Part 2: Evils of Free-Enterprise Capitalism
Curious, isn’t it? While America is portrayed globally as repugnant, several hundred thousand immigrants think enough about her to forfeit all they have to get here. Be sure those who have tasted the American pie groan in incredulity at the blame-America-first insults levied by those who hate her.
Former Secretary-general of the UN, Kofi Annan, blames America—not Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, or the Darfur region of Sudan—for “an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law.” I repeat: “Widespread contempt for human rights.” C’mon.
Pot-calling-the-kettle-black Syndrome
It’s been said that only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you—Jesus Christ and the American G.I. The former died for souls, the latter for freedom. Still, stone throwers from Germany, Japan, and maybe to a lesser degree Italy and Britain forget billions of U.S. dollars in aid and forgiven debt afforded them following World War 2. Now many openly rebuke “decadent, warmongering America” ignoring that, not long ago, the Marshall Plan and Truman Policy propped up their disheartened, war-torn countries. This begs the question, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”
All the while touting tolerance and inclusiveness, the United Nations likewise condemn America as “a nation of evil,” but with open arms host the real planetary bullies—to name two, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Forget that Americans lead the pack in rushing to the aid of earthquake-rattled and tsunami-ravaged victims in far-off lands. Chavez slams “the hegemonic pretensions of the American empire” that ostensibly place at risk “the very survival of the human species.” Say what?
The “roast” doesn’t end here. Through a “say-it-in-Spanish” campaign, Chavez’s government targets “U.S. cultural imperialism” ostensibly cloaked in disagreeable English words as “staff,” “marketing,” “password,” “mouse,” “meeting,” “sponsor.” Yet in speeches, Chavez routinely “breaks playfully into English.” In his world, what’s good for the gander isn’t necessarily good for the goose.
Then, there’s Ahmadinejad who anticipates intervention of the 12th Imam to obliterate America and Israel (a.k.a. greater- and lesser- Satans), but these aren’t the countries notorious for blowing themselves up, destroying churches, and engaging in so-called honor killings.
In no way are Israel or America free of vice and short fallings. However, to magnify what’s wrong with America, revisionists skew her history toward “the bad and ugly” and prune from it “the good.” They discount the genius of he U.S. Constitution, which they characterize as “a living work in progress,” subject to partisan punditry and edits. Moreover, they discredit traditional biblical values that gave rise to America’s founding documents (the Constitution included).
Religious Class Struggle
In the early 19th century, “Bohemians” occupied lower rent (and class) neighborhoods. Nontraditional lifestyles of these marginalized and impoverished artists, writers, musicians, and actors set them apart as creative nonconformists whose higher consciousness permitted them to live by different rules than those imposed upon their boring, moralistic, middle-class counterparts.
Twenty-first century neo-Marxists follow suit. We may well have won the Cold War with political and economic communism, but Pat Buchanan laments our having lost the war with cultural Marxism.1 How so? Political cosmopolitanism (Held, Falk, Miller) demonizes free-market capitalism and champions forced equity among peoples of the world. Sound familiar? You bet.
Given that formal world federalism is linked to trendy, rights-based progressivism, all too many Americans are fooled into believing that Marxism is a “fairer” system. Truth is: Its core values are socialist at best, Marxist at worst. Not free-enterprise capitalism, but rather communism and its right hand of fascism bear responsibility for more human misery than any other system of belief known to contemporary man.
In the name of collective security, totalitarian global governance under world law features an a-biblical religious component. It heralds deceptive universal aspirations of peace, harmony, and safety. But “fairer” it isn’t. Progressive politics of immigration rob organized (legal) workers of real wages siphoned instead to cheap (illegal) immigrant labor.
Founded in 1657, the oldest charity still existing in the U.S. is the Scots’ Charitable Society of Boston. Historically, its supporters viewed the poor as “halfway up the ladder,” not at its bottom. Rather than pit one class against another, charity workers believed that, once in proper relationship with God, the needy would live and work accordingly. This would facilitate a blessed lifestyle. Able-bodied men who refused to work, called “imposters,” were denied charity reserved for willing counterparts in temporary need.
