Socialists have been after our children at younger and younger ages for years. One of the latest efforts to get children out of the home and into the hands of state social engineers is the universal preschool or pre-k effort which has really ramped up in the past few years.
Even in relatively conservative South Dakota, we've seen universal pre-k bills coming up in the legislature the last two years. For the most part, they've been shot down, but only after a lot of effort on the part of pro-family groups. But they're certain to keep coming back.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama is looking to kick this effort into high gear at the national level if he becomes president.
From Terence P. Jeffrey's column at CNS News yesterday:
"The first part of my plan focuses on providing quality affordable early childhood education to every child in America," Obama said in a November speech. "As president, I will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five."
"We'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families," he said. "And we'll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our childcare programs and increasing the childcare tax credit."
This week, Obama upped his ante by vowing to "double funding for after-school programs that help children learn and give parents relief."
Why are social engineers like Obama even able to so enticingly dangle such a carrot in front of us in the first place? Why isn't such a radically unconstitutional and anti-family proposal not rejected outright for what it is?
According to the family data in Jeffrey's column, it has to do with changes in the family and in the home. And although you might not have stopped to think about it, it's likely not a big surprise.
"In 1948, only about 17 percent of married mothers were in the labor force," wrote Cohany and Sok. "By 1995, their labor force participation rate had reached 70 percent."
Note that these are "married mothers" -- not single moms, who because of illegitimacy, divorce or a husband's death are forced to work outside the home.
In fact, as of 2005 (the latest year cited by Cohany and Sok), more than 53 percent of married American women with infants (babies less than 1 year old) worked outside the home.
That 1948 figure may even be bigger than it was through most of American history, since we had just come out of the World War II period when women first entered the workforce in huge numbers while many men were away fighting the war.
Many protest that families "have to" have both mother and father working outside the home in order to survive (my family hasn't, and neither did my parent's family). But Jeffrey's piece says the data shows that families where the husband's income is in the bottom 20% are the least likely for the mother to work outside the home.
There is simply no better place for growing children than in the home. No one will love the child like the parents do. No one will protect the child like the parents will. No one will pass along your values to your child as well as you will.
The state, on the other hand, at best do a less effectual job of all these important tasks. At worst, the state may directly or indirectly teach your children values and principles completely at odds with your own, as well as closely expose your child to other children who may have little moral or behavior training at home.
And if you are a Christian parent, the state will without a doubt (it's already done in the public school system) teach your child that their faith is something to be ashamed of, something that should be kept within the four walls of a church, something that is not relevant to the "real world," and certainly cannot be talked about in the public square.
This kind of indoctrination is tough enough to override when it starts at five or six in the public school system. Imagine what these social engineers can do with your child starting at "zero to five."
4 comments:
Why is it called "indoctrination" when impressionable children are taught what to think by the media, teachers, etc., but not when parents take their equally impressionable children to church to learn what, how, when, where, and why to think, before they even have a chance to think for themselves?
Because children are the responsibility of the parents, not the state, which often doesn't share the values of the family, and often teaches children things contrary to the family's values.
No one will love and care for the child's welfare as well as the family.
It's the parents job to teach children about the world, about morals and values and how to be a good person.
Ah, but it's still indoctrination no matter how you cut it -- "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view."
And you're still left with the mere presumption that parents will teach their kids the "right" things. They don't always do that, so it's important to avoid a double standard when discussing the merits of state vs. parent/church indoctrination.
I think you and I both know "indoctrination" carries the connotation of reprogramming from a valid view of reality to a false one. That is what secularist state institutions do these days.
We're already reaping the crop we've sown from having children off in daycare all day and in secularist public schools. Juvenile crime and delinquency are rampant; as children are not taught right from wrong; discipline and accountability are not instilled, and supervision (and love) is lacking. The state is already doing a lousy job; we would be insane to trust the state with even more of children's formative, developing years.
Some parents may not teach their children right from wrong. They and their children will pay the price in law enforcement and court problems.
Unless you're prepared to automatically presume negligence on the part of parents, we'll continue with the traditional assumption of "innocent until proven guilty."
It is, after all, the right and responsibility of parents to raise children; it is therefore the parent's perogative to educate and instill values in the children. The parents are the ones who pay for the pregnancy and birth, food, clothes, and all the care of the child. They also supervise and protect the child, and worry about the child's development.
Until the state is willing to assume ALL these duties (and until it shows better results than it's already showing with public education), the state doesn't have a leg to stand on. And if the state IS ready to assume all these duties, then we're at the threshold of that "Brave New World" you see in the graphic in the upper left corner.
Post a Comment