The Degeneration of American Schools: From Revering the Bible to Reviling the Bible - Michael Brown

But how do committed Christian kids feel every day in school districts across America when their views are ridiculed, when they are called bigots and haters because they cannot endorse the latest politically correct trend, when carrying a Bible with them is considered a sign of fanaticism? (Flickr/Creative Commons)

The Degeneration of American Schools: From Revering the Bible to Reviling the Bible

 10/9/2015 MICHAEL BROWN  charisma news

Did you know that in 1647, early American settlers passed the "Old Satan Deluder Act" to encourage children's education so they could learn to read the Bible?

Christian educator Tim Hoy says: "One of the earliest education laws in our country was passed by the early settlers in 1647, called the 'Old Satan Deluder Act.' The settlers came to America to escape religious and political persecution in Europe. They believed that the persecutions (acts carried out under Satan's delusion) were allowed to take place because of the populace's illiteracy in general and biblical illiteracy in particular. To combat a possible repeat of history in the new land, the settlers mandated that communities with at least 50 families must sponsor a teacher; they must establish a grammar school when the population reached 100 families. The purpose of the school was to teach the children to read, particularly to read and understand the Bible."

Not only so, but "the 1690 Connecticut Illiteracy Law was passed with the same motive in mind: in order to equip the citizenry for 'reading the Holy Word of God and the good laws of this (State).'"

But when Focus on the Family sponsored a national "Bring Your Bible to School Day" on Oct. 8, the idea was met with concern in some school districts. The Bible brought to our schools? How could this be?

It's no problem to advocate every kind of godless philosophy in these same classrooms.

It's no problem to teach every kind of profane sex-ed curriculum to these same students.

It's no problem to exalt Islam and other world religions (but not Christianity) in their religion textbooks.

It's no problem to distribute condoms, to advertise Planned Parenthood and to promote homosexuality in these same hallways.

But to bring the Bible to school and talk about it?

How dangerous!

As reported on the Sacramento Bee website, the real rub was that parents in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District were upset that the district "would send information to their inboxes publicizing 'bring your Bible to school day,'" even though the email "included a disclaimer that said the school district was not a sponsor of the program."

Indeed, "some parents were furious that the district had allowed a religious entity to promote itself via the district email system," with one parent claiming, "It's unbelievable the district is supporting something that blurs the line between public education and religion."

But Daniel Thigpen, spokesman for the district, says, "The district has a policy that allows the distribution of some fliers by email from organizations that want to publicize activities for students and families."

Why all the uproar over this particular event?

One vocal protester, Ashley Slovak (a Jewish woman married to a Christian), kept her daughter home that day, saying that school "should be a safe place. She would feel ostracized. She would feel like an outsider among her peers."

Really?

But how do committed Christian kids feel every day in school districts across America when their views are ridiculed, when they are called bigots and haters because they cannot endorse the latest politically correct trend, when carrying a Bible with them is considered a sign of fanaticism?

Young people—and I mean pre-teens—have said to me (with tears), "We are under so much pressure at school!"

A 15-year-old tweeted me and said, "Thank u for helping me walk through the valley of the shadow of death with your wisdom and teachings! ... There aren't many of my generation who agree with our beliefs so it's a mental battle everyday at my school. U help!"

No wonder it has become so controversial for a school district to announce a "Bring Your Bible to School Day." The Word of God has become toxic to our children's "education."

It was the exact opposite during the founding of this nation.

Hoy notes: "Shortly after establishment of our country, the Founding Fathers passed a federal law that required all existing and incoming states to establish schools that will teach 'religion, morality and knowledge.' Many of the Founding Fathers advocated that the Bible be the primary text in these schools."

Hoy explains, "As our country continued to grow, so did our schools. The American school system was the best in the world, and the Bible was central to its curriculum. In the early 1840s, an attempt was made in Philadelphia to establish a school that would be free of the Bible and any Christian influence. A legal battle ensued that would reach the highest court in the land."

