![]() |
|
“By a Student,
for the Students”
FALL 2005
|
|
It might be too long to read here, so I
suggest you Print it (95 sheets
needed): |
|
|
|
|
|
Notices : Preamble : Table of Content : Back Cover
|
This book is "as
is" by using / reading / publishing / producing / distributing this book
you agree to indemnify LIM and Mr. McQuick or anyone affiliated with the
production or distribution, including websites, hosting and any other third
parties, from any liability that might arise from it's use. IF YOU DO NOT
AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT DO NOT USE THIS BOOK or anything from LIM or Mr.
McQuick; which is applicable to all "things" outputted by LIM or
Mr. McQuick and is hereby universally known so. Thank you and God bless you. |
THE STUDENT
MANIFESTO
"On the
education of its people, the fate of this country depends" (Benjamin
D'Israeli).
Liberation International Ministries Publishing (LIMP)
Fall 2005

Uncut Edition By LiberationIM.org
|
Uncut means it has not been
edited from being initial penned by the “author”, raw from off the potter’s
wheel, grammar and spelling was checked though. It is also uncut because
often times when copyediting the editor rewords what he thinks something
should mean, while it might not mean that; especially with something as
spiritually sensitive as biblical revelation. Me using scripture with bad
grammar might come out to a whole different meaning when correcting the
grammar by the copy editor. Though copyediting make the work flawless grammatically
and other such wise, it might detract from the intended meaning and impact
given from the author, who receive it from the Holy Ghost. This might not be
the case for all books, but one such as this where something is delivered
from the Lord (encoder) to the author (decoder) and the meaning is best
preserve in its original state even if they are copyediting errors. Any
errors that might be cited does not detract from essence or reading and what
is sent exegetically is received. The publishing process is bypassed and the
work uncut. Similar to having the real orange fruit as against a canned
processed with saturated alternatives. The oranges can be peeled by you and
you get the juice with all the 'ruffage'; as against it being peeled and
manufactured for you with all the things added and done to it that give it
less potency (e.g. changing tone). Take the time to peel your orange and eat
your fruit. Such are the books published by LIMP, uncut for your spiritual
health. Thanks for reading this. |
IMPORTANT
NOTICE: All other copies,
work-in-progress, unedited, unpublished versions, etc, prior to this copy is
obsolete and should be treated as such. References can only be given from this
copy, as it is the completion of much research and study. References can only
be made “when we had finished our course…the will of the Lord be done” (Acts
21:7-14). This Important notice is encouraged to be on all copies.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: © Copyright 2004, 2005, etc, by Oneil
McQuick; also in accordance with international regulations on Intellectual
Property and Author's Rights. All rights reserved. The author grants permission
to non-commercially and commercially distribute the book if you feel led to
(please use tact and let it not be beyond affordability). You can do so by hard
copies, soft copies, downloads, prints, photocopy prints, e-books and any
format or method you wish, in any language, without my further permission. The
only condition is that it is not altered in anyway, including the cover, titles
and this copyright notice. This is not for profit; the sole purpose is
spreading the truth. You are free to quote as much, copy as much, extract as
much, make shorter booklets from chapters and other innovation in the way of
distribution, only keep it un-altered. There is a free PDF copy online
for you to do so; see threeq.com. Though I spent many hours and years in study,
research, re-reading, re-writing and waiting on the Lord for revelations, you
don’t even have to give me credit, just preach the word; “The Lord gave the
word: great was the company of those that published it” (Psalms 68:11).
Nevertheless, this Copyright notice should be on all copies at the front of
the book, as to further give others the right to distribute the truth.
Though I release the right to publishing the book and you have the right to do
so, even commercially, “ there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in
knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he
leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil” (Ecc 2:21). So
keep me in your prayers that God may sustain me financially. Nevertheless, I
release the rights because I really want the truth distributed unhindered.
SERIES NOTICE:
Truth Series Evolution is the third and last installment of
much truth. You have the Truth Series, Truth Series Expanded and then the Truth
Series Evolution. Evolution from the dictionary simply means progression and
advancements. It is a collection of all the other writings of Oneil McQuick
given from God. This includes a wealth of research, articles, tracts,
newsletters, magazines, WebPages, pamphlets, booklets and many other
publications; mainly those not in the first two installment of the Truth Series.
Some names include, “Sexuality Series,” “Bible and Technology Magazine,”
“Student Manifesto,” “The Apostolic Voice Newsletter,” “ThreeQ.com,” “LIM
Tracts” and many more. Remember, “Giving all diligence, add to your faith
virtue; and to virtue knowledge” (2 Pet 1:5).
TESTIMONY NOTICE: They are many testimonies to this work of God, The “Truth Series
Evolution,” including the many already from the Truth Series and Truth Series
Expanded. Here are just a few:
“Keep holding to the traditions
that God gave us. Also please send us the tract…God Bless You” (Shirley
and James).
“Thanks for the good advice.
I am really enlightened by your research” (Rico Hostallero).
“Hello Beloved, Praise the Lord! I
appreciate reading your publication each time. It has educated me in a
way and such information” (Pastor Simonson).
“Your weekly newsletter has
become a great blessing for me my family and my ministry” (Deacon Brown,
Apostolic Holiness Church, Panama city, Panama-Central America).
“This article is
outstanding, I agree with every word” (Pastor Upton, apostoliccongress.com).
“It is always nice to learn more
and more literature of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming” (Rita Tx).
True testimonies of the actual truth being done and
accomplished is a sign that you are sent and doing the will of God; though it
is not to be banked on by you. "He that hath received...[this] testimony
hath set to...[My] seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh
the words of God" (John 3:33-34).
Many of the
occurrences that transpired over the decade in our schools, seem sporadic or an
inevitable 'evolution' of a changing society: That is, events such as prayer
removal, bible removal, pro-homosexual literature, sustainability education and
many more increasing non-traditional moves. However, what many people don't
know, even the "traditional" advocates, is that these occurrences are
expertly orchestrated. That is, these culminating events are the result of a
strategic systematic plan that has been in existence for decades. In case you
might think I 'm another conspiracy theorists or empty barrel, take a look at
the actual quote for this agenda:
"Education
is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public
school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting
an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the
tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"
"The
Humanist Manifesto calls for, and ultimately succeeds, in replacing God in
America's public schools."
(Abstract from humanist manifesto 6/26/1933)
Isn't this
what has taken place, stated in 1933? Yet many think it is just coincidental. Not
only is "God" hammered out of schools in America, but even the
traditional academia is subverted to mere brainwashing, pseudo-academics,
socialization and paganism - stepping on the toes of the Christian majority and
the purely academic "nay-say." In other words, the humanists have
almost completed their agenda, as stated in the Humanist Manifesto. They are
mostly non-theistic adherents to a cruel satanic scheme; as stated, mainly to
be cultivated in our schools. Organizations such as the ACLU are a small
fraction of thousands of organizations that make up a huge, financially
powerful world organization: Mostly of fallen angels in flesh, thus they can be
any and everybody - Judges, congressman, presidents, senators, bank owners,
school board members, teachers, parents and even students. The same ones dating
back from 1933 and beyond, up till now. See Part 1, section 14. "We
wrestle not against flesh and blood," so the best methods are spiritual
(prayer, fasting, etc). But action must also be taken!
The student
manifesto intends to combat this wicked onslaught and call on all
educators/persons to join in an educational reformation; to foster the best
educational system in the world.
Disclaimer: The author, Oneil McQuick, is not carrying out
indenture, representation or endorsement in the name of any institution or
person. Where they may have been cited or mentioned is only experimental or
expository that have been cited for examples and references, which is
completely legal; as in mentioning ACLU, NEA, the community college I went to
(BCC), President Bush, Darlene Williams or even the teachers that taught me.
All Public figures or employed by the public (government) and decent Private
individuals. The Student Manifesto is “Not For Sale” or a sole commercial
output, where it maybe offered for sale online is done so you may get a paper
back copy if you please, otherwise it can be freely downloaded and printed or
reproduced unaltered. Any proceeds received are mainly to cover the cost of
doing so, to the third party online publishers and book designer; the author
receives no money as an author.
PART 1 – SUGGESTIONS FOR COLLEGES
Section 1: Evaluation
of teachers that taught me at Broward Community College (BCC)
|
|
Section 2: Group
Grading Policy
Section 3: Essay
Grading Policy
Section 4: Clothing
Policy
Section 5: General
Ed. Classes for Non-majors
Section 6: Video In
Class Teaching
Section 7: Flexible
Testing
Section 8: Flexible
Video Learning
Section 9: Online
learning
Section 10: Manual
Back Up
Section 11: Christian
Literature Mandate
Section 12: Student
Handbook
Section 13: Commendations
(BCC)
Section 14: Fallen
Angelology
PART 2 – EDUCATION BACKBONE AND
FOUNDATION
Section 1: Education
Has Become Mainstream Humanism
Section 2: What is our
Text Books Teaching?
Section 3: Bring God
in America Again
PART 3 – SUGGESTIONS FOR NON-ADULT
SCHOOLS
Section 1: Uniforms
for all Students
Section 2: Revival of
Corporal Punishment
Section 3: Sex
Education, Students and The Truth
Section 4: Public
Libraries
Section 5: Home
Schooling
Section 6: Mandatory
Biblical Teaching and Christian Service
Section 7: Last Word
and Prophecy
BACK TO TOP
PART
1:
SUGGESTIONS FOR COLLEGES
STUDENT
MANIFESTO
BY A
STUDENT, FOR THE
STUDENTS
“That God might manifest them” (Ecc 3:18)
SECTION 1: EVALUATION OF TEACHERS THAT TAUGHT ME AT BCC
Overall, the
teachers were good; in fact, some were "world class." However, I see
a lacking for teachers to care more. That is, to really be enthusiastic in
striving to make the students learn and obtain a passing grade. Nonetheless,
this is a problem that affects schools nation wide and probably worldwide. A
quick demonstration in striving to "better a student" happened
recently in a class by Mr. Stitsky. Though I never needed to take advantage of
it, he made it available that if a student fails a test, he or she has the
option of taking it over. Rather than the attitude of, "that's your final
grade, you failed, bye!" That's the sentiment most of us often feel. That
is, the teachers are here to prepare "cookie-cutter" students and
those who don't fit that frame, get dropped. In a real world environment, not everyone
can make the "cookie-cutter" student; and not everywhere demands a
pre-built "stiff Jacket".
What teachers
should strive to do is, with all empathy, make sure their students pass the
class and learn at the same time. If both are not obtained, you as a teacher
have failed. Caring, compassion, understanding and enthusiasm are needed. As a
student, what would inspire me to go on is that the teacher really wants me to
learn and better myself. With some teachers, I don't feel that. The sentiment
that is held of teachers by most, is that they're here to stand before the
class, say this, grade that and leave.
Different
factors might cause this, example, an undesirable salary. An undesirable salary
reduces motivation and dampens enthusiasm, except you really love to teach.
This most often happens because many persons, now, are entering the teaching
industry to obtain a secure employment, rather than the original motive of a
passion to help and educate others. One saying goes like this, "Learning
before labor before you grow old, because learning is better than silver and
gold. Silver and gold will vanish away, but a good education will never
decay." So if what you teach students will not decay it means that you are
left with one of the greatest responsibilities of mankind (Prov. 22:6). For if
you teach them foolishness, secular humanism, hate, ungodliness, etc., it will
not decay, if God doesn't allow it. So what they are taught is what they
become, and they can't become anything than what they are taught. The
responsibility of teachers are grossly underestimated, along with the
curriculum they are given: And yet, "Modern cynics and skeptics...see no
harm in paying those to whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller
wage than is paid to those to whom they entrust the care of their
plumbing" (John F. Kennedy)?
In addition to
the education needed to be teachers, they should be yearly mandatory courses on
things like mediation, lay-counseling and such other courses. You'd be surprise
how these would help improve what was mentioned above. For instance, the
traffic violation class/video that is given when a traffic violation occurs is
most effective. I thought it was foolishness, until I sat through one for
allegedly speeding. I was changed in my view of drivers and driving - caution
is really needed on the roads. Doctors spend years in training to operate on
patients, so teachers shouldn't be trouble at added training; for what they are
doing is more impacting the individuals in our society. Teaching is not just
academics, but the influence a teacher has on a student can make or break them.
They are also the ones who teach the doctors. Therefore, periodic psychological
training can help our teacher/student relationship. For BCC, it shouldn't be an
extra monetary burden; just use your own facilities, taught by your own
psychologist, Dr. P. Nash. If needed, she can be paid to do more intense
research and training, to teach the staff periodically. The same can be said
for some other courses you may pay teachers to go on; example, computer
competency - Just call Mr. Kingston (computer personnel) from downtown to do a
class.
This added
mandatory psychological training might push away the job seekers and the true
educators will press through to fulfill his/her passion. Then reward those
bountifully ($), so they can stick to it and receive the benefits due.
All necessary
incentive must be put in place to ensure this in a college environment:
Especially when students can feel they are being taken advantage of, because to
them, their tuition is paying the teachers. Not saying that is entirely true,
but as against other schools, college students are paying for their education
and are in a position to demand higher standards. One student wrote:

Article from the Bcc Observer, Opinion Section.
In closing, I
can't speak for the other curriculums (175 in total), but my experience in the
BCC Graphics Technology Curriculum (A.S) was great. It is one of the best graphics
curriculums, and I've looked around. I don't think other community colleges
have the same high caliber of teachers and state of the Art Equipments and
facilities. Good job! The next following pages will give the individual
evaluation of each teacher that taught me, except the music classes taken:
Along with the rest of Part 1 of this manifesto, other college commendations
and problems will also be seen.
Clause 1
Teacher: Ms. Cabbasa
Class(es) Taught: Art Appreciation
This is
another of those classes and teacher I appreciate greatly. If I could just have
the time to even sit with her and glean from her vast knowledge - an expert in
Art history and appreciation. And despite her age, her teaching methods and
grading are commendable; and most of all understandable. In fact, as someone
from the "old school", she uses videos in her class. The only thing
is that many consider her a push over, and even attempt to cheat in tests and
laugh about it. One person leaving the exam opted to give me an answer to which
I refused. Then afterward and even before, commented that she was
"easy." This is where I must caution you to protect the
"ancients." Human teachers like her take years to develop and such
knowledge should not be taken for granted or allowed to by anyone else. She is
a great addition to the line of great teachers at BCC.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Ms. E. Solis
Class(es) Taught: Digital illustration
Although she
was very adept in design, her inability to communicate effectively hampered
'us' from taking advantage of her skills. Most often I'm left to figure things
out and could hardly understand when she speaks. However, I got enough from the
class to know the tools and have workable knowledge of illustration and
illustrator; producing some good original works and one integrated with some
textbook works.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but other
things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Ms. T. Hall
Class(es) Taught: Drawing 1
Though I
probably had a negative view of her in class, I now realize that she was a good
teacher, though plagued by “temperaments.” I guess she had those mood swings
because she also taught school children and tried to equate us with them; which
will not have good teacher/student relationship results. Adults need to be treated
like adults. Nevertheless, it wasn't such a big problem that we couldn't learn,
just something to note. I'd lost the art of Pencil drawing and regained it with
her, as seen in my portfolio.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1, clause 12.
Teacher: Mr. D. Roman
Class(es) Taught: Audio/Video Editing,
Digital Imaging
and
Typography
My best class
with Mr. Roman was digital imaging. From that class I could give the best
commendation of him. I learnt Photoshop, design techniques and I admired his
design skills. In fact, his designs I emulate - simple, structured and
aesthetic. He brought that same mood and presentation in class. In fact, he was
the only teacher that gave a step-by-step handout of how to do something, and
even that was designed visually appealing. After that class I embarked on
various projects of my own, especially haven't done web publishing. This class
was well taught and I learnt.
His other
classes were also good, but lesser than the first. Probably because they were
outside interferences that disrupted student/teacher relationship. Like stolen
files, then some showing up again; for typography class. Or, deliberate
corruption of my final video file - most often originating from outside
hacking. I'd asked to do over the files in typography class, which were a lot,
he said no. Yet, for the next project I finished two classes early before
everyone, and had those two classes free (two weeks), doing nothing, while
everybody was working. Then at the end of the course and everybody scrambling
to finish the last project, he announces that if anyone wants to do over
projects or fill in any, they can. Of course, I was appalled, with little time
left to do nothing extra. The video class had problems too. Most often these
were problems that arise from a productive program. He still remains a good
teacher and artist, whose work I admire. But dealing with adult class related
problems need to be worked on - especially when the problems arise from a good
productive program - unavoidable. Overall, I learnt, especially Photoshop and
adobe after effects (video editing), plus pass the classed; and that's what
usually counts on the "records." Other things are not explainable.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: J. Dietrich
Class(es) Taught: Desktop Publishing
She's
qualified and very knowledge in desktop publishing. But I think I could get
more from her; she cannot fully relate what she wants to say. She was too
reserved and not as proactive as I desire my teachers to be. But she was a
flexible teacher and I did learn the software, quark, and other desktop
publishing etiquettes.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Mr. J. Elam
Class(es) Taught: Speech
The Elamite
himself. I thoroughly enjoyed this class and learnt a great deal, more than I
wish to learn; especially from the students. This is the perfect General Ed. In
fact, it’s one of those textbooks that I didn't think to sell back, but kept it
for reference. Speech class is more than just speech, it taught and touches on
many aspects of communication. It thoroughly thrilled my soul, as I do a lot of
communication and hope to do a lot more. The class and syllabus is one thing,
but without an adept, outspoken, knowledgeable and interactive teacher like Mr.
Elam, it wouldn't be great. The projects were also great, we did a news
presentation and I got to use the overhead projector and laptop in one of my
presentations. This class had everything facilitated, "structure and
flexibility," interaction, bluntness, expression and a constant flow with
everybody. There was even a session were food was involved, but I didn't get to
take part in the "eatings" because of a fast. Mr. Elam's teaching
skills really reflects his course - effective communication. The teachers
should also be taught by him – on how to communicate what they intend to say to
the students: Especially that the students are usually from a very diverse
background. He himself got through to all the students in his class
effectively, and in his class were White Americans, Black Americans, Iraquians,
Jamaicans, Haitians, other Caribbeans and other backgrounds.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Ms. L. Yater
Class(es) Taught: 2-D Design
She's really a
good teacher and very helpful. Somewhat epitomizes the harmony of
"teaching, empathy, passion and enthusiasm." If her teaching skills
are weak, her other attributes make her a valuable asset to the staff. I
recommend her to other students, especially those seeking a degree in the arts.
There's time when I feel I just couldn't bother with this class, but she
motivated me and gave added instructions. That's what teachers should also do,
bring out the best in the students. It shouldn't be purely mundane academics,
but rather, a passion of theirs. Moreover, I learnt a few other skills, though
I specialize in purely computer-generated works. One of my works was even
hanged over the entrance near the student gallery exhibition at the Central
Campus, in the winter term 2004. She's also knowledgeable, warm and uses the
facilities (overhead projector, computer, steam roller, etc) to aid her
teaching. Two thumbs up.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Mr. L. Stitsky
Class(es) Taught: Graphic Design 2 and
Introduction to Graphic Design
Exceptional
teacher and very professional. Though some might say he's a bit mundane because
of his intellectual interjections, I think it’s great. Students are in college
and should entertain and use the language of the course professionally. Simple
sentence should turn to complex sentences and a mastery of words achieved.
Using what some called "big words" should then be welcomed and
emulated. Knowing what you're doing is important, but communicating what you
are doing is also important. He also does it in a way that what is said can be
understood; that is, use the word and then explain it. There is also many other
commendable teaching qualities he posses and he's very flexible; makes you feel
he really wants you to pass or be successful. That's what is needed in teachers
- that passion, enthusiasm and care. His class is also very clear and
structured; the syllabus outlines what will be done each day. I guess his kind
of expertisee comes with much experience, but it was a pleasure to have been
taught by him. And my graphics language I.Q is up a little more, as well as
much graphics fine tuning.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Mr. G. Esper
Class(es) Taught: General Biology
One of the
most flexible teachers, especially as a rookie. His teaching skills are average
and you understand what is being taught. The workload, testing and teaching is
distributed fairly. Plus there is much class participation. In a
non-traditional classroom located in a corporate area, we were able to go on an
outside field trip; based on what was being studied. They were many visual aids
used as well - projectors, internet search, PowerPoint and a huge microscope
that was televised on a screen. Much fascination and learning, to my delight.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Ms. C. Mosley
Class(es) Taught: English (ENC1101)
A very
enthusiastic and proactive teacher, who also demonstrates a mastery in the
knowledge of English; and often times speak it fluently and succinct. However,
she does relate to us in the mixed forms of English we speak. She is also well
prepared for class and gives many helpful handouts freely. She also gives a
listening ear, demonstrated by a liberal distribution of her phone number.
Grading is flexible, as papers can be turned in again for better grades - this
encourages learning. Other things could be said, but overall she's a good
teacher.
One thing to
note about the English classes today, they are frequent things called Journal
entries. This is good as it causes the student to do impromptu writing and less
writing out of class. But it also does something else. It records the allege
thought patterns and psychological make-up of the individual – as a diary is
alleged to do. However, what it does it invades and sets up the individual for
future adverse implications. For instance, an “agent” might say and use as
evidence that this person is a psycho-path from his youth, look at his class
journal entries: When in fact, other things were the cause of this being
brought up – things that cannot be accounted for humanly. The way you though in
former years is not usually the way you are thinking now. If that be the case
you might be mentally challenged. If at 30 you think like 13, you are
developmentally impaired and have not grown. Journal entries and other personal
writings can then be a weapon in the hands of a wicked person (s), seeking to
undermine an individual; and most often it is twisted to do so.
