âA refugee from the federal government,â Alexandra grew up in a home that prioritized politeness and viewed education as a lifestyle. Yet when she began working for the U.S. Department of Education, Alexandra soon discovered that her coworkers used politeness for corruption and also didnât care about education. How can civility save our nation?
Politeness vs. Civility
In this conversation, Alexandra Hudson, award-winning journalist, speaker, and author discusses:
her disillusionment with the Department of Education
how to respect someone while sharing hard truths
the difference between politeness and civility
why we need less politeness and more civility in the world
why the left and right donât share the same vision
Robert Bortins is the CEO of Classical ConversationsÂŽ and the host of Refining Rhetoric. The company has grown from supporting homeschoolers in about 40 states to supporting homeschoolers in over 50 countries and has become the worldâs largest classical homeschooling organization under his guidance.
The following is a modified and expanded version of Isaac Watt’s Behold, How Sinners Disagree, which was composed for the purpose of discipling our hearts into humility and grace.
Behold! How sinners disagree
The Publican and Pharisee
One does his righteousness proclaim.
The other owns his guilt and shame.
This one brazen rises near the throne,
Standing proud, sure, and alone
He thanks God to accuse the rest,
And vaunts the duties he did best
That one in humble posture stands
Pierced by holy, divine commands
Liable, he cries out in contrition,
And smites the chest in confession.
The Lord their different language knows
And different answers He bestows.
The humble soul He with mercy crowns
Whilst on the proud His anger frowns.
Dear Father! Let me never be
Joined with boasting Pharisee;
Scorn not the crimes of other men
nor from unjust lips my deeds defend.
With fear of God let me quake
And my offenses propitiate!
I have no merits of mine own
But plead the substitution of the Son!
And I go home by price blood-bought
Justly forgiven and faithfully washed
From the Advocate exalted on high
Who humbled Himself once-for-all to die.
Praise to the Father! Praise to the Son!
Praise to the Spirit! The Three-in-One!
O Praise all the heavens! Esteem Him Again!
Praise, O My Whole Soul. Forever and amen!
Paul Bright also contributed the blog “Swamp Fire: A Reflection” which was published on January 24, 2024.
Paul Bright currently works in the field of Biotechnology. He is a native of Evansville, IN, and an alumnus of Purdue University and The Master’s Seminary. Paul was a Systematic Theology and Ancient Hebrew professor in Samara, Russia. He and his wife, Jennifer, homeschooled their daughter all the way through high school and currently reside in Covington, Louisiana.
In recent months, Oklahoma and Michigan, two states that have historically had low regulation on homeschool freedoms, have sought to pass restrictive laws. These states both claim to be passing homeschool registration and oversight laws to prevent the abuse of home-educated children.
Since homeschooling became legal in 1992, many states have tirelessly attempted to oversee and regulate a parent’s right to home education. If you wish to learn about your state’s homeschool laws, you can do so by visiting HSLDAâs website.
You can learn more about the specifics of Michigan’s proposal and its problems here.
In Oklahoma, Rep. Amanda Swope has introduced HB 4130, which would require homeschool parents to send in a letter to the Department of Human Services requesting to homeschool their child, provide the information of every adult involved in the childâs education, and go through biannual background checks performed by the DHS.
While the intentions of Swope may sound noble at first (who wouldnât want to put an end to the abuse of children?), this bill is founded on a false premise and represents a trend of state aggression towards homeschooling. For these reasons, Americans, especially in Oklahoma, must strongly oppose Swope’s bill to restrict and regulate homeschooling families.
The Narrative is Fabricated
The entire reason for the bill rests upon the premise that there is an epidemic of abuse among homeschooled children, and we need new legislation to address it. Sadly, for Swope and her bill, the statistical facts strongly contradict this narrative.
First, all of the evidence available shows that âhomeschooled children are abused at a lower rate than are those in the general public, and no evidence shows that the home educated are at any higher risk of abuse.”(Ray, 2018) Whatâs more, a Gen 2 Survey found that homeschooled students are actually 257% less likely to be sexually abused than their government-schooled peers.
It is ironic that Swopeâs proposed solution to the fallacious low abuse rates among homeschoolers is government regulation. This has yet to help public schoolers who experience constant state oversight. What makes her think it will help the homeschoolers in any way?
Additionally, according to the statistics, if Swope were truly concerned with addressing child abuse in her state, she would turn her attention to the place where children suffer the mostâgovernment schools.
Even if there were high rates of abuse among homeschooled children, there are already nationwide laws on the books that protect all children from abuse, including homeschoolers.[1] There is no reason to pass another bill. Oklahoma simply has to enforce the ones it already has in place.
