|Click for small screen version|
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Many of these letters about moral issues were published in the Southwest Times Record of Fort Smith, Arkansas over a period of several years.
In any confrontation, be it a political campaign, a debate or just an argument, you will find the following to be true:
Newspaper and magazine articles have told of an unborn baby whose cries could be heard through its mother's ear. Mrs. A. J. Fritchey of Van Buren tells of hearing an unborn baby cry. Its cries were audible to those standing in the room. Can anyone argue that those babies were not people?
Many expectant mothers have been led to believe that the little life within them was simply a chunk of meat, a random growth, like a tumor. But a tumor does not have a heart that begins to beat during the first month of its existence. It doesn't have fingers and toes in a few weeks. It doesn't suck its thumb. It doesn't cry!
Pro-abortionists tell us that a woman has a right to do what she pleases with her own body. That has nothing to do with the issue of abortion. That unborn baby is not a part of the mother in any sense of the word. It is a separate person, and has been since the moment of conception. A woman who does not want a baby should not allow it to be conceived.
Occasionally a criminal is executed for such a crime as murder. Would the law allow him to be cut in little pieces, or placed in a container of saline solution so he would have to breathe and swallow it and die in convulsive agony? Would the law permit him to be dismembered by something like a giant vacuum cleaner or thrown naked and helpless into a trash barrel to die of starvation and exposure? Of course not! We have to use humane methods to deal with our criminals. The agonizing deaths are reserved for helpless, innocent unborn babies.
I have a message for Name Withheld, who was raped as a child and is still suffering from it. You don't have to continue carrying around that bitterness that is destroying your life. God will take it away, if you will let Him. But you'll have to be willing to give it up and forgive the one who wronged you. Then and only then will you find peace.
You said that the poor girl who gets pregnant from rape will be tortured all her life if she has to give birth to the fruit of violence. But you didn't have to, and you are still tortured. Do you think it would be easier to also be tortured by the knowledge that you had destroyed an innocent life?
What of the guilt that many women feel after having an abortion? Is there anything they can do to atone for destroying a little life? God is a forgiving God. They can ask His forgiveness. And they can seek out others who are considering abortion and tell them of the after effects. That would drastically reduce the number of abortions. And they, and all of us, can work toward the time when this wholesale murder will not be legal in our land.
Because I'm a woman, I speak out against abortion. It not only destroys the child but harms the mother as well. Some abortions cause physical problems, including sterility. Some cause emotional problems. The girl who is led to believe that she is just getting rid of a glob of tissue is often devastated when she realizes that she has caused the death of a darling baby. Those who feel no regret probably didn't realize when fatty degeneration of the conscience set in.
Because I'm a woman, I speak out against the feminist movement. The feminists do not speak for the majority of American women. Their stated aims are to abolish marriage and motherhood. They regard these as degrading to women. What really degrades women is the selfishness which wants to claim all rights and privileges and deny them to others. The woman who is all wrapped up in herself makes a very small package. Those who serve others and strive to make them happy are the ones who find happiness and fulfillment for themselves.
Because I'm a woman, I speak out against sex education in schools. Boys and girls should be taught the facts of life. But public school sex education is a how-to-do-it course with no moral guidelines. Waiting for marriage is considered old-fashioned. No wonder teen-age pregnancy has reached epidemic proportions!
Because I'm a woman and a mother it would mean a great deal to me if I knew that something I have written had caused some girl who contemplated abortion to let her baby live and fill the longing arms of some childless couple.
I'm pro-choice. I believe parents should have a choice as to how their children should be educated--in public school, private school, or at home.
I believe a mother should be allowed a choice as to where she will have her baby. If she wants to have it at home there should be a trained, licensed midwife to help her.
I believe students in public schools should have a choice as to whether they want to believe in creation or evolution. They should learn both sides of the question, instead of being brainwashed into believing that evolution is a scientifically proven fact. (Someone name one real proof, please!)
Abortion? I'm pro-choice on that too I believe the choice should be made by the person who has the most at stake -- the baby! If it chooses not to live, the matter will be taken care of without any outside interference.
According to a letter in the Southwest Times Record, some learned doctor has stated that a fetus should not be considered human until after the 28th week of pregnancy. How ridiculous can one get?
Many women have given birth to babies that were more then two months premature. Could the writer of the letter or the learned doctor convince those mothers that they had not given birth to human beings?
Why is abortion such a terrible thing? Shouldn't a woman have the right to do as she pleases with her own body?
That assumption by-passes a very important fact. Abortion is the destruction of someone else's body!
The unborn baby is not just a part of the mother, but a unique individual. How could one person be male and female at the same time? Yet approximately half of babies conceived are male. No person can have two types of blood. Yet many babies have a different blood type than their mothers. This proves that the baby is not be part of the mother's body.
Many pregnant teen-age girls are told that the life growing within them is just a blob of tissue. They are not told that it is a unique human being from the moment of conception. They are not told that there is a discernable heart beat before the first month has passed and that brain waves have been recorded at forty days.
They are not told that at twelve weeks the baby has fingerprints and can kick, swallow and make a fist. He/she is sensitive to heat, touch, light and noise. And by this age a little thumb is very likely to find its way into the tiny mouth!
Abortion not only destroys the baby, but it hurts the mother as well. Sooner or later she will feel remorse over ending a life. Suicide is much more common among women who have had abortions. Many suffer physical damage. Some can never have another child. Abortion is a disaster!
Exodus 20:13 (KJV) Thou shalt not kill. (murder)
Exodus 21:22 (NIV) If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is any serious injury, you are to take life for life.
Psalm 139:13 (NIV) For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb.
Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV) Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee to be a prophet to the nations.
