The Obama progeny are well into their studies at Sidwell Friends School. As their parents, Barack and Michelle have every right to enroll their daughters in the school they think best for their children. Ironically, this is one of the many prerogatives the President’s most enthusiastic supporters would frown upon should you, the average American, decide to exercise them.

For decades now, liberals and secularists have argued that those pursuing nonpublic education for their children ought to be held in suspicion for exhibiting insufficient devotion to the COMMUNITY. Some might try to obfuscate the matter by claiming that that they do not oppose private education as much as they support the public alternatives.

This might be the line propagated for mass consumption, but the leftist opposition to private education (at least when it comes to your children) goes much deeper. For among the elites that think it is their place to mold what those below them believe and even how we live our lives, education is not so much about the accumulation of a particular body of knowledge or set of skills enabling the individual to make a way for themselves and their families in the world.

Rather, among this class education is seen about conditioning the vast majority into accepting the place predetermined for them and in such a way that they will not be able to advance beyond that. That is of course if human ambition is not engineered out of the individual human psyche all together through a combination of compulsory pharmaceuticals and a form of behavioral reinforcement popularly referred to as brainwashing.

Others will respond that, as the children of the President, these youngsters need to be protected from the assorted dangers that could befall them in a public school where access is gained more quickly than in a more disciplined private one. Such an assessment is absolutely correct.

However, the question to ask here happens to be are not your children as precious to you as the President’s are to him and are your children not entitled to the best kind of protection that you are capable of providing for them? Yet many of the very same elites applauding the Obamas’ decision to educate their children in a private school are among the very same voices insisting you are under some kind of obligation to the COMMUNITY to expose your offspring to an array of moral deviances and outright criminals.

As central as the issue of education is as the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next, it is not the only matter the concerned citizen needs to be worried about in the dawning "progressivist" era. These social engineers hope to impose upon you a lifestyle below which you have grown accustomed and are perfectly capable of providing for yourself. Once again, this point is proven by comparing what Barack Obama has said to what he has actually done.

In a statement lamenting the environmental attitudes of the average American, Barack Obama has decreed that the world is nearing a time when we can no longer eat what we want, drive around in our SUV's, and keep our homes at 70 degrees. Of course, such hand-wringing and soul-searching agony is exhibited over how you, average American, live your life and has nothing whatsoever to do with this figure heralded as transformational lives his life. After all, as Hegel hypothesized, such figures are beyond the rules imposed upon the rest of us.

In the eyes of his Barackness, you probably eat too much and at a level higher than your social class ought to be permitted. However, our liege should be permitted to stuff his face as he sees fit. For while you are to subsist on berries and twigs not much more advanced than our gatherer ancestors of pre-agricultural times, at his inaugural lunch, Obama feasted upon seafood stew with lobster, duck, pheasant, molasses-whipped sweet potatoes, and apple sponge cake. There were also three wines to choose from (no wonder an old drunk like Ted Kennedy went into convulsions and had to be carted out in an ambulance).

Those inclined to give their new lord the benefit of the doubt will reply, “Well, why shouldn’t he have a special treat on his special day?” And who can argue with that as most (at least until Mayor Bloomberg has his way) get graduation and wedding cakes. However, does someone that complains you are eating something other than sawdust and dirt have the right to turn around and like a king day in and day out?

Most Americans either prepare their own sustenance or are blessed to have someone in their family do this for them. Yet despite admonishing the rest of us repeatedly on the need for sacrifice, Barack is not going to settle for having someone in his family prepare his meals for him even though neither Michelle nor his mother-in-law living with the family at the White House have any other obligations to fulfill other than those of wife and grandmother.

Instead, the White House has at its disposal a first rate kitchen. Some may argue that such is necessary for assorted state dinners and diplomatic receptions as the facility can serve 140 guests.

However, according to a 1/28/09 Yahoo News story titled “Hail To The Chefs”, the one chef already employed by the White House is not enough. The Obama’s are bringing from Chicago their private chef (in other words, they have been of the mind for quite awhile now that they are too good to cook for themselves). And like his massa, the Obama chef thinks the average American suffers from “overabundance” and that those in the culinary professions “should take leadership in tackling public health issues”. As what, the beat cops of the food police?

Obama’s detached elitism goes beyond enjoying a level of snobbish luxury he would wish to keep from you to that of actually endangering lives and public safety. This was especially evident during the winter months when citizens could see first hand the implications of his flippant policy announcements. It is in this analysis that we see first hand that Obama does not really think or care all that much about regular Americans.

In his campaign oration, Obama lamented about Americans keeping their homes heated at around 70 degrees. The President is as much a hypocrite on this point as he is about shaming you on the matter of food while he stuffs his face with delicacies the rest of us can barely pronounce and even less likely ever taste.

For while you are suppose to sit around your home shivering all in the name of the environment and over what the ghetto nations of the earth think of the United States of America, Obama might be sweating, but its not over what he thinks the thermostat should be set to but because of what he has set the thermostat to. From photographs taken during Obama’s first full day in office, some where shocked when the President was caught without a suit coat on in the Oval Office.

Though this fell far short of the shock value of what Bill Clinton removed while within the confines of these particular walls, once again as a historical figure of Hegelian proportions, Obama is not bound by the strictures of the epoch he is leading us out of. According to his staff, Obama likes the thermostat set at 80 degrees since he is use to the warm weather of his native Hawaii.

Well whoopteedoo!!! If his majesty likes Hawaii so much, perhaps he should have run for governor of that state in order to run it into the ground rather than for the presidency of the United States.

However, while Obama basks in the sauna, you are suppose to suck it up and head out into the freezing cold. His highness insinuated as such when he enunciated his displeasure that his daughters’ school had cancelled classes after a spate of wintery precipitation.

Of this disruption to the scholastic calendar Obama ruminated, “My children’s school was cancelled today. Because of what? Some ice?...As my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never cancelled...I’m saying, when it comes to weather, folks in Washington don’t seem to be able to handle things.”

Well, hurray for Chicago. If he likes the way things are done there, perhaps he should have stayed there with his crooked gangland associates.

Though the Obamas’ reputations as parents seem to be impeccable and loving, one must seriously question how often Barack has actually personally himself driven his daughters to school these past few years. After all, from the looks of it, daddy was either on the road campaigning or in Washington (at least that is where he should have been instead of out campaigning) as a member of the Senate.

And now with their father as President, it is doubtful that the Obama daughters will be subjected to the dangers of Washington area traffic. In all likelihood, each school day the New Lord's progeny will be motorcaded to their destination with all other vehicles required to get out of the way as they pass by.

