Bringing a Biblical perspective to the dialogue over public policy

Womens Legislative Council on Education

Policy on use of information on League website

Speech by Michael S. Heath, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, 70 Sewall Street, Augusta, ME 04330, email@cclmaine.org, 207-622-7634 on Thursday, February 19, 2004 to the Womens Legislative Council in Augusta Maine.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak to your group. I consider it an honor, since the Women’s Legislative Council more than any other in Maine, is concerned with the good of society at large. You represent no particular special interest. Your goal is the good of the people of Maine, a goal which is shared by the Christian Civic League of Maine.

I’m reminded of the story in which the Persian soldiers under King Cyrus were one evening defeated by the army of the Medes, and as they ran back into their houses, their wives came out in the middle of the night and said “You cowards! You won’t find refuge here.” Rather than face disgrace, and the just rebuke of their wives, they turned on the invading army and defeated them. The point here is that women are often willing to stand up when men won’t; and they often prove braver and more resolute, especially when defending their homes. King Cyrus, by the way, went on to defeat the army of the Medes and then all of modern day Iran, Iraq, and part of Greece, thanks to the effort of those brave women.

We are all agreed that a good educational system is essential if the people of Maine are to be prosperous and happy. Perhaps you have heard the saying that if you want to judge the quality of civilization in a nation, you should visit its prisons. Well, I disagree. It is the schools which above all else reveal the innermost character and spiritual well-being of a people. It is there that you will learn of the aspirations, the common values, the triumphs and failures of a nation. Every moral and political change in a society - for good or evil - will have an effect on the class room. We think of Japan at the turn of the century, when every morning each class would rise and bow to their teacher. After finishing their required daily class entitled “Ethics of Our Nation,” the students would work with their teachers to mop the floors of their modestly built schools. Or we think of the Chinese student of today, who after doing his work quietly and diligently, and with great respect and deference to his teacher, is whisked off by his mother to an evening prep school for another two hours of study.

We know that this picture is far removed from our schools, where morality is hardly mentioned at all, and when it is, as an object of scorn. We cannot boast of having the best students in the world. That can’t be true, since many studies show that our students test near the bottom, or at the very bottom of the industrialized world in nearly every standardized test. Everyday our nation loses ground in education, and those nations that teach discipline, diligence, and ethics grow stronger and stronger.

But this is an overly bleak picture. We mentioned at the outset, that a school, more than any other part of society, can show you the innermost character and spiritual well-being of a people. Take for example, what is reputed to be the best public high school in America, an enormous complex of buildings not far from where the World Trade Center once stood. The main building is five stories high, and the outside is shiny green and black marble. On the inside it looks more like a college than a high school. There is a large theatre, an Olympic-size heated swimming pool, escalators which whisk the students from floor to floor, an enormous library. This public high school is extremely competitive, and counts among its alumni two Nobel Prize winners. Yet there is something else to be seen there – out by the main entrance there is a uniformed patrolman who carefully checks the ID of each student. This is said to be the best high school in America.

Other schools are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Many of you will never have the chance to see such schools. The sight is beyond belief. I’m reluctant to describe what they look like, since you’ll think I’m exaggerating. These schools resemble forts, with thick concrete walls and few windows. Wire mesh covers every window, inside and out. All furniture is moved inside the classroom at the end of the day, and every classroom is locked. One such school is Harry Truman High School near Co-op City in the Bronx. It is tragic that children have to attend a school that looks more like prison than a school. The children deserve better.

Even so, Harry Truman High School in New York is a peaceful place when compared with places such as Jonesboro, West Padukah, Kentucky, and Columbine. Columbine was an affluent school, with fine facilities and students from well-off families.

And there is something far more demoralizing than the fortress-like Harry Truman High School, and far more dangerous in the long run than the shootings at Columbine. That is the indoctrination of our children into the homosexual life style. By this I mean the activities of the Gay and Lesbian Straight Alliance which now has some seven hundred chapters nationwide. These chapters are coordinated by a group called GLSEN. Some of the activities sponsored at conferences by this organization, are quite frankly, horrifying. They mark the low point of our civilization. The schools in Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, are safe, orderly, and disciplined. Their students routinely win first place in international math and chemistry Olympiads, not for some innate superiority, some inborn talent for studying, but because they have the right schools. Our students, on the other hand, are required to spend time being indoctrinated into a homosexual lifestyle. Schools must be for education, not indoctrination. Those who say otherwise, have a different agenda. They are not truly interested in the education of our children.

We could spend all afternoon cataloging the failures of the public school system, but there would be no point in doing that. The public school system has failed us. It failed the inner-city students who wanted a safe environment in which to learn, it failed the students at Columbine, and it continues at this very moment to fail those students who are deprived of education in favor of indoctrination into “alternate lifestyles.”