II Kings 24:1, 2 is an account of enemies coming against Judah. Verses 3 and 4 tell the reason.
Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sin of Manasseh, according to all that he did.
And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord WOULD NOT PARDON.
| What Was I Supposed To Be?
|AIDS AND HOMOSEXUALITY|
An article by a "gay revolutionary," which appeared first in "Gay Community News," was then printed in the "Congressional Record" and copied in the "NFD Journal." It's admittedly a fantasy, picturing a world for which many homosexuals wish desperately.
Homosexuals would rule the nation -- perhaps the world. Those opposing them would be killed. Criminal charges would be brought against heterosexual men.
As I read, I wondered if they planned to abolish the human race. But reading farther, I found that it is the family unit they would like to abolish. They would plan for "perfect boys" to be produced in genetic laboratories and raised in a homosexual setting.
If they think they are smart enough to create people, why aren't they smart enough to find a cure for AIDS? It's their baby. Why should it be dumped in the lap of the U. S. Government?
Actions have consequences. Wrong actions have bad, sometimes disastrous, consequences. And seldom, if ever, do those consequences affect only the one responsible for the actions.
About every 90 seconds someone in the U S dies from lung cancer due to cigarette smoking. In some cases that's because of breathing someone else's smoke. Lungs are not designed to process tobacco smoke.
Fortunately, lung cancer is not a communicable disease. But AIDS is. AIDS started out as a consequence of men abusing their bodies, but now it has spread through the general population, by various means. Thousands of innocent people, including many children, are suffering as a result.
The adult human body is designed for normal natural sexual relations. But homosexual practices damage the body and make it vulnerable to a host of loathsome diseases. Some can be cured, some can not. Some have reached epidemic proportions, but most give telltale signs of their presence and can be treated right away. AIDS is different. It has a long incubation period. It is not only transmitted sexually, but by any body fluids. The number of cases has been doubling every year, and when the disease develops, it has always proved fatal. Yet adequate precautions have not been taken to halt its spread.
In many public school sex education classes, homosexuality is described as a healthy alternate life style. When will America's children be told that it is actually a death style?
Anyone desiring more information on this vital subject should read "The AIDS Cover-Up," by Gene Antonio (Ignatius Press, Sari Francisco)
The warning about AIDS in the March issue of the "Reader's Digest" left much to be desired. But since it was a paid ad perhaps those in charge of the advertising department of the magazine didn't know how misleading it was.
The use of condoms is recommended. Yet the Food and Drug Administration states that there is no proof that condoms stop the spread of AIDS.
The ad states, "Victims are almost always intravenous drug addicts." Yet, according to the Center for Disease Control, 73% of persons who have AIDS are male homosexuals, 17% are intravenous drug users, 3% get the disease from transfusions of infected blood, and 4% from heterosexual contacts. From January, 1976, to July 1982, 94% of the men with AIDS whose sexual preference was known were homosexual or bisexual.
Men continue to gather in places where they engage in unsanitary practices which are destructive to the human body. Those are the prime hatching grounds for AIDS. What would we think of a mosquito eradication program that concentrated on spraying the air and ignored the breeding places? Homosexual gathering places are to the AIDS epidemic what stagnant pools are to mosquitoes.
If we win the war against AIDS, it will be with padlocks, not condoms.
"Once gay, always gay" has been drilled into the minds of the American people until it has been accepted as truth. A popular columnist once stated that God made gays as well as straight people. That is not only and insult to God (as if He would make people who were compelled to commit sins that He condemns,) but it simply is not so.
One of the best-kept secrets in the body of literature about homosexuality is the fact that many do leave the homosexual lifestyle.
Andy Comiskey is director of a Southern-California-based support group for such people. He is also president of a coalition of ex-gay groups from all over the world. He knows of hundreds of people who have changed to a heterosexual lifestyle.
According to the Apostle Paul, some of the members of the Corinthian church were former homosexuals. Read First Corinthians, Chapter 6, verses 9 to 11.
Anyone who really wants to change to a heterosexual lifestyle could find help in Tim LaHaye's book, "The Unhappy Gays." (Tyndale House publishers.)
You can find more information on Focus On The Family's web page.
Regarding the statement by an advice columnist that alcoholism is a disease: if it is, it is the only "disease" that kills and maims multitudes who do not themselves have the "disease" right along with those that do. According to an article in "Newsweek" alcohol is responsible for 30% of all suicides, 50% of all automobile fatalities, 60% of all child abuse, and 80% of all home violence.
It is the only "disease" that is bottled and canned, licensed by the state, and supposedly restricted to those of mature age. It is the only "disease" that is habit-forming and that is promoted on TV and radio. Why don't we call it by its proper name, SIN?
"Social drinking" seems to be generally accepted, but drunkenness is not. But where do the drunkards come from? From the ranks of the social drinkers, of course! No one ever expects to become an alcoholic. The person who drinks is surrendering the control of his life to a power that can destroy him, and in many cases it will.
The only sure way to keep from filling a drunkard's grave is not to drink at all. Think of the tragedy and heartache this world would have been spared if no one had ever taken the first drink!
I've read a lot lately about people's "rights" to possess and consume alcoholic beverages. Is that the only "right" that's important?
What about the person who is killed or maimed by a drunken driver? Didn't he have a right to life and happiness?
What about the victim of a crime committed by someone who was under the influence? Didn't he have rights?
What about the families of the policemen who go to settle drunken brawls and don't come back? Don't they have a right to husbands and fathers?
What about the little children who have to hide when Daddy comes home on Saturday night, and the wives with bruises and broken teeth and bones because Daddy gets mean when he drinks? What about the wives and children who lack the necessities of life because the husband and father drinks up his pay check? Don't they have rights? What about the little children who are locked in the house alone while Mama spends her time at the corner bar? Don't they have rights?
