Posted on 04/17/2012 4:27:49 AM PDT by scottfactor
Members of the anti-Christian, communist Left are obsessed with banishing the presence of Christian expression from all areas of the public square. They are probably the most fervent in this crusade in the government-run public school classrooms, where teachers are persecuted for displaying even a hint of Christianity.
I have written before about a California teacher, Brad Johnson, who is fighting back against a tyrannical school district that ordered him to remove patriotic banners from his classroom walls—banners that simply included the name of God in their sayings. These banners had long been hanging in his classroom, but the God-hating tyrants in his school district decided they could no longer abide even the written mention of the name of the Lord in that classroom. How very like Satan that is!
Mr. Johnson’s appeal is still pending in the courts, and the Thomas More Law Center has vowed to take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
There is another American teacher being persecuted for his Christian faith. This is a case out of Mount Vernon, Ohio.
As reported at the Rutherford Institute website, which is handling the case,
“The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of John Freshwater, a Christian teacher who was fired for keeping religious articles in his classroom and for using teaching methods that encourage public school students to think critically about the school’s science curriculum, particularly as it relates to evolution theories. Freshwater, a 24-year veteran in the classroom, was suspended by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education in 2008 and officially terminated in January 2011. The School Board justified its actions by accusing Freshwater of improperly injecting religion into the classroom by giving students ‘reason to doubt the accuracy and/or veracity of scientists, science textbooks and/or science in general.’ The Board also claimed that Freshwater failed to remove ‘all religious articles’ from his classroom, including a Bible.”
Here we have the case of a Christian teacher encouraging his students to approach the unproven, unobserved theory of evolution with the skeptical eye it deserves. The anti-Christian crusaders in our world are so viciously against any teachings that declare God is the Author of the universe and all that is in it that they will fiercely defend a terribly flimsy theory—or hypothesis, rather—that seeks to explain the origins of life in this amazing world in which we live. The hypothesis of evolution—which is not even a plausible explanation, with its gaping, fossil record holes and fantasy mechanisms—is the best the godless among us have come up with, and they cling to it with a fanatical fervor.
The fact that this school district even cited Mr. Freshwater for having a Bible in his classroom is also chilling and disgusting. We must remember that our God-given rights do not end just because we become teachers in the public school system. There is no such thing as the fabled “separation of church and state” as the Left insists. The only constitutional mandates are against the federal government establishing an official national religion in America, which it has never done, and interfering with Americans’ freedom to practice their faith, which it is doing more and more each year.
The bizarre beginning of this case was back in 2008, as reported in Mr. Freshwater’s Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, filed last Friday by the Rutherford Institute,
“Despite objective evidence demonstrating Freshwater’s consistent excellence as an eighth-grade science teacher for over 20 years, and despite his immaculate employment record, Freshwater came under intense scrutiny following a 2008 incident in which a common classroom science experiment with a Tesla coil used safely by other teachers for over 20 years allegedly produced a cross-shaped mark on one student’s arm.
While the Referee who investigated this incident ultimately determined that ‘speculation and imagination had pushed reality aside,’… community hysteria resulting from rumors about Freshwater and the incident prompted the [School] Board to launch a full-scale inquisition into Freshwater’s teaching methods and performance. This sweeping critique focused entirely on trace evidence of Freshwater’s religious faith which allegedly appeared in the classroom. On January 10, 2011, the Board adopted a Resolution terminating Freshwater’s employment contract based upon a recommendation issued by Referee R. Lee Shepherd, Esq., on January 7, 2011 that Freshwater be terminated for ‘good and just cause.’”
The supposed “good and just cause” was Mr. Freshwater’s allowing his students to examine both sides of the evolution debate and teaching them to recognize issues in printed materials that could be questioned or debated, in other words, he was teaching his students critical thinking! The godless School Board also found offense in the fact that some of Mr. Freshwater’s counterpoints to the hypothesis of evolution involved—GASP!—arguments for Creationism or Intelligent Design. Oh, the horror!
According to the School Board, this “good and just cause” amounted to “Failure to Adhere to Established Curriculum.” That sounds like something out of Nazi Germany! Absolutely NO God talk allowed here, comrades!
