The School Choice movement is steadily advancing in red states across the country. How can we, as citizens, engage with this legislative issue and protect education independence in our states?
It is important that we consider and wrestle with arguments for and against School Choice policies. If you live in Tennessee, this conversation is not only important but timely. Many elected officials in Tennessee, including Governor Bill Lee, have dedicated themselves to implementing School Choice legislation. With such a unified initiative among state politicians, it is important for Tennesseans to understand this issue and consider its implications.
To help parents engage with the School Choice movement in an accessible way, mom, patriot, and host of Truthwire News, Kelly Jackson sat down with Classical ConversationsÂŽ CEO, Robert Bortins. Together, they break down voucher policies, consider claims made by ESA advocates, and lay out the effects this legislation has on families.
Kelly Jackson and Robert Bortins discuss School Vouchers in Tennessee.
Here are some of the questions they discuss:
Who is advocating for School Choice policies in Tennessee?
Who benefits from School Choice legislation?
How can Tennessean families defend education independence in their state?
Robert Bortins is the CEO of Classical Conversations 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.
In a recent attempt to give an unbiased overview of the current temperature in the “school choice” movement, Elizabeth Russell and Sharon Dierberger outline the main themes and key players in an article called “Unlikely Allies.” This piece is worth reading as we consider how this new trend is taking shape. Given enough time, ideas will expose themselves for what they truly are.
In this context, the idea is tax-funded education expansion. The idea goes by many names and takes on many shapes. So now that these ladies have given this idea a thorough shake-down, it’s time to consider what observations float to the top. Here are those three inconvenient truths for “school choice” advocates.
One: Exposed Inconsistencies
One major problem with the modern school choice agenda is that it is inconsistent with nearly every other pillar of the conservative paradigm. In the second half of the “Unlikely Allies” article, Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations, draws this point out. The irony of the situation is that conservatives are against almost everything else that goes by the name of “Universal.” And it’s not because these things aren’t important. We all need some form of health care, income, housing, and nutrition, but historically, conservatives have always held the principle that re-distributing society’s wealth to subsidize these commodities hurts all parties: the provider, the recipient, and the commodity itself. Even if we all know everyone needs to eat, conservatives have had a consensus that theft is morally wrong, creating dependency harms the recipient, and subsidization of a commodity drives costs up and quality downâliterally, no one wins! But often, we are blinded by our good intentions when the object in question is vital to human flourishing, like food, health care, and education.
One major problem with the modern school choice agenda is that it is inconsistent with nearly every other pillar of the conservative paradigm.
It’s easy to understand why compassion can blind policymakers. It’s the classic tale of “the ends don’t justify the means.” But why has the political right flip-flopped on its position on education? Even more ironic is the reality that most conservatives adamantly opposed student-loan payoff for all the expected reasons but fiercely champion the expansion of taxpayer-funded K-12 education via “school choice.” It’s enough to make you double-blink and cock your head, but who has the courage to call out this egregious inconsistency when the “school choice” topic has been the banner under which the leaders of the conservative right have chosen to march.
Two: Transferred Ownership
The home education movement has been living a cultural experiment for the last 40-plus years. When Jim Mason, President of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), refers to the “habits of liberty” that grew from this counter-cultural movement, the first habit required was the reclaiming of ownership and responsibility. At that time, this was such a powerful virtue that it compelled families to make choices that put them at odds with public policy and cultural norms. Home educators realized that what you fund, you own, and they couldn’t tolerate willfully handing over ownership of their children’s education to the state. For 40 years, independent private home educators have coped with the idea that they will contribute towards government education while privately funding 100% of their children’s educationâand they’ve succeeded! This reclaiming of ownership has fostered other such habits of liberty that make the home education ecosphere a petri dish for other radical ideas like entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency. It’s no wonder that globalists like UNESCO want to buy back these independent “threats” to their agenda with public dollars.
Home educators realized that what you fund, you own, …What the state funds, the state owns.
While a good number of home educators “get” this, we are well aware that we have a unique perspective, and the paradigm dichotomy is stark. Consider how well-intended Democratic state Rep. Ajay Pittman refers to the children in her district as “her babies.” Again, this might sound endearing to those who haven’t made the “ownership leap,” but those within our ranks notice this claim on the children and the paradigm it represents. When we allow the state to fund an initiative, we are asking them to own the initiative; in this case, it is the education of our children. Disagree? Over the last few years, we have watched parents petition school libraries to remove inappropriate books. Does that sound like ownership or dependency? Homeschool parents are never forced to beg their government for education changes. Ownership matters. What the state funds, the state owns. This should serve as a caution to all private education entities lined up for their tax-funded checks.
Three: Swapped Principles
If we were to climb a mountain and look down across the landscape, we could watch the metaphorical migration described in this “Unlikely Allies” article. The authors list several democrats who are warming up to the idea of school choice and joining the movement despite scrutiny from their political allies. They also appropriately identify that the holdouts on the right are “reliably conservative voters” and “most conservative factions of their own party.” So, as we sit from our vantage point, the patterns we could observe at this stage of the conversation is that new members to the “school choice camp” are coming from the left, while those leaving or putting up a fight are the most conservative among the political right. Is there anything that we could conclude from this observation? Is this movement actually conservative in nature?
Let’s take an inventory: school choice grows the size and influence of government, it costs the taxpayer more money, and in some instances, it is funding schools that are even more radically immoral than the existing government schools. Consequently, the school choice movement rejects conservative principles on several fronts. Two case studies identified in âUnlikely Alliesâ demonstrate this reality. Governor Tony Evers championed the cause in Wisconsin and convinced his âliberal-leaning Supreme Court to reject a challenge to the voucher program.â Conversely, Republican Governor Greg Abbott used âmoney from the governorâs own war chestâ to wage âpolitical warâ on 21 of the most conservative representatives in his own party who dared to disagree with this progressive policy. Let the facts speak for themselves; the political parties have switched principles on this issue, and it’s time to call it out for what it is.
