Freedom Is the Issue

"History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought." ~Etienne Gilson

Home

PEP Perks

Articles

Freedom Is the Issue

A Response to Parents: Freedom is the Issue

by Ray Stalker

Background

A recent decision by the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) regarding participation of home-schooled students in interscholastic activities has again raised the equal access issue. On December 16th the IHSA changed its bylaws effective July 1,2000 so that only those students who are enrolled in an IHSA affiliated high school taking a minimum of 20 credit hours per week may participate in IHSA sponsored events. The majority of government high schools are members of IHSA; a very small percentage of private schools are members.

Some private school parents argue, "Since we pay taxes for government schools which in turn pay for sports, music and drama teams who compete in IHSA sponsored events, we should get our fair share; we should have equal access." At the same time the Home School Legal Defense Association points out that equal access is opposed by about 3 out of 4 home-school leaders, based on a survey last year.

Response

     It often comes as a shock to legislators and to the press that home schools generally do not want public access to extra-curricular activities. They do not want government- sponsored academics, either. Nor do they want government vouchers, tax credits or government money of any kind. It comes as a shock, because people are so accustomed to our thoroughly socialistic society that they cannot imagine anyone not wanting to get his or her "fair share" of government handouts.

     Some in the government system have objected, "If the public school system is not good enough for you, why should you come for sports or music?" On the surface that seems at least partially reasonable, except that the premise is wrong. How "good" or "bad" the government school is in and of itself is not the issue. Rather, there are reasons for home-schools (for everyone) to stay away from all government handouts including education.

     A basic rule of government is: follow the money for control. Civil government money distributed to the private sector comes with strings attached. If you take the honey money, you will get stung. Government regulation (i.e., restriction of freedom) comes with government handouts. Home-schools generally want freedom. Freedom is the issue.

     But of even more importance is the fact that the civil government does not have the God-given responsibility (jurisdiction) for the training of children in any way.

     Consider a question often asked by those trying to limit government involvement in education to academics: "Shouldn't schools concentrate on academics? Shouldn't they leave medical/health care decisions, career directed decisions and counseling decisions to the parents?

     But so to argue is to relinquish to the civil government responsibility and authority in a jurisdiction God has not given to it. Consider what happens when the civil government is allowed to take responsibility for academics. There remains no legitimate basis to keep that government from arbitrarily usurping responsibility for health care, counseling, job training, feeding or clothing or whatever else it arrogates to itself. "Academics" is one of             the last things anyone should desire the state to force upon his or her children. Max Victor Belz, an Iowa grain dealer, has stated, "I don't want my children fed or clothed by the state. But if I had to choose, I would prefer that to their being educated by the state."

     There exists a pervasive falsehood that by virtue of being children, children have a right to an education funded using the coercive power of the state to confiscate their neighbors' wealth. A consequence of parents exerting this pseudo-right and forsaking their God-given responsibility (cf. Deuteronomy 6) to educate their children is a loss of parental rights and responsibilities leading to the demise of the family as God designed it. Over the years this pseudo-right has simply extended further and further into adulthood until today, more and more state funded lifelong learning is being pressed.

     One could argue that state determined and taught "academics" is no longer an issue but rather a given, in that people take it for granted today. But that is simply the result of "academics/education" having been forfeited by, or maybe rather confiscated from parents a considerable while ago.

     There was some welfare (government paid) education before 1850. But it should be pointed out that state coerced compulsory education did not begin in this country until 1852. It began in Massachusetts when that great "social engineer", Horace Mann, heading that state's education department, used the power of the state militia to force children from their parents against their wishes into state indoctrination. Not until the 20th century did we get to universal tax funded compulsory attendance. This was foreign to the 17th, 18th and most of the 19th centuries of our history. Government schools are the grand daddy of welfare "entitlements". Where we are today is simply a consequence of these and similar violations of God-given biblical jurisdictions. As a society moves further to the absurd, that which yesterday would have been considered foolish or illegitimate is today not even noticed much less considered.

      It is not a matter of how many parents approve or disapprove of today's "social services", or how vehemently they do so. The same was the case for so-called "academics" from less than a century to a century and a half ago. We will do well to truly get back to the basics: limit the civil government to its God-given jurisdiction of protecting its citizens (defense and justice), with precious little more. We must also work to see the family restored as the basic building block of society with parents taking full responsibility for the training and care of their children.

     All (without exception) civil government social programs (including education, health care, retirement, culture, etc.) work to destroy the family and the society. The civil government has no God-given jurisdiction for this involvement. All attempts at reform in the wrong jurisdiction are futile.