Mr. Freshwater was also accused of “Disobedience of Orders,” because he was told to remove certain items from his classroom, which he did, but there was a patriotic poster featuring Colin Powell that he did not remove, but said he did not recall being told to remove it. That poster was handed out to teachers by the school office and was displayed in other classrooms in the district besides his. He also had a couple of school library books: one was a Bible, and one was titled “Jesus of Nazareth.” Because he had these things in his classroom, he was accused of “defiance.”
This is an outrageous injustice, and this case is extremely important for the future freedoms of teachers and students alike. As the President and founder of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, stated,
“Academic freedom was once the bedrock of American education. That is no longer the state of affairs, as this case makes clear. ... What we need today are more teachers and school administrators who understand that young people don’t need to be indoctrinated. Rather, they need to be taught how to think for themselves.”
The godless people who aggressively push the hypothesis of evolution in our public schools cannot tolerate opposing viewpoints, and if Mr. Freshwater ultimately loses this battle in the courts, all of America will have lost yet another chunk of our Christian liberty at the hands of anti-Christian tyrants.
As reported by the Rutherford Institute, two lower courts have already sided with the School Board against Mr. Freshwater, ignoring the First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by the school district.
The conclusion of Mr. Freshwater’s appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court states,
“The [School] Board's actions constitute a violation of the First Amendment academic freedom rights of both Freshwater and of his students, of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, and of Freshwater's right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of its significant implications for academic freedom in public schools and the continued vitality of teachers' First Amendment right to openly practice and discuss their religious faith, the case is one of monumental public concern. As no reviewing court has yet examined these critical civil liberty components of this case, Freshwater prays that this Court will grant his petition and undertake that essential analysis.”
We should all be praying that Mr. Freshwater is given a victory over this anti-Christian, public school district. Ultimately, we are all Mr. Freshwater, and if he loses, we all lose.
We should also pray for, and consider financially supporting, the Rutherford Institute, which is made up of front-line, legal warriors who provide free legal services to people who have had their constitutional rights threatened or violated. From the Institute’s information page,
“The Institute’s mission is twofold: to provide legal services in the defense of religious and civil liberties and to educate the public on important issues affecting their constitutional freedoms.
Whether our attorneys are protecting the rights of parents whose children are strip-searched at school, standing up for a teacher fired for speaking about religion or defending the rights of individuals against illegal search and seizure, The Rutherford Institute offers assistance—and hope—to thousands.”
As shown by your own evidence, the Dover decision did not rule on the scientific merits of “ID!”
"By “not being forthright” you mean lying repeatedly? Amazing what acts people will justify if they think they are doing “the Lord's work” - but who again is the Father of Lies? Whose work did they do when they lied on the stand? They knew they had to lie - because they had become the servant of lies."
One only has to look at the video of what the Kitzmiller lawyers presented, they took the remarks of the 2 out of context. The two tried to explain the remarks but it was not allowed. If what they explained was allowed they would have stood a chance, only the cut video was allowed. What the two were not forthright about was they did not tell their own lawyers about the video. And as for you quoting the Bible; aren't you the one that believes in separation of church and state hypocrite?
As for Newton and Faraday, let's see you source first person on this one.
"Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were Communists?"
They believed in a “Wall of separation” and “a perfect separation” (respectively) of Church and State - and Madison wrote the 1st Amendment based upon that belief and the Statute of Religious Freedom written by Jefferson."
They in no way believed the way you do. They believed that it was one way; that the church had every right to be involved in law and in any state of affairs. Get your facts right.
"The way science wins is in the real world of ideas."
Nope, the only way Evos win is by way of the court and the communist law of separation of church and state on Americans that goes one way; that government can influence and not the church. So you go against what Jefferson and Madison wrote
I am not the State or an employee of the State discharging official duties, as such I can quote the Bible any time I wish. Do you truly believe that anybody who accepts separation of Church and State should never be able to quote the Bible without displaying hypocrisy - or are you just being ignorant?
As for Newton and Faraday - can you name a single contribution they made to science that included ascribing supernatural causation to explain natural phenomena? Where did they work God into their equations?
