Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Blog: Fed's policies working at cross purposes with Obamacare
Blog: Fed's policies working at cross purposes with Obamacare
July 18, 2013
July 18, 2013
Fed's policies working at cross purposes with Obamacare
Saturday, July 13, 2013
The NSA Controversy, the Founding Fathers, and the Fourth Amendment - The Federalist Papers
The NSA Controversy, the Founding Fathers, and the Fourth Amendment - The Federalist Papers
Fears about the pervasive reach of our intelligence services soared to unprecedented levels with the recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive data collection program, which gobbles up citizens’ phone and internet records in hopes of finding terrorists. In spite of earlier direct denials by officials such as the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, we now know that intelligence agents have warrantless access to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans.
How much did the Founding Fathers worry about what they called “general warrants,” or broad-based searches not prompted by reasonable evidence of criminal activity? Admittedly, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have fathomed the technological advances behind cell phones and the internet that have presented the opportunity for such massive technological snooping. Nor could they have envisioned terrorists’ capabilities of wreaking massive death and destruction with weapons ranging from airplanes to nuclear bombs.
Even so, the fear of the arbitrary use of searches, seizures, and arrests, was ever-present among America’s Founders. The dread of this species of government tyranny led ultimately to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A number of early state constitutions and bills of rights also prohibited general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting fears of British investigations and arrests of Patriots during the lead-up to independence. Indeed, a month before the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ 10th section deplored any searches not prompted by compelling evidence, and called general warrants “grievous and oppressive.”
When the proposed Constitution was framed and sent out for ratification in 1787 (with no Bill of Rights attached yet), the absence of a provision against general warrants caused major concern. A frequently-reprinted editorial by “A Son of Liberty” warned that the unamended Constitution opened the door for citizens to have their property searched, “their private papers seized, and themselves dragged to prison. . .whenever the fear of their lordly masters shall suggest that they are plotting mischief against their arbitrary conduct.”
Patrick Henry, the most influential Antifederalist critic of the Constitution, similarly demanded an amendment that would ban “general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of fact.” Accordingly, in 1788 Virginia became one of several states to propose a constitutional amendment making citizens secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry and his allies hoped that this amendment (and others) would be added prior to ratification, but he had to settle for trusting James Madison to push the Bill of Rights through the First Congress, which Madison did.
Even if the digital revolution and “big data” were not on the Founders’ horizon, they still laid down basic principles that can help guide us on the NSA controversy. Yes, the Constitution empowered the national government to “provide for the common defense,” and surely one of the government’s key duties today is to discover and disrupt terrorist plots. However, the Founders also knew that any power given (or grabbed) by the government was easily susceptible to abuse.
Few among us would balk at the government energetically pursuing actual terrorist suspects. But the NSA revelations confirm that since 9/11, the American government has become a gargantuan surveillance state with dangerously few limitations. I am confident that NSA operatives are, by and large, really intent on stopping terrorists. But as we see in today’s Middle East, the term “terrorists” can easily morph into a term for one’s political enemies. How much would it take for NSA-style surveillance to turn its focus to journalists (see Fox News’s James Rosen), opposition politicians, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens who fall out of favor with our all-seeing national government?
Thomas S. Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and the author of Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots.
Fears about the pervasive reach of our intelligence services soared to unprecedented levels with the recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s massive data collection program, which gobbles up citizens’ phone and internet records in hopes of finding terrorists. In spite of earlier direct denials by officials such as the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, we now know that intelligence agents have warrantless access to the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans.
How much did the Founding Fathers worry about what they called “general warrants,” or broad-based searches not prompted by reasonable evidence of criminal activity? Admittedly, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could never have fathomed the technological advances behind cell phones and the internet that have presented the opportunity for such massive technological snooping. Nor could they have envisioned terrorists’ capabilities of wreaking massive death and destruction with weapons ranging from airplanes to nuclear bombs.
Even so, the fear of the arbitrary use of searches, seizures, and arrests, was ever-present among America’s Founders. The dread of this species of government tyranny led ultimately to the adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A number of early state constitutions and bills of rights also prohibited general warrants and unreasonable searches and seizures, reflecting fears of British investigations and arrests of Patriots during the lead-up to independence. Indeed, a month before the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights’ 10th section deplored any searches not prompted by compelling evidence, and called general warrants “grievous and oppressive.”
