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/
Fascism. It is a term widely used but hardly understood.
Are you aware of the history and philosophy surrounding this term? Can you define it?
When these questions arise, men like Benito Mussolini are often accredited with the philosophy of fascism, and words such as âauthoritarianismâ and âright-wing extremismâ are frequently given as synonyms. Armed with these ambiguous and frightening words as arrows in their quiver, left-wing politicians commonly use the word fascism to attack their right-wing opponents. We are all familiar with CNN anchors referring to Donald Trump as a right-wing, MAGA fascist.
Where did this term originate? Is fascism really right-wing extremism? Are there fascists in America today?
By exploring each of these questions, we will come across three misconceptions of fascism that have distorted our understanding of this powerful word.
These misconceptions are:
Benito Mussolini founded fascism.
Fascism is a radical right-wing ideology.
The modern Left is anti-fascist.
Misconception One: Mussolini and Fascism
Contrary to popular belief, Benito Mussolini was not the founder of fascism. Instead, he explicitly recognized the real founder of fascism as Giovanni Gentile, and gave him the title, âThe philosopher of Fascism.â
Gentile lived from 1875 to 1944 and was an extremely prominent Italian philosopher, politician, and educator. He established the idea of fascism, and with his ideology, he paved the way for the dictatorship of Mussolini, which lasted from 1922 to 1943.
Gentile, like Marx, sought to create a form of government that resembles the family unit. What would this look like exactly? Wellâif you think of the family unit, who is the head of the household? Traditionally, it is the father. And what is the role of the father? It is to provide for and to protect his family.
Likewise, Gentile ordered his fascist ideology in such a way that the government would be the father of civilizationâits sole provider and protector. With this structure, personal responsibility and individual liberty, which Gentile condemned as âselfish,â are thrown out the window and replaced by slothful dependence and security through submission to Father Government. It is obvious why authoritarianism is so closely attributed to fascism; they have many similarities. Now that we understand Gentile’s philosophical intention, we can define his term.
Fascism is a political movement that seeks to establish an authoritarian system of government that resembles the family unit.
There is one final fact about Gentile that must be understood to have a well-rounded understanding of his philosophy of fascism. That isâGentile was a Leftist. This may come as a shock because fascism has been attributed to the right for many decades, but when we consider the philosophy of fascism in relation to the modern right and left, it begins to make sense.
Misconception Two: Fascism and the Right
As I said before, fascism has been viewed as the end game of radical right-wing politics for many decades. Republican politicians have seemed to accept this abuse of language and have allowed it to continue all these years.
However, a brief comparison of conservatism and fascism will expose the ridiculous claim that fascism is rooted in the right. Allow me to ask this simple question: Do conservatives want big government? The answer is an obvious and resounding no.
If there is one thing that has not changed in the Republican party, it is the desire for small government. To claim otherwise is folly.
Additionally, what true conservative wants to surrender personal responsibility and individual liberty to Father Government? The answer is none.
For fascism to work at all, liberty and responsibility must be discarded and replaced by a far-reaching, powerful, all-consuming government that rules its complacent society with an iron fist. That is what happened in Italy under Mussoliniâs fascist reign, and that is precisely what conservatives are actively fighting against.
Misconception Three: The Left and Modern-Day Fascists
So, if Republicans are not undercover fascist dictators, are there fascists in America at all?
I am not here to make the argument that all leftist politicians and Democrat voters are fascists. Because that is not the case, however, there are clear-cut agreements between the two political movements that we must acknowledge.
“At the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.â
They continue bysaying,
âNothing has changed. Thirty years later, a slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, ‘The government is the only thing we all belong to.’ They might as well have been quoting Gentile.â
The left has taken Gentile’s idea of collectivism under Father Government and applied it to their political philosophy. We must be aware of the left’s implementation of this core fascist ideal in its policies and plans for our country.
Fascist Philosophy Embedded in Leftist Policies
Just to name a few, the Welfare system has resulted in a complete dependence upon the government by large swaths of the American public. In addition, the leftâs movement to ban assault rifles would instantly create a total dependence on Father Government for protection. These two examples prove that the left is furthering our dependence on the government for provision and protection; Gentile would be proud.
The most glaring example, however, of fascist philosophy embedded in leftist policies was the effort by Democratic politicians to instate federal mask and vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. This would have exponentially multiplied the scope and influence of the state and greatly increased our submission to it in the name of security. Gentileâs philosophy continues infiltrating institutions today, such as education and healthcare, through Democratic policies.
It is abundantly clear that there are extreme misconceptions surrounding the term and ideology of fascism. Thankfully, we can know the facts behind the philosophy. With a newfound clarity of the origin and political affiliation of fascism, we must now boldly oppose all efforts to instate Father Government in our fascist-free country.