This pragmatic worldview escapes progressives. Neo-Marxists advance an increasingly bloated democratic welfare state helplessly suckled at the breast of big government. Social conditions “improve” by electing socialist representatives (nannies, if you will) who promise “equitable income” under strict state control. Hence, progressive politicians court the vote of their “underdog” constituency, whether “documented” or not.
Geo-political Struggle
Enter, globalism. Known as revisionism and called “social democracy,” this kinder, gentler Marxism melds capitalist and socialist principles and practices. By definition, globalism is a worldwide design to undermine sovereignty of nation-states toward realizing a spiritually illumined new-world order.
Trendy eco-socialists bypass the God of the Bible to serve the god of sustainable development (code for controlling populations and redistributing wealth). The global plan is to concentrate the world’s resources, wealth, and therefore power into the hands of few.
Paternalistic global elites shepherd willing “sheeple” and sternly discipline those inclined to act other than in the presumed-to-be best interest of the greater good. But here’s the caveat: Full-Monty Marxism hides under the guise of Christian socialism, in itself an oxymoron. You see, while Christianity is a spiritual creed characterized by personal relationship, communism is decidedly materialist enforced by the collectivist State.
Make no mistake. In the words of Dr. David A. Noebel (American Philosophical Association), the Marxist/Leninist worldview is “one of Christianity’s most vocal detractors.” 2 Its proponents court “the Christian Left” under compellingly sexy banners of liberation theology,3 red-letter social justice,4 bio-mimicry,5 freestyle evangelism,6 and/or political correctness.7 All imperil what Trinity Law Professor James Hirsen rightly extols as “the grand experiment we call America”; all are poised to rid the world of the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg.
Editor Donald S. McAlvany adds: “America is still in the early stages of a dramatic change that threatens to shatter the very foundations of the country.” While giving overriding priority to the world’s poor, a global brain trust calls the shots; and America eventually takes the fall.
After all, it’s presumed that freedom in the global commons (including outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and environmental systems that support life) threatens ruin to all; hence, out of necessity, a new form of feudalism must be enforced. Politically correct, theologically bereft socialism handily fits the bill. America’s constitutional republic does not.
Economic Class Struggle, Déjà Vu
Not-so-new “New Class” theory was (and is) felt in fields of economics (rich/poor, Wall Street/Main Street, haves and have-nots); politics (bourgeoisie/proletariat; ruling elite/masses), society (blue collar/white collar; white/non-white); religion (enlightened/unenlightened); secret societies (“Greeks”/independents; initiated/uninitiated); and global government (world citizens/nationalists).
In an article entitled “Marxism in U.S. Classrooms,” U.S. News and World Report reported that there are ten thousand Marxist professors on America’s campuses. Georgie Anne Geyer adds: “The percentage of Marxist faculty numbers can range from an estimated 90 percent in some mid-western universities.” 8
A product of the sixties and state-certified master educator, I have observed firsthand said Marxists at work; and their clout mustn’t be underestimated. By establishing the State as god (à la George Hegel) with world citizens, its peons, Marxists work tirelessly to eliminate the middle class and thereby make room for an emerging new order.9 Thanks to public higher education, this plan is well underway.
Predictably, the Marxist plan for America’s demise has long been to negate eternal truths and conventional morality; confiscate property and abolish private ownership; impose burdensome taxes and eliminate rights to inherit; centralize means of communication, production, health care, and transportation; consolidate and distribute wealth; combine education with industrial production and thereby establish equality in labor.
To work this agenda, Marxists finger creative entrepreneurs as “rulers” not unlike absolutist monarchs and slave owners; therefore, their unfair, even immoral “rule” must end. The dream of a Marxist-socialist is for “the people”—i.e., State—to own the means of production. Accordingly, America is fast supplanting “ownership” with “we’re all in it together” society that is diverse, centrally planned, unionized, heavily taxed, and subsidized.
The Grand Plan Unfolding
In summary, the Marxist plan is to eliminate America’s middle class, free-market capitalism that created it, and traditional family values that nurtured and sustained it. Conspiracy? You bet. The objective of the global brain trust is control—not just of government, wealth, and natural resources—of people as well.
