Here is HW for Week 3 (along with info on the project for the first half of the year...) Our first quiz is scheduled for October 19...I will post a study guide on site on October 12...
1. NO additional reading in "A Christian Manifesto" due. Make sure you have read the first TWO chapters fully and have taken notes and done HW assigned for them...be prepared to discuss in class when we return on Oct 5 (You may read ahead if you'd like to get a jump on future assignments)
2. Read the following article and answer the questions at the end of the article
Expelling God from the University
Mark Alexander, Patriot Post
From Patriot Post Vol. 06 No. 49; Published 8 December 2006 The nation's oldest academic institution, Harvard University, was established in 1636 and named for Puritan minister John Harvard. The university claims that it was "never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination," though all its presidents were Puritan ministers until 1708. A 1643 college brochure identified Harvard's purpose: "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches." The university's Charter of 1650 calls for "the education of the English and Indian youth of this Country in knowledge and godliness." Harvard alumnus, John Adams (class of 1755) wrote in 1776, "It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."
Yale, the nation's third oldest academic institution, was established in 1701 by royal charter as The Collegiate School, in response to the efforts of colonial Congregationalist ministers since the 1640s to establish a college in New Haven. The charter was granted for an institution "wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Public employment both in Church and Civil State."
Yale alumnus Noah Webster (class of 1778), a devout Christian and outspoken Federalist, considered "education useless without the Bible." In the forward of the 1828 Webster's American Dictionary, he wrote, "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed.... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."
Princeton was originally founded in 1746 as the College of New Jersey, established by royal charter for "the Education of Youth in the Learned Languages and in the Liberal Arts and Sciences," and unique in that the charter allowed the attendance of "any Person of any religious Denomination whatsoever." The absence of an official denominational affiliation or criteria for attendance did not, however, connote the absence of strong denominational ties. To the contrary, Princeton was founded by "New Light" Presbyterians of the Great Awakening for the purpose of training Presbyterian ministers. Jonathan Dickinson, a Presbyterian minister and leader of the Great Awakening of the 1730s, was the school's co-founder and first president. (Princeton has a $13-billion endowment.)
Princeton alumnus James Madison (class of 1771) observed, "The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it."
Yet today, these institutions, like the rest of the Ivy League schools -- Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn -- and upper-tier institutions across the nation under the tutelage of wealthy trustees and elite academicians ?- tend to do away with all things Christian.
A recent case in point of Christian heritage eradication in academia occurred at the nation's second oldest university, William and Mary, chartered in 1693 in Williamsburg, Virginia, as an Anglican college.
At the behest of university president Gene Nichol, the removal of the historic Wren Chapel altar cross was ordered "in order to make it less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff, and visitors of all faiths." The Wren Chapel was constructed in 1732 as "a faith-specific space," and the cross was a gift from nearby Bruton Parish Church, founded in 1674. Bruton is the oldest continually operated Episcopal Church in America. George Washington, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson worshipped there prior to the Revolution.
Nichol wrote, "Our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all. I believe a recognition of the full dignity of each member of our diverse community is vital. Though we haven't meant to do so, the display of a Christian cross ... sends an unmistakable message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. ... The Wren is no mere museum or artifact. It touches every student who enrolls at the college. It defines us. And it must define us all."
Of course, removal of the Wren cross does not "define" William and Mary. To the contrary, it redefines William and Mary. A William and Mary graduate once mused, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." The name of that esteemed alumnus? Thomas Jefferson.
The most insidious line of activist interpretations concerns our Constitution's First Amendment. Invoking Jefferson's comment in a private letter to a Baptist congregation about a wall of separation between church and state, the Judicial Branch has endeavored to remove any remnant of faith from all quarters of the public square at the federal, state and local level.
Of course, the First Amendment states only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The incorrect interpretation of Jefferson’s "wall" metaphor puts liberty in great peril.
Our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate guidance, our Constitution, are based on natural law, and outline the natural rights of man as being from our Creator, not manmade.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are natural rights "endowed by our Creator," not government. Likewise, our Constitution was written and ratified "in order secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." As such, it established a republic ruled by laws, not men.
Indeed, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."
However, if the expression of faith is banished from all government forums, not the least of which being schools, then how long will "the people" continue to understand that these "inalienable rights" are, in Jefferson's words, "the gift of God"?
The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist concluded, "The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights."
George Washington proclaimed, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?" (is deserted)
That is a question we should all be asking today.
Answer the following questions about the article:
Q1. If our rights of freedom, equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not come from God, where or what can we place them in so that we can be guaranteed that we have them?
Q2. Does the decision at William and Mary to remove the cross violate the first amendment to the Constitution? If yes, explain how so? If no, explain why not?
Q3. Do you think the idea of having a wall of separation between church and state is a good idea? Why or why not?
3. Look up the following words, names or phrases and write a BRIEF (one or two sentence) definition for each:
Jonathan Mayhew
Ezra Stiles
George Whitefield
Noah Webster
John Witherspoon
William Blackstone
John Dewey
Paul Kurtz
Horace Mann
Julian Huxley
Bertrand Russell
Charles Potter
Scopes Trial
Rex Lex
Lex Rex
worldview
natural law
positive law
divine law
civil liberties
civil rights
establishment clause
free exercise clause
separation of church and state
materialism
federalism
socialism
communism
social Darwinism
totalitarianism
anarchy
democracy
republic
checks and balances
separation of powers
FIRST HALF PROJECT (due on last class before Christmas break)
From newspapers, magazines, websites, or other sources, choose 10 articles that relate to worldview, religion, freedom, government, social issues, rights, etc...The articles can be about current issues (abortion, religious freedom, gun control, capital punishment, right to bear arms, same-sex marriage, victim's rights, national security, law enforcement, etc) or about historical issues/events (founding of the nation, civil rights issues in the civil war or WW II, slavery, segregation and discrimination, Scopes Trial, public education, etc) After reading ten articles, write a 3+ page paper explaining the article's content, how it relates to the issues of government/law and worldview, and what your personal opinions are on the topic. Be SURE to back up your personal opinions with facts that support your belief. In addition to the ten articles, you must have at least five other sources. Include a cover page and bibliography (not included in the 3+ pages)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
God Save Our American States - Week 2 HW
This clip shows, from the mini-series "John Adams," the announcement of a birth...the birth of our nation. This speech of John Adams, representative to the Congress from the state of Massachusetts, immediately followed a strong, emotional speech from his "esteemed colleague" Rep. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, who was opposed to a declaration of independence, fearing that the move was throwing away their great privilege as Englishmen and causing the wrath of that nation, the greatest military power on earth at the time, to come down upon them. The young representative shown numerous times with his hand on his chin is Rep. Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, who at 33 years old, would be given the honor of drawing up the preliminary draft. This debate, on July 1, 1776, was followed by a vote of the colonies on the motion to declare independence. It was felt such a momentous vote should be a unanimous one. Dickinson, whose vote created a tie in the Pennsylvania delegation, was persuaded to be absent for the vote, thus swinging Pennsylvania unto independence. Delegate Caesar Rodney of Delaware was away in Dover and sick, but his vote was needed to swing Delaware. A messenger rode to Dover and Rodney rode his horse the almost 90 miles through a driving rain to get to Philadelphia before the vote. He arrived at 1 pm, just in time, after having ridden all night to get there. Some accounts state he had to be carried into the chamber to cast his vote. The final vote was 12 colonies for independence, 0 against, with New York abstaining (choosing not to vote). The colonies had, at that moment become, the United States of America. At the public reading, the document ended with the crier calling out, "God Save Our American States!" This is important because for 169 years, since the establishment at Jamestown in 1607, all proclamations would always end with "God Save The King!" No more! This gives great meaning to Rep Sam Adams famous words...
"We have this day restored the Sovereign (God) to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Y1ougODMo link to clip for viewing - please copy and paste and watch...
Homework for WEEK 2 (Week 1 HW is still posted if needed)
1. Read Chapter 2 of "A Christian Manifesto" and write a brief summary of the main points - highlight and take note as as you read and be ready for discussion in class. This is very important as well for quizzes upcoming
2. Read the 3 articles below and write a brief summary of facts and your opinion regarding the articles
(all summaries should be well thought out and cover at least 1/2 a page)
Article 1 Officials cleared in prayer injunction case (Washington Times)
Two rural northern Florida school officials were found not guilty of violating an injunction against praying in school, a Florida judge ruled late Thursday in a contentious school prayer case that spurred a reaction from Congress earlier this week.