Conclusion
This whole conflict is best summarized in an unlikely quote. Mr. Shannon Whitworth, a school choice advocate, is quoted saying, “There’s a significant power block invested in keeping our (young black) people addicted, uneducated, poor, and without hope, because those factors create dependency.” And “it’s that dependency upon which the left’s power is derived.” Dear Mr. Whitworth, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
The unavoidable antidote to this dependency is the sober pursuit of independence, ownership, and autonomyâall virtues inconsistent with this new tax-funded education expansion model.
Unfortunately, we now see both political sides capitalize on this dependency-fueled power grab. The unavoidable antidote to this dependency is the sober pursuit of independence, ownership, and autonomyâall virtues inconsistent with this new tax-funded education expansion model.
Please read other articles on “school choice” here.
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 world’s largest classical homeschooling organization under his guidance.
Lauren Gideon is the Director of Government Relations for Classical Conversations.ÂŽ She has been a home educator since her first student was born 19 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.
All men are equal. You have heard it touted by advocates on all flanks. In our Challenge B class, we have recently looked at current cultural issues that commonly use that argument: All men are equal and so should have equal rights. Turning this into a Categorical Syllogism, we arrived at:
All equal beings are deserving of equal rights. (Major Premise) All men are equal beings. (Minor Premise) Therefore, all men are deserving of equal rights. (Conclusion)
The battle cry in question comes from the Minor Premise.
Logical Fallacy and the Misuse of âEqualâ
While this argument is logically valid, it is neither true nor sound. How so? As in any argument, debate, or even persuasive essay we must define the terms. What does âequalâ mean? The dictionary tells us it means âthe same asâ or âof equal value.â
In the Minor Premise, the word suggests âof equal value,â equal worth. This was the original meaning. It invokes a sense of higher power, of higher authority, even though it is most often misquoted in order to eliminate the Source of that authority. âAll men are created equal,â not âAll men are equal.â Interestingly, many groups using this misquote from the Declaration of Independence are the same groups that vehemently pronounce the Declaration is not a âfounding documentâ (thereby eliminating the idea that rights are endowed by the Creator rather than the State).
However, in the Major Premise, the word takes on a different undertone. Here, it abandons the original definition and mutates to the idea that all humans are âthe same asâ all other humans. The implication is that all humans with a pulse are worthy of equal rights. But is this true? Are all humans really equal in this manner? And are they all deserving of equal rights?
Standards of Behavior and the Loss of Rights
Yes, all men retain their value as creatures made in the image of God, but do all men retain their equal status, and thence, equal rights?
Do they maintain their status as âthe same asâ everyone else?
Prisoners do not. They are not considered âthe same asâ everyone else and their equal status is revoked. Once their behavior becomes illegal and they are imprisoned, they cede their right to take a walk in the park. Once a compulsive kleptomaniacâs behavior is discovered, he is no longer âthe same asâ the rest and loses his right to work at the bank. People who lie under oath commonly do not retain their right to maintain positions requiring great trust. Felons do not retain their right to carry a gun or to vote. People who promote marital infidelity or champion child neglect generally relinquish their right to give advice to newlyweds or new parents.
Our culture readily accepts this idea and has an established pattern of classifying some as not âthe same asâ the rest, based on their behavior. This societal norm denies rights to people based on illegal or immoral behavior. What does this mean? It means that while all men possess equal value, they do not necessarily possess or deserve equal rights.
So, what does âequalâ mean in this, the Major Premise? In the much-used argument, it is obvious that âequalâ does not mean âcreated equal,â it does not mean âof equal value.â Instead, it means âeveryone is the same as everyone else, regardless of behavior.â
So, where does that leave us? We have a valid argument presented to us, but a term has tacitly changed its meaning midstream. In logic, this is called the Fallacy of Equivocation. An example: âMan shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Godâ (Matt. 4:4, KJV). Since you are a woman, you are not commanded to be obedient to Godâs Word. Here, the term âmanâ changes meaning midstream, committing the Fallacy of Equivocation. And the argument logically falls apart.
The Importance of Logic in Understanding Culture
If we have an obviously fallacious argument, how is it that people are so easily convinced by it?
If we accept the idea that people lose rights when departing from established standards of behavior (and we do), then the only recourse is to deny that those established standards of behavior are legitimate. And that is where our culture has landed, in the land of denial. Deny that any standards of behavior exist and the fallacious argument now seemingly holds water. If we can be convinced that our nation was not founded on biblical standards of behavior, then we cannot appeal to those standards to prove our indictment of Equivocation. If you believe that our nation was not founded on Godâs principles, you will assume you have the right to a godless school system and a godless government, and you will assume that you are âequalâ to everyone else, regardless of your actions.
When the standards by which we define âequalâ are rejected, the fallacy seems to disintegrate, and people become inclined to believe that any behavior is acceptable, and that their immoral, ungodly behavior has no effect on their status as âthe same asâ anyone else. Essentially, this is like proclaiming that your boss has no right to discriminate against you (or fire you) for stealing the companyâs money, because stealing the companyâs money breaks no standard of behavior.
Seems simple enough, but, unfortunately, our culture is full of gullible âbossesâ who are more and more believing that stealing company money is not only acceptable, but is, indeed, noble!
Even the Challenge B students, eighth-graders with young minds, are beginning to grasp how valuable a tool logic is and how relevant it can be in our current culture. Giving them the tools and training to logically think through relevant issues is a critical advantage that Classical Conversations affords. And hopefully, by the grace of God, they will make a lasting impact on our culture, showing that while all men are created equal, any man can squander his status as âthe-same-as-the-next-guy,â by departing from the standards God has laid out in lifeâs instruction manual.
Traditionally, the United States acknowledged that the responsibility of educating children fell primarily on the parents of that child. This common consensus can be seen in Supreme Court rulings like the 1925 decision Pierce vs. the Society of Sisters, and in the Merriam-Webster 1828 dictionary definition of “educate.” The definition explicitly states, “To educate children well is one of the most important duties of parents and guardians.”
However, today, many of our leaders are offering a different answer to this question. They argue that it is primarily the government’s job to ensure that children are properly educated. Consider what 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 child’s wellbeing.” Even President Joe Biden said in a speech to public school teachers, “They aren’t someone else’s, they are all our children.” Furthermore, our current education climate is dominated by the public school system, state regulations on education, and crackdowns on independent education. It is clear that, in the eyes of our leaders and legislatures, parents are no longer primarily responsible for the education of children.
