Anti-God Indoctrination in 8th Grade St. George Class

Last week, an 8th grade class in St. George began the day with this excerpt on the board………. Kudos to the student who took these photos and shared them with her mom! Please note this is not Common Core, just the secular humanism religion that is allowed in our public schools.



10 thoughts on “Anti-God Indoctrination in 8th Grade St. George Class”

  1. There is no taking this out of context. This is a “Self-Start.” That means when you as a student enter class, you are to get out your class writing journal and write according to what is displayed on the board (in this case, a Promethian Board). This is a blatant attempt at introducing youth to flirtations of abandoning their belief in The Almighty. It is a fact that youth are extremely susceptible to adults whom they trust messing with their minds. If they don’t have a good relationship with either parent at the moment of this moral invasion, their support system is lost and they are left to themselves and their own limited wisdom and understanding. The teacher who engages students in this know there are a certain number of students whose religious beliefs and moral pillars could eventually shatter as a direct result of this type of “teaching.”

  2. A self-start is often an anticipatory set; it gets kids thinking about the topic for the day. If the topic is a comparison of religious beliefs or the works of a variety of authors, this might have a place. My questions about context stand. In order to truly be inoculated against falsehood, you have to encounter it at some point and learn to think critically about it.

  3. Vincent, this is the whole problem with the so called “critical thinking” movement. By design, it isn’t meant to produce critical thinking as altruists think it means. It’s meant to make children think critically about what they’ve been taught at home and church. You can see many quotes about this here:
    In this particular case the example given clearly does not give opportunity to debate the existence of God, a religious topic forbidden in schools, but assumes that God doesn’t exist as a foregone conclusion and then asks children based on that assumption to make a decision. This is clear indoctrination. It doesn’t get any clearer what the activity is trying to achieve. This is insidious.

    1. The ridiculous part of this story, that the atheists always miss, is that if there isn’t a God or angels how could there be a nondescript, androgynous figure just appearing when you are alone? So absurd. I have to wonder, they think they are so intelligent in their wording but the very story itself denotes a spirit world.

    2. Oak. It’s atheistic, no doubt. My point was that we don’t know what came before or after. Context matters.

      I will grant you that some who advocate critical thought believe that it precludes belief in God. In my view, however, critical thought is an essential component to faith. Feeling, nonetheless, is also an essential complement to reason. “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right” (D&C 9:8).

      You referred me to a lot of quotes primarily from John Goodlad. I don’t concur with his secular humanist agenda. More to the point, his views don’t have a lot of currency in contemporary educational discourse. Right now it’s all about data rather than morality or democracy. Trust me, we just went through TEAC (CAEP) accreditation. No secular humanism, just bean counting.

  4. Vincent: It doesn’t matter what the context is. It doesn’t matter what came before or after. This incident stands on its own. The whole point is that this is a blatant attempt to direct young minds. This is leading a child’s thoughts into confusion and doubt by creating a scenario they would never think of themselves. What do you think this teacher’s intent was? It is obviously, IMHO, an effort to influence and mislead the student’s thoughts toward the instructor’s dismal lack of understanding. They need to be inspired, uplifted and enlightened instead of being inflicted by their instructor into negative and dreary delusions. This is another endeavor by the Godless to foist their sick thoughts on the young. The instructor is one of the many who are trying to eliminate God from our schools.

  5. Everyone is right, even Vincent. In the ABE conference Saturday, Neil Flinders made it very clear when he stated that, “The Most Critical Element in the Study of Education in Context.” “Where Context is Corrupt or Uncertain, Confusion Will Prevail”. The writing assignment appears to “corrupt” the context for ABE learning, and that is a problem. The setting could have been reversed (an angel from God…) for the same writing assignment and achieved the same “critical thinking” goal. Ah, but that would not be allowed because that introduces religion into the class room. The teacher may have been ill advised but the problem is much bigger (think government control of education) than what is written on a white board.

  6. In light of President Clinton’s infamous testimony that the truth depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is, I think we must define the word “critical.”  The American Heritage, Random House, and Collins dictionaries all list as the first definition as: ‘Judging severely and finding fault’.

    The Frankfort School, a Marxist institution, came up with the Critical Theory, see the following site:
    We are to be liberated from those elements of our society that oppress us, like religion, capitalism, the Constitution, our family, Judeo-Christian values and Western culture.

    As we see more and more examples of course work coming out of the CC curriculum, we get glimpses of the meaning that crowd is using when they talk of students learning “critical” thinking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *