The Failure of Public Schools is not Transgender Perversion
The Anne Arundel County Public School District in Maryland has instructed teachers and faculty to let transgender students bunk with other students of the gender with which they identify — and not tell parents.
In a video of a June meeting titled, “Supporting Transgender Students in School,” Bob Mosier, the district’s chief communications officer, told teachers and administrators how to handle transgender issues at overnight school-related events, commenting, “The private information piece doesn’t allow you to share (the overnight presence of transgenders) with parents of all of the other campers.”
Recently, a federal judge in Texas blocked the president’s order that schools “must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity,” saying the law about the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students “is not ambiguous.”
At least 11 states have sued the Obama administration over its transgender directive in their schools, but the problem is not “transgenders,” it is government schools!
You see, most folks assume that public schools were introduced and developed in order to ensure that the American populace could read and write and conduct business, but this is a myth. At the time of the “reform” movements of the 1830’s and 1840’s, the literacy rate was much higher than it is today. Some experts postulate that adult male literacy in the colonies ran from 70 to 100 percent (1). Around 170 years later, we are much worse off from a literacy standpoint, proving the “reform” to be a disaster.
So, why did there exist a desire for state-controlled schools? Primarily there were two motivating factors. The first was the desire to destroy the Christian foundations of America. The second was the humanistic belief that salvation was attainable through education. In his book, A Basic History of the United States, Clarence B. Carson concluded, “The most zealous of the reformers were determined to use the power of the state by way of the schools to break the hold of religious tradition and the inherited culture and to change society through the child’s training.” (2)
Perhaps the best known of the reformers who pushed the agenda of the public schools was Horace Mann. Contrary to Biblical teaching, Mann believed the state to be the true parent of the child, thus it was the state that had the primary responsibility of providing education. One of Mann’s followers, Robert Dale Owen, formed a secret society to work toward attaining his goals. Orestes Brownson, one of the leaders of this society, later wrote about the work of the group:
“The great object was to…establish a system of state — we said national — schools, from which all religion was to be excluded, in which nothing was to be taught but such knowledge as is verifiable by the senses, and to which all parents were to be compelled by law to send their children.” (3)
There you have it quite clearly stated. The purpose and mission of the public schools, which were to be “free to everyone at the expense of everyone,” was to get rid of Christianity, and to compel parents to give their children over to the state so that they could be trained to disrespect their parents and their Christian republic and its moral culture without parental interference.
Unless and until education is done God’s way, under the influence, control and jurisdiction of the family, there is no hope for any improvement.
Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.
(1) Blumenfeld, Dr. Samuel L., Is Public Education Necessary? (Old Greenwich, Connecticut: Devin-Adair Co., 1981), 20.
(2) Carson, Clarence, A Basic History of the United States: The Sections and the Civil War, 1826-1877 (Wadley, Alabama: American Textbook Committee, 1994), III: 90-91.
(3) Blumenfeld, 95-96.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More