Think about this: you are an Idaho homeschooler who is offered “free” money to use in your homeschool for tutoring sessions, curriculum, extracurricular sports, lessons, and more. Where do I sign up, right??
â⌠you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.â John 8:32
Where have we been?
Currently, Idaho is the most free state to homeschool, but it hasn’t always been that way.
Let’s go back to 1984, at which time the Idaho Code stated, “âŚUnless the child is otherwise comparably instructed, as may be determined by the trustees of the schooldistrict in which the child resides, the parent or guardian shall cause the child to attend a public, private or parochial school⌔ (emphasis added)
This meant that the law wasn’t uniform across the state and that the code allowed every school district in Idaho to set its own rules and standards for homeschooling.
One school district, in particular, chose to set a hard line, declaring that the children of several homeschool families were, in fact, truant, and the parents were charged with habitual truancy. The county sheriff and several armed deputies showed up at their homes and physically removed all children, from nursing infants through high schoolers, from the homes. The parents were arrested and sentenced to jail time, and their sentences were longer than another inmate convicted of child molestation!
The state media outlets accused the families of denying their children an education and that it was the government’s and community’s responsibility to ensure this didn’t happen, even if that meant stashing such parents in jail. (Paraphrased from Lewiston Morning Tribune, 12/3/84.) Another article stated that the families were challenging a “basic tenet of our society” and that they had “brought it on themselves.” (Idaho Statesman, 12/4/84)
However, as hard as they tried, the media was unable to discourage homeschooling among Idaho families, and it continued to grow, albeit with difficulties due to the existing code.
Where are we now?
Brave, pioneering homeschool families worked to ensure they could legally and freely educate their children at home. This came about by establishing a state coalition that was very active in local and federal policy to achieve the freedoms we have now and a support group that served parents through conventions, a quarterly magazine, and a wealth of information on myriad topics. These two groups have since combined to create Homeschool Idaho.
Homeschool Idaho (HSI) has worked tirelessly for 30+ years lobbying for home education in our state legislature. During this time, they have worked to promote, protect, and preserve home education in Idaho, including being instrumental in securing changes in the Idaho Code. In 2009, our current code was written into law, which states that Idaho home educators have the right to educate their children, aged 7-16, as they deem appropriate, without governmental regulation or requirements. More information about Idaho Law can be found at HSI Idaho Homeschool Law.
Our current homeschool freedom in Idaho was hard-won by these pioneering families, volunteers, and those passionate about ensuring we could walk out the calling and freedoms God has given us. But that can easily go away.
Where are we headed?
In 2019, approximately 2.5 million people in the US homeschooled. By 2022, that number had more than doubled! (And that only counts those homeschoolers who have to register with their state, of which Idaho homeschoolers do not.) Public schools realize they are losing money due to students leaving and understand they are not going to get homeschoolers back unless they make some token concessions. One of the ways they’re doing this is by partnering with for-profit companies to offer families “free” money to homeschool.
While Idaho has not passed an ESA (Education Savings/Scholarship Accounts) bill successfully through its legislative process, there are other for-profit companies within the state that offer “free” money to homeschoolers.
Sounds great, right?
Actually, no. When a family chooses to join one of these programs, they are NO LONGER a homeschool but a public school at home. The family chooses their own curriculum (with restrictions), sets their schedule and pace, and teaches their children at home, but when they choose to partner with these companies, they give up their homeschool status to become a public school at home.
How does that happen?
In order to access the funds, once the family signs on with the company, the company, in partnership with a local school district, will enroll the student in the public school system. The company will then have access to the state and federal educational dollars, keeping some for themselves, giving some to the public school district, and finally allocating a small portion of the funds to the family.
Why does that matter?
This matters because families have now chosen to give up the freedoms fought for and enjoyed by privately-funded Idaho homeschoolers. The family’s public school at home will now come under company and governmental regulations. These families will need to submit their students’ work bi-weekly, have their students meet with a “mentor” regularly, be told what they can and cannot purchase with the money, and submit to yearly standardized testing.
Additionally, it matters because the school district with which the company partners will be given money for services they are not rendering, for students they are not serving, and will also get “credit” for the test scores for the public school at-home students who are required to test. A family will be educating their children at home, and yet the school district will benefit from standardized test scores from children they didn’t serve, possibly bringing up their overall scores and being allocated more money in the process. Statistically, in Idaho, homeschooled students test 30 percentage points higher on the IOWA Test of Basic Skills than public schooled students.
These may seem like minor concessions, given the amount of money to which the family will be given access. But do you remember the frog in the pot of water where the water is gradually heated up? At first, it’s tolerable, maybe even enjoyable. The temperature is turned up slowly, so change is less noticeable, eventually leading to death. This is what we are already seeing happen within these programs. Regulation of home-educating families who choose to partner with these companies and accept the funds continues to increase yearly.
Because the families who choose these programs are public schools at home, the regulations will look similar to what a student in an in-person public school faces. The programs are accountable for ensuring that the students they are funding meet the public school regulations. Some of these regulations are frequently presented as equity, stopping discrimination, ensuring a rounded education, and more. As publicly funded institutions, both the brick-and-mortar public schools and the public schools at home will be regulated and, to an extent, will be mandated to teach the public school’s agenda.
The truth is that what the government funds, the government regulates. It has to, and we want it to! We want to know how our government is spending the money it collects from its citizens, and we want them to be accountable for their expenditures.
Yes, butâŚ
We hear repeated, defensive arguments from those families who choose to partner with these programs and accept government funding. Most of these arguments stem from a lack of understanding of how these programs truly work. Parents should gather all the information so that they may be equipped to make a fully informed decision that benefits their family and its legacy.
Argument 1: Offering “free” money promotes school choice.
We homeschool parents have a reputation for being skeptical of almost everything, including mainstream narratives about public education. This skepticism is rooted in an abiding desire to protect our children’s minds and hearts. But there has been a shift in the narrative, and typically cautious homeschoolers have found themselves caught up in a movement that has been gaining steam across the nation and right here in Idaho: School Choice.
“School Choice” has been touted as the miracle that will save the American education system. Proponents hawk sales-pitch slogans like “Fund Students, Not Systems” as if they were vendors at a carnival. State legislatures are frequently facing bills that spend more and more money on school choice programs, often pressured and funded by lobbying groups outside of the state.
The truth is that, in Idaho, we ALREADY have school choice. We can choose to educate our children at home or send them to public, private, parochial, or charter schools. This argument sounds good as it is presented. However, the argument is actually not about school choice but about WHO will fund the family’s choice of education for their child(ren). Families are, essentially, asking their neighbors and other taxpayers to pay for their choice.
Argument 2: They’re MY tax dollars, and I should get some back.
Actually, they’re not. The money we pay in taxes has never been designated for our personal use. Once it leaves our paychecks, it stops being our money. Many who make this argument are referring to property taxes, part of which is allocated to our local school districts. Very few Idahoans pay the $8,500 in property taxes that are earmarked per student for public schools. The amount of money from a family’s property taxes allotted to the public school is a mere fraction of what one student might receive when the family partners with the government to receive money for home education. The amount paid in our property taxes does not cover even one student’s allocation when using these “free” money programs. So, where does the rest of the money come from? Our neighbors: the other taxpayers. It is taking from our neighbors to fund our choice. And if there isn’t enough budget to fund these programs? Yup, you guessed it: raise taxes for all!
Argument 3: We are still homeschoolers. We choose our curriculum and teach our kids athome.
This argument is only partially true. As previously stated, a family who joins the program will become a public school at home. When a family partners with the government to accept funds for homeschooling, this results in the loss of parental control through regulations. The government must control everything that it funds, without exception. The for-profit companies will continue to control the funds through the funding mechanisms they have set up to administer them. It will pay only for things that it approves, and those things will have inflated price tags because the business providing the good or service has a captive client who can only purchase the item from the single source that is approved. Families do not have the autonomy to use the dollars however they see fit. For instance, a religious curriculum is not an approved purchase.
Additionally, by needing to check in regularly with a tutor or mentor and having a student’s work reviewed, the parent’s authority as teacher is questioned and minimized.
Argument 4:If the regulations become too much or are invasive, it’s okay⌠we’re members of HSLDA, and they’ll defend us or help us out of the situation.
HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) exists to serve home-educating families. When a family partners with a company offering “free” money programs, they willingly give up their homeschool status to become public school at home. Therefore, HSLDA’s membership legal services will not cover families in public schools at home, charter schools, or families homeschooling using public funds.
Argument 5: Our family taking the money doesn’t affect anyone else.
As this “free” money comes from taxpayer dollars, what happens when the amount of money collected from taxpayers no longer covers the demand for it? Citizens are taxed more, even those who do not have school-aged children. This means that a family’s choice to participate will affect the amount of taxes paid by their friends and neighbors.
Additionally, legislators currently lump homeschoolers in Idaho into one large group without differentiating between privately funded homeschoolers and those who choose to partner with government-funded programs. By partnering with programs that allow for governmental regulation to enter their homes, those who choose these “free” money programs are telling the government that all homeschoolers don’t mind the regulations. As such, when legislation has come up regarding education in the state, homeschoolers have been grouped in with other educational options because the message has been sent that we all want and/or need the government to tell us how to educate our children. In actuality, Idaho homeschoolers have shown year after year that privately funded homeschoolers are excelling, thriving, and becoming well-spoken, intelligent, logical-thinking young adults.
Why do we homeschool?
Take a moment to ponder why your family has chosen to homeschool. Many of us decided to homeschool because we felt God was calling us to diligently teach our children about Him. Some of us feel the public school agenda is objectionable and directly contradicts the Biblical foundation we seek to impart to our children.
Then ask yourself, “Does partnering with these for-profit companies that will instill government regulations into our home support our vision for our children and our homeschool?”
âChildren are a blessing and a gift from the Lord.â Psalm 127:3 (CSV)
âYou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” Deuteronomy 6:5-7 (ESV)
So, if our children are a gift from God and He has commanded us to teach them about Him, isn’t it possible that He would also have us teach them academics? To rely solely on Him for equipping, encouraging, refining, and providing for our needs?
We must choose. We cannot serve two masters.
âNo one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.âMatthew 6:24 (ESV)
TINSTAAFL
The truth is, There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TINSTAAFL)!
The money these for-profit companies promote as “free” is anything but. The money comes with regulations and impositions on other taxpayers. It requires families to surrender their homeschool freedom, which is given to us by God and was hard won by Idaho families.
So, what can I do?
TRUST God to supply all your needs. (Philippians 4:19)
CHOOSE carefully how to steward the money God provides your family through employment; telling our children’ no’ when we cannot afford all the lessons, all the newest technology, etc., will build their character and their faith.
LEARN more⌠ask questions! Do your research. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Share what you are learning with your homeschool friends!
NEW to Idaho? Welcome! We do things a little differently here: You do not have to fall under a charter school’s authority or any other governmental regulations to educate your children at home in Idaho.
GET INVOLVED: Join Homeschool Idaho and participate in “Pie Day,” our day at the state capitol to strut our stuff to state legislators.
PRAY for home educators in Idaho to stand strong against governmental regulation, to be secure in the knowledge that God will equip the called, and to be convinced that God is able to do far more abundantly than we ask or think. (Ephesians 3:20)
Annie Grey is a Christ follower, wife, and Momma to two CC graduates. When she isn’t serving families in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as an Area Representative, she is enjoying the outdoors in many ways, working on the family homestead, teaching group fitness classes, engaging with her young adults in thought-provoking and interesting conversation, or curled up reading a good book. After launching her arrows, she is grateful in this season that God is still using her to encourage and support families who wish to homeschool.Â
Adapted from Key’s correspondence, the story behind the Star-Spangled Banner
The collapse of Baltimoreâs Francis Scott Key bridge has opened discussions about its namesake. Adapting original sources and letters, I wrote about Francis Scott Key and how he came to write âThe Star-Spangled Bannerâ in my book, The Burning of the White House: James and Dolley Madison and the War of 1812.At the end of this article, Iâve included a notation to give you the historical context surrounding the controversy over two lines in the third verse.
Editor’s note: This blog is published in short. Read the full blog here.
Francis Scott Key, a lawyer who seemed to ponder his place in this world and author of The Star-Spangled Banner, was not pro-war. He was pro-emancipation. Key is credited with writing the Star-Spangled Banner after the 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, which he watched from a British ship with a spyglass.
A series of events led Key and Mr. Skinner to board the British admiralâs ship to secure Dr. Beanesâ release. As it turns out, Key was left out of the discussion that would result in Dr. Beanesâ release. History notes how well the American Army treated the British prisoners of war, and this was a key bargaining chip for Dr. Beanesâ freedom. Interestingly, Key was unimpressed with the British officers.
Key was unimpressed, as he later wrote: âNever was a man more disappointed in his expectations than I have been as to the character of British officers. With some exceptions they appeared to be illiberal, ignorant, and vulgar, and seem filled with a spirit of malignity against everything American. Perhaps, however, I saw them in unfavorable circumstances.â Indeed, he did.
During the attack on Fort McHenry, Key anxiously waited.
“What colors would he see as he placed his eye behind the spyglass and pointed it toward the fort? He didnât know which was worse, beholding the British Union Jack flag above Fort McHenry or the white flag of surrender. Both would mean victory for the British and capitulation once again from his countrymen.
Suddenly he noticed it. Gone was the American battle flag measuring 17 by 24 feet that had flown over the fort. Instead, he saw the most beautiful colors cast against a canvas of a multi-hue sunrise. The stars and stripes, fifteen of them to represent that nationâs fifteen states that had grown to eighteen by this time, flapped briskly from the fort that morning. The sight could only mean one thing. The Americans still held Fort McHenry.
The flag that Key saw that morning measured 42 feet by 30 feet. It was the largest flag ever flown at a U.S. fort. On that morning Key saw the larger flag, whose bright stars measured 24 inches from point to point. What he couldnât have heard that morning was the music at the fort. Because America lacked an official national anthem, the band played the popular Yankee Doodle.”
Francis Scott Key, Library of Congress
As he was set from the British ship and sailed back to land, ââŚhis emotion gave way to words, poetic words âŚâ
âO say, can you see, by the dawnâs early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilightâs last gleaming?â âWhose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fightâ as did the sight of the bombs and rockets. âOâer the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming! And the rocketsâ red glare, the bombs bursting in air.â
“Suddenly Fort McHenry didnât just represent Baltimore. It symbolized America, as did the 1,000 men who defended it. Suddenly the flag didnât just soar over Baltimore, it unfurled over the entire United States.”
âO say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave, Oâer the land of the free and the home of the brave?â
The verses poured from Keyâs pen, including lesser-known flourishes that reflected faith:
âO thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand, between their loved homes and the warâs desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land. Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.â Some were surprising for a man who seemed to oppose the war: âThen conquer we must when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: âIn God is our trust.ââ Each verse ended with the refrain âand the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave oâer the land of the free and the home of the brave!â
“Whether the words flowed easily for Key that day or came to him in bits and pieces to organize into a poetic pattern, one thing is for sure. The result spoke of the emotion that he and so many other Americans felt to learn that they had indeed once again defeated the British.