Your children, one can conclude from the President's own words, aren't worthy of being escorted to school in a similar degree of safety. For if Americans are to give up their SUV's as admonished by the President, how are they suppose to get to school in one of those effeminate, limp-wristed hybrids?

No wonder the Obama whelps want to go to school in the slop. They don't have to worry about slipping on the ice.

One of the marks of a great leader is the willingness to abide by the same expectations they extol upon others. Despite all the hype about Obama being such a great leader that will turn back the rising seas and all that malarkey, it seems he can’t even rise to the level of the simplest expectation.

by Frederick Meekins

The church was instituted by God in part to stand as a defensive bulwark to protect against erroneous doctrine and spiritually damaging heresies from contaminating the minds of believers and thus to an extent soften the blow of a continually degrading culture. However, often those in positions of religious leadership are so hopelessly detached that when confronted with warnings as to the spiritual dangers threatening both the individual and society they offer little in the way of a viable response grounded in a Christian worldview and instead prattle on about matters few actually care about at best or at worst condition the average congregant to eventually acquiesce to the expanding technocollectivist agenda. This trend is evidenced in the inordinate emphasis upon COMMUNITY rather than Scripture as the authoritative source of values in an increasing number of ecclesiastical circles.

In my column “Just Because You Don’t Understand Doesn’t Mean Its Not Real: Most Epistemologically Unprepared For Bioenhancement Nightmares”, I went into lengthy detail how the Transhumanist movement presented not only a threat to traditional conceptions of liberty as it simultaneously veered off into either total anarchy or nearly absolute control but also threatened what it means to be a human being itself. As an important message I felt the broader church might be in need of hearing, I decided to post it at a website where pastors, ministers, and Christian researchers of various types could publicize their homiletic endeavors to share with their peers and other interested believers.

Though my essay did not contain a single profanity and was completely nonpartisan as it did not mention a single word about Democrats or Republicans but instead focused on the moral implications of the Transhumanist philosophy, the site administrator responded, “It appears that you have some great points and some powerful truths that perhaps should be considered. However, I am unable to approve it for posting to your contributor page at this time because it is simply not a sermon of a type that would be useful to very many other pastors that use our website.”

Frankly, other than the campaign to remove God and Christ as the basis of our cultural foundation and to forbid the utterance of these holy names so that souls might be damned, what other issue is more relevant to the 21st century pulpit than the efforts to undermine innocent human life and now the very creation as we know it? Furthermore, this simmering contempt for the distinct uniqueness of human life stretches all the way to the highest levels of government, industry, and academia.

Several years ago, I attended a PCA congregation for a while where it seemed week after week, month upon month that the pastor went on and on about the life of David. This series was not from the standpoint of how the strengths and weaknesses of this particular leader might be applied or avoided in the life of the believer as this highly (one might say overly) degreed pastor made it explicitly clear that it was not his place to highlight whatever underlying object lesson might be there in the text but rather to simply to go verse by verse irrespective of whether or not the passage had any actual spiritual significance for the Christian rather than as information provided more as a background setting but nothing the average person would miss out on if somehow glossed over. For this reason coupled with the fact that I was made out to be the bigger reprobate for not ceremonially surrendering to the dictates of the group through formalized membership than those that made it known that booze would be available at Sunday school get togethers I eventually parted ways from that congregation.

Is the serious believer going to tell me that such trivialities devoid of an applied context have more relevance to their Christian walk than whether or not you and your family are going to be permitted to remain what has traditionally been classified as normal human beings? Though this threat sounds so off the wall as if it had been lifted straight from the pages of a comic book or a Star Trek marathon, credentialed scientists and other speculative academics are subtly starting to move the public conscientiousness away from seeing bioenhancement or genetic technologies as a way to correct the ravages of disease but as a way to enhance otherwise sufficient human beings.

As I stated in my previous examinations of this topic, during the 1990’s about the scariest villains in popular science fiction has to be the Borg from Star Trek’s The Next Generation and Voyager as those belonging to this species has a considerable percentage of their biological anatomy replaced with mechanical components in large part to eliminate individuality and to replace this mode of perception with a unified group consciousness. In other words, the Borg were the ultimate Communists. However, now that some time has elapsed, it is now not all that uncommon to find in popular science magazines articles extolling the wonders of the Borg as the next step in human evolution.

One such article is titled "Is There A Borg In Our Future" published in the Fall 2007 issue of "Ad Astra". The authors write, "For years, the most devoted advocates of robotic and human cooperation have envisioned mechanical devices and human beings exploring space together; but even in this vision, the two remain separate entities --- master and servant, owner and slave, flesh and machine. Technological developments now beginning to take place in some settings might permit a true merger --- humans equipped with robotic parts or machines possessing sentient qualities."

Thus, as man is reduced to the level of a biological machine as a result of materialistic evolution, the naturalist naturally begins to wonder why ought man to consider himself superior to the gadgets he employs to better enjoy his existence.

The implications of this are startling and are hinted at in the very next paragraph of the "Ad Astra" article. The article says, "The social metaphor for future space exploration may not be Luke Skywalker and his amusing companions R2-D2 and C-3PO but the Terminator." Does anyone seriously want to live in the world of the Terminator?

The article downplays this particular speculative milieu by admitting, “The merger of human features and machine parts has negative consequences in The Terminator.” That’s putting it mildly.

In “The Terminator” series, a nuclear war is commenced by a defense computer called Skynet that becomes sentient. Its robotic constructs proceed to wipeout the surviving humans.

All of the Schwarzenegger versions of Terminators were robots with human skin stretched over their bodies. Is this what the authors of the "Ad Astra" article aspire to?

The authors attempt to calm the reader of the “negative consequences” they quickly gloss over by assuring that the horrors depicted in these films need not end up being reality. Ironically, those with their heads stuck in so-called “make believe” may have a more accurate understanding of human nature than those claiming to be more sensible in their approach.

The article concludes, “...if the Borg really are us, they need not be feared.” However, it is precisely because they could be us that they need to be feared.

A creation can never be morally superior to or better than its creator. Though created perfect, from the Book of Genesis, the Bible student gets the impression that it was not long before Adam and Eve rebelled against God and opened the floodgates to the evil and suffering making up the primary forces of history.

One could debate until blue in the face whether or not a robot was really alive or not.

But imagine how much quicker then if allowed to make their own moral decisions until these independent artificial consciences will turn on their metaphysical progenitors in much the same way we all do on a daily basis into what use to be called “sin”.

If the authors of the "Ad Astra" article are so keen on the amalgamation of man and machine beyond that of perhaps the replacement of a failing organic limb or organ for the purposes of alleviating suffering rather than to alter innate humanness beyond something intended by the design of providence, perhaps they should be the first to volunteer. Nothing to fear from the Borg; perhaps these authors would like to have their innermost thoughts scrutinized by the collective consciousness of that species. That will be, however, a hell these postulators would rather inflict upon those they categorize as the lesser breeds of men (in other words, the rest of us).

Sometimes, the overly pious or those merely afraid of losing their tax exempt status (though you might be surprised how often these two constituencies often overlap) might claim, "Oh, even if all that is true, we only address spiritual and religious matters and don't soil our hands with politics or even scientific matters." However, Transhumanism has permeated theological and religious thought as well.

One religion in particular, though most of its adherents would not necessarily be deceived by Transhumanism's bizarre allure, would seem to have a unique affinity for Transhumanism as one of its foundational doctrines is that God was once a man from the planet Kolob (sounding disturbingly like Battlestar Galactica's Cobol [especially in relation to the 70's version]) and that you too can become your own God if you try hard enough.

At the website of an adherent of this particular faith that was dedicated to the advancement of Transhumanism, my initial commentary on the subject is referred to for daring to point out the movement's communalist dangers as well as acknowledging how others have taken it in a radically individualist direction. This critic snaps, "Which is it? Are Transhumanists all radical individualists or radical communitarians?

The answer is not all that simple. Usually, the leftists that embrace nonsense like Transhumanism like to pat themselves on the back for being so broadminded as to be able to hold two logically contradictory notions all at the same time.

Yet they so easily dismiss the notion that Transhumanism can be both radically individualistic and collectivistic at the same time. For it is not a movement that is either/or but rather of one feeding into another.

In "The Children Of Darkness, Richard Wheeler writes, "Burke's implication is that a society of guiltless unfettered men is one ungovernable or at least governed by a tyrant (22)." Thus Transhumanism can simultaneously for now appeal to two constituencies with seemingly divergent agendas.

For example, in its initial stages, Transhumanism can appeal to freaks like those occasionally featured on the Discovery Channel who surgically alter themselves to look like tigers, lizards, or whatever other barnyard whatnots happy to catch their fancy. Albert Mohler mentioned in his examination of this subject someone who wanted to have a perfectly healthy leg amputated so this person would not have to be a source of “biopower for the state” (in other words, this lazy bum wanted to lay around all day no doubt collecting a check from the state he otherwise despises).

However, these dupes no matter how much they claim to be standing for liberty, since they are desiring to take liberty past a point to which it was never intended, are merely the pawns of the collectivists who quietly manipulate things behind the scenes hoping things will grow so marked by disorder and confusion that the masses will clamor for an iron fist to tighten around their necks.

Either as a result of willful ignorance or because they are just so burdened by the concerns of the present, the average Christian may have little idea of the dangers to both the individual and society barreling down the pike. However, those either deriving hefty salaries or at least job satisfaction from being one of those charged with watching over the Lord's flock need to take this charge seriously from wherever the danger arrives from along the timeline or get out of the pulpit.

by Frederick Meekins

Often the classics rank among the best. Even though time passes and intellectual fashions change, certain insights and perspectives address something so profound they forever earn a place as a steadfast pillar among sifting seas of opinion. Much of what comes after such a point simply serves as either confirmation, renunciation, clarification, or criticism. Though he lived and labored during the Middle Ages in the 1200‘s, the cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas has withstood the test of time as one of those stalwart pillars of the mind pointing to a rational basis for belief in God.

Though the term “cosmological argument” sounds intimidating and the concept it strives to convey seems profound, this series of propositions endeavors to express a most elementary idea in a highly rational form. The thrust of the cosmological argument seeks to prove that the universe must have a cause and that only God can serve as an adequate explanation for the existence of the universe. Norman Geisler in Introduction To Christian Philosophy states the basic argument in the following manner: “(1) Finite changing things exist. (2) Every finite, changing thing must be caused by another. (3) There cannot be an infinite regress of causes. (4) Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite changing thing that exists (page 267).” From here, Aquinas proceeds to argue that only God is powerful enough to serve as an explanation behind this uncaused cause.

This assertion is buttressed by Aquinas’ notion of contingency and the need for a necessary being. A contingent being, according to Ronald Nash in Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith, is one whose existence depends upon another and whose nonexistence is possible; likewise, a necessary being is one that must exist, does not depend on another being for its existence, and whose nonexistence is an impossibility (128). The necessary being ultimately serves as the sufficient reason for all contingent beings.

Despite the power of the cosmological argument, it has not escaped its share of scrutiny throughout the course of its distinguished existence. For while the conclusions of the cosmological argument seem to flow naturally within the framework of traditional Judeo-Christian theism, they are not quite as obvious to adherents of other philosophies and systems of thought or to those seeking to undermine them through a process of intense rationalistic analysis. Skeptics and opponents of the Judeo-Christian assumptions that the cosmological argument seeks to prove can call upon a number of criticisms and counterclaims in support of their contrarian position.

The first brand of criticism stems from those advocating worldviews hostile to Christian presuppositions that possess a considerable stake in finding an explanation for the origins of the universe through causes other than an instant of divine creation. Foremost among the systems opposing the premises of the cosmological argument stand the various strands of naturalism.

According to James Sire in The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog, the naturalist says matter is all there is and God does not exist (54). Or as Carl Sagan use to say, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Corliss Lamont, the 1977 Humanist of the Year, writes, “Humanism...believes in a naturalistic cosmology...that rules out all forms of the supernatural ... that regards nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of events existing independently of any mind or consciousness (Understanding The Times, 117).”

Thus, as David Noeble of Summit Ministries responds in Understanding The Times, “For the Humanist, no personal First Cause exists; only the cosmos... There was no beginning and there can be no end. Of course, there is no need for a God to explain a beginning that did not happen (120).” Naturalists, therefore, find their explanation for the universe elsewhere

Whereas theists such as Thomas Aquinas posit the answer to this important question with God, naturalists find it in a complex interaction of matter, physical laws, and a healthy sprinkling of chance.

David Nobel writes of the naturalist perspective, “Nature...cannot create but she can eternally transform (120). “ Naturalists attempt to abolish the so-called Thomist arguments for a creator denying the very concept of creation itself.