However, the
only pieces of writing that weren’t collected in this class was the journal
entries, it was only briefly looked over for completion and given back to us on
the spot.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Ms. P. Nash
Class(es) Taught: Psychology
A very
vivacious teacher, who demonstrates by her "wholeness," that she not only
teaches psychology but practices it. That is, looking healthy, radiant and a
nice attitude. Not only that, but she has a mastery of the subject, which can
be clearly seen in her orations. Not necessarily sprouting the lingo of
psychology, but breaking it down to us that we may understand. I wish I could
have more classes with her, but time doesn't allow: I'm in her flexible video
learning class. I must also commend her for being able to co-author a book that
is used as the class text, much accolades to BCC for having her.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Ms. A. Sobchak
Class(es) Taught: Graphic Dgn.
Industry (Graphics Technology Industry)
I don't know
how BCC did it, but she's a steal for the Graphics Technology Industry class.
With her position as AIGA co-president, she can easily get contacts and tours
to places others couldn't - people and places worth going to. High powered
print shops and graphic firms, making the student in her class really exposed
to the industry. In fact, in one of our tours to a rare books collection, I saw
a bible dating from the 16OO's in Aramaic-Geez.
Apart from
that, her teaching skills are fair and personality commendable. The only thing
I didn't like with her class, is that I didn't get back my graded essay and my
test paper wasn't given back for me to keep, for time to properly evaluate. I
was told I got an 'A' for the class. That is good and definitely welcomed, but
generally, how can a student know what made them get an 'A' or 'F' if they
don't get back their paper to evaluate and reference. And in my case, I often
write things that when reread, I think WOW, this is deep. This should not be
hard to do, as teachers have a free copier to use; demonstrated in my English
class where all papers are returned upon being copied. Nevertheless, she’s a new
teacher, but has adjusted herself well.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
Teacher: Mr. F. McCa.
Class(es) Taught: Web publishing,
Final Production
Advance Digital Imaging, Portfolio,
Ad and Promo Design and Digital Photography
He’s one the
most outstanding of all the teachers. I'm not saying this because he's the
program manager, and would expect not to with the *cluster charges, but
fact is fact - he's good. Not only does he have a great knowledge and
expertisee in the courses taught, but he can relate it to us better than most
other teachers. Not only that, he often does it with a great sense of humor. A
great length is put forward to ensure the program has the best equipments and facilities:
Expensive cameras for students in the photography class, a photo studio, new
iMacs and much software that aren't available at the central campus Mac lab. As
can be seen with the classes taught above, he's very hardworking and
multitasked; undertaking many classes each semester over and above his program
manager duties. The best part is, I get to express myself in his class. We are
encouraged to formulate projects and ideas, as we feel led - bringing out the
creative individuals in us. Much info and materials are also given, and vital
industry information is also often related. As I've said, I have learnt much
from his classes - with his unique style of teaching and flexibility. His
teaching skill alone gets a ten on the scale, not to mention the other stuff he
brings to the students. Other things are not explainable.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but
other things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12. *could
be bullied by... see Part 1, section 14.
Person: Mr. B. Kingston
Job: Downtown Center Computer
Technician
If there is one
person or position that is indispensable at BCC, downtown center, that person
is Mr. Kingston. Hardly can you find someone who is extremely competent in both
Mac's and PC's. Not just usage, but fixing, setting up and programming. Seeing
that all things are computerize at BCC, especially at the Downtown center where
the school administration is, Mr. Kingston is then essential to its
"running." Without Mr. Kingston or his position (which can hardly be
filled), the campus would shut down or couldn't run properly. If the computers
can't work, none of the admin departments can function and many classes would
have to be cancelled. I hope his pay reflects his weight, as someone like him
can easily find a job anywhere. On the reverse side, see Part 1, section 10.
In addition,
the LRC computer lab has computers that are always optimized. The needed
softwares are always loaded, and if necessary, anything else can be loaded by
you with no harm to the computer – for it refreshes upon start-up, neat
invention. That’s the reason for an administrator account on Windows XP, as
against a guest account. We are given full access privilege. All PC’s are
optimized this way at DTC (or WHC) and probably all the campuses, making the
computer damage free. Any problems, restart the computer. Not only that, but
they restart twelve midnight each night. What DTC (or WHC) has that no other
campus has, is a separate drive to store work even if the computer restarts –
even a neater invention. All public computers should be this way.
Mr. Kingston
hardly speaks and you can hardly find him, for he’s most often attending a
computer or electronic device somewhere.
Scale rating
of overall benefit to students:
![]()
Note: Scale ratings are not just based on teaching skills, but other
things the teacher may contribute to the students. See part 1, section 1,
clause 12.
SECTION 2: GROUP GRADING POLICY
The purpose of
a group project is to work cohesively and pool individual talents as one; as
often as that is facilitated. The purpose of this is defeated when grade is
given individually. If you're going to give individual grade, let them work
individually. If as a group, and the group project gets an 'A', all should get
an 'A.' The impact one individual in the group can have will never be known or
weighted correctly. For instance, the idea is what makes an advertising
campaign work; yet the brainstormer did little of the graphic work. Which one
is more valid? The one who did 90% of the graphic work or the one who mind
mapped everything? They both work collaborately and both should reap the same
reward. I was in a class where we were given a group project which entailed
10-15 pieces. We did a lot of brainstorming and I did give my “2 cents” more than
all; though the theme was really not to my liking. For instance, each person
was to come up with 1 slogan on paper, I gave 16: Whereby one of mine was
chosen, less one word. I started several of the pieces but they were finished
by someone else, who had a better expertisee I guess - benefit of working in
group. The project turned out great, an 'A' project. Yet I was told I got a 'C'
because none of the finished pieces were solely by me, despite my involvements
in them. Isn't group work about “group work” and the group wins together - all
for one, one for all; thus, everyone should receive the same grade. I just
accepted it.
The next
project was to do the same thing, but because it wasn't a group, it should be
about 5-7 pieces. I ended up doing nearly 30 pieces alone, and finished before
the rest of the class; who were struggling with 5 pieces. I had time also to
help others with their projects. I could have gone ahead and done everything
while in the group. But in a group, loads are shared, people specialize,
division of labor occurs and individual talents/abilities are sacrificed and
merged into the group. This give a quality group output and all share the
benefits together, as in a real world environment. You hear after production,
"hey I put that dot over that 'i', or I drew everything, I came up with
the idea, I proofed everything, I stood in for the president informally. BUT,
we did it and the 2 million dollars will be divided equally." This cannot
be taught properly in schools, if after the group effort, different grades are
given; instead of a properly one grade for all. It's like saying the Detroit
Pistons won the championship, but the point guard lost or shouldn't get a ring,
because he didn't make a triple double that final night. I hope this is looked
into.
SECTION 3: ESSAY GRADING POLICY
Teachers
should not read all the essays "at one go." They should be read
systematically - hours or days apart in small clusters. If a teacher reads 30
essays "at one go," it would be unfair to the persons who are numbers
23-30. At a point, diminishing Returns sets in, coupled with exhaustion,
fatigue and boredom; especially if the topic is set - she'll be reading the
same thing, as average minds think alike. The student's paper that gets read
last will automatically get a lower grade. A systematic reading procedure can
be a suggestion to teachers or even better, mandated.
It is
recommended that a dress code be enforced; seeing that we can't mandate adults
to wear uniforms. I can't help but see a fashion show being entertained in our
colleges: A distracting fashion show for both the "super models" and
inadvertent onlookers, like me. One big reason is that the fashion today (fad)
is geared towards dressing sexy. Even the high school students on campus from
the college academy are imitating this trend, and sometimes even more
outrageously. It's distracting to learn when you have to constantly see thong
prints, 90% of the breasts, the cheeks of the buttocks and even sometimes pubic
hair, in a group-learning environment. I can remember a few times this lady
wore a shorts so short, each time she bends over or stretches, her buttocks'
cheeks keep showing almost to the anus. Then there was another time this lady
wore a garment with no 'bra', that her breasts were visible seen through her
clothes - the circuit of it, with the outer rings and the nipples.
Break down the
very word sexy, it obviously has something to do with or originate with sex
appeal. Sex appeal is basically sexual attractiveness. In other words, dressing
sexy is not just a fad, but dressing sexy is to dress to entice the opposite
sex for sex. Or, you could say, prepped for sex. Today, many would say that is
wearing lingerie or a fetish outfit. But dressing sexy in a tight belly blouse
and low cut jeans can have that effect; especially with nipples "printed
out" and the underwear lining is visible. Showing half your chest with
jeans so low the pubic hair is showing is enticing the opposite sex for sex.
What we don't realize is that it has become our culture and we live in a sex
driven society. This intent in dressing is not arbitrary, it is a psychological
intended process; saying, if you look at me you must want me. The designers do
this consciously, or they are engulfed in years of this sexy fad themselves.
When this got out of control, dressing sexy became the normal attire. Then you
have girls making stupid comments like, "I don't like it, men keep looking
at me." What does she expect, if she has on tight shorts with a thong
printing out and skimpy belly blouse? What you are is what you attract. For
instance, dodo attracts flies. Similarly, dressing sexy attracts a person with
sex on their mind. You don't want to be 'hit on', quit dressing sexy. Dressing
that way has the opposite sex thinking only one thing - sex - which is the
purpose for dressing sexy anyway. Unfortunately, our youths and populace take
upon themselves the fads of the day, and thus become victims of fashion. Not
knowing their attire is to psychologically stir the erogenous “bone” in the
opposite sex. Dressing modestly lessens you being "hit on," humble
your mind and even keep you from feeling sleazy or horny from your attire; to
push you to the next level - sexual intercourse. Most people don't even realize
that dressing sexy is more sexually appealing and enticing than being naked. A
super model in lingerie will charge up a man to want her sexually, than that
same super model naked. It's a psychological process designers have mastered
over the years, and unfortunately, everyone is doing it. Dressing sexy should
not be tolerated in our colleges; but unfortunately, there is hardly anything
solid that can be done about it. Except for the Ivy League schools, that can
put demands on students because students fight to be there. With an intuitive
mind as "yours," some efforts can be made to curtail this college
wide.
If a dress
code is enforced, these should be excluded while going to classes:- no short
mini-skirts; "suck on" tight jeans or pants; tank tops alone;
anything excessively showing the navel area, breasts or buttocks; underwear
shouldn't be visible, either directly seen or printed out; tops so tight the
breasts are perfectly shaped; and anything on those lines.
In closing,
just to lighten up a serious situation and demonstrate what an innocence matter
can cause, take this joke:
A young female
teacher was giving an assignment to her 6th grade class one day. It was a large
assignment so she started writing high up on the chalkboard. Suddenly there was
a giggle from one of the boys in the class. She quickly turned and asked,
"What's so funny, Pat?" "I just saw one of your garters!"
"Get out of my class," she yells, "I don't want to see you for
three days!" The teacher turns back to the chalkboard. Realizing she had
forgotten to title the assignment, she reaches to the very top of the
chalkboard. Suddenly there is an even louder giggle from another male student.
She quickly turns and asks, "What's so funny, Billy?" "I just
saw both of your garters!" Again, she yells, "Get out of my
classroom! This time the punishment is more severe, I don't want to see you for
three weeks!" Embarrassed and frustrated, she drops the eraser when she
turns around again. So she bends over to pick it up. This time there is a burst
of laughter from another male student. She quickly turns to see Little Johnny
leaving the classroom. "Where do you think you're going?" she asks.
"From what I just saw, my school days are over!" (What’s hot, 2004,
volume 3, number 2)
SECTION 5: GENERAL ED. CLASSES FOR NON-MAJORS
I think
General Ed. classes for non-majors should be different from the existing class
curriculum. For instance, a graphic student shouldn't go through the rudiments
of a biology major for a single biology class. He's not going into the field
and basically doing it because it is required. It's called a General Ed., so is
should be general - layman type argument. It should be so general that it
cannot be failed. Either cut the syllabus in half or tweak-it-as-you-go and
make that class only for non-majors; especially in the A.S. programs. Such
classes as Biology, Psychology, Math and others.
SECTION 6: VIDEO IN CLASS TEACHING
There should
be more video in-class teaching. Not just showing a documentary, but interact
with the video; not holographic or virtual reality. But demonstrate processes
or what is being taught. There's a few classes that briefly has this, but a
compact integration of constant "video and professor" teaching should
help the students learn better; as they learn by seeing.
As I wrote in
an introduction to my 2-D class, video learning is most effective and puts
graphic designers in a position to be virtually unemployed in the future;
holding all things constant. Reason being, in the future, all learning will be
audio visual. Slide shows, videos, animations and others. Teaching in the
standard way will become lame and everything graphically driven - in relation
to motion. The reason this is more effective is that humans retain a higher
percentage of what they see, than what they are verbally instructed, according
to studies and logics. This can be backed by the famous quote, "tell me
and I might see, teach me and I may understand, show me and I will learn"
(paraphrased from a US President I saw in a Key Club literature in 1998). This
phenomenon is also backed by the famous cliché, "A picture is worth a
thousand words;" especially in motion. It simply means that audio visual
education is the best method of retention and the best motivation to learn; if
properly done. Therefore, you can see the impact television is having on our
minds - silently educating us (conditioning) to its implied program; even if it
is not ethically, socially and biblically sound. Then we wonder where all the
violence, paganism and other societal problems are being fused. Education
should take advantage of this phenomenon in our classrooms and instill good
academics - having read part 2 of this manifesto. Not necessarily mandating a
carry home video, but actual videos in class that also interacts with teacher.
For instance, she explains a process, it is then shown or demonstrated on the
screen; of course, given limitations, like an explanation of sexual
intercourse. Much like how the whether is given, with the person and the
Doppler radar screen.
Though I'm
citing these advantages, I must also caution you that this is another setting
of the stage for what is seen in the movie matrix. Upon realizing the influx of
audio visual outputs, as demonstrated in the movie "Minority Report,"
coupled with the influx of knowledge, humans will be overwhelmed and the next
step is to either download the knowledge in their brain or other such exploits;
as seen in the movie "Dark City." This might seem far fetch, but
visit MIT and look at some of the ideas they're experimenting. Or even the
evolution of the cell phone - implanted under your skin, linked to your nerves
and answered by the tap of the fingers. Just in case you might think I'm crazy,
this was seen on a local news and the demonstration was successful. Suggestion
and caution is therefore given in this section, for with progression comes a
price. Remember, life is simple.
Note: Be careful of things I've written in a piece called
"Modern Technology," found at
http://groups.msn.com/accommunity/moderntechnology.msnw or http://www.tracks4u2.0catch.com
(numerical zero catch) or http://www.threeq.com.
Testing
sometimes seems so unfair, because you can be a good student and one test can
make you fail a course. However, how else can you know a student has learned;
except for portfolio driven classes (E.g. graphics course)? Thus, testing is a
must. The student friendly solution is flexible testing. It corrects the
problem of a good student failing a course by failing a test. We want students
to pass, but we also want them to learn. What flexible testing does is simply
have a test every week and at the end of that course, the teacher chooses the
best three scores of the student and allows him to pass. Not three overall best
scores on the tests the class did, but individually. For instance, a student's
best scores are on test C, test E and Test H. Another student’s best scores are
on test A, test B and test D. It allows the student to pass the course, and
learn at the same time. It might seem unorthodox, but it should work. Having a
test a week is hectic and forces the student to work and study constantly. The
workload alone ensures that they learn and the flexible testing makes sure they
don't fail the course. We don't need a good student failing, but we have to
ensure they learn and testing is still the best way. I don't know about the
FCAT and other non-college tests for children, but I do see the fuss on the
news. What would be good is to have two to three retakes before the next school
term, so students who fail can avoid being repeated and placed in a school with
their other peers. If taking the test three times before the next school term
and failing, then the test is a good barrier to promote otherwise "
illiterate" students to go further when they need to pass that level;
holding all things constant. Constantly pushing the "illiterate"
student ahead would produce at the end of his school life, an "educated
derelict;" which unfortunately categories many. With all this, the crying
protesting mother of a FCAT failing student should be grateful the child is
held back, that at the end of his school life, she'll have something to be
proud about. In this case, “leaving the child behind” might be a good thing.
Also, the very dread of this happening will push the student, caregiver and
teacher to ensure no one is “left behind.” Testing, therefore, helps the
education system along greatly, but given other variables involved, should be
flexible.
SECTION 8: FLEXIBLE VIDEO LEARNING
The flexible
video learning class is excellent, designed for individuals who are highly
motivated. Meeting 5 times for the semester and two are for exams - midterm and
finals. There is a flaw though. The objective of a class should not only be
that students learn but also pass the class. For instance, for numerous
reasons, a good student who watched the videos and read the textbook can fail
one of the two tests and fail the course. This shouldn't be, especially if it's
a General Ed. Class. What should be done is, still have the two tests, but also
a mandatory research essay that is design to show that the student had to
research to even do the essay. All three are graded, but the essay grade is
optional. That is, after doing the course and one of the tests is failed, use
the grade of the essay to make the student pass. This is a fair system that
fosters both learning in a flexible curriculum and passing the student at the
same time; especially in a general Ed.
*There is an essay that is optional only, for those in a writing course
and need writing credits.
Though this
might seem to be going well, online learning is most risky. Not just for the school,
but more so for the teachers and students. Having spent a great deal of time
online, with all its "hang-ups," I've written a document called,
"Internet Concealed Intensions" (ICI). From it you'll learn that any
average hacker can manipulate an online program. That hacker could be a student
who manipulate his scores, extend time on an online test and basically have his
way in the system. Even further, earning several degrees online this way - in
the span of year, he could have a couple of masters and doctorate degrees. You
wouldn't believe what people have opened themselves to when they surf the
internet. For the students, his computer could be hacked, and basically
anything done - from not being able to log on, to buttons being unpressable, to
half the screens not visible, to a mirror or fake page he's testing on or
getting instructions from: Often with the culprit laughing in the background.
These and many other things can be easily done, things I've experienced myself.
Not only that, but simply viruses or worms can do even more damage by hacking
the school server or the student's computer; Norton reports over 30,000 new
viruses each month. If such delays happen on the student's part, his excuse
won’t be accepted and he'll get a failing grade for the course. Any arbitrary
person with computer knowledge can cause trouble. Not only that, innocent
things can happen. For instance, many students accessing the server for a test
can jam it, slow it down and persons while doing a test can be constantly "kicked
off." The turmoil that can happen online is endless. It behooves you to
read the ICI document and leave the school in the classroom.
Note: The ICI document can be found at
http://www.tracks4u2.0catch.com com
(numerical zero catch) or
http://www.threeq.com/pages/internet.html
I've notice
that BCC and other schools have gone all out online - registration, payments,
materials, courses and almost everything. Again, though this works and possesses
many benefits, it behooves you to have manual backups always ready at hand. As
explained in the online classes (Part 1, section 9) and the ICI document, the
Internet is just an accident waiting to happen. Much of the stuff that happens
with online epidemic goes unnoticed. For instance, a simple virus caused a bank
millions of dollars to fix and possible loss of data. Even the Y2K problem
seemed like a hoax, but the world was relatively prepared and a few countries
experienced costly problems. A good example would be what happened the other
day. I tried to get my transcript from the BCC website and it wasn't there,
some weird error came up. I called someone, he said I could log into facts.org
and get it there. I did and it wasn't there either. There were even problems of
logging in on both sites; both staff witnessed this. We were left at a
standstill and he said he'll try to get it some other time or some other place.
With the
emergence of technology, we are forced to depend and rely upon it, a most dangerous
trap. People's lives could be affected by electronic problems at our schools,
especially records. It should then be mandated that everything electronic must
have manual backup.
I was going to
mention other areas manual backups and the ICI effect influences, like new
electronic voting to even lie detector tests – once it’s electronic today, it’s
manipulative and deceptive. But I though not to do so because it didn’t fit
into education that much. However, I saw this newspaper clipping and it verifies
section 9 and 10 of Part 1. Even worse, through electronic voting, anyone can
hire an adept computer specialist and rig the election to their favor, very
easy to do. Imagine someone winning the election without not campaigning, just
hack the system and reverse the votes. This will even be much worse, if and
when voting is done through the Internet. But don’t take my word for it, read
this article:

South Florida’s Sun-Sentinel, Aug-Sept 2004
SECTION 11: CHRISTIAN LITERATURE MANDATE
I'm going to
be brief in writing this, less I be carried away emotionally and thus be
carried away verbally. Passing out Christian literature should be allowed and
it is a constitutional right. The only blockage would be the school itself.
However, a school funded by the government cannot block a citizen or *legal
resident from exercising his constitutional right; as against a private school
that can do whatever they wish. If condoms can be distributed, then literature
that mirrors the constitution and the ideology of the "founding
fathers" should more than be allowed. And if one wants to get
"politically correct," you can list Christian literature Distribution
under "preventative methods," to which condoms can be listed under.
Not claiming to be very adroit of adept in constitutional laws, one exert did
say:
"US
Constitutional Amendment, Article I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."
After reading
part 2 of this manifesto, you'll see that passing out Christian literature is
needed, feasible and a right.
*If an argument may arise that legal residents don't have
constitutional rights, then don't let the U.S Government allow them to be
drafted in its many wars, as it has being doing for years and must be signed to
on immigration papers.
