Sound Off!: January 2005

Monday, January 31, 2005

Response to your article

Subject: State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part II

I moved here from England in 1975 with my husband who was an F4 fighter pilot in the USAF. Sadly, due to too many volunteer tours in Vietnam it took a toll on his heart and he died at 36 of bacterial endocarditis. He never would talk too much about Vietnam only that it was such a senseless war with so many casualties and so pointless as there was no way to win this war - the same comparison that we have in Iraq.

I already see the comparison with Germany, especially with the INS and Homeland Security. I wish you could know the attorcities that the INS are creating due to the 1996 IIRIR (Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility act; which Janet Reno made sure was retroactive. This law was subsequent to the bombing in Oklahoma (which was carried out by an American). This law was enacted to catch terrorists; obviously it didnt, hence 9/11. It did, however, catch up all the little fish and these people sufferred, spouses being torn from their families and sent back to countries they did not know, to cultures they did not know and a language they could not speak. Some of these people included those who had DUI's, been convicted, paid their dues and led an exemplary and law abiding life and yet when they either renewed their Alien card or applied for citizenship years later, they were arrested, put in detention and subsequently deported. There are so many horror stories that the people of this great country are not aware of, and why, because the INS does not want the people to know and quite honestly they wouldnt believe, as things like this do not happen in this country of democracy.

I believe this is just another step of the government taking control over the people. I am sad at leaving as I always believed this was a great country with great people, but I no longer want to live in a country that no longer gives me freedom of choice.

Nancy Blonshine

Great article, STATE OF THE UNION, PTS 1&2

Dear John,

I must agree that we as a nation are and have been for many years, slowly deterriorating in caring about each other and about being a nation. People are taught to be individuals instead of a country. I'm of an age that I can remember times when people were outside doing things and talking to neighbors and had friends and family over for visits other than holidays. There were children out in the streets playing and laughing, having a good time with the neighbors' kids. Now, the streets are bare of life, but filled with violent gangs and dope pushers. It's been said many times in many different articles that most people don't even know the name of their next door neighbor. I live in a small town in West Virginia and it's even here that people are reluctant to do things for others in need. They are too busy pursuing their own interests.

The morals and traditions of the people have dropped so low that the divorce rate is astronomical. Everyone is so quick to lash out in fighting over nothing, breaking up a family and trading one set of problems for another set in a different family. The fighting and arguing over mundane issues that should not even be an issue, such as abortion, gay rights, smoking, religion, and political views. These are non issues designed to keep people bickering over them so they can be shafted from behind the scenes by this ELITE BROTHERHOOD and the government. People have become so rude and crude in their lives. Even families have separate "his-n-hers" items and it's even gotten into the family finances when both are working. What's wrong with this picture?

It does NO GOOD to write or complain to an uncaring government since we the people are no longer represented in government, but are controlled by them and their ELITE CORPORATE BROTHERS. I have written volumes of letters to state representatives, congresspersons, governors and others with absolutely NO response from them. This tells me that they could care less about the concerns of the people that supposedly elected them.

How do you awaken a populace that refuses to believe that their government sold them out to these corporate conglomerates? How do you awaken the sleeping ones that would rather spend time ignoring the signals, and instead, buying those corporate made toys and gagets to entertain them, or watching those corporate owned and sponsored movies and sports teams and buying the TEAM LOGO clothes that are made by child slave labor, or watching the corporate owned and controlled news media and shouting "CONSPIRICY THEORIST" to those that try to spread the truth. I fear that these people are so DUMBED DOWN and steeped in their own self indulgent ignorance that they will not awaken till it's too late. I fear that it's already too late to be able to do much about it.

Sincerely,

Mike W
Big Springs, WV

Thursday, January 27, 2005

George W Bush, Philosopher-king

Throughout my working career, I entrusted a substantial percentage of my weekly earnings to the govt. to be used as an insurance for my retirement years. Let me be very clear. The money I receive now that I am retired is money I earned, money I trusted the govt. to keep secure so that I could be independent upon retirement. I am very thankful we had a President Roosevelt who truly knew the meaning of compassion (concern for his fellows). Putting money in the stock market is akin to placing a bet on a thorough-bred at the local race track. Besides, what is wrong with an individual using any excess monies from his weekly salary and investing at his discretion. There is no need for the govt. to get involved with an individuals decision to invest in a market that may or may not perform.

