Could public high school social studies get any more humanistic?

Recently the same teacher who claimed that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God gave out an extra-credit assignment: Read The Da Vinci Code and note all occurrences of Renaissance art. Sound a little fishy for a supposedly secular social studies class?

I was actually quite shocked when he gave it out. I began to question whether this class was really  secular or not… but this confirms it: The teacher is actively trying to undermine our beliefs.

Published in: on February 20, 2007 at 9:55 pm  Comments (8)  

Public schools teach false religion rather than secularism

Today in a world cultures social studies class at my public high school, my teacher lied. He said in the beginning of class that when we learn about the religions of the world, we examine them from a historical perspective rather than a religious perspective.

Alright, I’m sort of okay with that. I don’t want him indoctrinating everyone else with Satanist doctrine. It would be better if it were explicitly Christian, but as long as public school remains “legal” they must abide by the first amendment.

But instead of keeping what he taught us completely secular, he later said that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same God, only calling Him by different names. He made no effort to make it clear that this was merely his personal opinion; he stated it as fact, and he even went on to say that a common misconception among religious folk is that they think that they worship different gods.

He’s loony. If he thinks he is the prophet of the “absolute truth” (of liberalism), maybe he should take the time to actually learn about the religions. In Christianity, there is only one faith (Ephesians 4:1-6), Jews rejected God the Father when they rejected His Son, and Muslims have a god (demon) completely different from the Christian God. The God of the Bible teaches evangelism, spreading the Gospel, and warning unbelievers. The Qur’an teaches you warning unbelievers is pointless; in other words, it teaches “tolerance”:

As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. (Qur’an 2:6-7)

His lies about God and religion were met with no rebellion by the class. There are, supposedly, several Christians in the class, but I guess they were uneducated or even unbelieving.

Published in: on January 9, 2007 at 9:13 pm  Comments (2)  

Dierker on ‘Tolerance’

I’ve never heard of this guy, but I’m not from Missouri. I’m glad we have the St. Louis CofCC to point him out. He’s Judge Robert Dierker, who clearly knows what the American view of law and government is, aside from his support for the war on “terror” (how can you wage war on a tactic?).

From the description on Random House Books, his book, The Tyranny of Tolerance, sounds superb:

For the first time, a sitting judge blows the whistle on America’s out-of-control courts.

A judge for more than twenty years, Robert Dierker has enjoyed a distinguished legal career. But now that career may be on the line. Why? Because he is breaking the code of silence that has long kept judges from speaking out to present a withering account of how radical liberals run roughshod over the Constitution, waging war on the laws of nature, the laws of reason, and the law of God.

Even those outraged by America’s courts will be shocked by Judge Dierker’s story of activist judges, deep-pocketed special interest groups, pandering politicians, and others who claim to stand for tolerance, equal rights, and social justice, but actually stand for something quite different—something closer to totalitarianism.

Published in: on December 22, 2006 at 1:35 am  Leave a Comment  

God Hates Illegal Immigration

Get this from WorldNetDaily:

[…] [M]ore of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

The article also reveals that illegal immigrants murder 12 Americans every day.

Think God’s trying to tell us something? I think so. Illegal immigrants are violating the Laws of God when they rebel against the governing authority (1 Peter 2:13-14). The governing authority is sowing their own seeds of destruction by tolerating it, and Galatians 6:7 says that it will suffer on Judgment Day the lawlessness that it sowed..

Published in: on December 1, 2006 at 12:23 am  Comments (6)  

Why They’re Dropping Out of High School

ABC News just ran an article on the rising levels of kids leaving high school: 2,500 drop out every day. Half the students are dropping out of the largest American school systems, and the unconstitutional Dept. of Education found in a study “that 31 percent of American students were dropping out or failing to graduate in the nation’s largest 100 public school districts.” The article continues with reports from specific students:

So why do they drop out? Eli Thomasson, 16, of Georgia, explains why he wanted to drop out of school earlier this year.

“I was just tired of school, you know. I didn’t like it. I had made my mind up that I wasn’t going to school anymore,” Thomasson said.

