The Devil’s Workshop

A case in point about one of the PLDC’s “Three Pillars of Pretense”. Try and follow the logic below in light of the discussion above:

 An atheist, whose application to become a Navy chaplain was rejected, took his fight to court. Jason Heap, a religion scholar and former youth minister, filed the lawsuit with the help of the Humanist Society, alleging that military officials unjustly passed him over because he doesn’t believe in traditional religion – not because he lacked qualifications, according to the military periodical Stars and Stripes.

Chaplains, among the only counselors who can speak to troops confidentially, also act as key contacts for soldiers seeking guidance on a variety of issues and programs.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., named as defendants the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense and several other Department of Defense and Navy personnel, including current and former top Navy chaplains. The lawsuit sought Heap’s instatement as a Navy chaplain and the designation of the Washington-based Humanist Society as the official endorsing agency for humanist chaplains, as well as for the court to recognize that Heap’s constitutional rights were violated.

Navy officials, according to the lawsuit, were seeking to enroll a chaplain with Heap’s educational background, which includes degrees from Texas Christian University and Oxford University. But after discovering he was a humanist seeking to live an ethical life based on nonreligious principles, his application process went awry, the lawsuit alleges.

Some critics have ridiculed the idea of chaplains who don’t follow a religion, including a Congressman, the sponsor of a 2013 amendment to block atheist chaplains who stated that “The notion of an atheist chaplain is nonsensical; it’s an oxymoron.”

But roughly 3.6 percent of military officials identify themselves as humanists and Heap’s supporters claim that humanist ethical beliefs are constitutionally equal to other religious faiths. “[Heap] adheres to these beliefs with the strength and sincerity of traditionally recognized religious views,” the lawsuit reads.

“As a result of the Navy’s decision to deny Dr. Heap’s application, there are no Humanist chaplains in the U.S. Navy or in any branch of the armed services,” the lawsuit said. “The absence of even a single Humanist chaplain impairs the religious exercise of Humanists in the Navy.”

Based on the truth about secular humanism proven philosophically above, it appears the Humanist Society wants to have “amoral” counselors, who purvey their opinions as moral truth, serving under the banner of the supporters of the time-tested morality of the Abrahamic God – whose inscribed, universal truths have formed the basis for Western Civilization since ancient times. Talk about false prophets…

 If this all seems too confusing, just listen to any member or supporter of the Democrat Party talk about anything remotely political and try to follow the argument. In the end, the argument always is “the end justifies the means” and the “end” in all Democrat minds is the all-powerful (but, of course, benevolent) central government controlled by, you guessed it, the Democrat Party.

 For over fifty years these evangelists have been building a curriculum and a culture of social indoctrination for the nation’s young minds throughout the public-school system based on these, certainly questionable, philosophies – and from the standpoint of America’s “victims”. Hence, for example, the continuous drumbeat, not for constitutionally protected freedom of religion – but for the Progressives’/liberals’ endorsed freedom from religion – which begins in the kindergarten classroom.

 Here’s an example of how indoctrination begins:

 This basic lesson plan produced by a nationally recognized public-school advocacy group Teaching for Change was provided to school districts across the country as the 2014-2015 school years started:

 “As the new school year begins, first and foremost on our minds and in our hearts, will be the killing of (victim) Michael Brown,” (See Ferguson, MO, August 2014). “Teachers may be faced with students’ anger, frustration, sadness, confusion, and questions. Some students will wonder how this could happen in the United States.”

 The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, MO, a northern suburb of St. Louis MO. Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was fatally shot by Patrolman Darren Wilson, 28, a white Ferguson police officer, after reportedly robbing a convenience store and engaging in a struggle for the police officer’s gun.”

 The initially disputed circumstances of the shooting sparked existing tensions in the predominantly black city, where protests and civil unrest erupted. The events received considerable attention in the U.S. and elsewhere, attracting protesters from outside the region. They generated a vigorous national debate about the relationship between law enforcement and African-Americans, and about police use-of-force doctrine in Missouri and nationwide.

