News-Record.com

He said that he wanted to expose his students to "different religious views"? Wow, that sounds so very reasonable. Until you look at what he actually did. What this story says he did was bring in one speaker who's religious views were the same as his. So perhaps it would have been closer to "honest" to say that he wanted to expose his students to "a religious view" of his choosing.

Now, if he had said that he was going to bring in a Muslim to explain his religious views, or other people of varying religions and add in a non-religious speaker, he might have had a little better credibility. What this guy sounds like is just another liar for Jesus.

And no, the school isn't out of line here. The teacher made an obvious effort to indoctrinate his class, arranging a speaker to come in and tell the students in his charge things that he most likely knew he'd get in trouble for saying himself. Why he didn't just get a job at a private Christian school, and work happily there without such secular rules, I'll never know.

The truth is that ALL schools are religious schools. It just so happens that our public schools are tightly controlled by the Atheist/Humanist Magistarium, and no transgressions of this exclusivist (minus Christians of course) agenda is permitted without grave repercussions from the Inquisition of the media and courts. It’s locked up tight!

If a true humanist teacher had invited a Muslim into the classroom to talk about how wonderful and peaceful Islam really is, he or she would have been applauded and shielded from any criticism. Because the teacher happened to be one of those heretical Christian supernaturalists, and invited someone who could give a first hand report of just how oppressive and legalistic Islam really is, he transgressed Humanist Law grievously, and the predictable media feeding frenzy began.

All this hate speech nonsense is part of the Humanist campaign to silence Christian “heretics.” The Muslims are already moving relentlessly in our educational system toward a Sharia-dominated culture; an environment where atheists and gays fair badly, to say the least. But the truth about Islam cannot be told in an environment where the cardinal doctrine of inclusivism reigns supreme. Humanist ideas and doctrines are built into the curricula and the inculcation of them is their prime directive. Our schools have become the haunt of every kooky ideology and moral compromise imaginable: witchcraft, Marxism, abortion “rights,” and perverse sexuality. Drugs, violence and gang activity are ubiquitous – thanks to moral relativism, God-less-ness, lax discipline, and bad, boring curricula.

I agree, however, he should teach in a Christian school, and leave Babylon to continue to self-destruct.

Nikos, you have ignored the basic matter in this case -- that the Christian teacher brought a Christian speaker in and then lied about his motives. I'm disappointed but hardly surprised.

Had I been a teacher and thought it would be part of my curriculum to actually expose my students to "different religious views," this particular speaker could very well have been included... to explain Christianity. Along with a Muslim Imam, a Jewish Rabbi, Buddhist monk, and whatever representitives I could find from Hindu, Shinto and B'Hai faiths. In fact, I think high school is a good venue in which to expose students to HONEST comparisons between various religions.

Having a Christian give his views of someone else's religion is not likely to be honest, you know. Or would you trust a Hindu to give an accurate account of your religion to a roomful of strangers who had never been exposed to it?

Nikos, Eric is right. If you had bothered to read the article you would know that.

" Escamilla invited the evangelist to make a presentation to his Bible in History class -- an elective -- to talk about the impact the Bible has had on him."

"On Feb. 15, Solomon gave eight talks to eight groups of students. On a video that Escamilla recorded of one of those talks, Solomon is seen waving a copy of the Quran and denouncing Islam as a religion of violence.

"I want you to be aware of these deceits," Solomon says in the video. "A Muslim may say to you, 'Islam is a religion of peace.' It's not true. Don't believe it."

At the end of each session, Solomon distributed pamphlets. One called the Prophet Muhammad a "criminal," "demon possessed" and "inspired by Satan." Another was titled "Do Not Marry A Muslim Man." "

Tell me Nikos, what does the bible and it's impact on his life have to do with trashing islam?
Escamilla was wrong and deserved the punishment he received.

I did read the article and I said what I meant. I suggested he leave the public schools and teach in a Christain school where he could speak the truth without the Humanist Inquisition coming down on him. I'm not saying he did everything correctly; it was strongly presented in the public school context; even if most of what he said (according to the article) is correct regarding Islam.

My point is that the biased Humanist agenda is freely propagated in the schools: historical revisionism, anti-Christian slants and inuendos, pro-abortionism, feminism. Of course, Humanists will say, "Those things are all fine, they're true and progressive." That's their opinion! But their opinion and bias prevail in the piblic schools because they have been controlled and developed by them for many decades now.

Everything has to be so-called "neutral." If you are tallking about religion, you have to have

"a Muslim Imam, a Jewish Rabbi, Buddhist monk, and whatever representitives I could find from Hindu, Shinto and B'Hai faiths."