     If you wrongly built a garage for yourself on your neighbor's property, changing the style of shingles using a certified contractor does not solve the problem. Even more to the point today, we have someone else's garage built on our property. And all we are doing is haggling over the color of the garage. The problem is systemic, not cosmetic. Reform is no solution. It aggravates and perpetuates the problem.

     God instituted the family, the civil government and the church. He created each of these institutions to be under His authority. He decreed to the family, the civil government and the church distinct areas of responsibility (jurisdiction). They have definite boundaries within which they have been granted authority; in which they are to exercise responsibility; and beyond which they are not to transgress.

     When these responsibilities are fulfilled there are blessings. When these responsibilities are neglected there are serious consequences.

     And when the boundaries between the family, the civil government and the church are transgressed there are more serious consequences. Even when the boundaries between jurisdictions are transgressed with good intent to compensate for the failures of another, the good intended will not be accomplished; and, in fact, the problem will be exacerbated. If we want the blessings of God we must not assume authority or responsibility outside our jurisdiction. Nor may we permit anyone to usurp our responsibility.

Consider the following violations in each of the above stated jurisdictions:

CIVIL GOVERNMENT:

If you run a red light, is it justifiable for a FAMILY to force you to stop, arrest you, and order you into its court? May it impose a fine on you?

If a local CHURCH suspects you of murder, can it legitimately arrest you, try you and punish you? Should the civil government acquiesce?

CHURCH:

If a FAMILY in a local church does not like some practice of yours, can that family rightly bypass the elders and put you out of the church? Should your church honor that decision?
If the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is concerned about the doctrine of your church, can it legitimately require preachers to be licensed? Can it limit what they say? Should your church acquiesce?

FAMILY:

     If the CIVIL GOVERNMENT thinks you should not teach the Bible to your children, does it have proper jurisdiction to punish you? It may have the power, but does it have the authority? Should you comply?

     If a local CHURCH decides it must socialize or teach your children, can it legitimately do so? Should you submit to that decision?

     The "Why not?" question asked of each of the above is answered, "It's not your responsibility. You do not have authority. You are acting in a jurisdiction not your own."

      Deuteronomy 6:4-7 reads, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be in your heart: And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up."

     This was written when there were no government schools, no church schools. The God-given responsibility for training children is seen as directly placed within the family. The family, neither the civil government nor the church, has this jurisdiction.   Only the family can fulfill this "day and night in all circumstances of daily home life" training.

     Malachi 4 and Luke 1 speak of turning the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers. This would be very difficult to accomplish without being together in the way Deuteronomy 6 relates. John Dewey with his avowedly anti-God evolutionary worldview instituted the age segregation of adolescents to cut them off from the influence of their parents' worldview. With his advocacy of government schools as the temples of a new state-established religion, he violated the God-given jurisdiction of the family. He helped create one of the largest systemic problems in our culture: state sponsored age-segregated peer dependency with its resultant folly and immaturity.

     The church has often followed in this practice. Systemic problems are not solved by reform. They are solved by a return to God-given order.

     If God designed families to be built by training their own children, then to have someone else without God-given jurisdiction train them is illegitimate and will result in serious consequences.

     Our sin nature tends always to move us toward irresponsibility. Often the civil government or even the church aids and abets irresponsibility by attempting to remove from us our God-given responsibilities. This damages, even destroys the family. Ultimately it results in a culture of immaturity

     Biblically, that which is not the civil government's to give is also illegitimately yours to get. It is a violation of the Eighth Commandment. But some respond, "I pay taxes for schools; it is only right that I get my fair share." But consider that it is also true that your neighbor with no children pays taxes for schools. What is his fair share?

     There are many things we pay taxes for which we do not use. We have tax dollars confiscated for all kinds of illegitimate things from social programs (schools, health care, retirement, welfare) to searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence to Governor Ryan's pork barrel projects to pornography and abortion. These range from things that are legitimate activities if they were in the right jurisdiction to those which are immoral no matter where they take place. But either way the results will end in the destruction of the family just as we see today, because right jurisdictions are important.

     The argument in effect says, "Because my neighbor uses resources wrongly confiscated from me by the state, I am therefore justified to have what the state steals for me from my neighbor." In other words, "I want my fair share." We are submitting to Robbers Rules of Order rather than Christian order and the rule of law.

     One establishment education organization was concerned that a particular group might "get the money rightfully owned by the public system". There seems always to be conflict over stolen goods! One person robs his neighbor. This thief ends up in trouble with the law. But if someone gets the state to rob his neighbor for his benefit, and if his neighbor resists this confiscation, who ends up in trouble with the law? What is wrong with this picture? Again, this comes as a shock to us because we are so accustomed to socialism we cannot imagine anyone not wanting to get his or her "fair share" of the stolen goods.