When the proposed Constitution was framed and sent out for ratification in 1787 (with no Bill of Rights attached yet), the absence of a provision against general warrants caused major concern. A frequently-reprinted editorial by “A Son of Liberty” warned that the unamended Constitution opened the door for citizens to have their property searched, “their private papers seized, and themselves dragged to prison. . .whenever the fear of their lordly masters shall suggest that they are plotting mischief against their arbitrary conduct.”
Patrick Henry, the most influential Antifederalist critic of the Constitution, similarly demanded an amendment that would ban “general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of fact.” Accordingly, in 1788 Virginia became one of several states to propose a constitutional amendment making citizens secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Henry and his allies hoped that this amendment (and others) would be added prior to ratification, but he had to settle for trusting James Madison to push the Bill of Rights through the First Congress, which Madison did.
Even if the digital revolution and “big data” were not on the Founders’ horizon, they still laid down basic principles that can help guide us on the NSA controversy. Yes, the Constitution empowered the national government to “provide for the common defense,” and surely one of the government’s key duties today is to discover and disrupt terrorist plots. However, the Founders also knew that any power given (or grabbed) by the government was easily susceptible to abuse.
Few among us would balk at the government energetically pursuing actual terrorist suspects. But the NSA revelations confirm that since 9/11, the American government has become a gargantuan surveillance state with dangerously few limitations. I am confident that NSA operatives are, by and large, really intent on stopping terrorists. But as we see in today’s Middle East, the term “terrorists” can easily morph into a term for one’s political enemies. How much would it take for NSA-style surveillance to turn its focus to journalists (see Fox News’s James Rosen), opposition politicians, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens who fall out of favor with our all-seeing national government?
Thomas S. Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and the author of Patrick Henry: First Among Patriots.
The Declaration of Independence, Full Text - The Federalist Papers
The Declaration of Independence, Full Text - The Federalist Papers
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Cornwall Alliance :: Stewardship Notes :: Does Caring for “the Least of These” Demand Fighting Global Warming?
Cornwall Alliance :: Stewardship Notes :: Does Caring for “the Least of These” Demand Fighting Global Warming?
July 12, 2013
Recently, my fellow evangelical scientists and academics sent a letter to the United States Congress urging immediate legislation on climate change. In an effort to care for the planet—God’s second greatest gift to humanity—they argue that our uncontrolled use of fossil fuels will disproportionately affect the poor, the vulnerable, and the oppressed.
I applaud their concern for the environment and for those in defense of whom Jesus commanded us to be especially diligent. But their call to reduce carbon emissions would do more harm than good, especially to the “least of these” as referenced by Christ.
Average global temperatures have not risen over at least the past fifteen years. Dr. John Christy, a fellow evangelical Christian and a highly respected climatologist, testified to Congress that in the United States, we have seen virtually no change in daily maximum temperature, while most of the warming is confined to increases in daily minimum temperatures. (Nighttime temperatures are driven by turbulence [or lack of it] near the surface, not CO2 warming. By contrast, daytime maximum temperature is a much better measure of warming from greenhouse gases. The lack of a signal in daily maximum temperature suggests that the rate of warming due to CO2 is relatively small.) That and the lack of warming for at least a decade and a half implies the effect of CO2 warming is much smaller than climate models suggest.
Contrary to claims in the recent letter, a report issued last summer by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on extreme events indicated that droughts “have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in Central North America.” The percentage of the United States classified in moderate-to-extreme dryness and wetness as presented by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows high variability but no significant trend. NOAA also concludes that snowfall records show no long-term trend and that recent record snowfalls are the result of natural variability, not global warming. Hurricane activity globally is at a thirty-year low, and the frequency of moderate to severe tornadoes (EF3-EF5) has not increased. Sea levels have been rising at about the same pace since well before greenhouse gases began to rise from fossil fuel emissions.
Draconian legislation to curtail energy use by restricting fossil fuel emissions will have little, if any, impact on Earth’s climate. A 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 would only reduce global average temperature in 2100 by an inconsequential 0.07°C. Even an elimination of all CO2 emissions by the United States would prevent only 0.17°C of warming.
Instead of fighting global warming, the most important environmental task facing Christians today is economic development, because poverty is the greatest threat to both human well-being and the environment.
We need to find more efficient ways to use energy and more sources for energy to keep the cost low. Why? If we make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it, then the poor and the vulnerable will be denied access. That will condemn them to a life of poverty, sickness, and low life expectancy.