You see, the Humanist sits above the fray and arrogantly presumes to have the true faith of "Inclusivism," to which everyone else must kow tow. This is the ideology and spiritual Ultimate that all must accept. It is a know-nothing, homogenized, pot pourri of Relativism. Hence the sad state of our schools generally. Moral confusion and left-leaning teachers and books predominate. If Christians are teaching in them, they are silenced at every turn.

In the end, there is, and cannot be, a neutral, non-religious state of being, culturally or educationally. There will ALWAYS, without fail, be an ultimate and regnant values system of thought and action. Only ONE system can exist in a culture, because the very foundational and pivotal values of life are at stake; and such key issues will always be propagated and defended with great zeal and determination, including the supression or elimination of all rivals.

Any system, such as atheistic Humanism, which presents such an array of principles qualifies as a religion. The "god" of Humanism is Man (the measure of all things), the faithful are catechized in the schools, worship in the media and rock concerts, and live out their ethos in the free-sex, drug-driven lifestyle of modern American "culture."

I say that humanist Babylon (center of false religion) must self-destruct because the core values and moral imperatives that hold all high and advancing cultures together are the moral and spiritual Laws of Holy Scripture, whether gleaned from its pages or observed in the nature of things. They are cohesive, ascendent and deeply satisfying. Immorality and godless principles of life are always degenerative and agonizing. Just take a tour of our mental insititutions, psychiatrist offices, public schools restrooms, drug rehabs, AIDS clinics, etc. and you will see the results of the glorious Humanist experiment in full display.

I admit, by the Humanist standard, Escamilla was out of line - in the public school arena. My point is that he was indeed a "sacrifice lamb," an example placed in the stocks for time, to suppress further uninclusivist transgressions of the Humanist dogma.

"My point is that the biased Humanist agenda is freely propagated in the schools: historical revisionism, anti-Christian slants and inuendos, pro-abortionism, feminism."

What is "biased" in the scenario I proposed? Do you honestly think that such a plan, which would actually match the words said by the teacher, would have been a breach of teaching standards for a hypothetical course in comparative religion?

"I admit, by the Humanist standard, Escamilla was out of line - in the public school arena."

This man lied, Nikos. Is that "out of line" only in public schools? Do you, like Luther, think that "a good strong lie for God" is a good, holy thing to do?

By the Humanist standard?? Tell me Nikos, by whose standard is lying and breaking the rules a good thing?? BTW, the term is "sacrificial lamb", which does not apply here.

"Everything has to be so-called "neutral." "

If you have a problem with that then talk to the government. We do have this little thing called seperation of church and state which applies to teachers just as much as any other government employee. Even though he himself may not have said a word out of line, he did nothing when Solomon started in on his rant. Therefore he's just as guilty as Solomon if not more so since he knew what was permissible and what wasn't.

I said that he (Escamilla) was out of line in having such a strongly proselytizing figure in his classroom situation. I said that. But you think I'm defending this guy and everything he said and did. Not so.

I’m looking at larger issues, not fixating on this poor dude. There have been reports of many leftist/humanist teachers shoving perversion, anti-war bias, abortion and many other "progressive" causes down students’ throats. And, some of them were disciplined for it too. My point is that, aside from the extreme cases, there is a definite, measurable Humanist bias throughout the entire public school structure, from day care to doctoral programs.

In the first place, I do not believe in "public" schools. I think they were/are a bad idea, because it was inevitable that they would become a den of unbelief, conflict and secularism. And so it is. We would have been far better off to have left education to private entities, and had a true variety of viewpoints, each tailoring their educational enterprise to their own particular worldview. Now we have this huge, unwieldy, failing Humanist monolith that declares, by its referee status, to be the ultimate reality - that can sort out, define and debunk all other worldviews. It is very simply intellectual socialism – and tyranny. That’s why I said that Escamilla was out of line, only within the public school milieu; although some Christian schools may not have liked Solomon’s agenda and MO either. If he lied, he is culpable. But that’s not the central issue here. It’s the whole idea of having to kow-tow to the Humanist Inquisition at every turn to get it's approval and imprimatur.

Having been a public school teacher for years, I KNOW what goes on in the system. And it’s a real jungle – not in all cases, but in far too many. They are failing because they are a socialistic monopoly, being fed a supply of students who are themselves products of a social and media environment that is corrupt, immoral and idiotic. Add to that mixture widespread drug use and broken homes – all thrown into a huge godless mind-factory and voilà: a dumbed-down, massacre-prone caldron of chaos, mediocrity and failure. Just because there are a few bright spots doesn’t change the basic picture.