Hundreds of people waiting in the rain outside of a federal courthouse in Pensacola cheered just after 7:30 p.m. when U.S. District Judge Margaret C. "Casey" Rodgers ruled that Frank Lay, principal of Pace High School in Santa Rosa County, and his athletic director, Robert Freeman, didn't intentionally violate her order to not offer prayers at school-sponsored gatherings.
"We're very pleased," said Mathew Staver, spokesman for the Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based legal group that represented the two men. "We'll now focus on getting the underlying order set aside or overturned by a higher court."
Glenn Katon, director of the Florida American Civil Liberty Union's religious freedom project, said the judge "made an honest evaluation of the facts and applied the law."
"I respect her ruling just as I hope school officials will respect her order prohibiting them from promoting their personal religious beliefs in the classroom and at school events," he added.
More than 60 members of Congress signed a letter Monday in support of the two school officials. Reps. Jeff Miller of Florida and J. Randy Forbes of Virginia, both Republicans, gave speeches Tuesday night on the floor of the House castigating the reasons for the case. Mr. Forbes said it had "the potential for the criminalization of prayer in the United States of America."
The ACLU sued the Santa Rosa County School District a year ago on behalf of two students who said some teachers and administrators were allowing prayers at school events, orchestrating separate religiously themed graduation services and proselytizing students during class and after school.
In January, the school district settled out of court with the ACLU, agreeing to several conditions, including the barring of all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events.
The ACLU complained to Judge Rodgers after Mr. Lay asked Mr. Freeman to offer mealtime prayers at a Jan. 28 lunch for school employees and booster club members who had helped with a school field house project. The judge then issued a contempt order for the two men.
When asked Thursday why he agreed to give the prayer, "It was just out of reflex," Mr. Freeman told the judge, according to the Pensacola News-Journal. His testimony was part of a 10-hour hearing involving several witnesses.
An estimated 1,000 demonstrators apparently including numerous Pace High School students and teachers were in the streets of downtown Pensacola throughout the day in support of the two men. Crowds began gathering at the federal courthouse at dawn. Some sang hymns such as "Amazing Grace;" others held signs criticizing the ACLU.
Had the men been found guilty, they faced up to six months in jail, a possible loss of their retirement benefits and $5,000 each in fines.
Article 2 - God, History, and the War of Ideas (Petermarshallministries.com)
Someone famously said "history is just one thing after another!" No, not from a Biblical point of view, it isn't. History is not just a list of what happened, when and where. History is a window through which we can see God's hand in human affairs. The German monk that started the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, said that history is "a demonstration, recollection, and sign of divine action and judgment, how God upholds, rules, obstructs, rewards, punishes, and honors the world, especially the human world." All of history is being managed by God. He sits outside of time and space, but He presides over the history of this inhabited planet, and is moving it along toward the time when it will be swallowed up in the final coming of the Kingdom of God. "All events," said the great reformer John Calvin, "are governed by God's secret plan." Were it not for history we would not even know God, for His revelation of Himself and His plan to redeem sinful and fallen human beings has been revealed to us in the historical record of the Bible. History, then, is a source of revelation and truth - about God, about ourselves, and about life. As we move deeper into the 21st Century we Americans find ourselves in a war with Islamofacist terrorists, or jihadis, who have hijacked Islam for the purposes of establishing their Islamic dictatorship - first in all Islamic nations and ultimately throughout the world. On the surface, this struggle with Islamic extremists seems to be a military and political one, but there is a deeper, spiritual issue. At the core, it is a battle for the souls of men between the satanically-inspired religion of Islam and God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. This battle is primarily a battle of ideas, as is always the case in the great struggles of human history. What should be of great concern to all who love our nation is whether modern Americans know our own history, and especially whether we know anything about the hand of God in it. How can we understand the American experiment; how can we understand who we are and what we are about if we do not know the truths of our history? And if we do not understand the original God-inspired vision and the Biblically-based ideas on which we were founded, then the American experiment in self-government is at risk of failing. It can fail, you know. The Founding Fathers were well aware that it could fail. As I have previously related in these commentaries, when Ben Franklin came out of the recently concluded Constitutional Convention proceedings in Philadelphia in 1787 one of the leading ladies of the city accosted him on the street: "Dr. Franklin, what manner of government have you given us," she queried. "A republic, Madam," replied Franklin, "if you can keep it." Exactly. But, the "keeping" of it is not an easy thing. If we should fail at the American experiment, how then can we hope to win the war for the souls of men against radical Islam, or any of the other spiritual struggles we will face in the course of this century? Keeping our republic, and succeeding in developing the vision God gave our forefathers requires that we educate our youth about American history in general, and God's hand in it in particular. In this regard, the latest surveys about our young people's knowledge of American history are downright frightening! The Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Wilmington, Delaware issued a report in September 2007 entitled Failing Our Students, Failing America. The report details the findings from a 60-question, multiple-choice test on American history, government, international relations, and market economy given to thousands of college freshmen and seniors at 50 different institutions. The average score for all the students was 52.9 percent. That's an "F"! Even for Harvard seniors, who were the highest scoring group, the average was only 69.6. That's a "D+." And what's even worse, the knowledge of civics was lower for college seniors than for freshmen. We are actually "dumbing down" our college students! A recent study done by the National Endowment for the Humanities discovered that over half of our high school seniors did not know which nations fought against America during World War II. Eighteen percent of them even thought that Germany was on our side! Good grief!! Of course, at the heart of education is reading ability. Those who don't read well, or who don't bother to read, aren't going to learn much. In the years since The Light and the Glory was published in 1977 I have discovered that the reading level of Americans has dropped precipitously. Never, in the first ten years after its publication, did anyone ever tell me that they found the book hard to read. But, in the last 20 years a number of people let slip to me that they found it to be a bit taxing. If you haven't read the book yet, don't let that scare you! It really isn't hard to read at all, but what it shows is how drastically our reading levels have slid in the last 30 years. And sure enough, the same National Endowment for the Humanities study reported that only 31 percent of adults have a rating of "proficient" in reading. Sadly, the study also tells us that only 52 percent of 18 to 24 year-olds read a book voluntarily, without it being assigned to them. A century ago we had the highest literacy rate in the world. No more. What are those Bible-based ideas on which the American experiment was founded? What are some the truths of our history which Americans must know in order to be good citizens in our society? Our moral leadership in the family of nations was announced by the Founding Fathers in 1776 with the creation of the Declaration of Independence. That document establishes our moral legitimacy. In the Declaration we made clear to the world that we were basing our undertakings on certain universal truths - they were true for all people of all times. These universal truth claims stand in stark contrast to today's post-modernist view that truth is relative - what's true for you may not be true for me, and vice-versa. In other words, says today's relativist, there's no such thing as truths that are true for everyone, so we really shouldn't even use the word truth any more. We should talk about "preferences" instead. In the Declaration the Founding Fathers stated that the self-evident and universal truths that are always true for everyone consist in certain God-given inalienable rights. These rights belong to every human being from the moment of conception, are bestowed by God on the individual by virtue of his or her creation, and cannot be lawfully taken away by any person or government. Indeed, government exists for the purpose of protecting and defending human beings in the exercise of those God-given rights, and derives its only just powers from those very rights. For example, government is legitimate only when it is based on the consent of the people. If it governs without this it infringes on the people's God-given right to liberty. Everything that the United States does, either in international relations or on the domestic front, ought to be a reflection of the Declaration of Independence and its principles. This document is our national creed; our national confession of faith; the primary statement of our national morality. Today's relativistic thinking, however, is seriously damaging our foreign policy, and could end up crippling us in the struggle against Islamic terrorism. Some of the American advertising that was done on international radio and television seems to give the impression that Muslims are happy here because we have a diverse society of "shared values." This message of toleration and diversity is very much the wrong signal to send to Muslims, who believe that Islam is absolutely true. In fact, it is much more likely to earn their contempt, because to Muslim "true believers" tolerance is a sign of moral weakness, not virtue. In their view, if you don't have any strong beliefs, such that you don't take a strong stand for the rightness and truthfulness of anything, then you are worthy of contempt. By the way, as a committed Christian, I would tend to agree with that viewpoint. I do not want to be guilty of an attitude of "contempt" for people that don't have any moral values, but they certainly cannot earn my respect. The message that we need to be sending to Muslim people around the world is that Muslims are perfectly free in America - not because of some rainbow policy of diversity - but because the United States views Muslims as human beings with the same God-given inalienable rights as the rest of us. The reason why this is such a powerful and important message to send to Muslims around the world is that many of them live under governments that deny the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to their own citizens. Muslims (and everyone else, for that matter) need to hear that this is who we are, and this is what we are about. Woe unto us if we try to use tolerance, relativism's child, in the midst of a war over truth. This is a struggle of one claim of truth over against another, and if we try to fight with tolerance as a weapon, we will find it to be a broken lance indeed. We dare not seem to be indifferent to truth in a conflict with a people that are satanically deceived into believing that they have absolute truth on their side. The freedom that we enjoy in our society appears to serve no purpose other than our personal pleasures, yet we are engaged in a war with a people who believe that everything in their lives should serve the purpose of submission to Allah. Only when Americans begin to recover the Biblical roots of our understanding of freedom are we going to develop the kind of moral courage the Founding Fathers displayed in the struggle to win our independence from Great Britain. They understood the connection between God and human freedom stated in such scriptures as 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Perhaps we're not going to win this century's wars until we have a nation-wide revival of true Christianity in America, and recover our moral backbone.
