From Christianworldviewnetwork.com January '07
Darwinian Fairytales
By David A. Noebel
Every so often I read a book that just blows me away. A book written by a non-Christian who happens to fall right into line with my way of thinking even though I try to line up my ideas with the motto “how would Jesus think about this.” A few years ago it was a book by Richard Milton entitled Shattering The Myths of Darwinism. Today it is a book by David Stove entitled Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution. When I say both books are a hilarious read and will split your sides that is an understatement! You will be rolling on the floor, trust me!
And both claim to be non-religious. Both claim they are merely students of Darwinian evolution and have found it wanting in truth and full of errors i.e., a false theory. Their case will make any intelligent creationist take note.
In fact, Richard Milton is so bold as to take on the age of the universe and finds the universe a lot younger than the stated 13.5 billion years. Milton says, “using Libby’s own data, the age of the atmosphere is around 10,000 years.”
But listen to this from Milton: “In one of the most recent cases of anomalous dating, rock paintings found in the South African bush in 1991 were analyzed by Oxford University’s radiocarbon accelerator unit which dated them as being around 1,200 years old. This finding was significant because it meant the paintings would have been the first bushman painting found in open country. However, publicity of the find attracted the attention of Joan Ahrens, a Capetown resident, who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art classes and later stolen from her garden by vandals.”
The 1,200-year-old rock painting should have been dated closer to 1975 A.D., a minor difference of 1,170 years!
But Stove, a professional philosopher from Australia who died in 1994, takes on Charles Darwin and his Origin of Species point after point until even an honest Darwinianist would have to ponder the evidence once again for the theory of evolution.
Stove makes it clear that before Darwin could publish his theory he had to distance it from the French free thinkers who were parading evolution around and about the French Enlightenment and French Revolution period. Darwin could not afford to awaken the hostility of the “religious” elements in England and therefore had to make sure that French atheism was not tattooed to his theory. It reality the religious elements in England swallowed his theory before the scientific community.
With Darwin marrying his theory of survival of the fittest (“the battle for life”) and natural selection to the theories of Thomas Malthus in Essay on Population (1798) (population rises or falls according to the food source) Stove has a field day. None of Malthus’ theory survives today and in fact, the present falling population of Europe has nothing to do with the availability of food. Stove wants to know why Darwin’s theory still hangs around since Malthus’ theories have been deep-sixed.
Stove also wants to know why few are noting the relationship between Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest and the robber-baron capitalists who “scientifically” justified their ruthless acquisitiveness. He also wants to know why hardly anyone is pointing out the relationship between Darwin, Hitler and Stalin. Nazi and Communist crimes can all be traced directly to Darwin’s theory. In fact, Hitler criticized Christianity because it was in rebellion against nature! Nature being Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which works every hour of every day to bring about earth’s “favored races.”
Monday, December 28, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thomas Jefferson Quote
A interesting thought...
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."-- Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: Letter to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787. THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 67 (Dumbauld Ed. 1955).
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.C9F7
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."-- Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: Letter to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787. THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 67 (Dumbauld Ed. 1955).
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.C9F7
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Womanly Dominion
This is from a blog I often check-in on. Check it out sometime: http://sahmissionary.blogspot.com/
Saturday, November 07, 2009
As I Prepare....
...for speaking this next week, I have come across such great Scripture and inspiration in the book, Womanly Dominion by Mark Chanski. It is a great book! Here's a great quote:"I know that some jobs don't really count, don't make much of a difference, don't actually matter that much, don't have much lasting significance. Not so with mothering. I know that in some jobs the worker is only handling cleaning equipment, or car parts, or computer keyboards, or insurance policies, or court cases, or political legislation, or stockholders' funds. Not so with mothering. A mother is handling things of a far greater magnitude. She's handling never-dying souls. She's daily conducting heart surgery on eternal spirits whose forever destinies are influenced most profoundly by the hands that rock their cradles, wipe their noses, spank their fannies, open their Bibles, prepare their after-school snacks, and turn off their bedroom lights. Those motherly hands are molding characters which will become men and women who will turn the world upside down either for good or for evil. Now that's a job that counts. " Womanly Dominion, page 108-109
What do you think? If you are a mother, do you feel like it counts this much?
Saturday, November 07, 2009
As I Prepare....
...for speaking this next week, I have come across such great Scripture and inspiration in the book, Womanly Dominion by Mark Chanski. It is a great book! Here's a great quote:"I know that some jobs don't really count, don't make much of a difference, don't actually matter that much, don't have much lasting significance. Not so with mothering. I know that in some jobs the worker is only handling cleaning equipment, or car parts, or computer keyboards, or insurance policies, or court cases, or political legislation, or stockholders' funds. Not so with mothering. A mother is handling things of a far greater magnitude. She's handling never-dying souls. She's daily conducting heart surgery on eternal spirits whose forever destinies are influenced most profoundly by the hands that rock their cradles, wipe their noses, spank their fannies, open their Bibles, prepare their after-school snacks, and turn off their bedroom lights. Those motherly hands are molding characters which will become men and women who will turn the world upside down either for good or for evil. Now that's a job that counts. " Womanly Dominion, page 108-109
What do you think? If you are a mother, do you feel like it counts this much?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Women bear brunt of 'climate change'?
Women bear brunt of 'climate change'?
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/24/2009 7:00:00 AM
www.onenewsnow.com
A United Nations group that promotes abortion has released some controversial recommendations concerning "global warming."
According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), birth control and access to family-planning facilities can be a valuable weapon in the fight against supposed "climate change." The UNFPA sites overpopulation as one of the factors in the earth's "capacity to adjust" to climate change.
In an article published on GMANews.tv, a representative from the Philippines notes that climate change could affect women the worst, as women in that country might be driven into the sex trade as climate change reduces income from farming and fishing. The Fund uses this scenario to justify its call for the distribution of birth control and its call to slow population growth.
James Taylor, a senior fellow and environment policy expert with The Heartland Institute, labels the UNFPA's recommendations "preposterous."
"Even if we were facing a global-warming [crisis], the problem wouldn't be so much that we have too many people -- the problem would be...that we need to utilize our energy in a more efficient manner," he explains.
Improved energy efficiency, he continues, "can certainly be done without encouraging people to get abortions or to have infanticide like they do in China or to seek to limit human population. Human beings are a tremendous resource -- and [they] are not the problem on the planet."
Taylor contends the U.N. Population Fund is trying to link its radical agenda to alleged climate change only to gain support from environmentalists and to use the elite liberal media to get their message across. The Fund, however, admits that it is hard to link the two issues.
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 11/24/2009 7:00:00 AM
www.onenewsnow.com
A United Nations group that promotes abortion has released some controversial recommendations concerning "global warming."
According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), birth control and access to family-planning facilities can be a valuable weapon in the fight against supposed "climate change." The UNFPA sites overpopulation as one of the factors in the earth's "capacity to adjust" to climate change.
In an article published on GMANews.tv, a representative from the Philippines notes that climate change could affect women the worst, as women in that country might be driven into the sex trade as climate change reduces income from farming and fishing. The Fund uses this scenario to justify its call for the distribution of birth control and its call to slow population growth.
James Taylor, a senior fellow and environment policy expert with The Heartland Institute, labels the UNFPA's recommendations "preposterous."
"Even if we were facing a global-warming [crisis], the problem wouldn't be so much that we have too many people -- the problem would be...that we need to utilize our energy in a more efficient manner," he explains.
Improved energy efficiency, he continues, "can certainly be done without encouraging people to get abortions or to have infanticide like they do in China or to seek to limit human population. Human beings are a tremendous resource -- and [they] are not the problem on the planet."
Taylor contends the U.N. Population Fund is trying to link its radical agenda to alleged climate change only to gain support from environmentalists and to use the elite liberal media to get their message across. The Fund, however, admits that it is hard to link the two issues.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Quotes
"The fate of the country does not depend on how you vote at the polls --the worst man is as strong as the best at that game;it does not depend on what kind of paperyou drop into the ballot-box once a year,but on what kind of man you drop from your chamberinto the street every morning."
-- Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Source: Slavery in Massachusetts (1854)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Henry.David.Thoreau.Quote.DB19
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."
-- Noah Webster (1758-1843)
American patriot and scholar, author of the first dictionary of American English usage (1806) and the author of the 1828 edition of the dictionary that bears his name.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Noah.Webster.Quote.A82D
"Choice by the people themselves is notgenerally distinguished for its wisdom."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US PresidentSource: 1776, Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book, Wilson, ed., 1989, p. 11.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.3488
-- Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Source: Slavery in Massachusetts (1854)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Henry.David.Thoreau.Quote.DB19
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character. It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine. They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."
-- Noah Webster (1758-1843)
American patriot and scholar, author of the first dictionary of American English usage (1806) and the author of the 1828 edition of the dictionary that bears his name.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Noah.Webster.Quote.A82D
"Choice by the people themselves is notgenerally distinguished for its wisdom."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US PresidentSource: 1776, Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book, Wilson, ed., 1989, p. 11.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.3488
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Rep. Sally Kern of OK--Proclamation of Morality
Received this from Wallbuilders...
A Courageous State Leader
The national news all too often highlights political leaders who do not represent the values of people of faith; consequently, many God-fearing citizens wrongly believe that few elected officials share our moral and religious convictions. But such a conclusion is wrong. There are literally hundreds of elected officials at the state level (and even scores in Congress) who do not only share but are outspoken about our Judeo-Christian values.
One such official is Rep. Sally Kern of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Rep. Kern recently introduced a Proclamation on Morality that was signed at the State Capitol by numerous elected officials and religious leaders. We thought you might enjoy reading her proclamation, filled with powerful quotes made by America's Founding Fathers. (If you are encouraged by her boldness, you might send her a message of encouragement and thanks. You can learn more about Sally at her website and can also view her proclamation.)
Rep. Sally Kern's
Proclamation of Morality
We the People of Oklahoma, Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of Liberty; to secure just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.
WHEREAS, "It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand" (John Adams); and
WHEREAS, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by Religion and Morality" (John Adams); and
WHEREAS, "Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people" (John Adams); and
WHEREAS, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government...but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God" (James Madison); and
WHEREAS, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God (Benjamin Franklin); and
WHEREAS, "God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God" (Thomas Jefferson); and
WHEREAS, "Whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state" (Joseph Story); and
WHEREAS, "We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the people...the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion" (Roger Sherman); and
WHEREAS, "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians" (Patrick Henry); and
WHEREAS, "When you...exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed upon your mind that God commands you to choose just men who will rule in the fear of God" (Noah Webster); and
WHEREAS, "The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible" (Noah Webster); and
WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance upon the Creator of the Universe; and
WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior [i.e., the White House issued a national proclamation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Month];
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord," and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.
Signed in the year of our Lord Christ Two Thousand and Nine.
A Courageous State Leader
The national news all too often highlights political leaders who do not represent the values of people of faith; consequently, many God-fearing citizens wrongly believe that few elected officials share our moral and religious convictions. But such a conclusion is wrong. There are literally hundreds of elected officials at the state level (and even scores in Congress) who do not only share but are outspoken about our Judeo-Christian values.
One such official is Rep. Sally Kern of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Rep. Kern recently introduced a Proclamation on Morality that was signed at the State Capitol by numerous elected officials and religious leaders. We thought you might enjoy reading her proclamation, filled with powerful quotes made by America's Founding Fathers. (If you are encouraged by her boldness, you might send her a message of encouragement and thanks. You can learn more about Sally at her website and can also view her proclamation.)
Rep. Sally Kern's
Proclamation of Morality
We the People of Oklahoma, Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of Liberty; to secure just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.
WHEREAS, "It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand" (John Adams); and
WHEREAS, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by Religion and Morality" (John Adams); and
WHEREAS, "Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people" (John Adams); and
WHEREAS, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government...but upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God" (James Madison); and
WHEREAS, "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God (Benjamin Franklin); and
WHEREAS, "God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God" (Thomas Jefferson); and
WHEREAS, "Whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state" (Joseph Story); and
WHEREAS, "We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the people...the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion" (Roger Sherman); and
WHEREAS, "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians" (Patrick Henry); and
WHEREAS, "When you...exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed upon your mind that God commands you to choose just men who will rule in the fear of God" (Noah Webster); and
WHEREAS, "The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible" (Noah Webster); and
WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance upon the Creator of the Universe; and
WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior [i.e., the White House issued a national proclamation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Month];
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing that "Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord," and humbly implore all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of Almighty God; and
BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God, our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.
