Adapted from Robert F. Mager

Once upon a time in a little drop of water, King Amoeba decided he wanted to teach his subjects how to have a better life. So he traveled far and wide throughout the Kingdom of Dropland to tell his people how to be better than they were. But nobody listened.

“Psst,” said his advisor. “First you have to get their attention. Here. Rub on this magic potion and you will get everyone’s attention.

So the king did as he was told and went out to teach his people how to be better than they were. But nobody listened. They swam away . . . and held their noses.

“Psst,” said his advisor. “You have to be sure they can hear you. Here. Shout into this megaphone and then everyone will listen.”

So the king did as he was told, and went out to spread his wisdom. But nobody listened. They swam away . . . and held their noses . . . and covered their ears.

“Psst,” said his advisor. “The people are too stupid to realize what wisdom you have to offer. You have to make them listen for their own good.”

So the king made everyone gather in the Great Solarium while he told them how to be better than they were. But when the Great Doors were opened, everybody swam away so hard and fast that before they knew it they had swum right out of Dropland. And henceforth and forevermore they were referred to as Outdroppers.

AND THE MORAL OF THIS FABLE IS . . . . . NOT TO TALK AT ONE ANOTHER.

First of all, the issue that has taken Christians to court in these past few years is the “free-exercise” of our religious liberties. The issue is not that we are going contrary to the law nor that we are doing an inferior job in any of our ministries. The issue is do we have a right to act at all.

Second, we discussed the constitutional, and more importantly, the Biblical philosophy of church-state separation. It is not only a fundamental part of our constitution, but it is also a God-ordered principle established in the Bible. The Bible is the one document that is total truth, unchanging, and holds every single one of our beliefs. On the basis of this, matters of the church are reserved by God (who measures out all authority) for Himself. Any interference by any other entity is not only sin but brings with it the guarantee of judgement and wrath.

Then we defined the church as the beliefs and the believers. “Legitimate” beliefs were then defined by the Supreme Court as convictions only, and a test was established to define the difference. Any belief that could be changed is a preference and not protected by our First Amendment. A conviction was a belief that you would not and even could not change. Convictions had to be God-ordered, personal, non-negotiable, and unconditional.

Lastly, we discussed the philosophy of “life-style consistency”. This comparison of our life and lips is the means by which the court determines our honesty.. Are what we give as our convictions on the witness stand really the truth? The court will find out.

These foundations are the basis of all the other issues. These philosophies must be part of our lives before knowledge of the other secondary issues can help.

LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION

Most of the problems that we encounter come from the State bureaucracies and agencies. Groups such as the Department of Education, the Department of Welfare, the Zoning Departments, Health Departments, and Fire Departments are the agencies that we must first deal with.

The Problem in Brief. The main problem with the issue of licensing is that the State has no right. A license is essentially permission. To accept a license would be to accept permission from the State to run our school; the Church in action; a God-ordered action.

Permission can only come from a higher power. Accepting a license admits that the State is higher than the Church when really our whole philosophy says that the Church and State are separate and individually responsible to God.

Certification is in the same boat. As Christian Educators, we believe that teaching is a calling of God as is preaching. To say that a teacher must be certified before he could teach would be to say that an evangelist or pastor must be certified before he could preach. (And don’t be fooled. This is now happening. The ideas has already been introduced in some states that a pastor cannot counsel his own people without receiving an occupational license like doctors and lawyers must have. The grip on religious freedom tightens once more.)

Test Results as a Defense. These State bureaucratic agencies were established and given authority to make rules and regulations because they were the so called “experts”. These rules and regulations became known as the “Minimum Standards” for a quality education. As time went on, they became more like Maximum Standards. They delved into areas that had absolutely nothing to do with education, let alone a quality one. In Ohio, the Minimum Standards even regulated at what angle the flow of water from a water fountain must be. And they have not yet produced a quality education.

On the other hand, we do give a quality education while the “experts” have failed. The purpose for education is to learn. The secondary purpose is to produce responsible citizens. First, look at the test scores, and then look at the adults we produce. There is no argument as to who has the quality education. Even the State has to admit the truth.

Then it follows next that to ask us to conform to the State’s regulations would be foolish. These standards dictate what curriculum to use, how to discipline the students, and many other areas that are essential to our success. We would become just as poor at educating as the State has become.

The argument in defence of having our teachers certified is even more obvious. Certification does not guarantee quality teachers. In Ohio, for example, Norman Rockwell could not teach art, and Leonard Bernstein could not teach music. The converse is seen in the example of Reverend Jim Jones and the incident in South America. Jones was licensed by several agencies of the government as well as being an ordained minister. The proof of quality teachers is still found in their performance.

A Biblical Base. Again we use the Biblical philosophies mentioned before to support the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. But the philosophy of refusing a license also has a Biblical base. Remember the three Hebrew children? The law of the land stated “that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet…and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image…” (Daniel 3:4-5). All these three young men would have had to do would be to bow; only a harmless physical motion. But even when given a second chance, they flatly refused. And how about Daniel in chapter six? The law was “that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions” (Daniel 6:12). But verse ten says that even when Daniel knew of this law, he still prayed (with the window shutters open) three times a day just as he had done before. All Daniel would have had to do was to shut his windows and pray in secret.

Yet this is the same logic that many Christians use today. A simple physical motion like a bow or closing your window shutters could be compared to the “harmless motion” of accepting a license. You wouldn’t even have to tell anybody that you received it. Where is the faith and convictions that said, “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” (Daniel 3:17-18)?

Some Victories. Only a few states are left still fighting in the area of day school licensure. Many states have been defeated in this area. But the State will always find another area to attack the Church until the State is brought down by the wrath of God.

OTHER CASES

As you can see, the fight isn’t for quality education. If this was the case, the statistics would have long ago settled the issue. The real battle is for State control of the Church. Therefore, cases involving day care licensing, zoning regulations, health records, etc. have sprung up all over the country. The State has gone so far as to even remove a pastor’s daughter from her home to fight the Church and ruin her testimony. But the Church still marches on. We are promised that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Because of genuine conviction and God’s grace and power, many battles have been won. Many times the State strikes under almost ridiculous charges. If they do not win, they still injure the Local Church and its testimony. A not so-uncommon example is Dr. Greg Dixon and Indianapolis Baptist Temple.

Attacks in the Home. Reverend James Roy was Pastor of Bible Baptist Church, Norwich, N.Y., and formerly Pastor of First Bible Baptist Church of Syracuse, N.Y. Pastor Roy Biblically spanked his rebellious fifteen year old daughter, and Shirley Roy was taken from the Roy home by the Onondaga County Child Protective Agency.

For nine long months, the Welfare Department kept Shirley from her family. For almost six months, Pastor Roy was not even told where his daughter was being kept. During that time, she was taken to a rock concert, an R-rated movie, and other worldly activities which were forbidden by the Roy household.

