The Root Of The Problem
No matter how we educate children, the topic of religion is inescapable; government-run education does not and cannot avoid it. Why? Ravi Zacharias (an expert in Christian apologetics) says there are Four Questions To Answer In Life.
- Origin – Where do we come from?
- Meaning – Why are we here?
- Morality – What’s right and what’s wrong?
- Destiny – What happens to a human being when I die?
These are religious questions. We are practically born wanting to know the answers. Therefore, no educational system can avoid these questions. Even a supposedly secular education (such as that provided by our public school system) must address each of these questions either directly or indirectly.
At best, what a secular education does is try to render the issue of God irrelevant. Therefore, because government-run schools are “secular” institutions, many Atheists promote public education as a way of undermining the Christian faith.
Consider this satirical cartoon as an example. When I argued that no education is complete without religious instruction (here), tildeb (apparently a militant Atheist) threw up the cartoon (here). At first, I thought the cartoon simply absurd. Then I realized the cartoonist was trying to satirize religious education as indoctrination into senseless superstitions.
What Are The Problems With Government-Run Education?
Talk to different people, and you will get different ideas about who needs an education and what kind of education is needed. In America, we generally think every child has the “right” to a basic education (whatever that is). Therefore, we have put our government in charge of the education our children.
Unfortunately, there are three big problems with the American approach to education.
- An education is not a right. Parents have a responsibility for educating their children, but government has no business forcing anyone to pay for the education somebody else’s child, not even a needy child. That is form of stealing, and it is wrong.
- We cannot trust politicians, and we don’t trust politicians. Nevertheless, various special interest groups have guilted the rest of us into funding public education. Over the years what these people have demonstrated is their desire for money and power, not a good education for children. That’s why our education system is costly, ineffective, and riddled with politics. That’s why we have huge bureaucracies filled with cushy jobs for adults instead of a first rate school system.
- Supposedly, the public education system excludes religious content. In IS MULTICULTURALISM A RELIGION?, we debunked that myth.
Who Are The Advocates For Government-Run Education?
Three basic groups promote government-run education.
- Those seeking power.
- Those seeking financial gain.
- Those with philosophical objections to parental school choice.
Because it gives them considerable power, politicians seek to control how our money is spent on education. Power-hungry men and women want to control who teaches children, what children are taught, how children are taught, and where children go to school.
Because a government-run educational monopoly makes it easier for them them to unionize and demand exorbitant salaries and benefits, teachers unions oppose school choice. Various other special interests who make money off government-run education also oppose school choice.
At least three groups insist upon government-run schools for ostensibly philosophical reasons.
- Socialists want government-run schools for the sake of equality. Unless government runs the schools, these supposedly fear the poor will not be properly educated.
- Because Secularists equate religion with superstition, they favor a secular education. Thus, they have used public education as a backdoor method for imposing their godless worldview on our children.
- Because politicians will sell access to our children, some groups see the public education system as a method for obtaining access to the other people’s children. These different groups use the public school system to indoctrinate children in various politically correct causes including: Socialism, Environmentalism, Moral Relativism, Sexual Liberation, Multiculturalism, feminism, immigration “reform” and so forth.
So What Is The Fix?
Matthew: January 4, 2015 at 12:55 am
Everything is a religion. Prove to me that I am wrong. Your comment itself is religious.
Contrary to what politicians would have us believe, we cannot compartmentalize our lives. We cannot call one part Christian and another part secular. God created everything. He created us, the world in which we live, and each moment in which live and breathe. He created us for His glory, not to be secular beings.
All that may sound to some like fanaticism, but consider a secular idiom, to find yourself. The Christian version of finding yourself is seeking God’s purpose for your life.
Psalm 37:4 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 Delight yourself also in the Lord,
And He shall give you the desires of your heart.
We are God’s children. He wants what is best for us. He wants us to love Him and each other. When we love God and each other, when we do what God has called us to do, we are happiest, knowing true fulfillment. Thus, secularizing the education of our children just increases the risk they will waste their lives.
If we believe in God and the life to come, then we must believe every decision we make has eternal significance. We must believe each decision we make, what we choose to learn, how we choose to spend our time, and how we choose to live, is a religious choice. When we make decisions for our children, that too must be a religious choice.
