Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 





"Of course, some readers might be asking: what about
   those who are not Christians? What does Moore's
   proposed exodus offer non-Christians? ... Even an
   atheist can look at the government schools, follow
   the commentary triggered by events such as the
   Columbine shootings, and see that something is
   wrong. Even atheists, presumably, want their
   children in schools that are safe (and free of
   police patrols in the halls and metal detectors at
   the entrances), and which actually educate their
   children. There is nothing preventing non-Christians
   who are uncomfortable with the Christian emphasis of
   Exodus Mandate from pursuing their own version of
   the same strategy. I, for one, would not stand in
   their way." -- Steven Yates


"Let My Children Go":
A Christian Exodus from Government Schools?
by Steven Yates

A.

In an era when many freedom-believers of various
shades and stripes often bemoan how terrible things
are, it is always refreshing to encounter someone
who has a definite plan and the will to pursue it.
That someone is E. Ray Moore, who founded and
developed the Exodus Mandate Project (formerly
known as Exodus 2000) under the auspices of his
Frontline Ministries based in the Columbia, South
Carolina area. Exodus Mandate, like the name
suggests, proposes something no one has previously
attempted on any large scale: inspiring a mass
departure on the part of Evangelical Christians
from the government-controlled "public school"
system  or, as Moore frequently calls it, Pharaoh's
school system.

Moore is calling for something more radical than mere
reform. Government schools, he maintains, cannot be
reformed. Moreover, they have an origin that differs
markedly from what the Framers wanted, and from the
beginning were on collision course with the principles
of a Constitutional republic. Finally and most
importantly, government schools violate Biblical
principles that place responsibility for educating
children on the family, not the government. Moore
recently told me: "We believe that from Scripture
and theology, God gave education to the family
with assistance from the Church, and that the State
has no legitimate authority over what we call K-12
education." He added, "The State is in fact
violating God's law. You can't reform something
that shouldn't exist." In his opinion, we should
not be surprised that government schools, in addition
to their failure to educate, have nurtured attitudes
and points of view resolutely hostility to
Christianity and Christians. Moore therefore argues
on Biblical and not just on political and economic
grounds that instead of trying to reform government
schools, Christians ought to abandon them in favor
of private Christian schools and homeschooling.

E. Ray Moore has an educational background and
career trajectory perfectly suited to his vision.
He graduated from The Citadel with a B.A. in
political science and went on to earn M.Div and
M.Theol. degrees from Grace Theological Seminary
in Winona Lake, Ind. Since then he has been
involved in pastoral ministry for almost 25 years,
as a congregational pastor, a U.S. Army Reserve
Chaplain (Lt. Col., Ret.), and then as a director
of a Christian ministry. He was in the Gulf War,
where he won a Bronze Star Medal. He and his wife
Gail Pinckney Moore, from Charleston, South
Carolina, successfully homeschooled their own
four children from 1977-1994. The Moores were
among the first few dozen pioneering families in
homeschooling (it is hard to know how many families
were homeschooling then).

The Moores' children are now grown. Their successes
validate the skills and methods of their parents.
Their oldest son was both Regimental Commander and
Valedictorian at The Citadel; he is now an attorney
in Columbia. Their second son is a youth minister
in a SBC Baptist Church. Their daughter is a writer
and copy editor for The State newspaper in Columbia.
Their youngest son is a college freshman also
preparing for the ministry. With these powerful
credentials and successes under their belts, the
Moores were selected as South Carolina Parents of
the Year for 2000 by the Parents Day Council.

B.

Exodus Mandate grew out of a Goals 2000 briefing
in Washington, D.C., that Moore attended in 1997,
presided over by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum
and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill). Sponsoring groups
included the Family Research Council, Concerned
Women for America, the Home School Legal Defense
Association, the Heritage Foundation, the Christian
Coalition, the American Family Association, the
American Association of Christian Schools, the
American Conservative Union and Traditional Values
Coalitions, as well as Eagle Forum. The main topic
was the danger posed by Goals 2000, and the
School-to-Work agenda, for faith and freedom.
There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth
and calls for "conservative reform of the public
schools," but as Moore described the meeting to
me, "These people had no real plan except to try
and repeal Goals 2000 legislation."