While it is not too difficult to confront the opponents of theism over those points where such glaring differences exist, the criticism couched in the careful formulations of sophisticated philosophical analysis can be somewhat more difficult to counter. For example, John Gerstner writes in Reasons For Faith that objections could be raised that the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our own observation that all things have a cause (53).

The thrust of the cosmological argument hinges upon the conclusion drawn from our observations that all things have a cause. This proposition is put forward to prove the need for a so-called first “uncaused cause”. As the nitpicky skeptic might point out, if it is deduced through observation that all things have causes, is it not unreasonable to call upon an uncaused first cause? After all, would not something have to have caused it also. Such a deadlock leads to one of Kant’s antimonies of reason where debaters of equal rationality come to two semmingly reasonable conclusions: namely either the need of an uncaused first cause or the validity of an infinitely regressing eternal series of causes and effects.

Despite this apparent loggerheads between proponents and detractors of the cosmological proof, additional lines of argumentation and evidence exist tipping the scales in favor of justifiable theism. From the time of the Enlightenment onward, practitioners of what Francis Schaeffer referred to as “modern modern science" have endeavored to establish a conceptual framework for explaining the operations of the universe capable of standing without the need for an appeal to divine support. When asked by Napoleon where God fit into his system of celestial mechanics, Laplace is said to have responded, “I have no need for that hypothesis (Barbour, 42).” But ironically, the very system of airtight physical laws many scientists approach with an almost religious devotion ultimately point to and must at least be jumpstarted if not actively maintained by the very Creator these lab-coated agnostics are scurrying to get away from.

Despite possible variations in their extraneous details, there are only a limited number of cosmologies accounting for the existence of the universe, each with its own advantages and shortcomings depending upon where one lines up in the debate regarding this theistic argument. Astrophysicist and Professor of New Testament Robert Newman describes each of these possibilities in the article “The Evidence Of Cosmology” appearing in the anthology Evidence For Faith: these systems are the Steady-State Universe, the Oscillating Cosmology, and the so-called “Big Bang” (Newman, 83-85).

The Steady-State model added a scientific veneer to the philosophical assumptions of naturalism by hypothesizing a universe eternally existing in a dynamic state of equilibrium whereby the density and energy levels of the cosmos remain constant as new matter is added as the boundaries of the system expand. Oscillating Cosmology pictures an ongoing cycle of universal birth, death, and rebirth as the universe continually expands outward in a burst of energy only to contract under the forces of its own gravity only to explode outward once again in an unending repetitive cosmic rhythm. The so-called “Big Bang”, at its most basic, postulates a singular specific moment when the universe expanded outward from a particular point at a definite moment in time.

These theories may all be well and good in terms of allowing the curious to speculate until their heart’s content. Yet ultimately they must correspond to actual reality if they are to be of any value beyond mere academic amusement.

It is against the cold hard wall of truth that these systems are forced to measure up against. These unavoidable truths eliminate the faulty explanations for the origins of the universe and point us back to the conclusions of the cosmological argument.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the sum total of matter and energy in the universe can neither be created nor destroyed; it remains constant. This is appended by the Second Law of Thermodynamics stating that the amount of energy available for useful work constantly decreases and the amount of entropy or disorder increases.

Any theory of origins seeking to undermine the need for a Creator by positing an everlasting cosmos is by definition scientifically impossible as one deduces from these physical laws. For every system that possesses a finite amount of useful energy must have a definite startup point.

If the universe is infinitely old as speculated by steady-state cosmologists, the universe would have wound down already. As D. James Kennedy notes in How I Know There Is A God, “...everything is running down; ... everything is wearing out; everything is growing old. So if the universe were eternal, it would have already wound down (6).”

Like it or not, the mechanics of the universe, as they exist as unvarnished facts, point to a theoretically specifiable beginning and cannot be compelled to testify against their designer. Dr. Kennedy further notes, “There was a time when there were men who believed that it [the universe] was [eternal] but with modern scientific discoveries it is no longer possible to believe that... For the last 150 years, scientists have been scurrying around trying to avoid the implications of the laws they have discovered (5).”

Despite harkening unto the exhortations of science when it is believed this manner of inquiry might prove a valuable ally in the ongoing struggle to dethrone the God of all space and time, this epistemological method is conveniently overlooked when it points in the direction of conclusions standing in opposition to cherished preconceived assumptions. Astronomer Fred Hoyle, a developer of the Steady -State Model, himself admitted that his affinity for this particular system was not so much born out of pure science but rather because this particular variety of cosmology was more philosophically satisfying than those characterized with a beginning (Newman, 83). Thus, the unvarnished facts may have little initial impact upon those holding such a viewpoint who feel seemingly remote matters such as the origins of the universe have little bearing upon their average workaday lives.

The Christian thinker must proceed by showing how one’s position regarding the data pointing to the divine origins of the universe impacts one’s relation to the remaining branches of knowledge and how one cannot ignore the issue without felling the entire noetic tree. The laws of objective physical science clearly teach that the universe came into existence at a particular point in time.

This leaves the cogitator with two possible explanations: either the universe came into existence of its own accord or was brought into existence by some entity greater and more complete in and of itself. Diehard agnostics will continue to insist upon the alternative excluding the influence of deity, which means they would select the alternative suggesting the universe came into existence on its own. Yet reason dictates that only nothing can come from nothing.

As an experiment, take a first-full of nothing and plant it in a flowerpot and see how long it takes to grow a plant from it. Now how much longer will it take for an entire developed universe with complex organisms and sophisticated civilizations to sprout from it? John Frame in Apologetics "To The Glory Of God: An Introduction", argues that those refusing to assent to the theistic conclusions in light of such compelling logic and evidence must concede to the madness of irrationalism since it flies in the face of common sense to hold that everything in the physical universe requires a cause but the finite contingent universe itself (111).

While advocates of the cosmological argument will spend much of their time trying to convince their nontheistic counterparts as to its validity, they might be surprised to learn significant suspicion of it lurks within certain corners of the Christian camp. Ronald Nash examines a number of these Christian criticisms and concerns in his analysis of the cosmological argument as detailed in "Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith".

Foremost among the cautions raised by Christians skeptical as to the value of the cosmological argument ranks the realization that the God attested to by this renowned theistic proof could very well fall short of the Lord boldly proclaimed in the pages of the Bible and could very easily resemble something more akin to deism (Nash, 122-124). For example, the purpose of the cosmological argument is to postulate a God that gets the proverbial ball rolling. However, on its own it does not initially provide enough argumentative steam to establish argumentively a God who actively sustains the universe, to say nothing of one that loves and cares for that part of the creation molded in his own image.