Many people when confronted with these events – another school shooting, an increase in vandalism, young students who seem out of control, view these events as part of a surprising trend. They frankly admit that they are at a loss to explain them. Or, they say that the schools are a microcosm of society, that they reflect the breakdown of the family and society at large. But that only describes the predicament of the public schools, it does not explain it. It begs the question “What is the cause of the problem?” Without understanding the cause of the problem, we can never arrive at the solution. The best we can hope to do is to treat the symptoms, while the underlying sickness is left untreated, until the patient worsens, and finally expires.

This is the main point I wish to address today, why our public schools failed, and the cause of that failure. The public schools failed not because of a lack of funding. Compared to the rest of the world. America funds it schools at a rate that can only be described as astronomical. Well, then, was it caused by the lack of adequately trained teachers? Those who train our teachers were educated at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and at Columbia University’s Teachers’ College, the premier teachers’ college in the world. Was it caused by a defect in our theories of education? We have tried every possible theory of education and instruction. Yet we find the public school system is still mired in its current predicament, and is still at a loss to describe the root cause of its problem.

And this is where I must tread lightly. I am about to bring up an unpopular idea. Indeed, it is more than an unpopular idea. It is heresy in today’s world, in the same way that Galileo’s ideas were once considered heresy when he said that, “No, the earth is really not the center of the universe; and no, the sun really doesn’t travel around the earth.” Despite the various appeals to tolerance made by those who shape public opinion, there is little tolerance for what I am about to say. It is a forbidden subject, just as the subject of euthanasia or homosexuality was once forbidden. When such words are mentioned, a look of horror comes over peoples’ faces, and they quickly cover their ears with their hands. Nonetheless, here it is: “The public schools failed for a simple reason. They failed because they turned their back on God.”

The modern world mocks us for believing the Biblical story about Creation, and what it says about man’s relation to his Creator. In my debates with secular humanists, the charge has been leveled against me that my ideas are reminiscent of the Scopes Monkey Trial. In academic circles, and in the media, the doctrine of evolution is taken for granted - not as a valid theory, but as an indisputable dogma. Anyone who opposes it is by definition, backward. Notice I use the term “doctrine of evolution” instead of “The Theory of Evolution.” That is an important difference. A theory may be applied scientifically, to explain the various phenomena we see in nature. It is valid insofar as it explains the various facts we observe. But we have allowed evolution to become much more than a scientific theory. It has become a doctrine that can be applied not only to nature, but to all aspects of human existence, to economics, to politics, to history, to religion. How many times have you heard, for example, a phrase such as “The evolution of the car” or “the evolution of sports?” When the doctrine of evolution is applied outside the field of science, it becomes a pseudo-scientific hypothesis, used to explain every aspect of our existence.

The doctrine of evolution contributes little when it is applied outside the field of science. When it is offered as a reason as to why the world exists, its consequences are absolutely fatal. Such a doctrine reduces man to no more than a product of natural forces operating at random, a substance or a material to be manipulated at will. At best, man is degraded to the level of a cog within a machine, a mere composite of physical and chemical processes. At worst, he is degraded to the level of an animal. Ethics become relative, not absolute. Man is deprived of an ultimate goal and reason for his existence. All standards of right and wrong become relative, the product of man alone. Man decides for himself what is right and wrong. But then again, no teacher or policy maker dares put in practice what evolution teaches. They are a bit hypocritical in that sense. They do not put into practice the moral anarchy and nihilism that underlies such beliefs. Would any teacher dare say: “Decide whether it is right or not to shoot your classmate?” But children are quick to see through any form of hypocrisy. They learn the lessons we teach them. And anarchy in theory quickly becomes anarchy in practice.

Now I admitted at the outset, that this idea would sound strange. Perhaps you have heard it described before as “Bible –Thumping” or other such terms. But let me share with you what others have said about evolution, men who are hardly Bible-Thumpers. In other words, let us hear what secular thinkers have said about the wisdom of taking evolution and applying it outside the field of science. Let’s be clear that we are not talking about whether or not evolution is valid inside science. We are talking about what agnostics – non-Christians – have said would happen if the doctrine of evolution were widely applied. One thinker, Arthur Schopenhauer, perhaps the greatest philosopher of the nineteenth century, said, “Although I am not a Christian, I am tempted to believe that the teaching of evolution – that is, that the world operates at random, and not under the direction of a Supreme Being - will at some time become the doctrine of one seeking to impose total control over humanity. It is in short, a doctrine suitable to the purposes of an Antichrist.” Another thinker, Egon Friedell, in his Cultural History of the Modern Age, wrote that the widespread acceptance of evolution in the West, and the resulting collapse of all absolutes in ethics, art, and literature represented a “Second Fall” of mankind.

We should note that these secular philosophers used religious terms to criticize the doctrine of evolution. Though working from a non-Christian perspective they pointed (1) to the Fall of Mankind, and (2) to the Rise of an Antichrist. Both described the predicament of modern man in terms familiar to us from the Bible. But what did these secular writers mean when they alluded to terms such as Antichrist and the Fall of Man?

