The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 6, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
Recently, the Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church, Houston, joined Christian communities in Atlanta, Seattle, and Detroit to encourage “ecumenical reconciliation” between Christianity and Islam. Theirs was a celebration of a sort of worldview potpourri mixing together elements of Christianity and Islam. Predictably called Chrislam, this brand of ecumenicalism qualifies both the Bible and the Qur'an as holy texts. Hence, in a show of equal authenticity, Qur’ans were positioned in church pews next to Bibles.1
Not surprisingly, the American version of Nigerian Chrislamology hops the political correctness bandwagon. For the sake of harmonious coexistence, ecumenical reconcilers value elastic syncretism over orthodoxy, a milk-toast conciliatory gospel over the New Testament Gospel of Jesus Christ. This paradigm shift appears to be compellingly “tolerant”; however, the case for recognizing Chrislam within Christian churches relies solely on fallacies of logic, certainly not biblical compulsion.2
Conflict Escalation: Slippery Slope Fallacy
Some argue that if American “tolerance”—i.e., as in the form of Chrislam—were rejected, then the ongoing conflict between East and West would escalate beyond repair. This slippery-slope fallacy presumes a sort of chain reaction, destined to end with dire consequences that otherwise might have been averted.
Truth be told, embracing tolerance in the name of Chrislam—not the opposite—is what really leads to a slippery slope. After all, the Qur’an explicitly subjugates People of the Book (Jews and Christians) as second-class citizens, subject to burdensome fees and Shariah Law. Believers may live, yes, but only under Islamic terms.3
Can you say, “separate, but not equal”? Been there; done that; not good. Even if all Christian Americans were to embrace Chrislam, and Israeli Jews were to accommodate demands of neighboring Muslim countries, the ongoing conflict in the Near East would nonetheless persist. Solid evidence is lacking to support assertion that “tolerance” of this ilk can restrain Armageddon or that its lack will trigger it. To the contrary, Qur’an-believing Muslims will continue the fight until the Great Satan (America) and the Lesser Satan (Israel) are wiped off the face of the earth—literally.4
Wimpy Doctrine: Straw Man Fallacy
A clever way of strengthening one’s argument is to anticipate opposition, then respond to it in advance. Applying the straw-man fallacy, an arguer sets up a wimpy version of his opponent's position and, then, knocks it down.
A devout Christian, for example, is expected to denigrate Chrislam as apostasy (abandonment of, or departure from, the faith). One who anticipates this response will bypass deal-breaking differences to emphasize superficial similarities between Islam and Christianity—e.g., Abrahamic roots, monotheism, morals and ethics, and the like. Then, he might try to convince others that, only by uniting the world’s two largest monotheistic religions, will rise of atheism and alternative spirituality be thwarted.
Despite apparent similarities, it can’t be emphasized enough that the respective scriptures of Islam and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. When the Qur’an adamantly rejects the deity of Christ as blasphemy (5:17), and it denies His death on the cross (4:157-158), Islam eradicates altogether any semblance to Christianity. Apostasy established; case closed.
Quacks Like a Duck Theory: Fallacy of Weak Analogy
From God’s vantage point, it’s a daffy idea that just because it looks, acts, and walks like a duck—it is one. He looks, not outwardly, but inwardly. Unfortunately, apart from God, humans lack that ability.5
Mirroring the Muslim practice of walking around the Ka'aba in Mecca, Chrislamists engage in "running deliverance," allegedly practiced by Joshua's army upon taking Jericho. But when Chrislam followers practice “running deliverance,” it doesn’t follow that these two examples of “spiritual running” represent one and the same thing.
Indeed, circumambulation—tawaf (طواف) in Arabic; pradakshina in Sanskrit; skorba in Tibetan—distinguishes many faith traditions. Its practice is integral to Hindu ritual for discovering a deity’s most sacred center of spiritual energy, but no one factors Hinduism into the Chrislam equation.
Merely drawing an analogy between two things (a weak one at that) doesn't prove the fallacious “quacks-like-a-duck” theory proposed by Chrislamists.
The Fast: Begging the Question Fallacy
An argument said to “beg the question” asks one to accept a conclusion without offering weighty evidence. It simply ignores an important, but questionable assumption upon which the argument rests. For example, Emerging Church Movement leader Brian McLaren has written a five-part blog entry arguing why Christians should join with Muslims in the Ramadan fast.
McLaren’s argument rests on the central, but erroneous assumption that, for the sake of congeniality, it’s okay for Christians to fast with their Muslim “brothers” to commemorate the month during which the Qur’an was revealed to Mohammed (2:185).
Consider the Night of Power (Laylat Al Qadr), the 27th night of Ramadan (ninth month on the Islamic calendar). Some scholars apply gematric value (occult mysticism) to it, and devout Muslims (called submitters) who observe the Night of Power expect to earn “double credit” in Allah’s eyes. McLaren forgets that it’s by faith we find favor with God—this, through grace and not by works (i.e., fasting), lest any man should boast.6
In advancing his own brand of political correctness, McLaren ignores the erroneous assumption upon which his argument rests. This he does by withholding the preponderance of scriptural evidence: While loving and befriending others is paramount to the Christian faith, the Bible forbids participating in abiblical religious ceremonies.7
Abrahamic Heritage: Post Hoc (False Cause)
The “false cause” fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc, translated "after this, therefore because of this." It assumes that because B comes after A, A caused B. However reasoned this sounds, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.
In Islamic tradition, the three monotheistic, Abrahamic religions journeyed in a caravan. Having obtained a measure of truth, Judaism pitched tent and went no further. Thereafter, having expanded Judeo truth, Christianity moved forward, but then settled. Only Islam continued full bore to receive maximum truth.
Chrislamists would have us believe that shared Abrahamic heritage spiritually unites Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but this belief presumes an established pecking order generated by the “false cause” fallacy. Because Christianity came after Judaism (and Islam followed Christianity) does not presuppose that Judaism caused Christianity, or that Christianity caused Islam. For Chrislam to claim shared Abrahamic heritage is no “proof” of Islam’s stature as a Yahweh-sanctioned improvement over faith of the fathers.8
Cutting-Edge Church Leaders: Appeal to Authority Fallacy
By referencing respected, albeit biased sources or authorities, some employ the “appeal to authority” fallacy. To lend support to their own beliefs, they namedrop, align with, and explain positions held by well-known leaders who may not qualify as subject-specific experts.
Take, for example, Emerging Church leader Dr. Tony Campolo. While Dr. Campolo’s credentials are impressive, he was the subject of an informal heresy hearing in 1985, and for good reason. You see, he’s not convinced that Jesus lives only in Christians. In Campolo’s view, an Islamic “brother” who has fed the hungry and clothed the naked clearly has a personal relationship with Christ, but just doesn’t know it. Accordingly, Campolo excuses many Muslims from need for evangelization. Though not labeled heretical, he was found to be "methodologically naïve and verbally incautious." 9
Campolo insists “we cannot allow our theologies to separate us,” yet Jesus came with a doctrinal “sword” to do just that.10 Moreover, about seventy-five percent of Muhammad's biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers. In the words of Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy, “about sixty-one percent of the contents of the Qur’an … speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses … show goodwill toward humanity."
Although Campolo is a popular voice for Chrislam, Jesus is the ultimate authority for Christianity; and Mohammed for Islam. When Campolo contradicts Jesus and/or Mohammed, he forfeits the credibility afforded him by namedroppers hoping to catch the wind of his sails.
“Hath God Said?”: Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy
One who employs the fallacy of appealing to ignorance suggests that the absence of conclusive evidence on a given issue naturally boosts a position the arguer holds. Recall that, in the Genesis account, the serpent toyed with Eve, intimating that her lack of experiential knowledge—i.e., evidence—somehow gave default credence to his own premise, “Ye shall surely live.” 11
In similar fashion, Emergent Church leaders hold that spiritual edification and growth, inspiration and maturity, work for peace and the common good spring from uniting Islam and Christian worldviews. Without experiential knowledge, those who steer clear of Chrislam are deemed unknowing. Therefore, when arguers pose the biblical query “Hath God said?” they challenge purists to “try it and like it.” After all, what’s to say they won’t?
Political Correctness Bandwagon: Ad Populum Fallacy
A common application of ad populum is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer convinces others to believe something because “everyone else” does. Given that tens of thousands of Americans convert to Islam each year, and Chrislamic gatherings can attract up to 1,500 adherents each week, Christians should join the Emerging Church in its embrace of Chrislam.
The arguer overlooks the fact that, just because 130 prominent Christian leaders signed an agreement that states Muslims and Christians worship the same God, it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Indeed, solid archeological evidence overwhelmingly refutes Islamic identification with the God of the Bible.
In actuality, Islam is a revival of the ancient moon-god cult. Its ceremonies, rites, symbols, and name of its god come from this ancient pagan religion. When the moon-god’s popularity weakened, Arabs continued its worship as their chief deity, Allah (generic for “the god”).12
The Common Good: Red Herring Fallacy
The red-herring fallacy introduces a tangential side issue that distracts from what's really at stake. For example, it’s suggested that, when Jesus engaged and thereby learned from the Syrophoenician woman,13 he overcame his “religious prejudice” as a devout Jew. In spinning the biblical account thusly, the arguer distracts from what’s really at stake—the divinity of a sinless Jesus.14
Another example: Though the Qur’an mentions Jesus some twenty-five times (tangential side issue), it also accuses anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God as having committed the greatest blasphemy imaginable (Qur’an 19:88). In this case, Qur’anic mention of Jesus is a red herring to distract from what’s really at stake—again, belief in Christ’s divinity.15 The tactic employed is to knock over the king pin, so all the pins fall.
What’s Really at Stake?
What’s really at stake is orthodoxy. Coming from a Greek root, the word means "straight belief." Correct practice—i.e., orthopraxy—depends on orthodoxy, not tolerance, as Chrislamists would have us to believe.16
Not recognized as a world religion in its own right, Chrislam blurs differences and distinctions between biblical Christianity and Islam fundamentalism. Its fuzzy thinking renders Chrislam obscure, indistinct, and hazy—thus, capable of deceiving those unschooled as to its nature.
Predictably, relativism drives the “worldview potpourri” of Chrislam. Given no established “black” or “white”—no scripturally validated truth upon which all can rightfully draw—the core value “not to offend” takes front stage. Never mind that the Bible likens Jesus to a stone of stumbling and rock of offense; some Christians believe they must never offend.17
Granted, Chrislamists are not alone in employing fallacious arguments. Many Christians and Muslims do likewise, but then most agree that matters of spirituality and faith transcend logic. Amos 3:3 poses the fitting question, “How can two walk together except they be agreed”? The implied answer is “they can’t.”
As a Christian, I do not hate or shun Muslims, nor do I seek spiritual “common ground” with them, because core incompatibilities between Islam and Christianity preclude perceived, albeit superficial similarities. The Christian faith is founded on the deity of Jesus Christ, the great “I AM,” Immanuel (“God with us”). Were He not divine, Christ’s death on the cross would have been insufficient as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.18 To compromise basic tenants of biblical Christology is to abandon the faith altogether, thus removing the “Chris” from Chrislam.19
If I am faithful to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, I will seek instead to “make disciples of all nations,” Islamic ones included. This isn’t accomplished by might, power, “holy war,” or congenial “give-and-take,” but rather by the spirit of the living God.20
Fallacies of logic that Chrislamists employ “stand away from” orthodoxy (whether Christian or Islamic) and, therefore, qualify as apostate. The English word “apostasy” comes from two Greek words. The first is a preposition (apo), which means “away from”; the second, a verb (histēmi), which means “to stand.” Biblically, apostates “stand away from” known or previously embraced truth.
Be sure Chrislam is apostate. For a Christian to believe otherwise is self-deception.
1. Posted on line at http://thelastcrusade.org. Paul L. Williams, Ph.D. Qur’an in the Pews; Jesus in the Qur’an. (Accessed November 2010).
2. Galatians 1:6.
3. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 108-109.
4. Ibid, 219-236.
5. 1 Samuel 16:7.
6. Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:4-6.
7. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15.
8. Galatians 1:6.
9. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tony_Campolo (Accessed November 2010).
10. Matthew 10:34-36.
11. Genesis 3:1.
12. James 1:17.
13. Mark 7:26; Matthew 5:22.
14. Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff.
15. 1 John 2:22, 23.
16. Matthew 7:14 with 1 Corinthians 12:31; 2 Peter 2:1-2, 15.
17. 1 Peter 2:7-8.
18. 1 John 2:2.
19. 2 Timothy 3:16 with John 10:35.
20. Zechariah 4:6.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 5, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
A pleasing mixture of aromatic or dried spices, fruits, and petals of flowers generally appeals to the senses; but “potpourri” also speaks to a mixed bag of that which is motley or miscellany. The montage of ingredients in potpourri of this nature may intend to attract, but the stew it offers reeks. No seasoning or garnish can hide the reality that some fundamentally incompatible elements, when combined, are unsuitable for ingestion.
So it is for the potpourri of worldviews merged in the sect of Chrislam which, as its name suggests, melds together religious elements of the Christian West and the Muslim East. Abraham McLaughlin of the Christian Science Monitor explains that, in the beginning, the group was called "Chris-lam-herb" for its unlikely mixture of Christianity, Islam, and “traditional medicine” based, not on scientific research, but rather on indigenous beliefs handed down from generation to generation. While its promise of unity and harmony pander to the postmodernist, Chrislam is far from savory.
“God’s Love”: Fallacy of Equivocation
Founded by Tela Tella, and practiced predominantly in Lagos, Nigeria, the will of God (feoluwa) mission, Chrislam, comes from a Yoruba word meaning “God’s love.”1 Adding Yoruba to the Greek New Testament concept of God’s love serves as a sort of “love garnish,” but it doesn’t fool those with mature taste. It’s still hash.
In a manner of speaking, Chrislam jams Christianity and Islam into a magic hat and, with wave of a wand, pulls out “love” by its proverbial ears. Because the “love” concept in Islam differs appreciably from that of Christian love, this love-rabbit, so to speak, is a sorry mutation.
Accordingly, the fallacy of equivocation involves sliding between different meanings of a single word that is vital to the debate—in this case, “love.” The Bible establishes that God is love.2 Arguably, its meaning is paramount within the context of religious debate.
Consider this: While the Qur’an affirms that "God is great" [Allahu akbar], it omits any reference to "God is love" [Allahu muhibba]. An example of contrast between Islam and Christianity is Muslim persecution and dhimmitude of Christians worldwide. In its pure form, Christianity practices nothing equivalent. Instead, Jesus taught His disciples to love, not terrorize their adversaries and to pray for, not subjugate them.3
Jesus blessed “peacemakers.”4 Despite claims to the contrary, history demonstrates that in Islam the purported greater jihad (warfare against sin) takes backseat to the so-called lesser jihad (holy war). Furthermore, the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation elevates revelation given later over and above earlier revelation. Hence, the latter revelation sanctioning harm (Medina Approach) effectively abrogates the earlier conciliatory revelation in favor of non-harm (Mecca Approach). Of the over 100 allusions to jihad in the Qur’an, some 97% of them reference jihad’s primary meaning—that being, the forceful spread and domination of Islam.5
Fear of God in the Judeo-Christian mindset speaks to reverential fear—i.e., veneration—for the person, nature, and magnitude of a loving God who never vacillates, but remains forever the same.6 In biblical Christianity perfect love casts out fear; the two (love and fear) are mutually exclusive, and together they are like oil and water.7
That said, Moroccan scholar Fatema Mernissi explains the centrality of fear within Islam. Many modern Muslims fear Allah and his Imams, the foreign West, democracy, freedom of thought, and individualism. What’s not to fear? After all, the fire of Hell is said to be seventy degrees hotter than earthly fire; and escaping it depends on the whim of Allah. Unfortunately, Allah is outright arbitrary with respect to salvation of his creation. In the words of Caesar Farah, “Allah may vary his ordinances at pleasure, prescribing one set of laws for the Jews, another for the Christians, and still another for Muslims.”8
The fallacy of equivocation with respect to this key word, “love,” is opportunistically used to syncretize (mix together) belief systems that, when closely scrutinized, prove to be incompatible. Hence, the resulting “love child” (or “love rabbit,” as the case may be) is no rightful heir of salvation, but rather a bastard.
The Crescent Cross: Appeal to Pity Fallacy
To persuade another to accept his conclusion, one who applies the appeal-to-pity fallacy introduces empathy and/or sympathy. For instance, the Chrislam symbol of the crescent cross, as pictured above, purports to emphasize togetherness and thereby creates a sense of empathy between Muslim and Christian “brothers.”
Designed to appeal as an interfaith symbol to both camps, the crescent cross allegedly represents neither a cross that is adorned with a crescent, nor a crescent adorned with a cross; nonetheless, any suggestion that these merged symbols bear equal significance simply doesn’t ring true.
In Christianity, the cross speaks to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection without which Christian faith simply doesn’t exist.9 Significantly, the Qur’an outright denies Christ’s death on the cross (4:157-158). With a simple stroke of a pen, the crescent cross is reminiscent of this symbol: ( + leaning ), indicating negation.