I think we (our representative governments) should inaugurate a five year plan to close them ALL down! They are surviving only because they have a mandated money pipeline from everyone’$ pocket book$. Churches, et al. should then step in and either buy the buildings or build their own with all the money they would have without property taxes and the lottery racket. The RCC and Lutherans are already ahead of the game, as are other religious and secular entities.

A non-competitive, socialized educational system is as doomed to failure as the Soviet collectives and industries. I advise every Christian I can to abandon the public schools as quickly as possible. It’s like sending their children to Pharaoh’s temple to be educated in the ways of unbelief and paganism. True learning is only possible in an environment of godly truth, wisdom and grace. “The way of the sinner is hard.” But the “Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

Do parents have an absolute right to avoid taxes meant to offer an equal opportunity for eduaction for their not-as-wealthy neighbors? At what point does a child have a right, if ever, to learn something his/her parents don't want them to learn? Tough questions. It is admittedly a delicate balancing act and I would not condone any public school teacher enforcing one particular humanist or theist point of view exlusively. But you seem to advocate a wave of Balkanization that would threaten the country with even greater disunity than we are experiencing.

The ultimate free enterprise of education by private firms and churches (which are private firms with special tax advantages), would lead to a) rampant Channel 1-style advertising (and urged consumerism) to impressionable student audiences which has been shown to skewer the information the class is ostensibly studying; and b) indoctrination in the faiths able to get enough money for running schools while those without means are left to go to the cut-rate for-profits.

Is there any doubt the profit motive would corrupt much of what was taught? What about health and safety? Would we have any government oversight? Bottom-line means cutting lots of corners, substandard materials when they can be hidden, extra costs for each amenity (some airlines are doing this now, charging by the bag, for peanuts, etc.; maybe we should have each child pay for each piece of paper, for each eraser, for each little wipe to clean up after their neighbor drools or spits or barfs near them? If a child's family hasn't got the cash, but doesn;t want to switch to a school with a cheaper tuition, they'll just have to buck up and takes it like a mensch!)

Do you think Marxist theories and their place in history, say, their influence on important art and ideas that aren't necessarily communist, including dismal failures as well as marvelous innovations, shouldn't be taught, Nikos? Sounds dumbed down to me. Or are you upset some children, having been given (I agree, preferably unbiased) accounts of the theories, have wanted to explore and encourage more socially-connected images by artists out of conscience for the plight of the proles, or have even been moved to take action to promote policies and programs by a (seldom, admittedly) responsive government?
It sounds as if your god is a hard-core capitalist (Didn't Jesus have a word or two...even some harsh physical violence...for the moneychangers?). Adam Smith before the Fall?

You say the Lutherans and RCC are ahead of the game. Yet, if private and parochial schools were the only system, wouldn't the vast majority of anti-evolution parentsopt out of public schools(it's around 35% in the US, I believe, with another 25-30% who want both creationism and Darwin taught as equivalent and competing explanations for physical reality)? Under your scenario, these parents would likely take the tax money which would have allowed both their own children and some less-well-off kids (who may want more rigorous science) to go to public school, and instead cart them off to a piously creationist school, dooming us to further erosion of our place among nations in the number of high-level scientists, biologists, researchers, physicists and engineers graduating yearly? Oh, yeah, it won't matter to them, since the end times are upon us.

The machine you type upon and send your thoughts out into the ether with was not invented by someone who held the world was created in six days, I venture. Ditto for the lion's share of late 20th century advances in medicine, vaccines and technology of all sorts.

Finally, Nikos, I know you dislike "ad hominem" responses, but have you considered that your assertion that "true learning" only happens in the hermetically sealed world of your ideal theocratic state might be taken as a grave insult to a great many of us, myself included, who learned lessons in the life of the mind and heart from extraordinary teachers of all stripes, including many, many non-Christians and, yes, atheists? I would entreat you to abstain from impugning their commitment to excellence and ability to inspire like-minded devotion to honesty, integrity and beauty of word, thought and deed.

"I said that he (Escamilla) was out of line in having such a strongly proselytizing figure in his classroom situation."

Look back at your original words, Nikos. Here they are, in case you don't want to do the scan:

"I admit, by the Humanist standard, Escamilla was out of line"

To me, this says that you use a different standard for this man's actions, a better standard. Sure sounded to me like you applaud this fellow and ignored the fact that he publicly lied about his motives.