Shirley Roy was finally returned but with four court orders on the Roy family: (1) the parents must attend state approved counselling, (2) they must enroll Shirley in a state accredited school (public), (3) they would be under welfare supervision for a year, and (4) they must refrain from excessive corporal punishment.

This attack by the State was in the home. The next incident could be at your church, school, or residence. Do you have the conviction to withstand the State?

CLOSING COMMENTS

What will the verdict be when the State knocks at your door? You may be next. Are your beliefs convictions? Are they God-ordered, personal, non-negotiable, and unconditional? Does your life style remain consistent with these “convictions”? Daniel and the three Hebrew children were able to remain faithful to the Lord, because they “purposed in their hearts” before the test came.

Proverbs 24:10 says: “If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small.” In ourselves we will never have the strength to withstand persecution. We are promised that we can do “all things” only “through Christ” which strengthens us (Philippians 4:13).

“Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him…” and the good man “though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down” (Psalm 37:4, 24).

May the Lord bless you.

OUTLINE

Introduction

The problem- the Church is being tested

The purpose of the article-

To give education about the issue

To prepare for personal tests

To give Biblical explanations and stands

I.Separation of Church and State

The First Amendment

Non-establishment clause

Free exercise clause

I.The Biblical Base

The Bible as a foundation

Romans 13:1 and Matthew 22:21

II.Definition of the Church

Not: a title, an organizations, or a building

Is: Beliefs and Believers

III.Explanation of the Test

Preferences

Strong belief

Can: give entire life; give all wealth; propagate energetically; want to teach child

Will change by: peer pressure; family pressure;litigation; jail; and death

Convictions

God-ordered

Personal

Non-negotiable

Unconditional

Life Style Consistency

Practice what you preach

The opposite is sin

DEVELOPING THE TOTAL CHILD

“Why do children from Christian homes ‘go bad’?”

“I hear the brethren and pastors talking about Proverbs 22:6, but what does it really mean to ‘train up a child in the way he should go’? How do you do this?”

Many of our children have more “secular” training then they have Biblical training.

Even though many of us attend church, have our children in church and even have our children in Sunday School classes much of their exposure is non-Biblical.

God says a three fold cord is not easily broken. That should be the home, the church and the child’s education all working together in harmony. Many times that is not the case.

Also many times the education that the child is receiving in one of these environments is partly Biblical and partly humanistic.

The church, a Christian school, the Sunday school does not “train up the child” or should I say should not be the one training up the child. The main influence should be always the home.

Duet. 6:4-9

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

The basic philosophy necessary to develop the total child is found in Colossians 2:8,

Beware lest any man spoil you through:

Philosophy: What others think is right- this is humanistic reasoning vs God’s Word

Vain Deceit: Believing we are right, but being wrong

The Tradition of men: It has always been this way. The world’s way.

Examples: Comparing children. Grading children on a “bell shaped curve”

The Rudiments of the World: Marching in step with the rest of the world. We have to dress like the world. Have the same hair styles as the world. Have our children involved in the same activities as the world. Use the same methodologies in the training of our children as the world.

And not after Christ: If we need Him, we will call on Him. God cannot be thought of as a crutch if all else fails.

A Child must be properly planted: Psalm 1

Away from “the counsel of the ungodly.”

Away from “the way of the sinners.”

Away from “the seat of the scornful.”

Where the Child can delight in the law of the Lord.

By the river where the Child can be fed.

Free from negative spiritual and academic energy drains.

We cannot live in a monestry. We are the salt of the earth. But a child in training is not primarily a missionary. He is a student seeking “training” and that must be Godly training. Training or education is “brain washing”. Education is a battle ground. The child must having “pure” training to under who he is, who he is following, who he is serving and who the enemy is.

A Child must have a proper foundation: Luke 6:47-49 “Head”

One of the primary reasons children from Christian families don’t “turn out well” is this. A PROBLEM gets attention.

Let’s read Luke 6: 47-49 and replace:

“House” with “son” or “daughter”

“Earth” with “humanism” or “inconsistency”

“Rock” with “Christ”

Allowing a little humanism or incosistency here and there weakens the foundation.

Examples:

Idolizing sports heroes.

Idolizing movie stars.

Idolizing musical stars.

Christianizing “rock music”

Making TV a focal point.

Magazines in the home that have nudity, liquor et cetera.

We as Christian parents need to pioneer a renaissance. We need to pioneer a new birth of righteousness for America. Pioneers sometimes have it very rough. But pioneers believe in the future. The future is the next generation.

We need to remember to be not weary in well doing for in due time, we will reap if we faint not.

We need to have proper development and proper balance for our Child.

All discipline and no love will equal tyranny.

All love and no discipline will equal insecurity and rebellion.

Some love and some discipline will equal bitterness and confusion.

WE NEED GODLY PARENTS

Parents with a pleasing personality.

Parents who can handle any problem.

Parents who have “grown” up.

Parents who are not subject to “mood” swings.

Parents who are students of the Word.

Parents with the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

Parents who are compassionate.

Parents who are creative and original.

Parents who are concerned with the health, welfare, spiritual, educational, physical, and social problems of their Child.

HOME: It is what you make it!!! Hard, sometimes difficult but well worth it.

Be not weary is oftentimes, many times difficult. But God’s plan works.

DON’T DESPAIR — DON’T QUIT — DON’T LET UP

What are problems?

They are opportunities for a victory!!!!

Be strong and of good courage: be not afraid….for the Lord thy God is with thee. Joshua 1:19

Be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 15:58

The Affect of Total Christian Training in the Life of a Child

The Child’s will:

Will come into proper relationship with parents and brothers and sisters.

The Child will want to respect them.

The Child will want to live a life from God’s point of view.

The Child will have proper respect for his Pastor and others who are in authority.

The Child will respect those who are older.

The Child will be open to gain wisdom and insight.

The Child will have proper respect for those in authority over him.

The Child will have a clearer conscience enabling him to absorb academics more readily.

The Child will respect P.E. as a sport, not a “god”. Having fun as a means of keeping the “temple” strong.

The Child will be able to cope with the game. Learning to be a good winner and show character, but determination if they lose.

Let’s Work on the Child’s Heart : Luke 6: 43-45

Input: Ears, Eyes, Touch – none of us has “arrived”

Have positive input:

Bible Memory—Discipline—Parental Love—Christian Examples with the Brethren—Good Christian Education—Christian Biographies—Restricted Activities—Godly Hymns—Controlled diet—Control in Church—Planned Family Activities—Whole Family Involvement

Results

Obedience to Authoirty—Confidence—Pure Thoughts—Chaste/Virtuouos/Pure—Self-control—Purpose—Strong Character—Disciplined Life—Love of Christ—Discernment—Respect for Parents and those in Authority.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal. 6:7

He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 2 Corinthians 9:6

Should We Shelter Our Child??

