|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Posted on 04/11/2003 10:59:13 AM PDT by Remedy
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:10 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Education Secretary Rod Paige yesterday stood by his comments favoring schools that appreciate "the values of the Christian community," but said he was not trying to impose his religious views on others.
At a hastily called news conference, Mr. Paige told reporters, "I understand completely and respect the separation of church and state." He called himself a "fiery advocate" of public education.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Our Secularist Democratic Party (Long, Important Analysis)
ACTION NEEDED:
Secretary Paige needs to hear from citizens who are supportive of his stand on the importance of Christian values.
You can contact him by clicking here
W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. (Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)
[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)
Federalism And Religious Liberty: Were Church And State Meant To Be Separate?
Religious Liberty: The View from the Founding
Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner On The Inseparability Of Law And Morality
In 1892, the Supreme Court stated that "this is a religious nation." Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 470 (1892). The Court has discussed the historical role of religion in our society and concluded that "[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 674 (1984). In Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212 (1963), the Court recognized that "religion has been closely identified with our history and government." Such recognition is nowhere more affirmatively expressed than in Zorach where the Court stated that "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." 343 U.S. at 313. Nevertheless, this country has witnessed a long struggle over governmental acknowledgments of the religious identity of the people of the United States.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States -- 1892 Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind... ...It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. -- NOTE: Quoted 87 past legal precedents to back this up
As early as 1811, Chancellor James Kent, Chief Justice of New York's highest court, in validating a prohibition against blasphemy, stated unequivocally that "we are a Christian people, and the morality of this country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of [non- Christian] imposters." The legal argument for this view was perhaps most memorably made by Kent's contemporary, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, whose frequently quoted interpretation of the First Amendment, in his celebrated Commentaries on the Constitution, staunchly affirmed that Christianity was part of the common law. Jews in Christian America: The Pursuit of Religious Equality. By Naomi W. Cohen. Oxford University Press. 300 pp.
"I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses ... Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia ... or to the Charter of New England ... or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay ... or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut ... the same objective is present ... a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people ... I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country." -- [Liberal] Supreme Court chief justice, Earl Warren
"They [the Founding Fathers] were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principle of self-government. They were an inspired body of men. It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness ... Who can fail to see it in the hand of Destiny? Who can doubt that it has been guided by a Divine Providence?" -- Calvin Coolidge
"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture." -- Woodrow Wilson
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
Some Jewish leaders would point to the Holocaust to say that their fear has an objective basis, yet the faith that animated Hitler was not Christianity but a racist version of Social Darwinism's emphasis on survival of the fittest. And the reason Hitler could put his faith into practice is because of a powerful government apparatus; although the left hates to admit it, National Socialism was one type of socialism.
That's why Rabbi Lapin's fearless statement makes sense: "Those of us who venerate freedom, be we Jewish or Christian, be we religious or secularized, have no option but to pray for the health of Christianity in America. No other group possesses both the faith and the numbers sufficient to hold back the ever-encroaching, sometimes sinister, power of the state."
"The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution Of The Christian Churches"
And true, which is Lautenberg's real objection to Paige's statement.
Far more significant than economics and demography are problems of moral decline, cultural suicide, and political disunity in the West. Oft-pointed-to manifestations of moral decline include:
Western Culture is challenged by groups within Western societies. One such challenge comes from immigrants from other civilizations who reject assimilation and continue to adhere to and to propagate the values, customs, and culture of their home societies. This phenomenon is most notable among Muslims in Europe, who are, however, small minority. It is also manifest, in lesser degree, among Hispanics in the United States, who area large minority. If assimilation fails in this case, the United States will become a cleft country with all the potential for strife and disunion that entails.
...Historically American national identity has defined culturally by the heritage of Western civilization and politically by by the principles of the American Creed on which Americans overwhelmingly agree: liberty, democracy, individualism, equality before the law, constitutionalism, private property. In the late 20th century, both components of American identity have come under concentrated and sustained onslaught from a small but influential number of intellectuals and publicists. In the name of multiculturalism, they have attacked the identification of he United States with Western civilization, denied the existence of a common American culture, and promoted racial, ethnic, and other subnational cultural identities and groupings. They have denounced, in the words of one of their reports, "systematic bias toward European culture and its derivatives," in education and "the dominance of the European-American monocultural perspective." The multiculturalists are, as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has said, "very often ethnocentric separatists who see little in Western heritage other than Western crimes." Their "mood is one of divesting Americans of the sinful European inheritance and seeking redemptive infusions from non-Western cultures."
