133 – Christian Education

Separation of School and State 3

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Conversations, Panels, and Sermons

Lesson: 3-4

Genre: Talk

Track: 3

Dictation Name: A76

Location/Venue: Conference

Year:

[Tape Organizer] The following presentation was recorded at (SEPCON?) 97, the third annual conference for the Separation of School and State Alliance in Fresno California. It is copyrighted by the Alliance 1997, but you are welcome to make copies as gifts for your friends.

[Audience Leader] …Fritz, and I am with the Separation of School and State Alliance, and it is indeed my pleasure to be your master of ceremonies this morning. Introducing our speaker and his responders is none other than Norma Gabler, the text-book lady from Texas, would you please welcome Norma, please!

[Norma Gabler] Thank you Marshall. It is a real honor to me to be asked to introduce a man that I have known for many, many years; and we go back a long way. I guess I shouldn’t say that, except I am probably older than he is, and my husband and I have been reviewing textbooks now for what will soon be 37 years, we don’t give up very easily. My husband and I have been married, Mel and I have been married 55 years, and I will bet 37 of those have been spent attempting to save education, and we have done a fair job, but there is still a lot to do. But Mel and I are a team. It is so nice to be here this morning, what an honor to introduce Howard Phillips. In 1996 the National Convention of the U.S. taxpayers party chose Howard Phillips to be its presidential candidate. Philips left the Republican party in 1974, after a distinguished career ranging from precinct worker, to assistant to the chairman of the Republican National Committee. He headed two federal agencies, and served in the Nixon administration. In 1974 Mr. Phillips has been chairman of the conservative caucus, an effective non-partisan nationwide, grassroots, public policy advocacy group. He has also authored three books: The New Right at Harvard, Moscow's Challenge to U.S. Vital Interests in Sub-Saharan Africa, (that’s got a long name Howard!) and The Next Four Years. Phillips and his wife Peggy and their immediate family reside in Fairfax county. It is nice to have you this morning.

I am also now going to introduce the respondents, and this will be the order in which they will respond. It is George Laurence Junior, for the past twenty years George has served as a headmaster of the Philadelphia Montgomery Christian Academy in Pennsylvania. He believes that one of the most important jobs he has is to identify, to hire, and to nurture persons who have a gift of teaching, artists in education as he aptly describes them. For the past, the last 6 years, Mr. Laurence has been president of Evangelical Christian School in Memphis, where he and his wife of 32 years live; he forgot to give me his wife’s name, I am sorry about that- I think that is real important- Janet? Janet. I just think you ought always include the rest of your family.

The next is Dean Arman, and he asked me if I would show you the newest book that he has, it is called Islam and the Discovery of Freedom, and I thought that might be of interest to you. He, having graduated Cum Laude from Harvard in 1970, he obtained PHD in astronomy and astrophysics from the University of Arizona. He presently teaches at two different universities, and the international Islamic weekend school.

Next is Ron Brant, Ron, now an education writer and consultant, is former editor of Educational Leadership, and of the publications of the association for supervision and curriculum development. In addition to working in the education community Mr. Brant has been a staff member of a regional education laboratory in the upper Midwest, and in 1960 he taught at a teacher training college in Nigeria West Africa. He is the author or co-author of numerous publications, and I won’t try to read all of those that he has; in 1996 he was one of the first persons inducted into the Edupress hall of fame for his contributions to education and publication.

Good luck guys, we look forward to hearing you.

[Howard Phillips] Good morning everyone, congratulations to Marshall Fritz for putting together this superb conference, congratulations to you for being here, and great thanks to Norman Gabler who with her husband Mel has been out front in the battles of parental control of education, long before most Americans even knew there was a battle.

19th century theologian R.L. Dabney got it right when he observed regarding conservatives, that quote: “This is a party that never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the Progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday, is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism. It is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism,” said Dabney, “is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard indeed to explain; it is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it assays to stop, that its bark is worse than its bite; and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give enough exercise to radicalism to keep it in wind and to prevent its becoming prissy and lazy from having nothing to whip."

All too true. Professor Dabney’s comments certainly remain applicable and relevant today. When President Jimmy Carter proposed creation of the Federal Department of Education in the 1970’s, much Republican rhetorical bombast ensued- indeed, Ronald Reagan made the very existence of the department of education an issue in his 1980 Presidential campaign. The Republican platform that year said: “Next to religious training in the home, education is the most important means by which families hand down to each new generation their ideals and beliefs. It is a pillar of a free society, but today parents are losing control of their children’s schooling… The Republican party,” said that 1980 platform, “supports deregulation by the Federal government of Public education, and encourages the elimination of the Federal Department of Education.”