Furthermore, since the world and the universe are a composite of a number of complex interactive systems, one could argue that each was set in motion by its own unique first cause. According to Norman Geisler in Introduction To Philosophjy: A Christian Perspective, Aristotle himself believed in between forty-seven and fifty-five of these entities, each responsible for a particular sphere of the heavens (172). At best, such an arrangement would give one a situation something akin to polytheism where one god ruled the sky and another the sea. And in bringing the Greek and other ancient pantheons into the mix, Ronald Nash points out that the cosmological argument fails to address the moral and redemptive natures of God so central to the message of Scripture that sets the Christian message apart from other world religions. One could very well maneuver the most vile reprobates into acknowledging the existence of such a God without having it make the slightest impact on such a libertine lifestyle.

Of the cosmological argument, Ronald Nash writes, “...if we reject special revelation and attempt to reason our way from what we know about the world to the existence of a supposed First Cause, the most we can establish still leaves us a long way from...(the) God of the Bible (124).” Thus the Christian following in the footsteps of Aquinas comes to a very important fork in the road. On the one hand, the intellectually engaged believer finds that the given of the universe needing a creator is not quite universally assumed as they originally thought it to be; on the other, there are those within the Christian’s own camp who insightfully warn as to the potential dangers and shortcomings of this hallowed argument. What is the Christian to do?

The good news is that the cosmological argument does not need to be tossed aside with the rest of the philosophical rubbish. Just as an army cannot rely on any one weapon system if it hopes to carry out a successful military campaign, if they are going to utilize the cosmological argument as part of their apologetic arsenal, they must incorporate it into the framework of a comprehensive strategy of evangelization. It might be best to look at the cosmological argument not so much as some epiphanial revelation silencing all opposition from then on out but rather as a tool to extract knowledge already buried in the deep recesses of the soul.

Romans 2:14-15 reads, “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them (NIV).” Likewise, Psalms 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his hear, ‘There is no God.’.” Thus, whether they choose to admit it or not, a primordial knowledge of God exists somewhere within the human soul. The trick is getting the individual to assent to this as they are being guided down along the path to belief in Christ. The problem is that man has gone out of his way in the attempt to shake free from the truth of God’s existence that weighs down the sin-laden conscience.

Romans 1:20-21 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities...have been clearly seen, being understood for what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (NIV).” The task of the Christian becomes to show the unbeliever how it is untenable to live in a theistic Christian world with non-Christian, atheistic assumptions.

In Van Tillian terminology, this is the point of contact (Frame, 82-83). The cosmological argument is best used as one of these conversation starters rather than as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. In essence, the cosmological argument is more a defense of already held belief rather than a foundation upon which belief in the true God is built upon.

Ronald Nash writes, “Suppose...that we regard it [natural theology] as an inquiry into whether the Christian world-view fits what we know about the outer and inner worlds (Nash, 96).” Nash continues, “...instead of seeking coercive proofs for conclusions that all right-minded and open-minded persons would accept, we view our task as the more modest one of seeing if the Christian worldview does what we expect any worldview to do (97).”

The cosmological argument has enjoyed a robust history throughout the course of Western intellectual and ecclesiastical history. It has sparked considerable discussion and debate as its advocates herald it as a tool through which to apprehend a slice of the infinite while its detractors dismiss it as the leftover mental baggage of a less rational era. But regardless of where one lines up along this ongoing debate, one cannot help but admit that the discussion will continue until the Lord Himself decides to intervene and settle the issue on His own once and for all before then.

by Frederick Meekins

During a recent trip to a local Wal-Mart, I saw something quite disturbing as I stood in the checkout line. In the magazine wrack was a commemorative edition of some publication with a portrait of Barack Obama on the cover.

That was not the disturbing part even to someone that did not vote for him. Behind him on the cover was a glow making him look angelic or even messianic in appearance. Above the image, the words read "Barack Obama: The Hope Of America".

As the new President, even Americans that did not vote for him hope that Obama does well within a specified context in regards to those duties delineated within the confines of the Constitution if for no other reason than that he is the head of state of the country in which we live. However, he is not America's hope.

Firstly, America's hope is in God in general and in the person of His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. It says in Colossians 1:17 that by Him (not Barack Obama) all things consist.

It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that will forgive you of your sins.

It is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that has the whole world in His hands.

Despite the call for a new domestic intelligence and security force with a budget projected to surpass that of the entire U.S. military, it is Jesus Christ, not Barack Obama, that hears you crying on those nights when you feel that your world has been shattered and you don't know what can be done to make things right.

Even for those uncomfortable about making public acknowledgement of personal and national dependence upon deity there are earthly sources of hope that the American people ought to look to before Barack Obama.

For example, Americans ought to look to the U.S. Constitution for guidance and inspiration before they look to Barack Obama. In the United States, an oath of loyalty is taken not to a man but to defend the document by those in government all the way from the President down to the youngest private in the U.S. army.

It is the U.S. Constitution, not Barack Obama, that keeps power from being unduly concentrated in the hands of a few through a system of checks and balances and separation of powers.

It is the U.S. Constitution that RECOGNIZES in law (note does not grant) a number of rights the individual possesses as an individual created in the image of God. Barack Obama cannot do this.

Secondly, the American should look to himself for hope and not Barack Obama. If you are an upright citizen, you are the one through the grace of God that gets up and goes to work everyday whether you like your job or not to provide for you and your family, not Barack Obama's beguiling handouts he promised in order to dupe the masses.

Those holding office can indeed bring hardship and earthly ruination into the lives of those residing in the jurisdictions over which such officials exercise authority. Most often this comes about when elected officials intervene in those areas of life where the physically able ought to provide for themselves.

by Frederick Meekins

When I heard during the NCIS marathon on USA Network during one of those "Characters Welcome" segments that the individual coloring that creepy Communist-looking Obama "Hope" poster was a "street artist", I figured that was just an euphemism for graffiti vandal.

It has now been reported that the artist has been arrested on charges likely related to that particular form of urban mischief.

Ironically, some praising this hoodlum would applaud him as more of an artist than Norman Rockwell or Thomas Kincaid who actually drew and painted things that actually looked like things rather than toss a dab of color on something and claim it was theirs.

Rather fitting the artist heralded as embodying the spirit and values of the Obama administration would be someone with almost no respect for private property whatsoever.

Wonder if his opulent benefactors would be as enthusiastic if it was their property being spray painted?

by Frederick Meekins

At one point in its history, one could argue that the West was too sure of itself as the foremost of civilizations. However, such is no longer the case today.

At one point in its history, one could argue that the West was too sure of itself as the foremost of civilizations. However, such is no longer the case today.

In theory, pluralists and multiculturalists contend that no way of life or culture is better than any other. Thus, one would think that Western and American perspectives and traditions would be welcomed into this expanded showcase of human achievement.

Yet unless one wants to bash the West for its past short comings, they had better think again. If anything, one is expected to feel the same kind of shame in regards to the most innocuous of traditions that was once reserved for more carnal subjects during exceedingly Victorian times.

As an endearing symbol of all that is good and beautiful in the world, one would think there would be no reason whatsoever to get all flustered over a Christmas tree. However, liberals in media and education who any other time believe next to nothing should be hidden even for the sake of propriety and decorum can't even seem interestingly to speak this festive decoration's name nor even that of the celebration in which this symbol has come to play an integral part.

Plastered across the front page of the Gazette papers of the Washington, DC Metropolitan for the week of 12/25/08 in bold oversized typeface was an otherwise bland "Happy Holidays".

Above that and below a photo of an illuminated Christmas evergreen was a caption reading, "Crowds gather around the 60-foot tree for the lighting ceremony and fireworks show to kick off the holiday season on Nov. 28 at National Harbor." What holiday is this editor referring to --- Arbor Day?

Martin Luther King Day and Black History Month are just around the corner. Will this same paper tiptoe around these celebrations as well?

If not, why not? Christmas is probably celebrated by nearly 90% of the American population so we are basically forced to go out of our way to avoid stepping on the toes of a very miniscule demographic.

By default, there is probably a higher percentage than that among the White community who have thought to themselves (even if they lacked the backbone to vocalize their ruminations for fear of repercussions at the hand of the fanatically tolerant) that Black History Month is inherently racist since there is no officially designated counterpart for White folks to be applauded for simply being White folks. But then again, since those raising such concerns are usually conservative, their sensibilities will not be addressed.

Martin Luther is believed to have said that man is like a drunk reeling his head from one wall to the next. This can be interpreted as an analogy of how society careens back and forth between deleterious extremes.

In response to the efforts to expunge Christmas from American culture, some have not simply responded by declaring more than "Merry Christmas" irrespective of the consequences but rather by wearing to work what ostensively amounts to a Jesus costume consisting of a robe and a replica of a crown of thorns. Of this, I am reminded of a quote from King of the Hill where the titular character responds to a longhaired, tattooed preacher, “I’m sure Jesus is plenty of places he doesn’t want to be.”

While nothing should be done to employees that exercise their right of conscience by saying “Merry Christmas” rather than “Happy Holidays”, supervisors should not put up with subordinates showing up to work like this especially if the position deals with the public. It is, after all, the workplace under consideration and not a costume party.

Chesterton said, "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." From how many respond to Christmas in either censoring it entirely or becoming so consumed by it they end up looking like fools, it seems America may be tottering along the abyss of total lunacy.

by Frederick Meekins

In the 6/25/07 edition of U.S. News & World Report, New Age luminary Deepak Chopra was interviewed about his novel about Buddha interestingly titled "Buddha". Though many will no doubt fawn all over this narrative in search of some new spiritual insight or revelation in much the same way as they did with "The Da Vinci Code" these past few years, however, it seems some of the answers provided by this guru renowned by millions had as much thought put to them as the titling of this novel.

When asked what he thought the meaning of enlightenment was, Chopra responded, "The meaning here is that your real self is not a person, that there is no such thing as a separate self, that a person doesn't really exist...So enlightenment here means transcendence to that level of existence where the personal self becomes the universal self.”

If the separate self and the person does not exist, I wonder what Dr. Chopra would think if some tragedy befell his friends or family members? Is he simply going to brush it off by saying they did not exist anyway? If that is the case, I bet Mrs. Chopra and the children feel loved knowing that, in the eyes of dear old dad, out of sight will be out of mind.

With Christianity on the other hand, while the believer is admonished by I Thessalonians 4:13 not to mourn as the heathen as if there was no hope, the Christian legitimately pines for the departed loved one as one would for any friend or family member that has moved far away that you know you are probably not going to see for quite awhile but whom has nevertheless retained the same degree of distinct individuality as the day you met them.

Though Chopra has manipulated his followers into accepting his teachings and in the process made himself a very wealthy man (so much for desire causing suffering as basic Buddhism postulates), one can't help notice that Chopra doesn't exactly comport himself by the Eastern dictum that the self does not exist. For if the self does not exist, why has Chopra placed his name on the novel? And his photograph in the U.S. News & World Report profile is not of some disheveled lunatic consistently living out the implications of his worldview that appearance is just an allusion but rather of one who poses deliberately with his arm over his knee and his head cocked just so in a statement to the world that he is just a bit better than you.

More importantly, if a person doesn’t really exist since the individual is merely a “transient behavior of the total universe”, is Chopra going to forego the proceeds of what will probably be a bestseller and instead distribute the revenues to every person on the planet equally if “the universal self” and we are all the same person anyway? If Deepak Chopra doesn’t really exist, then why is the name slapped across his Center For Wellness?

But then again, such common sense and logic aren’t an integral part of Chopra’s worldview. When asked in the U.S. News & World Report interview if there is a fundamental tension between spirituality and religion, Chopra responded, “It [spirituality] has very little to do with religious dogma, ideology, or even self-righteous morality.”

Isn’t that itself a dogma? Are those that do not share in such metaphysical open-mindedness in the wrong? Doesn’t saying so imply a morality?

If ultimately morality does not really exist, on what grounds does Chopra have to complain should his publisher abscond with the proceeds of his novel? More importantly, if some horrible crime befell Mrs. Chopra and the kids, would such be wrong beyond the breaking of society’s arbitrarily derived laws?

That must really make his family feel special. Some might point out I already made that point. However, if you have no problems with the Eastern worldview espoused by this cultic guru, repetition and second go-arounds float your boat anyway.

by Frederick Meekins

One of the simple delights in the age of vehicular travel is coming across an empty parking space that still has time on the meter. Since the beast --- namely the municipalities obtaining revenue from the meter --- is still getting the amount of money it is due whether the spot is occupied by one or two cars in the purchased amount of time, one would think the taxmasters wouldn't care and simply let the lucky motorist enjoy one of the few pleasures remaining in our increasingly bleak and overcontrolled world.