After the darkness of the burning of the U.S. Capitol and the White House came the dawn brought by the soaring multitude of phoenixes that awakened and defended Baltimore. Hope was brighter than ever. Maybe, just maybe, the Royal Navy would soon abandon Americaâs shores.”
“Historical context behind the third verse: In recent years, Americans have questioned the meaning of Keyâs reference to slavery in the third verse: âNo refuge could save the hireling and slave, From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave.â
Most of Keyâs lyrics are universal, especially in the first verse. The relief of an American victory can apply to Fort McHenry in 1814 and many subsequent victories in American history. The third verse, however, requires historical context to understand what Key meant.
Just a few months before Key wrote these lyrics, the British military had issued a proclamation promising freedom to slaves who would run away. There was a catch, however. The male slaves had to first fight as soldiers in the British army before they could receive their freedom in Canada or the Caribbean.
Key did not think the British army was a suitable place of refuge for slaves or hired mercenaries. By fighting in the British army, they risked both the âterror of flightâ and the âgloom of the grave.â Hence, these lyrics are not Keyâs opinion justifying slavery but a reflection of the stakes of being forced to fight in the British army.
It also helps, too, to understand why America and Britain were at war in the first place. The primary moral issue behind the War of 1812 was impressment. British sea captains were kidnapping American sailors and âimpressingâ or forcing them to serve in the British Navy against their will.”
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Womenâs Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
âThe reward for humility and fear of the LORD is riches and honor and life. Thorns and snares are in the way of the crooked; whoever guards his soul will keep far from them. Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old, he will not depart from it. The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender. Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.â â Proverbs 22:4-8(ESV)
The threat of globalism and neo-Marxism has become increasingly apparent over the last decade. What began as a group of theorists and power-hungry bureaucrats meeting once a year has turned into a demonic assault on the family, Christianity, and education. Families in many countries, even in the United States, have experienced repression on homeschooling as their governments work tirelessly to funnel them into the government mind-grinderâthe public school system.
Just in the past few years, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released its 17 global goals by the year 2030âthe fourth of which is “quality education.” Their vision is simple:
âIn addition to free primary and secondary schooling for all boys and girls by 2030, the aim is to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to quality higher education.â[1]
Marxism Version 9.0?
Those familiar with the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels will recognize this agenda from The Communist Manifesto. In his renowned political pamphlet, Marx outlined ten steps or “planks” necessary to implement in order for communism to be established in a society. The tenth plank is “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.”
Both UNESCO and Marx agree that the implementation of free universal government-run education with the aim of industrial production is absolutely necessary to achieve their utopian ends. The fact that UNESCO aligns its vision with the deadliest idea known to history is telling.
When internationally powerful people insist on controlling the upbringing of your children, what ought you to do? Are they too powerful to resist? Should we hand them our children in exchange for their “free money”?
Of course not! In the face of the globalist threat, the best tactic to overthrow their tyranny is to raise and educate your own children in the way they should go independently from the state. Praise God, millions of parents are doing just that.
Raise your Children
Millions of parents around the United States have been convinced that it is their job to drop their precious babies off at daycare to be nurtured, ship them off to “free” government schools to be trained in humanist religion and Critical Theory, only to be reunited as stakeholder (pesky conservatives might even deign to call them “mom” or “dad”) and product on the day of graduation when the tassel goes from Right to Left. The effects of this have been undeniably disastrous, whether you examine the breakdown of the family, the dumbing down of the American mind, or the rise of humanist globalism in the West.
Let me be clear: we should not slander the parents who have fallen for this lie because the Left has always been good at marketing. A big sign that says, “Free stuff here!” always looks enticing. So, it should not be surprising when millions of otherwise reasonable people join the fray, calling for “free public education.” They do not know that their children’s very minds, bodies, and souls are at stake.
Thankfully, millions more parents have not been persuaded by the Left to divorce themselves from their children. Rather than offering up the bodies, souls, and minds of their children to Father Government, these mothers and fathers have taken upon themselves the God-given duty to have, nurture, raise, and educate their beloved children independently from the state. Hallelujah!
The truth is that our Creator, sustainer, and Savior God has given parents, and parents alone, the jurisdiction to raise their children in the way they should go. If you are skeptical of this point, I would encourage you to search the scriptures for a verse that suggests that the state has a role to play in the upbringing and education of children.
Furthermore, a brief overview of history will expose government schools as a radical and novel idea foisted upon society by Christian-hating humanists with the aim of uprooting Christianity and implementing Marxism. Alex Newman makes this case undeniably clear in his groundbreaking book Indoctrinating Our Children To Death.
By raising your own children independently of the government, you are depriving the Marxist, humanist, globalist elites of the thing they need mostâthe next generation.
Educate your Children
Keeping your children out of the government’s reach is not the final step that parents must take. We also must educate our children.
What is the purpose of education? In modernity, the perceived purpose of education is perfectly in line with the Marxist and globalist vision rather than with the classicists. UNESCO said, “The aim is to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to quality higher education.” Just thinkâwe go to high school to get a diploma so we can go to the university to get a degree for a job so we can be a productive member of society. Today, education is strictly a matter of establishing social roles.
We want more for our children! Education is about the soul, the mind, the heart, and the desires of an individual. It is meant to cultivate virtue and instill wisdom. By removing the soul from education, modern Marxist school tyrants have nulled the desire of individuals to search out and know truth, beauty, and goodness. As the CIRCE Institute says, “The purpose of classical education is to cultivate virtue and wisdom. The classical Christian does not ask, “What can I do with this learning?” but “What will this learning do to me?” Briefly put, education is a matter of the soul as much as it is of the mind.
Thankfully, though men have forgotten the truth about education, Christians can still rejoice in the Proverbs when it says:
âHow much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.â â Proverbs 16:16 (ESV)
“The one who gets wisdom loves life; the one who cherishes understanding will soon prosper.â â Proverbs 19:8 (ESV)
âThe fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.â â Proverbs 1:7 (ESV)
Through education, we can prepare our children to be sent out as sheep among wolves, being wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16). Through education, we can teach our children to be virtuous men and women, full of wisdom and understanding, and equipped with the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6). This is how we will protect children from globalist manipulation and humanist lies.
Overcome Evil with Good
Oftentimes, it can feel like we have already lost the battle. It can seem like the elite class has all the power required to shape the world into their imageâbut take heart: Christ has overcome the world (John 16:33). As we continue to pierce souls with the sword of the Spirit, let us not be discouraged by the fiery arrows of the devil. By raising and educating your own children, you are depriving the globalists of the one thing they requireâthe bodies, minds, and souls of your children. Without control of the next generation, they are incapable of implementing their wicked agenda. So, as you continue to walk the straight and narrow, “Do not be anxious about anything” (Philippians 4:6), “Trust in the Lord with all your heart” (Proverbs 3:5-6), and “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical ConversationsÂŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
[1] United Nations (2016, January 1). “Goal 4: Quality Education.” Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved July 11, 2024, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/
Social engineering is hardly novel. Whether in totalitarian states like North Korea or dystopian novels such as George Orwellâs 1984 and Animal Farm, this method of mass manipulation is widely recognized and feared throughout the free world as the silent killer of civilizations.
In his book, The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis articulates the aim of social engineering: âTraditional values are to be debunked,” he wrote, “and mankind cut out into some fresh shape at the will of some few lucky people in one lucky generation which has learned how to do it.â
Borrowing Lewisâs language, we can conclude that the aim of social engineering is to debunk traditional values in order to cut mankind into âsome fresh shapeâ according to the will of the powerful. The frightening fact is that we are one of those âlucky generationsâ that has learned how to do it.
There are many plausible methods of social engineering that our generation has at its disposal. To name a few: the creation of a mass social contagion through the internet, fostering a forgetfulness of history, and state infiltration into education. An argument could be made that those âlucky peopleâ with the power to engineer society are not allowing any of these methods to go to waste.