Yes: From

Immoralty—Dope—Watching Sin—Inconsistency—Ungodliness—Rebellion—Critical Attitudes et cetera.

Shelter at home, at school, at play and at work!!!

When the state takes YOU to court, what will the verdict be? But you say, “It will never happen to me!” This is what the hundreds have said that have already gone to the courtroom for their religious freedom. It did happen to them!

If someone had said to you twenty years ago that in 1995 there would be hundreds of cases pending against churches and pastors in the United States; what would you have said? You would have probably said, “You’re crazy!” You would have thought that even if the state did take a church to court, the Christians would rise up in a massive revolt. But hundreds of churches have now already been sued and most Christians have not even found it objectionable. Most of us have simply been content with living our lives in another direction. We have been content to let the state’s grip tighten on our faith and religious freedom little by little.

The purpose of this article is to show you the real issues that face the Christian at this moment. We want you to be able to give the Biblical explanations for the stand that you take. We want you to have a strong Godly “conviction: about your actions in the ministry of the Gospel. In Hosea 4:6, it says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” When the test comes to your home, will you stand or will you fall to the control of the state?

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

The first principle that we as Christians must know and understand is that the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights say that there is to be a separation of church and state. This is found primarily in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment. The First Amendment has two religious clauses: (1) the non-establishment clause and (2) the free-exercise clause. The first clause has little to do with most of the law suits right now. It says that government will not become involved in the “establishment” of a religion. They are not to do anything that will help religion. They are not to finance it, foster it, or further it. The one danger with this clause that has turned up is that if you do take the government’s money, you have no right to object to the government’s controls. But since we don’t believe that Caesar (the state) has any business financing the Church anyway, we do not accept the State’s money. (Do you?)

The second clause, the free exercise clause, is the issue in almost every case across America. It says simply: “There shall be no law abridging (depriving) the free exercise of religion.” This was worded exactly right by the framers of our Constitution. The word “exercise” is the outgoing, or the putting into implementation of our faith. In communist lands, they say they have religious freedom, but that is only to “think” whatever you want. In America, however, we have (by the First Amendment) true freedom of religion. The test for religious freedom is in action and not just in thought.

The Biblical Base. We cannot “believe” in the Constitution. The Supreme Court changes it nearly every week. But there is a document that we can believe and you will be asked this in great detail in the courtroom. They will turn to you and ask, “Is there a book which contains every single one of your beliefs without exception?” “Yes. The Bible.” “Are there any other documents; or are there any other persons living, about to be born, or past lived who can give you a further amplification of those beliefs or curtail any of those beliefs?” “No. There is even a curse on the one who adds or subtracts from the perfect revelation as we have it.” In a court of law our beliefs must be contained in full in the Word of God.

In Romans 13:1, Paul said that there is no authority but that which is given from God. And Jesus, in Matthew 22:21, voiced the fact that God reserves certain matters to Himself. Matters of faith and worship have not been given to government. The Church and Her actions in the gospel ministry are governed by God, and the government dare not meddle with these areas. These are the foundations on which the framers of the Constitution founded the philosophy of church-state separation. They believed the Bible to be the only document containing perfect truth. They knew that the Constitution must agree with the Word of God.

DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH

Now, if our Constitution guarantees us separation of church and state, we have to define these two entities. The state had trouble defining itself. If the state is all the people, how can all the people sue a few of the people? So the Supreme Court chose to define the church. The surprising thing is that they agreed perfectly with the Word of God.

First, they explained what a church was NOT> It is not a church because of its title or name. Just to put the word “Church” with a group of words does not make a church. A church is not a church just because of its organization. It is not a church because of its building. Really, a church does not need any of these three things. The Supreme Court said simply that a Church is “the BELIEFS and the BELIEVERS.”

But now the Supreme Court went one step further. They not only defined what the Church was, but they also defined which beliefs are legitimate. They developed a test that each of us must go through and pass in a court of law. Following is that test; a test impossible to cram for; a test that we must be able to pass before we go to court.

EXPLANATION OF THE TEST

The Supreme Court said that a belief must be something that you as a believer can make oral. You don’t have to be eloquent, but it must be more than an “it seems to me” hunch. Also, you as a believer must have a knowledge of that belief. This is to prevent people from hiding behind a title. To say “I’m a Fundamental Baptist” doesn’t give you beliefs.

In 1972, in a case involving education, the court came up with the ultimate test to determine which of these beliefs were legitimate and which were not. They classified beliefs in one of two categories; “convictions” or “preferences”. Convictions are protected by the First Amendment, and preferences are not. Below is this test in brief.

Preferences. A preference is a very very strong belief held with great intensity and strength. You might give your entire life and go into full time service in the name of a preference. You might give all your wealth to this belief. You could be energetic in spreading and propagating this preference (hand out tracts, go on soul-winning, visitation, etc.). You could even want to teach this to your children. But the one thing that makes a preference different from a conviction is that under the right circumstances, you will change a preference.

The court has noticed five areas where you would be most likely to change. These five areas are (1) peer pressure, (2) family pressure, (3) the threat or the carrying through of litigation (law suits), (4), jail for your and your wife (your children being taken by the state), and (5) death. If any of these things would make you change or even bend just a little, then your belief was a preference, and will not be protected by the First Amendment. Think seriously about these five areas. Before too long, many of you will be called on to give your beliefs.

Convictions. A conviction is different in primarily one way: it is a belief that you will NOT change; a belief that you can not change. There are four things that make up a conviction. The three Hebrew children are excellent Biblical examples of these four qualities.

First, a conviction is caused by a man who thinks that his belief is a commandment from God. It must be God-ordered. The Hebrew children had been commanded of God in Exodus 20:3 that they should have no other gods before them. We, too, have been commanded in the Scriptures that certain things are wrong. Just as the Hebrew children in Daniel, chapter three, refused to bow to the golden image made by Nebuchadnezzar, we must refuse the state in matters not pertaining to it. A God-ordered belief will give us the strength we need to withstand the test for conviction.

Second, a conviction must be a personal belief. It must be a belief that you as an individual holds and will hold even though no one else stands with you. The three boys in Daniel stood when everybody else bowed to the image. Where were all the other Hebrews? They were complying with the state. But these boys had purposed in their heart not to defile themselves long before the test came. Would you stand alone against the state on a God-ordered commend? Remember, God plus one is a majority.

Third, a conviction must be non-negotiable. In Daniel, the king gave these boys a second chance, but they said, “We are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us…but if not, be it known unto thee, O King, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” (Dan. 3:16-18). No amount of talk was going to change their minds. Are your beliefs non-negotiable?

Fourth, convictions must be unconditional. By this is meant that no matter what the outcome is, you will not change. If you must be guaranteed a victory before you take a stand, your belief is a preference. The Hebrew boys were willing to die before they would bend to the wishes of the state.