Although they wrote more than a century ago, these philosophers were able to accurately predict an age in which moral anarchy will gain the upper hand in the West. They did so by working out the principles of secular humanism through to their logical conclusion. But moral anarchy was not the main concern of these philosophers, nor was the resulting chaos. Their real concern was that moral anarchy requires control - the greater the anarchy, the greater the need for control. In other words, the moral license that secular humanism offers, is the very condition which will cause us to lose our freedom. It is not freedom, but the illusion of freedom. This is the meaning of surveillance cameras, metal detectors, and ID cards - all of which are used to control a people who believe they are free. Their freedom is an illusion, or rather, a delusion, because it is a wrong belief based on a wrong principle, one that prevents them from understanding and correcting the problem.

How far along are we towards fulfilling the dire predictions of these secular philosophers? Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher, an admitted agnostic and non-believer said our civilization is based on three things: The Bible, our heritage from Greece and Rome, and science. That is a remarkable statement. Let me ask you. If you were to walk into any classroom in Maine and ask the students, “Who are we?” “What do we believe in?” “Where did our civilization originate”” What do you think would be the answer? Would anyone have said any of these three things: “The Bible” “Our Heritage from Greece and Rome” or “Science” Or would they have said something like, “We are an evolving global community.” I think the latter. Perhaps there would be one bright student in the class – a girl no doubt – girls always seem to win the prizes in Latin - would say “We’re a continuation of Greece and Roman.” Perhaps some student would be brave enough to risk the ridicule of his teacher and classmates to say - along with Bertrand Russell - “We’re people who believe in the Bible.” God bless him or her, whoever they might be, if there are still some such students left in the public schools.

Our civilization was built on those three things. But which of those three are taught today in the classroom? Is the Bible ever taught? Would it be possible, for example, to discuss the inscription on the Liberty Bell, “Proclaim Liberty to Your Neighbor”, a text taken from the Bible - the words of the prophet Jeremiah. Would it be possible to show the painting called “The First Prayer in Congress,” a painting drawn from life, which shows the members of Congress kneeling by their desks? What about Lincoln’s remark that we should aspire to be like Jesus? Do these words make us feel uncomfortable even here, right now? Perhaps even here, we feel walled off, marginalized by a civilization built on the Bible, but one in which such thoughts are now considered taboo. Or perhaps, we are no longer that civilization.

But what about the second item on the list, our heritage as people of the West? Is that gone as well? Once classical studies were the core curriculum of every school. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew were once required of all students. Now the study of these subjects is confined to the Classics department, the least funded of all the disciplines. What do we stand to lose by abandoning our connection to the past? In a word, our heritage of freedom, democracy, the rule of law. The essence of that heritage is the idea we were discussing just before, the idea that man is free because of his God-given gift of reason. That idea was precious to the Founding Fathers. They built our nation on the Roman model. The very words we use are an echo from Rome, words such as senator, Capitol, Legislative Council. Many of you here today could trace your lineage back to Rome. Perhaps that is why you are here today. This is a precious heritage, one not to be traded away for the empty promises of secular humanism.

We are left only with the last of the three parts of our civilization – the only one that has not been taken away – and that is science. But science hasn’t been left untouched. Secular humanism has encroached on it as well. In the minds of many, the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth has taken hold. Of all the errors we have discussed today, this is by far the most pernicious. In its mildest form, it manifests itself as chaos theory – the idea that mathematical models of chaos should be applied to human endeavors. Or it may manifest itself in the form of an interest in the occult and New Age religion. Worse, it may deny man’s ability to form a reliable judgment on any subject. All of these forms run counter to the Western tradition of rationalism.

What is left when science is the only remaining influence in our society? Science does not provide a system of ethics, a standard of right and wrong. Its purpose is to understand, to control, and to manipulate natural processes. At best it can only describe how the world works; it can never explain why the world or man exists. It is entirely devoid of purpose. The purpose is supplied by man’s will, whether for good, or for evil. And as man’s knowledge increases, the tools that science puts at his disposal grow ever more powerful with each passing day. A device as harmless as a passenger jet can be turned into a weapon of mass destruction. We can well foresee the day, when a mankind armed only with science and moral relativism, becomes a blind giant, one hand striking at whom he will, and the other busily wrapping chains around those who have abandoned reason in favor of moral relativism.

But the good news is that we do have an alternative. We do not have to follow the course mapped out for us by the secular humanists. We do not have to participate in the delusion that moral license will in any sense make us free - even as we see mechanisms put in place to ensure that we conform to physical and psychological control. We can still claim our birthright as free men and women. We can prevent the nightmare world of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, and the inevitable consequences of secular humanism. We can choose otherwise. But to save ourselves, we must turn to our Creator, the true source of our freedom. There is no other alternative - our Bible and our heritage - and we remain free; secular humanism and moral relativism, and we become slaves. This has been the choice in every totalitarian state. There will be no middle ground, and no compromise. This is what our greatest thinkers have predicted; and this is what the Bible has predicted. We are entering the age of their predictions. The proof of this is before us. We can see it with our own eyes, – and we must now act accordingly.

In closing, let me thank you for the opportunity of speaking with you today.