Eric, I neither applauded him nor condemned him. Neither is appropriate in this case, as humanly fallible as he is. Because we do not know him personally and are not privy to the intimacies of his motives, neither I, you, or anyone else can be sure of what they are. But, as I said, that is not the issue here. It’s the freedom to speak and teach in accordance with one’s deeply held views on life issues.
"I admit, by the Humanist standard, Escamilla was out of line"
“To me, this says that you use a different standard for this man's actions, a better standard. Sure sounded to me like you applaud this fellow and ignored the fact that he publicly lied about his motives.”
In regard to his having Solomon speak to his class, my implication was NOT that all he (Escamilla) said or did was necessarily ethically pure, but that in an orthodox Christian school it may have been within practical and ideological permissibility; but in a humanist-inclusivist context it was extreme and not within policy. And (although you will scoff at it) Christian teachers are under such pressure to be mute and innocuous that deception my rear its ugly head in the process of survival or self-justification. All of us humanoids are vulnerable to such behavior. Not that it justifies or exonerates him – or anyone else. He is accountable for any ethical shortfall.
This phenomenon does illustrate my point, that ultimately, only one wordview can and must predominate in a culture, the educational process being central and crucial to its progress and success. Two such diametrically divergent views as Humanism and biblical Christianity cannot coexist forever. The culture “wars” are not strictly cultural, but spiritual in nature.
That’s why I said that he would be better off leaving the restrictive confines of the public schools and seeking out a friendlier clime. I did – because I could see the biblical answers to the public school dilemmas and I didn’t want to be in a constant state of conflict and reprimand, so I exited the system and eventually found a much more comfortable and fulfilling place as a home school dad and occasional Christian school teacher. I also have known non-Christian public school teachers who left because they were totally frustrated and drained. So, the widespread exodus of teachers from the system illustrates my point dramatically. It is a rapidly degenerating system that has already prompted many localities to farm out their schools (was it Bridgeport, CN?) to private entities, and to consider vouchers to create alternatives, AND competition (Ooooo, that ugly Kapitalist word). Not that these alternatives are a total fix either, but it does speak volumes.
Freddy, I think that if we just dismantled the ailing behemoth we would find creative ways to offer education to ALL who want it: money, facilities, everything – monied and needy. If people own their schools (as it used to be more the case even in public schools) they are much more prone to support them in every way. I do not mean to imply that everything is wrong with our public schools. (My statements are meant to be a sort of rhetorical hyperbole.) There are many commendable attempts to fix them, and many dedicated teachers involved. But the fact still remains that there is a systemic virus of failure that tends to overwhelm even the most noble attempts to heal the patient.
Freddy: “Finally, Nikos, I know you dislike "ad hominem" responses, but have you considered that your assertion that "true learning" only happens in the hermetically sealed world of your ideal theocratic state might be taken as a grave insult to a great many of us, myself included . . .” Now, come on Freddy; that is NOT an ad hominem insult. First of all it was not directed to any one persona. It was an ARGUMENT! A statement in the dialogical process. Let’s not get overly sensitive.
I thought it may have been clear that I was referring to the paucity of quality learning in the public schools of America (I know there are exceptions and bright spots) – the break down of discipline, civility, morality and safety are NOT proper learning environments. I’m SURE you’ll agree. If you do not, you’re not the very smart guy I think you are. We fail to see that “true learning” is not just a matter of providing a venue, sticking a college graduate in it and hoping it might happen. It is a highly sensitive process demanding mental tranquility, happy rapport between teacher and student, moral peace, and proper God-ordained subject matter – and more. The reason that Christian home schoolers excel is because of these factors. Like all things there are good and bad examples, but the “system” works. God has given us Truth and the MO for living and learning. That’s what I was saying; NOT that everyone has to accept it or implement it. That’s also why education should NOT be a forced monopoly, like the state schools are – thankfully, reason and statistics are moving everyone away from this tyrannical approach. Tax payers should not, under any circumstances be forced to finance such a monopolistic enterprise. I guess you can see that I’m a minimalist when it comes to governmental control and provision – the less the better, only where and when necessary, and biblically mandated.
Well, Insectophobia, with my three-year-old grandson, calls – a much more noble and thrilling way to spend a Saturday morning, don’t you agree. Deut. 6!!!

Nikos wrote:

' ...I’m looking at larger issues, not fixating on this poor dude. There have been reports of many leftist/humanist teachers shoving perversion, anti-war bias..."

So, " thou shall not kill" and "Blessed are the Peacemakers" are meaningless on Nikos' Planet Christian?

WWJD?
4Or say, for that matter?

Alice, "thou shalt not kill" does not refer to legitimate military defense efforts. It is the "legitimate" factor that can be debated in a free society; but military defense is essential to the survival of a free society, especially today with vicious and insane terrorist aggression.