Superimposing a crescent moon over the cross—this, in the bogus name of tolerance—symbolically trumps the Christian gospel with Muslim belief. Indeed, the Islamic version of unity is tawheed (“the unity of Allah”). In Islam, “the Body of Christ” eludes the equation. Be sure there is no single visible church of Muslim converts in any Arab country.
Tolerance or Intolerance: False Dichotomy Fallacy
The false dichotomy fallacy offers only two viable choices and thereby eliminates a world of possibilities left undisclosed. Political correctness (in this case, “diversity”) postulates two such options—namely, tolerance or intolerance. Take your pick.
To the postmodernist, fundamentalism of any stripe smacks of intolerance; and one-way, all-the-way belief in either Christianity or Islam is gravely flawed. The answer, then, is a made-to-order belief system (Chrislam), which deigns to make sense of the complex and varied landscape of 21st- century religiosity. Because Chrislam ostensibly epitomizes tolerance, it stands proud as the obvious choice.
An Episcopal priest from Seattle, Rev. Anne Holmes Redding apparently agrees. In 2007 Redding declared herself a Christian-Muslim. In an outward show of inward “tolerance,” Redding dons her Islamic headscarf on Fridays and her clerical collar on Sundays.
That increasing numbers of nominal Christians are taking the bait is evidenced by an observation made by Bishop Vincent Warner of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia. Warner insisted that Redding’s politically correct enlightenment had not been controversial in his diocese.10
Small Sample: Hasty Generalization Fallacy
Redding’s creed may not have sparked controversy in Warner’s diocese, but that’s not so of the Christian community at large. To make an assumption, as this, based on the atypical and certainly flimsy reckonings of a small sample (Episcopal diocese of Olympia) demonstrates the underlying fallacy of hasty generalization.
Redding contends that, when she looks through Jesus, she sees Allah. For her, Jesus is not “the beginning and the end,” but rather means to an end—namely, the Muslim moon-god, Allah. In her economy, Jesus is not divine; but Allah is.
Redding overlooks the fact that, although today’s Islam is monotheistic, its roots are decidedly pagan. As far back as 2000 BC, the crescent moon has symbolized pagan moon worship. The moon-god was referred to as "al-ilah." Before Mohammed promoted his new religion in AD 610, “al-ilah” was shortened to Allah, a generic word for “the god.” 11
That said, union of Allah (moon-god) with the sun goddess purportedly resulted in three goddesses (Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). Together, the family were viewed as "high" gods at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities. Even so, a host of “lesser gods” were likewise worshiped (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, I:61).
For Redding to claim Jesus as her Savior is inauthentic. Denying Christ’s divinity renders Him a deceiver and invalidates His efficacious work of mankind’s salvation from sin, death, and the devil.12 In short, Redding’s portrayal of Jesus as some lesser “god”—i.e., a mere prophet—transcends controversy. It’s out-and-out heretical.
A Panacea: Fallacy of Missing the Point
Some view Chrislam as the solution, a panacea of sorts, for the ongoing conflict between the Western world, which is predominantly Christian, and the Middle East, which is predominantly Muslim. Premises of this faulty argument may indeed support a conclusion, but not the feel-good conclusion that actually is drawn.
You see, while this analysis seems evenhanded, it nonetheless misses the point—that being, exclusive truth claims of Christianity and Islam are fundamentally incompatible.13
Examining Chrislam in the light of critical thinking reveals that any semblance of “truth” springs from fallacies of logic, among which are equivocation, appeal to pity, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, and missing the point, to name but a few.
Summary
When Constantine the Great opportunistically embraced Christianity, adding to it sundry pagan practices of the day, he established an historic example of syncretism for the sake of appeasement. True, the mix of Christianity with paganism served Constantine’s political ambition, but it also skewed the pure doctrine of biblical Christianity.14
The same holds true today regarding Chrislam. A politically-correct worldview potpourri may well suit the postmodernist, but its resulting violence to biblical truth sullies the pot.
In his epistle to the church at Galatia, the apostle Paul cautioned against embracing “another gospel.” Christians today do well to heed Paul’s warning.15
More to follow.
1. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam (Accessed November 2010).
2. 1 John 4:8,16.
3. Matthew 5:43-45.
4. Matthew 5:9.
5. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 61-81.
6. James 1:17.
7. 1 John 4:18.
8. Caesar E. Farah, Islam (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s, 2000), 80.
9. Hebrews 9:22,28.
10. Adrian Ryan. “Urban Voodoo: Santeria. It’s Not Salsa; It’s a Religion.” The Stranger (Seattle, WA: On Line Publication, June 28 – July 4, 2001 issue).
11. See discussion of the origins of Allah in "Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies" by J. Blau in the Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII, #2, 1972, pp. 173-190.
12. Romans 10:9-11.
13. 2 Corinthians 6:14; Jude 24-25.
14. Posted on line at http://historymedren.about.com/od/cwho/p/who_constantine.htm (Accessed November 2010).
15. Galatians 1:6.
Part 5, Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
A pleasing mixture of aromatic or dried spices, fruits, and petals of flowers generally appeals to the senses; but “potpourri” also speaks to a mixed bag of that which is motley or miscellany. The montage of ingredients in potpourri of this nature may intend to attract, but the stew it offers reeks. No seasoning or garnish can hide the reality that some fundamentally incompatible elements, when combined, are unsuitable for ingestion.
So it is for the potpourri of worldviews merged in the sect of Chrislam which, as its name suggests, melds together religious elements of the Christian West and the Muslim East. Abraham McLaughlin of the Christian Science Monitor explains that, in the beginning, the group was called "Chris-lam-herb" for its unlikely mixture of Christianity, Islam, and “traditional medicine” based, not on scientific research, but rather on indigenous beliefs handed down from generation to generation. While its promise of unity and harmony pander to the postmodernist, Chrislam is far from savory.
“God’s Love”: Fallacy of Equivocation
Founded by Tela Tella, and practiced predominantly in Lagos, Nigeria, the will of God (feoluwa) mission, Chrislam, comes from a Yoruba word meaning “God’s love.”1 Adding Yoruba to the Greek New Testament concept of God’s love serves as a sort of “love garnish,” but it doesn’t fool those with mature taste. It’s still hash.
In a manner of speaking, Chrislam jams Christianity and Islam into a magic hat and, with wave of a wand, pulls out “love” by its proverbial ears. Because the “love” concept in Islam differs appreciably from that of Christian love, this love-rabbit, so to speak, is a sorry mutation.
Accordingly, the fallacy of equivocation involves sliding between different meanings of a single word that is vital to the debate—in this case, “love.” The Bible establishes that God is love.2 Arguably, its meaning is paramount within the context of religious debate.
Consider this: While the Qur’an affirms that "God is great" [Allahu akbar], it omits any reference to "God is love" [Allahu muhibba]. An example of contrast between Islam and Christianity is Muslim persecution and dhimmitude of Christians worldwide. In its pure form, Christianity practices nothing equivalent. Instead, Jesus taught His disciples to love, not terrorize their adversaries and to pray for, not subjugate them.3
Jesus blessed “peacemakers.”4 Despite claims to the contrary, history demonstrates that in Islam the purported greater jihad (warfare against sin) takes backseat to the so-called lesser jihad (holy war). Furthermore, the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation elevates revelation given later over and above earlier revelation. Hence, the latter revelation sanctioning harm (Medina Approach) effectively abrogates the earlier conciliatory revelation in favor of non-harm (Mecca Approach). Of the over 100 allusions to jihad in the Qur’an, some 97% of them reference jihad’s primary meaning—that being, the forceful spread and domination of Islam.5
Fear of God in the Judeo-Christian mindset speaks to reverential fear—i.e., veneration—for the person, nature, and magnitude of a loving God who never vacillates, but remains forever the same.6 In biblical Christianity perfect love casts out fear; the two (love and fear) are mutually exclusive, and together they are like oil and water.7
That said, Moroccan scholar Fatema Mernissi explains the centrality of fear within Islam. Many modern Muslims fear Allah and his Imams, the foreign West, democracy, freedom of thought, and individualism. What’s not to fear? After all, the fire of Hell is said to be seventy degrees hotter than earthly fire; and escaping it depends on the whim of Allah. Unfortunately, Allah is outright arbitrary with respect to salvation of his creation. In the words of Caesar Farah, “Allah may vary his ordinances at pleasure, prescribing one set of laws for the Jews, another for the Christians, and still another for Muslims.”8
The fallacy of equivocation with respect to this key word, “love,” is opportunistically used to syncretize (mix together) belief systems that, when closely scrutinized, prove to be incompatible. Hence, the resulting “love child” (or “love rabbit,” as the case may be) is no rightful heir of salvation, but rather a bastard.
The Crescent Cross: Appeal to Pity Fallacy
To persuade another to accept his conclusion, one who applies the appeal-to-pity fallacy introduces empathy and/or sympathy. For instance, the Chrislam symbol of the crescent cross, as pictured above, purports to emphasize togetherness and thereby creates a sense of empathy between Muslim and Christian “brothers.”
Designed to appeal as an interfaith symbol to both camps, the crescent cross allegedly represents neither a cross that is adorned with a crescent, nor a crescent adorned with a cross; nonetheless, any suggestion that these merged symbols bear equal significance simply doesn’t ring true.
In Christianity, the cross speaks to Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection without which Christian faith simply doesn’t exist.9 Significantly, the Qur’an outright denies Christ’s death on the cross (4:157-158). With a simple stroke of a pen, the crescent cross is reminiscent of this symbol: ( + leaning ), indicating negation.
Superimposing a crescent moon over the cross—this, in the bogus name of tolerance—symbolically trumps the Christian gospel with Muslim belief. Indeed, the Islamic version of unity is tawheed (“the unity of Allah”). In Islam, “the Body of Christ” eludes the equation. Be sure there is no single visible church of Muslim converts in any Arab country.
Tolerance or Intolerance: False Dichotomy Fallacy
The false dichotomy fallacy offers only two viable choices and thereby eliminates a world of possibilities left undisclosed. Political correctness (in this case, “diversity”) postulates two such options—namely, tolerance or intolerance. Take your pick.
To the postmodernist, fundamentalism of any stripe smacks of intolerance; and one-way, all-the-way belief in either Christianity or Islam is gravely flawed. The answer, then, is a made-to-order belief system (Chrislam), which deigns to make sense of the complex and varied landscape of 21st- century religiosity. Because Chrislam ostensibly epitomizes tolerance, it stands proud as the obvious choice.
An Episcopal priest from Seattle, Rev. Anne Holmes Redding apparently agrees. In 2007 Redding declared herself a Christian-Muslim. In an outward show of inward “tolerance,” Redding dons her Islamic headscarf on Fridays and her clerical collar on Sundays.
That increasing numbers of nominal Christians are taking the bait is evidenced by an observation made by Bishop Vincent Warner of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia. Warner insisted that Redding’s politically correct enlightenment had not been controversial in his diocese.10
Small Sample: Hasty Generalization Fallacy
Redding’s creed may not have sparked controversy in Warner’s diocese, but that’s not so of the Christian community at large. To make an assumption, as this, based on the atypical and certainly flimsy reckonings of a small sample (Episcopal diocese of Olympia) demonstrates the underlying fallacy of hasty generalization.
Redding contends that, when she looks through Jesus, she sees Allah. For her, Jesus is not “the beginning and the end,” but rather means to an end—namely, the Muslim moon-god, Allah. In her economy, Jesus is not divine; but Allah is.
Redding overlooks the fact that, although today’s Islam is monotheistic, its roots are decidedly pagan. As far back as 2000 BC, the crescent moon has symbolized pagan moon worship. The moon-god was referred to as "al-ilah." Before Mohammed promoted his new religion in AD 610, “al-ilah” was shortened to Allah, a generic word for “the god.” 11
That said, union of Allah (moon-god) with the sun goddess purportedly resulted in three goddesses (Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat). Together, the family were viewed as "high" gods at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities. Even so, a host of “lesser gods” were likewise worshiped (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, I:61).
For Redding to claim Jesus as her Savior is inauthentic. Denying Christ’s divinity renders Him a deceiver and invalidates His efficacious work of mankind’s salvation from sin, death, and the devil.12 In short, Redding’s portrayal of Jesus as some lesser “god”—i.e., a mere prophet—transcends controversy. It’s out-and-out heretical.
A Panacea: Fallacy of Missing the Point
Some view Chrislam as the solution, a panacea of sorts, for the ongoing conflict between the Western world, which is predominantly Christian, and the Middle East, which is predominantly Muslim. Premises of this faulty argument may indeed support a conclusion, but not the feel-good conclusion that actually is drawn.
You see, while this analysis seems evenhanded, it nonetheless misses the point—that being, exclusive truth claims of Christianity and Islam are fundamentally incompatible.13
Examining Chrislam in the light of critical thinking reveals that any semblance of “truth” springs from fallacies of logic, among which are equivocation, appeal to pity, false dichotomy, hasty generalization, and missing the point, to name but a few.
Summary
When Constantine the Great opportunistically embraced Christianity, adding to it sundry pagan practices of the day, he established an historic example of syncretism for the sake of appeasement. True, the mix of Christianity with paganism served Constantine’s political ambition, but it also skewed the pure doctrine of biblical Christianity.14
The same holds true today regarding Chrislam. A politically-correct worldview potpourri may well suit the postmodernist, but its resulting violence to biblical truth sullies the pot.
In his epistle to the church at Galatia, the apostle Paul cautioned against embracing “another gospel.” Christians today do well to heed Paul’s warning.15
More to follow.
1. Posted on line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislam (Accessed November 2010).
2. 1 John 4:8,16.
3. Matthew 5:43-45.
4. Matthew 5:9.
5. William Wagner, Th.D. How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 61-81.
6. James 1:17.
7. 1 John 4:18.
8. Caesar E. Farah, Islam (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s, 2000), 80.
9. Hebrews 9:22,28.
10. Adrian Ryan. “Urban Voodoo: Santeria. It’s Not Salsa; It’s a Religion.” The Stranger (Seattle, WA: On Line Publication, June 28 – July 4, 2001 issue).
11. See discussion of the origins of Allah in "Arabic Lexicographical Miscellanies" by J. Blau in the Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol. XVII, #2, 1972, pp. 173-190.
12. Romans 10:9-11.
13. 2 Corinthians 6:14; Jude 24-25.
14. Posted on line at http://historymedren.about.com/od/cwho/p/who_constantine.htm (Accessed November 2010).
15. Galatians 1:6.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Man with the Plan
Globalism Revisited
Man with the Plan
Part 1 of 6
In the field of medicine, an ultrasound diagnostic image exhibits shadowy, computer-generated movements of a developing fetus. Globalists likewise monitor in utero movement—but on the grander screen of geopolitics. Their one-world love child is spawned by what many call the “shadow government.” According to Nelson Rockefeller in The Future of Federalism, this new order of one-world government is “struggling to be born.”[i]
A foretaste of full-term globalism, the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics showcased selected features of “one world” at its best. At the Bird’s Nest in Beijing, the planet’s best athletes bedazzled an ecstatic audience of ninety-one thousand onlookers, not to mention some four billion at-home viewers.
Sober reverence and a-biblical religious metaphors attending Olympic events echo ancient times when even the sweat of competitors was decreed sacred. This declaration alone warrants close scrutiny; moreover, too many among us are surprised to learn that the torch lighting and bearing were instituted by Nazi propagandists in the Berlin Olympics (1936).[ii]
Though Hitler’s hope was to prove Aryan superiority, none dare challenge the custom. To speak against Pierre de Coubertin’s Olympian dream for global solidarity, peace, and friendship is ridiculed as ignorant and intolerant.3
This we’ve heard before. Prior to passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, the means by which globalists seized control of American finances, President Woodrow Wilson described the burgeoning, one-world phenomenon as “power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive” that no one dares to speak out against it.4
Candidates for Prime Minister of the Planet
As capsulated in the 1994 UN Report on Human Development, the one-world premise is simple enough: Given that mankind’s problems no longer can be solved by national governments, world government is deemed necessary.5
In 1928, former Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells published The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution. In Wells’ view, before the shadowy new order’s character is “plainly displayed,” existing governments first must be “weakened, effaced, incorporated, and superseded.” 6
Democratic Socialists of America insists that “now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty.” 7 Yet eliminating an effective global system of checks and balances based on nation-states begs the question, “If not sovereign nations, then who’s to be in charge?”
Consider this: Wells further distinguished “plain display” of the face of globalism as “a world religion.”8 You read it right—“a world religion.” That said, could God himself emerge as the globalists’ candidate of choice as Prime Minister of the planet?
Not a chance. Signatories of the third Humanist Manifesto (2003) included twenty-one Nobel laureates who joined predecessors in supplanting traditional religion with decidedly incompatible albeit grandiose ideals of Darwinism,9 ethical naturalism,10 and empiricism11—in a word, secularism.
The same three manifestos (1933, 1973, 2003) that expressly deplore division of humankind on nationalistic grounds likewise demean religion as sentimental, wishful thinking and, therefore, devoid of power. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.12
Plainly, a theocracy is not what globalists have in mind.13 Therefore, our question remains: If not nation-states, if not God, then who’s to be in charge of a border-free new world order?
