The Foundation of a Free Society?
When
Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830’s he sought
to find out what makes our nation so unique, so exceptional. After
visiting big cities and small hamlets, talking to the great and the
insignificant, reading our founding documents as well as local
newspapers he concluded, “America is great because she is good. If
America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
Is that really true? Is public virtue really the foundation of
our free society? What is the source of public virtue—enlightened
reason? Good feelings? God?
In a 1948 BBC Radio
broadcast of a debate between the brilliant atheist Bertrand Russell
and Father Frederick Copleston regarding the basis for believing in good
and evil. Let me quote from the book, If God is Good, by Randy Alcorn, on what transpired.
“At one point Russell said, ‘I feel that some
things are good, and I hate the things that
I think are bad. I don’t say that these things
are good because they participate in the
Divine goodness.’”
“Copleston asked him, ‘So you distinguish
good and bad by what faculty?’”
“Russell responded, ‘By my feelings.’”
“Copleston pointed out that Hitler—his
atrocities fresh in everyone’s mind—did
what felt good to him.”
Clearly, when it comes to making moral or ethical judgments our
feelings fail us. Just because something feels right for me, it may not
feel right for you. Thus there is no absolute truth about right and
wrong. But what if your different views include lying, stealing,
cheating, or even murder? Should we base the laws and mores of our
society on the feelings of a majority of our citizens? Without any
fixed moral standards such a course would surely lead to disaster.
Neither can we rely on nature to tell us what is right and what
is wrong. In nature it is the survival of the fittest. The Lion
doesn’t care about the well-being of the lamb. There is no mercy in his
vicious attack.
Alcorn says, “Atheists believe
that some things are right and others wrong and conclude that their
doing so proves they can be good without God. But their logic doesn’t
hold.” And finally, “Choosing moral behaviors because they make you feel
happy can make sense, in a Bertrand Russell/Sam Harris sort of way, but
what if it makes you happy to torture animals or kill Jews or steal
from your employer?”
Doing what feels good or
using nature as a guide leads to inhuman behavior, callousness, and
corruption beyond our comprehension.
Politics
doesn’t provide an answer. While I strongly believe that limited
government, maximum individual freedom, equal justice, and free markets
are the best for everyone, they are not the foundation of our society,
the glue that holds everything together. Faith in God and our striving
to do His will and obey His word provide the foundation which underpins a
free society. It is this moral consensus that has made America the
unique and great nation that is envied by the world. Our generosity,
our compassion, our good will has been the foundation upon which the
greatest nation in the history of the world has been fixed. And all
these virtues stem from our faith in God as the creator, redeemer and
sanctifier of our life.
Political victory is
often important, yet it is a short term solution. If the citizens of
our land continue to stray from God, our love of freedom, virtue and
justice will vanish. Nothing short of spiritual renewal will restore
freedom and virtue in our land. That is the America I hope to pass
along to my children and my grandchildren. But, as Patrick Henry said
in his last will and testament, “This is all the inheritance I give to
my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will
make them rich indeed.”
Henry had it right.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
A People’s History of the United States
A People’s History of the United States
While reading a current issue of National Review, I came across an article by Roger Kimball that is an obituary of sorts written about Howard Zinn who died on January 27, 2010. It turns out that Professor Zinn, the author of more than 20 books, is known primarily for the textbook he authored, A People’s History of the United States, which was first published in 1980. Zinn’s history textbook has sold more than 2 million copies and, as of February 1, 2010, was ranked number 7 on the Amazon best sellers list. According to Kimball, an editor and publisher in his own right, A People’s History of the United States is “the textbook of choice in high schools and colleges across the country.”
I was describing the contents and thrust of the Zinn book to a friend and when he saw the cover he exclaimed, “Why that’s the book my daughter is reading right now!”
And what does this history “textbook of choice” say about the United States? Here’s just a sampling…
In Chapter 4 titled “Tyranny is Tyranny,” dealing with the Founders of our Republic, Zinn states,
“They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the
United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power…
In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions
and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new,
privileged leadership.”
“They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times…”
In other words, the “Tyranny” Professor Zinn is referring to is the tyranny of the Founders of America!
In the same chapter, Professor Zinn addresses the Declaration of Independence in which the signers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor (all of which, except for honor, some signers lost). Zinn, however, sees the Declaration in a different light.
“The Declaration…ignored the existing inequalities in property. And
how could people truly have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?”
As for the rule of law as a fundamental principle of human rights, Zinn approvingly quotes from the English historian, Christopher Hill…
“…the rule of law…mainly benefited the men of property.”
The American Revolution described in Chapter 5 is titled, “A Kind of Revolution” and describes the father of our country, George Washington, as “the richest man in America.” This is either poor research by author Zinn, or what he would consider to be an intentional smear. While certainly affluent, Washington was far, far from the richest man in America. He wasn’t even the richest man in the Virginia Colony at the time of the American Revolution. There are a total of five references to George Washington in the text of the book, not one complimentary, and few remotely accurate.
Zinn’s book treats President Abraham Lincoln as a self-serving pragmatist who was forced to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. And Zinn’s dislike (hatred?) of free markets and capitalism is captured in this apparently rhetorical question: “Was [W.E.B.] Du Bois right—that in that growth of American capitalism, before and after the Civil War, whites as well as blacks were in some sense becoming slaves?”
In Chapter 10, Zinn dismisses the free market economic system as “…an economic system not rationally planned for human need, but developing fitfully, chaotically out of the profit motive…” Clearly Zinn prefers a top down, command and control economic system like Socialism over the individual freedom approach of Capitalism. He chooses an autocracy over a meritocracy. No wonder that, toward the end of the chapter, Professor Zinn speaks approvingly of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the philosophical founders of Communism.
Chapter 13 is titled, “The Socialist Challenge”, and indeed the socialists described by Zinn in this chapter receive far better coverage and a more positive review than any of our American Founders. The Chapter begins with a quote from Emma Goldman on the Spanish-American war, “…the lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect the interests of the American capitalists.”
Professor Zinn goes on to speak with enthusiasm about the Socialist movement of the early 20th century.
“There was an idea in the air, becoming clearer and stronger,
an idea not just in the theories of Karl Marx but in the dreams
of writers and artists through the ages: that people might cooperatively
use the treasures of the earth to make life better for everyone, not
just a few.”
Among the many supposed heroes of the people (and of Zinn) described in the book are an odd assortment of reds and socialists including Eugene V. Debs, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Emma Goldman, W.E.B. Du Bois,Kate Richards O’Hare, John Reed, Bill Hayward, William Z. Foster, Herbert Aptheker, and Noam Chkomsky.
