Ignorant educators at it again

How about that Dwight Jones? The newly appointed Colorado Education Commissioner, in one of his last official acts as superintendent of Fountain-Fort Carson school district, made sure the students in his 2007 graduating class were protected from such dangerous propaganda as a pocket booklet containing the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Whew, that was close; well done, Dr. Jones. Erin Emery reports in the Denver Post that Jones's District 8 was one of two in the Colorado Springs area that rebuffed the gift offer from El Paso County commissioner Douglas Bruce last spring. Officials in Lewis-Palmer District 38 also stood vigilant against the suspicious stranger offering political candy to kids. At least 12 other districts accepted the booklets for distribution to graduates.

A District 38 spokeswoman explained that the school board, administrators, and principal decided "if they let him hand out something that he thought was innocuous then, of course, we couldn't say no to anyone else." Indeed, what might be next: Hare Krishna tracts, oil industry climate propaganda, perhaps even condoms? Us guardians of young minds had best draw a firm line and keep'em all out.

Now consider: if high-ranking educators made a language blooper like using "us" as the subject of a sentence, everyone might -- might -- notice and protest. But these ignoramuses in D-8 and D-38 have committed a far worse civic and philosophic outrage, and you can bet this story will have no legs at all. A controversial citizen, Bruce, gets the brushoff from a well-credentialed PhD, Jones -- so what? The world yawns.

Do I exaggerate? It truly is a civic outrage when D-38's Robin Adair can damn America's charter of self-government with faint praise as "a lovely document [that] we have[n't] anything against." And it's a philosophic outrage when she can describe the Constitution, on behalf of the people's elected board of education, as "something that he [Bruce] thought was innocuous."

Notice the intellectually fashionable, scrupulously neutral relativism in those words. The school board isn't saying the booklet with our founding documents is noxious, but they're not saying it's innocuous either. The latter is just some guy's opinion -- handled sniffily with rubber gloves and tongs by the antiseptic agents of officialdom. Post-modernists everywhere applaud, while in Beijing and Havana ironic smiles break out: they know quite well how noxious Doug Bruce's little gift really is.

What we're really glimpsing here -- at least in the Lewis-Palmer case, since at Fountain-Fort Carson no reason was given -- is the toxic multiculturalism that now pervades American education at all levels. Prof. Thomas Krannawitter of Hillsdale College defined it well in the Investor's Business Daily the other day:

"Multiculturalism... agrees on balance that there is no objective truth, especially no moral or political truth, to be discovered by human reason.... The real test of multicultural education is whether one has freed one's mind from the trappings of one's own culture -- especially... American culture..." Bingo. Ms. Adair probably had no idea that's what she was voicing. But she was. Shame on her, her employers, and Commissioner Dwight Jones. What over-educated fools they all are.

To end on an up note, though, Coloradans can be grateful and proud that we have in our backyard the Littleton-based Liberty Day organization, a national volunteer powerhouse dedicated to giving students across the country -- you guessed it -- pocket copies of the Constitution and Declaration.

Andy McKean, the founder, is working with high-schooler Jimmy Sengenberger to host a statewide conference for students on Saturday, September 15, at CU-Denver, where a spectrum of speakers (me included) will talk about what the Constitution means and why it's so noxious to tyrants of every size, grand and petty alike. Do you know a teen who ought to attend? Here's the link for more information.

'City on a hill' implies choice, not coercion

I am certain that as a Christian, I am called to let my light shine before all men, and I am equally certain that belief led our founders – and Ronald Reagan for that matter – to conclude that we are to participate in our civic duty toward a "shining city upon a hill." I am very much less convinced that such a city is to be a "Christian society," which has recently seemed to imply a "moral majority" imposing some kind of theocracy. Background: My two posts here so far have centered on living Christianly. The degree to which this affects one’s political philosophy is a deep question, and one to which I am certain that I cannot provide a complete answer. But I ended my last post by saying that you cannot simply enact laws that impose morality on others -- rather you must argue persuasively and convince others of the truth.

A city upon a hill that has a thousand individual lights burning brightly is far different, but brighter, than a city that mandates folks turn their lights on. As a Christian, I don’t believe you can make another turn on a light they do not possess anyway.

So I’ve come to this conclusion: It is my duty to shine my light and to persuade others of what I believe. It is the right and responsibility of others to do the same, whatever they may believe. As a society then our primary civic responsibility is to create and protect a public dialogue where ideas and visions can be reasoned, and debated and the Truth made clear.

So what is my individual responsibility? I think John Andrews recent column on “Element R,” an American responsibility movement, was a step in a similar direction. Although we have different starting points, both John and I have come to believe that the responsibility of the individual must temper and inform – and perhaps even preempt – the rights of the individual.

I’d like to make a bold statement. I believe that Jesus was primarily concerned about the individual. Throughout his ministry on earth, Jesus Christ addressed individuals in their particular circumstances. I do not feel I am overstretching or reaching when I say that Jesus was far more concerned about bringing individuals to his Father, and to mending the broken hearts of those He met, than He was about establishing a Christian society. Surely Jesus was aware of the political and social implications of his teachings, but He was far more aware of the needs of people around him, aware of the condition of their spirits -- and he addressed himself to healing them, not the ills of their culture.

As I have thought about this I am led to the conclusion that Jesus is not primarily concerned with the political ramifications of his words, and that His call to us is to live our lives as examples, as lights within a city so that we may persuade others to seek to live righteously as well.

God save our states

August 1 being Colorado statehood day, I got to thinking about the role of the states in our federal union. Joanna Barton, who teaches government at a London prep school, told me last week on the Glenwood train that she's spending a month here trying to figure that out. Bottom-up diversity from state to state in politics, economics, and culture is one of the glories of America. One trait that is remarkably similar across all 50 states, however, is the grounding of their form of government on spiritual reliance, not on the secularism so fashionable today.

