate ourselves and our children independently of Father Government. By doing this, those powerful few with the aim of controlling society will lose their power, and this lucky generation will remain free.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and  Classical ConversationsŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. Elise is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. Elise continues her journey towards the Celestial City with a determined resolve to gain wisdom and understanding. Soli Deo gloria!
[1] US Supreme Court (1963, June 17). Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/203/
[2] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/
[3] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/
[4] Renk. âMichigan Democratic Party Questions Why Parents Think They Should Have a Say in Their Childs Education.â 95.3 WBCKFM, January 18, 2022. https://wbckfm.com/michigan-democratic-party-questions-why-parents-think-they-should-have-a-say-in-their-childs-education/.
[5] (2023, July 4). Biden. X. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1676284124527755266
“Christian”âwhat does it mean? The use of the word “Christian” in modern vernacular is quite perplexing to me. It functions as both an adjective and a noun, but at its inception, it was solely used to describe or rename people. Christianity.com published this piece that speaks to the term’s origin, “Scholars say ‘Christian’ comes from the Greek word christianos, meaning ‘little Christ.'” Stories say the term was used as a jeer, as their enemies would poke fun at them by calling them diminutive versions of their Savior, as in, “Look at those little Christs.”
The adjective is first used in Acts 11:26
âAnd when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year, they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch, the disciples were first called Christians.”
The term is used two more times in Scripture:
“And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.'” Acts 26:28
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” 1 Peter 4:16
Defining “Christian”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Christian as:
adjective: Christian
relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. “the Christian Church”
noun: Christian; plural noun: Christians
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity. “a born again Christian”
At some point, the term went from describing and renaming just people to other things and ideas.
Why did this happen?
How can inanimate and abstract nouns be “Christian?”
Is this conversation even worth anyone’s time?
How and why we use the word “Christian” matters
How and why we use the word “Christian” matters because our usage has the potential to be ambiguous, misleading, counterproductive, and perhaps tyrannical and abusive. That is assuredly raising eyebrows. If we don’t view everything through the lens of this one adjective, surely I must be a secularist, and my argument will serve to disparage the gospel! Or will it?
I often hear talk about a thing being called “Christian.” You could call anything Christian, whether it pertains to justice, punishment, civil government, individual sovereignty, parental rights, foreign policy, benevolence, responsibility, or even gravity, trigonometry, music, or art. I am not sure what this means when you describe a thing this way. It could mean the idea was communicated by someone who claims to be a Christian. It also could mean that the assigner of this attribute believes the object to be true.
Additionally, “Christian” could mean that the speaker believes the topic should rest within the church’s jurisdiction. This is what I mean when I say the term has the potential to be ambiguous. I am left to wonder, what about this thing is “Christian”; its origin, its jurisdiction, or its nature? If I am unclear about what aspect is being described, there is plenty of room to be misled or to mislead.
If the modifier “Christian” simply means that a thing is true (Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6), any true idea would be a Christian idea. Consequently, any time a truth is spoken, it would be “Christian,” whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor. Conversely, any untruth would be an anti-Christian idea, whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor.
Since this word is ambiguous, and it is unclear if we are modifying content or context, we frequently miss out on truths from unexpected places and accept lies from places in which we have let our guard downâall because of this “Christian” label.
My last point is that using the name of Christ in the word Christian has the potential to be tyrannical or abusive. Why do I say this? Well, for those who recognize Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, this type of adjective is authoritative. It implicates and obligates us if the nature of the idea does flow from Christ and reflects his nature, expectations, and authority. If you choose to label something as “Christian,” you are using the name of Christ to prop up your argument. If you have the grounds to do so, proceed with extreme caution. If you do not have the grounds to do so, could you not be found guilty of using the Lord’s name in vain? Exodus 20:7
Why would anyone take this risk?
We do it all the time!
We are all born into contexts that rub off on us. I think the Holman Christian Standard Bible version says it best when it warns us in Romans 12, “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.” For some of us, the “age” we were born into was full of religious-sounding power-grabbing language, and it is incumbent upon us not to be pressed into that mold. Furthermore, we must all confess that our culture has not embraced the beauty of flexing our rational faculties. Many of us are not equipped to defend and argue how we should be, so we subconsciously default to authoritative trump cards.