 A St. Louis County grand jury subsequently decided not to indict Wilson, and he was exonerated of criminal wrongdoing by the United States Department of Justice which, under Attorney General Eric Holder, had inserted itself into the case.

 Security camera footage, from shortly before the shooting, recorded Brown taking several packages of  cigarillos from a nearby convenience store and assaulting the much smaller store clerk who tried to stop him, according to the Department of Justice examination. Brown was accompanied by his friend Dorian Johnson.

 Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the reported robbery and descriptions of the two suspects. He encountered Brown and Johnson as they were walking down the middle of the street. Wilson said that he realized that the two men matched the robbery suspects’ descriptions. Wilson backed up his cruiser and blocked them.

 He ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence. “They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move,” a witness said. “They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face.” The altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle for control of Wilson’s gun until it was fired.

 Wilson suffered severe facial injuries including a bone fracture near one eye and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department’s top brass told “The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”

 A source claims that there is “solid proof” that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman’s firearm, resulting in the gun going off – although it still remains unclear who pulled the trigger.

 Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown and Johnson then fled with Wilson in pursuit of Brown. Brown suddenly stopped and turned to face the officer, then Brown moved toward him. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, “What, you’re going to shoot me?”

 At that point, the source told, the 6-foot-4, 292-pound Brown charged at Wilson again , after initially assaulting him in his patrol car, prompting the officer to fire at least six shots at him, including the fatal bullet that penetrated the top of Brown’s skull, according to an independent autopsy conducted at the request of Brown’s family.

 Witness reports differed as to what Brown was doing with his hands when he was shot, but the U.S. Department of Justice found that those witnesses who said that Brown had his hands up in surrender were not credible.

The shooting sparked civil unrest in Ferguson with widespread violence and looting. The “hands up” account was widely circulated within the black community immediately after the shooting and it contributed to the strong protests and outrage about the killing of the unarmed man. The U.S. Department of Justice did not conclude that the “hands up” account was inaccurate until months later.

 Believing unsubstantiated accounts that Brown had his hands up in surrender when he was shot, protesters chanted, “Hands up, don’t shoot”, a chant eagerly taken up by Hollywood celebrities and progressive/liberal political commentators alike. Protests, both peaceful and violent, along with vandalism and looting, continued for more than a week in Ferguson; police established a nightly curfew.

 The response of area police agencies in dealing with the protests was strongly criticized by the media and politicians. There were concerns over insensitivity, tactics, and a militarized response. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon ordered local police organizations to cede much of their authority to the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

 This group’s lesson plan will, in fact, introduce students to the history of the Black Panther movement (remember the “gang who couldn’t think straight”?) and invite them to create their own list of demands – a tried and true tactic of the PLDC. Huey Newton and other Panther leaders created their demands as the basis of the group’s radical, and violent, philosophy. What lesson will students learn from this approach?

 Teaching for Change included another topic for discussion in the lesson plan. It involved having students watch a video of Malcolm X accusing the United States of human rights violations against blacks and calling for a United Nations investigation.

 This plan has so many errors on so many levels one cannot even begin to count them. Fortunately, this plan came to public attention and now has no chance of ever being implemented – the same fate that met Ebonics. Remember Ebonics? Google it for a good laugh.

 And then there’s this:

 AP reporter Paul J. Weber writes; “The next ideological fight over new textbooks for Texas classrooms intensified …with critics lambasting history lessons that they say exaggerate the influence of Moses in American democracy and negatively portray Muslims.

 Making the final decision is the State Board of Education, which last year approved new curriculum that teaches children that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the U.S. Constitution. (Praise the Lord)

 Left-leaning (read progressive/liberal) groups: ‘A number of textbook passages essentially reflect the ideological beliefs of politicians on the state board rather than sound scholarship and factual history,’ said the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund.

 A passage in one textbook says,

 ‘Moses was a lawgiver (laws of Divine origin) and a great leader. Like the founders of the United States, he helped establish a legal system to govern his people. The Ten Commandments have been a guide and basis for many legal and moral systems throughout the world.’ Another disputed passage reads, ‘The Framers’ political thinking was influenced by a Judeo-Christian religious heritage.’ Others make sweeping generalizations about Islam and Muslims.’