What about the parents of the girl who is kidnapped and assulted and maybe left in little pieces by a drink-crazed sex maniac? What about their rights?
What about the high liability and collision insurance rates that sober drivers have to pay because others drink and drive? What about the property owners who have to pay higher taxes because of crimes caused by alcohol? Don't we have rights?
Or are the people who want to drink the stuff the only ones who have any rights. And when they drink it, what good does it do them?
When the subject of balanced treatment for evolution and creation in public schools is brought up, newspaper columnists repeatedly inform us that evolution is science and creationism is religion.
Robert Jastrow is a well-known science writer and professor of astronomy and geology at Columbia University in New York. He is an evolutionist and an atheist, but an honest man. He says in his book, "Until the Sun Dies:"
"Perhaps the appearance of life on earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choice is limited: either life was created on earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it arrived on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in non-living matter lying on the surface of the planet.At the Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, defense attorney Clarence Darrow stated that teaching only one theory of origins is sheer bigotry. Today's opponents of balanced treatment would have agreed with him then, but now the shoe is on the other foot.
The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientitic inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science.
The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support the belief."
An Arkansas Educational Network television program showed a fish changing forms and then turning into an amphibian and crawling up on the land. What a shame that such flights of fancy are taught to impressionable young people as scientific fact!
There are no fossils showing a change from fins to legs. Coelacanth, a fish formerly thought to have been extinct for 300 million years, had bulges from which its fins grew. It was supposed that these bulges were turning into legs and the fins would disappear. But live coelacanths caught off the coast of Africa since 1938 still have bulges and fins. There are no transitional forms anywhere in the fossil record. Even Charles Darwin stated: "We cannot prove that a single species has been changed into another."
Why then do we see transitional forms in books and museums? Ernest Haekel, father of the recapitulation theory, confessed that a small number of his embryo diagrams were really forgeries, and hundreds of other scientists were also guilty. He said, "The observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to compel us to fill in and reconstruct the missing links. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed."
These days many reputable and honest scientists are turning from the evolution theory. In West Germany Professor Fleischmann of Erlangen, a zoologist, said, "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of imagination."
When the covering of fraud is stripped away, the theory of evolution will be recognized as the biggest hoax in history.
Recently the school board of Dallas, Texas, adopted the book, "Biology, A Search for Order in Complexity," as a supplementary textbook for use in the Dallas schools, one copy to be placed in each biology classroom. This book presents both evolution and creation as alternate models for origins. Some evolutionists were outraged. The idea of hinting that life could have come about by any other means than evolution!
In order to present both sides to the public, a television debate was arranged, with five people speaking briefly on each side. The creationists presented scientific arguments for the belief in special creation, explained that the creation model was no more "religious" than evolution, and brought out the advantages of giving students information about both beliefs.
The evolutionists charged that the creationists were a political movement, that the textbook was propaganda, and threatened court action to remove the book from the schools.
Evidently, these people were not representative of the main body of evolutionists. Most people who believe in evolution believe in fairness as well. What is more fair than to teach both creation and evolution and let students make up their own minds from the evidence presented, instead of giving the evolution theory a monopoly?
It seems that in every other area of education the trend is to present all possible viewpoints (including the worst) for student discussion and personal decisions. Students are forced to read material that is immoral, traitorous and blasphemous, so that they can make up their own minds as to whether they will be moral, law abiding citizens, or rabble rousers seeking to overthrow the government. But let someone suggest exposing them to a concept related to God and there is violent opposition. However, transcendental meditation, part and parcel of idolatrous Eastern religions, is taught in some schools.
Creationists are not asking that only their viewpoint be used, as the evolutionists are. Nor do we ask that the Bible be taught, but only the scientific aspects of creationism. Many people are not aware that there are any.
There's been a widespread propaganda campaign to the effect that only a tiny group of fundamentalists, with little education and even less sense, believes in special creation. Actually, there are thousands of qualified scientists as well as thousands of other well educated professional people who realize that claims of evolution to be scientific just aren't so. And in every case where an unbiased poll has been taken concerning the teaching of creation as well as evolution in the public schools, at least 80%, often over 90%, have been in favor. In contrast, less than 10% feel that the present practice of teaching only evolution is right.
Evolutionists class creationism as "religion," claiming that it is a matter of faith. Of course it takes faith to believe that there is an all-wise, all-powerful Designer Who made this universe and all that is in it. But doesn't it take much more faith to believe that what we see about us came into being by chance? What set in motion the forces that produced man and his environment? Where did the materials come from?
Over most of the United States, Christian people find some of their tax dollars spent to teach their children that there is no God. It's past time that people who object to this evolutionary monopoly stand up and be counted.
Some people seem terribly confused these days about the teaching of religion.
Is it teaching religion to point out that the geologic column -- supporting pillar of evolution -- can be found nowhere on earth? That in hundreds of places the layers are out of order, that in some large areas they are almost all missing, and that in most areas only a few are found?
Is it teaching religion to explain that ancient writings and drawings and oral traditions from many countries tell of a world-wide flood, and that this would better explain the mixed-up strata which make up the crust of the earth?
Is it teaching religion to quote from modern writers who say that the present land mass of the earth, at the present rate of erosion, would be washed into the ocean in 14 million years, and to point out that even if some unknown mechanism kept pushing the land up above the waters the layers containing the fossils would have been washed off and we would have no fossil record? We still have the fossils, so how could the earth be billions of years old?
Is it teaching religion to state that no intermediate kinds of creatures have been found, and that the so-called "simple" forms that should have evolved into something else long ago are still with us?