Professor Zinn’s take on World War II is perhaps the strangest of all.
“It was a war against an enemy of unspeakable evil. Hitler’s Germany
was extending totalitarianism, racism, militarism, and overt aggressive
warfare beyond what an already cynical world had experienced. And
yet, did the governments conducting this war—England, the United
States, the Soviet Union—represent something significantly different,
so that their victory would be a blow to imperialism, racism,
totalitarianism, militarism, in the world?”
Clearly, in the Professor’s mind, there was not much difference between Hitler’s Germany and the United States.
“For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless
countries matched its image in American high school history textbooks,
but not its record in world affairs.”
“…blacks, looking at anti-Semitism in Germany, might not see
their own situation in the U.S. as much different.”
Tellingly, the book makes no mention whatsoever of the Holocaust undertaken by Hitler to kill all the Jews in Grmany or any other country under his control.
Not surprisingly, Zinn dismisses as pure fantasy the well documented efforts of the Soviet Communist apparatus to successfully penetrate the government of the United States during World War II. Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who passed along secrets which enabled the Russians to build an atomic bomb, are portrayed as innocent victims.
The Vietnam War is hailed as a victory for “a nationalist revolutionary movement.” It is described by Zinn as “…organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the human beings won.” Never mind the 50,000 American casualties suffered by the United States.
It is somewhat surprising that both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come in for very harsh coverage in A People’s History of the United States. But, of course, the criticism is not because these U.S. Presidents were too liberal, but because they were too timid in their leap to the left!
Zinn’s coverage of Ronald Reagan’s years in the White House is both factually inaccurate and very nasty.
“Corporate America became the greatest beneficiary of the
Reagan-Bush years.”
“Under Reagan and Bush, [their] concern for ‘the economy,’ which
was short-hand for corporate profit, dominated any concern for
workers or consumers.”
In regard to the Reagan build up of the military (that had been unilaterally dismantled under Carter, and which led to the demise of the Soviet Union), Zinn states incorrectly that…
“Reagan tried to pay for this with cuts to benefits for the poor.”
In reality, there were no cuts by President Reagan, only smaller increases in welfare benefits which were mischaracterized by the media as “cuts.”
Perhaps the biggest lie of all was the statement that, “Unemployment grew in the Reagan years.” The fact is that Ronald Reagan inherited a “basket case” economy from Jimmy Carter with unemployment rates above 10%. Ronald Reagan’s tax rate reduction program brought unemployment down to historic lows and thus increased revenues to the Federal Government.
Not yet finished with his trashing of Ronald Reagan, Zinn states, “By the end of the Reagan years, the gap between rich and poor in the United States had grown dramatically.” This is another assertion that is not born out by the facts.
Perhaps the silliest statement in the book is also about Ronald Reagan and has to do with the media which was blatantly vicious and partisan in its coverage of the President…
“The press was especially timid and obsequious during the
Reagan years…”
Professor Zinn must have been living on a different planet.
Chapter 23 of A People’s History of the United States is appropriately titled “The Coming Revolt of the Guards.”
I say the title is appropriate because the first sentence of the 23rd chapter reads:
“The title of this chapter is not a prediction, but a hope, which I
will soon explain.”
Professor Zinn’s thesis is that all those who have served in positions of power in
the United States, from our Founders to Ronald Reagan and even Bill Clinton, are
the “Guards” who have kept the masses down and have kept them from achieving
freedom and equality.
Listen to Zinn’s candid explanation of his purpose in writing this textbook:
“The American system is the most ingenious system of control in
world history.”
Zinn openly says that he seeks a socialist revolution, the kind, “…the
governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them—from
the Founding Fathers to now—have tried their best to prevent.”
And what, according to Zinn, is it that the Founders and the elite have tried to prevent? They have tried “…to prevent the great upsurge of socialism…”
In an urgent message, Professor Zinn goes on to argue that, “All of us have
become hostages in the new conditions of doomsday technology, runaway
economics, global poisoning, uncontainable war.”
Zinn seeks a utopia where, “…Americans might be ready to demand not just more tinkering, more reform laws, another reshuffling of the same deck, another New Deal, but radical change.”
In an almost fairy tale fashion, Zinn continues…
“The society’s levers of powers would have to be taken away from
those whose drives have led to the present state—giant corporations,
the military, and their politician collaborators. We would need—by
a coordinated effort of local groups all over the country—to reconstruct
the economy for both efficiency and justice, producing in a cooperative
way what people need most.”
“Everyone could share the routine but necessary jobs for a few hours
a day and leave most of the time free for enjoyment, creativity, labors
of love, and yet produce enough for an equal and ample distribution
of goods. Certain basic things would be abundant enough to be taken
out of the money system and be available—free—to everyone: food,
housing, health care, education, transportation.”
In order to reach this “utopia” Zinn advises…
“These struggles would involve all the tactics used at various times in
the past by people’s movements: demonstrations, marches, civil
disobedience; strikes and boycotts and general strikes; direct action to
redistribute wealth, to reconstruct institutions, to revamp relationships;
creating—in music, literature, drama, all the arts, and all the areas of
work and play in everyday life—a new culture of sharing of respect,
anew joy in the collaboration of people to help themselves and
one another.”
This all may sound like utopia to Professor Zinn, but it sounds more like George Orwell’s “1984” to me.
In the Afterword of the text it becomes clear how Howard Zinn became such an unhinged radical:
“When I set out to write the book, I had been teaching history
and what is grandiosely called ‘political science’ for twenty years.
Half of that time I was involved in the civil rights movement in the
South (mostly while teaching at Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia).
And then there were ten years of activity against the war in Vietnam.
These experiences were hardly a recipe for neutrality in the teaching
and writing of history.”
Indeed! The foregoing words are the most honest words written in this anti-American history textbook. They accurately summarize the intent and the mission of Professor Howard Zinn in writing A People’s History of the United States and unfortunately how effective he has been in his mission.
Is this textbook actually in use? If you doubt that it is, please read this excerpt from a review by a public high school history teacher that I found on the Internet:
“For several years of the last decade, I taught Advanced Placement U.S.
History at a [public] high school… When I began the course, Zinn had
already been assigned by my predecessor, and I needed a counterpoint
to the main text (Bailey and Kennedy's bombastic, traditionalist, and
short-on-social history Pageant of the American Nation). Zinn's deftly
written book provided a fortunate antithesis to the ‘march of presidents
and industrial titans’ approach to American history. I found many chapters
of this book to be such excellent stimulants to class discussions that I
extended their use into my non-AP U.S. history classes, where students,
many of whom could not otherwise have cared less about history, found
themselves reading an interesting and provocative historian for the
first time in their lives. Many of the best discussions I ever had with my
classes (both AP and "regular") began with assigned chapters from Zinn.