 (A longtime Texas school board member) … said publishers have come a long way and praised the new textbooks for putting what he described as more emphasis on American exceptionalism. (Another) board member … will introduce a non-binding resolution that will condemn the course as reflecting ‘a radically revisionist view of American history that is critical of American exceptionalism and emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.’”

 And this from author and political commentator Todd Starnes:

 “The fine folks who run the school system in Lincoln, Neb., are on a campaign to make their classrooms gender-inclusive. And that means teachers will no longer refer to boys and girls … as boys and girls. “Don’t use phrases such as ‘boys and girls,’ ‘you guys,’ ‘ladies and gentlemen,’ and similarly gendered expressions to get kids’ attention,” reads a handout from the Lincoln Public Schools that was given to teachers. The handout was part of an effort to educate teachers and administrators about transgender issues, educators told the Lincoln Journal Star.”

“The agenda we’re promoting is to help all kids succeed,” the district’s coordinator of social workers and counselors told the newspaper. “We have kids who come to us with a whole variety of circumstances, and we need to equitably serve all kids.” So instead of asking boys and girls to line up as boys or girls, teachers have been encouraged to segregate the children by whether they prefer skateboards or bikes, or whether they like milk or juice. “Always ask yourself, ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?’” the handout stated.

The handout, provided by Gender Spectrum, a website which “provides education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages” does not explain what to do if all of the children like juice or skateboards. But it does suggest teachers “create classroom names and then ask all of the ‘purple penguins’ to meet at the rug.”

The Nebraska Watchdog website published copies of the handouts, titled, “12 easy steps on the way to gender inclusiveness…” The documents are chock-full of all sorts of advice for teachers as they deconstruct and reconstruct (perhaps the mantra for the entire PLDC population) the notion of what constitutes a boy and what constitutes a girl. (To avoid offense, those terms will henceforth be known as the “b-word” and the “g-word” – sort of like the “n-word” in its hatefulness.)

“Provide an opportunity for every student to identify a preferred name or pronoun,” the document reads. “At the beginning of the year or at Back-to-School Night, invite students and parents to let you know if they have a preferred name and/or pronoun by which they wish to be referred.”

The document also provides teachers with information to prevent kids from getting bullied on the playground. They suggest teaching kids to use phrases like, “Please respect my privacy” and “Hey, they’re called ‘private parts’ for a reason.”

Teachers were also encouraged to share anecdotes from their own lives “that reflect gender inclusiveness.” “Even better, share examples when you were not gender inclusive in your thinking, words or behaviors, what you learned as a result and what you will do differently next time,” the handout states. (Confession of your sins is good for the soul – whatever that is to the PLDC who certainly doesn’t endorse confession or contrition for anything.)

To illustrate its point, the district provided an illustration of a gingerbread man. For the sake of the teachers, the illustration was called a “genderbread person.” The “genderbread person” was created by a “social justice comedian” (???!!!). “Gender is one of those things everyone thinks they understand, but most people don’t,” the comedian wrote. “Like ‘Inception,’ gender isn’t binary. It’s not either/or. In many cases it’s both/and. A bit of this, a dash of that.”

“As you might imagine, some parents are not all that happy with the gender inclusiveness agenda. One parent fired off an email to other moms and dads accusing the district of social re-engineering. The Lincoln Journal Star obtained a copy of her email. She said the district was using taxpayer dollars to promote “the deconstruction of fundamental family and religious values.”

One school district official rejected her argument and said it was not pushing a political or religious agenda. Nor was it pushing a sexual preference on people. “Part of education in addition to academics is the feeling of welcomeness, the relationship piece,” a district official told the newspaper.

Still, the folks at Gender Spectrum admit there will be times when teachers will have to use a gender-specific term. “When you find it necessary to reference gender, say ‘Boy, girl, both or neither,’” the handout states. “When asked why, use this as a teachable moment. Emphasize to students that your classroom recognizes and celebrates the gender diversity of all students.”

