THE ANTI-CHRISTIAN AGENDA OF THE NEA

By EVANG. JIM ELLIS, ThG., ThD., PhD.

504 BLANKSTON DRIVE

BOGALUSA, LOUISIANA 70427

E-Mail: Bblpchr@aol.com

John Dewey, the father of modern progressive education, be- lieved that everything is divided into the sacred and the secular. That follows the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, who taught that when Adam and Eve fell in the Garden of Eden, the intellect was not fallen, thus producing the two stories consisting of the sacred on the upper story and the secular on the lower story, as well as "false dualism" (everything is divided between the secular and the sacred).

John Dewey was a secular humanist and a Fabian Socialist, following the philosophies of General Quintus Fabius Maximus, who avoided defeat by refusing to fight any decisive battles against Hannibal. He believed in conquering an enemy by infiltration rather than by confrontation. The Fabian Society, a group of British socialists, believed that socialism can be achieved gradually, following that line of thinking.

John Dewey was chased out of Russia because of his radical philosophy of education, and eventually ended up at Columbia Teachers College at Columbia University, training the teachers of America in his concepts. In order to promulgate his teachings into the educational system in America, he organized the forerunner of the National Education Association.

Here are some excerps from the January, 1969 issue of the JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, VOLUME 58, NO. 1, JANUARY 1969:

THE SEVENTIES

By Harold Shane, University professor of education, and June Grant Shane, professor of education, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington.

During the last five years, there has been a marked increase in long and short-range speculation regarding possible futures that may lie before us in the remaining years of the twentieth century. For the past three years, we have studied approximately 400 published and unpublished articles and books in which such conjectures and projections occur.

These current writings clearly indicate that education and schools, as they exist today, will change drastically during the 70's and will be modified almost beyond recognition by the end of the century.

The paragraphs that follow summarize some of the more important developments that could occur in the next decade, and propose some new ones in which the teacher is likely to be cast.

In conclusion, we give thought to the question: For what kind of world should children who will live most of their lives in the twenty-first century be prepared? Here, then, as many scholars see it, are some of the possible designs of educational futures in the seventies.

Page 31 of the same Journal tells us,

For one thing, the basic role of the teacher will change noticeably. Ten years hence (1979) it should be more accurate to term him a learning clinician. This title is intended to convey the idea that schools are becoming "clinics" whose purpose is to provide individualized psychosocial "treatment" for the student, thus increasing his value both to himself and to society.

Dr. John R. Miles, writing in the Saturday Evening Post, Spring, 1972, said:

The nation's number one academic problem in education today is a reading problem. The U.S. Office of Education has estimated, "There are 24 million people 18 years old or older in the United States who are functionally illiterate."

That means they cannot read, write, or count well enough to handle the day-to-day tasks demanded of them in modern society; they cannot read well enough to know what bus to take to get to work.

They cannot count the streets or read the street signs well enough to know when to get off the bus and transfer to another. Yet, it isn't because they haven't gone to school.

There are only 6.4 million Americans 14 years old and over who haven't gone through at least the fifth grade. So the inescapable conclusion is that the vast majority of those 24 million functionally illiterate people went to school for at least five years but learned little except to hate school. (Saturday Evening Post, Spring, 1972)

Some years ago, an article, entitled "Teachers on the March," appeared in "Reader's Digest." Under the heading of "What Teachers Want," it says,

The NEA will soon pass the Teamsters as the nation's largest union.

In another paragraph,

They seek not only the right to negotiate salaries and hours but a voice in other decisions, including curriculum, textbook selection, class size, and other matters of school policy and administration.

The Child Family Service Act of 1975, HB2966, which was defeated, informs us of the intent and philosophies of the liberals who think they know what is best for us.

The intent of this bill is for the government to be responsible for the nutritional interests of your child, and for all psychological interests of your child.

What is at issue is whether the parent shall continue to have the right to mold the character of the children or whether the state, with all its power and magnitude, shall be given the decisive tools and technique for forming the young lives of the children of this country.