From there, it was an easy step to move on to the idea of historiography
(the history of how history has been interpreted) and to decoupling
my students from thinking of the textbook as revealed wisdom.”
Although I have not yet read Pageant of the American Nation, I plan to purchase a copy. I actually own eight American History textbooks that are in use, not counting A People’s History of the United States, and I can tell you that every one of them contains a decidedly liberal slant. Not one text provides a balanced picture of the United States or of great American leaders like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan. I’m confident that the history textbook, Pageant of the American Nation is no different. These are not textbooks that would make you proud to be an American.
No wonder today’s young people have no regard for our Founders or our American institutions. No wonder our President, educated by the likes of men like Howard Zinn, bows to dictators and apologizes to the world for the United States.
But don’t just get mad. Get the truth out.
Please pass this blog along to others and order a copy of Zinn’s book from Amazon so you can see for yourself just how badly our children are being educated.
Check to see if your children or grandchildren are being brainwashed by Zinn’s tale of lies and distortions. Whether the Zinn book is used as a primary text or just as a secondary text, there is really no place for such a dishonest book in our public schools. Ask, even demand, that this unreliable, inaccurate book be eliminated from use in our public schools. Call the fabrications and lies and misrepresentations of Howard Zinn to the attention of your legislators.
Read the history books that your children and grandchildren are reading and if they don’t offer a balanced view, ask your school board members why they don’t use books that present an accurate view of the history of this great nation.
If we don’t tell our children the truth about our great nation, they won’t ever hear it. Worse yet, they won’t revere it. Please act today!
While reading a current issue of National Review, I came across an article by Roger Kimball that is an obituary of sorts written about Howard Zinn who died on January 27, 2010. It turns out that Professor Zinn, the author of more than 20 books, is known primarily for the textbook he authored, A People’s History of the United States, which was first published in 1980. Zinn’s history textbook has sold more than 2 million copies and, as of February 1, 2010, was ranked number 7 on the Amazon best sellers list. According to Kimball, an editor and publisher in his own right, A People’s History of the United States is “the textbook of choice in high schools and colleges across the country.”
I was describing the contents and thrust of the Zinn book to a friend and when he saw the cover he exclaimed, “Why that’s the book my daughter is reading right now!”
And what does this history “textbook of choice” say about the United States? Here’s just a sampling…
In Chapter 4 titled “Tyranny is Tyranny,” dealing with the Founders of our Republic, Zinn states,
“They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the
United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power…
In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions
and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new,
privileged leadership.”
“They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times…”
In other words, the “Tyranny” Professor Zinn is referring to is the tyranny of the Founders of America!
In the same chapter, Professor Zinn addresses the Declaration of Independence in which the signers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor (all of which, except for honor, some signers lost). Zinn, however, sees the Declaration in a different light.
“The Declaration…ignored the existing inequalities in property. And
how could people truly have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?”
As for the rule of law as a fundamental principle of human rights, Zinn approvingly quotes from the English historian, Christopher Hill…
“…the rule of law…mainly benefited the men of property.”
The American Revolution described in Chapter 5 is titled, “A Kind of Revolution” and describes the father of our country, George Washington, as “the richest man in America.” This is either poor research by author Zinn, or what he would consider to be an intentional smear. While certainly affluent, Washington was far, far from the richest man in America. He wasn’t even the richest man in the Virginia Colony at the time of the American Revolution. There are a total of five references to George Washington in the text of the book, not one complimentary, and few remotely accurate.
Zinn’s book treats President Abraham Lincoln as a self-serving pragmatist who was forced to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. And Zinn’s dislike (hatred?) of free markets and capitalism is captured in this apparently rhetorical question: “Was [W.E.B.] Du Bois right—that in that growth of American capitalism, before and after the Civil War, whites as well as blacks were in some sense becoming slaves?”
In Chapter 10, Zinn dismisses the free market economic system as “…an economic system not rationally planned for human need, but developing fitfully, chaotically out of the profit motive…” Clearly Zinn prefers a top down, command and control economic system like Socialism over the individual freedom approach of Capitalism. He chooses an autocracy over a meritocracy. No wonder that, toward the end of the chapter, Professor Zinn speaks approvingly of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, the philosophical founders of Communism.
Chapter 13 is titled, “The Socialist Challenge”, and indeed the socialists described by Zinn in this chapter receive far better coverage and a more positive review than any of our American Founders. The Chapter begins with a quote from Emma Goldman on the Spanish-American war, “…the lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect the interests of the American capitalists.”
Professor Zinn goes on to speak with enthusiasm about the Socialist movement of the early 20th century.
“There was an idea in the air, becoming clearer and stronger,
an idea not just in the theories of Karl Marx but in the dreams
of writers and artists through the ages: that people might cooperatively
use the treasures of the earth to make life better for everyone, not
just a few.”
Among the many supposed heroes of the people (and of Zinn) described in the book are an odd assortment of reds and socialists including Eugene V. Debs, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Emma Goldman, W.E.B. Du Bois,Kate Richards O’Hare, John Reed, Bill Hayward, William Z. Foster, Herbert Aptheker, and Noam Chkomsky.
Professor Zinn’s take on World War II is perhaps the strangest of all.
“It was a war against an enemy of unspeakable evil. Hitler’s Germany
was extending totalitarianism, racism, militarism, and overt aggressive
warfare beyond what an already cynical world had experienced. And
yet, did the governments conducting this war—England, the United
States, the Soviet Union—represent something significantly different,
so that their victory would be a blow to imperialism, racism,
totalitarianism, militarism, in the world?”
Clearly, in the Professor’s mind, there was not much difference between Hitler’s Germany and the United States.
“For the United States to step forward as a defender of helpless
countries matched its image in American high school history textbooks,
but not its record in world affairs.”
“…blacks, looking at anti-Semitism in Germany, might not see
their own situation in the U.S. as much different.”
Tellingly, the book makes no mention whatsoever of the Holocaust undertaken by Hitler to kill all the Jews in Grmany or any other country under his control.
Not surprisingly, Zinn dismisses as pure fantasy the well documented efforts of the Soviet Communist apparatus to successfully penetrate the government of the United States during World War II. Communist spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who passed along secrets which enabled the Russians to build an atomic bomb, are portrayed as innocent victims.