Last, and most dangerous, are those who would purposely leverage the authority of Christ where they shouldn’t because of the pervasive fallen nature that plagues all of humanity. Abigail Adams, in her typical direct manner, said, “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” While she may have spoken specifically of males, I think we could agree that this proclivity also affects women.
This is what Augustine (The City of God) so aptly named the lust for dominance, and we all have itâ all politicians, pastors, podcasters, Sunday school teachers, lawyers, doctors, plumbers and teachers! So when we speak of that which is Christian or hear someone else leverage that term, it is our obligation to say, “But is it? And why is it?”
There is an alternative
Philippians 4:8 gives us some practical objective adjectives to use instead.
âFinally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.â
Choose to use objective merit-based adjectives and defend them well. In the classical tradition, we argue for what is true, good, and beautiful, and we can be confident that when we find these things, we will also find Christ! But beware of those who will skip the work of reason to persuade you in other ways.
Let us beg God for discernment in what we hear and what we say.
âDiscernment is not the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right.” Charles Spurgeon
âBe sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.â1 Peter 5:8
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nation’s founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
Adapted from Resilience on Parade: Short Stories of Suffragists and Women’s Battle for the Vote.
February 12, 2024, was Abraham Lincolnâs 215th birthday. Although Iâve not written a book featuring Lincoln in the leading role, I have touched on his story through the stories of others, including the excerpt below.
In 2020, I released a book on womenâs right to vote for the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. In Resilience on Parade, I shared the stories of several suffragists, such as Abigail Adams in 1776 and Susan B. Anthony in the 1800s. Below is a portion of the chapter on Sojourner Truth. Although the book covers her emancipation from slavery, this excerpt starts with her famous suffrage speech and ends with her meeting with Abraham Lincoln. Enjoy!
The fifty-four-year-old black woman, who often wore a turban woven with brightly colored threads, entered the convention in Akron, Ohio, that spring day in May 1851. Isabella Van Wagener no longer existed.
When she left her former masterâs house of bondage, she left everything behind. Years later, she went to the Lord and asked Him to give her a new name after her conversion to Christianity in 1848. The Lord gave her Sojourner, because she was to travel up and down the land to show the people the sin of slavery and to be a sign unto them. Later, she wanted a last name, because everyone had two names, and God gave her Truth because she was to proclaim truth to the people.
As the attendees of the womenâs rights conference in Akron on May 29, 1851, would soon discover, Sojourner Truth may have entered that conference known as an abolitionist, but she left it known by another name, tooâsuffragist.
âMay I say a few words? I want to say a few words about this matter,â she began, saying that she was an example of womenâs rights.
âI have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that?â Indeed, as her autobiography declared, sheâd endured the toil of slavery and had the lashes to prove it.
âI have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.
âAs for intellect, all I can say is, if women have a pint and man a quart – why canât she have her little pint full?â Her pint had recently been full. This woman who could not read had become a published author the previous year. How was that possible?
Sheâd shared with abolitionist Oliver Gilbert her story of perseverance and how sheâd transformed from a slave into a free person, and he had written it down and published it. Called Narrative of Sojourner Truth by Sojourner Truth, her story shed light on the cruelties of slavery and launched her into the role of an activist. It was time to stand up for African women.
âYou need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much, for we canât take more than our pintâll hold. The poor men seem to be all in confusion, and donât know what to do,â she continued.
âWhy children, if you have womanâs rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they wonât be so much trouble,â she said in her own version of remember the ladies.
âI canât read, but I can hear. I have heard the Bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again,â Sojourner proclaimed, turning her talk into a mini sermon of sorts.
âThe lady has spoken about Jesus, how he never spurned woman from him, and she was right. When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha came to him with faith and love and besought him to raise their brother. And Jesus weptâand Lazarus came forth. And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and woman who bore him.â
Then she ended with a zinger, recognizing the dual reform movements facing the nation: abolition and womenâs rights. She represented both.
âMan, where is your part? But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, and he is surely between-a hawk and a buzzard.â
The most memorable speech of that convention, her remarks as presented here were published a few weeks after her speech by Marius Robinson in the AntiâSlavery Bugle of New Lisbon, Ohio, on June 21, 1851. The eventâs organizer, Frances Dana Gage, published another version in 1863 in the New York Independent. Hailed by suffragists, it was branded as Arânât I a Woman? The accuracy of Gageâs version is doubtful because it was published twelve years after she first delivered it. Regardless, the speech brought Sojourner notoriety.