He left that meeting determined to formulate a
plan. The result was Exodus 2000-a name chosen as
a deliberate counterpoint to Goals 2000. Exodus
Mandate-the name was changed in January, 2001-became
an organized effort to withdraw several million
Christian children from government schools.
According to the Exodus Mandate vision statement,
"Exodus Mandate is a Christian ministry to
encourage and assist Christian families to leave
Pharaoh's school system (i.e., government schools)
for the Promised Land of Christian schools or
homeschooling. It is our prayer and hope that a
fresh obedience by Christian families in educating
their children according to Biblical mandates will
prove to be a key for the revival of our families,
our churches and our nation." In other words, the
Exodus Mandate plan, like the name suggests, is
to solve the problems of Goals 2000 and other
such agendas by taking as large as possible a
number of children out of their reach.

Moore first publicly announced his plans during
the week of the Promise Keepers meeting in October,
1997. Then he began organizing a volunteer network,
first in South Carolina where Exodus Mandate is
based (here in Columbia), and then in other states.
Since its beginning, Exodus Mandate has received
favorable coverage in the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News,
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the State.
Even the Southern Baptist Convention has given
Exodus Mandate more than a passing look. Christian
radio, obviously, has been instrumental in
bringing Moore's ideas to a wider audience: Moore
has done hundreds of interviews on radio networks
and has been heard on over 4,500 radio stations
across the country. He has worked with Marshall
Fritz of the Alliance for the Separation of School
and State and the Nehemiah Institute. Exodus Mandate
has been endorsed by Dr. D. James Kennedy, pastor
of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and President
of the internationally known Coral Ridge Ministries,
which has an audience of several million people
monthly. Exodus Mandate has also received support
from major Christian leaders such as Dr. Jerry
Falwall of Liberty University. Recently, Moore
outlined the Exodus Mandate strategy on Beacon
Hill in Boston, participating in a forum entitled
"Can Christians Continue to Use the Public Schools?"
As this article appears, Moore will have been
Keynote Speaker for the Christian Home Educators
Network in the State of Maryland, addressing that
group's 2001 Convention (June 8-9). "It is my
belief," he told me, "that a fresh obedience by
Christian families concerning the education of
their own children according to Biblical mandates
will prove to be a key to the revival of our
churches, our families and our nation."

C.

Understanding Moore's case against government
schools calls for a brief excursion into their
history. Originally, during the first 220 years
of colonial and then U.S. history on the North
American continent, there were no state-controlled
"public schools." All education was basically
private-in the hands of families, churches and
local communities. There was some tax subsidy for
New England schools at the city level. Puritan New
England had no concept of separation of church
and state, but their schools were not unlike our
Christian day schools of today. The town schools
were basically church schools. Home schools and
dame schools were common. (Dame schools were
small, private schools with one teacher, or
dame, hired by a small group of three or four
rural families to educate their children.)

Government schools are not mentioned in either
the Declaration of Independence or the U.S.
Constitution. There is no evidence of
Constitutional room for any federal role in
education-whether to set up and run "public
schools" or regulate other people's schools.
In 1786 (the year prior to the Constitutional
Convention), the State of Virginia passed what
became known as the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom. It disestablished the
Church of England, and this did away with
"public churches" there. Thomas Jefferson
wrote: "To compel a man to furnish contributions
for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves or abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
While the Statute dealt with churches, the same
kind of argument could be made for schools,
which in Virginia were all private and church
run. In other words, "public schools" were
not a part of any original American educational
model. They were not consistent with what was
believed by the majority of the Framers. The
government-run K-12 school system is a
fundamentally renegade educational
model-illegitimate in a Constitutional republic.

