Loading...
educationreligionspirituality
Intellectual Schizophrenia – Q&A (Critique of Modern Education) - Q&A (Remastered)
About this Episode
Public education is suffering from intellectual schizophrenia—torn between despair over humanity’s survival and blind confidence that centralized systems can remake man—because humanism treats man as both helpless and godlike. Even left-wing critics admit the system is failing: millions graduate functionally illiterate, Darwinian “survival of the fittest” has turned schools into bureaucratic weeding machines, and universities have become “multiversities” with no commitment to truth, excluding Christianity while embracing anything else. Massive studies show money doesn’t fix education and that the family is decisive, yet the statist response is more centralization, earlier intervention, and deeper assaults on the family—repeating the Soviet error with equally destructive results. In contrast, Christian schools, by reinforcing family, discipline, and truth, are quietly forming mature leaders while government education collapses under its own contradictions.
#ChristianEducation #PublicSchoolFailure #FamilyMatters #BiblicalWorldview #AgainstStatism #EducationCrisis #TruthAndOrder #CovenantEducation #WorldviewMatters
Transcript
CR101radio.com
podcast and more
The Caled Seton Foundation presents
intellectual schizophrenia
Q&A
Part 3 of RJ Rushjini's lecture series
Critique of Modern Education
The Caled Seton Foundation
Now for our concluding speaker
that has spoken 5th already
day in his certainly blessed our heart
Dr. RJ Rushjini's
fictional intellectual schizophrenia
Dr. Rushjini.
There is an old story about a university professor
who had a nightmare
which he dreamed that he was lecturing to his class
and woke up and found that he was
I'm reminded of that story
because I slept only about an hour
and a quarter last night on a plane
from Los Angeles to Memphis
and I hope the saying doesn't
be called either myself or you
our subject now is intellectual
schizophrenia.
In particular the schizophrenia
that besets the advocates
of public education.
We found on this hour deal
with the liberal and radical
critique of the public schools.
In recent years there has been a
growing critique of the schools
a growing dissatisfaction
with them.
This is in one respect
not surprising.
One of the things that catches my eye
when I go on campus
and I do appear on many
secular university campuses
year in and year out
is to examine the lecture subjects
of other speakers
of secular humanistic speakers.
Basically there is quite a polarity
in these subjects
and they can be summed up under two heads.
One type of speech is
will man survive
and the implication is that he won't.
And the other type of
speech is a coming triumph
of world socialism.
There's something schizophrenic here.
A very wild ambivalence
between hopelessness
and wild confidence.
We should not be surprised at this.
Because in humanism
all depends on man
and man is God.
Man will as he faces
the immensity of his task
and realizes that he faces it alone
be sometimes desperately
totally hopeless.
On the other hand, as he tells himself
he is the only God in the universe.
He begins to feel that he is omnipotent
and that if he says
a thing shall come to pass
and passes a lot
with that effect,
it should,
after all when
man thinks of himself as God.
He thinks in terms
of those categories of thought
which are inescapable
with a concept of a God here.
And one is the creative work
and God said
and it was so.
And today in our
schools and in our legislative assemblies
these men who see themselves
as God's
try the same thing
they pass a lot.
And reality should be changed
but it is not.
The Institute
and Educational Program
which should bring about
a new kind of person
and it does not.
When man plays God
against the void
of a meaningless world
he does become schizophrenically.
And so it is too
that as he faces schools
he does so with
wild confidence
and bitter despair.
There have been
a flood of books
in the last two or three years
by radicals
and liberals attacking
the government schools.
I could go into some
of the more radical critiques.
The Santa Barbara
Center for the Study
of Democratic Institutions
has a number of publications
and writers
attacking the whole concept
of state of education
from a far leftist position
attacking the idea
of a compulsory school law
and a great deal more.
Dr. Litch is notable
among those who have
mounted such an attack.
Well let us say
a more moderate leftist attack
such as that
by Colin Greer.
Colin Greer spoke
the great school legend
a revisionist interpretation
of American public education
sites of acts
that does concern
met with these critics
of state of education.
They realize
that nine million
current school children
will enter
the labor market
as functional illiterates.
This is their own admission.
Nine million children
across the United States
will finish their schooling
as functional illiterates.
This certainly does not
spell success.
Moreover, as Colin Greer
points out,
it is very difficult
to call these facts
to the attention
of the educational fraternity
and segments of the public
because he says,
nine quote,
public education
is a religion,
unquote.
The modern faith
is in salvation
by education.
The goal in our schools
he says has radically
changed from the
colonial period
when the function of schools
was to produce
the Christian man
fully armed
and prepared
by a means of education
to meet all problems.
Then it became
Americanization.
An Americanization
progressively became
socialistically
interpreted,
not sufficiently
to suit, of course,
Colin Greer and others.
But he says,
the schools have failed
to Americanize.
Immigrants are not
educated properly.
They have become
largely able to progress
in the United States
by self-education.
Now Greer is correct
at this point.
A very large body of studies
over the past few years
has revealed the fact
that instead of being
the great Americanizing
force,
the schools were
a very divisive
and repressive force.
They did not
Americanize the Germans
or the Irish
or the
Italians
or any other group
that came to this country.
Nor were they very
helpful in teaching them
even English.
I included the Irish
there, by the way,
because the great Irish
immigration
from 1820 on
was largely not
English speaking.
They were the gay
of speaking Irish.
In fact,
so many of the gay
of speaking
rural Irish
came over that
Ireland has virtually
no English speaking
people left.
The Irish immigrants
then had to learn
English also.
Who taught them?
Predominantly,
with all these immigrant
groups,
the basic education
was done by their churches
and by their own
nationalistic organizations,
the German-American group,
the Italian-American group,
the Irish-American group,
and so on.
The documentation for this
is quite extensive.
The schools did not
out them.
They were misfits
in the schools
and they were treated
as the lowest of the low.
They were very quickly
weeded out.
As a result,
there was an inner development
in the ghetto areas
of the big cities
in which the organizations
within the society,
Italian or Irish or German
or what have you,
trained their own people
and enabled them to advance
and to improve their
lot in this country.
There is a far more
radical critique
that Colin Greer makes
of state of education.
It is a startling one
coming from a person
who is, himself,
totally non-Christian,
he never even considers
the Christian perspective.