Jesus was clearly referring to interpersonal dynamics when he said "Blessed are the peacemakers," as he metnions turning the other cheek. The right to defend of a natio militarily was fully engaged in the OT and was not rescinded in the NT. This is not to say that governments should not attempt to make peace - if possible! When the barbarians are entering the gates (twin towers) it is time to take up arms and defend the innocent. Right?

My point was that teachers are not supposed to foist strongly held opinions regarding crucial public issues on impressionalbe students (like the Iraqi war effort or religious belief) - like Solomon did in Escamilla's classroom. There is a palpable double standard here. Humanists simply don't like any competition in their indoctrination centers (sshools) which might threaten their dominant worldview.

Religion has become off limits because it contradicts the party line of leftist atheism. They must eliminate prayer and Bible reading, remove Bibles from teachers' desks, tell children they can't bring their Bibles to school, tell others students about their faith, pray over thier meals, post copies of the Decalogue, mention Christ in their valedictory addresses, pray at games etc, etc. - total shutdown - though they have lost in the courts in some of these areas. But, of course, to admit this would be to admit prejudice and non-inclusivism; and we couldn't have that, now could we? It is justified by the separation panacea. The entire issue of world view exclusivity is becoming increasingly obvious as both sides become more and more epistemologically selfconscious. Don't you agree?

Religion, as a direct source for moral and supernatural "reasoning" is off-limits because once someone invokes it, it privileges that single, particualr religion above others, in direct conflict with the Constitution's establishment clause.

"Turn the other cheek" has also been widely used to invoke non-violent active resistance against war and civil unrest.

"Religion, as a direct source for moral and supernatural "reasoning" is off-limits because once someone invokes it, it privileges that single, particualr religion above others," - including Humanism - which is doing exactly that.

There can only be ONE dominant, supreme reasoning system (religion) in a culture. If there is more than one there will be incessant competition and conflict, which weakens and ultiatmely undermines a culture. Christianity and the Roman emperor cult were in conflict in the Roman Empire until Christianity finally became the supreme relgious system.

Humanism has sought to become the established belief system (religion) of America, through legislative action, educational indoctrination and the liberal courts. But Christinity will never accede to its idolatrous and immoral machinations. There is only one true and living God - and it is NOT man.

I DO NOT recognize Humanism as a benign, non-religious system, that may arrogate iself as the supreme, "neutral" arbitor of all other religions and belief systems. Humanism seeks to present itself this way in order to justifiy its established place. All one has to do is read the Humanist Manifesto to see that it is a true belief system (religion)

“In EVERY FIELD (universality) of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism (self-descriptively religious) may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate H. M. I.” Parenthesis mine.

At this time, this very Humanism reigns supreme in American educational institutions and courts, always seeking to keep any rivals in their place and away from the instruments of power.

"in direct conflict with the Constitution's establishment clause."

The United States was founded with a strong and ubiquitous understanding that the Christian Faith was the unifying and supreme standard of moral, ethical and legal truth. These principles guided and developed our common life for almost two centuries. The establishment clause was merely meant to prevent any one denomination (of the many in colonial America) from assuming state sponsorship, as they had done in Europe, not to remove the biblical Faith from American thought and life.

It is only in modern times that Humanism has been able to convince the American public that Christianity is to be repressed and sidelined, along with all other naughty little theistic underlings. This is the way it has deceptively "established" itself as the supreme "denomination" of American thought and policy. I reject its tenets; I reject its usurpation, and call for an end to its tyranny. In the end there is only one source of true Truth and ultimate values: the King of kings and Lord of lords - the Word of God.

"There can only be ONE dominant, supreme reasoning system (religion) in a culture."

So what are you saying with this? That religion is a "reasoning system"? Where did you find that definition? Or did you just make it up for yourself, to justify your desire to make everyone believe in your religion -- that you claim isn't a religion anyway?

In any event, this idea of yours goes completely against one of the great ideals set forth in the founding of this nation -- that every person should have the freedom of religion. While this concept has been muddied over the centuries by Christian supremacists like yourself, it still is an integral part of the great American social experiment.

I personally take that ideal seriously. I would never want my religious views to be forced upon anyone... too bad you and far too many people like you have no compunction against the use of governmental force.

"At this time, this very Humanism reigns supreme in American educational institutions and courts, always seeking to keep any rivals in their place and away from the instruments of power."

You have conflated humanism with secularism. I suggest you find a book of basic philosophy and study both terms to discover the nature of your error.

I do not need to read philosophy books; I know the difference, and I stick by my assertions.
Secularism is a largely unprincipled social tendency focused upon consumerism and materialistic hedonism. Humanism is a distinct ideology, asserting the supremacy of man without deity, that drives much of the liberal/progressive movement in American culture today.

No, I do not want the government to "force" a particular religion or denomination on anyone. That is the last thing I would approve. But the plain and simpel fact is that all decisions made in every facet of life and government are driven by determining values and goals. The courts approved Roe vs. Wade because they BELIEVED that abortion was just fine. The government wasted millions (some good was done as always) on welfarism because of the socialistic ideology of its proponents. Courts and legislatures pass pro-perversion decisions and laws because they BELIEVE it to be a social good.

While I do not want government to officially authorize any particualr religion/denomination as the one that all Americans must believe, I do want the Bible and the Christian Faith to be the dominant force in shaping our society - as do Humanists (liberals, progressives, atheists, et al.) want thier values and ideas to be regnant. Muslims also want this to be the case. ALL of these elements see thier take on ultimate values, morals and philosophy to be the correct one.

I am FOR the separation of church and state; I just believe that the state should literally be "under God" - i.e. all laws and policy should be in harmoney with God's eternal Law and Word.

This was the case throughout much of our history; only now we are seeing the actual implementation of anti-biblical values and law: not surprisingly, since only one relgious values/thought system can be permanently dominant in a culture, Humanism is seeking to remove Christian influence in all major areas of society and replace it with their own agenda.

The idea of neutrality and benign pluralism is sheer myth. The values of Humanism and Christianity have long been seen as irreconcilable by both Humanist and Christian exponents. My task is not to force the Faith on anyone; but, like it or not, a culture's laws and policy MUST be formed by an ultimate value system. This can be done without quashing any religion or individual.

Invevitably some may not like these laws and policies, but that's the way it must be. Christians don't like gay marriage, baby killing and socialistic govenment, but we have to put up with it until we can change it. Minorities are just that, and they must accept the rule of the majority - which should not be violent or heavy-handed - but should not be expected to cave on every little issue minorities bring up.

I accept the American system of governance, but I also want the nation to be guided by Christian values through elected representatives. We have a perfect right to work toward this end, as also do liberals and humanists.

So I am working to persude and convicne, as you are. May we do so with civility - even though things get confrontational and heated at times. This too is inevitable. Hopefully we can stand the heat and stay in the kitchen, and debate issues and policy.

"No, I do not want the government to "force" a particular religion or denomination on anyone."

Why, it sounds like you have a secular streak in you after all, Nikos. In spite of the fact that you have issues with defining it, your statement here is the heart of a secular mindset. This is the primary reason this Christian teacher got into trouble in the first place... he was trying to promote a particular religion in a government classroom.

"So I am working to persude and convicne, as you are. May we do so with civility - even though things get confrontational and heated at times. This too is inevitable. Hopefully we can stand the heat and stay in the kitchen, and debate issues and policy."

I appreciate your statement here, Nikos. I know it sounds at times as if I don't respect you as a person, and I apologize for that. I can sometimes get heated and write things I might not say to someone's face. Still, it is stimulating to discuss things with you here. I'm looking forward to future discussions.

Oh most learned and well-read Eric, now you're suggesting that someone else read philosophy? I'm still waiting for your esteemed reading suggestions about Plato that support a universal morality....(crickets)....

You really shouldn't try to prove your point by saying, "you should really read up on this" or "maybe you should study something first". The problem is, you never give any good suggestions about what to read and where. When you do offer a suggestion it doesn't make sense becuase it doesn't follow from your previous assertions. (Next you'll probably suggest Bentham for a study on deontological ethics)

I suppose you'll just make more comments about how I think I'm smarter than you. (for the record, you're not exactly giving me a reason to think I'm not)

The Framers also included the Establishment Clause (actually, a Non-establishment Clause) to specifically protect Jewish patriots like those I have noted in the past; as Jefferson wrote in an autobiograhical remembrance of the Constitutional Convention, "...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' (which was rejected) by a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination."

So, at least a few of the great founders of this nation did not agree with you, Nikos, that this should be a majority-run Christian society, allowed to declare whatever religious demands they would have, with all others just having to put up with it.

First of all, my friend, I do not hold Jefferson in such high regard. Yes, he was a very astute gentleman, who contributed positive things to the founding of thie republic; but it is obvious upon reading his writings that he was an unregenerate humanist/deist. His Jefferson bible was a blasphemous altering of Holy Scripture to fit his unbelieving mindset. It was most unfortunate that they did not include 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion.' It does show, however, that there was a consensus that Christianity was "our" religion. I'm sure that since there was this broad agreement on the ubiquity of the Faith there was a muted concern about making it explicit in the Constitution. And with the need to have a Constitution, and pressure for compromise, it is understandable that explicit wording was not demanded. It’s too bad that stronger faith and foresight did not hold out for it.