Is it teaching religion to say that Karl Popper, called "the greatest philosopher of science that has ever been," said, "...it is important to show that Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical." Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
There's a lot of talk about "rights," the so-called "right" of women to destroy their unborn children, the "right" of students to receive a passing grade they did not earn, the "right" of minority workers to hold jobs for which they are not qualified. But what about the true rights that are being denied?
In many schools the students are denied the right to think, except along prescribed lines. (Does that sound like communist Russia?) A federal court struck down a New Jersey law mandating a moment of silence in schools, because the students might use that moment for prayer. They didn't worry that the time might be used to formulate plans to blow up the school or rape the teacher. But they seem to be paranoid about God, deathly afraid that He will sneak in somehow and influence someone.
Students are drilled in all the reasons why they should believe the evolution theory, but they are carefully shielded from all facts that cast a doubt on it. They are not told that breeders of animals and plants can breed for changes up to a certain point, but there are limits beyond which they cannot go. How could evolution occur if one kind of living thing could not change into another? They are told that coal was formed millions of years ago before man existed, but they are not told about the gold chain, definitely man made, which was found in a lump of coal in Illinois, or the iron pot found in a lump of coal in Oklahoma.
We need more people running for office who are concerned about true rights and who won't be scared off by the clamor of the extremists. We need more voters -- people concerned about the welfare of the country -- to vote such people into office. Otherwise we may wake up some morning to find that all our rights have been taken from us.
I read with interest the article "Instructor Wins Right to Monkey Around With Darwinism," (Jan. 8, 1994)
If evolution is such a sure thing, why are its proponents so afraid of having a competing theory taught? Do they harbor doubts, as Darwin did, that blind chance could produce a functioning eye? But of course that isn't politically correct! Their terror, at the Idea of intelligent design being presented as a possibility, must be rooted in the conviction that the evolution theory is vulnerable!
Some people say they don't believe in miracles, usually meaning the miracles recorded in the Bible. They seem to think God isn't powerful enough to do anything out of the ordinary, but they don't bat an eye at the manmade miracles of technology that have become part of our everyday lives. Did our technological marvels just happen by chance, or was intelligent design involved?
Everyone knows the answer to that question. But the human body is much more complicated than the most advanced computer, airplane, or space ship. Each tiny cell contains a multitude of working parts that must be arranged in exactly the proper order. Yet our children are taught in school that this just happened, and no intelligence was involved.
Law enforcement officers and concerned citizens all over the United States are looking for ways to cut down crime. The key is in an article on page 8-A of the Jan 15 Times Record.
A 17-year-old boy had been guilty of theft on numerous occasions. But on Jan 12 he walked more than 24 blocks to the police station to confess that he had stolen two bike frames and a lamp from the back yard of a Fort Smith home. He wanted the police to help him return them.
Why the confession and restitution? The young man had attended a church service where he had turned his life over to God. The only way a criminal will become a law abiding citizen is by having a change of heart. No program, educational or otherwise, can accomplish this. It takes the power of the Almighty God.
All efforts at rehabilitation, apart from God, are like putting a Band-Aid on a cancer. Yet some years ago the Supreme Court, in effect, kicked God out of the public schools. In some classrooms students are ridiculed if they even believe there is a God, especially one Who is capable of doing anything. So lawlessness becomes worse and worse. The only way to turn the situation around is for Christians to pray more and work harder to let the world know that there is a God who can change lives for the better.
Government experts are baffled by the wave of crime that is sweeping over our land, but it's not really that hard to understand. The explanation was given in the 1854 edition of one of McGuffey's Eclectic Readers. The quotation follows:
"If you cause a community to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures, to question the reality and obligations of religion; to hesitate, undeciding, whether there be any such thing as virtue or vice; whether there be an eternal state of retribution beyond the grave; or whether there be any such being as God; you have broken down the barriers of moral virtue, and hoisted the floodgates of immorality and crime. I need not say that when a people have once done this, they can no longer exist as a tranquil and happy people. Every band that holds society together would be ruptured; fraud and treachery would take the place of confidence between man and man; the tribunals would be scenes of bribery and injustice; avarice, perjury, ambition and revenge would walk through the land, and render it more like the dwelling place of savage beasts than the tranquil abode of civilized and christianized men."
What part has modern television programming played in reducing our country to the state described above? You be the judge!
Some people are confused about God's command, "Thou shalt not kill." They feel that because of this, capital punishment is wrong But the actual meaning of the verse is, "Thou shalt do no murder." The Hebrew word translated "kill" refers to the willful destruction of life It is never used referring to taking the life of a murderer or of killing in battle.
God decreed in the Old Testament, "He who sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and this was not changed in the New Testament dispensation.
Much wanton murder could be prevented if the following measures were adopted:
Solomon said, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the hearts of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
The headline reads: "Education Plan Said $100 Million Shy." Some people seem to think that any problem will go away if you throw enough money at it.
When a solution is being sought for a problem, it's quite common to ignore the obvious. Although the efficiency of public education has declined sharply, there are schools all around us that are turning out students who function academically at a very high level. Why could not our experts in public education study these schools and adopt their methods where applicable?
It would probably not be possible for the public schools to match the teacher-pupil ratio or the percentage of truly dedicated teachers. But the public school system would do well to copy the system used for teaching reading, the conduct code and the concentration on basics. And most of these schools operate on a shoestring.
Note: Studies of successful schools have shown that parent participation is important.
The National Association of Christian Educators and Citizens for Excellence in Education (NACE/CEE) is an organization committed to helping parents improve their local public schools. For information contact Bob Simonds, P 0 Box 3200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628.
It's a good thing that the failure of our educational system has finally been brought out into the open. It should be obvious what to do about it. When a house is falling down you don't start fixing the roof. You begin with the foundation. Reading is the foundation of education. Every other subject demands it. When there are 23 million Americans -- one in five adults -- who are functionally illiterate, there must be something wrong with our teaching of reading.
Some of us old-timers can remember when we were taught to read by learning what the letters say FIRST! And we learned to read. Now most children in the public schools are taught by the see-and-say method, which in many cases amounts to guess-and miss. Those with photographic minds can learn to read but the others can't, so they get frustrated and unruly. Some schools, mainly private schools, are teaching phonics first and turning out good readers. Why can't our public schools do likewise?
Our schools could be improved by the elimination of material that doesn't belong there anyway. Why should a teacher be required to waste time asking a pupil if he is more like a rose or a daisy (Values Clarification, page 95) when she should be teaching him to read and write and spell?
The Constitution does not give the oversight of education to the U S Government. When we regain local control of our schools, with a minimum of supervision by the State, and turn thumbs down on the educational junk food handed out by federal government educationists, schools will again be what they were originally intended to be, places of learning.
Some educators are upset because, they say, parents are trying to censor the educational materials used in the public school classrooms. Some parents are upset because the educators have already censored the materials. Censored out are God, prayer, the Bible, morality, patriotism, honesty, kindness, obedience to parents and respect for authority.
Educators also complain that the parents want to run the schools. Who else should? It is the parents who provide the children and a sizable chunk of the finances that keep the schools going. They are held responsible for the way the children turn out. Originally the parents did run the schools through their elected representatives, the school board. Now school boards have less and less authority and the U S Government pretty much tells the schools what they can do. This is unconstitutional.
If our founding fathers could have looked ahead to our time, perhaps the first amendment of the Constitution would have been worded a little differently: "Congress or the Supreme Court shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Of course, according to the Constitution, the power to make laws was given to Congress! The Supreme Court has usurped much of that power In the ruling on the Alabama law that allowed a moment of silence for meditation or prayer at the beginning of the school day, the Court overstepped on two counts Their ruling prohibits the free exercise of religion It also violated Title X, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to stick its collective noses into the business of how the States run their schools!
The Court ruling is the Alabama case was supposed to be neutral, as far as religion is concerned It's neutral like doctors are to smallpox!
If Christians don't stand up for their rights-and I mean legally and prayerfully, not hatefully and destructively-we will soon find that we don't have any Right now (summer of 1985, when this was written,) in Charlotte, NC there is a big debate about whether it is legal for school teachers to read their Bibles at school, silently, in their free time!
We read much today about the terrible illiteracy problem, but the few who are aware of the cause, and who advocate the only successful cure, are brushed aside by the educational elite.
When public educators dumped the phonetic method of teaching down the drain, our high national rate of literacy went with it The advent of "Dick and Jane" marked the beginning of the present problem Private schools, home schools, and the few public schools that use the "phonics first" method of teaching reading still produce good readers.
Advocates of the "see and say" method of teaching reading say that the non-phonetic words in our language make phonetic teaching impractical Actually they are a very small percentage of the words we use, almost all of them have some phonetic elements, and most of them can be taught by using one of two simple explanations that can be understood by a five-year-old.
I've been reading strange things in the newspaper. Some concerned parents succeeded temporarily in having certain books removed from the schools in Alabama, and some children in Tennessee were not forced to continue reading certain books. So People for the American Way spokesmen stated that the religious right was waging "a frightening and growing assault on the freedom to learn in America."
Would you believe it? Children can't learn in school unless they can use certain textbooks endorsed by People for the American Way!
I must have been terribly deprived! I grew up without books that told me how to cast a magic spell, or that lying was sometimes better than telling the truth, or that sex before marriage was OK But I must have learned something because I can read and write and spell, and I don't think my grammar is too bad.
I wasn't taught in school that it's degrading for a woman to be a wife and mother, so I've been happily married for almost 37 years and have 5 children and 8 lovely grandchildren I wasn't taught that socialism is better than free enterprise, or that Russia is a better country than the USA, or at least as good. So I love my country, and I'm happy living in it. Yet children today are kept so busy learning those nice little extras that many of them don't have time to learn to read and spell. That seems to be all right with People for the American Way. I noticed that there had been 53 complaints about educational materials in the 1986-87 school year. Only 53? A tot of parents must not know what is going on!
Are children the property of the State, or do parents have the right to direct their education? Consider the following Supreme Court rulings:
Our State leaders seem to be working toward making all of Arkansas one big school district, centrally controlled, supposedly to improve education.
But not all educators agree that "bigger is better." Chicagoans United to Reform Education (CURE) have drawn up a set of reform proposals which they hope will become law. These include the following:
Schools must be run by and be accountable to their neighborhoods. School governing councils at each school will be composed of parents, community representatives and teachers. They will have power over hiring and firing, money, curriculum and school improvement. One of their most important powers will be to select the school's principal, who will play the key role in running the school and will be held accountable. Principals will not be retained if they are inefficient.
Teachers will have increased flexibility to do their job well. They will not be bound by hundreds of requirements handed down by distant administrative officials, but will function as professionals and will be held accountable for their work, as professionals are.
School systems must drastically cut the bureaucracy. Money now wasted on hiring overseers to over-see the overseers will be used to improve the schools instead.
Parents must be able to choose the public schools they wish their children to attend. Children will learn more when they and their parents are satisfied with the school.
These suggestions for reform were put together after extensive investigation as to what makes some schools successful.
A letter published Feb 2 infers that private schools are coming into being to escape segregation. But I believe a comprehensive poll today would show that parents are sending their children to private schools because there is:
Some books advocate pre-marital sex. Others are so filthy they couldn't be read over the radio. Values Clarification courses, taught in many schools, are designed to do away with the idea of right and wrong. I'm not guessing about these things I have proof.
Just because it is a private school does not guarantee that the quality of education will be better, although tests have shown that it usually is. But if one school is not satisfactory, parents can remove their child and enroll him in a better school if one is available. With a public school monopoly, no such choice is possible. Competition always makes for a better product. If the public schools will shape up and get back to basics, they won't need to fear competition from the private schools.
There's a new sex ed course that is being used as a pilot program in some schools. It teaches teens the advantage of saving sex for marriage, and for those who are already "caught" it explains why adoption is better than abortion.
The program's overall objective is for students to realize that true sexual freedom includes the freedom to say "No" outside of marriage. It explains the physical, psychological and emotional risks associated with premarital sexual activity.
If this were adopted in Junior and Senior high schools across the nation, there would be a dramatic decrease in the number of teen pregnancies and abortions, and there should be less teen suicides as well.
Some parents may wish to get the parents' and students' books to help their teen-agers. Parents who can only say "Don't!" to teen--age sex will find answers to the question, "Why not?"
In addition to the books mentioned above, there is one for teachers. For information write to:
Project Sex Respect
1850 E Ridgewood Lane
Glenview IL 60025
A letter published on Tuesday, March 19, indicates that many parents are woefully ignorant about the sex education taught in most schools. They think that it deals only with the biological facts of reproduction.
Years ago, when the present type of sex education was just getting a foothold, Val Davajan, a distinguished professor of obstetrics and gynecology, stated: "To think that sex can be taught without some kind of moral code is absolutely absurd. Sex education is designed for promoting promiscuity and destroying the moral standards of this nation."
Dr Melvin Anchell is a human sexuality expert His report, "A Psychoanalytic Look at Today's Sex Education: A Guide for the Perplexed," links public school sex education programs to rises in teenage depression, suicide, pregnancy and drug use. He states: "Sex education programs from kindergarten through high school continuously downgrade the intimate, affectionate, monogamous nature of human sexuality." He added that exposing 6 to 12-year-old children to sex education programs can make the child less educable, block his development of compassion, weaken the mental barriers controlling base sexual instincts, thereby making the child more vulnerable to perversion later in life.
In a commonly used student health book, two young men are pictured embracing. The caption underneath reads: "Research shows that homosexuals can lead lives that are as full and healthy as those of heterosexuals."
Can sex education be at least partly to blame for the AIDS epidemic?
"What ever happened to sex education?" asks the May issue of Reader's Digest, noting that the course has been discontinued in some schools. I think I can tell why. Too many parents found out that it isn't just a course about the basic facts of reproduction, taught to boys and girls separately. It is a co-ed class studying the intimate details of sex activity, taught in such a way as to encourage experimentation.
The Reader's Digest article implies that sex education courses are designed to discourage sexual experimentation. At the end, under "Possible sources of advice," Planned parenthood and Seicus are listed. I can prove to anyone who cares to call me about it that these organizations promote teenage sex.
I watched a program advocating sex education on the Arkansas Education Network a little over a year ago (The same source that recently stated flatly that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth.) The statement was made that sexually active teenagers should be taught how to avoid pregnancy without abstaining. And since such teaching would be given to all, it will naturally increase the number of sexually active teenagers. Especially when they are taught that there is no moral wrongdoing involved.
Recently a teacher in a Catholic school gave an assignment to research other religions That seemed harmless enough, but some of the students decided to research Satanism. A 14-year-old boy, who had written his paper on Hinduism, decided that this subject was more interesting and began to study it. In a few weeks his whole personality changed. He told a friend of a vision in which Satan appeared to him and told him to kill his family. He stabbed his mother to death and tried to kill his father and brother by burning down the house. Then he killed himself with his boy scout knife.
Dabbling in the occult is dangerous Yet many public schools are steering children in that direction. A first-grade boy came home with this assignment:
Dress up like a witch, act out an "incantation," cast a spell on someone, feel the power of a real witch, create as many incantations and spells as you can.
Horrified, the mother went to the principal, who agreed that the material was inappropriate and discontinued its use. So one concerned mother kept thirty children from what could have been a very harmful experience.
Addicted to pornography?|
SMUT AND MURDER?
(written after someone advocated ignoring sex-and-violence movies)
So let them go ahead and show those filthy movies. Call them "art." Say in the ads that they aren't "dirty." But I wonder how many men who are defending that sort of thing would want their wives or sweethearts or daughters or mothers to have to walk alone down a dark street near the theater just after one of those shows lets out.
Note: Anyone who is inclined to think of pornography as "just an innocent diversion" should read THE CASE AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY by Donald WiIdmon, (Victor Books) and/or PORNOGRAPHY'S VICTIMS (Pere Marquette Press).
Suppose some huge monster were at large in America, preying on women and children. No doubt there would be some who would argue that it should be permitted to live, if it were their pet. But the majority of people know better.
Nearly 20 million pornographic magazines are sold each month, reaching at least 50 million readers. 70% of these magazines are read by minors. Add the X-rated movies. Is pornography not a monster?
I heard a lady doctor tell of a family she treated. The oldest boy was 14 and had begun reading pornography as a young child. Ever since the age of 9 he had been raping his two younger brothers and his younger sister every week. None of these children will ever be able to live a normal life, thanks to the smut peddlers. (Parents, what are your children reading?)
But you may say, "Oh, people have a right to read what they want to. This is a free country." Yes, it is a free country to a certain extent. But your freedom to swing your arms stops where the end of my nose begins. No one should have freedom to harm others. Total freedom would be impossible, for those who exercise their so-called freedom to do wrong would enslave the rest.
What about the women and children who have been raped, maimed or murdered because some man fed his mind on filth? Were they not entitled to the freedom to live and be happy? Those who fantasize over pictures and descriptions of unnatural sex acts will some day find their bodies following their minds. Who knows who will be the next victim?