The Vietnam War is hailed as a victory for “a nationalist revolutionary movement.” It is described by Zinn as “…organized modern technology versus organized human beings, and the human beings won.” Never mind the 50,000 American casualties suffered by the United States.
It is somewhat surprising that both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come in for very harsh coverage in A People’s History of the United States. But, of course, the criticism is not because these U.S. Presidents were too liberal, but because they were too timid in their leap to the left!
Zinn’s coverage of Ronald Reagan’s years in the White House is both factually inaccurate and very nasty.
“Corporate America became the greatest beneficiary of the
Reagan-Bush years.”
“Under Reagan and Bush, [their] concern for ‘the economy,’ which
was short-hand for corporate profit, dominated any concern for
workers or consumers.”
In regard to the Reagan build up of the military (that had been unilaterally dismantled under Carter, and which led to the demise of the Soviet Union), Zinn states incorrectly that…
“Reagan tried to pay for this with cuts to benefits for the poor.”
In reality, there were no cuts by President Reagan, only smaller increases in welfare benefits which were mischaracterized by the media as “cuts.”
Perhaps the biggest lie of all was the statement that, “Unemployment grew in the Reagan years.” The fact is that Ronald Reagan inherited a “basket case” economy from Jimmy Carter with unemployment rates above 10%. Ronald Reagan’s tax rate reduction program brought unemployment down to historic lows and thus increased revenues to the Federal Government.
Not yet finished with his trashing of Ronald Reagan, Zinn states, “By the end of the Reagan years, the gap between rich and poor in the United States had grown dramatically.” This is another assertion that is not born out by the facts.
Perhaps the silliest statement in the book is also about Ronald Reagan and has to do with the media which was blatantly vicious and partisan in its coverage of the President…
“The press was especially timid and obsequious during the
Reagan years…”
Professor Zinn must have been living on a different planet.
Chapter 23 of A People’s History of the United States is appropriately titled “The Coming Revolt of the Guards.”
I say the title is appropriate because the first sentence of the 23rd chapter reads:
“The title of this chapter is not a prediction, but a hope, which I
will soon explain.”
Professor Zinn’s thesis is that all those who have served in positions of power in
the United States, from our Founders to Ronald Reagan and even Bill Clinton, are
the “Guards” who have kept the masses down and have kept them from achieving
freedom and equality.
Listen to Zinn’s candid explanation of his purpose in writing this textbook:
“The American system is the most ingenious system of control in
world history.”
Zinn openly says that he seeks a socialist revolution, the kind, “…the
governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them—from
the Founding Fathers to now—have tried their best to prevent.”
And what, according to Zinn, is it that the Founders and the elite have tried to prevent? They have tried “…to prevent the great upsurge of socialism…”
In an urgent message, Professor Zinn goes on to argue that, “All of us have
become hostages in the new conditions of doomsday technology, runaway
economics, global poisoning, uncontainable war.”
Zinn seeks a utopia where, “…Americans might be ready to demand not just more tinkering, more reform laws, another reshuffling of the same deck, another New Deal, but radical change.”
In an almost fairy tale fashion, Zinn continues…
“The society’s levers of powers would have to be taken away from
those whose drives have led to the present state—giant corporations,
the military, and their politician collaborators. We would need—by
a coordinated effort of local groups all over the country—to reconstruct
the economy for both efficiency and justice, producing in a cooperative
way what people need most.”
“Everyone could share the routine but necessary jobs for a few hours
a day and leave most of the time free for enjoyment, creativity, labors
of love, and yet produce enough for an equal and ample distribution
of goods. Certain basic things would be abundant enough to be taken
out of the money system and be available—free—to everyone: food,
housing, health care, education, transportation.”
In order to reach this “utopia” Zinn advises…
“These struggles would involve all the tactics used at various times in
the past by people’s movements: demonstrations, marches, civil
disobedience; strikes and boycotts and general strikes; direct action to
redistribute wealth, to reconstruct institutions, to revamp relationships;
creating—in music, literature, drama, all the arts, and all the areas of
work and play in everyday life—a new culture of sharing of respect,
anew joy in the collaboration of people to help themselves and
one another.”
This all may sound like utopia to Professor Zinn, but it sounds more like George Orwell’s “1984” to me.
In the Afterword of the text it becomes clear how Howard Zinn became such an unhinged radical:
“When I set out to write the book, I had been teaching history
and what is grandiosely called ‘political science’ for twenty years.
Half of that time I was involved in the civil rights movement in the
South (mostly while teaching at Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia).
And then there were ten years of activity against the war in Vietnam.
These experiences were hardly a recipe for neutrality in the teaching
and writing of history.”
Indeed! The foregoing words are the most honest words written in this anti-American history textbook. They accurately summarize the intent and the mission of Professor Howard Zinn in writing A People’s History of the United States and unfortunately how effective he has been in his mission.
Is this textbook actually in use? If you doubt that it is, please read this excerpt from a review by a public high school history teacher that I found on the Internet:
“For several years of the last decade, I taught Advanced Placement U.S.
History at a [public] high school… When I began the course, Zinn had
already been assigned by my predecessor, and I needed a counterpoint
to the main text (Bailey and Kennedy's bombastic, traditionalist, and
short-on-social history Pageant of the American Nation). Zinn's deftly
written book provided a fortunate antithesis to the ‘march of presidents
and industrial titans’ approach to American history. I found many chapters
of this book to be such excellent stimulants to class discussions that I
extended their use into my non-AP U.S. history classes, where students,
many of whom could not otherwise have cared less about history, found
themselves reading an interesting and provocative historian for the
first time in their lives. Many of the best discussions I ever had with my
classes (both AP and "regular") began with assigned chapters from Zinn.
From there, it was an easy step to move on to the idea of historiography
(the history of how history has been interpreted) and to decoupling
my students from thinking of the textbook as revealed wisdom.”
Although I have not yet read Pageant of the American Nation, I plan to purchase a copy. I actually own eight American History textbooks that are in use, not counting A People’s History of the United States, and I can tell you that every one of them contains a decidedly liberal slant. Not one text provides a balanced picture of the United States or of great American leaders like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan. I’m confident that the history textbook, Pageant of the American Nation is no different. These are not textbooks that would make you proud to be an American.
No wonder today’s young people have no regard for our Founders or our American institutions. No wonder our President, educated by the likes of men like Howard Zinn, bows to dictators and apologizes to the world for the United States.
But don’t just get mad. Get the truth out.
