by Thaddeus G. McCotter
The left clings to the Department of Education not for funds, but for control—using it to sever parental rights and indoctrinate children under the guise of education.
Having arrived early for my monthly Knights of Columbus meeting, as is my wont, I perused our parish’s lending library.
I was drawn to a book written in 1935 and entitled Mexican Martyrdom 1926-1935: Firsthand Experiences of the Religious Persecution in Mexico by Fr. Wilfrid Parsons, S.J. Simply, I wanted to learn more about the radical Mexican government that persecuted the church and forced my father-in-law, who is 101 years old, and his family to seek asylum from its persecution of the Catholic Church in the early part of the 20th century.
In addition to learning about a tragic chapter in Mexican history, I also reinforced my belief regarding the left and the U.S. Department of Education—one, ironically, gleaned from my father, who was a devout Catholic and a Detroit Public School teacher.
When my father-in-law and his family managed to escape from Autlán to El Paso, Mexico’s “National Revolutionary Party’s” war on the Catholic Church was in full swing. The summary execution, exile, and/or imprisonment of bishops, priests, and lay persons; the confiscation of church property; the limitation of clergy in individual states; the suppression of religious education and institutions of learning; and other denials of the basic human rights of freedom of religion and conscience.
Shortly after my father-in-law’s family’s escape, there occurred a seeming modus vivendi between the radical Mexican government and the Church. In that interstice, the faithful proved resilient, rebuilding the sacramental and educational infrastructure of the Catholic Church, most often within the cloaking confines of private homes.
But the reprieve was brief. The Mexican government simply could not accept the freedom of conscience entailed in religious education, for it was viewed as resistance to the “Revolutionary” state’s indoctrination and, ultimately, its supremacy. As Fr. Parsons wrote:
“Sooner or later every Revolution gets around to the schools. The very first thing that the Communists did in Russia was to capture the schools, for they realized that they had no hope of converting the older people, especially in the [rural areas]; but they could fashion the minds of youth so that they would never know anything different from what was taught them by the Communist party. The same thing was done by Mussolini in Italy, and by Hitler in Germany. It is a necessary part of every Revolution, if it is to be permanent.”
Why, then, as Fr. Parson’s asks, why “this did not dawn upon the Mexican Revolution until very late” in their persecution of the church?
First, the radical Mexican government’s persecution proceeded in stages, “clearing, holding, and building” its coercive secular advances against the Church before launching new offensives against it.
Secondly, the Catholic faithful, who were resiliently rebuilding their own religious community in the face of such government attacks, were confronted with and resisted a new radical advance by the “National Revolutionary Party”: socialistic education with an integral component of sex education.
The “socialistic education” was described as the relentless indoctrination of socialism and the unwavering obedience to the totalitarian National Revolutionary Party within the minds of students. As related by Fr. Parsons, the “sexual education” component was shocking by the standards of the time and today, and with the results a sane, non-ideologically crazed mind would expect:
“The then Secretary of Education, one Narciso Bassols…had introduced into the public schools a system of sexual education for all children…Just why it was introduced under Federal auspices in the whole country is not very clear…
“The system was carried out in the most extreme fashion…What happened is well authenticated. Children were taken to stockyards to see the coupling of animals. They were taken into maternity wards to witness parturition. They were undressed in schools of both sexes and had explained to them the process of copulation. One teacher put on a school dance in which all the boys and girls were unclothed. Other, and unprintable things, occurred.”
It did not take long for resistance to manifest across the entire spectrum of Mexican society, for both the radical government and the beset upon people understood that this was not merely about imposing a curriculum: “The result was a storm of indignation all over the country. Even a milder form of sexual instruction en masse would have caused a commotion in a country like Mexico, with its Spanish traditions. It was widely looked upon as a direct blow at the family….”
In the event, the initial outcome boded well for parents and the entire population, as in May 1934, Bassols was forced to resign (though he did move to a different department). Similarly, university students and faculty had fought off the Mexican government’s incipient attempt to control the curriculum of universities.
Yet, all this did was convince the National Revolutionary Party to accelerate its seizure of all education, not only the destruction of religious education but also the severing of parental rights. In a July 1934 speech at Guadalajara, the de facto dictator of the radical Mexican government, Gen. [Plutarco Elias] Calles baldly stated the party’s aim:
“It is necessary that we enter into a new phase of the Revolution which I shall call the psychologically revolutionary period; we must enter into and take possession of the minds of the children, the consciences of the young, because they do belong and should belong to the Revolution.”
