As it becomes increasingly obvious that homeschoolers do significantly better than victims of government “education” on every academic metric, apologists for the public-school system often fall back on their “socialization” mantra.

But under its true definition, “socialization” is hardly something to be desired. And under the commonly held understanding of socialization — gaining certain desirable social skills — the data show clearly that home-educated children outperform public school students on every key indicator.

Before examining the issue of “socialization,” it helps to define the term itself. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, it is “the process whereby an individual learns to adjust to a group (or society) and behave in a manner approved by the group (or society).”

Contrast that with the biblical command that Christians “be not conformed to this world,” or that they are to be “not of the world.” Throughout the Scriptures, God repeatedly makes clear that His people are not supposed to “adjust” to a society that does not respect Him and His moral code.

In short, if one accepts the common definition of “socialization,” Christians — and anyone else who realizes that the “world” and society are becoming increasingly immoral — should be deeply skeptical at the very least of this supposedly essential process being carried out by government schools. In fact, alarm bells should be ringing.

Of course, many of those who ask about “socialization” regarding home education do not have that definition in mind. Instead, they are mostly thinking about whether children will fail to learn basic social skills such as communication and healthy interaction with others. In that case, the “socialization” questions are based on myths and anti-Christian talking points.

The first myth is that homeschool families deprive their children of contact with other people outside the home. While there are always exceptions, nothing could be further from the truth. Typical homeschool families are involved in educational co-ops with other families, church, sports teams, and all manner of extra-curricular activities.

Under the guidance of their parents and other family members, these children become “socialized” in the best sense of the word. This has been true for virtually all of human history prior to the widespread proliferation of government “education” over the last century.

Indeed, to the extent that the term “socialization” is meant as some sort of process whereby children acquire positive social skills that can be measured, homeschoolers do far better than their government-educated peers. This is true on everything from peer interaction and self-concept to leadership skills, family cohesion, participation in community service, tolerance, and self-esteem.

According to a review of the empirical research on home education published in the Journal of School Choice by National Home Education Research Institute chief Dr. Brian Ray, “87% of peer-reviewed studies on social, emotional, and psychological development show homeschool students perform statistically significantly better than those in conventional schools.”

But there is more to the story. In his book Faithful Parents Faithful Children: Why We Homeschool, Christian author Donald Schanzenbach explains that the entire concept of schools as engines for “socialization” is relatively new and did not exist even 200 years ago. Indeed, the term was not even in the dictionaries of the early 1800s.

Rather, the idea of “socialization” goes back to anti-Christian philosopher Auguste Comte, the founder of sociology in the mid-1800s. His goal was to overturn Christian civilization by replacing the Christian moral order then reigning in the West with the pseudo-scientific principles of “sociology” derived from the “study of society and group life,” as Comte put it.

With that in mind, it is true that what is referred to as “socialization” does occur in government schools. But that should hardly be considered a positive development — much less as reason to subject children to godless indoctrination by a government that openly wages war on Christian morality. As the Bible explains in 1 Corinthians 15:33,

“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’”

In a typical government school today, a child will be surrounded by peers who are all being indoctrinated to believe morality is subjective, the Bible is at best irrelevant if not downright harmful, parents are “old fashioned” and should be ignored, and much more. The pressure from fellow students to get involved in drugs, promiscuity, perversion, crime and evil is ubiquitous.

Schanzenbach, the homeschool author, cites the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of socialize: “1. To place under public ownership or control. 2. To convert or adapt to social needs. 3. To take part in social activities.” He argues that this is precisely what is happening on all three levels, very much including the placing of children under government control.

“Socialization is an idea in direct opposition to biblical thought,” continues Schanzenbach. “Socialized children will likely spend their lives working against the Kingdom of God just as a matter of natural habit. They will have been taught to do so under the socializing influence of a humanist mindset, taught by example, and assumed in every classroom at the government institutions.”

Even the best teachers in government schools have publicly repudiated the notion that they are helping “socialize” the children in any positive manner. Consider John Taylor Gatto, the New York City and New York State teacher of the year in the early 90s. After realizing the damage he was doing to children in the public system, he sent his resignation letter to the Wall Street Journal.

“I’ve come slowly to understand what it is I really teach: A curriculum of confusion, class position, arbitrary justice, vulgarity, rudeness, disrespect for privacy, indifference to quality, and utter dependency,” Gatto explained in his letter that sent shockwaves through the education world. “I teach how to fit into a world I don’t want to live in.”

