What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Worldviews aren't modular

Via Rod Dreher comes this story of parents whose kindergartener was taught that boys can turn into girls. This was taught not only without the parents' knowledge or consent, but against their express wishes.

The principal (who, I can't help noting, is a woman) told the parents that there had been some misunderstanding when the parents thought the school had agreed not to discuss such topics without allowing an opt-out. She (the principal) said the parents would be allowed to opt out of sex education proper but not out of transgender propaganda.

I want to give a slightly contrary perspective here to the reaction that many conservatives may have. Sure, take it as read: The principal is a leftist ideologue, and so is the teacher. Yes, it was totally unnecessary for the teacher to read a transgender propaganda book and have a little show-and-tell with a "transgender" classmate changing into girlie clothes. Yes, they are pushing this deliberately and beyond what was just coming up on its own, even with a "transgender" kid in the class.

However: It was always folly to send your child to a secular school and just tell the teachers to let your child opt out of certain topics. Schools teach a worldview. What is important to the educators will be woven into the atmosphere and the curriculum of the school at multiple points. It won't be modular.

Parents have the wrong model here. They think they can put certain topics in a box and treat teachers as technicians who just teach reading, writing, and arithmetic in a way that doesn't intersect with worldview issues and issues of sexuality.

Perhaps that is how it could work if you were talking about teaching Algebra I to a high school or college student. It is emphatically not how all-day (or even all morning) education works for younger children.

Unless the subject matter you want taught is itself modular, the worldview issues you don't want will not be modular relative to that subject matter. Do you want your children to be with a teacher for many hours on end? Do you want them to be taught to be good citizens? Do you want them to be taught about how the world works? Do you want them to be part of a community? Do you want them taught history, literature, and science? Then sorry, folks: The question of whether boys can turn into girls is going to come up if the teachers in question believe that boys can turn into girls. The question of what marriage is is going to come up. The question of what men and women are is going to come up. The question of whether God exists is probably going to come up as well. The question of whether fornication is right is also probably going to come up.

What would really be good would be if parents would stop thinking they can send their young children to be partially raised (which is what all-day school is) by those who believe things diametrically opposed to what the parents believe while just having some kind of agreement to keep "these subjects" from coming up. Parents should never have thought they could do this even with sex education in the narrowest sense. But they definitely need to wake up and smell the coffee now when it comes to far broader issues like homosexuality, homosexual "marriage," and transgenderism. These are worldview issues, and of course they will come up elsewhere in class time if the teachers have that worldview. If the teachers were sincere Christians with a normal view of marriage, sexuality, and male and female, they might (might) have some idea of trying to shield children from the insanity in the world for some years before carefully introducing them to this insanity as insanity, making clear the normal perspective. ("Unfortunately, there are people who are very confused and think that boys can turn into girls. That isn't true, of course, but you may run into some of these people.") But if they don't think it's insanity, they will have no such notion. They will normalize it because they think it's normal, and that means it won't be modular. The teacher's book-reading and the principal's arrogance are just brutal ways of bringing parents face to face with this fact of life, educationally.

Unfortunately, it's not clear to me that the parents in Dreher's story got the point. I have a feeling they are just going to move on to some other school and keep trying to keep worldview insanity modular. Good luck with that, folks, because it isn't going to happen.

Comments (6)

Parents have a most grave duty and enjoy the primary right of educating to the very best of their ability their children physically, socially, and culturally, and morally and religiously as well. (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1136)
The right and duty of parents to give education is essential...it is original and primary...it isirreplaceable and inalienable, and incapable of being entirely delegated or usurped by others. (Pope John Paul II, in Familiaris Consortio)
It is the duty of parents to make every effort to prevent any invasion of their rights...and to refuse to send (their children) to schools in which there is a danger of imbibing the deadly poison of impiety. (Pope Leo XIII, in Sapientiae Christianae)
Religion must permeate and direct every branch of knowledge. (Militantis Ecclesia)

the Vatican’s document Catholic Schools states

Reference to Jesus Christ teaches man to differentiate between the values which ennoble man and those which degrade him.”

