Perhaps it has escaped their notice that they’ve spent a lot of time accusing Americans of various crimes of the heart and mind:

After insulting the average American for the past 18 months, it’s no wonder perceptions have changed:

The real hurt will come in November.

The NEA was founded in Philadelphia in 1857. The ostensible rationale for its creation was to provide a voice for all teachers in the nation to promote the interests of the profession. A statement from that initial meeting said it hoped to one day see a federal department of education. Well, that certainly has come to pass.

The biggest problem with the NEA is that it quickly came under the control of the progressive education movement, with John Dewey as its head. Dewey became a regular speaker at NEA conventions. Willard Givens, who served as president of the NEA from 1935-1952, called himself a socialist [as was Dewey]. It was Givens who gave the impetus to the policy of requiring all members of state and local education associations to become members of the NEA. He also endorsed world government, hoping thereby to eliminate America’s national sovereignty.

Givens said the following about the nature of the education he promoted:

The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual. It must seek to give him understanding of the transition to a new social order.

The new order Givens sought was a socialist society.

The NEA began active political lobbying in 1961 and was instrumental in passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the first time the federal government got involved in education at those levels.

The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to legislate on education, but that didn’t stop the NEA.

In 1981, a reporter for the communist Daily World, after attending the NEA’s annual convention, filed this report:

Nowhere in the basic documents of NEA, in their resolutions or new business items, are there any anti-Soviet or anti-socialist positions. … It [the NEA] will increasingly be fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow trade unionists as the class struggle intensifies.

In other words, the NEA was totally in sync with the aims of the Soviet Union when it existed. What are some of those resolutions the reporter identified? The basic ones have remained unchanged for years.

First, it must be understood that the NEA seeks to be the sole voice for American education. It wants to dictate standards for every school, including all private schools and home schoolers. No one should be allowed to teach, declares the NEA, unless licensed by the state and using a state-approved curriculum. If that resolution ever becomes law, all private education will be destroyed.

Many of the resolutions have little to do with education per se. As you meander through them, you discover that the NEA also takes a stand in favor of homosexuality and abortion, and in opposition to the teaching of any religious doctrines. Also on the agenda are national healthcare, radical environmentalism, gun control, and unilateral disarmament.

Sound like a wonderful organization? Keep in mind it’s the leading voice for the education profession in America, and that it’s very difficult for public school teachers to remain independent of it. In some states, they are required to join; in others, they are pressured to become a member; if they refuse, they are ostracized.

And all the while, our education gets worse. It is a union; it is a lobbying organization; it cares little for actual educational improvement. Education is merely the medium through which its leaders seek to impose their agenda on the nation.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.

But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.

Feisal Abdul Rauf has been described as a Muslim moderate, yet he basically blames American foreign policy for 9/11 and refuses to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization. If this is the face of moderate Islam, there is little hope for peaceful resolution of differences.

Good journalistic work [rare nowadays] has now uncovered even more about his dealings with people who depend on him and with his honesty.

First, it turns out Rauf is a slum landlord. Tenants in his apartments describe the living conditions as awful. They say he does nothing to correct the problems. He’s in it for the money, apparently, not to help others.

Second, as reported in the New York Post and highlighted at National Review, he’s willing to lie to get tax breaks:

The leader of the Ground Zero mosque got hugely valuable tax-exempt status for a Muslim organization he founded after claiming as many as 500 of its members prayed daily in a small, one-bedroom Upper West Side apartment also listed as his wife’s residence, The Post has learned.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf sought “church status” — an official IRS term for a house of worship of any religion — for the American Sufi Muslim Association, or ASMA, in 1998. The feds granted the request.

“Church status” is more than just an exemption — it means never having to pay taxes, file returns or reveal the sources of a congregation’s money or how it’s spent, according to the Washington-based Investigative Project on Terrorism, which discovered the group’s startling claims on the IRS form it filed seeking the special status.

Unless you really believe that 500 people are praying daily in his one-bedroom apartment of 800 square feet, you have to conclude that he’s a world-class liar.

Now, I understand the point people make when they say we are a nation that honors religious liberty. Without that, we would be in bad shape indeed. But when someone like Imam Rauf wants to push his religious liberty, opening a mosque close to Ground Zero when the type of people he supports are responsible for the 9/11 act of war, it’s legitimate to question his motives, at the very least. And for many, the erection of that mosque has the appearance of a victory monument.

Does freedom of religion really mean we have to accept this Islamic center/mosque, particularly when he is free to build anywhere else he chooses? The governor of New York has offered to discuss an alternative site; Rauf refuses to consider it. Why?

Are you aware there is a church that was destroyed on 9/11, and it has never received permission from the city government to rebuild? Yet there is no such restriction on Rauf and his dream.

A little equity, please?

There are excellent reasons to deny permission to build this mosque on that site, but this might be the best one:

Even though he kept himself from blaming Bush publicly this time, he did still take credit for bringing the troops home, neglecting to mention that it was the Bush plan for removing the troops that he was following. He also neglected to mention something else:

Now it’s time to put all this behind us. We’re supposed to focus on other things now, not that really expensive war:

The numbers tell the true story. Was the war expensive? Absolutely. Is it to blame for our current economic mess? Absolutely not. Obama and the congressional Democrats have figured out how to dwarf war spending many times over. Wasting $862 billion in one year is a new record. And look what it has accomplished:

But we’re supposed to believe the economy is heading in the right direction:

Words have lost their real meaning.

In this picture, you get only some idea of the size of the crowd. A bird’s-eye view provides a better perspective:

That’s the Lincoln Memorial in the distance. Up close is the WWII Memorial. The crowd filled the entire space between the two, and even went further back than this picture shows, all the way to the Washington Monument.

Impressive, to say the least.

What inspired people to make this journey? Well, there certainly were some attractions. For one, Sarah Palin was a key speaker, and undoubtedly a drawing card for many. She, and all the other speakers, set aside partisan politics for the day and spoke instead about honoring those who have served in the military, remembering another speech at this spot in 1963—”I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King—and calling for a return to faith in God.

Of course, the main organizer for this rally, Glenn Beck, was on hand as well. His stated goal was to bring together people of all faiths for a common purpose, what he and others termed a spiritual revival.

This is where it gets controversial. Before going any further, let me say that I am in complete agreement that a spiritual revival is essential to bring this country back from the brink of an untold disaster. I understand Beck’s desire and support him in that quest. The real question is whether there can be a genuine spiritual renewal if Jesus Christ is not central to it.

I have watched Beck’s television program on a consistent basis. I applaud most of what I see. He has provided a valuable service in exposing the roots of progressivism, in upholding the authority of the Constitution and the rule of law, and in telling people that faith in God is the most significant factor for any restoration of the Founding principles. Building a coalition of groups who have that same vision is a good thing. Therefore, I do support the intent of the rally and I know that it was a force for good in the country.

The key, though, is whether this movement, as it goes forward, is going to be a Christian-based endeavor. Beck is a Mormon. I have some knowledge of Mormon theology, and it is decidedly not Christian. I know it is politically incorrect to say such a thing. I can never now run for office. That’s okay—I never planned to do so. The Mormon concept of the nature of God and Jesus is not compatible with orthodox Christianity. The theology of salvation for Mormons is not the same as the Christian explanation.

Now, as I’ve listened to Beck, I’ve wondered just how much he really understands Mormonism because his words, at least as he explains his view of salvation, sound as orthodox as any Christian’s. I can safely let God be the judge of his heart. However, a clear line does need to be drawn between what is definitively, uniquely Christian and that which is not.

In the political world, as I’ve noted, coalitions need to be formed. I can unite with Mormons, Jews, and anyone else who wants to see the same political result as I do. But a government is not the church. Salvation will never emanate from any government. The message of individual salvation remains in the Christian faith, which proclaims that Jesus is the only way, truth, and life.

I’ve read some critiques of the rally that have been rather censorious of it due to its mixed leadership—the attempt to meld all religious beliefs into one. I understand that. However, we should keep in mind that the movement, such as it is, does promote basic Biblical attitudes and principles, even if some in the movement are not personally Christian. Anything that nudges us closer to the truth is welcome.

When I teach about the American Founding, I make it clear that not everyone was a Christian at that time, yet nearly everyone operated on a consensus that was formed from the Biblical worldview. We could be seeing that same development today.

I think it is highly likely that the majority of those who attended the Restoring Honor Rally did so as proponents of the Biblical worldview. If the rank and file is made up of that type, there is hope for our future. We certainly could do worse than return to the status of the Founding, where even those who were not Christians still understood the world through the Christian prism.

Therefore, I urge my Christian brethren not to be too critical at this point. Let’s see where this leads. God works through His people, but He also works through those who don’t always realize He is doing so.

http://biggovernment.com/asnyder/2010/08/31/restoring-federalism-repeal-the-seventeenth-amendment/#more-161853

Grand new ideas, weren’t they?

I’ve also mentioned a couple of his disciples; another one I would like to note today is William Heard Kilpatrick. A colleague of Dewey’s at Columbia University’s Teachers College, Kilpatrick also served as president of the John Dewey Society. It has been estimated that he taught as many as 35,000 students during his tenure at Columbia, many of whom became leaders in this new approach to education throughout the country.

Kilpatrick believed that man only existed in society, meaning that the collective was more significant than the individual. He disliked any diversity in education: there should be only one school system for the nation, he declared. To have more than one will lead to disunity. So much for private education.

The function of a school, according to Kilpatrick, was to teach methods of investigating truth, but not truth itself. He said we should teach children how to think, not what to think. If you read that last sentence and said, “yes, I agree with that,” you may not really understand the implications.

How can one learn how to “investigate” truth if no concept of truth exists? Teaching someone how to think sounds good, but that is merely a process. The substance of what we think is essential. There is truth and falsehood, but progressive education, the banner under which Kilpatrick stood, did not believe in any concept of right and wrong from God. Man was to figure it all out on his own.

I believe that real education begins with premises drawn from Biblical principles. Without firm foundations, the edifice collapses. Learning how to think is important, but you must start with some idea of right and wrong, truth and falsehood. Otherwise, you are trying to think in the midst of an intellectual and moral vacuum.

I make no apology for telling students that some things are right and others wrong, and that eternal truth does exist. They are then free, of course, to think through what I have said and determine if I am off-base in any way. I don’t have a problem with students asking questions if they are genuinely seeking to know and understand truth. But that desire must have a foundation first from which to question.

I realize that sets me apart from mainstream education. That’s fine. My first allegiance is to God and His truths. I firmly believe that students who are grounded in those truths have the potential to be the best thinkers.

All too often, education degrees focus rather heavily on how to manage a classroom or on the latest trendy experiments. Now, managing a classroom is important—I know that from personal experience. But if an education degree is too heavily weighted toward the nuts and bolts of classroom technique, it can minimize the substance of what students need to learn:

Take history, for instance: it would be nice if the students actually learned some.

The education field is also all too often fascinated with every new theory, regardless of whether or not it is worthy to be emulated. The past few decades are strewn with the rubble of trendy movements that were all the rage for a while, then disappeared [fortunately]. Yet that fascination with all things “new” is hard to shake:

Real education is the victim. We’ve probably never had so many people enlisted in the struggle to educate children. So why are we suffering in achievement?

Could that be a major part of the problem? How about if we break up that monopoly and allow real competition? That sounds scary to many, but to me it makes eminent sense.

He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He will also hear their cry and will save them.

The Lord keeps all who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy.

My mouth will speak the praise of the Lord, and all flesh will bless His holy name forever and ever.