Signed in the year of our Lord Christ Two Thousand and Nine.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Quote-Alan Barth
"The notion that the church, the press, and the universities should serve the state is essentially a Communist notion. In a free society these institutions must be wholly free -- which isto say that their function is to serve as checks upon the state."
-- Alan Barth (1906-1979) served on the editorial board of The Washington Post for thirty years
Source: The Loyalty of Free Men, 1951 http://quotes.libertytree.ca/quote_blog/Alan.Barth.Quote.30F1
-- Alan Barth (1906-1979) served on the editorial board of The Washington Post for thirty years
Source: The Loyalty of Free Men, 1951 http://quotes.libertytree.ca/quote_blog/Alan.Barth.Quote.30F1
Friday, October 9, 2009
Suitable Education--or Indoctrination
If you haven't heard of the Badman Report, go to http://www.hslda.org/search.asp?cx=003292018161232433569%3At9te_l-65iw&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=badman+report&sa.x=26&sa.y=9#912 .
Suitable Education—or Indoctrination?
Volume 92, Program 3010/9/2009
Transcript of "Home School Heartbeat" radio program of HSLDA
Adopting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—the CRC—would require the state to provide a suitable education for your child. Host Mike Farris examines the alarming truth about what comprises the UN definition of “suitable,” on today’s Home School Heartbeat.
Mike Farris:
In his recent report on home education law in England, Graham Badman urges creating a new definition of what is “suitable” for a child’s education. He cites Article 29 of the UNCRC as setting the standard for guiding such new requirements.
It is therefore crucial to understand Article 29. Subsections (b) through (e) attempt to control the substantive content of education and require the promulgation of certain worldviews that are controversial—not just among homeschoolers, but among many segments of the population.
Advocates of this treaty make a clear and bold declaration that this article “directs state parties to instill particular values in children through education.”
It is not necessary to debate the legitimacy of the values enshrined in their list of viewpoints to be instilled in every child in every type of school. The real issue is, does England—and does America—intend to mandate the inculcation of certain “approved” values to children?
England’s current law is clearly on the side of freedom and contrary to any regime of government-compelled indoctrination in any particular system of values. Nothing in English law allows government officials to dictate the worldview, opinions, or viewpoints which must be taught in home education—except the CRC.
I’m Mike Farris.
Suitable Education—or Indoctrination?
Volume 92, Program 3010/9/2009
Transcript of "Home School Heartbeat" radio program of HSLDA
Adopting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—the CRC—would require the state to provide a suitable education for your child. Host Mike Farris examines the alarming truth about what comprises the UN definition of “suitable,” on today’s Home School Heartbeat.
Mike Farris:
In his recent report on home education law in England, Graham Badman urges creating a new definition of what is “suitable” for a child’s education. He cites Article 29 of the UNCRC as setting the standard for guiding such new requirements.
It is therefore crucial to understand Article 29. Subsections (b) through (e) attempt to control the substantive content of education and require the promulgation of certain worldviews that are controversial—not just among homeschoolers, but among many segments of the population.
Advocates of this treaty make a clear and bold declaration that this article “directs state parties to instill particular values in children through education.”
It is not necessary to debate the legitimacy of the values enshrined in their list of viewpoints to be instilled in every child in every type of school. The real issue is, does England—and does America—intend to mandate the inculcation of certain “approved” values to children?
England’s current law is clearly on the side of freedom and contrary to any regime of government-compelled indoctrination in any particular system of values. Nothing in English law allows government officials to dictate the worldview, opinions, or viewpoints which must be taught in home education—except the CRC.
I’m Mike Farris.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Communist Quote
"We must create out of the younger generation a generation of Communists. We must turn children, who can be shaped like wax, into real, good Communists . . . we must remove the children from the crude influence of their families. We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them. From the first days of their lives they will be under the healthy influence of Communist children's nurseries and schools. There they will grow up to be real Communists."
-Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)
-Communist Party Education Workers Congress (1918)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Fresh Attack on Parental Rights
From parentalrights.org
We are very excited about the progress we are seeing in Washington as a result of your calls. Just yesterday, Rep. LoBiondo contacted Congressman Hoekstra to become the 119th cosponsor (including Hoekstra) of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment in the House), the first from the state of New Jersey. Last week, we added Congressman Young of Alaska as well.
Relative to that, it appears that the CRC’s bid for ratification is stalled in the executive and legislative branches (at least for the moment) – so its proponents are trying to legislate it through the judicial branch instead.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases this term which challenge the authority of the state of Florida to sentence minors to life without parole for extremely violent crimes. Amnesty International (AI) has filed briefs in both cases arguing that the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is binding on the United States as a matter of Customary International Law. While these cases do not involve parental rights, adoption of the CRC as Customary International Law would certainly be a blow to parental rights in America.
ParentalRights.org president Michael Farris has written an opposing brief, submitted to the Supreme Court by 16 members of the House of Representatives, explaining why the AI brief’s assertions are false, and why the CRC should not be applied to American law without full ratification. You can read our press release here. Not surprisingly, 15 of the 16 Congressmen who submitted this brief are also cosponsors of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment), and the 16th has vowed to vote “Yes.”
The fact is, despite all our hard work, the threat has not gone away. Should the Supreme Court find the CRC binding on U.S. states as Customary International Law, our job will get a whole lot tougher. As John Adams once wrote, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” That’s why we need to keep pushing to pass the Parental Rights Amendment before those rights can be taken away.
Please, although you’ve already called before, we urge you to call Congress again today. The race is on to preserve parental rights in America. Let’s get your Congressman and Senators on board before this week is out!
Find your Congressman’s and Senators’ contact info by clicking on your state at our States Watch page.
We are very excited about the progress we are seeing in Washington as a result of your calls. Just yesterday, Rep. LoBiondo contacted Congressman Hoekstra to become the 119th cosponsor (including Hoekstra) of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment in the House), the first from the state of New Jersey. Last week, we added Congressman Young of Alaska as well.
Relative to that, it appears that the CRC’s bid for ratification is stalled in the executive and legislative branches (at least for the moment) – so its proponents are trying to legislate it through the judicial branch instead.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases this term which challenge the authority of the state of Florida to sentence minors to life without parole for extremely violent crimes. Amnesty International (AI) has filed briefs in both cases arguing that the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is binding on the United States as a matter of Customary International Law. While these cases do not involve parental rights, adoption of the CRC as Customary International Law would certainly be a blow to parental rights in America.
ParentalRights.org president Michael Farris has written an opposing brief, submitted to the Supreme Court by 16 members of the House of Representatives, explaining why the AI brief’s assertions are false, and why the CRC should not be applied to American law without full ratification. You can read our press release here. Not surprisingly, 15 of the 16 Congressmen who submitted this brief are also cosponsors of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment), and the 16th has vowed to vote “Yes.”
The fact is, despite all our hard work, the threat has not gone away. Should the Supreme Court find the CRC binding on U.S. states as Customary International Law, our job will get a whole lot tougher. As John Adams once wrote, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” That’s why we need to keep pushing to pass the Parental Rights Amendment before those rights can be taken away.
Please, although you’ve already called before, we urge you to call Congress again today. The race is on to preserve parental rights in America. Let’s get your Congressman and Senators on board before this week is out!
Find your Congressman’s and Senators’ contact info by clicking on your state at our States Watch page.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Samuel Adams is more than just a beer
Samuel Adams (1722-1803) was known as the "Father of the American Revolution." Here's a few great quotes.
"Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble
and expense at the price of their own posterity's liberty!"
Source: writing as "Candidus," February 3, 1776
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor canany be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue ispreserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant,and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under." Source: letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775.
"The liberties of our country,the freedom of our civil Constitution,are worth defending at all hazards;and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors:they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasureand blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation,enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from usby violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of themby the artifices of false and designing men."
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrantpervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
"A general dissolutionof the principles and mannerswill more surely overthrow the liberties of Americathan the whole force of the common enemy...While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued;but once they lose their virtue,they will be ready to surrender their libertiesto the first external or internal invader...If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people,they will never be enslaved.This will be their great security." The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed., Harry Alonzo Cushing (G. P. Putman's Sons, 1908), Vol. 4, p. 124.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these:first, a right to life;secondly, to liberty;thirdly to property;together with the right to support and defend themin the best manner they can."
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,the tranquility of servitudebetter than the animating contest of freedom,go home from us in peace.We ask not your counsels or your arms.Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you,and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." 1776
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring menshall possess the highest seats in Government,our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." 1780
"Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble
and expense at the price of their own posterity's liberty!"
Source: writing as "Candidus," February 3, 1776
"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor canany be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue ispreserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant,and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under." Source: letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775.
"The liberties of our country,the freedom of our civil Constitution,are worth defending at all hazards;and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors:they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasureand blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation,enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from usby violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of themby the artifices of false and designing men."
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrantpervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
"A general dissolutionof the principles and mannerswill more surely overthrow the liberties of Americathan the whole force of the common enemy...While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued;but once they lose their virtue,they will be ready to surrender their libertiesto the first external or internal invader...If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people,they will never be enslaved.This will be their great security." The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed., Harry Alonzo Cushing (G. P. Putman's Sons, 1908), Vol. 4, p. 124.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these:first, a right to life;secondly, to liberty;thirdly to property;together with the right to support and defend themin the best manner they can."
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,the tranquility of servitudebetter than the animating contest of freedom,go home from us in peace.We ask not your counsels or your arms.Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.May your chains set lightly upon you,and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." 1776
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring menshall possess the highest seats in Government,our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." 1780
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Cartoon and quote
According to a UNESCO statement from some years ago, "It is often the family that infects the children with extreme nationalism."
A love for one's country is to be treated like some kind of disease, lest it hinder the goal of "peace at all costs."
A love for one's country is to be treated like some kind of disease, lest it hinder the goal of "peace at all costs."
Cartoon and quote from parentalrights.org
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect libertywhen the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom arenaturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-mindedrulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachmentby men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
US Supreme Court Judge
Source: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States,277 US 479 (1928)http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Louis.Brandeis.Quote.CDBD
-- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
US Supreme Court Judge
Source: Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States,277 US 479 (1928)http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Louis.Brandeis.Quote.CDBD
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Politics of Soda Pop
http://iowadefensealliance.com/2009/09/07/guest-commentary-the-politics-of-soda-pop/
The Politics of Soda Pop
By Tom Shaw
Independent Candidate for Iowa House District 8
While a guest on WHO Radio’s “Deace in the Afternoon” program, I was challenged by a caller who disagreed with my decision to leave the Republican Party and to run as an Independent. The caller believed that I should remain as a Republican and try to change the party from within. His thought was “What if workers at Pepsi drank Coca Cola?” This very question solidified my belief that an organization’s brand name was less important than its product.
A few years back, Coca Cola decided that it wanted to increase its market share by enticing Pepsi drinkers with a product named “New Coke.” Now mind you, Coca Cola had been successful for many years with its recipe and had established a loyal customer base. But for some reason the company’s leadership chose to follow the advice of their business advisors and change the recipe. I believe that everyone recalls what happened … the “New Coke” was a colossal failure. It did not attract new customers, but it sure created an outrage from their customer base and the company lost market share. But give Coca Cola credit as they realized that it was not their brand name which sold the product but rather its recipe. Hence they returned to “Classic Coke.”
So it goes with the politics of the Republican Party and its “Big Tent” strategy. At both the national and state levels, the party’s leadership has abandoned the very principles that made the party successful in the past. The party’s state platform is created through a series of committee’s which start at the precinct level. The platform truly is the voice of “We the People.” During the last election, rather than listen to their loyal customers (We the People) and promote a successful product (platform), the party believed that the way to victory was to promote candidates who did not adhere to the platform. The net effect was that many grassroots republicans did not actively or enthusiastically promote Republican candidates, and even worse, stayed home on election day.
