The Principal Approach to Education: Reading, Grammar, History, and the Sciences

Constitutional Qualification for “Equal Rights” Claim

A contention for the Constitutionally legitimate right to LIFE and biblical marriage in brief contrast to the maligned insistence that same-sex “marriage” and other forms of perverted sexuality also qualify as natural, equal rights.

An actuality that most people are increasingly (and, often willfully) ignorant of today is the fact that America began with the collective ambition of effectuating a “city upon a hill” vision. This goal was the dream of our Puritan founders; the proclamation of the Gospel and the freedom to interpret it privately as common citizens was the primary reason of our establishment. Ensuing liberty was consequently inevitable as responsible men and women recognized that freedom was not an absence of laws, but rather an upholding of God’s Law. One such, namely, was the sanctity of the marriage covenant.

The defilement of sexuality and marriage was rightly understood a reproach to a nation (Proverbs 14:34); this persuasion signified not merely the understanding under the Old Covenant, but continued and surfaced throughout several centuries of our own government, as well. As is the case with every substantial document, the Constitution cannot be properly interpreted by its text alone as definitions and wordage subjectively undergo continual evolution with society and culture. Historical context is nearly as important as textual content itself, acting as the enlightening “lens” of literature, so to speak. During the time of the Constitution’s drafting and following, the sin of sodomy was severely penalized by castration. Thomas Jefferson endorsed a bill supporting dismemberment of rapists. Imprisonment connoted one penal consequence of adultery. Clearly, perverse sexuality was a significant issue to our founders—not a matter deserving “equal-rights protection,” but as a matter deserving due recompense considering the natural right it essentially opposed.

Civic rights are founded initially on the concept of natural law. Natural law delineates those rights divinely dispensed at conception; this conviction was the driving motivation of the Preamble (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”) The highest and most fundamental of these natural rights was the “right to LIFE,” ensured indirectly by Amendment Ten, and directly by Amendment Fourteen and our Preamble. Life was therein avowed federal protection and preservation from the womb.

Homosexuality blatantly disregards life as it opposes the marriage union and the pattern of sexuality providing the only possible formula for reproduction: the one-man, one-woman bond. More severely, it transgresses the spiritual concept that earthly marriage reflects: the Trinity.

Without a respect for natural rights, no basis for “equal rights” exists.

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” ~ George Washington

~Whitney Ann

William Wilberforce: The Impossibility of Moral and Religious Pluralism

By Whitney Ann Dotson

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?”

~ William Wilberforce

What William Wilberforce proclaimed a Christian obligation is regarded with great skepticism today. Legislative attempts to “drive religion and its influence out of public life” (Carson) and appeals for tolerance from within the church have contributed to the labeling of Christian political participation as irrelevant to biblical priority and evangelical calling. As immorality gains legalization in increasing distaste towards life and family, many well-meaning believers assume silent complacency in the face of moral deterioration. Insisting that God’s people are not of this world, and holding to a misconception of church-and-state separation, the Church has unknowingly forfeited her voice in the pulpit and courts. Unfortunately, she has forgotten that an evangelical calling requires that every believer wield the sword of righteousness in a biblical worldview which places earthly law in the scope and view of the consummation of the Great Commission.

To limit the Christian’s accountability to the church or mission field is to underestimate God’s range of presence and concern. He does not reign over those regions pronounced religious only, but also over every aspect of life. To reflect His universal permeation, man was designated the role of cultivator over both natural and spiritual matters (Genesis 2:2). From tilling the ground to constructing profound cities, creation was lent subject to man’s will for the express purpose of directing men to their Creator (John 20:31). Men were called to exemplify the spiritual implications of this cultural mandate in upholding the Law in both daily life and particular vocations. Biblically prominent figures such as Daniel, Joseph, and Deborah were each called to civic roles to enact social order based on biblical statutes. Paul re-affirmed the continuity of this responsibility among believers in addressing the protection of widows, orphans, and the socially weak (Psalm 82:3; Isaiah 1:17).