Pornography is not just a religious issue. It is not just a moral issue. It is a public safety issue and concerns all of us.
Today is election day. So is tomorrow and the next day. No, we don't always vote with ballots. Sometimes we vote with our dollars.
If we buy from any place of business that sells pornography, magazines or otherwise, we are voting for its continued sale. If we refuse to buy from such a place of business and explain why, we are casting a vote that counts against the sale of pornography. Taking our business elsewhere may involve driving a few extra blocks, but it may save some child from being corrupted by one of those magazines and becoming a criminal.
Many stores and filling stations sell Hustler, Penthouse, etc., because they think it increases their business. If it actually decreases, they will stop.
Note to Parents: Besides pornography and the ordinary run of TV, children are desensitized in other ways, even by school books. This item was omitted from one of my "letters to the editor." (Perhaps the letter was too long.) But I'm including it here.
A New Jersey resident thought the nursery rhymes in a certain book were too violent. I assume that it is similar to "Beastly Boys and Ghastly Girls," which contains this little gem:
Willie, with a thirst for gore
Nailed his sister to the door
Mother said, with humor quaint,
"Now Willie dear, don't scratch the paint!"
Teen suicide is one of the big problems facing America today. The usual "suicide prevention" courses in the public schools are like an attempt to put out a fire by pouring on gasoline. "Suicide Prevention in the Classroom: A Teachers' Guide to Curriculum," prepared for the schools by the American Association of Suicidology, instructs: "Have students write their own death certificates, wills and obituaries." Included in the course materials are these statements: "Some day we may praise people who meet death on their own terms -- at the time, place and manner that they decide." "Suicide is the signature of freedom." Of course the idea of life after death is ridiculed.
Following the suicide of two of its students, a New Jersey high school, fearing a domino effect, brought in a prevention team to give special suicide counseling. Considering the information just north of here, is it any wonder that the school had seven more suicides that year?
The next year the school shifted its emphasis to staying alive. The question the students were to consider was not, "Should I die or not?" but "How can I handle the stress I am experiencing?" There were no suicides that year
Professor Joy Johnson urges that teen-agers be made to understand that they do not have the right to take their own lives. Suicide is an act of cowardice, and not an acceptable option. She recommends the following guidelines for suicide prevention:
Take a suicide threat seriously, and make sure there are no lethal weapons available. Don't debate with young people over whether they should live or die, but help them to find other non-dangerous options. Make sure all teens know that they should never keep a friend's threat of suicide a secret. Offer the loving support needed until the young person has the courage to stay alive.
Documentation: EDUCATION REPORTER, published by Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense fund with offices at Box 618, Alton, IL 62002, May and July issues, 1987.
Recently, I was reading in the Old Testament, II Kings, Chapter 23, about Josiah, the last good king of the Jews. He determined to rid the land of everything that was abominable in the sight of God. There's a pretty awesome list of what was eradicated.
If the people of the United States determined to eliminate all objects and discontinue all practices that are an abomination to God, what would be on the list? It's something to think about!
Can you remember a time when there were so many natural and unnatural disasters -- floods, drought, earthquakes, forest fires, plane crashes, horrible diseases, escalating crime and drug abuse, etc.? Why?
Read the 18th chapter of Leviticus and Romans 1:21-32. Our nation is moving ever closer to an acceptance of behavior which God has classified as abominable. Even some of our national leaders are promoting such behavior, and children in many schools are taught that it is normal and right.
God is saying, "Wake up, America!"
Life is getting scarier all the time. Natural disasters occur with increasing frequency. Man-made disasters, whether affecting individuals or nations, are increasing too. Truly, the earth is filled with violence.
That was the condition in the days of Noah. God sent judgment in the form of a world-wide flood. Only Noah and his family were serving God, so they were preserved, along with other forms of life.
The flood judgment will not be repeated. The next time it will be fire. This may be accomplished by man himself! God is restraining the forces of evil to some extent now. When He turns them loose, earth will be a terrible place.
Before the final judgment God will remove His people to a place of safety. If you are not among that number, there is still time to turn to God in repentance and submission. But do it now. Tomorrow may be too late!
We don't live in a free country any more. Government by, for and of the people has been replaced by government by, for and of the bureaucrats, aided and abetted by the don't-care-o-crats. We're just a step from total slavery.
How did this come about? Gradually, but the pace is accelerating. They took control of the farmland, and now tell the farmers what they can grow. They took control of our businesses and tell us how we can operate and who we can hire. They took control of our rental property, and tell us who we have to accept as renters. They take over the minds of our school children and teach them that there is no God; that their parents' values are outmoded and harmful and that free expression of all their physical urges is normal and right.
Now they want to reach into the home still farther and take control of our children from birth, with government snoopervisors confiscating them if the home does not conform to standards set up by humanistic committees. "A Child's Bill of Rights," as published in MS Magazine for March, 1974, lists some of their goals for children. These include freedom to refuse an education, the right to vote, the right to choose between their own homes and alternate living arrangements, and the right to all sexual freedoms that are legal among consenting adults.
On Tuesday morning while I was putting away the clothes that I had washed on Saturday I thought of a woman I met years ago on a cross country bus. She told me her husband couldn't understand why she had to clean house on the only days he had off from work, instead of going places with him. He would ask her, "Why do you have to week-end clean?" It seemed to be a sacred ritual with her, and she thought I would understand. But I didn't understand it either. She wasn't working, she had all week, so why couldn't she arrange her schedule so that she could spend time with her husband? I wish I had had enough nerve to tell her what I thought. I hope she didn't wait too long to find out that people are more important than things.