Article 3 - The Declaration of Independence: A History (Charter of Freedom National Archives)
Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new--all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of our own nation included them all. That birth was unique, not only in the immensity of its later impact on the course of world history and the growth of democracy, but also because so many of the threads in our national history run back through time to come together in one place, in one time, and in one document: the Declaration of Independence.
Moving Toward Independence
The clearest call for independence up to the summer of 1776 came in Philadelphia on June 7. On that date in session in the Pennsylvania State House (later Independence Hall), the Continental Congress heard Richard Henry Lee of Virginia read his resolution beginning: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
The Lee Resolution was an expression of what was already beginning to happen throughout the colonies. When the Second Continental Congress, which was essentially the government of the United States from 1775 to 1788, first met in May 1775, King George III had not replied to the petition for redress of grievances that he had been sent by the First Continental Congress. The Congress gradually took on the responsibilities of a national government. In June 1775 the Congress established the Continental Army as well as a continental currency. By the end of July of that year, it created a post office for the "United Colonies."
In August 1775 a royal proclamation declared that the King's American subjects were "engaged in open and avowed rebellion." Later that year, Parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act, which made all American vessels and cargoes forfeit to the Crown. And in May 1776 the Congress learned that the King had negotiated treaties with German states to hire mercenaries to fight in America. The weight of these actions combined to convince many Americans that the mother country was treating the colonies as a foreign entity.
One by one, the Continental Congress continued to cut the colonies' ties to Britain. The Privateering Resolution, passed in March 1776, allowed the colonists "to fit out armed vessels to cruize [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies." On April 6, 1776, American ports were opened to commerce with other nations, an action that severed the economic ties fostered by the Navigation Acts. A "Resolution for the Formation of Local Governments" was passed on May 10, 1776.
At the same time, more of the colonists themselves were becoming convinced of the inevitability of independence. Thomas Paine's Common Sense, published in January 1776, was sold by the thousands. By the middle of May 1776, eight colonies had decided that they would support independence. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution that "the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states."
It was in keeping with these instructions that Richard Henry Lee, on June 7, 1776, presented his resolution. There were still some delegates, however, including those bound by earlier instructions, who wished to pursue the path of reconciliation with Britain. On June 11 consideration of the Lee Resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with New York abstaining. Congress then recessed for 3 weeks. The tone of the debate indicated that at the end of that time the Lee Resolution would be adopted. Before Congress recessed, therefore, a Committee of Five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies' case for independence.
The Committee of Five
The committee consisted of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. In 1823 Jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee "unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams requesting their corrections. . . I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the Congress." (If Jefferson did make a "fair copy," incorporating the changes made by Franklin and Adams, it has not been preserved. It may have been the copy that was amended by the Congress and used for printing, but in any case, it has not survived. Jefferson's rough draft, however, with changes made by Franklin and Adams, as well as Jefferson's own notes of changes by the Congress, is housed at the Library of Congress.)
Jefferson's account reflects three stages in the life of the Declaration: the document originally written by Jefferson; the changes to that document made by Franklin and Adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the Committee of Five to the Congress; and the version that was eventually adopted.
On July 1, 1776, Congress reconvened. The following day, the Lee Resolution for independence was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York not voting. Immediately afterward, the Congress began to consider the Declaration. Adams and Franklin had made only a few changes before the committee submitted the document. The discussion in Congress resulted in some alterations and deletions, but the basic document remained Jefferson's. The process of revision continued through all of July 3 and into the late morning of July 4. Then, at last, church bells rang out over Philadelphia; the Declaration had been officially adopted.
The Declaration of Independence is made up of five distinct parts: the introduction; the preamble; the body, which can be divided into two sections; and a conclusion. The introduction states that this document will "declare" the "causes" that have made it necessary for the American colonies to leave the British Empire. Having stated in the introduction that independence is unavoidable, even necessary, the preamble sets out principles that were already recognized to be "self-evident" by most 18th- century Englishmen, closing with the statement that "a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [a people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." The first section of the body of the Declaration gives evidence of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" heaped upon the colonists by King George III. The second section of the body states that the colonists had appealed in vain to their "British brethren" for a redress of their grievances. Having stated the conditions that made independence necessary and having shown that those conditions existed in British North America, the Declaration concludes that "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."
Although Congress had adopted the Declaration submitted by the Committee of Five, the committee's task was not yet completed. Congress had also directed that the committee supervise the printing of the adopted document. The first printed copies of the Declaration of Independence were turned out from the shop of John Dunlap, official printer to the Congress. After the Declaration had been adopted, the committee took to Dunlap the manuscript document, possibly Jefferson's "fair copy" of his rough draft. On the morning of July 5, copies were dispatched by members of Congress to various assemblies, conventions, and committees of safety as well as to the commanders of Continental troops. Also on July 5, a copy of the printed version of the approved Declaration was inserted into the "rough journal" of the Continental Congress for July 4. The text was followed by the words "Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress, John Hancock, President. Attest. Charles Thomson, Secretary." It is not known how many copies John Dunlap printed on his busy night of July 4. There are 24 copies known to exist of what is commonly referred to as "the Dunlap broadside," 17 owned by American institutions, 2 by British institutions, and 5 by private owners.
EXTRA CREDIT ARTICLE - instructions for this article same as above
"We have this day restored the Sovereign (God) to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7Y1ougODMo link to clip for viewing - please copy and paste and watch...
Homework for WEEK 2 (Week 1 HW is still posted if needed)
1. Read Chapter 2 of "A Christian Manifesto" and write a brief summary of the main points - highlight and take note as as you read and be ready for discussion in class. This is very important as well for quizzes upcoming
2. Read the 3 articles below and write a brief summary of facts and your opinion regarding the articles
(all summaries should be well thought out and cover at least 1/2 a page)
Article 1 Officials cleared in prayer injunction case (Washington Times)
Two rural northern Florida school officials were found not guilty of violating an injunction against praying in school, a Florida judge ruled late Thursday in a contentious school prayer case that spurred a reaction from Congress earlier this week.
Hundreds of people waiting in the rain outside of a federal courthouse in Pensacola cheered just after 7:30 p.m. when U.S. District Judge Margaret C. "Casey" Rodgers ruled that Frank Lay, principal of Pace High School in Santa Rosa County, and his athletic director, Robert Freeman, didn't intentionally violate her order to not offer prayers at school-sponsored gatherings.
"We're very pleased," said Mathew Staver, spokesman for the Liberty Counsel, the Orlando-based legal group that represented the two men. "We'll now focus on getting the underlying order set aside or overturned by a higher court."