However, it seems that technology is being used once more to tighten the noose of government around the neck of the law abiding citizen.

According to a Washington Post story titled “Meters Deny Parking Handouts“, a number of companies are developing devices sensitive enough to reset themselves once they detect that the space is no longer occupied. Instead of harassing motorists, perhaps these tech-heads should turn their sophisticated detection sensors towards securing America's border.

Especially revealing is the statist mentality of those supporting these Cylon parking meters (it's a wonder they don't have that little red light pulsating back and forth). The chief executive of IntelliPark (one of these companies out to get rich dreaming up new ways to further curtail human liberty) told the Washington Post, "You take away that free lunch, but on the other hand that's tax revenue."

If the primary concern here is that no one should get a "free lunch", wouldn't research efforts be better directed towards not developing a meter that resets itself as soon as a vehicle pulls away but rather makes change from the unused time?

"Why you skin-flint Conservative or tight-fisted Libertarian, how miserly of you to want back a few messily cents.” If we are to happily relinquish what is rightfully ours simply because it is just a few mere cents, just see what happens should you skimp on your IRS tax bill by the same amount.

If we are to view the motorist sneaking onto a spot where the meter has not yet run out of time as taking something out of the coffers of the state, why shouldn’t we cast the same glare of disapproval upon the state for pocketing a profit from time in which it’s space is not leased?

After all, to whom does the coinage for the unused time ultimately belong? For does it not actually belong to the original motorist that has since driven off?

Thus, it is the state (not the driver “sneaking” into the space) that is actually the small scale thief. Shouldn’t technology allow the original motorist to decide who gets to keep the change?

by Frederick Meekins

From at least 1994 when I remember writing my first column on the subject, despisers of the Almighty and liberals of the most spineless of stripes have conspired to undermine Christmas as a national celebration in the attempt to downplay and ultimately eliminate public recognition of God in general and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. These efforts have been so widespread that I was able to compile columns written about them over the years into a book titled "Yuletide Terror & Other Holiday Horrors".

Though the American people have been manipulated and their resistance worn down on a number of fronts to the point that they now let slide any number of outrages that would have caused considerable uproar in the past, for the most part citizens have been quite vocal about attempts by secular leftists to ban acknowledgement of the Christmas season. However, now that traditionalists have asserted the right to publicly affirm their god-given heritage, secularists are responding with alternative displays of their own promoting their own particular worldview.

Foremost among these is an ad campaign targeted at Washington, DC’s public transportation system. The posters sponsored by the American Humanist Association read, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake..” This simple question and accompanying reply are in need of a complex response.

For starters, whether we like it or not, if an atheist front group wants to pony up the cash, they have the same right to buy public advertising space like any other organization with too much money on its hands. Responses such as the one presented in a 11/17/08 USA Today article titled “Atheism: A Positive Pillar” where an Illinois state legislator told an atheist activist, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!...You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying.”

Such an attitude may itself be of a greater danger than the outright atheism. For it is wrong on a number of philosophical and apologetic grounds.

For starters, it is not really all that dangerous for children to know atheism exists. Granted, one might not want to, as in the example used by D. James Kennedy in a classic sermon, hand one’s child over to a thoroughgoing secularist who on the first day of kindergarten proceeds to indoctrinate the hapless pupil as to the alleged reasons why God does not exist and why Jesus Christ is not His Son.

However, part of protecting children is to warn them of the dangers out there bent on destroying them in body and soul. Thus, just as parents eventually one day have to have that discussion with their young ones about the existence of pedophiles and where to aim the kick should some sicko every try to rob the young ones of their innocence, parents also have the obligation to warn to warn that there are those out there that hate God so much that they’d like nothing more than to persuade you to give up your belief in Him as well.

The cause of Christ is not served by hiding these things from young minds and then finally exposing them to such apostasies upon adulthood. It’s challenging enough when you are taught about these things and then find your self surrounded by the products of an education system advocating such a viewpoint reeking of what you always heard pot smelled like and another hooligan wearing a t-shirt with decals of copulating skeletons as I remember the first day of college.

Secondly, lack of a belief in something is a belief about it. For too long, Christians and allied theists have played into the hands of atheists and agnostics by going along with the notion that those professing unbelief are objective and unfettered by preconceived epistemological commitments and that the believers are the ones holding onto bedrock dogmatic foundations. Many atheists are just as rabid in their assumptions as the most zealous of pulpit-pounding evangelists.

The anti-God Christmas placards intone the reader to "Just be good for goodness sake." But without God, can good truly exist? For if He does not, mankind is left with the alternatives of either nihilistic anarchy or regimented totalitarianism.

For example, if God does not exist, who is to say whatever the individual thinks or does is right or wrong? As has been said, in some cultures they are suppose to love their neighbors and in others they eat them. To the cannibal the adage is not so much finger licking good but rather good to lick fingers.

Furthermore, if God does not exist, on what grounds do the institutions of society such as the government have the right to tell you to do anything whatsoever? Without God and His revelation, the "IS" automatically becomes the "OUGHT" with rules and laws merely being those promulgations which keep the strongest in power.

But what about the individual, the timid may ask unsettled by the door that has been opened but too prideful to grasp Christ's outstretched hand. What about the individual?

If the individual is no better than all the other animals who are themselves just products of random chance, his welfare means nothing in comparison to the welfare and even the convenience of the larger group. Though it is a somewhat different philosophy, according to a Caryl Matrisciana column titled “An Enlightened Race?” New Agers who believe similarly to atheists that there are no absolutes rooted in the character of an eternal personal God don’t even want to say Hitler did anything wrong but rather merely things that were misguided at worst.

The New Atheists claim that the suspicions their worldview elicits are unfounded because as humanists they only have the betterment of the species in mind and that traditional religions are the ones responsible for the atrocities of history.

Margaret Downey of the Atheist Alliance International is quoted in the USA Today article as saying, "We atheists simply add an 'o' to our belief system --- we believe in good." However, that is in spite of rather than because of their unbelief.

If anything, what atheists exhibit when they manifest goodness is remaining Judeo-Christian moral capital. These individuals professing godlessness remain largely good because they have been acculturated in a milieu largely Biblical in its underlying ethical orientation.

However, as time marches on and these foundations are eroded as succeeding generations will become less familiar with this heritage. Future atheists will not be as eager to embrace the balanced approach to life we in the West have come to categorize as good.

