What happens? You create moral confusion and chaos. The children are taught that morals are relative, and no one can say with authority what is right and what is wrong. And since there are no real consequences to bad behavior in the schools, obedience to authority goes out the window. Teachers become the object of the students' scorn and disrespect. Other students are either friends or enemies. You can even incite a student to commit suicide by unrelenting ridicule. You live by the law of the school jungle. And parents have no idea how to deal with the moral lawlessness in the schools.
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” said Steven Chu — the man Barack Obama would ultimately tap to be energy secretary — in September 2008. He was explaining to The Wall Street Journal that higher energy prices are the centerpiece of the Left’s energy overhaul. Well, I don’t know if they’ve figured out the Euro-boost yet, but we are halfway to Vienna.
I recall encountering, in the misspent days of my youth, a comic book character who had come up with an ingenious way to break the habit of eating between meals: He would simply never stop eating, in which case there would be no "between meals." Unfortunately, some have given up drinking in similar fashion. The late Sen. Paul Douglas of Illinois long ago compared most alleged fiscal conservatives to reformers who cry out for temperance "in the intervals between cocktails." Little has changed since then, save perhaps the brevity and infrequency of the intervals.
Should those who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the fundamental values of the Judeo-Christian ethic be free, like everyone else is free, to defend that outlook, and promote it, and attempt to inject it, in the pubic debate; whether it be in regards to the law, or public policy, or public employment, or in the local school district where their children attend, because they believe that that is their moral responsibility before God, but this too: that it is in fact the very foundation of free government and its hopes for enduring success? Or are such beliefs unAmerican, and in particular: too "personal," and thus too "invasive," an assault into the rights of others to be allowed?