A NEW TWIST

Sitting in front of a renovated farmhouse, overlooking a warm, lush Vermont valley, this writer had the privilege of exchanging ideas on government aid to education with Paul Blanshard, author of many anti-Roman Catholic books, including his most recent one on Vatican II. At one point Blanshard turned rather triumphantly to quote Jefferson’s words of 1779: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.” As a Unitarian who had turned from Fundamentalism, Blanshard said, he objected to being forced to pay for Roman Catholicism. I replied: “Agreed! And that is exactly one of the chief reasons that CEF (Citizens for Educational Freedom) was formed!” He was nonplussed and said: “Well, that is a new twist.”

Then I tried to point out that millions of Americans-Protestants, Catholics and Jews and at least one Supreme Court justice (Potter Stewart)—believe that there is no such thing as religiously neutral education. In the few moments that I had, I indicated that many Christians believe that God always and everywhere reveals himself to every man (Rom. 1:16 ff.); and that in the Bible God has commanded Christians to interpret all of reality in the light of his Word. I quoted him will Herberg’s statement that in education the silence about God is a thunderous roar that God is not necessary. And a Sir Walter Moberly’s opinion that the omission of God in the curriculum is a most effective way of teaching that God is unimportant for that curriculum. Believing then that there is no religious neutrality in education, that willy-nilly one is either for or against Christ, I drove home the point that government education is basically religion—the religion of secular humanism. Furthermore, I indicated, I continually preach against this religion.

Yet—and then I came back to Jefferson’s dictum which he liked so much—many Christians are required to make monetary contributions to a philosophy of life that they disbelieve, namely, the religion of secular humanism of the government’s schools. I told him that I appreciated the fact that he, a Unitarian, did not want to support a Catholic school of even a Calvinistic one (Honors! Worse still!); but even though he disagreed with my Calvinism, he should respect my religious conviction and should see that I do not desire to support his religious public schools.1

At that moment his weekend guests from New York City arrived, and that ended our pleasant interchange.

1. Under CEF’s proposals of absolute tax credits (not simply tax deductions), such as was narrowly defeated in the Senate a year ago for higher education, no one would be paying for another’s religious education, Neither, fundamentally, would that be the case under CEF’s other proposal of aid to all students in all schools. For although all taxpayers would pay to the government, the number of taxpayers interested in one kind of religions school including the state’s secularistic ones—would be proportionate to the number of students attending thai school, Therefore, each taxpayer in effect would be contributing only to the school of his liking.

EDWIN H. PALMER

WHERE THE ACTION IS

The purpose of the Christian school is not to withdraw the child from the world, but to rush him into it; not to train him to be a hermit, but to be a cosmopolitan; not to sheathe him, but to lay him bare; not to insulate, but to immerse; not to cloister, but to involve; not to shelter, but to expose. It does not seek seclusion but intrusion; not peace, but the sword; not Hight, but fight.

The Christian school should prepare the child to be where the action is: not at home but on the front. The child should be trained for real life and the real world—in all of its sordidness—whether it be racial discrimination, civil disobedience, pornography, war, labor strife, poverty, socialism or the Valley of the Dolls.

But the one distinguishing feature is that ideally the Christian school will have taught him how to tackle all of these problems as one whose Lord is Christ and whose guide is the Bible.

EDWIN H. PALMER

WICKEDNESS – IN THE PLACE OF JUSTICE

The words of the preacher of the book of Ecclesiastes arc bound to become a painful fact for us in the United States if the interpretations of law, by the five judges of the Warren Supreme Court, continue in support and protection of criminals and hoodlums. Since the notorious decision handed down by the court in Miranda vs Arizona, the law enforcement agencies of our country have been hampered. The responsibility to restrain sin and lawlessness remains for them but they have been deprived of much of the power needed to fulfill their task. Men charged with rape are released, confessed murderers under sentence of death are set free, and robbery suspects are now turned loose to commit additional crimes.

There has been a considerable emphasis lately on the rights of the accused. There is, however, a prior right which ought to be fully recognized. That is the right of society to protection from wickedness and lawlessness by the powers of constituted government and its law enforcement agencies. One would expect that in the law courts of our land there would be justice and righteousness but, alas, it seems that from the top down the prospects for this become dimmer each day that the pronouncements of the Supreme Court with is Warren majority continues.

The power of the Supreme Court has been called into question again and again. As long ago as 1958 the chief justices of the Supreme Courts of the various states passed a resolution by an overwhelming majority in which they questioned very seriously the immense power of the high court and its effect upon the country. Again in 1966 the same conference of the Supreme Courts’ justices from the states is concerned about the power of the United States Supreme Court. The Warren majority of the court, however, seems impervious to these cries which come from men who have knowledge of the law and its interpretation. Every branch of government in our country has a check or a balance upon it. It becomes plain that there must also be some check upon the high court of our land.

Unless the present trend toward lawlessness and violence is reversed, the future will hold little promise for peace and tranquillity. The power to restrain sin has been given by God for the good of society. The conn try comes to evil days when the highest court of the land denies this God-given authority and restricts this power.

REIN LEESTMA