Moreover, the environment itself suffers because when a people are in dire need of food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities, they cannot be concerned with environmental issues. The Ganges River, for example, is both the source of ‘clean’ drinking water and the reservoir for untreated sewage. Why? Because the people are so poor. Technological development would enable them to afford water and sewage treatment. High-tech, high-yield farming methods would increase food supplies. Natural gas and electricity would heat homes and cook food without cutting forests and burning wood and dung, which degrade indoor air quality and cause lethal lung infections. Refrigeration would mean the poor do not have to choose between eating spoiled food and going hungry.
Furthermore, oppression thrives when energy is restricted. Totalitarian regimes remain in power by keeping their subjects poor and deprived of technological amenities. Freedom spreads when people have time and ability to travel and communicate, to develop ideas and concepts, and to organize against a common enemy and for a better way of life. Energy, therefore, is the life blood to ending poverty and oppression.
In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–28), Jesus told of a master who entrusted his money to three servants. The first two put the talents to use and presented the master with more than they had been given. The third, whom Christ called ‘worthless’, hid his talent in the ground.
Often we think of the talents as money or ability, but they really stand for every resource. If we needlessly leave resources ‘hidden’ in the ground, will we be met with the same rebuke from the “Master of All Creation”?
In America and around the world, people are hurting now. I pray that my Brothers and Sisters in Christ see their need and respond accordingly, rather than limiting energy affordability and making life today more difficult for the poor, the vulnerable, and the oppressed.
Dr. David R. Legates, a Christian and a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware, is a Senior Fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation—a coalition of clergy, theologians, scientists, economists, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to environmental and developmental issues.
Does Caring for “the Least of These” Demand Fighting Global Warming?
David R. Legates, Ph.D.July 12, 2013
Recently, my fellow evangelical scientists and academics sent a letter to the United States Congress urging immediate legislation on climate change. In an effort to care for the planet—God’s second greatest gift to humanity—they argue that our uncontrolled use of fossil fuels will disproportionately affect the poor, the vulnerable, and the oppressed.
I applaud their concern for the environment and for those in defense of whom Jesus commanded us to be especially diligent. But their call to reduce carbon emissions would do more harm than good, especially to the “least of these” as referenced by Christ.
Average global temperatures have not risen over at least the past fifteen years. Dr. John Christy, a fellow evangelical Christian and a highly respected climatologist, testified to Congress that in the United States, we have seen virtually no change in daily maximum temperature, while most of the warming is confined to increases in daily minimum temperatures. (Nighttime temperatures are driven by turbulence [or lack of it] near the surface, not CO2 warming. By contrast, daytime maximum temperature is a much better measure of warming from greenhouse gases. The lack of a signal in daily maximum temperature suggests that the rate of warming due to CO2 is relatively small.) That and the lack of warming for at least a decade and a half implies the effect of CO2 warming is much smaller than climate models suggest.Contrary to claims in the recent letter, a report issued last summer by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on extreme events indicated that droughts “have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in Central North America.” The percentage of the United States classified in moderate-to-extreme dryness and wetness as presented by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows high variability but no significant trend. NOAA also concludes that snowfall records show no long-term trend and that recent record snowfalls are the result of natural variability, not global warming. Hurricane activity globally is at a thirty-year low, and the frequency of moderate to severe tornadoes (EF3-EF5) has not increased. Sea levels have been rising at about the same pace since well before greenhouse gases began to rise from fossil fuel emissions.
Draconian legislation to curtail energy use by restricting fossil fuel emissions will have little, if any, impact on Earth’s climate. A 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 would only reduce global average temperature in 2100 by an inconsequential 0.07°C. Even an elimination of all CO2 emissions by the United States would prevent only 0.17°C of warming.Instead of fighting global warming, the most important environmental task facing Christians today is economic development, because poverty is the greatest threat to both human well-being and the environment.
We need to find more efficient ways to use energy and more sources for energy to keep the cost low. Why? If we make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it, then the poor and the vulnerable will be denied access. That will condemn them to a life of poverty, sickness, and low life expectancy.
Moreover, the environment itself suffers because when a people are in dire need of food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities, they cannot be concerned with environmental issues. The Ganges River, for example, is both the source of ‘clean’ drinking water and the reservoir for untreated sewage. Why? Because the people are so poor. Technological development would enable them to afford water and sewage treatment. High-tech, high-yield farming methods would increase food supplies. Natural gas and electricity would heat homes and cook food without cutting forests and burning wood and dung, which degrade indoor air quality and cause lethal lung infections. Refrigeration would mean the poor do not have to choose between eating spoiled food and going hungry.
Furthermore, oppression thrives when energy is restricted. Totalitarian regimes remain in power by keeping their subjects poor and deprived of technological amenities. Freedom spreads when people have time and ability to travel and communicate, to develop ideas and concepts, and to organize against a common enemy and for a better way of life. Energy, therefore, is the life blood to ending poverty and oppression.