The schools, he says,
have been radically,
ugly and evil
in their basic impact
because of their Darwinism.
Now this is a startling criticism
coming from a man
who never even considers
Christianity
as a live auction.
He says the theory
of natural selection
which lies behind
much of the American
popular faith in public education.
This theory consistently
ignores the reality
and effectiveness
of the criteria imposed
from above upon those attempting
to climb the ladder of success.
And then it goes on
to develop primarily
what he means by this.
The theory
of natural selection
is the survival of the fittest.
In education he says,
this means that the public schools,
the government schools,
very early in the last century,
shortly after Darwin,
began to abide this perspective.
In other words, they
admired it almost
within a couple of decades
after the public schools
were established.
What did they do?
They began to weed out
in terms of the doctrine
of natural selection,
the survival of the fittest,
those who were not the elite.
And so he said,
the policy until
approximately 1930 was,
weed out the lower levels
in grade school.
The high school will be
the training ground
and the college for the elite.
Those who provide the leadership
for our Darwinian society.
They shall be trained
for education,
for leadership in state,
in commerce,
and in social life.
The rest for the labor market
as unskilled or semi-skilled workers.
But rare points out,
beginning in the 20s,
there began to be a problem
of unemployment.
This presented a problem.
Turn out all these use
at 12, 13, 14,
when there was no way
of absorbing them into society.
This might,
they felt,
create a revolutionary situation.
And so the educational policy
became, let us roast,
mandatory school age,
the 16 or 18,
and hold them in school longer,
and especially with a depression,
this became the general practice.
Hold them in school longer,
keep them off the labor market.
We cannot absorb them.
Therefore,
do not plonk them out
in grade school or in high school.
And increasingly,
educational philosophy,
positive,
a mandatory passing
all through the lower grades.
And passing,
became increasingly
the order of the day.
Even those schools
that did plonk plonk
with the idea of helping the student
to get ahead the next semester
so that he could see his way
through high school
as a high school graduate.
The flunking you see
was then to be done
on the college level.
Since World War II,
the situation has altered.
Increasingly,
because as we have a less
and less free society,
and more and more
of a socialistic society,
jobs become, as a result,
progressively,
more and more a problem.
As a result,
the idea increasingly is,
hold them in school
until approximately 20
with a junior college system.
And pass them
all the way through
the second year of college,
no flunking.
And in state after state,
California is one of these,
this is becoming the routine thing.
Every child
must go through school
to the age of 18
and is increasingly guided
through junior college.
So it is becoming normal
for all,
virtually without exception,
to continue in their schooling
to the age of 20.
No failure below that.
In college,
the building is
40 percent or more
depending upon the school.
It could be higher
some hold,
but increasingly,
the attitude is,
perhaps,
as our economic situation
becomes more and more difficult,
we could hold them
all the way through college
and flunk them out
in graduate school.
State colleges
are increasingly established
with this in mind.
Let them through.
Let's hold them as long as possible.
We are less likely
than to have social revolution.
As a result,
very great problems
confront schools
on all levels today.
Both because this Darwinism
leads to a feeling
that they are training
and elite only.
They are preparing leadership.
And also,
because most students
are aware of the fact
that they are being
babysacked,
that they are going to be passed,
that nothing much is expected of them,
that they are simply
caused in a defeat.
The first student revolt
which broke out
at the Berkeley campus
of the University of California,
very definitely was motivated
by this impulse.
The motto of the revolting students was,
do not fold, mutilate,
or staple.
Another one of our feelings
was we are not persons.
We are merely trainees
that are being pushed
along as useless
until they can no longer
put just any further
in the educational process.
And we resent being treated
as something in the giant computer
without any human significance.
Colon Greer is right.
Education no longer is as it was
in the colonial period,
and the first half century
of the Republic,
the education of the Christian man,
every child to be educated
in terms of the faith,
in terms of the covenant,
in terms of a responsibility
under God to be a whole man
in Jesus Christ.
Now it is Darwinism.
We doubt the cause.
Prepare a handful
for social,
political,
and industrial leadership.
It is a ruthless,
heartless system.
Moreover, faith is gone
in that system,
faith in anything.
Dr. Nesbitt,
one of the finest sociologists
in the world today,
has written a study
and it delighted me
because I was writing
something along the same lines
at the same time,
although he did a
very good job
as far as the historical
side was concerned,
while mine was more
theological.
He titled his little study
that declothed the
end of the university,
I believe,
or the decline in collapse
or decline in fall
of the university.
His thesis was
that the university
was a medical institution.
And that as such,
it was now going.
My thesis, of course,
was very much
along the same line
approaching it
from a different perspective.
I singled out the term
by Dr. Clark Kerr
who in the early 1960s
declared that the university
was gone,
that the university
had taken its place.
Now his point
in choosing this term
was simply this.
A university
is a Christian concept.
It presupposes
that there is one God,
one world of law,
one universe,
and therefore a university
in which this unified
body of truth
and law is taught.
It's a theistic concept.
It is thoroughly
a biblical concept.
But today,
there is no concept
of absolute truth
and the modern
higher educational institution
believes in a multiverse.
There can be many systems
that have evolved
out of the primordial atom.
There are, therefore,
perhaps many universes.
It is a multiverse
and therefore,
the university
is no longer tenable
it must be a
multiversity
in which any point
in goes
except Christianity.
Which holds
to a one world of truth,
absolute truth and law.
As a result,
today we do have
multiversities
and the multiversities
are militantly hostile
to Christianity.
But having no absolutes,
they teach magic.
They teach almost any
and every subject
under the sun,
including astrology.
They have no truth.
And so it is that,
one of the most distinguished
scientists of our time,
a man who has no trace
of Christianity in him,
has written a very
telling book
on the end of the golden age.
This man,
a molecular biologist
at the University of California,
has analyzed
what is happening
to the university.
And he declares that
without the concept of truth,
it is no longer possible
to have science.
Science will disappear.
And he says that,
increasingly in graduate students,
this fact is becoming apparent.
The graduate student no longer
is like the scholar of old
with a pattern for truth.
He's there because he is an antiquarian.
Just as some people collect stamps
because it appeals to them,
so he is interested
in physics or chemistry
because he's doing his thing.
And so he says,
this kind of interest will win.