Education cannot be the education of a Christian child unless it teaches with a view, direction, and intention of imbuing the child with a Christian understanding of reality. Without any reference to Jesus Christ no educational program can direct the development of a mind and heart oriented in a Christian outlook. Since the public schools have formally rejected modeling education in reference to Jesus Christ and oriented in a Christian outlook, ... the conclusion is obvious. Q.E.D.

There is NO SUCH THING as a full educational program that is religiously neutral. Can't be. Because "to educate" requires having a view of human nature, and thus of human life and human goals. Either man is oriented toward God and heaven, or he is not. There is no in-between.

Time was when every parish thundered from the pulpit that Catholics were morally obliged to give their children a Catholic education. As far as I can tell, this stopped happening during the same period that parish schools stopped getting teaching nuns, and the orders of nuns stopped getting vocations, and the nuns they had started putting all their time and energy into psychological theory (not to mention psychotic theories) instead of just teaching Jane to write. And when the seminaries turned away the young men who would be willing to say the above from the pulpit.

-I agree that it is folly to expect government schools to not get in the way of guiding children towards a Christian worldview for all the reasons stated here. I also think we should not grant that this teacher's lesson about boys turning into girls is properly secular. It seems to me that that violates the establishment clause as much as a government school teacher who had a planned lesson to teach that the Bible is the inspired word of God would be.

-My understanding of the goals of the LGBT affirming side is that they want to infuse the whole curriculum with their views. So LGBT affirming views will show up in reading assignments, math problems, history lessons, etc. They are not just merely opposed to parents being able to opt out of planned lessons covering LGBT affirmation, they want to set it up so an opt out is not even a practical possibility.

-If Joy Pullman of the Federalist is right that these activists are not content to just to have the public schools, but wont settle until private and even home schooled children must be taught LGBT affirming curriculum (and I think she is) that adds a whole other level to this. If they get their way, there will be no other options. I think we have good reason to believe they will eventually get their way, and with an 8 month old now and hopefully more children in the future, this is personally alarming.

-I wonder how these leftist ideologues will handle the inevitable situations in which a student says in class during one of these lessons that they dont believe boys can turn into girls or even that their parents have taught them that boys cannot turn into girls (or if this is marriage...they dont believe two men can marry/their parents have taught them that two men cannot marry). My most cynical thought is some will report those parents to the state to be investigated for abuse. My least is that they will use it as a teaching moment to condemn those beliefs as outdated and hateful in front of the whole class. Either way, they really cannot just let it slide entirely.

-Given that this is happening in kindergarten classes, should we reconsider when we introduce the topic of human sexuality to our children? Not all of us are or can get into a bubble (and I mean bubble in a good way here) to ensure we can keep our children as innocent as possible of this knowledge. I would much rather be in the position to help guide my future teenage children into understanding why transgenderism and homosexuality are wrong and incompatible with Christianity, yet if this will be our new reality where we cannot even trust that their kindergarten teacher wont raise these topics, has our hand been forced? Are some of us going to have to seriously consider having conversations with our 4 or 5 year old that we would really rather have with our 14 or 15 year old?

I agree that it is folly to expect government schools to not get in the way of guiding children towards a Christian worldview for all the reasons stated here. I also think we should not grant that this teacher's lesson about boys turning into girls is properly secular. It seems to me that that violates the establishment clause as much as a government school teacher who had a planned lesson to teach that the Bible is the inspired word of God would be.

Only in the sense that anything that teaches a deep worldview is "non-secular."

A point I want to drive home is that these people are bad partly because of the *content* of what they believe, not merely because of their lack of respect for parents nor because they are dragging it in unnecessarily.

Even if they didn't drag it in unnecessarily, a school education is going to teach something about what a "boy" and a "girl" are, what marriage is, what a normal family is, what sort of people normally fall in love with each other, etc.

