Think About IT: Bill Ayers Classroom Radicalism TODAY!

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

As Christianity and Christian principles are systematically expunged from the classroom, radicals like Bill Ayers fill the void with radical social justice and anti-Christian values. 

He still considers himself an “anarchist” and “Marxist” and said concerning the struggle with “religious fundamentalism” of which “jihad” is “the most visible”, that “The religious fundamentalism of the Christians and Jews is equally troubling.”

Bill Ayers is now the most infamous radical of the 60s, but there is little said about his radical agenda and influence upon public education.

While speaking at World Education Forum, Ayers referred to his friend Luis Bonilla as a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice for educational reforms under the leadership of President Chavez, and said, “We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution…I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.”

Ayers is Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago; moreover, in March of this year he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers.

The bombs he ignited in the 60s are minor compared to his potential influence through redical anti-Christian, anti-learning, anti-American, anti-capitalism, socially radical education plans for children.

Sol Stern, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, has written extensively on education. Two articles of particular note concern Bill Ayers. First “Obama’s Real Bill Ayers Problem” and secondly, “The Bomber as School Reformer.”

Think About IT: Homosexuality – Is your candidate’s position that of our founders and Scripture?

Monday, October 27th, 2008

–John McCain on the definition of marriage: “The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.” (JohnMcCain.com)

– Barack Obama on the definition of marriage: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian … it is also a sacred union.” (Saddleback presidential forum, Aug. 16, 2008)

– McCain on the California Supreme Court’s May ruling legalizing “gay marriage”: “I believe they were wrong, and I strongly support preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman…” (Saddleback presidential forum, Aug. 16, 2008)

– Obama on the California Supreme Court’s May ruling legalizing “gay marriage”: “Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court.” (statement May 15, 2008) (more…)

Think about IT: Pulpit Politics & Loss of Tax Exempt Status?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

On September 28th, 31 pastors spoke from their pulpits in such a way that directly violated the IRS prohibition and threatened the loss of tax exempt status in order to challenge the IRS ruling that limits what pastors can say from the pulpit concerning their support or lack of support for a candidate.

The threat to a church of losing its tax-exempt status is, for many, the irrefutable evidence that preachers should not mix “politics and religion.” Moreover, surely such a penalty for doing so is based upon the Constitution.

First, pastors are not prohibited by the Constitution from speaking out on political candidates or anything else for that matter.1 They are protected specifically by the First Amendment just like everyone else. Historically, pastors have spoken out on any and every issue affecting life until 1954. The Alliance Defense Fund states: (more…)

  1. see my blog “Pulpit Politics and History []

Think about IT: Christian faith and politics, any connection?

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

Many argue that a person’s faith should have no bearing upon his politics; hence, a person’s personal faith should not influence his politics or influence whether a citizen votes for that candidate. This position seems, although admittedly quite neo-tolerant, either palpably uninformed or arrogantly dismissive of the Christian faith. First, if a person’s Christian faith does not affect his public life, then the individual is not living an authentic Christian life because we are to be Christ like in public and private (Ephesians 5:1).

Second, would society say that a philosophical secularist should not allow his secularism to influence him? I think not. Third, to say that our religious faith is not appropriate and/or germane to our public life and politics is undeniably contrary to the founding and history of our country, e.g. “All men are created equal and endowed by their creator” is a theological statement based upon Genesis. Fourth, to say that a person’s Christian faith should not influence his public decisions is to fail to appreciate the political implications of the Christian faith. For example, we do not merely believe that a Christian should not steal, but that no one should steal.

Lastly while our faith is intensely personal, it is also very public. In one of Justice Scalia’s dissents he said, “Church and state would not be such a difficult subject if religion were, as the court apparently thinks it to be, some purely personal avocation that can be indulged entirely in secret, like pornography, in the privacy of one’s room.”1 

For a liberal democratic culture to argue that the Christian faith, or any faith, is not suitable for the public square seems extraordinarily anti-liberal and anti-democratic. Most importantly, for a Christian to separate his public life from his private life is a dishonor to Christ.

  1. Scalia Dissents p187 []

Think About IT: Abortion, the issue that divides.

Friday, October 17th, 2008

The issue that divides is whether the legal right to have an abortion for reasons other than to save the life of the mother is right.

What do the presidential candidates think?

“Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case”1.

Obama answering at what point “does a baby get human rights?”: said, ”answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.” 2.

“John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat”3.

McCain answering at what point “does a baby get human rights?”: said, “At the moment of conception.”4.

God says, through the Psalmist, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.“(Psalm 139:13-16) 

If knowing when human life begins, and therefore what constitutes being human is above a person’s “pay grade” then how can he speak with such certitude regarding the rightness of a woman’s freedom to have an abortion, which by his own lack of knowledge means that he may very well be terminating a human life that as president he is constitutionally bound to protect.

