The Christian Task in the Present Democracy

I think you are beginning to understand my worldview. However, I do not think it will be possible for you to fully appreciate my worldview until you jump in with both legs.

You ask the important question: "Do people who believe that racism is not wrong have the right to demand that their anti-racism value not be taught in the public schools?"

The Bible speaks about defending "rights." Therefore, to neglect to defend all the God-given rights that people have is to sin. Therefore, your question is very important.

The answer to your question is simple: No.

Racism is wrong. A moral wrong can never be a civil right - regardless of anything the ACLU or the Supreme Court or the NAACP says. People do not have the right to be racist.

Let me turn the issue around: Do I have the right to expect that my children are taught wisdom at a public school? Well, this is actually a very complicated question since the state has not been given the grace nor the mandate to assume responsibility of educating youth. Parents have. But, given that there is a public education system, I would argue that the purpose of the system must be to cultivate wisdom and virtue, which can only be done in the context of the fear of the LORD. Any organization which does not exist for the glory of God is idolatrous by its very nature. That idolatry must be confronted.

To neglect teaching kids that racism is wrong is to teach by default that racism is acceptable. That would be unacceptable.

How do we figure out which values to teach? Look at Jesus' pedagogy. He taught the truth and rebuked those who opposed him. The prophets and apostles did the same thing. We just need to obey God and not man. The word of God is living and active. Sharper the any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Also, if any man speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very word of God.

Is this un-American? Yes. But America is one big philosophical contradiction. The First Amendment is a doctrine. The First Amendment is the demand for the advancement of secular humanism. It was largely inspired by the philosophy of Voltaire. The whole idea of America is to worship the opinions of the masses. The people become gods. Pluralism = polytheism. We have Jesus Christ and the masses and the other principalities and powers which have set themselves up against the knowledge of God. And most Americans say that this is a good thing. But they quickly contradict themselves.

Take John Roberts as an example. He was under tremendous pressure to take a stand to not be an ideologue. In fact, this is part of his ideology - as well as the ideology of most senators and most Americans. Of course, he also asserted that people have a right to privacy and that women have the same rights of men. These, of course, are ideologies. Therefore, to assert that he is not an ideologue is illogical.

The antithesis is real. Neutrality is a myth. We must not bow down to the pressures of our society. We must contend for the faith and demand justice. The just shall live by faith. We must clearly and accurately draw the lines of the antithesis. The left rejects the doctrine of the antithesis. The right draws the lines of the antithesis incorrectly. And I am a voice crying out in the wilderness.

You said, "Again, if this is a moral imperative then it is something that we need to demand be done but it will be a hard fought and difficult battle."

Amen brother. That is the battle we have to fight. Be strong and courageous. Do not let the Book of the Law depart from your mouth. Meditate on it day and night. Then you will be prosperous and successful. Be strong and very courageous because you will lead these people into the Promised Land. Has God not commanded you: Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid. Do not be dismayed. For the Lord our God will be with us wherever we go.

If we are humble, God will entrust us with His authority. We must go forth in His authority and preach the gospel. We must contend for a spiritual revolution that will absolutely transform not only education, but our entire nation.

Show me in the Bible where it says that democracy is a good thing and that we ought to fight for it. Democracy is too often two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper. But praise be to God; we have a deliverer.

Sorry for being out of action so long, circumstances in life have seemed to conspire against me as of late. Give me a moment to re-read and re-ponder the ideas in your last post....

I think your point in the later half is very insightful and it serves a great purpose in sharpening and refining our discussion. In response to my point that Christ is not a universally acknowledged moral basis you succinctly say, "So?". You go on to point out that not everybody agrees that racism is wrong but that our public education system does it's best to teach that it is wrong, regardless of the values of the students, parents and teachers.

This raises a very interesting question: do people who believe that racism is not wrong have the right to demand that their anti-racism value not be taught in the public schools? I don't know history well enough to cite good sources but I know that the busing program in the South (busing black students into schools in white neighborhoods for the purpose of integration) was met with fierce opposition at times from white parents. Did they have the right to that view? Did they have the right to act on that view and demand and advocate for this view in the public forum?

To more clearly connect this with the discussion at hand I think I'm just going to have to reiterate the question at the end of my first post: how do we figure out which values to teach in our public schools given a plurality of opinions on this subject? Moreover, how do we navigate our way through this process knowing that there are more than a few opinions that are diametrically opposed?

Implicit in this question is the value of the individual, a common view of many Americans. This liberty or freedom is one of the founding principles of this nation is probably one of the few things that most Americans perceive as one of the great strengths of this nation. A non-trivial number of the first persons to come to this land were making the pilgrimage to escape governments that would not allow for plurality of views when it came to religious beliefs. Many came for other reasons (economics being a common motivating factor) but it was called "The New World" for a reason: it was a new land full of potential and possibility. And when things got rough, this diverse group of people from nearly part of Europe formed a union that stood the trials of gaining independence from the motherland and continues to this day trying to form itself and it's identity.

The short reminder of history is meant only to make this point: this nation has, since its inception, been forced to deal with the problems of plurality of views in the public forum. Right or wrong, Biblical or otherwise, this IS the current situation of our nation. If you suggest, Dan, that we need to remove this freedom of opinion from our national values then you are suggesting that we fundamentally redefine our identity. Again, if this is a moral imperative then it is something that we need to demand be done but it will be a hard fought and difficult battle.

The big question then becomes exactly the same one I have mentioned above: how do we determine which views are to be held by the populous as a whole; how do we make that transition from a plurality of views to a nation of a singular view?