Community of Women?

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria ...

English: Rep. Albert Wynn (left) joins Gloria Feldt (right), President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on the steps of the Supreme Court, to rally in support of the pro-choice movement on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Although widely criticized from both sides, the callous video celebrating 40 years of abortion-rights Roe v. Wade  featuring actor Mehcad Brooks dovetailed perfectly with the Marxist call for the “community of women” in which the Communist Manifesto basically calls for women to have no restriction on who, when, and for how much they will sleep with men. Really what they meant was for women to be community property. I can imagine that this sounds great to an amoral Marxist man but what woman feels properly valued in that state? If you don’t believe me read it for yourself below. Then ask yourself if the current state of morality on high school and college campuses more closely approximates the “Communist ideal” or a practice that is actually healthy for women?

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

–from Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto

Advertisements

Life is like a Jigsaw Puzzle

Life is like a Jigsaw Puzzle

Life is like a Jigsaw Puzzle

Life is like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. When you are building a puzzle, first, you find all the border pieces. The ones with the flat sides – the edge pieces. Once you’ve completed the edge pieces or border of your puzzle, the best strategy to follow is to pick out major, easy to identify sections of the puzzle. Pull out all those pieces. Fit them together. Put them in their place within your puzzle. Then select out the next easy to identify section. Separate out those pieces. Put them together as best you can and put them in their relative position within the puzzle framework.

As you move along through this process of identifying specific areas of the puzzle and putting those in order in their relative positions, the overall puzzle begins to take shape. Not all at once… it doesn’t come together immediately. But over time different areas of the puzzle begin to form as you concentrate on them.

And after a while those pieces which at first you did not recognize as being part of one of the earlier sections, you start to notice patterns of where they belong. Pieces that are all one color, for instance, are really hard to identify where they belong. You start to notice shades of color difference that you hadn’t noticed before. Pieces of the sections you had already isolated and built but were missing a few pieces, you find those pieces mixed in with the hard-to-identify pieces because they just didn’t have that easy-to-find characteristic.

And over time the process builds on itself as you get more and more sections in order and put together, until eventually you’re almost picking up pieces and putting them directly in their places one after another.

Growing as a person is like this. When you find and identify the boundaries to build your life within that’s the beginning. This is like finding the foundation for your life. It gives you a starting place. You want to find the firm foundation that is true – that conforms to reality. We find this true foundation in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ.

Then you begin working on certain areas of your life and try to put them in order. It might start with your finances, your marriage, your work life, or your spiritual life. As you put the different areas together, your life starts to take shape. Getting additional areas under control and in focus and in order and productive starts to become easier. Unfortunately life is not completely the same as a jigsaw puzzle. For the puzzle there is finally a finishing point, a finite amount of time when you can put the whole thing together and say you’re done. With life however, although there is a definite finishing point for our lives, we never reach a state of being done on this side of eternity. We leave that to our Lord and Savior for the next life.

We can use this principle of focusing on specific areas of our lives, getting them in order as best we can, getting things in place and moving on to another area. This principle can help us move the ball forward in our lives toward reaching our goals.

Marriage Goal-setting Retreat

Goal-setting

Meaningful Change in the Wake of Sandy Hook

Indoor Shooting Range at Sarasota, Florida, US...

Indoor Shooting Range at Sarasota, Florida, USA. Taken by Kenn. Shooting a Glock 23 (.40 S+W) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I, like most other Americans, want to express my shock, sadness, and sympathy to the grieving survivors. My prayers have been with you since I first heard of the tragedy.

I would also like to add my voice to the meaningful debate about what should be done about school shootings. The most important part of the conversation should not center on guns, but on the content we emphasize in our schools and media. The secondary part of the conversation, which many would like to make primary is what to do to make our schools safer from attackers.

First, about the society we are influencing with media and education. As a teacher I cannot help but think that we must stop teaching the lie that there is no right or wrong. We cannot teach the lie that humans are just advanced animals and should not be treated with special dignity and respect. This is the same line of thinking that Hitler used to justify his extermination of so many Jews. Teaching morals, the difference between right and wrong, and the fact that we will have to answer for our actions in either this life or the next would help our nation more than any additional gun laws.

We must not allow the liberal bloc to use this tragedy as an opportunity to disarm America. I agree with Wayne LaPierre and Louie Gomert. There is a reason why these malevolent shooters go to schools and malls and movie theaters. They do not go to local hunting clubs, shooting ranges, or police stations. The shooters go where there will be no armed resistance. People bent on this kind of violence will obtain weapons whether or not there are laws in place.

My proposed solution to protecting our schools is to arm school staff members. It is time for us to put a comprehensive firearms training program in place in our nation’s schools. Every school building should have trained and armed staff members who can respond immediately to this kind of heinous violence. Arming school staff members whether teachers, administrators, or classified staff would be much more cost effective than hiring an entire new group of officers to be at the school. The costs would include training for the staff members and for the weapons themselves. I am impressed with the courage displayed by those teachers and principals who attempted to shield and protect their students with their wits and in many cases with their own bodies. Wouldn’t it have been better if those teachers had been armed with some means of taking out this unhinged madman?