It will mean that science
will disappear.
In a couple of centuries,
man having reverted to barbarism
because he has no belief
in truth or any desire to learn
will disappear from the face
of the earth.
In the spring of 1970,
when natural history reviewed
the book,
it was given four pages of review
and the reviewer concluded
that he could not buy
the author's optimism.
Modern education is a bankrupt.
This bankruptcy came to
very clear focus
in a very startling report
which was published in 1966.
It had been commissioned earlier
by President Kennedy.
And Dr. Denise S. Coleman
of Johns Hopkins University
had been made chairman of the commission.
It was the equality
of educational opportunity report.
It was a study
with the use of computers
of all schools in the United States.
Since there was a great concern
over integration,
it was a study of the schools
as they differed.
What was the difference
between the black schools
and the white schools
and so on?
Every aspect.
The report was a major shock.
Both to the committee
as the data began to come in
and also to educators
and politicians.
And they have ignored it.
About the only attention paid
to it was by Harvard University
which appointed a faculty seminar
on the Coleman report
on the equality
of educational opportunity
edited by Frederick Mosler
and Daniel P. Moynihan.
Analyzing the significance of it
and in effect saying,
yes, this is so.
We see no holes in this report.
It's valid.
It's very interesting, too,
that the report did not deal
with Christian schools at all.
There was one sentence
that indicated something
of a recognition of their existence.
The sentence says,
no one yet knows how to make
a ghetto school work.
Perhaps it should be said
that no one knows how
to make a public ghetto school work.
Now, the findings
of the Clinton O.R.
are the Coleman report
whose years cover
the era just before
the compulsory integration
of schools in essence
came to three conclusions.
The first which startled everyone
was this.
Black and white schools
are virtually fruitful
in quality.
This was a shocker.
There were slight differences.
On some points,
the white schools had an advantage
over the black schools,
but at other points,
the black schools had an advantage
over the white schools.
So that as far as
the quality of educational
opportunity was concerned,
segregation had not
handicapped the blacks.
The second conclusion
was even more upsetting
to the educational fraternity.
It was that money
makes no difference
in educational results.
Spend as much as you want
and facilities,
equipment,
flat,
and so on,
it makes no difference.
I trust some of you
will remember this
when the pressure
is on you
in your Christian school
to have
a chemistry lab
or a physics lab.
Forget it.
As a matter of fact,
I believe a very strong case
could be made
for the fact that they are
a detriment of education.
Those labs are a joke.
No student learns to experiment.
No experiment is ever
conducted in a high school
laboratory.
They are just demonstrations
of experiments
that were made generations ago.
And that demonstration
could be done by a teacher
before the entire class,
much more economically,
much more effectively
with better teaching results.
As a matter of fact,
I was told by one instructor
in chemistry that he preferred
students from schools
where they did not have labs
they had learned more.
They had done less planning
with the little gadgets
in the chemistry lab
and more learning.
The common report
that's very definitely
confirmed the fact
that money makes no difference
in results.
The third result was
even more devastating
to the educational fraternity.
And it was this.
The family is very safe
in educational achievement.
The basic problem they found
with black students
in schools was not
that there was not enough money
spent upon them
and they lacked good teachers.
The basic problem was
that 55% of the black children
only had both parents in the home.
The other 45%
who did right off educationally.
And this was the problem.
85% or 80% of the whites
had both parents in the home.
The other 20%
was useless in school.
In other words, the family
is a governing factor
in education.
Thus far the common report.
But the question
it did not face was this
what is meant by the family.
It obviously includes heredity.
It obviously includes heredity.
And it very obviously
includes religion.
The determinative aspect
of education is not in education
as far as our public schools
are concerned.
In the Christian school,
the Christian school reinforces
the family, the basic educational unit,
and therefore it is able
to accomplish a great deal.
The public school does not.
Its effect, thus it best,
is deleterious, bad.
It cannot educate
if basically can only harm.
And this it is doing.
And ironically,
was deliberate intent.
Statist education philosophy
has leveled its guns
at God and the family.
In his book,
Common Fate, John Dewey,
in 1932,
declared that Christianity,
biblical Christianity,
and democracy were not compatible.
Wow.
Because he said,
the concept of Christianity
that we meet with in the Bible
is hopelessly aristocratic.
It tells us that there is a division
between the saved and the lost,
the sheep and the goats,
between truth and error,
heaven and hell.
And that's aristocratic.
Hopelessly so.
It is anti-democratic.
In 1848, James Rampkonant,
former President of Harvard,
former High Commissioner of Germany,
scientist,
began to make surveys of education for
the NEA.
And he wrote in education
in a divided world on page 8,
published in 1948
by the Harvard University Press.
That there was an irreconcilable conflict
between democracy and the family.
Every family is an aristocratic institution.
It wants the best for its children,
and it doesn't think about the children
of the poor hot dogs.
Or the children in the song.
It gets the best possible clothing,
housing, food, and schooling for its children.
It does not think about the others.
And so he said that there was an
in-as-deepable conflict
between democracy and the family.
They have thus waged war against
the only agency that has been able
to be of any help to the stool.
Have they learned anything from the Coleman Report?
Well, the fact that the Coleman Report is virtually unknown,
and only a few can fall on the high levels of
the educational fraternity are familiar
with it is revealing.
What are these people who are familiar
with the Coleman Report doing?
They are proposing a solution.
First, that we begin education
at the ages of three to four years,
and undercut the family thereby
and increase the power and influence of the school
by replacing the family as quickly as possible
in the formative years of the child.
And second, that we create a central campus
in each community requiring that all children be boarded there
in order to nullify and undercut the family.
Ironic, is it not?
The secular status to educators themselves
have come up with these conclusions.
And then they go directly against their findings
because of their humanistic bent to make no concession
to the family, let alone God.
Now it is ironic that they are finding
to repeat precisely the error of the Soviet Union.
In the 1920s, the Soviets experimented
precisely in this field.
They provided nurseries for all working mothers
and mourning the night care for all children
and took away the children from families.
The parents picked them up at night and took them home.
There is a story told that he is true.
I have one Soviet mother in those days
that stopped by at the nursery late at night
to pick up her baby,
to go home and then of course to come again in the morning
very early before she went again to the factory and worked.