In this sense, the activists are sort of right. That is, they are right to see that the broad topics of sexuality, family norms, etc., cannot be relegated to planned lessons but are going to come up in all sorts of places throughout the curriculum. The reason they are bad is because they want to teach perverted norms in this way, not because they realize that such norms are going to come up in many different parts of the curriculum. Even examples in math lessons are going to make reference to people's daily doings, probably to Mr. this and Mrs. that, to roles in families, etc. This is all the more true for reading lessons, art, and so forth.

We conservatives need to realize that, if parents ask activists to relegate "LGBT affirming" lessons to a separate category and ask their permission before teaching them, they are asking something fundamentally artificial in an educational context, *given* that they are turning their kids over to be educated by people who believe in "LGBT affirming" values and who are using curriculum written by those who believe that. It would be like asking a person who believed in normal values never to bring up mommies and daddies in normal lessons on various topics because that would be "controversial." So, what, do all stories have to be about butterflies and all examples have to be about red and blue blocks? There is always content in education, and human society and social norms are always taught. You can't segregate perverted norms if the teachers and curriculum writers hold to those perverted norms, because *of course* they want them to be brought in just like anything else would be brought in, naturally in the course of a variety of lessons.

If Joy Pullman of the Federalist is right that these activists are not content to just to have the public schools, but wont settle until private and even home schooled children must be taught LGBT affirming curriculum (and I think she is) that adds a whole other level to this. If they get their way, there will be no other options.

Without actually out-lawing home schooling (which is what they'd prefer, of course), they are going to have a difficult time forcing this on home schoolers. In Canada (Ontario, I believe) there was some move to force home schoolers to use a very liberal curriculum for teaching "religion and family values" or something like that. My esteemed colleague Tony suggested that they "use" it to prop up a table.

I'm not trying to be flippant. If draconian regulation of home schooling got bad enough, children could be forced to pass state-sponsored tests that involved questions about these topics, in order for parents to be "allowed" to continue home schooling. This certainly could coerce the introduction of the topics at the whim of the state. It couldn't, however, coerce the parents to teach as normative the state's view. Even if curriculum the children were required to be familiar with were perverse, the teacher can always critique it at every point.

That, however, is already a bridge too far, and I do not (myself) think that degree of regulation of home schooling will be seen in my lifetime in the U.S.

Private schooling may be a different matter, *especially* if the private schools accept government money or have tied themselves to state accreditation in any way. That could certainly allow the rot to move much faster.


My least is that they will use it as a teaching moment to condemn those beliefs as outdated and hateful in front of the whole class. Either way, they really cannot just let it slide entirely.

That is absolutely true. And the transgender thing is making this all the more acute. The guidance for public schools and transgenderism from the federal government has already stated that, if children object to using the desired pronoun for a "transgender" classmate, it's the objecting children who have to be disciplined.


Given that this is happening in kindergarten classes, should we reconsider when we introduce the topic of human sexuality to our children? Not all of us are or can get into a bubble (and I mean bubble in a good way here) to ensure we can keep our children as innocent as possible of this knowledge. I would much rather be in the position to help guide my future teenage children into understanding why transgenderism and homosexuality are wrong and incompatible with Christianity, yet if this will be our new reality where we cannot even trust that their kindergarten teacher wont raise these topics, has our hand been forced? Are some of us going to have to seriously consider having conversations with our 4 or 5 year old that we would really rather have with our 14 or 15 year old?

The state of the world can definitely force things. From my perspective even the generic introduction of the concept of homosexuality is a big change from my own childhood. For a long time parents didn't need to talk about this topic at all with their children, and many people (me included) could go into young adulthood without any knowledge of what sort of acts homosexuals engage in, and no need for that knowledge.

I think 4 and 5 years are still young enough that, depending upon who your friends are, etc., you still have a pretty wide latitude to keep them very innocent. But I would say certainly well before 14 and 15 they need to know that there are crazy people who think that boys can turn into girls and vice versa, that there are men who think they can marry other men, etc., and be taught various natural law concepts that counter these false ideas.