So why do Swope and those who support HB 4130 want to pass it so badly? The answer is increased government oversight and regulation on homeschooling.
Government Overreach
To understand the extent of the government overreach within HB 4130, we must examine the document ourselves.
Letters of Intent
Paragraph F. reads, “On or before the school district start date, parents making the decision to choose homeschooling, podschooling, or microschooling shall submit a letter of intent to the Department of Human Services.”
A Letter of Intent can easily be dismissed as “normal” because many states require homeschooling parents to write a letter outlining their intent to homeschool. However, most states require parents to submit it to their local school district or to their state. The purpose of this is to inform their state schools that it is not responsible for their child’s education.
The difference is that with this bill, Oklahoma parents must submit their letter of intent to the Department of Human Services. Later in the bill, the letter of intent is referred to as âa request to homeschoolâ and may be denied by the DHS. Denial of a fundamental right to educate one’s child is an egregious abuse of power. Since when did the DHS (the civil government) have the right to determine whether a family has the right to homeschool their children?
The bill continues by explaining what information parents are required to surrender:
The names of the homeschooling parents
The social security numbers of parents.
The names of all the homeschooled children
The home address of the family homeschooling
The names of all individuals living at the home address
The names of âany associated individuals or organizations assisting with the childâs or childrenâs schooling.”
Along with âA brief statement for the decision of schoolingâ
Furthermore, this bill requires you to âreapplyâ for homeschooling by sending in a âsubsequent letter of intentâ every time you make a change in your initial decision to homeschool, whether it is “a result of a move or otherwise.”
Background Checks
Paragraph H. says, “When the Department of Human Services receives a letter of intent, it shall perform an initial background check on parents, other adults within the home, and any adults assisting in the children’s schooling.”
The fact that the DHS wants to perform background checks on parents to decide whether or not they have the right to home-educate their children is Orwellian. It also begs a fascinating question:
Why does this bill not include background checks for the parents of public school students? Those students are home, with no government supervision, for three whole months. Why isnât Swope concerned about abuse in those homes?
Background checks on âparents, other adults within the home, and any adults assisting in the childrenâs schoolingâ is both a disturbing invasion into the homes of home educators and will also cause a multitude of issues for tutoring programs and independent educators who will now be subject to background checks by the DHS.
Biannual Checks
Moreover, parents must repeat all the regulations examined so far biannually. “The Department shall maintain a system to conduct biannual checks of the database and compile a database of individuals, facilities, and organizations that perform and assist with homeschooling, podschooling, or microschooling.”
This regulation means that by the time an Oklahoma homeschool student has graduated, the DHS will have made 24 reviews on that childâs security information, address, family members, homeschool organizations, and teachers.
The bill concludes that the DHS may deny “requests” to homeschool and will deny them if any adult involved in the childâs education has a âpending child abuse or neglect investigationâ against them.
Constitutional Home Educators explains the danger of this vague wording: “There are so many loopholes here that could allow DHS to deny your request to home educate. It does not say just an abuse or neglect conviction; it includes a pending investigation. All it takes is an accusation.â
Oppose HB 4130
This bill represents an outrageous abuse of government authority and power. First, it is completely unnecessary and will be totally ineffective. Regulation does not reduce abuse. Second, the bill is designed to empower government-run agencies to dictate a parent’s right to home educate and to regulate that right if it is “approved” by the state. This bill is a blatant abuse of power and must be ardently rejected by the citizens of Oklahoma before it is instated and enforced.
Homeschool freedom is a right that many before us have fought to win. We cannot allow the state to deceive us into surrendering this right for a fabricated narrative and a false promise. All Americans must stand in support of Oklahoma citizens as they fight on the front lines for educational freedom.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversationsgraduate. 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. 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] (n.d.). 2022 Oklahoma Statutes Title 21. Crimes and Punishments §21-843.5. Child abuse – Child neglect – Child sexual abuse – Child sexual exploitation – Enabling – Penalties. Justia US Law. https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-21/section-21-843-5/
This past month, I had the opportunity to speak to a Kentucky mom about her homeschool experience and the state regulations that Kentucky has in place for homeschoolers. I shared how Classical Conversations has strong feelings regarding state involvement in homeschooling. We believe that the state has no place in our classrooms and actively work to bar state intervention and influence. She asked me how much state regulation is too much, specifically in my state of Michigan. What a timely question!
Any State Regulation is Too Much Regulation
I explained to her that the position of CC is that any state regulation is too much regulation.
Recently, in Michigan, there has been a move to enforce homeschool registration, requiring homeschooling parents to inform their local government schools of their intention to homeschool. This Kentucky mom stopped me short and said, “Oh! We have that in Kentucky. Donât worry about it. I only have to fill out a form saying I am homeschooling and turn it in to our local school. It really isn’t bad at all.”
Many Michigan residents and homeschool parents share this opinion. What is the harm in filling out a simple form?
Before concluding whether a homeschool registration is “really bad,” we must first understand what Michigan lawmakers are proposing and why.
In December of last year, Dana Nessel, the Attorney General of Michigan, proposed on X[1]
âimplementing monitoring mechanismsâ onto homeschooling to âensure that all children, including those homeschooled, receive necessary protections [from abuse].â This demand comes after two families, the Flore family, and the Brown family, were allegedly found to have abused their children while homeschooling them. Nessel charged these parents with thirty-six child abuse crimes and with a conspiracy to commit these crimes [2].
In support of this announcement, House Education Chair and Representative Matt Koleszar wrote on X[3]
âMichigan is one of only 11 states that doesnât count or register homeschooled children, and abusive parents are taking advantage of that to avoid being found out. Itâs time to support all Michigan students and change that. Michigan cannot allow this loophole to continue.â
Their position is clear: Due to the alleged abuse of some homeschooled children, Michigan should enforce a homeschool registration bill â which would inform the state of who is homeschooling and where they are â so that it can protect the children within homeschooled families from abuse. Or, as Koleszar says so innocently in an interview on CBS[4], âWe just want to know where they [the children] are.â
This argument seems very convincing at first. If signing a form saying we are homeschooling will save children from abuse, shouldnât we just do it?
It is tempting to say yes; however, Michigan residents must oppose the homeschool registration proposal because:
the narrative is dishonest
state oversight does not protect children from abuse
state regulations always increase over time
The Narrative is Dishonest
It is important that we put the claim of Nessel and Koleszar â that abuse in some homeschool families justifies state oversight â into a statistical perspective.
Researchers have conducted many studies to address the question, “Do homeschoolers experience higher rates of abuse than public schoolers?â Each study has come to the same conclusion.
On the contrary, A Gen 2 Survey found that homeschooled students are 257%less likely to be sexually abused than their public-schooled peers.
This begs the questions:
What is homeschooling doing right?
What is public school doing wrong?
Additionally, if there is more abuse in the public school system, shouldn’t our representatives focus their efforts there rather than seeking to regulate homeschoolers?
State Oversight Does Not Protect Children from Abuse
The main problem Koleszar has with Michiganâs current âlack of oversightâ into homeschooling is that the state government does not know where a vast number of homeschooled children are. âThey have simply fallen through the cracks,” said Koleszar on CBS. Because of this, the Representative says that the state has no idea whether these children are being educated, cared for, or, God forbid, abused by their parents. The solution offered is to put these children on a government database.
This solution assumes that government oversight prevents the abuse of children, and we must address this assumption.
This is not the case.
For instance, consider the previous statistics that prove that there is more abuse in government schools than there is in homeschools. Students who attend public schools sit under the watchful eye of the government day in and day out. The state knows where they are.
Additionally, Michigan requires that teachers are all trained to spot signs of abuse and are required to report any suspected victims and abusers to the state.[5]. Do all these government regulations, requirements, and oversight result in lower abuse rates? The statistics prove that they do not.
But letâs set public schools aside for a moment and focus specifically on abuse in homeschools. Would state regulation decrease the abuse found here? Once more, the answer is no.
Nessel uses two families, the Flore and Brown families, as examples to prove why Michigan needs to register homeschooled children to the state to stop them from being abused.
Both examples fall apart when you learn that the children who were allegedly abused by their parents were adopted and foster care children. This is extremely significant because children in the adoption agency and the foster care system are already well known by the government â they know where they are.
Israel Wayne makes this point during an interview with CBS, saying,
âThe two families that attorney Dana Nessel is using as examples are families who adopted children out of the foster care system, and legally, you can’t homeschool children who are in the foster care system, so this is not a fair illustration. But these children were deeply known by the Department of Child Services. Actually one of the fathers in that situation was actually a CPS investigator by occupation⌠they were already on a government database, and so if they were truly child abusers (that has yet to be proven), they [the children]werenât protected simply because their name was on a government database.”
In the exact examples cited by Nessel and Koleszar we can clearly see that being on a government database did not protect these children from the alleged abuse by their parents. What makes us think the results will be any different if implemented at a much larger scale?