You can read other articles written by Elise here.
Elise DeYoung is a PR & Communications Associate as well as 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!
Recently, House Bill 4130 was introduced to regulate homeschool families in Oklahoma. Americans must strongly oppose this bill to restrict and regulate families, because its narrative of abuse in homeschools is fabricated. This bill would introduce extreme government overreach into the realm of home education.
Homeschoolers have the fundamental right of autonomy to educate and disciple their children apart from state overreach. A more detailed analysis of this bill is coming, but due to urgency of action, here are some reasons to oppose it:
Children do not belong to the state, but to the parents.
Therefore, the Civil government has no authority or jurisdiction over homeschooling.
The reasons for restricting and regulating homeschooling are baselessly supported, fueled by fear tactics.
If passed, the state will require social security numbers and background checks for the purpose of tracking every home resident.
If passed, parents may be subjected to home inspection visits.
For these reasons, weâd like to stand with our friends at HSLDA and oppose Rep. Amanda Swopeâs bill.
To join our efforts opposing HB 4130, please contact Rep. Amanda Swope to let her know that you oppose this bill.
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!
Currently, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is in session in Davos, Switzerland. WEF is an organization founded by Klaus Schwab in 1971 that âengages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.â 1
In other words, WEF annually hosts the worldâs elite businessmen, academics, and prominent politicians to decide how to run your life. They discuss what they deem the global crisis of our day and propose solutions to one another until they decide what direction they would like the course of history to take.
If you are interested in learning more about the history of the World Economic Forum, Ben Shapiro outlines it in his series, Facts.
Misinformation: The Global Threat
This year, WEF has determined that the number one threat to global security is âmisinformation and disinformation.â 2
Thatâs right; the greatest threat to the world is not the rise of an aggressive China and a looming World War, economic instability, or even climate changeâwhich is their favorite global crisis. The greatest threat to the world is you: your thoughts and your words, andwhen your thoughts and words disagree with them.
This is dangerous on many levels, the first being that the terms âmisinformationâ and âdisinformationâ are extremely vague and illusive. Without a clear definition, the Leftist elites at Davos have the power to classify any information they dislike as a threat to the global order.
However, despite their lack of definitions, the elites have made it clear exactly what information they are waging their war against.
Covid Misinformation
Perhaps the most outrageous example of information that was deemed more dangerous than nuclear war was information that claimed that the Covid-19 measures taken by our world leaders were harmful, not helpful. During the pandemic, voices that contradicted the propaganda of the elites were publicly scorned and instantly banned from the public square.
In 2020, The Verge published an article that detailed this phenomenon on Facebook. âFacebook has had to take more active measures to combat the fast-moving spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories in the months since, including banning anti-mask groups and placing anti-misinformation messages into the News Feeds of users who may have engaged with fake coronavirus stories.â 3 Recall that many theories once labeled âconspiracies,â and as such were shadow-banned, shamed, and demonetized, are now officially documented as âfact;â the most obvious example being the âLab-Leak Theory.â
Does anyone remember the infamous âTwitter Filesâ story? Letâs not forget that the warnings about the elusive, so-called âmisinformationâ police are increasingly becoming an actual bi-partisan issue! Matt Taibbi, who originally broke the âTwitter Filesâ story and was grilled before Congress for doing so, is not conservative.
Climate Misinformation
Another recent example is âclimate misinformation.â What is so-called climate misinformation? It is any information that promotes the idea that wind and solar will fail to power the world and that the world is not doomed to end within the next ten years.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)4 reported that âclimate misinformationâ has become increasingly common on YouTube, and as a result, they sounded the alarms of misinformation and disinformation.
When asked about this report, a YouTube spokesperson told CNN that âdebate or discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed.â However, âwhen content crosses the line to climate change denial, we stop showing ads on those videos. We also display information panels under relevant videos to provide additional information on climate change and context from third parties.â 5
January 6th Misinformation
Additionally, if you claim that January 6th was anything other than the most dangerous insurrection in our nation’s history, you are spreading misinformation and are, therefore, as the elites claim, a threat to the world.
To be clear, not everything that occurred on January 6 is defensible. For one, it is a crime to just walk into the Capitol, or any government building, without permission, and this isnât an offense to be taken lightly. Moreover, some people on January 6 did respond with violence or aggression, warranting a criminal response. All that to say, not all is excused or pardonable, and my words shouldnât be misconstrued to be a blanket statement of approval. However, there is still concern over the issue of policeable misinformation.