As I campaign throughout Iowa House District 8, I am told “I’ll never vote Republican again because I’m too conservative” or “It’s great to have conservative Independent to vote for because the Republicans are not conservative anymore.” I truly believe that there is a major shift in how “We the People” view their party affiliation. As I talk to more and more voters, I am reaffirmed in my belief that folks are looking for principled candidates and not whether there is an “R” or “D” behind their name. Speaking on behalf of the conservatives that I have met, the Republican party “brand name” will no longer be enough to garner conservative votes and, to be successful again, they must revert back to the “Classic” Republican party.
The Politics of Soda Pop
By Tom Shaw
Independent Candidate for Iowa House District 8
While a guest on WHO Radio’s “Deace in the Afternoon” program, I was challenged by a caller who disagreed with my decision to leave the Republican Party and to run as an Independent. The caller believed that I should remain as a Republican and try to change the party from within. His thought was “What if workers at Pepsi drank Coca Cola?” This very question solidified my belief that an organization’s brand name was less important than its product.
A few years back, Coca Cola decided that it wanted to increase its market share by enticing Pepsi drinkers with a product named “New Coke.” Now mind you, Coca Cola had been successful for many years with its recipe and had established a loyal customer base. But for some reason the company’s leadership chose to follow the advice of their business advisors and change the recipe. I believe that everyone recalls what happened … the “New Coke” was a colossal failure. It did not attract new customers, but it sure created an outrage from their customer base and the company lost market share. But give Coca Cola credit as they realized that it was not their brand name which sold the product but rather its recipe. Hence they returned to “Classic Coke.”
So it goes with the politics of the Republican Party and its “Big Tent” strategy. At both the national and state levels, the party’s leadership has abandoned the very principles that made the party successful in the past. The party’s state platform is created through a series of committee’s which start at the precinct level. The platform truly is the voice of “We the People.” During the last election, rather than listen to their loyal customers (We the People) and promote a successful product (platform), the party believed that the way to victory was to promote candidates who did not adhere to the platform. The net effect was that many grassroots republicans did not actively or enthusiastically promote Republican candidates, and even worse, stayed home on election day.
As I campaign throughout Iowa House District 8, I am told “I’ll never vote Republican again because I’m too conservative” or “It’s great to have conservative Independent to vote for because the Republicans are not conservative anymore.” I truly believe that there is a major shift in how “We the People” view their party affiliation. As I talk to more and more voters, I am reaffirmed in my belief that folks are looking for principled candidates and not whether there is an “R” or “D” behind their name. Speaking on behalf of the conservatives that I have met, the Republican party “brand name” will no longer be enough to garner conservative votes and, to be successful again, they must revert back to the “Classic” Republican party.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Rise of the Czars
Interesting how this czar thing has grown. Hmmm...what a way to get things done without the checks and balances originally built into the system AND have a scapegoat if something goes wrong....win win situation.
http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/09/rise-of-the-czars/
FOX News Blogs » The Glenn Beck Blog
June 9th, 2009 12:11 PM Eastern
Rise of the Czars
by Web Producer
Supporters of presidential czars say the positions are helpful by focusing attention on a big issue and making someone responsible for it. Critics claim they can lead to turf fights and add another cumbersome bureaucratic layer to government.
A look at how recent presidents have expanded the number of czars:
President Reagan: 1 Czar
Drug Czar
Carlton Turner: 3/12/1985
President George H. W. Bush: 1 Czar
Drug Czar
William Bennett: 3/10/1989
Robert Martinez: 3/21/1991
President Clinton: 3 Czars
Health Czar
Ira Magaziner: 1993
Drug Czar
Lee Brown: 6/21/1993
Barry McCaffrey: 3/1/1996
AIDS Czar
Kristine M. Gebbie: 6/25/1993
Patricia S. Fleming: 11/10/1994
Sandy Thurman: 4/7/1997
President George W. Bush: 4 Czars
National Intelligence Czar
John D. Negroponte: 4/21/2005
Mike McConnell: 2/13/2007
Cybersecurity Czar
Rod Beckstram: 3/7/2008
AIDS Czar
Scott Evertz: 4/9/2001
Dr. Joseph O'Neill: 7/19/2002
Drug Czar
John Walters: 12/7/2001
President Obama: 16 Czars (and counting)
Drug Czar
Gil Kerlikowske, former Seattle police chief
Energy and Environment Czar
Carol Browner
Homeland Security Czar
John Brennan
Health Czar
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Urban Affairs Czar
Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Economic Czar
Paul A. Volcker
Regulatory Czar
Cass R. Sunstein
Technology Czar
Vivek Kundra
Government Performance Czar
Jeffrey Zients
Border Czar
Alan Bersin
WMD Policy Czar
Gary Samore
Intelligence Czar (Director of National Intelligence)
Dennis Blair
Car Czar
Steven Rattner
Pay Czar
Kenneth R. Feinberg
Great Lakes Czar
Cameron Davis
Cyber Czar
TBA
http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/09/rise-of-the-czars/
FOX News Blogs » The Glenn Beck Blog
June 9th, 2009 12:11 PM Eastern
Rise of the Czars
by Web Producer
Supporters of presidential czars say the positions are helpful by focusing attention on a big issue and making someone responsible for it. Critics claim they can lead to turf fights and add another cumbersome bureaucratic layer to government.
A look at how recent presidents have expanded the number of czars:
President Reagan: 1 Czar
Drug Czar
Carlton Turner: 3/12/1985
President George H. W. Bush: 1 Czar
Drug Czar
William Bennett: 3/10/1989
Robert Martinez: 3/21/1991
President Clinton: 3 Czars
Health Czar
Ira Magaziner: 1993
Drug Czar
Lee Brown: 6/21/1993
Barry McCaffrey: 3/1/1996
AIDS Czar
Kristine M. Gebbie: 6/25/1993
Patricia S. Fleming: 11/10/1994
Sandy Thurman: 4/7/1997
President George W. Bush: 4 Czars
National Intelligence Czar
John D. Negroponte: 4/21/2005
Mike McConnell: 2/13/2007
Cybersecurity Czar
Rod Beckstram: 3/7/2008
AIDS Czar
Scott Evertz: 4/9/2001
Dr. Joseph O'Neill: 7/19/2002
Drug Czar
John Walters: 12/7/2001
President Obama: 16 Czars (and counting)
Drug Czar
Gil Kerlikowske, former Seattle police chief
Energy and Environment Czar
Carol Browner
Homeland Security Czar
John Brennan
Health Czar
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Urban Affairs Czar
Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
Economic Czar
Paul A. Volcker
Regulatory Czar
Cass R. Sunstein
Technology Czar
Vivek Kundra
Government Performance Czar
Jeffrey Zients
Border Czar
Alan Bersin
WMD Policy Czar
Gary Samore
Intelligence Czar (Director of National Intelligence)
Dennis Blair
Car Czar
Steven Rattner
Pay Czar
Kenneth R. Feinberg
Great Lakes Czar
Cameron Davis
Cyber Czar
TBA
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Parent's Responsibility
It has been rare lately for me to take the time to put my own thoughts into words. There are so many other bright, intelligent people putting into words similar thoughts as mine that frequently I hear myself saying, “Let’s not reinvent the wheel.” This time however, I don’t seem to find many people, if any, communicating these thoughts, so I felt led to make this point myself.
During one of our recent Summits [www.AIPNews.com], I heard some interesting discussion about how to impart the importance and worth of restoring our republic. As a former classroom teacher, I understand the desire to impart the Truth to my students and plant seeds that would hopefully grow with more cultivating.
I realized the problem with this belief after God gave us a child to parent. After studying the Word, I realized that the responsibility of educating our daughter was laid directly on the shoulders of my husband and me. And regardless of how much I search, no where do I see that mantle of responsibility removed in Scripture. Even if I didn’t believe “Sola Scriptura,” the fact that the socialist agenda has been encroaching on this right and responsibility for years should prove the point. Years? Actually more like over a century.
“The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.” Didn’t we hear Obama say this? Probably. But this quote is actually from Karl Marx himself. And slowly (or not so slowly) the Christians in the United States have been poisoned with this belief. So, off the women go into the workforce and men resign their responsibility of father to a “step” or to no one at all; both treating the “blessings” of God as curses. They turn their children over to government storage facilities. Parents are told that they are not capable of training their children. After all, “The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life.... In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God” or so says a famous father of modern education, John Dewey.
“But wait,” say many unsuspecting parents, “we send them to school for an education.” That may be your goal but don’t assume it’s the educational system’s goal. The public education system’s goal is not individual education but communal indoctrination. As John Dewey stated, “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”
While I know that many individual teachers have a wonderful heart for children, what teachers are being taught and given to teach does not provide the worldview some of us hold. Even as I sat in my Science Methods class at a Catholic college, I was instructed to teach evolution. But while there are some teachers who attempt to swim against the tide, most do not or have been too corrupted by the system already themselves to realize they are part of the tide. For instance, as I sat in my Philosophy and History of Education class at the same college, I was the only person in the room who believed in absolutes. Not even our instructor believed in absolutes. If this is the mindset of the majority of those teaching, how can much good come out of it?
Correction. How much good could come out of it for those of us who hold to our conservative, Christian beliefs? There is a lot of good to come out of it for those following and fostering a socialist agenda. If not, why else would Lenin boldly state, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” If he knew that could happen after only four years, what about our American posterity that has been abandoned to the enemy for twelve or more years? Is it any wonder then Saul Alinsky taught in his book Rules for Radicals the need for “community organizers” to reach out and train the youth? Is it surprising to find that the well-known “community organizer” not only was praised by Alinsky’s son after the Democratic National Convention for how well Obama had used his father’s model, but he also made sure to teach those principles to students and such groups as ACORN.
It should be no surprise, then, when we learn that Obama is planning to speak to the nation’s students this coming Tuesday. Not only is he speaking, but providing teachers with the correct propaganda material otherwise called “classroom activities.” After all, as Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute noted, “In his letter, Duncan [Secretary of Education] asserts that the work of educators is ‘critical to…our social progress.’” Sound familiar?
And it is no coincidence that not only will Obama speak, but follow-up materials are provided because after all, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth,” or so believed Lenin.
Many may feel that my thoughts concerning the weight of education lying on the shoulders of the parents is outmoded or even wrong. That is fine. But if you are a Constitutional conservative, you may want to reconsider. After all, nowhere within the explicit powers given to the federal government is education mentioned. We cannot pick and choose which powers usurped by the federal government should be extinguished making sure to leave only the ones that are convenient for us to keep.
So in the end, it is the family who should reclaim our right and responsibility to teach our children in all things including the very important role as citizens of a republic. I agree with the “Prince of Preachers,” Charles Spurgeon, who stated, “The best education is education in the best things.”
During one of our recent Summits [www.AIPNews.com], I heard some interesting discussion about how to impart the importance and worth of restoring our republic. As a former classroom teacher, I understand the desire to impart the Truth to my students and plant seeds that would hopefully grow with more cultivating.
I realized the problem with this belief after God gave us a child to parent. After studying the Word, I realized that the responsibility of educating our daughter was laid directly on the shoulders of my husband and me. And regardless of how much I search, no where do I see that mantle of responsibility removed in Scripture. Even if I didn’t believe “Sola Scriptura,” the fact that the socialist agenda has been encroaching on this right and responsibility for years should prove the point. Years? Actually more like over a century.
“The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.” Didn’t we hear Obama say this? Probably. But this quote is actually from Karl Marx himself. And slowly (or not so slowly) the Christians in the United States have been poisoned with this belief. So, off the women go into the workforce and men resign their responsibility of father to a “step” or to no one at all; both treating the “blessings” of God as curses. They turn their children over to government storage facilities. Parents are told that they are not capable of training their children. After all, “The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life.... In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God” or so says a famous father of modern education, John Dewey.
“But wait,” say many unsuspecting parents, “we send them to school for an education.” That may be your goal but don’t assume it’s the educational system’s goal. The public education system’s goal is not individual education but communal indoctrination. As John Dewey stated, “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”
While I know that many individual teachers have a wonderful heart for children, what teachers are being taught and given to teach does not provide the worldview some of us hold. Even as I sat in my Science Methods class at a Catholic college, I was instructed to teach evolution. But while there are some teachers who attempt to swim against the tide, most do not or have been too corrupted by the system already themselves to realize they are part of the tide. For instance, as I sat in my Philosophy and History of Education class at the same college, I was the only person in the room who believed in absolutes. Not even our instructor believed in absolutes. If this is the mindset of the majority of those teaching, how can much good come out of it?