However, by examining the purpose of state education and the methods of academic manipulation used on children today, it will become clear which practice is most prominent in our modern ageâsocial engineering through state education.
The Purpose of State Education
There is a looming debate over public education. What is its purpose? Is it to effectively educate Americaâs youth or to indoctrinate upcoming generations? We do not have to wonder for long because the proponents of public education have told us exactly what their intentions are.
“The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client of the public school is not the parent, but the entire community, the public.â
The Michigan Democratic Party Facebook page
This quote might as well have been pulled from the dystopian novel The Giver. There can be no doubtâthe purpose of state education is, and always has been, to create an institution where âsome few lucky peopleâ can cut the minds of the youngest generation âinto some fresh shapeâ on the largest scale mankind has ever known.
The only question that remains is a practical oneâhow?
The Methods of Academic Manipulation
There are three practical methods of manipulation that are employed in our schools:
Mass indoctrination
Data mining
Installation of Father Government
Mass Indoctrination
Cambridge Dictionary defines indoctrination as âthe process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question.â It also involves banning certain ideasâthose that are contradictory to the ideology of the indoctrinatorâfrom the public square.
These two ideas combinedâthe forceful instillation of ideas and the banning of contrary thought and expressionâmake up the most essential tool of social engineering. To put it another way: in order to control a population, you must first control their thoughts.
In the 1963 case School District of Abington Township v. Schempp,[1] the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and prayer in public schools would be unconstitutional. By banning scripture and the expression of religion from schools (ideas that contradict progressive thought), the Court seemed to say, âLet the indoctrination begin.â
Since then, the religion of the Left has been unleashed and forcefully taught in all public schools around the country. DEI initiatives, books like Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, and Critical Race Theory have all been introduced to the K-12 curriculum. This is what schools are really teaching our children.
Whatâs more, Students who reject these ideas are demonized, teachers who refuse to comply are fired, and parents who object are ignored or condemned as âdomestic terrorists.â
Society, through state education, insists on indoctrinating children with the idea that boys can be girls and girls can be boys, white people are evil and black people oppressed, the weather is going to end the world, religion is bigoted and intolerant, capitalism is wicked and communism benevolent, America is systemically racist, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a Christian nationalist, MAGA, fascist extremist.
Our state schools are not places of wonder and free thought. Rather, they are prison cells designed to keep both truth and the will of parents locked away so that the minds of children will remain captive and submissive to what âsociety needs them to know.â
Data Mining
Commonly used to predict investment planning and to track internet analytics, data mining uses technology to sort through large quantities of data on a subject in order to determine patterns and characteristics. Although it seems like basic computer interaction, it is being used for much more than simply organizing numbers and symbols.
This powerful technology has been unleashed on every child in the public school system by the state to collect, organize, analyze, and micromanage their academic performance and personal information.
If your child is in the public schools, their grades, academic history, confidential information, address, family members, personal beliefs, strengths and weaknesses, social tendencies, extracurricular activities, and more are deeply known by the state.
Alex Newman, author of Indoctrinating Our Children to Death and co-author of Crimes of the Educators, details the depth of this dangerous method of child monitoring and explains how other countries, such as China and Sweden, have used this technology to exponentially advance social engineering and further corrupt education.
With this information, the powerful few who are pulling the strings of education will know exactly who your child is and how to shape them into a âcreature of the state.â[2]
Father Government
In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce vs Society Sisters that it is both the right and the duty of parents to direct the education and âdestinyâ of their children independent of the state.
âThe fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.â[3]
This fundamental right of parents should be self-evident. However, in recent decades there has been a drastic shift in western civilization away from parent-controlled education towards state-controlled education.
The Michigan Democratic Party said, âNot sure where this ‘parents-should-control-what-is-taught-in-schools-because-they-are-our-kids’ is originating⌠The purpose of a public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught.â[4]
James Dwyer, a professor at the William & Mary School of Law, stated in an interview, “The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a childâs wellbeing.â
Even President Joe Biden said in a speech to public school teachers, âThey arenât someone elseâs, they are all our children.â[5]
According to those with the power to engineer society, parents are no longer welcome to participate in their childrenâs upbringing, well-being, or educationâthat is the role of Father Government.
When powerful people tell you they intend to take your parental rights away, it is best to believe them.
This philosophy is the policy of the political Left in America. We see this in the way that homeschooling, which is the enemy of Father Government, has been heavily restricted and aggressively regulated across the states; teachers have begun to take the place of parents as the mentor and confidant of their students; and schools have shamelessly implemented teachings that contradict the beliefs of the majority of American parents.
Gradually, parents have been conditioned to believe that their job is simply to drop their children off at school. By accepting this lie, they invite Father Government to mold their children into âsome fresh shapeâ until they are âa mere creature of the state.â
The Solution
The purpose of state education has always been to divorce parents from the upbringing and education of their children so that the state can âteach [children] what society needs them to know.â As parents or simply lovers of liberty, it is our duty to strongly oppose the dangerous methods of mass manipulations that millions of children in our country are subjected to daily.
Social engineering requires power and influence to manifest in a society. Currently, it has both. In order to evade the effects of engineering, we must recognize its deeply dangerous influence in state schools and, once again, educate ourselves and our children independently of Father Government. By doing this, those powerful few with the aim of controlling society will lose their power, and this lucky generation will remain free.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and  Classical ConversationsŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. Elise is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. Elise continues her journey towards the Celestial City with a determined resolve to gain wisdom and understanding. Soli Deo gloria!
[1] US Supreme Court (1963, June 17). Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/374/203/
[2] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/
[3] U.S. Supreme Court (1925, June 1). Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). Justia. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/510/
[4] Renk. âMichigan Democratic Party Questions Why Parents Think They Should Have a Say in Their Childs Education.â 95.3 WBCKFM, January 18, 2022. https://wbckfm.com/michigan-democratic-party-questions-why-parents-think-they-should-have-a-say-in-their-childs-education/.
[5] (2023, July 4). Biden. X. Retrieved April 15, 2024, from https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1676284124527755266
“Christian”âwhat does it mean? The use of the word “Christian” in modern vernacular is quite perplexing to me. It functions as both an adjective and a noun, but at its inception, it was solely used to describe or rename people. Christianity.com published this piece that speaks to the term’s origin, “Scholars say ‘Christian’ comes from the Greek word christianos, meaning ‘little Christ.'” Stories say the term was used as a jeer, as their enemies would poke fun at them by calling them diminutive versions of their Savior, as in, “Look at those little Christs.”
The adjective is first used in Acts 11:26
âAnd when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year, they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch, the disciples were first called Christians.”
The term is used two more times in Scripture:
“And Agrippa said to Paul, ‘You almost persuade me to become a Christian.'” Acts 26:28
“Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” 1 Peter 4:16
Defining “Christian”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Christian as:
adjective: Christian
relating to or professing Christianity or its teachings. “the Christian Church”
noun: Christian; plural noun: Christians
a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity. “a born again Christian”
At some point, the term went from describing and renaming just people to other things and ideas.
Why did this happen?
How can inanimate and abstract nouns be “Christian?”
Is this conversation even worth anyone’s time?
How and why we use the word “Christian” matters
How and why we use the word “Christian” matters because our usage has the potential to be ambiguous, misleading, counterproductive, and perhaps tyrannical and abusive. That is assuredly raising eyebrows. If we don’t view everything through the lens of this one adjective, surely I must be a secularist, and my argument will serve to disparage the gospel! Or will it?