Science wins in the real world of ideas. Creationism is useless. Only other creationists will pay you to be a creationist - nobody else is interested because it has ZERO practical applications.
As to Madison and Jefferson - your ignorance of their views no doubt will reflect your ignorance of the decision of Dover - even when shown you are wrong - you will insist you are right.
Here is what Madison said about the insidious nature of religious involvement with the State and their tendency to encroach upon the government (the second side of the wall - it wasn't a one way wall - it was, according to Madison, to be a PERFECT separation) ......
“An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]
It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history [ttempts where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government]. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820]
Nope, the judge displayed no evidence to back up his statements. Stating three sentences that it is not science without facts or evidence does not make it non-scientific.
I can quote the Bible any time I wish.
Amazing, Evos hate when the Bible is quoted but like to quote it themselves. That is the personification of hypocrisy.
Science wins in the real world of ideas. Creationism is useless.
Yeppers, just like global warming. for the last time: The only way Evos win is by way of the court and the communist law of separation of church and state on Americans that goes one way; that government can influence and not the church.
As for Newton and Faraday, everything they discovered was for the greater knowledge of God's hand. No greater ascribing can be stated than this.
And where did you get your "American History" quotes, the Michael Nudow web site? Or maybe Madison's "Detached Memoranda?" Or both? You want quotes of Madison? I can copy and paste too.
Madison in his own words:
“I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. “
“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.”
Throughout his Presidency Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
Also, "Detached Memoranda" was "discovered" in 1946 SureMadison expressed his opposition to many of his own earlier beliefs and practices, a new set of beliefs formerly unknown even to his closest friends. Since Madison never made public or shared with his peers his sentiments found in the "Detached Memoranda," and since his own public actions were at direct variance with this later writing, it is ludicrous to argue that it reflects the Founders' intent toward religion.
Was Madison responsible for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights? Definitely not. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was Virginian George Mason that advocated that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, but the other Virginians at the Convention - including James Madison - opposed any Bill of Rights and their position prevailed. Consequently, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Edmund Randolph, and others at the Convention refused to sign the new Constitution because of their fear of insufficiently bridled federal power. Mason and the others returned to their home States to lobby against the ratification of the Constitution until a Bill of Rights was added.
When the Constitution was considered for ratification, the reports from June 2 through June 25, 1788, make clear that in Virginia, Patrick Henry, GeorgeMason, and Edmund Randolph led the fight for the Bill of Rights, again over James Madison's opposition.
Very little of Madison's proposed religious wording made it into the final version of the First Amendment; and even a cursory examination of the Annals of Congress surrounding the formation of that Amendment quickly reveals the influence of Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, John Vining of Delaware, Daniel Carroll and Charles Carroll of Maryland, Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, William Paterson of New Jersey, and others on that Amendment.
The failure to rely on Founders other than Madison seems to imply that no other Founders were qualified to address First Amendment issues or that there exists no pertinent recorded statements from the other Founders. Both implications are wrong: numerous Founders played pivotal roles; and thousands of their writings do exist.
Your use and Newdow's use of James Madison is typical of most revisionists: it gives only the part of the story with which he agrees and omits the part with which he disagrees. If you want to take the position that the "Founding Fathers" opposed the right of religion in any segment of our society, then you must provide evidence from more than one Founder; you must show that the majority of the Founders opposed this.
Your hatred of religion and God is all to telling of one that hates or country. If we do not receive our rights from Him than we receive them from man; and We The People are not slaves to your way yet. So go back to the Huffington Post, or get your mind right with God and Free Republic.
The Judge DID rule on the scientific merit of “ID”. He ruled it had none. I don't expect you to agree with the ruling - but it is a lie to claim he made no such determination.
Typical that you cannot argue against a scientific theory without arguing against atheism. I am a Christian - why would I hate when the Bible is quoted? The Pope accepts evolution - do you think he hates when the Bible is quoted?
In the free market science is seen to have value - while creationism is useless. That is where science wins - in the market of ideas. Science and knowledge of evolution leads to the discovery of novel therapeutics - creationism leads to no novel therapeutics because it contributes nothing to an understanding of the natural world.
I provided the source for all the quotes - it is typical that you are unable to refute them - or otherwise deal with them. Madison WROTE the 1st Amendment. I could quote Jefferson as well if you wished - but you would dismiss his quotes as well.
I do not hate God, religion or our nation. I am a believer, a Christian, and a former U.S. Airman. But as is typical - you cannot formulate a coherent argument on your own - you need to attack anyone who disagrees as hating God, being an atheist, a communist, etc. You are not God. Those who oppose your ideas are not in opposition to God.
It is impossible to have a religiously, culturally, and politically neutral school.
Government schools are not now, and NEVER have been religiously neutral ( this includes science classes).
End the curriculum wars! Begin the privatization of K-12 education. Let parents, principals, and teachers decide these matters.
Anecdotally atheists are the biggest defenders of government schooling. Gee! Could it be that it is because the taxpayer is forced to establish government atheism in the godless schools. ( Lucky atheists!) /s
Macro-evolution is of little importance in the work and life of nearly all scientists except for the handful of scientists actually working in the Macro evolution field and this even includes biologists. It is of NO importance in the life and work of the vast majority of Americans and should not be forced on their children against their will. No one should be forced to pay for the study of Macro evolution through their taxes.
The Judge DID rule on the scientific merit of “ID”.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh Wow! A law school graduate ( with a likely B.A. in political science) gets to rule on science. ( eye roll!) ( sigh!)
Repeating what you have stated before in a different fashion is nothing more than the definition of insanity. I leave you to your own destruction.
Goodnight and sweat dreams!
Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
If we give creationists a veto power over what science can or cannot be taught in school it will hardly be limited to “Macro-evolution” or even evolution at all.
It will be astronomy, paleontology, archeology, linguistics, physics, geology and just about every other scientific theory which their primitive and superstitious view objects to.
I am not for public schools, but if there are public schools - they should teach science in science class because science is useful.
Creationism is useless.
Since all Christians are, by definition, Creationists, the idea of Creationism is as old as The Bible. Why do you choose to dirty up a whole people and an entire religion with what you consider a denigratory, disparaging, and scurrilous pejorative term?
Many Christians have varying and specific ideas about Creation. So . . . there are “good” Christians and there are “bad” Christians? According to allmendream, only the “bad” Christians shall be known as “Creationists”? Do you perhaps propose that the “bad” Christians wear armbands? Or, would a large “C” branded on their foreheads be a better solution?
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the Universe. Do you? Even the unconventional Thomas Jefferson believed that God created Mankind and the Universe.
With all the simple-minded directness of a three-year old, you begin in typical propagandist fashion with a bait & switch tactic: starting with a specific target (“special” creationism, and - later in the same sentence – “modern creationists”), which you immediately drop for the generic term “creationism.” You’ve had conversations with very scientifically sophisticated Christians (much to your detriment, it must be said), so you know it is a gross misstatement to accuse them of being anti-science. You might as well accuse them all of being lactose intolerant, for all the sense it would make.
Aside from the generic term Creationist, or Creationism, there are any number of terms used to describe certain Christian Creationist ideas: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Gap Creationism, Evolution Creationism, Modern Geocentrism Creationists, Omphalos hypothesis Creationism, Creation science Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Special Creationism, Neo Creationism, Intelligent design Creationism, Creation Literalism, Evolution Theist Creationism, Micro-Evolutionary Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Flat Earther Creationism, “hard core” Creationism, Modern Creationism (not proposed as an exhaustive list). Be specific, and identify with whom it is you have a quarrel. Stop trying to dirty up a whole culture with your calumnious insults
Who gave you the authority to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of terms? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole people by demeaning their identity. 0bamatrons and admirers of Goebbels would applaud your calumny. Not many others.
And you are a one trick pony, and that pony is lame.
Everyone here knows what I mean when I say creationist and I could provide the most common dictionary definition to you for the dozenth time, but you bore me troll.
I am a tyrannical evolution pusher in that I know biology and know that knowing biology entails understanding the theory.
Science should be taught in science class.
What a joke. You don't even know what you mean by creationist because as of yet, you have not provided a consistent definition of the term.
I am a tyrannical evolution pusher....
You got that right.
Science should be taught in science class.
