Posts Tagged ‘Humanism’
“So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat…” (Joshua 6:20)
I started writing this post months ago but set it aside as other things became more pressing. With the recent 4th Circuit ruling upholding a terrible lower court ruling that saying “Jesus” during a public prayer is unconstitutional, I thought it was time to finish this post off. If you were unaware of the ruling, please read Ken Klukowski’s piece in his blog at the Washington Examiner where he concludes:
“As I explain in my law review article, “In Whose Name We Pray,” published by Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, not only does Marsh v. Chambers allow “sectarian” prayers (i.e. mentioning Jesus), it would violate the Establishment Clause for any government official—including any federal judge—to censor the content of anyone’s prayers.
Under our Constitution, every American can pray in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, and government never has a right to interfere with religious beliefs.
This is the latest in a string of disappointing lower court decisions on public prayer. It’s time for the Supreme Court to revisit this issue.”
I agree. Further, lets examine what Jefferson meant when he wrote his oft-quoted letter to the Baptists in Connecticut.
In October 1801, President Thomas Jefferson received a letter from a committee of individuals at the head of the Danbury Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut, including the minister who was a friend of Jefferson’s, on the subject of religious liberty. Both their letter and Jefferson’s reply can be read on this page:
David Barton has written a wonderful article analyzing this church and state issue which I highly recommend.
I will quote from it and then share some other thoughts:
“Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.
For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.”
The truly amazing thing that nobody seems to talk about is that when Jefferson wrote his letter, 2 states HAD STATE RELIGIONS. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut had written into their constitutions establishments of religious practices. They did away with them in 1833 and 1818 respectively. When I heard David Barton mention this on Glenn Beck’s TV show a year or so ago, I had to go look it up myself to make sure.
In 1639, Connecticut created its Fundamental Orders, which were the first written constitution in this country (causing Connecticut to nickname themselves the “constitution state”). In this document they established themselves as a Christian state in these words:
“…do, for ourselves and our Successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation to gather, to maintain and pressure the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practised amongst vs;…”
In 1662, the Connecticut Colony Charter was granted by Charles the 2nd which continued this belief in this language:
“And for the directing, ruleing and disposing of all other matters and things whereby our said people, Inhabitants there, may bee soe religiously, peaceably and civilly Governed as their good life and orderly Conversacon may wynn and invite the Natives of the Country to the knowledge and obedience of the onely true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our Royall intencons and the Adventurers free profession is the onely and principall end of this Plantacon; WILLING, Commanding and requireing, and by these presents, for vs, our heires and Successors, Ordaineing and appointeing.”
Clearly, Connecticut was a Christian state dedicated to being based upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Massachusetts on the other hand, went much further. Drafted in 1779 by John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin, and ratified in 1780, this document contained several provisions that clearly establish the Christian religion.
In the first part of the constitution declaring the rights of the people, the 2nd and 3rd articles read (emphasis added):
“Article II. It is the right as well as 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…”
“Article III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”
This is nothing short of stunning! At the time Jefferson wrote his private letter to the Danbury Baptists, Massachusetts was forcing the citizens to pay taxes to support churches whether or not those citizens attended a church. Jefferson never said a thing about this practice! There was no cry from him of a problem in Massachusetts but he was most certainly aware of this practice which had been codified into supreme law by John Adams, Sam Adams, and James Bowdoin.
Before moving onto the next part of their constitution I must point out article 4 which follows.
“Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”
This will be taken into account below, but it’s clearly an indication that Massachusetts was identifying itself an independent state and upon joining the federal body would only delegate certain powers to the federal body.
In Massachusett’s “Part the Second: The Frame of Government” we see how they would elect officers also took into account an establishment of the Christian religion.
“Art. II. The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; and unless he shall, at the same time, be seized, in his own right, of a freehold, within the commonwealth, of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.”
They further required anyone taking office to make this oath:
Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:
“I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected.”