Some of the
stuff I've said might be covered in the student handbook. But if the student
handbook is not read by the students, what is the purpose of the handbook. Use
creative ways to make sure it is read, like covering the classroom walls with
all its content, as a decoration. Or even mandatory methods, like having each
teacher read a section before any class. This is if you value what is written
in it, I don't even know it myself and I'm a reading person. The method chosen
should also prevent the feeling of forced encroachment; for they are other
colleges - only a ‘must-go-to-this-school’ prestige could avoid that – Ivy
Leagues. Nonetheless, if the info in the handbook addresses certain conduct to
be upheld, students should be made to read it. Not knowing its content can be
"careless" on both parts, but the student can plead ignorance if a
student code is violated. Though it may happen in a real world setting, you
can't charge someone for something they don't of, inherently or a law. A line
cannot be crossed if there is no line seen.
SECTION 13: COMMENDATIONS (BCC)
a) World class
looking website. Many might not even realize that they do it, but they make
important "decisions of choices" base on how an institution website
looks. Functionality of the website is another thing; that is, finding what you
want. One reason might be that the search tool is powered by google. Therefore,
the results that are shown are not from the entire website, but only those
pages indexed by google; and google index a page based on the number of hits it
receives. The techies should use a "search script" for the entire
site. Easily found free on the Internet and Webmaster's websites.
b) Free
computer give away, especially if the initiative is taken to give destitute
students; even though it is called a lottery. They might use it for typing
papers and doing other projects.
c) Many state
of the art equipments - from digital projectors, to DVD/VHS players, to
optimized laptop. I even got a chance to use some of these equipments in a
class presentation.
d) I notice
all or most of my teachers have a master’s degree. Is that the standard? I
don't know. But this is assuring to know we have "qualified"
teachers.
e) I notice
some of the doors now have electronic coded locks, but it also has key entry.
Excellent explanation of Part 1, section 10. That is, this electronic device
has a manual backup. If someone forgets the code or the lock malfunctions, just
get someone with a key. As against being locked out of the lab, waiting hours
for a technician to arrive and hours if he resolves this electronic problem.
f) Student
activity room on each campus, excellent to take a break between classes. Some
have accommodations that are non-existence in some public family centers across
the county.
g) At the
downtown center, the cleaning staff keeps the place looking wonderful and it's
never dirty. I can literally see my reflection off the elevator doors. However,
they have keys to every office and facility in the building, just like the
hotels – tempting for anyone who could just apply for a cleaning job and “wipe
out” the facilities in one night or other such things.
h) They are
other good points (written before ICI 3) but you get the point. Good work.
This section is
advised not to be read if you're neither a fallen angel or aware of them. This
is not a taboo section, but without the knowledge of their existence, then for
certain this will be deemed as utter rubbish. This might not even seem to fit
in an output on education, but it affects it more than we realize. DO NOT, and
I repeat, DO NOT read it if you are not aware of fallen angels in flesh, which
is 98% of all real humans. And DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT seek to be aware of it;
only revealed to select born again believers - though those who seek will find
and those who ask it will be given. Moreover, away from the divine covering
that Christ gives, you could go mad. If the wisdom of God seems like
foolishness to men, it follows that the wisdom of one person who is wiser than
another will seems like foolishness to the latter. No wonder the bible also
said that the foolishness of God is wiser than men. In other words, it is a
principle. If the animals could speak and they saw humans constructing a basic
irrigation system, they would say, "these stupid humans are playing in the
water." A wise man wisdom is foolishness to the less wise. That's why all
the greats were considered mad in their time, and always will be, until the
rest of the world catches up. Therefore, this knowledge will seem foolish to
most, because it is unfamiliar and not easily attained to without madness.
That intro was
also purposely made long to block further reading. Now, to the readers who are
fallen angels, it is obvious that I nor any human don't know the
"ordinances of the heavens" or angels, as they really are. But what I
do know is that fallen angels in flesh exist, unaware to many humans; plus
shown to me with their several abilities. They coexist beside us as mortal men
and not only so, ruling amongst, as the bible endlessly reiterates.
I've already
written literature concerning their dealings on earth and possible
investigation of any possible redemption (Proverbs 18:1); taking in many
variables I did not previously know, and why this section is even written. If I
begin to mention their earthly involvement and abilities, many would think I'm
regurgitating scenes from the movie and comic X-Men. What I want to mention and
focus on is the involvement of fallen angels among schools; as teachers, board
members and other staff. More so, certain queries any bold one willing to
answer in a written form. Are our schools a heaven to "suck" the
potential talents and abilities of unsuspecting individuals; as briefly
discussed in the book "Demonology Revealed*?" Or, are there watchers or other
angels or angelic order in place to prevent this and other exploitations from
fallen angels in flesh? What I know is that there is a hierarchy of fallen
angels, but don't all come to kill, steal and destroy? If the scripture is
correct (Ex 22:28) and it is, then most leadership positions would be held by
them, including this board and all educational boards. I found out they are not
all as ruthless as previously thought, but like any rebellious person, acting
out of their fallen state. That doesn't justify or give grounds for killing,
stealing and destroying. But if, like all things in existence, they are
constrained by the invisible presence and intuition of God and also being bound
here under the vicissitudes of earthly dealings, then their presences in the
education system can be good or bad. Bad in the sense that they can use it as a
place to "suck" the lives of individuals. This is not what it sounds
like, the Book *Demonology Revealed gives a brief outline - it has to be read.
But fallen ones know what they do; in stealing the lives (ideas, abilities,
thoughts, inventions and even character) of persons unaware to them. Often
times leaving that person confused, doing something just to survive and even
becoming "madmen." All by virtue of their abilities, being fallen
angels in flesh. They could also be agents to persecute Christians and also
promote humanism. As such, I not only pray God's intervention, but those in
authority among them to take action, for you amongst all beings know the wrath
of God.
On the other
side, they could be of benefit, even more so than humans, if they function as
human academic educators under the fear of God, being also bound here (Rev
12:13-17); especially if there is a possible redemption. Benefits that would go
unnoticed, such as keen and deep understanding by virtue of their abilities,
age (before creation) and stature. The ability to foresee, backsee and even
give empathy more than what a human can; as weird as that sound. An example can
be seen in the movie "Dream Catcher," where one of the four
individual having the power to read mind and foresee, helped a student of his.
He sent him away, knowing the real situation that would warrantee reprimandment
by a human who could not foresee. I don't have the time to explain the
countless occasions where such benefits could be had; with God given revelation
and his favor, being one who knows these things among them. There existence has
to be balanced, for even Michael the archangel didn't take a railing accusation
against satan (Jude 1:9). The thing is, there is too much to know about them
even to begin this section, but someone had to mention it and it had to be me.
The books on demonology have to be read (published or to be published); link at
the end of this section.
What I do know
is that their involvement, both bad and potentially good, should be taken into
consideration. And the fallen ones on our country's education boards, who are
bigger ones, should be responsible. As a suggestion or warning, be reminded of
the invisible hand of God that still watches over humans, to whom he allowed
you to have some dominance over (the greater part has been taken away by
Christ). One cry to God by a human can erode your existence (individually and
otherwise), as was done to the first perpetrators (Jude 1:6) who became fallen
angels in flesh. This might be the reason your existence as mortals remain an
unknown mystery to man.
Note: To the bold fallen ones, you may respond, by earthly means only -
mail, email, etc. If you feel responding to this section will jeopardize your
position or "person", your comments can be withheld. But it would be
interesting if a fallen one own up to their ‘person’ (acts); and also prove
that I'm not mad in tackling a problem that has lie dormant since ancient
biblical days - as far back as Genesis 6:4. Especially knowing you are bound in
this atmosphere (Rev 12:13-17) until Christ returns.
* Demonology Revealed can be found at: http://groups.msn.com/iRecommend/halloween.msnw
or http://www.truthseries.org or http://groups.msn.com/accommunity/special.msnw or http://www.threeq.com.
To find an article explaining suckery in a little more details, go to http://www.threeq.com/pages/suckery.html
or http://groups.msn.com/accommunity/articles.msnw.
PART
2:
EDUCATION’S BACKBONE AND FOUNDATION
STUDENT
MANIFESTO
BY A
STUDENT, FOR THE
STUDENTS
“That God might manifest them” (Ecc 3:18)
SECTION 1: EDUCATION HAS BECOME MAINSTREAM HUMANISM
Firstly, what is humanism?
According to my Oxford dictionary, it is a “doctrine emphasizing human needs
and seeking solely rational ways of solving human problems; concerned with
human rather than religious values.” On the surface this might sound nice,
innocent and even welcoming of a definition. However, it’s not what it seems,
and all human agencies of the inherent evils of the world have to look and
sound legitimate. The humanists are diabolically clever “mortals,” that have
given their time, money and energy to completely overthrow the human race; by
removing its infrastructures from a true godly sort, over into the hands of
satan. It silently encourages rebellion, anarchism, selfism and immorality. The
theme is that man or self is God, leading us to our own destruction. Like
pulling away a baby from its mother with a candy, only to slay it when the
mother is not looking. The scheme of this is fused by New Ageism - everything
goes and nothing is wrong; “Do what thou will.” But the humanists are not
secretive about their intensions and ploy. In fact, an exert from the 1973
humanist manifesto 2 reads, “The next century can be
and should be the humanistic century. We stand at the dawn of a new age...a
secular society on a planetary scale. As non-theists we begin with humans not
God, nature not deity...we deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic
grounds. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and order
based upon transnational fed. Govt.” What has become the sad fact and
research of this essay, is that public education is the main tool to propagate
their evil agenda: To the point that education has become mainstream humanism.
It’s surprising to know that
schools were started and administered by the church, in the British Empire and
colonies; yet it has deteriorated to humanism and no acknowledgement of God.
Many missionaries in England and America would ‘go out’ and start schools,
which years later flourished and erupted into universities. Humanism is a late
invention of the rebellious elite and from ‘ever since,’ biblical foundations
were the pillars of our educational system. It led to the rise of a great
nation, beginning from its contribution to our independence. The same can be
said of Great Britain and most European nations, who are adherents to the
Judeo-Christian faith. That’s the reason humanists have invested our schools,
to erode it of its foundation – the bible. And if a foundation is removed,
there is always a tumbling: The intent of the inherent evils of the world, to
give their ruler ship to a dictator called the Anti-Christ.
The above sentence might be
too theistic for many to swallow, especially the non-theists. So more
specifically, why has humanism taken over and what does it intend to do? It
must be further solidified that that humanists have taken over education. This
can be seen from another exert of their manifesto and give some reasons for its
take over. It reads, "Education is thus a most
powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of
humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting an hour once a week,
teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day
program of humanistic teaching?" "The Humanist Manifesto calls for,
and ultimately succeeds, in replacing God in America's public schools”
(humanist manifesto 6/26/1933). This has clearly happened – prayer is out,
bibles are out, public devotion is out and all godly exploits. On the reverse
side – homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle is in, witchcraft is in,
evolution is in, selfism is in and all ungodliness.
These quotes
from legitimate sources also show what humanists intend to do in our schools
and how they intend to do it:
“Fundamental, Bible believing people do not have the right to
indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state,
are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world
global society and their children will not fit in” - Peter Hoagland (State Senator and Humanist).
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must
be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly
perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith which will replace
the rotting corpse of Christianity" - John
J. Dunphy (Author).
“A massive
world-wide partnership is pioneering new strategies for social transformation.
The media, the entertainment industry, computer companies, government agencies,
educational institutions, the United Nations and its accredited
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have all joined together in a common
quest for a global mind change. They seek solidarity -- a worldwide unity based
on a new set of beliefs and values. "Obsolete" and
"exclusive" loyalties to national sovereignty, Biblical values, and
the unadulterated U.S. Constitution stand in their way. Conforming the masses
to their way of thinking requires all the sophisticated tools and tactics
developed at the various "behavioral science research" institutes and
"education laboratories" established first
in England, then in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and finally in the
United States. If these psycho-social engineers win their battle against
an unsuspecting public, they would "wash" away individual thinking,
free speech and all the other "rights" that have made America unique.
The vacuum would be filled with lofty ideals, enticing images and deceptive
promises designed to mold minds that match their global
vision. Group thinking and other controls and "incentives"
would enforce compliance" - Berit Kjos (Author).
"It is
necessary to gain the common people to our order. The best means to that end is
influence in the schools" - Adam
Weishaupt (The Founder of the Illuminati).
Basically, it all boils down to
brainwashing; and they have been successful. Through various creative methods,
backed by the wealth of the world, they have brainwashed our kids into becoming
their pagan compliant slave. “Brainwashing is a system of befogging the brain
so a person can be seduced into acceptance of what otherwise would be abhorrent
to him. He loses touch with reality. Facts and fancy whirl round and change
places.... However, in order to prevent people from recognizing the inherent
evils in brainwashing, the Reds pretend that it is only another name for
something already very familiar and of unquestioned respect, such as education
or reform” (Edward Hunter, Brainwashing). “Brainwashing is not, as some educators and students
contend, Christian child-raising. American freedom includes the promise that
parents would have the right to train their children to follow God's
ways. The word ‘brainwashing’ refers to a planned, step-by-step
attempt to "wash" family-taught beliefs from the minds of those who
oppose government ideology. In America, it would mean replacing the old
Biblical values and worldview with a new way of thinking that would support a
totalitarian agenda. In other words, every child must become a peace child, a willing and active servant of a new world order” (B. Kjos, Why few dare call it conspiracy).
In other words, humanism in schools is basically brainwashing the masses to
their set beliefs or ideology.
Education is fundamental in controlling people. For if you can
control the way people think (the mind) you can control them altogether. One
would ask how Hitler managed to convince the Germans of his onslaught of the
Judeo-Christian people. Well, guess what he did? He organized nation wide plays
depicting Jews as a threat or in some offensive or derogatory outlook as it
relates to Germans. Now, after doing that, among other things, he had all the
freedom to attempt genocide with the silent support of the masses. Currently,
Muslims forces are showing free theater productions to Muslims children
depicting Jews as an evil threat. For instance, one scene shows a Jewish
soldier violently killing a Muslim man leaving his child alive crying for his
dad. The child then asks someone what's the reason for his dad being murdered;
an individual quickly defames the Jews as an evil regime whose purpose is to
take Muslims land. Now, this is theater type education, but it also evident and
underlined in mainstream everyday school teaching.
Turn a person's mind and you turn his whole being, thought
process, views, actions, reactions and intelligent make up. In other words, you
have fashioned the heart of an individual, and we all know that a mind is a
difficult thing to change. That is the reason the bible said train a child in
the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.
No doubt, education is fundamental, but it should be operated with
a Christian basis. Why? The humanist uses it to indoctrinate the people to
their way of thinking and lifestyle; which is erroneous spiritually, morally
and other wise. These are most often embedded in the General Eds. One doesn't
earn a computer science degree by doing computer classes only. It is compiled
of literature, cultural, musical, speech and other mandatory classes that are
irrelevant to one's line of occupation. Nevertheless, it is argued that, it is
meant to create a "well rounded" individual. They are right about
that, they are creating an individual (new ager).
Education is now meant to indwell a humanistic viewpoint on
everything. It is so mainstreamed that education prides its thinking over the
church. In addition, if you speak with educated Christians, if they were
honest, you will find that their Christian overview is particularly geared
toward a worldly thinking and implementations as it relates to worship,
structure, governance, etc. If some were honest, they will tell you that they
feel superior to their uneducated brother or sister. It is not that one wants
to think this way, it is simply inevitable, being embedded. You cannot just
finish watching people having senseless sex for an hour, then look at a "sexy"
individual and not think about sex. Similarly, you can’t be educated today and
not express humanism some how; especially if you don’t know this was done to
you. Mainstream education has this underlining agenda and many aren't aware of
it. The main fact this is so can be seen in the quote from the AFA journal. It
reads, “It’s bad enough to instruct teacher on how they can force-feed little
children a pro-homosexual message. Now these activists want direct access to
the hearts and minds of kids who are essentially a captive audience in their
classrooms” (AFA Journal, February 2000). Thus, education is a most
powerful tool seen by the humanists and exploited thereby, because they have a
“captive audience in their classrooms.”
What have been the results of this humanist take over? Expectedly,
because of the humanist take over, many adverse effects have plagued our
societies. Some are:
No empirical studies may opt to verify the above, for empiricism
is a flawed source of “judgment.” These are societal evidences, clearly seen
coming from a morally deplored Education system and country: A known fact that
has contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire.
To think that all this happened with what many overlook –
humanism. Many even thought it insignificant, for good reasons. Many of the
changes the humanists implemented looks similar to some biblical values, but
are deadly. One reason is that it takes the focus off the creator and put it on
the created. For instance, take this exert from B. Kjos,
Remember North
Carolina School Superintendent Causby's words: "We have learned to put the
best spin on things." Character Education, as touted by the educational
establishment and the White House, has put the best of spins on a most alarming
plan.
Let's see what
happens when Christian words are plunged into the New Age context. But first,
remember that teaching character began as God's idea. Long after He first told
parents to train their children to follow His ways, He gave us this list of
godly qualities: diligence, faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control,
perseverance, godliness, kindness, and love. (2 Peter 1:2-8)
You know what those
words mean. The context of the whole Bible makes it clear to us. Only by
His life in us, can His character qualities be demonstrated through us. Only by
faith in Him and all He has promised us, can we be "partakers of the
divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world
through lust?"
When globalist leaders
use similar words, the focus changes. The Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD-the curriculum arm of the mighty NEA) has given
schools a nice-sounding set of character qualities, but its leaders had no
intention of promoting the Christian values they have fought so hard to ban.
Their list--justice, altruism, diligence, and respect--may sound Biblical, but its
intent fits the NEA vision of social control.
Don't forget, most
of the character qualities were good when seen from the traditional context of
Biblical definitions. But when moved into the global paradigm, they became
tools for “transformation.” Notice how the focus changes with the paradigm
shift:
|
|
CHRISTIAN CONTEXT |
GLOBAL CONTEXT |
|
Respect |
for what God
calls good |
for
earth-centered values |
|
Responsibility |
to
God first |
to the
collective community |
|
Understanding |
from
God's perspective |
from
global perspective |
|
Co-operation |
according
to God's plan |
according
to changing rules |
|
Citizenship |
obey God's
guidelines |
serve and
conform to group |
|
Altruism |
God's love
through us to others |
mandatory
"voluntary" service |
|
Empathy |
compassion
for the needy |
oneness
with all |
|
Justice |
fair
trial, compensation for wrong |
socialist
equality, redistribution |
It’s remarkable to note that it takes a little change or subtlety
to devastate a country. As one cliché said, “a little leaven raises the whole
lump.”
What can we now do to rectify or undo what the humanists have
done? What are the resolutions? Home schooling is good, but given the thread
mill work cycle most parents are trapped in, it’s not possible for many
Americans. Private schools are also good, but given the monetary constraints,
most children will be left out. The only thing left is for all Americans to be
resolved in putting God in America again. For instance, we must bring back
prayer, bible, bible teaching, Christian devotion and all previously slaughtered
godly exploits in our schools. Let us strive to put God back in our schools,
and also teach academics minus the humanist agendas – socialization,
immorality, paganism and sustainability. In closing, I must quote Edward
Hunter’s words. He put this dilemma in frank non-spiritual terms:
“This was war! Some called it
psychological warfare. A better name would be brain warfare. The only
difference was that formerly weapons were aimed principally at bodies, to
incapacitate and destroy them, whereas now they were aimed mainly at minds, so
subvert and control them.”
Who will stand
with this manifesto and victoriously win the war for our children and future?
SECTION 2: WHAT IS OUR
TEXT BOOKS TEACHING?
Text books have become the
corner-stone of learning in public schools. They are a set of prescribe books
embedded with info, practices and tutorial for learning. While majority of time
is spent in schools, an equal amount of time is spent reading the texts.
Teachers themselves are mandated to teach from the text. Therefore, one of the
most influential tenets of Education is the textbook. What the textbook teaches
is what the children will learn and what they’ll become. If the text teaches
and endorses murder, then this generation will become murderers. It therefore
becomes necessary to carefully watch over the content of the current textbooks:
Especially seeing that it is targeted by humanists to infiltrate our youths
with planned socialization, sustainability, pseudo-academics, paganism and
immoral conduct.
The first successful step
that humanists took was to remove the vital foundational tenets of our texts.
That is, biblical and godly learning. All original texts were not only
academic, but also Christian based; thus morally sound. Textbooks in America
cannot be textbooks without this influence. In fact one writer noted:
“As
a matter of fact, most Americans at the outset of this nations’ formation were
devout Christians. There is no better proof of that truth than the New England
Primer. The New England Primer was the first textbook used in America. It was
taught both in public schools and in Sunday school. Try getting that to happen
in today’s “separation of church and state” climate. We must remember, that
because most people subscribed to the Judeo-Christian worldview at this time,
there was no diametric opposition between what could and could not be taught in
public schools.
What were the contents of the New England Primer? Well, this may surprise you,
but the first school textbook in America was based on the Bible. That’s right …
the Bible! Wide sentiment at the time was that, in the words of first chief
justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Jay: “The Bible is the best of
all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this
world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life
by its precepts.”
It was that sentiment that led Benjamin Harris, who had published a similar
volume in London, to first print the volume in Boston in 1690. The Primer’s
primary intent was to teach children to read, though the underlying motivation
for doing so is noteworthy. Early Puritans believed that an inability to read
was Satan’s way of keeping people from the Holy Scriptures. So, in essence, the
primary motivation for learning to read was to know God.
The popular children’s prayer beginning with the phrase, “Now I lay me down to
sleep,” was introduced to us via the Primer. In addition, the Primer combined
alphabet rhymes with moral lessons to foster spiritual growth while teaching
phonics. An example of the method follows:
A In Adam's fall, we sinned all.
B Thy Life to Mend, This Book Attend.
C The Cat doth play, and after slay.