However, during the Reagan years, funding for the Department of Education increased from 14.6 Billion dollars per year in 1980, to an annual 21.5 Billion dollar appropriation, at the end of Mr. Reagans tenure on January 20 1989. Mr. Reagan signed that appropriation.

Under George Bush Federal funding for education increased to 25.8 Billion dollars. By 1995, when Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 mid term elections, total Federal outlays on education, according to a study prepared by Jim Jacobson and Mike Hammond for the National Center for Home Education, amounted to more than 70 Billion dollars for a single year. They pointed out that the U.S. Department of Education’s budget accounts for only 33 Billion dollars of the estimated 70 Billion in Federal education assistance. The department administers 244 education programs, while 30 other Federal agencies administer 308 more such programs. Since then the Republican Congress has given Bill Clinton even more than what he has asked for, appropriating additional Billions of dollars for Federal education spending, appropriations which include all the money Mr. Clinton needs for the very programs which the Republicans decried, including Goals 2000, School to Work, and Outcome Based Education. Now the latest line of Republican retreat is with respect to Federal education testing; predictably and appropriately, national school testing is opposed, rhetorically, by Republicans and Conservatives. Predictably and inappropriately, compromise has already been struck on this issue.

As reported in the Washington Post of November 12, last year, this is a quote: “GOP leaders spoke seriously of abolishing the Department of Education, they also threatened to make deep cuts in Goals 2000, a prominent Clinton program to give states grants. But now they provide precisely the amount of money he had requested. As Congress wraps up its work this year, Clinton is continuing to prevail;” says the Washington Post. “Republicans are on the defensive. “They are still confused over how to be for education, without supporting new programs from Washington.” said Checker Fin, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and assistant secretary of education during the Bush Administration. It goes on: “On some education issues, Republican leaders and Clinton had reached consensus, both wanted to develop new Charter schools, both sides also have agreed to spend more Federal money to help children improve their reading skills, and to help needy students pay for college. Another feud still exists on Clintons plan to give national tests in reading and math which would be an unprecedented step for schools. The compromise forged last week may preserve the tests, GOP lawmakers have deep differences on the subject. Last month, Senate Republicans strongly backed a modified form of Clintons tests, even as the house voted to ban them.”

Of course it would not be necessary to worry about national testing if there were no Federal money. Once the principle is conceded, the question is not whether defeat will be experienced, but rather when and to what extent. Conservatives, especially the Republican variety of conservatives, tend to assume that when a skirmish is lost, the supposed principle on which it was being waged need be surrendered forever; in other words, once the Federal Government puts its nose in the tent it can never be pushed out. The Liberals make no such repeated concessions, for them every step backward is followed by an attempt to take at least two steps forward.

On the other hand, the Republicans seem never willing to attempt recovery of lost ground, but are instead content to argue about how much of the remaining turf will be shared with the adversaries of those whom they purport to represent. They constantly argue that they cannot make big changes all at once, but that is precisely what the Liberals do; for the Liberals, the statists, the socialists, and the Democratic fascists, all of whom favor more government control and less personal liberty, incrementalism is merely a tactical ploy which they use to achieve their objectives circuitously, without having to change either destination or direction. The Republicans foolishly believe that resorting to incrementalism even when they have the power to achieve a complete turn-around, offers some kind of victory, when really all they are doing is slowing the growth of Liberal programs, without in any way challenging their permanence or legitimacy. Once having surrendered the principle, they lack the moral and political confidence to subsequently reassert it. There is no hill they seek to take, because fighting for that hill might place at risk their political lives, which they value far more highly than any political principle. The fact of the matter is that constitutionally there is no proper role whatsoever for the Federal government in education, except with respect to the armed forces of the United States in occupied territories.

Indeed, the first amendment to the constitution stipulates that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Inevitably and inescapably, every educational institution is an establishment of religion, however that word religion may be defined. In the 18th century, the authors of the constitution understood religion to mean ‘the duty which we owe our creator.’ Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 5th edition, characterizes religion as one of the systems of faith and worship. The compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary carries this definition: “Devotion to some principle.” Indeed the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus published in 1996 asserts simply that “Religion is a thing that one is devoted to.” It further stipulates that to educate is to give intellectual, moral, and social instruction. Religion is in fact a system of ideas concerning the nature of God and man. One can argue that for some the advocacy of homosexuality has become a system of faith and practice. The same can be said of environmentalism, which carried to extremes can take the form of earth-worship. Feminism, Nazism, and Communism are all ideologies or systems of faith and belief.