A truly biblical understanding of the Great Commission perceives the world a mission place in which every earthly subject holds potential to serve and glorify the Savior. This worldview presents not a dichotomy of life, but a unity which centralizes upon Christ. By asserting laws which resemble eternal precepts and restraining surrounding evils, Christians fulfill their office as true “witnesses” (Isaiah 43:10). The institutions of church and state are perceived not as polar associations, but as subjects mutually ordained by God. Only in this perspective do we begin to fathom God’s all-consuming sovereignty. It is only in this enlightenment in which regenerate, mortal beings can exist in the world, utilizing its tools without conforming to its values.

Works Cited: Carson, Clarence B. Basic American Government. Amercan Textbook Committee Publishers. Wadley, Alabama. 1994.

Observing the Grassroots of Public School: Why Mann’s Philosophy Was Not the Answer

Horace Mann

By Whitney Dotson

Less than a span of two centuries ago, an institution termed the “common school” was introduced with great expectations to Massachusetts soil. Notable schoolmaster and head of state school board Horace Mann deemed the historic landmark the hope of social “improvement,” and the means of producing moral, enlightened citizens of the country’s children (ASSS). By as early as 1860, legislations regarding the length of the school day and year had been confirmed as nationally binding, and Mr. Mann had earned the title “father” of the nation’s government-funded establishment (Gangel, 277). The briefest glimpse into academic and moral significations within America’s modern school system, however, would certainly disappoint the pedagogue’s aspirations. As a disconcerting forty-three percent of children under the age of twelve leave grade school illiterate and rates of suicide, premarital sex, and pregnancy out of wedlock increasingly incline among the country’s scholars, statistics would appear to disprove Mann’s revelations (Brown). In his zeal, he had erroneously discounted the reality of sin and assumed the perfectibility of man. A basic review of the historical context and foundational thoughts effectuating the educational philosophy of Horace Mann would disclose that education which is simultaneously redemptive and liberating is found only in a biblical understanding of knowledge and man in their relation to God.

In Colonial America and prior, the majority of children were instructed to an extent domestically through parental instruction or self-schooling—some being so well-prepared as to enter college at age thirteen. When more rigid establishments became prevalent, parents continued to recognize their roles in child-training and understood the warrant of their position in doing so, often over-seeing administrative duties as school board members themselves (Beliles, 104). The esteem placed upon Christian knowledge within these sectors was evidenced in the fact that horn books and slates reflected theological truths (Beliles, 103). The ecclesiastical field in the pursuit of academics was so revered and closely tied that clergy often advised curriculum choice or served as instructors, and the Bible typically represented the doorway to reading as well as to personal piety and understanding. Universities such as Harvard and Princeton, in addition, were later constructed in hope of propagating the ministry (Beliles, 104). Compulsory restrictions of any kind were hardly considered as teachers and school board alike relied heavily upon the advice and participation of parents (ASSS). Primary schools and universities, also, were tax-exempt and operated without the use of governmental subsidies. Contrary to popular assumption, literacy rates soared within this period, and students capable of independence and trade were produced (ASSS).

The concept of subsidized schooling first gained serious consideration in America with the expansion of religious differences and poverty posed by increased European immigration, and the onset of surrounding national advances (Thattai). Until this time, children were generally sent to private facilities or common schools, locally authorized and supported (Beliles, 103). Denominational groups including Anabaptist and Presbyterian credence were expressly designed so that familial guardians could expose the next generation according to the doctrinal training that they chose. Respected figures, however, had begun to imagine a non-sectarian system as beneficial to the virtuous upbringing of varying social classes (Gangel, 137). William Penn envisioned the establishment as the opportunity of protecting Quaker children from persecution in a largely Calvinistic America; Reformation leaders John Calvin and Martin Luther had years before sanctioned the public school as a potent channel for furthering the Great Commission in which every child could freely learn the Bible (Gangel, 226). Nearly always, the thought of universal education was primarily understood as a crusade against the negative elements of religious persecution or atheism. Such considerations ironically rendered the admiration for an approaching foreign advancement which would succesively contribute to changing the face of American schooling—and eventually serve, in part, as the outline for the philosophical devising of Horace Mann.