I often hear talk about a thing being called “Christian.” You could call anything Christian, whether it pertains to justice, punishment, civil government, individual sovereignty, parental rights, foreign policy, benevolence, responsibility, or even gravity, trigonometry, music, or art. I am not sure what this means when you describe a thing this way. It could mean the idea was communicated by someone who claims to be a Christian. It also could mean that the assigner of this attribute believes the object to be true.
Additionally, “Christian” could mean that the speaker believes the topic should rest within the church’s jurisdiction. This is what I mean when I say the term has the potential to be ambiguous. I am left to wonder, what about this thing is “Christian”; its origin, its jurisdiction, or its nature? If I am unclear about what aspect is being described, there is plenty of room to be misled or to mislead.
If the modifier “Christian” simply means that a thing is true (Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6), any true idea would be a Christian idea. Consequently, any time a truth is spoken, it would be “Christian,” whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor. Conversely, any untruth would be an anti-Christian idea, whether it is spoken by an atheist or a pastor.
Since this word is ambiguous, and it is unclear if we are modifying content or context, we frequently miss out on truths from unexpected places and accept lies from places in which we have let our guard downâall because of this “Christian” label.
My last point is that using the name of Christ in the word Christian has the potential to be tyrannical or abusive. Why do I say this? Well, for those who recognize Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, this type of adjective is authoritative. It implicates and obligates us if the nature of the idea does flow from Christ and reflects his nature, expectations, and authority. If you choose to label something as “Christian,” you are using the name of Christ to prop up your argument. If you have the grounds to do so, proceed with extreme caution. If you do not have the grounds to do so, could you not be found guilty of using the Lord’s name in vain? Exodus 20:7
Why would anyone take this risk?
We do it all the time!
We are all born into contexts that rub off on us. I think the Holman Christian Standard Bible version says it best when it warns us in Romans 12, “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.” For some of us, the “age” we were born into was full of religious-sounding power-grabbing language, and it is incumbent upon us not to be pressed into that mold. Furthermore, we must all confess that our culture has not embraced the beauty of flexing our rational faculties. Many of us are not equipped to defend and argue how we should be, so we subconsciously default to authoritative trump cards.
Last, and most dangerous, are those who would purposely leverage the authority of Christ where they shouldn’t because of the pervasive fallen nature that plagues all of humanity. Abigail Adams, in her typical direct manner, said, “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” While she may have spoken specifically of males, I think we could agree that this proclivity also affects women.
This is what Augustine (The City of God) so aptly named the lust for dominance, and we all have itâ all politicians, pastors, podcasters, Sunday school teachers, lawyers, doctors, plumbers and teachers! So when we speak of that which is Christian or hear someone else leverage that term, it is our obligation to say, “But is it? And why is it?”
There is an alternative
Philippians 4:8 gives us some practical objective adjectives to use instead.
âFinally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.â
Choose to use objective merit-based adjectives and defend them well. In the classical tradition, we argue for what is true, good, and beautiful, and we can be confident that when we find these things, we will also find Christ! But beware of those who will skip the work of reason to persuade you in other ways.
Let us beg God for discernment in what we hear and what we say.
âDiscernment is not the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right.” Charles Spurgeon
âBe sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.â1 Peter 5:8
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Public Relations for Classical ConversationsÂŽ. She has been a home educator since her first student was born 18 years ago. She came to Classical Conversations for support when the student count in their home grew beyond what she thought she could navigate on her own. In addition to homeschooling her seven children, she co-leads community classes that unpack our nation’s founding documents and civic responsibility. However, she is happiest at home, preferably outside, with her husband of 18 years, tackling their newest adventure of building a modern homestead.
Let me first say that no number of rules, or “dad sermons” (as my kids call them), will have much effect in planting the Gospel in our sons’ hearts if we ourselves are not first drinking from the wellspring of Christ.
There are many tools for developing manhood in your son’s life, but let me emphasize the power of one in particularâceremonies.
Put Away Childish Things
I did not grow up in a family that intentionally put my brothers and me through any official ceremonies to celebrate becoming men. However, I did experience the value of a thriving Boy Scout community.
Looking back, I recall the many lessons instilled in me through tent camping, hiking, backpacking, and cooking over fires in the freezing Michigan winters alongside other boys and young men with their fathers. Together, we watched these fathers and leaders guide, sacrifice, and teach us. In our cohort, we also watched them debate Christian principles and biblical ideas around the campfire. Boy Scouts used ceremonies to mark the growth in leadership as scouts matured from boys to men.
 NOTE: All readers should be aware of the significant cultural, ethical, and moral changes the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have implemented throughout the years. Be advised that these shifts are significant rejections of Christian morals and a Christian worldview. In response, Trail Life has provided a better alternative to BSA. For more information, please see this response article to BSAâs recent name change. Â
Fast-forward to adulthood, and now I have two sons. I want to give them a similar chance to step through different “levels” of maturity. As a young father, I was exposed to the book Raising a Modern Day Knight by Robert Lewis. Lewis discusses an intentional multi-ceremonial process of escorting your boy into manhood by giving him goals, a masculine vision of godly leadership, an uncompromising code of conduct, and a noble cause. This was precisely what I wanted for my boys.
1 Corinthians 13:11 tells us that children speak and think as children, yet when they become men, they should put away childish things. If this is true, how can we do this aptly and at the appropriate time?
Today’s culture is filled with young men who have not been taught to take responsibility for their actions, inactions, or passivity. Just the other day, I witnessed just such passivity and immaturity. A young man in his early 20s pulled up to the gas pump beside me but stayed in the driver’s seat on his phone. A minute later, an older woman, presumably his mother, pulled into the pump in front of him and proceeded to pay for his gas and pump it for him. Of course, all the while, he sat selfishly on his phone.
Modern society grieves me quite a bit. I am saddened by today’s young men as we are fighting a battle for their souls. As fathers and father figures, it is our job to teach boys to lead courageously, sacrifice boldly, seek truth, and submit to the Lordship of Jesus.
âOur objective as moms and dads is to transform our sons from immature and flighty youngsters into honest, caring men who will be respectful of women, loyal and faithful in marriage, keepers of commitments, strong and decisive leaders, good workers, and men who are secure in their masculinity.â â James C. Dobson,Bringing Up Boys
Commemorate and Commission with Ceremony
Ceremonies are a way of commemorating clearly to our sons when and how to step from boyhood into manhood. A boy must know what it means to act and speak like a man. He needs to have a picture of how a man walks in faith, how he is exhorted by the word of God, and how to humble himself and give his life for his family and friends. Having a clear vision of manhood helps godly men hold their sons accountable for carrying out that vision.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of including other godly men in the ceremony with your sons. Having other men speak truth to your boy reinforces what we, as parents, are teaching. I have had many opportunities to remind my son that his uncles, grandfathers, youth pastors, and other men in his life are pointing him to the same truth that his father is.
Grasping this, I organized a manhood ceremony with my son when he turned 14. There is no “right age,” but Robert Lewis does suggest a handful of ceremonies at specific ages. Ceremonies in the 11-13 years help point your boy to a vision of manhood, while ceremonies in the mid-to-upper teens help him live out his God-given vision.
Since my oldest son matured physically and spiritually quicker than many, I planned a ceremony for when he turned 14 years old, with the purpose of marking God’s calling on his life. 1 Thessalonians 5:14-24 provided the foundation of the ceremony and the commission to him as a young man.
These verses include:
A man’s responsibility toward fellow Christians is to warn the unruly, comfort the fainthearted, help the weak, show patience with all, enforce justice, and pursue what is good.
A man’s responsibility toward God is to rejoice always, pray without ceasing, and give thanks in all circumstances as he seeks to know God’s will through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Lastly, it reminds men that they are not on a manhood journey alone; God Himself is the One who is sanctifying them and preserving them until Jesus returns.
We root our vision of manhood to our sons in Scripture because it is not “dad’s idea” but truths from God’s word.