Incidents where traditional forms of religion have been invoked to justify abridgements of individual liberty are horrifically tragic but because they betray the values espoused by the founders of these systems of belief. However, by default, that does not make those claiming to lack a religious faith are not necessarily more laid back in their approach to life and less prone to violence.

If anything, lack of divine restraints seems to send man's compulsion to prey (not pray) upon his fellow man into overdrive. One only need to look at the histories of regimes with an explicit antipathy towards the God of the Bible such as Soviet Russia, Red China, and Nazi Germany. And even in the United States where human dignity is for the most parts respected, numbers are appallingly high in terms of the millions slaughtered in the names of abortion and so-called “reproductive rights”, a charge led primarily by the godless along with the wishy-washy easily whipped up into a frenzied enthusiasm over the joys of baby-killing.

As commuters putter about this Christmas season and viewers watch the battle of the broadsides, there is more at stake than an esoteric debate as to the nature and origins of goodness. Both our very lives and our eternal destines could very well be on the line.

by Frederick Meekins

Each Thanksgiving, the President pardons a turkey --- an actual barnyard fowl and not a member of Congress. For the most part, the custom is itself harmless and mildly cute; however, should taxpaying citizens learn what is done with the turkey, they will likely end up with a case of indigestion.

According to a Fox News account, after the White House ceremony the turkey was to be flown first class to Disneyland in California. There the gobbling celebrity was to serve as the grand marshal of the park's Thanksgiving parade.

Many would dismiss this story as something not to get worked up over. Yet in this dawning era where we are constantly reminded how our very way of life must change or face collapse along various fronts, escorting a turkey to Disneyland in stratospheric luxury raises a number of questions.

First, is the turkey being sent there at taxpayer expense? If Disney wants the bird, that corporation is the party that should pick up the airfare.

Relatedly and even more importantly, shouldn't those that have set themselves up as our betters and the ones out to impose the new paradigms upon the rest of us have to live by their own standards?

For example, a letter to the editor published in the Prince George's Sentinel attempts to guilt-trip the reader into foregoing the turkey dinner by insinuating that this traditional culinary centerpiece is somehow bad for the environment. But what about the resources expended to get the turkey from Washington to California, and, even more importantly, what about the "carbon footprint" (the term used by beatniks of expanding girth like Al Gore to make themselves feel better about their own ostentatious consumption) left behind each year by the Disney corporation.

I for one have no problem with amusement parks and similar resorts. However, I am not the one haranguing the average American, who can hardly afford luxury vacations these days, into giving up one of the few remaining pleasures available, namely a reasonably priced turkey dinner.

Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. If the proposals of one pedagogical theorist are implemented, students will in all likelihood never know anything about the figure believed to have uttered such an astute observation.

According to a Daily Mail story titled “Drop middle class subjects says school adviser”, in the United Kingdom, education officials are considering a proposal that would eliminate traditional academic subjects such as English, History, Science, and Geography because these disciplines are “middle class”. In the place of the old curriculum, schools will emphasize a series of “personal aims” such as energy conservation, sustainable development, and personal relationships.

Such change must be made because these “middle class values” are a holdover from the 19th century as “mere stepping stones to wealth” and “alienated many youngsters...from disadvantaged backgrounds.” These comments exhibit a desire to tear down and reconstitute more than the public education system but rather the entire society.

For example, first and foremost the remarks are a rallying cry against Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Across Europe, the spineless and effeminate are afraid to raise their voices against Islamic encroachment for fear of radicalized adherents of this particular faith flying into homicidal hissy fits. By undermining the legitimacy of the values upon which society (and thus the educational system as part of society) rests, revolutionists hope to rebuild what they tear down in their own image.

In the Judeo-Christian worldview, the individual is imbued with considerable moral value for having been made in the image of God. However, in secular theory of education, since God is taken out of the picture, the individual loses much of his distinctive worth and becomes little more than an extension or cog of the group from which values and worth are alternatively derived.

The ultimate threat to such intentional collectivism is the ability to think and provide for oneself. In fact, part of the criticism of the traditional academic subjects is that they are "mere stepping stones to wealth."

State forbid (can't say heaven anymore since that is likely to offend some philosophical deviant), the individual (yet another ontological concept out of fashion in the New Order) that the individual should provide for himself. Rather one is to be taught reliance and dependence on the group and to aspire no higher than the station predetermined for them by committee.

In pursuit of this goal, students are instead to be taught a series of themes and personal aims such as civic responsibility, commitment to sustainable development and valuing personal relationships. Thus, students are not to be instructed in how to evaluate claims and policies made in regards to these matters but rather what to think about them.

Under the old regimen of traditional subjects, students assimilated and synthesized facts which they then utilized to weigh the different sides of an argument and then adopted the position they felt was closest to the truth. Under the new way of doing things, students are being told ahead of time what (to use a word popularized in the 1990's when this kind of nonsense percolate to the surface of mainstream pedagogical theory) "outcomes" they are to embrace.

For example, students not taught geography or science don't really know if they are being told the true state of the environment or being sold a total crock about sustainable development. Likewise, if students are not being taught the lessons of history and literature, how are they to know whether or not what they are being told presents a balanced perspective, what constitutes good citizenship, or that they are merely being brainwashed into sacrificing everything they have on the altar of the Fatherland (or rather the "Homeland" as it is becoming known as today).

Relatedly and more importantly, what if by some slim chance a student managed to transcend the intellectual shackles placed around their mind and did not embrace the presented outcomes? Will it be annotated in the student's file as has been suggested by the proponents of Outcome Based Education in this country with one's station in life no longer determined by one's talents but rather if one has embraced the values and outlooks one has been told to by elites.

Furthermore, while the educational system ought to teach students basic values such as treating others with a basic level of respect regarding person and property (what use to be called the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments before we were told to be all jittery about mentioning God and the Bible), do we really want bureaucrats assessing whether or not our children "value personal relationships"? These days this is probably psychobabble for applauding homosexuality, shacking up outside of marriage without guilt, and additional welfare handouts for each additional mouth brought into the world as the result of such unions, thus making what usually gets tossed into the face of the disapproving as a private matter into a very public one.

Though improvement could be made in informing students as to how these subjects are applied to life beyond the classroom, the liberal arts have earned their name as those bodies of knowledge worthy of a free man. Any reform that does more than tinker around with the edges of the system that has for the most part proven itself for centuries is not about improving the life of the individual but rather about devising more efficient ways to enslave it.

by Frederick Meekins