These are the four qualities that make up a conviction. It must be a belief that is God-ordered, personal, non-negotiable, and unconditional. Only this type of belief is protected by our Constitution.

Lifestyle Consistency. There is one more part to the Supreme Court;s test between conviction and preference. It is based on the philosophy that a man’s conviction will show up in his life. This test is also Biblical. James said it best: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). The way we live our life must be consistent with our beliefs.

When the court tests you, they will delve into literally every area of your life. There is no one part of your life that is secular and another that is sacred. Every part of you belongs to God and must be lived in accordance with His Word. They will search the use of your finances; the use of your time; your recreational activities and your reading materials; every area!

One example of how the court might question you is in regard to the television. Cases have been lost by the following line of question. “Is it true that one reason for your child going to a Christian School is so he will matters of pornography, obscenity, and nudity? (Yes) “Is it true that it is so he will not see unrighteous upheld nor righteous themes debased?” (Yes) “Sir, do you own a television?” (Yes) “How much did it cost?” ($200-$500) “Where do you keep it?” (The living room) “And why is that?” (It is most traveled) “Sir, isn’t it true that a TV can not affect you unless you turn it on?” (Yes) “now, do you ever hear obscenity, see nudity, and view righteous themes debased as well as unrighteousness upheld?” (Yes, sir) Your conviction has just been destroyed.

This area of lifestyle consistency is a little deeper than most would think at first. You are challenged to think seriously about the ramifications this could have in your life.

One other matter concerned with your lifestyle is on the other side of the coin. If convictions are God-ordered and come from the Bible, what is it to disobey them? It is sin! You must not only believe; you must say that the opposite of a conviction is a sin. Pastor, do you preach that public education is sin? If not, you have only a preference. Parent, do you teach and train your child in the steps of Christ? Do you have a daily family altar? If not, your conviction that your child is lent to you by God to train in the paths of righteousness is simply a preference.

When the test comes down to you, what will the verdict be? Will the court find you protected by our Constitution, or will it find you unprotected? Will you have a conviction or a preference? Will you be consistent in your walk, or will you be found with a contradiction in your lifestyle?

Before you continue, check your understanding of these ideas by answering the questions below.

1. What is the issue protected by our First Amendment?

2. What document holds all of your beliefs and is unalterable?

3. What is the Biblical base for the philosophy of church-state separation?

4. What is the Church?

5. What is a preference?

6. What is a conviction?

7. What is a lifestyle consistency?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Answers: (1) The free-exercise of our religious beliefs. (2) The Bible. (3) Romans 13:1 and Matthew 22:21. (4) The beliefs and the believers. (5) A very strong belief that can and will change under certain circumstances. (6) A belief that is God-ordered and therefore cannot change. (7) When you live what you believe and believe the opposite of a conviction, it is sin.

“Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help…” Isaiah 31: 1. A pastor made this warning to his people: If I had my life as a father to live over again, I would make whatever financial sacrifices would be necessary in order to teach each of my childrenfrom kindergarten to the end of college. If I had my life as a pastor to live over again, I would warn my people constantly about the dangers of the American public school system. Over a period of thirty years, I have watched with a heavy heart the devastating effects of the public schools, both on my own children and on those of many of my congregation.

Virtually all theistic religion of any kind has been removed from our schools, along with the original concept of the American philosophy of life. It has been replaced with a humanistic religion that says that “traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. NO deity will save us, we must save ourselves. Second: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the ‘ghost in the machine’ and the ‘separable soul’.” (Human Manifests II, p.2, signed by John Dewey, A.J. Ayer in Philosophy, Erich Fromm, A.H. Marlow, Carl Rogers, and B.F. Skinner in Psychology among others.)]

The backlash of the humanistic (Mr. Webster, 1959, defines Humanitarian as “The distinctive tenant denying the divinity of Christ; also the system of doctrine based on this view of Christ”.) approach to education has resulted in a society of young people many of whom seem to feel that religion, patriotism, discipline, and orality are nasty words. It restricts their “freedom”, “individuality”, and “creativity”; they can’t do “their thing”.

Today less than 50 percent of American attend church and 65 percent of our teenagers drop out of Sunday school and church before the age of twenty. But WHY? Two thousand years ago one man, whom I have given my life to, called Himself the Son of God. His claims were spread around the world. Today millions of people all over the world have given all to Him for His glory and satisfaction. Yet, we are facing the worst crisis since the Roman Empire.

Godly men stand from two to eight hours each week and proclaim the truth based on the person of Jesus Christ. From the training and dedication of these men, you would expect the world to be converted in the next twelve months. Instead, we are standing on the brink of a major crisis. A few churches here and there are growing and rejoicing with songs of victory, but that is not the general condition of the church. In recent years, satanic writings and occult writings, including the writings of Lenin, have surpassed those of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If we really want to know the truth, let us learn from the Roman Empire, and we will have the secret to the problem we are facing in Christendom. Rome had almost conquered every man on earth. She had servants sent in from all parts of the world to meet her every need. She became so involved in ways to pass the time of boredom that it took hundreds of servants to please the whims and fancies of some of her large families. But they stood firm for a number of years because of her military might.

What caused her to fail? Was it immorality? — NO! Was it paganism? — NO! Was it laxity? NO! Was it evil government? — NO! Was it poverty?– NO! Was it wealth? — NO! Was it hunger? — NO! Was it a false religion? — NO! Was it inflation? — NO! Was it forced on her? — NO! No other country set out to conquer Rome. No group small or large planned her downfall.

WHY??? At that time, the fathers and mothers of Rome had Greek tutors and philosophers sent over to teach and train her children; and in a few years, Rome had a nation filled with Roman youth and young adults who were Roman citizens but were filled with ideas and ways of Greece. Their ways were immoral, pagan, lax, evil, false, and before the second generation of half-Roman, half-Greek young people were grown…down came Rome. The Greek teachers didn’t plan to crush their masters. They just taught what they believed and lived what they thought, and the little Romans became like their tutors.

The Roman parents were too involved with everything but the training of their children, which they turned over to the Greek teachers and philosophers, and history recorded Rome as the city-nation that fell; and its fall was great.

For six generations, Christendom has turned her children over to the world to train. We stand on the brink of a greater fall than that of Rome, and we are too blind to see the condition. The thing that breaks my heart is that Christian people are completely irrational about the problem. For example: We claim to be Bible believers; but when we are faced with Scripture, outside of a few verses that deal with salvation, we revert to worldly reasoning. The same Bible that teaches John 3:3 and John 3:16 also teaches Proverbs 22:6 which instructs us to teach our own children. Isaiah 31:1 says, “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help…” In college, I was taught that Egypt is the type for the world.