“My orders as schoolteacher are to make children fit an animal training system, not to help each find his or her personal path,” added Gatto, who went on to write books on the devastation caused by public schools. “There isn’t a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as fingerprints. We don’t need state-certified teachers to make education happen–that probably guarantees it won’t.”

Those who fashioned the system to socialize children appear to have had some of that in mind. Anti-Christian humanist John Dewey, widely regarded as the father of America’s public-school system, outlined his views on the subject in Democracy and Education in 1916 shortly before his infamous trip to fawn over the Soviet Union.

“Education, in its broadest sense, is the means of this social continuity of life,” Dewey explained, implying that education was not so much about the individual or God, but about society and the collective. “Each individual, each unit who is the carrier of the life-experience of the group, in time passes away. Yet the life of the group goes on.”

In other words, in Dewey’s mind, the purpose of education and “socialization” was to train individuals for the benefit of the group and its perpetuation. Whatever this may be or not be, it is certainly not the biblical view of education as a parent-led means of teaching individual children to know, fear and glorify God while giving them the tools to live a moral and meaningful life on this side of eternity.

Next time somebody asks about “socialization” of homeschoolers, you might start by asking exactly what they mean with that term. No matter how they answer, for Christians and even those who simply value true education, homeschooling clearly comes out on top.

---

Widely recognized as the founding father of America’s “progressive” public education system, John Dewey was a man on an unprecedented religious mission. With more fervor and devotion than many Christian missionaries or Islamic jihadists, he set out to win America over to his religious worldview.

Like the collectivists whose shoulders he stood upon, government-controlled education was Dewey’s weapon of choice. And now, more than a century after he began, it’s clear that Dewey and his disciples are winning—big time.

When Dewey launched his crusade to erode the faith and individualism of Americans, the United States of America was among the most devoutly Christian nations that the world had ever known. Church and the Bible were an inseparable part of life and education for virtually everyone.

A Christian Country

In 1643, in the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies, the earliest settlers in America declared, “We all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace.” (Emphasis added)

Centuries later, that was still the prevailing sentiment. In 1856, for example, the U.S. House of Representatives, which represents the people more directly than any other federal body, put it this way: “The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Numerous similar declarations came from Congress before and after that.

In 1892, meanwhile, even the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Holy Trinity Church v. the United States that America “is a Christian nation.”

As recently as the 1970s, nine out of 10 Americans still identified as Christians. Today, however, just two-thirds of Americans identify as Christians, with those numbers plummeting further every year.

Even in the Bible Belt today, significantly less than half of Americans attend church weekly, with church attendance dropping to less than 20 percent in some states.

And even among those self-proclaimed Christians, studies and surveys by the Nehemiah Institute and other organizations reveal that the vast majority reject the Biblical worldview that defined Americans for centuries.

With the decline of Christianity and the biblical worldview among Americans, the free political institutions they gave rise to have eroded, too.

Probably the most important single figure responsible for the rapid implosion of Christianity in America and across the West more broadly was Dewey.

Humanist Manifesto

In a previous article in this series, Dewey’s well-known collectivist views were documented, including his fascination with the Soviet Union and his desire to radically transform the United States into a socialist nation.

The foundation for this transformation was laid in the early 1800s by communist Robert Owen, whose writings on education inspired the Prussian government to take over education. Decades later, Massachusetts Secretary of Education Horace Mann, a collectivist and utopian, would import that statist system to America.

Finally, Dewey would seize control of that architecture, mix it with Soviet ideas and psychology, and provide an enormous boost to its effectiveness in fundamentally transforming America.

Part 3 in this series focused primarily on Dewey’s views on politics, the economy, and education. But Dewey’s religion—often described as “atheism” but, in reality, going beyond that—is a crucial part of the puzzle as well. It’s also inseparable from his views on everything else.

The high-profile reformer didn’t seek to conceal his religious views from the public, and in fact, he was a key player and one of the first signatories behind the first “Humanist Manifesto.” This important religious document essentially fused faith in the non-existence of God with a fanatical devotion to socialism and communism, creating potentially one of the most dangerous religions of all times.

The very first tenet of this “new” religion was a direct and open attack on the Bible and the prevailing religious orthodoxy of the time—in particular the notion that an omnipotent and omniscient God had created the universe and the Earth as described in Genesis 1:1, the Bible’s very first verse.

“Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created,” reads the first tenet of Dewey’s religious manifesto. Note the honesty: Dewey and company recognized that their belief system was, in fact, a religion.

