Connect with us

Education

Malthusian humanism and death education, Part I

Published

on

“We ought to be trembling about the fact that the schools which have failed to teach academics are now presuming to teach matters of life and death.”

– Dr. William Coulson

“…I’ve sort of built my career in helping people try to die better,” explained California ICU physician Jessica Zitter during an NPR interview with host Michel Martin on February 25th of this year (NPR.org).  “I’ve also realized that this [death] is no different a taboo.” Recalling a recent visit to a high school classroom, Zitter philosophized the benefits of teaching children about death, emphasizing the possible impacts that the act of changing the attitudes of youngsters could have on society in the future. “And that’s the kind of thing that I think really starts to make change in our culture,” she said (emphasis mine). “I was once accused by a renowned professor of medicine of deceiving my ICU patients…” she wrote in a 2013, New York Times article entitled, They Call Me Dr. Kevorkian. Dr. Zitter’s presence in the classroom is evidence of a seldom-discussed, yet monumental effort to alter the thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors of Americans, specifically in regards to death. Predators always target the young.

Enter death education.

“Since death has been such a taboo topic, open and honest communication is essential. Such communication helps to desensitize students to anxiety-arousing items.”

– Death Educator Nina Rebak Rosenthal

Few times has something set off so many blaring warning bells in my mind as death education.  “No administrator should be surprised to find that his staff is afraid of handling this topic,” stated an article in Phi Delta Kappan (McLure).  Nevertheless, many educators – motivated by altruism and blinded by an unearned level of trust in the knowledge and intentions of the “experts” – willingly follow the leaders while remaining shamefully unaware of the harm that may result from their implementation of faulty, humanist eschatology and practices in their classrooms. I should know – I am a certified teacher.

I can hear the sales pitch now: First comes the generic, yet overreaching opening statement about “experts”: The experts all agree… blah, blah, blah…  Kids need this…  Blah, blah, blah… The opening remarks are usually designed to disarm teachers by appealing to the dutifully enforced, professional hierarchy. This is typically followed by two or three extremely brief arguments which appeal to educators’ rational thinking.  Brevity is key: if you give the teachers too much time to listen, they might start thinking for themselves… Finally, it is time for the kill shot. This is best described as the stress inducing bombardment of teachers with anecdotal language which directly plays upon their emotions and, thus, smothers all inclinations toward independent analysis or hesitation: Parents don’t talk to their kids anymore or teach them about death, and they are at a disadvantage in life. It’s such a tragedy in our society…. Kids will be confused by all of the misconceptions in the world around them… Do you want the kids to learn about it from their friends, or on the street? Or, don’t you think it’s better they learn about it at school? It might help prevent suicide! (Of course, “preventative education” hasn’t actually been successful at preventing much of anything.)It is actually pretty pathetic how easily we are tricked, how easily we are played.

Death education has been creeping into schools since the 1960’s/70’s, after the publication of Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s “On Death and Dying” (Blumenfeld, Newman, 2014).  Kübler-Ross was the charismatic leader of a “New Age” death cult, spreading the message of a joyful acceptance of death. “The womb and the grave have been equated in mystery religions. … This is precisely the significance of Kübler-Ross’s choice of death and dying as her primary consideration as a charismatic leader” (Omega, 1985-86). Before long, the “progressive” teachers’ unions jumped into bed with the joyful death movement. We now have entire foundations dedicated to death education, such as the Association for Death Education and Counseling. Even Scholastic, Inc. is pushing death ed. Wolves travel in packs.

Thanatology (the study of death and dying) in the classroom can be summed up as the incorporation of death into the various academic areas of study. “Death by its very nature involves science and medicine, social studies and sociology, psychology, history, art, literature, music, insurance, and law,” wrote one death educator in the March 1973, NEA Journal (National Education Association). As death is so easily integrated into any subject, death education thus provides opportunities for classroom discussions on “the moral and ethical issues of abortion and euthanasia…” (emphasis mine).