D A Dog will bite, A Thief at night.
E An Eagle's flight, Is Out of sight.
F The Idle Fool, Is Whipt at School.
G As runs the glass, man’s life doth pass
H My book and heart shall never part
It is noteworthy that the University of Notre Dame claims that the New England
Primer sold more than five million copies between 1690 and 1799. To put this
into proper perspective, the population of the United States did not even reach
five million until around 1800. This would be comparable to a modern textbook
selling 280 million copies in its lifetime.
The Primer was a textbook that is more necessary now than ever. Living in a
Biblically illiterate culture, the Primer’s ability to foster deep scriptural
thought, is unparalleled, scripture not withstanding.”
Educators need to return to
the founding principles that made America great – biblically sound text – and
erode the existing humanistic teaching.
In addition to making that
successful step of removing the biblical backbone, our textbooks have become
purely humanistic, drenched in all types of errors. It would be one thing to
take out the strong Christian references and make it “purely” academic, so to
speak, but it’s now being used for sustainability (control or mind control),
socialization, paganism and many more woeful humanistic agendas, subtly. On the
reverse, you really can’t have a purely academic American/European education
without Christian values. Morales are embedded in Education and morals are
purely biblical in most the world. My Psychology teacher, Dr. P. Nash, said
morals are basically choosing right from wrong. How can you choose if you can’t
determine right from wrong? And how do we determine right from wrong since the
institution of the alphabet or even formal education? The bible of course. Now
it would seem that we have out grown it. It’s a humanistic agenda used to
destroy true morals and let anything go. The boundaries would fade and all
things become relative. It is a deadly deception that can crumble a nation in
no time; as it did the Roman Empire.
Not only was the bible used
for morals, but many other key areas and was a good source of scientific
evidence. The minor fraction of the then science world has created this wedge
between science and the bible. For example, a good scientific read would be the
book of Job, noting ancient dinosaurs-like beasts and even scientific
processes. Or, even the fact that it was long recorded in the bible that the
earth was round – far before the scientists/explorers figured it out. This was
our base, yet the “unbiblical minority” has removed them to our own hurt: Not
only that, but the history of our biblical base. Dr. Kennedy himself said,
“America’s Christian Heritage is clearly evident from its History…However, the
evidence is routinely censored from our children’s public school history
textbooks, expunging nearly all references to the founding father’s deeply held
Christian belief.”
There is even an organization called Global
Vision Corporation found at www.global-vision.org.
It uses educational materials to brainwash students into becoming New World
Order Slaves; obviously the humanist agenda. All we know is that it’s new and
should help our students, without any investigation: Powered by the invisible,
yet financially and politically powerful adherents of the humanist agenda. This
agenda, through textbooks and other materials, seek to establish socialization.
“Socialization - learning global beliefs and values and politically correct
behaviors – have replaced academics as the main outcome of education.” At a
time when schools are outputting derelicts. I watched a “60 Minutes” Show
airing one Sunday and what was being featured was startling. There was a
brilliant man that did several test and research on text books in schools, and
found an enormous amount of errors; academic errors. Equations were wrong,
answers that were wrong, formulas that were clearly incorrect and other errors.
Yet some humanistic educators have the time and money to fiddle with the minds
of the young in humanism, when the very textbooks are filled with arithmetic
errors, mathematical errors and other errors. Spend some time fixing those
problems and leave the moral, spiritual, ethical, characteristical undertaking
to the proven and establish principles of the bible.
Just look at what tax-dollars are been used
to do for the humanist agenda, beneath our very noses:
· uses schools to transform our culture
· molds children's minds for a global workforce
· trades academics for socialization
· bases learning on feelings, not facts
· immerses students in global spirituality
· builds permanent electronic file on each child
· attempt this in private and home-schools
· yields parental rights to community "partners"
· establishes the new global paradigm
· be open to new ideas (humanistic)
· set aside home-taught values (Christian) that might offend the group
· Compromise in order to seek common ground and please the group
· Respect all opinions, no matter how contrary to God’s guidance
· Never argue or violate someone’s comfort zone
This takes considerable time, money and a lack of
“fear of God,” to purposely erode what has been established for centuries and
proven effective. Not to mention the affront to God, to you and to me. We the
people standby and watch this happen. We the people who know that 90% of
America are Christian minded, even the most heinous of sinners. The parents
themselves go out and buy these textbooks and materials, embedded with these
implicit and explicit socialization pagan philosophies.
In 1970’s, there was a public outcry of what was
being taught in our textbooks, depicted in the picture below:

The
banner in the background reads, “Text
books undermine our religion,
home and nation.” The paragraph at the bottom had this to say,
“The
issue was not obscene language, but unpopular ideas”
Seeing that our parents are
now “purposely” distracted in the present work treadmill cycle, it’s up to our
educators to now make a stand to what is being taught in our schools. The
educators have to take the initiative to give heed to this manifesto concerning
the backbone of our educational system, and choose to put God back in our text
books: And remove the socialization, sustainability and pagan agendas. If it
means writing our own local textbooks, as I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing
with my psychology class and teacher, then it means individual godly school
districts have to take that step. If no one else will, then who? May God help
us!
Additionally, it would be a good thing in Colleges
that Textbooks can be placed in Libraries for student who can’t afford it or
can’t get it. That is, numerous copies of textbooks on the campus that can be
checked out there but cannot leave the campus; only used there. That’s option
one. Option two, checking it out off campus. However, if it is checked out it
might conflict with the bookstore – no more book sale, hence the ruin of the
bookstore. Their argument is that they contracted to be there for such a time
and has made no profit, etc. While the school could say you have a monopoly on
books in the school and can charge gigantic prices, which you do. For example,
a book for $80.00 used I found several copies online for less than $15 with
shipping included. Not advocating online buying, but…and other off campus used
bookstores probably have similar prices. There would be endless conflict with
option 2, between school and store, so option 1 is best and should be
attempted. With option 1, those who can’t bother to use the lab to read the
text at school, just purchase a copy from the bookstore, and have the luxury of
it at home. It should be very easy to get business or government to donate
money/books for a community college – except the lottery and other gambling
agencies.
The reason this is suggested was that I encountered
a small used textbook in summer 2005 for nearly $100 and couldn’t pull myself
to buy it for a single class; especially being insolvent. However, I thought on
this then carried it out by asking the Dept. Head if he has a copy he could
loan me, he had several and lent me one, which I returned at the end of the
semester.
SECTION 3: BRING GOD IN AMERICA AGAIN
CLAUSE
1: PRESIDENTIAL FAITH LIST – THE FOUNDATION MUST STAND
Notice the presidents of the United States. The Majority
were affiliated with a church. Their denomination may differ, but they all
believed in Christ (Yahoshua) and the God of Abraham (Yah). Regardless of any
underlining agenda, all the founding fathers and Presidents demonstrated to the
public a Judeo-Christian faith; which was used to govern the people. This was
and still is the religion of America: Even though Leaders maybe “satanic,” the
people and governance would always be biblical; example, Joseph (second to Pharaoh) in Egypt, Daniel (President and second to the King)
in Babylon, Mordecai (second to the
king) in Medes/Persia and Jews & Christian in Greece &
Rome, which had Christianity as its official religion. You can’t have a great
nation except the foundation is biblical; known by the good and “evil.” Remove
the foundation and you remove the ground beneath you; plunging to death is the
only occurrence. “If we do not remember who we are, how can we know who we are
supposed to be” (Woodrow Wilson, US President, 1913-1921)? Put God in America
again!



To
the non-theist reader, my pardon for the biblical exegesis, but such exploits
cannot be avoided whether we accept the fact of a true divine God that is
involved or not. One famous scripture noted, “If the foundations be destroyed,
what can the righteous do” (Psalms 11:3)? Meaning, if godly foundations are
gone, then comes God wrath. That’s why they have to be a great falling away
before Christ returns (2 Thess. 2:3). The great falling away will be the
removal of the foundations. The righteous can keep back the wrath of God if the
foundations remain; even in a hedonistic nation. If that freedom and exercise
thereof is taken away, not only can they not please their God, but the ungodly
or ungodliness increases. Both undoubtedly make God step in. Hence verse 4-6 of
psalms 11, which reads, “The LORD is in his Holy Temple, the LORD’s throne is
in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men…upon the
wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone.” This can take the form of
many things now; for instance, columbine, ‘mad cow disease,’ or even Sept 11,
2001. To prevent these and more terrible things from happening, the foundation
must stand and flourish; as implemented by our forefathers. Hence, the verse,
“righteousness exalts a nation” (Prov 14:34). Godly foundational principles
exalt a nation and it must stand.
CLAUSE 2: QUOTES OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Today,
many revisionist historians have taught America's children that our Founders
were publicly atheists and secular-minded. As a result, many Americans blindly
believe that our forefathers intended to erect the so-called "separation
of church and state." By simply reading through the words of our Founders,
you will come to realize that nothing could be further from the truth.
George Washington, Signer of the Constitution, First American President
In 1789, two years after signing the U.S. Constitution, Washington was
inaugurated to serve as the first President of the United States of America. In
his Inaugural Address, he stated, “It would be improper to omit, in this first
official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over
the universe, who presides in the councils of nations and whose providential
aid can supply every human defect… No people can be bound to acknowledge and
adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the
people of the United States.”
Later in the address, Washington declares, “We ought to be no less persuaded
that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards
the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”
In 1796, less than a decade after Congress approved the Constitution,
Washington delivered his Farewell Address. In that speech, Washington states,
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim
the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of
human happiness.”
He continues, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of
religious principle.”
George Read, Constitutional Signer from Delaware
George Read is considered to be “The Father of Delaware.” He wrote the state’s
first laws and the 1776 Delaware Constitution. The Delaware Constitution
initially read, “Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or
appointed to any office or place of trust, shall make and subscribe the
following declaration, to wit: ‘I, ______, do profess faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God blessed for
evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
to be given.”
Richard Bassett, Constitutional Signer from Delaware
Richard Bassett also helped to author the aforementioned Delaware Constitution.
In addition, he served as the Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice, the
Delaware Governor, a U.S. Senator, and later a U.S. Circuit Court Judge.
Unfortunately for us, he remained fairly quiet during the Conventions.
Major William Pierce of Georgia, who recorded character sketches of the
delegates, described Bassett as being “a religious enthusiast, lately turned
Methodist, who serves his country because it is the will of the people that he
should do so. He is a man of plain sense, and has modesty enough to hold his
tongue. He is a gentlemanly man, and is in high estimation among Methodists.”
Gunning Bedford, a Constitutional Signer from Delaware
As a delegate from Delaware, At George Washington’s funeral, Bedford stated,
“To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian…
Although the greatest man upon Earth, he disdained not to humble himself before
God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.”
John Dickinson, a Constitutional Signer from Delaware
He once wrote, “Kings or parliaments could not give the rights essential to
happiness… We claim them from a higher source—from the King of Kings, and Lord
of all the Earth. They are not annexed to us by parchments and seals. They are
created in us by the decrees of Providence, which establish the laws of our
nature. They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken from us by
any human power without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the
immutable maxims of reason and justice. It would be an insult on the Divine
Majesty to say that he has given or allowed any man or body of men a right to
make me miserable.”
Jacob Broom, a Constitutional Signer from Delaware
Jacob Broom, a signer of the Constitution, wrote the following letter to his
son, “Don’t forget to be Christian. I have said much to you on this head and I
hope an indelible impression is made.”
The Official Papers of Delaware make record the following statement regarding
Jacob Broom: “He lived in one of the potential crises of history, in which and
for which the sublime visions and words of prophets and apostles had developed
and inspired a stalwart manhood. As it is an accepted fact that ‘the foundation
of all permanent prosperity is a right regard for the Divine Being, it is
proper to say that Jacob Broom was a God-fearing man.”
James McHenry, a Constitutional Signer from Maryland, Secretary of War
James McHenry served as the first president of the Baltimore Bible Society. As
a constitutional signer, he wrote the following letter soliciting funds for the
distribution of Bibles to the public:
“Neither, in considering this subject, let it be overlooked, that public
utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy
Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the
punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of
divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their Truths, can alone
secure [to] society: order and peace. And to our courts of justice and
constitutions of government: purity, stability, and usefulness.”
“In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw intrenchments
around our institutions. Bibles are strong intrenchments. Where they abound,
men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.”
During the War of 1812, Francis Scott Key wrote the “Star Spangled Banner” as
the British bombarded Fort McHenry. Fort McHenry was named after this great
patriot of his day.
Daniel Carroll, a Constitutional Signer from Maryland
He was a devout Catholic. In fact, his older brother, Charles Carroll, was the
first Roman Catholic Bishop in America—likely the reason for Carroll’s
inclusion.
James Madison, Primary Architect of the Constitution and a Signer
“No people ought to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the
Great Disposer of Events and of the Destiny of Nations than the people of the
United States. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift we
are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as
civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land.”
Madison also wrote, “Before any man can be considered as a member of civil
society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”
James Madison was one of three men who compiled the Federalist Papers. John Jay
(the nation’s first Supreme Court Chief Justice) and Alexander Hamilton (a
signer of the Constitution) wrote the Federalist Papers in an attempt to
further explain the intentions of our founding Fathers at the Constitutional
Convention. In speaking of the Federalist Papers, Madison declares, “The
‘Federalists’ may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of
the heart of the federal Constitution as understood by the body which prepared
it and the authority which accepted it.”
Federalist #47 reads, “The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though
they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though
they may be advised with by the legislative councils.”
William Blount, a Constitutional Signer from North Carolina
This Signer was appointed by Washington to serve as the first governor over the
territory that would become Tennessee. Blount was largely responsible for
drafting the Tennessee state Constitution, which reads, “No person who denies
the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any
office in the civil department of this State.”
Richard Dobbs Spaight, a Constitutional Signer from North Carolina
“Every man has the right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks
proper… I do not suppose an infidel [non-Christian], or any such person, will
ever be chosen to any public office unless the people themselves be of the same
opinion.”
John Rutledge, a Constitutional Signer from South Carolina
John Rutledge’s father was a minister, and he actually entered politics at the
request of his church, Christ Church Parish in South Carolina. Washington later
nominated Rutledge to serve on the Supreme Court.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a Constitutional Signer from South Carolina
Pinckney was considered to be a “master-builder of the Constitution.” He was
president of the Charleston Bible Society, and he would later also serve as the
American Bible Society’s Vice-President. His last will and testament begins,
“To the eternal and only one true God by all honor and glory now and forever,
Amen.”
William Few, a
Constitutional Signer from Georgia
He was a member of one of the earliest slavery-abolitionist movements in the
country. One of the group’s letters reads, “I can safely promise that neither
my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote what appears so
inconsistent with humanity and Christianity.”
Abraham Baldwin, a Constitutional Signer from Georgia
Baldwin was actually a chaplain during the Revolutionary War. He once wrote,
“When the minds of people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled,
and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater
confusions and evils more horrid that the wild, uncultivated state of nature.
It can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly
directed and their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of
laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education.”
He also stated, “It should therefore be among the first objects to those who
wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of
religion and morality.”
John Langdon, a Constitutional Signer from New Hampshire
He was a Vice President of the American Bible Society.
Nathaniel Gorham, a Constitutional Signer from Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham helped with the original Massachusetts Constitution, which is
the oldest Constitution still in effect today. He penned, “Any person chosen
Governor, lieutenant-governor, counselor, senator, or representative… shall
make and subscribe the following declaration, ‘I, _____, do declare, that I
believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.’”
Also, Chapter I, Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution reads, “As the
happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government,
essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be
generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public
worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality:
Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and
preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right
to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the
legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns,
parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make
suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public
worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant
teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision
shall not be made voluntarily.”
Rufus King, a Constitutional Signer from Massachusetts
King once stated, “The law established by the Creator extends over the whole
globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind… [This] is the law
of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human
control.”
While at the Constitutional Convention, King stressed, “The judges must
interpret the laws; they ought not to be legislators.”
William Samuel Johnson, a Constitutional Signer from Connecticut
William Samuel Johnson was the president of Columbia University. As he
served, admissions requirements were quite high. They included the following:
“No candidate shall be admitted into the College… unless he shall be able to
render into English… the Gospels from the Greek. It is also expected that all
students attend public worship on Sundays.”
He seemed to have no problem with religion in the classroom. In one of his
commencement speeches, he stated, “You have… received a public education, the
purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and
your country… Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to
Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds,
and exemplified in your lives and conduct.”
Roger Sherman, a Constitutional Signer from Connecticut
Mr. Sherman’s name appears in the Annals of Congress quite frequently. It is
listed in the records for the annals of Congress on September 25, 1789—the same
day that Congress approved the wording of the First Amendment. The Annals of
Congress read: “Mr. Roger Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving, on
any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself but as warranted by a
number of precedents of Holy Writ.”
Alexander Hamilton, a Constitutional Signer from New York
Alexander Hamilton was an instrumental character in this nation’s foundation.
He not only signed the Constitution, but also wrote many of the Federalist
Papers.
Alexander Hamilton authored Federalist #78. It reads, “It proves incontestably,
that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of
power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that
all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their
attacks.”
“Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive
that in a government in which they are separated from each other, the
judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous
to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a
capacity to annoy or injure them.”
In Federalist # 81, Hamilton writes, “There is not a syllable in the plan under
consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws
according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater
latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”
Hamilton wrote, “The law… dictated by God, Himself, is, of course, superior in
obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries,
and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.”
After witnessing much of the French Revolution, Hamilton recorded, “The attempt
by the rulers of a nation to destroy all religious opinion and to pervert a
whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy [moral depravity]. To
establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity is to deprive mankind of its
best consolations and most animating hopes and to make a gloomy desert of the
universe.”
William Livingston, a Constitutional Signer from New Jersey
Livingston was responsible for one of the first National Days of Prayer and
Thanksgiving. On the floor of Congress, he declared, “The Congress desirous to
have all people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of
God’s superintending Providence, and of their duty devoutly to rely on His aid
and direction, do earnestly recommend a day of humiliation, fasting, and
prayer.”
David Brearly, a Constitutional Signer from New Jersey
Not much was recorded on Brearly’s life, but he was undoubtedly a strong
Christian. Brearly served to develop the Episcopalian Prayer Book, which is
still in existence today. Also, his Last Will and Testament read, “First and
principally, I commit my soul unto Almighty God.”
William Paterson, a Constitutional Signer from New Jersey
Paterson once said, “Religion and morality are necessary to good government,
good order, and good laws.”
What was his punishment for violating the principles of the so-called
“separation of church and state”? President Washington nominated him to serve
on the Supreme Court.
One of the only anti-faith founders was Thomas Paine. He wrote the Age of
Reason, which belittled the Christian faith. In response to Paine’s work, Paterson
replied, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and
your God? Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent
and to render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song?”
Note: It was commonplace for early American administrations to trade political
prisoners. However, when Thomas Paine was arrested in Paris during the French
Revolution, President Washington was still so angry with him for his
anti-Christian bigotry that he left him there to rot and refused to negotiate
for his release.
Jonathan Dayton, a Constitutional Signer from New Jersey
Dayton became involved in politics only after attending the Princeton Seminary.
Benjamin Franklin, a Constitutional Signer from Pennsylvania
Historians believe that Franklin was one of the most important founding Fathers
at the time of the Constitutional Convention. He was respected and admired by
all. At a time when the New York delegation had left the Convention, and others
were on the verge of also calling it quits, Franklin delivered a stirring and
convicting speech on the Convention floor.
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger,
we had daily prayers in this room for the Divine Protection. Our prayers, sir,
were heard—and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in
the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending
Providence in our favor. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do
we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time;
and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God
governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground
without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
“I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers, imploring the
assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this
assembly every morning before we proceed to business; and that one or more of
the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.”
Franklin was not opposed to having religion in the public realm. Franklin
actually explained the benefits of being a Christian nation to the French. He
told them: “Bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be
comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious
religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected
and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons
may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by
meeting with either an atheist or an infidel.”
Thomas Fitzsimons, a Constitutional Signer from Pennsylvania
Fitzsimons was a devout Roman Catholic.
Jared Ingersoll, a Constitutional Signer from Pennsylvania
He attended Harvard with the understanding that “All the scholars are required
to live a religious and blameless life according to the rules of God’s Word.”
James Wilson, Constitutional Signer from Pennsylvania
One Constitutional signer and initial Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, once
wrote, “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that
law which is Divine. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are
twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run
into each other.” Though James Wilson calls them “religion and law,” this is
equivalent to “church and state.” If church and state are to be separated by a
“high and unimpregnable wall,” how do you suppose "these two
sciences" are to “run into each other?”
Gouvenour Morris, Constitutional Signer from Pennsylvania
Gouvenour Morris was the most active member at the Constitutional Convention.
He was recorded as saying, “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals;
therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man
towards God.”
He also wrote, “For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy… the only
ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is
the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of
free governments. Therefore, education should teach the precepts of religion
and the duties of man towards God.”
Morris proclaimed, “There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society
is disjointed and its members perish. The nation is exposed to foreign violence
and domestic convulsion. Vicious rulers, chosen by vicious people, turn back
the current of corruption to its source. They take bribes. They sell statutes
and decrees. They sell honor and office. They sell their conscience. They sell
their country. By this vile traffic they become odious and contemptible… But
the most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state
that rejects the precepts of religion.”
[source: Sam Kastensmidt, June 25, 2004, What did America’s Founders
Truly Believe?]