Professor Robert H. Nelson wrote in the July 17 Forbes magazine that quote: “The problem is that many public schools have been teaching religion for years without calling it that.” In their recent book, Facts, not Fear, Michael (Sinara?) and James Shaw studied one hundred children’s books on the environment being used in schools. What did they discover? That many of the books advocate a kind of salvation through environmental activism. Is this religion? Of course it is.

Roger Kennedy, until recently the director of the National Park Service has said: “Wilderness is a religious subject that should be part of our religious life.” John Meer, the founder of the Sierra Club, believed that in the wilderness: “People find terrestrial manifestations of God.” the environmental gospel teaches that excessive consumption is bad for the soul, that a new reverence for the earth is required, and that people of the world must repent their wasteful ways; recycling has become an environmental religious ritual analogous to keeping kosher kitchens, or eating fish on Friday.

Whether values are taught in the name of old or new religions, they are still religious values, not facts. He goes on to say: “The Christian right and other religious groups complain that under current court rulings like the recent Ohio one, they are being discriminated against. Indeed they are. Why should separation of church and state apply to historic Jewish and Christian teachings, but to education in newer and more modern gospels? When Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Religious Liberty that to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical, he was asserting the principle of liberty of conscience which is implicit in and fundamental to the plain text of the first amendment to the constitution. All education is essentially, inescapably, and inevitably religious in that it must carry with it presuppositions about the nature of God and man. Those presuppositions in the early days of the American republic were explicitly Christian. Now they are increasingly humanistic and antinomian. That is why we must be thankful for the straightforward language of the first amendment to the Constitution, which forbids Congress making any law, whether to raise revenues or extend them in support of a religious establishment, even as it prevents congress from interfering with the free exercise of religion. Personally I reject the doctrine of incorporation which wrongly asserts that the first amendment applies to state governments as well as to the Congress, but if I were to join those liberals who argue thus my case would be even stronger, deducing as it would that the Federal constitution prohibits any expenditure of public funds in support of educational establishments, since they are in fact religious establishments, institutions which indoctrinate in the context of their preferred presuppositions.

The notion of religious neutrality is a myth; there is no middle ground on the question of Bible reality. Either God’s word is true or it is not. All subsequent conclusions must be based on one or the other of these propositions, or presuppositions. Either man is a created being endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights; or man is an historical accident, an evolutionary entity, who exists by random selection, without moral order, discernible origin, or ultimate purpose. When Biblical presuppositions are rejected, the door is opened for at first the official toleration of, and very soon thereafter the advocacy of, all that which God condemns, from sexual promiscuity, to abortion, to homosexuality; and of course in all cases, the eventual rejection of all legitimate, ultimate, God-ordained authority. Because law is the will of the sovereign, so long as the United States as a political system which recognizes that God’s creatures owe a duty of stewardship to their creator, and that we have a right and duty to hold accountable those to whom we delegate political authority so that we may conscientiously exercise our stewardship; then concepts of national independence are viable and understandable. But, when the chain of accountability of civil government to the citizen is broken and constitutional limitations such as those proscribing congressional action with respect to any establishment of religion are ignored, then the Biblical common law system which defines our liberties is easily rejected in favor of the globalist nostrums of world citizenship which are now increasingly part of government funded educational curricula.

The real issue is not whether education shall be religious, but rather on which religious premises our system of education shall be based. Because I savor civil liberty and have wanted my own children to be educated in the context of a Christian world view, I must reject any law which propagates faith alien to my own, and which obliges me through compulsory taxation to subsidize the propagation of those other hostile faiths, even as such law places bounds on the advocacy and exposition of that which I and my family believe. After all, children are not the property of the state, and God does assign… (applause)

And God does assign parents primary and ultimate responsibility for the nurture and admonition of their progeny. If anyone needs evidence that questions of religion are inescapably intertwined with issues of education, you needn’t look no further than the current controversies in the state of Alabama, where a megalomaniacal Federal Judge, Ira DeMent, referred to the people of Alabama as ‘Judge Demented’ ignores both the first amendment and the tenth amendment to the Federal Constitution as he seeks to impose his own will to deny the teachers, administrators, parents, and students of the State of Alabama their constitutional right, their God given right, to the exercise, the free exercise of their religious faith. The possibility that Judge DeMent may succeed simply underscores the necessity of not obliging any citizen to subsidize with his taxes official hostility to that which such citizens understand to be true education and true religion.