Later, the article points out how likely you are to become a criminal if you drop out of high school (unfortunately they separate each dang sentence into its own line):

If you drop out of high school, your chances of running afoul of the law increase.

Nationally, 68 percent of state prison inmates are dropouts.

Sheriff Jerry Brogdon of Berrien County, Ga., sees those consequences every day at the Berrien County Jailhouse.

He said that “81.2 percent of the inmates we have in here today is high school dropouts.”

Anthony White is a 17-year-old Berrien County Jail inmate.

He quit high school just two weeks before he spoke to ABC News from the jailhouse. He was arrested for allegedly firing a gun in the air just three days after he quit school.

“I felt like I was grown,” White said. “Nobody could tell me not to make my own decision. That’s how I felt at the time.”

But White said, “Now I wish I would’ve listened.”

James Keefe, 19, is another inmate. He dropped out of high school, too.

He has been arrested on burglary charges twice.

“When I was in school, I didn’t get in no trouble,” Keefe said.

News articles like this often leave out any subjective reasoning to avoid bias. But in excluding the Christian viewpoint, how are people ever going to know the real reason why high school stinks?

There are, as far as I can think up, three main reason why high school, or simply public school in general, stinks:

  1. Godlessness. By subjecting education to the “discretion” of the federal government, the public schools are forced to account for every false religion that drags its filthy mouth through the door. Thus, the schools teach Godlessly, removing any absolute sense of morality from the needy minds of the young.
  2. Boredom. Public school is so unengaging that it reaches a point of sin: Boredom is, as Charley Reese put it, “the devil’s workshop.” Also owing to the boredom is that it has to account for the lowest common denominator: the racial gap, and stupid people in general. (The schools are, for one thing, too afraid to kick out its less bright, or maybe just more lazy students for fear of being called racist.)
  3. Pop culture. Public high schools are inevitably filled with Godless teens religiously devoted to their pop idols and completely opposed to all authority, especially their parents.

I’ve been to public school, so I know what kind of filth pollutes it: Teachers who promote whoredom and false religions, teenagers who engage in dangerous and immoral affairs of sex and drugs, and actors perpetually portraying their favorite race. It’s not pretty.

Published in: on November 22, 2006 at 2:41 am  Comments (3)  

St. Louis CofCC Blog Recriprocates

I’m glad the webmaster of the St. Louis Council of Conservative Citizens used the word reciprocity when posting that I made it onto his blogroll, because otherwise I wouldn’t have thought of it, and this post’s title would have to have been, “St. Louis CofCC Blog Adds Me to Their Blogroll Because I Added Them to My Blogroll.” 🙂

His idea for a better blog name, “Confederate Yankee,” would have been a much better name than my current “For the Crown Rights” [of Jesus Christ] … but as he said, some neo-con (why must they make our lives so miserable?) got to it first.

Since commenting’s disabled on their blog, this is my only way of saying thank you to the SLCofCC blogmeister. Thank you! 🙂

Published in: on October 30, 2006 at 2:00 am  Comments (1)  

Absolute Truth versus Moral Relativism

Blogger Brett Keller recently posted a video of an interview of Richard Dawkins, the flagbearer of the New Atheism movement.  My comments prompted a small, decidedly civil debate not as much about atheism but instead about moral relativism versus moral absolutism, or absolute truth.

Most important, I think, to the debate was this exchange:

We have a right to life because we created it, acknowledged it, and enforced it. We are living creatures who are conscious of our own existences and cling to it, and in interacting with others realize that our fellow man shares such longings.

And in a very real sense, rights do evolve. Over time we have increased our rights beyond the mere right to life: to speak & express oneself freely, to protect oneself, and to be treated equally regardless of wealth, gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Over time we may secure additional rights which are rooted in our common desires; to not freeze for lack of shelter, starve for lack of food, or suffer for lack of health care, all in the midst of plenty.