CLAUSE 3: ACTS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
PHASE 1: JEFFERSONIAN MYTH AND
“SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”
Yes, Washington and Lincoln
were Christians. Ah, but alas, when we come to Thomas Jefferson, it is quite a
different story, as we all know. A deist, a skeptic? He has been called an
atheist, an infidel, hostile to religion, rarely ever attended church, expunged
the miracles from the Bible and made the Jefferson's Bible which had no
miracles in it. He originated the "separation of church and state"
doctrine to keep religion out of government, out of the schools, out of the
public life of America. He is the guru of separation, the darling of the
liberal left, the leader of the effort to expunge Christianity from American
life. Yes, we all know Thomas Jefferson, don't we? Or do we?
Jefferson was a Bible
scholar. He read the Bible daily. As Washington read it an hour every morning
and an hour every night, with prayer, so Jefferson read the Bible in English
and in Greek and in Latin and in French. He faithfully studied it, but
apparently there was no one there to guide him, and he came to a rejection of
the deity of Christ.
By the way, the Jefferson Bible is another myth. There never was a Jefferson
Bible. No, years before this, he cut the miraculous out of the New Testament
(out of the Gospels), and from the Gospels he produced a book on the ethics and
morals of Jesus Christ for the purpose of evangelizing and educating the
American Indians. They were a great concern of his. He approved money for
building a church for the Indians while he was President. He approved money for
the support of a missionary to the Indians out of the Federal Treasury. He also
gave of his own money to help try to reach the Indians. He believed that this
simplified statement of the ethics of Jesus Christ would help to civilize and
educate these people.
He never ever called it a Bible. He called it a system of ethics. It was, he
felt, the most marvelous system of ethics the world has ever known. He said
later in one of his statements that the religion of Jesus Christ is the best
religion the world has ever been given, and that the ethics and teachings of
Christ are incomparable, and therefore, as Chief Magistrate of the United
States, he would lend all of the power of his example to supporting that
system. That is what he did with that system of ethics of Christ-he simply took
out the teachings of Christ about ethics and morals to present it to the
Indians.
By the way, let me also mention that the phrase of the so-called
"separation of church and state" has been again totally twisted,
turned upside down, and made to be the very opposite of what Jefferson intended
it to be. When he was President, he received in late 1801 a letter from the
Association of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They were concerned about the
newly formed federal government. This leviathan that had been created could,
they feared, become a great danger to their Christian faith and to their
churches.
Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and when the
Bill of Rights was proposed and passed, and he had nothing to do with it. He
said that he was greatly impressed that the American people, through their
representatives and through the First Amendment, had, in effect, erected a
"wall of separation" between the church and the state, so they need
have no fear that the federal government was going to intrude upon their
religion or in any way disturb their faith.
[My Comments: This was wise, because
Emperor Constantine use his power to intrude on the church and polluted it.
King Henry of England did the same thing, married Anne Bolyn and created heresy,
to the overthrow of many. Jefferson in no way meant that the state shouldn’t
tolerate Christianity in the ways mentioned today, but rather do the opposite,
without dictating to the clergy. That is, they can’t come and do what King
Henry did – compromise the scriptures and make it law to suit their own
purpose. That is separation of church and state. You the state respect and
uphold biblical “law” regardless if it is not to your liking and your “powers”
must not be used to change or interfere in it, as Constantine or King Henry
did. That’s what Thomas Jefferson meant, and he didn’t find this intimidating
as a politician and president. Thus, what is being done by the courts today, in
dictating and even ruling out Christian principles, is unconstitutional and
erroneous; far from what Jefferson meant.]
When Jefferson came to the
presidency…one of many of the documents he signed while President…says,
"In the year of our Lord Christ 1804." He was the first one, and to
my knowledge the only one that did that. Here is Jefferson, the
"anti-Christian, irreligious infidel," saying that it is Christ who
is our Lord and no one else, lest anyone have any false ideas about that.
Capitol Rotunda, the most
visible public building in America, bar none. There, every week for seven
years, during the rest of his presidency, Thomas Jefferson was there. He sat in
the front row. He wasn't pleased with the music, and so he ordered that the
Marine Band, under his control, come to church on Sunday and play to support
the singing of hymns and psalms in the church. (By the way, they were paid out
of the Federal Treasury.)
“There is simply no
historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a
wall of separation [between church and State] . . . the "wall of
separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a
metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly
and explicitly abandoned.” -William Rehnquist [Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States].
For example, what he
[Jefferson] did as President included, among other things, supporting
government involvement in
* Legislative Chaplains.
* Establishing a national seal using a religious symbol.
* Including the word "God" in our national motto.
* Official Days of Fasting and Prayer-at least on the state level.
* Punishing Sabbath breakers (is that real enough for you?).
* Punishing marriages contrary to biblical law.
* Punishing irreverent soldiers.
* Protecting the property of churches.
* Requiring oaths saying "So Help Me God," taken on the Bible.
* Granting land to Christian churches to reach the Indians.
* Granting land to Christian schools.
* Allowing Government property and facilities to be used for worship.
* Using the Bible and non-denominational religious instruction in the public
schools. (He was involved in three different school districts and the plan in
each one of these REQUIRED that the Bible be taught in our public schools).
* Allowing clergymen to hold public office, and encouraging them to do so.
* Purchasing and stocking religious books for public libraries.
* Funding of salaries of clergymen in Indian mission schools.
* Funding for construction of church buildings for Indians.
* Exempting churches from taxation.
* Establishing professional schools of theology. [He wanted to bring over from
Geneva, Switzerland, the entire faculty of Calvin's theological seminary and
establish it at the University of Virginia.]
* Treaties requiring other nations to guarantee religious freedom.
* Including religious speeches and prayers in official ceremonies.
The real Thomas Jefferson is the ACLU's worst nightmare.
Also, in the first 150 years
of our nation, “separation of church and state” was mentioned less than a dozen
times by the federal Courts; and that’s being generous.
During the last 50 years, it’s been mentioned over 6,000 times. Who best knows
what the First Amendment means: the Founders of our country, or a bunch of
federal judges today?
[source: D. James K., August 15, 2002, The Real Thomas Jefferson]
PHASE 2: CHAPLAINS IN THE ARMY
On July 9, 1776, only five
days after our Declaration of Independence, General George Washington wrote,
“The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary, but
especially so in times of public distress and danger.” On the same day,
Washington ordered, “The colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are
directed to procure Chaplains. The General hopes and trusts that every officer
and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending
the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”
Our founding Fathers strongly relied upon God’s assistance.
Patrick Henry, largely responsible for Virginia’s involvement in the
Revolutionary War, in the course of his famous speech, said, “Three millions of
People, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which
we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside,
Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides
over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our
battles for us.”
[source: Sam Kastensmidt, Thursday, May 22, 2003, Lest We Forget]
In fact, as far back as
1606, one can see America’s Christian heritage in full bloom. That year, the
first British colony was established on the North American continent in
Jamestown. The original charter for the colony gave glory to “the providence of
Almighty God,” and its stated purpose was “propagating the Christian religion.”
Just fourteen years later, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Bay. Before setting
foot on land, their leaders drafted the Mayflower Compact, which has
been called “America’s Birth Certificate.” The very first sentence made clear
their purpose: “In the name of God, Amen.”
Over a century later,
America’s founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. It mentioned
God four times. It says that people have “inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness.” These rights are “endowed by their Creator.”
[source: Greg Hoadley, Friday, February 21, 2003, One Nation Under God?]
Christianity in America's
history can be seen as far back as Christopher Columbus' historic voyage in
1492. Though seeking to reach India by sailing west—a notion scoffed at by his contemporaries—Columbus
came across two islands off of the coast of North America.
What inspired him to make this voyage?
In his journals, Columbus remarked, "It was the Lord who put it into my
mind" to find a different route to India. He glorified God in all he did,
including the naming of the two islands: San Salvador, meaning "Holy
Savior," and Trinidad, meaning "trinity."
[source: Greg Hoadley, Friday, November 15, 2002, Remembering Our Foundations]
The historic Christian
foundation left is not only the constitution, but many other godly legacies
that are being butchered today. The mere fact we have them showed that we were
not only Christian based but intended to stay that way. The following display
what the founding fathers left or what is left of them.
The
monument Chief Justice Roy Moore placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme
Court has four quotations from official acts of the federal government, each of
which acknowledges God, and 10 supporting quotations from founding Fathers and
others. Here is a sampling of what is inscribed below the Ten Commandments on
the monument.
Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.
(Declaration of Independence)
The laws of nature are the laws of God; Whose authority can be superseded by
no power on earth. (George Mason 1772)
One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
(Pledge of Allegiance, 1954)
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which
is divine. (James Wilson)
So help me God.
(Judiciary Act of 1789)
Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation,
for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the
instruments of investigation in courts of justice? (George Washington)
In God we trust.
(National Motto, 1956)
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preser’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto—"In God is our Trust."
And the star-spangled banner in tri- umph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.(National Anthem)
[source: John Aman, September 01, 2001, What does the monument say?]
US
Constitutional Amendment, Article 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It
simply means the government cannot stop persons from having church service,
distribution of Christian Literature, bible reading and doing any thing
“religious;” even in public and governmental places. Thus, neither can anyone
else prevent them. Religion there only meant Judeo-Christian faith, that was
the religion of America and every other religion was paganism; “even to the
punishment of pagans.” Also, notice the presidential faith lists in Part 2,
section 3, clause 1. Under religion it would seems that they were many
religions but these were only denominations under the Christian faith. When you
asked a man his religion then, he wouldn’t say Christian, but Baptist,
Episcopalian and so on. That was the diverse religion congress should make no
law on, or interfere in. Christianity was so involved then that certain
governmental building in Washington had church service being held in them, with
even attendance of Presidents.
Therefore,
what the law states, unaware to many and ignored by the “unbiblical elite,” is
that Christians have the freedom to do anything in the name of their religion,
in the confines of their religion. That is, pray in school, have devotions in
school, read the bible in schools, freely distribute Christian literature in
schools, have true religious education and bible classes in school, erect
Christian monuments and anything within the confines of Christianity.
Therefore, what has taken place in the pass decades by the humanists, mainly
ACLU, is unconstitutional. Most Americans and lawyers aren’t even aware of this.
Most think Christianity and government (as in public) shouldn’t mix, but what
the constitution did was to encourage this and even release itself from
imposing on it by Amendment one of the US constitution. For instance, removal
of the Ten Commandments by any judge from a public place is unconstitutional.
For if you’re not to make any legislation against Christian exploits and then
by law remove a Christian monument you’ve clearly made a law pertaining to
Christian religion and violated Amendment 1. The same goes for bible reading,
devotional service and anything that is outlawed today in public schools, under
the misguided notion of “separation of Church and state.” As seen in Part 2,
Section 3, Clause 3, Phase 1, “separation of church and state” isn’t what most
think it is. What is called “separation of church and state” today is utterly
unconstitutional. One of the chief essences of Amendment 1 is to prevent a
repeat of King Henry or Emperor Constantine, whereby the state can assume
authority in the church and change it as they feel and enact what they change.
So when Jefferson alludes to a “wall of separation” this is what he meant and
not what the ACLU suppose. For he couldn’t have meant what the ACLU suppose it
means if he overtly did the opposite of what the ACLU suppose it to mean;
detailed in Part 2, Section 3, Clause 3, Phase 1 at the end. That alone is
clear common sense to debunk this wrong non-theist notion of “separation of
church and state.” But at last, who are these non-theists eroding our nation?
“Mainly” fallen ones who far-see that this true meaning would surface and
prevent their aims and thus for the pass 50+ years have cede this wrong notion
fully well knowing that it is wrong; another ability of theirs we are subject
to live with. That’s the reason for this conclusion, “in the first 150 years of our nation, ‘separation of
church and state’ was mentioned [far] less than a dozen times by the federal
Courts…during the last 50 years, it’s been mentioned over 6,000 times.”
Even
further, let me show you that the entire Amendment 1 is misunderstood. Many
people and journalists use Amendment 1, the part that says, “abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press;” they use it to bash political leaders,
promote sexual immorality, humanism and everything imaginable – when it was not
given to them. In other words, there is no such thing as freedom of speech for
the public, or freedom of the press under Amendment 1. That entire phrase was
being addressed to religious adherent or more specifically, Christians. It
states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”
Then after that, it listed the other things congress shouldn’t do in respect of
religious adherents (Judeo-Christians). Commas (,), Semi-colon (;) and the word
“or” were used to separate the things listed that were attributed to Christians
only; it was one sentence with one subject – the church. The first time I
realized this in July-2004, I was shocked that I thought to hide it; seeing
that I write a lot of stuff with the pretext of freedom of speech. But later
realized that all I write is religiously oriented. Then another sad thing
dawned on me, if the “house”, judiciary and courts realizes this and let it be
heard, then the “unbiblical minority” will try to evade it by forming
pseudo-Christianity; like Christian science, Mormonism, today’s Unitarians and
even homosexual churches. And if my knowledge of fallenangelogy and their
involvement is correct, then they would have known I would write this and begin
this pseudo-church process as well. That’s the reason I wrote that the law said
“they have the freedom to do anything in the name of their religion WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF THEIR RELIGION.” In other words, the constitutional Amendment 1
didn’t give the Christian rights just to do anything. That would mean a
Christian can walk in the white house undetained, shoot the president in the
name of their religion, walk out and even the vice-president shaking his hand
and saying, “thank God you obeyed your religion.” No. The only reason congress
gave Christians that power was because they themselves were Christians and knew
the bible inside out. In fact, Jefferson studied it in four languages daily. So
they all knew what it teaches - the inherent laws of all nations. Not only would
it bring a prosperous mighty nation, but an obedient people. So enticing are
its principles that even a “satanic” leader in a democracy would opt to use it.
Therefore,
not anybody or group under the banner of Christianity can exercise this freedom
either – only those who are true bible adherents. This is not determined by
denominational differences, which some call different biblical
“interpretation.” This is determined by the sameness that all denomination has
– the inherent dogmas that make one cling to the Judeo-Christian faith:
Example, a belief in the 10 commandments, Leviticus 18 and all the doctrines of
the apostles. In other words, one cannot claim to be a Christian church if it
promotes homosexuality as biblical or even adultery (polygamy). Or, a Muslim
saying he’s a Christian when he “deifies” another God or exemplifies the life
of Muhammad. Sporting the “label” Christian would only be a ploy to enjoy the
benefit Christians have: In this case, that would be freedom of speech and
press. The above are easy inherent biblical characteristics of Christendom,
some are not that easy to decipher. It therefore means that the federal Judges,
Congress, “house,” President and all governmental officials have to get back to
the foundation of studying God’s word – just like how Washington and Jefferson
did daily. Or even the recent promising news I saw of 2004 Presidential
Candidate John Kerry, they say he carries his bible with him everywhere. For
this to occur, “Religious Christian Education” has to be mandated in our
schools and even colleges. It simply means we have to put God in America again!
There
is no various interpretations to the constitution, there is only what is meant.
You don't have a strict constructionist view and a liberal view of the constitution,
there is no various views, it's black or white. It has one meaning. Loosely
speaking, if it didn't you wouldn't have the ability to make amendments to what
is already set*. Various interpretations
is like saying to the judge after having force intercourse with a young boy,
"he said no, but I interpreted it as yes, for sometimes no means yes and
vice versa." Judge, "but the boy said he kicked you and was running
away, when you apprehended him while he was halfway through the window
crying." "Yes, your honor, but he kept saying no, which I interpreted
as yes, because sometimes...." (Not to mention that this is sodomy, rape,
statutory rape and a disgraceful sinful act worthy of death). This is how these
who see this true explanation of the constitution sound by saying it can be
interpreted this way or that way. The framers had one literal meaning when they
made it and it must be upheld for the life of the Union (nation). The
constitution was guided by Christian men and the values they instill were
Judeo-Christianity, best of all values, used by most nations. Hence, to totally
be intolerable to God, Christian values and Christian Chief Justices would be
considered paradoxical and any with this mind set can only spawn
unconstitutional legislatures and claims - Plan Parenthood, People
"for" the American Way, ACLU, "irreligious" judges and
chief justices, Pro-Abortion groups, so called "Separation of Church and
State" groups and many others. Even further, they know this and are
purposely doing so as stated in the preamble of the Student Manifesto, please
re-read it.
Notice,
"The English constitution was not a written document or a fixed set of
unchangeable rules...and most people were willing to accept changes in it.
Americans, by contrast, drew from their experience with colonial charters, in
which the shape and powers of government were permanently inscribed on
paper" (Unfinished Nation, Alan Brinkley). Overtly making my point plain
that the constitution is set and there is no interpretation or change to it.
Amendments didn't change the constitution, but added more “unchangeables” as
time went by. Example, no Internet laws until the Internet came. Hence, what
was unconstitutional then is unconstitutional now and the "same"
ideological form of government should exist today.
"The
problem is whether the American People have loyalty enough, honor enough,
Patriotism enough, to live up to their own constitution" (Fredrick
Douglas).
* A type of various
“interpretation” might be seen only in clauses like Article 1, section 8;
whereby legislature can be deemed based on what is currently necessary and
lawful to that Article or clause, now enlightened to it. And that type of
“interpretation” is stated and plainly spelt out.
PART
3:
SUGGESTIONS FOR NON-ADULT SCHOOLS
STUDENT
MANIFESTO
BY A
STUDENT, FOR THE
STUDENTS
“That God might manifest them” (Ecc 3:18)
After reading this section,
any rational thinking person will come to the conclusion that uniforms are necessary.
All the good points will be brought out, but also, all the allege disadvantage
will be dissipated. Though our economy had flourished without its relative
enforcement, we need it more than ever – as our children are getting out of
control and rebellious violations are running rampant. This and the resistance
to uniforms are simply a result of the humanist manifesto – to remove godly
attributes and discipline and replace it with individualism and humanism. It is
my desire to see a great nation mandate this needed policy nation-wide.
HISTORY
“School for most children is the major
experience with the world outside the home. About a third of the day is spent
at school and about half of a child's waking hours.” So attire is not a subject
easily overlooked and should be properly put in place by uniforms. “Uniforms
were first instituted in 16th Century England at the charity schools for poor
children. It was not until the 19th Century that the great English public
schools began instituting uniforms and even later for them to be widely
accepted at state schools--especially state elementary schools.” History also
teaches us that uniforms are the wise choice and anything less, especially
recanting, is disastrous. One source noted about uniforms in England, “It was
the widespread youth revolt of the late -1960s that had the greatest impact…A
few public schools abolished uniform altogether. Most later regretted it.”
PRO’S AND CON’S
In assessing the matter of
school uniforms, we must take in consideration actual words or pro’s and con’s
of the public. From them we can solidify the opening thesis. These are the main
ones:
Pro 1: School uniforms would save parents
money. - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: No argument about “Hidden Costs” of uniforms can change that. No
matter how much uniforms cost, it will never cost as much as casual clothes.
Moreover, any report of high uniform cost is either distorted or made up. One
source said, “Today in many countries without uniforms, buying school clothes
has become a late summer ritual, considered a symbol of privilege. This has,
however begun to change. Simplified school uniforms began to be seen as a way
of limiting school clothing expenses.”
Pro 2: School uniforms would save parents time.
Kids in the morning would not have to make up their minds on what to wear. -
Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: That is true, but a weak point; for a “tardy person” will always
we a “tardy person.”
Pro 3: Kids, whose parents would not or could
not buy them the newest fad, would not be embarrassed or harassed because of
their cloths. - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: Plus there’s no distinction between the rich and poor; “class” is
dropped and togetherness encouraged. This is even a good way of teaching our
kids not to be prejudice.
Pro 4: Kids social standing would be based more
on individual character and less on their economic status. - Anonymous,
yourdebate.com
My comments: Good point.
Pro 5: Lots of gangs use cloths to identify
themselves and other gangs. - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: Hence reduces this sort of gang related affair and adversely
affects gangs in general.
Pro 6: Some kids use baggy cloths to hid
weapons and drugs. - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: A
good example is the columbine school shooting and others. Trench coats were
often used; as in the famous herald, “The Trench Coat Massacre.” Though a
‘weakish’ point, for weapons can still be carried in bags, it nevertheless
helps. It lessens it and the imitation influence from television gunslingers
and villains.
Pro 7: It is my opinion that school is in the
'business' of learning. School is the place where the next lawyers, bankers,
CPA's and Doctors are given the fundamentals of working in this economy. One of
the basics of our culture in the working world is conservative dressing, dress
code, or even uniforms. What is wrong with sending our kids the message that
they are in 'the business of learning' by enforcing dress codes, or even
ascribing a uniform? - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: Moreover, clothing gives off a mood, that’s why certain jobs have
them. Wearing baggy jeans and a tank top is not conducive to working in a
corporate environment and lessens productivity in the individual. It’s also
psychological, you perform the way you dress, if you’re particular about
dressing – everybody. Similarly, most clothes don’t foster the mindset of
learning in a child and even detract from it. Leave the casual clothing for the
casual time; it will be more appreciate there.
Pro 8: Uniforms make it easy to identify kids
who belong in the school and those that don't. - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: Also, teenage intruders on school property can easily be
identified.
Pro 9: Boys in school uniform are in fact walking
advertisements for a school, giving an impression of the school for good or for
bad throughout an entire town or city. Many believed the uniform to be an
accurate reflection of a school's discipline standards and discipline. - HBC
My comments: Good point for school to want it. Plus, it holds the schools
responsible to the students. That is, seeing that the students are advertising
the schools, it is in their best interest to make sure the students are not indiscipline
off-campus, to bring the school in shame. Hence, schools are forced to instill
discipline in the students so they behave properly away from school. While at
my high school, boys were reprimanded for incidents they committed at the bus
stop, miles away from school: Because they were in their school uniforms. I
remember an incident while at high school. We were visiting an underground game
arcade downtown, Kingston, in our uniforms. The vice-principal got a whole of
that information and on one occasion, suddenly made a surprise visit, to our
reprimandment. He did it to protect the school name and probably cared for the
students. Nevertheless, many boys simply take off their tie, which was our
identification, for future mischief. To mirror that now, that would be carrying
a change of clothes. This can hardly go unnoticed by the parent/guardian, and
if they become involved, the student knows the punishment is worse.