...The Founding Fathers saw diversity as a reality and as a problem: hence the national motto: e pluribus unum, chosen by a committee of he Continental Congress consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. Later political leaders who also were fearful of the dangers of racial, sectional, economic, and cultural diversity (which indeed, produced the largest war of the century between 1815 and 1914), responded to the call of "bring us together," and made the promotion of national unity their central responsibility. "The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of of its continuing as a nation at all," warned Theodore Roosevelt, "would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." In the 1990s, however, leaders of he United States have not only permitted that but assiduously promoted the diversity rather than the unity of the people they govern.
A multicivilizational United states will not be the United States; it will be the United Nations.
The multiculturalists also challenged a central element of the American Creed, by substituting for he rights of individuals the rights groups, defined largely in terms of race, ethnicity, sex and sexual preference....What happens then to the United States if hat ideology is disavowed by a significant portion of its citizens?
...The futures of the United States and of the West depend upon Americans reaffirming their commitment to Western civilization. Domestically this means rejecting the divisive siren calls of multiculturalism. Û
As I've said before - you can't keep what you don't understand, and you can't defend what you can't define. Most outcome-based education kids don't even know where they are, much less have a clue about what freedom is really all about.
When I turn on my TV, there are still nothing but ratchet-jawed mental and moral midgets spewing and leering and sneering their contempt of folks just like you and me on every lamestream media channel. Noumenon Û
SYMPOSIUM Q: Is Multiculturalism a Threat to the National Security of the United States?
The state is losing its monopoly on war, and states everywhere find themselves fighting nonstate opponents — and usually losing, despite all the technology, special training and vast resources of state armed forces. War is fought at three levels: physical, mental and moral. The state is losing at the moral level, which is the highest and most decisive.
...With the death of state loyalties and identities, identification and loyalty to a culture is coming back strongly. Cultural differences are one of history's main reasons for war. Human nature being what it is, when cultures rub up against each other, the resulting friction often leads to fire.
Perhaps primary among the returning cultural loyalties is loyalty to Islam. After three centuries on the strategic defensive, Islam has during the last 50 or so years resumed the strategic offensive, expanding outward in every direction. As historian Russell Kirk wrote, culture comes from the cult, and the cult at the center of Islamic culture — Islam itself — is very much alive (unlike Christianity in much of Christendom).
Neither the state nor secular law is legitimate from an Islamic perspective. Legitimacy adheres only to the Ummah, the international Islamic community, and to Shariah, Islamic law. Islam divides the world into the Dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, the world of war; with and in the latter, there can be no peace. War against the unbeliever, the kaffir, is an Islamic duty, carrying with it the promise of martyrdom and a bevy of whores (the word is from the Arabic houri) in heaven. While there are lax Islamics, there is no such thing as tolerant or peaceful Islam.
The basic message of "multiculturalism" is that all cultures are equally good and beneficent — except Western culture, which is violent and oppressive. That message is, of course, a lie. In reality, Western culture is one of only two cultures that has been successful over time in terms of the quality of life it provided to its adherents (the other success is Chinese culture). To see real violence and oppression, one need only look at the life of non-Muslims in Islamic majority countries. The purpose of multiculturalism is to disarm the West psychologically, to make it impossible for Western men even to consider fighting in defense of the Western, Judeo-Christian way of life; to do so, as the multiculturalists preach, is to become "another Adolf Hitler" (who was, ironically, no fan of Judeo-Christian culture himself.)
Disarmament through psychological conditioning takes place endlessly in America's public schools, colleges and universities and, most powerfully, in the products of the entertainment industry, which now is the dominant force in American culture. The result is evident: While many average Americans recognize American Muslims as a dangerous fifth column, the multiculturalist elite demands a "tolerance of diversity" that Islam itself does not know. A Republican administration invites mullahs to the White House to celebrate Islamic holidays.
That multiculturalism preaches the suicide of the West is no surprise to those who know its historic origins. Multiculturalism, also known as "political correctness," is in fact Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms, in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s but to World War I.
Before 1914, Marxist ideology had predicted that if war broke out in Europe the working class in every state would rise up in revolt, overthrow the bourgeois warmongers and create international communism. When, in August 1914, war did come to Europe, that scenario didn't happen. On the contrary, the workers in every belligerent state flocked to the colors and went off to slaughter each other by the millions.
What went wrong? In the immediate aftermath of the war, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukács in Hungary, came up with the same answer. Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist, class interests that communism was impossible in the West until both had been destroyed. Asking, "Who will save us from Western civilization?," Lukács, as deputy commissar for culture in Hungary's short-lived Bolshevik regime, in 1919 introduced sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that if traditional sexual morals could be undermined, Western culture would suffer.