This past year, this worldview shift took root in the great state of Colorado. In fact, this November, citizens of Colorado will vote on Amendment 80, which, if passed, would enshrine this novel idea into their state constitution. What is Amendment 80? What would be its effects? Should voters in Colorado support it in November? All of these questions, and more, must be considered by the citizens of Colorado so that they can be prepared to vote either “Yes” or “No” when the ballot comes their way.
“To educate children well is one of the most important duties of parents and guardians.”
Amendment 80
Amendment 80 reads, “Section 1. In the Constitution of the State of Colorado, add section 18 to Article IX as follows: section 18. Education – school choice (1) purpose and findings. The people of the state of Colorado hereby find and declare that all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education; that parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education. (2) Each k-12 child has the right to school choice.”
Briefly put, this amendment seeks to enshrine four claims in the state constitution:
All children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education.
Parents have the right to direct the education of their children.
School Choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.
Each K-12 child has the right to School Choice.
While these things may sound appealing, there are severe implications that must be considered before you vote on Amendment 80.
A Warning to Colorado
Parental rights vs. Child’s rights
The amendment is centered around the idea of a child’s right to quality education. The first problem, of course, is that if you give children rights, then you practically abolish parental rights. Parental rights” are a negative right, while a so-called “child’s right to education” is a positive right. Carolyn Martin, Director of Government Relations for Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC), defined a negative right in her article Right to an Education? as “the requirement of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something.” Conversely, Martin explains that positive rights “are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something.”
Parental rights require the government to ensure that nothing obstructs a parent’s ability to fulfill their God-given responsibility to raise and educate their children. This right is turned upside down. If we implement “a child’s right to education,” suddenly it becomes the government’s responsibility and jurisdiction to provide “quality education” for all children everywhere. The immediate effect of this is the government can no longer “stay out of the way.” It must oversee, regulate, and manage the education of all children to ensure that a child’s so-called “right to quality education” is protected. As soon as we permit the government to oversee our children, we abolish parental rights.
How is “quality education” defined in Amendment 80?
The second problem with Amendment 80 is the vague language of “quality education.” The big question this amendment fails to answer is, who gets to define “quality education”? UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization), the globalist organization that is actively working to globalize education, defines quality education as DEI education. Their website says that it is their job to “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” When you sit down to educate your children, is teaching them diversity, equity, and inclusion your top priority? Hopefully not. But that is the priority of the elites who openly work to control your child’s education.
Parental rights require the government to ensure that nothing obstructs a parent’s ability to fulfill their God-given responsibility to raise and educate their children.
While the state of Colorado may not adopt UNESCO’s radical view of “quality education,” we must recognize that its definition has the potential to be hostile to a classical, Christian education. Most likely, its definition will look more like the public school system where the Bible is banned from classrooms, sex education is taught for all ages, and patriotism is cast to the side in exchange for progressivism.
In short, this amendment would enshrine in the Colorado Constitution that “The government is responsible for the education of your children.” This is such an egregious assault on parental rights and the natural law that organizations like CHEC are speaking out against this amendment and warning parents about the severe implications.
Protect Education Independence in Colorado!
In November, it is up to the voters of Colorado to protect your state from this blatant infringement on parental rights. Educate yourself on the amendment, share this information with your friends and family, and vote “NO” this November to protect your education independence.
For more information on what is on the Colorado ballot this November, visit coloradosos.gov.
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!
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.â Proverbs 9:10 KJV
The question of how science relates to faith is one that seems to baffle many people, but this need not be so. This is a foundational issue, because the approach that a person has to this question will also influence how they think of faith in a wide variety of situations. Most people take one of three main approaches to the relationship of science and faith.
Approach 1: Science and Faith Cover Different Topics
One approach that is popular among theologians is to separate science and faith with a great wall preventing any entanglements between the two. This view was popularized by Steven Jay Gould, who used the acronym NOMA, which stands for ânon-overlapping magisteria,â to describe it. In this view, science and faith cannot conflict, because they cover two different subjects, which do not overlap at any point. Science covers the objective, evidence-based principles and facts, and faith covers value-oriented ideas and ultimate meanings. This is also often called the fact/value split.
This view is endorsed by a wide variety of organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The stated goal of this approach is to clearly demarcate the lines between faith and science so that neither one crosses into the other. It also takes into account the differences in methodology, and assumed differences in content. For instance, science, in large part, uses the inductive method for determining truth, while faith is about trust and hope. Philosophers have long pointed out that science is unable to deal with questions of value and morality on its own, so NOMA simply implements the converse as wellâif science cannot reach morality, then neither will faith be allowed to reach facts.
Of course, in reality, this split really does not work. Christianity does make claims that relate to the natural world. God has revealed Himself in history, and this has affected nature and history. Therefore, evidence, facts, science, and faith all come together. In addition, scientists are always trying to expand the scope of what science coversâand they should do this.
Therefore, at least in theory, NOMA blunts both science and faith. However, in practice, most people who claim NOMA actually mean âscience deals with whatever it wants to, faith deals with whatever science hasnât gotten to yetâ. For instance, the concept of âfree willâ would seem to be a question of faith, and yet the National Academy of Sciences, which openly subscribes to NOMA, has published supposedly scientific papers that deal with the question of free will.
The NOMA position even finds its way into many church denominations. While most do not have official positions supporting NOMA, one usually finds very few voices within the church willing to present any explicitly Christian view of science, or any science topic, except for Christâs resurrection. Instead, the furthest they are willing to go is to express disapproval when scientists attempt to derive ultimate meaning from their theories and observations.
Approach 2: Science and Faith in Conflict
Another approach to science and faith is the âconflictâ or âwarfareâ idea. In this view, science and faith are essentially contradictory ways of viewing the world. A scientific view of the world necessarily puts a person in conflict with religious modes of thinking, and a person of faith necessarily takes a negative view of science and scientific methodology. In this approach, any overlap between positions of science and faith are taken to be purely coincidental.