Death education can take on two formats: didactic (lectures, videos, etc.) and experiential (simulation exercises). Twelfth graders may design their own headstones during art class or visit a funeral home to view a human cadaver as a science exercise on organ donation. After the suicide of a classmate – a “teachable moment” – eleventh graders may compose their own suicide notes. During a health and wellness class, ninth graders may be instructed to close their eyes and enter a deep trance in which they are to return to the moment that a loved one died. Seventh graders may add up the costs involved in planning their own funeral during math class or write their own wills in language arts. The words corpse, morgue, and cadaver may be added to the fifth grade’s spelling list. Third grade children may be asked to compose their own obituaries as a part of their creative writing unit. The kindergarten class may take a field trip to a mortuary or a cemetery while learning about communities. The preschool class may build caskets in the “blocks center” and take turns playing “the dead person” as a part of dramatic play.

“Class assignments were for students to write their own obituaries and suicide notes. They were told to trust their own judgment in choosing to live or die.”

– Jayne Schindler

Incorporating death and dying into curriculum requires teachers to abandon the role of instructor and, instead, assume the role of facilitator, quasi-therapist, and “reflective listener”; a reckless recipe for disaster. The classroom is transformed into a forum for group, pseudo-psychotherapeutic, “conversation circles.” Unfortunately, from these “’death and dying courses’, there are preliminary indications that this kind of education also leads to a greater likelihood of violence against self” (emphasis mine) (DiGirolamo). In fact, numerous educators have long acknowledged the harm that can be inflicted upon a student as a result of studying death in the classroom. There have even been several recorded suicide attempts by students which coincidentally followed periods of exposure to death education, such as in the case of Tara Becker who attended Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in the 1980’s.

“Death arouses emotions. Some students may get depressed; others may get angry; many will ask questions or make statements that cause concern for the instructor… Students may discuss the fact that they are having nightmares or that the course is making them depressed or feeling morbid…”

– Death Educator Nina Rebak Rosenthal

Psychologist William Coulson, who was one of the innovators of the psychotherapeutic techniques most often used in death education and who can be credited with the overly-psychologizing of America’s schools, has emphatically spoken out against the techniques he once championed. As it turns out, facilitating value-clarification or being a “reflective listener,” also called “nondirective education,” has been found to actually cause harm rather than prevent it, especially in children. Rather than helping young people understand death, our atheistic classrooms, dripping in moral relativism, are causing young people to feel immense confusion and anxiety.  Teaching with ambivalence – failing to providing students with concrete knowledge of or a declarative sense of right and wrong – forces students to create their own set of values and ideas, regardless of how potentially dangerous or destructive those values and ideas may prove to be. As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “To educate a child in mind and not morals is to educate a menace to society.” Yet, in the secular, humanist classrooms of America’s schools that is precisely what is occurring.

Back in 1990, Dr. Coulson was interviewed for an episode of ABC’s 20/20, “Death in the Classroom,” during which host Tom Jerrial asked, “Aren’t kids seeing more of death these days on television and with crack and violence in the streets… Isn’t there a need to educate them younger about death?” “It sounds like one of those things, Tom, that would be a good idea, except apparently it’s just not working out that way,” Coulson explained. “See, these interventions aren’t powerful enough, if you will, to keep the troubled kids out of trouble, but they are powerful enough to draw the untroubled kids into becoming troubled… What makes us think that American education is going to do a good job teaching death education? We ought to be trembling about the fact that the schools which have failed to teach academics are now presuming to teach matters of life and death.”

Yet, the Malthusian humanists who live amongst us – and those who pull the purse strings from abroad – do not have time for reflection or evaluation; not when there is an entire culture that must be changed, a world population that must be decreased, taboos that need normalizing, and generations of children that need desensitizing. Their eyes are always fixed on the prize, the pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow.

…Which brings us to the next problem of death education.

Enter George Soros, master puppeteer.

(…to be continued)

Citations + Resources:

 

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of ThePaintingPastor.org, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Marc

    June 5, 2017 at 7:11 pm

    This is news to me and it’s scary. If it has got this far, God is the only one who can help us. God bless America….. again!

Leave a Reply

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

Education

A Tale of Two Shootings

Published

on

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. Charles Dickens probably never thought of a shooting as the best of times, nor would anyone else. However, if you HAVE to have a shooting, then the obvious “best of times” is one where only the gunman dies. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case.

Today we had yet another, preventable shooting at a soft-target school, where the best defense the government can come up with is making the school a gun-free zone, and occasionally a couple of cops.