The formula is simple. First, create a problem, whether real or imaginary—i.e., class struggle. In advertising that problem through the media and public education system, convince folks that something must be done about it. Next, propose and implement a solution to bring about change: One-world governance for a new, collectivist age of infinite (but undeliverable) promises.
While ostensibly paving the way for world peace, international power elites have purposed to regionalize Europe, then the world. America’s blossoming love affair with Communist China, coupled with NAFTA and followed by GATT and CAFTA, grease the skids toward establishing a North American Union—this, after the European model. Even now, an international public-private partnership, the North American Super Highway Coalition (NASHC), is hard at work to create a four-mile wide, UN-controlled NAFTA Corridor—that is, a super highway from Mexico through mid-America and on to Canada.
With concepts of national sovereignty strategically dissolved, and regions (also called “kingdoms”) linked to a bio-regionally defined, representative federal government, the resulting “new” (actually recycled) world order doesn’t define, but rather defies what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
“From each according to ability; to each according to need” certainly wasn’t their vision. Nor did they posture manufacturers, farmers, small-business owners—you know, “citizen Joes”—to kowtow to elitists in the mainstream media, education establishment, mainline clergy, and certainly not in an information-technology industry that was yet to sprout wings.
In the Founders’ plan, “we the people” distinguish ourselves by a stellar work ethic coupled with strong motivation to provide well for our families. Biblical principles of conduct light the way. By design, private property ownership constitutes the cornerstone of American middle-class ideology and tradition.
Ideally, labor and management pull together; however, by fomenting discontent derived from division of labor, neo-Marxists perpetuate a stealth revolution until, by counterculture design, American citizens capitulate to global citizenship defined by a New Earth ethic.10 In the end, no one wins but global plutocrats.
1. newswithviewsstore.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=NWVS&Product_Code=DV49&Category_Code=DVD.
2. David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth. (1996): 4-6.
3. Liberation Theology counters alleged oppression, racism, and poverty. Black liberation theology has much in common with Black Power, likewise developed in the 1960s. In North America, James Cone is considered its foremost architect. Linked the Obama-Biden bid for the White House, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is arguably its most visible proponent.
4. Red-letter social justice references New Testament words of Jesus that are printed in red letters. Based on said passages, Red-letter Christians advocate radically progressive social issues and policies as they relate to capital punishment, corruption, modern warfare, welfare, health care, homosexual rights, and the like.
5. Bio-mimicry examines and takes inspiration from nature, its models, systems, processes, and elements in order to solve human problems.
6. “Freestyle evangelicals” (word coined by Steven Waldman, editor of the interfaith Web site Beliefnet) are so-called “higher critics” of the religious left. Armed with a social gospel, proponents create “a new story” other than the ostensibly defunct “monologue of the religious right.” Theirs is a nouveau tolerance—i.e., political correctness.
7. Political Correctness is sophist anti-logic that advances an overarching agenda of united causes including civil/ gender/ sexual orientation rights and radical environmentalism.
8. David Horowitz. Marx’s Manifesto: 150 Years of Evil. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Popular Culture (1998): 1-12.
9. Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto. American Opinion Press (1974): 24.
10. William Bowen, Jr. “Think Globally, Act Locally: Caveat Emptor.” Globalism: America’s Demise. Lafayette: Huntington House Publishers (August 1984): 59ff.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Class Warfare--Then and Now
Part 1: Middle-Class Menace
Ah, the sixties! I remember them well. College campuses across our nation were abuzz with flower power on one hand and seething with anger on the other. Targeting and manipulating naïve students, “Cultural Marxists” used art, music, and media, as well as education, to condition their prey. As puppeteers masterfully wielded rhetorical trickery to foment dissention, disunity, and dispute, deeply alienated and embittered marionettes submitted on cue, thus affecting what arguably amounted to a stealth revolution.
