Below is a quote from a person who left a comment on my blog concerning R.J. Rushdoony and totalitarian eduction:

To which I responded:

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Actually Daniel, the State does not have the ability to remove that freedom. There are numerous Supreme Court decisions to that effect.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

But if the Supreme Court was to reverse its former decisions, then it would.

Just to further clarify - the theory of totalitarian Statism means that it is impossible for education not to be ultimately controlled by the state; while America has not gone as far down the Statist road as other nations, the logic of Statism means that home-schooling should be restricted and eventually prohibited.

They can't remove it directly, that is true, but as someone who has to deal with paperwork from _________, ____________, _____________, the State can make home-education/Christian education very inconvenient (and for some impossible) with mountains of rules, regulations, and paperwork.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

And this shows that the state is trying to have control over it.

If that is the case (i.e. "it can be reversed" "paperwork can make it hard") then every State that has ever existed - including Davidic Israel - is a Totalitarian State.

I meant state regulations and monopolizing an area that God has not given to the state. I spent the last few weeks dealing with Federal documents on education.

Davidic Israel didn't pass regulations on state-controlled sponsored education.

And yes, many states have been totalitarian.

Also, the objection {A}"well, if you say it can be reversed" does not equal {B}"well, in that case every state is a totalitarian one."

Here's why: {A} is a modal statement. It is describing something that hasn't happened yet. {B} is a historical one. It has already happened (e.g., David ruling).

Now if you were to turn the argument around, to say {C} "Well, if a state wanted to regulate education, then according to your logic it would be totalitarian." And then add premise {D}. Therefore, if David did {C}, he would be {D}."

To which I say, "Probably so." But that's not the argument in question.

And David did some heavy-handed totalitarian things, like steal bathesheba and murder Uriah.

Jacob,

You are completely missing my point. The argument went thus:

1. (Per Daniel's comment on Rushdoony) America is a totalitarian state because it could compel State education.
2. I countered that the State was prohibited by its rule of law (i.e. Constitutional Law). NOTE: I did not even address the fallacious argument that it was totalitarian just because it could (not has) compel.
3. The counter-argument was (an exceedingly lame) "well, the law could change" or (perhaps implied) the rule of law is not stable. Again, not that the law had changed, but that it could.

So my point is that if a State is totalitarian simply because the possibility exists that it could abandon its own rule of law that is directly counter to the situation that would make it totalitarian, then any State that has ever existed is/was totalitarian, since every State had the possibility of changing its rule of law. It is like saying A is bad; but non-A exists; but someone counters - ah-ha someday it could be A! Therefore it is bad.

This is ridiculous.

Ok the, Daniel should have modified (1). In a sense the State has its fingers in the cookie jar already. They are already regulating education when they do not need to from moral and even from pragmatic standpoints.

I am addressing different points than Daniel. My points should not be collapsed into his.

Anyway, go to the Homeschool Legal Defense site and type in "jail" in the search engine. I stopped after 2 pages. There were 8 pages last time I checked.

Brother Ritchie,

I would like to interject a few comments on your post:


If not for RJ Rushdoony there would be no homeschooling in the United States. Nevertheless, this gentlemen's premise is flawed.

While it is true that this Freedom is established, the United States is based upon contract law, and people have the freedom to waive their rights in contract law. A major change in the legal jurisdiction over children is developed directly from the Marriage License Act of 1887. Since a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be a crime, a tort or a trespass, the relationship of the State to the family, once so licensed, is altered and children are legally wards of the State. It is from this State licensed contractual relationship whereby the State erects its jurisdiction over the education of it's wards. Of course, most Christians are not engaged in an illegal activity when they get married and do not need the State's intercession to exercise that right. That is to say the State cannot criminalize rights.

The freedom, then, that this gentlemen claims to enjoy is a mere privilege derived from the familial delegation to the State it's control of education. If the Christian Right is successful in attempting to place Constitutional bars against sodomite marriages in the State via Constitutional Amendments, by defining the family in them, then the meaning of the family will be completely derived from the State and the freedom Christians now enjoy in the State's failure to exercise total jurisdiction over education will fall with it.