Correction. How much good could come out of it for those of us who hold to our conservative, Christian beliefs? There is a lot of good to come out of it for those following and fostering a socialist agenda. If not, why else would Lenin boldly state, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” If he knew that could happen after only four years, what about our American posterity that has been abandoned to the enemy for twelve or more years? Is it any wonder then Saul Alinsky taught in his book Rules for Radicals the need for “community organizers” to reach out and train the youth? Is it surprising to find that the well-known “community organizer” not only was praised by Alinsky’s son after the Democratic National Convention for how well Obama had used his father’s model, but he also made sure to teach those principles to students and such groups as ACORN.
It should be no surprise, then, when we learn that Obama is planning to speak to the nation’s students this coming Tuesday. Not only is he speaking, but providing teachers with the correct propaganda material otherwise called “classroom activities.” After all, as Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute noted, “In his letter, Duncan [Secretary of Education] asserts that the work of educators is ‘critical to…our social progress.’” Sound familiar?
And it is no coincidence that not only will Obama speak, but follow-up materials are provided because after all, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth,” or so believed Lenin.
Many may feel that my thoughts concerning the weight of education lying on the shoulders of the parents is outmoded or even wrong. That is fine. But if you are a Constitutional conservative, you may want to reconsider. After all, nowhere within the explicit powers given to the federal government is education mentioned. We cannot pick and choose which powers usurped by the federal government should be extinguished making sure to leave only the ones that are convenient for us to keep.
So in the end, it is the family who should reclaim our right and responsibility to teach our children in all things including the very important role as citizens of a republic. I agree with the “Prince of Preachers,” Charles Spurgeon, who stated, “The best education is education in the best things.”
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Thanks for the Wakeup Call, Mr. President
http://www.cato.org/people/neal-mccluskey
Thanks for The Wakeup Call, Mr. President
Posted by Neal McCluskey
It’s one thing for a president to encourage kids to work hard and stay in school – that’s a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It’s another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and presidency, and prod schools to drive social change. Yet as Andrew Coulson has already begun to discuss, the latter is what President Obama, audaciously, has done.
This is, of course, a very troubling turn of events, giving rise to very legitimate fears of political and social indoctrination even if it turns out that those aren’t at all the President’s motives. Perhaps, though, this is also a blessing in disguise. As many liberals and conservatives push for national academic standards and other centralizing education reforms, this situation brilliantly illustrates why government schooling is totally antithetical to a free society, and why the more centralized the power, the greater the danger.
Some background: In anticipation of the president’s planned September 8 address to students nationwide, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter and detailed “classroom activities” with all sorts of alarming buzzwords and guidance to schools across the country. In his letter, Duncan asserts that the work of educators is “critical to…our social progress.” It’s a statement that suggests – as many educators have held and continue to hold – that it is the job of public schools to impose values, often collectivist, on students. Fear that this might be the case is reinforced by suggested classroom activities in the department’s guidance for pre-K-6 students that encourage children to make posters setting out “community and country” goals. Perhaps even more frightening is the lesson being pushed that it is important to listen to “the President and other elected officials.” Possibly most distressing of all, though, is guidance that appears explicitly designed to glorify both the presidency and President Obama himself, encouraging schools to prepare for the speech “by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama.” Finally, schools are told to ask students how president Obama will “inspire” them in his speech before he gives it, and how they were inspired after Obama has spoken.
This is very disturbing, making crystal clear the huge dangers that attend government-controlled education. Ultimately, politicians will use power over education for their own ends, something fully at odds with a free society. And this is just the most stark manifestation of the inherent incompatibility of freedom and government education. As I have emphasized constantly since publication of my paper Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict, every day free people are pitted against one another, forced to defend their freedom and basic values because they all have to support a single system of government schools. Evolution vs. creationism. Prayer in – or not in – schools. Books with offensive material in libraries. Decisions over whose history will be taught, and whose won’t. The curtailment of freedom goes on and on when government takes everyone’s money and provides schools with it. And the more we centralize education – the more diverse people we force to support one system of schools – the greater the cost to liberty.
All of which makes one thing obvious: The only system of learning compatible with a truly free society is not one of government domination, but one rooted in educational choice – public education, not schooling – in which the public assures that all people can access education, but parents are free to choose their children’s schools and educators are free to educate how they wish.
For too long we have ignored freedom when it’s come to education, sacrificing liberty for “test scores” or “efficiency.” As a result, we’ve gotten neither good test scores nor efficiency while fomenting constant social conflict and building increasingly dangerous government control over our children and our lives. But hopefully some good will come of this troubling Obama administration initiative, issuing a desperately needed wakeup call to all Americans about the great damage government education can inflict on otherwise free people.
Neal McCluskey • September 2, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Thanks for The Wakeup Call, Mr. President
Posted by Neal McCluskey
It’s one thing for a president to encourage kids to work hard and stay in school – that’s a reasonable use of the bully pulpit. It’s another thing entirely, however, to have the U.S. Department of Education send detailed instructions to schools nationwide on how to glorify the president and presidency, and prod schools to drive social change. Yet as Andrew Coulson has already begun to discuss, the latter is what President Obama, audaciously, has done.
This is, of course, a very troubling turn of events, giving rise to very legitimate fears of political and social indoctrination even if it turns out that those aren’t at all the President’s motives. Perhaps, though, this is also a blessing in disguise. As many liberals and conservatives push for national academic standards and other centralizing education reforms, this situation brilliantly illustrates why government schooling is totally antithetical to a free society, and why the more centralized the power, the greater the danger.
Some background: In anticipation of the president’s planned September 8 address to students nationwide, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent a letter and detailed “classroom activities” with all sorts of alarming buzzwords and guidance to schools across the country. In his letter, Duncan asserts that the work of educators is “critical to…our social progress.” It’s a statement that suggests – as many educators have held and continue to hold – that it is the job of public schools to impose values, often collectivist, on students. Fear that this might be the case is reinforced by suggested classroom activities in the department’s guidance for pre-K-6 students that encourage children to make posters setting out “community and country” goals. Perhaps even more frightening is the lesson being pushed that it is important to listen to “the President and other elected officials.” Possibly most distressing of all, though, is guidance that appears explicitly designed to glorify both the presidency and President Obama himself, encouraging schools to prepare for the speech “by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama.” Finally, schools are told to ask students how president Obama will “inspire” them in his speech before he gives it, and how they were inspired after Obama has spoken.
This is very disturbing, making crystal clear the huge dangers that attend government-controlled education. Ultimately, politicians will use power over education for their own ends, something fully at odds with a free society. And this is just the most stark manifestation of the inherent incompatibility of freedom and government education. As I have emphasized constantly since publication of my paper Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict, every day free people are pitted against one another, forced to defend their freedom and basic values because they all have to support a single system of government schools. Evolution vs. creationism. Prayer in – or not in – schools. Books with offensive material in libraries. Decisions over whose history will be taught, and whose won’t. The curtailment of freedom goes on and on when government takes everyone’s money and provides schools with it. And the more we centralize education – the more diverse people we force to support one system of schools – the greater the cost to liberty.
All of which makes one thing obvious: The only system of learning compatible with a truly free society is not one of government domination, but one rooted in educational choice – public education, not schooling – in which the public assures that all people can access education, but parents are free to choose their children’s schools and educators are free to educate how they wish.
For too long we have ignored freedom when it’s come to education, sacrificing liberty for “test scores” or “efficiency.” As a result, we’ve gotten neither good test scores nor efficiency while fomenting constant social conflict and building increasingly dangerous government control over our children and our lives. But hopefully some good will come of this troubling Obama administration initiative, issuing a desperately needed wakeup call to all Americans about the great damage government education can inflict on otherwise free people.
Neal McCluskey • September 2, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Friday, August 28, 2009
Dave Ramsey on Cash for Clunkers
http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/newsletters/company/082809.cfm?ectid=cnl0909.1_06#1
With all the buzz about Cash for Clunkers, it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! Cash for Clunkers was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.
Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good.
With all the buzz about Cash for Clunkers, it’s easy to think that it was a great way for people to get a better set of wheels. But was it really? No way! Cash for Clunkers was simply a way for broke people to buy cars that they really couldn't afford. It was a bad idea on multiple levels. But before digging into that, let’s take a little history lesson.
About a decade ago, a fair housing program was started, called a sub-prime lending market. The idea behind it was that everyone “needed” to own a home—including broke people. The government decided to start a program to reinvest in communities, which allowed pretty much anyone to borrow money to buy a house. Lending companies charged high interest rates, causing already struggling families to go even further into debt.
Basically, this was a program designed to encourage broke people to buy houses. Most people didn’t even know it existed until it unraveled and became the number-one cause of our recent recession. The government took those stupid loans back and securitized them, which created the financial mess last fall. Helping broke people buy houses didn’t turn out to be a great government program. Guess what? Helping broke people buy brand-new cars—and now home appliances—will turn out just as bad.
The Cash for Clunkers program was designed exactly for people who should not take advantage of the program. You trade your $2,000 clunker in for a brand-new, shiny $20,000 car, and the only way you can afford it is with a high-interest payment. That just means you really couldn’t afford it to begin with. Doesn’t this sound like the sub-prime mortgage problem all over again?
When you drive that new car off the lot, you’re immediately going to lose $4,500. The worst car accidents happen on the showroom floor. New cars go down in value like a rock. The government thinks it’s going to save the American auto industry by putting broke people into cars they can’t pay for. It’s going to come back to bite them—and the rest of us—in the form of taxes galore.
Another bad thing about this program is that we, the taxpayers, are paying for the new cars! It’s morally wrong of the government to take money away from us—against our will—in the form of taxes and give that money to someone else to buy a stupid car they can’t afford in the first place! This is theft, plain and simple.
Cash for Clunkers is a program that redistributes wealth in the name of the environment, and it’s going to be a curse on the car dealer and the manufacturer that carries the paper. It’s going to hurt the broke person who bought a car he couldn’t afford. And it’s already a problem for our country, because it’s adding dollars to the national debt.
There’s always a twist with government programs like this. They try to think of creative ways to help people, but the situation usually ends up worse than it did before they “helped.” In the end, I should decide what to do with my own money. If I want to buy you a car, I will! And if you can’t buy a car without actually paying for the whole thing, then you’re better off keeping your “clunker.”
So good riddance to a really bad program that has done more damage than good.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Understanding Six Worldview that Rule the World
Posted: 08/26/09
http://worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-5324/Brannon-Howse/David-Noebel
Understanding Six Worldviews that Rule the World*
By Dr. David Noebel
President, Summit Ministries
Back in the early 1990s, Dr. James Dobson and Gary Bauer sought to identify what they saw happening to Christian young people in the United States. Their conclusion was that "nothing short of a great Civil War of Values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in a bitter conflict that permeates every level of society."[i] The war, as Dobson and Bauer put it, is a struggle "for the hearts and minds of people. It is a war over ideas."[ii]
On one side is the Christian worldview, the foundation of Western civilization. On the other side are five worldviews: Islam, Secular Humanism, Marxism, Cosmic Humanism, and Postmodernism. While these worldviews don't agree in every detail, they unanimously concur on one point-their opposition to biblical Christianity.
As in any war, there are casualties, and anti-Christian ideas are taking their toll. Recent surveys indicate that up to 59 percent of "born again" college students drop out of that category by their senior year.[iii] According to George Barna's research, nine out of ten "born again" adults do not have a biblical worldview. To effectively engage this battle of ideas, Christians must have an understanding of the times and "know what [they] ought to do" (1 Chronicles 12:32).
What is a Worldview?
Everyone bases his or her decisions and actions on a worldview. We may not be able to articulate our worldview, and our worldview may be inconsistent, but we all have one. So the question is; what is a worldview?
A worldview is "an interpretive framework"[iv]-much like a pair of glasses-through which you view everything. It refers to any set of ideas, beliefs, or values that provide a framework or map to help you understand God, the world, and your relationship to God and the world. Specifically, a worldview contains a particular perspective regarding at least each of the following ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history.[v]
This article summarizes the six worldviews that currently exert the most influence over the whole world. Other worldviews exist, but they wield much less influence. For example, Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Shintoism may profoundly influence some Eastern countries, but hardly sway the entire world. The major ideas and belief systems controlling the world, and especially the West, are contained in the following six worldviews.