The facts will continue to play out, but while two police officers acted heroically today (take note, Broward County Sheriff’s Office) what we do know is that there were still far too many innocents killed. The first officer was shot before he knew what was happening, and the second seems to have moved as fast as he could, though no one can be everywhere at once.

This will obviously be a story that is played out in the press for days, while the talking heads on Fox News and CNN spout various “solutions” to the problems of mass shootings. Most of these talking heads won’t have the first clue what they are talking about.

I am a former military and civilian firearms instructor. I still teach friends and family who want to learn, but I don’t charge anymore. I was a Texas Concealed Handgun Instructor. I know the law in Texas. A 17 year-old having access to his father’s weapons like what happened today is a felony for the father. Yes, there is a DEFENSE to this charge if the gun was used in self-defense, but this was not the case here, and so the father can not use this defense in court, though I’m sure his lawyers will try if they’re paid enough. The father of today’s shooter (I won’t use his name and give him the fame so many of these killers desire) WILL see time in prison, if Attorney General Ken Paxton has anything to say about it. The father may have obtained his guns legally, but in no way was a 17 year-old legally using them.

Obviously, today’s shooting was the worst of times.

The best of times happened just yesterday in Dixon, Illinois, when a school resource officer shot a would-be school shooter. There were snippets about this in the NY Times and other major news outlets, but that story has already gone away, while this one will not. It SHOULD be talked about just as much as today’s shooting. We need to talk about successes in stopping school shootings just as much as we talk about failures. We need to have an honest conversation about what DOES and what DOES NOT work.

I’m not going to use this piece to go into a great detail on the gun-control debate, though I’m sure that’s where the Left will continue to take us, even though they admit there are no additional laws they want that would stop these horrific tragedies. I DO want us all to come to some common ground on this issue of school shootings though.

1. ALL of us (we, the common people) want these to stop. I say we the common people because there are a great number of politicians on both sides of the debate, but particularly on the Left, who make a great deal of hay when these incidents happen.

2. We have to have an honest conversation about what does and does not work. An HONEST conversation, by the way, Lefties, does not mean what levels of gun control we’re willing to accept.  And for those on the Right, yes, we need to talk about gun control. It’s our job to demonstrate to those who are ill-informed why gun control has not and never will work.

3. We need to approach this with logic and facts, not emotion.

This honest conversation has to begin with certain undeniable facts:

1. The shootings with the lowest body counts are those stopped by a good guy with a gun. It’s not ALWAYS a cop. Arming responsible teachers who both desire to carry and have demonstrated that they can handle a gun is something we need to talk about. I’ve heard good arguments for this, and one or two reasonable concerns against.

2. In nearly every incidence, mental health has played a factor, and could be seen BEFORE the shooting.

3. In MOST (not all) incidences, there were already mechanisms in place within current law that COULD have and SHOULD have stopped the gunman from obtaining firearms. Take today for example. Daddy is going to go to jail, and he should, for not having his firearms secured where his son could get them. I’m speculating here, but I’m willing to bet a lot of money as the investigation goes on, that the father of the gunman knew his son was disturbed, and should not only have kept his firearms secure from his son, as is the law in Texas, but also should have been seeking mental health for his son.

4. The Left is going to hate this one, but it’s an undeniable fact. Almost every one of these mass shootings, and ALL of them in schools, are in gun free zones. Those who know little to nothing about guns may think this irrelevant, but it is one of the most important points. They are soft targets that are chosen because most if not everyone there is completely defenseless.

There is more we could talk about on today’s shooting. We could talk about the explosives, the fact that neither of the guns used are ones the Left (currently) claims it wants to ban, or the instant calls for gun control. I did see something just yesterday that I found interesting from the Left. They were complaining that Parkland was disappearing from the news and it wasn’t getting any attention anymore, a month later. They wanted to push for gun control and nothing else.

Well, I have a solution for this. Adhere to the above rules for a conversation, and accept the undeniable facts above, and then engage us with logic and reason, instead of pure emotion. The kids from the Parkland shooting got famous not for their calm reason, but for their rage.

And before you think I’m not emotional ENOUGH about all this, just keep in mind I have two little boys in public school here in Texas. Yes, I’d love for the teachers and administrators in their schools (those who want to be) armed and willing to protect my kids. I’ll donate the time on the range to help them become proficient. I’ll even pay for the ammo and range time.