The issue of the abuse of children being undetected is a Child Protective Services (CPS) issue, not a homeschool issue.
Wayne concluded his interview by stating that a homeschool registration âis not actually going to do what is being claimed. This will not protect children.â
Regulation Always Increases
During his interview, Koleszar was asked an insightful question by the CBS host, “Well, I imagine a lot of parents would say “Surely, they are going to want to do more than just knowing where the children are,” I mean, receiving a letter that says this child is homeschooled, how would you make that jump from understanding if they are in a safe situation to understanding if they are being educated. Surely there would have to be some kind of home visits, some kind of interaction, right?”
He responded by saying, âItâs fair to say that, but I think right now the main thing we need to do is know where â we have a lot of children who have fallen through the cracks, and we just want to know where they are.”
This answer is extremely telling. Koleszar refuses to admit the probability of increased oversight in the future while recognizing it as a “fair thing to say.”
We have already seen how children being on a government database will not stop them from being abused. So, if Koleszar is really concerned with minimizing the abuse of homeschoolers, he will have to instill more and more regulations to have the chance to attain his goal.
Registrations will turn into home visits, which will turn into state tests, which end in a state-regulated curriculum. We have seen this progression in other states, like New York and Massachusetts, that now have extremely high homeschool regulations. HSLDA has researched homeschool regulations by state.
The only result that will come of this proposal by Nessel and Koleszar is an eventual increase in government control and oversight of homeschooling without the promised results of reducing the abuse of children.
The Solution
âThe present studyâs findings, along with prior limited research, indicates at least three things for policymakers and others to consider. First, there is no empirical evidence that homeschool students are at any higher risk of abuse than public school and private school students; some evidence indicates that the home educated might be at lower risk. Second, there is no empirical evidence that state control (regulation) of homeschooling does anything to reduce the potential for abuse of homeschool children. Finally, there is no credible empirical evidence that increasing any current levels of regulation of homeschooling would reduce the potential for abuse of homeschool students.” (Ray, 2018)
Michigan residents must oppose the homeschool registration proposal because
the narrative is dishonest
state oversight does not protect children from abuse
state regulations always increase over time
Instead of unnecessarily and ineffectively regulating homeschoolers, the state should enforce the laws and make use of the child protective services that Michigan already has in place to help protect children from abuse in all places.
âOur view is that we donât want to see abuse protected, we want to see every child protected. But we believe the best way to do that is to prosecute known child abusers with existing laws that we already have on the books. And so, we believe that child protective services and state agencies need to use laws that we already have rather than creating needless bureaucracy that wonât actually protect children.”
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations 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!
[2] Nessel, Dana. “Attorney General Dana Nessel Charges 4 Adoptive Parents with 36 Child Abuse Crimes, Conspiracy.” Michigan Department of Attorney General, 4 Dec. 2023, www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2023/12/04/attorney-general-dana-nessel-charges-4-adoptive-parents-with-36-child-abuse-crimes-conspiracy. Accessed 15 Jan. 2024.
[4] “Breaking Down Homeschooling, Childcare in Michigan.” CBS News, uploaded by CBS Detroit, 6 Dec. 2023, www.cbsnews.com/detroit/video/breaking-down-homeschooling-child-care-in-michigan/.
James Madison embedded the freedom of speech in American society when he penned the Bill of Rights in 1791.
The free speech clause in the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law⌠abridging the freedom of speech or the press.” Abridging can be understood simply as “to impose a restriction on.” If I may be so bold as to reconfigure Madison’s words, he wrote, “Congress shall make no law⌠that imposes a restriction on freedom of speech or the press.” It is abundantly clear that the right to freedom of speech is absolute. The government may apply no restrictions on speech without violating the First Amendment.
How was this right exercised by the early Americans?
Historically, before the internet and social media, even before mass-produced papers and articles, the public square was represented by a physical space where citizens would gather to reason with one another. It was a place of persuasion. The idea was that you would come with your belief, and I would come with mine, and we would discuss and debate our differences until the best idea won.
Consider the masterful debates between “Honest Abe” and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858. These debates would gather large crowds who would eagerly attend the speeches that were known to span three or four hours.
Why?
The answer is that Americans loved and respected their public square. They yearned for truth and wanted their views to be challenged and improved. This era embodied Romans 12:2 (ESV) when it says, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Of course, this does not represent every individual; there are always those who are too proud to listen. But this accurately represents the posture of the 19th-century American mind.
In short, freedom of speech is the right of an American to express any idea or belief without imposition from the government; the public square is where this right is exercised freely.