Pro 10: Most people are not educational experts, but a smartly
uniformed schoolboy can be noted by all but the blind. – HBC
My comments: Good point. It demands respect; a thing many student lack in most
areas, especially if you’re of the minority. You could equate it to an
official. What if the President made an appointment with several other nations
and showed up bare footed, shorts and sleeveless shirt. He would get no respect
and everything he says or does would be treated with disdain.
Pro 11: Some scoff at the importance of discipline, but as any
school teacher can tell you, discipline is critical to the functioning of any
school. No school can function effectively without a disciplined student body.
A disciplinarian is not necessarily a good teacher, but unless a teacher can
control his class room, it will be impossible to teach no matter how learned he
is. -HBC
My comments: Can I say more.
Pro 12: Uniforms in the early 19th century were adopted by some of
England’s exclusive private schools to prevent boys competing with each over
with outlandish styles and colors. –HBC
My comments: This competition causes a great number of problems and basically
causes them to be distracted from the purpose to which they came to school – to
learn. If so, it defeats the purpose of school and needs to be done away with.
Pro 13: To reduce the appearance of class differences. - HBC
My comments: Much needed, in an already diversely classed nation.
Con 1: Clothes don’t make the man, but education does. – Anonymous
My comments: Uniform clothing is not the issue, but the intent behind the
cloths – discipline, order, money-savings, etc. If you give a man an academic
education without correct character training, like discipline, you’re defeating
the purpose of education. It’s like giving a gun to a man off to war, without
showing the man how to use the gun. Though possessing the weapon, he’ll be at
lost and jeopardy to himself and others.
Con 2: It’s tyrannical (one person said “sartorial tyranny”),
communistic, fascist and therefore not conducive to a democratic state. The
very notion of “mandatory” and “enforcement” resonate this. - Devil’s advocate
My comments: On the counts of tyranny, fascism, overt use of federal power,
communistic or other such things used against uniforms, be it known that Nazi
Germany didn’t have uniforms for schools; the most tyrannical of all communists
sect. Thus, if it were tyranny or some means of evil control or evil use of
power, they would have definitely implanted it. But they didn’t for it has no
such ties. The rebellious for lack of words and to glorify their defense say
these things.
Con 3: Teachers should then wear uniforms too, to lead by example. – B. Wilson
My comments: Teachers are the workers, and like any job, attire themselves
professionally. Their attire distinguishes them loudly, even from intruders off
the street. Teacher uniform is not necessary. They have surpassed the
child-learning stage and have progressed into responsible adults, who are hired
to do a job. If mandatory, it would be like diapers on a 20 year old man. What
might be good is a school nametag. Teachers are already an example by their
professional dress; saying to the students that when they are released from
this mandatory code this is how you must attire yourself with the choices now
given.
Con 4: Followers wear uniform. Leaders Don’t. – Mount Carmel Area
School District Protestors
My comments: This is the reason uniforms are needed. For the sentiment behind
this statement shows the state we are in – disobedience, self-aggrandizement,
rebellion and devilishly out-of-order. How can you lead, if you can’t first
follow? How can you first give commands, if you cannot take commands? This is
what ‘things’ like uniform prepares our children for – real leadership.
Instilling in them discipline by first following, to lead to true leadership.
Each leader had to first submit before leading. If they cannot, you might be
raising a tyrant. Everybody is under some authority; therefore, everybody has
to follow at some time. If not, you’re not fit for this life and worthy to be
cast out. Moreover, everybody can’t be a “leader.” There’s one Queen in England
out of millions of people. There is only one President out of some 250 million
Americans.
Con 5: Why not simply remove the gang members
from the schools and place them in an alternative learning environment like a
boot camp? - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: This cost money, your tax dollars. Plus it’s only relocating the
problem, rather than dealing with it. One would rather disenfranchise others at
your own expense (tax dollars), rather than wear a ‘measly’ uniform. You see
that loose dressing is seeded in selfish individualism; the corner-stone of the
humanist agenda. Any personal discomfort felt by mandating uniforms in all
public schools should be tolerated for the greater good; until it has settled
in our society.
Con 6: School Uniforms are expensive and have
no use outside of school. - Anonymous, yourdebate.com
My comments: See Pro number 1. Also, for the last part, a bike helmet has no
purpose outside of riding a bike. Does that reduce its purpose or importance?
Con 7: School uniforms will do nothing but cut
down on a student’s individuality. A uniform is not the way to cut down on
school violence. The only thing that will cut down on school violence is if
parents would pay attention to their children and keep their children out of
trouble and give them consequences when they disobey and not to let them run
wild. - Danyelle C. Swain, yourdebate.com
My comments: Individuality!? Up until my post-secondary studies, I had to wear
uniforms with tie, yet no one is more individually oriented as I am. A uniform
cannot stifle your individuality; only teach you how to control it, by
discipline. Whereby the bible said, “He that is slow to anger is better than
the mighty, and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city” (Prov
16:32). “He that hath not rule over his own spirit is like a city that is
broken down, and without walls” (Prov 25:28). This person also said, “if
parents would pay attention to their children and keep their children out of
trouble.” This is most encouraged, especially if biblical; but in a sensitive
work treadmill society, majority of the parents won’t achieve this always.
Con 8: School is also the place where the next
actors, writers, artists, politicians, inventors, designers and musicians are
trained. School uniforms send a clear early-life message to students that
[3] conformity is important and
creativity is not, that authority is allowed to abuse its power and
constrain our [1] constitutional
right to free speech and expression. Students learn from uniforms that
their [2] individuality,
political opinions and religious rights are unimportant, as is their
education: students are regularly suspended for non compliance to the
uniform code even if their school work is excellent. If uniform-requiring
schools were actually in 'the business of learning' this would not occur. – T.
Maginnis, Ph.D.
My comments: For [1], this is
ridiculous, plus we really don’t have this right; it’s a mistake we have
enjoyed and abused it. See Part 1, Section 3, Clause 5. For [2], If it was that important, they
would be allowed to vote and wouldn’t have parents and the “inherent powers” to
guide them. Guidance to the point of obedience – uniforms; which is teaching them
to make their own voice be heard at the right time. A calm before the storm,
discipline before power and control before expression. All these things are
good, but when the individual has no control over his own self, how can he be
effective? He would be a raw actor, raw writer, raw artist, raw politician, raw
inventor, raw designer and raw musician who will never exploit his true
potential. For [2] and [3]: Uniforms, therefore, helps the
individual better exercise these rights and expressiveness by instilling needed
discipline – as against the violent rebellious characters that now plague us.
Con 9: Not everyone should be punished for
other people’s crimes! - gurl552004@hotmail.com
My comments: To
response to this might be stupid. See also CON # 5
Con 10: I am totally AGAINST school uniforms!
One reason, of many, is Safety of the Students. For example: During a natural
disaster (God Forbid) Earthquake, Tornado, etc... How would a Parent I.D.
their child? By the clothes that they were wearing, when they left home.
What if a senior decided to attack a 9th -or- 10th grade student? How
would the victim describe the attacker? Let's see, Khaki Pants - Navy Blue
Shirt - Brown Shoes. You get the picture. This was, is, and will ALWAYS BE
a VERY BAD idea. - Randy
My comments: Responding to this might also be stupid. How does the parent do the same thing on graduation when everybody is not only in gowns, but a hat? As I’ve said, I’ve been in a school system under uniform until post secondary studies, these and other “CON’s” are non-existent. While in it, like most, we hated uniforms and wanted to show off our name-brand clothes – to the point we tried this in bag packs, shoes, belt and even tie-pin. Even that caused many problems – theft, fights, etc. It’s after finishing post-secondary studies and now an adult, I realize how brilliant and blessed uniform was!
GENERAL ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINSTS
Having dealt with the pro’s
and cons', arguments for and against can be formalized with the following
summation from HBC. They either add to the arguments already mentioned or
arouse new solidification to the opening thesis. However, most often, “The
debate over school uniform can take on an importance far beyond the issues
involved.”
The Case for School Uniforms
Those that believe school
uniforms are beneficial generally make the following arguments:
Promotes good discipline: Many feel that school uniforms help a school in
maintaining discipline. Many school systems report uniforms help to reduce
discipline problems. Some schools report dramatic declines, although opponents
question some of these reports. Children today are lacking in self discipline.
Many parents simply refuse to discipline their children. This makes it much
more difficult on the teacher who has to deal with a class of 20-30 children
throughout the day.
Reduces fighting and violence: School uniforms reduce violence by eliminating
fights and disruptions over fashionable clothes. Children invariably tease
those who do not have trendy clothes. Poor children are often very sensitive
about their clothes. American inner-city schools facing serious gang violence
believe that uniforms help to ease the problem.
Business like: Some say that a child in a uniform is more likely to take school
seriously. Putting on the uniform signals that he is going to school just as
dad dresses up for work. When students were dressed in "learning
clothes" rather than "play clothes" some schools report that
students took a more serious, scholarly attitude towards their studies.
Appearance:
Many parents and even some children generally believe that student wearing
uniforms looked nicer and that a uniform policy ensured that children would
come to school in appropriate clothing, avoiding distractions such as fads
considered outlandish or overly revealing. A HBC reader in the U.S. writes,
"I read a book showing how children dress for school in the U.K. and
showed it to my mom. She said those boys look neat clean and disciplined. I
also think the saying goes, ‘If you look nice you are going to act nice’ like a
gentleman. Kids today cannot accept those kinds of disciplinary clothes they
want to wear those ugly baggy things and they are ugly looking clothes! My
mother said it’s a fad and they will grow out of it, but I myself don't think
it’s going to happen. I know our school district puts millions of dollars for
soccer fields and other sports. I spoke with a school board member about
getting school uniforms for the kids the answer was, 'We don’t have the money.'
I showed him a photo of the way the kids dress in Papatoe High School in new
Zealand he said its probably a fake photo. Can you believe that!" My comment: I wrote something in Part
1, section 4 about dressing “sexy” and fashion victimization students have been
manipulated into. Read that section. Uniforms will greatly reduce this.
Focus on academics: No morning confusion. Many parents in schools with uniform policies
indicated that they no longer had the morning debate over "what to
wear." Some students have turned school into an unending fashion show.
This is embarrassing to the children who can’t "keep up" and it
detracts from the focus on academics. There is no doubt that some children
spend more time selecting their wardrobe than doing their home work.
Values:
School uniforms stress that individuality and self-expression are not
determined by designer clothing or the latest fashion fad.
Safety:
The school uniform readily identified students as a member of that school and
increased student safety on and off campus. Uniforms readily identify who
belong on campus and who does not. Unfortunately this is a matter of increasing
concern in our modern age.
Reduces distractions: Proponents say that uniforms allow students to
concentrate on their studies instead of the latest fashion trends. The idea is
to promote a better atmosphere for learning and help children concentrate on
the academic program. Peer pressure appeared to take a back seat to learning.
Equity:
School uniforms help to eliminate social distinctions. Children from low-income
families need not be embarrassed by not being able to afford the latest
fashions or designer clothes. Many schools report that school uniforms do help
to reduce socio-economic differences.
Low cost:
Uniforms are a good bargain. They are cheap and getting cheaper. They are
getting less expensive than any other clothes. Proponents say that uniforms are
economical. Compared to buying designer clothes this is undoubtedly true. Some
children pressure their parents to buy very expensive clothes--even in
elementary school. Some parents report that uniforms appeared to be more
durable since they are made for repeated wash and wear. Often schools have used
uniform shops, further reducing costs.
School spirit: Some feel wearing a uniform help builds school spirit. They believe it
instills a feeling of belonging. Parents and students in schools with
successful uniform policies often indicate that there was an improved sense of
school pride and spirit.
Individuality: Regimentation and suppressing individuality is the most frequently
cited objection to school uniforms. Some educators argue that an academic
program encouraging children to pursue individual thought is much more
important than what they wear. The fact that students object more to fashion
concerns than to school academic programs discouraging free thought is a good
indicator of why the use of uniforms to reduce concern with fashion may be
beneficial.
The Case Against School Uniforms
Those that believe school
uniforms are not beneficial generally make the following arguments:
Inhibits creativity and self-expression: Self-explanatory and false.
Individuality: The opponents of school uniform maintain that students should be
allowed to choose their own clothes and they shouldn't be forced to conform.
The opponents feel that the inability to choose ones clothes causes children to
lose their individuality. Interestingly, many who feel strongly about this are
not nearly as concerned over the insistence of many schools to avoid
controversial issues. Different societies have place varying emphasis on
conformity. In Japan it has been a strongly held goal. In America society has
placed a much greater emphasis on individuality.
Causes discipline problems: Some students object to any rules. Rules about
their clothes are particularly objectionable to some. They alter their uniform
by lengthening, shortening, widening or tightening them. Tension between
students and teachers sometimes occurs, as teachers try to enforce the school
rules, and students resist them. My
comment: This is a foolish argument compared to having no uniforms;
children on a whole will attempt to resist any rule. HBC records, “School
uniform remains an issue between pupils and school authorities. It would be odd
indeed if this were not the case. But it is wrong to imagine that the
adolescent rebel really wants uniform to be abolished or that abolition would
put a stop to the arguments. Most American schools have dress codes. Often
parents and students participate in setting the code. But that is not to say
there are fewer disagreements over clothes at American schools than at British
schools. In fact, far from reducing disputes about what could or could not be
worn, the dress code was open to more conflicting interpretations than the
uniform regulations had ever been. Enforcing a uniform is a relatively simple
matter compared to the constant small issues arising from a never ending
decisions that have to be made on the never ending appearance of new clothing
styles and looks.”
Little or no relationship to academics: Opponents insist that there is no creditable
evidence that uniforms improve school discipline or result in superior academic
achievement. The principal evidence offered here is that some good students are
scruffy dressers. There is no doubt that children can learn even if they dress
as they want. The question not addressed is to what extent fashion, and the
tendency of modern children to focus on fashion, distracts from the academic
program. This issue is generally avoided by those who argue that dress is
unrelated to academics.
High cost:
Some say that uniforms are excessively costly. As they are generally available
from one supplier, some of the market action limiting prices may not work well.
My comment: Untrue, uniforms are
inexpensive and proven to be so. See Pro #1.
Emphasizes social distinctions: The uniforms worn by affluent children going to
private schools help to emphasize class distinctions. My comment: What private school does is out of the hand of the
public. They can wear what they feel or mandate what they feel, that’s why it’s
private - you pay greatly to send your child there, thus parents and staff have
an anarchy on what they do. Nevertheless, their uniforms are still affordable
in America; even over the fad-fashions. And even with no uniform, kids in
private school would dress “better off” than those in public anyway; uniforms
lessens the social distinctions of this in the individual schools and among
themselves.
Dowdy styles: Children generally feel that their uniforms are dowdy and not
attractive or stylish. My comment:
If this emphasis were placed on children, what on earth would we be instilling
in the future America or world? They would be shallow. Moreover, giving the
child the ultimate freedom to dictate on matters like these is spoiling the
child, a far more adverse societal effect.
Absenteeism and truancy: Often Absent from school. My comment: This is too ridiculous to even ponder a rebuttal. If
casual dressing ostracizes certain student, hence truancy, then the opposite
must happen under a uniform policy. Only on the shaky foundation of Empiricism
can such a fallacious claim be made.
CASE STUDY
I download and read an essay
or article by Darlene Williams; I must say she really was crafty with words and
reasoning. She gave the best devil’s advocacy and used many cases and Empirical
data. I’ll cite her arguments briefly. It can be read at http://www.gate.net/~rwms/UniformDWilliams.html
She cited a good result of
mandatory school uniforms and how effective it can be:
In Long Beach…the first district to have a widespread mandatory
uniform policy in the public schools, the initial reports concerning drops in
crime and discipline were astonishing. Assault dropped by sixty-seven percent,
vandalism by eighty-two percent, and robbery by thirty-five percent. Overall
crime was reduced by seventy-three percent the first year the policy was in
place ("K-8" 1).
I lauded her for that. But
then she made a fallacious statement:
So, while uniforms were the most visible change, the improvements
were more likely attributable to the other programs which included, among other
initiatives, a $1 million grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation for
the improvement of teaching methods (Brunsma and Rockquemore).
This is utter
foolishness to try and discredit uniforms. For instance, a better way to improve
how a teacher teach math can’t reduce crime that dramatically. It’s like saying
three puny children were trying to push down Arnold Schwaganegger (terminator)
and a fouth man came, HULK; then Arnold fell. We know 2 ton Hulk pushed over
Arnold, but the anti-HULK fan would say it’s a contribution of all the men.
Please.
She then cited
another school that followed long beach and said they didn’t have the same
results: Like two person weight lifting will have the same results:
The results were, at best, disappointing and, at worst, alarming.
The elementary schools with mandatory uniforms saw a slight decrease in
discipline problems.
Any decrease in
“crime” is welcomed, especially by an initiative that has numerous other
benefits. She went further to say on the matter:
Unfortunately, the high hopes held by the district for immediate,
significant improvement in discipline were not realized.
Mandatory uniforms is not an
over night magic wand for a country that has avoided it. It takes a process;
long beach is one of the many exceptions. She then lamented against one of the
benefits of uniforms with her data:
The summary further states that while some safety violations
declined at mandatory uniform schools, the same problems were reduced at no
uniform schools as well. Empirical data
does not support the anecdotal accounts of discipline and safety improvements
cited by uniform proponents.
In studying economics, I
learnt a great deal about all data in all fields of study. They are all
assumptions and making comparisons is not more accurate with the use of
Empirical data over her claim of “anecdotal accounts.” Reason being, the
comparison are made with all things held constant or a few variables; what my
teacher refer to as a “real world” case cannot be gained easily or at all. For
instance, if planter ‘A’ uses fertilizers this year and planter 'B' doesn’t, it
means planter 'A' crops will be better. But it didn’t happen because of a
deadly drought. Empirical data would show fertilizers don’t work better than no
fertilizers: When in fact, other more impacting variables are involved. It
would only be true if all things are held constant. This example is clear, but
others are not that simple. Mandatory uniform policy can be said to have inherent
intangible benefits that empiricism cannot weigh properly or at all.
She then gave some facts
from the Manual on School Uniforms and other data to say:
"A mandatory school uniform policy without an opt out
provision could be vulnerable to legal challenge."
Opt-out clause gives the
right for some to wear casual clothes. Having an opt-out clause is defeating
the purposes of uniform altogether; and even shows partiality, bias and
elements of a weak governing body. You don’t need an opt-out clause for a
Muslim to wear her shawl or someone with a sickness to wear special clothing.
That is an inherent use of discretion. Opt-out fosters abuse of the policy by
the rebellious and the ultimate overthrow of the uniform policy itself. This
should be dismissed by any court, for if you take away the power of the school
to administer what it deems disciplinary and necessary, what are they left
with. The parents and students would be the boss and we wouldn’t need a school;
let them teach themselves! It’s better said by this Supreme Court ruling, “We are not anarchists, and recognize that society can only
function by having rules of conduct and behavior. However, when the government
restricts the activities of its citizens, it must show just cause for such
restrictions. Should not the standards be even higher for the government to dictate
what actions its citizens must perform?” Dictate doesn’t mean Nazism,
but exercising inherent powers in the best interest of the people.
She then gave incidents that
occurred while implementing the uniform policy, mainly Polk County Florida.
This was done to disapprove the policy. She ended those incidents with this
statement:
We cannot afford to allow our schools to be used as laboratories
and our children to be used as guinea pigs for new questionable fads founded in
vanity and based on supposition.
Uniforms are not new; it
ranges from the 16th century and based on centuries of
establishment, as against this allegation of vanity and supposition. America
and few other countries have long rejected it, but later came to realize its
importance. If it hadn’t been successful for many years, it wouldn’t even have
been considered. What has happened in Polk County, and will happen across
America, is that a new seed is breaking the ground and with that seed, or
change, comes difficulty. That’s the reason psychologist say that all changes,
positive or negative, induces stress (T. Holmes and R. Rahe). Nothing good is
done in comfort. No real change is left without pain and eruptions – a mother delivering
a baby, a bulldozer plowing at asphalt or even the surgery of a patient.
Jefferson himself was frank and related this notion. He stated that the tree of
liberty is manured by the death of the faithfuls - He spoke of the war of
independence, as learnt in my history class (97-99). In other words,
implementing this relatively New Mandatory Uniform Policy will have
confrontations, but like all good things, prove to be the best choice in the
long run. One concerned citizen seems to agree, as against Mrs. Darlene
preferred notion of pitching arbitrary funds, see the article below:

South Florida’s Sun-Sentinel, Sept 2004
IMPLEMENTATION
Based on this section thus
far, school uniforms can then be implemented. England began instituting school uniforms
at the elementary stage, that’s where it should begin in America, nation-wide.