Beyond the giant implications for religion, the political and economic significance of this statement is profound, too.

Socialist Aims

America’s Founding Fathers argued that is was a “self-evident” truth that God had created people and endowed them with certain inalienable rights, as explained clearly in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, the very purpose of government, they said, was to protect these God-given rights—life, liberty, and so on.

But under Dewey’s religion, there is no God. And if there is no God, then there can be no God-given rights. In fact, Dewey was openly hostile to the view that anyone had an inalienable right to private property or anything else. After all, if there is no God to prohibit stealing private property, or even murder, there is no transcendent reason why anybody should have inalienable rights to anything. This is a recipe for totalitarian rule.

The socialist and collectivist mentality behind this was all spelled out clearly in the Humanist Manifesto itself.

“The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted,” they wrote. “A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”

This is the exact same rhetoric used by every communist tyrant of the 20th century: The profit motive is bad, so radical change, including collective ownership of the means of production, must be instituted. This has been the guiding vision of such luminaries as Castro, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chavez, Maduro, the Kim dynasty, and many more. Countless millions have died as a direct result of these ideas being imposed.

But individualist American Christians with a devotion to God and God-given liberty were hardly going to just give up their ingrained beliefs, their hard-won freedom or their property rights without a fight. So Dewey and his disciples—often funded with capitalist Rockefeller money, ironically—understood that “education” would be crucial to changing people’s attitudes.

It had to be done quietly, though. “Change must come gradually,” Dewey explained in an 1898 essay calling for schools to place much less emphasis on reading and writing, and much more emphasis on collectivism. “To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction.”

A National Religion

Charles F. Potter, a fellow signer of the “Humanist Manifesto” and a Dewey associate, spelled out explicitly what few Americans were willing to see or understand at the time. “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism,” he wrote in his 1930 book “Humanism, a New Religion.”

“What can theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teachings?” Potter asked rhetorically. Of course, the answer is practically nothing, as the humanists well understood.

A few decades after Potter’s bombshell, the U.S. Supreme Court would formalize it all. After centuries of being at the center of American education, the Bible and prayer in schools, as mandated by state and local authorities from the time public education came into being, were suddenly found to be “unconstitutional.”

Supposedly, Bible and prayer in local schools represented a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on Congress passing laws respecting an establishment of religion. The legal “logic,” or lack thereof, required the court to twist itself into pretzels.

A well-educated public would have seen right through the deception. After all, when the First Amendment was written and ratified, and long afterward, most of the states actually had established churches.

But after decades of declining educational standards and humanist propaganda in schools, the monumental decision that would transform America was meekly accepted by much of the populace.

At least one justice, Potter Stewart, understood what was really happening.

“Refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism,” he wrote in his dissent, using the term “secularism” to describe what Dewey and his cohorts would have referred to as humanism. (Emphasis added)

In short, under the guise of upholding the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court did the very thing the Constitution was supposed to prevent Congress from doing: It established a national religion and compelled Americans to support it with their taxes, and more significantly, with their children.

The reason for the First Amendment was clear—the Founders were worried that some denomination of Protestant Christians might try to establish itself as the official national religion. They never would or could have imagined less than two centuries after creating the new Christian nation, that the institutions they established would force anti-Christian humanism on the American people via public education and judicial fiat. But that’s exactly what happened.

Government schools across the United States to this day pretend to be “neutral” on matters of religion, even while they indoctrinate children into believing in humanism, as if humanism were not a religious belief system. Dewey and his fellow humanists recognized it as a religion, though. And federal courts have, too.

As recently as 2014, a federal court in Oregon declared as much. “The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” wrote Judge Ancer Haggerty in the ruling, which didn’t concern schools in this case but was nonetheless highly relevant to education.

Today, Dewey’s totalitarian religion of humanism is being inculcated into the mind of every child attending public school, often by unwitting teachers who don’t even realize it. Polls now consistently show over half of young Americans identify as socialists.

Dewey would be proud. But Americans should be outraged

---

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

Regardless of what black Americans think, the police departments that protect and serve their communities should be defunded immediately. At least that is the latest propaganda being peddled in a bizarre new campaign by the far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a radical organization literally founded by members of the Communist Party USA.

According to the ACLU’s new campaign, American police are and always have been racist yahoos brutally oppressing minority communities. Reforms, investigations, firings, and other policy changes will not suffice. Instead, America’s thousands of local police departments must be defunded as soon as possible, with the “savings” being “invested” into priorities established by the ACLU.