Continue Reading

Education

Hidden History: Colonial Rebellion Against Corporate Oppression

Published

on

Was “The Boston Tea Party” truthfully all about taxation?

It started with a famine-

Eight years after the Battle of Plassey in 1757, when British Major-General Robert Clive defeated the Nawab of Bengal (India), Clive granted British governmental powers of civil administration to the British East India Company in Bengal (BBC History Magazine, 2010).

As the functioning government over Bengal, the East India Company imposed taxes on goods, land taxes, and trade tariffs. A monopoly over tea and grains was achieved (Cambridge Forecast, 2006).

Laws were also passed prohibiting the Bengalese from “hoarding” goods, such as rice. “This prevented traders and dealers from laying in reserves that in other times would have tided the population over lean periods,” (Cambridge Forecast, 2006).

When a semi-regular dry spell, causing a decline in crop production, came upon the region in 1769, the peasantry’s surplus of staple crops proved inadequate for sustaining the population (Strasser, 2010).

Famine struck in 1770, “killing at least 1.9 million people – this was equivalent to half the population of the 13 American colonies at the time” (BBC History Magazine, 2010).

A plethora of bad press soon haunted the British East India Company.

The horrified public of Great Britain rightfully cast blame upon the East India Company for the man-made disaster.

Horace Walpole, the 4th Earl of Orford, wrote:

“The oppressions of India…. under the rapine and cruelties of the servants of the company, had now reached England, and created general clamour here,” (BBC History Magazine, 2010).

 

The American Colonies were slated to be next-

In 1773, the Crown devised a plan to aid the now economically flailing British East India Company in ridding itself of 17.5 million pounds of excess tea (BBC History Magazine, 2010).

The Tea Act was passed by Parliament in May of 1773.

The act imposed no new taxes.

Rather than imposing a new tax on tea, the Tea Act merely reinforced the taxes already in existence, put in place years before with the passage of the 1767 Townsend Revenue Act. Instead of imposing a new tax, the Tea Act of 1773 granted a full monopoly on the import and subsequent sale of tea in all American colonies.

This monopoly was granted to the British East India Company.

Americans feared that they too would suffer the fate of the Bengalese under the ruthless, corporate despotism of the East India Company.

“As Americans were well aware, the East India Company had turned itself into the actual government of east India, and there, the Company‘s irresponsible, ruthless, and inhumane greed had been directly responsible for millions of deaths in the Bengal famine of 1770” (Charleston Law Review, 2012).

In an impassioned objection against the East India Company, John Dickenson, a Pennsylvania lawyer, wrote:

“Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given ample Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men… cast their Eyes on America, as a new Theatre, whereon to exercise their Talents of Rapine, Oppression and Cruelty. The Monopoly of Tea, is, I dare say, but a small Part of the Plan they have formed to strip us of our Property. But thank GOD, we are not Sea Poys, or Marattas, but British Subjects, who are born to Liberty, who know its Worth, and who prize it high,” (BBC History Magazine, 2010).

For Americans, the issues at hand were quite simple:

“Would they allow England to press down upon America the corrupt class of royal toadies who would rule America by force, as they did east India? Would they allow England to siphon off the productive wealth of Americans and gladly watch Americans die in order to enhance their own corrupt profits?” (Dave Kopel, Charleston Law Review, 2012).

Their answer? No!

And so, on the evening of December 16, 1773, approximately 100 Bostonians –“supported by a crowd of thousands who safeguarded them”- boarded three ships filled with East India Company cargo and dumped 46 tons of tea into the waters of the harbor (Charleston Law Review, 2012).


Citations:

  1. “Bengal Famine of 1770,” Richard Melson, Cambridge Forecast, October 2006, Retrieved at http://www.cambridgeforecast.org/MIDDLEEAST/BENGAL.html
  2. “British East India Company and the Great Bengal Famine”, Strasser, 2010, retrieved at https://strassers.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/british-east-india-company-and-the-great-bengal-famine/
  1. “Defiance of The Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & The Making of America”, Benjamin L. Carp, (2010).
  2. “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, 6 Charleston L. Rev. 283, 2012, Retrieved at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967702
  3. “The global origins of the Boston Tea Party”, BBC History Magazine, 2010 (Christmas Issue), Retrieved at https://www.historyextra.com/period/the-global-origins-of-the-boston-tea-party/

Continue Reading

Education

Hidden History: The Disarmament of Boston

Published

on

The first shots were fired in the American War for Independence on April 19, 1775, when 700 British Redcoats, led by Major John Pitcairn, attempted to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord (American Bar Association, 2012).