Israel was instructed ALWAYS to instruct her own. No disrespect for preaching, but the word teach (and train) is found many more times in the Bible than preach. No disrespect to the Sunday school, but you cannot undo in 45 minutes on Sunday what is done in 30 hours each week. The average parent would be horrified if he really knew what is going on. I don’t believe that the public school teachers have set out to crush Christendom. They just teach what they believe and live what they think. The little children from Christian homes copy their tutors, and we have a generation (almost two) of youth that are growing up to be just like their teachers.

The parable of the sower in Matthew 13 clearly states that only the seed that falls into GOOD ground will come up and produce. If I want to grow a prize rose, I don’t go into a weed bed and plant the seed there hoping it might take hold and come up. It will be choked to death before it even has a chance. I will put it in a protected area, water it carefully, guard how much sun it gets, spray it, and care for it.

If my son wants to prepare for the ministry, I will recommend to him the most fundamental Bible school and seminary I know. I won’t recommend to him the most liberal seminary I know, so he can witness to his teachers and his classmates. He goes to school to learn and study under a man (men) and their philosophies and not to witness. Now, if this is logical on the college level, by what rationale is it wrong on the elementary and secondary levels where children are the most impressionable and defenseless? If Christian education is valid at one level of education, it is valid at all levels.

“Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help…” (Isaiah 31:1). John 15:5 says “…For without me ye can do NOTHING.” Colossians 3:17 says “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do ALL in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Can we send our children to public schools IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS? Rome fell when she let the Greeks teach her children. Christendom is ready to fall, because we are sending out children to the world for training.

Dr. Paul Cates

WHICH HOME SCHOOLING PROGRAM IS BEST FOR MY CHILD?

The truth is, your child is unique. God has created your child with an individual learning technique and ability. Not every available curriculum is suited to the learning style. Whether it’s your first or fifth year in home schooling, choosing the best Curriculum for your child remains one of your biggest challenges. How do you make sense of all the available programs? Certainly each has its merits, but which one is best for your child?

Faith Christian Ministries offers a comprehensive testing service to help you tailor-make a school program to best develop your child’s talents and potential and to best meet your individual needs as well as your child’s individual needs.

The FCM staff tours to major cities in the United States to conduct one-on-one consultations with home schooling students and teachers. Your child’s abilities and learning techniques will be evaluated individually using key diagnostic tests. Many of these tests are taken orally or involve using manipulatives.

What does the testing involve? Your child will be evaluated in six areas of the left brain, six areas of the right brain, 15 areas in reading including 5 areas to determine what they can do independently, 5 areas with you teaching, and 5 areas of frustration. They are also evaluated in math, depending on age in up to 209 different areas. The testing takes approximately two to three hours.

What kind of follow-up does FCM offer? After the testing, a conference is held to help you understand your child better and know how best to deal with your child’s talents and weaknesses. You will also be assisted in selecting a curriculum and forming your schedule.

Then, approximately two weeks after the testing, a report with specific materials and levels checked will be mailed to you. Also, a schedule for daily assignments will be included. FCM will also help you in purchasing any/all of your individual specific curriculum needs. FCM sells all curriculum at current catalog prices. This will save you from having to contact 10-12 different publishers.

Who is eligible for evaluation? FCM evaluates all children –gifted, average, L.D., A.D.D. (Attention Deficit Disorder), Normal, Retarded, and handicapped. The testing is not to label your child or help your child be eligible for special public school programs. It is only to help you discover your child’s talents and gifts and to help them be what God intended them to be. FCM does not believe in labeling.

DO YOU KNOW…

…whether your child functions primarily with the left or right brain?

…how your child learns?

…whether your child is primarily an auditory, visual or kinesthetic learner?

…at what level your child reads and computes?

The answers to these questions are critical in choosing the correct home schooling program for your child’s individual needs. If these questions have you confused, bewildered, overwhelmed and frustrated, we can help.

FAITH CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES has a satellite school, Faith Christian Academy, for grades K-12. If you desire to enroll, please contact us. Enrollment is open year round.

FAITH CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES offers “free” seminars. There are two, one week seminars offered -one in June, one in November in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, on the “nuts and bolts” of home schooling. If you desire to come, please notify us early. Space is limited. An important aspect of these meetings is “Walk in The Spirit”, a Biblical approach to child training and discipline.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN HOW FCM CAN BENEFIT YOUR CHILD…

PLEASE VISIT CALL AND SEND US A MESSAGE ON CONTACT PAGE.

 

What Can Children Learn, and When!!!

Before the ages of three, the answer is simply, when the chid can do it. Entering the school zone is the following guidelines to help you know if your child is on target or possible has some delays.

Check List for Eye-Hand and Motor Coordination for 4-5 years:

Can the child trace, as example, letters and numbers?

Can the child circle an answer or complete a line?

Can the child make a line between two parallel lines?

Can the child find direction in a maze?

Can the child follow dot and line patterns?

Can the child cut with a scissors?

Can the child complete dot-to-dot pictures by connecting numbered dots?

Can the child color within heavy outlines?

Can the child walk, run, skip and jump?

Can the child build block towers (requires steadiness)?

Can the child manipulate puzzle pieces, pegs and blocks?

Can the child use a vertical chalkboard?

Can the child dance or march to rhythms?

Does the child have an awareness of self in space?

Does the child have an awareness of self in relation to other objects within the environment?

CHECKLIST FOR VISUAL PERCEPTION- 4-5 YEARS:

Can the child complete Shape and A-B-C puzzles?

Can the child discriminate in likenesses and differences?

Can the child note missing parts?

Can the child identify the whole, when only a part is seen?

Can the child see the goal in a maze?

Can the child identify shapes within the environment?

Can the child discriminate shapes?

Can the chid match shapes to the outlines of the shape?

Does the child understand variations in size, color and position?

Can the child discriminate in size activities?

Can the child do peg board designs?

Can the child reproduce patterns from a given copy?

Can the child reproduce patterns from memory?

Can the child reproduce designs from memory?

Can the child identify body parts?

CHECKLIST FOR MENTAL SKILLS: 4-5 YEARS:

Does the child know the difference between upper and lower case A-B-Cs? Both manuscript and cursive?

Does the child know numerals to 10?

Can the child count objects to 25?

Can the child follow verbal directions?

Can the child discriminate shapes?

Does the child know directional concepts such as in-out, over-under?

Does the child know relational concepts such as first-last, mine-yours?

Can the child group or classify objects into families? (Fruit, toys, vehicles)

Can the child discriminate in terms of size such as big-little?

Does the child know colors?

Can the child differentiate shades of color?

Can the child write his name ?

Does the child know his address and telephone number?

CHECKLIST FOR AUDITORY PERCEPTION: 4-5 YEARS:

Can the child identify the sound to its symbol; the alphabet or number?

Can the child form and identify words that rhyme?

Can the child repeat sounds, words, sentences, and rhymes that you dictate?

Can the child identify initial sounds for the names of objects, such as fruit?

Can the child identify and repeat characteristic sounds (sirens, whoooo; windshield wipes, swish-swish; and animal sounds)

Can the child reauditorize (think) the initial sound for objects?

Can the child signify when one sound or tone changes to another in pitch? (high-low, soft-loud)?

Can the child write initial and final sounds of words that begin and end with consonants?

Can the child repeat what was said without visual clues?

Can the child follow directions without visual clues?

Can the child identify specific things from musical recordings such as bells? Also horns and traffic sounds?

Can the child identify pictures of objects with names that rhyme with no audible clues?

Can the child sequence dictated words or events in a story?

Can the child sequence dictated numbers of number patterns?

“HE ALONE , WHO OWNS THE YOUTH, GAINS THE FUTURE!” ADOLF HITLER

Who are the real “movers and shakers” of the educational establishment? Who initiates and funds our educational studies? Who has all the solutions to our educational woes? Who stands at the schoolhouse door with check in hand waiting to lure us onto the educational-reform bandwagon? The answers to these questions may surprise you.

While the little taxpayer is scrimping and struggling to support his family and pay his taxes, the real power behind the reform movement is raking in the cash, tax free, and using that tax-free income to finance the destruction of our educational system. An elitist coterie of America’s tax-exempt foundations has designed and initiated every wave of educational reform since John Dewey and his progressive education. The goal of each and every reform movement has been the same–to eliminate knowledge in the classroom and to pilot the United States toward a one-world, socialist government.

You may find these accusations preposterous. After all, we have laws in this country; we have a Constitution that protects our rights. While this is true, we also have the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations. These tax-exempt institutions are above the laws of common man, they are the real power behind our government, and they answer to no one. Presidents, be they Democratic or Republican, may come and go, but the foundations never leave office!

Let us, then, turn our attention to the foundations and examine the effect they have had on education for almost a century. This monopoly on public education began with the creation of the Rockefeller General Education Board in 1903 (terminated in 1953); The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1905; The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1910; The Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1911; and The Rockefeller Foundation in 1918. The impact of these foundations will become evident as we look at what has transpired since their inception.

As we begin our journey back in time, the first item worth noting is that the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were staunch supporters of Dewey’s educational philosophy. Dewey in fact, taught four of the five Rockefeller brothers, including David and Nelson.

The Walsh Committee was created on August 23, 1912, to review industrial relations. During the tenure of this committee, tax-exempt foundations were also examined. The following was revealed: “A number of witnesses testified that colleges had surrendered their religious identifications in order to comply with foundation requirements to receive grants…” (William M. Bowen, Jr, Globalism America’s Demise, Huntington House Inc., 1984, p.40)

The foundations’ activities came under scrutiny again in the late 1940s and early 1950s due to several Congressional investigations. The first case involved Alger Hiss, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hiss had worked for the State Department in 1936 and was an advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference in 1945. Hiss was elected president of this Carnegie Foundation in 1946.

In 1948 during the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Hiss was accused of being a member of the Communist party and of passing State Department documents to a Soviet Agent, Whittaker Chambers, editor of Time magazine. These charges resulted in two trials, the first of which ended in a hung jury. Hiss was convicted on two counts of perjury in the second trial on January 21, 1950.

By the early ’50s, it had become obvious that someone was interfering with the educational system in the United States. Schools were no longer teaching the concepts associated with the economic and political structures inherent of our form of government.

A preliminary inquiry into the educational dilemma pointed to several tax-exempt foundations which had been funding the promotion of textbooks and methodologies that were socialistic and globalistic in nature. The three major foundations implicated in this inquiry were the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. (Michael Loyd Chadwick, The Freeman Digest, “Tax-Exempt Foundations Their Impact on the World,” Published by the Freemen Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, June 1978 issue, p.1)

These preliminary findings resulted in House Resolution 561, approved by the 82^nd Congress, demanding an investigation into the tax-exempt foundations to determine if any foundations had been “using their resources for un-American and subversive activities or for purposes not in the interest of the tradition of the United States.” (Ibid, p.2)

This committee became known as the Cox Committee. The Cox Committee was short lived due to time constraints and the death of the committee chairman; however, “In its final report, the Cox Committee reported that a Moscow-directed, Communist plot existed to infiltrate American foundations and to use their funds for Communist purposes. (See No. 2514, 82^nd Congress, 2^nd Session)

Congressman B. Carroll Reece introduced House Resolution 217 to continue the investigation into the tax-exempt foundations. This resolution passed on July 27, 1953. The actual hearings by the Reece Committee lasted only nineteen days before being canceled as a result of questionable political maneuvers. While the evidence uncovered as a result of this committee was substantial, the foundations have continued to “do business as usual”.

The Freemen Institute devoted its entire June, 1978 issue of The Freemen Digest to the finds of the Reece Committee. This publication contained an interview with Norman Dodd (Research Director for the Reece Committee), a summary of the investigation, and quoted excerpts of some of the testimonies given during the hearings. Some of the evidence disclosed by the Reece Committee included:

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was organized specifically to get the United States into the United Nations. With this task accomplished, the Endowment moved on to tackle education. The following information was revealed in the minute books of this foundation:

After the First World War, the foundation Trustees came to the conclusion that to continue moving the nation toward Carnegie’s objective, they must control education. Carnegie solicited the help of the Rockefeller Foundation for this task. Rockefeller was given the task of changing education as it pertained to domestic subjects, while Carnegie worked on subjects dealing with international relationships. The major changes focused on the teaching of American history, by discrediting the founders of the U.S. and demeaning the nation’s Constitutional structure of government. The Guggenheim Foundation facilitated the work of these two foundations by awarding fellowships to several “likely” students studying history and sending them to London where they were briefed in “what was expected of them.” These students returned to the U.S. where they became the most influential members of the American Historical Society.

Toward the end of the 1920s, Carnegie funded the American Historical Society to prepare a report detailing what the future of the U.S. should be. The seventh volume of this report specifies that “the future belongs to collectivism” (William M. Bowen, Jr., pp 35-36)

In the Reece Committee Staff Report on Relations Between Foundations and Education, Assistant Research Director, Thomas M. McNiece wrote:

What this investigation does seem to indicate is that many small grants have found their way into questionable hands and many large ones…have been devoted to purposes that are promoting a departure from the fundamental concepts of education and government under our Constitution… This is indicated by the frequent references in their own literature to the ‘age of transition’ through which we are passing, and the responsibility that must be assumed by educators in leading the way. (Thomas M. McNiece, “The Reece Committee Staff on Relations Between Foundations and Education”, The Freemen Digest, p.12.)

According to our compilations, the Carnegie Corp. has contributed to all educational purposes from 1911 to 1950, approximately $25,300,000. (Ibid, p.13)

…most of the information submitted (from various foundations’ annual reportsprofessional publications whose circulation is ) is available only in largely confined to those engaged in these professions (education and the behavioral sciences). This results naturally in two things: One, the coordinated effectiveness within the professional groups is increased; two, relatively few of the citizenry outside these professional circles have any means of knowing what is developing and therefore of organizing any protest against itbe obscure to . In fact much of the meaning of some articles would the average citizen because of the subtle approach and high technical vocabulary(Ibid. P. 15.).

Miss Kathryn Casey, legal analyst of the Reece Committee, filed a detailed report on the foundations’ activities in regard to education. This information was included in the Reece Committee’s Final Report on Relations Between Foundations and Education. Excerpts from the Final Report include:

The Carnegie Corporation of New York had contributed a total of $41,237,711 to the National Education Association, the Progressive Education Association, the American Council of Education, perhaps the major part of their sustenance in the early years…She (MS. Casey) concluded that these organizations have operated to the end of producing uniformity in teaching, teacher-training and administrative practices in education and that the Carnegie Corporation must have approved this work. (The Reece Committee Final Report on Relations Between Foundations and Education,” The Freeman Digest, p. 17.)

The Carnegie Foundation gave considerable attention to the place, relationship and function of the secondary and primary schools as well. This was done largely through the National Education Association and the Progressive Education Association, to which other foundations have also contributed heavily. Some of the strange things which have happened in the secondary and primary educational fields can be traced directly to the influence of these two organizations. (Ibid. P.18.)

From 1928 to 1933 the Carnegie Corporation of New York provided heavy aggregate financing ($340,000) to the American Historical Society…for the production of a study by its Commission on Social Studies whose final report- “Conclusions and Recommendations” includes the following:

As to the specific form which this ‘collectivism,’…is taking and will take in the future…it is by no means clear or unequivocal. It may involve the limiting…of private property by public property, extended and distributed among the masses…Almost certainly it will involve…compulsory as well as voluntary cooperation of citizens in the conduct of the complex national economy, an..enlargement of the functions of government, and an increasing state intervention in fundamental branches of economy previously left to the individual discretion and initiative–a state intervention that in some instances may be direct and mandatory and in others indirect and facilitative.

If historical knowledge is any guide, these tensions, accompanied by…popular opinion, public policy, and the fortunes of the struggle for power, will continue until some approximate adjustment is made between social thought, social practice, and economic realities, or until society, exhausted by the conflict and at the end of its spiritual and inventive resources, sinks back into a more primitive order of economy and life…” (Ibid. P.20)

Under the heading of “The Redistribution of Power” it continues:

…the teaching profession as a whole will have to organize, develop a theory of its social function and create certain instrumentalities indispensable to the realization of its aims.” (Ibid. P. 21.)

If the board of education is to support a school program conceived in terms of the general welfare and adjusted to the needs of an epoch marked by transition to some form of socialized economy, it should include in its membership adequate representation of points of view other than those of private business.” (Ibid.)

Under the heading “appendix A–Next Steps” the Report continues:

…The first step is to awaken and consolidate leadership around the philosophy and purpose of education herein expounded–leadership among administrators, teachers, boards of trustees, colleges and normal school presidents–thinkers and workers in every field of education and the social sciences. Signs of such an awakening..are already abundantly evident; in the resolutions on instruction in the social sciences adopted in 1933 by the department of superintendence of the National Education Association at Minneapolis and of the United States Commissioner of Education.. And in almost every local or national meeting of representatives of the teaching profession. (Ibid.)

The American Historical Society announces further that it has taken over a publication called The Historical Outlook, a journal for social science teachers, (it was then re-named The Social Sciences). Among the new purposes of the publication was to be ‘to furnish as rapidly as possible various programs of instruction organized within the frame of reference outlined by the Commission…’ Writers of textbooks, said the report, was ‘expected to revamp and rewrite their old works in accordance with this frame of reference and new writers in the field of social sciences will undoubtedly attack the central problem here conceived…’ (Ibid. P. 22.)

The President and Treasurer of the Carnegie Corporation of New York not only endorsed but lauded the call to socialism in the report described above. This was evidenced in their annual report for 1933-4.

Professor Harold J. Laski, philosopher of British socialism, made the following comment in his testimony about the Commission’s report: ‘At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the report is an educational program for a socialist America’. (William M. Bowen, Jr., p. 38)

The Reece Committee had this to say about the report produced by the Commission on Social Studies: “This committee finds the document from which we have quoted an astounding piece of work. We cannot understand how a foundation, Carnegie in this instance, administering funds dedicated to a public trust and made free of taxation by the grace of the people, could justify..having supported such a program. Is this what foundation executives refer to when they assert the right of foundations to ‘experiment’ and to use ‘risk capital’ to reach ‘new horizons’? (The Freeman Digest, p.22.)

Carnegie has continued to endorse the American Historical Society’s “Conclusions and Recommendations” through the years. This will be evidenced in the next part of this report.

The commission on Higher Education appointed by the President produced a report…in 1947…The Report…contained this statement: ‘In speed of transportation and communication in economic interdependence, the nations of the globe are already one world; the task is to secure recognition and acceptance of this oneness in the thinking of the people..There is an urgent need for a program for world citizenship that can be made a part of every person’s general education.’ (Ibid. P.24)

Aaron M. Sargent, a lawyer specializing in anti-subversive work and investigations affecting American education, testified that a movement began in the U.S. shortly before the turn of the century, closely related to Fabian socialism. According to Mr. Sargent, a group of American radical intellectuals organized an attack upon patriotism, “challenging basic American Philosophy founded on the doctrine of natural law.” Sargent attributed the new revolutionary philosophy to the teachings of John Dewey. In fact, Sargent referred to Dewey as “a gift from the gods to the radicals”.

Mr. Sargent pointed out that the period under discussion was one of growing intellectual radicalism, citing the statement of Professor Von Mises that socialism does not spring from the people but is a program instigated by special types of intellectuals ‘that form themselves into a clique and bore from within and operate that way..It is not a people’s movement at all. It is a capitalizing on the people’s emotions and sympathies and skillfully directing those sympathies toward a point these people wish to reach’. (Ibid. 31)

Sargent’s testimony went on to include:

Educator Dr. George S. Counts, served a chairman on a committee sponsored by The Progressive Education Association which was funded by Carnegie. This committee produced the pamphlet, “A Call to the Teachers of the Nation.” The following quote appeared in this pamphlet: “The progressive minded teachers of the country must unite in a powerful organization militantly devoted to the building of a better social order, in the defense of its members against the ignorance of the masses and the malevolence of the privileged. Such an organization would have to be equipped with the material resources, the talent, the legal talent, and the trained intelligence to wage successful war in the press, the courts, and the legislative chambers of the nation.” (Ibid. P.33)

Dr. Counts also served as a member of the American Advisory Organization whose purpose was to “introduce American Teachers and students to the new education methods used in Soviet Russia”. Dr. Counts’ interest in Russia was apparent in his publications, one of which was entitled, “The Soviet Challenge to America”. Counts’ work was known and well received by the Russians, as is evidenced in a letter he received from a member of the State Scientific Council and Commissariat of Education of the Soviet Union: “May I be so bold as to hope that your profound and consistent attack on the social order in your country will eventually lead you to a complete emancipation from American exclusiveness and intellectual messiahship so aptly exposed in your pamphlet thus enabling you to consider all social progress from a universal proletarian point of view.” (Ibid. 34)

Dr. Counts was signatory of the “conclusions and Recommendations” report by the Commission on Social Studies described before. Counts was also a favorite student and disciple of John Dewey and claimed Columbia Teacher’s College as his headquarters. (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 1970)

Another interesting aside is that Dr. counts’ pamphlet, mentioned above, is listed in the Communist Leaders’ Handbook for recommended reading. Carnegie’s interest in things Russian will be discussed again later.