Now, almost two hundred and fifty years later we are reaping the sad harvest of pagan and atheistic marginalization of "our religion." The Christian tenor of American culture rested upon the faithful discipleship and nurture of each generation in the truths of the Faith. This was done reasonably well for many decades; but eventually was disrupted by the more organized and pervasive efforts of those who vehemently opposed it – especially through public education. Today this opposition has grown into a cacophony of voices; from the calculated efforts in our educational system to muzzle Christianity, to the virulent hatred of far left activists. I have no doubt that our founding fathers would have taken the explicit course if they could have foreseen the far-reaching results of compromise.

Although I would have preferred a clear enunciation of the Christian composition/consensus of the nation in the Constitution, I would not have liked it to have included any provisions for “forced” conversion/adherence to Christianity, or any other belief system – including Humanism. This would have been a form of socialism. Perhaps God allowed the noncommittal nature of the Constitution to provide a free market environment where Christianity must either put up or shut up - was robust, evangelical and biblical or be driven from the Promised Land by the Babylonian infidels in order to produce a purer and more genuine expression of the Faith.

Even so, we are now getting a concerted, de facto, effort by humanists to impose their atheistic and amoral standards on the nation in the form of civil unions, gay marriage, abortion on demand, socialism etc. – which simply confirms my assertion that there can be only one supreme philosophical worldview in a culture. Supreme worldviews ALWAYS, without fail, by their very nature, press to be supreme, dominant and implemented. Humanism is no exception! Again, the idea of neutrality and innocuous pluralism is a complete myth. Any semblance of it will always be short-lived and a deception. God warned the Hebrews against compromising alliances with their godless would-be invaders. And though they were free to sin and compromise they had to pay the terrible price of oppression and disenfranchisement.

So, being a humanist or secularist automatically makes someone have unethical standards? Are all humanists deotees of complete relativism or nihilism? Do all humanists want every person in the country to totally agree with them and give up any vestige of religious belief?

“So, being a humanist or secularist automatically makes someone have unethical standards? Are all humanists deotees of complete relativism or nihilism?”
Your resort to wholesale generalization here distorts the point, although I can understand your concern. It may appear, upon a superficial assessment, that your criticism is justifiable. I am not actually dealing with individual humanists, (much less yourself) but with the Humanist belief system, which is quite visible today. The humanist/atheist/leftwing agenda is ubiquitous in the media and universities today. OF COURSE I understand that not ALL humanists buy into all the general humanist list of beliefs, but enough do that it makes it practical to critique the movement at that level – in fact, it would be impossible to do so if every single individual humanist were taken into account. This is debating 101.
I have stressed in previous blog entries that all beneficial moral and ethical standards are from God – either through the special revelation of the Decalogue, or through the general revelation of the creation. So, of course, there are Humanists who possess more or less moral and ethical standards, and act upon them. The problem is that they reject the full and consistent moral Law and teachings of Scripture; and therefore are easily prone to believe and act in contradiction to the Law: as in regard to free sex, perversion, gay marriage, radical feminism, abortion, etc. They also endorse socio-political systems that are either atheistic or contrary to the teaching of Scripture: communism, socialism.
But advocating only part of these unbiblical positions places humanists outside the orbit of what is moral and righteous, by God’s standard. And, I believe (I know you do not) this makes them and their system unethical and immoral. And. Of course, there are Christians who fall short as well; but they are CLEARLY in violation of their own Scriptural standards. Humanists can violate their own standards too, but these standards are different, in many respects from that of the Christian.
The fact is, that atheistic humanists are ALL practical biblical theists at the level of everyday acting out. They may decry the Bible and the Law of God, but when push comes to shove they are inclined to obey it, just in order to live. The Scripture says to abide by the laws of one’s culture (traffic laws, taxes, case laws, etc. unless it contradicts a moral imperative of Scripture). Few Humanists intentionally violate every civil law just to be dissident or rebellious. Thus, they obey the Scripture. Few also would go out and commit murder, adultery, theft or child abuse. SO, although they may verbally and philosophically debunk God and His Word, in practice, they don’t dare break the Law. Yes, they pick and choose, and do break some of them occasionally – as to Christians, but from a different perspective and for different reasons.
“Do all humanists want every person in the country to totally agree with them and give up any vestige of religious belief?”
YES! But for political expediency they cloak this desire and play innocent. Come on, you guys would love for your worldview to completely prevail. Democrats are perfectly fine with getting rid of the Republican Party and its quasi-religious positions (what few are left). And, OF COURSE, I, and all Christians) desire “that ALL should come to repentance.” (II Peter 3.9); and that “every knee should bow . . . and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2. 9-11)
As Jesus said, “They are either for me or against me” and “ye cannot serve God and mammon.” There really can be only one supreme worldview on a long term basis in any culture. We are simply in a pivotal, transitional period at present. The next few years will decide which view will dominate American/Western culture fore many decades to come. Time will tell.