They even openly declare in chapter 5 of the constitution that Harvard university was established for the “advantage of the Christian religion.” I wonder how they might feel about Harvard fulfilling that mission today?
Clearly Massachusetts had established a religion and even required its office holders to declare a firm belief in Christianity.
So what did Jefferson mean in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists? Clearly it wasn’t to prevent a church from influencing government, or to prevent invoking the name of “Jesus” in a public prayer. Jefferson understood 3 things very clearly as they were written into the U.S. constitution.
1) Article VI: “[legislators and officers must support this constitution]… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
2) Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”
3) Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The first, Article VI, was clearly written in response to the Framer’s distaste for the Church of England’s influence to prescribe the beliefs of an individual before allowing them to hold national public office. (The difference in MA was they did not hold people to a specific sect but just mandated they must be Christian. Another factor is MA is not the United States as specified in this article.)
The second specifically forbids the federal government from medling with religion or interfering in the free speech of anyone else.
Neither of these items forbids religious leaders from making statements regarding politics, but they prevent the establishment of a national religion or any kind of litmus test to hold office. The religious pastors of the Revolutionary era stirred the souls of the people to rise up and cast off England and nobody condemned them in those actions (except perhaps the pro-England factions). It was clearly within the freedom of speech rights of religious leaders to participate in civic affairs, but not vice-versa for the federal government to meddle in religious sects.
The third element, the 10th Amendment, Jefferson clearly understood when as governor of Virginia, he called for a day of thanksgiving and prayer, but as president of the United States, he was hesitant to do so because he recognized the differing roles of state versus federal involvement.
Said Jefferson to the Reverent Samuel Miller on Miller’s recommendation for a national day of fasting and prayer:
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. …But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from…civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.”
So Jefferson signed the state level observance, but felt he didn’t have the right or ability to do it at the federal level because it was reserved to the states through the Constitution.
Dallin Oaks, a well respected judge for many years and now a General Authority in the LDS church, recently said this at a speech he gave at Chapman University:
“The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to forbid a national church of the kind found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the First Amendment’s direction that the United States shall have “no law [prohibiting] the free exercise [of religion].” For almost a century this guarantee of religious freedom has been understood as a limitation on state as well as federal power.”
As he notes, for the first century or more of our nation’s history, states had the power and authority to establish religious tests and even force citizens through taxation to support Christianity, deeming it in the public good and for the benefit of morality and even the preservation of the civil government. It was only after progressive elements came into power in the courts that these views were overturned and stripped from the states.
Now before someone jumps on me and says “Oak wants to establish the LDS faith as the Utah state religion” lets just put that to rest. My purpose in writing this post is to point out the fallacy of the “church and state” argument that is created by those that uphold a single quote from Jefferson’s private letter, and then ignore all his other writings which would clearly explain what he was talking about.
Religious leaders should have every right to speak out on any political matter without fear of losing their tax-exempt status. People can pray and speak in public and public schools and invoke the name of Jesus in the course of doing so. These are first amendment rights. It is a violation of the constitution for anyone, especially a national official, legislator, or judges to proscribe people in those practices, or to establish a particular sect to the exclusion of others (ex. The Church of England).
This nation was founded upon the principles of Christianity and ensuring people had the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. Today’s vocal minority is stripping that right from those that worship God with the blessing and collusion of the federal government to establish their religion, secular humanism, and in the process, laying flat Jefferson’s wall of separation they claim as their ensign.
BYU’s Department of Education has published their Spring 2011 edition of McKay Today Magazine and contained in this small compilation is a tribute by former dean Robert Patterson to none other than John Goodlad. Susie Schnell sent me a link to it and even though it’s an article that has been seen on BYU’s website in the past, they chose to re-emphasize their complete and utter devotion to a man who is seeking the overthrow of all that BYU supposedly stands for.