I was putting away Saturday's laundry on Tuesday because my husband had wanted to drive around the country taking pictures on Saturday afternoon and all day Monday, which was a holiday. So I took care of the laundry after he went to work on Tuesday. Work will always be there, but we never know just how long we will have our loved ones with us.
A certain period of history has been called "The Age of Reason." Perhaps we should call the present "The Age of the Unreasonable." When a law is passed, good or bad, there is a tendency to carry it to unreasonable lengths.
The law outlawing school segregation was stretched to mean there had to be a racial balance in the schools. Millions of dollars that should have been spent on education have been wasted hauling children from one neighborhood to another, with no evidence of any benefit from it. A ruling that children could not be forced to repeat a prescribed prayer was interpreted to mean that God had to be kicked out of the schools.
When the meaning of the Constitution was distorted to give a woman the "right" to destroy her unborn child, that was bad enough. But laws passed by some states, which mandated that the candidate for abortion be informed about alternatives and also about possible harmful effects to herself, have been struck down by federal judges as unconstitutional. In many states a girl can't legally be given an aspirin by a school nurse without parental consent. But she can be sent to an abortion clinic without even notifying her parents.
There are still those who hope for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Judging by the unreasonable ways these other laws have been interpreted, what could we expect from this one? Would someone advocate that all American citizens be surgically altered so that we would no longer be male and female?
There have been letters from those who resist any attempt at censoring TV programs. These people say that if you don't want to watch violence or pornography on TV you can simply turn it off or switch channels and what's shown won't hurt you.
It isn't as simple as that. Young people and children--and older people as well, watch such programs and want to copy the things they have seen done on the TV screen. America is paying for it. They pay in loss of life or loved ones. They pay in mental anguish and physical suffering. They pay in loss of property. All taxpayers pay through the pocketbook as crime mushrooms. All buyers pay through the pocketbook as prices go higher and higher because of shoplifting.
What has been shown on TV is bad enough. No, I haven't been watching that stuff, but occasionally I read a review of it to see what's going on. And now they want to dish up worse to cable viewers! I regret that I'm not on the cable so I could tell the cable company to disconnect me, and tell them why.
If enough families would make a stand for decency and have their cables disconnected, it would hurt the cable company in the pocketbook. And they might change their minds about channeling more filth into Fort Smith. Or do we just say we believe in decency, when we don't mean it enough to do anything about it?
Smoke harms children I wonder how many people realize that one of the main destroyers of little children's health is tobacco smoke.
It damages their lungs; it damages their hearts; it makes them more vulnerable to colds and other infections; it hurts them in every way that a lack of good pure air can hurt them.
There's a lot said about the harm that tobacco smoke does to adults But they are bigger and have built up immunities that small children do not have. I wish everyone who "lights up" in the presence of a child would get a mental picture of those little delicate pink lungs which will be invaded by that corrosive tobacco smoke. Smoke clings to clothing, too, and to furniture, draperies, car interiors, you name it!
Most parents claim to love their children. But do they really love them if that craving for a cigarette takes priority over the welfare of the child?
Regarding the tobacco smoke controversy, here are three points to ponder.
I read in the paper that another minister has bit the dust. He and two accomplices are in trouble for molesting young boys.
A minister used to be the one who was trusted by the most people. Not any more! Too many of them have betrayed that trust. Now some people are suspicious of all ministers. But you don't throw out a whole sack of potatoes because some of them are rotten. You just learn to recognize the good potatoes when you see them. And there are ways to recognize a true man of God.
When my boys were small, they watched with eagle eyes for any sign of favoritism shown their sister. When they imagined they saw such they shouted triumphantly, "Joyce is PC!" PC meant "privileged character."
The letters PC are in common use today, but now they stand for "politically correct." If your attitudes, words and actions harmonize with the current crop of thought police you are considered a worthwhile citizen. To be PC you have to believe in abortion, evolution and a host of other things that it would not be politically correct to enumerate in this letter.
PC still means "privileged character" too. You must be PC if you want to; teach in many universities, have your writing published in the "best" periodicals, or hold certain offices.
Whatever happened to the good old method of formulating our beliefs according to evidence and ethics?
The crop duster flies over, and poison falls like rain.
We're told that it's a blessing, but Doom flies in that plane.
The birds are dead or dying, the bees have ceased to hum;
On river banks the fishes lie rotting in the sun.
The plants store up the poison in leaf and root and stem;
Then fed to living creatures, the poison's passed to them.
Soon all food will be tainted with poison residue.
How long then till all humans are dead or dying too?
My dictionary defines a Christian as one who believes in Jesus Christ and follows His teachings.
Jesus taught about the necessary relationship with God He taught, "Ye must be born again."
Jesus taught about our relationship with other people. "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
Jesus taught about our attitude toward the suffering. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto Me."
Jesus taught about the infallibility of God's Word. "The Scriptures cannot be broken."
Jesus taught purity of life, which naturally has to begin with the thoughts. "Blessed are the pure in heart."
It is the business of true Christians to take a stand on moral issues. And when politics encroaches on morals, then Christians have to encroach on politics. Would Jesus want us to stand idly by and let the Government take over our families, so that we are unable to train our children for Him as the Bible has commanded us to do? Would Jesus want our children to be taught in school that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that the Bible cannot be taken as our final authority and that it is just as good to be a homosexual as to follow the pattern God laid down in the beginning?
We don't have to worry that our country will be doomed because we follow Christ's commands. The danger comes from those who are trying to eliminate God and substitute godless humanism. Are some of them mistakenly calling themselves Christians?
Could a crew of blind deaf-mutes, without supervision, plans or materials, construct a self-propelling object which could find its own fuel, repair its own damage, build itself a shelter and know enough to come in out of the rain?
Yet that is basically what the theory of evolution is all about!