Please pass this blog along to others and order a copy of Zinn’s book from Amazon so you can see for yourself just how badly our children are being educated.
Check to see if your children or grandchildren are being brainwashed by Zinn’s tale of lies and distortions. Whether the Zinn book is used as a primary text or just as a secondary text, there is really no place for such a dishonest book in our public schools. Ask, even demand, that this unreliable, inaccurate book be eliminated from use in our public schools. Call the fabrications and lies and misrepresentations of Howard Zinn to the attention of your legislators.
Read the history books that your children and grandchildren are reading and if they don’t offer a balanced view, ask your school board members why they don’t use books that present an accurate view of the history of this great nation.
If we don’t tell our children the truth about our great nation, they won’t ever hear it. Worse yet, they won’t revere it. Please act today!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Lucky?
Lucky?
Even
an intellectual won’t usually challenge the fact that the United States
of America is the most prosperous country in the history of the world.
The facts are just too abundant to deny. Even they can see that people
aren’t leaving the United States to go to other countries. Instead
they can see millions of poor people from Latin America and other places
around the globe seeking opportunity in the United States.
So what sophisticated, nuanced reason do liberals provide for such prosperity in the United States? Their answer is that the United States is just lucky.
Yes, the United States is just lucky. It’s just a matter of great luck that we have unprecedented prosperity. We’re lucky to have vast natural resources. We’re lucky to be a melting pot of people with talents and abilities from around the globe. Never mind that many other countries have equally vast resources and diverse populations. In a liberal’s mind, our prosperity is just a matter of luck.
Liberals reject the idea that it is the individual freedom that Americans enjoy and use that enables them to rise from the ranks of poverty to the heights of success. They reject the free market system that has allowed Americans to become the most prosperous nation on earth. No, their answer is that you and I are just lucky.
When liberals see Americans who start at the bottom of the economic ladder, with some climbing up the ladder of success and others remaining mired in poverty, their answer is that some are just luckier than others.
Such sophistication, such insight! Clearly it had nothing to do with risk taking, innovation, hard work, or perseverance.
Ask a liberal why Ronald Reagan was so successful in defeating the Soviet Union and creating the longest continuing period of prosperity in the history of the United States. He will answer, “He was just lucky. The Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway and the economy was already on the road to recovery. Ronald Reagan got the credit, but he had nothing to do with it.” This, of course, ignores the fact that all the leading liberal economists of the time (including Paul Samuelson) were talking about how strong the Soviet economy was and how they would soon overtake the U.S.
When a liberal says someone is lucky, they see that person as having an unfair advantage. After all, in the alternate liberal universe, shouldn’t those who are the smartest and most intelligent receive the most privileges and economic rewards? Why should a semi-educated schmuck like Bill Gates, who dropped out of Harvard, be rewarded with millions of dollars and vast acclaim? Bill Gates was just lucky. He didn’t earn his money.
In fact, liberals believe that no one earns their money. After all, whatever success you have achieved is just a result of luck.
It is because of this sophisticated, nuanced, erudite conclusion by liberals that they believe it makes much more sense for them to make decisions for all Americans that will result in a more fair, a more just outcome for everyone. After all, they are smarter and better than others. Accordingly, they have the ability to make decisions for you about your health care, your job choice, the size of your family, and the education of your children better than you do.
Make no mistake about it, some folks are blessed by God with greater strength than others or more intelligence than others or more drive than others, but this is not luck. God blesses as He chooses. In His divine wisdom He decides which talents and abilities you and I will be blessed with. He is, after all, God, and may do whatever He chooses to do and we can know with complete confidence that every decision He makes is right.
I do not challenge the fact that liberals are often blessed with great intelligence and have learned much as they have risen up through the ranks to obtain their PhD. I wonder, did they “earn” that Doctor of Philosophy degree, or were they just lucky?
Unfortunately, liberals confuse intelligence with wisdom. They also confuse the gathering of degrees and information with truth. When asked why liberals believe such crazy things, Bill Buckley replied, “It’s not that they aren’t intelligent, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t true.” And that, in a nutshell, captures the basic problem of liberalism—they know all sorts of facts and information passed along to them by other liberals that are not true.
And, as far as wisdom is concerned, they don’t understand the difference between wisdom and intelligence. They do not understand the fallen state of human nature, as our Founders did. Instead, they see man evolving to a higher and higher state as a more benevolent and better person. They must gloss over the pages of the daily newspaper or the news on TV. As the Founders understood, man is not good, man is inherently evil. That’s why the Founders sought to preserve freedom by limiting the power of government. They knew the more powerful men become, the less freedom American citizens would have.
When you and I seek to become like God and rule over others, we reject God, we reject the source of wisdom. As it says in Proverbs 2:6, “The Lord gives wisdom and from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” The term most often used for wisdom is simply commonsense.
The idea that I or anyone else is able to run the lives of others better than they themselves choose to run their lives, is the original sin of wanting to be God. What did the devil say to Adam and Eve about the tree from which they were forbidden by God to eat? He said, “…God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). Instead, Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden to live in an imperfect, sinful world that ended in their death.
The devil deceived Adam and Eve and his deception continues. When we seek control over others because we think we are more intelligent or wiser than them, we commit the original sin that got us into trouble in the first place. This is the underlying failure of liberalism and socialism and fascism and Nazism and communism and Marxism and all the other “isms” that seek to gain control over the lives of others.
We must resist. There is no such thing as luck. It’s just another deception. Freedom is a gift from God. It is by God’s grace alone that we have faith and freedom. Faith and freedom set our nation apart from the rest of the world. As it says in Psalm 111:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom...”
If we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy the freedom and opportunity we have enjoyed, we must reject the sophism of liberals who offer nothing new, just the same old dangerous goal of a powerful, centralized government that will crush freedom, opportunity, and innovation and turn our land from one of opportunity to that of shared misery.
If we put our faith and hope in God alone, then, as the old song goes, His grace will continue to shine on our land.
Liberals,
as you may know, pride themselves on their sophistication, their mental
ability to see and understand things that others simply don’t have the
intelligence to understand. They are proud of the fact that they are
intellectually a cut above the average Joe or Jane. This is especially
true if they graduated from an Ivy League school like Princeton or
Harvard or Dartmouth or Yale. They consider themselves to be well-read
and have an erudite approach to things cultural and philosophical. In
short, they believe they are among the intellectual elite and therefore
should have a larger say over how things are done and how the country is
run than the average run-of-the-mill guy or gal. They have a disdain
for the wisdom of the common man and for the voters on Election Day.