Follow the Clues
The Bible provides needed clues to this pressing question. About six hundred years before Christ, Daniel’s apocalyptic visions accurately prophesied and characterized major world governments to follow the Babylonian Empire—specifically, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and Rome revived.14
Once revived, a new Rome will resemble the ancient counterpart with respect to its universal belief system, global impact, and destined collapse. Although Charlemagne, Mussolini, and Hitler tried to resuscitate ancient Rome, none could accomplish what the Antichrist alone can at his given hour.15
Scripturally, the joint work of Antichrist and his false prophet is called “the mystery of iniquity.”16 Furthermore, the work of Satan through the Antichrist is clearly rooted in the prophecies of Daniel. Indeed, Daniel’s account of the “little horn”17 references this last-day visionary and mother of all dictators who, while at the helm of end-time world government, will oppose Christ all the while pretending to be Christ (“the anointed one”).18
In prophetic imagery, this conquering counterfeit of Christ, a powerful “free-world supra-national political being,”19 sits on the white horse of a godless, one-world system. With a deceptively silent weapon of war in hand (a bow), Antichrist demonstrates shrewdness; that the bow lacks arrows signifies his empty promise of peace.20 In this picture, Antichrist imitates the infinitely greater white horseman called “Faithful and True.” However, instead of delivering peace, plenty, and abundant life as offered by Christ, Antichrist releases the red horse of warfare, the black horse of famine, and the pale horse of death.21
Globalism: One Size Fits All
“Shadow government” is an oft-used euphemism for the developing one-world system also known as global restructuring (perestroika), the global village, the new paradigm, sustainable society and, yes, even “glo-bologna” (compliments of Clare Boothe Luce).
It’s not just the new world order anymore. Any one (or combination) of the following characterize globalism’s many facets: global transformation, world religion of Open/ Aquarian Conspiracy,22 vision for world peace, enlightened eco-socialism, economic integration, multinational institution building, collaborative partnerships, global democracy, interdependence, collective security, federalized world government, transnational federal government, and more.
In testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1950), international financier James P. Warburg insisted we shall have a world government—either by consent or conquest.[1] To this end, globalism extends a hook to everyone—you name it: the bleeding-heart liberal, the pacifist, the activist, the idealist, the spiritually enlightened, the atheist, the underdog, and the uninformed.
It’s as if globalism were a chameleon whose unique body language enables it to change color when attracting potential mates. This metaphor suggests that globalists quickly and opportunistically adjust their values so as to win others to a one-world point of view.
Case in point: In a speech delivered at the Institute for the Study of International Affairs at Copenhagen, historian Arnold Toynbee documented high-level “discreet workings” to wrest sovereignty out of the clutches of local nation-states, all the while denying with one’s lips what is being done with one’s hands.24
To carry the global agenda minus sovereignty of nation-states to its zenith, international treaties, conventions, and environmental regulations are detailed in Our Global Neighborhood, written by the United Nation’s Commission on Global Governance.25
Correspondingly, in 1992 the United States ratified a UN International Covenant on Civil and Religious Rights. In reality, the covenant is yet another con intended to swap U.S. sovereignty for international courts, taxes, and military.
Conclusion
The “utopian” dream of globalism (global governance) sports all the trappings of the so-called Olympian spirit. Given its honorable—even “sacred”—principles of global unity, harmony, alignment, and excellence, few dare speak against it.
By design globalism’s inner workings escape the public eye all the while proponents tightly weave together geo-politics with economic and religious components. Its political strand is decidedly socialist; the economic strand, Marxist; the religious strand, varied versions of Cosmic Humanism.
Make no mistake. Fingered enemies of globalism are sovereign nation-states, free enterprise capitalism, and the God of the Bible. For apparent reason, godly patriots of our nation do well to wake up and sound the alarm before the tsunami of global governance crashes its borders.
More to follow, Part 2.
Footnotes
1 Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., Secret Records Revealed: The Men, Money & the Methods Behind the New World Order (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd., 1999), 101.
2 James Rizzuti, “The Gods of Olympus” (Midnight Call: April, May, June, July, 1998), 16-33.
3 Ibid., 33.
4 Ted Flynn, Hope of the Wicked (Sterling, Virginia: MaxKol Communications, 2000), 2.
5 United Nations, Report on Human Development (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University, 1994), 81.
6 H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (London, England: Book Tree, 1928), XVIII.
7 http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0800globalgov.htm.
8 These quotes come from a lecture at Harvard University given by Nelson Rockefeller in 1962. See also: Nelson Rockefeller, The Future of Federalism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1964).
9 Darwinism is the systematic, codified view of today’s prevailing and politically correct theory of evolution. It explains the macro-evolutionary process through principles of natural and sexual selection.
10 Ethical naturalism contends that religious verities are illusionary, and everything is explicable only by means chance and natural law.
11 Empiricism is the philosophical belief that all knowledge is ultimately derived from sense experience.
12 Written primarily by Raymond Bragg, the first Humanist Manifesto with 34 signers was published in 1933. Unlike later manifestos, Humanist Manifesto I refers to humanism as a religious movement meant to transcend and replace previous, deity-based systems. With 120 signatories, The Humanist Manifesto II first appeared in The Humanist (September/ October, 1973) when Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson were editor and editor emeritus, respectively. Humanism and Its Aspirations (subtitled Humanist Manifesto III), is the most recent manifesto published by the American Humanist Association (AHA). The newest one is considerably shorter and lists these six primary beliefs:
a. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
b. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
c. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
d. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
e. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
f. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
13 A theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler.
14 The Book of Daniel is a prophetic book that includes four apocalyptic visions predicting the course of world history (Chapters 7-12 with Revelation 13:2, 17:15).
15 A latter day visionary, antichrist eventually will become the greatest dictator the world has ever known. He will rule but for “a short space” of time; and though his message will be one of peace, he will war mercilessly. The most fearful punishment found anywhere in Scripture is related to the “Mark of the Beast.” Enforced by antichrist’s false prophet, this mark is a brand required by all in order to buy or sell in the world community this dictatorial administration forges (Daniel 7:25 with Revelation 12:14; 17:10; Daniel 8:25; Revelation 14:9-10).
16 2 Thessalonians 2:7.
17 Daniel 7:8. In Scripture, the horn depicts power.
18 Antichrist can be interpreted “in place of Christ,” or “a substitute for” Him. In general, the term “antichrist” refers to one who stands in opposition to all that Jesus Christ represents. He will not regard the God of his fathers, nor any god, for he’ll magnify himself above all others (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7; Daniel 11:37).
19 Nelson Rockefeller referenced a powerful “free-world supra-national political being” (also, a single, benevolent world “Administrator”) while lecturing at Harvard University in 1962. See also: Nelson Rockefeller, The Future of Federalism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1964).
20 Revelation 6: 2-8.
21 Revelation 19:11.
22 The term, “Aquarian Conspiracy,” was popularized in 1980 See: Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy (Los Angeles, California: Penguin Group, 1980).
23 Gary Allen, The Rockefeller File (Seal Beach, California: ’76 Press, 1976), 77.
24 Arnold Toynbee, “The Trend of International Affairs Since the War” (Copenhagen, Denmark: The Institute for the Study of International Affairs, November 1931). See also: Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., Secret Records Revealed: The Men, Money & the Methods behind the New World Order (Oklahoma City Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd., 1999), 50-51.
25 United Nations Development Program, Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University, 1995), 35.
Man with the Plan
Part 1 of 6
In the field of medicine, an ultrasound diagnostic image exhibits shadowy, computer-generated movements of a developing fetus. Globalists likewise monitor in utero movement—but on the grander screen of geopolitics. Their one-world love child is spawned by what many call the “shadow government.” According to Nelson Rockefeller in The Future of Federalism, this new order of one-world government is “struggling to be born.”[i]
A foretaste of full-term globalism, the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics showcased selected features of “one world” at its best. At the Bird’s Nest in Beijing, the planet’s best athletes bedazzled an ecstatic audience of ninety-one thousand onlookers, not to mention some four billion at-home viewers.
Sober reverence and a-biblical religious metaphors attending Olympic events echo ancient times when even the sweat of competitors was decreed sacred. This declaration alone warrants close scrutiny; moreover, too many among us are surprised to learn that the torch lighting and bearing were instituted by Nazi propagandists in the Berlin Olympics (1936).[ii]
Though Hitler’s hope was to prove Aryan superiority, none dare challenge the custom. To speak against Pierre de Coubertin’s Olympian dream for global solidarity, peace, and friendship is ridiculed as ignorant and intolerant.3
This we’ve heard before. Prior to passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, the means by which globalists seized control of American finances, President Woodrow Wilson described the burgeoning, one-world phenomenon as “power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive” that no one dares to speak out against it.4
Candidates for Prime Minister of the Planet
As capsulated in the 1994 UN Report on Human Development, the one-world premise is simple enough: Given that mankind’s problems no longer can be solved by national governments, world government is deemed necessary.5
In 1928, former Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells published The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution. In Wells’ view, before the shadowy new order’s character is “plainly displayed,” existing governments first must be “weakened, effaced, incorporated, and superseded.” 6
Democratic Socialists of America insists that “now is the time to press for the subordination of national sovereignty.” 7 Yet eliminating an effective global system of checks and balances based on nation-states begs the question, “If not sovereign nations, then who’s to be in charge?”
Consider this: Wells further distinguished “plain display” of the face of globalism as “a world religion.”8 You read it right—“a world religion.” That said, could God himself emerge as the globalists’ candidate of choice as Prime Minister of the planet?
Not a chance. Signatories of the third Humanist Manifesto (2003) included twenty-one Nobel laureates who joined predecessors in supplanting traditional religion with decidedly incompatible albeit grandiose ideals of Darwinism,9 ethical naturalism,10 and empiricism11—in a word, secularism.
The same three manifestos (1933, 1973, 2003) that expressly deplore division of humankind on nationalistic grounds likewise demean religion as sentimental, wishful thinking and, therefore, devoid of power. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.12
Plainly, a theocracy is not what globalists have in mind.13 Therefore, our question remains: If not nation-states, if not God, then who’s to be in charge of a border-free new world order?
Follow the Clues
The Bible provides needed clues to this pressing question. About six hundred years before Christ, Daniel’s apocalyptic visions accurately prophesied and characterized major world governments to follow the Babylonian Empire—specifically, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and Rome revived.14
Once revived, a new Rome will resemble the ancient counterpart with respect to its universal belief system, global impact, and destined collapse. Although Charlemagne, Mussolini, and Hitler tried to resuscitate ancient Rome, none could accomplish what the Antichrist alone can at his given hour.15
Scripturally, the joint work of Antichrist and his false prophet is called “the mystery of iniquity.”16 Furthermore, the work of Satan through the Antichrist is clearly rooted in the prophecies of Daniel. Indeed, Daniel’s account of the “little horn”17 references this last-day visionary and mother of all dictators who, while at the helm of end-time world government, will oppose Christ all the while pretending to be Christ (“the anointed one”).18
In prophetic imagery, this conquering counterfeit of Christ, a powerful “free-world supra-national political being,”19 sits on the white horse of a godless, one-world system. With a deceptively silent weapon of war in hand (a bow), Antichrist demonstrates shrewdness; that the bow lacks arrows signifies his empty promise of peace.20 In this picture, Antichrist imitates the infinitely greater white horseman called “Faithful and True.” However, instead of delivering peace, plenty, and abundant life as offered by Christ, Antichrist releases the red horse of warfare, the black horse of famine, and the pale horse of death.21
Globalism: One Size Fits All
“Shadow government” is an oft-used euphemism for the developing one-world system also known as global restructuring (perestroika), the global village, the new paradigm, sustainable society and, yes, even “glo-bologna” (compliments of Clare Boothe Luce).
It’s not just the new world order anymore. Any one (or combination) of the following characterize globalism’s many facets: global transformation, world religion of Open/ Aquarian Conspiracy,22 vision for world peace, enlightened eco-socialism, economic integration, multinational institution building, collaborative partnerships, global democracy, interdependence, collective security, federalized world government, transnational federal government, and more.
In testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1950), international financier James P. Warburg insisted we shall have a world government—either by consent or conquest.[1] To this end, globalism extends a hook to everyone—you name it: the bleeding-heart liberal, the pacifist, the activist, the idealist, the spiritually enlightened, the atheist, the underdog, and the uninformed.
It’s as if globalism were a chameleon whose unique body language enables it to change color when attracting potential mates. This metaphor suggests that globalists quickly and opportunistically adjust their values so as to win others to a one-world point of view.
Case in point: In a speech delivered at the Institute for the Study of International Affairs at Copenhagen, historian Arnold Toynbee documented high-level “discreet workings” to wrest sovereignty out of the clutches of local nation-states, all the while denying with one’s lips what is being done with one’s hands.24
To carry the global agenda minus sovereignty of nation-states to its zenith, international treaties, conventions, and environmental regulations are detailed in Our Global Neighborhood, written by the United Nation’s Commission on Global Governance.25
Correspondingly, in 1992 the United States ratified a UN International Covenant on Civil and Religious Rights. In reality, the covenant is yet another con intended to swap U.S. sovereignty for international courts, taxes, and military.
Conclusion
The “utopian” dream of globalism (global governance) sports all the trappings of the so-called Olympian spirit. Given its honorable—even “sacred”—principles of global unity, harmony, alignment, and excellence, few dare speak against it.
By design globalism’s inner workings escape the public eye all the while proponents tightly weave together geo-politics with economic and religious components. Its political strand is decidedly socialist; the economic strand, Marxist; the religious strand, varied versions of Cosmic Humanism.
Make no mistake. Fingered enemies of globalism are sovereign nation-states, free enterprise capitalism, and the God of the Bible. For apparent reason, godly patriots of our nation do well to wake up and sound the alarm before the tsunami of global governance crashes its borders.
More to follow, Part 2.
Footnotes
1 Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., Secret Records Revealed: The Men, Money & the Methods Behind the New World Order (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd., 1999), 101.
2 James Rizzuti, “The Gods of Olympus” (Midnight Call: April, May, June, July, 1998), 16-33.
3 Ibid., 33.
4 Ted Flynn, Hope of the Wicked (Sterling, Virginia: MaxKol Communications, 2000), 2.
5 United Nations, Report on Human Development (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University, 1994), 81.
6 H.G. Wells, The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (London, England: Book Tree, 1928), XVIII.
7 http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0800globalgov.htm.
8 These quotes come from a lecture at Harvard University given by Nelson Rockefeller in 1962. See also: Nelson Rockefeller, The Future of Federalism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1964).
9 Darwinism is the systematic, codified view of today’s prevailing and politically correct theory of evolution. It explains the macro-evolutionary process through principles of natural and sexual selection.
10 Ethical naturalism contends that religious verities are illusionary, and everything is explicable only by means chance and natural law.
11 Empiricism is the philosophical belief that all knowledge is ultimately derived from sense experience.
12 Written primarily by Raymond Bragg, the first Humanist Manifesto with 34 signers was published in 1933. Unlike later manifestos, Humanist Manifesto I refers to humanism as a religious movement meant to transcend and replace previous, deity-based systems. With 120 signatories, The Humanist Manifesto II first appeared in The Humanist (September/ October, 1973) when Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson were editor and editor emeritus, respectively. Humanism and Its Aspirations (subtitled Humanist Manifesto III), is the most recent manifesto published by the American Humanist Association (AHA). The newest one is considerably shorter and lists these six primary beliefs:
a. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
b. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
c. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
d. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
e. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
f. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.
13 A theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler.
14 The Book of Daniel is a prophetic book that includes four apocalyptic visions predicting the course of world history (Chapters 7-12 with Revelation 13:2, 17:15).
15 A latter day visionary, antichrist eventually will become the greatest dictator the world has ever known. He will rule but for “a short space” of time; and though his message will be one of peace, he will war mercilessly. The most fearful punishment found anywhere in Scripture is related to the “Mark of the Beast.” Enforced by antichrist’s false prophet, this mark is a brand required by all in order to buy or sell in the world community this dictatorial administration forges (Daniel 7:25 with Revelation 12:14; 17:10; Daniel 8:25; Revelation 14:9-10).
16 2 Thessalonians 2:7.
17 Daniel 7:8. In Scripture, the horn depicts power.
18 Antichrist can be interpreted “in place of Christ,” or “a substitute for” Him. In general, the term “antichrist” refers to one who stands in opposition to all that Jesus Christ represents. He will not regard the God of his fathers, nor any god, for he’ll magnify himself above all others (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7; Daniel 11:37).
19 Nelson Rockefeller referenced a powerful “free-world supra-national political being” (also, a single, benevolent world “Administrator”) while lecturing at Harvard University in 1962. See also: Nelson Rockefeller, The Future of Federalism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1964).
20 Revelation 6: 2-8.
21 Revelation 19:11.
22 The term, “Aquarian Conspiracy,” was popularized in 1980 See: Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy (Los Angeles, California: Penguin Group, 1980).
23 Gary Allen, The Rockefeller File (Seal Beach, California: ’76 Press, 1976), 77.
24 Arnold Toynbee, “The Trend of International Affairs Since the War” (Copenhagen, Denmark: The Institute for the Study of International Affairs, November 1931). See also: Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., Secret Records Revealed: The Men, Money & the Methods behind the New World Order (Oklahoma City Oklahoma: Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd., 1999), 50-51.