First and foremost, lets be 100% clear that John Goodlad is an anti-Christ, and in LDS terminology, we would also call him a Korihor. He is an atheist, humanist, socialist, who espouses population control, constructivist math, implementing the gay agenda in the classroom, and having teachers introduce Marxist social justice in the classroom. Goodlad invited Bill Ayers, the godless Marxist terrorist turned educator to be the keynote speaker at his NNER conference last October. None of these philosophies are worthy of BYU’s mission or standards, neither does it correspond with direct teachings from the Book of Mormon which instruct us that both our secular teachers, and ecclesiastical leaders, should be individuals who walk in God’s paths or we should not trust them.
Mosiah 23:14 “And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments.”
The BYU Education Department’s infatuation with Goodlad is completely independent of the LDS church. The church may own the school, but once teachers have tenure their ideology comes out without much fear of retribution in spite of the poison they may subtly distribute to students who believe their teachers are only espousing God’s truths and not the philosophies of men. They embrace Goodlad’s worldly philosophies because he is nationally prominent and has bestowed honors upon them and their college of education, specifically naming two individuals (Steve Baugh and John Rosenberg) as AED Scholars (Agenda for Education in a Democracy), and working with BYU for decades within his national network.
There are three dangers that threaten the church from within, and the authorities need to awaken to the fact that the people should be warned unceasingly against them. As I see them, they are flattery of prominent men in the world, false educational ideas, and sexual impurity.
Joseph F. Smith
2 out of 3 ain’t good.
BYU’s Ed department’s embrace of Goodlad shows they have utterly failed to follow the counsel of leaders, and of their core scriptural beliefs.
Last year (2010) when BYU’s Education Department was under attack from us for being members of John Goodlad’s NNER, which was trying to force BYU to accept the gay agenda into their school, the Provo Daily Herald reported that BYU was dropping its membership with the NNER (National Network for Educational Renewal) for “financial” reasons. However, in that same article, the Herald said, “Far from divorcing themselves from Goodlad, BYU provided the Daily Herald with a summary of Goodlad’s achievements” and went on to praise and adore this prominent national educator.
So here we are one year later and some have wondered if BYU’s Education Department was possibly changing their direction. They have answered with a resounding NO.
This tribute (PDF) in their latest newsletter clearly shows where they stand. My comments are on the right. (I also suggest to BYU’s Ed Dept. that they look at the title tag they have used with Robert Patterson’s photo and correct the (Freudian?) slip where they have named him “John Godland.”)
|John Goodlad’s Influence on the BYU–Public School Partnership
By Robert Patterson
|Robert Patterson is a lifelong educator and author. He was a former dean of the McKay School of Education at Brigham Young University between 1999 and 2003, during which time he worked closely with John Goodlad.||John Goodlad has been working close with BYU’s Ed. Dept. since 1983 when he first set up the Public School Partnership between BYU and 5 surrounding school districts, and in 1986 when BYU’s Ed. Dept. became a founding member of the NNER.|
|As I participated in the various activities of the BYU–Public School Partnership (BYU–PSP), I experienced an oft-repeated query from fellow participants: “Why do we pay so much attention to the opinions and ideas of John Goodlad?” I want to offer three possible responses.||Here comes the official answer as to why BYU’s Ed. Dept. pays to much attention to John Goodlad.|
|First, I suggest we look at the professional record of this man. His colleagues have publicly acknowledged the extent and value of his work by literally showering him with prestigious awards, including the Horace Mann League Outstanding Friend of Public Education and the John Dewey Society Outstanding Achievement Award in 2009. He has tirelessly done his utmost to address educational issues in a manner to help fellow professionals as well as the larger interested public.||Reason 1: he’s a prestigious (prominent) national award winnerHorace Mann: Creator of compulsory education”What the church has been for medieval man, the public school must become for democratic and rational man. God will be replaced by the concept of the public good. The common (public) schools shall create a more far-seeing intelligence and a pure morality than has ever existed among communities of men.” -Mann
John Dewey: Original signatory on the atheistic, socialistic, Humanist Manifesto.
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?” -Dewey
Evil, godless, prominent men who have an agenda to destroy faith in God and have awards named after them and Goodlad has received them. That’s reason #1 BYU’s Ed. Dept. follows Goodlad.
|The second compelling reason relates to his role in helping to launch and enrich the organization of the Partnership. On invitation from Curtis Van Alfen, the BYU dean of education in 1983, Goodlad spent several months at BYU helping school district and university personnel catch a vision of the benefits of a collaborative relationship.||Reason 2: Goodlad did tremendous service for BYU to help them catch a vision of a collaborative relationship.What is Goodlad’s agenda?”The curriculum of the future will be what one might call the humanistic curriculum.” -Goodlad|
|Goodlad also invited the Partnership to become a member of the National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER). As a result, participants of the BYU–PSP have received outstanding leadership training as well as the opportunity to interact with school or university faculty members from other NNER sites. One result of this interaction has been the replication of the Seattle Associates Program at BYU. The Partnership has used associates as one of the main ways of sharing ideas and promoting a common value position within the BYU–PSP.||Reason 3: If you read the titles of some of the NNER conference talks, of which BYU Ed. Dept. professors regularly presented (along with Alpine School District leaders from the PSP) you’ll find intriguing topics such as these:”The Creation of a Wise and Healthy People and a Culture for Sustaining and Renewing this Populace” (Sounds eerily like the U.N.’s Agenda 21 plan)”Expert Study Panel Groups (GLBT & Community Engagement)” (I don’t think I need to comment on this one)
“School-based Mentoring: A Nurturing Approach to Improve the Educational Outcomes of Students At-risk” (This particular session was taught by a BYU prof. and when you read the brief section below, you’ll see their mentoring/nurturing approach is to supplant the parent with a nurturing teacher. Where did that come from? “Most youth still hold the same values of their parents… if we do not alter this pattern, if we don’t resocialize, our system will decay.“- John Goodlad)
“And Justice For All: Using Artificial Environments to Create Community and Teach Diversity”
“The Re-emergence of the Research School: A Model To Meet the Challenges of Education for Democracy”
Whatever happened to teachers getting trained in how to teach math, reading, and writing? These courses have NOTHING to do with educating our children and EVERYTHING to do with indoctrinating them into a “social and political Democracy.”
|Another significant and valuable application of Goodlad’s leadership is our Center for the Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling (CITES). By accepting Goodlad’s challenge to experiment with this new organizational structure, we have found ways to include other BYU colleges in the Partnership, to strengthen the in-service provisions offered for school personnel, and to generate ideas through research and program evaluation.||Reason 4: The wonderful CITES center where the application of Goodlad’s philosophies are extended to other colleges, and through which PSP school administrators and principals pass in order to be deemed “Goodlad-agenda-ready” for public service. CITES is run by Steve Baugh, Goodlad AED scholar. Baugh is the former Superintendent of Alpine School District where he helped bring constructivist math (ex. Investigations, Connected, and Interactive math) to tens of thousands of children, forever damaging their mathematical abilities, but following Goodlad’s recommendations that a socialistic style constructivist approach be used to help further prepare children for life in a social and political Democracy.CITES also receives hundreds of thousands of public tax dollars each year yet won’t allow for an audit or release of how those tax dollars are spent in spite of requests by legislators.|
|John Goodlad has encouraged and supported the BYU–PSP in powerful ways. Without the benefits derived from the focus associated with his writings and programs and the example of excellent leadership through skillful mentoring and modeling of ideas and practices, the BYU–PSP would be far less able to speak with pride of the quality of education in our partner districts and in our university teacher preparation programs. We continue to be richly rewarded for celebrating Dr. John I. Goodlad.||Quality of education in our partner districts? Is that why UVU has a math remediation *department* for the nearly 70% of incoming students who can’t do simple college algebra?Teacher prep is nothing more than indoctrination prep. There is precious little content knowledge being transmitted to those who obtain a teaching certificate, but loads of philosophical poison from Goodlad’s agenda. We need teachers who actually understand math to teach it.|
“As the educational system falls into the hands of the in-power political faction or into the hands of an obscure but tightly knit group of professional social reformers, it is used not to educate but to indoctrinate.” Ezra Taft Benson (An Enemy Hath Done this – pg. 229)
“I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children, and if they become alerted and informed, these parents can help expose the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, John Keynes and others. There are much worse things today that can happen to a child than not getting a full education. In fact, some of the worst things have happened to our children while attending colleges led by administrators who wink at subversion and amorality. Said Karl G. Maeser, “I would rather have my child exposed to smallpox, typhus fever, cholera or other malignant and deadly diseases than to the degrading influence of a corrupt teacher.” Ezra Taft Benson (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 307.)
John Goodlad is among the “others” mentioned and a disciple of John Dewey.
“There is a spirit working among the Saints to educate their own offspring. If our children will be all we will have for a foundation of glory in eternity, how needful that they be properly trained… There are wolves among us in sheep’s clothing ready to lead astray our little ones… Wolves do not devour old sheep when there are any young ones. I have herded sheep long enough to know that. Look after your children.”- Elder John W. Taylor, (Collected Discourses 2:138.)
What Is a Mentor?
Who was your mentor? Who could be trusted to answer the important questions you had? Who was there to give you advice? Who served as a role model at important points in your life?
Most successful people have had a mentor at some time in their life, whether in business, sports, the arts, the classroom, or university work.
FiVE Things You Should Know about Mentoring
1. What a Mentor Is and What a Mentor Is Not
A mentor is not:
What a mentor is:
- a parent
- a cool peer
- a babysitter
- a therapist
- a disciplinarian
- a parole officer
- a nag
- a savior
- an ATM
- a wise and trusted friend
- a link to another generation
- a confiant
- a tutor
- an advisor
- a visionary “seer” (been there, done that)
- a cheerleader
- a coach
- a listener
- an advocate
- a sounding board
- a guide
- a role model
- a partner
- a motivator
The greatest mentor I have had in my life is my father. I wonder how the department integrates the Proclamation on the Family into their philosophies? This article further shows the embrace of Goodlad’s philosophy as he believes:
“Public education has served as a check on the power of parents, and this is another powerful reason for maintaining it.”- John Goodlad, Developing Democratic Character in the Young, pg. 165
One of Goodlad’s core 4 dimensions of teaching is that teachers become the nurturers of students. Here’s a few Goodlad quotes (references at link) for you.
“[schools] should liberate students from the ways of thinking imposed by religions and other traditions of thought.”
“…educators must resist the quest for certainty. If there were certainty there would be no scientific advancement. So it is with morals and patriotism.”
“It is my expectation that Teacher Education for Democracy and Social Justice will become a rich resource for continuing this multi-layered conversation-from democratic belief to democratic action-that is the hallmark of educational renewal.”
“…the state we should strive for is better described in Deweyan terms as a social democracy.”
I ask, do you believe the philosophies of John Goodlad will help build up Zion? I say they will not. They will tear it down and destroy it. They will indoctrinate in false philosophies and destroy faith in God. Has the BYU Ed. Dept. fallen into this cunning plan?
2 Nephi 9
28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
What is that counsel we are to hearken to?
“We have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ.Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, and so forth… And our nation will continue to degenerate unless we read and heed the words of the God of this land, Jesus Christ, and quit building up and upholding the secret combinations which the Book of Mormon tells us proved the downfall of both previous American civilizations. (A Witness and a Warning, p. 6.)
Those who fail to see the dangers of an alliance with John Goodlad reject the message of the Book of Mormon and are literally walking in darkness at noon-day as they become accomplices in an effort to destroy the morality and agency of man.
David O. McKay, a staunch fighter against humanism and socialism, must be weeping in heaven that his name is attached to this department.
Aside from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ great name, he’s also got a great legal mind. He recently gave a landmark speech on religious freedom and how our 1st amendment protection is under attack. Several of his remarks are directly pertinent to the issues we are dealing with in Utah, while others are shocking to see them happening anywhere in America.
This talk is not an “LDS” talk. It is specifically non-denominational on this subject and he liberally quotes from non-LDS sources throughout his speech. I have included a few quotes below but I encourage you to read the talk in its entirety (link).
“I submit that religious values and political realities are so inter-linked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms.”
“Whatever the extent of formal religious affiliation, I believe that the tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding. A writer for the Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”10
“A visible measure of the decline of religion in our public life is the diminished mention of religious faith and references to God in our public discourse. One has only to compare the current rhetoric with the major addresses of our political leaders in the 18th, 19th, and the first part of the 20th centuries. Similarly, compare what Lincoln said about God and religious practices like prayer on key occasions with the edited versions of his remarks quoted in current history books.11 It is easy to believe that there is an informal conspiracy of correctness to scrub out references to God and the influence of religion in the founding and preservation of our nation.”
“Granted that reduced religious affiliation puts religion “in the background,” the effect of that on the religious beliefs of young adults is still in controversy. The negative view appears in the Oxford book, whose author concludes that this age group of 18 to 23
“had difficulty seeing the possible distinction between, in this case, objective moral truth and relative human invention. . . . [T]hey simply cannot, for whatever reason, believe in—or sometimes even conceive of—a given, objective truth, fact, reality, or nature of the world that is independent of their subjective self-experience.”13
This is precisely what John Goodlad, John Dewey, Bill Ayers, and the NNER are working toward…democratic classrooms where truth doesn’t come from God, it’s only what you can see, feel, hear, taste, and touch. If you can’t, then truth is relative to the experience of the individual. This is such a dangerous position to hold for the future of our nation. It is almost unbelievable how strongly this false philosophy has permeated our state of Utah, in particular in Utah county.
“It is well to remember James Madison’s warning:
“There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”40
Part 4 of his speech completely focused on this issue of moral relativism. Here are a couple of great quotes from his talk.
“What has caused the current public and legal climate of mounting threats to religious freedom? I believe the cause is not legal but cultural and religious. I believe the diminished value being attached to religious freedom stems from the ascendency of moral relativism.
More and more of our citizens support the idea that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made and can be accepted or rejected as one chooses. Each person is free to decide for himself or herself what is right and wrong. Our children face the challenge of living in an increasingly godless and amoral society.
I have neither the time nor the expertise to define the various aspects of moral relativism or the extent to which they have entered the culture or consciousness of our nation and its people. I can only rely on respected observers whose descriptions feel right to me.
In his book, Modern Times, the British author Paul Johnson writes:
“At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value.”53
On this side of the Atlantic, Gertrude Himmelfarb describes how the virtues associated with good and evil have been degraded into relative values.54
A variety of observers have described the consequences of moral relativism. All of them affirm the existence of God as the Ultimate Law-giver and the source of the absolute truth that distinguishes good from evil.”
“Moral relativism leads to a loss of respect for religion and even to anger against religion and the guilt that is seen to flow from it. As it diminishes religion, it encourages the proliferation of rights that claim ascendency over the free exercise of religion.”
In his conclusion he lists these 4 points:
1. Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to our free society and therefore deserving of their special legal protection.
2. Religious freedom undergirds the origin and existence of this country and is the dominating civil liberty.
3. The guarantee of free exercise of religion is weakening in its effects and in public esteem.
4. This weakening is attributable to the ascendancy of moral relativism.
This is ultimately what has been the debate in Alpine School district over the past year. Goodlad’s indoctrination center has been gradually teaching the need for democratic classrooms that are accepting of false notions in the name of tolerance for others’ beliefs. We face an incredible battle in the future to help people understand that only through belief in God and His absolute truths can we have any kind of anchor in this world that we can create common standards from. Without God, and religious belief in Him, we will be tossed as the waves of the sea.
There is much more in this excellent speech by Elder Oaks which covers persecution, the gradual loss of freedom, the redefining of rights, and anti-religious bigotry. I strongly encourage you to read the whole talk here:
Yesterday someone sent me news that the Humanists are now advertising their religion through online videos. As you can see in this example, they take a segment of scripture from the Bible (1 Timothy 2:11-12), ridicule it for being out of touch with today’s society, and then present what is obviously a more favorable viewpoint that men and women are equals.
At first blush, many people who have not studied the Bible, the customs of the Jews, or sought an understanding of the Godly and differing roles of men and women as parents, may be turned away from scripture and have a positive impression toward humanism. I don’t consider myself an expert on Biblical traditions and customs, but I have studied the Bible enough to know that when Paul wrote letters to the various churches, they were tuned into specific issues they were dealing with. He certainly had more to say on this issue than in one letter to Timothy, which may not even be exactly what he originally recorded since scribes weren’t perfect in their transcribing of the ancient records.
The role of a husband has always been to preside in righteousness over his household. God created woman as an “help-meet” (Gen. 2:18) for man and told the man to cleave to his wife and be of one flesh (Gen. 2:24), clearly implying a special relationship. Woman was created from man’s side to show that she is part of man and co-equal in her unique role. She was not created from a bone from his head or foot showing her above or below man. Paul clearly understood this and wrote much in Ephesians 5 about this. In this set of writings Paul calls upon wives to submit themselves to their husbands and then admonishes the husbands to love their wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. He tells men to love their wives even as they love themselves. What woman, properly treated by a righteous man who loves her as he loves himself and serves her as Christ served the church and even died for it, wouldn’t feel submissive to the righteous requests of such a man and seek to honor him in their household?
Peter talks about this as well in 1 Peter 3 where he says women should be in subjection to their husbands and serve them that they may be converted and give honor to the wife as they would a “weaker vessel” or one who deserves protection, in order that they may be “heirs together of the grace of life.”
The humanists would turn us against God’s word in a perversion of equality (dare I say democracy? :)). Men and women do indeed have different roles, but are partners in life and need to serve each other. The role of a husband is to preside in righteousness and work by the sweat of his brow to take care of his family, and the role of a wife is to be an help-meet, mother, nurturer, and true companion that the husband relies on for her wisdom and compassion.
Here is one very interesting take on the humanist religion. Even the humanists acknowledge if the courts were consistent in their application of the “religion test” it would be the end of Horace Mann’s public education plan (and maybe the return to what our Founding Fathers intended for public education). http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.html
Maybe we can get the “One call for justice” Utah personal injury attorneys to help us out. :)
In this clip from a talk by the late Neal A. Maxwell (a Seventy and later Apostle in the LDS church), he lays out the battle of our day over the push for “ir-religion” in our schools. It is time the silent majority awoke.
I suppose this post is long overdue. I continue to hear rumors that go around the Alpine school district concerning how I criticize teachers or similar statements. I am grateful to those of you teachers who have helped defend me because you are able to see the issues as well. It seems that a lot of teachers don’t realize that criticism of the “district” isn’t necessarily criticism of them, in the same vein that criticizing the out-of-control federal government isn’t criticism of all the citizens of the country.
The answer to the question I’ve posed to myself is, yes and no. I will give each answer separately so that those at ASD who wish to pass on to others that I blame teachers can easily pass on the YES answer without the NO. :) Please understand that there are teachers who fall into EACH category. I’ve never heard of anyone who has EVER lumped all teachers into one boat. There are good and bad in the profession just like everywhere else.