The Ford Foundation for the Advancement of Education and the Old Dominion Foundation jointly supported a project of the Institute for Philosophical Research. Mortimer J. Adler was the Director of this Institute. The project, implemented in 1952, is described as “undertaking a dialectical examination of Western humanistic thought with a view to providing assistance in the clarification of basic philosophical and educational issued in the modern world.” (The Freeman Digest, p.29)

That this project deserves attention is witnessed by the well-known radical opinions of Mr. Adler, its director. In the January, 1949 issue of Common Cause, Mr. Adler had an article entitled ‘The quiet Revolution,’ in which he said:

The basic trend toward socialism, which began with Wilson’s New Freedom, and which was greatly accelerated by Roosevelt’s New Deal, has been confirmed by Truman’s return to the presidency on a platform which does not yield an inch to the right and in many respects goes further to the left. That fact suggests the possibility that some form of socialism–may prove to be the middle ground between the free enterprise capitalism and the oligarchical politics of the “economic royalists” on the one hand, and the dictatorship of the proletariat and the despotism of the party on the other…It all adds up to a clear picture. It looks like a quiet but none the less effective revolution. If we still wish to be cautious we need say no more than that we have reached a turning point in American politics at which it has become evident that the general social process of the last 20 years is irreversible-except by force. By choice the American people are never going to fall back to the right again. That deserves to be called a revolution accomplished…

But it is also a revolution which will continue. Either the Democratic Party will move further to the left or a new political party will form to the left of the Democrats.” (Ibid.)

Mr. Adler is still around and very active in the field of education.

A portion of the concluding remarks of the Reece Committee stated:

Putting the evidence together, we conclude that the National Education Association has been an important element in the tax-exempt..world used to indoctrinate American youth with ‘internationalism’…referred to as ‘globalism.’ This point of view is closely related to the ‘new era’ which so many social scientists have envisioned as the ultimate goal of our society when they have gotten through ‘engineering’ us into it. (Ibid. P.66)

The evidence uncovered as a result of the Reece Committee was incontrovertible. What action was taken against the foundations? NONE!!! The committee was canceled due to the disruptive behavior of Congressman Wayne Hayes of Ohio, a member of the Committee, and the matter was more or less dropped.

The findings of the Reece Committee merely became a matter of public record, and as such, is stored in the archives in Washington, DC. The information was never picked up by the media. However, at least two books have been published in the years that followed exposing the influence and power that the major foundations have had on our government and educational institutions.

Rene Wormser, General Counsel for the Reece Committee, published Foundations: Their Power and Influence in 1958. Dr. Carroll Quigley, a professed “insider” among the foundations and money people, published the “tell all” book, Tragedy and Hope – a History of the World in Our Time in 1966. On page 955 of his book, Quigley explains why the press never jumped to cover the Senate investigation: “It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the ‘most respected’ newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions.” (W. Cleon Skousen, p. 58)

In an interview with Michael Loyd Chadwick, editor of The Freemen Digest, Norman Dodd, Chief Investigator and Director of Research for the Reece Committee, was quoted as saying that the foundations had succeeded in providing the United States with a “national system of education.” According to Dodd, through the efforts of “organizations and persons little known to the American public. The principles upon which this country was founded are now scorned as a result of the changes fostered by the foundations’ control of education. The foundations have been able to take the philosophy upon which American civilization was based and turn it into its opposite…” (The Freeman Digest, p.75)

To recap the evidence gathered by the Reece Committee, it appears that the elitist coterie of tax-exempt foundations used the tax dollars of American citizens to gain control of our colleges, elementary and secondary schools, the media, the legislatures and courts, the textbook industry, and any person or organization even remotely connected with the educational establishment. Thus establishing this control, the foundations then went to work to mold and indoctrinate the voters and leaders of the future. The goal of this indoctrination being to engineer society into a collectivist, socialist state as outlined in the “conclusions and Recommendations” report.

You see, the “new world order” can be achieved in a more timely and tidy manner when the equalized masses willingly follow the “pied piper of Planethood” than if they surrender through force. To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises, Austrian economist and international educator, collectivism is not something that springs naturally from a people, rather it is something that is contemplated by special types of intellectuals or power-mongers.

The key to collectivism, then, is to play to the emotions and sympathies of the individual in order to “skillfully” direct him toward the predetermined Global objective. Perhaps this explains the trend toward hypnosis and New Age techniques in the classroom today. If you will recall the new thinking skills techniques were designed primarily to play to the emotional and sensitive side of the brain!!!???

In his book, The Naked Capitalist, Cleon Skousen had this to say regarding the foundations’ role in education: “If these people had their way we would develop a prospective nightmare in our schools–schools without grades, without discipline, without prayers, without pledges of alliance, without Christmas, without Easter, without patriotism, without morals, without standards of speech or standards of dress.” (W. Cleon Skousen, p. 72) – HAS NOT ALL THIS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED???

Isn’t it amazing that everything Skousen forewarned in 1970 has come to pass in the ’90s???

Has the locus of control in education changed today….NO! Today, Carnegie controls not only the teachers’s unions (NEA and AFT), but also the educational studies, educational research, educational committees (including the Education Commission of the States, the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Association of State Boards of Education), individual state reform efforts (including state assessment testing and reform task forces), national testing instruments (NAEP, SAT, ETS, and the National Teachers’ Examination), high school graduation requirements (Carnegie units), and most importantly, the development and dissemination of curriculum through the National Diffusion Network.

The list can go on and on. Carnegie’s stronghold on education doesn’t stop with organizations and testing, however. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching co-controls the national educational database (ESIDS along with federal and state governments. They also spearheaded and designed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act perhaps the most important piece of educational legislation of the century.

Some of Carnegie’s projects include The Task Force on Teaching as a Profession and The Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. And, let’s not forget Carnegie’s American-Soviet educational agreement. This will be discussed in a future issue.

Don’t you find it odd that the people screaming the loudest about our public school nightmare are the very ones who delivered it to us in the first place????

Next issue: HOW THEY CREATED THE PROBLEM!!! AND WHY???