Around this time, Sojourner traveled to Massachusetts, where she met Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book Uncle Tomâs Cabin was the Common Sense of the Civil War. Harriet wrote about their meeting in the Atlanta Monthly.
Sojourner believed that if God could help her do such big things as speaking at the womenâs conference or meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, then he would help her meet the man she most wanted to meet in the world. Heavenâs Great Emancipator would help her meet the emancipator of her people.
In October 1864, Truthâs ultimate sojourn led her to the great white house where he lived. As she stared at the pillars flanking the presidentâs house, her mind may have flashed back to the island of the willow trees, her kneeling pillars of prayer under the stars above. She had never seen such a grand house before, whose columns reached to the sky as if to proclaim something special, such as justice or freedom. Then she walked into the house as freely as anyone else.
A dozen or so guests waited in the presidentâs reception area. Sojourner noticed that two of the women were also black. A gentleman escorted the guests one by one to the president, who was seated in an adjacent room. One observation made her smile.
He showed as much kindness and consideration to the colored persons as to the whites, in her opinion. It was hard to hold back a tear or two. If there was any difference, he showed more pleasantries to the emancipated. Then her moment came. The gentlemen escorted her to the presidentâs desk.
âThis is Sojourner Truth, who has come all the way from Michigan to see you,â the host said, introducing her to the president.
Abraham Lincoln stood, extending his hand to her. She responded by taking his hand and shaking it. Then he bowed.
âI am pleased to see you,â he said.
As many people did before meeting a president, she had rehearsed a thousand times what she planned to say.
âMr. President, when you first took your seat I feared you would be torn to pieces, for I likened you unto Daniel, who was thrown into the lionsâ den. And if the lions did not tear you into pieces, I knew that it would be God that had saved you; and I said if He spared me I would see you before the four years expired, and He has done so, and now I am here to see you for myself.â
Tapping his wit, Lincoln congratulated her on being spared.
âI appreciate you, for you are the best president who has ever taken the seat.â
Lincoln paused, perhaps crossing his long arms as if thinking.
âI expect you have reference to my having emancipated the slaves in my proclamation,â he said, naming many of his predecessors, especially Washington. âThey were all just as good, and would have done just as I have done if the time had come,â he said, pausing again.
âIf the people over the river,â he said, pointing across the Potomac, âhad behaved themselves, I could not have done which gave me the opportunity to do these things.â
âI thank God that you were the instrument selected by Him and the people to do it,â Sojourner replied, acknowledging that she hadnât heard of him before he became president. He upped the compliment, noting that heâd heard of her many times before.
Lincoln then turned toward his desk, sat down, and picked up a large elegant book. He told her it had been given to him by the colored people of Baltimore.
Sojourner was speechless as she stared at the Bible. She glanced at the president. He nodded, as if giving her permission to open it and look through it.
âThis is beautiful indeed; the colored people have given this to the head of the government, and that government once sanctioned laws that would not permit its people to learn enough to enable them to read this book. And for what? Let them answer who can.â
Then Sojourner pulled a small book from her skirt pocket and handed it to the president.
He picked up a pen from his desk and wrote, âFor Aunty Sojourner Truth, Oct. 29, 1864. A. Lincoln.â
Lincoln stood and took her hand with his large bony hand, the same one that had signed the Emancipation Proclamation. He told her he would be pleased to have her call upon him again.
Sojourner smiled. As she exited through the door and passed through the pillars of the presidentâs house, she wanted to shout to God and thank him for Abraham Lincoln, but she didnât have to shout to be heard by the Almighty anymore. God knew her heart.
âI felt that I was in the presence of a friend, and I now thank God from the bottom of my heart that I always have advocated his cause, and have done it openly and boldly. I shall feel still more in duty bound to do so in time to come. May God assist me.â
Now more than ever, she would advocate for her people, her now free people. She longed to return home, to make Michigan a place where the emancipated could come and pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Perhaps one day she could vote. As she began her journey home, she believed that the Greatest Emancipator would help her.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
You come up on a mother and her child at the grocery store. The child demands an item that the mother has chosen not to purchase. Maybe this child objects with a dramatic tantrum, grabs the item, and defiantly places it in the cart, or perhaps he rips open the package, dumps the contents on the floor, and calls his mother some variation of a “stupid-head-poopy-face.”