In the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–28), Jesus told of a master who entrusted his money to three servants. The first two put the talents to use and presented the master with more than they had been given. The third, whom Christ called ‘worthless’, hid his talent in the ground.
Often we think of the talents as money or ability, but they really stand for every resource. If we needlessly leave resources ‘hidden’ in the ground, will we be met with the same rebuke from the “Master of All Creation”?
In America and around the world, people are hurting now. I pray that my Brothers and Sisters in Christ see their need and respond accordingly, rather than limiting energy affordability and making life today more difficult for the poor, the vulnerable, and the oppressed.
Dr. David R. Legates, a Christian and a Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware, is a Senior Fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation—a coalition of clergy, theologians, scientists, economists, and policy experts committed to bringing a balanced Biblical view of stewardship to environmental and developmental issues.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Cornwall Alliance :: Stewardship Notes :: Science Class? Or Religious Humanist Recruiting Ground?
Cornwall Alliance :: Stewardship Notes :: Science Class? Or Religious Humanist Recruiting Ground?
July 10, 2013
Where is Dr. Mauerbry when we need her?
Thirty-seven years ago, in a freshman college course on physical anthropology, the professor required every student to write a term paper on a topic of his choice. I said I’d like to write on scientific evidences against Darwinian, naturalistic evolution.
“This is a science course, not a religion course,” she replied. “You can’t do that.”
“Who said anything about religion?” I replied. “I want to write about scientific evidences.”
She insisted that all opposition to evolutionism was religious. There were no scientific evidences against it.
“Well, then,” I replied, “I guess I’ll get an ‘F’. But I still want to do it.”
She forbade me.
Thinking she had infringed my academic freedom, I went to the faculty ombudsman to complain. He agreed and advised me to go back to her, point out her infringement, and insist on the right to write on that topic.
I did, and when I pointed out that the faculty ombudsman had said she’d infringed my academic freedom, she angrily replied, “All right, do your [expletive deleted] paper!”
I labored at it all semester, spending every available hour reading scientific journal articles in biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and related fields. The result? A term paper over 100 pages, filled with evidences against naturalistic evolution, mostly drawn from evolutionists’ papers. It earned an ‘A’.
For all her prior blindness to scientific evidences that challenged her firm belief in Darwinism, Dr. Thais Mauerbry (not her real name) at least insisted that science not masquerade as religion, or vice versa.
We could use people like her in our educational establishment today—people who would recognize the religious nature of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) being pushed on state education departments as part of the new Common Core Curriculum.
The NGSS address religion in two ways, and in both ways they fail Constitutional tests.
First, the NGSS address religion, but not objectively.
Judicial decisions have set forth three ways the state can meet its First Amendment obligations:
Many people wouldn’t recognize this, because they think of secularism as non-religious. But the Supreme Court in McGowan v Maryland (1961) defined religion as any “activity that profoundly relates the life of man to the world in which he lives”—and that is an explicit goal of the science standards.
The specific religion promoted by the science standards is Secular Humanism. The Humanist Manifestoes define “Religious Humanism” as “an organized set of atheistic beliefs that (1) deny the supernatural, (2) claim that life arises via unguided evolutionary processes rather than as a creation made for a purpose, and (3) claim that life should be guided by naturalistic/materialistic science and reason rather than traditional theistic religious beliefs.”
The NGSS affirm each of these positions—not surprisingly, granted their authors, most of whom are members of the National Academy of Sciences, 93 percent of whom, according to a survey, deny or question the existence of God. (That’s far different from scientists at large, 33 percent of whom believe in God, and another 18 percent of whom believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Perhaps you’ll think twice, then, before you consider the NAS an objective source.)
Key to every aspect of the NGSS is insisting that all scientific questions be addressed and resolved solely in terms of Methodological Naturalism (MN), “the idea that science is not permitted to explain the cause of events within the natural world with anything other than a materialistic explanation through the use of ‘material’ or ‘natural’ causes (that is a cause resulting from the unguided interactions of matter, energy and the forces).”
Such a methodological principle excludes appeal to God or any other intelligence as the explanation for anything found in nature. Yet the standards assert it as if it were religiously neutral, exploiting children’s lack of mental preparation to recognize and question such bias.
As Citizens for Objective Public Education, an organization working to prevent adoption of NGSS, puts it, “The assumption of materialism (MN) is incompatible with science education that must respect the religious rights of children, parents and taxpayers.”
