Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RECONSTRUCTION THEOLOGY AND HOME EDUCATION [Rushdoony, HSLDA, Gary North]
Houston Unschooling Group ^ | 1999 | Mary McCarthy

Posted on 11/17/2003 8:24:55 AM PST by Chancellor Palpatine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 last
To: Law
The article was in a magazine that's clearly reconstructionist.

Is Moore a reconstructionist?

201 posted on 11/17/2003 6:18:06 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Is Moore a reconstructionist?

I don't know, but I've read a lot about him and several of his writings and haven't seen that. Given his position, it wouldn't make much sense for him to refuse the aid of any Christian group just because he doesn't agree with their eschatology (theology of the end times). That, I imagine, is why he has worked with Catholics (Alan Keyes) and dispensationalists (I'm pretty sure that's Jerry's position) who don't have the same views of the end times.

202 posted on 11/17/2003 6:24:27 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
In your small minded, myopic view, mebbe.
203 posted on 11/17/2003 6:36:04 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Nah, just a little lectronic castration.
204 posted on 11/17/2003 6:37:57 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: ckca
In your small minded, myopic view, mebbe.

Disagree with anything ckca says=small minded, myopic

Gotcha.

205 posted on 11/17/2003 6:38:42 PM PST by wimpycat ("I'm mean, but I make up for it by bein' real healthy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
Finally.
206 posted on 11/17/2003 6:39:49 PM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Oh, I'm at my kid limit, thats for certain - not a socialist in the bunch, either. Good American materialists, who like the notion that they live in a nation where their opportunities are boundless, that they can pursue any career they want, and aren't trapped by their gender as women are in unenlightened cultures and societies.

I wouldn't think y'all would understand that.

You might be surprised what we'd understand. Christians, like conservatives, don't fit the stereotypes of the Washington Post.

At any rate, even if we didn't understand, that wouldn't matter, as the primary political aim of Christians is to be left alone to practice our faith without government meddling. We want a much smaller government (more money in your pocket). We want to end socialist education (no more property taxes and you can send your children to the market-accountable school of your choice and still have money left over).

Our strongest discipline is expulsion from the church, so we don't hold on to those, including women, who grew up among us but want to leave the church and pursue another path.

So what's so scary?

207 posted on 11/17/2003 6:45:52 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
But now for the pleasantest part of my duty. It falls to my lot to propose on behalf of the guests the health of Principal Slubgob and the Tempters’ Training College. Fill your glasses. What is this I see? What is this delicious bouquet I inhale? Can it be? Mr. Principal, I unsay all my hard words about the dinner. I see, and smell, that even under wartime conditions the College cellar still has a few dozen of sound old vintage Pharisee. Well, well, well. This is like old times. Hold it beneath your noses for a moment, gentledevils. Hold it up to the light. Look at those fiery streaks that writhe and tangle in its dark heart, as if they were contending. And so they are. You know how this wine is blended? Different types of Pharisee have been harvested, trodden, and fermented together to produce its subtle flavour. Types that were most antagonistic to one another on Earth. Some were all rules and relics and rosaries; others were all drab clothes, long faces, and petty traditional abstinences from wine or cards or the theatre. Both had in common their self-righteousness and an almost infinite distance between their actual outlook and anything the Enemy really is or commands. The wickedness of other religions was the really live doctrine in the religion of each; slander was its gospel and denigration its litany. How they hated each other up where the sun shone! How much more they hate each other now that they are forever conjoined but not reconciled. Their astonishment, their resentment, at the combination, the festering of their eternally impenitent spite, passing into our spiritual digestion, will work like fire. Dark fire. All said and done, my friends, it will be an ill day for us if what most humans mean by “Religion” ever vanishes from the Earth. It can still send us the truly delicious sins. Nowhere do we tempt so successfully as on the very steps of the altar.

Your Imminence, your Disgraces, my Thorns, Shadies, and Gentledevils: I give you the toast of – Principal Slubgob and the College!

C.S. Lewis--"Screwtape Proposes a Toast"

208 posted on 11/17/2003 7:01:29 PM PST by wimpycat ("I'm mean, but I make up for it by bein' real healthy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Law
The only people permitted to vote would be members of 'biblically correct' churches. Most notably, a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning…a reconstructed America would have little room for Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or even non-Reconstructionist Christians.

If your strongest discipline is expulsion from the church, and that's how you like it and want it to remain, if you want school choice, if you want much smaller government, etc., etc. then this article is not even about you. I know this article isn't about me, and I'm a Christian; Southern Baptist, specifically.