The patriots, however, had already moved their supply of arms to safety.

After an initial, successful battle against the patriots at the bridge at Lexington and Concord, the Redcoats were ambushed and eventually outnumbered 2:1 by American re-enforcements arriving from surrounding towns (Charleston Law Review, 2012, p. 310).

While some American fighters had arrived organized – illegally-formed local militias – a large number arrived and fought on their own, even taking up sniper positions whenever possible. Patriots who joined the fight even included a number of women and the elderly. Before long, the armed Americans harried Pitcairn’s Redcoats back into Boston (Charleston Law Review, 2012, p. 310).

“One British officer reported: ‘These fellows were generally good marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting.’ On a per-shot basis, the Americans inflicted higher casualties than had the British regulars” (American Bar Association, 2012).

Boston, where the Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage’s Red Coats were stationed, was now surrounded by armed American patriots.

Since their attempt to seize American’s arms at Lexington and Concord had gone badly for the British, and now finding themselves surrounded by armed patriots, Royal Governor Gage devised an alternate plan for disarmament.

On April 23, 1775, General Gage made an offer to Bostonians trapped within the city: turn in your arms and you can leave Boston.

“The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians,” (American Bar Association, 2012). Arms collected included: “1778 fire-arms (muskets or rifles)… 634 pistols… 973 bayonets (bayonets attached to the long guns)… and 38 blunderbusses (short-barreled shotguns),” (Frothingham, 1849).

However, after “having collected the arms, Gage then refused to allow the Bostonians to leave. He claimed that many more arms had been secreted away than surrendered,” (American Bar Association, 2012). While inhabitants of Boston were supposed to receive certificates permitting departure from Boston, this rarely occurred in practice. Indeed, before long, “passes to leave issued by Gage quickly dried up,” (Halbrook, 2008).

Further complicating the matter was the fact that those Bostonians who were permitted to leave, were prohibited from taking any belongings with them (Halbrook, 2008).

The situation for Bostonians worsened over time, as food shortages began to take effect.

As one Bostonians wrote, in a letter to an acquaintance in Philadelphia (New England Historical Society, 2014):

You request my writing freely, which I must be cautious of, for reasons which will naturally occur to you. As to the inhabitants removing, they are suffered to go out under certain restrictions. This liberty was obtained after many town meetings, and several conferences between their Committee and General Gage. The terms mutually agreed to were, “that the inhabitants should deliver up all their arms to the Selectmen.” This was generally done, though it took up some days. On this occasion the inhabitants were to have had liberty to remove out of Town, with their effects, and during this, to have free egress and regress. But mark the event: the arms being delivered, orders were issued by the General, that those who inclined to remove must give in their names to the Selectmen, to be by them returned to the Military Town Major, who was then to write a pass for the person or family applying, to go through the lines, or over the ferry; but all merchandise was forbid; after a while, all provisions were forbid; and now all merchandise, provisions, and medicine. Guards are appointed to examine all trunks, boxes, beds, and every thing else to be carried out; these have proceeded such extremities, as to take from the poor people a single loaf of bread, and half pound of chocolate; so that no one is allowed to carry out a mouthful of provisions; but all is submitted to quietly. The anxiety indeed is so great to get out of Town, that even were we obliged to go naked, it would not hinder us. But there are so many obstructions thrown in the way, that I do not think, those who are most anxious will be all out in less than two or three months — vastly different from what was expected, for the General at first proposed, unasked, to procure the Admiral’ s boats to assist the inhabitants in the transportation of their effects, which is not done, and there are but two ferry-boats allowed to cross. They have their designs in this, which you may easily guess at. We suffer much for want of fresh meat.

“After several months, food shortages in Boston convinced Gage to allow easier emigration from the city,” (American Bar Association, 2012).

In the end, it was the “seizure of these arms from the peaceable citizens of Boston who were not even involved in hostilities,” which ultimately “sent a message to all of the colonies that fundamental rights were in grave danger” (Halbrook, 20008).

Citations:

  • “The Founder’s Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms”, Stephen P. Halbrook, 2008.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.