Taking over education is a major temptation for
those who want power. There were early warning
signs. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, was sympathetic to
the idea of government schooling as necessary to
produce responsible citizens. The Prussian government
in Europe was already developing a highly centralized
state-controlled educational system. It stressed not
intellectual development but obedience and
subordination to the collective life of society run
by the state; it compartmentalized ideas into
"subjects," and divided up the day into "periods"
to create constant interruptions and discourage
sustained thought in any single area. It wasn't
long before this model came to the attention of
would-be education elites in this country, who
found it extremely attractive. The word kindergarten
is Prussian, not English, and expresses the Prussian
idea of cultivating children, as in a garden. This
offers evidence of the grip the Prussian model
eventually exercised.

Government schools did not begin to catch on here,
however, until around 1840 when Horace Mann began
to develop what was then called the common-school
movement. Mann was a Unitarian, based at Harvard
during the period when Unitarians came to control
that institution. He had been to Europe and had
studied the Prussian model. As such, he believed
in the redemptive power of the state, and in its
capacity to create and run "common schools." He
provided the bridge from the Prussian model to
the state-run government school as it finally
developed. Mann's influence led to the first
state-government controlled educational system,
in (where else?) Massachusetts. The idea quickly
spread to other states in New England, and then
to other parts of the country.

By the final quarter of the 19th century, government
schools had become dominant. They had already taken
over in the North, and were imposed on the South
during the Reconstruction period. Many leaders of
various Christian denominations inveighed against
them, sensing danger in turning over education to
government. Leading theologians such as Archibald
Hodge, R.L. Dabney, Gresham Machen and later, Gordon
Clark, all tried to warn the various Christian
communities of their times about government schools.
Hodge wrote, "I am sure as I am of the fact of
Christ's reign that a comprehensive and centralized
system of national education, separated from religion,
as is now commonly proposed, will prove the most
appalling engine for the propagation of anti-Christian
and atheistic unbelief and anti-social nihilistic
ethics . which this sin-rent world has ever seen."
The issue was debated by Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Lutherans and others. The Catholics
had long since formed their own schools in response
to what had been one of the rationales for state-run
schools: converting the children of immigrant
Catholics to Protestantism.

Moreover, the Morrill Act had been signed into law
by Abraham Lincoln as a wartime measure (his
predecessor, James Buchanan, had vetoed it on
Constitutional grounds), creating a network of
federally funded "land grant" colleges. The previous
conception of a college was of a place where liberal
arts learning was stressed, the purpose being to
produce thinkers and leaders. The purpose of this
new higher educational model was not education in
the liberal arts but the production of skilled
workers. This is reflected in the fact that most
were originally called "A & M" (agricultural and
mechanical) colleges; some of them still are.
Initially these institutions lost enormous sums
of money, with many forced to close their doors.
Few members of the public believed they were
needed. But eventually they, too, caught on.
Increasingly run as one branch of secular
government, "public schools" at all levels were
ripe for a large-scale takeover by a thoroughly
materialist philosophy of nature and secular view
of society, with all the political and economic
mischief to which these are vulnerable. When
John Dewey appeared as one of the voices of
Progressivism shortly before the turn of the
century, the takeover began.

D.