Ceremonies Can be Powerful Reminders
God routinely commanded His people to remember His mighty works through ceremonies. Today, such ceremonies are used in the church similarly (e.g., we have powerful reminders today of our redemption in Christ through baptism and communion).
Placing a memorable ceremony in our sons’ lives helps us remind them of the commitment they made to live as godly men. May God give you a vision for your sons that can be firmly cemented in ceremony. May He also use these ceremonies to build them up as men who trust Christ’s finished work and become confident in their responsibility to Him.
The more we allow God’s word to permeate our hearts, the more our sons will see and emulate our behavior. The old saying that “more is caught than taught” is true in my family. Often, the negative aspects of my children’s character are manifestations of my own shortcomings. However, by God’s grace and through His patient work, we can become the kind of fathers our sons should emulate.
Let me say a quick word to fatherless families wondering how to raise boys to be men without a dad in the home. Although an in-home figure is absent, God has likely provided father figures to influence your boys. Neighbors, men at church, uncles, and friends are there to help. You are not alone on this journey, so be bold and ask them for support. And yes, it may take more than one influence to assist with this void, but integrating your boys into a community of men who can show them how godly men live is crucial.
Jonathan Ashmore is the father of two boys, 17 and 11, and two girls, 14 and 10, and has been faithfully married for 21 years. He has a BS in Computational Mathematics from Hillsdale College and is working on a graduate degree in Apologetics and Evangelism from Dallas Theological Seminary. During his 20-year USMC career as a pilot, he and his wife have been passionate about raising godly children and helping families with marriages and child-rearing. There is no higher calling than raising boys and girls to be faithful Christian men and women. Raising strong men who reject passivity and lead courageously following Christ’s example is crucial to a thriving Christian community.
Reprinted with permission. Read original article here.
As Americans look towards the Heavens to see the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024, I wanted to share with you an excerpt from my book, American Phoenix, about a conversation between John Quincy Adams and the Czar of Russia over the report of two comets in the sky.
As I was writing this intro on April 5, the earthquake in New York took place. I was literally searching scripture for these terms: signs, such as signs in the heavens and earthquakes when the news broke about the New York earthquake.
Here are a couple of scriptures that I found.
âThere will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.â Luke 21:11 (NIV)
“There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.â Luke 25:21 (NIV)
Humans have often attributed meaning to eclipses, comets, and other celestial wonders. In addition to the solar eclipse visible in America on April 8, the devil comet will also make an appearance.
Space.com recently reported, âAn unusual âhorned’ comet is now visible in the night sky and may even make a rare appearance during the total solar eclipse on April 8, 2024. This particular comet, often called the devil comet, visits the inner solar system every 71 years.â
Hence, April 8 may include two heavenly wonders. Similarly, two signs in the sky were the topics of this excerpt from my book American Phoenixbelow.
When John Quincy Adams was America’s top diplomat to Russia in December 1811, he had a discussion with the Czar of Russia about the two signs in the sky, which were thought to be two comets. John Quincy and Emperor Alexander had grown accustomed to taking walks along the canals of St. Petersburg at the same time of day so they could meet and discuss politics and world events away from the pretension and formality of the Winter Palace.
Enjoy this excerpt from my favorite book that I have written, American Phoenix, which is now available on audible.
Comets
Comets have a bad reputation. They are known for letting their hair down and growing a brilliant train as they head for earth.
Over the years humans have had trouble making heads or tails of these celestial lights. Some welcome these eccentric stars as signs of hope. To the masses, however, these masses of gas and dust are omens of impending disaster. Many would prefer that a comet keep its distance and stay as close to the sun as possible. The reason? Fear. People have feared excessive tragedy following in the wake of these long-haired stars.
With so much woe over one comet, what would happen if two comets suddenly appeared in the sky? That was the question on Russian Emperor Alexanderâs mind as he took a walk in St. Petersburg, Russia, on December 9, 1811. When he saw his American friend, John Quincy Adams, the czar knew he would receive a thoughtful reply. Adams was the top diplomat representing America in Russia. By this time he had done something no one thought he could do: win the friendship of Russian Emperor Alexander.
âMonsieur Adams,â the emperor called enthusiastically in a good-humored tone. âI have the honor to pay my respect.â
John responded cordially. As usual the pair discussed the weather, which could not help leading to the mysterious lights in the sky.
âWe have two comets at once,â Alexander observed of the twin prediction.
Adams instantly knew what he meant. The comet of 1811 was becoming more and more unmistakable and brilliant. With its tail âwarming themâ for some months, the latest reports predicted that two comets, not merely one, would streak past St. Petersburg before the yearâs end. John doubted the newspaperâs prediction of double trouble.
âOh, that is certain,â Alexander said playfully.
He offered another cosmic puzzle for Adams to solve. âBut, furthermore, I hear that one of the fixed stars namely, Sirius, has sunk one degree in the firmament,â Alexander continued wryly.
Unlike his American friend, the emperorâs information came not from a newspaper but a person.
In a sarcastic tone, he revealed his source: âBut for this I will give you my authority, âsays the ambassador from France.ââ
âThis was extraordinary news indeed,â John responded with equal sarcasm over French Count Lauristonâs planetary predictions.
âCâest un bouleversement gĂŠnĂŠral du ciel,â Alexander replied in French of the âgeneral upheaval of the sky.â
âBut as it is generally understood that one comet portends great disasters,â John observed, âit is to be hoped that two must signify some great happiness to the world.â
âOr at least that their mischief will operate mutually against each other and by reciprocal counteraction destroy the evil efficacy of both,â Alexander suggested.
âI congratulate His Majesty of his happy solution of the portentous knot.â
âIl y a moyen dâexpliquer toutes ces choses lĂ ,â he said with a laugh, that is, there are ways to explain all these things.
The czar added that the best way to respond to cosmic harbingers of calamity was to let the heavens take their own course without meddling in their management.
Indeed. The czar may have recently brought the Turkish Empire to a truce, freeing thousands of Russian soldiers to fight France, but even with all his power, he could not control a comet nor what happened the following year in 1812. Two wars took place when Napoleon invaded Russia and America went to war with Britain. Both forever changed both John Quincy Adams and Emperor Alexander.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Womenâs Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
Kutuzov inflicted several defeats on the Turks and on May 28, 1812, concluded a Russo-Turkish peace settlement favorable to Russia (Treaty of Bucharest).
Adapted from Resilience on Parade: Short Stories of Suffragists and Women’s Battle for the Vote.
February 12, 2024, was Abraham Lincolnâs 215th birthday. Although Iâve not written a book featuring Lincoln in the leading role, I have touched on his story through the stories of others, including the excerpt below.
In 2020, I released a book on womenâs right to vote for the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. In Resilience on Parade, I shared the stories of several suffragists, such as Abigail Adams in 1776 and Susan B. Anthony in the 1800s. Below is a portion of the chapter on Sojourner Truth. Although the book covers her emancipation from slavery, this excerpt starts with her famous suffrage speech and ends with her meeting with Abraham Lincoln. Enjoy!
The fifty-four-year-old black woman, who often wore a turban woven with brightly colored threads, entered the convention in Akron, Ohio, that spring day in May 1851. Isabella Van Wagener no longer existed.
When she left her former masterâs house of bondage, she left everything behind. Years later, she went to the Lord and asked Him to give her a new name after her conversion to Christianity in 1848. The Lord gave her Sojourner, because she was to travel up and down the land to show the people the sin of slavery and to be a sign unto them. Later, she wanted a last name, because everyone had two names, and God gave her Truth because she was to proclaim truth to the people.
As the attendees of the womenâs rights conference in Akron on May 29, 1851, would soon discover, Sojourner Truth may have entered that conference known as an abolitionist, but she left it known by another name, tooâsuffragist.