Glenn Katon, director of the Florida American Civil Liberty Union's religious freedom project, said the judge "made an honest evaluation of the facts and applied the law."
"I respect her ruling just as I hope school officials will respect her order prohibiting them from promoting their personal religious beliefs in the classroom and at school events," he added.
More than 60 members of Congress signed a letter Monday in support of the two school officials. Reps. Jeff Miller of Florida and J. Randy Forbes of Virginia, both Republicans, gave speeches Tuesday night on the floor of the House castigating the reasons for the case. Mr. Forbes said it had "the potential for the criminalization of prayer in the United States of America."
The ACLU sued the Santa Rosa County School District a year ago on behalf of two students who said some teachers and administrators were allowing prayers at school events, orchestrating separate religiously themed graduation services and proselytizing students during class and after school.
In January, the school district settled out of court with the ACLU, agreeing to several conditions, including the barring of all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events.
The ACLU complained to Judge Rodgers after Mr. Lay asked Mr. Freeman to offer mealtime prayers at a Jan. 28 lunch for school employees and booster club members who had helped with a school field house project. The judge then issued a contempt order for the two men.
When asked Thursday why he agreed to give the prayer, "It was just out of reflex," Mr. Freeman told the judge, according to the Pensacola News-Journal. His testimony was part of a 10-hour hearing involving several witnesses.
An estimated 1,000 demonstrators apparently including numerous Pace High School students and teachers were in the streets of downtown Pensacola throughout the day in support of the two men. Crowds began gathering at the federal courthouse at dawn. Some sang hymns such as "Amazing Grace;" others held signs criticizing the ACLU.
Had the men been found guilty, they faced up to six months in jail, a possible loss of their retirement benefits and $5,000 each in fines.
Article 2 - God, History, and the War of Ideas (Petermarshallministries.com)
Someone famously said "history is just one thing after another!" No, not from a Biblical point of view, it isn't. History is not just a list of what happened, when and where. History is a window through which we can see God's hand in human affairs. The German monk that started the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, said that history is "a demonstration, recollection, and sign of divine action and judgment, how God upholds, rules, obstructs, rewards, punishes, and honors the world, especially the human world." All of history is being managed by God. He sits outside of time and space, but He presides over the history of this inhabited planet, and is moving it along toward the time when it will be swallowed up in the final coming of the Kingdom of God. "All events," said the great reformer John Calvin, "are governed by God's secret plan." Were it not for history we would not even know God, for His revelation of Himself and His plan to redeem sinful and fallen human beings has been revealed to us in the historical record of the Bible. History, then, is a source of revelation and truth - about God, about ourselves, and about life. As we move deeper into the 21st Century we Americans find ourselves in a war with Islamofacist terrorists, or jihadis, who have hijacked Islam for the purposes of establishing their Islamic dictatorship - first in all Islamic nations and ultimately throughout the world. On the surface, this struggle with Islamic extremists seems to be a military and political one, but there is a deeper, spiritual issue. At the core, it is a battle for the souls of men between the satanically-inspired religion of Islam and God's plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. This battle is primarily a battle of ideas, as is always the case in the great struggles of human history. What should be of great concern to all who love our nation is whether modern Americans know our own history, and especially whether we know anything about the hand of God in it. How can we understand the American experiment; how can we understand who we are and what we are about if we do not know the truths of our history? And if we do not understand the original God-inspired vision and the Biblically-based ideas on which we were founded, then the American experiment in self-government is at risk of failing. It can fail, you know. The Founding Fathers were well aware that it could fail. As I have previously related in these commentaries, when Ben Franklin came out of the recently concluded Constitutional Convention proceedings in Philadelphia in 1787 one of the leading ladies of the city accosted him on the street: "Dr. Franklin, what manner of government have you given us," she queried. "A republic, Madam," replied Franklin, "if you can keep it." Exactly. But, the "keeping" of it is not an easy thing. If we should fail at the American experiment, how then can we hope to win the war for the souls of men against radical Islam, or any of the other spiritual struggles we will face in the course of this century? Keeping our republic, and succeeding in developing the vision God gave our forefathers requires that we educate our youth about American history in general, and God's hand in it in particular. In this regard, the latest surveys about our young people's knowledge of American history are downright frightening! The Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Wilmington, Delaware issued a report in September 2007 entitled Failing Our Students, Failing America. The report details the findings from a 60-question, multiple-choice test on American history, government, international relations, and market economy given to thousands of college freshmen and seniors at 50 different institutions. The average score for all the students was 52.9 percent. That's an "F"! Even for Harvard seniors, who were the highest scoring group, the average was only 69.6. That's a "D+." And what's even worse, the knowledge of civics was lower for college seniors than for freshmen. We are actually "dumbing down" our college students! A recent study done by the National Endowment for the Humanities discovered that over half of our high school seniors did not know which nations fought against America during World War II. Eighteen percent of them even thought that Germany was on our side! Good grief!! Of course, at the heart of education is reading ability. Those who don't read well, or who don't bother to read, aren't going to learn much. In the years since The Light and the Glory was published in 1977 I have discovered that the reading level of Americans has dropped precipitously. Never, in the first ten years after its publication, did anyone ever tell me that they found the book hard to read. But, in the last 20 years a number of people let slip to me that they found it to be a bit taxing. If you haven't read the book yet, don't let that scare you! It really isn't hard to read at all, but what it shows is how drastically our reading levels have slid in the last 30 years. And sure enough, the same National Endowment for the Humanities study reported that only 31 percent of adults have a rating of "proficient" in reading. Sadly, the study also tells us that only 52 percent of 18 to 24 year-olds read a book voluntarily, without it being assigned to them. A century ago we had the highest literacy rate in the world. No more. What are those Bible-based ideas on which the American experiment was founded? What are some the truths of our history which Americans must know in order to be good citizens in our society? Our moral leadership in the family of nations was announced by the Founding Fathers in 1776 with the creation of the Declaration of Independence. That document establishes our moral legitimacy. In the Declaration we made clear to the world that we were basing our undertakings on certain universal truths - they were true for all people of all times. These universal truth claims stand in stark contrast to today's post-modernist view that truth is relative - what's true for you may not be true for me, and vice-versa. In other words, says today's relativist, there's no such thing as truths that are true for everyone, so we really shouldn't even use the word truth any more. We should talk about "preferences" instead. In the Declaration the Founding Fathers stated that the self-evident and universal truths that are always true for everyone consist in certain God-given inalienable rights. These rights belong to every human being from the moment of conception, are bestowed by God on the individual by virtue of his or her creation, and cannot be lawfully taken away by any person or government. Indeed, government exists for the purpose of protecting and defending human beings in the exercise of those God-given rights, and derives its only just powers from those very rights. For example, government is legitimate only when it is based on the consent of the people. If it governs without this it infringes on the people's God-given right to liberty. Everything that the United States does, either in international relations or on the domestic front, ought to be a reflection of the Declaration of Independence and its principles. This document is our national creed; our national confession of faith; the primary statement of our national morality. Today's relativistic thinking, however, is seriously damaging our foreign policy, and could end up crippling us in the struggle against Islamic terrorism. Some of the American advertising that was done on international radio and television seems to give the impression that Muslims are happy here because we have a diverse society of "shared values." This message of toleration and diversity is very much the wrong signal to send to Muslims, who believe that Islam is absolutely true. In fact, it is much more likely to earn their contempt, because to Muslim "true believers" tolerance is a sign of moral weakness, not virtue. In their view, if you don't have any strong beliefs, such that you don't take a strong stand for the rightness and truthfulness of anything, then you are worthy of contempt. By the way, as a committed Christian, I would tend to agree with that viewpoint. I do not want to be guilty of an attitude of "contempt" for people that don't have any moral values, but they certainly cannot earn my respect. The message that we need to be sending to Muslim people around the world is that Muslims are perfectly free in America - not because of some rainbow policy of diversity - but because the United States views Muslims as human beings with the same God-given inalienable rights as the rest of us. The reason why this is such a powerful and important message to send to Muslims around the world is that many of them live under governments that deny the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to their own citizens. Muslims (and everyone else, for that matter) need to hear that this is who we are, and this is what we are about. Woe unto us if we try to use tolerance, relativism's child, in the midst of a war over truth. This is a struggle of one claim of truth over against another, and if we try to fight with tolerance as a weapon, we will find it to be a broken lance indeed. We dare not seem to be indifferent to truth in a conflict with a people that are satanically deceived into believing that they have absolute truth on their side. The freedom that we enjoy in our society appears to serve no purpose other than our personal pleasures, yet we are engaged in a war with a people who believe that everything in their lives should serve the purpose of submission to Allah. Only when Americans begin to recover the Biblical roots of our understanding of freedom are we going to develop the kind of moral courage the Founding Fathers displayed in the struggle to win our independence from Great Britain. They understood the connection between God and human freedom stated in such scriptures as 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Perhaps we're not going to win this century's wars until we have a nation-wide revival of true Christianity in America, and recover our moral backbone.