But despite the failure of Republicans at the Whitehouse and on Capitol Hill to make good their promises, there is hope. For the Constitution makes clear that no funds may be dispersed from the Federal treasury, except by a presidentially signed Congressional appropriation, or an overridden presidential veto of such an appropriation. No president can veto a zero, so whenever Congress has the discernment and the courage to end the Federal role in education, it can do so by appropriating zero funds for such purposes. Failing that, we must await the election of a president morally and openly committed to veto any and all appropriation measures which reach his desk, including even a single cent for the unconstitutional provision of federal dollars to establishments of religion at any and all levels.

Whether such appropriations include funding for the elementary and secondary education act, or subsidies direct and indirect to colleges and universities which have all too often become institutions of anti-Christian indoctrination. By saying yes to liberty of conscience we must say no to Federally subsidized and regulated establishments of religion. Thank you.

[Audience Leader] I’m so excited about getting to say something that I forgot that I was supposed to be applauding him, that was wonderful Howard! And I especially like that beautiful piece on the 14th and the petard you know, well if the this thing, if the 14th applies, then let’s go back and apply that to all the states. That is a charming little insight, in fact, a charming big insight.

We are going to have three responders, and our responders are invited to embellish should they wish, or contradict if they wish, and challenge our speaker; each responder has five minutes, they have been chosen because they have different theological perspectives from each other, and because they share though a great deal of insight that I think will add to our program. So first is going to be my friend George Lawrence from Cordova Tennessee. (applause)

[George Lawrence] Well, good morning. I am not about at all to disagree with what Howard Phillips has said to you all— of course, of course all education is inherently religious. But when talking to many people, I find that they think that it is also so esoteric that it is not going to impact in the classroom in a significant way. Now I am here to tell this morning that on Monday morning in classrooms all around the United States, Kindergarten will start with a lesson in cosmology. The kindergartners will all gather together around the bulletin board, the kindergarten teacher is going to say: “Students, what day is today?” and they will say: “Monday.” And the teacher will say: “Yes, it is Monday, and what is the weather like today?” and some little child will say: “It is sunny.” And the teacher will say: “Yes, it is sunny! What is it?” It is either a universe created by God, a universe superintended by Him, in which case we ought to say: “What is the weather today God has sent us? He has given us a sunny day.” Or it is a universe, a nihilistic universe of space, time, chance, plus nothing; a universe with no meaning. Kindergarten starts every day with a lesson in cosmology. Education is indeed inherently religious, and it is always inherently religious, no matter how simple the lesson may be. One plus one is taught either as a human construct, something we thought up, or it is the beginning of instruction in the language of mathematics, a language that explains who God is, and how His universe works.

Later on Macbeth is either taught as a study of why Macbeth caved in to the sin of ambition and Banquo did not, or else you are teaching a story which has no meaning. Of course, government should not be involved in this religious process. In the separation of school and state alliance, we have given a lot of attention to getting government out of our education. I would like us to think a little bit too about the fact that while there is compulsory education, many of us are examples of the fact that we are not compelled yet to send our children to these government schools; why have so few people left the government schools? Why are they so full yet? Perhaps because we have paid so little attention to some of the lessons learned by Christian schools and independent schools over the years.

You know, every year at my school, Evangelical Christian School in Memphis Tennessee, about 1,250 parents make a very difficult choice, they choose to withdraw their children from the government schools, they choose to pay approximately $5,000 a child to have them in my school, while they continue to pay, continue to pay unjust taxes to support the government establishment of religion from the government schools. I would say too that listening to what private education, Christian education has learned over the years, is a valuable thing for us to do. Why is it that so few people leave the government schools? I suggest perhaps it is because they don’t know what is going on, that one of our prime tasks needs to be to educate the parents of America. Each year, in my school, about 1,200 people must gain the critical mass of knowledge, wisdom, and courage necessary to overcome the government fostered (?) and inertia that keeps them chained in state schools.

Of course, of course all education is religious. But Christians in independent schools have learned how to communicate that message in the market place, while we work to get government out of education let us not forget the lessons learned by people who have been working effectively in the trenches for hundreds of years to provide a Godly Christian alternative. (applause)

[Audience Leader] Thank you George Lawrence, thank you, thank you. And now to further the responses, my friend the president and founder of the Minaret of Freedom, (Eben Achdeem Achmed, Dean Solom Edakeem?)

[Eben Achdeem Achmed?] And peace be upon you. In the name of God the most gracious, the most merciful. I think Howards address has addressed three particular issues, the issue of the main subject, the issue that values are ultimately religious values, the issue that the conservatives have helped to cause the problem that we are confronting today, and the third point that was perhaps implicit rather than explicit, and that is that the dispute we are discussing is really one about power.

