< Changing Worldviews.Commentary >

Words are powerful - Thoughts shape - Ideas have consequences

Debra Rae

Author, "ABCs of Globalism"
Posted May 30, 2005

The Hijacking of State Schools
Part VII: Death Education

Cultural Editor of World magazine, Gene Edward Veith dubbed the recent funeral of Pope John Paul II “the biggest worship service in history.” The Pontiff’s passing testifies to the inevitability of death for all, great or small. In a word, it’s not “if,” but “when.” (Another key question, “How?” will be addressed shortly.)

In referencing a “culture of death,” it is not the tail end of life’s continuum to which this pope alluded in 1995. Rather, in the encyclical entitled, The Gospel of Life, the pope coined this oft-repeated phrase in reference to death by suicide, abortion, and euthanasia—all of which attract high profile, big money organizational clout in contemporary Western culture.

So what has this to do with the hijacking of state schools? Let’s take a peek at mid-20th century history. While it is well known that author-educator and philosopher-revolutionary John Dewey fathered America’s allegedly “progressive” public education system, it may not be common knowledge that he advocated and signed the 1933 Humanist Manifesto and that the father of operant conditioning, B.F. Skinner, was among forty-two professors who signed the Manifesto’s 1973 version. A radical behaviorist, Skinner likewise forged the base for many contemporary instructional practices, not least of which being precision teaching, otherwise known as mastery learning.

Introduced in the 1970s, and heavily implemented by the 1980s, death education in public schools is an ill-camouflaged attempt at advancing the godless agenda of the Humanist Manifesto, both versions of which clearly recognize “an individual’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia [mercy killing], and the right to suicide.” That is to say, death education not only clarifies, but also heralds the “culture of death” lamented by Pope John Paul II.

Looking for a superior species fitted for higher levels of existence on the Planet, humanist bio-ethicists are quick to point out that some lives are not worth the living. Take, for example, non-person neonates and useless eaters. It is their misguided conviction that no one can or should live the “anthropocentric fable” found within a presumed-to-be-archaic sanctity-of-human life ethic.

Accordingly, the death and dying curriculum comes with its own cutting-edge vocabulary that shamelessly touts self-deliverance by means of the good death, or managed death with dignity. The up-and-coming right-to-die movement mirrors what Derek Humphry (co-founder of the Hemlock Society) lauds as the “ultimate liberty.” By assuming the stature of a “civil right” (to make the ultimate choice), this humanist perspective on death has joined the ranks of all that is celebrated as being politically correct. As such, its insidious seeds are planted strategically in the rich soil of impressionable young minds.

An avowed atheist, Dewey was preceded in life by English biologist Charles Darwin, whose mark on America’s modern public education system remains similarly significant. Darwin validated the supposed humaneness of Nature, which—he contended—destroys the weak to give place to the strong. It stands to reason, then, that neo-mort harvesting naturally follows the Kevorkian practice of medicide, or physician-assisted suicide. In layman’s terms, nonproductive human life is justifiably expendable and subject to medical experimentation for the greater good.

This belief underpins the death and dying curriculum prevalent in schools today; moreover, it is evident in Darwin’s autobiography. In it, Charles confesses the so-called “Rule of Life”—that being, to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem best. In a word, “If it feels good, do it.” When interpreted by today’s mystical humanist, human recycling by means of “self-deliverance” or “the good death” promises hope for multiple transmigration (reincarnations) into progressively higher life forms.

It should come as no surprise to learn that trendy, politically correct death and dying propaganda has found its way into health, social studies, literature, and home economics courses across the nation. Even grade-school readers feature strange or violent images. My own alma mater, the University of Iowa, produced a model Aid-in-Dying Act (1989) through its College of Law. Minors [over age six] have the right, it is claimed, to request aid-in-dying with or without parental concurrence.

Socio-psychological implications of death education are worrisome. Consider this: Derek Humphry’s suicide manual, Final Exit, maintained number one status for five straight months on the New York Times best-seller list; and thereafter Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Each year, over five thousand school-aged youth succeed while thousands more survive attempts at said “self-deliverance.” Published by the Eagle Education Fund of Colorado, the Eagle Forum (Spring 2005 Issue) ranks suicide as the third leading cause of death among fifteen to twenty-four year olds.

The late U.S. Senator Sam Hayakawa lamented that the functional task in today’s education is no longer to acquire knowledge and skills. Rather, it is therapy. No matter that little Johnny cannot read. Schools focus instead on self-esteem, ethnic pride, alternative lifestyles, global citizenship, safe sex, sexually transmitted diseases, diversity, drugs, and—yes—death and dying. Systematic drugging of school-aged children is turning millions into patients in dire need of a village of professionals. Accordingly, Title I programs fund a flood of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and the like to address any languishing self-esteem resulting from colossal failure of the school system.

ABC-TV allegedly reported that, despite sparse teacher training and without benefit of an approved curriculum, one out of ten schools teaches death education. In an ABC-TV interview, former Columbine student Tara Becker spoke at length about the intense focus on death, dying, and suicide afforded her junior class at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Change agents (teachers) directed this group of fresh-faced teens to discuss what they wanted to look like in their caskets. Across the nation, Death Ed students visit cemeteries and crematoriums. They write their own epitaphs or suicide notes, and—given lifeboat and/or bomb shelter scenarios—they presume to judge who, among a group of survivors, should be eliminated to make room for the fittest and most desirable among them.

When it comes to family versus school influence on our children, the odds are twenty to one in favor of the classroom. To overshadow the voice of reason with premature and even skewed death dogma will surely result in multiplied tragedies, as those suffered in April of 1991 on the Columbine campus. Eagle Forum Editor, Jayne Schindler, has posed the fitting question: Will our kids survive death ed? The answer lies not in surviving, but rather escaping death education in America’s public school system.

© Debra Rae 2005 Reprinted with Permission

Debra Rae received her Master of Education degree from the University of Washington, and her Bachelor of Theology Master of Ministries degrees from Pacific School of Theology. Her work spans pre-school through adult education, including teaching at the American School of Kuwait, during which time she tutored the daughter of Kuwait's Head of Parliament. After marrying Debra joined her husband in further exploration of Africa, Asia, East- and West- Europe, North- and South- Americas -- about 70,000 miles their first year of marriage! One trip featured a memorable jaunt on the elegant British Concorde. Her book, ABCs of Globalism has prompted numerous radio interviews aired across the nation, the Western Hemisphere, Russia, and the Middle East. And her latest, the ABC’s of Cultural-isms is its sequel. Contact: debraraer@comcast.net,  www.debraraebooks.com