Start in Kindergarten even. It’s kind of difficult to put it in at the high
school stage, when that generation has been going casual. Though waiting for
the right time will avail no time. Nothing should stop it, but tact should be
used. For instance, mandate all elementary schools to institute it, when that
class moves to the next stage, then mandate if for all schools in that stage;
and so on. Over a period of time, with much difficulty, it should be in full
effect for all schools at all stages. Students will always resist uniforms,
just like how children will always resist vegetables; especially with this
proposed massive sweep of having it done year by year and some students will
wear uniforms beside those in casual wear. Should we listen to children and let
them eat only ice-cream and donuts, especially when you, the parent, are paying
for it and their consequential medical bill? Therefore, their voice in this is
of little importance, as well as the rebellious “children” who claim to be
their parents. Hence, it must be mandated. That shouldn’t sound harsh, for such
power would be exercise in the best interest of the people; as parents have
over a child.
In my research, I’ve not
seen one teacher protest uniforms, mostly parents and their rebellious
siblings. It seems the teacher welcome it because they can relatively teach
their class with ease; having focused students. The mere fact that teachers
welcome it is enough to implement it. Yet these parents want to drop off their
untrained child to these pitiable teachers, who finally (or would have finally)
got some help with these “generation of vipers.”
It would be good if the
schools sell the uniforms to the parents. This would be even more feasible if
they could buy it in bulk at a school discount from wholesalers; and even
further, subsidized by the government. Then set price ceilings and price floors
to regulate the same selling price across all schools that sell it. This will
prevent stores and mega malls from fluctuating prices to benefit themselves,
knowing parents have to buy it. Even so, stores wouldn’t hike it above
affordability, knowing it’s for the kids. All in all, uniforms will never be
beyond affordability either sold by the market or schools. School uniforms may
even vary and cost differently, but subsidization and wholesale favors should
be able to still be obtained. Nonetheless, all schools should strive to wear
the same uniform and use either a tie, coat of arms, crest or logo for
differentiation; all with the school name. To make it also cheaper, special
materials, special colors and patterns should be avoided. It should be so basic
that parents could make it; yet worth the wear.
Discretion and wisdom should
be used, for in all things there is little “ironing out” to do. For instance,
someone might ask, “should school uniform code extend to underwear color?” It
might sound ridiculous, because base on the purposes of uniforms, THE UNDERWEAR
SHOULDN’T EVEN BE VISIBLE, that’s the code. Despite all things, implementation
is possible, necessary and should be done.
CONCLUSION
No other publication has put
together such strong and blunt inherent reasons for uniforms in America. And no
other time than now should it be implemented. It takes a bold nation to make a
long term decision with such controversy as this. But it takes an even greater
and bolder one to have it mandated for the benefit of all. America has long
since posses such qualities; it should then live up to that reputation and use
its inherent powers, through legislature, to enact a nation-wide mandatory
school uniform policy. Along with “godly” exploits, it’s the only way to push
forward and dig our education system from the ditch it has fallen into.
SECTION 2: REVIVAL OF
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
The first thing that can be
said is that I’m a witness, a witness to the fact that corporal punishment is more
than feasible in schools. Reason being, I grew up in a school system that had
corporal punishment in place. I didn’t die, I wasn’t emotionally traumatized, I
didn’t take revenge on the school by burning it down and best of all, I turned
out okay. Moreover, as experimental as I was, I received more corporal
punishment (beating) than most. “Corporal punishment is the intentional
inflicting of pain upon a child because he or she has exhibited unacceptable
behavior. When an adult in authority hits a child with a hand, cane, paddle or
belt to inflict pain, that adult is using corporal punishment."
"Since colonial times corporal punishment has been used as a method for
disciplining children. Its roots in the United States can be traced back to England."
"Over the years the
courts in our country have heard many cases about the legality of corporal
punishment. In Ingraham v. Wright (1977) the U.S. Supreme Court considered
whether the paddling of two male students in Florida violated their right to be
free from "cruel and unusual punishment," as stated in the Eighth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In siding with Dade County school
officials, the Court decided that the Eighth Amendment was designed to protect
persons charged and/or convicted of a crime, not children in school."
Thank God for this, but there are other hindrances. And fortunately,
"According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, about 90 percent of U.S.
parents spank, and about 59 percent of pediatricians in a 1992 survey said they
support the practice."
It is after becoming an
ardent student of the bible I learnt that this is not only a good thing, but
the best way of punishing a child. Actually, this is the instruction and wisdom
given from God himself; as against today’s methods, from allege wise
psychologists and experts. As the Bible tells us: "He who spareth the rod
hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs
13:24) and "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him
with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver
his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23:13-14). Meaning, we are not to spoil
children by not beating them, or implementing corporal punishment. The very
bible tells us why, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod
of correction shall drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15). In other words,
the child’s tendencies are always folly, mischief and troublesome inclinations,
but proper physically felt punishment can correct them. This has lasting
adulthood effects of good character and discipline. This is the wisdom given
from the being who saw this age and ages to come, when he made us. This might
be hard for a non-theist to swallow. However, fortunately, many psychologists
have seen the fruits of this and can deem it the best form of “conditioning” –
a most effective tool of learning, especially character development.
Modern methods, the
alternative, might seem to be more favorable but can be really damaging. Reason
being, the modern methods are mental processes, while corporal punishment
(beating) is directly physical. For instance, some of the modern methods
utilize neglect. This can lead to low self-esteem, lack of self worth, social
ineptness and even suicide in the long run. Why? In these processes, the mind
was directly affected. They are far more dangerous and should even be avoided.
Mental processes are such things as ‘Time-Outs,’
‘don’t-get-that-don’t-get-this-get-that-get-this’ rambling and other mental
gymnastics. Some are so complicated that less educated parents can’t enforce
them on their child and being restrained from beating them, they are led to
rash behaviors. The mental reprimandment is dangerous because it deals with an
area that if tampered with can hardly fix or leads to damages we can’t see or
even diagnose. A normal child turns into an adult psychopath for no apparent
reason. Most often, they were mentally affected through one of these means.
God took care of that area
and made it physical; especially knowing we will never have full expertise in
the area of the mind. Bruises will heal, but a scared mind or “mixed up” mind
can cause untold lingering problems. The mind is the central part of the body,
as an engine is to a car. If the engine of the car is damaged, the whole car is
inept. But if there is a bumper-to-bumper hit, the car can go on. The damage
engine is modern methods and the bumper hits is corporal punishment. A child
will remember the pain from the beating of a loving mother and avoid the
offense, as against a mental process that he neither understands nor realize
will adversely affect him in the long run. Therefore, corporal punishment for
children is the better and more effective method. Most often, when a child
“acts up,” he or she seeks attention. Fiddling with the mind and sending them
away won’t solve the problem, but make it worse. Flogging them corrects the
problem and shows that you do care, by giving needed attention through corporal
punishment (presently felt pain).
The only objection to corporal
punishment is abuse. But corporal punishment is not abuse, though there is a
thin line, as in everything. And most of what is recorded as abuse is not.
"According to the National Institute for Healthcare Research, more than 80
percent of the professional publications attacking spanking were reviews and
commentaries, rather than quantitative research. When analyzing the small
portion of quantitative studies that included spanking, more than 90 percent of
these studies lumped together mild forms of spanking with severe forms of
physical abuse without discussing why they did so. Thus, the professional
organizations which advocated outlawing spanking evidently made their decisions
without the benefit of the facts. Mild spanking and severe child abuse are not
the same thing." If and when abuse is suspected, anticipated or seen, then
the authorities should step in. With chances of this happening doesn’t mean
corporal punishment shouldn’t be implemented. For instance, eating food can
cause obesity or even food poisoning, but does that mean we shouldn’t eat food?
No! In the case of obesity, it just means eating food should be monitored by
the individual – moderation. For instance, the American public is well informed
on obesity. Many agencies, sub-agencies and programs have been developed to
curtail this problem; not the “vital”
cause of it – eating, so to speak.
The same can be done in the rare cases of abuse. For example, an infomercial
stating that beating your child with an iron on the head is not corporal
punishment, 10, 20, life. Get rid of these cases of abuse, not the “vital” cause of it – corporal punishment, so to speak.
Another often used
objection, inline with the above, is that the child may have ailments and
cannot be subjected to corporal punishment. Usually, such students don’t give
that much trouble or trouble warranting corporal punishment. Moreover, students
with that sever of an ailment would be in a special school, or on record with
the school of having that sever ailment. This is an extremely rare case with
trouble free students.
Having said all that, there
is nothing wrong with spanking the child in school, even creating a position
called detention coordinator or corporal punishment assistant. They would carry
out flogging on students who are “acting up.” I held such a position at a High
School and the students, on and off campus, treated me with the utmost respect;
even when I didn’t hold that position anymore. They themselves were “bettered”
and felt gratitude, knowing someone cared enough to punish them. Order,
discipline and character were also restored to high school students who often
create a troublesome frenzy environment in a troublesome time. “According to
the Journal of Adolescent Health, supporters of corporal punishment state that
children learn the appropriate appreciation for authority, are better
controlled, learn to discipline themselves, develop better social skills, and
improve moral character. Without the threat of corporal punishment, advocates
speculate that discipline problems in school would increase, jeopardizing
teacher safety. Supporters of corporal punishment in schools include various
churches, the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the
American Federation of Teachers.” This order, discipline and godly character
are needed in our schools today. One of the best solutions is to bring back
corporal punishment for students.
Corporal punishment from a
parent and a school staff has the same rewarding benefits. However, punishment
from a parent has the better effect, because the child has greater tendencies
to feel cared for; the parent has that inherent capacity. To also achieve this
in schools and help set a non-abusive standard, the following method is advised
(redone from spare-rod.com):
Calibrating your paddle:
Before applying paddle to a child you
should determine the force of your swing.
There is only one way to measure
effectively - sit yourself on the rump and adjust
your swing appropriately.
For maximum effect:
• Have the child tell you the reason they
are being punished.
• Teachers should wait 10 seconds between
each swat.
• Apply no more than 15 swats per day.
• Spank only on the rump and palm of the
hands.
• Child must be wearing clothes.
• Use force sufficient only to get the
child's attention.
• Support child's torso so no stress can
be placed on their spine.
After punishment is served:
Before the day is done, call that child
again, in a friendlier manner. Tell them you punish and
will always opt to punish because you care: And that the
punishment was for their behavior
only.
In closing, to reiterate the
dreaded cause of why our school standards have change from corporal punishment
and that you must stand up, take this quote, "Humanism in your world has
been created by satan. You will bring back the adages of old of: Spare the rod,
and you will spoil the child. Discipline must be returned" - St. Joachim,
July 25, 1973.
[Help sources: http://www.njsbf.com/whatsnew.cfm, http://www.tldm.org,
and http://www.spare-rods.com]
SECTION 3: SEX EDUCATION, STUDENTS AND THE TRUTH
"At
Silver Lake High School, the ninth grade health text teaches: 'testing your
ability to function sexually and to give pleasure to another person maybe less
threatening in the early teens with people of your own sex'. Also, 'you may
come to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your
parents.' Students were told to keep the book in their lockers and not take it
home" (B. Kjos, www.crosswind.to).
Three things
were incredible wrong with this picture and the third shows that biblical and
true sex education can and needs to be taught in our schools. One, in a high
school in America, sexual experiment was encouraged among teens. Second, sexual
experiment was encouraged with the same sex. And thirdly, to show that
"they" know this is wrong, students were told not to carry the text
book home. In other words, they were silently teaching the students hedonistic
values with a hope their parents don't find out. This happened in America,
where the "unbiblical minority" is prohibiting any religious freedom
in schools. If this can be taught, biblical and 'true' sex education should be
taught in schools again. Teens should not be experimenting with sexuality at
such a time, much more to experiment with homosexuality. Biblical and 'true'
sex education will show why this should not be. This is the intent of this
descriptive section, without trying to be persuasive.
I call the
teenage years and single years the rebirth of one's self (personal
renaissance). Meaning, it is at this point that one really realizes that they
exist. It is really at this point that the last stage of shaping one's mind
really develops. So much so that the great King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar,
captured and tried to use some of the wisest men of Israel. Among the most
intellectual were Daniel, and the three Hebrew boys who were thrown in the fire
unburnt. When they were captured, they were all under fifteen years of age.
After Nebuchadnezzar's three years "brain-washing" conversion
strategy, some were barely over fifteen years of age. This youth brain washing
strategy is key to controlling the masses and most effective. In fact, Adolph
Hitler knew it and said that if he got a generation of youths, he could take
over the world. In other words, manipulation of the masses can only be
successful, if their minds were already fashioned while being a youth.
Why? It is at
this point that one is most vulnerable to learn anything lasting and once
shaped, it can hardly break. It's at the teenage years that the clay is almost
hard, so the last reshaping must take place. Your mind could be marred forever,
so this part of one's life must be dealt with caution and not carelessly, as it
is treated today – with long lines of sensual partners from the preteens.
Why at this
most vulnerable time should one be seeking to know someone else, when one
hardly knows him or her self? Why should teens seek to get their minds
emotionally entangled when they don't know: 1) where they're coming from 2) why
they're here and 3) where they're going? Why not spend some time seeking the
will of God for your life, which might take years, especially depending on the
enormity of God's purpose in your life?
Not doing this
may be the reason we have so many dysfunctional adults ("teenults"),
because in their teenage years, whether directly or indirectly, they were
yanked away from themselves, in relation to God. Pulled from godly self-discovery
and being established in adulthood lifestyle. These years are called
adolescence, by interpretation that should read "adult-lessons" and
not adulthood.
One of the
reasons they were yanked away from themselves is peer pressure and societal
influences. Yes, teens might object, but if they lived in an environment where
there is no nudity and sex on television, no porn on the web and in magazines,
no public display of nasty affection, no improperly covered persons walking the
streets, less stress on self vainly and much reverence for God, one wouldn't
even feel like having a boy or girl friend; much more pre-marital sex.
On the other
hand, some persons coming from a background where their parents are ministers
usually fall prey to unwed children and many shocking occurrences, contrary to
their parents' belief. Why? All their lives, they may have been sheltered:
church, school, home, church outings. Such a person sees no evil, speaks no
evil and hears no evil; consequently they do no evil. And stupidly, the parents
didn't tell them of the many evils – “birds and bees”. So when the opportunity
arose to be exposed, BAM! They had no mechanism to deal with what the real
world is about (mostly in remote countries with Christian teens going off to
school in the West). Notice also that without the influence of evil (TV, cable,
web, print, fad) they did no evil. But when the exposure came, without knowing
about it, many problems arose.
To solve these
and other teen problems, take the example of the first man created, Adam. God
graced him to walk and talk with him. By this relationship, God declared his
purpose, 'dominion over the earth'. God also graced Adam to work with him in
ministry, 'naming every animal'. Adam was so into God that he was not thinking
about a mate, but it was God who decided it was not good for him to be alone.
From this, four biblical and true sex educatory guidelines can be used for
teens today. They are:
1. You should
first develop an excellent relationship with God, whereby everyday you are in
harmony with God as close to the "pre-Adamic" state as possible;
which can be found in Christ.
2. You should
then search out your purpose, which only God can verify. Do you know that it
pleases God when a young person sets their heart and time to find their purpose
on earth? This will not go unrewarded.
3. While this
is ongoing, strive to be active, mostly in ministry. It might not be your
ultimate purpose, but it usually should be something leading up to it. Again,
let God verify your purpose and not an arbitrary person. So it means you have
to seek to have a relationship with God. Don't you dare let any arbitrary
person dictate your purpose and it hasn't been rectified with the creator. Who
does one go to for a blue print, the architect or the construction worker?
Moreover, you have direct access to the throne of God through Christ, no matter
how young you are. Remember the fifteen-year-old boy in the bible, Daniel, he
was more in tuned with God than everyone in Babylon.
4. Now, while
all this is ongoing, God is on the other side preparing the woman or man that
you will just adore (only the opposite sex). Believe you me, you will, if you
believe it. Then when you ask your daddy, God, being in his presence every
second, he will just tell you and the peace of God will go with it. Then it
won't take forever to get married, for God would have set that compatibility
already, not lust; Him knowing all things. At least give him that much credit.
Notice that God didn't make Eve and tell Adam to go and date her for a while
and said, "If you don't like her, I'll make another one for you,
dearest." No, when God made Eve, Adam exclaimed, "WO!"
"MAN!" And so females were called from that point (don't quote me on
that, though this is becoming a cliché). In other words, one would not take
apart a merchandise to try and know it really well before buying it; instead,
just go to the maker and he will tell you where, how, what type and when to
obtain it. Then you can trust the maker, for he is the one who made the
"specs". Would you go to a device and ask, "What is your purpose
in relation to me?" Could it tell you? The same principle applies to you
in relation to finding a mate. Go to God! Also, I found out something great while
listening to the bible on my MP3 CD player recently. It said, "Whoso
findeth a wife obtaineth favour of the LORD" (Pro 18:22). Then it dawned
on me, nothing on earth - principles, steps, intuition, outward appearances or
anything will guarantee you a real spouse. But what actually happens is that
anyone who marries the right person did so because God grants him or her favor;
they had nothing to do with it. In other words, he likes you so he makes sure
nothing ties themselves to you that is not good, only the real thing. And
believe you me, I've learnt that finding the right person for you is
impossible. That's the reason the verse does use the word "findeth,"
indicating you doing something, but put it back into true perspective by saying
you really had nothing to do with it but simply "obtaineth favour."
Another verse back this up and says, “a prudent wife is of the Lord” (Pro
19:14). Therefore, if you really want a good spouse, strive to please God.
So, from these
four guidelines, it all boils down to this bible verse, "But seek ye first
the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added
unto you" (Matt 6:33). With the Kingdom comes true sex education and true
guidance. And having an adept background and "track record" in
biblical exploits, the guidelines given are biblically sound.
Having written
all that I must draw your attention again to Daniel and the three Hebrew boys,
whom I admire. Although Babylon tried to infiltrate their minds with Babylonian
doctrines and lifestyles they did not "bow". They were just teens,
but with God anything is possible. With God you can stand on his word. Don't
give into peer pressure and societal influences, give into God and stand on his
word. For his word is sure and stands forever (Matt 24:35). The boyfriend
and girlfriend mentality should be left until teens have completed their Adam
experience – knowing what God has called them to do, unequivocally. When that
is completed, God will give you the desires of your heart (Ps 37:4). In fact,
Christ was recorded as saying that if anyone has a son and he asked for bread,
would that parent give him stones, or scorpions for eggs (Lk 11:11-13). In
other words, will God give you something to hurt you or that is not years on
end satisfying? No. God will only give you the best.
If these
biblical and sex educatory guidelines were applied to our present generation,
the divorce rate would be zero. Frankly suggesting that marriages that result
in divorce have failed to apply this principle of seeking God totally, and
developing a clear relationship; which can only be sanctioned by being truly
saved (acts 2:38).
This
descriptive outline of why teens should not be experimenting sexually in no way
violates the present agenda of sex education in schools; but rather fulfills
it, the correct way. Dr. Lester Kirkendall of SIECUS (The Sex Information and
Education Council of the United States) wrote in 'Sexuality and Man':
"The
purpose of sex education is not...to control and suppress sex expression, as in
the past, but to indicate the immense possibilities for human fulfillment that
human sexuality offers. The individual must be given sufficient understanding
to incorporate sex most fruitfully and responsibly into his present and future
life."
Giving
biblical and true sex educatory guidelines is the best way to give
"sufficient understanding to incorporate sex most fruitfully and
responsibly." Thus, dating should be left for adulthood and maturity in
Christ: And sexual experimentation should only be entertained between a man and
a woman in marriage.
1-5 of the Sexuality Series can be distributed in schools (high school mainly) for sex education. Here’s a link to the Sexuality Series online http://www.sexuality.andmuchmore.com or http://www.sexseries.0catch.com or http://www.threeq.com or www.lulu.com/godshop or www.cafepress.com/witness.
I’m a regular user of the
public library and see it as a great educational influence in our society. If
so, it should be treated with some of the principles already outlined in this
manifesto. I don’t know, but in the county that I live in, the libraries are
superb. One such one is the Coral Springs Branch off Sample Rd, Broward County,
Fl. This is the library of libraries for luxury. It has numerous computers for
computing and Internet stuff. There is a huge collection of music CD’s, even
current ones. There is also a huge collection of DVD’s and VHS, even current
releases. There is a huge section for nursery and mother to play with her kids.
There is also a section of rooms for study and conferencing. And finally, the
traditional section for books, magazine, tabloids and other printed materials.
This is compact on a bright two-storey building. Libraries have really
‘evolved’, providing an inviting radiant atmosphere to all. This one, I guess,
was more luminous than the others by its design – it was bright and
contemporary. In other words, the libraries are being professionally designed
with aesthetics in mind. The only one that could match it for exterior design
is the main library in downtown Ft. Lauderdale, Fl – one section is made of
luminous glass reflecting glasses with a waterfall facing it.
The library is a good place
to keep the internet out of your home (ICI), and put it at a central place for research
and other internet activities, much like how it’s traditional use with books
have been. It also provides a place to study and embark on ideas in “pen and
ink.” The schools use it, the students use it, everybody use it; and all these
benefits are known and inherent. It’s good to know that our libraries are
accommodating and filling the need of libraries. In fact, I thought of a little
tabulation of the savings and saw that it is tremendous, HOLDING ALL THINGS
CONSTANT. The library now has a scanner (2005), Internet access, free DVD’s /
Cassettes, Music CD’s / Cassettes and finally free books. You have ten sessions
(1 hr) a day at the library on the Internet, at Kinkos, etc, that is $150.00 or
$15.00 an hour. For scanning, around $3-$10 per scan, unlimited at the library.