Schools as Subversive

The Morning After Pill

The Morning After Pill (Photo credit: VixyView)

The CATCH program in New York City is distributing the morning after pill to teens as young as 14. School nurses do not have to get permission from parents. This is an opt-out program where parents can sign a document so their children cannot get the pills. 1-2% of the those forms have been returned. The stated purpose of the program is to bring down the teen pregnancy rate: currently at around 7,000 per year in NYC schools.

 

I know of a sure-fire method to bring down the teen pregnancy rate: abstain from sex. As a side benefit, this method protects against STDs as well. It sounds like a winner to me. But… somehow this method is not an option for the New York Department of Education.

 

Is this the work in which we in the public schools want to be involved? One spokesperson said that if they needed parental permission to distribute the birth control/abortifacient medications, it would defeat the purpose of program. “You have to step into the real world not kind of what seems right. And the truth is, if parents had to be asked before Plan B was given to a girl In many, many, probably the most of those instances the girl is going to say, ‘Don’t call my parents.'”

 

Translation: government schools are willing to subvert parental rights and support young people in taking part in activities, in this case, sexual activities, that are not acceptable to their parents. Are we as teachers willing to be a part of that? I’m not.

 

You can listen to a news feature including the quote from above, here: The World and Everything In It | WORLD

 

NYC Schools dispensing morning after pill to girls

 

Tax payer funded drugs without a prescription

 

New York Post article

 

 

 

You Didn’t Build That

This video speaks for itself. Very Funny!

Freedom of Religion

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in t...

Map of religious freedom and restrictions in the world. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What does freedom of religion mean? Is freedom of religion a nebulous concept that must conform to the dictates of the government? Is it squishy? Can it be pushed to whatever size box the government allows for it? Obamacare includes a  mandate to provide abortifacient drugs. Many of us have problems with this from a moral point of view founded on our religion.  But we are private citizens. The HHS exemption only covers churches and some religious institutions. So has the president and his party decided that the freedom of religion of the private citizen is not important? What does our freedom of religion really mean?

 

 

It seems to me that if we can be forced to purchase medicine to initiate the murder of innocent unborn children, we have crossed a line of freedom of religion. If the intention of our founders was to consider sexual freedom on a par with religious freedom, wouldn’t we find it the first amendment? or somewhere in the Constitution? But we don’t find it because it isn’t there. The founders placed freedom of religion in a prominent location. But they didn’t raise the issue of sexual freedom. Do you suppose they didn’t have sex back then? Of course not. First of all, our founders knew that the area of sexual relations is governed by the Bible and trusted this area to the self-government of the people and the common law which is founded on the Bible. Second, sexual freedom leads to social chaos. Many of the social ills that we have in our country today can be directly linked to “sexual freedom”: 50 million Americans dead, epidemic STDs, single-parent families, poverty, crime, prison expansion, the growing welfare state.

 

 

What do you think? What should freedom of religion mean? On what do you base that meaning?

 

 

How Should We Then Live? Francis Schaeffer

link to Book on Amazon

How Should We Then Live?


Francis Schaeffer’s book How Should We Then Live? This is one of the modern classics of Christian thought. Schaeffer follows the development of Western thought and our various worldviews from the time of Roman civilization to modern times. He frames this development in the attempt of philosophers to explain our world starting with either absolutes or particulars. He gives dozens of examples of the various philosophic schools of thought playing out in art, music, and architecture.

The Reformation in Northern Europe found freedom for creation under the Bible and in its balance of universals and particulars found true freedom. The Renaissance in Southern Europe adopted the humanistic view with particulars only, and therefore had no basis for transcendent growth. As humanism began to infiltrate into the scientific thinking and philosophy of the 1700s and 1800s and on into today, people were faced with the problem of drawing absolute principles starting with particulars. This turned out to be impossible. Trying to come up with a unified, cohesive philosophy of life starting with human experience takes people nowhere.

As he closes the book, Schaeffer lists several pressures that are facing societies today which could push them to accept authoritarian rule instead of chaos. These pressures include: economic breakdown, war or serious threat of war, the chaos of violence including terrorism, the radical redistribution of the wealth of the world, a shortage of food or other natural resources in the world. As these pressures mount people will feel more compelled to give up freedom so that they can have some measure of peace and order. And as the Christian worldview base evaporates from societies in the West, people will have no basis to argue or think otherwise. A modern example played out in Germany when the people cried out for order from the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic and gave Hitler dictatorial power in their country. Not long after as the Germans rose in power under this dictatorship, Chamberlain signed over Czechoslovakia eventually losing most of Europe in World War II. They were hoping for “peace in our time.” What is the proper response? Do we succumb to the breakdown of society and imposed order, or do we as Christians affirm the Christian base that provided the freedoms upon which our nation was originally founded? This can only happen if individual people discover that Christian base in their own lives and then act to influence the consensus. “Such Christians do not need to be a majority in order for this influence on society to occur.” Christians were not in the majority when they changed the entire Western civilization.