This approach takes science and faith to be two full, mutually incompatible worldviews. That is, any given question can be answered in a scientific framework, just as it can be answered in a religious framework. Therefore, science and faith âcompeteâ for the answers to each of lifeâs questions. Note how different this is than NOMA. Under NOMA, science and faith are both given limits to the scope of inquiry. In the âconflictâ idea, science and faith are not limited in scope, but form two mutually incompatible ways of addressing the same question.
The interesting thing about the âconflictâ idea is that it is usually only held to by atheists and agnosticsâit is almost never held to by Christians. It is usually held to by people who have expanded science into a religious position itself. Christians always have room for science, but atheistic materialists (people who think that the physical world is all there is) must expand science to fill their own religious needs. Unfortunately, popular news coverage nearly always assumes the âconflictâ approach, and does not realize that Christians donât find a necessary conflict between the two.
If this approach is so one-sided and non-sensical, why does it keep coming up? The fact is, in nearly every aspect of life, there are tensions between ideas. There are tensions between ideas in various disciplines, or even within a single discipline. None of these tensions means that there is a necessary conflict between two positionsâthis is simply the natural result of having incomplete knowledge. As long as our knowledge is partial and imperfect, there will always be tensions among the various ideas we hold onto.
This makes it easy for detractors of Christianity to paint faith positions as being anti-science. One needs only to find an issue, no matter how marginal (or tenuous), which may be in conflict with some personâs faith position, and then proclaim, âSeeâfaith and science are irreconcilable!â In addition, in fact, most of these are based more on interpretation of the evidence than anything else.
Approach 3: Faith Seeking Understanding
The best approach I have found for integrating science and faith is the âfaith seeking understandingâ approach. In this model, faith is the total worldview, and science operates as one of many approaches for finding truth within that worldview. As Christians, we find truth in many places. We turn to history to find the truths of the past. We turn to science to find the truths of nature. We turn to philosophy to find the nature of reason. First and foremost, we turn to the Bible to find the truths that govern the other truths. In such an approach, science is certainly one of the means that we use to find truth.
However, science plays a subservient roleâit is a discipline whose results are to be judged and weighed by people of faith, it is not the judge over faith.
It is interesting that the coherence of science itself relies on this model. Science itself relies on, but does not provide, a way to test for truth. While science demands that theories correspond with the preponderance of physical data, there are usually many theories, which have the same or similar correspondence. This comes as a surprise to manyâmost people assume that there is always only one theory, which is valid for a given set of data. The fact is, in many cases, the test for scientific truth is an aesthetic one. Scientists opt for theories, which are simple, elegant, and conciseâin other words, beautiful theories. The only valid justification for this is that we expect this because of the nature of God that faith reveals.
This also means that, as Christians, when we participate in science, we should bring the expectations of Christianity with us. For instance, in my own research, I use as a starting assumption the idea that the genome is a designed system. Using that understanding, I have a better appreciation for what is happening within the genome. Since I believe that it is designed, I can reasonably compare it to other designed systems and make inferences and predictions based on those comparisons.
Teaching Our Children about Science
So how does this help us teach our children about science? We must teach our children, in every subject, to think about how various ideas make sense (or do not) within the context of Christianity. When we find ideas that do not make sense, we should ask ourselvesâis this because of a lack of knowledge or a wrong interpretation of the evidence? If our goal is to bring every thought to the obedience of Christ, this must include science.
This does not mean that we should ignore subjects, which we have trouble integrating with our faith. Though future posts will cover this issue in more detail, we simply should attempt to understand such subjects thoroughly, teach ourselves to scrutinize the subjects well, and hold each idea to account under Christ.
You can see this âfaith seeking understandingâ approach reflected in the curriculum at Classical Conversations. Phil Johnsonâs book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, used in the Challenge B curriculum, is one of the best introductory books not just on creation and evolution, but on the whole notion of academic study in any discipline from a theistic viewpoint. Likewise, the Apologia science curriculum used throughout the Challenge program also points in the same direction.
The origin of the public school system has all but been forgotten in the Western world. We seem to be under the impression that government schools have always been and always will be. However, a quick glance into history dismantles this ignorant idea. To understand the origin of government schools, we must examine a few basic questions:
Who came up with the idea of government-run education?
When was the first public school established?
What is the goal of public education?
American citizens, specifically parents, deserve to know the answer to these simple contextual questions because, as Aristotle observed, before you can know what a thing is, you must understand what it was designed to do. So, what were the public schools designed to do?
Origin of Government Schools
The idea of government schools was first proposed by a man named Robert Owen. Owen was a utopian collectivist who wanted to use universal government education to condition populations to accept the conditions of communism. Sounds promising, right? If you are not familiar with Owen and his work, I encourage you to read Global Utopia and Government Schools.
Continuing down the timeline of public education, we then become acquainted with a man named Horace Mann. It is likely that you have a vague recollection of Mann, though he is not talked about nearly enough. You may remember him as the father of public education or the great public school evangelist. However, I would propose that history remembers Horace Mann for what he truly wasâa cynical theorist and a hypocritical reformist.
Born in 1796 to a poor farming family in Franklin, Massachusetts, Mann was largely self-educated because he could only attend school six weeks out of the year. During his childhood, he applied himself to studies at the Franklin public library and eventually attended Brown University in 1816, where he graduated as valedictorian. In 1822, he furthered his studies at Litchfield Law School, and the following year, he practiced law in Dedham, Massachusetts. His career in law was short-lived because, in 1827, Mann ran and won an election for the Massachusetts House of Representatives, where he would serve for six years.
When Horace Mann was elected to the Massachusetts State Senate in 1835, it became evident that he had a promising political career. With such a bright future ahead of him, Mann’s colleagues, friends, and family were shocked when he threw it all away in 1837 and turned his attention to radical education reform.
âPublic Education is the cornerstone of our community and our democracy.â â Horace Mann
The First Board of Education
Mann’s great ambition was to establish a nationwide, mandated, government-run, and controlled school system. He wrote, “Public Education is the cornerstone of our community and our democracy.” Some may counter that democracy is the cornerstone of our democracy, but regardless, Mann strongly believed that he would be the patriot to establish the American “cornerstone” of public education.