Let me briefly address the first issue, because I think Howard has addressed it very well, that all values are religious in nature, and that also leads me to summarize the view in these words: To absent values from teaching, is to teach the absence of values. And I think this is ultimately the problem that we are confronting with the concept, the impossible concept, of secular education.

Let me turn to a second idea that the role Conservatives have played in the problem, and here I think he has understated it, I think there is more. The Conservatives, not just Liberals, have undermined the first amendment, and I think you can see this even in Howards speech, because he has only criticized Federal government involvement in education. He only brought up, I think as a rhetorical devise, the idea that the fourteenth amendment makes the first amendment apply to the states. Well, I believe that the fourth amendment does make the first amendment apply to the states, and therefore I think that his half (Felios?) conclusion is of a dead serious conclusion, and that we must be concerned with getting government at all levels out of education. In fact, I believe that this is the main point, the reason is that we are talking about ultimately issues of power.

The state involvement in education, including some embroilment in questions of religious values, is a power issue. If we look at the rise of government education in the 19th century, we see that religious conservatives played an unfortunate role it in it. The poor people at that time were often be educated in Catholic and high Lutheran schools; and pious and Protestant Americans didn’t like that, they wanted poor people to get a good decent education. Since the Protestants were the majority, they naturally presumed that if there were government schools that they could get a Protestant education. Well, we found out that it doesn’t work that way, does it? And therefore they are, by demanding or condoning state education on a state level or even local governments to educate, they are inviting the kinds of problems that we are confronted with.

The Liberals of the 19th century who supported the Protestant move for government schools knew what they were doing, and I think they knew that ultimately we would have the situation that we have today, and that it was something they wanted to bring about. For them the role of the schools, and they will say this explicitly, somebody quoted the other day at one of the brainstorming sessions we had here, somebody saying: “In the future all education will be done at home, but schools will still exist because they are necessary for socialization.”

Now I think that is the situation today, all education as opposed to schooling is going on at the homes, the schools are strictly for socialization, making us good citizens, by which, by good citizens, they don’t mean what De Tocqueville meant by good citizens, they mean obedient servants of the state. If you do not believe that this is what happened in the 19th century I would suggest that you look at what is happening today in Turkey. In Turkey, which is a rabidly secular country in which they have made no bones about the fact that the concept of secularism is not just separation of church and state, but the removal of religion from public life. In Turkey right now, the military has succeeded in pressuring out a popularly elected government that was trying, not to put religion in state schools, but that had come to power because of the religious teachings in the private schools, and they forced that government out, and demanded that the new government institute compulsory education to a much higher grade level than previously required, in order to shut out the private schools, and prevent them from educated citizens who are independent minded, independent of the government.

Sometime you ought to have a panel on that subject, I think it would illustrate these points. Right now I am almost out of time, so I will close with one last quote: Henry David Thoreau, famous for refusing to pay taxes back in the 19th century, before we had the government education system, and who was a teacher, in defending his refusal to pay taxes that would support a particular church in his community said that he did not see why the school teacher should be taxed to pay the minister, but not the minister taxed to pay the school teacher. Well, times have changed. But the point of the question still exists: why should the minister be taxed to pay the school teacher, and not the school teacher taxed to pay the minister?

There is only one way out of this conundrum. It is to get the government completely out of all education. (applause)

[Audience Leader] Thank you, thank you, thank you. Alright, we should be offering up a prayer for the religious church, because clearly they are struck with a disease, ITD, Independent Thought Disorder! So, Ron Brant is a friend of mine, a man I treasure for his integrity, and he has attended both last year and helped us by moderating, and this year the formal debates; he is a man who is highly respected in the main stream education community, he has some slightly differing views than some of the rest of us on the separation issue, and those may come through in the next few minutes.

Come on up here, Ron Brant!

[Ron Brant] Thank you Marshall, as Marshall’s token representative of public education, I must say that I did not look forward to this session, nor as I listened I wondered what in the world I could say, because I have to confess that this presentation by Howard Phillips is relentlessly logical and formidable for any person to respond to. Nevertheless I think I can do it! (laughter) I heard two themes in the presentation. In the beginning Mr. Phillips referred to some political circumstances that characterize our country. I personally believe that these terms that he referred to of conservative and radical and liberal are almost meaningless to us at this point. I know at this point of no major political leader who can be characterized as what I would describe as Liberal. I know that many people here have referred to our president as a Liberal, I find it very difficult to put him in that category. What category to put him in I am afraid I can’t answer… (laughter)

But I would say that within the field of education, over the last several years, many of the initiatives that have taken place such as were mentioned, Goals 2,000, Outcome Based Education, School to Work, and certainly the proposed national tests, are not supported by the people I regard as educational Liberals. These things are opposed by the educational Liberals with whom I am acquainted, just as much as they are by the people in this room. I could go into the National Test or the OBE and anything else and tell you why educational philosophers within profession who are not heard from very often, actually oppose these things too; most certainly national testing. I could tell you why I also oppose those national tests, but that is really not the subject at this point, the subject is the matter that education is inherently religious, and therefore cannot be supported by government.

Now, from, as I said, from a logical standpoint, you can’t quarrel with that. What you can quarrel with is whether or not the American people buy that idea? How shall we decide what to do about the fact that some believe this to be true, and yet as George Lawrence said, so few people act on that and withdraw their children from public schools? The only explanation that I have is that they don’t believe it. Now, how can we deal with this, in this society? Well, if we lived in Iraq, the leader of the nation would decide and we would all abide by that. But what we are is a democracy, and so we have to try to make these decisions democratically. There was a reference in Mr. Phillips presentation to this Alabama judge who is not following the will of the people. Well, what he is following is his sense of what the Constitution required. We saw similar situations in Alabama 40-50 years ago where individuals pronounced that there should not be racial segregation, and yet most people wanted it. So what we have is a situation in which we have to think through what we will do when there are a few people who believe deeply something, and the majority believes something else. That leads us to the courageous lady Norman Gabler who introduced this session, because what we have seen is a person with deep convictions who has had tremendous influence on American education. I would like to study how she did that, because she is a very powerful person in this profession.

Now there sometimes comes a times when the majority says: “This is what we believe” and a small minority simply will not accept that, we have seen examples of that as well. We have to respect that small minorities point of view, we have to take it seriously, but in a democracy we say the majority will continue to decide what to do. So let’s see what happens; I don’t believe that we will in fact decide that government should not support education, it remains to be seen. (applause)

[Audience Leader] Thank you Ron. I like Ron for pointing out the power of one and the power that Norma Gabler and her husband have had on textbooks, and I am also concerned with Ron’s question of why so few people understand that education is inherently religious, and I would suggest that Ron, the reason is, is that there are not a sufficient number of people yet, leaders in particular, opinion leaders, who have signed the proclamation for the separation of school and state. So later today I will slip you a copy of that and let you join Norma in this is immense power of one by saying so- the relentless logic may just appeal to you, I don’t know.

Anyway, enough of all of my chitter chatter, let’s ask Howard if he would like to respond to his responders, and limit him- we wanted you to finish by Tuesday, okay?

[Howard Phillips] Thank you sir.

[Audience Member] And today is what? (laughter)

[Howard Phillips] Let me just offer a few comments, particularly with reference to the thoughtful remarks of Ron Brandt. I would make a point that is often lost on quote, unquote “Conservatives in the political realm”, I recall during the Reagan administration that one of the arguments for not closing down the Department of Education was that “We don’t control both houses of Congress.” Under our magnificent Constitutional system there is the principle of the blocking third. In order to achieve results you don’t need to pass legislation, you need to stop spending. And very simply, if a bill reaches a presidents desk that includes funds for education or any other unconstitutional purpose, and if the president has the moral resolve and the ability to rally a third plus one, thereabouts, of the American people; he can probably translate that into a sustained veto in one of the two houses of Congress. One president, plus either 34 U.S. Senators, or 145 of 435 representatives in Congress, can close down the Federal role in education if they are determined to do so.

Let me say with respect to Alabama, that having together with Herb Titus spent a day down there a week or two ago with Judge Roy Moore, in Gadston in (?) county, I am increasingly convinced that the moral imperialists are not those parents and students and teachers who wish to be able to continue to acknowledge God as they historically have, but rather a Federal judge who instead of honoring the plain text of the constitution, suggests that somehow the Supreme Court has the right to amend the constitution during its coffee break, or legislate during its lunch hour, and override its plain text. The Federal government has no right to interfere with what states and localities do in the area of education. Now, the real answer, is if people feel oppressed by Christian witness in the local schools of Alabama, to change the system so that no one has to subsidize via taxation the Government schools. And in that way people will be able to choose that system of education which they find most appropriate. The moral imperialists are not those people who seek to be faithful to their beliefs, but those who seek to restrict them in their practice; and there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Constitution, which gives Judge Ira DeMent the authority to place monitors in the Government schools of that area, to see to it that the administrators, teachers and students are conforming to his notion of what is sound public policy.