209 posted on 11/17/2003 7:10:43 PM PST by wimpycat ("I'm mean, but I make up for it by bein' real healthy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Law
At any rate, even if we didn't understand, that wouldn't matter, as the primary political aim of Christians is to be left alone to practice our faith without government meddling. We want a much smaller government (more money in your pocket). We want to end socialist education (no more property taxes and you can send your children to the market-accountable school of your choice and still have money left over).

It seems as if those are somewhat libertarian goals. The people on this thread which you are arguing with, while nice people, have a great fear of libertarianism/constitutionalism/small-government. Basically New-Deal fans domestically with strong foreign policy views.

210 posted on 11/17/2003 7:12:38 PM PST by jmc813 (Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
It seems as if those are somewhat libertarian goals. The people on this thread which you are arguing with, while nice people, have a great fear of libertarianism/constitutionalism/small-government. Basically New-Deal fans domestically with strong foreign policy views.

The chancellor emphasized that none of his children were socialists; he doesn't seem to be a New Deal fan. Hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong. But if not, his views should be very compatible with a more biblical government.

211 posted on 11/17/2003 7:20:03 PM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Precisian
You miss the same point everybody misses with "Reconstructionism". Here is a thought-experiment to clear things up for you.

If a legal election is held under the terms of our Constitution, and the Federal Judiciary sustains the decision of the ballot by a vote of the majority of the Supreme Court....is this "imposing tyranny?"


With all due respect, I don't understand the point. Do you mean that if enough of the American voting public can be convinced to repeal the First Amendment and turn the U.S. into a theocracy would this be imposing tyranny? If so, the answer would be yes. It is not a difficult question.

I mean, honestly, do you think it would be okay if the majority were to, say, take the franchise away from non-Christians, even if it changed our form of government first so as to be able to do so "legally?"

I'm not afraid this is going to happen, and I don't think that anyone who would advocate this is representative of Christians. But it's your thought-experiment, so I think it's only fair for you to follow it through. I am getting the impression that people are reacting more to a perceived agenda of some posters than bothering to stake out their positions. If no one here supports turning the U.S. into some sort of Christian nation where adherents of the official religion are favored, then this is just a not-very-interesting wrasslin' match between two fellow Freepers. Okay, I admit it, a strangely compelling wrasslin' match :-)

Those who do advocate such a program should be proud to come out and say so. Then the merits can be debated.
212 posted on 11/17/2003 7:27:58 PM PST by SalukiLawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
The article is hogwash on many levels and I'll not waste my time on a point by point but I'll give you just one example...

On the author's list of commited reconstructionists is Tim LaHaye.

You might have heard of LaHaye...he's the creator of the Left Behind series of books which express his theological views in fictional format.

Those views involve a pre-millenial rapture which is the antithesis of reconstructionalism.

Given that the author could overlook a phenomena as huge as the "Left Behind" books I am forced to conclude the s/he is to inept to have any clue what the rest of those folks believe.

Yes, Chalcedon is reconstructionist, perhaps many others there as well. But given the inclusion of LaHaye, there is no way way to trust the article on anyone else.

BTW: Speaking as a homeschooler who has not the tinyest delusion of reconstructionalism in his theology, I still think that America can return to the Christian WORLDVIEW held by her founders (I do NOT think she actually WILL, but I think it is possible) but that in no way means that I advocate the enforcing of Christian tenents by force of law - such would be anethema to me.
Likewise, I do not have the slighest temptation to install an Old Testament theocracy, but I can easily affirm that God's standards do not change. There is no contridiction in that.

So selectivly quoting Ferris (and probably others) carries practically no weight.

So, at the end of the day, the article undermines its own credibility and is thus - useless.
213 posted on 11/17/2003 7:32:21 PM PST by WillRain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Wishful thinking. CP has been discredited, and this article repeatedly revealed for what it is. That is success.

And CP's basic premise has been derailed and forgotten. That is success.

CP's premise is very clear and to the point. All you have demonstrated is your inability to present an intelligent argument. Or for that matter any argument at all.

Your posts have shown that Reconstructionism Theology is backed by people with an inability to present an intelligent argument.