He quickly recognized, however, that before this could happen, these measures had to be executed on a local scale. In Massachusetts, there were a few publicly funded schools here and there (the first of which had been established in the 17th century by Puritans with legislation called the “Old Deluder Satan Law of 1647“), so Mann turned his attention to the creation of the first Board of Education. This he accomplished very rapidly in 1837, and that same year, Mann accepted the position of secretary to the Board.
The function of the Board of Education was to oversee all education in the state of Massachusetts. It was so well-liked by legislators and politicians that only thirty years later, President Andrew Johnson promoted it to the federal level and was given the official title “The Department of Education.” However, according to the Department’s history, only one short year later, it was demoted to an Office of Education “due to concern that the Department would exercise too much control over local schools.”
Happily for Horace, unhappily for the American people, it was reinstated by Congress in 1979. In 2024 alone, the Department’s budget was 90 billion dollars. With so many billions of dollars at its disposal, Americans should begin asking the question first posed by politicians in the 19th century: “Does the Department exercise too much control over local schools?”
This pressing question was clearly not a concern of Horace Mann because after establishing the Board of Education, his interest was piqued by the Prussian government, which had been actively imposing a universal government-run and controlled public school system for decades. What did this system look like? And could it be duplicated in the land of the free? In 1843, Mann traveled to Prussia to answer these questions.
The Prussian Model
In 1806, Frederick William III, King of Prussia, was defeated by Napoleon at the battle of Jena-Auestedt. In reaction to this embarrassing defeat, the Prussian elite blamed the independent and freethinking Prussian population for Napoleon’s victory rather than their own military miscalculations. They decided they no longer wanted soldiers and citizens who could think for themselves; instead, they wanted submissive people who they could move around like pieces in a game of political chess.
âThe goal was to make the bulk of the population compliant servants rather than free individuals who could think for themselves and create and enrich the Prussian culture.â[1]
It was then that the Prussian leaders learned of Robert Owen’s idea to implement a government-run and controlled school system to shape and condition the population. According to Owen’s account, they agreed with the utopists that complete collectivism could only be accomplished through state indoctrination. By 1819, this system of schooling was firmly established throughout Prussia.
The Prussian model of education segregated the population into three tiers, or “social rank,” based on what education they received:
Akademiensschulen (Academy schools) prepared students to be future policymakers and leaders. They were taught a wide range of subjects and learned to think critically, write well, read profusely, and strategize.
Realsschulen (secondary school) prepared the “professional proletariats” to be useful to the upper class. They became engineers, doctors, lawyers, and architects.
Volksschulen (elementary school), or “people’s school,” taught most of the population to be submissive, passive, and obedient. In practice, they were functionally illiterate and were only taught history that would fuel blissful patriotism.
This was the system that Horace Mann observed in his trip to Prussia. His response to such intellectual atrocities was not to condemn the government for manipulating its citizens and turning the populace into intellectual zombies. Far from it! Instead, he lauded the Prussian government and raced back to America to replicate this system of federal-centric schooling.
Eventually, in 1872, the Prussian government banned all alternative schooling methods, including private schools and homeschooling, according to the Prussian School Inspection Law of 1872. The Law stated, “By annulment of any contrary regulations in individual regions, the supervision of all public and private school and educational institutions is solely under the control of the state.” [2]
“Education of the state, by the state, for the state,” as Alex Newman wrote in his book Indoctrinating Our Children to Death, might be a utopian dream; however, the results it immediately produces are far from heavenly:
Reduced illiteracy and test scores
Compulsory tax-funding
Government-prescribed curriculum
National testing
Government-run teacher training and certification
Students are tracked by vocational and academic aptitudes.
Today, the country of Prussia no longer exists, but it is clear that government schools have long outlasted their founding nation. Indeed, “Deeds survive the doers,” as Horace Mann once wrote. Since 1872, government schools have been producing the same resultsâdumb populations and government control. With such disastrous results, why did Horace Mann export this failing education reform into his own country?
Horace the Hypocrite
Like Robert Owen before him, Mann was driven by utopian fantasies. He believed that he was responsible for ensuring their implementation in the land of the free by establishing a government school monopoly. For example, he wrote,
âEducation…beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of conditions of men â the balance wheel of the social machinery…It does better than to disarm the poor of their hostility toward the rich; it prevents being poor.â
This is the message that was paraded around the United States and sold to millions of parents. “Give us your children to raise and train, and we will end world hunger,” seems to be the official slogan of Horace Mann.
Why is it that utopians always steal liberty under the guise of “ending poverty?”
The obvious and immediate challenge to Horace’s statement is if he truly wished for education to be “a great equalizer of conditions of men,” why on earth would he travel to Prussia (a country that was intentionally segregating its population on the basis of education), laud its inherently unequal educational system, and then spend the majority of his professional career working to have it implemented in the United States?
Maybe he believed the public schools just hadn’t been done right yet. Perhaps he truly believed in his mission and really thought children would get the best education in the classroom. You would hope, at least, that Mann would align his own life to the philosophy and schools he mandated for others.
On the contrary! The truth is that Horace Mann refused to send his own three children to a public or “common school,” and instead, he personally homeschooled each of them! Perhaps Horace’s nickname should have been “Horace the Hypocrite.” If he did not believe his own children should go to a public school, why did Mann want them nationalized in the first place?
Horace, the Cynical Reformist
The reality is that Horace Mann feared and distrusted two groups of people: parents and Catholics.
“Horace Mann and his 19th-century education reform colleagues were deeply fearful of parental authorityâparticularly as the population became more diverse and, in Massachusetts as elsewhere, Irish Catholic immigrants challenged existing cultural and religious norms.” [3]
Because utopians believe it is their responsibility to perfect mankind’s environment and thereby perfect man himself, they cannot trust individual parents to raise their own children because “what if they do a poor job?“
âFrom a hundred platforms, Mann had lectured that the need for better schools was predicated upon the assumption that parents could no longer be entrusted to perform their traditional roles in moral training and that a more systematic approach within the public school was necessary. Now, as a father, he fell back on the educational responsibilities of the family, hoping to make the fireside achieve for his own son what he wanted the schools to accomplish for others.â[4]
Jonathan Messerli, Mann Biographer
As Mann said, “We who are engaged in the sacred cause of education are entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause.” Those “hostages,” of course, are children. Children, who Mann viewed as test subjects in Robert Owen’s case study.