Second, the NGSS effectively rule out God not just in the laboratory but in the external world as well, again violating the standard of religious neutrality.
While Methodological Naturalism might be appropriate for experimental science, the assumption of no intelligent agency as a cause of historical events is unwarranted, and many of the world’s finest scientists, past and present, reject it. Nonetheless, the NGSS present unguided macroevolution as the sole explanation of all past cosmic, geologic, and biological events, never offering students an alternative, thus again foisting an atheistic religious worldview on them.
While they require presenting to students, through the 12 years of science curriculum, many purported evidences for naturalistic macroevolution, the standards—in contravention of the Constitutional requirement of objectivity in handling alternative religious views—fail to mention any of the evidences of purposive design in the universe, such as:
In short, the NGSS are religion—atheistic religion—disguised as science. Their backers intend to use the public schools as recruitment centers for atheism.
That’s why Christian parents, educators, pastors, and political office holders need to be well informed about the NGSS and join the effort to prevent their adoption by state boards of education.
My lecture Science Standards: Political or Pure? How the Educational Establishment Threatens Americans’ Faith, Freedom, and Well Being—And How YOU Can Fight Back will equip you with the information you need to make the case against the NGSS in your state’s public schools.
For the month of July, as our expression of thanks, we’ll send a free DVD of this electrifying lecture to anyone who makes a donation of any size to the Cornwall Alliance. You can donate at our secure online website, or by phoning our office at 703-569-4653, or by mailing your check to Cornwall Alliance, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Rd., Burke, VA 22015. Whichever way you donate, be sure to ask for the free DVD “Science Standards: Political or Pure?”
Science Class? Or Religious Humanist Recruiting Ground?
by E. Calvin BeisnerJuly 10, 2013
Where is Dr. Mauerbry when we need her?
Thirty-seven years ago, in a freshman college course on physical anthropology, the professor required every student to write a term paper on a topic of his choice. I said I’d like to write on scientific evidences against Darwinian, naturalistic evolution.
“This is a science course, not a religion course,” she replied. “You can’t do that.”
“Who said anything about religion?” I replied. “I want to write about scientific evidences.”
She insisted that all opposition to evolutionism was religious. There were no scientific evidences against it.
“Well, then,” I replied, “I guess I’ll get an ‘F’. But I still want to do it.”
She forbade me.
Thinking she had infringed my academic freedom, I went to the faculty ombudsman to complain. He agreed and advised me to go back to her, point out her infringement, and insist on the right to write on that topic.
I did, and when I pointed out that the faculty ombudsman had said she’d infringed my academic freedom, she angrily replied, “All right, do your [expletive deleted] paper!”
I labored at it all semester, spending every available hour reading scientific journal articles in biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, and related fields. The result? A term paper over 100 pages, filled with evidences against naturalistic evolution, mostly drawn from evolutionists’ papers. It earned an ‘A’.
For all her prior blindness to scientific evidences that challenged her firm belief in Darwinism, Dr. Thais Mauerbry (not her real name) at least insisted that science not masquerade as religion, or vice versa.
We could use people like her in our educational establishment today—people who would recognize the religious nature of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) being pushed on state education departments as part of the new Common Core Curriculum.The NGSS address religion in two ways, and in both ways they fail Constitutional tests.
First, the NGSS address religion, but not objectively.
Judicial decisions have set forth three ways the state can meet its First Amendment obligations:
- It can exclude religion entirely from public school curriculum.
- It can include it if it treats it objectively and neutrally with respect to students’, parents’, and taxpayers’ Constitutional rights.
- It can objectively consider the strengths and weaknesses of explanations that support various religious viewpoints.
Many people wouldn’t recognize this, because they think of secularism as non-religious. But the Supreme Court in McGowan v Maryland (1961) defined religion as any “activity that profoundly relates the life of man to the world in which he lives”—and that is an explicit goal of the science standards.
The specific religion promoted by the science standards is Secular Humanism. The Humanist Manifestoes define “Religious Humanism” as “an organized set of atheistic beliefs that (1) deny the supernatural, (2) claim that life arises via unguided evolutionary processes rather than as a creation made for a purpose, and (3) claim that life should be guided by naturalistic/materialistic science and reason rather than traditional theistic religious beliefs.”The NGSS affirm each of these positions—not surprisingly, granted their authors, most of whom are members of the National Academy of Sciences, 93 percent of whom, according to a survey, deny or question the existence of God. (That’s far different from scientists at large, 33 percent of whom believe in God, and another 18 percent of whom believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Perhaps you’ll think twice, then, before you consider the NAS an objective source.)