Consider what we have enshrined in the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Various state constitutions also protect the right to freedom of religion. Yet time and sophistry has confused our understanding. Even so the founders clearly did not want a busybody government. They wanted the right to run their lives and exercise the freedom of their own consciences.
Because of poor instruction, we have forgotten what the Bible teaches.
Ephesians 6:1-4 New King James Version (NKJV)
6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.
Our Creator gave parents the responsibility for the upbringing of the children they bring into this world. When parents pass that responsibility onto politicians, people no one in their right minds would trust with more power than necessary, they risk being disobedient to what the Bible teaches. When we allow our children to grow up without fully realizing their lives are a gift from our Creator, that their owe Him their worship, that they should seek to spend each moment in communion with Jesus, we fail in our duty as parents.
That means parents need to choose who teaches their children, what their children are taught, how their children are taught, and where their children go to school. That’s means we need school choice.
You shouldn’t be too hard on Keith, Tom. If I can let him bounce off my back, you might as well just take the substance of his positions and ignore his personal attacks on me. That’s what I try to do.
Tom – re your 12 January comment at 1045: You say that Keith and I have said “not nice” things about each other. I hope that my comments about Keith have refrained from any personal attack on him. I disagree with Keith on some things, agree with him on others (for example, his point about St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the creation story of Genesis allegorical, not literal strikes me as a very important and helpful contribution to make in this particular thread). I have excepted to Keith’s tendency to appoint himself Keeper of the Labels and to quickly accuse me of lacking integrity. I consider that personal and unnecessary when discussing ideas. So, to that extent, Keith has sometimes not “played well with others” in this space. But I consider him intelligent and knowledgeable and, if I have said anything about him that was interpreted to be a personal attack on him as a human being, it was unintentional and I regret it. I think I have a higher opinion of him than he does of me. Perhaps we are both mistaken. But it is not personal. I don’t really even know him except in the most narrow, artificial context of exchanging views on this blog.
My point was that Keith enjoys debating. Obviously you and the “Keeper of the Labels” have some disagreements as what a Conservative might be (I think Keith and I agree on that point, BTW.). Nevertheless, you generally give us something of substance to chew on. A constant stream of ad hominem just grows old and tiresome. If that is all commenter has to offer, because there is not anything that should be taken seriously, his arguments cannot be taken seriously.
So many comments it is hard to keep track. It appears that I ruffled the feathers of secularists. Good gentlemen, why is it so hard for you to see that both worldviews (i.e., evolutionism and creationism) comprise their collection of presuppositions, convictions, and values from which they attempt to understand and make sense out of the world and life. Furthermore, these two worldviews begin with presuppositions, as I have defined above. Presuppositions greatly affect the evolutionist and creationist’s interpretation of evidence (or facts) before them. The problem, especially for secularists, who refuse to admit, is that science (or knowledge) itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Did you know that? The West can thank Christianity, not secularism. (Of course, history revisionists will pervert said fact.) Science (or knowledge) is possible because our Creator upholds the universe and everything therein in a logical, orderly way, and because our Creator made our minds able to think and reason logically. It takes more faith (or trust) to believe in evolutionism and secularism than it does to believe in our Creator. Science–true science, not pseudo-science–supports (and will continue to support) God and His creation. How? The creation and all therein is axiomatic. (This reiterates Romans 1.) Would one venture to say that a Pepsi can evolved over billions and millions of years? Yet, some would (and do) believe it, even though it denies the self-evident.
As I stated numerous times, both evolutionists and creationists approach experimental (or observational) science (or knowledge), whether natural or social science, very similarly. On the other hand, when it comes to how these natural and social sciences came into existence in the past (i.e., historical science), the presuppositions of evolutionists and creationists govern their interpretations and conclusions. Why is this so hard to understand, gentlemen? The presupposition of billions and millions of years–again there is no evidence and dating methods are faulty, ineffective, and dishonest thanks to the body of scientific literature–developed in the 18th century. Prior to the 18th century, scientists generally accepted the presupposition that the universe and everything therein was between six and seven thousand years old. In the 18th century, and up to the 19th century, secular scientists challenged that notion by developing the presupposition of billion and millions of years, which became popular with secular geologists. Obviously that secular presupposition is still popular today, though true science and the body of scientific literature prove otherwise. Why does man continue to believe this lie when science (or knowledge) proves the contrary? Simple. The presupposition of billions and millions of years of evolution fits the secularist’s narrative and worldview. The religion of the secularist requires more faith (or trust) than mine. So, the West went from believing a young universe to an old universe. How did Christian scientists and theologians respond to their secular neighbor? They developed incorrect theories as Theistic Evolution, Gap Theory, and Day-Age Theory. (All it takes is reading the Bible and said theories are refuted.)
It appears that one individual became irate regarding evolution. There are two types of evolution: macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Macro-evolution presupposes that one specie can (or does or did) evolve or change into another specie (e.g., man evolved from ape). Micro-evolution presupposes that variation occurs within a specie (e.g., different types of dog or cat). Experimental (or operational) science cannot prove macro-evolution; yet, it can (and does) shed light regarding micro-evolution. Secularists still cling to macro-evolution, though it cannot be directly observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable by experimental (or operational) science. Now, you are probably thinking, “Does micro-evolution disprove a Creator and creationism?” Absolutely not! It is important organisms adapt over generations to their environments, or else all life would cease. Adaption is not evolution as secularists insist. The body of scientific literature proves that variation within a specie requires genetic information already present within the specie, and that mutations result in the loss of genetic information; accordingly, this science (or knowledge) does not support any evolutionist/secularist claim.
At any rate, the intensity of this debate proves my point earlier. One religion clashing with another religion. One worldview clashing with another worldview. One’s presuppositions clashing with another one’s presuppositions. One’s science (or knowledge) clashing with another one’s science. I do not sit here typing behind the computer screen to know everything. In fact, no man will ever know everything owing to his weak, limited, feeble, imperfect, and simple faculties, unless that man is divine. Though I possess undergraduate and graduate degrees, have over 50 years of experience in higher education, criminal justice, social sciences and services, and private and public sectors, and have served on research committees and as chairman, I am nothing but a man of lowly intelligence, of dust, and of worms. I am a tiny spec in this vast universe created by our Creator. Science (or knowledge) alone will not, cannot, and shall not convince. Plus, science (or knowledge) alone will not, cannot, and shall not save. What does convince and save men? The Law and Gospel of the true, living God, our Creator that is Christ Jesus. I encourage my fellow men, whether Christian or secular, to see that there is no better source than the eyewitness account of our Creator of the heavens and earth than the lemming minds of men.
Yours truly and God bless you. 🙂
What I always find amusing about supposed presuppositional claims leveled at the non-religious by their religious counterparts is they seem to have this tiny area of guilt which forces them to project some sort of massive insecurity of anyone who doesn’t believe in their god; as if the perfectly acceptable response” I don’t know” is some sort of anathema.
Christians generally astound me with their arrogance as a result of their sheer ignorance of their own religion which they would like to see as a worldview simply because of a shoddy and rather disgusting ”book” know as the bible.
And they wonder why they are often treated with such contempt?
Listen or read a deconvertee.
Good afternoon Ark, blessings. I value your ad hominem comment. Why? You, secularists, and deconvertees actually remind me of myself. Your story is my story. I once strongly held your worldview, your religion, your science, and your presuppositions. I was reared in a devout Christian household. I left the church. I became an agnostic and then a rabid atheist. I followed and loved the world, and I lived a worldly life. I was very arrogant and I scoffed Christians and anything spiritual. As an elderly man, who reflects on his life often, I realize how impressionable, ignorant, arrogant, and gullible I was as a young man, even early middle-age. I made many mistakes and I hurt people to gain advantages in my careers. Sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desires, covetousness, anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from my mouth were common. How foolish was I? Very foolish.