The Christian Worldview
Many people, including many Christians, do not realize that the Bible addresses all ten disciplines of a worldview. Christianity is the embodiment of Christ's claim that He is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). When we say, "This is the Christian way," we mean this is the way Christ would have us approach life and the world. It is no small matter to think and act as Christ instructs.
America has been described as a Christian nation. However, America-along with the rest of Western Civilization-has turned away from its intellectual, cultural and religious heritage. Almost thirty years ago, Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer noted America's drift toward secularism as a failure of Christians "to see that all of this [cultural and social breakdown] has come about due to a shift in world view-that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole."[vi]
The study of worldviews in general, and the Christian worldview in particular, is a wake-up call for everyone. A country seeking to promote human rights (including the right to be born), liberty, and the common good must adhere to the only worldview that can account for our existence and dignity. We contend that human dignity comes from the fact that human beings are created in the image of God, a uniquely biblical perspective. Abandoning this perspective has dire consequences, considering the rise in abortions, homosexual practices, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and the move toward human cloning.
The Islamic Worldview
It is estimated there are 1.3 billion followers of Islam.[vii] In recent years, the Islamic worldview has been growing exponentially in numbers, power, and influence, and, therefore, is worthy of our study. As one article headlined, "The future belongs to Islam,"[viii] providing added incentive to understand its beliefs and goals.
Writing in The Sword of the Prophet, commentator and international political consultant, Serge Trifkovic, explains that "Islam is not a 'mere' religion; it is a complete way of life, an all-embracing social, political and legal system that breeds a worldview peculiar to itself."[ix]
Christianity and Islam have some teachings in common, including belief in a personal God, creation of the material universe, angels, immortality of the soul, heaven, hell, and judgment of sin. Likewise, Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet (one of many), his virgin birth, physical ascension, second coming, miracles, and messiahship.[x]
The major differences between Christianity and Islam is Islam's rejection of the biblical Trinitarian God and the death of Jesus for the sins of the world. Muslims likewise reject Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead and his claim to be the Son of God.
Another major difference between the founder of Christianity and the founder of Islam is that the Bible describes Jesus as living a sinless life while the traditions of Islam depict Muhammad having many flaws. "Muhammad's practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed," writes Trifkovic, "are unique in the history of religions. Murder, pillage, rape, and more murder are in the Koran and in the Traditions."[xi] Furthermore, Muhammad's life "seems to have impressed his followers with a profound belief in the value of bloodshed as opening the gates of Paradise."[xii] Thus, the history of Islam from 622 A.D. to the present has been a history of violence, submission, and war toward infidels (non-Muslims).
For many Muslims, one of Mohammad's most important legacies is to see the world as a conflict between the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the Land of War (Dar al-Harb). On the other hand, there are a number of Muslims, particularly those living in Western democracies, who do not believe the Koran's violent passages regarding killing infidels and Islam's violent history should be applied literally today.[xiii] Yet, in either case, Islam is a worldview with which Christians must contend.
The Secular Humanist Worldview
Secular Humanism refers primarily to the ideas and beliefs outlined in the Humanist Manifestoes of 1933, 1973, and 2000. Secular Humanism is the dominant worldview on the majority of colleges and universities throughout all Western nations. It has also made gains in many Christian colleges and universities, especially in the areas of biology, sociology, law, politics, and history.
Secular Humanists recognize the classroom as a powerful incubator for indoctrinating students into their worldview. Operating under the educational buzzword "liberalism," a Secular Humanist agenda controls the curriculum in America's public schools thanks to the National Education Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and a host of foundations, including the Ford Foundation.
Christians considering a college education must be well versed in the Secular Humanistic worldview or risk losing their own Christian perspective by default. In her book Walking Away From the Faith, Ruth Tucker, a professor at Calvin Seminary, makes it clear that Christian students are walking away from their faith because of Secular Humanist teaching.
The ideas of Humanism have gained prominent influence throughout modern society. B.F. Skinner, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Erich Fromm, all former "Humanists of the Year," have powerfully affected the discipline of psychology. Scientists such as the late Carl Sagan, another "Humanist of the Year," preached his Humanism on a widely heralded television and high school curriculum series. More recently, the outspoken atheist and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins has gained much attention through a number of popular books on evolution and, of course, his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion. Clearly, Humanists are willing to support their worldview-often more faithfully than Christians. For these and other reasons, we must give the Secular Humanist worldview close attention.
The Marxist Worldview
Marxism is a militantly atheistic, materialistic worldview. It has developed a perspective regarding each of the ten disciplines-usually in great detail. Based on the writings of Karl Marx in the late 1800s, Marxism has taken on some new looks in recent years-including debasing culture as a form of revolutionary activity.[xiv] The latest Communist Manifesto, titled Empire, was published in 2000 by Harvard University Press. Marx's presence continues to be felt around the world.
Marxism predominates on many American university campuses. Recruited as college students in the 1950s and '60s, many Marxist "radicals" earned PhDs and are now the tenured faculty on many campuses. "With a few notable exceptions," says former Yale professor Roger Kimball, "our most prestigious liberal arts colleges and universities have installed the entire radical menu at the center of their humanities curriculum at both the undergraduate and the graduate level."[xv] U. S. News and World Report published a lengthy article in 2003 entitled "Where Marxism Lives Today," which states, "Marxism is so entrenched in courses ranging from literature to anthropology… that today's students are virtually bathed in Marx's ideas."[xvi]
The "radical menu" Kimball referred to includes a large serving of economic determinism. According to Karl Marx, the key problem with capitalism is that it breeds exploitation. Therefore, capitalism must be replaced with a more humane economic system, one that abolishes free markets (private property and the free and peaceful exchange of goods and services) and replaces it with a government-controlled economy.
Marx's economic ideas and political policy go hand in hand. A Marxist style communism controls a large number of nations around the world, and traveling under the name of "social democracy," a Marxist inspired political philosophy has engulfed Western European nations. Further, many South American countries have also taken a Marxist turn in recent years, and many think that the current administration and congress of the United States is quickly taking America down the same socialist road.[xvii]
In addition, some Christian groups have attempted to combine their Christianity with Marx's ideas of social equality. Because of the prevalence and subversive nature of Marxism, Christians must be aware of the goals of Marxist-thinking professors, politicians, and theologians.
The Cosmic Humanist Worldview
The Cosmic Humanist worldview consists of two interrelated spiritual movements. One is known as the New Age Movement (NAM), and the other is neo-paganism, which includes occult practices, Native American spiritism, and Wicca.
The New Age Movement mixes ancient Eastern religions (especially Hinduism and Zen Buddhism) with a touch of other religious traditions, adds a smattering of scientific jargon, and imports the newly baked concoction into mainstream America. "The New Age," explains researcher Johanna Michaelsen, "is the ultimate eclectic religion of self: Whatever you decide is right for you is what's right, as long as you don't get narrow-minded and exclusive about it."[xviii]
The assumption that truth resides within each individual, however, becomes the cornerstone for a worldview. Granting oneself the power to discern all truth is a facet of theology, and this theology has ramifications that many members of the New Age movement have already discovered. Marilyn Ferguson, author of The Aquarian Conspiracy (a book referred to as "The New Age watershed classic"), says the movement ushers in a "new mind-the ascendance of a startling worldview."[xix]
This worldview is summed up by Jonathan Adolph: "In its broadest sense, New Age thinking can be characterized as a form of utopianism, the desire to create a better society, a 'New Age' in which humanity lives in harmony with itself, nature, and the cosmos."[xx]
While New Age believers make no serious distinctions between religions, considering that all are ultimately the same, John P. Newport explains that "neopagans generally believe that they are practicing an ancient folk religion, whether as a survival or a revival. Thus, being focused on the pagan religions of the past, they are not particularly interested in a New Age of the future."[xxi]
Through best-selling books and popular television shows and movies,[xxii] the Cosmic Humanist worldview is gaining converts in the West and around the world. Malachi Martin lists dozens of organizations that are either New Age or sympathetic to Cosmic Humanist views. Clearly, Cosmic Humanism, a transplant from the East, is a growing presence throughout the Western hemisphere.
the Postmodern Worldview
Forced to face the inhumanity, destruction, and horror brought about by the Third Reich and the Soviet Gulag during the first half of the 20th century, a substantial group of Enlightenment humanists and neo-Marxists abandoned their worldview to create one they believed more fitting with reality, resulting in the Postmodern turn. By the 1980's, Postmodern professors were making significant inroads in humanities and social science departments around the world.
Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland notes that Postmodernism refers to a philosophical approach primarily in the area of epistemology, or what counts as knowledge or truth. Broadly speaking, Moreland says "Postmodernism represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as truth, reality, reason, values, linguistic meaning, the 'self' and other notions."[xxiii]
Though Postmodernism comes in many forms, there are three unifying values: (1) a commitment to relativism; (2) an opposition to metanarratives, or totalizing explanations of reality that are true for all people of all cultures; and (3) the idea of culturally created realities. Each of these commitments are designed to deny that there is a worldview or belief system that can be considered absolute Truth.
Postmodernism's most effective methodological tool, one used extensively in university modern language departments, is known as Deconstruction, which means (1) that words do not represent reality, and (2) that concepts expressed in sentences in any language are arbitrary.
Some Postmodernists go so far as to deconstruct humanity itself. Thus, along with the death of God, truth, and reason, humanity is also obliterated. Paul Kugler notes the ironic twist: "Today, it is the speaking subject who declared God dead one hundred years ago whose very existence is now being called into question."[xxiv]
To complicate matters even further, we must acknowledge that there even exists a variety of Postmodernism called "Christian Postmodernism."[xxv] Such is the essence of mainstream Postmodernism-a worldview that claims there are no worldviews. This "anti-worldview" worldview is one that certainly demands the attention of thoughtful Christians.
Conclusion
We cannot overstate the significance of these five anti-Christian worldviews. The basis for much of what is taught in the public classroom today comes from Secular, Marxist, Cosmic Humanist, and Postmodern thinking and takes on a variety of labels: liberalism, multiculturalism, political correctness, deconstructionism, or self-esteem education. Or, as is often the case, the labels are dropped and courses are taught from anti-Christian assumptions without students being told which worldview is being expressed. Neutrality in education is a myth.
The first chapter of the Book of Daniel explains how Daniel and his friends prepared themselves to survive and flourish amid the clash of worldviews of their day. We believe that Christian young people equipped with a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Christian worldview and its rivals can become "Daniels" who will not stand on the sidelines, but will participate in the great collision of worldviews in the twenty-first century.
Society will flourish in the light of truth only when the emphasis shifts back to a Christian perspective. This dramatic shift in emphasis can be brought about through the leadership of thousands of informed, confident Christian students who think deeply and broadly from a well-honed biblical worldview and emerge as leaders in education, business, science, and government.
Our desire to bring about this shift in emphasis is the fundamental reason Summit Ministries produces curricula and resources for Christian schools and homeschool families (primary, middle, and secondary), presents in-service worldview training for teachers across the U.S. and around the world, and provides worldview conferences for students and adults. Information is available at www.summit.org.
About the Author:
Dr. David A. Noebel is founder and president of Summit Ministries and edits and writes Summit's monthly publication, The Journal. Dr. Noebel has been a college professor, college president, and candidate for the U.S. Congress. Dr. Noebel has a B.A. from Hope College in Holland, a M.A. from the University of Tulsa, and was a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin. He is an Author, Editor, Public Speaker, and Ordained Minister. Dr. Noebel is recognized as an expert on worldview analysis and the decline of morality and spirituality in Western Civilization. His most popular works include Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today's Worldviews, which sold over 500,000 copies, and Clergy in the Classroom: the Religion of Secular Humanism (co-authored with Kevin Bywater and J.F. Baldwin). He and his wife Alice live in Manitou Springs, CO and have two children and five grandchildren.
*This article is taken from the introductory chapter of David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times, 2nd Ed., (Summit Press: Manitou Springs, CO, 2006). Understanding the Times is a landmark text that provides a comprehensive comparison of the six worldviews discussed in this article and can be purchased at www.summit.org. Portions of the original text has been edited and re-written by Chuck Edwards for the purposes of this article.