Baby Boomers after all were products of Progressive Education. The movement’s father, Professor John Dewey was a Marxist-Fabian socialist. In 1928, Dewey identified the political function of schools as he saw it—that being, “to construct communist society.” Thanks to Dewey and ilk, progressive public schools served as nurseries for anti-God, anti-American, anti-middle class collectivism. Indeed, atheism was Progressive Education’s root; Marxism its branch.1
The Middle-Class Anomaly
In many, if not most cases, myths sparked the flame, fanned it, and then drove the outcome—for example, stereotypical belief about proverbial “fat-cats.” Recall that some of the most vociferous rebels of the sixties themselves were privileged ivy leaguers. Phony disdain for affluence in no way prevented preppies from climbing their own professional ladders to success in business, law, media, and education. Over time, many amassed fortunes and became the very establishment they had censured.
The same applies today. Tinsel-Town liberals “own the bank” so to speak. All the while heralding “the little man,” and bemoaning right-wing greed, these live out an advantaged, planet-depleting lifestyle that they feign to detest. As was the case in the sixties, definitions as to who-fits-what-category are in flux and, especially throughout the coming decade, are destined to continue changing.
Keep in mind that half of America identifies with the “middle class”; and studies by the National Opinion Research Center reveal that those earning an annual income of $45K define themselves as such (Parade.com/intel). In politics, however, what constitutes this fuzzy category depends on what’s being promoted. For example, while campaigning, Obama promised a tax cut for “middle-class” families that earn up to $200K yearly. When a tax credit was proposed to help middle-class families pay for higher education, the magic number adjusted to $160K. 2
Two (or Three) Americas?
Well-to-do, progressive politicians, as former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, advance the “two Americas” theory. In this paradigm, good guys are "regular Americans" (the many), and bad guys are an affluent minority (the few). That Edwards’ haircuts each cost $400 hardly qualifies him as “the regular many” he purports to champion.
Truth be told, progressives recognize three Americas—namely, the affluent, the poor, and the coalition of political elitists, intelligentsia, and bureaucrats who together form a ruling class. Unfortunately, their disingenuous political leaning on behalf of “the poor” serves more to magnify a growing fiscal gap than it does to bridge it. 3
Fashionable Disdain of the Middle Class
Cultural editor for World, Gene Edward Veith contends, rightly so, that “a fashionable disdain for middle-class values animates liberalism.” Accordingly, upper- and lower- crust folks snub the middle class—specifically for their work ethic, religious inclinations, and social respectability. Projected guilt is intended to shame middle-class Americans into questioning their rights to private property ownership, free enterprise, and manner of living to which they have grown accustomed.
Understandably, stereotypical middle-class norms appeal to most Americans—i.e., having kids, a dog or cat, home, appliances, car, and bank account. As if on cue, today’s “third-America” class is manifestly insulted if accused of indulging in unsustainable practices, as these; and spotlighted “have-nots” are incited to begrudge their own meager piece of the American pie.
Ironically, many prominent Democratic families possess inherited wealth—e.g., the Kerrys and Kennedys. These join computer- and Hollywood- industries in lending support to liberal ideals and causes likewise funded by mega-wealthy financiers, as Warren Buffet and George Soros.
Never mind that free-market capitalism created wealth that actually catapulted America’s teeming masses (the “have-nots”) into a middle-class (“bourgeois”) lifestyle. No more. Collusion between big business and big government is no real friend to American workers. Under a new social order, their monetary worth promises never to exceed the lowest common denominator prescribed by the world community at large.
To expedite this (the power-elites’ agenda), any memory of an “American dream” must be erased from consciousness. This is accomplished, first, by targeting America’s middle class for systematic extinction. Convince the masses that they are victims of greedy, rightwing management—the answer for which is “social justice,” minus the Founding Fathers’ blueprint. Do this, and dependency on the State with its many entitlements will flourish unabated.4
Marxist Plan to Destroy American Hegemony
Minus her middle class, America forfeits hegemony; and that’s just what globalists want—this, by dismantling and shipping overseas America’s industrial base and by advancing theories found in Paolo Friere’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Friere insists that non-whites must accept that they are oppressed and, then, give voice to their grievances; furthermore, they must resist any assimilation that “dominant white Western culture” attempts to impose on them. This they do by maintaining their native tongue and culture. Season this recipe with class envy, coupled with bogus claims of entitlement to other people’s resources, and the seething pot boils over.5
Cosmic Struggle between Worldviews
Chuck Colson said it well: “The culture war is not just about abortion, homosexual rights, or decline of public education. These are only skirmishes. The real war is a cosmic struggle between worldviews”—ideologies or philosophies offering overarching approaches to understanding God, the world, and humanity’s relations to both.