Then a Christian, with whom I worked, preached the Law and Gospel to me one day because we discussed religion. I belittled and mocked him but then I gave him an “open ear” because I wanted to appear “open minded” and “free thinking.” Initially, and naturally, I rejected everything he said to me. As time progressed, something inside me wanted to know more about this “Jesus Christ.” Sure, I knew of Him but I did not personally know Him. So, I inquired more about Jesus from my Christian co-worker. I shall admit, he was debating me head-to-head and he countered every secular argument I threw at him. I was very impressed with his astuteness. Needless to say, by the pure grace and mercy of our Creator, He saved a wretched like me. I am certain you know the song “Amazing Grace” by John Newton. That song was (and is) my life.
Ark, I do not expect to convert you to my religion, nor do I expect you to convert me back to your religion. (I was once there. Lived it and it did not work for me. It was a very unfulfilled life.) Nevertheless, your and my salvation solely rests with Christ Jesus, who, indeed, brought me to the truth and the truth set me free. You can deny your Creator all you want, Ark. Your disbelief will not save you. If I jump in front of a semi-truck traveling 75 mph and shout, “I do not believe in semi-trucks,” will my disbelief save me? Of course not. So it is with your disbelief. You and I are dependent on God, no other. Do you know what amazes me, Ark? Those who set out to disprove Christ Jesus once and for all through inquiry always become believers. Interesting. How is that so? I should know because I was one of them. It just proves the changing power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that no feeble mind of man can comprehend. Thankfully, Ark, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died for sinners like you and I–everyone! I will keep you in prayer, Ark. God bless you. 🙂
Yes, the all too common smorgasbord of ‘ sin’ the pre-convert revels in prior to their glorious epiphany.
Amazing how almost every convert confesses to one, some or all of these traits.
And when I say convert I refer to converts to any religion, not just the over inflated ego-fueled one you subscribe to.
It is unfortunate you were unable to deal with the emotional issues that you list without abrogating responsibility to a sky daddy from a heinous man-made text.
What you believe as an adult is your choice. My only reservation is that you may have access
Otherwise…. ”Cowabunga, dude!”
Ark, who are you trying to convince? Me? Or yourself?
About what, exactly? Sorry, your comment lost me.
Hey, Matthew, thanks for proving my point for all to see: I pointed out that there was no difference between the method of thinking you were using for your channeling of Wattsupwiththat for your denialism of climate change by AGW and your channeling of Answers in Genesis for your denialism of evolution by believing in the power of Oogity Boogity through Poof!ism. Well done. The circle is complete. You’re not just a scientifically enthusiastic science denier; you’re an idiot.
You’re not just a scientifically enthusiastic science denier; you’re an idiot.
Thank you for the ad hominem comment. C’mon, Tildeb, I know you can do better than that. I often find that those who begin to lose the debate slander their opponent’s character instead of addressing the evidence. When did I ever say that you and I deny science? Well all use science, my friend. The conflict is two worldviews interpreting the same evidence, whether through experimental or historical science. By the way, AIG, I know of and do support it, was not the first to bring this matter to light. This conflict has been a centuries old issue. Nothing new under the sun.
By denying evolution as it is defined in biology and denying accelerated climate change by AGW. That’s denying science, Matthew. You are denying every scientific organization that accepts them. You are denying why they are accepted. You elevate your own trivial and contrary difference of opinion to be better informed than the vast majority of scientists in the world.
Now, you may think of yourself as an enthusiastic science supporter, but you’re not… by demonstration. You’re an enthusiastic ignorance promoter and science denier. Because the science you deny is like the nose on your face, you are an idiot to think your contrary opinion determines whether or not your nose exists, whether or not evolution is true, whether or not climate change is caused by AGW.
Your opinion is shite in comparison, no matter how enthusiastically you try to dress it up as science.
It is the method of science applied that powers your computer, that makes your drugs efficacious, that produces materials you use, distributes the foods you eat, provides your heat and allows you to make a fool of yourself online. It’s all the same method… the identical one that produces evolution AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Your contrary opinions don’t matter because they are scientifically baseless and useless.
They are useless and baseless because you don’t utilize the same method for your contrary opinion. You use faith-based belief. In this stark contrast, you insert a method that self-elevates your ignorant opinion based on faith to be of greater knowledge value than the method that utilizes only knowledge. Your method is not science but anti-science in action. And the danger is what we see here: a method that empowers your belief that your ignorance is justified by knowledge. It is not. It is justified by your belief alone.