So what sophisticated, nuanced reason do liberals provide for such prosperity in the United States? Their answer is that the United States is just lucky.
Yes, the United States is just lucky. It’s just a matter of great luck that we have unprecedented prosperity. We’re lucky to have vast natural resources. We’re lucky to be a melting pot of people with talents and abilities from around the globe. Never mind that many other countries have equally vast resources and diverse populations. In a liberal’s mind, our prosperity is just a matter of luck.
Liberals reject the idea that it is the individual freedom that Americans enjoy and use that enables them to rise from the ranks of poverty to the heights of success. They reject the free market system that has allowed Americans to become the most prosperous nation on earth. No, their answer is that you and I are just lucky.
When liberals see Americans who start at the bottom of the economic ladder, with some climbing up the ladder of success and others remaining mired in poverty, their answer is that some are just luckier than others.
Such sophistication, such insight! Clearly it had nothing to do with risk taking, innovation, hard work, or perseverance.
Ask a liberal why Ronald Reagan was so successful in defeating the Soviet Union and creating the longest continuing period of prosperity in the history of the United States. He will answer, “He was just lucky. The Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway and the economy was already on the road to recovery. Ronald Reagan got the credit, but he had nothing to do with it.” This, of course, ignores the fact that all the leading liberal economists of the time (including Paul Samuelson) were talking about how strong the Soviet economy was and how they would soon overtake the U.S.
When a liberal says someone is lucky, they see that person as having an unfair advantage. After all, in the alternate liberal universe, shouldn’t those who are the smartest and most intelligent receive the most privileges and economic rewards? Why should a semi-educated schmuck like Bill Gates, who dropped out of Harvard, be rewarded with millions of dollars and vast acclaim? Bill Gates was just lucky. He didn’t earn his money.
In fact, liberals believe that no one earns their money. After all, whatever success you have achieved is just a result of luck.
It is because of this sophisticated, nuanced, erudite conclusion by liberals that they believe it makes much more sense for them to make decisions for all Americans that will result in a more fair, a more just outcome for everyone. After all, they are smarter and better than others. Accordingly, they have the ability to make decisions for you about your health care, your job choice, the size of your family, and the education of your children better than you do.
Make no mistake about it, some folks are blessed by God with greater strength than others or more intelligence than others or more drive than others, but this is not luck. God blesses as He chooses. In His divine wisdom He decides which talents and abilities you and I will be blessed with. He is, after all, God, and may do whatever He chooses to do and we can know with complete confidence that every decision He makes is right.
I do not challenge the fact that liberals are often blessed with great intelligence and have learned much as they have risen up through the ranks to obtain their PhD. I wonder, did they “earn” that Doctor of Philosophy degree, or were they just lucky?
Unfortunately, liberals confuse intelligence with wisdom. They also confuse the gathering of degrees and information with truth. When asked why liberals believe such crazy things, Bill Buckley replied, “It’s not that they aren’t intelligent, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t true.” And that, in a nutshell, captures the basic problem of liberalism—they know all sorts of facts and information passed along to them by other liberals that are not true.
And, as far as wisdom is concerned, they don’t understand the difference between wisdom and intelligence. They do not understand the fallen state of human nature, as our Founders did. Instead, they see man evolving to a higher and higher state as a more benevolent and better person. They must gloss over the pages of the daily newspaper or the news on TV. As the Founders understood, man is not good, man is inherently evil. That’s why the Founders sought to preserve freedom by limiting the power of government. They knew the more powerful men become, the less freedom American citizens would have.
When you and I seek to become like God and rule over others, we reject God, we reject the source of wisdom. As it says in Proverbs 2:6, “The Lord gives wisdom and from His mouth come knowledge and understanding.” The term most often used for wisdom is simply commonsense.
The idea that I or anyone else is able to run the lives of others better than they themselves choose to run their lives, is the original sin of wanting to be God. What did the devil say to Adam and Eve about the tree from which they were forbidden by God to eat? He said, “…God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). Instead, Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden to live in an imperfect, sinful world that ended in their death.
The devil deceived Adam and Eve and his deception continues. When we seek control over others because we think we are more intelligent or wiser than them, we commit the original sin that got us into trouble in the first place. This is the underlying failure of liberalism and socialism and fascism and Nazism and communism and Marxism and all the other “isms” that seek to gain control over the lives of others.
We must resist. There is no such thing as luck. It’s just another deception. Freedom is a gift from God. It is by God’s grace alone that we have faith and freedom. Faith and freedom set our nation apart from the rest of the world. As it says in Psalm 111:10, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom...”
If we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy the freedom and opportunity we have enjoyed, we must reject the sophism of liberals who offer nothing new, just the same old dangerous goal of a powerful, centralized government that will crush freedom, opportunity, and innovation and turn our land from one of opportunity to that of shared misery.
If we put our faith and hope in God alone, then, as the old song goes, His grace will continue to shine on our land.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Hate Speech
Hate Speech
My Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the noun “hate” as “Intense hostility and aversion.” It defines the verb “hate” as “To express or feel extreme enmity.” The noun “speech” is defined as “The act of speaking.” Wikipedia’s definition of “hate speech” includes this: “In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.”
Of course, the Bible says in 1 John 3:15, “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” According to Matthew 5:44, Jesus said, “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
Today many liberal commentators and college and university administrators talk about hate speech and hate crimes. The news media recently reported that there was a “hate speech crime” perpetrated by some individuals in the “Tea Party” movement at a rally on Capitol Hill against Obamacare. This hate speech crime was supposedly aimed at Congressman John Lewis as he and other members of the Black Congressional Caucus declined to travel from their Congressional offices on the underground railroad, which they normally use to go to the halls of Congress, and decided instead to walk directly through the Tea Party demonstration. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. was part of the party that decided to walk through the crowd and as they proceeded along he filmed the crowd on his video camera. In addition, the national news media filmed the group and the demonstrators as they proceeded along.
Apparently, the Black Congressmen (whose offices are located in three different office buildings) decided to get together and walk through the crowd after alerting the news media of their intent. Initially, Congressman Lewis complained that someone had spit on him. As he later admitted, he wasn’t spat upon, but when someone shouted some spittle landed on him. That was indeed unfortunate. However, he said that someone had uttered a racial slur against him as he proceeded along. Apparently that was the reason for the unusual procession across Capitol Hill, to stir up animosity and provoke an incident.
The only catch is that not one video camera (including the one held by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.) provided any evidence of such an incident. Nevertheless, the report of such an incident was treated as fact by the media.
Prior to this, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called the Tea Party demonstrators “NAZIs,” and others called them racists and identified them with the Klu Klux Klan.