25 United Nations Development Program, Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University, 1995), 35.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Right of Conscience to "B or not to "B"
The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 3, Right of Conscience to “B” or not to “B”
Americans insist on all sorts of rights—rights to housing, jobs, decent medical care, and organized interests (i.e., unions). They affirm rights and freedoms as egalitarian in fashion, belonging to all.
Too often, however, folks confuse rights with privileges. For example, the Drivers’ Manual surprises many “teen wanna’-be’s” by characterizing driving not as a right, but instead as a privilege. The basis for legitimate concepts of natural law rights and liberties (as opposed to privileges) are expressed in the United States Bill of Rights.
In contrast, what springs from the blogosphere and impassioned sound bites frequently demonstrates a spirit of entitlement. Skewing God-given liberty, this wayward spirit drives an ongoing national right-to-conscience debate.
Right to “My Terms” Trumps “Your Terms”
At a recent public hearing in Renton, Washington, activists from Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, NARAL, and others testified passionately before the Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Their demand was clear: Regulations are necessary to force pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense the “morning-after pill,” for example—when and where a customer asks for it.
Here’s the caveat: Demand for early abortifacients as Plan B, Ella, and ilk trumps even a provider’s conscience should he object ethically or morally. Forget that pharmacies do not, and cannot reasonably be expected to, stock all of the thousands of FDA-approved drugs and their generics; to “choicers,” here-and-now Emergency Contraception is non-negotiable. And they won’t be referred elsewhere to get it.
Think about it. On the basis of conscience, a pacifist need not go to war, and a nurse need not participate in an abortion. When Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, health care workers could opt out. But if “choicers” have their way, a pharmacist could be forced to forfeit conscience, career, or privately owned business in deference to someone else’s perceived “right” to convenience.
Right to Risk Trumps Prudence
Opponents wrongly brand conscientious objectors as “a few religious fanatics,” but a pharmacist committed to do no harm could well object to Plan B for reasons other than religious ones.
As is the case with all prescriptions, there are side effects from taking abortifacients. Also, Emergency Contraception may reduce the risk of pregnancy by 75 - 89%, but it offers no guarantees. Nor can it prevent STDs or ectopic pregnancies, which by the way are very dangerous.
It’s no big leap to assume that risk is involved when imbibing synthetic hormones that affect the ovaries and development of the uterine lining. As I understand it, the so-called one-step Emergency Contraception (EC) pill gives the body a short, high burst of synthetic hormones to disrupt hormone patterns required for pregnancy. Side effects can include (but are not limited to) nausea, vomiting, headaches, breast tenderness, dizziness, fluid retention, abdominal pain, and irregular bleeding.
Although emergency contraceptive and morning-after pills are not the same as RU-486, the latter (otherwise known as a “baby pesticide”) is used as Emergency Contraception. After taking RU-486 to cause an abortion, several women developed serious illnesses, and some died. For this reason, life advocacy groups petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to halt its distribution and marketing pending review of safety issues.
Problem is, what may be legal is not always safe, ethical, or moral. It stands to reason, then, if a provider believes use of legal ECs is harmful or even lethal, he must speak up. One way to do so is to refer a patient elsewhere; but to the “pro-choice” crowd, this act of conscience is unconscionable, even reprehensible.
My Life Trumps That of a Baby
Talk about reprehensible! Many who negate right of conscience likewise advocate for the new eugenics inclusive of partial- and live- birth abortions (infanticide), cannibalizing babies to make them into medicine, and selling baby parts in the name of science. Arguably, all are birthed out of Roe v. Wade legacy.
Unlike a "death with dignity" participant, a life in the womb has no voice and, therefore, is no willing participant in the managed-death option to which he’s subjected. Conscience in support of that life mustn’t succumb to a customer's demand for convenience. Doing so would undermine human dignity and violate core principles of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness [specifically for the unborn].”
If my choice of conscience is unnecessary by another's standards, or even if it errs on the side of caution, I cannot rightly be denied it. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that special right.
To do what one perceives to be evil is, according to biblical principle, "sin" in the eyes of God. When church and State clash, a believer must submit to the highest authority. And he has every right to do so.
Right to Affix Blame Trumps Personal Accountability
Evidently, to the lonely, time- and money- challenged customer with prescription in hand, the one, local pharmacist is her only recourse. The impassioned cry, “What about true victims of rape or incest?” lands squarely upon his shoulders with no apparent expectation of intervention from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the prescribing physician, or social services.
Forget that EC may be effective up to 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse and that it’s not 100% foolproof, activists insist upon immediate product and service from the first pharmacy of choice—no matter the provider’s heartfelt convictions against its safe, ethical use. A pharmacist on the next block simply won’t do.
It’s true, a woman can conceive when responsible efforts to prevent pregnancy are ineffective. But, then, in the minds of activists, this, too, becomes the pharmacist’s problem. It’s his job, not to refer, but rather to “fix” the outcome; conscience, we’re told, has nothing to do with it.
The “problem” resulting from risky, unprotected sex likewise becomes that sole pharmacist’s mandate. His “choice” not to dispense EC, but rather to refer a customer elsewhere, signals to the “pro-choice” crowd that the pharmacist is not doing his job. To “choicers,” right of “choice” applies exclusively to them.
Right to Label the Opposition as “Religious Fanatics” Trumps Civility
Labeling right-to-conscience advocates as “a few religious fanatics" overlooks the fact that that there are an estimated 2-3 billion Christians in this world, in excess of ¼ of the world’s entire population. Many among them champion right to conscience and, in so doing, cannot accurately be characterized as some small group of uncaring thugs.
To denigrate those whose worldviews differ may well stir passion within the ranks of the disgruntled; but, in reality, “conscientious objection” is by no means synonymous with religious fanaticism, as “choice” advocates suggest.
Live and Let Live (But Only If You Live Like Me)
An honorable person will "live in accordance with conscience" and, in turn, will "let live." Sometimes another person's life choices are in accordance with his or her conscience, sometimes not. God allows free choice, but then accountability falls to the one choosing and no one else.
That said no health care provider should be forced against his conscience to abort a fetus, perform extreme plastic surgery, prescribe marijuana, or dispense early abortificients. Another person’s choice is not his problem to fix.
My Want Trumps Universal Wisdom to the Contrary
Christians are not alone in standing for conscience. In the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience,” which, he adds, “supersedes all other courts.”
Truth be told, the entire world community agree that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion … and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Check it out: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
According to testimony at the public hearing, though, this universal declaration is more poetic than substantive. Like it or not, people, to behave in accordance with one’s conscience is an universal right, one upon which our nation is founded. Sorry, “choicers,” it can’t be shooed as a pesky fly!
If, indeed, right to conscience is an universally agreed upon premise, as most agree it is, then we must zealously uphold it even in the marketplace. On a practical level, it stands to reason that a private business owner should be free to choose his own inventory and to distribute it as he sees fit.
My Body; My Choice—Your Pharmacy; My Choice—Your Conscience; My Choice
The “my body; my choice” crowd apparently believes that “your pharmacy” is “my choice” as well. At the Renton hearing, a steady stream of self-proclaimed, would-be “victims” testified of their outrage at hypothetical, sometimes fabricated scenarios. Clearly, their spirited fight for speedy, non-restricted access was politically motivated and bereft of documentable authenticity.
A single working woman without ready access to transportation can’t possibly make her way to another pharmacy, they whined—but (miraculously) she can find her way to Renton from Vancouver or Eastern Washington in order to complain about her plight.
A college student is too pressed for time to acquire and use birth control, or to seek out another pharmacist; but evidently there is time in her busy schedule for sexual intercourse. Then again, there’s the hypothetical high school girl who claims to be too embarrassed to be denied Plan B at her pharmacy of choice, but with eloquence she readily testifies on camera before a room full of adults.
I agree that these folks are victims, but not necessarily of a hard-knock life—or a hard-nosed pharmacist. Political activists prey upon, and then use, the vulnerable for their own purposes. That’s victimization in my book.
Right to Timely, Non-Restrictive Access Trumps Conscience
If timely, non-restrictive access were truly a "right," as opposed to a convenience, then all pharmacies would be forced to operate 24/7 under threat of government enforcement. For now anyway, this isn’t the case.
A customer can always take his business elsewhere. It's America after all; most live within reasonable walking (or biking/bus) distance from a neighborhood drug store. If not, willing “choicers” who champion early abortificients are but a phone call away.
I agree with Albert Einstein who warned us “never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.” In the words of Andrew Jackson, “As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
In America folks are still free to agree or disagree with my convictions [and I with theirs], but it's simply not acceptable to deny me or anyone the right to voice and practice them.
And that, my friend, is worth defending.
Part 3, Right of Conscience to “B” or not to “B”
Americans insist on all sorts of rights—rights to housing, jobs, decent medical care, and organized interests (i.e., unions). They affirm rights and freedoms as egalitarian in fashion, belonging to all.
Too often, however, folks confuse rights with privileges. For example, the Drivers’ Manual surprises many “teen wanna’-be’s” by characterizing driving not as a right, but instead as a privilege. The basis for legitimate concepts of natural law rights and liberties (as opposed to privileges) are expressed in the United States Bill of Rights.
In contrast, what springs from the blogosphere and impassioned sound bites frequently demonstrates a spirit of entitlement. Skewing God-given liberty, this wayward spirit drives an ongoing national right-to-conscience debate.
Right to “My Terms” Trumps “Your Terms”
At a recent public hearing in Renton, Washington, activists from Planned Parenthood, Legal Voice, NARAL, and others testified passionately before the Washington State Board of Pharmacy. Their demand was clear: Regulations are necessary to force pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense the “morning-after pill,” for example—when and where a customer asks for it.
Here’s the caveat: Demand for early abortifacients as Plan B, Ella, and ilk trumps even a provider’s conscience should he object ethically or morally. Forget that pharmacies do not, and cannot reasonably be expected to, stock all of the thousands of FDA-approved drugs and their generics; to “choicers,” here-and-now Emergency Contraception is non-negotiable. And they won’t be referred elsewhere to get it.
Think about it. On the basis of conscience, a pacifist need not go to war, and a nurse need not participate in an abortion. When Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, health care workers could opt out. But if “choicers” have their way, a pharmacist could be forced to forfeit conscience, career, or privately owned business in deference to someone else’s perceived “right” to convenience.
Right to Risk Trumps Prudence
Opponents wrongly brand conscientious objectors as “a few religious fanatics,” but a pharmacist committed to do no harm could well object to Plan B for reasons other than religious ones.
As is the case with all prescriptions, there are side effects from taking abortifacients. Also, Emergency Contraception may reduce the risk of pregnancy by 75 - 89%, but it offers no guarantees. Nor can it prevent STDs or ectopic pregnancies, which by the way are very dangerous.
It’s no big leap to assume that risk is involved when imbibing synthetic hormones that affect the ovaries and development of the uterine lining. As I understand it, the so-called one-step Emergency Contraception (EC) pill gives the body a short, high burst of synthetic hormones to disrupt hormone patterns required for pregnancy. Side effects can include (but are not limited to) nausea, vomiting, headaches, breast tenderness, dizziness, fluid retention, abdominal pain, and irregular bleeding.
Although emergency contraceptive and morning-after pills are not the same as RU-486, the latter (otherwise known as a “baby pesticide”) is used as Emergency Contraception. After taking RU-486 to cause an abortion, several women developed serious illnesses, and some died. For this reason, life advocacy groups petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to halt its distribution and marketing pending review of safety issues.
Problem is, what may be legal is not always safe, ethical, or moral. It stands to reason, then, if a provider believes use of legal ECs is harmful or even lethal, he must speak up. One way to do so is to refer a patient elsewhere; but to the “pro-choice” crowd, this act of conscience is unconscionable, even reprehensible.
My Life Trumps That of a Baby
Talk about reprehensible! Many who negate right of conscience likewise advocate for the new eugenics inclusive of partial- and live- birth abortions (infanticide), cannibalizing babies to make them into medicine, and selling baby parts in the name of science. Arguably, all are birthed out of Roe v. Wade legacy.
Unlike a "death with dignity" participant, a life in the womb has no voice and, therefore, is no willing participant in the managed-death option to which he’s subjected. Conscience in support of that life mustn’t succumb to a customer's demand for convenience. Doing so would undermine human dignity and violate core principles of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness [specifically for the unborn].”
If my choice of conscience is unnecessary by another's standards, or even if it errs on the side of caution, I cannot rightly be denied it. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that special right.
To do what one perceives to be evil is, according to biblical principle, "sin" in the eyes of God. When church and State clash, a believer must submit to the highest authority. And he has every right to do so.
Right to Affix Blame Trumps Personal Accountability
Evidently, to the lonely, time- and money- challenged customer with prescription in hand, the one, local pharmacist is her only recourse. The impassioned cry, “What about true victims of rape or incest?” lands squarely upon his shoulders with no apparent expectation of intervention from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the prescribing physician, or social services.
Forget that EC may be effective up to 120 hours (5 days) after intercourse and that it’s not 100% foolproof, activists insist upon immediate product and service from the first pharmacy of choice—no matter the provider’s heartfelt convictions against its safe, ethical use. A pharmacist on the next block simply won’t do.
It’s true, a woman can conceive when responsible efforts to prevent pregnancy are ineffective. But, then, in the minds of activists, this, too, becomes the pharmacist’s problem. It’s his job, not to refer, but rather to “fix” the outcome; conscience, we’re told, has nothing to do with it.
The “problem” resulting from risky, unprotected sex likewise becomes that sole pharmacist’s mandate. His “choice” not to dispense EC, but rather to refer a customer elsewhere, signals to the “pro-choice” crowd that the pharmacist is not doing his job. To “choicers,” right of “choice” applies exclusively to them.
Right to Label the Opposition as “Religious Fanatics” Trumps Civility
Labeling right-to-conscience advocates as “a few religious fanatics" overlooks the fact that that there are an estimated 2-3 billion Christians in this world, in excess of ¼ of the world’s entire population. Many among them champion right to conscience and, in so doing, cannot accurately be characterized as some small group of uncaring thugs.
To denigrate those whose worldviews differ may well stir passion within the ranks of the disgruntled; but, in reality, “conscientious objection” is by no means synonymous with religious fanaticism, as “choice” advocates suggest.
Live and Let Live (But Only If You Live Like Me)
An honorable person will "live in accordance with conscience" and, in turn, will "let live." Sometimes another person's life choices are in accordance with his or her conscience, sometimes not. God allows free choice, but then accountability falls to the one choosing and no one else.
That said no health care provider should be forced against his conscience to abort a fetus, perform extreme plastic surgery, prescribe marijuana, or dispense early abortificients. Another person’s choice is not his problem to fix.
My Want Trumps Universal Wisdom to the Contrary
Christians are not alone in standing for conscience. In the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “There is a higher court than courts of justice, and that is the court of conscience,” which, he adds, “supersedes all other courts.”
Truth be told, the entire world community agree that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion … and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance." Check it out: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
According to testimony at the public hearing, though, this universal declaration is more poetic than substantive. Like it or not, people, to behave in accordance with one’s conscience is an universal right, one upon which our nation is founded. Sorry, “choicers,” it can’t be shooed as a pesky fly!
If, indeed, right to conscience is an universally agreed upon premise, as most agree it is, then we must zealously uphold it even in the marketplace. On a practical level, it stands to reason that a private business owner should be free to choose his own inventory and to distribute it as he sees fit.
My Body; My Choice—Your Pharmacy; My Choice—Your Conscience; My Choice
The “my body; my choice” crowd apparently believes that “your pharmacy” is “my choice” as well. At the Renton hearing, a steady stream of self-proclaimed, would-be “victims” testified of their outrage at hypothetical, sometimes fabricated scenarios. Clearly, their spirited fight for speedy, non-restricted access was politically motivated and bereft of documentable authenticity.
A single working woman without ready access to transportation can’t possibly make her way to another pharmacy, they whined—but (miraculously) she can find her way to Renton from Vancouver or Eastern Washington in order to complain about her plight.
A college student is too pressed for time to acquire and use birth control, or to seek out another pharmacist; but evidently there is time in her busy schedule for sexual intercourse. Then again, there’s the hypothetical high school girl who claims to be too embarrassed to be denied Plan B at her pharmacy of choice, but with eloquence she readily testifies on camera before a room full of adults.
I agree that these folks are victims, but not necessarily of a hard-knock life—or a hard-nosed pharmacist. Political activists prey upon, and then use, the vulnerable for their own purposes. That’s victimization in my book.
Right to Timely, Non-Restrictive Access Trumps Conscience
If timely, non-restrictive access were truly a "right," as opposed to a convenience, then all pharmacies would be forced to operate 24/7 under threat of government enforcement. For now anyway, this isn’t the case.
A customer can always take his business elsewhere. It's America after all; most live within reasonable walking (or biking/bus) distance from a neighborhood drug store. If not, willing “choicers” who champion early abortificients are but a phone call away.
I agree with Albert Einstein who warned us “never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.” In the words of Andrew Jackson, “As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.”