Because you have so easily fooled yourself, this makes you foolish. Because you do not correct your foolishness, this makes you an idiot. These terms are not ad hominem attacks; they are accurate descriptors of the source of your enthusiastic science denial.
tildeb – Since it seems to me you have made “science” your god, I have a challenge for you. So be patient. Hold off on the silly insults, and let me explain.
The Theory of Evolution and the theory that explains Global Warming (now called Climate Change since there has been so little warming) are not hard science. That is, neither theory rests upon an equation (or equations) that allow us to plug in numbers and demonstrate a cause and effect relationship. The Theory of Evolution has no associated math models, and the computer models that might have predicted Global Warming did not work.
Moreover, we don’t have any way of conducting demonstrations of either the Theory of Evolution or Global Warming. Hopefully, you can appreciate the difficulties.
Here is an example of hard science. Consider Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. The equation is:
Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures can be demonstrated in a lab, and meteorologists use a more complex form of the equation in their weather models. The presence of water complicates the equation.
You say Theory of Evolution is a pillar of biology. Thus far, in support of that contention you have spouted a bunch of meaningless generalities. If you can be more specific, I will have learned something. If you cannot, maybe you will learn something.
So here is a challenge. A man walks into a doctor’s office. He is ill. Is there any illness that man might have that a doctor who believes in the Theory of Evolution would treat differently than a doctor who thinks the theory is not true? That is, how could a doctor apply Theory of Evolution, supposedly a fundamental theory of biology, in his practice?
Last kick at the can.
Maybe this will help you begin to understand just how little you seem to grasp about what science is – a method and not a product – and how this method when applied then informs various products that themselves test and validate these methodological explanations every time they are applied. (That’s why science is also called ‘methodological naturalism’.)
In your example, a doctor doesn’t believe or not believe in evolution; belief has nothing to do with the method of science. That I have to point this out demonstrates your lack of understanding about what science is and how it operates. Nevertheless, one either understands why evolution deserves out highest level of confidence one does not. You do not. Keith does not. There is no ‘believing’ involved because the explanatory model works… for everyone everywhere all the time. It explains why genetics works. It explains why geology is the way it is. It explains why radioactivity can be used to in your medical treatments. It explains why we find the biodiversity we do distributed the way it is over time. And so on. It all works. All of it. Every time. Regardless of your beliefs.
If the doctor uses an evidence-based medicine model ( a lot of quacks don’t) that utilizes science rather than woo, then everything that doctor does will involve the identical methodology that informs the theory of evolution which has a track record deserving of our highest confidence. Based on this explanatory model of cause and effect to changes to life over time and supported by overwhelming mutually supportive evidence in dozens of areas of inquiry, that doctor will utilize a very wide range of adduced understanding of how biology works in real life to identify the most likely source of the illness that fits with its presentation, and come up with the most probable to the least probable efficacious treatment options usually preceded by testing that narrows this long list down,and then monitor results while making changes to treatment as necessary.
Now, let me be clear regarding Keith and what you call my ‘silly insults’: he is richly deserving of contempt from any intellectually honest person. I am an intellectually honest person. Hence, I hold his intentional misrepresentation of science, his intentional duplicity about his ‘respect’ for it, his intentional cherry picking of data, and intentional substitution of his faith-based belief as if it were of equivalent knowledge value in a very high degree of contempt because he neither cares about nor respects what’s true and doesn’t care about how we can know about it. He only cares about what he believes is true and will stoop to whatever underhanded and dishonest tactics he can employ to further his aim of promoting his own beliefs in place of what’s true. And that’s contemptible because he dupes people into thinking he is what he is not: intellectually respectable. He’s a snake oil salesman causing harm but that’s a different comment on why this is true.
You demonstrate the same urge to use dishonesty as a tool by how you use typical religious terminology (ie the religio-speak ‘evolutionists’ rather than the honest term ‘scientists’). And rather than spend the requisite time necessary to comprehend my comments, you simply wave them away in the same fashion that Keith does to dismiss whatever troublesome facts get in the way of promoting his beliefs… falsely advertised as enthusiastic support of science. It’s not. It’s intentionally misrepresented and then maligned.