The Washington Post reported that 3 in 10 Republicans believe that January 6 was instigated by the FBI rather than by President Trump. What is the conclusion that the Post drew from this statistic? âThese results confirm that misinformation about January 6 is widespreadin the United States.â 6
Biden Misinformation
Hunter Bidenâs laptop, which exposed Hunter for his drug, sex, and firearm crimes and compromised the entire Biden family by detailing their corrupt business dealings, was aggressively classified as misinformation by the elites since before the 2020 elections. But just yesterday, the Department of Justice confirmed that the content of the Hunter Biden laptop is, in fact, real information.7 Yet, the list goes on.
Part of the issue is that there is no clear definition of misinformation and disinformation. Moreover, in my opinion, modern, popular (New Left), militant, fascist Liberalism has no possession of meaning for what is labeled âconspiracy.â Although we have a technical definition, there is no epistemic or qualifying justification for what constitutes âconspiracy.â
While there is no clear definition of misinformation and disinformation, it is abundantly clear which views the elites at Davos have decided are global threats. When they find an opinion, fact, or belief that contradicts their narrative, they mock, scorn, and will continue to ban both the information and the one who shared it to protect their utopian goals for the globe.
This isnât a warning for the future. It is and has already been happening.
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 toward the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
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/.
Driving to a vacation spot this summer for our annual sabbatical at the beach, my wife and I were on Interstate 12 near Stennis at the border between Louisiana and Mississippi. Like much of southern Louisiana and Mississippi, this area is filled with wetlands, bayous, creeks, cricks, rivers, and overgrowth that rivals any dystopian, apocalyptic movie. And it was on fire. A burn ban had been in place for quite some time, but the extended heat of the summer and the lack of rain had turned the vegetation into a tinderbox. The flames had jumped from the westbound lanes, through the median, and onto the eastbound lanes. Thick smoke filled the whole area, making visibility impossible and covering everything with soot and charred smell. In my characteristic deadpan humor, I turned to my wife and said, âYou know itâs hot when the swamp is on fire.â
A Quick Laugh and Further Reflection
Only my wife can chuckle at such dry humor. However, the conditions for a fire in a swamp were clear and longstanding due to the combination of neglect, rebellion, and environment. The surprise of driving through a swamp fire was humorous and ironic, in that it illustrates the swamp fire of Western Culture. But what are some of the conditions that lead to the blazing chaos that is burning through our culture, and why are there so few Christians who seem unaware or willing to do anything?
The Putrid Soil of Idealism
Idealism, philosophically defined, is the theory of epistemology that teaches that the mind forms reality. Historically, idealism arose from pursuing rationalism during the Enlightenment in thinkers such as Hegel, Leibnitz, and, to a lesser extent, Kant. In the proponents that followed the Enlightenment, pure subjective idealism became not merely Optimism but also a teaching that the mind does not create the idea but the thing itself. Thus, pure subjective idealism results in the creation of the thing directly. Through the power of the mind, man creates the very thing imagined by thought. The subject creates through noumena (from the Greek word, nous, âmindâ). âThe duality of the matter and mind,â as Bavinck surmised, has been âdenied, and the thing and the representation of the thing, being and thinking, are viewed essentially as one.â 1
The Voracious Weeds in the Swamp
Pure subjective idealism infected Christianity directly through the charlatans of the Word-Faith movement and continues in a more mass-appealing form in the hucksters peddling the prosperity gospel, where the conjoined sins of self-worship and greed increasingly breed ever-blasphemous pronouncements in the name of Christ. The recent history of Western Christianity is dominated by these popular teraphim (from the ancient Hebrew, âfalse idolsâ) that are adored and emulated. There is a headlong rush toward any living savior who can speak of money, fame, and celebrity as a blessing. Their numbers are only limited to how quickly followers can heap on teachers. Their influence is only limited by their opportunity to jump from a smaller idolatrous family to a whole tribe (Judges 17-18). They are weeds, all. Truly, truly, they are cursed directly by our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:24-26).
The Impenetrable Undergrowth
Growing unchecked out of this idealism is the regurgitated anthropological teaching that the affections are granted a substance and an epistemological and moral priority. Feelings are given a âsoulâ with an unyielding, undiminishable, and immutable authority. Feelings are an abiding revelation, a self-originating, self-authenticating, self-interpreting impetus, as base and necessary to existence as breathing air. Thus, feelings are presented as a prius (from Latin, âa prior thingâ), not a posterius (from Latin, âa following thingâ). Feelings internal and subjective are the ousia (from Greek, âsubstanceâ) and hyparchis (from Greek, âabiding presenceâ)and are, similarly, necessarily detached from phenomena (Greek from phenoo, âI observeâ). The new category is aesthemena (Greek from aesthima, âfeelingâ).