Key to every aspect of the NGSS is insisting that all scientific questions be addressed and resolved solely in terms of Methodological Naturalism (MN), “the idea that science is not permitted to explain the cause of events within the natural world with anything other than a materialistic explanation through the use of ‘material’ or ‘natural’ causes (that is a cause resulting from the unguided interactions of matter, energy and the forces).”
Such a methodological principle excludes appeal to God or any other intelligence as the explanation for anything found in nature. Yet the standards assert it as if it were religiously neutral, exploiting children’s lack of mental preparation to recognize and question such bias.
As Citizens for Objective Public Education, an organization working to prevent adoption of NGSS, puts it, “The assumption of materialism (MN) is incompatible with science education that must respect the religious rights of children, parents and taxpayers.”
Second, the NGSS effectively rule out God not just in the laboratory but in the external world as well, again violating the standard of religious neutrality.
While Methodological Naturalism might be appropriate for experimental science, the assumption of no intelligent agency as a cause of historical events is unwarranted, and many of the world’s finest scientists, past and present, reject it. Nonetheless, the NGSS present unguided macroevolution as the sole explanation of all past cosmic, geologic, and biological events, never offering students an alternative, thus again foisting an atheistic religious worldview on them.
While they require presenting to students, through the 12 years of science curriculum, many purported evidences for naturalistic macroevolution, the standards—in contravention of the Constitutional requirement of objectivity in handling alternative religious views—fail to mention any of the evidences of purposive design in the universe, such as:
- that the discrete values of the material and energetic forces of the universe appear to be “fine tuned” to permit life—even slight alterations to many of them entailing the impossibility of life;
- the information content of the genetic code;
- the incapacity of natural causes to explain the sequencing of the four bases in DNA, which provides the intangible information content without which life would be impossible—this recognition caused renowned scientist Jacques Monod to describe this as “the ultimate mystery of life”;
- the absence of materialistic explanations for the origin of life;
- the incapacity of materialistic processes to explain “major increases in biocomplexity,” which, as COPE puts it, “require numerous additions to the information content of DNA before selectable function can arise, thereby casting doubt on the plausibility of stochastic [non-deterministic] processes to explain all of those increases”;
In short, the NGSS are religion—atheistic religion—disguised as science. Their backers intend to use the public schools as recruitment centers for atheism.That’s why Christian parents, educators, pastors, and political office holders need to be well informed about the NGSS and join the effort to prevent their adoption by state boards of education.
My lecture Science Standards: Political or Pure? How the Educational Establishment Threatens Americans’ Faith, Freedom, and Well Being—And How YOU Can Fight Back will equip you with the information you need to make the case against the NGSS in your state’s public schools.
For the month of July, as our expression of thanks, we’ll send a free DVD of this electrifying lecture to anyone who makes a donation of any size to the Cornwall Alliance. You can donate at our secure online website, or by phoning our office at 703-569-4653, or by mailing your check to Cornwall Alliance, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Rd., Burke, VA 22015. Whichever way you donate, be sure to ask for the free DVD “Science Standards: Political or Pure?”
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Political Correctness Is Cultural Marxism
Articles: Political Correctness Is Cultural Marxism
By W.A. Beatty
The excellent AT article "Conservatives Pushing Back" by Bruce Walker explored what we conservative thinkers (We are, after all, American Thinkers) have known for quite some time: political correctness (PC) is to culture what Marxism is to economics. To recognize that fact arms us with what we need in order to push back. As Walker says (emphasis added), "[t]hese marketplace ballots are the key not only to the survival of a non-totalitarian America, but also to the final defeat of those whose minds and wills are chained with hard, cold manacles of leftism."
Walker's article is (pardon the pun) right on the money. So, in an effort to further understand PC, exploration of its similarities to Marxism is in order.
Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was a German socialist. Marx's social, economic, and political theories proclaimed that societies progress through class struggle. His focus was upon economics, so Marx concentrated on the conflict between an ownership class that controlled production and a proletariat that provided the labor for production. He referred to capitalism as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." The proletariat, the oppressed workers, were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure.
Marx's key concept was "class struggle." That's where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.
PC, just like Marxism, forces people to live a lie by denying reality. PC takes a political philosophy and says that on the basis of the chosen philosophy, certain things must be true, and reality that contradicts its "truth" must be forbidden -- eradicated since it disputes PC, exposes as untrue what PC says is true. People are reluctant to live a lie, so they use their eyes and ears to see reality, to say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true; the power of the state [PC] must be put behind the demand to live a lie." Marxism, by denying economic reality, did exactly the same thing.