The only thing more terrifying than a parent doing a “bad job” raising their children, in the eyes of Mann and his utopian friends, was Catholic parents raising their children in their faith.
The Massachusetts state legislator commented on the influx of Irish Catholic immigrants, saying, “Those now pouring in upon us, in masses of thousands upon thousands, are wholly of another kind in morals and intellect.” [5]
This was more than a question of “How can we help these people assimilate into American culture?” This was a question of control: “How can a diverse group of people with specific cultures, faiths, and traditions be controlled under one political dogma?” How, indeed?
Robert Owen taught that in order to control a people, you must first control their minds. And so, he instructed his followers, the Prussians and now Mann, to commit themselves to this pursuit of intellectual control.
âTo train and educate the rising generation will at all times be the first object of society, to which every other will be subordinate.â â Robert Owen
We must understand that Horace Mann did not have decent motives in imposing government schools on America. He did not believe in the cause. In reality, he was a cynical theorist, hypocritical reformer, and a secret homeschool dad. This is how he ought to be remembered.
The Legacy
In 1848, shortly after his visit to Prussia, Mann resigned as secretary of the Board of Education to take the seat of John Quincy Adams in the US House of Representatives. In 1853, he stepped away from politics for the last time and became the President of Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio. Here, he spent a lot of his time writing and training his students to further his plans for establishing Prussian education in the United States. You can find his writings here.
While at Antioch, Horace Mann inspired a class of graduates with the words, “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” There is hardly any doubt that, when he died in 1859, Mann believed he had won a great victory for the utopian cause through his American education reform.
Regretfully, for future generations of American children and families, the deeds of the Prussian elites and Horace Mann have outlived them. Even 187 years later, we still live under Horace Mann’s government agency, the Department of Education, which dogmatically and obsessively dictates what millions of children are taught every single day.
Somedays, it can seem that we are inching ever closer to a time when “all public and private schools and educational institutions are solely under the control of the state,” as it was in Mann’s beloved Prussian education system.
But we must not be discouraged because, though the deeds of Horace Mann outlived him all these years, our deeds today can outlive us as well. If we continue to fight for the educational independence we desire and deserve, our children and their children will live to see a day where the government does not raise children and where utopian theories are not imposed on populations; rather, they will live in a free country where true, free-market, God-honoring education flourishes.
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] Delphine, R. (n.d.). “The Prussian Model of Education.” STEMiteracy. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.stemiteracy.org/the-prussian-model
[2] “School Inspection Law of March 11, 1872.” GHDI, Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=670#:~:text=School%20Inspection%20Law%20of%20March,the%20control%20of%20the%20state
[3] McDonald, K. (2017, May 1). “The Devastating Rise of Mass Schooling.” FEE. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://fee.org/articles/the-devastating-rise-of-mass-schooling/
[4] Messerli, Jonathan. Horace Mann: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972, p. 429.
[5] McDonald, K. (2017, May 1). “The Devastating Rise of Mass Schooling.” FEE. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://fee.org/articles/the-devastating-rise-of-mass-schooling/
There has been an international push over many decades to create a right of education for children. The United Nations (UN) through UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has been at the forefront of this push and they have established several treaties beginning in 1960 with the UN Convention Against Discrimination in Education. Interestingly, the United States (US) has declined to ratify these treaties. Homeschoolers fought hard against the ratification by the US Senate of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995. Despite this, individual states and the federal government have been implementing various aspects of these treaties through their lawmaking process for years.
Parental Rights or Rights of the Child
In Colorado, we have seen for some time now a shift away from parental rights to the rights of a child, including when it comes to education. There have even been some attempts this year to put the right of a child to a quality education in the Colorado Constitution. Under the biblical order of the family, it is parents who steward the rights of children until they are capable of handling the responsibility of exercising their rights on their own.
Positive Rights vs. Negative Rights
Attorney Kevin Boden, from HSLDA, gave those who attended the class at CHECâs Homeschool Day at the Capitol a quick lesson on the difference between positive rights and negative rights. Negative rights are the requirements of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something. He referred us to the 4th Amendment guarantee to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. The government is responsible for making sure they do not infringe on our right of property. Positive rights are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something. Here, he referred to the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial, which the government must provide through its taxpayer-funded judicial system.
The parental right to direct the upbringing, care, and education of their children is a negative right. The government must secure that fundamental right given to us by God and not infringe upon it. A right of a child to a quality education is a positive right. It would require the government to provide for the education and ensure the quality of it. Home education would be subjected to greater scrutiny because the government would have a duty to evaluate the quality and content of the education being provided by the parents. Natureâs law is based on negative rights, not positive rights, but the world system is trying to move all nation states toward the positive rights structure through the UN treaties.
Ideas have Consequences
Ideas have consequences, and we must be careful to choose wisely what ideas we support and stay true to Godâs order for the family and education. As the election season heats up, letâs make sure we ask probing questions of those who want to represent us! Do they support parental rights, and what does that mean to them? Do they know the difference between childrenâs rights and parentâs rights? How will they ensure we have the freedom to home educate our children without government intrusion?
Our parental rights are in danger, and we must stand together to preserve them.
Colorado Amendment 80 is on the ballot on November 5. Before you walk into the voting booth, educate yourself and inform others to do so as well. Amendment 80 could open the doors to unintended consequences in our fight for educational independence and protecting our homeschool freedoms. As citizens, it is our responsibility to be informed of what our government officials are doing!
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 here, learn more about legal issues in Colorado here, and donate to support Homeschool Freedom here. Contact Carolyn directly at carolyn@chec.org.
The purpose of education is to know God and to make Him known; therefore, we believe education, like religion, is a sacred pursuit outside the jurisdiction of the state.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2 would allow state funding for non-public education.