Article 3 - The Declaration of Independence: A History (Charter of Freedom National Archives)
Nations come into being in many ways. Military rebellion, civil strife, acts of heroism, acts of treachery, a thousand greater and lesser clashes between defenders of the old order and supporters of the new--all these occurrences and more have marked the emergences of new nations, large and small. The birth of our own nation included them all. That birth was unique, not only in the immensity of its later impact on the course of world history and the growth of democracy, but also because so many of the threads in our national history run back through time to come together in one place, in one time, and in one document: the Declaration of Independence.
Moving Toward Independence
The clearest call for independence up to the summer of 1776 came in Philadelphia on June 7. On that date in session in the Pennsylvania State House (later Independence Hall), the Continental Congress heard Richard Henry Lee of Virginia read his resolution beginning: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
The Lee Resolution was an expression of what was already beginning to happen throughout the colonies. When the Second Continental Congress, which was essentially the government of the United States from 1775 to 1788, first met in May 1775, King George III had not replied to the petition for redress of grievances that he had been sent by the First Continental Congress. The Congress gradually took on the responsibilities of a national government. In June 1775 the Congress established the Continental Army as well as a continental currency. By the end of July of that year, it created a post office for the "United Colonies."
In August 1775 a royal proclamation declared that the King's American subjects were "engaged in open and avowed rebellion." Later that year, Parliament passed the American Prohibitory Act, which made all American vessels and cargoes forfeit to the Crown. And in May 1776 the Congress learned that the King had negotiated treaties with German states to hire mercenaries to fight in America. The weight of these actions combined to convince many Americans that the mother country was treating the colonies as a foreign entity.
One by one, the Continental Congress continued to cut the colonies' ties to Britain. The Privateering Resolution, passed in March 1776, allowed the colonists "to fit out armed vessels to cruize [sic] on the enemies of these United Colonies." On April 6, 1776, American ports were opened to commerce with other nations, an action that severed the economic ties fostered by the Navigation Acts. A "Resolution for the Formation of Local Governments" was passed on May 10, 1776.
At the same time, more of the colonists themselves were becoming convinced of the inevitability of independence. Thomas Paine's Common Sense, published in January 1776, was sold by the thousands. By the middle of May 1776, eight colonies had decided that they would support independence. On May 15, 1776, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution that "the delegates appointed to represent this colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states."
It was in keeping with these instructions that Richard Henry Lee, on June 7, 1776, presented his resolution. There were still some delegates, however, including those bound by earlier instructions, who wished to pursue the path of reconciliation with Britain. On June 11 consideration of the Lee Resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to five, with New York abstaining. Congress then recessed for 3 weeks. The tone of the debate indicated that at the end of that time the Lee Resolution would be adopted. Before Congress recessed, therefore, a Committee of Five was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies' case for independence.
The Committee of Five
The committee consisted of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. In 1823 Jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee "unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams requesting their corrections. . . I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the Congress." (If Jefferson did make a "fair copy," incorporating the changes made by Franklin and Adams, it has not been preserved. It may have been the copy that was amended by the Congress and used for printing, but in any case, it has not survived. Jefferson's rough draft, however, with changes made by Franklin and Adams, as well as Jefferson's own notes of changes by the Congress, is housed at the Library of Congress.)
Jefferson's account reflects three stages in the life of the Declaration: the document originally written by Jefferson; the changes to that document made by Franklin and Adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the Committee of Five to the Congress; and the version that was eventually adopted.
On July 1, 1776, Congress reconvened. The following day, the Lee Resolution for independence was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies, New York not voting. Immediately afterward, the Congress began to consider the Declaration. Adams and Franklin had made only a few changes before the committee submitted the document. The discussion in Congress resulted in some alterations and deletions, but the basic document remained Jefferson's. The process of revision continued through all of July 3 and into the late morning of July 4. Then, at last, church bells rang out over Philadelphia; the Declaration had been officially adopted.
The Declaration of Independence is made up of five distinct parts: the introduction; the preamble; the body, which can be divided into two sections; and a conclusion. The introduction states that this document will "declare" the "causes" that have made it necessary for the American colonies to leave the British Empire. Having stated in the introduction that independence is unavoidable, even necessary, the preamble sets out principles that were already recognized to be "self-evident" by most 18th- century Englishmen, closing with the statement that "a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [a people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." The first section of the body of the Declaration gives evidence of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" heaped upon the colonists by King George III. The second section of the body states that the colonists had appealed in vain to their "British brethren" for a redress of their grievances. Having stated the conditions that made independence necessary and having shown that those conditions existed in British North America, the Declaration concludes that "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."
Although Congress had adopted the Declaration submitted by the Committee of Five, the committee's task was not yet completed. Congress had also directed that the committee supervise the printing of the adopted document. The first printed copies of the Declaration of Independence were turned out from the shop of John Dunlap, official printer to the Congress. After the Declaration had been adopted, the committee took to Dunlap the manuscript document, possibly Jefferson's "fair copy" of his rough draft. On the morning of July 5, copies were dispatched by members of Congress to various assemblies, conventions, and committees of safety as well as to the commanders of Continental troops. Also on July 5, a copy of the printed version of the approved Declaration was inserted into the "rough journal" of the Continental Congress for July 4. The text was followed by the words "Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress, John Hancock, President. Attest. Charles Thomson, Secretary." It is not known how many copies John Dunlap printed on his busy night of July 4. There are 24 copies known to exist of what is commonly referred to as "the Dunlap broadside," 17 owned by American institutions, 2 by British institutions, and 5 by private owners.
EXTRA CREDIT ARTICLE - instructions for this article same as above
Hijacking the Declaration
by Gary DeMar, Apr 28, 2008
It’s been said that you can tell a book by its cover. You can also tell a book by those who endorse it. Consider Alan Dershowitz’s Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking our Declaration of Independence.[1] The book is endorsed by at least two high-profile published atheists (Steven Pinker and Sam Harris), the president of the ACLU (Nadine Strossen, who speaks to atheist groups and may be an atheist herself), an anti-Christian and self-avowed atheistic Congressman (Pete Stark, D-CA), and the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Barry W. Lynn) who rarely has anything good to say about religion and the public square and whose organization takes the atheist position in court battles.
Their endorsement of Blasphemy and its defense of the Declaration of Independence over against its Christian interpreters made me laugh out loud. How can any of these critics denounce the “Christian Right” and its use of the Declaration when the Declaration asserts that our “inalienable rights” are an endowment from the Creator?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Dershowitz and his atheistic supporters are hypocrites. Their attack should be on the Declaration itself since it not only grounds our nation’s most fundamental rights in a Creator, but it also acknowledges that this Creator is “the Supreme Judge of the world.”
In his chapter titled “The Christian Right’s Strategy,” Dershowitz attacks “serious scholars” who argue that the Declaration includes Christian elements.
Anson Phelps Stoke [sic], author of a three-volume study of church and state in America, published in 1950, argues that Christian values “permeate” the Declaration of Independence. “The ideal of the Declaration is of course a definitely Christian one,” especially when “considered along with the references to the Deity.” He believes the Declaration is based on “fundamental Christian teachings,” including “our duties toward God.”[2]
Stokes was not a part of the Christian Right since it didn’t exist in 1950. So it seems that Dershowitz’s Christian conspiracy theory is just like so many other conspiracy theories—contrived to obscure the truth. If a non-Christian like Stokes believed the “Declaration may be accepted as evidence that the founders of the country . . . were sympathetic with the fundamental theistic belief and with the moral and social teachings of the Gospels,”[3] then it seems that Christian Right defenders of the Declaration can’t be too far off the mark if they believe something similar.