"As Jesus said, “They are either for me or against me” ..."

Ever watch Star Wars III? Such an absolute statement is the product of a paranoid personality. If I don't follow Jesus 100%, then I'm ipso facto an enemy? Spending your life trying to make the world a purely black and white environment is futile, Nikos. Not only are there shades of gray, there are also colors of which you will never partake. So it goes...

The idea here is that The universe is EITHER a complete, unified and absolute moral whole created by a perfect and holy Creator OR it is this humanist hodge-podge of relativistic and shifting situational “truths” that we are being offered today by the agressive humanist elites in academia, Hollywood, moveon.org and the left. Since this has been going on for several decades we are now able to observe the wonderful results of “liberated” sex, public education fluff, welfarism, and a decadent entertainment mill.

Jesus, in this passage, is simply saying that one cannot pick and choose which sins he will commit, and expect to have a rich, full and blessed life. There must be a full commitment to growing in grace and maturing in holiness and love. To be “for” Messiah is to order ones life and thought according to His teachings and the entire Word of God – rightly and intelligently interpreted. To be “against” Him is to reject His nature and authority – and, his principles of life.

In other words, the spiritual life all hangs together; it's a gestalt, a dynamic unity. The provisions for forgiveness and restoration in the atonement are given by God to enable one to get back on the path ASAP if there has been a departure from it; because little departures can lead to destructive acts and habits. Taking one puff on a jay can lead to serious drug addiction. One back- seat sex act can lead to unwanted pregnancies and abortions, STDS and a lifetime of unfaithfulness and broken homes.

“Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was[a] like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald.”

Thanks for the advice, but I have all the beauty, glory and color any creature can stand. As St. Paul put it:

“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ . . .”

"The idea here is that The universe is EITHER a complete, unified and absolute moral whole created by a perfect and holy Creator OR it is this humanist hodge-podge of relativistic and shifting situational “truths” that we are being offered today by the agressive humanist elites in academia, Hollywood, moveon.org and the left."

There's another option, Nikos. "The universe" is a place of material forces and matter that has no moral stance to make... it just is. Humans have always had to discover new ways to live together as efficiently as possible, and that means that social requirements change as time goes on.

We've been over this ground too many times already. I've pointed out repeatedly that if you use the book you prefer as your only guide to morality, you would have to conclude that slavery is perfectly moral. Yet very few Christians today would agree with that -- because they also accept "relativistic and shifting situational truths" in this matter. I really don't see why you refuse to admit that you're tossing rocks while living in a very fragile glass house.

Oh right... you can't admit that I might be right about this, since I'm not 100% for Jesus and therefore the "enemy."

"We've been over this ground too many times already. I've pointed out repeatedly that if you use the book you prefer as your only guide to morality, you would have to conclude that slavery is perfectly moral."

Yes, we've been over this before, and YOU still drag out the old slavery issue, which I've explained thoroughly before as well. But I'll try again.

The OT is an accomodation in a number of areas, as Jesus pointed out numerous times. Polygamy, servitude and animal sacrifices were ALL totally abbrogated by the NT revelation. (Matt. 5.31 ff., Hebrews 1, Philemon, et al.) It is clear, as Jesus qutoed, that He came to "set the captives free." Subjugation and bondage is the common lot of sinful man, individually through sin, and corporately through societal and political enslavement.

Slavery was an ubiquitous INSITUTION in the ancient world, through Roman times and beyond. Yet Paul preaches total freedom for man, which means holy servitude to God in his writings (Philemon).

This is what I mean by intellignet interpretation, rather than prooftexting isolated sections from the OT. The Scriptures must be interpreted in their historical context, and related to the general and eternal truths that God reveals in both testaments, particularly in the new through the Son and the Apostles.

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17. 30.31) Here Luke notes Paul's understanding of progressive revelation.

So, even though historical circumstances sometimes reveal departures from the eternal truths of God's Law/Word, He always brings man back to His eternal truth as the highest and best moral way.

Eric, you are NOT my enemy. But all who deny Him and reject His moral Law make themselves enemies of God. I do not hold you accountable or seek to punish you for your beliefs; but as Paul pointed out above, you will ultimately answer for your unbelief and sin when your soul appears before your Holy Creator. The highest act of love any Christian can perform on this earth is to warm other sinners of their need to repent, and offer them freedom from the bondage of sin and death true by trusting in the Gospel of grace.