Discerning Ideologies in Political Positions – Reagan and “Spreading the Wealth”

How do you tell the difference between Democratic and Republican principles and those of the socialist and communist caste? What’s the difference between a private organization giving grants to individuals or other organizations and the government doing it? What is the role of government in people’s lives? Who are the government servants suppose to serve – themselves or the people?

This video is a brief but outstanding examination of the current competing ideologies at war for the right of entrance into the White House. Take some time to educate yourself on them. Compare them to your Constitution… how do they measure up?

“MAN IS NOT FREE UNLESS GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED.” Ronald Reagan in his farewell address to the nation.

Advertisements

Was it Morally Wrong for Bush to Attend the Olympics?

This image is believed to be in the public domain.

The Olympics Logo.

I am not watching the Olympics this year. The reason I am not watching the games is not because of any protest or boycott or any other really noble cause, although I wholeheartedly support these types of things when circumstances warrant. When a good friend told me their family was boycotting them, I said, “Good! Me too… just like I do every 4 years.” I am not watching the olympics because I think they are boring. It just seemed a little silly to claim I wasn’t watching THIS year because I was boycotting them.

I’m not much a of a sports fan. Never really have been. I think watching sports is about as stimulating as getting my body checked for suspicious moles or (no offense to stargazers out there) waiting an hour to catch a glimpse of one shooting star only to recover from a sneeze just as everyone says, “OOoooh, There goes one! Did you see it?”.

Not boycotting the Olympics this year yourself? That’s okay, I suppose. President Bush went to the Olympics this year much to the chagrin of many human rights activists who thought he should have used it as an opportunity to shame China for their many documented human rights abuses.

But as Chuck Colson observed, going to the Olympics turned out for Bush to be a very good opportunity to speak out indeed… loud enough for many of the Chinese people (and it’s government) to hear loud and clear…

See what I mean by reading the August 15th Break Point Chuck Colson commentary

Victory At University of Delaware – University President Ends Mandatory Ideological Reeducation Program

November 2, 2007

    FIRE Press Release

NEWARK, Del., November 2, 2007—After an intense campaign led by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the University of Delaware has dropped an ideological reeducation program that was referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The program’s stated goal was for the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on politics, race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. Following FIRE’s campaign, which called the attention of the national media and the blogosphere to the Orwellian program, university President Patrick Harker terminated the program, effective immediately.

“FIRE applauds President Harker for recognizing the chilling nature of this program and ending it,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Under the First Amendment, state institutions have no right to impose mandatory ideological training on their students. We are thrilled that this unconscionable and invasive program is gone, but we will be keeping an eye on the University of Delaware to make sure future programs respect the individual right of conscience of its students.”

Under the program, students were required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and “one-on-one” meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The university also instructed RAs to ask intrusive personal questions during one-on-one sessions, including “When did you discover your sexual identity?” A student who responded, “That is none of your damn business,” was, according to the university’s own materials, written up—along with the student’s name and room number—as having one of the “wors[t] one-on-one” sessions.

The program’s materials stated that the goal of the residence life education program was for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These “competencies” included: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.” And in the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, the program was described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation, including referring to the program as “treatment” and defining “learning” as “specific attitudinal or behavioral changes.”

Following FIRE’s initial press release, the university’s administration first chose to defend its invasive and unconstitutional residence life education program. However, in a statement released late yesterday, President Harker stated, “I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.” Harker also called for a “full and broad-based review” of the program’s practices and purposes.

While FIRE commends Harker’s decision, concerns remain about some aspects of life in the residence halls. For example, FIRE would like to know if RAs are still required to immediately report “[a]ny instance that is perceived by those involved as being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive.”

The assistance of the Delaware Association of Scholars was critical in the effort to eliminate the program, as was the willingness of Delaware students and RAs to attest to their experiences under this “treatment” program. The case also drew vast attention from the blogosphere, dramatically increasing the pressure on the university to either justify or abandon its thought reform program.

“Universities often cannot defend in public what they try to do in private, and the situation at Delaware was no exception,” Lukianoff said. “While we are pleased that this program is over, it is stunning that it ever existed at a public university in the United States. FIRE will continue to monitor the situation at Delaware and to fight against other ideological reeducation programs at schools across the nation.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at the University of Delaware and elsewhere can be seen by visiting http://www.thefire.org.