That’s Mr. Keller’s view on the origin of rights.  My view:

You say that we have a right to life because “we created it.” When did we create it? Are we like God; did we create the right to life in the beginning of the universe? Now, if we merely created the right to life at a certain point in time, doesn’t that mean that everyone who lived before 1776 did not have a right to life? No, we didn’t create the right to life. Only God can endow such unalienable features of mankind — we merely discovered after years of harsh living that God had given us the right to life from the very beginning. Your evolutionary view of the progress of man holds that we are in a continual state of creation, constantly creating new rights for ourselves (or taking them away, which we do just as much if not more), while my absolutist view of progress holds that we are constantly discovering God’s Truth.

This is summed up more concisely by my last sentence:

Again, it’s not absolute truth or rights that evolve — it’s [our] understanding of the rights and laws already given to us.

Following moral absolutes, we know that no matter where we are in history or in the future, it will always be wrong to steal, murder, adulterate, etc.  Following moral relativism, however, what was immoral hundreds of years ago, like adultery, isn’t immoral today since everyone’s doing it (no pun intended).

Published in: on October 29, 2006 at 3:31 pm  Comments (1)  

Gay marriage: Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have it right

Blogger jesterballz recently posted a piece about his pro-gay marriage views entitled “Gay Marriage: Why do straight people care?“.  I found the post unconvincing, so I commented a response in the form of a letter. As a long letter, I think it would be appropriate to replicate here:

Dear jesterballz,

It is clear that you have never been exposed to a true Christian. There are no neoconservative Christians. (Neoconservatives are people like Bush, Cheney, and just about anyone else who supports their regime.)

Your research into the opposite side has proven insufficient, due first to your fallacious reasoning against it, and due second to your having researched in the wrong place.

Your arguments are fallacious because they contain two prejudices, prejudices which allowed me to determine that you’ve never met (or seen) a Christian:

1. Your assertion that I hate gays and don’t want them saved. Why wouldn’t I want to help a homosexual repent of his sin and go to Heaven with me? Who are you to accuse me of hate? If Jesus were to hate anything, which He does not, then He would hate hate.

2. Your assertion that I am afraid of being gay. Have you met me? Do you know for sure that I am afraid of being gay? Where’s your proof? How is this mere prejudicial remark a valid argument for gay marriage?

Is it not hypocritical to write a post that attempts to refute prejudiced people, when in fact your post is just as prejudiced?

Now, there is only one completely valid, irrefutable reason not to allow gay marriage, and this argument is recyclable for many other issues: God did not grant civil government jurisdiction over marriage. Legislation should neither legalize nor illegalize gay marriage, as all such legislation is void in the eyes of God.

Since the State has no jurisdiction over the affairs of marriage, it does not have a right to give heterosexual couples special benefits any more than it does to give homosexual couples special marriage benefits. If you want to get married to a woman, grab a minister, two witnesses, and a Bible and go into a Church and get married. If you want to get married to a man, grab two witnesses and a “minister” and do what the heterosexual couples do (the reading, the tears, the ring, the Man may now kiss the Other Man, etc.). This marriage will not be valid before God, but if you’re gay, do you care?

I advise all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, not to let the State act as a god and make marriage a government institution. Such leads to the tyranny that manifests the Democrats and Republicans’ agendas, creating the marriage debate that we have today.

The Crown Rights Patriot

For more commentary on not letting the State act as a god in affairs of marriage, please read:

Published in: on October 27, 2006 at 8:35 pm  Comments (1)  

New Jersey Court Fallaciously Arrogates Power to Endow Rights

The New Jersey courts just released their 4-3 decision that same-sex couples who have gotten “married” have the same rights as real couples.

The State has no business interfering in matters of marriage.  Marriage is between the bride, the groom, and God.  The ridiculous, unconstitutional healthcare benefits that come with marriage should simply be abolished.  In such an ideal world, the gay marriage debate wouldn’t matter because no one would be after the welfare of the State.

Also, the courts do not make law.  They have no right to tell same-sex “couples” that they any certain rights.  Rights come from God.

Published in: on October 25, 2006 at 9:03 pm  Leave a Comment