When she started out of the door with her baby,
she looked and noticed it was not her baby.
As she turned and said,
but this is not my child,
you have given me the wrong baby.
And the woman in attendance said,
but what difference does it make?
It is just going to go home and sleep at your place all night
and you are going to bring it back again.
And of course it was that impersonal.
The hard-wake working mothers could do nothing,
except put their child a bed
while they hardly fed the family,
went to bed and in the morning carted it back to the nursery.
The results were deadly.
Dr. Lebedevá Soviet head of the department
for the protection of motherhood and infancy declared
when the policy was abandoned and I quote,
under present conditions,
there is no doubt that the home offers a more stimulating environment
for the development of the infant than the asylum.
Not only have we decreased the death rate in this way
by placing the institutional children in private homes,
but we have ensured normal development
to a much larger proportion of babies.
Since in almost every case our asylum trained babies
were both mentally and physically backwards.
Unquote.
As a matter of fact, and this was still understalling,
some of the Soviet bureaucracy went so far as to say
it was better for the child to be in a family taught
by parents who were still Christian
all the old superstitions of the Bible
than to be in a state nursery
because the state nursery to use a modern expression
would blow the minds of the child and its body too.
And at least they had a potentially useful citizen
and the home trained child.
But of course this doesn't mean the Soviet Union gave up.
A friend and associate of mine
when I was at the foundation regularly read to the Soviet publications
and he found that there was a great deal of editorial
arising about the grandmother problem.
The grandmothers were the ones who stayed home
and took care of the grandchildren
and they were teaching them all those horrible Bible stories.
And so what they had hoped to eliminate
was being fed to the younger generation.
The modern educational community thus is beset
with the intellectual schizophrenia.
It is at war with itself and with reality.
It recognizes the growing collapse in the area of state of education
but it has no answer to the problem.
It recognizes the importance of the family
and then works to undermine the family.
No more than the Soviet Union having recognized
the centrality of the family can reestablish the family
without faith.
Can we create any substitute for the family?
The Soviet Union has very rigid and puritanical laws in effect now
and yet it is being eaten up with a dry rot
of the numerality, pornography
and every kind of moral dissipation and degeneracy imaginable.
By saying to provide that one thing
which makes the family strong, a vital Christian faith,
they have so undermined themselves today in the Soviet Union
that they have a major problem with production.
They can no longer with promises get the people to work.
Production is collapsing in every area
and this is why there is a tremendous urgency
to have consumer goods particularly automobiles produced.
The invitation to European companies to build their auto plants there
so that they can advertise their youth work card,
save your money, you too can be like the use of America
you can have your own car.
Now this is the purpose of the manufacturer of automobiles there
to try to bribe the youth to work.
The early indications are that it will not be too very successful.
There is an inner collapse because of the disappearance of any faith for living.
Our state of education today is progressively creating a collapse
with an sizable segment of American life.
It has no future as a result.
As against this, today we have a growing body of youth
who are being educated in Christian schools.
I grant you that many of these schools are not all that they should be.
But enough of them are doing an unparalleled job of educating the youth
so that a leadership is coming forward which will not too many years
command this country remake the churches and create a new kind of culture.
One pastor who has had a Christian school for some few years now has said,
do you know that I find it easier to preach and to preach more exegetically
and systematically, more theologically, in my school chapel,
than to my Sunday morning congregation,
because there is a different kind of character and maturity in them.
As we face the future, therefore,
we know and recognize that we are living in a dying age and a dying world
and we should rejoice. It deserves to die.
But the future belongs to those who are impressed and we shall triumph.
Of that, there is no question.
I think we have time for a few questions,
unless you'd like to conclude it now.
Are there any questions?
Yes.
Thank you, Bradford.
Good question.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have to say.
To me, usually when we say that each state,
I've been confirmed to be passed on a state,
and here, of course, you have to send it to the Friday to date.
That doesn't this kind of provide some diversity
in your requisite choice in some way.
So, in other words, they don't have here a situation
that they would have had a journey around.
How I make a statement saying so, and then at that end.
That was the case a decade ago.
Today, the federal funds control all the states.
Far more than the many states superintendents themselves recognize.
For example, the textbooks that are produced today are produced on subsidies
via the federal government to the publishers and to the writers involved.
This is why your new textbooks in the public schools are such beautiful things.
There's unlimited funds to spend on.
The funds are provided on specification that these textbooks are going to cover
a particular subject from a particular point of view.
So that you can have a very liberal and a moderately liberal
and a slightly conservative type of textbook.
Thus, when a state system offers to the schools within the state,
its choice, say, in California as they do, three approved texts.
In a particular subject, all of those are federally subsidized.
On top of that, so many federal funds come into every school district
that in effect what you have to say is that increasingly all 50 states
are branches of one federal school system.
On top of that, you must further say that our universities and colleges
are divided between state and federal institutions.
The so-called private schools are largely federal.
The amount of funds, for example, that Stanford University has
that our federal funds is so vast that I know that about 10 years ago,
and I wrote Messianic Character, I thought for a while,
going into this area of analyzing funds,
and I found at that time that a slightly higher percentage of federal funds
had gone into Stanford than state funds into the University of California at Berkeley.
In other words, there was almost as much in the way of private funds at Berkeley
as there was at Stanford.
This is why I've Stanford or Harvard or any one of these other supposedly private universities
they can kick the alumni and the team because they don't need their money.
Now, last Sunday afternoon, I had a visitor, a very wealthy man who is a Stanford graduate
and he told me that he had approached the Stanford trustees
and offered to endow a chair in government.
No control on the chair, the one stipulation was that he must take
an oath of allegiance to the United States.
This purpose in requiring that was he didn't want a Marxist or a revolutionist there.
He wasn't even specifying a conservative and they turned him down rather crudely and nastily.
They didn't need his money and he wasn't just going to hand it to them and walk away
as they didn't want to talk to him.
They don't need it because they have federal funds.
At the time that I made my study of the funds in Stanford in terms of writing something about it
and I did make a reference to this one point, even the romance languages,
Spanish and like were taught at Stanford with an actual defense fund.
This is why when you're told how much money goes into national defense.
Remember, not much of it winds up in the hands of the military.
Questions beginning here are continued from tape two.
I can't laugh, it's so tragic.
Acreditation today is a means of keeping good educated from doing a job.
I may say something too on this.
I graduated from a little high school in a small farm community in the midst of the depression
and they didn't even have the money to teach some of the courses that were required by the university.
So when I applied at Berkeley, the University of California, I didn't have, I think, two of the necessary courses for college preparatory.
And I recall that Dean Goldsworthy was just stepping out of a back office and one of the clerks said,
here is a student from high school who hasn't two of the courses and is applying.
And he just asked, what school?
And they said Kingsford High School, he said, let him in.
That was it.
The reason I found out was that all the graduates of that school, though not accredited, had been a students.
There were two of us who applied that year, we were both accepted.
We both graduated with honors.
Now, they had, I found, a record on every school.
If a school such as a new Christian school didn't have one, they examined the first students.
And then they built up and filed them.
And they went by that rather than accreditation.
So that although the farmers in our little community didn't have the money for a lot of courses and wouldn't hire the teachers, it didn't make any difference.
They knew we were college material, let them in. That was the attitude.
I would like to add this also in view of the article.
That in my opinion, one of the worst laws that destroyed parental control over the child was compulsory education.
And furthermore, here are persons who are pointing themselves as a ruling class to set up standards by which we are to be measured.
And I was a high school dropout.
Now, I'm not brilliant by any means. My IQ is maybe 78.
But I just got tired of school.
And as I said to someone, I don't mean this in a boasting way, but I just left at the 10th grade when it applied to the Gold College.
Just the entrance exam and got in and I went to nine years of university after that and didn't have any trouble.
We have a young man that graduated from the Christian Heritage School.
And we received without any accreditation to unconditional scholarships from two different universities in the state of Alabama.
Left to his own choosing where tuition and all was fully paid.
Now, this young man was so outstanding that during his last year of high school, I had him to read through in addition to his regular work in the high school.
The first thing is this independent republic, the American system, the politics of guilt and pity.
And then at the age of 18, he ran for the presidency of the Alabama State Commission and made a good showing because he stood and was able to handle issues from a Christian conservative perspective.
He made an impression and people took him fiercely and I believe one day that in the realm of politics that he will be able to project the King rights of Jesus Christ and will come to some recognition.
And he is a straight A student in college at present time.
So these are frightening methods that are merely trying to make us surrender a little more of our own authority and freedoms to certain standards that are arbitrarily set up by these individuals as Dr. Singer pointed out their painting of parking lines and such.
So I think that the harassment is a good sign and I think that we are finally being recognized. We're here.
And let's keep it up. Let's agitate them to death. I believe in agitation. And let's just agitate them. By the way, I would highly recommend that anyone who wants to study the conspiracy from the Rust Union perspective that they read very thoroughly and very closely and maybe several times.
The chapter devoted to it in his book, The American System, where it gives a tremendous exposition of some too. And is it in the politics of guilt and pity or in the one in the minute that you treat the Satanism and conspiracy?
Well, it's one of the other by both and you'll find it anyway goes into quite some detail on this element of sovereignty that he dealt with showing that if we deny the sovereignty of God that we must get over into Satanism and that we recognize that there is a controlling element in conspiracy outside of God's power and domain and control that this is real witchcraft and demonism about both books of a worthwhile.
And if you buy the one home on the politics of guilt and pity study over and over from my perspective, maybe you'll want to rebut this the chapter that deals with masochism and sadism.
And if you understand his application of actual start understanding a great deal that's happening not only in politics and courts, but in our schools and families as well.
So that I will 10% of all the Satanists.
I have a question that for that is why I have to come and teach it on the way and get back on the court of the past.
First of all, I'd like to try to show you this.
You can rest your thoughts on this.
And I'm writing a news practically in an education so I didn't have a lot of questions.
Not long ago I left through a college as an education so I might not be able to say a great question.
You know, this hate a lot of things, so maybe my question.
One thing I get there to, and all the reasons we have to go through, is saying to think that everything was all black and all black.
Ever all of them stood up to some education in times of hard work.
And if we didn't read about their true role, I have to see it on my head.
Thanks for having us.
Here we will be for painting things a little bit black and black.
I wonder if it's just perhaps there is not so much to do.
In other words, the rebernator and the teacher be certified by the faith and also be a Christian or a deep Christian.
And they too be accredited by the faith and also offer the quality of education.
So if you don't know who wrote this, you can get it off the visit.
I don't want to fear the defender of a farmland reactor. It's a very big one.
But I can't help but be interested in painting those and also interested in Christian education.
I think the question, gentlemen, is there any good time to be supposed to be recognized as a conservatory?
He's got something, and I think that at one point in time, he gets a well-fair workers' push to work to just sit on their high-end and draw their goals.
I have this close to a little bit about portion of the deep stage in South Carolina, a couple times at the top.
I want them to take my life to the education company.
Because this is probably a weird thing, as I think, all black or all black and all black and all these problems.
I think there is a black and white.
I don't think that all things are either black or white.
There's also gray, which is a mixture.
And I have yet to encounter a human being that I was confident was totally consistent, both in his convictions and his conduct.
I suppose if we find, I'm just sort of thinking, now, giving opinion, but I would think if I found a person who was a thoroughly consistent Christian
in every corner and aspect of his life, that he must surely be already in heaven.
And on the other side, it would be rash indeed to say that we do not have thousands upon thousands of good Christian people teaching in our government school.
I thought I said earlier that at one point that had it not been for this, that we would have been destroyed long since.
And I think it's true today.
On the other hand, I do not see how a school can be even reasonably called Christian.
If it accepts the governing control of an anti-Christian agent, this I cannot see.
And this I think is black and white.
If it professes to be, yes, unlike Dr. Swartz, he says, you can trust the coming.
You can trust them to be coming.
And I think if a person devotes his life to fighting the importations of Christianity and the claims of Christianity, then I believe he's anti-Christian.
And of all the areas in life where there is indeed certainly black and white, it is here.
Somebody said earlier, I think it was perhaps Dr. McGruder, there's only one way to come to God.
And there is only one way.
And ultimately in schools, I think this is what we're dealing with.
Now, we may be very well-meaning and very well-intentioned, but there's still only one way.
And this can be said about the Lord Jesus Christ.
In fact, I think it must be said.
I'm sure you heard the line of reasoning of C.S. Lewis.
Many others have said it, I know, but he made it popular.
The Unitarian may say that he belies Jesus of Nazareth who have been a good man and a great teacher.
He may say he is the best man that ever lived, the greatest teacher that ever lived.
But if he says he was not gone, then he has declared him to be the most hideous being that we can imagine.
Because he most certainly professed to be gone.
And he was either, or perhaps both, utterly wicked and stupid, or he is gone.
And there's no middle ground.
And the same way with creation, which is involved in this school issue, there is no new trumpet.
If you make a statement, all things were banged.
And that statement is either true or false, but there cannot be any halfway.
And if it's all true, then gone.
And if it's all false, then no gone.
And it's false if there's only one thing that wasn't made.
So I wouldn't be afraid of black and white, where it belongs.
I can understand your feelings with regard to Governor Reagan.
Almost every time he opens his mouth, I'm delighted.
Almost every time he acts.
Concervatives tend to be impressed by ouratory and liberals by action.
He satisfies moves.
The appointments he has made to the State Board of Education are,
the whole worse than those made by his predecessor, Pat Brown, who was a very liberal Democrat.
The appointments he has made to the parole board and various other boards that deal with law enforcement are worse than those of Pat Brown.
He comes out very strongly against crime and against cobbling offenders.
But I spent the better part of a day with a friend who was a State Senator in his office at the State Capitol not too long ago.
And he was showing me pictures of conditions and prisons.
The newer ones look like country clubs.
One of them has a golf course as well as tennis courts and swimming pool and so on.
That last year, there were almost 9,000 escapees out of 17,000 prisoners in the State prisons.
The State prisons have a lower population than ever before on the State of California because under the policy of the administration,
there are bonuses to the various counties and municipalities if they don't send them to the State prison.
So there's a good record we have less criminals.
Now, there is a great deal of human crime because some of these escapees as well as parolees were out killing people.
We're going to have far fewer escapees this year.
You know why? Because the definition of an escapee has been changed.
If he is caught within a certain amount of time and within, I believe, three miles of a prison, he's not an escapee.
He's just AWOL. He's just strolling a little too far.
Now, that's the kind of gymnastics that's going on.
And it's too bad. Certainly, his expressed philosophy is excellent.
One or two appointments he has made of his associates are good.
But by and large, there's no great cause for joy in California, believe me.
And certainly, in education and law enforcement, which are two key areas, we have lost ground badly.
Who does he listen to, you think, and know the forms for me? What prejudice are the humans who are...
I think he's playing politics. I think he is out to please everyone.
And unfortunately, conservatives are very much impressed by our authority.
The liberals want action. He satisfies both.
Yes, I think it's pretty much a national pattern, I believe, that this is on the whole true of President Nixon as well.
I think President Nixon is a much more intelligent man than Mr. Reagan.
In fact, I believe perhaps the most brilliant mind we've had in the White House in this century is Mr. Nixon.
I would not say he needs the most moral mind.
I want to interject here about the certification of Dr. Singer Smith.
Well, when did you lecture on the culture in this American education?
Last night, Dr. Singer traced the development of education in this country from the days of the colony is up to the present time.
And I think it's fabulous from historical data that the educational system today is very definitely humanistic.
It is the school or it is the church of the state.
And it has been definitely established that the state religion is humanism, not Christianity.
Now, it's my reflection for whatever's worth that there are many good and fine Christian teachers who are certified.
But if they are certified in order to teach, then they are receiving their authority and their permission to teach from a humanistic institution, either the state or the schoolable.
And now to draw from another example, here's Dr. McGruder.
He holds a master's degree from Yale and a master's degree from Columbia, and then he held a doctorate from Louisville.
Nevertheless, in the public school, he could not, with all those credentials, certify to teach the third grade.
Simply because he has not gone through the due brainwash of elementary educational philosophy.
So he's not certified and could not be certified in this position.
Now, if a person is certifying themselves in order to teach, if this is where they're getting their credentials, their permission, then they are being given the right to teach, the authority to teach by the humanistic institution of state and education board.
If they are certified teachers by their teaching in the context of Christian philosophy, not because of that certification, I don't see where they should apologize for the fact that they went ahead and got certified.
But nevertheless, I don't see where they should seek to become certified.
If they're not, if they're going to teach in the context of Christian education, we don't require our teachers at Christian heritage, especially to be certified.
I think it's foolish. Now, that is waste of time.
Also, when you come to the accreditation of your school, all you're doing is asking the state permission to put their stamp of approval upon you through the board of education to allow you to exist as a school
because your physical facilities may be measured up as to what they require.
And if there might be bedroom, there might be total ignorance. There might be totally inadequate subjects taught and inadequate students studying.
But nevertheless, you will fly the banner of certification because the state says you have met certain qualifications that they've laid down.
The same issue is involved here, and it's a black and white issue, as to whether the church should ever pay taxes or not.
Because the very day that the church pays taxes, it from that day on is recognizing it's right to exist by permission of government rather than the kingship of Jesus Christ.
And we recognize our right to exist and our right to teach and our right to care for our Christian culture from the king rights and our cultural men they've given by God Almighty and from none of them.
And so it's black and white.
A lot of things are not like that in Jesus Christ.
Yes.
That is several years ago when Barry Goldwater was running his president here.
The editor-in-chief of the little curator of journalism was right at the first comment in the back.
And when he said that Mr. Goldwater,
she's everything in black and white.
In referring to the fact that Goldwater was packing communism and a very strong one.
And he said, unfortunately, I can't share Mr. Goldwater.
He said, I see a murky green in the plain.
He knows the old knife to Mr. Goldwater.
But I like to say this, this idea of a very pertinent person, I can't accept it.
Perhaps on a human level, maybe some of these things, to see it very much.
To me, I was a violent plane, strictly black and white.
I don't think God makes it through the narrow.
I'm sure he doesn't. Is this your question?
I gave a quote from James or the other night, in which I said this,
that he who blazed, but his whole heart, Jesus Christ, is the son of God,
commits himself to much else beside, to have your God, to be your man, to have your sin,
to have your redemption, to have your government of history, and so on.
And to this I commit myself.
This is the essential standard.
I know the general post-Sophical position of the Louisville Courier Journal.
Pardon me?
Yes.