In America folks are still free to agree or disagree with my convictions [and I with theirs], but it's simply not acceptable to deny me or anyone the right to voice and practice them.
And that, my friend, is worth defending.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Back to the Drawing Board for Educrats
The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 2, Back to School for Kids; Back to the Drawing Board for Educrats
With September upon us, it’s time to load back packs and bid adieu to the kids, off to school for another year. Parents hold high hopes for success, and students can’t wait to see their friends again.
In this spirit of expectation, the forward-looking National Education Association congregated this summer in New Orleans. Intent upon “turning hope into action,” this 2010 convention resulted in an impressive list of resolutions that demonstrate educators’ commitment to regroup, review, and reform.
In providing “free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student” the NEA advances accredited educational opportunities for all from birth (that’s right, birth) to age eight and beyond (i.e., cradle to grave). This includes funding pre-kindergarten for all three- and four-year-olds, as well as mandatory full-day—every day kindergarten programs requiring compulsory attendance. No one’s excluded from the NEA agenda.
“The” Agenda
So just what is the NEA agenda? Development of individual initiative? Emphasis on correcting the U.S.’s below-average ranking among developed nations in reading, science, and mathematics? Making up for “credential inflation” responsible for admitting unqualified students into our nation’s colleges?
No, none made the resolution list. Outspoken proponents of “freedom of choice,” NEA educrats nonetheless oppose federally or state-mandated parental option (or choice) plans that, from their perspective, “compromise” an agenda that best serves their own purposes.
While employing emotive rhetoric advancing psycho-politics of change, educrats throw critical thinking to the wind and instead sashay around politically correct incongruities. The message is clear. Human resource training trumps academic basics. Not reading, writing, and arithmetic, nor clear thinking, but one-size-fits-all, affective domain instruction makes the final cut.
Subject-centered, teacher-directed accumulation of knowledge gives way to fluff that eludes observable, repeatable, and measurable instructional objectives, all necessary components of mastery learning. Examples include understanding and accepting diverse populations, maintaining gender neutrality and non-stereotypical language, developing self-esteem, and conforming to group think.²
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Diversity
It’s no wonder that resolutions proposed in New Orleans present a curious study in contradictions. For instance, while one resolution purportedly eliminates discrimination and stereotyping based on race, yet another (to the contrary) advances the right to “take race into account” when making decisions as to student admissions, assignments, and/or transfers.³
Not reason nor fair dealing, but relativity and situation dictate actions. To achieve or maintain desired diversity, educrats opportunistically ignore their own principles—this, for self-interest. Case in point: Until protesters got it removed, the NEA website calendar displayed an unlikely posting featuring a supposed icon of diversity—namely, Mao Zedong.
Best known as the “champion murderer of all time,” Chairman Mao lived by a code of violence by which one class overthrows another. “Tolerant,” he wasn’t. Yet while demanding “human rights” on one hand, the Association recognizes Mao Zedong as a sort of “role model” on the other.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Discrimination
Along with Chairman Mao, NEA’s “anti-biased, culturally sensitive” agenda embraces the GLBT crowd in that it enforces non-discrimination for gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgenders. In fact, recognizing her work to prevent HIV infection, Harvard-educated actress Ashley Judd was presented an NEA award at the convention—this, from the GLBT caucus.
Herein lies the problem: The resolution to “coordinate with organizations and concerned agencies that promote the contributions, heritage, culture, history, and special health and care needs of diverse population groups” stops short when it comes to partisan politics.
Be sure the Association urges its members to be politically active (no problem here)—but only in support of political action committees of the Association and its affiliates. Moreover, conservative and independent teachers are forced to pay annual dues to the Association, 95% of whose political contributions go to Democratic candidates and decidedly liberal issues to which they object morally and/or ethically.6
Generally speaking, educrats dismiss as passé any moral and/or ethical absolutes—unless, that is, they support NEA purposes. In matters relating to birth control, diversity of sexual orientation, and gender identification, for example, there’s no sanctioned celebration of diversity as defined by traditionalism.
In advancing progressive absolutes exclusively, NEA “tolerance” goes just so far. NEA educrats insist that it’s “our way or the highway.” No discussion. Period. New paragraph.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Freedom of Choice
As previously intimated, NEA educrats reserve for themselves “freedom of choice,” but fail to extend the same privilege to independently thinking colleagues and parents. You see, in some 28 states, a free-thinking teacher risks losing his job should he object to union policies and refuse to join.
Even tax-paying parents who themselves fund free public education are thwarted from selecting education programs—e.g., tuition tax credits, vouchers—that best suit their children’s needs; and home-schooled children may not enjoy the same extracurricular activities to which even illegal aliens have free access.
In the arena of progressivism, “free to choose” means “free to make the right choice as determined by NEA absolutists.”
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Censorship
The Association ostensibly abhors censorship, book banning, and/or burning, but summarily eliminates the Bible—this, despite its value as a unique work of classical antiquity. In fact, no classical works of Christian or Jewish thought, science, or history qualify; nevertheless, educrats zealously protect access in school media facilities to controversial materials of all sorts—pornography, for one.9
According to the Association, political correctness separates the right- from the wrong- kind of censorship. Case in point: Across curricula—all subjects; all levels—the NEA insists upon integrating what educrats judge to be accurate portrayals of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history. Yet it refuses the example of our nation’s founders who themselves drew from the ancient history of Israel, coupled with experiences of the New Testament church.
While purporting to eliminate subtle practices that favor the education of one student over another—this, on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, ethnicity, or religion—the NEA excludes the very groups whose tried-and-true, transcendent ideals of law and liberty define who we are as a culture and a nation.
It stands to reason why one group is more likely than another to find its way into the thread of world history. Yet without considering the magnitude (or lack thereof) of their contributions, the Association deplores historical underrepresentation of particular groups.10
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Separation of Church and State
The NEA’s commitment to “make up” for underrepresentation frequently violates their resolution to integrate “accurate portrayals” of groups. Disturbingly, in some school districts, the “Prophet” Mohammed is distinguished as “the most influential man in history." This generalization begs the question, “Really?”
Think about it. From a pool of 1.4 billion Muslims (2 out of every 10 people), only six have won the Nobel Peace prize; and one of those six is a known terrorist (Yasser Arafat)! In comparison, from a pool of only 12 million Jews (2 out of every 1,000 people), fully 165 have distinguished themselves with this coveted prize. Even so, only progeny of the former, not the latter, have voice in today’s public schools.11
By way of example, Attorney Edward White with the Thomas More Law Center represented parents in a complaint against a California School district for its iffy assertion that “dressing and acting as Muslims increases student learning and enjoyment." The New Separation principle censors reciting the Lord’s Prayer and Beatitudes, but not Islamic phrases used in prayers. Christmas is off limits, but not "Caravan- or Oasis- Days" and Ramadan.
Mind you, parents do not object to students learning about Islam, but they do find fault (and rightfully so) with students assuming Muslim names while facing Mecca in role playing exercises! 12
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Law
Be they natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons, or people with disabilities, legal American citizens should not be denied what their taxes provide. “Legal” is the operative word here.
But while recognizing an International Court of Justice and Criminal Court, purportedly to enforce law, another of the NEA’s resolutions encourages lawlessness. How so? By extending privileges of access for undocumented students—that is, illegal aliens.
Respect for rule of law is at the core of America’s triumph as a nation, but tax-paying, legal citizens must compete with illegal recipients of financial aid and in-state tuition to state colleges and universities. “Respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity” (to use resolution words) matter; I agree. However, to thumb one’s nose at the rule of law is not to value or respect it.13
Conclusion
Although NEA resolutions purportedly allow teachers the right to encourage free expression of students and to voice personal points of view concerning the policies and programs of the schools, any expression “inimical to the ideals of the Association” are black balled as “extremist.”14
Ironically, the Association’s resolution “to examine assumptions and prejudices” is itself acted upon prejudicially. As we’ve seen, black-and-white NEA resolutions favor progressives over conservatives, postmodernists over traditionalists, Muslims over Jews and Christians, the politically correct crowd over the independently minded, the illegal minority over the legal majority.
To champion politically incorrect views is to be subjected to “conflict resolution” processes whereby “renegades” surrender to school guidance- and counseling- programs designed to bring them around to acceptable collective thought.
This hardly speaks to an “antibiased, culturally sensitive program” purporting to model tolerance.15 And truth be told, Johnny still can’t read!
1. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, A-14. Financial Support of Public Education. B-1. Early Childhood Education.
2. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
3. Ibid. B-13. Racial Diversity Within Student Populations. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
4. Michael Carl, Brave New Schools “NEA: Let’s celebrate Communism,” World Net Daily Exclusive (29 July 2010).
5. http://www.nea-glbtc.org/images/2010-06_GLBTC_News.pdf.
6. http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/12/mandatory_union_dues_shouldnt.html
7. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, C-15. Extremist Groups. F-1. Nondiscriminatory Personnel Policies/Affirmative Action.
8. Ibid. H-1. The Education Employee as a Citizen.
9. Ibid. A-25. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. A-34. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. B-82. Home Schooling.
10. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination. E-3. Selection and Challenges of Materials and Teaching Techniques.
11. http://www.jewishmag.co.il/99mag/nobel/nobel.htm.
12. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, E-10. Academic and Professional Freedom.
13. Ibid. I-33. Freedom of Religion.
14. Ibid. B-24. Education of Refugee and Undocumented Children and Children of Undocumented Immigrants. I-2. International Court of Justice. I-3. International Criminal Court. I-22. Immigration.
15. Ibid. C-15. Extremist Groups.
16. Ibid. B-71. Conflict Resolution Education. B-48. Family Life Education. C-25. School Guidance and Counseling Programs.
Part 2, Back to School for Kids; Back to the Drawing Board for Educrats
With September upon us, it’s time to load back packs and bid adieu to the kids, off to school for another year. Parents hold high hopes for success, and students can’t wait to see their friends again.
In this spirit of expectation, the forward-looking National Education Association congregated this summer in New Orleans. Intent upon “turning hope into action,” this 2010 convention resulted in an impressive list of resolutions that demonstrate educators’ commitment to regroup, review, and reform.
In providing “free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student” the NEA advances accredited educational opportunities for all from birth (that’s right, birth) to age eight and beyond (i.e., cradle to grave). This includes funding pre-kindergarten for all three- and four-year-olds, as well as mandatory full-day—every day kindergarten programs requiring compulsory attendance. No one’s excluded from the NEA agenda.
“The” Agenda
So just what is the NEA agenda? Development of individual initiative? Emphasis on correcting the U.S.’s below-average ranking among developed nations in reading, science, and mathematics? Making up for “credential inflation” responsible for admitting unqualified students into our nation’s colleges?
No, none made the resolution list. Outspoken proponents of “freedom of choice,” NEA educrats nonetheless oppose federally or state-mandated parental option (or choice) plans that, from their perspective, “compromise” an agenda that best serves their own purposes.
While employing emotive rhetoric advancing psycho-politics of change, educrats throw critical thinking to the wind and instead sashay around politically correct incongruities. The message is clear. Human resource training trumps academic basics. Not reading, writing, and arithmetic, nor clear thinking, but one-size-fits-all, affective domain instruction makes the final cut.
Subject-centered, teacher-directed accumulation of knowledge gives way to fluff that eludes observable, repeatable, and measurable instructional objectives, all necessary components of mastery learning. Examples include understanding and accepting diverse populations, maintaining gender neutrality and non-stereotypical language, developing self-esteem, and conforming to group think.²
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Diversity
It’s no wonder that resolutions proposed in New Orleans present a curious study in contradictions. For instance, while one resolution purportedly eliminates discrimination and stereotyping based on race, yet another (to the contrary) advances the right to “take race into account” when making decisions as to student admissions, assignments, and/or transfers.³
Not reason nor fair dealing, but relativity and situation dictate actions. To achieve or maintain desired diversity, educrats opportunistically ignore their own principles—this, for self-interest. Case in point: Until protesters got it removed, the NEA website calendar displayed an unlikely posting featuring a supposed icon of diversity—namely, Mao Zedong.
Best known as the “champion murderer of all time,” Chairman Mao lived by a code of violence by which one class overthrows another. “Tolerant,” he wasn’t. Yet while demanding “human rights” on one hand, the Association recognizes Mao Zedong as a sort of “role model” on the other.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Discrimination
Along with Chairman Mao, NEA’s “anti-biased, culturally sensitive” agenda embraces the GLBT crowd in that it enforces non-discrimination for gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgenders. In fact, recognizing her work to prevent HIV infection, Harvard-educated actress Ashley Judd was presented an NEA award at the convention—this, from the GLBT caucus.
Herein lies the problem: The resolution to “coordinate with organizations and concerned agencies that promote the contributions, heritage, culture, history, and special health and care needs of diverse population groups” stops short when it comes to partisan politics.
Be sure the Association urges its members to be politically active (no problem here)—but only in support of political action committees of the Association and its affiliates. Moreover, conservative and independent teachers are forced to pay annual dues to the Association, 95% of whose political contributions go to Democratic candidates and decidedly liberal issues to which they object morally and/or ethically.6
Generally speaking, educrats dismiss as passé any moral and/or ethical absolutes—unless, that is, they support NEA purposes. In matters relating to birth control, diversity of sexual orientation, and gender identification, for example, there’s no sanctioned celebration of diversity as defined by traditionalism.
In advancing progressive absolutes exclusively, NEA “tolerance” goes just so far. NEA educrats insist that it’s “our way or the highway.” No discussion. Period. New paragraph.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Freedom of Choice
As previously intimated, NEA educrats reserve for themselves “freedom of choice,” but fail to extend the same privilege to independently thinking colleagues and parents. You see, in some 28 states, a free-thinking teacher risks losing his job should he object to union policies and refuse to join.
Even tax-paying parents who themselves fund free public education are thwarted from selecting education programs—e.g., tuition tax credits, vouchers—that best suit their children’s needs; and home-schooled children may not enjoy the same extracurricular activities to which even illegal aliens have free access.
In the arena of progressivism, “free to choose” means “free to make the right choice as determined by NEA absolutists.”
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Censorship
The Association ostensibly abhors censorship, book banning, and/or burning, but summarily eliminates the Bible—this, despite its value as a unique work of classical antiquity. In fact, no classical works of Christian or Jewish thought, science, or history qualify; nevertheless, educrats zealously protect access in school media facilities to controversial materials of all sorts—pornography, for one.9
According to the Association, political correctness separates the right- from the wrong- kind of censorship. Case in point: Across curricula—all subjects; all levels—the NEA insists upon integrating what educrats judge to be accurate portrayals of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history. Yet it refuses the example of our nation’s founders who themselves drew from the ancient history of Israel, coupled with experiences of the New Testament church.
While purporting to eliminate subtle practices that favor the education of one student over another—this, on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, ethnicity, or religion—the NEA excludes the very groups whose tried-and-true, transcendent ideals of law and liberty define who we are as a culture and a nation.
It stands to reason why one group is more likely than another to find its way into the thread of world history. Yet without considering the magnitude (or lack thereof) of their contributions, the Association deplores historical underrepresentation of particular groups.10
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Separation of Church and State
The NEA’s commitment to “make up” for underrepresentation frequently violates their resolution to integrate “accurate portrayals” of groups. Disturbingly, in some school districts, the “Prophet” Mohammed is distinguished as “the most influential man in history." This generalization begs the question, “Really?”
Think about it. From a pool of 1.4 billion Muslims (2 out of every 10 people), only six have won the Nobel Peace prize; and one of those six is a known terrorist (Yasser Arafat)! In comparison, from a pool of only 12 million Jews (2 out of every 1,000 people), fully 165 have distinguished themselves with this coveted prize. Even so, only progeny of the former, not the latter, have voice in today’s public schools.11
By way of example, Attorney Edward White with the Thomas More Law Center represented parents in a complaint against a California School district for its iffy assertion that “dressing and acting as Muslims increases student learning and enjoyment." The New Separation principle censors reciting the Lord’s Prayer and Beatitudes, but not Islamic phrases used in prayers. Christmas is off limits, but not "Caravan- or Oasis- Days" and Ramadan.
Mind you, parents do not object to students learning about Islam, but they do find fault (and rightfully so) with students assuming Muslim names while facing Mecca in role playing exercises! 12
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Law
Be they natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons, or people with disabilities, legal American citizens should not be denied what their taxes provide. “Legal” is the operative word here.
But while recognizing an International Court of Justice and Criminal Court, purportedly to enforce law, another of the NEA’s resolutions encourages lawlessness. How so? By extending privileges of access for undocumented students—that is, illegal aliens.
Respect for rule of law is at the core of America’s triumph as a nation, but tax-paying, legal citizens must compete with illegal recipients of financial aid and in-state tuition to state colleges and universities. “Respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity” (to use resolution words) matter; I agree. However, to thumb one’s nose at the rule of law is not to value or respect it.13
Conclusion
Although NEA resolutions purportedly allow teachers the right to encourage free expression of students and to voice personal points of view concerning the policies and programs of the schools, any expression “inimical to the ideals of the Association” are black balled as “extremist.”14
Ironically, the Association’s resolution “to examine assumptions and prejudices” is itself acted upon prejudicially. As we’ve seen, black-and-white NEA resolutions favor progressives over conservatives, postmodernists over traditionalists, Muslims over Jews and Christians, the politically correct crowd over the independently minded, the illegal minority over the legal majority.