John Dewey is one of the best-known figures in
the history of American philosophy and education.
In philosophy, he is usually grouped with the
so-called pragmatists (a label finally rejected
by that movement's supposed founder, Charles
Saunders Peirce). In education, of course, he
founded the so-called progressive education
movement. Although considered a quintessential
American philosopher, the three main influences
on his thought were all Europeans: G.W.F. Hegel,
Karl Marx and Charles Darwin. Dewey became a
socialist who wanted to see a radical transformation
of American society. He essentially agreed with
Marx's well-known remark that "philosophers have
only interpreted the world in various ways; the
point, however is to change it." He saw the
government schools as the primary vehicles for
bringing this transformation about. From Darwinian
evolution he borrowed the idea that progressive
change was a natural state of affairs, that a
socialist society was more highly evolved than
a capitalist one, and so would be inevitable
even if it occurred without the kind of violent
revolution classical Marxism had predicted. The
core principle here is the materialist one that
what we call reality is just physical reality.
Christianity is mythological, therefore, because
God does not really exist. In the universe so
conceived, the foundations of morality because a
serious problem. No one could discover higher
moral principles than the "good of society,"
personal pleasure and self-esteem, etc. Various
forms of ethical relativism and subjectivism
became fashionable. In practice, however, what
was "good for society" was eventually to be
determined by cliques of scientific "experts"
who were just beginning to explore technologies
of behavior.

In this context, the "public schools" began
to develop around the idea that the purpose of
education is to "socialize" children-to enable
them to fit into a changing society, one where
there are no objective religious or moral truths,
only the truths of natural science. Dewey rejected
the idea that knowledge is valuable as an end in
itself. He believed that what counted was
problem-solving, and that children should "learn
by doing," by being given projects to work on.
Dewey's early experiments, in the early 1900s,
were abject failures. Students didn't learn
anything. Progressive education nevertheless
slowly gained ground, helped along by Dewey's
growing stature as a professional philosopher
of education. Dewey had taught at the University
of Chicago and at Columbia University. He had
written a number of well received articles and
books with names like Democracy and Education,
Experience and Nature and The Quest for Certainty.
He became the first president of the American
Humanist Association and co-author of the first
Humanist Manifesto. By the 1950s, his progressivism
had become the dominant philosophy of education in
academia, and it soon became dominant in the "public
schools." By the 1960s, it was supplemented by
the feed-them-if-they-cry philosophy of Dr. Benjamin
Spock (also a socialist), author of the celebrated
Baby and Child Care which advocated giving children
whatever they wanted to make them happy. Finally
came the rising influence of pioneer sex researcher
Alfred Kinsey. Sex education reared its head, and
as a product of science without objective morality,
the Kinsey model merely delineated the possibilities
of sexual experimentation with no Biblical or
familial restraint.

E.

Even assuming that the government school was a
viable concept to begin with, these philosophies
ruined its embodiments within a generation. By the
1970s, the effects of Dewey's progressivism, Spock's
ideas on child-rearing, and Kinsey-style sex-ed
were becoming evident with the rise of a generation
whose members saw themselves as entitled to pleasure,
happiness and security-however these were to be
furnished. Consider the drug culture. Whether one
believes consciousness-altering drugs should be
legal or not, students who were "educated" to
believe that their only purpose in this life was
to obtain personal pleasure, the security of a
well-paying job, etc., with religious observances
(if any) limited to Sundays, experienced a void
in their lives. Many filled this void with drugs.
Others filled it with sex-of every variety. Soon,
we began to hear of epidemics of sexually transmitted
diseases such as herpes and, eventually, AIDS.

Students' measurable cognitive achievements,
meanwhile, had begun to slip relative to those of
other advanced nations. The first major warnings
were sounded in 1983 with the major study A Nation
At Risk. The facts and figures have been well
documented. More and more, we have seen the ascent
of education for self-esteem: good feelings about
oneself as the barometer of educational success.
The Outcome Based Education movement stressed what
"educationologists" call the affective domain,
which emphasizes expressing feelings, doing group
work, obtaining group grades, cooperating, etc.,
over mastering cognitive skills, working individually
to achieve, competing and thinking independently.
American students at all levels consistently report
that they feel very good about themselves, even
though many are now graduating from high school
and even college without basic writing or mathematical
skills or any understanding of science, much
less knowledge of this country's founding principles
or historical development. The response of the
federal government to the increased illiteracy of
American students has been predictable: pumping
ever more taxpayer dollars into the government-school
system. Our government schools are now among the best
funded in the world. Yet if we go by the results,
there is no evidence of a relationship between the
amount of money thrown into "public schools" and
genuine educational accomplishment. Rather, what the
increasing failure of "public schools" suggests is
an educational philosophy that is wrong through and
through, from its foundations upward.