He is just another in the latest of many examples of arrogant Federal judges. In order to summarize and conclude my remarks, I would simply like to share with you the text of the platform of the United States Taxpayers Party with respect to education, because I think it constitutes a prescription for sound public policy in this area. This was adopted at our convention in San Diego last summer, excuse me, the summer of 1996. And the party stands for this:

“All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith. The law of our Creator assigns the authority and responsibility of educating children to their parents. Education should be free from all federal government subsidies, including vouchers, tax incentives, and loans, except with respect to veterans.

Because the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction concerning the education of our children, the United States Department of Education should be abolished. Because control of education is now being relegated to departments other than the Department of Education, we further state that no federal agency, department, board, or other entity make exercise jurisdiction over any aspect of children’s upbringing. Education, training, and discipline of children are properly placed in the domain of their parents.

All Federal legislation related to education should be repealed, including but not limited to Goals 2000, all Outcome Based Education programs, School to Work programs, the Success by 6 programs, and other similar programs; and no Federal law subsidizing or regulating the education of our children should be enacted. Under no circumstances should the Federal government be involved in educational curriculum, textbook selection, or learning standards, including comprehensive sex education, and psychological and psychiatric research testing programs and personnel.”

I think that is a plan we can live by. Thanks very much.

[Audience Leader] Okay, we are going to have a question and answer period now, and we are going to use the style that we became accustomed to yesterday, which is, hold up your hand, for those of you who have already asked a question would they please line up behind Wally’s hand, and those who are asking their first question, please join the line over here. So those who would like to have seconds will stand behind Wally until those who have not have had firsts have been served. Next, your questions and micro speeches will be restrained to one minute, Miss Timer, do you have the one minute warning, and you have a little stop sign that they will be able to see? Good. And if you will please announce your name and the city that you come from. Thank you, go ahead sir.

[Audience Member] I am Neil (Markfa?), and I am from Springfield Virginia and live in Fairfax County. This past year I served as a member of the task force that rewrote Government and History Curriculum for the Fairfax County Public Schools, and one of the primary things that I found to exist was a lack of knowing the difference between knowing the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. (applause) And Mr. Brant this morning, I think you gave us a clear indication of why we have to get this issue cleared up; you made the statement that we are a democracy, that is not the case, we are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. Therefore, the majority rule of the people is not that which governs this nation, it is the rule of law, and therefore the rule of law does not, does not give the government the right to exchange or establish or teach opinion in place of fact or law, and the fact that we have heard this morning that law precludes the teaching of religion…

[Audience Leader] Thank you Mr. Markfa, well said. And that is directed I take it at Ron Brant, would you care to make a response?

[Ron Brant] Just briefly of course, there is a formal distinction between these two definitions and I accept that, we usually use the word Democratic in a broad sense, to say trying to follow the will of the people, and that in a very large establishment like ours is extremely difficult.

[Audience Leader] Pastor Mike Britton from Towsen Bible Church in Baltimore Maryland. I would just like to continue with the previous thought. If you were to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag: “I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the…” and there you have the difference, it is a Republic, not a Democracy, and you yourself gave the example that it is not mere semantics, but if there is a minority that is overruled by the majority, the reason the founding fathers gave us a Republic and not a Democracy was for the protection of that minority, so the very things that happened, couldn’t happen. (applause) So it is far more than semantics, and it is not just a little term, because they themselves said that had they set up a democracy it would lead to anarchy, and from anarchy always comes totalitarianism.

[Audience Leader] Thank you, and it was phrased enough as a question… go ahead.

[Ron Brant] And within our system there are provisions for protection of the rights of the minorities, but they are not complete, that’s right.

[Audience Member] Yes, Gary Alexander from Reston Virginia, I was the candidate for the Virginia state house of delegates this year…

[Audience Leader] And let me interrupt, not on his time, he is also the 1,000th signer of the proclamation for the Separation of School and State, will you please… [applause]

[Audience Member] A thousand is my magic number, I got almost a thousand votes, 5%.... (laughter) and the Democratic ten time incumbent Ken Plum won, who was a life time educator. Now in a TV debate I took the purist line in separation of school and state, some other libertarians go for vouchers and state credits but I did not, and I asked him where the constitution authorized any department of education, I am going to ask Howard Phillips this question as a candidate; they came up with West Point, which is not in the Constitution, they came up with the pursuit of happiness, which is not in the Constitution, they came up with Jefferson saying everybody should have an education, which is not in the Constitution, but they finally came up with this commerce clause, saying a commerce clause covers everything. (laughter)

I asked them the question in return, if commerce covers education, is there something that it does not cover? And they had no answer to that particular question. So my question to my fellow candidate Howard Phillips is, what is the statists best constitutional argument for public education, and what is our best rejoinder to that?