To champion politically incorrect views is to be subjected to “conflict resolution” processes whereby “renegades” surrender to school guidance- and counseling- programs designed to bring them around to acceptable collective thought.
This hardly speaks to an “antibiased, culturally sensitive program” purporting to model tolerance.15 And truth be told, Johnny still can’t read!
1. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, A-14. Financial Support of Public Education. B-1. Early Childhood Education.
2. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
3. Ibid. B-13. Racial Diversity Within Student Populations. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
4. Michael Carl, Brave New Schools “NEA: Let’s celebrate Communism,” World Net Daily Exclusive (29 July 2010).
5. http://www.nea-glbtc.org/images/2010-06_GLBTC_News.pdf.
6. http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/12/mandatory_union_dues_shouldnt.html
7. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, C-15. Extremist Groups. F-1. Nondiscriminatory Personnel Policies/Affirmative Action.
8. Ibid. H-1. The Education Employee as a Citizen.
9. Ibid. A-25. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. A-34. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. B-82. Home Schooling.
10. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination. E-3. Selection and Challenges of Materials and Teaching Techniques.
11. http://www.jewishmag.co.il/99mag/nobel/nobel.htm.
12. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, E-10. Academic and Professional Freedom.
13. Ibid. I-33. Freedom of Religion.
14. Ibid. B-24. Education of Refugee and Undocumented Children and Children of Undocumented Immigrants. I-2. International Court of Justice. I-3. International Criminal Court. I-22. Immigration.
15. Ibid. C-15. Extremist Groups.
16. Ibid. B-71. Conflict Resolution Education. B-48. Family Life Education. C-25. School Guidance and Counseling Programs.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Contradictory Resolutions
The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 2, Back to School for Kids; Back to the Drawing Board for Educrats
With September upon us, it’s time to load back packs and bid adieu to the kids, off to school for another year. Parents hold high hopes for success, and students can’t wait to see their friends again.
In this spirit of expectation, the forward-looking National Education Association congregated this summer in New Orleans. Intent upon “turning hope into action,” this 2010 convention resulted in an impressive list of resolutions that demonstrate educators’ commitment to regroup, review, and reform.
In providing “free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student” the NEA advances accredited educational opportunities for all from birth (that’s right, birth) to age eight and beyond (i.e., cradle to grave). This includes funding pre-kindergarten for all three- and four-year-olds, as well as mandatory full-day—every day kindergarten programs requiring compulsory attendance. No one’s excluded from the NEA agenda.
“The” Agenda
So just what is the NEA agenda? Development of individual initiative? Emphasis on correcting the U.S.’s below-average ranking among developed nations in reading, science, and mathematics? Making up for “credential inflation” responsible for admitting unqualified students into our nation’s colleges?
No, none made the resolution list. Outspoken proponents of “freedom of choice,” NEA educrats nonetheless oppose federally or state-mandated parental option (or choice) plans that, from their perspective, “compromise” an agenda that best serves their own purposes.
While employing emotive rhetoric advancing psycho-politics of change, educrats throw critical thinking to the wind and instead sashay around politically correct incongruities. The message is clear. Human resource training trumps academic basics. Not reading, writing, and arithmetic, nor clear thinking, but one-size-fits-all, affective domain instruction makes the final cut. Subject-centered, teacher-directed accumulation of knowledge gives way to fluff that eludes observable, repeatable, and measurable instructional objectives, all necessary components of mastery learning. Examples include understanding and accepting diverse populations, maintaining gender neutrality and non-stereotypical language, developing self-esteem, and conforming to group think.²
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Diversity
It’s no wonder that resolutions proposed in New Orleans present a curious study in contradictions. For instance, while one resolution purportedly eliminates discrimination and stereotyping based on race, yet another (to the contrary) advances the right to “take race into account” when making decisions as to student admissions, assignments, and/or transfers.³
Not reason nor fair dealing, but relativity and situation dictate actions. To achieve or maintain desired diversity, educrats opportunistically ignore their own principles—this, for self-interest. Case in point: Until protesters got it removed, the NEA website calendar displayed an unlikely posting featuring a supposed icon of diversity—namely, Mao Zedong. Best known as the “champion murderer of all time,” Chairman Mao lived by a code of violence by which one class overthrows another. “Tolerant,” he wasn’t. Yet while demanding “human rights” on one hand, the Association recognizes Mao Zedong as a sort of “role model” on the other.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Discrimination
Along with Chairman Mao, NEA’s “anti-biased, culturally sensitive” agenda embraces the GLBT crowd in that it enforces non-discrimination for gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgenders. In fact, recognizing her work to prevent HIV infection, Harvard-educated actress Ashley Judd was presented an NEA award at the convention—this, from the GLBT caucus. Herein lies the problem: The resolution to “coordinate with organizations and concerned agencies that promote the contributions, heritage, culture, history, and special health and care needs of diverse population groups” stops short when it comes to partisan politics.
Be sure the Association urges its members to be politically active (no problem here)—but only in support of political action committees of the Association and its affiliates. Moreover, conservative and independent teachers are forced to pay annual dues to the Association, 95% of whose political contributions go to Democratic candidates and decidedly liberal issues to which they object morally and/or ethically.6
Generally speaking, educrats dismiss as passé any moral and/or ethical absolutes—unless, that is, they support NEA purposes. In matters relating to birth control, diversity of sexual orientation, and gender identification, for example, there’s no sanctioned celebration of diversity as defined by traditionalism.
In advancing progressive absolutes exclusively, NEA “tolerance” goes just so far. NEA educrats insist that it’s “our way or the highway.” No discussion. Period. New paragraph.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Freedom of Choice
As previously intimated, NEA educrats reserve for themselves “freedom of choice,” but fail to extend the same privilege to independently thinking colleagues and parents. You see, in some 28 states, a free-thinking teacher risks losing his job should he object to union policies and refuse to join.
Even tax-paying parents who themselves fund free public education are thwarted from selecting education programs—e.g., tuition tax credits, vouchers—that best suit their children’s needs; and home-schooled children may not enjoy the same extracurricular activities to which even illegal aliens have free access.
In the arena of progressivism, “free to choose” means “free to make the right choice as determined by NEA absolutists.”
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Censorship
The Association ostensibly abhors censorship, book banning, and/or burning, but summarily eliminates the Bible—this, despite its value as a unique work of classical antiquity. In fact, no classical works of Christian or Jewish thought, science, or history qualify; nevertheless, educrats zealously protect access in school media facilities to controversial materials of all sorts—pornography, for one.9
According to the Association, political correctness separates the right- from the wrong- kind of censorship. Case in point: Across curricula—all subjects; all levels—the NEA insists upon integrating what educrats judge to be accurate portrayals of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history. Yet it refuses the example of our nation’s founders who themselves drew from the ancient history of Israel, coupled with experiences of the New Testament church.
While purporting to eliminate subtle practices that favor the education of one student over another—this, on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, ethnicity, or religion—the NEA excludes the very groups whose tried-and-true, transcendent ideals of law and liberty define who we are as a culture and a nation.
It stands to reason why one group is more likely than another to find its way into the thread of world history. Yet without considering the magnitude (or lack thereof) of their contributions, the Association deplores historical underrepresentation of particular groups.10
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Separation of Church and State
The NEA’s commitment to “make up” for underrepresentation frequently violates their resolution to integrate “accurate portrayals” of groups. Disturbingly, in some school districts, the “Prophet” Mohammed is distinguished as “the most influential man in history." This generalization begs the question, “Really?”
Think about it. From a pool of 1.4 billion Muslims (2 out of every 10 people), only six have won the Nobel Peace prize; and one of those six is a known terrorist (Yasser Arafat)! In comparison, from a pool of only 12 million Jews (2 out of every 1,000 people), fully 165 have distinguished themselves with this coveted prize. Even so, only progeny of the former, not the latter, have voice in today’s public schools.11
By way of example, Attorney Edward White with the Thomas More Law Center represented parents in a complaint against a California School district for its iffy assertion that “dressing and acting as Muslims increases student learning and enjoyment." The New Separation principle censors reciting the Lord’s Prayer and Beatitudes, but not Islamic phrases used in prayers. Christmas is off limits, but not "Caravan- or Oasis- Days" and Ramadan.
Mind you, parents do not object to students learning about Islam, but they do find fault (and rightfully so) with students assuming Muslim names while facing Mecca in role playing exercises! 12
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Law
Be they natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons, or people with disabilities, legal American citizens should not be denied what their taxes provide. “Legal” is the operative word here.
But while recognizing an International Court of Justice and Criminal Court, purportedly to enforce law, another of the NEA’s resolutions encourages lawlessness. How so? By extending privileges of access for undocumented students—that is, illegal aliens.
Respect for rule of law is at the core of America’s triumph as a nation, but tax-paying, legal citizens must compete with illegal recipients of financial aid and in-state tuition to state colleges and universities. “Respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity” (to use resolution words) matter; I agree. However, to thumb one’s nose at the rule of law is not to value or respect it.13
Conclusion
Although NEA resolutions purportedly allow teachers the right to encourage free expression of students and to voice personal points of view concerning the policies and programs of the schools, any expression “inimical to the ideals of the Association” are black balled as “extremist.”14
Ironically, the Association’s resolution “to examine assumptions and prejudices” is itself acted upon prejudicially. As we’ve seen, black-and-white NEA resolutions favor progressives over conservatives, postmodernists over traditionalists, Muslims over Jews and Christians, the politically correct crowd over the independently minded, the illegal minority over the legal majority.
To champion politically incorrect views is to be subjected to “conflict resolution” processes whereby “renegades” surrender to school guidance- and counseling- programs designed to bring them around to acceptable collective thought.
This hardly speaks to an “antibiased, culturally sensitive program” purporting to model tolerance.15 And truth be told, Johnny still can’t read!
1. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, A-14. Financial Support of Public Education. B-1. Early Childhood Education.
2. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
3. Ibid. B-13. Racial Diversity Within Student Populations. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
4. Michael Carl, Brave New Schools “NEA: Let’s celebrate Communism,” World Net Daily Exclusive (29 July 2010).
5. http://www.nea-glbtc.org/images/2010-06_GLBTC_News.pdf.
6. http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/12/mandatory_union_dues_shouldnt.html
7. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, C-15. Extremist Groups. F-1. Nondiscriminatory Personnel Policies/Affirmative Action.
8. Ibid. H-1. The Education Employee as a Citizen.
9. Ibid. A-25. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. A-34. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. B-82. Home Schooling.
10. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination. E-3. Selection and Challenges of Materials and Teaching Techniques.
11. http://www.jewishmag.co.il/99mag/nobel/nobel.htm.
12. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, E-10. Academic and Professional Freedom.
13. Ibid. I-33. Freedom of Religion.
14. Ibid. B-24. Education of Refugee and Undocumented Children and Children of Undocumented Immigrants. I-2. International Court of Justice. I-3. International Criminal Court. I-22. Immigration.
15. Ibid. C-15. Extremist Groups.
16. Ibid. B-71. Conflict Resolution Education. B-48. Family Life Education. C-25. School Guidance and Counseling Programs.
Part 2, Back to School for Kids; Back to the Drawing Board for Educrats
With September upon us, it’s time to load back packs and bid adieu to the kids, off to school for another year. Parents hold high hopes for success, and students can’t wait to see their friends again.
In this spirit of expectation, the forward-looking National Education Association congregated this summer in New Orleans. Intent upon “turning hope into action,” this 2010 convention resulted in an impressive list of resolutions that demonstrate educators’ commitment to regroup, review, and reform.
In providing “free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student” the NEA advances accredited educational opportunities for all from birth (that’s right, birth) to age eight and beyond (i.e., cradle to grave). This includes funding pre-kindergarten for all three- and four-year-olds, as well as mandatory full-day—every day kindergarten programs requiring compulsory attendance. No one’s excluded from the NEA agenda.
“The” Agenda
So just what is the NEA agenda? Development of individual initiative? Emphasis on correcting the U.S.’s below-average ranking among developed nations in reading, science, and mathematics? Making up for “credential inflation” responsible for admitting unqualified students into our nation’s colleges?
No, none made the resolution list. Outspoken proponents of “freedom of choice,” NEA educrats nonetheless oppose federally or state-mandated parental option (or choice) plans that, from their perspective, “compromise” an agenda that best serves their own purposes.
While employing emotive rhetoric advancing psycho-politics of change, educrats throw critical thinking to the wind and instead sashay around politically correct incongruities. The message is clear. Human resource training trumps academic basics. Not reading, writing, and arithmetic, nor clear thinking, but one-size-fits-all, affective domain instruction makes the final cut. Subject-centered, teacher-directed accumulation of knowledge gives way to fluff that eludes observable, repeatable, and measurable instructional objectives, all necessary components of mastery learning. Examples include understanding and accepting diverse populations, maintaining gender neutrality and non-stereotypical language, developing self-esteem, and conforming to group think.²
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Diversity
It’s no wonder that resolutions proposed in New Orleans present a curious study in contradictions. For instance, while one resolution purportedly eliminates discrimination and stereotyping based on race, yet another (to the contrary) advances the right to “take race into account” when making decisions as to student admissions, assignments, and/or transfers.³
Not reason nor fair dealing, but relativity and situation dictate actions. To achieve or maintain desired diversity, educrats opportunistically ignore their own principles—this, for self-interest. Case in point: Until protesters got it removed, the NEA website calendar displayed an unlikely posting featuring a supposed icon of diversity—namely, Mao Zedong. Best known as the “champion murderer of all time,” Chairman Mao lived by a code of violence by which one class overthrows another. “Tolerant,” he wasn’t. Yet while demanding “human rights” on one hand, the Association recognizes Mao Zedong as a sort of “role model” on the other.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Discrimination
Along with Chairman Mao, NEA’s “anti-biased, culturally sensitive” agenda embraces the GLBT crowd in that it enforces non-discrimination for gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgenders. In fact, recognizing her work to prevent HIV infection, Harvard-educated actress Ashley Judd was presented an NEA award at the convention—this, from the GLBT caucus. Herein lies the problem: The resolution to “coordinate with organizations and concerned agencies that promote the contributions, heritage, culture, history, and special health and care needs of diverse population groups” stops short when it comes to partisan politics.
Be sure the Association urges its members to be politically active (no problem here)—but only in support of political action committees of the Association and its affiliates. Moreover, conservative and independent teachers are forced to pay annual dues to the Association, 95% of whose political contributions go to Democratic candidates and decidedly liberal issues to which they object morally and/or ethically.6
Generally speaking, educrats dismiss as passé any moral and/or ethical absolutes—unless, that is, they support NEA purposes. In matters relating to birth control, diversity of sexual orientation, and gender identification, for example, there’s no sanctioned celebration of diversity as defined by traditionalism.
In advancing progressive absolutes exclusively, NEA “tolerance” goes just so far. NEA educrats insist that it’s “our way or the highway.” No discussion. Period. New paragraph.
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Freedom of Choice
As previously intimated, NEA educrats reserve for themselves “freedom of choice,” but fail to extend the same privilege to independently thinking colleagues and parents. You see, in some 28 states, a free-thinking teacher risks losing his job should he object to union policies and refuse to join.
Even tax-paying parents who themselves fund free public education are thwarted from selecting education programs—e.g., tuition tax credits, vouchers—that best suit their children’s needs; and home-schooled children may not enjoy the same extracurricular activities to which even illegal aliens have free access.
In the arena of progressivism, “free to choose” means “free to make the right choice as determined by NEA absolutists.”
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Censorship
The Association ostensibly abhors censorship, book banning, and/or burning, but summarily eliminates the Bible—this, despite its value as a unique work of classical antiquity. In fact, no classical works of Christian or Jewish thought, science, or history qualify; nevertheless, educrats zealously protect access in school media facilities to controversial materials of all sorts—pornography, for one.9
According to the Association, political correctness separates the right- from the wrong- kind of censorship. Case in point: Across curricula—all subjects; all levels—the NEA insists upon integrating what educrats judge to be accurate portrayals of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history. Yet it refuses the example of our nation’s founders who themselves drew from the ancient history of Israel, coupled with experiences of the New Testament church.
While purporting to eliminate subtle practices that favor the education of one student over another—this, on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, ethnicity, or religion—the NEA excludes the very groups whose tried-and-true, transcendent ideals of law and liberty define who we are as a culture and a nation.
It stands to reason why one group is more likely than another to find its way into the thread of world history. Yet without considering the magnitude (or lack thereof) of their contributions, the Association deplores historical underrepresentation of particular groups.10
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Separation of Church and State
The NEA’s commitment to “make up” for underrepresentation frequently violates their resolution to integrate “accurate portrayals” of groups. Disturbingly, in some school districts, the “Prophet” Mohammed is distinguished as “the most influential man in history." This generalization begs the question, “Really?”