214 posted on 11/17/2003 9:03:17 PM PST by LPM1888 (What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? - Lazarus Long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Why would you take such offense to this article unless you actually endorsed the tenets of Christian Reconstructionism and Christian Dominionism? Do you realize that CP simply chummed the waters of dogmatism? And that you and your friends didn't need to bite, but you did? Why? Do you really think these people who advocate disenfranchisement of those with which they disagree and rationalize stoning disobedient offspring are channeling the word of God?
215 posted on 11/17/2003 9:48:54 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #216 Removed by Moderator

To: Servant of the 9
And your primary sources for these statements are?
Any perusal of the speeches and writings of most of these men would show that their beliefs were contrary to our modern definition, at least, of deism. Even Franklin, who identified himself as a deist, either did not hold to our understanding of the term, or changed from it over time.
I have found that most of the souce material for such comments comes from lectures in the university, which are not generally footnoted well, as they can't be.
If you can provide me with primary source material concerning this, I would be delighted,
thank you
217 posted on 11/17/2003 10:52:01 PM PST by Apogee (vade in pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Law; ckca
what's so scary?

I also don't get what's so scary about the big, bad Reconstructionists.

If I understand correctly, they envision an eventual world where Christ has opened the hearts of nearly everyone to the glory of His kingdom.

Shudder. A fate worse than death for some, it would appear. Can't have too much of that glory; we might lose sight of the really important stuff.

218 posted on 11/17/2003 11:58:42 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
What is amazing to me is the folks that cannot see the difference between Christians who are political... and power hungry tyrants using the trappings of religious ideology to gain power over other people POLITICALLY.

After two years of discussing talibunnies, you would think we would recognise the "stone the sinners" crowd on a forum like this and across the nation. Dominion theology is wrong. Jesus said he would build his church. These folks want to take his job and hijack it to build political kingdoms for themselves... an Ozzie and Harriet eternal garden party where all who do not toe the line... are stoned, marginalized and ostracized... just like the whores and lepers of Jesus' day were treated by the Scribes and Pharisees.

We are allowing some private religious schools to train up these "punish all sinners" brown shirts, right here in America, while criticizing the president for not shutting down the sharia schools in Pakistan.

Chanellor is on to something here.
I know dozens of Christ honoring freepers on this site who see it just this way too. they see the dangers of the religious zealots posing as Christians, and bringing our religious freedoms to a halt... one day because of their virtual terrorist outlook.

Some folks who don't agree with stem cell research, openly discuss attacking schools, research centers and medical personnel with acts of violence. One day, when a kid who is under their tutelage actually does the deed... the circle will be complete. Christian extremists will have fully become the very thing they criticized in the islamic nutcake society... aka the talibunnies and al quaeda wearing crucifixes instead of turbans and burkas.

We can love Jesus, believe his words, and follow his commands without ramming down other's throats at gunpoint... or under the aegis of federal laws.

I don't believe these folks are actually Christians... wolves in sheeps clothing... maybe. Tyrannists in the making... definitely. CP and others are right to point these links and writings out.
219 posted on 11/18/2003 1:41:39 AM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (robert... the rino... LWMPTBHFTOSTA....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Thats because the do believe their pastors and leaders.
They pay them.
220 posted on 11/18/2003 1:44:44 AM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (robert... the rino... LWMPTBHFTOSTA....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ckca
I accomplished my goals on this thread, thanks. Go pound sand.


attacking the site owner for not agreeing with you, and refusing to take sides was your goal...

rofl...
221 posted on 11/18/2003 1:52:04 AM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (robert... the rino... LWMPTBHFTOSTA....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Law
I don't know, but I've read a lot about him and several of his writings and haven't seen that. Given his position, it wouldn't make much sense for him to refuse the aid of any Christian group just because he doesn't agree with their eschatology (theology of the end times). That, I imagine, is why he has worked with Catholics (Alan Keyes) and dispensationalists (I'm pretty sure that's Jerry's position) who don't have the same views of the end times.

I haven't seen that either--but Moore is finally free from judicial restraint. I'll be interesting in the upcoming months to see what he does and says.

222 posted on 11/18/2003 3:58:55 AM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2; Dr. Eckleburg; Law
Dominion theology is wrong. Jesus said he would build his church. These folks want to take his job and hijack it to build political kingdoms for themselves

If you really take the article's undocumented and biased assertions seriously, then how do you account for this one statement?

"...income taxes would not exceed ten percent..."

Your protestations are laughable, and your allegations unsupported by this piece of Democrat dreck. About the only "political kingdom" one could build on 9% tax revenue is a Libertarian-styled one. How many jack-booted, stone-wielding, Reconstructionist thugs can they afford to put on every street corner (and thus on the government dole), if the taxation rate can't exceed 10%?