Defying common assertion, the conventional form of public education known today began as an attempt to remove what was perceived by radical thinkers to be religious indoctrination in domestic and religious establishments (Carson). At the height of the nineteenth century, the civilized world seemed intent upon change; a determination to right the wrongs of society through an emphasis upon knowledge and governmental regulation had entranced the European realm. Outside nations watched as Germany erected an academic system, contestably the first in its form (Thattai). Distinctly tied to government and presumably theologically neutral, school fused with state in enforcing civic allegiance among youths. Mandatory attendance laws were constructed upon the threat of separating disobedient parents from their children (Thattai). The Prussian creation convinced countless of the merits of humanitarian efforts in social reconstruction, and inspired many with the feeling that advancement could be achieved at the hands and wit of man. The theory that man’s suffering lay in the deterring action of religion impressed the minds of rising American philosophizes and reformers, and eventually succeeded in removing church from state matters. With time and reason, it was perceived, truth could be deduced through the progress of “evolutionary development” in which individuals found ultimate definition in their ability to conform to the design of society (Mann).

Philosophy is an inevitable aspect of any field of knowledge as it determines how and what one perceives to be truth. It is the method of attaining a certain goal, and the worldview of the mind’s eye. The philosophical tenets of Horace Mann were a compilation of the principles of moral perfection and Unitarianism, of natural theology and social progressivism (Badolato). Born in 1796 in Franklin, Massachusetts, Horace was a faithful attendant of a local congregational church from infanthood. Following a tragedic incident involving the accidental death of his brother, however, he abandoned the Calvinistic teachings of Nathaniel Emmons as a youth (Ritchie). Unwilling to face the biblical reality of a judicial God, Mann forsook any concept of a divinity less than his own perception of “kindness and ethical integrity (Ritchie).” Only a few short years following, he transitioned his membership to First Parish Church of Dedham where he accepted the religion of Unitarianism. In contrast to the teachings of Reverend Emmons, the individual was confirmed there a generally good being who could be easily redirected to perfection, and the deity of Christ and the presence of original sin were denied.

Though Mann certainly acknowledged the existence of evil in the world, his insistence upon its domination depicted it a force of mere negativity rather than a grave spiritual hindrance. While biblical reading was integrated into initial classrooms and curricula, doctrine was regulated, and Scripture was esteemed more for Its virtuous, rather than spiritual, character. Mann’s Transcendentalist perspective and enthrallment with the natural encouraged a sensual, experiential pursuit of knowledge which re-popularized the secular classics and fostered a temporal worldview based upon external control. The antidote to the woes besetting mankind, Mann believed, lay in the structure of formal education (Mann). In a perspective not unlike his century colleagues, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, criminology and anti-patriotism could be dissolved if only the arm of governmental supervision was extended. To Mann, salvation lay in the hope of education, and human error resided whenever ignorance prevailed and circumstance failed to offer enlightenment (Mann).

Abandoning the professions of his Protestant background, Horace concluded the value of the individual as dependent upon the intellectual ability. With enlightenment came prosperity and “power”—without which, humanity was indistinguishable from the animal realm (Mann). Mann understood the source of strife as the inequalities plaguing his fellow man. Whether by deliberate or natural circumstances, individuals climbed the social system while others remained unfortunate, even to the point of destitution. He sought to dissolve such barriers through the blending effect of a false “tolerance” regarding issues of contention. A form of academic democracy combining students of varying religious and cultural contexts would allegedly provide everyone the opportunity to prosperity. In reality, however, this philosophy only resulted in expanding moral weakness and a spirit of statism.