CONTACT:
Greg Lukianoff, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg_lukianoff@thefire.org
Samantha Harris, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; samantha@thefire.org

The Threat of Creation

Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed!

There has been a concerted effort on the part of the atheistic community to not only stifle but to villify people of faith, particularly people who are in the scientific community who hold a faith in God, or in any higher power, and who attribute findings in their field to an intelligent designer.

As Chuck Colson observed in one of his recent articles, (see article prior to this entry) it is not so much atheists anymore, but more and more it is ANTI-theists… these are the ones who would love all religion to be thrown out of the public forum. To them, the biggest threat to their agenda are Christians, especially professionals and influential advocates of any worldview other than their own.

So much for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Isn’t that sort of what the Communists did in Russia? Boy, living like that sure would be a treat. Don’t we all just love to be told what to do and what to think. Or else.

In February of 2008, a documentary style film titled “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed” will be released into theaters. Starring Ben Stein, it’s goal is to expose the monopolistic Evolutionist camp and it’s intimidation of scientists who do not hold the same opinions or worldviews as they do. I highly recommend it to anyone who believes in freedom of thought and academic freedom.

(For trailer go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ – but read this first!)

Now, I’m not saying throw the anti-theist Evo’s out on their ears, much as I think they deserve it, but I do believe institutions of higher learning should stop telling students WHAT to think and begin teaching them HOW to think for themselves. This will not happen if large bodies of vital scientific work are ignored due to philosophical differences.

On that note, I will post this blog entry from Dr. George Grant, founder and president of the Kings Meadow Study Center… (one of the most humorous smart people I know.)

The Threat Of Creation

By Dr. George Grant
(From his blog Grantian Florilegium on Friday, October 12th, 2007…Reposted with permission from author)

A resolution adopted by Europe’s top human rights body last week declared that the idea of “Creationism” is a potential “threat to human rights.”

On October 4, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted 48 to 25 in support of the resolution entitled the dangers of creationism in education in which the legislative body urged its 47 constituent governments to “firmly oppose” the teaching of Creationism, arguing that such beliefs are “promoted by forms of religious extremism” seeking to “to impose religious dogma “ at the expense of children’s “education. “

“For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life,” stated the report. “Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of Creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, Creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.”

The report, which had been moderated significantly since it was first introduced a few months ago by those great champions of freedom and integrity around the world, the French Socialists, also charged Creationists with denying the validity of modern science. Indeed, “the total rejection of science,” the revolutionary do-gooders said, “is one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.” It then added that those threats came as Creationists sought to “replace democracy by theocracy.”

Of course, the European legislators did not offer any evidence whatsoever for their brazen assertions—these brave new heroes of a brave new liberty, equality, and fraternity apparently just assume that any questioning of presuppositional and dogmatic Darwinism necessitates a wild-eyed totalitarianism that has only ever existed historically in their own fevered-dreams (and in their own modernist revolutionary governments). Such lawmakers rarely allow the dumb certainties of experience to deter them from blindly pursuing their ribald ideological agendas.

As Dinesh D’Souza has argued, “This is not a time for Christians to turn the other cheek. Rather, it is a time to drive the money-changers out of the temple. The atheists and radicals no longer want to be tolerated. They want to monopolize the public square and to expel Christians from it. They want political questions like abortion to be divorced from religious and moral claims. They want to control the school curricula, so that they can promote a secular ideology and undermine Christianity. They want to discredit the factual claims of religion, and they want to convince the rest of society that Christianity is not only mistaken but also evil. They blame religion for the crimes of history and for the ongoing conflicts in the world today. In short, they want to make religion–and especially the Christian religion–disappear from the face of the earth.“

Dr. Grant’s Blog: Grantian Floriegium

Nietzsche Would Laugh – Morality without God

A Breakpoint article by Charles Colson.

October 9, 2007

One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.

It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.

The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?

Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes” — grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when cooperation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.

Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.

Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher Michael Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”

Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.

In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.

In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.

One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.

Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.

Nietzsche would laugh — and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.

(This is part two in a five-part series.)

Get links to further information on today’s topic
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=1806