âMay I say a few words? I want to say a few words about this matter,â she began, saying that she was an example of womenâs rights.
âI have as much muscle as any man, and can do as much work as any man. I have plowed and reaped and husked and chopped and mowed, and can any man do more than that?â Indeed, as her autobiography declared, sheâd endured the toil of slavery and had the lashes to prove it.
âI have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.
âAs for intellect, all I can say is, if women have a pint and man a quart – why canât she have her little pint full?â Her pint had recently been full. This woman who could not read had become a published author the previous year. How was that possible?
Sheâd shared with abolitionist Oliver Gilbert her story of perseverance and how sheâd transformed from a slave into a free person, and he had written it down and published it. Called Narrative of Sojourner Truth by Sojourner Truth, her story shed light on the cruelties of slavery and launched her into the role of an activist. It was time to stand up for African women.
âYou need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much, for we canât take more than our pintâll hold. The poor men seem to be all in confusion, and donât know what to do,â she continued.
âWhy children, if you have womanâs rights, give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and they wonât be so much trouble,â she said in her own version of remember the ladies.
âI canât read, but I can hear. I have heard the Bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again,â Sojourner proclaimed, turning her talk into a mini sermon of sorts.
âThe lady has spoken about Jesus, how he never spurned woman from him, and she was right. When Lazarus died, Mary and Martha came to him with faith and love and besought him to raise their brother. And Jesus weptâand Lazarus came forth. And how came Jesus into the world? Through God who created him and woman who bore him.â
Then she ended with a zinger, recognizing the dual reform movements facing the nation: abolition and womenâs rights. She represented both.
âMan, where is your part? But the women are coming up blessed be God and a few of the men are coming up with them. But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, and he is surely between-a hawk and a buzzard.â
The most memorable speech of that convention, her remarks as presented here were published a few weeks after her speech by Marius Robinson in the AntiâSlavery Bugle of New Lisbon, Ohio, on June 21, 1851. The eventâs organizer, Frances Dana Gage, published another version in 1863 in the New York Independent. Hailed by suffragists, it was branded as Arânât I a Woman? The accuracy of Gageâs version is doubtful because it was published twelve years after she first delivered it. Regardless, the speech brought Sojourner notoriety.
Around this time, Sojourner traveled to Massachusetts, where she met Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book Uncle Tomâs Cabin was the Common Sense of the Civil War. Harriet wrote about their meeting in the Atlanta Monthly.
Sojourner believed that if God could help her do such big things as speaking at the womenâs conference or meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe, then he would help her meet the man she most wanted to meet in the world. Heavenâs Great Emancipator would help her meet the emancipator of her people.
In October 1864, Truthâs ultimate sojourn led her to the great white house where he lived. As she stared at the pillars flanking the presidentâs house, her mind may have flashed back to the island of the willow trees, her kneeling pillars of prayer under the stars above. She had never seen such a grand house before, whose columns reached to the sky as if to proclaim something special, such as justice or freedom. Then she walked into the house as freely as anyone else.
A dozen or so guests waited in the presidentâs reception area. Sojourner noticed that two of the women were also black. A gentleman escorted the guests one by one to the president, who was seated in an adjacent room. One observation made her smile.
He showed as much kindness and consideration to the colored persons as to the whites, in her opinion. It was hard to hold back a tear or two. If there was any difference, he showed more pleasantries to the emancipated. Then her moment came. The gentlemen escorted her to the presidentâs desk.
âThis is Sojourner Truth, who has come all the way from Michigan to see you,â the host said, introducing her to the president.
Abraham Lincoln stood, extending his hand to her. She responded by taking his hand and shaking it. Then he bowed.
âI am pleased to see you,â he said.
As many people did before meeting a president, she had rehearsed a thousand times what she planned to say.
âMr. President, when you first took your seat I feared you would be torn to pieces, for I likened you unto Daniel, who was thrown into the lionsâ den. And if the lions did not tear you into pieces, I knew that it would be God that had saved you; and I said if He spared me I would see you before the four years expired, and He has done so, and now I am here to see you for myself.â
Tapping his wit, Lincoln congratulated her on being spared.
âI appreciate you, for you are the best president who has ever taken the seat.â
Lincoln paused, perhaps crossing his long arms as if thinking.
âI expect you have reference to my having emancipated the slaves in my proclamation,â he said, naming many of his predecessors, especially Washington. âThey were all just as good, and would have done just as I have done if the time had come,â he said, pausing again.
âIf the people over the river,â he said, pointing across the Potomac, âhad behaved themselves, I could not have done which gave me the opportunity to do these things.â
âI thank God that you were the instrument selected by Him and the people to do it,â Sojourner replied, acknowledging that she hadnât heard of him before he became president. He upped the compliment, noting that heâd heard of her many times before.
Lincoln then turned toward his desk, sat down, and picked up a large elegant book. He told her it had been given to him by the colored people of Baltimore.
Sojourner was speechless as she stared at the Bible. She glanced at the president. He nodded, as if giving her permission to open it and look through it.
âThis is beautiful indeed; the colored people have given this to the head of the government, and that government once sanctioned laws that would not permit its people to learn enough to enable them to read this book. And for what? Let them answer who can.â
Then Sojourner pulled a small book from her skirt pocket and handed it to the president.
He picked up a pen from his desk and wrote, âFor Aunty Sojourner Truth, Oct. 29, 1864. A. Lincoln.â
Lincoln stood and took her hand with his large bony hand, the same one that had signed the Emancipation Proclamation. He told her he would be pleased to have her call upon him again.
Sojourner smiled. As she exited through the door and passed through the pillars of the presidentâs house, she wanted to shout to God and thank him for Abraham Lincoln, but she didnât have to shout to be heard by the Almighty anymore. God knew her heart.
âI felt that I was in the presence of a friend, and I now thank God from the bottom of my heart that I always have advocated his cause, and have done it openly and boldly. I shall feel still more in duty bound to do so in time to come. May God assist me.â
Now more than ever, she would advocate for her people, her now free people. She longed to return home, to make Michigan a place where the emancipated could come and pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Perhaps one day she could vote. As she began her journey home, she believed that the Greatest Emancipator would help her.
Jane Hampton Cook is the author of 10 books, a frequent guest in the national news media, a screenwriter, a former White House staffer, and a former Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission Consultant.
It has become taboo today to mention anything relating to Christianity in the same sentence with anything regarding law or public policy. If you mention anything that even remotely sounds like Christian theology in a public policy context, you are immediately met with cries of âSeparation of church and state!â, âWe are a secular democracy!â, or âYou are trying to establish a theocracy!â
In such a climate, it is good to reflect on the proper use of Christian theology in law, governance, and public policy.
The Myth of Secular Public Policy
First of all, I should point out that, whether we want it to be or not, theology (whether good theology or bad theology) actually is at the core of all public policy, especially in the United States. The Declaration of Independence states this: âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . â
Now, let us ask ourselves, is this truth really self-evident?
Throughout the entire course of human history, people have wanted to divide people into classes. Whether it is through the caste system in India, through the nobility of Europe, or through simple racial preference, what has been self-evident to humans is that âweâ are better than âthey.â So how could the writers of the Declaration of Independence claim that it was a self-evident truth?
The answer is that they had been raised under Christian doctrine.
Christianity: The Source of American Rights
âThere is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesusâ (Galatians 3:28). âFor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godâ (Romans 3:23). âSuppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, âHereâs a good seat for you,â but say to the poor man, âYou stand thereâ or âSit on the floor by my feet,â have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?â (James 2:2-4).