Without the certain doctrines of sin and grace, humanism abandons persons to the bondage of fellow men, leaving the weaker vulnerable to the subjection of the elevated. Such a theory assesses the value of humanity as something to be earned, and limits knowledge to a self-centered scope. In his refusal to recognize man biblically, Mann misplaced his trust in human authority. In his refutation of the Trinity, he denied the liberating views of individual government and Christian conversion. As Christ was perceived as neither God nor sovereign and man was neither spiritually void nor innately depraved, the value of the Cross was negated. Inevitable was the gradual impingement of freedom in the forms of governmental intrusion and moral autonomy. Intruth, Mann failed to recognize the grave consequence of ignoring the biblical format for authority, and the demand and purpose for cultural dominion. Typified in the Garden and re-instated in the Great Commission, God’s intention for mankind in general was to utilize all in available power to exalt Him; from cultivating the ground to becoming spiritual fishermen, humanity was designed to discover and emit His character as ambassadors and according to appointed roles. Civic and governmental duties, while to be revered and honored, were in reality only earthly reminders of His justice and intolerance towards sin. Familial roles such as parental instruction and discipline revealed His character of righteousness and love. Such earthly representatives were situated not to replace divine authority, but to represent His hand and character in His hatred for the transgression of law, and the innate value of life. Unless man is internally governed by the Holy Spirit, he cannot and will not cease from tyrannizing others or transgressing society.

Affirmed in numerous biblical passages is the principle of personhood or individuality (Jeremiah 1:5)—the belief that every man was knit specially and uniquely by the Creator, and for His will (Jeremiah 29:11). Scripture recounts the simultaneous presence of a sinful nature and divine resemblance imbedded in every soul (Romans 3:23; Genesis 1:27). Despite maintaining the image of God and a spirit distinct from the created world, man’s ability to reason and will have been hindered by natural and deliberate wickedness (Romans 3:23). According to the inspired author James, evil is neither aroused by any force or form of determinism, but comes solely from the desire of man’s heart (James 1:27). It is imperative, then, that the student receive knowledge competent in offering the wholeness of his being to original purpose and function. True knowledge is found first in the “fear” of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7). It is centralized upon and measured in the recognition of God’s omniscience and revealed Word. Within Scripture, information is determined as profitable only according to its supporting object and motive. Proverbs denotes that knowledge can abase with foolish pride or establish one with earthly riches, yet is of little consequence outside the favor of the Lord. In an ever-eternal view, knowledge is depicted as supremely significant when ascribing to the intimacy of fathoming the Savior (John 20:31). Though including intellectual assent, this understanding surpasses the mind, and grasps the spirit, gradually sanctifying the whole person. It is only in this instruction and hope that a genuine hope for world-reaching reconstruction can be imagined, and in which the testimony for which Christ died can be manifested (John 3:16).

A biblical education presupposes a need for correction. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary specifically denotes education as a means of reforming the “temper” and general unruliness in personality and thought of the child. Implied is the act of training, molding, and improving from darkness to enlightenment, from unruly to tame. Such a theory initializes with the imperfect state of natural man, and seeks to edify him. In a Scriptural knowledge of the doctrine of total depravity (Romans 3:23), instructors gain insight as to what they may reap from their students. The realization that sin has fogged man’s wholeness—mind, spirit, and soul—and that only the Holy Spirit can shed light upon any misunderstanding, encourages the teacher who may have otherwise apprehended a performance of perfection from either herself or her pupils. Such an understanding decries any hope of improvement outside a biblical conversion, and concentrates upon the inner condition and needs of each classmate. Implied in such foresight is the total sovereignty of God—His domain and right over every facet of the universe, and the responsibility of each man to submit to His government. Inconceivable in this recognition is any form of human dominance or totalitarian authority which trespasses upon the natural rights of His children, or the order which He has revealed!