PC, just like Marxism, has a method of analysis that always provides the answer it wants. For PC, the "answer" is found through deconstruction, which takes any situation, removes all meaning from it, and replaces it with PC's desired meaning. Walker references this point when he says, "[T]hat her [Paula Deen's] devout Christian faith is more the real target than past use of an unhappy word which did not keep Robert Byrd from remaining, by election of his fellow Senate Democrats, the most powerful Democrat politician in America."
PC, just like Marxism, depends upon defining what it considers good and bad groups. It defines good groups as "victims" of bad groups. The victims can never be anything but good, regardless of what their actions may be. Witness what the Black Panthers did in Philadelphia, PA in 2008 and 2012. Any group identified as good by PC (homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, feminist women, mentally and/or physically challenged people, the poor, environmentalists, the list goes on and on) must be shown deference, both physically and linguistically. They must not be offended, must not be insulted.
Any group identified as bad by PC, such as white males or any Christian group, can be offended. This offense, PC practitioners say, "makes up" for past offenses certain to have been committed in the past by bad groups. And what's worse is that the PC practitioners get to define the offenses committed by the bad groups. This situation, by definition, is a "self-fulfilling prophesy."
Rush Limbaugh, in 2010, said, "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards." The PC crowd labeled Limbaugh's statement offensive and insulting. Imagine that. Limbaugh was just "calling a spade a spade." Like it or not, PC cannot prevent mental retardation, cannot alter reality. But that doesn't stop them from trying.
PC, just like Marxism, depends upon expropriation. PC is literally taking over our language, and woe be unto him/her that dares speak the truth. When Marxists took over Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie by confiscating their property. Similarly, when PC takes over our culture, quotas are set. The so-called bourgeoisie are told whom they can and can't hire, and in what quantities they can hire. As an example, see what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently up to. And let's not forget affirmative action, a system of expropriation if there ever was one, another PC favorite. When a black or Hispanic student (or some other "victim"), who isn't as well-qualified as a white student, gains university admittance through affirmative action, the white student's admittance is expropriated.
PC, just like Marxism, has a single factor explanation of all of history. PC says that all history is determined by power, by which groups have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. Period. PC is all about gaining power for the good groups that it defines. To further that goal, PC literally rewrites history. And PC says that the Bible is actually about race and gender. Nothing is beyond the PC crowd.
As an example of what PC has done and is currently doing, examine the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case/trial. First, always PC, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said, "You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." Then, ever PC NBC doctored the 911 recording; thus, "NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman's own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create the illusion of statements that Zimmerman never actually made." Here is what PC tried to do before the trial. "Many viewed the early lack of charges against Zimmerman as unequal justice for a black victim. More than 2 million people signed an online Change.org petition demanding 'Justice for Trayvon Martin.'" Now, the prosecution is trying to say that Zimmerman is a liar, that his injuries were not life-threatening. I'm quite certain that AT readers can cite numerous other examples.
The U.S. has become an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology and history that has been defined by PC. People convicted of "hate crimes" as defined by PC are currently serving jail sentences for political thoughts contrary to PC. And it's only getting worse -- PC continues to spread.
Marx believed his ideology, his economic system to be true. But, reality contradicted his system. His ideology did not adjust to reality. Hopefully the PC ideology will soon suffer a similar fate. It is, as Walker points out, a corrupt ideology. The only problem is that we will have no country, will have an economic disaster once people are confronted with reality, when enough people say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true." Meanwhile, the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals who will not adjust to reality continue the PC ideology. And they have convinced the MSM and enough low-information voters to continue to empower them as all three groups continue to ignore reality.
Charlton Heston once said, "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Tyranny, yes, but practitioners seem to have forgotten the manners part.
Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.
Political Correctness Is Cultural Marxism
July 6, 2013By W.A. Beatty
The excellent AT article "Conservatives Pushing Back" by Bruce Walker explored what we conservative thinkers (We are, after all, American Thinkers) have known for quite some time: political correctness (PC) is to culture what Marxism is to economics. To recognize that fact arms us with what we need in order to push back. As Walker says (emphasis added), "[t]hese marketplace ballots are the key not only to the survival of a non-totalitarian America, but also to the final defeat of those whose minds and wills are chained with hard, cold manacles of leftism."
Walker's article is (pardon the pun) right on the money. So, in an effort to further understand PC, exploration of its similarities to Marxism is in order.
Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was a German socialist. Marx's social, economic, and political theories proclaimed that societies progress through class struggle. His focus was upon economics, so Marx concentrated on the conflict between an ownership class that controlled production and a proletariat that provided the labor for production. He referred to capitalism as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie." The proletariat, the oppressed workers, were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure.
Marx's key concept was "class struggle." That's where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.
PC, just like Marxism, forces people to live a lie by denying reality. PC takes a political philosophy and says that on the basis of the chosen philosophy, certain things must be true, and reality that contradicts its "truth" must be forbidden -- eradicated since it disputes PC, exposes as untrue what PC says is true. People are reluctant to live a lie, so they use their eyes and ears to see reality, to say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true; the power of the state [PC] must be put behind the demand to live a lie." Marxism, by denying economic reality, did exactly the same thing.
PC, just like Marxism, has a method of analysis that always provides the answer it wants. For PC, the "answer" is found through deconstruction, which takes any situation, removes all meaning from it, and replaces it with PC's desired meaning. Walker references this point when he says, "[T]hat her [Paula Deen's] devout Christian faith is more the real target than past use of an unhappy word which did not keep Robert Byrd from remaining, by election of his fellow Senate Democrats, the most powerful Democrat politician in America."
PC, just like Marxism, depends upon defining what it considers good and bad groups. It defines good groups as "victims" of bad groups. The victims can never be anything but good, regardless of what their actions may be. Witness what the Black Panthers did in Philadelphia, PA in 2008 and 2012. Any group identified as good by PC (homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, feminist women, mentally and/or physically challenged people, the poor, environmentalists, the list goes on and on) must be shown deference, both physically and linguistically. They must not be offended, must not be insulted.
Any group identified as bad by PC, such as white males or any Christian group, can be offended. This offense, PC practitioners say, "makes up" for past offenses certain to have been committed in the past by bad groups. And what's worse is that the PC practitioners get to define the offenses committed by the bad groups. This situation, by definition, is a "self-fulfilling prophesy."
Rush Limbaugh, in 2010, said, "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards." The PC crowd labeled Limbaugh's statement offensive and insulting. Imagine that. Limbaugh was just "calling a spade a spade." Like it or not, PC cannot prevent mental retardation, cannot alter reality. But that doesn't stop them from trying.
PC, just like Marxism, depends upon expropriation. PC is literally taking over our language, and woe be unto him/her that dares speak the truth. When Marxists took over Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie by confiscating their property. Similarly, when PC takes over our culture, quotas are set. The so-called bourgeoisie are told whom they can and can't hire, and in what quantities they can hire. As an example, see what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently up to. And let's not forget affirmative action, a system of expropriation if there ever was one, another PC favorite. When a black or Hispanic student (or some other "victim"), who isn't as well-qualified as a white student, gains university admittance through affirmative action, the white student's admittance is expropriated.
PC, just like Marxism, has a single factor explanation of all of history. PC says that all history is determined by power, by which groups have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. Period. PC is all about gaining power for the good groups that it defines. To further that goal, PC literally rewrites history. And PC says that the Bible is actually about race and gender. Nothing is beyond the PC crowd.
As an example of what PC has done and is currently doing, examine the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case/trial. First, always PC, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said, "You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." Then, ever PC NBC doctored the 911 recording; thus, "NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman's own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create the illusion of statements that Zimmerman never actually made." Here is what PC tried to do before the trial. "Many viewed the early lack of charges against Zimmerman as unequal justice for a black victim. More than 2 million people signed an online Change.org petition demanding 'Justice for Trayvon Martin.'" Now, the prosecution is trying to say that Zimmerman is a liar, that his injuries were not life-threatening. I'm quite certain that AT readers can cite numerous other examples.
The U.S. has become an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology and history that has been defined by PC. People convicted of "hate crimes" as defined by PC are currently serving jail sentences for political thoughts contrary to PC. And it's only getting worse -- PC continues to spread.
Marx believed his ideology, his economic system to be true. But, reality contradicted his system. His ideology did not adjust to reality. Hopefully the PC ideology will soon suffer a similar fate. It is, as Walker points out, a corrupt ideology. The only problem is that we will have no country, will have an economic disaster once people are confronted with reality, when enough people say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true." Meanwhile, the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals who will not adjust to reality continue the PC ideology. And they have convinced the MSM and enough low-information voters to continue to empower them as all three groups continue to ignore reality.
Charlton Heston once said, "Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Tyranny, yes, but practitioners seem to have forgotten the manners part.
Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)