During the 1990s, the period of the meteoric rise
of political correctness, matters have of course
gotten worse. Teaching white children to hate their
race and reject their heritage because (some of)
their ancestors owned slaves, teaching boys to hate
their own masculinity, are all just part of an
increasingly intellectually bankrupt and politically
corrupted package that has literally destroyed the
innocence of millions of children. This package
includes components scaring them out of their wits
with aggressive propaganda for hard-left
environmentalism, using "global warming" as a focal
point. This transforms them into good little recyclers
of waste paper, cans, etc., under the ludicrous
assumption that this would have an impact on a
large scale climactic phenomenon that may not even
exist. More and more, government schools openly
promote homosexuality as normal and acceptable-the
now-infamous tracts Heather Has Two Mommies and
Daddy's Roommate, written for the lower grades, are
cases in point. Children, it should go without saying,
have not developed the cognitive skills to identify
and evaluate the claims implicit in these agendas.
This makes them age-inappropriate (to use the
official jargon). One need not have a Ph.D. in
education to figure this out, either; what it
takes is common horse sense.

Even more troublesome is the more recent
School-to-Work agenda. This movement, a product
of the Clinton Regime, stresses the vocational
side of education more than ever. According to
its advocates, education is really just glorified
job training, with the training beginning as early
as kindergarten. School-to-Work ideology encourages
rote conformity and training for the work force,
while discouraging independent inquiry and abstract
thought. The purpose of this movement is clearly
to turn out the human-resources equivalent of
manufactured products that can service the global
economy-"droids" for the New World Order. Such
products don't need to know about the Bible, the
Declaration of Independence or the Constitution,
of course.

F.

According to Marshall Fritz of the Alliance for
the Separation of School and State, we can isolate
four basic errors in "public school" philosophy.
These are presented clearly in the video Let My
Children Go, which Moore wrote and which was
produced by Jeremiah Films. First, there is
paternalism, the idea that responsibility for
education can be shifted from the family to a
governmental entity, and that this somehow improves
society. This undermines parents and the family.
"We have to get back to the root of good education,
which is parental love and responsibility, not
politicians trying to acquire power." Second is
compartmentalism, the idea that life is divided
up into separate compartments (church, home,
school, etc.), so that God is taught about on
Sundays, but not on any other day of the week.
"This is crazy," says Fritz. "We want the teachers
to be instructing the children in morals. We want
them saying, No hitting, no cheating, no lying."
We can look at government schools, observe the
violence, the cheating, the lack of discipline,
the blatant political agendas, and so on, and
see textbook illustrations of the fact that
nobody has ever discovered a practical basis
for morality outside of the internal constraints
created by a strong religious tradition. Third is
the idea that welfare works: the idea that children
have a "right" to an education at the expense of
taxpayers. "We need to return to the American idea
that responsibility works, and get away from welfare
in education," says Fritz. Fourth is the idea that
socialism works. Government schools fit the
socialist model right down the line. Fritz
describes "government ownership and administration
of the means of production" as exemplified in the
government school model. Instead of continuing to
employ this failed system, "[w]e need to return to
the quintessential American ideal that freedom works."

