Recently, I have been working with my friends at Exodus Mandate to get the word out about SB777 in California (go here for the gist of it).  This new law is pure poison. The children in California schools are now being subjected to the most deviant sexual mores ever inflicted on American students.  Children as young as pre-K will now learn that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriage, and that heterosexual marriage is not necessarily to be preferred.  As California Exodus notes:

1. Now, under the guise of "nondiscrimination", every California public school is required to teach children that homosexual and bisexual lifestyles are normal, acceptable, and the moral equivalent of biblical heterosexuality. This indoctrination begins in pre-kindergarten and continues as long as a student remains in a California public school or a school receiving direct or indirect financial assistance from the state.
   

This is atrocious!  I have been clear on my position on government education, and I do not intend to make the argument again.  However, I do want to address a recurring theme.  As I have talked to radio hosts, print media, and the “man-on-the-street” about this issue, there has been a mantra repeated by all... “What about the single mothers who cannot afford to pull their children out of the public schools?” 

    This concerns me for at least two reasons.  First, I am concerned because this is not the second, or the third argument to come out of people’s mouths; it is always the first!  In other words, EVERYBODY is looking at this issue through the same lens.  Second, I am concerned because of the illogic inherent in the argument. 

WHY DOES EVERYBODY THINK THIS WAY?

    First, people think this way because of the dominant role of economics in our culture.  This question is economic at it core.  Well-meaning people are thinking about the “expense” of sending a child to a traditional Christian school and wondering how single mothers can afford it.  Ironically, no one asks the same question about the single income family who refuses to send mom off to work.  They are in the identical financial position.  A man with a stay-at-home wife is providing for a family on a single income, and he usually has more dependents than a single mom!  Of course, these families are in a better position for home education, but the fact remains that they are in no better position as it relates to “having another choice.”

    Second, people think this way because of a misguided logic.  The syllogism goes something like this: 

    Poor people cannot afford expensive private schools

    Single mothers are poor people

    Therefore, single mothers cannot afford expensive private schools

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?  However, is it logical?  Are all private schools expensive?  No!  Are all single mothers poor?  No!  Thus, the conclusion is illogical.  I realize that this does not change the fact that people are absolutely committed to this argument, but we must ask the question... “Why does everyone seem to think this way?”  Could it be that we are drawing our conclusions based on stereotypes?  Could it be that we are ignoring the thousands of single mothers who send their children to ‘expensive’ private schools all across the country?

    Finally, people think this way because its easier than taking responsibility.  Here’s another syllogism that I face frequently.

    Rescuing my children when others cannot do the same is immoral

    Single mothers cannot afford to rescue their children from immoral, academically inferior schools

    Therefore, it would be immoral for me to rescue my children.

This is at the core of the “What about single mothers” argument.  People seem bent on keeping their children in schools that are anti-Christian by federal mandate because there may be some people who cannot afford to get their kids out.  This may sound noble, but it is preposterous.  Should the people who got out of New Orleans when Katrina hit feel guilty because they did not stay and suffer the same devastation as those who could not leave?  Should the people who survived the Titanic feel guilty because they got off of the ship and others did not?  Should a Marine feel guilty because he finished his tour in Iraq while there were others still there fighting?

SO SHOULD WE JUST IGNORE THE SINGLE MOMS?

    I was raised by a single mother.  I would never argue that single mothers are irrelevant, or that they should be ignored.  Quite the contrary, part of our message is that churches need to do more to provide affordable educational alternatives for those who cannot afford conventional educational options.

    However, I do believe the single mother argument is a red herring.  The question is not, “Can we get everybody out who wants out?”  The question is, “Is it time to go?”  If the answer is yes, then we’ll deal with single mothers, single fathers, poor families, etc. as the needs arise.  In fact, if and when the exodus comes, there will probably be a number of obstacles that we have not anticipated.  However, that is not the issue.  The issue is obedience to the Lord in the training of our children. 

    I have asked before, and I will ask again, how far do they have to go?  What do they have to do to our children before we will leave?  Do they have to molest our children?  They’ve done that.  Do they have to beat, maim or kill our children?  They’ve done that too.  Do they have to fail to educate our children adequately?  They’ve done that.  Do they have to deny our God and his laws?  They have done that too.  Do they have to lead our children away from Christ and his Church in droves by indoctrinating them in Atheistic Secular Humanism?  Check that one off too.  When will enough be enough?  When will our desire to raise our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) outweigh our addiction to free daycare?

VB