Rent or buy two DVD’s, $5.00 each and you can check out 4 at a time at the
library. The same for CD’s. Books are a given. So each person would spend $210
each day if the library didn’t provide that service, that’s $76,650 per year per
person. So the library is giving you $210 a day, without mentioning the free
classes. And they current have all these resources already. For instance,
Broward county library is the tenth largest in the United States and it has: 1)
2.7 million items. 2) 200,000 videos and DVD’s. 3) 8.5 million items are
checked out each year. 4) 16,000 programs provided last year. 5) 550,000
residents attended library programs. 6) 440,000 residents received technology
instruction. But wait, where did they get the funds to do this? Libraries are
government run, so it’s your tax dollars, kind of at work, so I kind of ease
the complaining on my pizza bill that has a few cents tax. So your tax dollars
are at work, a lot of it and don’t think about cutting it, if it can, politician
– an educated populace is a stable populace, so to speak. However…
What I’d like to mention are
suggestions to make it better and help influence the society at large.
These are some suggestions
for libraries and the train of thought to which other ideas can be fostered.
Libraries are a beautiful place where education takes place and should be
preserved as such.
The following is a synopsis on home
schooling today, in America. The figures and charts were left out for brevity,
but remain accurate – so you’ll see a reference to a figure number.
20,760 student
achievement test scores and their family demographics make this the largest
study of home education to date! Results demonstrate that home schooled
students are doing exceptionally well and provide an informative portrait of
America's modern home education movement. Conducted by Dr. Lawrence M. Rudner,
Director of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
How Many Home
Schoolers Are There?
Just how prevalent is home education today? The data indicate
there are approximately 1.23 million American children being taught at home.
This finding (which has an estimated margin of error of ± 10%) exceeds the
total public school enrollment for the state of New Jersey, which has the 10th
largest student population in the nation. Put another way, there are more home
school students nationwide than there are public school students in Wyoming,
Vermont, Delaware, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Montana,
and Hawaii — combined. In fact, America’s home schoolers collectively outnumber
the individual statewide public school enrollments in each of 41 states
Results:
Academic and demographic information
from the largest national study of home schooled students How do home schoolers
measure up?
Home school students do exceptionally well when compared with the nationwide
average. In every subject and at every grade level of the ITBS and TAP
batteries, home school students scored significantly higher than their public
and private school counterparts (Figure 1).
Because home
education allows each student to progress at his or her own rate, almost one in
four home school students (24.5%) are enrolled one or more grades above age
level (Figure 2). It should be noted that home school scores were analyzed
according to the student’s enrolled grade rather than according to the
student’s age level. In other words, a 10-year-old home school student enrolled
in 5th grade would have been compared to other students in the 5th grade,
rather than to his age-level peers in the 4th grade. Thus, the demonstrated
achievement of home schoolers is somewhat conservative.
On average, home
school students in grades 1–4 perform one grade level higher than their public
and private school counterparts. The achievement gap begins to widen in grade
5; by 8th grade the average home school student performs four grade levels
above the national average (Figure 3).
Another significant finding is that students who have been home
schooled their entire academic lives have the highest scholastic achievement.
The difference becomes especially pronounced during the higher grades,
suggesting that students who remain in home school throughout their high school
years continue to flourish in that environment (Figure 4).
Differences were
also found among home school students when they were classified by amount of
money spent on education, family income, parent education, and television
viewing. However, it should be noted that home school students in every
category scored significantly higher than the national average.
No meaningful difference was
found among home school students when classified by gender (Figure 5).
Significantly, there was also no difference found according to whether or not a
parent was certified to teach (Figure 6). For those who would argue that only
certified teachers should be allowed to teach their children at home, these
findings suggest that such a requirement would not meaningfully affect student
achievement. (source: www.hslda.org, by L.
Rudner)
In the influx of the
humanist agenda, many Christians have found refuge in home schooling; a step
which I encourage. What else can you do if the school teaches your child to be
a homosexual or how to live a transsexual life? In the failure of our educators
to prevent this, and even most encourage it, mothers have taken education in
their own hands. Though the outcome of home schooling is good, what if that
sentiment was carried across on other societal infrastructures? For instance,
what if people began to take the law in their own hands? We would not only have
chaos, but it would be evident that the law has failed. The increase rise in
home schooling is evident that education has failed: Failed to prevent
socialization, sustainability brainwashing, paganism and the “unbiblical
minority” from taking the foundation (“God”) out of schools. If it means
equipping Christian churches and parents with funds and non-literary tools for
home schooling to prevent these things, then go right ahead. For though after
reading this, a change might occur, it can only go so far and no more,
affecting the private schools more than anywhere else. The public schools will
still belong to the government and thus still subject to the invisible, yet
financially and politically powerful adherents of the humanist agenda. And if
you’re a follower of bible prophecy, they shall give their rule, or have given
their allegiance to what is know as the Anti-Christ – dictator in waiting.
“Satan” is the main architect to erode God in our schools and replace it with
humanism, socialization, pseudo-academics and paganism. Presently, we can still
make a difference in striving. The home schoolers have stood up, educators,
will you?
Note: A warning to home schoolers and
potential home schoolers, because of the success of home schooling, there will
be or has been an infection of pseudo-home schooling and pseudo-home schooling
literature or literary materials. Prevent this flexible learning from becoming
standardized, infiltrated with humanism and pseudo-academic. It might be all we
have left.
SECTION 6: MANDATORY
BIBLICAL TEACHING AND SERVICE
Having biblical teaching is
good, but given the different variables involved, some students would not
choose it; as many kids would not choose to eat vegetables. Mandatory biblical
teaching is therefore implementing a bible studies curriculum in our school
system – from kindergarten to college. If you’ve read part 2, especially
section 3 clause 5, you’d see how important biblical studies is to the
prosperous thriving society. Building a society begins with building the
people. The infrastructures are only corollaries of this. It’s one thing if the
infrastructure’s foundation is weak, but it’s a more devastating thing if the
people foundation is weak. And that would be an absence of biblical teaching.
Studies can be done and it will show that Christian people make the best
citizens. A proven fact installed by the founding fathers of America. They
encouraged, practiced and help mobilized Christian teaching. For instance,
Jefferson took the moral teaching of the bible, compiled it in a book and
mandated that it be taught to the Indians. He didn’t have to do that for the
American public, for all public schools had it woven into their curriculum.
Why? He and all people then, knew that the nation cannot stand if the people of
the nation are biblically ignorant; not to mention biblical violators. Except
this is restored, any nation will crumble, for “righteousness exalteth a
nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” That’s one of the reasons the
Roman Empire couldn’t stand. History had it that the Empire fell from within,
that is, the declining morals caved in a great empire. Therefore, if what is
happening in America today continues, the same faith that crumbled the Romans
will ‘indirectly’ befall us: And God will “directly” intervene, for “if the
foundations be removed, what can the righteous do.” Let us prevent this and
help build a great nation, by mandating biblical teaching in schools again.
In addition to the general
reasons outlined above, they are some key reasons that make this implementation
urgent. That is, there is a deliberate attempt to wipe God from our schools,
under the guise of “new values” in a new society. Such educators are hastening
the Roman cave in and the wrath of God. For instance, notice this illustration
from Berit Kjos article:
The consensus process. Matt
Piecora, a fifth grader from the Seattle area, was told to complete the
sentence, "If I could wish for three things, I would wish for..."
Matt wrote "infinitely more wishes, to meet God, and for all my friends
to be Christians."
Since each
student's wishes would be posted on a wall for "open house", they had
to be just right. Matt's didn't pass. The teacher told him that his last wish
could hurt people who didn't share his beliefs. Matt didn't want to hurt
anyone, so he agreed to add "if they want to be."
Another sentence to
be completed began, "If I could meet anyone, I would like to meet..."
Matt wrote: "God because he is the one who made us!" The teacher
told him to add "in my opinion."
When Matt's parents
came to the school, they noticed the phrases that had been added to Matt's
sentences. "Why did you add this?" his mother asked.
"The teacher
didn't want me to hurt other people's feelings," he answered.
"But these are
just your wishes..."
"I thought so,
Mom." Matt looked confused. Later, the teacher explained to Matt's parents
that she wanted "diversity" in her class and was looking out for her other
students. But the excuse didn't make sense. If the papers were supposed to
"express the students' diverse views," why couldn't Matt share his
views? Didn't his wishes fit? Or was Christianity the real problem?
"I try to
instill God's truths in my son," said Matt's father, "but it seems
like the school wants to remove them."
He is right. The old
Judeo-Christian beliefs don't fit the new beliefs and values designed for
global unity. The planned oneness demands "new thinking, new strategies,
new behavior, and new beliefs" that turn God's Word and values
upside-down. Directed group discussion is key to the transformation. Professor
Benjamin Bloom, called "Father of Outcome-based Education,"
summarized it well:
The purpose of
education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of
students.
Unaware to most educators
and probably even the secretary of Education, many American schools have
rejected the God that made America great and choose to follow their own ways.
What has been the result: violence, immorality, confusion, intellectual
derelicts and the list goes on. When will we realize that we don’t have it
together as “mortals,” and never will; hence, God did us a favor by giving us
his word. Not only that, but we are eroding the foundation the founding fathers
laid down; most often doing the opposite. For instance, notice this quote from
the same article:
Today, American
children from coast to coast learn reading, health, and science through group
work and dialogue. Most subjects are "integrated" or blended together
and discussed in a multicultural context. Thus, fourth graders in Iowa
"learn" ecology, economy, and science by "real-life"
immersion into Native American cultures. They role-play tribal life and idealize the religion modeled by imaginary
shamans. Seeking common ground with the guidance of a trained
facilitator-teacher, they share their beliefs, feelings, and
"experiences" with each other.
They might agree
that "there are many gods" or "many names for the same god"
and compare the exaggerated spiritual thrills of shamanism with their own
church experiences. Which religion would sound most exciting to the group?
[even if that religion states we must kill one person a day.]
This was never the case, there was only one
religion and in it America thrived/prospered to its present position. When the
constitution spoke of religion, it unequivocally meant the Judeo-Christian
faith; see Part 2, section 3, clause 5. This was so evident that Jefferson
instituted that “pagans” be taught the word, not “role-play tribal life and
idealize the religion modeled by imaginary shamans.” This is direct devilry
introduced in schools, purposely, to bring destruction upon America by
violating biblical foundations. Not to mention the adverse effect it has on a
great society. The humanist manifesto clearly stated that they want replace
“God in America’s public school.” Now, if under their tenure they encourage and
“allow” kids to experiment with other faiths and deities, then it should be
clear to you that such faiths and deities are no God. They know it; and in
wanting to replace God, what better way than to set-up “dummies” or pseudo-gods
and their faith – which are really devils
When will countries like America realize
that they are not great by what they posses, their achievements, capabilities
or anything tangible. The only reason America is great is because the
foundation was sure and flourished. That is, the only reason America is great
is because of God. Nothing else, nothing more. Different countries of the world
are larger, more capable, have more geniuses and far better than America in
numerous way imaginable. China alone is a good example, by virtue of their
skill and technology; they should be the leading super-power. Not to mention
the middle Easterns and their oil. But they all follow not the Judeo-Christian
faith. And no other country of the world has given so much liberty to adherents
of the Judeo-Christian faith than America. So much so that it was mandated in
the constitution that they have freedom to do anything – see Part 2, section 3,
clause 5. Plus, its principles reigned in the public, schools, governments,
municipals and all areas of daily life: Making it an oasis for the spirit of
God. It is such a good principle that a leader can be “satanic” and thrive a
democratic nation bountifully. Why? Because God doesn’t look to “persons,” he
looks to his word and honors it. It simply states, “righteousness exalts a
nation…” When this is taken away by the humanists, replaced with their introduction
of New values in schools, then God’s blessings will go and his wrath return.
Not to mention the deplorable condition the society will be in. That’s the
reason we need mandatory biblical studies in school as quickly as possible.
This is not hard to do, though given the
humanist embedding thus far, it might bring a great stir, until it is settled
in. Jamaica is a good example. This little island has flourished bountifully
beyond its borders, because it is a strong Christian nation. In fact, the
national anthem is a prayer, song every morning in every school – “Eternal
father bless our land…” As a result, this little island has produced some of
the greats in America and the world. A good example is that Colin Powell is
said to be of Jamaican Parentage. The black civil rights movement was actually
spawned in America by a Jamaican name Marcus Garvey. Patrick Ewing is a
Jamaican and one of the top 50 NBA players of all times. Their athletes are
also a force to reckon with at the Olympics. Noel Jones, one of the top
preachers in America second to T.D Jakes, is a Jamaican. Busta Rhymes, rapper,
is also a descendant to the Island. The little Island has won the Miss world
Pageant and even the American Spelling Bee competition. Being tropically
oriented, they have even sent a team to the Winter Olympics. The food is
renowned as well, with local Jamaican beef patties being on the main menu of
the school lunch program. The music speaks for itself and epitomize by Ziggy
Marley having a theme song for the popular “Arthur” Children program sung on
Sesame Street. If I continue, the examples would fail ink and paper. They are
far disadvantaged compare to other nations, but like America, prospered because
of Godly principles; holding all other things constant.
What they have done is to implement a
mandatory class from the early childhood to mid secondary school (high school),
called “Religious Education” or “Bible Knowledge.” By it they would learn the
bible, its stories and principles. You couldn’t avoid religious studies. You
had to buy the textbooks, attend the classes, do exams and pass the class to go
on. This happened year after year until mid high school; where the curriculum
was replaced by the CXC and students could choose what subjects they want to
take. It was also welcomed by God-fearing students. Many others loved it
because it was easy to pass and this builds the average grade. Also, it was not
an affront to those who weren’t inherently Christian; for it was taught
properly, as a subject. And Jamaica is a very diverse country – Indians,
Chinese, Arabs, Americans, etc. – hence the national motto reads, “Out of many,
one people.” Nevertheless, another characteristic it possesses, as did the same
classes taught around the time of the founding fathers, is that it showed the
faith of others and why Christianity is chosen. At present, it seems that this
is slightly fading and so the humanists are creeping in Jamaica. Many projects
were also given on the bible as well – for us to know and memorize the Ten
Commandments, the story of Moses, Jesus and other essentials. Even further,
some elite post-secondary schools wanted their students to become model
citizens, so their enrollment required a mandatory religious class (Christian).
With this outline, there should be enough grounds that America can easily draft
a curriculum to foster needed biblical studies in our schools. Here is an
example transcript of a High School, yes, High School:

Notice that it isn’t even called “Religious
Education” on the transcript, but “Bible Knowledge,” clearly identifying
Judeo-Christianity as the beacon of model citizenship and true religion.
This was similar to what the founding
fathers did and was blessed in like manner. That’s why it’s ridiculous how
today our courts are making our schools secular and the educators intolerant to
Judeo-Christianity. Just to show you how ludicrous these humanist are and are
getting away with murder, look at the example schools of today, historically:
“Harvard, the first American college, was established in 1636 by Puritan
theologians who wanted to create a training center for ministers. The college
was named for a Charlestown minister, John Harvard…In 1693 William and Mary
College (named for the English King and Queen) was established in Williamsburg,
Virginia; by Anglicans. And in 1701, conservative Congregationalists…founded
Yale (named for one of its first benefactors, Elihu Yale) in New Haven,
Connecticut. Out of the ‘Great Awakening’ [Christian Revival] emerged the
college of New Jersey, founded in 1746 and known later as Princeton. Despite
the religious basis of these colleges, most of them offered curricula that
included not only theology but logic, ethics, physics, geometry, astronomy;
rhetoric, Latin, Hebrew, and Greek” (Unfinished Nation, Alan Brinkley). Can you
believe that, schools in America were started by Judeo-Christianity and today
we ungrateful people are intolerant to it, what ridiculous absurdity? Not only
that, they were started as Christian colleges for Christian men, but included
“secular” studies to further enrich the lives of the students. Then today we
turn it around and throw away the root and mandate only a secular curriculum
(general Ed); yet Judeo-Christian studies was not only a general Ed but the
main course. Why, Why, Why, Why, Why! Why are we blind to this injustice to
education and evil agenda of the humanists? America, please wake up!
Notice even the name of the person Yale was
named after, Elihu Yale, Elihu being a prominent Judeo-Christian name meaning,
“God of him,” with the Godly appellation in it, EL; written also as Eliel. Even
further, "A more staid revival occurred in New England, led by various
preachers including Timothy Dwight [1752-1817], who was PRESIDENT OF YALE"
(Ninan Smart, The Religious Experience, page 388. On early American great
awakenings and this more than likely refers to Yale University).
Therefore, with a simply example of Kingston
College of current times and America’s history, I must press on all educators
to overthrow the agenda of the humanists and implement mandatory biblical
studies in our schools again; plus Christian services to demonstrate what is
being taught. It is not only needed and feasible, but with the great minds of
our American school system and true Christians - ApostolicCongress.com
- a workable curriculum can be achieved effortlessly. The only caution I would
give is that it should truly reflect the bible, and not just sport a label with
a “form of godliness.” For instance, I’ve slightly seen groups that place bible
teaching in schools again, under a different term: To say we fought and brought
it back. This might not be true, if what will be instilled is “regularized”
bible teaching. That is, a pseudo-bible teaching; or what is not necessarily
taught in the bible, but a set of moral beliefs they conjure and use the bible
to justify. For instance, some homosexuals use the bible to justify
homosexuality, though the bible does no such thing; directly or indirectly. To
the true bible adherents, beware of being joyous because bible is allowed in schools
again, for what is allowed might not be bible. To the educators, doing this
would have defeated the purpose mentioned earlier for implementing it. It’s
either all the bible and its truth or nothing; the sentiment intended is
mirrored in the great American historic herald, “5440 or fight!” – as learnt in
my American history class at Kingston College. Don’t allow this great heritage,
prosperity and the lives of the people go wasted, because we choose not to
teach the bible in our schools, as taught when this nation began. Don’t let the
*underline founding alternate
age-old agendas come to pass in America. You have the power to stop it! You
have the power to make a change for the better! Use it for me! Use it for our
children! Use it for you! Bring God back in America again!
*There was
another evil agenda intended from the foundation of the thirteen states. This
is another whole topic and book, seek the “Truth Series.” But you can make it
not come to past, by stamping out humanism in our schools.
** I check out Yale in the
Hebrew from Strong’s and it sounds like three Hebrew words, which means, in no
particular order, “Howling” (3214) “God has Carried Away” (3273) and “Climbing
Goat” (3277). Which if it were to be put in a sentence would read, that is Elihu
Yale, “God of him, the howling Goats he has Carried Away” – The God of “Him,”
of why the Eagle created the place (Isa 30:33, “tophet” from Strong’s 8612 and
8608), has carried away the set of Goats (Reds) that are weeping and rueful
from the other Goats (Yellow) to this land: Which would correspond with the
prophecy in the last section of the manifesto and Rev 18 that shows the woman
(reds) moving from off the beast (yellows) to her own land, that is, Babylon
the Great Whore, America. Not wanting to go into this in this book, but if
Demonology Appealed is written, if God be willing, I might show the case of the
Two Mary's, one with inherent sins (Mary mother of Jesus) and the other
blatantly a sinner (Mary the whore); both got saved after repenting. Remember,
where sin increase grace much more increase (Rom 5:20).
SECTION 7: LAST WORD AND PROPHECY
After first
writing this manifesto and giving it to several individuals, this section came to
me as I curled up with the bible; from the book of revelation. It's funny that
before writing this section I didn't realize that it was my first publication
that was numerically off. Or, so I thought.
They are three
parts to the manifesto, which represents God's manifestation as Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. Part 1 has 14 sections, which is double sevens or double
perfection, for seven is the number of perfection. It also coincidentally has
14 clauses. Today I realize that Part 2, with all the sections, phrases and
clauses adds up to 12. Twelve is the number of government or foundation,
fitting for that section. However, Part 3 only had 6 sections. But with this
section it now has seven, which is the number for perfection. Making every
aspect of this publication thoroughly inspired. Also, all the Parts, sections,
clauses and phases add up to fifty. Fifty might not be an overt biblical
number, however, there is always a reference to the fifty states in the
America: Which not only shows that this publication is inspired by its
numerology, but also inspired specifically for America.
This section
is even more inspired and thoroughly startling. It relates to prophecy and a
fervent call to heed to that prophecy. As I said, I was reading from the book
of Revelation and this verse spoke of what is to come, when, might depend on
you:
"Babylon
the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the
hold of every fowl spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird"
(Rev 18:2).
Chapter 17 and
18 of the book of Revelation has to be revealed for you to realize that this
spoke of America. In other words, Babylon the great is not the Catholic Church
or some missing fragment of prophecy - it speaks of America. No other nation on
earth has the sumptuousness described, so much so that when John saw the
metaphorical representation, he "wondered with great admiration."
Verses 11, 12, 13, 15 and 23 of chapter 18 and verse 18 or chapter 17 clarified
that this spoke of America.
Now notice
verse 2 of chapter 18 again, it wasn't fallen because it was burnt with fire or
some other disaster. No. It was fallen because it will "become the
habitation of devils, and hold of every foul spirit" (Rev 18:2). It has
fallen because the foundation of godliness that buttressed it was destroyed and
everything now mobilized for extensive "devilry" and all imaginable
evil - you might even hear of homosexual Presidents. It would have become so
stink with sin that God now warns the saints to get out of her, "Come out
of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive
not of her plagues" (Rev 18:4). Then after this moral collapse, the
physical destruction will come in one hour (Rev 18:17). The one hour is also
very Key. For it seems this will happen at the same time the ten Kings or world
leaders of the east gave their power to the beast for one hour (Rev 17:12-13).
So then, the ten kings, through the beast, will be responsible for America's
destruction. In the one hour they gave power to beast, is the same one hour
America will be destroyed.
They had always hated America and wanted to destroy her, because she "reigneth over the Kings of earth" (Rev 17:18). In other words, they hate her because America reigns supre