As a matter of the child's right, the government shall exert control over the family because we have recognized that the child is not the care of the parents but the care of the State.

We recognize further, that not parental but communist forms of upbringing have an unquestionable superiority over all other forms. Further- more, there is a serious question that maybe we cannot trust the family to prepare young children in this country for their new kind of world which is emerging.

That's the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD concerning the Child Care Bill of 1975! Do you really think Hillary's Book, IT TAKES A VILLAGE, is anything new?

The COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, by Karl Marx, gives the ten points for takeover. The tenth point is probably the most important: Free education for all children in public schools.

As we can see from these ideas of Karl Marx, the importance of control of education is vital to the takeover of any nation. Although it was written way back in 1848, the ideas have certainly been carried out in America today.

THE AGENDA OF

THE NEA

Our Public Education System in America is being controlled by the National Education Association. The NEA has systematically taken control of what is being taught. One example is Outcome Based Education, which is nothing more than the follow up of John Dewey's Progressive Education. Outcome Based Education proposes to gear teaching to produce a brainwashing of students to accept the New World Order and New Age ideas.

Militant NEA-type teachers have taken upon themselves to make decisions of right and wrong and have usurped the responsibilities of the church on making that determination. In order to accomplish their goals they must destroy the voices of Bible-believing Christians who would oppose them., resulting in attacks upon freedom of speech of these nonconformists by the NEA and the ACLU.

In order to control the education, there must be a control of curriculum.

HOW DOES THE NEA CON- CONTROL PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM?

1. The NEA makes recommendations for textbooks to be selected.

2. The NEA controls textbook selection committees.

3. The NEA controls most school boards. (How many members of the Lee County School Board are former teachers and members of the NEA?)

4. Teachers Association of Lee County (TALC) is an affiliate of NEA.

HOW DOES THE AGENDA OF THE NEA ATTACK CHRISTIANITY?

1. The NEA promotes globalism and One World Government which is the preparation for the coming of the AntiChrist.

2. The NEA in its control of school curriculum promotes homosexuality and abortion.

3. The NEA teaches nihilism through school curriculum.

4. The NEA promotes anti Christian philosophies: a. sensitivity training b. values clarification c. situational ethics d. no absolutes e. Eastern Mysticism

HAVE THE PROGRAMS OF THE NEA BEEN SUCCESSFUL?

"Time Magazine," April 12, 1976, contained an article in the "Education" section that was very interesting: It says--

In short, one social program has failed, so let's turn to another. But is there anywhere to turn? In a separate essay, Historian Donald Fleming of Harvard reports on the intellectual war between those who see man as chiefly a product of his environment and those who credit heredity.

If, as Fleming maintains, those who credit heredity are growing in influence, that raises some troublesome questions. If the wonderful hope that we can change man by changing his surroundings is fading, what is left but genetic engineering to accomplish what even Adler admits education has not been able to bring about-a thoroughly improved human being.

That prospect may be too bleak. For one thing, a possible, if intangible alternative to education and genetic engineering may lie in spiritual renewal. For another, it may be necessary to decide that human beings are simply not going to be thoroughly improved, but that we must work with them as they are.

The article concludes--

Could it be (though this is not specifically said in the study) that this will have to include a return to the notion of good and evil, and therefore to the value of rules and discipline, and perhaps to a faith in something outside man?

Rutgers sociologist Peter Berger suggests that what he calls the crisis of modernity requires some very new programs, a fresh start. Needed for this, he believes, is less concern for the abstraction of liberal ideology and a "renewal of respect for the concrete structures that give meaning to the life of the individual--family, church, neighborhood, ethnic group."

Theoretically, at least, he believes that this should be possible "within the framework of the American creed, which has shown itself to be very probably the most flexible ideological framework in recent human history."

Isn't that what we fundamental Christians have been trying to get across for a long time? V