Think about it. From a pool of 1.4 billion Muslims (2 out of every 10 people), only six have won the Nobel Peace prize; and one of those six is a known terrorist (Yasser Arafat)! In comparison, from a pool of only 12 million Jews (2 out of every 1,000 people), fully 165 have distinguished themselves with this coveted prize. Even so, only progeny of the former, not the latter, have voice in today’s public schools.11
By way of example, Attorney Edward White with the Thomas More Law Center represented parents in a complaint against a California School district for its iffy assertion that “dressing and acting as Muslims increases student learning and enjoyment." The New Separation principle censors reciting the Lord’s Prayer and Beatitudes, but not Islamic phrases used in prayers. Christmas is off limits, but not "Caravan- or Oasis- Days" and Ramadan.
Mind you, parents do not object to students learning about Islam, but they do find fault (and rightfully so) with students assuming Muslim names while facing Mecca in role playing exercises! 12
Contradictory Resolutions: The New Law
Be they natives, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons, or people with disabilities, legal American citizens should not be denied what their taxes provide. “Legal” is the operative word here.
But while recognizing an International Court of Justice and Criminal Court, purportedly to enforce law, another of the NEA’s resolutions encourages lawlessness. How so? By extending privileges of access for undocumented students—that is, illegal aliens.
Respect for rule of law is at the core of America’s triumph as a nation, but tax-paying, legal citizens must compete with illegal recipients of financial aid and in-state tuition to state colleges and universities. “Respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity” (to use resolution words) matter; I agree. However, to thumb one’s nose at the rule of law is not to value or respect it.13
Conclusion
Although NEA resolutions purportedly allow teachers the right to encourage free expression of students and to voice personal points of view concerning the policies and programs of the schools, any expression “inimical to the ideals of the Association” are black balled as “extremist.”14
Ironically, the Association’s resolution “to examine assumptions and prejudices” is itself acted upon prejudicially. As we’ve seen, black-and-white NEA resolutions favor progressives over conservatives, postmodernists over traditionalists, Muslims over Jews and Christians, the politically correct crowd over the independently minded, the illegal minority over the legal majority.
To champion politically incorrect views is to be subjected to “conflict resolution” processes whereby “renegades” surrender to school guidance- and counseling- programs designed to bring them around to acceptable collective thought.
This hardly speaks to an “antibiased, culturally sensitive program” purporting to model tolerance.15 And truth be told, Johnny still can’t read!
1. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, A-14. Financial Support of Public Education. B-1. Early Childhood Education.
2. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
3. Ibid. B-13. Racial Diversity Within Student Populations. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination.
4. Michael Carl, Brave New Schools “NEA: Let’s celebrate Communism,” World Net Daily Exclusive (29 July 2010).
5. http://www.nea-glbtc.org/images/2010-06_GLBTC_News.pdf.
6. http://www.oregonlive.com/hovde/index.ssf/2009/12/mandatory_union_dues_shouldnt.html
7. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, C-15. Extremist Groups. F-1. Nondiscriminatory Personnel Policies/Affirmative Action.
8. Ibid. H-1. The Education Employee as a Citizen.
9. Ibid. A-25. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. A-34. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. B-82. Home Schooling.
10. Ibid. B-14. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination. E-3. Selection and Challenges of Materials and Teaching Techniques.
11. http://www.jewishmag.co.il/99mag/nobel/nobel.htm.
12. http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2010/aug10/resolutions.html, E-10. Academic and Professional Freedom.
13. Ibid. I-33. Freedom of Religion.
14. Ibid. B-24. Education of Refugee and Undocumented Children and Children of Undocumented Immigrants. I-2. International Court of Justice. I-3. International Criminal Court. I-22. Immigration.
15. Ibid. C-15. Extremist Groups.
16. Ibid. B-71. Conflict Resolution Education. B-48. Family Life Education. C-25. School Guidance and Counseling Programs.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Lost Art of Critical Thinking
Part 1, Critical Thinking, A Broad Stroke
Contrary to popular application, the “critical” in critical thinking doesn’t mean categorizing political opponents as “idiots”! Far from it.
Thinking reasonably, reflectively, and deeply is an essential (that is, critical) skill. Its focus determines what one believes—and how he acts out those beliefs. For good reason, the God of the Old Testament implores His own to “come, let us reason together.” Note that He doesn’t compel them to rally for the purpose of contentious wrangling.
To qualify as a reasoned critical thinker, rather than a squabbler, one considers alternatives and their counterexamples; moreover, he explores consequences. That is to say, his posturing is proactive, not reactive.
Significantly, a critical thinker learns from history and from his own mistakes so as not to repeat missteps unnecessarily.
That said the art of critical thinking springs from basic knowledge. While remaining open to new information, a critical thinker evaluates his sources with due diligence, applied discernment, and careful circumspection. He is not a metaphorical lemming destined to suffer the fate of those who go along unquestioningly with fashionable partisanship, trendy enlightenment, or fantastical delusions.
Fallacies of Logic
Rightful reflection involves communion with one’s own heart, mind, and conscience. In the process of deliberation, one detects fallacies (meaning “deceit”). Examples include false analogies, presumptive generalizations, personal attacks, distractions, ambiguities, and the like—all used commonly and underhandedly to sway popular opinion. Whether distinguished as “formal” or “informal,” all fallacies are dangerous when used by, or in the presence of, those who do not fully understand them.
The wily opportunistically intimidate unwary counterparts with strategies of deceit; only clear thinkers avoid traps strategically designed to ensnare them. They do this by monitoring their own thought processes (called meta-cognition) while, at the same time, they exercise well-reasoned inductive and deductive thinking patterns.
The Thought Ladder²
Master educators understand that folks read and think at overlapping levels. The most basic level of thinking is literal. At this rung of the thought ladder, one applies concrete thinking skills that deal with facts. He acquires and maintains rudimentary knowledge accurately and fluently while, at the same time, answering basic what, where, when, and who questions.
Abstract thinking expands upon basic knowledge. It is both interpretive and critical in that it generalizes and transfers knowledge to new settings or responses. The abstract thinker answers questions like “What is meant by what was said?” or “How does this fit with what I already know?”
Creative thinking extends knowledge by elaborating, adapting, and capitalizing on it. Now, the question posed is “What can I do with this information?” As a result, the new concept (or complex of concepts) shapes one’s beliefs and inspires his actions.
Applying these three thinking levels—literal, abstract, creative—guides aright study within all fundamental fields—i.e., political, religious, educational, scientific, medical, military, technological, cultural, social, philosophical, and economic. Failing to do so misses the mark and invites grave consequences.³
Evading Critical Thinking
To disregard basic knowledge, its expansion and extension, is to float adrift in the sea of life and to suffer the penalties of cognitive instability. It behooves one, therefore, to engage critical thinking skills in voting, worshipping, relating, exploring a career path, investing, and the like. Otherwise, he subjects himself to the system of involuntary servitude called peonage, which in effect elevates the State as supreme and demotes citizens to mere pawns of “collective opinion.”
Make no mistake. Those bent upon transforming our entire culture do so more through the brain than in the battlefield. Their cry for “transformation” may resonate as a purr but can come with a snarl and a bite. Already UNESCO pushes the right kind of tolerance and lifelong education for global cosmic citizenship. Through one-stop social clinics, school-to-work, and cradle-to-grave learning programs, educrats mold “human resources” to their liking.
Concrete Thinking Skills
Today’s interdisciplinary approaches in education result in fewer courses presented under the guise of “thematic teaching.” In short, facts and knowledge—namely content—are deemphasized. More often than not, “process” trumps “product.” By eliminating standardized tests and traditional, subject-based curriculum, educrats freely advance a social agenda that is both radical and indulgent.
Transformational learning incites “raising a ruckus” by “rethinking schools.” Forget the facts. Victimization theories hook our youth to hard-core action. Void of verifiable facts, revisionist history serves as its catalyst; and Marxism assumes center stage in directing the social revolution at hand.
In support of youth self-expression, organizations as the Daughters Sister Foundation (underwritten by the Pride Foundation) educate, inspire, and empower our young people toward realizing a new one-world order bereft of ostensibly obsolete sovereignty, traditionalism, and capitalism.
Abstract Thinking Skills
To promote campus-wide dialogue and “a shared intellectual experience,” seventy-nine out of one hundred of our top American universities ask their incoming freshmen to read one designated book over the summer. The exercise promises to stimulate abstract thinking by posing questions like “What is meant by what was read?” or “How does this fit with what I already know?”
Problem is participating students read no works of classical antiquity, no classical works of Christian or Jewish thought, science, or history. Instead, incoming freshmen typically read books that feature “quick impressions, snappy ideas, or empathetic evoking of misfortune.” Some even read comic books (called “graphic novels”) that tend to be “short, caffeinated, and emotional” in words of NAS President Peter Wood.
Speaking of which, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) examined some 180 books selected by 290 participating schools only to find that many choices relaxed into liberal biases and did little to stretch demands of college-level study.
Rather than foster mastery of fact acquisition, fluency, maintenance, expansion, and reasoned application, students instead read emotive books featuring the “politics of change” (psycho-politics) “with a distinctly disaffected view of American society and Western civilization.”5
Creative Thinking Skills
In review, the creative thinker asks, “What can I do with this information?” Then, he generates a new concept (or complex of concepts) serving to shape his beliefs for success. If you think about it, the American Dream demands elaborating, adapting, and capitalizing on knowledge while moving forward entrepreneurially. Clearly, creative thinking is at the heart of America’s triumph as a nation.
This is especially true when rule of law, individual effort, and fair dealing lead the way. History reveals that America’s founding fathers embraced and implemented tried-and-true, transcendent ideals of law and liberty. These they drew from the ancient history of Israel, as a people, coupled with experiences of the New Testament church. In short, they gave heed to and then learned from the past—morally, ethically, and religiously.
By way of example, our founders understood that the “rule of the laity” wars against rule of law. When citizens (the “laity”) overlook the latter to do what is right in their own eyes, they fall prey to idolatry, chaos, violence, collectivism, and/or complacency.
In God’s economy, a measured scale of divine equity ensures corporate well-being, but partiality nurtures oppression. Consider the ant and its ways. Governed by personal integrity and responsibility, not force, the proverbial ant provides amply for itself. In contrast, the root word for sluggard means “to lean.” So-called “leaners” look to Big Brother for life’s provisions.6 Their lot in life is perpetual servitude and want.
Birth of a Blessed People
Bombarded with intimidation, oppression, and deceit, our founders rose to the challenge, thought critically, and gave themselves wholly to belief and actions to which they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. For this, they paid dearly. As a result, we are a blessed people. To restore America and secure like blessings for our progeny, we can do no less than they.
1. Isaiah 1:18.
2. Curriculum Letter No. 58, Department of School Services and Publications, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut.
3. Debra Rae. “The Sin Factor.” ABCs of Cultural-Isms: Bible Truth or Grave Consequences (2003): 9-17.
4. Huffington Post (June 2010).
5. Beach Books: What Do Colleges Want Students to Read Outside of Class? (Thorne and Wood Report, 2010).
6. Proverbs 6:6.
Contrary to popular application, the “critical” in critical thinking doesn’t mean categorizing political opponents as “idiots”! Far from it.
Thinking reasonably, reflectively, and deeply is an essential (that is, critical) skill. Its focus determines what one believes—and how he acts out those beliefs. For good reason, the God of the Old Testament implores His own to “come, let us reason together.” Note that He doesn’t compel them to rally for the purpose of contentious wrangling.
To qualify as a reasoned critical thinker, rather than a squabbler, one considers alternatives and their counterexamples; moreover, he explores consequences. That is to say, his posturing is proactive, not reactive.
Significantly, a critical thinker learns from history and from his own mistakes so as not to repeat missteps unnecessarily.
That said the art of critical thinking springs from basic knowledge. While remaining open to new information, a critical thinker evaluates his sources with due diligence, applied discernment, and careful circumspection. He is not a metaphorical lemming destined to suffer the fate of those who go along unquestioningly with fashionable partisanship, trendy enlightenment, or fantastical delusions.
Fallacies of Logic
Rightful reflection involves communion with one’s own heart, mind, and conscience. In the process of deliberation, one detects fallacies (meaning “deceit”). Examples include false analogies, presumptive generalizations, personal attacks, distractions, ambiguities, and the like—all used commonly and underhandedly to sway popular opinion. Whether distinguished as “formal” or “informal,” all fallacies are dangerous when used by, or in the presence of, those who do not fully understand them.
The wily opportunistically intimidate unwary counterparts with strategies of deceit; only clear thinkers avoid traps strategically designed to ensnare them. They do this by monitoring their own thought processes (called meta-cognition) while, at the same time, they exercise well-reasoned inductive and deductive thinking patterns.
The Thought Ladder²
Master educators understand that folks read and think at overlapping levels. The most basic level of thinking is literal. At this rung of the thought ladder, one applies concrete thinking skills that deal with facts. He acquires and maintains rudimentary knowledge accurately and fluently while, at the same time, answering basic what, where, when, and who questions.
Abstract thinking expands upon basic knowledge. It is both interpretive and critical in that it generalizes and transfers knowledge to new settings or responses. The abstract thinker answers questions like “What is meant by what was said?” or “How does this fit with what I already know?”
Creative thinking extends knowledge by elaborating, adapting, and capitalizing on it. Now, the question posed is “What can I do with this information?” As a result, the new concept (or complex of concepts) shapes one’s beliefs and inspires his actions.
Applying these three thinking levels—literal, abstract, creative—guides aright study within all fundamental fields—i.e., political, religious, educational, scientific, medical, military, technological, cultural, social, philosophical, and economic. Failing to do so misses the mark and invites grave consequences.³
Evading Critical Thinking
To disregard basic knowledge, its expansion and extension, is to float adrift in the sea of life and to suffer the penalties of cognitive instability. It behooves one, therefore, to engage critical thinking skills in voting, worshipping, relating, exploring a career path, investing, and the like. Otherwise, he subjects himself to the system of involuntary servitude called peonage, which in effect elevates the State as supreme and demotes citizens to mere pawns of “collective opinion.”
Make no mistake. Those bent upon transforming our entire culture do so more through the brain than in the battlefield. Their cry for “transformation” may resonate as a purr but can come with a snarl and a bite. Already UNESCO pushes the right kind of tolerance and lifelong education for global cosmic citizenship. Through one-stop social clinics, school-to-work, and cradle-to-grave learning programs, educrats mold “human resources” to their liking.
Concrete Thinking Skills
Today’s interdisciplinary approaches in education result in fewer courses presented under the guise of “thematic teaching.” In short, facts and knowledge—namely content—are deemphasized. More often than not, “process” trumps “product.” By eliminating standardized tests and traditional, subject-based curriculum, educrats freely advance a social agenda that is both radical and indulgent.
Transformational learning incites “raising a ruckus” by “rethinking schools.” Forget the facts. Victimization theories hook our youth to hard-core action. Void of verifiable facts, revisionist history serves as its catalyst; and Marxism assumes center stage in directing the social revolution at hand.
In support of youth self-expression, organizations as the Daughters Sister Foundation (underwritten by the Pride Foundation) educate, inspire, and empower our young people toward realizing a new one-world order bereft of ostensibly obsolete sovereignty, traditionalism, and capitalism.
Abstract Thinking Skills
To promote campus-wide dialogue and “a shared intellectual experience,” seventy-nine out of one hundred of our top American universities ask their incoming freshmen to read one designated book over the summer. The exercise promises to stimulate abstract thinking by posing questions like “What is meant by what was read?” or “How does this fit with what I already know?”
Problem is participating students read no works of classical antiquity, no classical works of Christian or Jewish thought, science, or history. Instead, incoming freshmen typically read books that feature “quick impressions, snappy ideas, or empathetic evoking of misfortune.” Some even read comic books (called “graphic novels”) that tend to be “short, caffeinated, and emotional” in words of NAS President Peter Wood.
Speaking of which, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) examined some 180 books selected by 290 participating schools only to find that many choices relaxed into liberal biases and did little to stretch demands of college-level study.
Rather than foster mastery of fact acquisition, fluency, maintenance, expansion, and reasoned application, students instead read emotive books featuring the “politics of change” (psycho-politics) “with a distinctly disaffected view of American society and Western civilization.”5
Creative Thinking Skills
In review, the creative thinker asks, “What can I do with this information?” Then, he generates a new concept (or complex of concepts) serving to shape his beliefs for success. If you think about it, the American Dream demands elaborating, adapting, and capitalizing on knowledge while moving forward entrepreneurially. Clearly, creative thinking is at the heart of America’s triumph as a nation.
This is especially true when rule of law, individual effort, and fair dealing lead the way. History reveals that America’s founding fathers embraced and implemented tried-and-true, transcendent ideals of law and liberty. These they drew from the ancient history of Israel, as a people, coupled with experiences of the New Testament church. In short, they gave heed to and then learned from the past—morally, ethically, and religiously.
By way of example, our founders understood that the “rule of the laity” wars against rule of law. When citizens (the “laity”) overlook the latter to do what is right in their own eyes, they fall prey to idolatry, chaos, violence, collectivism, and/or complacency.
In God’s economy, a measured scale of divine equity ensures corporate well-being, but partiality nurtures oppression. Consider the ant and its ways. Governed by personal integrity and responsibility, not force, the proverbial ant provides amply for itself. In contrast, the root word for sluggard means “to lean.” So-called “leaners” look to Big Brother for life’s provisions.6 Their lot in life is perpetual servitude and want.