With these definitions in mind, we can now examine our modern day.
The Modern Public Square
In 2017, the Supreme Court made the case in Packingham v. North Carolina that “social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are now the “town squares” of America where the right of freedom of speech is exercised.” They officially titled this phenomenon the “modern public square.”
I believe you would agree with me when I say that today, our modern public square has regressed far from its original model. Rather than hosting serious, intellectual, and reasonable discussions, social media has become a war zone that wields mockery, foolishness, and manipulation as its weapons.
In recent decades, the term “hate speech” has gained traction among Americans as we label opposing perspectives as dangerous, violent, or harmful. Terms like misogynistic, homophobic, or transphobic rhetoric (I am probably missing a “phobic”) and ultra-MAGA speech have been thrown around on platforms like X and TikTok to describe speech that disagrees with a mainstream position on culture, politics, or religion.
These developments have profound implications because freedom of speech cannot flourish in a public square where people are shamed and mocked for speaking. So, we must ask ourselves: how can we change the status quo?
The Solution
I believe the solution is Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
Freedom of speech is essential because it ensures that language, thought, and expression cannot be controlled by and conform to the ruling power of this world.
Today, the world is racing towards mass control and conformity to a specific set of ideas and beliefs. They are achieving their objective by silencing and shaming specific speech before the debate has even begun. Thankfully, Romans 12:2 gives us two ways to fight against conformity to the world.
The Romans 12: Strategy
First, renew your mind. One of the reasons why our modern public square is suffering is because ignorance has taken over the conversation. Ignorance of history, logic, and truth have all blended to confuse and anger both sides of the debate. We need well-educated individuals to enter into places of confusion to provide clarity and understanding. And this begins with you and me. By educating ourselves on the topics of the day, we will know the truth more fully and be prepared when our positions are challenged.
Second, discern the truth through testing. Another reason why our public square is in disarray is that we have forgotten how to test ideas through debate. Our public square echoes with the screaming of political slogans, but this is not a debate. These statements are only childish expressions of emotional opinions. If we wish for productive conversations to flourish once more, we must learn to discern ideas and put them to the test together. When we allow the opposing argument to confront our ideas, we will grow in both humility of mind and wisdom in opinion. Without this vital testing process, how can we arrive at the truth?
The right to freedom of speech has been the bedrock of American society since our founding, and it must remain the bedrock of our modern public square today. So, let us learn to converse with one another, and may the best idea win.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversations 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!
By Carolyn Martin, CHEC Director of Government Relations
The march toward more government programs, government control over our families and livelihoods, and restrictions on our inalienable rights has begun. Last year was bad enough, but despite this being an election year, those who run our government have not finished implementing their complete transformation of our beautiful state. And so it begins again: today is the first day of the 2024 legislative session.
Parental Rights & Religious Freedom Relinquished to Government Control
Parents have relinquished their rights in exchange for the rights of the child. Special rights, ostensibly granted to oppressed groups, have overshadowed religious liberty. What about homeschooling? So far, we have kept the dam from breaking on our freedom to educate our children how we see fit. Yet, there is much opposition coming from many directions. State alphabet soup agencies, departments, and boards. School choice and anti-homeschool advocates. Local school officials and boards. Legislators on both sides of the aisle.
Stand With Us
There is no way I can withstand them alone. I rely greatly on God’s help to see and understand these attacks. But each of you also plays an integral part. First and foremost, this is a spiritual battle. God’s enemies hate what He has created â especially children, the family, and the church. Homeschooling is a lifeboat for the preservation of our families and our faith. You must stay true to His call to raise your families in the admonition of the Lord, or everything you do is meaningless. Pray to God for His protection and provision for me and every homeschooling family in this state.
Commit to Stay Informed and Engaged!
Unfortunately, I foresee many liberties being taken away from us this year. Let us ensure that the ability to homeschool without government control is not one of them! We have experienced God’s faithfulness since the enactment of the homeschool law thirty-five years ago. As we ask the Lord to show us what it means to be eternally vigilant and how to safeguard what He has given us, it will require sacrifice from each of us.
âThe price of liberty is vigilance.â – Author Unknown
Will you sacrifice some time to stay informed and engaged during this legislative session?
JoinâŻthe Colorado Homeschool Freedom Team (HSFT) and the Facebook group.
For a more in-depth understanding of legislation and the legislature,âŻjoin the Legislative District Connection (LDC), which meets virtually once a month.
RegisterâŻand participate in Meet Your Legislator Day (MYLD) onâŻThursday, February 15th.