In a series of videos purporting to document the last “100 years of history” surrounding policing in America, the far-left group argues that “policing still acts as an occupying force in communities of color.” And so, instead of public funding for police to investigate, punish, and prevent crime, that money should go to “black and brown communities,” the organization said.

A petition that goes with the campaign, which has been signed by almost 150,000 people as of this writing, displays hatred and dishonesty toward America’s police officers — many of whom put their lives on the line to protect their communities. And yet, from the ACLU’s rhetoric, American cops might as well be a pack of wild invaders led by Genghis Khan.

“The policing institutions in our country are deeply entrenched in racism and brutality, and we cannot allow it to continue,” the petition reads. “These inherently systemic issues require immediate and permanent solutions. That requires a bold reimagining of the role police play in our society: It is time to divest from law enforcement and reinvest in the Black and Brown communities [sic] they unjustly target.”

As usual, “defunding police” hysteria by guilt-ridden white liberals and agenda-driven hate-mongers such as those running the ACLU is portrayed as merely a benevolent effort to “help” black people who supposedly cannot help themselves. The narrative is very much akin to liberal campaigns to “save the whales” or “save the baby seals.”

Ironically, though, polling data show that black Americans are overwhelming against defunding the police departments that protect their communities from violent criminals. In fact, according to a Gallup survey released in August 2020 — right at the height of the media and “Black Lives Matter” demonization campaign against supposedly “racist” police — more than eight in ten black Americans wanted the same or a greater police presence.

In short, despite its supposed devotion to “democracy,” the ACLU’s radical agenda to defund police would require ignoring the wishes of the very black Americans it pretends to be concerned about. In fact, the scheme would require that a tiny, fringe minority of radicals be allowed to impose unpopular policy on the rest of the community using undemocratic means.

The ACLU’s “sweeping three-part formula” includes, among other elements, handcuffing the police, “prohibiting” them from enforcing laws against crimes that the ACLU determines are “non-dangerous” using fines or arrest. The money saved by eviscerating police will be “reinvested” into unspecified “alternatives to policing” that will supposedly help communities “thrive.”

Finally, for those “rare instances in which police officers do interact with community members” under the new policing regime, the ACLU proposes to implement “common-sense, iron-clad legal constraints” against police and “protections” for those law-enforcement interacts with. Of course, the U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions already contain such protections.

To advance its dangerous anti-police narrative, the ACLU uses deception, lies, and half-truths. The very first video is based on a fraudulent narrative, painting Rodney King — a wife beater who pleaded guilty to armed robbery — as an innocent victim of racist cops. The fact that he charged at police while intoxicated after a dangerous high-speed chase reaching almost 120 mph is never mentioned.

Even the quote from the official LA commission report about the incident is used in a deceptive manner. When the narrator cited the commission’s mention of “racism and bias within the Los Angeles Police Department,” he failed mention that it was based on a survey that found just one fourth of officers in the department thought racism or bias existed at all in the department. In other words, more than 75 percent of officers did not believe racism existed.

But this was never about racism. The communist movement in the United States — backed for generations by the mass-murdering regime enslaving the Soviet Union — has been waging war on American police for almost a century now. In fact, in an official 1961 report headlined “Communist Plot Against the Free World Police,” the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate outlined the nature of the threat.

Among other concerns, it was revealed that communist agents across the West were working to undermine local police so that law-enforcement could be nationalized and federalized. Communists directed by Soviet intelligence had a special focus on the United States. The Judiciary Committee also detailed some of the methods, including formation of mobs to attack police and then demonizing the officers.

Considering the history of the ACLU, its latest salvo in its war on America’s police should come as no surprise. Among the charter members of the ACLU at its founding were numerous senior Communist Party officials including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Louis Budenz, and even eventual Communist Party USA General-Secretary William Z. Foster.

ACLU Executive Director Roger Baldwin, who led the group from 1920 to 1950 and visited the USSR twice, was proud of his communist leanings. “I am for socialism,” he famously wrote. “I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal…. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal.”

American officials have known this for decades. In 1948, the California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities released a report on it. “The ACLU may be definitely classified as a Communist front or transmission belt organization,” the committee said on page 107 of its 1948 report. “At least 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who come in conflict with the law.”

Stripping American communities of their police forces would be a recipe for chaos, especially in minority communities. But the American people, including black Americans, have made it abundantly clear that they are vehemently opposed to such an idiotic plan.

---

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-