One may look to the Columbine massacre, on April 20,
1999, as embodying the direction to which the
materialistic and compartmentalized philosophy of
"public education" has been heading. Moore has called
Columbine a "watershed event," triggering "a deep sense
that there is something badly wrong with our public
school system." Columbine, of course, was the bloodiest
of a string of school shootings that took place during
the middle to late 1990s. Statisticians will try and
reassure us that such events as students bringing
weapons to school and gunning down their classmates
are rare. This misses the point. As recently as 30
years ago, such events were not rare. They did not
happen at all. Period. Students might have worried
about getting caught smoking in the bathrooms or with
marijuana in their lockers; they did not worry overly
about their personal safety. And they did not attend
schools with metal detectors on the front doors, or
with police patrolling the hallways. One would have
to be blind, finally, to miss the metaphysical and
theological as well as cultural implications of the
Columbine killings. After all, there is abundant
evidence that Christians were singled out by the
two killers, whose personal websites revealed hatred
of Christians and Christianity as well as fascination
with Nazi themes (April 20 is Hitler's birthday,
after all), Satanism, the occult, violence, cruelty
and suicide. Their spare time was spent listening to
heavy metal rock bands such as Marilyn Manson, whose
songs incorporate such themes. The Columbine shootings
did not happen in a cultural vacuum. Nearly all of
the above mentioned Let My Children Go was made before
that horrible event, but as Moore observes, "If you
were to look at the speakers through the video,
you'd think they knew all about Columbine."

The responses to the Columbine killings illustrate
educational bureaucrats' preference for cosmetic to
substantive solutions. Their "zero-tolerance policies"
have led to ludicrous results such as children being
suspended or expelled from their schools for bringing
knives to cut their food or for pointing a finger and
saying, "Bang, bang, bang." Apparently a child does
not even need a physical object to violate the new
rules; all he need do is pretend. This dovetails nicely
with the politically correct code which penalizes mere
thought-and employs its draconian measures on first
graders! These are only the more visible illustrations
of how government schools now confront their problems.
(Closely related zero-tolerance drug polices, of course,
do not prevent bureaucrats from turning children into
zombies with government-approved drugs such as Ritalin.)

G.

The question all believers in freedom, Christian or
otherwise, are most often asked (and most often ask
themselves) is, What can we do? The question is
particularly acute in light of our limited resources:
it is also common horse sense that with fewer resources
you can do less. Pharaoh's schools and the large
teachers unions are all in bed with a centralized system
manifestly hostile to both Christianity and genuine
freedom (the kind that recognizes and accepts moral
responsibility). They have at disposal a huge machinery
that permits them to extract resources from taxpayers.
We have none of that-nor should we want it, obviously.
This means, however, that we will never have the
bottomless pit of wealth available through (for example)
the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations that have been
bankrolling leftist projects for decades.

But we don't have to be stymied. There is still is
a responsible course of action that can be pursued.
One can choose to get out of the sphere of influence
of a corrupt and unsalvageable system. That is what
E. Ray Moore is advocating regarding government schools.
As he metaphorically puts it, "Why fight the mosquitoes
when you can drain the swamp." "Public education" is
a bad system. It cannot be reformed, and we shouldn't
try. Moore points out that every attempt to reform
"public education" over the past 20 years has ended
in failure. What we should do instead is remove our
children from its clutches, and take them out of
Pharaoh's school system. The problems of government
schools are "terminal," Moore told the Washington
Times, "and the quicker Christian people realize it,
the quicker they'll be able to take action."

The references to "Pharaoh's school system"
illustrate another strategy of Moore's that believers
in freedom of whatever stripe need to pursue: seizing
the moral high ground by appealing to powerful and
evocative images. No movement has ever succeeded
without doing this. (The left understands this
very well and has been exploiting it for decades.)
Down to its very name, Exodus Mandate invokes one
of the most powerful visions found in the Old Testament:
that of Moses standing alone before Pharaoh in the
Book of Exodus and commanding him to "Let my people
go!" Following these words, in one of the most moving
accounts of all time, an entire people was led out
of bondage in Egypt and toward freedom in the Promised
Land.