Like other atheist radicals then and now, Calles left no doubt about what he thought of parental rights:
“The reactionaries say and the clericals say that the child belongs to the home and the youth to the family; this is a selfish doctrine, since the child and the youth belong to the community, to the collectivity, and it is the Revolution that has the obligation of doing away with prejudices and developing the new national soul…For this reason I call upon all Governors throughout the Republic, on all public authorities, and on all Revolutionary elements to proceed at once to the field of battle which we must make, because the child and the youth must belong to the Revolution.”
This is the unspoken corollary of the left’s “it takes a village to raise a child” cultists: bluntly, if the child belongs to the collective “village: not his parents. One wonders if somewhere in the bowels of Hell, Senor Calles is glaring up and accusing Hillary Clinton of plagiarizing him.
The reason the Mexican radicals and all their ilk oppose religion and religious education—especially by the Catholic Church—is both practical and intellectual.
As a practical matter, it is best expressed by saying of the faithful, “I kneel before God, not man.” In sum, there is a higher power than the state—God—and His higher law must always be followed, even when in conflict with the state.
As an intellectual matter, religion holds that human beings are imperfect, being possessed of original sin, and only God’s love, mercy, and grace can redeem humanity. The radical believes reason alone can perfect humanity; consequently, the radical believes the state must compel and coerce human beings into perfection. The horrific results are evident to all but the radicals.
In the instance of Mexico, the radical government’s persecutions persisted and intensified, and it prevailed—for a time. A long time. Only in 1992 did the virulently secular Mexican Constitution relax its prohibitions against religion. According to the U.S. Department of State’s 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Mexico:
The constitution requires public education be secular and not include religious doctrine. Religious groups may operate private schools that teach religion and hold religious ceremonies at their schools. Private schools affiliated with a religious group are open to all students regardless of their religious beliefs. Students in private schools are exempt from participating in religious courses and activities if the students are not affiliated with the school’s religious group.
Like the lingering, devastating impact of the virulent atheism imposed for seventy years by the defunct Soviet Union upon the Russian people, one cannot help but wonder about the extent of the damage done by socialistic “education” imposed for sixty years by radical secularist governments upon the Mexican people.
And what of radical secularism and the American people? The thought recalled something my father once told my mother, who was also a public-school teacher, long ago during the debate over mandating “sex ed” in public schools: “If they put in sex ed, they’ll put in all sorts of crazy [stuff].” How right he was – was—and how prescient, as well.
In the current debate over the elimination of the Department of Education, many on the right have argued that the left is hellbent of propping it up, because it is essentially a political laundry mat where federal funds go to teachers’ unions who then funnel back portions of these funds to Democrat candidates and causes. These critics are correct, but only to a point. The left’s support of the department of education is not about the money, though they welcome that sordid boon.
It is about the students: specifically, about breaking parent-child relationships and indoctrinating children with leftist, “socialistic,” and “sexual education.”
One need only look at the efforts of national and local “educational” organizations, alleged experts, and activists to see that the left wants to control the mind of your child, regardless of whether you like it or not. In fact, they do not believe you should even know what is going on in your child’s life unless the educational bureaucracy allows it.
Consequently, for the left, the Department of Education represents an as-of-yet, not fully realized nationwide tool to compel every phase of their radical indoctrination in every classroom in America in one fell swoop. Without a federal Department of Education, the left must wage its war of indoctrination in the multitudinous school districts and universities of America. With a Department of Education, the left has a one-stop shop of educational insanity to impose upon students and saw through the tenuous sinews of parental rights.
This is one of the many reasons why public education must remain in the hands of parents and remain governed at the local and state levels. Consequently, for the right, abolishing the Department of Education is not about the money, either, though any savings would be considered a fiscal boon. No, it is about protecting parental rights and permitting more funds to flow to parents, teachers, and local and state officials seeking to educate students rather than a radical federal education bureaucracy seeking to sever parental rights and indoctrinate students makes eminent sense and, thus, is necessitated by far more than dollars and cents.
Yes, some moderates on both sides of the political spectrum argue that eliminating the federal Department of Education is premature and draconian. They would rather see the department reformed, hoping to prevent the left from abusing it as a national cudgel to coercively implement its aim of radically indoctrinating America’s youth despite parental opposition.
As for the historical efficacy of such reforms, I refer them to my father-in-law.
***
An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003-2012. He served as chair of the Republican House Policy Committee and as a member of the Financial Services, Joint Economic, Budget, Small Business, and International Relations Committees. Not a lobbyist, he is also a contributor to Chronicles; a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars; and a co-host of “John Batchelor: Eye on the World” on CBS radio, among sundry media appearances.
Thaddeus G. McCotter
Source: https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/29/the-left-and-the-department-of-education-it-is-not-about-the-money/
No comments:
Post a Comment