At first, you may be tempted to laugh or say a prayer of thanksgiving that you were not in that parentâs humiliating position, but despite various philosophies of discipline, every onlooker thinks to himself, âThat behavior was wrong, and it ought to be addressed. That kid needs a significant consequence.â
We know the child ought to be corrected; the child corrected is good. However, what happens if you, the stranger, see what ought to be done, act, and do the thing that ought to be done? There is no way of knowing what might happen next, but you, the well-intended, astute stranger, are going to rightly find yourself in some trouble, maybe even in jail, depending on the course of correction you saw fit to apply.
We all know there is a moral weight in the events happening all around us, but how often do we pause to consider the moral weight of who ought to address them?
The right thing done by the wrong person is immoral despite the intentions or “the heart” of the person or entity taking the action.
Observing the Ideas of Jurisdiction or Purview
We are observing the ideas of “jurisdiction” or “purview,” which communicate both the natural laws of authority and responsibility. While my illustration is both simple and obviously egregious, now, maybe more than ever, we are inundated with awareness of immoral actions, activities, and events happening all around us.
In addition to this constant awareness, we have this righteous craving for justice, truth, and for things to be set right. Could we admit that we are often seeking the right actions from the wrong authority? Could we admit that when we see the immorality happening around us, often we donât take time to consider jurisdiction?
Who Gives Authority and Responsibility?
Before I bog down all the “go-getters” with these inconvenient inefficiencies of the separation of powers, we must first consider who gives both authority and responsibility. When we consider the Author of the universe and that He has a plan and a purpose for how we humans interact with each other, we must also remember that we will give an account for the jurisdictions we trespass, abdicate, appeal to, or steward righteously.
Thus, it is imperative to apply the tools of the Trivium to the concept of jurisdiction for these three reasons. We need:
The Foundation of Grammar
The Structure of Dialectic
The Practice of Rhetoric to Live in Harmony with the Creator and the Creation
In a series of upcoming blogs, we will explore the following questions and others:
We Need the Foundation of Grammar
What are the human institutions commissioned with authority and responsibility?
What things are within their jurisdiction to govern?
What things are not? How should they govern?
Where should they govern?
Where is the revelation for God’s plan for jurisdictions found?
We Need the Structure of the Dialectic
Where are the boundaries of jurisdiction?
What happens when you cross boundaries?
How do spheres of jurisdiction interact with one another?
What happens when an entity abdicates its responsibilities to its jurisdiction?
Who are “the responsible” responsible too?
What happens when there is a disruption to the spheres of responsibility?
We Need the Practice of Rhetoric
Once we know the principles of jurisdiction and understand them in context with the whole, we have an obligation to move from the âknowingâ to the âdoing.” How should one appropriately execute and steward their responsibilities? An equally difficult question is how does one not trespass into a sphere he does not have jurisdiction over? How does one properly seek solutions in the appropriate sphere over the sphere he finds more expedient?
As I mentioned above, there will be action-minded allies (or even ourselves some days) who want to make excuses for sidestepping the consideration of jurisdiction.
âTime is running out!â
âThe details arenât that important!â
âThe situation is dire, and we have an obligation to âjust do somethingâ!â
âIf we donât take matters into our own hands, who will?â
âDid I mention this current crisis is the worst crisis!â
and my personal favorite;
âItâs for the children!â
Even my initial form of asking tedious questions instead of offering answers will irritate some. However, might I remind us:
Psalms 24:1-2
The earth is the LORDâs and the fullness thereof,a the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.
Proverbs 25:2
âIt is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.â
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Matthew 6:33-34
but seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
It is imperative to apply the trivium to the concept of jurisdiction because we need the foundation of grammar, the structure of dialectic, and the practice of rhetoric to live in harmony with the Creator and the creation. Every human being, by merit of the breath in their lungs, has been given something to govern.
As Christians and heirs to a kingdom yet to come, we have the highest calling, purpose, and joy to seek out the will of our Father and walk it out in faith. Let us be good students and stewards of the revelation that has been entrusted to us.
Lauren is a regular contributor. You can find Laurenâs other blogs here.
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nationâs founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