Colorado joined the Union on Aug. 1, 1876, with a state constitution whose preamble reads:

We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquillity; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".

The drafters met by authority of an Enabling Act of the US Congress, which stipulated that the new state's

constitution shall be republican in form... and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence; and... that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.

The Declaration of Independence, in turn, reverently invokes God not once but four times: as lawgiver, "Creator," "Supreme Judge of the World," and "Divine Providence." Its principles, to which Colorado's constitution-makers were obligated to adhere, can hardly be called secularist.

As researcher William J. Federer has shown, every single state also reverently invokes God in its constitutional preamble or bill of rights. All fifty; no exceptions. Specifically looking at some of our neighboring western states, here's what we find:

* Arizona, 1911... "grateful to Almighty God for our liberties" * Idaho, 1889... "grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings" * Montana, 1889... "grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty" * Nevada, 1864... "grateful to Almighty God for our freedom" * New Mexico, 1911... "grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty" * Utah, 1896... "grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of life and liberty" * Wyoming, 1890... "grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties"

Returning to the Centennial State as we mark our 131st birthday today, Colorado's motto bears remembering by all who compete politically here, and by all who await what state government may do to or for them. "Nil Sine Numine," it says in Latin; "Nothing without the Spirit."

Kiddie license plate? Gag me

Here we go again. Another initiative that's 'for the children.' And how you be against that, unless you're a cold, cruel heartless SOB? I'll do something really daring here... I'll inject logic and common sense into this discussion and risk being called all of the previous names. Here's what this is about: Starting August 1st, Colorado drivers around the state can purchase license plates for their vehicle that say ''Colorado Kids First.” A portion of the price of these plates can be directed to the non-profit or charity of the owner's choice. Sounds good at first, but here are some reasons why I don't like this slogan. And why for a healthy society, you shouldn't put 'Kids First.'

As a kid, you're not (or shouldn't be considered) 'first.' If your parents put you on a pedestal from early on (or cater to your every whim and wish), you'll probably be an egotistical idiot when you're an adult. Cases in point: Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsey Lohan.

You should learn a good work ethic by doing jobs you don't necessarily want to do. Such as – taking out the trash, cleaning the shop, and scooping manure. It keeps you humble, and makes you appreciate better jobs and situations when you get older. You should also learn to respect and get along with others, and your family members. Eventually you'll figure out (or should know) that life isn't about 'you first.'

If you get too self-absorbed, you'll miss out on the joys, curiosities, pleasures (and yes, pains) that life can bring. There's also a God in heaven (who is much bigger than you or I) who cares and wants the best for you and your life – no matter how complicated or difficult it may seem at times.

'Kids First' is a nice, feel-good, yuppie slogan that will lead to more Coloradoans buying these license plates. Which in turn will put more money in the coffers of the state and non-profit groups (which for the latter is fine).

Children are important in families, and should be protected and provided for. But this phrase seems to reflect a society that's forgotten common sense, wisdom and the real priorities in life.

Diaries attest Reagan's greatness

"He speaks fluent Arabic, and for some reason this upsets the Arabs." -- Entry for March 25, 1988, referring to the imminent recall of the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, whom Reagan calls "a darn good man". HarperCollins in May published the long-awaited diaries of President Reagan, kept, says Nancy, because they wanted to be able to remember the presidential years better than the blur that was their Sacramento gubernatorial years. How quaint, how terrestrial, for this couple to want to remember what they considered not an entitlement due their obvious greatness, but a privilege bestowed on them by Heaven.

It was the same earthy attitude that prompted Reagan to wear a tie every time he entered the Oval Office – he appears in classic dark dress suit with pocket kerchief on the cover of the Diaries – and to remark famously, upon deciding to make no modifications to Air Force One when he took office, "It looks fine to me; it belongs to the taxpayers anyway."

That old-fashioned humility and sense of self-proportion has now given us the most detailed presidential diary in the history of the United States: a daily chronicle running from inauguration day, January 20, 1981, to inauguration day, January 20, 1989. The tone is typically charming, the prose succinct and full of shorthand. There is candor (the press as "lynch mob"), tenderness (regular affection for Nancy), precision (the detail runs to 784 pages), and the common man (animosity toward Monday mornings). But in the main they are a direct, ultra-human, and entirely un-self-conscious record of eight portentous political years by the man at the center of the storm.

Naturally, it wasn't really the Saudi ambassador's fluent Arabic that caused problems with the Arabs. It was his Reaganesque goodness and staunch defense of legitimate American interests which, as it still does today, riled other interests. It is that kind of courageous goodness now so conspicuously absent within Reagan's greatly weakened political party 18 years since the period covered by the Diaries, and that heroic presidency, ended.

Some of that goodness has been betrayed – as when President Bush handed the great and good Don Rumsfeld's scalp to the Beltway political mob following the 2004 GOP electoral disaster. But more of that goodness has simply atrophied as time and success and power have wreaked their usual destruction on conservative integrity and vision, and once-hopeful leaders have reduced themselves in routine fashion to common mediocrities. References to Reagan are never in short supply in the GOP, but the character that could produce a Diary like this is hardly to be seen.

And so we wait. And remember. If we cannot behold political greatness today, then we behold it in the pages of these Diaries, praying that in our lifetime it might be seen at high levels of power again.

And we still believe: Not in any one man or in one period of history. But in the enduring power of the conservative vision that makes a man both courageous and humble, conscious enough of grave responsibility to keep a diary and unconscious enough of self to keep it accurately, and that still believes God will never be neutral between the Truth worth conserving and that something sinister which threatens to bury the Truth forever.

###