Of course, to the thinking person (not the brainwashed person), gender is binary by definition and by common usage since – oh, I don’t know – homo-sapiens mastered language – perhaps millennia ago. Even those feeble minds understood that a person was equipped to either give birth or not and they constructed unique words to describe each. It wasn’t difficult.

It is the new creation of the PLDC – gender identity – that has an infinite number of variations. And that is a glimpse into how they’re indoctrinating kids into the gobbledygook of progressive/liberal thought-control in our public schools these days.

Unfortunately, the time it takes to socially indoctrinate students has had to be taken away from actual education. The success of this strategy is plain for all to see. Are 90% (the public-school students) of America’s children getting a good education? You be the judge and keep in mind that at the end of World War II, with the entire developed world in ruin and chaos, except for the United States, Canada, most of Australia, South Africa and parts of South America, we were first in public-education. Now:

 America’s public-school students rank 30/65 (30 out of 65) among developed countries in math, 23/65 in science and 20/65 in reading – right between The Slovak Republic and Lithuania (countries I guarantee that almost no public-school students could locate on a world map) and two spots behind Russia – which is barely functioning! In each category, we are considered way below average.

 America’s private schools are faring much better without the assistance of the teacher’s unions, while holding costs to about half of what it costs per public school student, their teachers make only 75% of the salary of an average public- school teacher.

 Some stats from The Council for American Private Education:

 By the time they are ready to enter high school, private and public schools’ comparisons show that private school students score on average 15 grading points higher (private = 84, public = 69) in subjects like reading; math; writing; history; geography; civics and science – the difference between a B and a D!

 Concerned U.S. Army generals report that “more than 70% of young Americans…” are ineligible for military service primarily because of “educational underachievement” and low scores on the military’s entrance exam – hardly a rigorous test. Some examples:

1. NaCl is more commonly known as:

A. nickel chlorine.
B. pepper.
C. salt.
D. sugar.

2. If there are 3 quarts of gas in a gallon container, how full is it?

A. 50%
B. 60%
C. 75%
D. 80%

3. Observe most nearly means:

A. maintain.
B. watch.
C. organize.
D. protest.

 Obesity and criminal records also contribute to these figures.

 They go on to report that this is not the result of students with low basic intelligence; it is the consequence of too much restriction of talented and dedicated teachers or poor learning environments (not enough academic rigor allowed) in schools.

 It is also a product of the outside environment – a third-generation environment beginning in the late 1960s, in which too many children attending public-school live – characterized by;

 ·         An environment of socio-economic strife caused by a parental choice to accept                    dependence upon government for all of ones needs (breeding sloth),

·         Fear of losing that safety net,

·         The bigotry of low expectations,

·         Family and peer-pressure (for African-American children) not to accept the “man’s”           (white America’s) value system – as characterized by good grades,

·         Anti-white bigotry and prejudice learned by the young in a significant number of               minority homes,

·         The removal of the faith-based community, centered around the local Christian                   church, that teaches morality, ethical behavior and love for all of God’s people (and           creatures) – the Ten Commandments,

·         Disrespect for authority or difference – necessary for an ordered society,

·         Little or no parental involvement in public education,

·         Hopelessness, depression and a psychology of entitlement.

There is also a popular area of social psychology that is attempting to explain the breakdown in the family as caused by “early childhood trauma” – like divorce, loss of a parent or sibling, domestic violence, child sexual abuse, significant accidents, mental illness in the family, etc.

 There is no argument that in situations like these, children will be adversely affected but, these circumstances have always been a part of growing up. It is called life and it is impossible to protect children from life – nor should we want to. Love and support for their children is what families (and extended families) are for and what families have provided children since man first walked the earth. That support requires finding the appropriate support for significant childhood traumas.

 The problem now is that the nuclear family has been under siege from the PLDC for generations, the family has disintegrated, Rooseveltian instincts mandate the federal government provide a solution – substitute parenting by the bureaucracy – and the toll is now evident with this self-inflicted, perhaps fatal, wound to the American Dream.

Next time: The toll the PLDC has taken on America’s school children.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s