The Kentucky legislature passed Amendment 2 earlier this year. It will be on your ballot this fall. Amendment 2 will change the fabric of the state government by changing the Kentucky Constitution.
In a Nutshell
Amendment 2 can potentially compromise Education Independence. The language of the amendment and the existing authority by law could give taxpayer money to independent homeschoolers, leading to possible government oversight and regulation of their homeschools or legally changing the definition of the homeschooler in the state.
Below is a summary of the amendment’s language, concerns, and possible implications for Kentuckians. At the bottom of this news bulletin, you will find background information on government-funded homeschooling and resources.
âSection 2. IT IS PROPOSED THAT A NEW SECTION BE ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools. The General Assembly may exercise this authority by law, Sections 59, 60, 171, 183, 184, 186, and 189 of this Constitution notwithstanding.”
Concerns & Possible Implications
Section 186:“All funds accruing to the school fund shall be used for the maintenance of the public schools of the Commonwealth, and for no other purpose.“
Would Section 186 Necessitate Private and Homeschools to Become Public Schools?
We have seen instances in other states where homeschoolers opt in for a program, and they are no longer legally classified (with its protections) as homeschoolers.
In Arizona, for example, the student is legally referred to as an âESA studentâ and no longer qualifies as a homeschool student by law, as stated by the Arizona Department of Education. “ESA studentsâŚare not considered âhomeschoolâ students by state law.â
Section 189: “No portion of any fund or tax now existing ⌠shall be appropriated to, or used by, or in aid of, any church, sectarian or denominational school.”
Would Amendment 2 Contradict Section 189?
Section 189âs language seems to be very clear on this matter.
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled that the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) (Act) was unconstitutional for this reason.
Watch Out for Policy Creep
Although the amendment does not pass School Choice law, we must acknowledge that it provides the opportunity for such legislation and the opportunity for policy creep in Kentucky. To aid your understanding of Education Independence and School Choice, hereis an article to help you. In Addition, investigate the resources below before you vote on Amendment 2.
Protect the Constitution & Education Independence on Election Day
Kentuckians can protect the state constitution and Kentucky from future bad policy.
Before election day, explore the resources below and share this urgent information. Protect Education Independence in your state and vote against the public capture of private education.
You Are Invited!
Classical Conversations cordially invites members of the community to an open forum to discuss Amendment 2. This important event will occur on October 9, 2024, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Warren County Public Library, 175 Iron Skillet Ct., Bowling Green, KY 42104.
Join us for an engaging discussion led by Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations. This event serves as a conservative Christian rally for education independence.
Sadie Aldaya is the Manager of Research & Policy for Classical ConversationsÂŽ . Sadie and her husband homeschooled for over 20 years. She served as a Classical Conversations field representative for 15 years, providing community and support for other homeschooling families. Sadieâs passions are to stop government encroachment in areas where they have no authority or jurisdiction and to see Christians return to a biblical Christ-centered worldview.
Homeschool Days at the Capitol, Legislative Days, Capitol Days, Pie Day, and other similar events foster communication between parents and their elected representatives. Seize this excellent opportunity to teach your children the importance of the legislative process. Help them mature into civic leaders who will help protect American freedoms.
The chart below lists October Homeschool Days at the Capitol. Check your stateâs dates here if itâs not listed below.
“Society may be formed so as to exist without crime, without poverty, with health greatly improved, with little, if any misery, and with intelligence and happiness increased a hundredfold, and no obstacle whatsoever intervenes at this moment except ignorance to prevent such a state of society from becoming universal.”
This utopian prediction was made by the worldâs first true socialistâRobert Owen.
Born in Wales on May 14, 1771, Robert Owenâs childhood was rather uneventful according to the standard upbringing of children in the 18th century. His hard-working father worked multiple jobs to support his wife and seven children, and like his peers, Owen was sent to a school that emphasized moral instruction above the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Owning largely to his knack for entrepreneurship, Owen became the manager of New Lanark, his father-in-law’s factory, at age 28. During his time in management, he became widely known for improving work conditions, providing opportunities for his employees, and increasing the productivity of his factory. His official slogan became “8 hours labor, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest.” This was a stark comparison to the 10â16 hours of work that children and adults alike were accustomed to.
With this reputation and list of accomplishments, Robert Owenâs future looked bright and promising. Such a background does not commonly lead a person to become a utopian, spiritualist, communistâbut as the Scriptures say, “Do not be misled:Â “Bad company corrupts good character.” 1 Corinthians 15:33
The Idea
In 1793, a bright-eyed and progressive Robert Owen joined the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society. Known today as Manchester Lit & Phil, this group of thinkers and theorists gathered together with the goal of attaining the end of progressivism, which is a globalized utopia. Far from being a casual attendee of these meetings, Robert was one of its leaders. Today, he is still recognized on the Manchester Lit & Phil website as “The father of the co-operative movement.”[1]
Briefly put, the Co-operative Movement was birthed out of the progressive movement and was the first infant school that emphasized character over moral instruction. This is the complete inverse of the schooling Owen had experienced as a child. His school even went as far as dismissing all moral teaching in favor of the instruction of dance and music. It was during this time that Owen adopted the views that he would hold for the majority of his life.
Robert Owen believed that all religion, specifically Christianity, was the stumbling block of social utopia and therefore, must be destroyed. He rejected individualism and worked to uphold social collectivism. He renounced the right to private property and was the first to call for free, public education as a means to establish a global utopia. Simply put, Owen was a good communist and a loyal atheist.
Interestingly, he would not have called himself a “communist” simply because the renowned Communist Manifesto had not yet been published. But regardless of the title, Owen had adopted the very ideas that would kill almost 100 million people in the 20th century alone.
He had one other idea that must be understood in order to grasp the “why” and “how” of his later actions.
Even more importantly than understanding his communist views or anti-religious beliefs, we must recognize that Robert Owen was a utopian. Utopians have one simple premise that undergirds all of their reasoning: human beings are shaped purely by their environments, not by nature. Or, as Owen put it, “Man is a creature of circumstances.”
