Remember that proverbial frog in a pot of water? It finally died, since it didn’t notice the slow-rising heat.
Few saw the early signs of the Neo-Marxist ideology that has invaded our schools and universities. But back in Teddy Roosevelt’s days, who would have guessed that a major goal of Dewey’s “progressive education” was to weaken the traditional family, trade freedom for collectivism, and replace Christianity with an evolving form of “spiritual” solidarity?
In his 1908 article, “Religion and our Schools,” Dewey wrote that “dogmatic beliefs” were “disappearing.” Decades later, while presiding over the American Humanist Association, he co-authored the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. Notice how his words reflect today’s emerging churches?
“Any religion than can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today, must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”
Fast-forward to the 21st century. The ever-present dialectic process now reigns in churches as well as schools. And in cities across America, Alinsky-trained “community organizers” work side-by-side with students doing their “service-learning” from coast to coast. Meanwhile Christian families face rising opposition. For example,
“A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as ‘well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level’ has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too ‘vigorous’ in defense of her Christian faith. The decision… reasoned that the girl’s ‘vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [a court assigned] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.’…
“…a guardian ad litem [assigned to represent the interest of the child] concluded the girl ‘appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith’ and that the girl’s interests ‘would be best served by exposure to a public school setting’ and ‘different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief… in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.'”
Did you catch that? The court tells us that this Christian girl — an excellent student — does not have the right to “choose” which religion best “suits her own needs” until she has examined many other “systems of beliefs.” Only as “a young adult” would she know enough about the world’s diverse religions to choose a suitable system.
Would that rule apply to Muslim children? Buddhist children? Hindu children? Click here to continue reading …