Dershowitz admits that “it would be wrong to conclude that the Declaration of Independence supports the entire agenda of those who would remove all references to God from public pronouncements. Although that would be my strong personal preference, I cannot find support for it in the history or text of the Declaration.”[4] So what would be Dershowitz’s substitute for the God-language of the Declaration and countless other official government documents that mention God and Jesus Christ? For Dershowitz, Nature is our god. “Ultimately all scientific, empirical, or logical arguments for God’s existence must fail under the accepted rules of science, empiricism, and logic. The only plausible argument for God is an unscientific, antiempirical, and illogical reliance on blind (deaf and dumb) faith—precisely the sort of faith Jefferson rejected.”[5]
Dershowitz’s dilemma is that he has no way to account for science, logic, and morality given his materialistic assumptions. At least Jefferson had enough sense to recognize he needed a god, even if it was a god of his own invention, to make his worldview work. Dershowitz, writing in his book Shouting Fire, admits that “the diverse components of nature” cannot “be translated into morality, legality, or rights.”[6] Without God as the grantor of rights, as the Declaration declares, Mr. Dershowitz has no way to account for rights and certainly no way to legitimately secure them.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Intro to US Government/Worldviews
The history of America is a story that is filled with constant reminders of the blessings of God upon our nation. The greatest of those blessings is the freedom that has been established, preserved, defended, advanced and shared by every American generation. Those who have gone before us have truly set the bar high - the ideals of equality, liberty and justice for all were truly radical when they were proposed over 200 years ago and they are still revolutionary today.
Paul wrote 2,000 years ago, inspired by the Holy Spirit, telling mankind that freedom, true freedom - eternal freedom from sin and judgment come through the person and power of Jesus Christ: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free." (Gal. 5:1) God has, in his sovereign choice, established America, as pilgrim John Winthrop prophesied, as "a city upon a hill," the light of which would illuminate the nations and serve as a witness of the power of Christ to a watching world.
Lincoln described her as "the last, best hope of earth," and so she remains. The world still looks to the shining torch held by lady liberty - her burning flame of freedom still is extended to all those who yearn to breathe free. It is the goal of this class to learn of her history through the lives, words, ideals, and deeds of those who have given us such an heritage.
Those heroes have ever been with us - in fact, they stand shoulder to shoulder, in a continuous line from our time all the way back to the gangplank of the Mayflower. As we look at them, through eyes of gratitude and a veil of thankful tears, my prayer is that you will stand in awe and give thanks to God for the blessings that are ours. We must never forget them.
I believe we stand at a crossroad of our history and it will fall upon Godly citizens like you to fulfill your duty and responsibility as Americans to stand as watchmen upon the wall. It has been said that "freedom requires eternal vigilance." It is now your turn to stand guard - are you ready?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States, where men WERE free." Ronald Reagan
Homework - Week One
1. Read Chapter 1 of "A Christian Manifesto" in preparation for class discussion on Sept 21 Take notes in the margins, highlight main points, or take notes on separate sheet to use for study and class discussion. Read twice if needed to fully understand. Think through the concepts - it's very important!
2. Read the three articles below and write a brief summary of the articles with your opinion of the issue/topic/worldview discussed.
ARTICLE 1 - Homeschooler ordered to attend public school
Paul wrote 2,000 years ago, inspired by the Holy Spirit, telling mankind that freedom, true freedom - eternal freedom from sin and judgment come through the person and power of Jesus Christ: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free." (Gal. 5:1) God has, in his sovereign choice, established America, as pilgrim John Winthrop prophesied, as "a city upon a hill," the light of which would illuminate the nations and serve as a witness of the power of Christ to a watching world.
Lincoln described her as "the last, best hope of earth," and so she remains. The world still looks to the shining torch held by lady liberty - her burning flame of freedom still is extended to all those who yearn to breathe free. It is the goal of this class to learn of her history through the lives, words, ideals, and deeds of those who have given us such an heritage.
Those heroes have ever been with us - in fact, they stand shoulder to shoulder, in a continuous line from our time all the way back to the gangplank of the Mayflower. As we look at them, through eyes of gratitude and a veil of thankful tears, my prayer is that you will stand in awe and give thanks to God for the blessings that are ours. We must never forget them.
I believe we stand at a crossroad of our history and it will fall upon Godly citizens like you to fulfill your duty and responsibility as Americans to stand as watchmen upon the wall. It has been said that "freedom requires eternal vigilance." It is now your turn to stand guard - are you ready?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States, where men WERE free." Ronald Reagan
Homework - Week One
1. Read Chapter 1 of "A Christian Manifesto" in preparation for class discussion on Sept 21 Take notes in the margins, highlight main points, or take notes on separate sheet to use for study and class discussion. Read twice if needed to fully understand. Think through the concepts - it's very important!
2. Read the three articles below and write a brief summary of the articles with your opinion of the issue/topic/worldview discussed.
ARTICLE 1 - Homeschooler ordered to attend public school
A New Hampshire court ordered a home-schooled Christian girl to attend a public school this week after a judge criticized the "rigidity" of her mother's religious views and said the 10-year-old needed to consider other worldviews as she matures.
Ever since the judge's ruling came out in July, the case has aroused the interest of home-schooling groups nationwide, whohave asked why a court has the power to decide whether someone's religious views are too extreme.
The girl's mother, Brenda Voydatch, has engaged the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to contest the ruling, in which the judge granted a request by the girl's father, Martin Kurowski, that the girl go to a public school.
On Tuesday, the girl, Amanda Kurowski, started fifth grade at an elementary school in Meredith, N.H., under court order. Amanda's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs ... suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," District Court Judge Lucinda V. Sadler said.
The case is the latest in a series of disputes this summer which have tested the limits of parents' right to raise their children in line with their religious beliefs.
• Two court cases saw parents who relied on prayer being tried for the deaths of their children. In Wisconsin, Dale and Leilani Neumann were found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11-year-old diabetic daughter, Kara. In Oregon, Carl and Raylene Worthington were acquitted of manslaughter in the pneumonia death of their 15-month-old daughter, though the father was found guilty of a lesser count, criminal mistreatment.
• The case of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old Minnesota boy with Hodgkin's lymphoma, precipitated a national manhunt that dominated the news in May. Mother Colleen Hauser defied legal authorities that ordered the boy to be treated by oncologists and fled with her son, citing family beliefs in traditional American Indian medicine.
But those cases all involved physical danger and the state attempting to prove that parents were acting recklessly. In the New Hampshire case, the court ruled that extreme religiosity by itself constitutes grounds on which to rule against a parent's wishes.
According to court documents filed in Laconia, a small city in the central New Hampshire's Belknap County, Amanda is a well-adjusted childwhose parents were divorced in 1999.
The mother has primary physical custody of Amanda, whom she has home-schooled for several years in math, English, social studies, science, handwriting, spelling and the Bible.
The course load, except for the Bible study, is similar to what public students get and the mother's home schooling has "more than kept up with the academic requirements of the [local] school system," the judge's statement said. The child also takes supplemental public school classes in art, Spanish, theater and physical education and is involved in extracurricular sports such as gymnastics, horseback riding, softball and basketball.
Her parents have been feuding for years over how she should be educated. The father tried to get Amanda removed from the mother's tutelage in 2006, but another judge ruled against him. However, the court did appoint Janice McLaughlin as a guardian of the child's legal interests.
The father continued to push for some changes in the way his daughter was educated.
"[Mr. Kurowski] believes that exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world which requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view," Judge Sadler's ruling said.
The ruling quoted Mrs. McLaughlin as saying the child "appeared to reflect the mother's rigidity on questions of faith." The child would "be best served by exposure to different points of view at a time in her life when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief and behavior," it added.
The ruling also said Amanda told a counselor she was distressed by her father's refusal to accept her religious beliefs and that "his choice to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does."
According to the brief filed by the child's mother, Mrs. McLaughlin dismissed critical evidence and key witnesses in the case because they were "connected to Christianity."