What was the result of this legal battle? "In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the centrality of the Bible in U.S. schools," penning these remarkable words:

"Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the (school)—its general precepts expounded ... and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? ... Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament? Where are benevolence, the love of truth, sobriety and industry so powerfully and irresistibly inculcated as in the Sacred Volume?" (U.S. Supreme Court,Vidal vs. Girard's Executor, 1844)

Today, instead of the Bible being read or taught in our schools, our young people are addicted to cellphones, not just texting mindlessly through the day but sharing the most vile gossip, the most hateful (and even murderous expressions), and engaging in sexting (sharing naked pictures of each other) as early as middle school.

Yet the same parents who let their kids run wild on social media and the Internet are concerned about Bibles being brought to school.

May God have mercy on America, and may Christian kids be encouraged to bring their Bibles to school every day, to talk about the Word and pray with one another, and to be bold and unashamed witnesses for Jesus.

This is just what our schools need most.

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.

For a limited time, we are extending our celebration of the 40th anniversary of Charisma. As a special offer, you can get 40 issues of Charisma magazine for only $40!

NEW - Life in the Spirit is your Spirit-filled teaching guide. Encounter the Holy Spirit, hear God speak to you, and enjoy timeless teachings on love, mercy and forgiveness.LEARN MORE!

Did you enjoy this blog? Click here to receive it by email.

Jerusalem is Israel's Capital (and Other Inconvenient Truths)

Wednesday, July 15, 2015 |  Bassem Eid  ISRAEL TODAY

RELATED STORIES

• Peace talks still stalled as Palestinians present new preconditions
• Israeli DM: Kerry Fishing for Nobel Prize
• With 'heavy heart' Israel set to free more terrorists

Topics:

Peace Process

It has long been said that neither Israelis nor Palestinians are sensitive to each other’s narrative, and that there cannot be a true peace process without the willingness to appreciate the other side’s history, pain, suffering, hopes and dreams.

In simpler terms, negotiations cannot go anywhere without a mutually agreed baseline of truth. Sadly, a shared truth has always been one of the missing ingredients between Israelis and Palestinians, and the U.S. as would-be mediator is not helping.

Take the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision supporting the right of the President to decide that Israel does not have sovereignty over Jerusalem. I have no issue with the constitutional matter of who gets to make those decisions; every President asserts his right to make foreign policy decisions without Congressional meddling.

The problem is that the U.S. position reeks of political correctness and a refusal to tell the truth. Under any final-status agreement, Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital, even if one day East Jerusalem ends up being the capital of a new Palestinian state. U.S. unwillingness to state this forthrightly only serves to patronize Palestinians, to unnecessarily antagonize our Israeli neighbor, and to illustrate why U.S. mediation has not been particularly effective.

The U.S. administration’s position on Jerusalem is inconsistent and even contrary to its general policy towards Israel / Palestine. When Israel declared its independence following the 1947 U.N. partition plan that called for two states, Palestinians and the Arab world rejected the partition plan and attacked Israel with the intent to destroy it. 

Israel not only survived, but the war ended with Israel holding territories beyond those allocated to the Jewish state in the Partition Plan. Those 1949 Armistice lines are now referred to as the 1967 borders, or the “green line.”  If West Jerusalem, which has been inside the green line since 1949, is not recognized as part of Israel, then none of the territories beyond the U.N. plan can be recognized as present day Israeli territory; if that is U.S. policy, Washington should say so openly.

Of course, the U.S. is not about to change its general policy on Israel / Palestine, but its stated policy on Jerusalem is an unsavory mix of evasions and falsehoods that hurt U.S. credibility. Here in my opinion are the hard but necessary steps that the three main protagonists in this conflict should take:

• Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas openly admitted that Palestinian rejection of the U.N. partition plan was a mistake, but then he asks why Palestinians have been punished by Israel ever since. Instead of finger-pointing, Abbas must acknowledge that Palestinians should have demanded that Jordan turn over the West Bank territories and East Jerusalem when it was under Amman’s control between 1949 and 1967. Abbas should add that the 1967 Six Day War also was a big mistake, just as the late King Hussein did. And Abbas should continue by saying that the two, deadly and years-long Intifadas that killed thousands of Palestinians and Israelis were also wrong, and that Palestinians should have taken seriously Israel’s peace offerings over the years. After all, he now bemoans the opportunity he squandered when former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed what Abbas now calls a genuine peace plan.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserts that he supports a two-state solution. If that is true, he should say that while disposition of existing settlements will be left for negotiations, there will be no new settlements in the West Bank. He should state that he does not want Israel to have to choose between maintaining its Jewish character and its democratic ideals. To be a peacemaker, though, he must go further, saying that he understands the need for Palestinian dignity and freedom, which must come about in the context of assuring Israel’s security. In fact, he must tell the Israeli public that Palestinian statehood is in Israel’s security interest.
• If President Barack Obama wants Israel to appreciate the purity of his motives as he delivers his messages of “tough love” to Israel regarding settlements, he should share similar expressions with Palestinian leaders by calling them out on their undiminished culture of hate that vilifies Israelis and Jews, extols terrorists and murderers, and refuses to prepare their people for peace and reconciliation. He must tell Abbas that Jews should have every right to live in a future Palestinian state, just as 20% of Israelis today are Palestinians. And he must end the fiction that Jerusalem – at least its western half – is not the capital of Israel, so that Palestinians have no doubt about the parameters of what the two-state solution can accomplish. 

This would be a good start towards a shared truth and therefore towards peace, though no doubt there are many other things that Obama, Netanyahu, and Abbas should tell each other and their people instead of following the advice of fearful political operatives. In addition to finding it liberating to speak so honestly, they might be surprised at how much good it can accomplish.

* Bassem Eid is a Palestinian human rights activist, political analyst and political commentator. He has agreed to write periodic commentaries for Israel Today Magazine. Don't miss out - SUBSCRIBE NOW >> 

Want more news from Israel?
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates from ISRAEL TODAY.

The Supreme Court's Mind Made Up on Gay Marriage?

By Paul Strand

CBN News Washington Sr. Correspondent

Friday, April 24, 2015

Ad Feedback

WASHINGTON -- Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear cases that will likely determine whether same-sex marriage will become a legal nationwide.

The justices have rolled four cases together that will allow them to decide two questions: must states recognize other states' gay marriages, and does the Constitution require states to allow same-sex marriage?

Some believe the justices have already decided to create that right before hearing the case. But others say the matter is far from decided.

On Wednesday, a panel discussion at the Family Research Council was swimming upstream against conventional thought on the issue.

That is, it's a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court justices will rule homosexuals have as much of a right to same-sex marriage as heterosexuals do to traditional marriage.

But these panelists pointed out there's evidence the justices won't rubber stamp gay marriage.

"When the lawyers walk into that courtroom on Tuesday morning, they're going to be walking into a situation where there are three-and-a-half justices who've said 'no constitutional right to same-sex marriage' and no justices who've said there is a constitutional right," former Supreme Court Clerk Gene Schaerr said.

One of the more interesting propositions brought up at Wednesday's panel discussion is that maybe the Christians of the world owe it to the homosexuals to point out that their lifestyle is intrinsically wrong.

"Faith actually teaches nothing about hatred toward gays and lesbians; in fact, the opposite.  But it also says the behavior is damaging and harmful to your eternal salvation.   That's the faith teaching," John-Henry Westen, editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews, said.

"But they also know from the empirical evidence that the behavior is damaging to your body as well," he added.

Westen argued that Christians need to say to gays, "We love you enough to tell you this is harmful.  In fact, we'll even take the hater and bigot label so that we can tell you this because we care about you."

Native American Tribes Defend Traditional Marriage

CBNNews.com

Tuesday, April 07, 2015

Months before the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the issue of gay marriage, Native American tribes have taken steps to defend traditional marriage.

Eleven tribes with a total membership approaching a million people will not recognize same-sex marriages.

Just weeks after North Carolina began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, the state's Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians updated its law to prevent gay couples from having marriage ceremonies on tribal land.

Tribes that don't recognize same-sex marriage include the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma and the Navajo Nation.

Roy Moore: What Gay Marriage Fight Is Really About

By John Jessup

CBN News Anchor

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Ad Feedback

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- As a Vietnam War veteran, Roy Moore is no stranger to a fight. But today he's engaged in a battle of a different kind – one being waged in the courts.