This premise leads to the following argument:
All humans are products of their environment.
Utopias are concerned with perfecting humanity.
Therefore, Utopians are responsible for perfecting the environment of humans.
To Christians who acknowledge the reality of sin nature, there is a clear problem with this thinking. The utopian argument puts the responsibility of perfecting humanity into the hands of imperfect men. Regardless, Owen, who rejected the Christian worldview, applied himself to perfecting the human race by attempting to perfect their environment.
New Harmony
By 1825, Robert Owen had left Europe and arrived in the United States of America with the aim of creating the perfect communist society. He purchased a piece of land in Indiana and named it New Harmony.
Though this image of New Harmony looks beautiful, I cannot help drawing a comparison between its great red walls and the cold, deadly red walls of the Kremlin in Communist Russia.
It was here that Robert applied his theories to the lives of other people. Consequently, the socialist motto “You will own nothing and be happy” was universally applied at New Harmony. There was no organized religion (though the citizens were able to personally practice whatever religion they chose), and there was no centralized authority in the government; rather, decisions were made in committee. Throughout its brief existence, 500â1,200 people lived in this radically progressive society.
Owen also established many social “firsts” in his communist commune, including the first public library, the first public civil drama club, and the first public school system.
In this supposed utopia, children were kept with their families until age three, when they would be handed over to the populous to be raised, educated, cared for, and trained to be productive members of society.
Tasks and jobs were divided up by age, not skill set or ambition. Children, along with adults, worked the whole day long and only saw their families at mealtimes.
Is this a Utopia?
Owen had successfully disjointed the traditional structure of civilization. No family, no private education, no private property, no organized religion, no accountable government structureâin other words, utopia, right?
Wrongâvery wrong. The problem with Owenâs theory is that it can only work in the mind of a madman.
Within two years, New Harmony collapsed. The capitalists say it was because people are not happy when they own nothing; the liberals say it was because New Harmony just needed more money so the committee could care for the populace; the conservatives say it was because the family unit was dissolved; the Christians say it was because of a lack of religious fervor.
Each of these factors may have played a part in the downfall of utopia, but Robert Owen rationalized his failures in a different way.
Because he was a loyal communist, New Harmony did not cause his convictions to sway. Rather than admitting that New Harmony was a destructive idea from the start, he reasoned that it must have failed because the members of his communist society had not been properly conditioned and educated to live in a utopia. He truly took his own advice when he said, “Never argue. Repeat your assertion.” That is exactly what he did.
“The thinking was that the commune failed not because of anything wrong with communism or collectivism, but because the people living there had not been properly socialized and ‘educated’ to be collectivists from childhood.”
From then on, Robert Owen applied himself to convincing his fellow theorists that if utopia is to be established, the population must be educated to accept communism. Therefore, all efforts should be made to design, establish, and control a public school system.
“To train and educate the rising generation will at all times be the first object of society, to which every other will be subordinate.”âRobert Owen.
Suddenly, the public schools were born.
The Prussian Public Schools
“According to Owenâs account, the Prussian ruler had “so much approved” of these ideas that he ordered his own government to create a national education system based upon them. And thus, the Prussian system of educationâschooling of the state, by the state, and for the stateâwas officially born.”
In 1843, a man named Horace Mann traveled to Prussia and observed the public school systemâwhich had been directly inspired by Owen. He instantly recognized the potential of the government overseeing the instruction of all future generations, so he instantly began working in the United States to see this very system implemented in the West.
Ultimately, thanks to the work of men like Horace Mann, John Dewey, and Herbert Marcuse, the schemes of Robert Owen were quickly and eagerly implemented in the freest country on earth.
The Legacies
After his failed American experiment, Robert Owen returned to England as a disgraced and broke man. Having sunk 80% of his wealth in New Harmony, he relied on his children for support until he died in 1858.
Before then, however, Owen also founded the National Equitable Labor Exchange in 1832. This was a union that sought not only to reform the working system but to upend and remake it all together through social transition. Does this sound at all familiar?
Also, before his death, Owen, who had been a staunch atheist all his life, converted to spiritualism in 1854 after meeting with Maria B. Hayden, the first witch to visit England after the awakening of spiritualism in the United States. Later on, he claimed to have communicated with Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin via spiritual mediums. He believed they urged him “to prepare the world for universal peace and to infuse into all the spirit of charity, forbearance, and love.”
Interestingly, 13 years after his death in 1871, Robert’s son, Robert Dale Owen, claimed to have been visited by his father, who said he would share a set of “spiritual commandments” through a woman named Emma Hardings Britten, who was a supposed “spiritual medium.” These “spiritual commandments” were written down and are to this day are taught as the Seven Principles of Spiritualism.
His legacy also continued in the life of his son, Robert Dale Owen, who stayed in New Harmony after his father left. He later became a US Representative and helped found the Smithsonian Institute.
When reflecting on his life, Robert Owen said this: “My life was not useless; I gave important truths to the world, and it was only for want of understanding that they were disregarded. I have been ahead of my time.”
Happily for Owen and regretfully for mankind, time would catch up rapidly. Today, Americans are blissfully ignorant of the deceptive and unsuccessful roots of the public school system and send children off to the yellow school bus, completely unaware that the bus is there to advance the ends of a loyal communist and committed spiritualist.
As Alex Newman said, “History would gradually be forgotten as the rotten fruit of this system began to undermine traditional American values and ideas.”
The question that demands to be asked is, have we seen the utopian world promised to us by Robert Owen? The honest answer is absolutely not. So, rather than trying to revive New Harmony, I suggest that we check our premises before our society too collapses.
Elise DeYoung is a Public Relations and Communications Associate and a Classical ConversationsÂŽ graduate. With CC, she strives to know God and make Him known in all aspects of her life. She is a servant of Christ, an avid reader, and a professional nap-taker. As she continues her journey towards the Celestial City, she is determined to gain wisdom and understanding wherever it can be found. Soli Deo gloria!
[1] Manchester Lit and Phil (n.d.). Our History. Manchester Lit & Phil. Retrieved August 2, 2024, from https://www.manlitphil.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/
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.