And it's by no means the only paper that takes that position.
This not to say I agree with him, that Barry Goldwater said and thought and did.
He is a profane man. However.
And it can be very crude.
No. I didn't imply that you were.
I do think that when you're issue on the issue of Communism versus Christianity,
it is black or white.
When you're speaking on the issue of public education versus Christian education,
it is black or white.
It has to be.
Recently, I came to my desk, a part of a pamphlet, published by the National Education Association,
a last part of which I will quote you.
It is now obvious that the public school is the best agency to train young people
in such matters as drug culture, exercise, physical education, and whatnot,
and finally, to help them to live comfortably with the new emerging moral standards of the adult world,
which is to say that the function of the school is none else than to enable young people
to live comfortably with the new morality, or more actively, the new immorality,
which is the old immorality, with new vernacular dress to somewhat confuse an unsuspecting public.
In other words, according to NEA, the public school is to be the agency for the propagation of immorality.
That can be black.
Thank you, thank you.
Can I ask you a question on your feet?
There is a comment on that seems to me that with all the institutional portrayals of which
you're spoken in the point that you're in the mastery of the scale of the real idea that
you're going to act through the law, that there's a remarkable survival and residual respect
for our Christian heritage.
However, even though it may not, at least I promise to finish up this fight,
we'll turn to the sponsor of what the school has done to them on all issues about the vernacular.
Most of the people in the course, once we thought that on that side,
where it's an articulate way out, what I'm trying to say to this,
so these institutional models of importance, where it's thrown in and recognized and not going anywhere,
are a realm of death.
It's not the main problem that brings you during smart viewpoint,
are representing a state of counteractualism.
Some way of bypassing these institutional options.
So whatever residual is, there is one of the people that might have some talent expressing
to me that I'm not impressed with, and there's no parent release for what's in the movie.
I find this out to be true.
Yes, it is.
I am, because I did it 20 years or 25 years ago,
I am licensed to preach by Conchord Presbyterer, the Presbyterian Church of U.S.
And the one thing about the Liberals, they will not preach in country churches, they've been helping.
They get sick on a Sunday morning at 9.33 a.m.
And I get a frenzied call from our populous vacant,
where you please come for 11 o'clock Saturday, which I always do.
I have found out that in the Southern Presbyterian Church,
our smaller semi-rural rural and churches, small towns, are almost uniformly,
hard, strong, conservative at the core.
There's very little liberals in the moment.
It's always thankful of the irrelevance of the General Assembly at the Presbyterian Church of U.S.
It is totally irrelevant to its own church, let alone the will.
It has buried itself in its irrelevance, and I am delighted,
because it has gone over the heads of the people,
and they have talked in such existentialist towns that nobody understands them.
And this is good.
And their whole study school literature program has gone bankrupt,
and this is marvelous.
The whole notebook, Kepler, nobody understood, and the churches gave it up.
They couldn't handle it, which I encouraged them to do it,
because I thought it was a fine way for them to go bankrupt in the air.
But I'm sure if you went to the Southern Baptist churches in the convention
you'll find that this is generally true.
I am told, and you can tell me more, that this is also true in Northern Presbyterian Church.
It's just a theory in the major cities.
I'm sure that's true, but in the so-called Projected Union,
between Northern and Southern churches, there is the estate clause.
The Northern church is fighting it desperately, because if the Southern Presbyterian Church
should go in, which we want, we'll have a continuing church,
but there is an estate clause.
And it doesn't just mean the Southern church is going to escape,
but it means that all churches are going to escape.
And they're afraid they'll be off out of escape fees
from the Presbyterian prison, the new church, if that time comes.
But the smaller churches, particularly in our Southern gender assembly,
and I would assume in the Southern Baptist Convention,
I was recently, I believe, or not, asked to speak in a Methodist church in Salisbury.
And I found there the lady, the men were very much interested in what I had to say.
The pastor posed to me, but they pushed him aside, almost lovely,
and didn't listen to him.
I mean, they were going to ask back, but I was there once.
Did that answer your question?
Well, I'm sorry, but yes.
You think people here that have some folks from the future
and Dr. Restring's pointed out, if their minds are just battered
with various forms of satanic dark forces,
you're just really not you, but me.
We lend ourselves to that, and we're just enforcing what the enemy's already done to them.
It's driving them deeper down, whereas they ought to be encouraged to believe
that Christ has his hand on this country, and if there's still hope for it.
Well, I do that.
How do that is a great problem.
Well, the Southern Christian Journal, which I'm one of the board tries to do it,
I preach the sound of God to congregations.
Well, because I'm only one person, and I don't preach.
Christian schools.
My real belief is in the Christian school movement, because you get the young people.
I'm not a prop of doom.
I'm very much aware of the problem, and I'm aware that,
and I'm not just really disagreeing with Dr. Restring,
and I am aware that there are conspiracies in history.
Now, you've basically admitted this in the conspiracy of Texans.
There is a study, if I might get the word conspiracy,
to withhold the truth from American people in regard to American history.
This is very widely known.
I mean, they paint certain people's great heroes.
Thomas Jefferson certainly was not.
He had at least five illegitimate children to my knowledge.
How many more of it?
I don't know that, I wouldn't say, obviously.
Benjamin Franklin, likewise, was a third-going rascal.
Benjamin Franklin stole his illegitimate son's wife.
The man in question was William Temple Franklin,
who was the Royal Governor of New Jersey at the time,
the opening of the Warframe Dependence.
And I forget who it was, but I found this a document.
Someone asked him why he didn't join the Patriot cause.
He said, gave his plans to reply to anybody.
Any cause which could win his father's glory was only worthy of his contempt.
But now he gave his Benjamin Franklin through the war
or was an agent of the British Secret Service.
Well, he, this is true of my name, Edward Bancroft.
Who was the, an agent of the British Secret Service?
And Lord Shelburn.
And Franklin found out about this.
And so he didn't fire.
He didn't join the Bancroft.
He simply hired him.
And used him.
And Shelburn used Bancroft.
And so did Mr. Franklin used Bancroft.
He also used a rabble rouser in France,
who, my god, thinks wrote office and also engaged in some other
jubies and reprisal on the side.
He wrote the famous opera, The Marriage of Figaro,
and the Barbara Soville.
Pierre, oh.