Moore, Alabama's Supreme Court Chief Justice, is an ardent and outspoken supporter of traditional marriage.

His latest move stirred the debate into a frenzy, when he ordered Alabama's probate judges to stop granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples after U.S. District Court Judge Callie Grenade struck down the state's constitutional amendment upholding traditional marriage and preventing gays from taking their vows.

The measure, known as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as an "inherently" and "unique" "sacred covenant" between a man and a woman, was approved by 81 percent of the state's voters in 2006.

"To me it boils down to the simple fact that federal courts across this land have mandated their will, unlawfully, over the people of the states," he told CBN News in an exclusive interview at his office. "Thirty-seven states didn't legalize [same-sex marriage]. Federal courts came in and mandated they accept this."

The conflicting orders put the state front and center in the national debate over marriage, making Alabama the first state to defy a federal judge's ruling on the issue.

It is now as much of a case on state courts versus federal courts as it is a question of states' rights versus equal rights.

"This began not as defiance of a federal court order. In fact, I was simply clarifying for the court and everybody else in the state of Alabama that this one federal judge did not have authority to issue orders to the probate courts who were not under her case and not involved in the case," Judge Moore explained.

He told CBN News that before giving his order, he asked the governor and state attorney general to get involved and issue an executive. Neither did.

"There's a lot of feeling out there that this was embarrassing to the state and somehow it would cost revenue and loss of jobs - at least that's what the governor said. I feel otherwise," he said.

"I think to stand up for the moral foundation upon which the nation is based and which our faith is based and our laws are based is very important and could not let these marriages occur," he said.

Moore's position is that state courts have just as much authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution as the federal courts do, and that the debate over marriage isn't about equal protection.

Instead, he says it's about redefining an age-old institution that has long formed the foundation of families.

"No federal court, to include the U.S. Supreme Court, has authority to go into the Constitution and define the word marriage. Marriage was defined long before our country began," he told CBN News.

"If we allow federal courts to intrude into the subject of marriage, then they will intrude into the subject of parent and child and husband and wife. And this is very important because this won't end with two men getting married or two women getting married," Moore warned.

Critics call Moore a bigot, homophobic, and intolerant. Some have even compared him to former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who infamously fought a federal government order to integrate the University of Alabama.

Moore disagrees.

"This is about sexual preference. The other is about a natural genetic makeup which should not be discriminated against," he said. "And when you're talking about these things, you're mixing something up with racial discrimination, which is not discriminating on the basis of a preference."

Moore recently received support for his argument from one of the most unlikely places: The New York Times.

In a recent opinion piece titled, "What Alabama's Roy Moore Got Right,"he was described as "provocative and out-of-touch," but the article added, "As for the word 'marriage,' Moore is right that the Supreme Court cannot mandate how we use a word, any more than it can create a social institution on its own."

"When the liberal newspapers, The New York Times, start saying you're doing something right, that's a good thing," Moore explained.

"What is your fear of what will happen if people like you don't take this stand?" CBN News' John Jessup asked Moore.

"Because it's not just redefining marriage, it's giving no definition to marriage," he replied. "So we're destroying an institution ordained by God, and under the 10th Amendment, they're [the federal courts] not entitled to change our laws."

It's a debate many believe will be resolved by the Supreme Court before the end of its current term in June.

Watch video: Roy Moore on CBN

Dem-Appointed Judge: No Right to Gay Marriage

Dem-Appointed Judge: 

No Right to Gay Marriage

CBNNews.com

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Ad Feedback

A U.S. federal judge ruled Tuesday to uphold a Puerto Rico law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. 

District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez became the first Democrat appointed to the federal court to rule in favor of a traditional marriage law since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor decision last year.

The judge maintained that the Windsor decision did not establish the right to same-sex marriage and essentially reinforced the concept that marriage is a state issue rather than a federal one.

Puerto Rico's civil code refuses recognition of "(a)ny marriage between persons of the same sex or transsexuals contracted in other jurisdictions."

Judge Perez-Giminez cited a portion of the high court's Windsor decision.

"The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the 'protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities," he said.