[Howard Phillips] I would, it is very hard for me to think the way they do… (laughter) But, I guess it goes back to Darwin, they argue that law is evolutionary, and that things today aren’t the same as they were before, and it really doesn’t matter what is in the original contract, it is what we think; it is as if you were to say: “I have a 1985 Chevrolet, and the owners manual prescribes certain practices to make it run properly, but this is 1997, I am going to disregard the owners manual because I have evolved.” But the owner will soon discover that his Chevrolet has not evolved, and I would argue that the principles that were in play in 1776 and 1777 are very much in play today, and they are immutable, and that is why the wisdom of the framers of Americas founding documents is so extraordinary, so awe-inspiring, and it is certainly not on the order of Holy Scripture, but it is certainly a pretty good political document. And they guaranteed in article 4 of the constitution, to each state a Republican form of government, and under that system no Federal judge has the right to arbitrarily superimpose his prejudices on the polity over which he claims suzerainty, without any legitimacy. (applause)

[Audience Leader] We are really running tight on time, how much do we have total Mrs. Timer? We have two minutes left. We are going to restrict it to one question, the next questioner I am sorry for everyone behind her, we will allow questions of course during the break, but we need to limit ourselves to one question, and then a few short closing remarks by Howard Phillips. I am sorry to.. but go ahead?

[Howard Phillips] I will give my closing remarks to the questioner.

[Audience Leader] Now, Miss Lap, come back up quickly, and lets go… Sandy?

[Audience Member] My name is Sandy Becker’s from Santa Barbara California, and my question is to Grant. You mentioned that educators that you know, and I am assuming that these are notable people that are in the education field, are opposed to school to work, outcome based education and National testing and standards, and I am wondering why they are not speaking out? Why are we not hearing this? We are only hearing one side of the story?

[Grant] I think the answer briefly is that there aren’t very many public forums for people like Ted Scheizer the leader of the Coalition of Central Schools and so on, to state his case; we had a forum in the Washington area last spring, at which Ted Sheizer spoke out very strongly for example against the whole notion of standards, national standards, state standards and so on. He didn’t get any press whatsoever. It is very difficult for these people to get the opportunity to express their points of view. Obviously not all educators oppose school to work, not at all, many of them advocate it; I am just saying that that is not necessarily a Liberal position.

[Audience Leader] The Liberal has a hard time getting press coverage even if he has 500 million dollars to disperse, look what the press is doing to shutting down the Liberals! Please, Miss Lap?

[Audience Member] I am Rachel Lap, Casadega New York. Guess whether or not we agree with the meaning of Liberal or steward, we still would have to all of us agree that, we as individual human beings have been given a purpose to fulfill on earth, and the …?... I am a private homeschooler also. I just want to comment on one of the last things you said, that we have to await the election of a president who will withhold the funds from public education. I would disagree with that, I think we can experience separation from the state, not only in education but in many other areas of our lives by exercising our rights as individuals, and I am going to do that now, I am not going to wait for the next president. (applause)

[Howard Phillips] I agree. (applause)

I regret not to have spoken with sufficient clarity, because I certainly encourage each of us to act now, there is no need for us to wait on the election of a president or on the acquisition of a conscience or a brain or constitutional discernment on the part of some of our legislators on Capitol Hill. They could act today, the problem could be solved today, but they choose not to act, and there is much that we as individuals can do. That is one of the reasons why my wife and I are homeschooling our eleven year old, because we do not want him to be subject to the indoctrination of those who reject our fundamental presuppositions and our worldview. There are things that we can do to oppose bond issues for education at the local level, and to argue more forcefully against them, and to point out some of the absurdities of government education; the other day in Dover Delaware there was a case with little children in the second grade, or perhaps it was the fifth, but in Grammar school, was it the second grade? Are being put through simulated same-sex marriages as a form of cultural conditioning; anyone who argues that education can be separated from religious presuppositions is wrong, our government schools are indoctrination academies which seek to indoctrinate Americas young people against the very truths which permitted America to become the greatest nation in the history of the world. (applause)

[Audience Leader] Well, as a somewhat immoderate moderator, I want to be immoderate in my appreciation of all of our panel responders, and Ron Brant thank you, Dean Achmed thank you, George Lawrence thank you, and Howard Phillips thank you very much; we will just now end this session, one final round of applause, and then please stay in your seats for some mechanical announcements in terms of mechanical announcements… (laughter, applause)

[Tape Organizer] Thank you for listening to this cassette tape. If you would like more information about the Separation of school and state alliance in Fresno California, please call our toll free number at 1-888-338-1776, or visit our website at www.sepschool.com