The NO answer: No I don’t blame teachers for our predicament. I blame those educrats in power at all levels who have corrupted the education system over decades of time, dumbed down our children through weak curriculum and revisionist history, and sought to ensure our children get a free education through compulsory means. Saying you’ll force people to learn or do good doesn’t achieve either in the long run and continually dropping test scores and college enrollments show this to be the case. Teachers who are concerned about their jobs but understand the issues have had hard choices to make while they’re trying to do the right thing for our children and I feel for them. I deeply sorrow for the hard working teachers who would rather just teach our children but instead have to play inane games with educrats looking over their shoulders telling them what the latest study says they need to do. If you’re in this category, you have my very sincere gratitude and thanks. Keep up the good work.
The YES answer: Yes I blame teachers who didn’t have a shred of common sense when the district told them to not teach the times tables anymore and they did it. This is just as wrong as a marine who is told by a commanding officer to do something he knows to be wrong but does it because he’s told to do it. I blame teachers who claim to teach the truth to our children about our constitutional republic but have never studied it, or even worse, they’re socialists at heart and teach our children how to embrace socialism. Yes I blame teachers who put more concern for advancement and doing the will of the district over the welfare of the children in their classrooms. Yes I blame teachers who buy into everything they are told by the district or college professors, and never take the time to validate what they are being told. There are no peer reviewed studies that support Investigations, Connected, and Interactive math regardless of what some district educrat tells you.
If you are a teacher, before you believe what is being said about me, please look at the amount of research I and others have done and then question those who tell you they are the “professional” and they know what’s right. As an accountant, I knew Enron was a disaster for the profession but wasn’t afraid to admit it. It’s time more teachers spoke up and displayed the intellectual honesty about the issues that the education profession faces. If you don’t, the education system will turn into the next Enron and when it goes down, it will be too late for you to speak up just like it was for the auditors of Enron. In fact, if you thought NCLB (No Child Left Behind) was bad for you, wait till we get federalized assessments and training to go with the new Common Core standards Utah just adopted. We’ve sold our souls gambling for a little pocket change. The assault on you continues to advance.
Some questions you might start with:
- Why is Bill Ayers the terrorist so interested in teaching democracy in education? (link)
- What is humanist John Goodlad’s Agenda for Education in a Democracy? (link)
- Did you know these two men are birds of a feather and that Bill Ayers is the keynote speaker at Goodlad’s 2010 NNER conference? (link)
- What kind of beliefs are written in the anti-God Humanist Manifesto? (link)
- Why did BYU just drop their membership in Goodlad’s NNER after being one of the founding members back in 1986? (link)
- Why is the NNER trying to push the homosexual movement into BYU? (link)
- In all of the United States, there are only 30 Goodlad “AED Scholars” (Agenda for Education in a Democracy). Why does Utah have 4 of the 30 at ASD and BYU’s McKay School of Education? (link)
Does any of this trouble you?
Ever read the Humanist Manifesto? If not, here’s a link and a few quotes from it:
“There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century.”
Humanism and science can solve our problems but not God? I guess God’s teachings were OK for the nineteenth century and prior, but not the twentieth century. ;)
Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created
So religion as a term is applied to old outdated doctrines and methods of solving human problems. We owe them thanks, but it’s time to move on to the new religion…secular humanism which celebrates man over God.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
In other words, eliminate faith, put religions on a 5 senses program, and then religion is OK.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
IE. Stop using that crutch you call religion. Just figure that probabilities exist and you’re going to have to face some crisis without God’s help. Get a grip and get over your silly emotions.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
Now we’ll replace faith-based joy in God’s creations with encouraging man to create things and supplant God as creator.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
Voluntary socialism is an oxymoron. The only way to achieve a United Order or Zion like society is through moral absolutes and an acceptance of God’s commandments. This Utopian dream is nothing more than another counterfeit to God’s plan.
So stand the theses of religious humanism…
Utah state law says that no sectarian religion can be taught in our schools yet we as a state and nation accept it based on the premise that we can’t have God in schools or that’s a violation of the separation of church and state. That falsehood needs turned on its head. The only thing you get when you remove God from schools are schools without God.
The Humanist Manifesto was signed by 34 men including John Dewey and embraced by others including John Goodlad.