It is a terrible thing to call someone a name that belittles them or ridicules them. As it turns out, my wife, Kathi, and I, along with some friends, attended the giant rally on the Saturday prior to the vote on Obamacare. It was a huge crowd of more than 40,000 that assembled with less than a week’s notice. Of course, its size went completely unreported by the main stream media. It was a beautiful day with a bright blue sky and very mild temperatures. I remarked to Kathi at the time that the crowd was most unique in that it combined great concern with a pleasant and good natured attitude. Also unremarked by the media was the fact that it included old and young, black and white, Asian and Hispanic in the audience, all getting along together.
I can assure you that had there been any evidence whatsoever of racism, Kathi and I would have departed immediately. We have zero tolerance for any form of racism. There was none.
Just as it is a terrible, hateful thing to call someone by a racial slur, it is an equally evil, hateful thing to falsely call someone a racist. In the vernacular of the day, both are hate speech.
Years ago as a squad leader in Basic Training in the Army, I was the target of such hate speech. When you are in Basic Training petty theft is a very common occurrence. Accordingly, I was required to assign members of my squad to guard duty through the night. Everyone pulled such duty and although no one liked missing valuable sleep, they did it. My squad was of mixed race, both black and white. One night I woke up to find a black member of my squad assigned to guard duty asleep on his bunk. I knew that if anyone else found him, we would all be outside doing pushups. I was angry. I yelled at him and probably called him a couple of names, but I certainly did not use any racist term. However, the next morning he went to the drill sergeant in charge of our squad and accused me of using a racist slur. I simply told the sergeant (who also was black) the truth, it didn’t happen. To his credit he told the private in my squad to forget about it.
A couple of years prior to that, before entering the Army, I interviewed with Allis Chalmers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I was about to graduate from college with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and I had listed on my resume the fact that I had served as State Chairman of Youth for Goldwater-Miller. I thought it might show that I had some leadership ability and was willing to take initiative. The fellow who interviewed me clearly implied that since I had supported Goldwater for President, I must be a racist. I was shocked.
In other words, just because I realize that limited government is essential to the preservation of individual freedom and that the Constitution was to be followed, I was a racist?
How slick liberals are in spinning history to fit their distorted view of reality! Let’s start with Hitler and the NAZI Party was right wing. Never mind that those on the right believe in limited government and maximum freedom and Hitler and the NAZI Party believe in government control of all means of production and minimum freedom. Never mind that one of the earliest supporters of Hitler was the well known American liberal columnist, Walter Lipmann. Never mind that NAZI stands for National Socialist Party. It is, of course, untrue. NAZIs and Communists are just different wings of the same leftist movement. While the NAZIs believed in control of the means of production, the Communists believed in ownership of the means of production. Both are clearly, by definition, on the far left.
And when Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union “without firing a shot,” as Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher put it, the liberal news media immediately started identifying the hard left in Russia as the conservatives! More smear and distortion.
The liberal news media tells the biggest whopper when it smears conservatives and Republicans as the party of racists, bigots, and segregationists. No it was the Democrats who were the racists. It was the Democrats who were the party of Bull Connor, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, William Fulbright, and KKK member, Robert Byrd. That’s their long, long heritage.
I can’t stand racism in any form. It should never be tolerated.
Similarly, I denounce those who decline to discuss the issues, but instead attack the character of their opponents by falsely calling them racists and homophobes. Shame on you! Is your faith in your arguments so weak and your fear and anger so great that you are incapable of simply discussing and promoting your case in the public forum and letting the American people decide the outcome at the ballot box on the basis of the facts?
Enough! Be gone with you.
My Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the noun “hate” as “Intense hostility and aversion.” It defines the verb “hate” as “To express or feel extreme enmity.” The noun “speech” is defined as “The act of speaking.” Wikipedia’s definition of “hate speech” includes this: “In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.”
Of course, the Bible says in 1 John 3:15, “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” According to Matthew 5:44, Jesus said, “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
Today many liberal commentators and college and university administrators talk about hate speech and hate crimes. The news media recently reported that there was a “hate speech crime” perpetrated by some individuals in the “Tea Party” movement at a rally on Capitol Hill against Obamacare. This hate speech crime was supposedly aimed at Congressman John Lewis as he and other members of the Black Congressional Caucus declined to travel from their Congressional offices on the underground railroad, which they normally use to go to the halls of Congress, and decided instead to walk directly through the Tea Party demonstration. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. was part of the party that decided to walk through the crowd and as they proceeded along he filmed the crowd on his video camera. In addition, the national news media filmed the group and the demonstrators as they proceeded along.
Apparently, the Black Congressmen (whose offices are located in three different office buildings) decided to get together and walk through the crowd after alerting the news media of their intent. Initially, Congressman Lewis complained that someone had spit on him. As he later admitted, he wasn’t spat upon, but when someone shouted some spittle landed on him. That was indeed unfortunate. However, he said that someone had uttered a racial slur against him as he proceeded along. Apparently that was the reason for the unusual procession across Capitol Hill, to stir up animosity and provoke an incident.
The only catch is that not one video camera (including the one held by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.) provided any evidence of such an incident. Nevertheless, the report of such an incident was treated as fact by the media.
Prior to this, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called the Tea Party demonstrators “NAZIs,” and others called them racists and identified them with the Klu Klux Klan.
It is a terrible thing to call someone a name that belittles them or ridicules them. As it turns out, my wife, Kathi, and I, along with some friends, attended the giant rally on the Saturday prior to the vote on Obamacare. It was a huge crowd of more than 40,000 that assembled with less than a week’s notice. Of course, its size went completely unreported by the main stream media. It was a beautiful day with a bright blue sky and very mild temperatures. I remarked to Kathi at the time that the crowd was most unique in that it combined great concern with a pleasant and good natured attitude. Also unremarked by the media was the fact that it included old and young, black and white, Asian and Hispanic in the audience, all getting along together.
I can assure you that had there been any evidence whatsoever of racism, Kathi and I would have departed immediately. We have zero tolerance for any form of racism. There was none.
Just as it is a terrible, hateful thing to call someone by a racial slur, it is an equally evil, hateful thing to falsely call someone a racist. In the vernacular of the day, both are hate speech.