RegisterâŻand attend CHECâs 30thâŻHomeschool Day at the Capitol (DAC) onâŻThursday, April 11th.
Watch for CHECâs action alert emails andâŻtake actionâŻwhen needed!
Carolyn Martin serves as CHECâs Director of Government Relations, working for you and other liberty-loving families to protect homeschool freedom, parental rights, and religious liberty at the state capitol. Subscribe to the CHEC blog for Carolynâs regular updates, learn more about legal issues in Colorado, and support Homeschool Freedom. Contact Carolyn directly atâŻcarolyn@chec.org.Â
In an era marked by rapid technological advancements, the financial landscape is undergoing a transformative shift towards digital currencies. While the promise of efficiency and convenience is enticing, the rise of centralized digital banking currency comes with its own issues that warrant a critical examination. Although this isnât to demonize, today weâll explore the potential risks associated with centralized digital currencies and their implications for individuals and society.
Government Control and Manipulation
The centralization of digital currencies places substantial power in the hands of governments and central banks. This concentration of authority raises concerns about the potential for governments to manipulate currency value, control capital flows, and exert undue influence over citizensâ financial lives.
Loss of Privacy
One of the primary concerns with centralized digital banking currencies is the potential erosion of privacy. Traditional currencies allow for a level of anonymity in transactions, but centralized digital currencies often require extensive user data to operate effectively. The centralization of this information poses a significant risk, as it becomes vulnerable to hacking, surveillance, and misuse.
Increased Surveillance
Centralized digital currencies enable unprecedented levels of surveillance by central authorities. Every transaction with these currencies can be tracked, creating a comprehensive financial profile for individuals. This surveillance raises ethical concerns and threatens personal freedom and autonomy.
Single Point of Failure
Centralized systems are inherently vulnerable to systemic failures. A single point of control makes the entire financial system susceptible to hacking, technical glitches, or even deliberate manipulation. The consequences of such failures could be severe, leading to financial crises and widespread economic instability.
Exclusionary Practices
Centralized digital currencies may inadvertently exclude segments of the population who need access to the necessary technology or cannot navigate the digital landscape. This exclusionary aspect can deepen existing social and economic disparities, leaving certain individuals and communities behind.
Lack of Redundancy
Like traditional banking, decentralized systems often have built-in redundancies to ensure stability. In contrast, a centralized digital currency system lacks this redundancy, making it more susceptible to disruptions. A technical failure or cyberattack could have far-reaching consequences on the entire financial ecosystem.
Many issues must be considered as many move forward with crypto purchases and investments. In other words, before you invest, count the cost. The dangers associated with centralized digital banking currencies highlight the need for careful consideration of potential risks and implementing robust safeguards. Striking a balance between innovation and security is essential to creating a financial landscape that is both technologically advanced and resilient to the challenges posed by centralization.
Sadie Aldaya is the Research & Quality Assurance Specialist for Classical Conversationâs Special Projects & Policy Research Department and the CC Foundation. 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.
January 1st represents a day of goals and ‘bucket-list’ changes for people all over the country. Whether it be diet, exercise, smoking, or Tick-Tock (please put this on your list!), for a week or two, the topic of many conversations will be New Year’s Resolutions. It happens every yearâfor at least two weeks, gym-goers won’t find good access to an elliptical or stair-climber due to the sudden influx of newcomers. Yet, once the two-week mark hits, the facility returns to normal.
To put this another way, each year, resolutions fail because of nearsightedness. These so-called ‘goals’ are too fickle, short-term, and temporary. Moreover, as many have said before, the problem with resolutions is that they are singular resolutions instead of lifetime habits.
Instead, we make resolutions and household habits that aim for the long term. This year, let’s aim for 10,800 hours with our children.
Aim for 10,800 Hours
In his book Education: Does God Have an Opinion? A Biblical Apologetic for Christian Education & Homeschooling, Christian Educator and Apologist Israel Wayne (referencing Malcolm Gladwell) writes:
“In 2008, in his book Outliers, best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell introduced a new concept to the American psyche. The ‘10,000-Hour-Rule” suggests that if you wish to truly excel in any field, you need to dedicate 10,000 hours of focused and targeted practice, study, and development. Successful musicians, athletes, artists, lawyers, actors, doctors, etc., have all given witness to investing this level of commitment into their craft.