When the mother tried to give the guardian material on home-schooling, Mrs. McLaughlin reportedly said: "I don't want to hear it. It's all Christian-based
What if this were Muslims who don't want their children exposed to infidel thoughts?" he asked. "Can a judge come into my home -- even if my wife and I agree to home-school our children -- and say it's to their best interest to put them in government schools?"
He added: "Does anybody seriously believe a public school will broaden this girl's views on comparative religious thought? The schools are the number-one censors of religious thought."
New Hampshire state law mandates the judge must find some evidence of harm to a child before removing her from a home-school environment, Mr. Napier said.
"The judge seems to have some allergic reactions to the fact this talented 10-year-old girl has made some decisions on her faith," he said. "The judge didn't consider and weigh the constitutional rights of the mother to raise the child in the way she sees fit."
Elizabeth Donovan, attorney for the child's father, said the father is basically objecting to the type of home-schooling Amanda is receiving.
"She is a beautiful, brilliant 10-year-old girl," Ms. Donovan said. "Her classroom was the corner of her mother's bedroom and a computer screen. She was not having interaction with other children, no group dynamic, no opportunity to share with other students in a day-to-day school setting.
"If she was excelling in a home setting, what might she do in a broader, more challenging public school setting?"
Ms. Donovan also denied that the court was anti-religious or illegitimately intruding into a family issue, noting that it was a custody dispute in which the parents had asked the court to intervene.
"It has been conveyed [that] the court is reaching into this family's life and plucking the child out of her home," the attorney said, adding the mother had earlier agreed to allow the court to decide the child's educational future. "There have been three counselors for this child and all have recommended public school."
Mike Donnelly, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association in Purcellville, Va., called the judge's ruling "unreasonable and inappropriate."
"The fact that the court talks about the religion of the child and says it thinks the child ought to be in public school because she needs to be socialized shows they have overstepped their authority, which is troubling," he said. "The court cannot just on its own pull opinions out of the air.
"A lot of single moms are concerned about this case because their ex-husbands could use the home-schooling issue to get back at them as has happened in this case," he added. "And now 10-year-olds can't have firm religious convictions?"
ARTICLE 2 - American by the Grace of God
Every once in a while I come across something that reminds me what a gift of God it is to be an American, and to have the privilege of living in this country. Such is the powerful story of one Peter W. Schramm, born in Hungary, who came to the United States as a young boy with his parents and sister in 1956, refugees from the vicious Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising.
I well remember those young Hungarian Freedom Fighters, and their futile but heroic fight against the overwhelming military force of a brutal Soviet invasion. As Schramm tells it, "on October 23, 1956, students gathered at the foot of Sandor Petofi's statue in Budapest and read his poem "Rise Magyar!", made famous in the democratic revolution of 1848. Workers, and even soldiers, soon joined the students. The demonstrators took over the state-run radio station and the Communist Party offices and toppled a huge statue of Stalin, dragging it through the streets. Rebellion soon spread throughout the country. The demonstrators-now Freedom Fighters-held Soviet occupation forces at bay for several days.
"On November 1, the Hungarian Prime Minister announced that Hungary would withdraw from the Warsaw Pact [the Soviet military organization for all their satellite and occupied countries, Ed.]. At dawn on November 4, the Soviets launched a major invasion of Hungary, in an offensive involving tens of thousands of additional troops, air and artillery assaults, and 6,000 tanks."
I vividly remember what Schramm was writing about, for though I was only 16 years old in 1956, I understood clearly what was happening. I listened to the TV and radio news stories of these young Hungarians (many of them no older than I was), armed only with Molotov cocktails (homemade gasoline bombs in bottles), rifles, pistols, hand grenades, and whatever weapons they could steal from dead Russian soldiers, fighting bravely in the streets against tanks and artillery and aircraft. The West, and particularly the United States, stood by, watched, and did nothing but lodge protests with the Soviets, while daily the Freedom Fighters broadcast urgent pleas for help. I recollect clearly my anger and frustration with the Eisenhower Administration for not going to their aid. Of course, that quite possibly would have meant war with the Soviet Union, which we weren't willing to risk in order to rescue Hungary.
The resistance was crushed in less than a week. "The last free Hungarian radio broadcast spent its final hours repeating the Gettysburg Address in seven languages," wrote Schramm, "followed by an S.O.S."
Stop reading this, and think for a moment of what that last sentence means.
These young people in a foreign country-who undoubtedly had never been to America and knew little of our history-so valued the timeless principles expressed by our greatest President in his brief but eloquent remarks at Gettysburg that they chose them for their last words. How can anyone begrudge Abraham Lincoln a prominent place in the pantheon of men who have made a godly impact on the course of human history? When the Civil War threatened America's future, Lincoln was raised up by God to save the nation by summoning our people to return to the Biblically-based moral and spiritual ideals annunciated in the Declaration of Independence.
Yet, in recent years, he has been falsely accused by some would-be historians as a racist, and is still tragically misunderstood as a tyrant, destroyer of constitutional liberties, and perpetrator of big government (none of which are true) by many Southerners. In the Civil War book of our adult history series, which I am now working on, I shall do my best to set that record straight. Meanwhile, back to Schramm's story:
"Over 20,000 Hungarians were tried and sentenced for participation in the uprising, hundreds receiving the death sentence. An estimated 200,000 Hungarians-of a population of nine million-became refugees. 47,000 came to the United States." One of those young Freedom Fighters somehow escaped the Soviets, and late that fall ended up at Mt. Hermon Prep School, in Massachusetts, where I was a one-year Senior. We were honored to have him with us.
Peter Schramm and his family also came to America in that fall of 1956, when he was not quite ten years old. He, his parents, and his four-year-old sister shared a small apartment with his father's parents and his brother near the eastern railroad station in Budapest. But his story actually begins some years before then.
When the Communists took control of Hungary in 1949, they "expropriated" his parents' little textile shop-he wrote that it was about half the size of his current living room-and everything in it. That same year, they sentenced his father's father to ten years of hard labor. What was his crime? He had in his possession a small American flag. When asked at his "trial" (these were nothing but "show" trials, in an attempt to deceive the Western press) why he had it, he replied that it "represented freedom better than any other symbol he knew." At that time, Peter's father, William, tried to persuade his wife Rose to leave the country, but she couldn't bear to break the ties to family and friends. Soon, William was sentenced to a year of prison. Someone had turned him in for calling a Communist a tyrant (which he had!). When he was released, he washed windows and made illegal whiskey to try and feed his family.
The grandfather got an early release from the labor camp in 1956, and returned to the family "looking like a victim of the Holocaust," Schramm writes. But his spirit had not been broken. The first thing he wanted to know was whether the family still had the American flag. They didn't, of course; it had been confiscated by the police. But incredibly, Peter's father William had managed to find another one, and had carefully hid it away. When they took it from its hiding place Peter says that just "seeing that flag somehow erased much of the pain and torment of my grandfather's years of imprisonment; it seemed to give him hope."
Now, because the Freedom Fighters had taken over the railroad station, Soviet tanks were positioned in their neighborhood. The fighting was fierce. Bodies lay everywhere; one lay just outside their window for days. As it became clear that the revolution would fail, everyone knew that the Soviet oppression would come down on them harder than ever. If they were going to get out, it had to be now, while there was still a chance.
The deciding event happened one day when William went out to get bread. A hand grenade landed next to him, but miraculously failed to go off. When he came back to the apartment-but let Peter tell it: "He came home and announced to my mother that he was going to leave the country whether she would come or not. Mom said, "O.K., William. We will come if Peter agrees. Ask Peter."
"But where are we going?" I asked.
"We are going to America," he said.
"Why America?" I prodded.
"Because, son. We were born Americans, but in the wrong place."
"He said that as naturally as if I had asked him what was the color of the sky. It was so obvious to him why we should head for America that he never entertained any other option. Of course, he hadn't studied American history or politics, but he had come to know deep in his heart the meaning of tyranny. He hungered for its opposite and knew where to find it. America represented to my father, as Lincoln put it, 'the last, best hope of earth.' "
These sentiments about America were not unusual among Hungarians at the time, Schramm notes. "Among the Hungarians I knew-aside from those who were true believers in the Communists-this was the common sense of the subject. It was self-evident to them."