For example, you’ll note how you describe why I have a high level of confidence in the method of science (to produce explanatory models of how reality operates that yields technologies, applications, and therapies that work for everyone everywhere all the time and therefore deserves a higher degree of confidence for that achievement than ‘because Keith has a contrary opinion’). You insert your alternative belief about my confidence and claim erroneously that it must be because science is my god! This is such a stupid and ignorant substitution that it boggles the mind. Obviously the motivation behind such a substitution is not to represent what the other person is actually saying but a tactic to replace it with one to your own liking. And that’s intellectually dishonest of you.
So until you want to be honest, I will leave you two lovers of mutual beliefs to your own imaginary world of make believe and superstitious nonsense.
tildeb – I asked the question to make a point. The Theory of Evolution is only an explanatory model. If it happens to be a good explanation, that is okay. If not, so what?
An idea can be idea about something we believe true or something we don’t believe. In either case, we can share the idea. If I tell you a car is coming, and you don’t believe me, then if I am telling you the truth, you will wish you had gotten out of the way. Whether or not someone believes or does not believe the Theory of Evolution, however, is not of much consequence.
My point? It is what I have said before. The Theory of Evolution is not a pillar of Biology. It does not hold up anything. We hold it up by speculating upon whether or not it might be true. Except for the fact some people are overly impressed, the fact that our speculations are quite elaborate changes nothing.
Anyway, thank you for visiting.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and the good will with which you suffered the rude comments of some of my “guests.”
Good evening, Tom, and blessings. Thank you. I am not phased by ad hominem comments. I enjoy debate but I shall admit, there is a time to hang up the hat. Debates have a tendency to become ad nauseam and they eventually tire me because of ad infinitum–repetitive and pointless. The likes of Ark and Tildeb, as I stated earlier, eerily remind me of myself in my younger days. Individuals as Ark and Tildeb never seize to amaze me and vice versa. I worked and debated with individuals as Ark and Tildeb throughout my careers, since I have been in this game long enough–perhaps too long. I know their religion, worldview, presuppositions, science (or knowledge), tactics, arguments, strategies, etc. all too well. I was one of them after all. (My old days were like 1 Cor. 1:18-31.)
Tom, you and I are older men, yes? Or am I the oldest stench here? (You may laugh.) You and I have the ability to discern one thing from another, as truth from falsehood, virtue from vice, and perceiving differences of things or ideas and their relations and tendencies. Discernment does not come from reading books and acquiring knowledge; rather, it comes with age and wisdom. As they say, the errors of youth often proceed from the want of discernment, and that was my issue when I was a young man. My young adulthood and early middle-age was Romans 1 verbatim. I thank and praise our Creator for pulling me out of the darkness and bringing me to the light. After all Christ said, “If you abide in My Word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free. I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” Amen.
I was an agnostic, and there was certain foolish pride in it. 1 Cor. 1:18-31 certainly applied to me.
I am within a few years of that age that officially define senior citizenship, and I am certainly feeling my age.
Discernment does not come from books, but they help. I think you will agree one helps in particular, but it seems the Holy Spirit must help us to understand.
In recent years I have started reading books that the founders might of read. I wondered what made them different. Those books provide a clue.
Thank you for your comments and sharing your faith and wisdom.
To address the theme/title of the post: Do Children Need a Religious Education?
What an absurd concept?
Unless you mean learn about religion?
If not, then; firstly, religious education based upon which religion?
And why would anyone afford a Christian Apologist or any religiously motivated individual any credence when it comes to morality and educating the young?
One might as well get one’s kids to sign up for Divine Command Theory and buy them William Lane Craig T-shirts.
What a thoroughly disgusting thought!
In fact,if my children ever returned from school and informed me that their curriculum was to be based on any religion I would withdraw my children immediately.
This is the type of bombastic,arrogant statement that demonstrates a complete lack of basic understanding of parenting.
Presuming they are capable, parents have a responsibility to try to ensure their children receive an education, and as best and broad an education as possible.
Parents do not have an automatic right to decide what their kids learn </em.. The tacit implication here being that kids have no rights in what they are taught or exposed to.
Which is utter crap.