In 1923, a think tank was established at Frankfurt University in Germany that would pick up on Lukács' work. Named the Institute of Social Research and known informally as the Frankfurt School, this institution would create a new, heretical Marxism that saw culture not simply as a function of the ownership of the means of production, but as an independent and important factor on its own. In 1930, when Max Horkheimer became its director, it began the intellectually difficult task of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms. The key was crossing Karl Marx with Sigmund Freud.
In 1933, the institute left Germany and moved to New York City. With it came a new member, Herbert Marcuse. In the 1950s, Marcuse would take the institute's abstruse intellectual work and package it for American students in works such as Eros and Civilization.
During the 1960s, Marcuse became the chief guru of the New Left, and he injected the institute's cultural Marxism into the baby-boom generation. Its central theme, now as then, was "negation": undermining, with constant criticism and psychological manipulation, all the beliefs and institutions of Western society until Western culture itself was destroyed.
Thus we complete the circle. In a fourth-generation world of war between cultures, the ideology of "multiculturalism," which now dominates the American elite, has as its goal and objective the destruction of Western culture. The West is assailed not only from without by Islam, but from within as well, as the dying snake that is Marxism pumps its last poison into America. That poison is designed precisely to make the West unable, psychologically and morally, to defend itself at the very time that self-defense is most vital. Multiculturalism is, quite simply, cultural treason.
On the one side are the forces of fourth-generation war, led by Islam. Arrayed against them are the final dregs of the modern age, sometimes called the New World Order but more accurately named Brave New World. The latter combines the anti-Western ideology of cultural Marxism with manipulative technologies: the virtual realities of the video screen, mind-altering drugs (Ritalin is soma for kids) and, most dangerous of all, genetic engineering. While each of these contenders is bitterly hostile to the other, they agree on one thing: Western culture's got to go. The 21st century promises to be an interesting time.
NO: Our diverse population is useful both for national defense and as a model for international peace.
It seems to me that the author of the second article is a certified moron. alex
The Multicultural Theocracy: An Interview With Paul Gottfried
Multiethnic societies have been recurrent political phenomena and involve the coexistence of more than one ethnos, that is, national community, living in the same jurisdiction. Such an arrangement has usually come about because of conquest or dynastic inheritance and until now has never required a celebration of diversity. Multiethnic societies have almost always been empires because of the way they have been formed and because of their lack of cohesion beyond the fact of what Thomas Hobbes called "acquired sovereignty." Moreover, unlike multicultural regimes, multiethnic ones do not celebrate sexual exotica or the nonrecognition of separate gender identities. Multicultural regimes are inherently subversive of traditional social relations.
What are some examples of those behemoths invading civic and family life?
Examples of PC enforcement by the state are the use of Title Nine to impose verbal and behavioral conformity on male academics and workers; the various hate speech laws that exist in Canada and Europe and are applied almost exclusively against white Christian European; and the delegitimation of the historical heritage of victimizing groups: e.g., the war against Southern symbols and iconography waged, in among other areas in the US, public education [e.g., dress codes prohibiting attire with a Confederate flag].
The BBC recently had a headline, "Hate crime police raid 150 homes," about an operation in London administered by a "Diversity Directorate." Sweden recently passed a law criminalizing the "disrespecting" of homosexuals.
This attempt to muzzle traditional Christians is perfectly consistent with both the multicultural values of the therapeutic state and the thrust of liberal Christianity. In fact what is happening in England and Sweden is the disciplining by the government of Christians who have not accepted the Protestant deformation. A by now transformed Christianity, which is as grotesque in its own way as Hitler's Nazified Evangelical Church, has allied itself to the state that is suppressing Christians who will not go along with PC indoctrination.
What are the prospects for containing or rolling back the multicultural theocracy?
Note I do not think these battles will solve long-term problems; unless Western peoples start having families again, the social unit and population base needed for a civilization will be lacking.
While societies can assimilate, there are three presuppositions that must obtain: a core population that carries a distinctive culture that it hopes to preserve; a minority that is accepted on the condition that it eagerly embraces that majority culture; and a sufficiently controlled immigration so that assimilation is possible.
Kennedy:"I urge you to repudiate these divisive comments."
These people are nuts.
Stark raving insane.
As I said many times earlier, I would love this country to return to its Christian roots and Judeo-Christian values.
The swimming souse strikes again.
And you don't. Being lectured by that slanderous lardass Kennedy and the abortionist Lautenburg should be proof enough that he is right.
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.