Well, he did.
And Franklin was in tune with him.
And Franklin played ball with him.
Franklin played ball with whom Franklin could make money.
And he was a very, very unsavory character.
There is evidence that, frankly, however,
the latter part of his life did come back
and was doing more Christian view on the opposite of these defense.
I'm not trying to be smart, man.
But colonial history has been consistently misrepresented.
And many great men in history have been misrepresented
or totally overlooked.
Men who are really even gentles,
and who yet were men of tremendous danger,
tremendous ability, and who have been given the short change every time.
In this sense, there is a conspiracy among historians
to be little with the true nature of American history.
I would have to say that.
Although I also agree with Dr. Restan,
and this is not in disagree with him.
He had to move much, say, as a man.
He was a smuggler.
He wrote the scores for operas.
He was engaged in a smuggling business with Franklin,
out of which he apparently made a great deal of money.
And Franklin knew all about it.
And it was a distributive of Franklin.
I'm just asking you about.
I appreciate it.
If you would like to make any comment on the role at the end of the point,
just for an as an example,
as far as I've recently presented today,
you know, the man who retained his Christian calling in the same time
decided to render some service to the continent of Congress in the sectarianism.
As John Whitterspoon sometimes gets a passing sentence
in history textbooks that he was a press tree minister
who was president at the College of New Jersey.
And that ends it, because the same word of course would be embarrassing.
He was an evangelical Christian.
He was a strong Calvinist.
He was a tremendously well-educated man.
And he had some problems with George II in England.
And he came to this country.
And fighting England was no great problem to him.
He'd been doing it all his life.
And he simply transferred the scene of activity.
And kept going.
But he tried to hold the Continental Congress on an evangelical deal.
There were strong evangelicals in the Continental Congress.
And you'd never guess who they were.
Said much about it.
Well, they did.
But the history books don't.
One of them was Elias Boutinette, a French Huguenade,
a tremendous persuasion.
Another was Roger Sherman, who said of himself he was the August Manning Congress.
And if you see, I mean, looking, if you see his picture in Washington up there
where the Declaration of Independence signed it, you will have to agree with him on that point.
But he was also a tremendous evangelical.
A tremendous evangelical.
A tremendous historical opinion.
Who had an evangelical.
We would say a day at Piscopalian.
William St. Johnston, who later became president of King's College now,
Columbia University.
But he was a delegate from Connecticut at the time.
These men were strong and great men.
But you'd never guess it.
William St. Johnston happened to be a member of the Royal, of the Royal Academic.
I mean, scientific, science, London, highly honored in England.
For his scientific and scholarly works.
George Mason, likewise.
One of Patrick Henry's fellow members of the Congress called Patrick Henry.
He's very saint and religion.
And he's very devil and powerful.
What's the last thing?
He was a Tory.
He said, Patrick Henry was a very saint and religion.
But he's very devil and talented.
Because of his tremendous archival thought.
He created trouble wherever he spoke.
But his life as a character was unpeachable.
I can tell him.
Yes, sure.
Patrick Henry.
Any other questions?
Did I do your question?
Do I pass that one?
Yes.
Dr. Singer is an example of that twisting of history.
These Tennessee untruth to be interested in making reference to Dr. Rustoon's American system again.
His defense of Andrew Johnson in there.
And actually showing defending him from false charges that were brought against this man.
And the Tennessee is going to read that under this man's defense.
Andrew Johnson is probably one of the most maligned, openly maligned men in American history.
He was a man of tremendous ability.
There's probably no man who ever occupied the presidential chair who knew more about the Constitution than Andrew Johnson.
His message to the Congress and his tenure of office are the most majestic statements of constitutional doctrine known in our political history from presidents,
with the possible exception of John Quincy Adams.
Johnson was to a great extent self-twite.
He was a stalwart Presbyterian.
He was a man of tremendous physical ability.
A tremendous physical courage.
In 1856, when he was running for the Senate oil office here, up here at Jones Bar right now in my wife's room near Johnson City,
there was a plot to assassinate when he ascended the rostrum.
And he was told about it.
And so the night he went to the stake at the court here in Jones Bar, he said just by the way, ladies and gentlemen,
I understand that there are two men who are going to shoot me here tonight.
And he said, would you mind standing up?
Now, Andrew Johnson was a dead shot.
He was better than Andrew Jackson.
And nobody stood out for his, for his to test out Andrew, to test out nobody stood out.
But he was a man of tremendous physical courage.
Talk about what you're sitting on in your family.
A very equivocal character.
Andrew Abraham, like until Franklin Roosevelt, broke more important clauses of the Constitution under the guise of expedience
than any of President he'd ever had until Franklin Roosevelt.
He illigly enlarged the army.
He had legally enlarged the Navy.
He had legally promoted men to generalships.
He illigly moved money from one part of the federal expense budget to another.
He closed churches.
He took men out of the puppet.
He sequestered the railroads and he sequestered the telegraph lines.
He blockaded southern ports.
He illigly issued the proclamation of emancipation.
He withdrew the writ of hate discourse.
And he claimed that he's the all-important clause of the Constitution in order to save the whole.
To which J.G. Randall pointed out that he kept going.
That he didn't know the whole left to save.
If Johnson's plan had been carried through without that villain,
the Stephen you were speaking of last evening,
he would have restored dignity to this.
Indeed, Johnson's plans were carried out.
Not many people realize this, but even Texas
was finally restored in the Johnson plan.
But when these men came back to take their seats in Congress,
Stevens, Wade, Sunder, Butler,
and the rest refused to allow them to have their seats.
But I don't know what he knows or not.
In 1870, Andrew Johnson, having been in peace but found innocent,
was elected to the Senate of the United States by the Tennessee legislature.
And when the most impressive and exhilarating moments in Senate history came,
when he appeared to the door to take his seat in the Senate,
the staunch and the barns of Senate said, Mr. President,
I have the honor to introduce as a new senator,
the honorable Andrew Johnson from Tennessee, the whole Senate arose.
And he was escorted right down front where he'd been his old seat before the war.
This has been a Caledon Foundation production.
Produced by Grace Community School, a nice-ing Covenant Church.
If you enjoy this lecture, be sure to visit calcedon.edu
for more lectures and series by RJ Rushdudy and the Caledon Foundation.