Ultimately, then, exercising a privilege under the State's failure to exercise total jurisdiction is not the historical American definition of "freedom." Of course, much progress could be made by the family in simply teaching their children to exercise their right to the free exercise of their religion and get married without State licensure. Then, true freedom to educate our children could be restored. But more importantly the covenantal status of our marriages before God would be restored and we would not be placing legal barriers to His blessings.

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make; real freedom, in the historic American sense, is freedom to exercise our inalienable, God-given rights. The present system is one of toleration, not liberty.

When I say that it "can be reversed" I mean in the sense that it is not recognized as an inalienable right, but that the state merely tolerates it.

Davidic Israel was not the land of liberty that Israel started off as, remember the monarchy was a judgment from God (1 Sam. 8) - even though the Davidic monarchy was typical of Christ.

I will not derail the thread, but I had never heard of this Rushdoony cat till I came, here, I did a Wiki, but it did not give me much, I may do a who was Rushdoony Thread or something.

__________________
~etexas~

Wiki is useful on rare occasions but usually borders on being an old joke that is no longer funny. The problem with Rushdoony threads is that most Reformed people momentarily pretend to be "all or nothing" guys. Meaning, well, if Rush is wrong on one thing, then he is a wrong teacher. That sort of thinking, however, never works.

The best discussion of Rushdoony comes from Professor John Frame. He avoids the typical Reformed anathemas and hero-worship.
Forward to <i>A Comprehensive Faith</i>

Rushdoony was a gigantic, systematic thinker. He wrote over 50 books, inspired the modern home-school, Christian school movement (here is the biggest irony: many Reformed folk who hate Rushdoony are christian-schooling their kids and often use the same arguments he did). He read 6 books a week for 50 years. He has over 1500 lectures online at The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life . You can sample about 20 free ones. The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

Now, since Rushdoony is a systematic thinker who literally addressed all areas of life: education, law, philosophy, theology, sociology, literature, he is going to make some mistakes. So what? We are big kids and can read people with whom we disagree. I believe that when people start reading Rushdoony, they note his historical insight and new worlds are opened up to them.

Now I feel "edumacated"!

Do yourself a favor & pick up a copy of "Salvation & Godly Works" by him. Excellent work!

__________________
Frank O Fuentes
Church of THE King
McAllen, Texas
Student at Edinburg Theological Seminary

eTexas,

If not for Rushdoony, I would not have become Reformed. Rushdoony took the sword of the Lord into his
hands and slew every opposition I had to the Reformed Faith growing up as a Baptist from a long long generation
of Baptists. In familial eyes becoming a "baby sprinkler" was treason.

Rushdoony made several errors, that were not so much derived from errors of theology, but errors of his response
to the reaction against his work, that he then incorporated into personal practice. He spearheaded the attack on liberalism that the "conservatives" were standing on to justify their condemnation and separation from liberal Protestantism. So, when someone separates from liberalism and then congratulates themselves on their conservatism in that separation, are they really conservative when they are standing upon the same principles but just haven't worked them out the same way? Rushdoony work pointed that out very clearly and they were hostile in their reaction.

Rushdoony's work came at a time when American Christianity was suffering the greatest assaults against it in our history, and the Reformed Christian community was powerless to do anything against it. So, when Rushdoony's work made manifest that it was the liberalism in the conservative Reformed Community that made it impotent, they reacted the same attitude the liberals did against them a few decades earlier.

I believe you are new to the Reformed faith? If so, pick up Rushdoony, his work is beams of light through clouds of darkness. As Frank said above, do yourself a favor. I believe Rushdoony will be to the Reformed Church, in the future, what Calvin is to us today on many spheres of Reformed Theology.

Cordially,

Thomas

That is the most prescient insight into the last 30 years that I have raed. Well said.

Daniel,

I would understand from your signature that you are not an American. I would appeal to you to stop try and telling me what American law and rights are, because once again you are completely wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an inalienable right - a part of the 1st Amendment. Just because a right is inalienable does not mean that the State cannot ever suspend it: else incarceration would be unconstitutional (right to liberty) and the death penalty as well (right to life).

This is not a case of "mere toleration." Please do some research before you take a Rushdoony quote and run with it to the violence of law and common sense.

Either that, or we don't think that the Confession is guilty of "complete nonsense" (a direct quote) in WCF 19.