ENDNOTES:
[i] James C. Dobson and Gary L. Bauer, Children at Risk: The Battle For the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 19.
[ii] Ibid., 19–20.
[iii] Taken from the "College Student Survey." Cooperative Institutional Research Program, U.C.L.A. Online article: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/css_po.html.
[iv] Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 11.
[v] Other areas could be included in a definition of worldview, such as the arts, yet these ten disciplines contain the primary areas, acting as a web of interacting ideas, which contribute to a total world and life view.
[vi] Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), 17.
[vii] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001468.html.
[viii] "The Future Belongs to Islam," by Mark Steyn, October 20, 2006, accessed 5/4/2009, http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898.
[ix] Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox, 2002), 55.
[x] Ibid., 369.
[xi] Op cit., p. 51.
[xii] Ibn Warraq1 (Ed.), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, New York, 2000, p. 349, quoted in Trafkovic, p. 51.
[xiii] See the American Islamic Forum for Democracy at http://www.aifdemocracy.org/.
[xiv] Paul Edward Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2005); David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004); Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (Cambridge, NY: MIT, 1998); Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals (third printing; New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2003).
[xv] Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1990), xiii.
[xvi] U. S. News and World Report, Special Collection Edition, September 2, 2003, p. 86.
[xvii] See the online article, "The Socialization of America," by David Noebel, accessed 5/4/2009, http://www.summit.org/blogs/pd/2009/03/the_socialization_of_america.php
[xviii] Johanna Michaelsen, Like Lambs to the Slaughter (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1989), 11.
[xix] Marilyn Ferguson, The Austrian Conspiracy (Los Angeles, CA: J.P. Tarcher, 1980), 23.
[xx] Adolph, 11.
[xxi] John P. Newport, The New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview: Conflict and Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998) p. 214.
[xxii] Books by best-selling authors include The Celestine Prophecy and Conversations with God, while Cosmic Humanist themes are explicit in TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lost, as well as through films such as Pocahontas, Mulan, and Star Wars (directed toward children), and Sixth Sense, Gladiator, Dances with Wolves, and Hidalgo, (for adult viewing), just to name a few in each category.
[xxiii] See J.P. Moreland's website for his article "Postmodernism and the Christian Life." Also, J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, The Philosophical Foundation of a Christian Worldview.
[xxiv] Walter Truett Anderson, The Future of the Self: Exploring the Post-Identity Society (New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam, 1997), 32.
[xxv] See D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996); Myron B. Penner, ed., Christianity and the Postmodern Turn (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005); and D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005).
http://worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-5324/Brannon-Howse/David-Noebel
Understanding Six Worldviews that Rule the World*
By Dr. David Noebel
President, Summit Ministries
Back in the early 1990s, Dr. James Dobson and Gary Bauer sought to identify what they saw happening to Christian young people in the United States. Their conclusion was that "nothing short of a great Civil War of Values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in a bitter conflict that permeates every level of society."[i] The war, as Dobson and Bauer put it, is a struggle "for the hearts and minds of people. It is a war over ideas."[ii]
On one side is the Christian worldview, the foundation of Western civilization. On the other side are five worldviews: Islam, Secular Humanism, Marxism, Cosmic Humanism, and Postmodernism. While these worldviews don't agree in every detail, they unanimously concur on one point-their opposition to biblical Christianity.
As in any war, there are casualties, and anti-Christian ideas are taking their toll. Recent surveys indicate that up to 59 percent of "born again" college students drop out of that category by their senior year.[iii] According to George Barna's research, nine out of ten "born again" adults do not have a biblical worldview. To effectively engage this battle of ideas, Christians must have an understanding of the times and "know what [they] ought to do" (1 Chronicles 12:32).
What is a Worldview?
Everyone bases his or her decisions and actions on a worldview. We may not be able to articulate our worldview, and our worldview may be inconsistent, but we all have one. So the question is; what is a worldview?
A worldview is "an interpretive framework"[iv]-much like a pair of glasses-through which you view everything. It refers to any set of ideas, beliefs, or values that provide a framework or map to help you understand God, the world, and your relationship to God and the world. Specifically, a worldview contains a particular perspective regarding at least each of the following ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history.[v]
This article summarizes the six worldviews that currently exert the most influence over the whole world. Other worldviews exist, but they wield much less influence. For example, Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Shintoism may profoundly influence some Eastern countries, but hardly sway the entire world. The major ideas and belief systems controlling the world, and especially the West, are contained in the following six worldviews.
The Christian Worldview
Many people, including many Christians, do not realize that the Bible addresses all ten disciplines of a worldview. Christianity is the embodiment of Christ's claim that He is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). When we say, "This is the Christian way," we mean this is the way Christ would have us approach life and the world. It is no small matter to think and act as Christ instructs.
America has been described as a Christian nation. However, America-along with the rest of Western Civilization-has turned away from its intellectual, cultural and religious heritage. Almost thirty years ago, Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer noted America's drift toward secularism as a failure of Christians "to see that all of this [cultural and social breakdown] has come about due to a shift in world view-that is, through a fundamental change in the overall way people think and view the world and life as a whole."[vi]
The study of worldviews in general, and the Christian worldview in particular, is a wake-up call for everyone. A country seeking to promote human rights (including the right to be born), liberty, and the common good must adhere to the only worldview that can account for our existence and dignity. We contend that human dignity comes from the fact that human beings are created in the image of God, a uniquely biblical perspective. Abandoning this perspective has dire consequences, considering the rise in abortions, homosexual practices, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and the move toward human cloning.
The Islamic Worldview
It is estimated there are 1.3 billion followers of Islam.[vii] In recent years, the Islamic worldview has been growing exponentially in numbers, power, and influence, and, therefore, is worthy of our study. As one article headlined, "The future belongs to Islam,"[viii] providing added incentive to understand its beliefs and goals.
Writing in The Sword of the Prophet, commentator and international political consultant, Serge Trifkovic, explains that "Islam is not a 'mere' religion; it is a complete way of life, an all-embracing social, political and legal system that breeds a worldview peculiar to itself."[ix]
Christianity and Islam have some teachings in common, including belief in a personal God, creation of the material universe, angels, immortality of the soul, heaven, hell, and judgment of sin. Likewise, Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet (one of many), his virgin birth, physical ascension, second coming, miracles, and messiahship.[x]
The major differences between Christianity and Islam is Islam's rejection of the biblical Trinitarian God and the death of Jesus for the sins of the world. Muslims likewise reject Jesus' physical resurrection from the dead and his claim to be the Son of God.
Another major difference between the founder of Christianity and the founder of Islam is that the Bible describes Jesus as living a sinless life while the traditions of Islam depict Muhammad having many flaws. "Muhammad's practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed," writes Trifkovic, "are unique in the history of religions. Murder, pillage, rape, and more murder are in the Koran and in the Traditions."[xi] Furthermore, Muhammad's life "seems to have impressed his followers with a profound belief in the value of bloodshed as opening the gates of Paradise."[xii] Thus, the history of Islam from 622 A.D. to the present has been a history of violence, submission, and war toward infidels (non-Muslims).
For many Muslims, one of Mohammad's most important legacies is to see the world as a conflict between the Land of Peace (Dar al-Islam) and the Land of War (Dar al-Harb). On the other hand, there are a number of Muslims, particularly those living in Western democracies, who do not believe the Koran's violent passages regarding killing infidels and Islam's violent history should be applied literally today.[xiii] Yet, in either case, Islam is a worldview with which Christians must contend.
The Secular Humanist Worldview
Secular Humanism refers primarily to the ideas and beliefs outlined in the Humanist Manifestoes of 1933, 1973, and 2000. Secular Humanism is the dominant worldview on the majority of colleges and universities throughout all Western nations. It has also made gains in many Christian colleges and universities, especially in the areas of biology, sociology, law, politics, and history.
Secular Humanists recognize the classroom as a powerful incubator for indoctrinating students into their worldview. Operating under the educational buzzword "liberalism," a Secular Humanist agenda controls the curriculum in America's public schools thanks to the National Education Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and a host of foundations, including the Ford Foundation.
Christians considering a college education must be well versed in the Secular Humanistic worldview or risk losing their own Christian perspective by default. In her book Walking Away From the Faith, Ruth Tucker, a professor at Calvin Seminary, makes it clear that Christian students are walking away from their faith because of Secular Humanist teaching.
The ideas of Humanism have gained prominent influence throughout modern society. B.F. Skinner, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Erich Fromm, all former "Humanists of the Year," have powerfully affected the discipline of psychology. Scientists such as the late Carl Sagan, another "Humanist of the Year," preached his Humanism on a widely heralded television and high school curriculum series. More recently, the outspoken atheist and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins has gained much attention through a number of popular books on evolution and, of course, his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion. Clearly, Humanists are willing to support their worldview-often more faithfully than Christians. For these and other reasons, we must give the Secular Humanist worldview close attention.
The Marxist Worldview
Marxism is a militantly atheistic, materialistic worldview. It has developed a perspective regarding each of the ten disciplines-usually in great detail. Based on the writings of Karl Marx in the late 1800s, Marxism has taken on some new looks in recent years-including debasing culture as a form of revolutionary activity.[xiv] The latest Communist Manifesto, titled Empire, was published in 2000 by Harvard University Press. Marx's presence continues to be felt around the world.
Marxism predominates on many American university campuses. Recruited as college students in the 1950s and '60s, many Marxist "radicals" earned PhDs and are now the tenured faculty on many campuses. "With a few notable exceptions," says former Yale professor Roger Kimball, "our most prestigious liberal arts colleges and universities have installed the entire radical menu at the center of their humanities curriculum at both the undergraduate and the graduate level."[xv] U. S. News and World Report published a lengthy article in 2003 entitled "Where Marxism Lives Today," which states, "Marxism is so entrenched in courses ranging from literature to anthropology… that today's students are virtually bathed in Marx's ideas."[xvi]
The "radical menu" Kimball referred to includes a large serving of economic determinism. According to Karl Marx, the key problem with capitalism is that it breeds exploitation. Therefore, capitalism must be replaced with a more humane economic system, one that abolishes free markets (private property and the free and peaceful exchange of goods and services) and replaces it with a government-controlled economy.
Marx's economic ideas and political policy go hand in hand. A Marxist style communism controls a large number of nations around the world, and traveling under the name of "social democracy," a Marxist inspired political philosophy has engulfed Western European nations. Further, many South American countries have also taken a Marxist turn in recent years, and many think that the current administration and congress of the United States is quickly taking America down the same socialist road.[xvii]
In addition, some Christian groups have attempted to combine their Christianity with Marx's ideas of social equality. Because of the prevalence and subversive nature of Marxism, Christians must be aware of the goals of Marxist-thinking professors, politicians, and theologians.
The Cosmic Humanist Worldview
The Cosmic Humanist worldview consists of two interrelated spiritual movements. One is known as the New Age Movement (NAM), and the other is neo-paganism, which includes occult practices, Native American spiritism, and Wicca.
The New Age Movement mixes ancient Eastern religions (especially Hinduism and Zen Buddhism) with a touch of other religious traditions, adds a smattering of scientific jargon, and imports the newly baked concoction into mainstream America. "The New Age," explains researcher Johanna Michaelsen, "is the ultimate eclectic religion of self: Whatever you decide is right for you is what's right, as long as you don't get narrow-minded and exclusive about it."[xviii]
The assumption that truth resides within each individual, however, becomes the cornerstone for a worldview. Granting oneself the power to discern all truth is a facet of theology, and this theology has ramifications that many members of the New Age movement have already discovered. Marilyn Ferguson, author of The Aquarian Conspiracy (a book referred to as "The New Age watershed classic"), says the movement ushers in a "new mind-the ascendance of a startling worldview."[xix]
This worldview is summed up by Jonathan Adolph: "In its broadest sense, New Age thinking can be characterized as a form of utopianism, the desire to create a better society, a 'New Age' in which humanity lives in harmony with itself, nature, and the cosmos."[xx]
While New Age believers make no serious distinctions between religions, considering that all are ultimately the same, John P. Newport explains that "neopagans generally believe that they are practicing an ancient folk religion, whether as a survival or a revival. Thus, being focused on the pagan religions of the past, they are not particularly interested in a New Age of the future."[xxi]
Through best-selling books and popular television shows and movies,[xxii] the Cosmic Humanist worldview is gaining converts in the West and around the world. Malachi Martin lists dozens of organizations that are either New Age or sympathetic to Cosmic Humanist views. Clearly, Cosmic Humanism, a transplant from the East, is a growing presence throughout the Western hemisphere.
the Postmodern Worldview
Forced to face the inhumanity, destruction, and horror brought about by the Third Reich and the Soviet Gulag during the first half of the 20th century, a substantial group of Enlightenment humanists and neo-Marxists abandoned their worldview to create one they believed more fitting with reality, resulting in the Postmodern turn. By the 1980's, Postmodern professors were making significant inroads in humanities and social science departments around the world.
Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland notes that Postmodernism refers to a philosophical approach primarily in the area of epistemology, or what counts as knowledge or truth. Broadly speaking, Moreland says "Postmodernism represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as truth, reality, reason, values, linguistic meaning, the 'self' and other notions."[xxiii]
Though Postmodernism comes in many forms, there are three unifying values: (1) a commitment to relativism; (2) an opposition to metanarratives, or totalizing explanations of reality that are true for all people of all cultures; and (3) the idea of culturally created realities. Each of these commitments are designed to deny that there is a worldview or belief system that can be considered absolute Truth.
Postmodernism's most effective methodological tool, one used extensively in university modern language departments, is known as Deconstruction, which means (1) that words do not represent reality, and (2) that concepts expressed in sentences in any language are arbitrary.
Some Postmodernists go so far as to deconstruct humanity itself. Thus, along with the death of God, truth, and reason, humanity is also obliterated. Paul Kugler notes the ironic twist: "Today, it is the speaking subject who declared God dead one hundred years ago whose very existence is now being called into question."[xxiv]
To complicate matters even further, we must acknowledge that there even exists a variety of Postmodernism called "Christian Postmodernism."[xxv] Such is the essence of mainstream Postmodernism-a worldview that claims there are no worldviews. This "anti-worldview" worldview is one that certainly demands the attention of thoughtful Christians.
Conclusion
We cannot overstate the significance of these five anti-Christian worldviews. The basis for much of what is taught in the public classroom today comes from Secular, Marxist, Cosmic Humanist, and Postmodern thinking and takes on a variety of labels: liberalism, multiculturalism, political correctness, deconstructionism, or self-esteem education. Or, as is often the case, the labels are dropped and courses are taught from anti-Christian assumptions without students being told which worldview is being expressed. Neutrality in education is a myth.
The first chapter of the Book of Daniel explains how Daniel and his friends prepared themselves to survive and flourish amid the clash of worldviews of their day. We believe that Christian young people equipped with a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Christian worldview and its rivals can become "Daniels" who will not stand on the sidelines, but will participate in the great collision of worldviews in the twenty-first century.
Society will flourish in the light of truth only when the emphasis shifts back to a Christian perspective. This dramatic shift in emphasis can be brought about through the leadership of thousands of informed, confident Christian students who think deeply and broadly from a well-honed biblical worldview and emerge as leaders in education, business, science, and government.
Our desire to bring about this shift in emphasis is the fundamental reason Summit Ministries produces curricula and resources for Christian schools and homeschool families (primary, middle, and secondary), presents in-service worldview training for teachers across the U.S. and around the world, and provides worldview conferences for students and adults. Information is available at www.summit.org.
About the Author:
Dr. David A. Noebel is founder and president of Summit Ministries and edits and writes Summit's monthly publication, The Journal. Dr. Noebel has been a college professor, college president, and candidate for the U.S. Congress. Dr. Noebel has a B.A. from Hope College in Holland, a M.A. from the University of Tulsa, and was a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin. He is an Author, Editor, Public Speaker, and Ordained Minister. Dr. Noebel is recognized as an expert on worldview analysis and the decline of morality and spirituality in Western Civilization. His most popular works include Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today's Worldviews, which sold over 500,000 copies, and Clergy in the Classroom: the Religion of Secular Humanism (co-authored with Kevin Bywater and J.F. Baldwin). He and his wife Alice live in Manitou Springs, CO and have two children and five grandchildren.
*This article is taken from the introductory chapter of David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times, 2nd Ed., (Summit Press: Manitou Springs, CO, 2006). Understanding the Times is a landmark text that provides a comprehensive comparison of the six worldviews discussed in this article and can be purchased at www.summit.org. Portions of the original text has been edited and re-written by Chuck Edwards for the purposes of this article.
ENDNOTES:
[i] James C. Dobson and Gary L. Bauer, Children at Risk: The Battle For the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids (Dallas, TX: Word, 1990), 19.
[ii] Ibid., 19–20.
[iii] Taken from the "College Student Survey." Cooperative Institutional Research Program, U.C.L.A. Online article: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/css_po.html.
[iv] Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 11.
[v] Other areas could be included in a definition of worldview, such as the arts, yet these ten disciplines contain the primary areas, acting as a web of interacting ideas, which contribute to a total world and life view.
[vi] Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), 17.
[vii] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001468.html.
[viii] "The Future Belongs to Islam," by Mark Steyn, October 20, 2006, accessed 5/4/2009, http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898.
[ix] Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox, 2002), 55.
[x] Ibid., 369.
[xi] Op cit., p. 51.
[xii] Ibn Warraq1 (Ed.), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, New York, 2000, p. 349, quoted in Trafkovic, p. 51.
[xiii] See the American Islamic Forum for Democracy at http://www.aifdemocracy.org/.
[xiv] Paul Edward Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2005); David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004); Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (Cambridge, NY: MIT, 1998); Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals (third printing; New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2003).
[xv] Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1990), xiii.
[xvi] U. S. News and World Report, Special Collection Edition, September 2, 2003, p. 86.
[xvii] See the online article, "The Socialization of America," by David Noebel, accessed 5/4/2009, http://www.summit.org/blogs/pd/2009/03/the_socialization_of_america.php
[xviii] Johanna Michaelsen, Like Lambs to the Slaughter (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1989), 11.
[xix] Marilyn Ferguson, The Austrian Conspiracy (Los Angeles, CA: J.P. Tarcher, 1980), 23.
[xx] Adolph, 11.
[xxi] John P. Newport, The New Age Movement and the Biblical Worldview: Conflict and Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998) p. 214.
[xxii] Books by best-selling authors include The Celestine Prophecy and Conversations with God, while Cosmic Humanist themes are explicit in TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lost, as well as through films such as Pocahontas, Mulan, and Star Wars (directed toward children), and Sixth Sense, Gladiator, Dances with Wolves, and Hidalgo, (for adult viewing), just to name a few in each category.
[xxiii] See J.P. Moreland's website for his article "Postmodernism and the Christian Life." Also, J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, The Philosophical Foundation of a Christian Worldview.
[xxiv] Walter Truett Anderson, The Future of the Self: Exploring the Post-Identity Society (New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam, 1997), 32.
[xxv] See D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996); Myron B. Penner, ed., Christianity and the Postmodern Turn (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005); and D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005).
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Congress Doesn't have the Constitutional Authority
If you haven't checked out AIPnews.com yet, please do so. This is some of the great stuff you can find there.
Article I Section 8, Federalist No. 45, and the Tenth Amendment - the usurpation of power by Congress
AIPNews.com
by Bob Bailey
It is difficult to understand how our national leaders can pass many of the laws they do given they have no authority to do so. It is also difficult to understand how everything seems to have been turned upside down -- what use to mean one thing now means the opposite. Well, here are the facts regarding the intent of the Constitution and how politicians attempt to convince us they are operating within its confines.
US Constitution
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
17 Sep 1797
Taxing and Spending Clause – Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution is sometimes referred to as the "The Taxing and Spending Clause". It's intent is to grant Congress the power to impose taxes for paying for three general areas: (1) pay off the Debt incurred during the war for independence, (2) provide for national Defense, and (3) provide for the general Welfare. The first paragraph reads as follows:
(first paragraph) The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
General Welfare Clause – The "general Welfare" clause in this paragraph is what the leaders in the central government use to grant themselves power to do whatever they want. However, James Madison pointed out that if this is what was intended, there would have been no need to enumerate the limiting powers listed in this same article. Madison was very clear that the power to tax and spend was confined only to the enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution. As has been pointed out, the general Welfare clause is a reference to one of the three areas where power was granted to the federal government with regard to taxing and spending, and those powers are enumerated between the first and last paragraphs of Article I, Section 8.
The first paragraph, therefore, is clearly an outline of what is to follow, which are the enumerated powers granted to the US Congress.
Necessary and Proper Clause – The "necessary and proper" clause is the other clause the central government uses to grant themselves power. This clause is found in the last paragraph:
(last paragraph) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Here again, if the intent had been to grant the federal government unlimited powers there would have been no need to list the powers granted to the federal government, either in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution. The intent of this clause is to provide the federal government the means to carry out the powers that were granted to it in the Constitution. For example, Section 8 grants the power to the federal government "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads". With regards to establishing Post Offices, it is "necessary and proper" that the government build post office buildings in order to carry out this function.
The last paragraph is clearly a clarification regarding the authority granted Congress as listed in the enumerated powers, and only the enumerated powers.
Commerce clause – Before leaving Article I, Section 8, the Commerce clause should also be discussed. The Commerce clause is an enumerated power listed in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. The clause states:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
This clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to take a broad, expansive perspective of the Commerce clause. However, several facts must be taken into account. By definition "commerce" is the commercial exchange of goods and services including the marketing, purchasing, and transporting those goods. Production, on the other hand, is not part of the process of the commercial exchange of goods and services. "Among the several States" means activity occurring in more that one State. “To regulate" means the power to prescribe rules under which commerce shall be transacted. Taken together, this means Congress can not regulate matters that are completely internal to a State. Congress also can not interfere with things that are not necessary for executing its enumerated powers.
The way usurpers in the Congress have used the Commerce clause is to argue that commerce should include any gainful activity; which would of course give power to the central government to control the entire economy. Some have even proposed the Commerce clause is to deal with any human interaction including speech. The problem with these ideas is that they are inconsistent with the thinking of those who participated in the creation our Constitution.
US Constitution
Tenth Amendment
15 December 1791
When determining the intent of the US Constitution with regards to broad versus limited power there is the Tenth Amendment. This Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which were proposed by the First Congress to address the concern that the Constitution, as drafted, would open the way to tyranny by the central government. The Tenth Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This Amendment addresses the powers retained by the States and the people. It makes clear the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution and restates how the Constitution's principle of federalism is designed; that is, by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or the People.
The Federalist Papers
Essay No. 45
[James Madison]
26 Jan 1788
Quoting The Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part; be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger, those of the State governments in times of peace and security.”
Federalist No. 45 makes clear the distinction between the external powers granted to the federal government from the domestic powers reserved to the States. The Federal government's power pertains, for the most part, to external or foreign affairs. The State government's power pertains to the life, liberty or property of the people of the several States. Again, Congress was not granted broad authority under the general Welfare clause. Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to fund domestic social programs under the guise of the general welfare.
Examples of Unconstitutional Taxing and Spending
Congress often seeks to exercise its powers which are not authorized in the Constitution by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device is to condition allocation of federal funding where certain State laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide State 55 mph speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the States would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_amendment
Another easy to understand example of how Congress usurps its authority is the funding of local or particular projects comes from an article written at the Tenth Amendment Center. At the present time, Congress imposes a general gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon throughout the United States. When Congress writes a spending bill and a powerful member of Congress wants to buy some votes from the folks back home, he places an earmark in the legislation to have a 3 million dollar bicycle trail built in his home State or congressional district. The money for the project is appropriated from the general fund of the United States where the gasoline taxes were deposited with other taxes of a general nature. Thus, taxes from the general fund were used to finance a local or particular project within an individual State. This is unconstitutional. The project was not for the [general] welfare of the States in their united capacity. This is unconstitutional. Since building bicycle trails in the States is “not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication,” the appropriation failed this test and is unconstitutional. In other words, Congress cannot impose a general tax throughout the United States, put the money in the general fund of the United States, appropriate money from the general fund of the United States, and then spend the money for a local or particular project. (from the Tenth Amendment Center http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/04/congress-a-wealth-eating-virus/ )
Conclusion
In summary, Congress can only tax and spend in order to: (1) pay the debt, (2) provide for the common defense of the Nation, or (3) for the general Welfare of the nation; and if for the general Welfare, then it must be governed by BOTH the following:
a. Authorized in the Constitution.
b. Be general and apply to all; not for local or particular projects.