According to Moore, moreover, taking children out
of government schools fulfills a Biblical mandate.
God, according to the Scriptures, assigned responsibility
for education to the family, not to the government.
Deuteronomy 6:7 says, "Thou shalt teach [these words]
diligently unto thy children." (See also Ephesians
6:4 and Matthew 28:18-20). With the assistance of
churches and other religious organizations, Christian
parents should undertake the responsibility for the
education of children, whether singly or in small,
church-affiliated Christian schools. "Perhaps the
renewal of our culture could be as simple as the
Christian church renewing its obedience to the
Biblical mandate," Moore said recently.

Of course, some readers might be asking: what about
those who are not Christians? What does Moore's
proposed exodus offer non-Christians? One may
observe again that no one has been able to
discover-or invent-a nontheistic view of education
or society that has proved to be workable. Although
materialist-leaning philosophers have spent centuries
trying, their results simply cannot command the
allegiance of anyone except handfuls of academic
intellectuals. But never mind this now. Even an
atheist can look at the government schools, follow the
commentary triggered by events such as the Columbine
shootings, and see that something is wrong. Even
atheists, presumably, want their children in schools
that are safe (and free of police patrols in the
halls and metal detectors at the entrances), and
which actually educate their children. There is
nothing preventing non-Christians who are
uncomfortable with the Christian emphasis of Exodus
Mandate from pursuing their own version of the same
strategy. I, for one, would not stand in their way.

The homeschooling movement is one of the fastest
growing independent educational movements in the
country; private Christian academies, too, are on
the upswing. What E. Ray Moore doing is reaching
out to churches and denominations and working to
equip them with a Christian model of education that
will result in still more schools being set up and
run through churches as well as in homes. But the
project has a long way to go. Moore estimates that
roughly 80 percent of all the children of Evangelical
Christians are still in the grip of Pharaoh's
school system.

Having spent a rewarding morning discussing the
matter with E. Ray Moore, I am convinced that Exodus
Mandate's effort to get children out of "public
schools" may soon become the most significant of
our time. There are other battles, of course, such
as the one over abortion. But what if we raised a
generation of children who simply did not see
abortion as a live option. Imagine such a generation,
freed from government schools as small children
and either homeschooled or educated in private
Christian schools. During their teen years, its
members would be free of drugs. Their moral compass
would equip them to resist the temptations of
premarital sex. They would never be in danger of
being shot by a crazed classmate. Finally, they
would graduate with a firm grounding in the Bible
and in this country's founding principles, as well
as knowing some science and having acquired some
technological know-how. By the time they reached
their 20s, say during the 2020s, their best and
brightest will already have begun taking the lead
in reversing the cultural, moral and intellectual
decline of this country, as well as shrinking the
reach of the federal leviathan. Their priorities
would be pleasing God and supporting political
leaders who pledge obedience to the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. Businesses may find
themselves seeking them out; their employers will
have far less worry about being cheated or stolen
from. And their new hires will be far better, far
more able employees than the drones the "public
schools" had been turning out. The latter, having
failed all competitive tests, will soon be on the
way out.

Moore believes that if these children were to
leave Pharaoh's schools and head for the Promised
Land of private Christian schools or homeschooling
today, this would do more to undermine political
correctness, secularism and materialism than any
other strategy one could pursue. In my opinion, he
is onto something. Christians-and any non-Christians
who are serious about reversing the political and
cultural rot we have fallen into during this past
half-century-should consider what Exodus Mandate
offers, and not waste any more time getting organized.
This is the sort of movement that, once it takes off,
could quickly be seen as a major threat to the
educational bureaucracy and the powerful teachers
unions. There is no doubt that it will meet with
opposition down the road: rather like any effort
pursued independently of the Omnipotent State.
Standing up to the potential hostility will require
organization as well as faith (Hebrews 11). But
the potential payoffs make it worth the risk.
"We have seen the benefit that this kind of
education has had on our own family," Moore
concluded. "My family and I have been over in the
Promised Land for 24 years, and now, I'm calling on
my fellow Christians to come over and join us. It
is a good land, flowing with milk and honey."

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party