In the first part of this blog post—See The “Jesus” Problem, Part 1—I chronicled how “Jesus” ends up being a stumbling block for the business community. They give (many times not willingly) to all sorts of causes because of a sort of blackmail played most recently by the homosexual left against Target.

I also want to do a quick post here on the governmental side of the money equation. During this last week President Obama got Congress to pass a law touted as the Save Our Teachers Bill. This bill authorized the spending of $26,000,000,000 (it is fun to write the numbers out) a portion of which was used to “save the jobs” of 160,000 public school teachers. All of this sounds a little suspect sitting here in Pennsylvania where Governor Rendell (you can watch him on Eagle’s Postgame Live soon) has increased public education spending by close to $500 million over the last two year (when everyone else was cutting back). I have not examined the bill closely. I am quite dubious about its necessity, but whether it is necessary or not is has no bearing on the following argument.

Both of these instances are examples (Obama nationally and Rendell in PA) of one thing—the political left unabashedly supports schools that do not have “Jesus” and they do this with money from families that are both willing and unwilling. (Heck, they even take money from people who do not at the present exist.) This is not a rant about public education. My concerns about the philosophical undergirding of modern educational practices and thinking is well chronicled. I also know that here in Lancaster County because of the work of many godly people in the public schools some of the horrors elsewhere are only now creeping into our schools. “Jesus”, however, has been removed (assiduously) from the public schools. He has been removed not because local communities want Him removed (if it were on a referendum in Lancaster County all schools would be Christian, no doubt), not because all teachers would want Him removed (some in Lancaster County would heartily vote to bring Christ into their classroom). He is removed because, in the main, the leadership of the teachers unions—and in many places the rank and file of public school teachers—are players on the political left. They use their clout with politicians to reap mountains (yeah, think Himalayas) of dollars. So, the schools that have dismissed “Jesus” are funded well by those who might, given the choice, send their dollars to schools where Jesus is in attendance.

In summary of Parts 1 and 2 of the “Jesus” Problem. First, corporations—particularly large ones—are now unwilling to give to anything that bears Christ’s name. If they do, they are pilloried by the left. No help for schools committed to Jesus will come from them. They will and are instead pouring their money into schools where “Jesus” is not allowed on campus. Second, the government will not be sending any financial support to schools who admit “Jesus” because they have their own school system (with Him outside of it) and they have a funding mechanism for it that ingeniously takes money from everyone to support that system. The political left relishes handing our monetary favors to their constituents. The rest of us are sheep to be sheared. In Part 3 of the “Jesus” Problem we will examine how or whether the political right counter this annual harvesting of funds by the left.