Since every spending bill passed by Congress for the general Welfare of the nation must meet both of these requirements to be constitutional, and very few of the spending bills by the central government can meet these standards, then members of Congress have usurped their authority.
Article I Section 8, Federalist No. 45, and the Tenth Amendment - the usurpation of power by Congress
AIPNews.com
by Bob Bailey
It is difficult to understand how our national leaders can pass many of the laws they do given they have no authority to do so. It is also difficult to understand how everything seems to have been turned upside down -- what use to mean one thing now means the opposite. Well, here are the facts regarding the intent of the Constitution and how politicians attempt to convince us they are operating within its confines.
US Constitution
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
17 Sep 1797
Taxing and Spending Clause – Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution is sometimes referred to as the "The Taxing and Spending Clause". It's intent is to grant Congress the power to impose taxes for paying for three general areas: (1) pay off the Debt incurred during the war for independence, (2) provide for national Defense, and (3) provide for the general Welfare. The first paragraph reads as follows:
(first paragraph) The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
General Welfare Clause – The "general Welfare" clause in this paragraph is what the leaders in the central government use to grant themselves power to do whatever they want. However, James Madison pointed out that if this is what was intended, there would have been no need to enumerate the limiting powers listed in this same article. Madison was very clear that the power to tax and spend was confined only to the enumerated powers listed in the US Constitution. As has been pointed out, the general Welfare clause is a reference to one of the three areas where power was granted to the federal government with regard to taxing and spending, and those powers are enumerated between the first and last paragraphs of Article I, Section 8.
The first paragraph, therefore, is clearly an outline of what is to follow, which are the enumerated powers granted to the US Congress.
Necessary and Proper Clause – The "necessary and proper" clause is the other clause the central government uses to grant themselves power. This clause is found in the last paragraph:
(last paragraph) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Here again, if the intent had been to grant the federal government unlimited powers there would have been no need to list the powers granted to the federal government, either in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution. The intent of this clause is to provide the federal government the means to carry out the powers that were granted to it in the Constitution. For example, Section 8 grants the power to the federal government "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads". With regards to establishing Post Offices, it is "necessary and proper" that the government build post office buildings in order to carry out this function.
The last paragraph is clearly a clarification regarding the authority granted Congress as listed in the enumerated powers, and only the enumerated powers.
Commerce clause – Before leaving Article I, Section 8, the Commerce clause should also be discussed. The Commerce clause is an enumerated power listed in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. The clause states:
[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
This clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause in order to take a broad, expansive perspective of the Commerce clause. However, several facts must be taken into account. By definition "commerce" is the commercial exchange of goods and services including the marketing, purchasing, and transporting those goods. Production, on the other hand, is not part of the process of the commercial exchange of goods and services. "Among the several States" means activity occurring in more that one State. “To regulate" means the power to prescribe rules under which commerce shall be transacted. Taken together, this means Congress can not regulate matters that are completely internal to a State. Congress also can not interfere with things that are not necessary for executing its enumerated powers.
The way usurpers in the Congress have used the Commerce clause is to argue that commerce should include any gainful activity; which would of course give power to the central government to control the entire economy. Some have even proposed the Commerce clause is to deal with any human interaction including speech. The problem with these ideas is that they are inconsistent with the thinking of those who participated in the creation our Constitution.
US Constitution
Tenth Amendment
15 December 1791
When determining the intent of the US Constitution with regards to broad versus limited power there is the Tenth Amendment. This Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which were proposed by the First Congress to address the concern that the Constitution, as drafted, would open the way to tyranny by the central government. The Tenth Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This Amendment addresses the powers retained by the States and the people. It makes clear the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution and restates how the Constitution's principle of federalism is designed; that is, by providing that powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or the People.
The Federalist Papers
Essay No. 45
[James Madison]
26 Jan 1788
Quoting The Federalist No. 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part; be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger, those of the State governments in times of peace and security.”
Federalist No. 45 makes clear the distinction between the external powers granted to the federal government from the domestic powers reserved to the States. The Federal government's power pertains, for the most part, to external or foreign affairs. The State government's power pertains to the life, liberty or property of the people of the several States. Again, Congress was not granted broad authority under the general Welfare clause. Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to fund domestic social programs under the guise of the general welfare.
Examples of Unconstitutional Taxing and Spending
Congress often seeks to exercise its powers which are not authorized in the Constitution by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device is to condition allocation of federal funding where certain State laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide State 55 mph speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the States would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_amendment
Another easy to understand example of how Congress usurps its authority is the funding of local or particular projects comes from an article written at the Tenth Amendment Center. At the present time, Congress imposes a general gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon throughout the United States. When Congress writes a spending bill and a powerful member of Congress wants to buy some votes from the folks back home, he places an earmark in the legislation to have a 3 million dollar bicycle trail built in his home State or congressional district. The money for the project is appropriated from the general fund of the United States where the gasoline taxes were deposited with other taxes of a general nature. Thus, taxes from the general fund were used to finance a local or particular project within an individual State. This is unconstitutional. The project was not for the [general] welfare of the States in their united capacity. This is unconstitutional. Since building bicycle trails in the States is “not authorised in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication,” the appropriation failed this test and is unconstitutional. In other words, Congress cannot impose a general tax throughout the United States, put the money in the general fund of the United States, appropriate money from the general fund of the United States, and then spend the money for a local or particular project. (from the Tenth Amendment Center http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/04/congress-a-wealth-eating-virus/ )
Conclusion
In summary, Congress can only tax and spend in order to: (1) pay the debt, (2) provide for the common defense of the Nation, or (3) for the general Welfare of the nation; and if for the general Welfare, then it must be governed by BOTH the following:
a. Authorized in the Constitution.
b. Be general and apply to all; not for local or particular projects.
Since every spending bill passed by Congress for the general Welfare of the nation must meet both of these requirements to be constitutional, and very few of the spending bills by the central government can meet these standards, then members of Congress have usurped their authority.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Miley Cyrus and trampy teen idols
http://worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-5283/Brannon-Howse/Rebecca-Hagelin
By Rebecca Hagelin
Moms everywhere are aghast at teen idol Miley Cyrus' recent pole dancing and exaltation of Britney Spears as her hero.
The "Hannah Montana" superstar morphed overnight from a bubbly starlet into just another trashy singer, leaving moms feeling betrayed. Many thought they had finally found a " Hollywood type" their daughters could look up to. I visited a friend last year and marveled at the wall-to-wall posters of Hannah Montana that adorned her ten-year-old daughter's room. Like millions of other little girls, Hannah was her hero. From her clothes, music, and dance moves to her hairstyle, this little girl (and her mom) were really "into" Hannah.
Then came the photo of Miley sprawled across a boy, her bright green bra in clear view. Next, the 15-year-old posed in nothing but a sheet for the cover of Vanity Fair. After a public outcry, the teen and her superstar dad Billy Ray apologized saying they had been tricked by the photographer. Right. The sorrow only came when parents protested en masse. Given that moms are desperate for role models for their daughters, we quickly forgave, only to be let down again this week when Miley pole danced her way as the heir apparent of the cute-girl-gone-trashy super star phenomenon. Left in her wake? Millions of pre-teen girls who are left thinking they have to be sex objects to "make it" in life.
Face the facts: There is a pattern here and it will not change as long as we don't recognize that our little girls are being used.
The mass marketers of Hollywood hype know that today's youth spend some 200 billion dollars a year of their own money on trinkets, music and all the accessories that go with it. They also know that pre-teen girls are easily manipulated and that more than anything else, want to be popular as they grow into young adults. So, they discover cute, talented young girls, make them superstars by playing on your daughter's dreams of glitz, and morph the "wholesome" starlets into trampy sex stars as they grow older, hoping to take the dollars of your girls with them. They aren't just turning the star into a tramp; their goal is to take your daughter too.
The transition happens at lightning speed - after all, there are only four years between the innocence of 12 and the sultriness needed by 16 to keep the big bucks flowing. History repeats itself. You know what happened to teen idol Britney Spears. America's little girls and their moms swooned and spent millions on Britney fashions. However, just as the Britney wannabes reached critical mass, the star's light started to short circuit. Her sexy ways quickly turned into bizarre behavior, drug problems and a raunchy attitude.
Not to worry, High School Musical's Vanessa Hudgens was there to take her place. But just as Vanessa hit her zenith in the eyes of our little girls, nude photos and other sexual revelations about her captured the headlines. Down came Vanessa and up went the posters of the twinkling, sparkly Miley Cyrus.
Now Miley has made the transition to tramp too. And millions of preteen girls have, once again, been manipulated into believing that being trampy is not only normal, but is the only way to succeed.
It's time for moms to wake up and protect our little girls from being used. Find other moms who are sick of the abuse - it only takes a few friends to create your own sub-culture within the madness of the crazy pop culture. Finding allies is one of the most effective ways to fight back and win. My book, "30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family" is designed to help you do just that. Find out more at www.HowToSaveYourFamily.com .
By Rebecca Hagelin
Moms everywhere are aghast at teen idol Miley Cyrus' recent pole dancing and exaltation of Britney Spears as her hero.
The "Hannah Montana" superstar morphed overnight from a bubbly starlet into just another trashy singer, leaving moms feeling betrayed. Many thought they had finally found a " Hollywood type" their daughters could look up to. I visited a friend last year and marveled at the wall-to-wall posters of Hannah Montana that adorned her ten-year-old daughter's room. Like millions of other little girls, Hannah was her hero. From her clothes, music, and dance moves to her hairstyle, this little girl (and her mom) were really "into" Hannah.
Then came the photo of Miley sprawled across a boy, her bright green bra in clear view. Next, the 15-year-old posed in nothing but a sheet for the cover of Vanity Fair. After a public outcry, the teen and her superstar dad Billy Ray apologized saying they had been tricked by the photographer. Right. The sorrow only came when parents protested en masse. Given that moms are desperate for role models for their daughters, we quickly forgave, only to be let down again this week when Miley pole danced her way as the heir apparent of the cute-girl-gone-trashy super star phenomenon. Left in her wake? Millions of pre-teen girls who are left thinking they have to be sex objects to "make it" in life.
Face the facts: There is a pattern here and it will not change as long as we don't recognize that our little girls are being used.
The mass marketers of Hollywood hype know that today's youth spend some 200 billion dollars a year of their own money on trinkets, music and all the accessories that go with it. They also know that pre-teen girls are easily manipulated and that more than anything else, want to be popular as they grow into young adults. So, they discover cute, talented young girls, make them superstars by playing on your daughter's dreams of glitz, and morph the "wholesome" starlets into trampy sex stars as they grow older, hoping to take the dollars of your girls with them. They aren't just turning the star into a tramp; their goal is to take your daughter too.
The transition happens at lightning speed - after all, there are only four years between the innocence of 12 and the sultriness needed by 16 to keep the big bucks flowing. History repeats itself. You know what happened to teen idol Britney Spears. America's little girls and their moms swooned and spent millions on Britney fashions. However, just as the Britney wannabes reached critical mass, the star's light started to short circuit. Her sexy ways quickly turned into bizarre behavior, drug problems and a raunchy attitude.
Not to worry, High School Musical's Vanessa Hudgens was there to take her place. But just as Vanessa hit her zenith in the eyes of our little girls, nude photos and other sexual revelations about her captured the headlines. Down came Vanessa and up went the posters of the twinkling, sparkly Miley Cyrus.
Now Miley has made the transition to tramp too. And millions of preteen girls have, once again, been manipulated into believing that being trampy is not only normal, but is the only way to succeed.
It's time for moms to wake up and protect our little girls from being used. Find other moms who are sick of the abuse - it only takes a few friends to create your own sub-culture within the madness of the crazy pop culture. Finding allies is one of the most effective ways to fight back and win. My book, "30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family" is designed to help you do just that. Find out more at www.HowToSaveYourFamily.com .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)