According to the Center for Public Education, most states require between 175 and 180 days of school or between 900 and 1,000 hours of instructional time per year, depending on the grade level. Taking the lower number of 900 annual hours, this calculates to a total of 10,800 hours of seat instruction for students enrolled in a government school for grades 1-12. Can you see where I’m headed with this? The goal of every Christian parent is to seek to utilize those 10,800 hours for the glory of God.“1
Think about how little time we have with our children in our homesâconsidering that at best we may have 18 years, then take out all the time they’re asleep or out with friends (not to mention public school, there goes eight more hours a day during the school year), an eternal perspective will show that our precious moments are fleeting.
Plan for the Last Day
In our culture, most, if not all, energy is expended planning for the first day. Think of how much effort and money we spend on wedding days (i.e., the first day of the marriage). Consider how much preparation young couples endure for the birth of their first child. Or fill in the blank for countless other life events: the first day of school, the first day of college, the first day on the job, etc.
We are good at aiming for the short term but largely miss it culturally for long-term planning. Imagine if we reversed it. Imagine what this would look like if we flipped it. What if, instead of investing in the first day, couples spent all their efforts and resources planning for the last day of the marriage?
Thinking this way immediately brings to the forefront the need for daily habits rather than singular resolutions destined to fail in the first week or two.
Aiming for the Last Day is Nothing Less than Daily Discipleship
Begin this year thinking and praying about the last day your children will be in the home. Consider the words of the Psalmist:
“3Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. 4Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. 5Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.” (Psalm 127:3-5 ESV)
Instruments for war. That’s what the scriptures tell us our children are. But as anyone who has ever served in the military or seen the Lord of the Rings will know, no one innately has the ability to wield weapons for war. Efficient usage requires training, and arrows need sharpening.
Moreover, as Wayne and Gladwell remind us, at best, we have 10,800 hours to invest in these arrows. However, consider that if you have a 10-year-old at home like I do, then your time is alreadyâat least cut in half. With this little time, nothing less than serious stewardship, daily habits, and intentional-planned investment will cultivate what is needed for the last day.
In other words, this year, plan for discipleship, not for resolutions. Even thinking of that last day may pull on your heartstrings. If it does, then use it! Marinate on and pray for that last day! And resolve to invest each hour of each day to the best of your ability by the power of God! And never forget that you are not alone!
Edward Murray currently serves as Manager of Special Projects and Policy Research for Classical Conversations and The Homeschool Freedom Action Center. He is a native of Augusta, GA, and an alumnus of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, where he earned his M.Div. He lives in Newport News, VA, with his wife and three children.
Wayne, Israel. Education: Does God Have an Opinion? A Biblical Apologetic for Christian Education & Homeschooling. (2017, Master Books), p. 19. âŠď¸
Capitol Days, Legislative Days, Homeschool Day at the Capitol, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. This is a great opportunity for you to teach your children the importance of the legislative process and help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.
The chart below lists January and February Capitol Days; you can also check your stateâs dates here if itâs not listed below.
Today, it is typical for social movements in Western civilization to claim they are fighting for the founding principles of America: liberty, justice, and, most of all, equality for all.
Feminism, that age-old movement, claims that women are inherently oppressed by men. Betty Friedan, in her modern feminist manifesto The Feminine Mystique, makes the case that for women to gain equality with men, they must become empowered, strong, independent girl bosses. Ladies, we’ve all heard this line.
The Pro-Choice movement, through Planned Parenthood, claims to be an agent of equality as they kill unborn children so that women, like their male counterparts, can experience sexual freedom without fear of the consequences. Onits website, Planned Parenthood defines itself as “an equal opportunity employer [that] welcomes all qualified applicants, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, or disability.”1
The Black Lives Matter movement implores us all to “Join the Movement to fight for Freedom, Liberation and Justice.” “Their vision aims at “achieving liberation” for all minority groups, including (but not exclusive to), âBlack queer and trans folks, disabled folks, undocumented folks, folks with records, women, and all Black lives along the gender spectrum.â2
Through the rise of the LGBTQ movement, individuals are fighting to protect the rights of so-called “trans-identifying individuals.” These allies of pride celebrate legislation such as the Equality Act, passed by the British Parliament in 2010, as a small step towards ensuring that each individual has the equal right to identify as whatever they want.
It is clear that many movements today are seeking radical social reforms in the name of “equality.” So, if equality is an American value, shouldn’t we, as conservatives, support these causes?
The answer is a resounding “no.”
Why, you may ask? Even though these movements use the word equality in their messaging, equality is not what they are fighting for. Rather, they are striving for the perverted “equality” of Karl Marx, known today as equity. Understanding the distinctions between these words and how they have been weaponized against America is vital as we seek to conserve our founding values and way of life.
This article will explore the drastic differences between these two values, expose the danger that equity poses to Western society, and provide a greater understanding of why Marxist movements, such as those listed above, must be stopped.