Postmodern nomenclature may be new, but concepts aren’t. As was the case in the sixties, non-socialist societies still are divided into two classes relating to class, race, ethnicity, and/or gender—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors. Under pretense of eradicating “class warfare,” opportunists fabricate and, then, exploit this seemingly timeless struggle (consistently to their own advantage).
In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to this scheme. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all hasten Norman Thomas’ premonition.
Socialism’s pawns are in for a surprise ending, though. Minus America’s middle class, two classes will remain—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors.
This is the “real change” they can count on.
More to come in Part 2.
1. David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth. (1996): 4-6.
2. Mindy Belz. “We vs. Them.” World (9 May 2009): 73.
3. Gene Edward Veith. “Head of the Classes.” World (5 March 2005): 30.
4. Donald S. McAlvany. “The Decline of the Middle Class.” The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (December 2007): 1.
5. Kim Andrews. “Arizona Bill Targets Classes Promoting Ethnic Resentment.” Education Reporter 293 (June 2010): 1, 4.
Ah, the sixties! I remember them well. College campuses across our nation were abuzz with flower power on one hand and seething with anger on the other. Targeting and manipulating naïve students, “Cultural Marxists” used art, music, and media, as well as education, to condition their prey. As puppeteers masterfully wielded rhetorical trickery to foment dissention, disunity, and dispute, deeply alienated and embittered marionettes submitted on cue, thus affecting what arguably amounted to a stealth revolution.
Baby Boomers after all were products of Progressive Education. The movement’s father, Professor John Dewey was a Marxist-Fabian socialist. In 1928, Dewey identified the political function of schools as he saw it—that being, “to construct communist society.” Thanks to Dewey and ilk, progressive public schools served as nurseries for anti-God, anti-American, anti-middle class collectivism. Indeed, atheism was Progressive Education’s root; Marxism its branch.1
The Middle-Class Anomaly
In many, if not most cases, myths sparked the flame, fanned it, and then drove the outcome—for example, stereotypical belief about proverbial “fat-cats.” Recall that some of the most vociferous rebels of the sixties themselves were privileged ivy leaguers. Phony disdain for affluence in no way prevented preppies from climbing their own professional ladders to success in business, law, media, and education. Over time, many amassed fortunes and became the very establishment they had censured.
The same applies today. Tinsel-Town liberals “own the bank” so to speak. All the while heralding “the little man,” and bemoaning right-wing greed, these live out an advantaged, planet-depleting lifestyle that they feign to detest. As was the case in the sixties, definitions as to who-fits-what-category are in flux and, especially throughout the coming decade, are destined to continue changing.
Keep in mind that half of America identifies with the “middle class”; and studies by the National Opinion Research Center reveal that those earning an annual income of $45K define themselves as such (Parade.com/intel). In politics, however, what constitutes this fuzzy category depends on what’s being promoted. For example, while campaigning, Obama promised a tax cut for “middle-class” families that earn up to $200K yearly. When a tax credit was proposed to help middle-class families pay for higher education, the magic number adjusted to $160K. 2
Two (or Three) Americas?
Well-to-do, progressive politicians, as former Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, advance the “two Americas” theory. In this paradigm, good guys are "regular Americans" (the many), and bad guys are an affluent minority (the few). That Edwards’ haircuts each cost $400 hardly qualifies him as “the regular many” he purports to champion.