Birth of a Blessed People
Bombarded with intimidation, oppression, and deceit, our founders rose to the challenge, thought critically, and gave themselves wholly to belief and actions to which they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. For this, they paid dearly. As a result, we are a blessed people. To restore America and secure like blessings for our progeny, we can do no less than they.
1. Isaiah 1:18.
2. Curriculum Letter No. 58, Department of School Services and Publications, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut.
3. Debra Rae. “The Sin Factor.” ABCs of Cultural-Isms: Bible Truth or Grave Consequences (2003): 9-17.
4. Huffington Post (June 2010).
5. Beach Books: What Do Colleges Want Students to Read Outside of Class? (Thorne and Wood Report, 2010).
6. Proverbs 6:6.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Apocalyptic Angst
Who’s Right?
Part 2
Apocalyptic angst drives many religionists to speculate about earth’s perilous last days and her inhabitants’ final judgment. Monotheistic faiths temper news of pending calamity with promise of paradise (janah for Muslims), a heavenly abode (gan’eden for Jews), or a new heaven and new earth (the New Jerusalem for Christians).
In assessing the worth of any belief, especially “happily ever after” scenarios as these, one principle prevails: Let God be true and every opposing man (or spirit) a liar.1 Of course, this begs the questions: Just what is truth, and who’s to say something is (or isn’t) true? Aren’t all religions and end-time beliefs equally valid? All’s well that ends well, right?
No, not necessarily. Were it not for the gravity of very real consequences it might be okay to “live and let live.” However, if last days are marked by economic and political upheavals, a series of armed conflicts, breakdown of the earth’s ecosystem, unprecedented corruption, deception, persecution, and divine judgment, then to alert and rightly instruct the unwary is more than appropriate; it’s a moral mandate.
Clearly, the God of the Bible invites us to come that we might reason together with Him.2 In doing so, an honest person examines reality, employs logic, draws from the knowledge base he’s acquired, judges the fruit of his life, and attends to the all-important test of time.
For their willing, diligent Bible study to verify truth, Bereans were dubbed nobler than counterparts who apparently failed to do likewise.3 Anointed revelation and Berean due diligence guide the faithful to knowledge of truth. Certainly not everyone will be convinced; but an honest, levelheaded discussion is warranted.
Reality
Reality is not a matter of personal opinion, nor does it adjust to accommodate falsity. Insist that “thumbs down” points south and “thumbs up” points north, but this can’t alter the fact that, when freely suspended, a magnet always points toward the north- and south- poles. Faith governed by superstition, feelings, mindless traditions, fear, force, will power, or blind commitment is fundamentally irrational and destined to succumb to reality.4
Certainly, New Age guru Eckhart Tolle may insist that knowledge is illusory, but then the science of gravity is no figment of the imagination. Try leaping out of a plane without a parachute. Sooner, if not later, reality wins out; that’s knowledge you can count on.5 In contrast, believe as you may, crossing your fingers or rubbing a rabbit foot will not guarantee winning a jackpot lottery.
If knowledge were illusion, as Tolle contends, then why distinguish between being “conscious” and “unconscious”? Doing so presupposes discernment based on knowledge. Even more, Tolle believes that the “we-they” construct—i.e., saved, unsaved—blemishes Christianity, but evades New-Earth consciousness. In nurturing what he calls the “I’m right; you’re wrong fallacy,” Christians allegedly exercise an “illusory sense of superiority.” Never mind that, by declaring himself “awakened,” Tolle distinguishes his own enlightened knowledge from the “unconscious collective human ego.” Sounds to me like “I’m right; you’re wrong.”
When open to a-biblical points of view, the double-minded person alleging Christ-consciousness may indeed “win friends and influence people,” but he has a reality problem nonetheless.6 (Can you say narcissistic personality disorder?)
After all, cosmic humanists who awaken to their own Christhood are self-proclaimed gods; but then erroneous knowledge at the worldview level is, at best, destabilizing.7 Demi-gods don’t always see eye-to-eye. Remember Greek mythology: Cronus overthrew his father and, in turn, was overthrown by his own sons, Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon. And so it goes.
Logic
Plainly, it’s irrational to presume that all religious traditions are one-and-the-same when, in fact, they teach and practice radically different things. An apt, logic-defying analogy is taking the freeway exit to the north in search of a southbound destiny. It’s not a good idea.
By way of further example, Bible principles guided by simple logic preclude a would-be martyr’s strapping on a bomb to ensure sensual pleasures in the afterlife. Once again, it’s not a good idea.
Knowledge
Consider this: There is no reason in the nature of things why the God of the Bible could not or should not exist. Why? Because there is nothing about the realm of nature that renders this God improbable or implausible.8 On the other hand, Eastern mysticism thrives on implausibility.
Eckhart Tolle may well believe that sin, evil, and the devil are illusory. But, then, a proclaimed truism isn’t necessarily so simply because someone wants it to be true—or because its acceptance is somehow fashionable or profitable.
That said, good and evil can be known.9 However, such knowledge increases sorrow.10 Case in point: Although many exploit human vulnerability for self-gain, all people of honor recognize the evil of human trafficking. Today, an estimated 158 million children are forced into slave labor. For good reason, the Bible instructs us to add knowledge to virtue.11 Rightly so, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice characterizes defeat of human trafficking as “a great moral calling of our time.”
By His very nature, the God of the Bible is a God of knowledge, which He imparts freely.12 Not just “cunningly devised fables,” but experiential knowledge testifies to this truth.13 Remarkably, there are 800 Old Testament and 4,800 New Testament manuscripts indisputably substantiating the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Though faith transcends the here-and-now, it’s well supported by knowledge. Rightly viewed, faith is “substance” and “evidence.”14
Unfortunately, worldly knowledge breeds arrogance;15 nevertheless, knowing truth not only is attainable, but also it’s liberating.16 Just what constitutes Christian knowledge? A Christian knows that his Redeemer lives.17 He’s assured that Christ is his Savior always working for good.18 Even beyond this life, a Christian remains God’s enduring workmanship.19 The LORD will safeguard His own until united “face to face.”20 Because of the measurable God-given love a Christian has for his fellows, he has evidence for having passed from death to life.21
Fruit
One’s worldview determines the orientation of everything else he thinks and does. When lived out, a worldview bears fruit that is bitter or sweet, abundant or scarce. Even Eastern mystics revere Jesus and acknowledge the enduring fruit of His life and ministry. In contrast, when examined in the light of world history and contemporary geo-politics, roots of ancient wisdom, as expounded by Eckhart Tolle, yield something altogether different. Visit India or Tibet to see for yourself.
Test of Time
No faith can be a man’s real religion if he knows that it is true only for certain places and certain people. Moreover, belief as mere personal opinion is unstable.22 Whimsy will not stand the test of time, nor will man-fashioned, albeit longstanding world religions stand the test of eternity.
For example, having originated with man, Buddha’s religion was encased in legend and devoid of the supernatural. In contrast, the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jesus to heal, deliver, and restore.23 Unlike arcane claims of mystics, His miracles, as substantiated by ancient records, were observable, measurable, and repeatable.
Some honor Buddha as one of the greatest rationalists of all time, but arguably no man spoke as Jesus did. His Word was with power, as evidenced in contemplations of “One Solitary Life”: 24
Jesus was born in an obscure village, the son of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village, where he worked in a carpenter's shop until he was thirty. Then for three years he became a wandering preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family or owned a house. He didn't go to college. He never visited a big city. He never travelled two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He did none of those things one usually associates with greatness. He had no credentials but Himself.
He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. He was turned over to his enemies and went through a mockery of a trial. He was executed by the state. While he was dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing, the only property he had on earth. When he was dead, he was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Twenty centuries have come and gone, and today he is the central figure of the human race and the leader of mankind's progress. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that One Solitary Life.
So Then … Who’s Right?
Though crisis looms, the Gospel shouts “good news.” For Christian believers, “the more sure word of prophecy” nullifies apocalyptic angst.25 Gloom and doom may well distinguish other faiths, but the Bible’s signature message is hope. So, then, which rings true—the theistic story, or the nirvana story? You decide.
1. Romans 3:4.
2. Isaiah 1:18
3. Acts 17:11.
4. Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge (New York, New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 2009), 31.
5. Ibid., 41.
6. Ibid., 45.
7. James 1:8.
8. Willard, Knowing Christ Today, 62 and 98.
9. Genesis 3:5.
10. Ecclesiastes 1:18.
11. 2 Peter 1:5.
12. Daniel 2:22.
13. 2 Peter 1:16.
14. Hebrews 11:1.
15. 1 Corinthians 8:1.
16. John 8:32.
17. Job 19:25; Isaiah 50:7.
18. John 4:42; Romans 8:28.
19. 2 Corinthians 5:1.
20. 2 Timothy 1:12; 1 John 3:2.
21. 1 John 3:14.
22. Willard, Knowing Christ Today, 2.
23. Luke 4:18.
24. Luke 4:32 and http://www.john3-16.net/OneLife.htm.
25. 2 Peter 1:19.
Part 2
Apocalyptic angst drives many religionists to speculate about earth’s perilous last days and her inhabitants’ final judgment. Monotheistic faiths temper news of pending calamity with promise of paradise (janah for Muslims), a heavenly abode (gan’eden for Jews), or a new heaven and new earth (the New Jerusalem for Christians).
In assessing the worth of any belief, especially “happily ever after” scenarios as these, one principle prevails: Let God be true and every opposing man (or spirit) a liar.1 Of course, this begs the questions: Just what is truth, and who’s to say something is (or isn’t) true? Aren’t all religions and end-time beliefs equally valid? All’s well that ends well, right?
No, not necessarily. Were it not for the gravity of very real consequences it might be okay to “live and let live.” However, if last days are marked by economic and political upheavals, a series of armed conflicts, breakdown of the earth’s ecosystem, unprecedented corruption, deception, persecution, and divine judgment, then to alert and rightly instruct the unwary is more than appropriate; it’s a moral mandate.
Clearly, the God of the Bible invites us to come that we might reason together with Him.2 In doing so, an honest person examines reality, employs logic, draws from the knowledge base he’s acquired, judges the fruit of his life, and attends to the all-important test of time.
For their willing, diligent Bible study to verify truth, Bereans were dubbed nobler than counterparts who apparently failed to do likewise.3 Anointed revelation and Berean due diligence guide the faithful to knowledge of truth. Certainly not everyone will be convinced; but an honest, levelheaded discussion is warranted.
Reality
Reality is not a matter of personal opinion, nor does it adjust to accommodate falsity. Insist that “thumbs down” points south and “thumbs up” points north, but this can’t alter the fact that, when freely suspended, a magnet always points toward the north- and south- poles. Faith governed by superstition, feelings, mindless traditions, fear, force, will power, or blind commitment is fundamentally irrational and destined to succumb to reality.4
Certainly, New Age guru Eckhart Tolle may insist that knowledge is illusory, but then the science of gravity is no figment of the imagination. Try leaping out of a plane without a parachute. Sooner, if not later, reality wins out; that’s knowledge you can count on.5 In contrast, believe as you may, crossing your fingers or rubbing a rabbit foot will not guarantee winning a jackpot lottery.
If knowledge were illusion, as Tolle contends, then why distinguish between being “conscious” and “unconscious”? Doing so presupposes discernment based on knowledge. Even more, Tolle believes that the “we-they” construct—i.e., saved, unsaved—blemishes Christianity, but evades New-Earth consciousness. In nurturing what he calls the “I’m right; you’re wrong fallacy,” Christians allegedly exercise an “illusory sense of superiority.” Never mind that, by declaring himself “awakened,” Tolle distinguishes his own enlightened knowledge from the “unconscious collective human ego.” Sounds to me like “I’m right; you’re wrong.”
When open to a-biblical points of view, the double-minded person alleging Christ-consciousness may indeed “win friends and influence people,” but he has a reality problem nonetheless.6 (Can you say narcissistic personality disorder?)
After all, cosmic humanists who awaken to their own Christhood are self-proclaimed gods; but then erroneous knowledge at the worldview level is, at best, destabilizing.7 Demi-gods don’t always see eye-to-eye. Remember Greek mythology: Cronus overthrew his father and, in turn, was overthrown by his own sons, Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon. And so it goes.
Logic
Plainly, it’s irrational to presume that all religious traditions are one-and-the-same when, in fact, they teach and practice radically different things. An apt, logic-defying analogy is taking the freeway exit to the north in search of a southbound destiny. It’s not a good idea.
By way of further example, Bible principles guided by simple logic preclude a would-be martyr’s strapping on a bomb to ensure sensual pleasures in the afterlife. Once again, it’s not a good idea.
Knowledge
Consider this: There is no reason in the nature of things why the God of the Bible could not or should not exist. Why? Because there is nothing about the realm of nature that renders this God improbable or implausible.8 On the other hand, Eastern mysticism thrives on implausibility.
Eckhart Tolle may well believe that sin, evil, and the devil are illusory. But, then, a proclaimed truism isn’t necessarily so simply because someone wants it to be true—or because its acceptance is somehow fashionable or profitable.
That said, good and evil can be known.9 However, such knowledge increases sorrow.10 Case in point: Although many exploit human vulnerability for self-gain, all people of honor recognize the evil of human trafficking. Today, an estimated 158 million children are forced into slave labor. For good reason, the Bible instructs us to add knowledge to virtue.11 Rightly so, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice characterizes defeat of human trafficking as “a great moral calling of our time.”
By His very nature, the God of the Bible is a God of knowledge, which He imparts freely.12 Not just “cunningly devised fables,” but experiential knowledge testifies to this truth.13 Remarkably, there are 800 Old Testament and 4,800 New Testament manuscripts indisputably substantiating the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Though faith transcends the here-and-now, it’s well supported by knowledge. Rightly viewed, faith is “substance” and “evidence.”14
Unfortunately, worldly knowledge breeds arrogance;15 nevertheless, knowing truth not only is attainable, but also it’s liberating.16 Just what constitutes Christian knowledge? A Christian knows that his Redeemer lives.17 He’s assured that Christ is his Savior always working for good.18 Even beyond this life, a Christian remains God’s enduring workmanship.19 The LORD will safeguard His own until united “face to face.”20 Because of the measurable God-given love a Christian has for his fellows, he has evidence for having passed from death to life.21
Fruit
One’s worldview determines the orientation of everything else he thinks and does. When lived out, a worldview bears fruit that is bitter or sweet, abundant or scarce. Even Eastern mystics revere Jesus and acknowledge the enduring fruit of His life and ministry. In contrast, when examined in the light of world history and contemporary geo-politics, roots of ancient wisdom, as expounded by Eckhart Tolle, yield something altogether different. Visit India or Tibet to see for yourself.
Test of Time
No faith can be a man’s real religion if he knows that it is true only for certain places and certain people. Moreover, belief as mere personal opinion is unstable.22 Whimsy will not stand the test of time, nor will man-fashioned, albeit longstanding world religions stand the test of eternity.
For example, having originated with man, Buddha’s religion was encased in legend and devoid of the supernatural. In contrast, the Spirit of the Lord was upon Jesus to heal, deliver, and restore.23 Unlike arcane claims of mystics, His miracles, as substantiated by ancient records, were observable, measurable, and repeatable.
Some honor Buddha as one of the greatest rationalists of all time, but arguably no man spoke as Jesus did. His Word was with power, as evidenced in contemplations of “One Solitary Life”: 24
Jesus was born in an obscure village, the son of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village, where he worked in a carpenter's shop until he was thirty. Then for three years he became a wandering preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family or owned a house. He didn't go to college. He never visited a big city. He never travelled two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He did none of those things one usually associates with greatness. He had no credentials but Himself.
He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. He was turned over to his enemies and went through a mockery of a trial. He was executed by the state. While he was dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing, the only property he had on earth. When he was dead, he was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Twenty centuries have come and gone, and today he is the central figure of the human race and the leader of mankind's progress. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that One Solitary Life.
So Then … Who’s Right?
Though crisis looms, the Gospel shouts “good news.” For Christian believers, “the more sure word of prophecy” nullifies apocalyptic angst.25 Gloom and doom may well distinguish other faiths, but the Bible’s signature message is hope. So, then, which rings true—the theistic story, or the nirvana story? You decide.
1. Romans 3:4.
2. Isaiah 1:18
3. Acts 17:11.
4. Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge (New York, New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, 2009), 31.
5. Ibid., 41.
6. Ibid., 45.
7. James 1:8.
8. Willard, Knowing Christ Today, 62 and 98.
9. Genesis 3:5.
10. Ecclesiastes 1:18.
11. 2 Peter 1:5.
12. Daniel 2:22.
13. 2 Peter 1:16.
14. Hebrews 11:1.
15. 1 Corinthians 8:1.
16. John 8:32.
17. Job 19:25; Isaiah 50:7.
18. John 4:42; Romans 8:28.
19. 2 Corinthians 5:1.
20. 2 Timothy 1:12; 1 John 3:2.
21. 1 John 3:14.
22. Willard, Knowing Christ Today, 2.
23. Luke 4:18.
24. Luke 4:32 and http://www.john3-16.net/OneLife.htm.
25. 2 Peter 1:19.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