Years ago as a squad leader in Basic Training in the Army, I was the target of such hate speech. When you are in Basic Training petty theft is a very common occurrence. Accordingly, I was required to assign members of my squad to guard duty through the night. Everyone pulled such duty and although no one liked missing valuable sleep, they did it. My squad was of mixed race, both black and white. One night I woke up to find a black member of my squad assigned to guard duty asleep on his bunk. I knew that if anyone else found him, we would all be outside doing pushups. I was angry. I yelled at him and probably called him a couple of names, but I certainly did not use any racist term. However, the next morning he went to the drill sergeant in charge of our squad and accused me of using a racist slur. I simply told the sergeant (who also was black) the truth, it didn’t happen. To his credit he told the private in my squad to forget about it.
A couple of years prior to that, before entering the Army, I interviewed with Allis Chalmers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I was about to graduate from college with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and I had listed on my resume the fact that I had served as State Chairman of Youth for Goldwater-Miller. I thought it might show that I had some leadership ability and was willing to take initiative. The fellow who interviewed me clearly implied that since I had supported Goldwater for President, I must be a racist. I was shocked.
In other words, just because I realize that limited government is essential to the preservation of individual freedom and that the Constitution was to be followed, I was a racist?
How slick liberals are in spinning history to fit their distorted view of reality! Let’s start with Hitler and the NAZI Party was right wing. Never mind that those on the right believe in limited government and maximum freedom and Hitler and the NAZI Party believe in government control of all means of production and minimum freedom. Never mind that one of the earliest supporters of Hitler was the well known American liberal columnist, Walter Lipmann. Never mind that NAZI stands for National Socialist Party. It is, of course, untrue. NAZIs and Communists are just different wings of the same leftist movement. While the NAZIs believed in control of the means of production, the Communists believed in ownership of the means of production. Both are clearly, by definition, on the far left.
And when Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union “without firing a shot,” as Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher put it, the liberal news media immediately started identifying the hard left in Russia as the conservatives! More smear and distortion.
The liberal news media tells the biggest whopper when it smears conservatives and Republicans as the party of racists, bigots, and segregationists. No it was the Democrats who were the racists. It was the Democrats who were the party of Bull Connor, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, William Fulbright, and KKK member, Robert Byrd. That’s their long, long heritage.
I can’t stand racism in any form. It should never be tolerated.
Similarly, I denounce those who decline to discuss the issues, but instead attack the character of their opponents by falsely calling them racists and homophobes. Shame on you! Is your faith in your arguments so weak and your fear and anger so great that you are incapable of simply discussing and promoting your case in the public forum and letting the American people decide the outcome at the ballot box on the basis of the facts?
Enough! Be gone with you.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Happy Easter!
Happy Easter!
Let me take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Easter, a really Happy Easter. That is why God the Father sent His Son, Jesus, so you and I can have a Happy Easter and a happy hereafter. You can almost feel the incredible love of God.
Imagine God. But of course, you and I can’t imagine God. We understand human things and must live within limitations. We continue to study physics, astronomy, history, chemistry and biology, in order to better understand our world – the world that God created just because He loved us. Some would presume to understand God – they would equate themselves with God, but if there is a God, how can a frail human being, no matter how smart, understand God? By definition, God is above all and beyond all our understanding.
What we know about God is only what He chooses for us to know. What He has revealed about Himself in the Bible is everything He wants us to know while we are still on this earth. “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.” – 1 Corinthians 13:12a.
Yet, when you believe, you do feel the incredible love of God – A love so great that He sent His perfect and only Son to this sin cursed world to save us from our sins.
Sins? What sins? So you think you are perfect? When we take a good look at our thoughts, our words, and our deeds, who can say, “I’m without sin”? I’m a sinner, and I haven’t met a perfect man or woman, but the Bible tells us that Jesus was without sin – “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth.” – 1 Peter 2:22.
I can’t imagine that. Can you? Perfect in every way, that was Jesus. Imperfect in every way, that’s you and me.
Such love the Father had that He sent His own Son to live a perfect life, give His life on the cross for our sins and then, the really great part, to show His power, even over death, by rising back to life in total triumph over the grave. Victory – that’s what Easter is all about. It was a victory that Jesus claimed for Himself and He claimed it for you and me.
That’s the thrill of Easter. That’s why all the other days of the existence of the earth would be totally and utterly meaningless without Easter. So have a Happy Easter, a really Happy Easter – make it more than just intellectual knowledge – acknowledge your shortcomings, your imperfection, yes, your sins, and ask for God’s forgiveness. Pray for faith in Jesus who is happiness personified.
He said, “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” – John 14:6. And in John 6:47, “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”
This is the real meaning of Easter. Jesus is the real path to happiness. He is the path to real freedom – “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32.
Have a wonderful, joyous Easter Celebration!
Let me take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Easter, a really Happy Easter. That is why God the Father sent His Son, Jesus, so you and I can have a Happy Easter and a happy hereafter. You can almost feel the incredible love of God.
Imagine God. But of course, you and I can’t imagine God. We understand human things and must live within limitations. We continue to study physics, astronomy, history, chemistry and biology, in order to better understand our world – the world that God created just because He loved us. Some would presume to understand God – they would equate themselves with God, but if there is a God, how can a frail human being, no matter how smart, understand God? By definition, God is above all and beyond all our understanding.
What we know about God is only what He chooses for us to know. What He has revealed about Himself in the Bible is everything He wants us to know while we are still on this earth. “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.” – 1 Corinthians 13:12a.
Yet, when you believe, you do feel the incredible love of God – A love so great that He sent His perfect and only Son to this sin cursed world to save us from our sins.
Sins? What sins? So you think you are perfect? When we take a good look at our thoughts, our words, and our deeds, who can say, “I’m without sin”? I’m a sinner, and I haven’t met a perfect man or woman, but the Bible tells us that Jesus was without sin – “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth.” – 1 Peter 2:22.
I can’t imagine that. Can you? Perfect in every way, that was Jesus. Imperfect in every way, that’s you and me.
Such love the Father had that He sent His own Son to live a perfect life, give His life on the cross for our sins and then, the really great part, to show His power, even over death, by rising back to life in total triumph over the grave. Victory – that’s what Easter is all about. It was a victory that Jesus claimed for Himself and He claimed it for you and me.
That’s the thrill of Easter. That’s why all the other days of the existence of the earth would be totally and utterly meaningless without Easter. So have a Happy Easter, a really Happy Easter – make it more than just intellectual knowledge – acknowledge your shortcomings, your imperfection, yes, your sins, and ask for God’s forgiveness. Pray for faith in Jesus who is happiness personified.
He said, “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” – John 14:6. And in John 6:47, “I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.”
This is the real meaning of Easter. Jesus is the real path to happiness. He is the path to real freedom – “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32.
Have a wonderful, joyous Easter Celebration!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)