Fine. Then leave evolution out of it because it's nothing but a philosophical construct based on forensic evidence and extrapolation. There is no ability to observe it in action, no testability, no repeatably, nothing that would qualify it for being classified as science except it's blinkered exclusion of God.
Evolution is the inevitable consequence of using a molecular form of inheritance that is subject to change. It CAN be observed in action in any number of scientific experiments. It is testable, the tests are repeatable, and nothing in it - or any other scientific theory - includes or excludes God in any way.
Science is based upon extrapolation. Galileo rolling balls down incline planes - or dropping weights off the tower of Pisa - is then EXTRAPOLATED to be true and applicable elsewhere.
As usual you don't understand science. People tend to fear and hate what they do not understand.
That is why it is so essential that science be taught.
In none of the great advances in scientific knowledge does the theory of evolution play a part:
Consider the discovery of antibiotics, circulation of the blood, atomic theory, the existence of radioactivity, the nature and speed of light, movement of the planets, heredity, plate tectonics, behavior of gases.....I could go on but the point is clear, the theory of evolution is irrelevant to scientific advancement.
But it does provide the impetus for NASA to spend endless billions trying to discover life on other planets to prove it true.
In none of the great advances in scientific knowledge does the theory of evolution play a part:
Consider the discovery of antibiotics, circulation of the blood, atomic theory, the existence of radioactivity, the nature and speed of light, movement of the planets, heredity, plate tectonics, behavior of gases.....I could go on but the point is clear, the theory of evolution is irrelevant to scientific advancement.
But it does provide the impetus for NASA to spend endless billions trying to discover life on other planets to prove it true.
Almendrem, Please read the above from "Count-Your-Change".
Macro evolution of is of little to NO NO NO importance except to the handful of scientists actually in this specific field. It isn't even important in the day to day work of other biologists. It has NO impact or importance on the daily lives or work of scientists or ordinary Americans.
There is only **one** reason why our atheistic government schools push evolution: To **destroy** the God-centered faith of the captives ( oops! "students'). And...That has non-neutral political, cultural, and religious consequences for the student and our nation.
By the way, my husband is a biochemist. He has written many articles in the leading journals of his field and lectured worldwide. He has six patents for his inventions. I have a doctorate in a health profession.
The amount of time spent on evolution in high school: ZERO
The amount of time spent on Macro evolution as an undergrad? Answer: 20 minutes.
The amount of time spent on the doctoral level of study? Answer: ZERO!!!
Amount of time spent as a working biochemist and health professional: Answer: ZERO!
Solution: Get rid of government schooling.
Who gave you the authority to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of terms? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole people by demeaning their identity. 0bamatrons and admirers of Goebbels would applaud your calumny. Not many others.
”I know biology”
Yeah . . . and you know propaganda. What’s knowing biology have to do with the issues I raise, and which you are desperate to avoid? You can’t even answer the first two questions I ask, and you gag on the definition of Creationism offered by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, revised edition 2003.
Some of my Christian Brethren are under the illusion that they are obliged to argue Biology with you and that they must accept your misbegotten definition of “Creationism.” This struggle has nothing to do with the sanctity or the purity of Biology. It is simply a fight for public money. You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from, and you want control of the narrative. So you come on this thread (and others like it) to do battle with your political enemies, indulging in the tactics of argumentation common to the struggle for political domination that’s been going on for centuries (and as succinctly outlined by the messieurs Goebbels and Alinsky).
What Some of those same Christian Brethren have done is to smoke you out, and make it obvious that you rise not in defense of biology, but simply to join in the lists of subjugation seeking to obliterate a Christian America. How they choose to deal with this circumstance, what line of argumentation they choose, of course, is for each to determine through reflection and prayer, but I choose to not accept your maladroit mangling of the lexicon.
“Godwin’s rule.”
You mean his Law? That “Law” applies to the unsupported allegation of Nazism. I was speaking of the malevolent abuse of the lexicon. Propaganda. Typical of the ardent propagandist, you try to change the subject. You are left with nothing but the tactic of trying to shut me up by hurling insults. Pathetic.