—Whitney Ann Dotson

Badolato, Robert. “The Educational theory of Horace Mann.” January, 4, 2008. [available online] at:http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Mann.html.

Beliles, Mark A. and McDowell, Stephen K. America’s Providential History. Providence Foundation. Charlottesville, Virginia. Eight Edition. 1989.

Brown, Martha C. “Poor Reading-Instruction Methods Keep Many Students Illiterate.” January 31, 2001. [available online] at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_4_16/ai_59187721/

Carson, Clarence. B. “The Dilemmas of Public Education.” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. Volume 33, Issue 9. September 1983. [available online] at: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-dilemmas-of-public-education/

Gangel, Kenneth O. and Benson, Warren S. Christian Education: Its History and Philosophy. Wipf and Stock Publishers. Eugene, Oregon. 1983.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishers.1984

Mann, Horace. “Horace Mann Quotes.” Homepage. [available online] at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/horace_mann.html

Ritchie, Susan. “Horace Mann.” [available online] at: http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/horacemann.html

Thattai, Deeptha. “A History of Public Education in the United States.” [available online] at: http://www.servintfree.net/~aidmn-ejournal/publications/2001-11/PublicEducationInTheUnitedStates.html

City Council Bill Threatens Maryland Pro-Life Advocacy

By Whitney Dotson

 

“Misleading” is the description City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake recently used to slur the conduct of certain Baltimore Pregnancy Resource Centers. Presented before committees in October 2009 under the legal title Bill 09-0406, the proposed document will signify certain requirements and alterations for pro-life resources. Upon ratification in meeting the mayor’s approval, the potential bill will fine a minimum of $150.00 per day to any clinics that fail to publicly communicate the “limitations” of their services—mainly, the refusal to include referrals to abortionists and the dispensation of contraceptives. While notable organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the NARAL seemingly deem this action a crusade for truth, however, many Maryland citizens question their challengers’ ability to do so in consideration of the companies’ moral and Constitutional transgressions.

“Ethical management,” “reproductive health,” and “choice” are all terms regularly utilized by pro-abortion advocates. Within a span of mere years, however, Planned Parenthood alone has been faced with charges involving malpractice and illegal admissions. In Texas, institutions were forced to close when allegations revealed that induced abortions were being administered by uncertified professionals. Establishments elsewhere drew more attention when supposed minors were given abortion referrals without required parental consent. Concerning the matters of reproductive health and choice, the company has refused to integrate ultrasounds in counseling, and has encouraged anything but true reproduction. Of the many services explicitly stated on its website, the company presently equates reproductive health with the promotion of STD testing, abortion and birth control services, and HPV vaccinations as easily accessible and affordable. Apparently, “choice” to this company refers not to a decision between life and death, but upon the varying ways to enact murder. Ironic is the fact that the very union decrying the moral standing of departments has been so apparently secretive and contradictory itself!

The protection of Amendment One and briefest recognition of natural right as secured by Amendment Fourteen are sufficient in refuting the document in question. While often misunderstood and abused, the liberty commonly recognized as “freedom of speech” originated from a deep-seated desire to restrict governmental censorship where unnecessary. Only when a circumstance aroused the suspicion of being morally unsound or treasonous was regulation summoned. The right to “life” simply and generally acknowledged every man as commonly and innately entitled to protection under the Creator of all life (John 14:6). As the pro-life cause has reputably defended every duration of life and avoided serious illegalities, it may be safely concluded that Planned Parenthood, the NARAL, and similar organizations should reconsider the party truly in need of public posts and moral correction. Only then can a female, in reiterating Ms. Rawlings-Blake’s misapplied rhetoric, make an independent, “informed” decision which is Constitutionally and ethically compliant.

http://www.lifenews.com/state4595.html

In the Name of the Defender and Originator of Life (Psalm 82:3),

- Whitney