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)  

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)