223 posted on 11/18/2003 5:32:10 AM PST by Alex Murphy (Athanasius contra mundum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: ckca; Chancellor Palpatine
I think sexual deviants need mental help. Not me

By "sexual deviants," I think he means anyone other than people who engage exclusively in married, missionary position sex with the lights off.

224 posted on 11/18/2003 6:41:17 AM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
If I understand correctly, they envision an eventual world where Christ has opened the hearts of nearly everyone to the glory of His kingdom.

I think that's kind of a cleaned-up version of the ideology. There also seems to be this under-current where people who refuse to accept their particular ideology would find themselves disenfranchised, or worse.

225 posted on 11/18/2003 6:49:14 AM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; Alex Murphy; Law; ckca
See post #223.

And after reading your post #224, I realize now where you're coming from, M and M.

226 posted on 11/18/2003 7:44:32 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And you accomplished exactly nothing, unless making yourself look foolish was your goal.

He's accomplished turning the thread into a discussion of the posters rather than a discussion of the article. Perhaps that was his intent.

227 posted on 11/18/2003 8:42:31 AM PST by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
I have noticed a pattern of thought among the anti-social conservative leg of FR. Their defining characteristics are:

1. Science provides salvation.
2. Principles based on selfishness (Fiscal Conservative)
3. No position on watershed issues (Abortion, Homosexuality, Mind altering drugs...) using privacy as an excuse.

These positions are derived from an anti-God mentallity based on the intellectual acceptance of the theory of evolution. Homeschooling by Christian conservatives destroys the direction they wish to take the country because it is anti-evolution.

Their biggest fear is that they will be marginalized by the larger segement of the social/fiscal conservative movement. Because of the clear divide in ideology, they are sytematically trying to tear down the religious orientation the country was founded on, as well as the Republican party.

They are despots to our culture because they undermine the most significant tenent of our society.

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS granted by our societies Creator. And the fact that those rights can only be defined by our societies Creator.
228 posted on 11/18/2003 8:54:35 AM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
How many jack-booted, stone-wielding, Reconstructionist thugs can they afford to put on every street corner (and thus on the government dole)

You're assuming they'd need to pay people to do this. You have a few people on this very thread who seem willing to volunteer.

229 posted on 11/18/2003 8:58:00 AM PST by malakhi (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
What is wrong with you??? You've been on FR long enough to know better. You admit to just casually reading the article and then post what you perceived to have read!! Incredible.
230 posted on 11/20/2003 12:27:56 PM PST by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Great post, thank you.
231 posted on 11/20/2003 12:42:01 PM PST by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
Freedom comes from Christ, we just borrowed the idea.

Thank you for your encouragement!
232 posted on 11/20/2003 1:08:04 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
Well, for one thing...I am at work, and casual perusal is all I can accomplish. Was my premise incorrect?
233 posted on 11/20/2003 2:30:54 PM PST by irishtenor (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati ............(When all else fails, play dead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
Was my premise incorrect?

Well, all I can suggest is that you reread the article carefully and familiarize yourself with the people mentioned in the article and judge for yourself. As a Christian homeschooler, I am familiar with most of people mentioned and have personally met some of them The article was written in 1999 and the poster of the article is a freeper known to bait and incite anyone with a faith in God and all the morals and values attributed to that faith. It was posted for the sole purpose of causing disruption and arguments. CP thrives on baiting Christians. He's got mud in his tires.

234 posted on 11/21/2003 9:48:24 AM PST by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
That is what I thought, and that was the basis of my question. The question was... what is wrong with these people bringing back morals and integrity to our government and society? I don't see where they were doing wrong.
235 posted on 11/21/2003 2:27:32 PM PST by irishtenor (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati ............(When all else fails, play dead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
It's a hit piece on Christians. The author attributes a false ideology to those mentioned. There's a paranoia feel to the article.
236 posted on 11/22/2003 1:17:07 PM PST by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
Right. That is why I asked him what was wrong with what they were doing. I wanted to hear his side.
237 posted on 11/24/2003 2:17:53 PM PST by irishtenor (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati ............(When all else fails, play dead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Most who throw around the terms "Theonomy" and "Christian Reconstruction" have not read much of the original literature, but second-hand stuff.

"Theonomy" and "Christian Reconstruction" are terms that are thrown around loosely to ensnare the gullible. Most of it is traditional Calvinism.

The best place to start is Cornelius Van Til.

238 posted on 12/05/2003 6:00:25 PM PST by Aggressive Calvinist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Aggressive Calvinist
***The best place to start is Cornelius Van Til.***

Warms the cockles of me heart!

BTW, I have many of CVT's books that are autographed, including "Defense of the Faith."
239 posted on 12/05/2003 6:16:00 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Law
Bump for review.
240 posted on 04/07/2004 7:21:13 AM PDT by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I got to this thread about 2 years too late it would seem, however, first let me assure you that I am not Christian but certainly not anti-christian in any respects. I was raised Catholic and hold several Christians as my closest friends.

What concerns me here is first and foremost the obvious (from the view of an outsider looking in) assumption that just because someone uses the same words to define their faith, they must believe the same thing I have had to endure countless people assuming that I am an amoral sex freak because I am a self confessed Neo-Pagan on the one hand and have been mistaken for a kind Christian due to my charity work and profession on the other. The fact is that I would be surprised if many of the Christians on this board would have more in common with the CR people than they do with me, but I would also be surprised if I found that admitting that I am a Pagan right off the bat inspired confidence in those same people.

The truth of the matter is that firstly, the Christian Reconstructionists are anything but the nice and cuddly Christians who believe in the Christian admonition to love thine neighbor and the ethics espoused by such teaching stories as the story of the good Samaritan. The charges leveled at them by this article are indeed true (for the most part, although perhaps slightly sensationalized) although it may take a bit of digging to see the truth.

First I'll point you to this site which is set up to sell a video of the biggest heroes of the Recon movement, especially interesting to listen to is the video response of George Grant to question nine. In it he espouses the belief (held by every major player in the movement) in the absolute necessity to reestablish Old Testament law. Also see Rushdoony's video response to the same question where he decries Autonomy in favor of theonomy (please note that while neither of these guys answer the question, the subject of the question is what will happen to non-Christians in a Christian ruled society:

http://forerunner.com/revolution/questions.html


Here you can find everything else you could ever hope to find out about the CR, including what to expect as far as the new (or really old) laws they plan to institute when they take over (oh boy, a return to slavery and stoning deaths of non Christians that talk about their beliefs, don't get me started on the marriage of virgin rape victims with their attacker...):

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/cr.htm


Just a couple more little tidbits for those that still don't think these guys are actually trying to institute a forcible takeover of the government (this is from the above site):

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.

Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 87."

And then:

"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.
Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25."

How is that for a link to home schooling... I'm not saying that all home schoolers are doing this, I do think that these guys are though and that is the point I would like to make.

By looking back at the posts on this thread I was disgusted to see Vonnegut's formula from "Breakfast of Champions" being demonstrated in perfect clarity. The idea is that a person doesn't choose his or her beliefs based upon sound judgement and rational thinking but upon what their friends say and feel. If an enemy brings up a great idea then it is automatically scrutinized and if real reasons to go against it aren't found the case is just closed and the opposite opinion is followed.

These guys are freaks, plain and simple and to defend them is to defend a group that wants to specifically take over the U.S. and replace it with their own literal interpretation of biblical law, with all the good old prohibitions against eating shell fish (an "abomination" if you go by Old Testament law) and the requirements that disobedient children be stoned to death by the family.

On the other hand, I didn't see a single citation of these sites of which I know many of them have been operational for at least 3 years. I know, I found out about these guys back then and found this site within 5 minutes of searching, you guys really didn't even try to show documented evidence of this group's activities in relation to this article and I found it within just a few minutes! No, I'm not patting myself on the back, it wasn't even really a challenge, and that is my point.

If any of us humans want to be taken seriously we have to accept the fact that people (as opposed to an individual) are stupid and we need to have everything layed out before us if we are to look at things seriously. If we really want to have our ideas looked at and taken seriously we have to take the trouble to at least try to communicate why we think we are right. You guys didn't even try.

If we are to try to understand each-other we need to be able to understand that communication is a two way street, one person must try to tell their position in words the listener can understand and the listener must try to understand what the speaker is saying even if the two can't stand each-other. If there is a breakdown on either side then the meaning of the words get lost in transmission.

Please represent humanity better in the future, I don't want the aliens to think that we all act like cattle.

Lots of love and mental hugs,
Rob
241 posted on 09/09/2005 4:47:02 AM PDT by coyoteknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson