International Baccalaureate Voted Out

By Julie M. Quist Over the unruly objections of International Baccalaureate (IB) supporters, school board members from the Upper St. Clair, PA district voted 5 to 4 last Monday to end their K-12 IB program. Upper St. Clair is a top-performing school district in Pennsylvania with an IB program in place since 1998. The IB described the vote as the most significant challenge to come to IB, because it involves the K-12 curriculum. IB has been successfully challenged in cities which include Fairfax, VA and San Diego, CA.

Ironically, the qualities IBO describes itself as promoting, a "peaceful world" through "understanding and respect," were conspicuously missing from enraged IBO advocates in Upper Clair. For example, the Pittsburg Tribune Review, 2/21/06 states: As board members in opposition to IB stated their positions, the crowd in the high school auditorium became boisterous. Board members were met with boos and screams of "We’re going to recall you." The interruptions became so frequent and intense that board president Sulkowski requested police officers present come to the front of the auditorium. Sulkowski also threatened to clear the auditorium if the interruptions did not stop.

Parents and students had been mobilizing to save the program since some board members labeled it anti-American last week. More than 300 people attended a meeting Thursday to organize their opposition and parents and students picketed in front of the district administration offices Friday. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is threatening a lawsuit to force the district into continuing IB. Opponents of IB cited concerns about IB’s violation of local control, IB’s endorsement of the radical Earth Charter, IB’s promotion of the UN Universal Declaration of Independence, and its needless duplication of Advanced Placement classes. "Why do we not want to foster a strong Advanced Placement offering," questioned board member David Bluey, who holds a masters degree in education. IB is an international curriculum out of Geneva, Switzerland. The Pittsburg Tribune Review quotes IB’s deputy regional director, Ralph Cline, as stating, "There’s nothing in the curriculum of any of the programs that require any teacher or student to be taught about the Earth Charter or to support it." The IB publication "IBO: Myths and Facts," however,states that IBO "promotes the Earth Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the idea of multiculturalism." IB is coming under increased scrutiny across the country, largely because it is being expanded through additional federal grant money.

A recurring criticism concerns IB’s promotion of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Critics point out that students are not taught nor is the public informed that Article 29 of that UN document puts the United Nations in authority over individual rights — unlike America’s founding documents, which describe individual rights as "inalienable." Article 29 states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Another frequent criticism is IB’s emphasis on creating "world citizens." Former IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill states in the publication, Education for Disarmament, , speaking to the Disarmament Forum, that "IBO seeks to develop citizens of the world." ["Curriculum development and ethics in international education," 2001] Whatever we are a citizens of, we are governed by. Teaching "world citizenship" undermines our own American citizenship and the authority of our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution. These documents describe the principles that make protect our freedom. As opposition to IB gathers steam, a bi-partisan bill will be heard in the Senate next week, S 2198, which would provide even more federal money to implement the IB curriculum nationally. President Bush’s American Competitive Initiative, introduce in January, also recommends more federal IB funding. INTRODUCTORY IB SEMINAR As an example of the political slant of IB curriculum, A.C. Flora High School in Richland, VA described the 2002 IB Introductory Seminar given in Danvers, MA "designed for schools from around the world interested in becoming part of the IB Program."

A. C. Flora’s Plan for Integrating Global Concerns into the Curricula:

  • Math Studies curriculum explores problems concerning the weather, environmental protection, conservation, and energy.
  • In HL Math the students will look at the global population problem, regional population problems, and models for the spread of disease, using data from problem areas such as the African AIDS epidemic.
  • The statistics unit will examine a variety of problems from a global perspective, such as the disparity of wealth distribution between first and third world countries.
  • The IB Physics curriculum will integrate global concerns and perspectives in the following ways: when studying electricity and magnetism, students look at power production and the third world, the control of emissions from power producing plants, control of emissions from automobiles, non-point source pollution and countries right to defend against it (for example, Canada’s right for compensation from the US for the production of acid rain);when studying the law of conservation of energy, they will examine the oil reserves on earth and the rights of OPEC countries to control the production of oil;
  • Students will delve into some of the more pressing international pollution concerns, such as global warming, fossil fuels, heavy metals, and other waste products of an increasingly industrialized world.
  • Because science … some examples include: environmental concerns (presently the honors level biology classes, which are pre-IB, are researching the Galapagos Islands oil spill from an Ecuadorian tanker. The students are writing persuasive letters to government officials. Worldwide environmental issues will always exist and can be integrated into the lessons.),
  • In Theory of Knowledge, students will frequently address issues from a multicultural perspective. For example, ethical topics must always be discussed from the perspective of different cultures, such as Muslim, Native American, Western European, African, and so forth. Also, students will seek to identify and examine the validity of cultural stereotypes for example, the common assumption that Europeans use primarily linear rational thought, while people of the Far East think in non-linear, mystical ways.
  • Students will look at languages in translation and how misperceptions can arise from translation and social and cultural biases.
  • In Latin SL, an ancient language, students will examine the ancient world as a sounding board to measure and compare the global issues in a modern world. Students will discuss the impact on the Roman world, as well as their own, of such topics as women’s rights, slavery, and national imperialism.

At A. C. Flora the French classes have continuously integrated global concerns, such as pollution, endangered species, health issues (obesity, aging, AIDS, cloning), space research, human rights, and the death penalty.

The Way Gay Marriage Undercuts Human Rights

By Tim Leslie — Special To The Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, August 7, 2005

Although gay marriage proponents saw their AB 19 decisively voted down this summer in California’s Assembly, they have used a rule-bending shortcut to advance their bill to the Senate anyway as AB 849. While technically legal, the maneuver flouts the legislative process. More significantly, it highlights a central tenet of the effort to redefine marriage: Discard any rule, authority or standard that does not give gay marriage proponents what they want.

Those advocating gay marriage often do so with good intentions, believing they are championing human rights. Unfortunately, their efforts push in the opposite direction. By discarding the foundations of human rights, gay marriage proponents ultimately work against those rights.

In California, redefining marriage requires tossing the vote of the people. Sixty percent of Californians voted in 2000 to protect marriage through Proposition 22. Legislators may pretend Proposition 22 meant something else, but to an honest observer the drive toward gay marriage shows disdain for the people’s authority.

Likewise, gay marriage proponents must discard Judaism, Christianity and every other major religion’s teaching on the topic. No doubt, some clerics willingly twist the clear teaching of their faiths. But as the vast majority of religious leaders confirm, redefining marriage would set aside millenniums of clear moral instruction.

Redefining marriage also demands dispensing with virtually every culture’s historic standard of marriage. Certainly, history has seen aberrations of marriage. But the overwhelming consensus always has been toward marriage as a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, one capable of producing and nurturing children.

In addition, redefining marriage means overlooking the vital complementary qualities of male and female in anatomy, psychology and childrearing. Of course, traditional marriages often fall short of what they should be. But even a simple understanding of sexual anatomy or the importance of both fathers and mothers for children demonstrates how gay marriage discards the beauty of human design.

Finally, redefining marriage requires ignoring the law written on every human’s conscience. Many would disagree, of course, and I respect their right to do so. But regardless of how Hollywood and others try to reshape our moral values, gay marriage discounts what we know to be right in our heart of hearts.

As in all of life, discarding fundamental principles carries consequences. In dialoguing with gay marriage proponents I often ask, “After allowing gay marriage, on what basis would you draw the line against polygamy between consenting adults?” I have yet to hear a real answer. There simply isn’t one.

Some gay marriage proponents understand this. Homosexual activist and writer Michelangelo Signorile describes the goal in the December-January 1994 Out Magazine as “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down.”

Yet here is a disastrous catch for those who imagine they advance human rights by redefining marriage: What standards remain once you’ve discarded democratic rule, transcendent truths, historic cultural standards, human design and even honesty with one’s own conscience? The only authority remaining rests on the whims of those in power.

Today in California, gay-friendly judges and legislators hold that power, and their whims could usher in a brave new world. But as the 20th century bears terrible witness, the whims of the powerful are no safeguard for human rights. If nothing stands higher than power – standards that judge its exercise and set its boundaries – we live in a world where might makes right. That is a dangerous realm to inhabit, especially for groups that have known oppression.

Opponents of gay marriage must unswervingly protect the human rights of all people, regardless of their lifestyle choices. For the sake of these rights, we must also stand firm in defending the bedrock standards that serve as their foundation.

About the writer:
Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, can be reached at assemblymember.leslie@assembly.ca.gov 

Humanist Manifesto

Humanist Manifesto II

– Preface –

HUMANIST RELIGION

The Humanist Religion is a perfect religion for the One World Order
so many are seeking today. The Doctrines and Theology are in Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III with many of SEED doctrines coming straight from the Humanist Manifesto II. The basis for United Action is set in place worldwide through SEED.The Principles are relevant to the present human conditions, and human need and interest is the priority and placed above all else. It is the perfect religion for those wanting to change the world. In the adoption of its doctrines, we will have the chaos needed to make changes necessary for the New World and the Eutopia that some think will follow.

Children and adults must be re-educated for this change to take place. Adults must break down present beliefs and this is accoplished through SEED and the behind “closed” door sessions that are designed to brainwash our teachers and parents. They return to the classroom and family with transformed ideas that come from the Humanist Religion. Parents and teachers then incorporate them into the teachings of our future voters. Future voters, with SEED ideas, are crucial to transform our country.

The following Doctrines are BASIC to SEED and the Humanist Religion:

1. Ethics: Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life.

2. Globalism: We have reached a turning point in Human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community.
“Only a shared world and global measures will suffice.

3. ECOLOGY: The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord…

4. WEALTH: World poverty must cease.Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis

5. SEX: Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity. (Whose Morality?) SEE #1

6. GOD: “Salvation and eternal damnation are illusions
and there is No divine purpose for life.”

BELOW IS THE HUMANIST MANIFESTO II IN COMPLETE FORM

It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.

As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an affirmative and hopeful vision is needed. Faith, commensurate with advancing knowledge, is also necessary. In the choice between despair and hope, humanists respond in this Humanist Manifesto II with a positive declaration for times of uncertainty.

As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways. This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs direction. It is social analysis in an effort at consensus. New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and guide humankind toward the future.
– Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973)

The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

The future is, however, filled with dangers. In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio- chemical disaster. Faced with apocalyptic prophesies and doomsday scenarios, many flee in despair from reason and embrace irrational cults and theologies of withdrawal and retreat.

Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False “theologies of hope” and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.

Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring measures. We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue. The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality — not for the favored few, but for all of humankind. Only a shared world and global measures will suffice.

A humanist outlook will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together. This outlook emphasizes the role human beings can play in their own spheres of action. The decades ahead call for dedicated, clearminded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life.

Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include “scientific,” “ethical,” “democratic,” “religious,” and “Marxist” humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition. Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, to the scientific revolution of the modern world. But views that merely reject theism are not equivalent to humanism. They lack commitment to the positive belief in the possibilities of human progress and to the values central to it. Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation.

We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for united action — positive principles relevant to the present human condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary scale.

For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival.

– Religion –

FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine “spiritual” experience and aspiration.

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.

We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the “God Is Dead” theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the “ghost in the machine” and the “separable soul.” Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance. Some forms of political doctrine, for instance, function religiously, reflecting the worst features of orthodoxy and authoritarianism, especially when they sacrifice individuals on the altar of Utopian promises. Purely economic and political viewpoints, whether capitalist or communist, often function as religious and ideological dogma. Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.

– Ethics –

THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life’s enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled. Thus, we are not advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition to emotion, for we believe in the cultivation of feeling and love. As science pushes back the boundary of the known, humankind’s sense of wonder is continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music find their places, along with religion and ethics.

– The Individual –

FIFTH: The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.

SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

– Democratic Society –

SEVENTH: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies. We would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

EIGHTH: We are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels — social, political, and economic. All persons should have a voice in developing the values and goals that determine their lives. Institutions should be responsive to expressed desires and needs. The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated and bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum. People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.

NINTH: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters.

TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.

ELEVENTH: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. This means equality of opportunity and recognition of talent and merit. Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts — the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts — for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations.

We believe in the right to universal education. Everyone has a right to the cultural opportunity to fulfill his or her unique capacities and talents. The schools should foster satisfying and productive living. They should be open at all levels to any and all; the achievement of excellence should be encouraged. Innovative and experimental forms of education are to be welcomed. The energy and idealism of the young deserve to be appreciated and channeled to constructive purposes.

We deplore racial, religious, ethnic, or class antagonisms. Although we believe in cultural diversity and encourage racial and ethnic pride, we reject separations which promote alienation and set people and groups against each other; we envision an integrated community where people have a maximum opportunity for free and voluntary association.

We are critical of sexism or sexual chauvinism — male or female. We believe in equal rights for both women and men to fulfill their unique careers and potentialities as they see fit, free of invidious discrimination.

– World Community –

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person’s future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.

FOURTEENTH: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value; we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature. We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploi- tation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.

FIFTEENTH: The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide — through an international authority that safeguards human rights — massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

SIXTEENTH: Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent. Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.

SEVENTEENTH: We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

– Humanity As a Whole –

IN CLOSING: The world cannot wait for a reconciliation of competing political or economic systems to solve its problems. These are the times for men and women of goodwill to further the building of a peaceful and prosperous world. We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended. We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people. We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want — a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared. Let us not abandon that vision in despair or cowardice. We are responsible for what we are or will be. Let us work together for a humane world by means commensurate with humane ends. Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome. Let us call for an end to terror and hatred. We will survive and prosper only in a world of shared humane values. We can initiate new directions for humankind; ancient rivalries can be superseded by broad-based cooperative efforts. The commitment to tolerance, understanding, and peaceful negotiation does not necessitate acquiescence to the status quo nor the damming up of dynamic and revolutionary forces. The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless nonviolent adjustments. But this entails the willingness to step forward onto new and expanding plateaus. At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. It is a classical vision; we can now give it new vitality. Humanism thus interpreted is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead.

We, the undersigned, while not necessarily endorsing every detail of the above, pledge our general support to Humanist Manifesto II for the future of humankind. These affirmations are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith. We invite others in all lands to join us in further developing and working for these goals. Underlined TextUnderlined TextUnderlined Text

Opt-Out Form

NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY,STATE,ZIP
PHONE:
EMAIL:
DATE:

Topic: Notice of parent’s desire to participate in child’s education

Dear ________________________,

As the parents of _______________(Student or Child) who attends ______________Grammar, Middle or High School, we thank you for your effort to provide an excellent, academic-based education for our child. We are pleased with the potential for excellence in education that _________________provides, and we thank you for all you do to contribute to our children’s education.

I would like to address the issue of our family’s ability to review classroom material via this letter. We want to exercise our rights under the law and district policy to review materials and address issues with our child concurrent with the curriculum and within the framework of our family so we may actively participate in our children’s education.

Under U.S. legislation, court decision, state education codes, and DISTRICT policies, parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s education, and students have certain rights that the school may not deny. Parents have the right to be assured that the schools do not unknowingly or knowingly impair or weaken the student’s beliefs, moral values and belief systems within his or her family unit. A student has the right to hold his or her values and moral standards without direct or indirect manipulation by the schools through curricula, textbooks, and AV material or supplementary assignments. Schools and families successfully working together as partners in education and communication of curriculum content will further strengthen the ability to provide students an excellent education in a way that strengthens individual families and our community.

Under the Federal Law (20 U.S.C. 1232h) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act, we hereby request that our child not be involved in any school activity or material listed below unless we have first reviewed all the relevant material and given our written consent for their use:

Values clarification, use of moral dilemmas, discussion of religious or moral standards, role playing, open-ended discussions of situations involving moral issues, survival games including life/death decision exercises, contrived incidents for self-revelation, sensitivity training, group encounter sessions, talk-ins, magic circle techniques, self-evaluation, auto-criticism, strategies designed for self-disclosure including the keeping of a diary, journal or log book, sociograms, sociodramas, psychodramas, blindfolded walks, isolation techniques, death education including abortion, euthanasia, suicide, use of violence, discussions of death and dying, curricula or books and reading materials pertaining to religious beliefs (including elements of witchcraft), drugs and alcohol, nuclear war, nuclear policy, nuclear classroom games, globalism, one world government, curricula discussing anti-nationalistic views, evolution, discussion and testing on interpersonal relationship, discussions of attitudes towards parents and parenting, health education including human development, and education in human sexuality including birth control and pre-marital sex.

Psychological and psychiatric treatment or adult and peer counseling that is designed to affect behavioral, emotional or attitudinal characteristics of an individual or designated to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs, or feelings of an individual or group.

Under California Law (Education Code Sections 51101, 51201.5, 51240, 51500, 51501, 51513, 51530 51550, 51553, 51554, 51555, and 51820) we also request that our child not be involved in any school activity or material listed below unless we have first reviewed all the relevant material and given our written consent for their use:
Sex or family life education; AIDS or HIV education; the acquiring or use of birth control drugs or devices; abortion; infanticide; euthanasia or suicide; death education in any form; programs regarding death; homosexuality; bestiality; sadism, masochism; showing of R, NC-17, or X rated (pornographic) films; meditation, yoga, trances, guided imagery, or the conjuring of spirit guides and/or “imaginary friends;” witchcraft in any form; communism or other collectivist doctrines; any counseling, group or individual, other than behavior modification programs, except as recommended by the student’s personal physician and approved by us, or the use of questionnaires, role playing, or other strategies to question, expose, or criticize any private, religious or moral value of the above named pupil or members of his/her family; “values clarification,” “decision making,” or global education dealing with the aforementioned subjects.

We also ask you to provide us with two-week advance notice and the opportunity to review complete curriculum material for any discussion, workshop, assembly, speaker, or presentation defined by the district as controversial, including but not limited to the following:

Topics regarding religious, political, social, economic, ethical, and/or moral significance; Guest speakers presenting materials that are defined by the district as controversial or who are presenting material that is not relevant to course material; any topic about which someone might ask whether or not it is controversial.

The purpose of this letter is to protect and preserve our children’s rights defined under the pupil’s rights amendment, the Protection of Pupil Rights Act, California Education Codes, California Family Codes, and DISTRICT policy. These regulations and policies all provide procedures for filing complaints first at the local level and then with the U.S. Department of Education. If a voluntary remedy fails, federal or state funds can be withdrawn from those in violation of the law, and the individuals responsible might be held legally liable.

Our purpose and intent is to work cooperatively with the schools in congenial and positive attitudes and actions, with our child’s best interest in mind. We fully support your efforts to provide excellent, academics-based education within our community and for our child, and we are grateful for each teacher and administrator’s dedication to our child’s academic success.

Please feel free to call us with any questions at any time during the course of the year.

I request written acknowledgment of receipt and filing of this legal, written notice.

Best Regards,

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Teacher Signature:____________________________________ Date:__________________

Teacher Email:_______________________________________ Teacher P

No Seed Apology

NO SEED APOLOGY

April 22-24th, at the California Republican Assembly (CRA) Conference in Pomona CA., I saw firsthand, the defensive behavior of Stage 4 of Mind Control I discuss in my Book.

Eagle Forum of Sacramento rented a table to display our information and to make available my Book Seeds of Deception: Planting Destruction of America’s Children.
Sales are going well, as can be expected for a first time author, with subject matter that is controversial. The people at the conference were very receptive to the Book.

Toward the latter part of the morning, 3 members of Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church verbally accosted me. I have a small section in Seeds about his Book The Purpose Driven Life, and its New Age implications. Prior to my research on it, I myself had bought ten copies of the Book to give as gifts. I could not finish his Book; nor did I give out the books.

Warren’s book guarantees the discovery of your life’s purpose and an understanding of the big picture. You will know how “all the pieces of your life fit together.” These are serious presumptions, since God’s Word is what leads us, not Rick Warren’s program.

The Purpose Book has over 80 quotes from Eugene Peterson’s The Message, which replaces words in the Bible and changes the original meanings. Thus Master, a teacher, is used to replace Lord, ultimate Authority and Savior. Master is referred to in the King James Bible few times to reference Christ as a teacher, in The Message over 25 times, changing His status. The Our Father is paraphrased and uses “As Above, so below” in it. When researched, I found this term has unquestionable New Age implications. These are the facts; I did not make them.

Brainwashing is subtle and the intent of my Book is to show how it can take over our world in ALL areas, including the church. Some told me to leave out this information. If I wanted the millions of Christians who followed Rick to read my book, I must not offend them. It is and never has been my intent to offend anyone; only the content concerns me.

Never more convincing was Stage 4 of Mind Control (defending one’s belief to any means) than on this conference weekend. A man in a wheelchair, traveling very fast down the corridor, headed straight for me; I knew he was a Rick Warren supporter bythe look of anger on his face. His debate reeked of anger, defiantly questioning me as to my Christian status, the church Iattended and the reasons why I had upset the church members by attacking Warren with a “New Age” label.

I was able to calm down Warren’s followers, from Saddleback Church, on four different occasions throughout the day. Most oftheir break time was spent in small circles, discussing their plan of action against me. Their faces were rigid and their eyes were angry. They even went to the head of the organization and told him I was not a Christian and why did they let me in. They were desperate enough to think that going to our National President Phyllis Schlafly would make a difference.

My amazement is that they were not concerned about the content I presented, only in defending this man. It did not matter that God’s Words were being reinvented, but only that I insulted Warren. I was stunned by the amount of energy these people gave in supporting Rick Warren!

My question is how much of their energy have they invested into saving the lives of our children who are being accosted daily with the evil of homosexual teachings and the actions of Pedophiles? How much of their energy goes into learning and educating others as to evils that permeate institutions across America? How much of their energy went into wanting to know aboutMind Control or the Marxist Dialectic? Did they want to know about SEED’s intention of transformation? Not one bought a Book!

People already in Stage 4 are usually gone and will not return from the behavior that I experienced this last weekend. It only reaffirmed my position that people who are brainwashed will not see the truth. They truly believe that the end justifiesthe means! Rick Warren’s end results are impressive, but one must ask, at what price?

The people who accosted me tried desperately for me to see how Warren was a good man; I never said he was a bad man. It wassad to see them hurting inside and wanting so much for me to apologize for what I had written. I have nothing against this man. The question remains: “What purpose is there served by using a Book that changes the meanings of God’s words?”

My allegiance lies with God and never will I adhere to a “man made program” that claims to lead one to Christ. One woman proclaimed that “love” was more important than talking about sin. This is the modern day spirituality! Yes Rick Warren has sold “millions” of books and does this intimidate me? Not so, for he is a man and only a man.

Rushing to get out my Book last year, I truly believed that people would care about the mind control content, and especially about the harm to our innocent children through the SEED program. Unfortunately I now realize that the very people I had hoped to gain support from are into modern day “love” and not “good verses evil.” Take the purpose driven information out of my Book? It will never happen, for to what goal?

The small amount of information in my Book about the purpose driven church has gained more attention than the horrors of destruction of our children. This reveals that some of our churches are deceived by a “love” that truly ignores our “social evils.”

The desperation of Warren’s followers left a lasting picture. I thought of the “weeping” women in the Bible. The differenceis that they wept over Jesus. I could not help but wonder why Warren’s followers wept over a man? I offer no apologies to anyone for the content in my Book! I did not write The Message nor did I write The Purpose Driven Life; I wrote my facts as Ifound them. I will follow God’s Word, not The Message. people I had hoped to gain support from are into modern day “love” and not “good verses evil.” Take the purpose driven information out of my Book? It will never happen, for to what goal?

The small amount of information in my Book about the purpose driven church has gained more attention than the horrors of destruction of our children. This reveals that some of our churches are deceived by a “love” that truly ignores our “social evils.”

The desperation of Warren’s followers left a lasting picture. I thought of the “weeping” women in the Bible. The differenceis that they wept over Jesus. I could not help but wonder why Warren’s followers wept over a man? I offer no apologies to anyone for the content in my Book! I did not write The Message nor did I write The Purpose Driven Life; I wrote my facts as Ifound them. I will follow God’s Word, not The Message.

Marxism – Socialism from Below

THE RADICAL THOUGHT of the 1820s and the 1830s was profoundly elitist and anti-democratic in character. Utopian socialism was the creation of upper-class reformers. Anarchism originated in the anti-democratic protest of the small property owner. Conspiratorial communism conceived of a transformation of society brought about by a select and secret group. The programmes of social change advocated by thinkers associated with these trends of thought did not look forward to a collective reordering of society by the mass of the oppressed. The idea of a new democratic order that would be created by the self-activity of ordinary people was foreign to all of these trends of radical thought.

By the 1840s, however, a new trend in socialist thought had started to emerge. The industrial revolution in England and France had brought into being a new social force that was pressing for widespread change in society. This force was the industrial working class–a class of wage-labourers concentrated in large factories and workplaces and increasingly inclined to resort to collective action, such as strikes, and collective organisation, in the form of trade unions. Between the years 1830 and 1848–which mark two separate revolutionary uprisings in France — the industrial working class changed the shape of European politics.

In Britain, major strike waves had taken place in the mid-1820s. In 1834, the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union was founded. Mass strikes took place in 1842. In 1847, on-going agitation among workers forced the government to pass the Ten Hour Bill, thus limiting the length of the workday. In France, the years 1831 and 1834 saw strikes and insurrections among the silk weavers of Lyons. Uprisings among Parisian workers occurred in 1832 and 1834.

This upsurge in militant working class activity powerfully influenced the thinking of some radical writers and organisers. Increasingly, some socialists began to think of the working class as the group that could change society. Indeed, a few theorists began to talk in terms of the working class liberating itself through its collective action. Notable in this regard was the French revolutionary woman Flora Tristan, who linked together ideas of working class self-emancipation and women’s liberation with the proposal for a world-wide organisation of workers. But it was in the writings and the organising of a German socialist, Karl Marx, that the working class took centre stage in socialist thought. Inspired by the emergence of the modern working class, Marx developed a wholly new socialist outlook based upon the principle of socialism from below.

Marx was the first major socialist thinker who came to socialism through the struggle for democratic rights. As a young man in Germany during the early 1840s, Marx edited a newspaper which supported the widespread extension of democratic liberties. Increasingly, Marx came to the view that the political restrictions on democracy were a result of the economic structure of society. When the government closed down his newspaper in 1843, Marx moved to Paris. There he encountered a vibrant working class and socialist movement. Several years later, Marx moved to England where he undertook a painstaking study of the nature of the capitalist economy. Out of his experience in France and England, Marx developed a consistently democratic and revolutionary socialist outlook.

The young Marx came increasingly to believe that no society which was divided into exploiting employer and exploited worker could ever achieve full democracy. So long as the capitalists held the bulk of economic power in society, they would continue to dominate political life. Full democracy, Marx argued, required the overcoming of class division in society. Only then could each individual fully and equally participate in social and political affairs. Unlike the utopian socialists, Marx insisted that socialism had to represent a higher stage of democracy than anything yet seen. He opposed all socialist and communist views that involved a curtailing of democracy. As he wrote in 1847 in a pamphlet outlining the views of a socialist grouping he was involved in:
We are not among those communists who are out to
destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the
world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic
workhouse. There certainly are some communists who,
with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance
personal liberty and would like to shuffle it out
of the world because they consider that it is a
hindrance to complete harmony. But we have no desire
to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced
that in no social order will freedom be assured as
in a society based upon communal ownership.
Equally important, if socialism was to represent a new society of freedom, then it had to be achieved through a process in which people liberated themselves. Unlike the utopian socialists who looked to an elite to change things for the masses, Marx argued that the masses had to free themselves. Freedom could not be conquered for and handed over to the working masses. Socialism could only be brought into being through the mass democratic action of the oppressed.

Marx was the first major socialist thinker to make the principle of self-emancipation–the principle that socialism could only be brought into being by the self-mobilisation and self-organisation of the working class–a fundamental aspect of the socialist project. As he wrote in the statement of aims of the First International Workingmen’s Association, ‘The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the working class themselves.’

Unlike the conspiratorial communists, Marx insisted that there was a majority force in society that would bring socialism into being. He argued that the modern working class of wage-labourers was organised in such a way that they would be pushed, in the course of struggle, towards socialist objectives. Through his study of English economics, Marx came to see that capitalism had created, for the first time in human history, an oppressed class that worked collectively in large workplaces. If this class was to liberate itself, he pointed out, it could only do so in common. If it was to reorganise the economic basis of society, it could only do so in a collective fashion. If the factories, mines, mills and offices were to be brought under the control of those who worked them, this could be achieved only through the coordinated action of thousands upon thousands of working people. Thus, a working class revolution would of necessity arrive at a new form of collective economy and society in which the means of producing wealth–the factories, mines, mills and offices — would be owned and managed in common by the whole of the working class.

Such a democratic and collective society would have to be based upon the fullest possible political democracy. Marx made this point clear from his earliest writings. But it was only with the workers’ revolution in Paris in 1871, the revolution that established the short-lived Paris Commune, that Marx came to see some of the forms that a workers’ state, workers’ democracy, would take.

In March of 1871, the army of France admitted defeat at the hands of Prussia. Fearing a Prussian take-over of France, the workers of Paris rose up and took control of their city. For more than two months, the workers ruled Paris before their uprising was drowned in blood. In order to secure their rule, the Parisian workers took a series of popular democratic measures. They suppressed the standing army and replaced it with a popular militia; they established the right of the people to recall and replace their elected representatives; they decreed that no elected representative could earn more than the average wage of a worker; they instituted universal male suffrage and universal education.

Marx immediately rallied to the cause of the Paris Commune. He hailed the action of the ‘heaven-stormers’ of Paris. Most important, he learned enormous lessons from the experience of the first workers’ revolution. Prior to the Paris Commune, Marx had given little thought to the form that a workers’ revolution would take. Now he drew a conclusion of tremendous importance. The working class, he wrote, could not ‘simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes. ‘ Rather, the working class had to create an entirely new form of state in order to secure workers’ democracy and workers’ power.

Marx insisted that the abolition of the standing army, free and universal education, universal suffrage, the right to recall representatives and limits on the salary of any elected official were all essential elements of any workers’ state. The Paris Commune, Marx wrote was ‘essentially a working class government … the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of labour’. Economic emancipation, the elimination of class divisions and private ownership of the means of producing wealth, could only take place under the direct and democratic rule of the working class through its own state.

Marx’s socialist perspective represented a thorough fusion of the idea of mass democracy with the notion of a commonly owned and managed economy. His work signalled an entirely new direction in socialist thought and socialist politics. Central to Marx’s socialism were two basic principles. First, that the working class had to emancipate itself through its own collective action. Freedom could not be given over to the working class, it had to be conquered by the oppressed themselves. Secondly, in order to bring about a socialist transformation of society, the working class would have to overthrow the old state and create a new, fully democratic, state for itself. These two principles–of self-emancipation and of the democratic workers’ state — became the very essence of ‘Marxism’, of socialism from below.

Secular Religion of Humanism

There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community. As James Davison Hunter explains:

The substantive model generally delimits religion to the range of traditional theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on. The functional model, in contrast, is more inclusive. By defining religion according to its social function, the functional model treats religion largely as synonymous with such terms as cultural system, belief system, meaning system, moral order, ideology, world view and cosmology.[1]

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism.”

In other words, a functional definition describes religion as “a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality. This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion.”[2] Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism.

U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion (where the religion must affirm a transcendent deity) to a functional definition of religion even including Secular Humanism. For example, in United States v. Kauten (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his “religious conscience.” The court concluded: “Conscientious objection may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse.”[3] Thus, the court clearly adopted the functional definition of religion asopposed to a substantive or distinctly theistic one.

Another example of the adoption of a functional understanding of religion occurred in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957). In this case, the Fellowship of Humanity sought recovery of property taxes because, it argued, its grounds were used for religious worship (though not the worship of a transcendent deity). They were awarded a refund of paid property taxes.[4] In praise of the decision, Paul Blanshard, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto II, declared that the court’s decision regarding the Fellowship of Humanity represented “another victory for those who would interpret the word religion verybroadly [viz. to include Secular Humanism]. . . . “[5]

One final example is well-known. In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Marylandnotary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote thatclarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, “Among religions in this country which do not teach whatwould generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, andothers.”[6]

Clearly, American courts understand religion to include non-theistic religions like Secular Humanism.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not been consistent in applying its definition of religion to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a wall ofseparation between religion and the state, why are only theistic religions being forced out of the public square specifically Christianity? If Secular Humanism is a religion, something the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged and something countless Humanists insist is true[7], why is it allowed in our public schools? As James Davison Hunter says,

To be legally consistent the courts will either have to articulate a constitutional double standard or apply the functionaldefinition of religion to the no establishment clause just as they have to the free exercise [clause]. The latter would mean that secularistic faiths and ideologies would be rigorously prohibited from receiving even indirect support from the state, which needless to say would have enormous implications for public education.[8]

Enormous implications indeed! Even Leo Pfeffer, the Humanist attorney who argued the Torcaso case, declared that Fundamentalists, individually or collectively, have manifested no indication of giving up in their crusade against secular humanism inthe public schools. Pfeffer fears that if the Supreme Court upholds its current understanding of religion to include Secular Humanism and orders the teachings of Humanism to be removed from the public schools “the consequences may be no less than the disintegration of our public school system and the end of Horace Mann’s dream.”[9]

But Humanism remains de facto the established religion of our land, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview. As one great Humanist triumphantly declared: Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?[10]

FOOTNOTES

1. James Davison Hunter, “Religious Freedom and the Challenge of Modern Pluralism,” in Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy, James Davison Hunter and Os Guiness, eds. (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 58.
2. Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introductionto the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 4.
3. United States v. Kauten, 133F. 2nd 703, 708 (2d Cir. 1943). See also, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).
4. Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2nd. 673 (1957).
5. “Paul Blanshard’s Column,” in The Humanist, No. 4, 1959, p. 238.
6. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961).
7. For proof, see, David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1995). Available from Summit Ministries, P.O. Box 207, Manitou Springs, CO 80829; or call (719) 685-9103.
8. Hunter, “Religious Freedom,” p. 65.
9. The Humanist, September/October 1988, p. 50.
10. Charles Francis Potter (a signatory of the 1930 Humanist Manifesto I), Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), p. 128.

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, adapted from their book Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, Summit Ministries.

Copyright © 1996, 1999, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved – except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

www.ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200nd, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview. As one great Humanist triumphantly declared: Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?[10]

FOOTNOTES

1. James Davison Hunter, “Religious Freedom and the Challenge of Modern Pluralism,” in Articles of Faith, Articles of Peace: The Religious Liberty Clauses and the American Public Philosophy, James Davison Hunter and Os Guiness, eds. (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1990), p. 58.
2. Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introductionto the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 4.
3. United States v. Kauten, 133F. 2nd 703, 708 (2d Cir. 1943). See also, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).
4. Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2nd. 673 (1957).
5. “Paul Blanshard’s Column,” in The Humanist, No. 4, 1959, p. 238.
6. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961).
7. For proof, see, David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism (Manitou Springs, CO: Summit Press, 1995). Available from Summit Ministries, P.O. Box 207, Manitou Springs, CO 80829; or call (719) 685-9103.
8. Hunter, “Religious Freedom,” p. 65.
9. The Humanist, September/October 1988, p. 50.
10. Charles Francis Potter (a signatory of the 1930 Humanist Manifesto I), Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), p. 128.

[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, adapted from their book Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism, Summit Ministries.

Copyright © 1996, 1999, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved – except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

www.ChristianAnswers.Net
Christian Answers Network
PO Box 200

re SEED

February 3, 2006

Elk Grove Citizen Editor
Via Facsimile

Re: S.E.E.D.

Dear Editor:

I am responding to Pam Benedetti’s letter in which she defends SEED. The quotes in my article of January 18 are taken from SEED documents that we obtained through the Freedom of Information Act via our attorneys in communication with the school district’s lawyers. We fought long and hard to obtain these documents, which came directly from the SEED headquarters at Wellesley College. These included 1700 handout pages that are distributed to every trained SEED facilitator to be used in sessions and given to attendees. SEED classes encourage the education of teachers on how to incorporate this material into their curriculum. I again reiterate these are the themes and founding principles of SEED.
I can see from Pam’s letter that SEED was very effective in brainwashing her. She gives two examples, both of which supportthe horrors of SEED completely. I am glad we are not in dispute of the real facts.
After consuming the lies of SEED, Pam now believes that our education standards should be lowered so students, who could not pass the entrance exam for her class, can now be accepted. She was actually able to get District standards lowered to accommodate these students. How fair is this to the students who are able to meet the standards, but are rejected due to this policy. Because of such public school policies, many students are not able to perform on tests, thus California schools are 49th in the Nation. Graduates are ill prepared for college level courses because education standards have been “dumbed down.” Thus, colleges want AP students, while the average students continue to fall behind other countries. Regardless, the priority remains that students must “feel” wonderful about themselves, even though they did not earn what they got. To keep Americaon the right course, we need to require the students to learn academics, not politically correct social skills, which SEED encourages.
After consuming the lies of SEED, Pam also now believes the lies of “white privilege.” She states that black kids have to fear being stopped by the cops, and white kids don’t. This is the ultimate lie of big bad white guy and poor little oppressedblack victim. If children of any race have been taught their manners, how to respect authority, and to tell the truth, and they have not been up to any mischief, they have nothing to fear by being stopped by the cops. Teens of all races get sweatypalms and a pounding heart if they see the red and blue lights behind them. If mothers of non-white races believe they haveto prep their children with correct responses, that is an unfounded fear they are passing along to their children. These kids should be taught that they can hold their head up, tell the truth in a respectful manner, and then feel the pride that comes when they are shown respect back. This is what we should be teaching our kids, not the “white privilege” nonsense of SEED.
Citizens of this community, you can see where SEED has taken Pam Bernedetti and thousands of teachers, parents and studentswho have attended these classes. SEED’s only answer to the “oppressiveness of white Christian males” is to take from them their political and economic power, which they have worked hard to obtain. Peggy McIntosh, one of the founders of SEED, speaks frequently at communist oriented gatherings. Her views on heterosexual, white, Christian male, and Capitalism are used to promote the “oppressor and oppressed” theory, which is used in Marxism. This principle is the basis for SEED sessions.
Once again, I ask you to contact the School Board and demand that they remove this program from the District. You can also go to www.stopseed.com to find out more information about SEED. Remember, the quotes in the paper on 2/18 are directly from documents furnished to me by the District. They speak for themselves.

Sincerely,

TERI LAWRENCE

re ‘R’ movies

January 30, 2005

Elk Grove Citizen, Editor
Via Facsimile

Dear Editor:

I was standing in line last week getting movie tickets, and I observed two young girls attempting to get into an “R” rated movie. There was a large sign clearly stating that no one was allowed into “R” rated movies without a photo ID showing they are 17 or older, or with a parent or legal guardian. Despite all their attempts and pleas, the attendant held firm with the theater’s policy. I was very proud that United Artists Theaters respected the time-honored rating system. Then my thoughts went to our own Elk Grove Unified School District, and wondered why they insist on having policies that show no respect for the same rating system. I wonder why the Board Members and District employees insist on a policy of allowing “R” rated moviesto be shown in grades 9 through 12 (many 9th graders are only 13), and PG-13 movies to 7th and 8th graders, most of whom are not yet 13. I think most parents in Elk Grove are unaware of this District policy. It shows blatant disrespect for parentsas being the decision makers in their children’s lives, and a total disregard of a time-honored system of decency of movies.

I know that at least one of the “R” rated movies approved by the District has been shown to students without permission slips going home, and major networks refused to air this movie this past fall. The networks feared being fined by the FCC because of the language and violence in the movie (Saving Private Ryan). I do know that some parents let their children see certain select movies that are rated inappropriately for that child, but shouldn’t this be a decision a parent should make, not ateacher or a board member? I did contact the Board Members and asked them to change this policy, and was told by Brian Myers, the only board member who bothered to respond, “99.9% of the people . . . disagree with you”. Personally, I am sure some “R” rated movies are completely appropriate for any age, but that is not my point. It simply is not the District’s decision,it is completely a parent’s decision. And even if permission slips go home, it is a slap in the face to parents that do have certain moral values. Imagine if you, as a parent, have a strict rule that your children do not watch “R” rated movies if they are under 17. Even if a permission slip is sent home, you are now faced with a dilemma. Do you go against your rules and values and let your child “fit in”? Or do you stick with your rules and values and have your child discriminated against? Believe me, these kids do not enjoy being sent to the library while other kids in class get to watch the “R” rated movie. This system is unfair for all involved, unless you are the teacher or board member that somehow thinks it is your right to override parents’ rights.

I do think that this School Board is doing an outstanding job in managing the District’s finances, rapidly building schoolsfor all the incoming children, and all the things that go along with those issues. Parents’ rights and values seem to be the only area of major concern, and these issues can be resolved if simply brought to their attention by a few concerned parents. So parents, unless I am the only one offended by my rights being trampled on, give the District a call at (916) 686-5085and ask them to reverse this policy. Let’s help them make Elk Grove a place where ALL children feel safe and respected. Let’s ask the District not to have a policy that requires parents to choose between compromising their values and keeping theirchild in a comfortable environment.

Sincerely,

TERI LAWRENCE

re Kohlberg’s Theories of Moral Development

October 10, 2005

Editor, Sacramento Bee

Via facsimile

Dear Editor:

I recently read an article in the Elk Grove Citizen about the opening of the new Point Pleasant High School. The principal stated that the school’s central theme and focus this year was not necessarily academics, but advocacy. I shudder to read statements such as this. Many parents may be wondering “what is advocacy?” I have paused a moment to find out.

Advocacy in the Elk Grove Unified School District teaches that all religions are equal. Advocacy teaches that religion breeds prejudice and discrimination. As a Christian parent, this discriminates against my and my child’s freedom to practice religion. Christians teach their children what the Word of God says, not prejudice and discrimination. If the school believes that God’s Word is prejudiced and discriminatory, they need to take those issues up with God, not our children in the District.

Elk Grove, through Advocacy, also teaches Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theories of Moral Development. What are these theories? They teach our children that by age 10-12, they must be aware that no moral decision should be based on God or any other authority figure. Kohlberg’s Theories teach our children that their moral decisions should be based on their own self-interest, and that alone. Kohlberg’s theories further state that the ultimate goal of moral decision should be made for the common good of all, but most people never reach that stage. These theories are also teachings of Karl Marx (father of communism).

Does the above sound like things you want your child to be learning? The EGUSD lets each school choose to teach what they want. They are undermining your authority as a parent and teaching your child that they are not accountable to authority figures. As far as I have ascertained, none of these materials go through any sort of committees for approval, nor are they approved by the school board. This is certainly not what the school will tell you if you call asking what advocacy is. You will get some sort of politically correct hogwash that actually tells you nothing.

If you are a parent and want this stopped, call the school board and tell them you want all advocacy materials to be processed through committees and voted on by the board, just like all other curriculum. In the meantime, please opt your child out of the advocacy class at your school. If they are sending all the kids to the library, this nonsense will stop. And remember your Second Amendment rights, we may need to have a revolution!

Sincerely,


TERI LAWRENCE