Does anyone believe that Obama would accept the legitimacy of that kind of reasoning by previous presidents concerning slavery? Oh, knowing if a black person is human or not is above my pay grade, but I will defend to the end the right of slave-owners to choose whether or not to own them.

If a person is wrong on who is human and who is not, he is so profoundly wrong that everything is above his pay grade!

  1. BarackObama.com []
  2. Saddleback presidential forum, Aug. 16, 2008 []
  3. JohnMcCain.com []
  4. Saddleback presidential forum, Aug. 16, 2008 []

Think About IT: Weak families are the fuel of a burgeoning government:

Wednesday, October 15th, 2008

Why does it seem so often that the federal government really works against the family with such things as taxes that are higher on married couples than if they were single, tax-funded education that undermines stable families, and divorce made easier than setting up a new television? Although I do not think this is conspiratorial, the truth is that a strong family, with a mom and dad that love each other and their family, actually undermines the argument for making government bigger.

If a family feeds and medicates their members, educates their children academically, morally, and spiritually, and provides care in illness and the latter years of life, government’s argument for bigger government, beyond its legitimate role of providing physical protection for its citizens, rings hollow.

The demand for more taxes is directly related to the breakdown of the family. Today, government is/has to a large degree taken on the role of God and family—wanting to provide insurance, Social Security, Medicare, public education, redistribution of wealth, teaching morals contrary to a strong heterosexual monogamous marriage, bailing out people that have gotten loans beyond their capacity to pay, ad infinitum—and thereby make their claim to a right to more taxes, which necessarily results in less personal and familial responsibility as well as liberty to excel or fail if a person so desires.

Will the people rise up and demand that this elephantine monster be rationed? Probably not since personal responsibility has largely been displaced by rights, dependence on the state, and victimhood. Will the federal government self-discipline itself? As regrettable as it is, probably not without some kind of divine intervention because once someone takes on the role of God, they seldom give it up without a fight.

Peter Hitchens, speaking of strong families and less government, noted, “It would also leave people free to cling to individual ideas of conscience, rather than the nationalized ‘social’ conscience which measures a citizens’ value by how much tax he is willing to pay. The freer society is, the more it leaves the family alone.”1

  1. The Abolition of Britain p192-193 []

Think about IT: Is it a moral betrayal and public sin, or merely a problem to be solved?

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Senator McCain has been widely and harshly criticized for saying “”If I were president today, I would fire him” referring to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox. In our scientific liberal culture there are no sins, only broken laws or problems to be solved. Consequently, our present national financial fiasco is a colossal problem, but no one thus far has been fired and only a few1 have even admitted guilt.

I am not arguing that Cox is the sole sinner in this gargantuan debacle, but shouldn’t someone be fired for a seven hundred billion dollar “mistake”? Oh sure, everyone is blaming someone else, but how refreshing it would be to hear some politician say, “I failed you the people, I have done wrong, please forgive me, and if you will give me another chance, I will give my best to correct the problem and protect you from now on, regardless of the cost to my political career.” Whoever he is, he has my vote.

Of course if we are all just a product of evolution, then there really is no moral problem, and assigning guilt is a waste of time and a distraction from solving the problem—as some psychologists and politicians proclaim—as long as no law has been broken.

However, if we are free moral agents and really do make decisions that not only create problems but are actually right or wrong—or God forbid—sin, then guilt and/or innocence is not some abstract philosophizing or a distraction, but rather an essential element of correcting the problem. “For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they would see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.’” (Matthew 13:15)

  1. Artur Davis Congressman from Alabama has []

Think about IT: Are lawyers an endangered species?

Monday, October 6th, 2008

Sherry Colb, law professor at Cornell Law School, said on a post on the school’s community site that she didn’t fault Palin for having an amniocentesis test, even though others have criticized Palin for doing so in light of her pro-life stance.

Colb said, “When a woman is pregnant, she is so intimately connected with her baby and yet so ignorant about the baby’s progress without a doctor or midwife to give her information….An amniocentesis provides information in an otherwise frustratingly opaque setting.

She went on to say, “I do, however, fault Sarah Palin for wanting to deprive American women of a choice that she herself had and that she apparently thought about making.” WOW! (more…)

Think about IT: Senator Obama and sex education

Wednesday, October 1st, 2008

As one would guess, the issue has been demagogued on both sides, and much of the reporting simply obfuscates the real issue.

Obama is right that the bill does contain information that teaches children how to deal with potential sexual abuse. It says, “Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances.” It does say that the sex education is to “…be age and developmentally appropriate.” It even includes a section on abstinence which says, “Sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.”

So what is the big deal? Well, that is not all that it contains and even more troubling is what the legislators in concert with educators deemed to be so offensive and/or objectionable that they deleted it from the original draft. (more…)