I think 4 and 5 years are still young enough that, depending upon who your friends are, etc., you still have a pretty wide latitude to keep them very innocent. But I would say certainly well before 14 and 15 they need to know that there are crazy people who think that boys can turn into girls and vice versa, that there are men who think they can marry other men, etc., and be taught various natural law concepts that counter these false ideas.

You won't be able to leave till 14 if they have any contact at all with the culture. We have had to "enlighten" (used advisedly) our 10 and 11-year olds as to at least the general concept of men who "like" men as if they were women, just because of various infiltration garbage in the media, billboards, and comments made in passing. Or, just walking downtown in the big city, frankly - you can't avoid seeing some of it. Close-by neighbors who think a boy is a girl.

As the insanity sets in more, there is no way you can keep kids from hearing some of it if they are out there at all - in stores, etc. Which means we have no choice but to do some explaining to minimize the damage, even though the explaining itself, so young, (if there wasn't a pressing need for it) would be harmful to some degree. It's a terrible position.

"I'm not trying to be flippant. If draconian regulation of home schooling got bad enough, children could be forced to pass state-sponsored tests that involved questions about these topics, in order for parents to be "allowed" to continue home schooling. This certainly could coerce the introduction of the topics at the whim of the state. It couldn't, however, coerce the parents to teach as normative the state's view."

That you have the opportunity to explain why their views are wrong and crazy is at least a silver lining. If both public and private schools are not an option, can parents home school in the evenings? Dual income families are not uncommon and we need options. Sending the kids to what is legally a "Church Ministry day care" but functions as a school, and a sane one at that, during the day, and doing whatever is needed to meet state regulations for home schooling in the evening could be an option.


"As the insanity sets in more, there is no way you can keep kids from hearing some of it if they are out there at all - in stores, etc. Which means we have no choice but to do some explaining to minimize the damage, even though the explaining itself, so young, (if there wasn't a pressing need for it) would be harmful to some degree. It's a terrible position."

Yes, it is a terrible position, and with an 8 month old one I cant escape. I grew up in the 80s and (mostly) 90s and these were issues my parents never had to address. They were all on the periphery. It is crazy to me to know that they are being brought up in kindergarten.

Sending the kids to what is legally a "Church Ministry day care" but functions as a school, and a sane one at that, during the day, and doing whatever is needed to meet state regulations for home schooling in the evening could be an option.

DR84, this may be exactly the sort of solution a lot of parents are going to need. The "functioning as a school" will have to be completely under the radar - they won't be able to be "accredited", for example. But given that lots of day car facilities pretend that they are "academic" institutions already,* the lines are kind of fluid and there should be room for lots and lots of instruction that isn't called "schooling".

(* And by "day care facilities that pretend they are 'academic' institutions already", I don't mean to be picking on grammar schools and high schools that are - at best - only 'academic' rather than actually academic, whose main (real) function is day care until the eventual 18-year-old can be released to be taken care of by the 'adult-nanny-state' functionaries of welfare etc. I meant the actual day care places taking care of 2 to 5 year olds.)

But it will be critical to be in a place that leaves room for that kind of home schooling flexibility. Most states, due to the active efforts of entities like HSLDA, are reasonably accommodating right now, and I believe that the above picture would be allowed in every state under current rules. But as the rot sets in, this probably will get less and less true.

Also, churches (and their church-based day care programs) will find it increasingly hard to stay out of the clutches of the KGB-LTQRKNZX enforcers who will insist on the gender-smashing mantras - at least to the extent of bathroom and locker room use - because of being in the nature of "public accommodations" or some other nonsense. At a minimum, all these entities are going to have to prepare contingency plans for losing their tax deductible status. In the full-blown post-modern liberal state, the enforcers won't tolerate religion having any respected status as any kind of exception to everything else. We already see this in states that are adamant in not granting conscience exceptions to all sorts of persons, including doctors who don't want to do or refer for abortions. When the gloves come all the way off, the hard core liberals are truly against religion, not just unswayed by it.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.