Truth be told, progressives recognize three Americas—namely, the affluent, the poor, and the coalition of political elitists, intelligentsia, and bureaucrats who together form a ruling class. Unfortunately, their disingenuous political leaning on behalf of “the poor” serves more to magnify a growing fiscal gap than it does to bridge it. 3
Fashionable Disdain of the Middle Class
Cultural editor for World, Gene Edward Veith contends, rightly so, that “a fashionable disdain for middle-class values animates liberalism.” Accordingly, upper- and lower- crust folks snub the middle class—specifically for their work ethic, religious inclinations, and social respectability. Projected guilt is intended to shame middle-class Americans into questioning their rights to private property ownership, free enterprise, and manner of living to which they have grown accustomed.
Understandably, stereotypical middle-class norms appeal to most Americans—i.e., having kids, a dog or cat, home, appliances, car, and bank account. As if on cue, today’s “third-America” class is manifestly insulted if accused of indulging in unsustainable practices, as these; and spotlighted “have-nots” are incited to begrudge their own meager piece of the American pie.
Ironically, many prominent Democratic families possess inherited wealth—e.g., the Kerrys and Kennedys. These join computer- and Hollywood- industries in lending support to liberal ideals and causes likewise funded by mega-wealthy financiers, as Warren Buffet and George Soros.
Never mind that free-market capitalism created wealth that actually catapulted America’s teeming masses (the “have-nots”) into a middle-class (“bourgeois”) lifestyle. No more. Collusion between big business and big government is no real friend to American workers. Under a new social order, their monetary worth promises never to exceed the lowest common denominator prescribed by the world community at large.
To expedite this (the power-elites’ agenda), any memory of an “American dream” must be erased from consciousness. This is accomplished, first, by targeting America’s middle class for systematic extinction. Convince the masses that they are victims of greedy, rightwing management—the answer for which is “social justice,” minus the Founding Fathers’ blueprint. Do this, and dependency on the State with its many entitlements will flourish unabated.4
Marxist Plan to Destroy American Hegemony
Minus her middle class, America forfeits hegemony; and that’s just what globalists want—this, by dismantling and shipping overseas America’s industrial base and by advancing theories found in Paolo Friere’s book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
Friere insists that non-whites must accept that they are oppressed and, then, give voice to their grievances; furthermore, they must resist any assimilation that “dominant white Western culture” attempts to impose on them. This they do by maintaining their native tongue and culture. Season this recipe with class envy, coupled with bogus claims of entitlement to other people’s resources, and the seething pot boils over.5
Cosmic Struggle between Worldviews
Chuck Colson said it well: “The culture war is not just about abortion, homosexual rights, or decline of public education. These are only skirmishes. The real war is a cosmic struggle between worldviews”—ideologies or philosophies offering overarching approaches to understanding God, the world, and humanity’s relations to both.
Postmodern nomenclature may be new, but concepts aren’t. As was the case in the sixties, non-socialist societies still are divided into two classes relating to class, race, ethnicity, and/or gender—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors. Under pretense of eradicating “class warfare,” opportunists fabricate and, then, exploit this seemingly timeless struggle (consistently to their own advantage).
In 1921, leading American socialist Norman Thomas gave voice to this scheme. “Under the name of liberalism,” he explained, the American people will “adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Punishing the middle class, expanding racial justice to favor minorities, trumping the U.S. Constitution with international “soft law,” and demanding justice for the planet (ostensibly worthy of human apology and even worship) all hasten Norman Thomas’ premonition.
Socialism’s pawns are in for a surprise ending, though. Minus America’s middle class, two classes will remain—namely, the oppressed and their oppressors.
This is the “real change” they can count on.
More to come in Part 2.
1. David A. Noebel. “The Marxist/Leninist Worldview.” Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth. (1996): 4-6.
2. Mindy Belz. “We vs. Them.” World (9 May 2009): 73.
3. Gene Edward Veith. “Head of the Classes.” World (5 March 2005): 30.
4. Donald S. McAlvany. “The Decline of the Middle Class.” The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor (December 2007): 1.
5. Kim Andrews. “Arizona Bill Targets Classes Promoting Ethnic Resentment.” Education Reporter 293 (June 2010): 1, 4.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Worldview Potpourri: Chrislam
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