You are a walking encyclopedia of Goebbels’ rules of propaganda. Some of them don’t apply to your small scale operation, but they are all admirably basic:
Goebbels’ brilliance resides in his grasp of the essential truth that the most successful propaganda is to be applied in the simplest of terms within the fewest basic concepts possible.
The Goebbels Principles:
#1 The BIG LIE: Keep it simple. Tell it often. Tell it at every opportunity, in every venue possible. Poison the public well with the BIG LIE until it becomes axiomatic, buried deeply in the public subconscious (such as your misanthropic use of the term “Creationist”). The bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell.
#2 Select the few facts that support your case; discard the others, or simply indulge in a brazen reversal of their contents. Distort the facts that don’t quite fit without some creative reshaping. From that base add inference and conjecture. And, follow the techniques of the BIG LIE to drive the point home.
#3 Control the Press (doesn’t apply to your two bit operation). For Goebbels this was easy. Anyone who did not follow orders, found himself, at best, on extended vacation in one of the many “resorts” scattered about Germany, or, at worst, in the basement of a government building with a bullet in his head. For 0bamatrons, control has been only a little more difficult (from time to time something will slip out, but an occasional faux pas can be buried under the BIG LIE). For some reason, those who are simultaneously attracted to the BIG LIE and to militant advocacy, also tend to be attracted to journalism.
#4 Accuse your opponent of the very activity in which you are engaged (such as slinging the term “troll” around - guess we know where you and Alinsky got your ideas).
#5 Bury any opponent, who rises in protest, under a mountain of slander, invective and vilification. This technique serves two purposes: it drowns out what the target has to say; it warns away others who might otherwise entertain the same thoughts.
#6 Build up a firestorm of hatred to divide people. For Goebbels (and the modern Arab/Islamic terrorist, and 0bamatrons), this provided a target upon which the disaffected could vent their rage, while precluding any possibility of reasoned debate. For Progressives it has the added benefit of building coalitions of voting blocs for the aggrandizement and maintenance of political power.
#7 Assemble an SA (popularly known today as the SEIU or perhaps the 0bama MauMau). Although not employed in such a brutal fashion, the SEIU and the MauMau is used for much the same purposes as were Röhm’s SA . . . the ultimate future use of either remains problematic at this time.
#8 The difficulty the BIG LIE presents its target is that in order to disprove the slander, the target is obliged to prove a negative. To prove a negative (a virtually impossible task) requires a good deal of explanation, involving the summoning of a number of facts (many of which may be arguable, and all of which are subject themselves to other BIG LIES), and extensive use of logical reasoning. The BIG LIE, conversely, can be uttered in but a few seconds or written in a sentence or two. So, while Truth is marshaling its forces and ordering its counter arguments, the BIG LIE can be told and retold, and spread far and wide. The most effective BIG LIE is one that comes the closest to the truth without quite touching the truth.
#9 Change the subject. Compounding Truth’s difficulties, the BIG LIE fits perfectly the eight second sound bite for much of what passes in the news media today as reporting, while the response, if mentioned at all, will be reported only as a brief summary. That is why the BIG LIE is called what it is, the BIG LIE. It is BIG in its spectacular scandalousness, and it is BIG in its impact when used in a format friendly to its structure.
Anyone, with bad intentions to disguise, may make efficient use of some or all of the Goebbels Principles, if they approach the problem with intelligence.
. . . Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934 Source: Der Kongress zur Nürnberg 1934 (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Frz. Eher Nachf., 1934), pp. 130 141.
The most efficient response to the nine Principles of Propaganda, of course, is to name them for what they are.
If breeding dogs into dogs is evolution, then man descending from Adam and Eve is also evolution, and therefore can be taught in evolution class.
Very well, then. Men evolved from Adam and Eve, who were created by God. This is, as you say, evolution.
Right. "separation of church and state" and "seperation of school and church" comes from the Soviet constitution. Which of course evolutionists happily embrace.
Here is more on communism, darwinism, atheism:
Science for the Workers
Rationalism, Communism, Darwinism
Rationalist Press Association
In Defense of the Communists (Clarence Darrow)
Karl Marx (JBS Haldane)
In Defense of Lysenko (Haldane)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.