Equality vs Equity
We have all heard it said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This statement must not be underappreciated. Thomas Jefferson established the great American experiment by penning these words in 1776 onto the Declaration of Independence. No society in the history of the world had been founded on words as profound as these. No society in the history of the world has been established on the principle of equality for all.
Equality is the belief, as Jefferson wrote, that all men are created equal. It is not a result of sex, race, social status, wealth, or religion, but it is a truth because God has created all men in Imago Dei.
How often do you hear that message today?
Equality for all has been the bedrock of our great nation for centuries. Systems like capitalism and ideas such as the American Dream have been born out of our strong belief in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This beautiful idea is why the American experiment was, and is, successful.
However, in our modern day, this truth seems to be battered and bruised by radical progressive thought that abuses equality and threatens to blot out Jefferson’s words. Where did this threat come from? How can we put an end to it?
Equity
To discover the origin of this anti-equality ideology, we must examine 19th-century Eastern thought.
Karl Marx officially founded communism in 1848 when he and Friedrich Engles wrote The Communist Manifesto. The political pamphlet combined the thoughts of German revolutionaries into a persuasive and passionate call to action. Marx argued in favor of annihilating capitalism and the class system through a complete revolutionary restructuring of society. However, his ideas did not take root until 1917, when Vladimir Lenin led the first successful communist revolution in Russia. Since then, communism has been tried, and communism has killed many in different countries.
Marx’s ideas have evolved, and his ideology has seeped into Western social trends and economics. Present-day communism upholds equity as its central value in the same way that Americanism upholds equality. Its entire system depends on it.
But what is equity? Equity calls for destroying distinctions to ensure that everyone in a society achieves the same outcome.
What does this look like in practice? It means that distinctions between individuals that may lead to “unequitable” or different outcomes must be abolished. Factors like race, religion, property ownership, sex, class, age, wealth, and health must be eradicated from an equitable society. This is the radical and unavoidable consequence of communism through equity. Thankfully, such extreme measures have not yet been accepted by the West. This does not mean, however, that we cannot see traces of the poison of equity throughout the country.
The Infiltration of Equity
Like a virus, equity seeps into a society unnoticed. Like a virus, you might notice some symptoms at first, but you’d never guess the true source of the illness. And just like a virus, equity will eventually make itself known, but by then, it will be too late.
For many years, the ideas of Marx infiltrated the West under the guise of “equality.” We have already seen how many radical leftist movements claim they are fighting for the equality of some minorities. Women, would-be mothers, African Americans, or those who claim to be LGBT or Q are told that they have unequal rights compared to the dreaded straight, white, evangelical man. These movements do not care that there is no American law on the books that discriminates against any minority group or individual. But I digress.
The message to America is that the differences between men and women, “a clump of cells” and babies, white and black people, and those who are straight and gay must be rendered obsolete before “equality” can be ensured. This is not equality, which promises equal opportunity to all; this is equity, which promises equal outcome to all.
Today, the virus of equity is beginning to make itself known in our sick nation. If you are a college student or an employee of a large corporation, you have heard the acronym DEI or, as Jordan B. Peterson refers to it, DIE. DIE stands for diversity, inclusion, and equity. These values have been infused into universities across the United States and the rest of the West. They have been accepted by teachers, bosses, and even our President and are now being promoted as so-called “American values.”
Radical Marxist movements, supported by large masses of college students, have begun to wave these values unashamedly as their banners and shout them as their anthems.
There is no doubt that equity has infiltrated our society and way of life. And just like a virus that cannot help but corrupt its victim, equity, if it is not soon eradicated, will continue to infuse itself into the West until the words of Jefferson are dead and gone.
Equality for All
“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence.
With this declaration, Jefferson freed a nation. Now, with this same declaration, we must maintain that freedom.
Today, we are urged by the Left to fight against America in the name of America. We must not be fooled! “Equality for all,” as we have seen, is not the aim of these radical leftist movements. What they want is the implementation of Marxism through equity in our free nation.
Is this a sinister and purposeful attack being made by those in power? Or is it merely a misunderstanding born of ignorance? We may never know, but what we can know is that Americans deserve their God-given right to equality. We must recognize this as our battlefront as we seek to conserve our nation’s principles.
Equity and equality are as different as the East is from the West (literally). The two cannot coexist, so one must overcome the other. Which will it be? If we value the words of Jefferson and the American way, we must stand firmly against Marxist movements and stand up for the right to equality, for all.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical Conversationsgraduate. 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!