Swamp Undergrowth is Not a Garden
This affectional ratio ad vitam (Latin for âmeaning for lifeâ) corrupted historic Christian theology by a deceptively disastrous mutation in the skewed recharacterization of Godâs love as eros (from Greek, âsensual loveâ), not agape (from Greek, âlove by choiceâ). Popularized by multiple, respected, well-studied, philosophical, historical, and exegetical preachers and teachers, the apex of Christian virtue became âGlorify God by enjoying Him forever.â Feelings as motive, as drive, as the substance was drunk in, as living water. Passion and pleasure were put forward in man and God as the only true achievement, embodiment, and reciprocation of glory. Anything of will and duty is of works and baseless and useless. Rather than growing a well-tended garden, the result was an entangling, unstable, impenetrable overgrowth of affectional mass. Undergrowth is not beautiful, and it was part of the curse (Genesis 3:18). Man was never designed by God to be led by affections.
The Match Was Thrown
Is it any wonder that the current cultural climate is one where the mind exhibits and engages in pure subjective irrationality from the prius of the feelings? This is why debates based on phenomena and logic are rejected immediately, comprehensively, and violently based on feelings. The person who believes that the mind is an organ of feelings that stimulate the creation of reality is irrationally enslaved. These persons will go to great lengths to subjugate their thoughts and the observable world around them to conform to their feelings. These persons must create from the inside out, from the affections as the source, through the mind as means, to the outside, as the transformative object. These have made themselves as Deity in their feelings, to which any, and eventually all, must prostrate in obedience.
The Fire Consumes and Is Healthy?
However, in order to create, these persons must first destroy. They will destroy all norms, whether individual or societal, amoral or moral, religious or civil. Worse still, this destruction and recreation is repackaged as a necessary mental health crisis for these individuals when the world outside of them does not immediately conform to their idealism. This explains why their verbal and material reactions include radical outbursts of violence and, contradictorily, simultaneously and exclusively, claim themselves to be recipients of violence. You have, in their reality, assaulted their most complete and necessary substance and being.
Where there is Fire, there is Smoke
The pursuit of this idolatry will destroy them internally as well as raze relationships, morals, institutions, and societies. The consequences of idealism are already observed and experienced in the institutions of society through education, government, employment, military, health services, the family, and religion. The planned destruction through idealism is combined with the blatant realignment of the historic political foundation of our country. Marxism, at its roots, views man as tolpa (Russian for âherdâ). The target of Marxism has always been and will be the most innocent and vulnerableâŚchildren. Familial, ecclesiastical, educational, technological, governmental, and societal fumes will billow from the smoldering miasma of this Idealism and Marxism.
Putting out the Fire Through the Promise of Repentance
The only recourse for change is direct confrontation. Exposure of the insane irrationality comes through the proclamation of the objective revelation written in the Scriptures. There is hope that the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11) will shatter the illusion of self-deification. The promises of God to work for regeneration seen in true repentance have never been revoked.
Growing Anew
Corporately, Christians should pursue the position of illuminator and preserver (light and salt) through soberness, prayerfulness, engagement, and, as is customary in the course of Christian history, a willingness to suffer. It behooves Christians to live circumspectly, pure, clean, and with holy wisdom that comes down from the Father of Lights. Also, Christians should actively prune the undergrowth of this idealism and live worshipfully with the rich communities established on the Reformed doctrines of grace, which oppose idealism. Finally, Christian parents need to understand that the current culture fire is specifically designed to disintegrate their God-given position and responsibility as moral teachers and examples in the minds, hearts, and souls of their children in all respects. So, parents must make a choice and act. What will you choose to do?
Paul Bright currently works in the field of Biotechnology. He is a native of Evansville, IN, and an alumnus of Purdue University and The Masterâs Seminary. He 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.
Herman Bavink, Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1. (MI: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 216. âŠď¸
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!
In a society where bad ideas have infiltrated even our most prestigious universities, it is essential that we stand up for truth in thought and excellence in education.Â
Former Harvard President Claudine Gay resigned due to significant public pressure after she failed to condemn antisemitic speech on campus and was discovered to have committed many acts of plagiarism throughout her professional career. Sadly, the corruption at Harvard will outlive Gayâs presidency as the school continues to promote critical theory and DIE initiatives.
In Episode 78 of âRefining Rhetoric,â I explore the implications of woke hiring and firing, low academic standards, and a godless worldview at our universities and throughout our broader culture. Also, I highlight the important role Christians have in speaking out against these dangerous ideas while holding fast to Biblical truth and excellence.Â
This podcast originally aired on Jan. 10, 2024.Check out other freedom-loving episodes of Refining Rhetoric.
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.
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.
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.