And there are many more. So, we can see that at the core of our country, at the Declaration of Independence, we have distinctively Christian doctrine. So, if someone says that using Christian doctrine violates the rights of other people who are not Christian, they are simply incorrectâit is specifically Christian doctrine that has created and enabled those rights to begin with.
The State and the Church: Working Together, But Not as One
However, it is very easy to get the wrong idea.
The goal of using Christian doctrine is not to make the state an arm of the church. Jesusâ commands were to a people who were not in control of the government, and therefore, care must be taken to properly apply Christian doctrine to the affairs of the state. The churchâs function is for believers, while the stateâs function is for all of the people in the community, no matter how large or small. The stateâs actions are, by nature, coercive. The community of God is, by nature, voluntary.
If we tried to use the stateâs power to force people to believe in Christianity, we would be misusing the power of the state and misunderstanding what Christianity is.
However, in order to properly govern, the state must presuppose knowledge about nature, reality, and humanity. If the state misunderstands human nature, its laws will be ineffective or even counterproductive. If the state misunderstands the source of evil and corruption, it will also fail to curb it and may wind up perpetuating it instead. Christianityâthrough the Bible, through church teaching, and through Christian reflection over thousands of yearsâhas quite a bit to say about the nature of reality and especially human nature. Christianity best serves law and governance by providing better perspectives on the nature of reality and then reflecting on how government can be most effective in the light of that reality.
Applying Christian Doctrine: A Case Study and A Warning
Let me present a case study from Reinhold Niebuhrâs The Irony of American History. In this book, he shows how the doctrine of sin has affected different governments. Niebuhr presents two incorrect doctrines of sin which have led many governments astray. Now, as with most theology, being an atheist does not prevent a person from having a theology. A âdoctrine of sinâ simply means âan explanation for what is wrong with the world and how it got that way.â
Communists, like everyone else, operated with a doctrine of sinâthey believed that property was the cause of sin. Therefore, they believed that by removing property from society they would remove sin. Communism failed because it operated on a false doctrine.
Modern Western democracies also have an equally erroneous concept of sinâthat ignorance is the cause of sin in the world. Therefore, if we can simply educate the unwashed masses, then our problems will be solved.
Modern libertarians often have their own errant doctrine of sin: that the government is the root of sin in the world, and if we get rid of government, we will have removed sin.
So, what is the Christian doctrine of sin?
The Christian doctrine of sin is that of âoriginal sin.â That is, sin comes with being humanâwe were born with it, and it cannot be removed. There is no âsolutionâ to sin other than Christ, but the negative impact of an individualâs sin can be mitigated within a larger population guided by Christ. John Adams said, âWe have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religionâŚOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â Though Adams was a Universalist, he recognized the truth of original sin and the role that Christianity played in maintaining the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.
This method of applying doctrine to public policy issues is not something that can be done quickly, lightly, or half-heartedly. It requires a commitment to deep thought and reflection. It requires looking deeply into the issues that affect us, not just their surface features. We have to look not just at the laws themselves but at their purposes and understandings of how reality works and then analyze whether those hold up under the truth of Christianity.
I will leave you with this illustration from G. K. Chestertonâs Heretics:
âSuppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, âLet us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself goodâ’ At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.â
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other founding feminists wrote disdain for men into the fabric of their radical movement by penning these words in the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments:
“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.”
Founding Premise of Feminism
Feminism was founded on the premise that all women are oppressed by all men in some way or another.
Of course, it is true that some women have been oppressed by some men in different waysâto argue otherwise is foolish. However, the ideology of feminism insists that the âtyranny of manâ is absolute. By viewing the relationship between men and women as a power struggle, feminism concluded that the freedom of all women can only be achieved through the fall of all men, and a revolution among the sexes is the means to this equitable end.
Does this idea ring a bell?
Simply switch out the word âwomanâ for âproletariatâ and âmanâ for âbourgeoisâ and you will get the picture.
Now, to clarify, when I speak of âfeminismâ I am referring to the ideology of feminismâthe ideas that formulate the movement. Whether or not each individual feminist embraces and expresses the extreme ideas of their movement is beside the point; the point is that this premise is foundational to the ideology of feminism.
We see the feminist disdain for men gain traction in 1963 when Betty Friedan claimed in her famous book TheFeminine Mystique that âthe old prejudicesâ which govern menâs thinking towards the opposite sex are that âwomen are animals, less than human, unable to think like men, born merely to serve men.â
What is Toxic Masculinity?
Today, this idea is neatly summarized in the popular term âtoxic masculinityâ meaning simply, âmasculinity is toxic.â
Feminists’ hatred of masculinity has caused many generations to tirelessly work to rid the world of all things that can be attributed to men. For years, we have been brainwashed into believing that menâs bent towards assertive and ambitious behavior is evil, and that their desire to fulfill the roles of protector and provider is oppressive. Hence, âtoxic masculinity.â
This dangerously vague and deeply corrupt term is frequently wielded by feminists as a weapon in debates and dialogues to justify hatred towards men and to spread indignation among their audience. Sadly, many men have fallen for this lie and bow prostrate at the altar of feminism.
The Truth About Toxic Masculinity
Our society has followed feminism’s example for many decades now. We’ve all come together to shame, demoralize, and castrate men in the name of eradicating toxicity with the hopeful expectation of a promised utopia. Examining our actions retrospectively, I think we can all agree that the results arenât pretty. Even the feminists, I believe, would admit that we are not living in a Barbie World.
So, what went wrong?
Interestingly, the historical meaning of the term âtoxic masculinityâ outright betrays feminist ideology and rightfully explains why we are not living in the promised anti-Ken doll utopia. In the late 20th century, âtoxic masculinityâ was used not to condemn the existence of masculinity, but to warn of a lack of it.
“A society of too few mature fathers ends up with what psychiatrist Dr. Frank Pittman calls ‘toxic masculinity,’ where essentially weak, insecure, and poorly fathered men chase after a socially destructive masculine mystique. Men who have not fully felt the love and approval of their fathers are men who live in masculine shame. Says Pittman, boys who want to become men have to ‘guess at what men are like’ which usually turns out being what he calls a ‘pathologically exaggerated masculinity’ that involves ‘a frantic tendency to compete over just about anything with just about anybody.ââ
According to this original definition, our society suffers from toxic masculinity because we have generations of boys who do not know how to be men.
The Solution to Toxic Masculinity
The irrefutable fact is that we need masculine men. The intrinsic characteristics of courage and ambition of masculinity are what drive men to stand up for good, fight against evil, establish prosperous economies, legislate and enforce justice, and raise their families. However, when feminism neuters men by stripping them of these attributes, evil runs rampant, poverty escalates, injustice surges, and families are abandoned.
So, the question becomes, how do we get good, masculine men back?
              “There is only one way out of this shame-filled masculinity,” says Pittman, and that is recovering the “lost profession of fatherhood… ‘we are not going to have a better class of men until we have a better class of fathers.ââ
Feminism identified a real problem: there are wicked and weak men in the world. Moreover, we have tried their method of shaming and ostracizing masculinity from society in a desperate attempt to correct the issue. Yet (again), it has not worked.
The solution to the problem of this is far from the feminist model. If we want to rid our society of toxic masculinity (in the true, original sense of the word), we must teach boys to be men, men to be fathers, and fathers to be models of the masculine nature given to them by God.
âYoung men badly need to see mature masculinity modeled out. Well-seasoned masculinity fundamentally transforms the aggression of young males by capturing their masculine energy and directing it toward socially constructive pursuits, toward self-restraint, and respect toward others.â
So, when âtoxic masculinityâ is thrown your way as a rhetorical arrow in the feminist quiver, be sure to rightly define your terms and share the real root of toxicity in our culture. And maybe then, we can finally solve the problem of toxic masculinity.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical ConversationsÂŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
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.
