Borrowing from an argument put forth by Ryan T. Anderson, substituting specific issues but still examining the principle:
‘If Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came back to America today and heard about the proposal to ban fireworks in local municipalities; or about how parents were responding to the forced education of their children at home; or the requirement of public schools to expand its control of the minds of children, their first response would be to ask how these decisions are being made.’
Most of us might reply ‘majority rules.’
Or, government knows best.
Or, you-know, like, whatever (that last the most annoying word of 2016).
After all, position, title, education – these all must convey not only authority, but that person’s right to establish policy.
Simply because it is, after all, Chris Reykdal, State Superintendent of Washington Schools, backed by the National Education Association, Planned Parenthood, Harvard elites, etc., and therefore he ought to know (position, title, et al), who says that “The message of healthy relationships and healthy sexual activity is not getting heard because we think it’s not getting taught” and then concludes that it is the school’s job to teach it, he must be right.
On the flip side, simply (and it wasn’t simple but rather an undertaking of significant time and effort) because protests of Sex Ed Bill 5395 generated hundreds in attendance at rallies at the State Capitol; thousands of emails and calls to the legislative hotline lit up switchboards; opposition was registered from school boards representing districts from across the state – like that of the board of Clover Park School District (CPSD) whose members unanimously opposed the bill, urging Gov. Inslee to veto the strictly partisan measure, the CPSD calling it “unfunded and volatile curriculum” – what appears to be a majority, certainly a quite vocal group anyway, can’t be wrong.
In both examples.
Fireworks – to-ban-or-not-to-ban – too for that matter.
In making decisions, to borrow from Mike Myers’ “View from The Top” character, too often “the wrong emPHAsis (is) on the wrong sylLAble”.
In the world of songwriters, for example, writes Bobby Gilles, this practice can result in a melody that forces singers to err.
And in the world in which we live, have ever lived, to make the same error is to force a song, chances are, we might not otherwise sing.
In other words, on a scale (not a reference to music) of a somewhat minor (still not music) nature, should “the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air” (that is from a song) be banned?
Or, on a more major scale (and were the truth known it is quite major, an attempt to expose how major it is that has been made here) is the “upgrade” of sex specifics being taught to all children throughout all grades in the public school setting a big deal?
To decide, act and implement from the bottom up (majority rules), or from the top down (elite rules) – as if these were the criteria alone – is almost beside the point.
What the point is, where the emphasis should lie, why we will do thus-and-so and when we will not with regards any matter of consequence should be to ask this:
Is there something so fundamental, so essential, so non-negotiable that were we to go one direction or another we might be sacrificing along the way?
Again, a decision not based upon majority opinion; not a decision of authoritarian imposition; but a decision that preserves the very foundation, the fabric of our nation.
And it is the latter that requires a no-stone-unturned investigation.
Which investigation, in the case of Sex Ed, reveals what should be a most disturbing, but perhaps not surprising, agenda.
The end of the school – which is the education of a child’s mind – at home.
Not just homeschooling but, in opposition to Sex Ed, the fundamental, essential, responsible right of parents to raise their children to reflect the values, character and principles upon which a community, a country, the world depends.
We’re in trouble.
As Ryan T. Anderson writes of religious liberty: “The progressive enemies of religious liberty have the political winds at their back, advancing the objectives of the sexual revolution through aggressive government mandates.
“It’s a familiar story by now: A movement that claims merely to want personal freedom (‘live and let live’) first repeals laws that purportedly limited their freedom, then uses government to subsidize their preferred choices, then to mandate that other people subsidize them, and finally to punish anyone who disagrees with them.”
For example he writes, “The right to abortion becomes a right to government-funded abortion, and then a right to have Hobby Lobby pay for abortion, and now a right to punish pharmacists for not providing abortifacients and doctors and nurses for refusing to participate in or refer for abortions.
“The ‘freedom to marry’ becomes the duty to bake the cake.”
How did this creeping acceptance of what we should do, let alone this insidious intrusion upon what we should believe, come about?
Was it acquiescence to the espousals of the cultural elite; or was it a shrug-of-the-shoulders (‘whatever’) response to the encroachment of government?
The answer is ‘yes.’
Here’s Ryan T. Anderson again with regards especially the latter:
“There have been serious changes in our society’s attitude toward government. A presumption of liberty has been replaced with a presumption of regulation.
“Citizens used to think that liberty was primary, and that government had to justify its coercive regulation.
“Now people assume that government regulations are the neutral starting point and citizens must justify their liberty.”
And yet, as to causes of this crisis, it’s more personal than that.
It’s the mirror.
It’s what we see there.
We have met the enemy.
We are the ones guilty – most guilty – for having relinquished our freedoms.
We are, individually and collectively, responsible for the erosion of the very foundations of what used to be our sacred honor.
None more honorable than parenting.
Take it back.
Note: Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation and St. John Paul II Teaching Fellow in Social Thought at the University of Dallas.
The article was posted in “Family Watch International – Promoting Family Based Solutions to World Problems” April 2020.
My additional observation: Promoting solutions to world problems are no longer family based. And that’s the problem.Print This Post