They could not tell anyone that they were leaving, not even Peter's grandparents and uncle. In that way, the relatives could answer truthfully to the police that they knew nothing about it. So, the little family had to leave with next to nothing-a small bag of clothes and a doll for each child and one small bag for both parents. And William also had 17 one dollar bills, "which he had been hoarding for years; good as gold, he always said" [Alas, that was then, Ed.].
Boarding a train headed toward the Austrian border, they discovered that many of their fellow passengers had the same idea. The Russians were stopping the trains and searching them, but the Schramms kept their heads down and said nothing to anyone.
When they left the train with hundreds of others, it was dark, and the border lay many miles away, across fields and farms. In spite of trying to keep separated and take different paths, they soon began drifting together, since they were all headed in the same direction. Haystacks had to be avoided, because Russian soldiers often hid in them, and they were told never to respond to a crying child, since that was a favorite Russian trick. Soon they came across a boy whose father had been shot, and took him into their group.
Finally, the moment came. "We crossed a little bridge in the dark before morning. Someone heard the sound of German on the other side of the bridge. It was the Austrian border post!"
They were free, at last.
At first they were led to a big barn in Nickelsdorf, Austria, where they slept, then moved to an Army camp near Innsbruck, where they were housed and fed. Peter's father got a job while they were waiting to be interviewed for refugee placement by the embassies of different countries. When the representative from the American embassy came, he asked William if he had any relatives in America. There were none. "Don't you know anyone in America?" was the next question. As it so happened, they did.
Back in 1946, before Peter had been born, his father had managed to build a car out of spare parts, which was a rare thing in ravaged post-war Hungary. He would scour the countryside in it, looking for junk to trade or sell. On one such trip he had come across a broken-down Volkswagen, driven by a de-commissioned U.S. officer who had been born in Hungary and was touring the country preparatory to returning to America. After Peter's father helped him get the car running, he refused payment, but did take the grateful driver's card. It read: "Joseph Moser, DDS, Hermosa Beach, California." "If you ever need anything," Moser told him, "don't hesitate to call." William had given the card to Peter's mother for safekeeping, and by the grace of God, she had brought it in her satchel! They showed the card to the American, and he promised to check it out.
He followed through, and surprisingly (or maybe not, if you know the ways of the Lord!), Dr. Moser was still in Hermosa Beach. Within a week the Schramms were sent to Munich, and then took a plane to New York City. On Christmas morning, they were taken to Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, for processing, and a few weeks later took a train to Los Angeles, where they were met by Dr. Moser and his family.
Peter continues the story: "Sponsorship meant that they had to guarantee that we would not become a burden to the American people. (Moser) had to house and feed us for awhile. Mom and Dad both got jobs right away, Dad at the local newspaper lifting heavy things, and Mom cleaning houses. Soon we had a little beach shack to live in, and my parents were able to purchase their first restaurant with their savings and a bank-financed loan. The whole family went to work. We had to tear the place apart before we could open it. After it was opened, my sister and I washed dishes as Mom and Dad cooked and waited on tables."
About the time Peter went to high school the family moved to Studio City and bought a bigger restaurant. Schramm's Hungarian Restaurant was located across the street from some of the movie studios. After graduating from Hollywood High in 1964, he enrolled at San Fernando Valley State College (now California State University, Northridge) while continuing to work for his parents. By this time, Peter had become an avid reader, and was beginning to build his own library.
But he had not yet learned what he would later come to understand about American history and politics. Sadly, he notes, "even in the early '60s, (before 'political correctness' had been heard of), it was already common for teachers and professors to teach that America was an amazingly hypocritical place. All I needed to know about Abraham Lincoln, one teacher said, was that he was a racist."
Thankfully, he did not imbibe this poison, and through becoming involved in California Republican politics was eventually led to a doctoral program in government at Claremont Graduate School in 1971. There, he "came to understand what Lincoln meant when he said that the ideas of the Declaration of Independence were the 'electric cord' that linked all Americans together, as though we were 'blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration.' This was what it meant to be an American."
It still is.
Schramm writes: "America became home to me, and these days I continue my life as a student of America. The difference is that now a university pays me to study, rather than my paying for the privilege. Here at a liberal arts college in central Ohio, I'm in the ironic position of teaching . . . Americans . . . how to think about their country. . ."
"When I teach them about American politics and American history, I start with a simple thing about their country and themselves. I tell them that they are the fortunate of the earth, among the blessed of all times and places. I tell them this is a thing that should be as obvious to them as it was to my father. And their blessing, their great good fortune, lies in the nation into which they were born. I tell them that their country, the United States of America, is not only the most powerful and the most prosperous country on earth, but the most free and the most just. Then I do my best to tell them how and why this is so. And I teach them about the principles from which those blessings of liberty flow. I invite them to consider whether they can have any greater honor than to pass undiminished to their children and grandchildren this great inheritance of freedom."
Amen, and amen.
ARTICLE 3 - From a Secular Humanism Website - Humanism is the foundation for the vast majority of curriculum in public schools today...
What Is Secular Humanism?
Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:
- A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
- Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
- A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
- A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
- A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
- A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
- A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
How Do Secular Humanists View Religious and Supernatural Claims?
Secular humanists accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other "spiritual" beings outside the realm of the natural universe. Supernatural events such as miracles (in which physical laws are defied) and psi phenomena, such as ESP, telekinesis, etc., are not dismissed out of hand, but are viewed with a high degree of skepticism.
Are Secular Humanists Atheists?
Secular humanists are generally nontheists. They typically describe themselves as nonreligious. They hail from widely divergent philosophical and religious backgrounds.
Thus, secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. Secular humanists look to the methodology of science as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share, acknowledging that new discoveries will always alter and expand our understanding of it and perhaps change our approach to ethical issues as well. In any case their cosmic outlook draws primarily from human experiences and scientific knowledge.
What Is The Origin of Secular Humanism?
Secular humanism as an organized philosophical system is relatively new, but its foundations can be found in the ideas of classical Greek philosophers such as the Stoics and Epicureans as well as in Chinese Confucianism. These philosophical views looked to human beings rather than gods to solve human problems.
During the Dark Ages of Western Europe, humanist philosophies were suppressed by the political power of the church. Those who dared to express views in opposition to the prevailing religious dogmas were banished, tortured or executed. Not until the Renaissance of the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries, with the flourishing of art, music, literature, philosophy and exploration, would consideration of the humanist alternative to a god-centered existence be permitted. During the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, with the development of science, philosophers finally began to openly criticize the authority of the church and engage in what became known as "free thought."
The nineteenth century Freethought movement of America and Western Europe finally made it possible for the common citizen to reject blind faith and superstition without the risk of persecution. The influence of science and technology, together with the challenges to religious orthodoxy by such celebrity freethinkers as Mark Twain and Robert G. Ingersoll brought elements of humanist philosophy even to mainline Christian churches, which became more concerned with this world, less with the next.
In the twentieth century scientists, philosophers, and progressive theologians began to organize in an effort to promote the humanist alternative to traditional faith-based world views. These early organizers classified humanism as a non-theistic religion which would fulfill the human need for an ordered ethical/philosophical system to guide one's life, a "spirituality" without the supernatural. In the last thirty years, those who reject supernaturalism as a viable philosophical outlook have adopted the term "secular humanism" to describe their non-religious life stance.
Critics often try to classify secular humanism as a religion. Yet secular humanism lacks essential characteristics of a religion, including belief in a deity and an accompanying transcendent order. Secular humanists contend that issues concerning ethics, appropriate social and legal conduct, and the methodologies of science are philosophical and are not part of the domain of religion, which deals with the supernatural, mystical and transcendent.
Secular humanism, then, is a philosophy and world view which centers upon human concerns and employs rational and scientific methods to address the wide range of issues important to us all. While secular humanism is at odds with faith-based religious systems on many issues, it is dedicated to the fulfillment of the individual and humankind in general. To accomplish this end, secular humanism encourages a commitment to a set of principles which promote the development of tolerance and compassion and an understanding of the methods of science, critical analysis, and philosophical reflection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)