If these ideologues operating in Washington truly want to give ownership to the citizens, they should keep their greedy hands off of what belongs to the public (Social Security). If these meddlers really believe in smaller govt. they would mind the business of govt. and let people decide on their own initiative when and where to invest. I am one of those workers who thru-out my working career made a modest salary. I am one of those who by investing a modest amount of my salary, by voluntarily making arrangements to have this money taken out of my pay check each week, was able to supplement my retirement so that I don`t have to work if I choose not to. Social Security (my money held in trust by the govt.) plus my modest investments, plus a very modest (below the poverty line retirement check from my past employer) I am able to live an independent, modestly secure retirement; which gave a younger person a chance at a job.

There comes a time when a persons working days come to an end. SS gives the average person a modest helping hand. With a little education, individuals can be shown ways to save for their future without govt. meddling. Pushing people to make decisions by using fear tactics (as were used to lead this country into an illegal war), prevalent with this administration, is unconscionable.

Richard Abato

Monday, January 24, 2005

The Gospel of Darwin

Subject: The Gospel of Darwin: Its Sordid History

Dear Mr. Rutherford,

If you're going to criticize Darwin you should at least take the trouble to quote the title of his revolutionary work correctly. (It's "The Origin of Species," not "Origin of the Species" as you misstate three times in your article.)

You also repeat the old Creationist canard that ".. you cannot produce this quantify or quality of information from random means." This claim ignores the crucial meaning of the noun "selection" as in "theory of natural selection." Nature throws the dice, so to speak, by producing now and then random mutations. Nearly all are discarded as deleterious, but a very few are "selected" because they confer some very slight advantage on the organism. No reputable life scientist ever claimed that any organism was created in one fell swoop.

I also find it amusing that neither of the "authorities" you mention, Phillip Johnson or Anthony Flew is a trained biologist; the former is a lawyer, the latter a philosopher.

Finally, following your logic about Mussolini, Hitler, et al. who tried to use Darwinism to justify their perverse acts, one could conclude that any religion (e.g., Judaism and Christianity) based on the Old Testament must be rejected because Leviticus 25:44-46 clearly approves of slavery.

As one who has often admired your principled stands for civil liberties and human rights, I am disappointed to see you buy into the patent nonsense of Creationism and Intelligent Design. This is simply not science, as the lead editorial in Today's New York Times so ably points out.

Yours truly,
Jim Simmonds

The Gospel of Darwin

Dear John Whitehead:

Your excellent column on Darwinism is well researched and clearly stated. I hope it is part of a book or other effort at publication, for a larger forum. I gained from reading it and suspect that many others will have a less favorable view of Darwin's theories after reading it. Keep up the good work.

Don Nuechterlein

State of the Union Article

Subject: State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part I

I appreciate your excellent article in the Giles Free-Press. I hope enough of our countrymen see the truth before it is too late.

I was reminded by your article of a quote from the testimony of Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trial – I believe I saw this in the NY Times.

“It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism & exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

Missy Witt
Prospect TN

The Gospel of Darwin: Its Sordid History

Subject: The Gospel of Darwin: Its Sordid History

Dear Sir,

Hitler never mentioned Darwin or Darwinism.

Hitler himself was a creationist, at least as far as humans were concerned. We read for the night of 25 and 26 July 1942 , in Hitler's Table Talk: 'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.'

Was Hitler right when he doubted human evolution?

And the entry for 27 February 1942 says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

'That, which Man has over the animals, the probably most wonderful proof for the superiority of mankind is, that he has understood, that there must be a creative power.'

Was Hitler right to believe this?

Die zehn Gebote sind Ordnungsgesetze, die absolut lobenswert sind.'

'The Ten Commandments are laws for order, which are totally praiseworthy.'

Was he right to say this?

The article also mentions that well known signer of agreements with the Vatican, Benito Mussolini.

'All creations of the spirit starting with that religious are coming to the fore, and nobody dare keep up the attitude of anticlericalism which, for several decades, was a favorite with Democracy in the Western world. By saying that God is returning, we mean that spiritual values are returning. (Da the parte va it mondo, in Tempi della Rivoluzione Fascista, Milano, Alpes, 1930, p. 34)'

'The Fascist State is not indifferent to religious phenomena in general nor does it maintain an attitude of indifference to Roman Catholicism, the special, positive religion of Italians. The State has not got a theology but it has a moral code. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a "god of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes, and it also respects God as conceived by the ingenuous and primitive heart of the people, the God to whom their prayers are raised.' From 'The doctrine of Fascism' (1932)

That document does state that life is in a process of evolution, but Mussolini makes clear later that he means 'political evolution'.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Steven Carr

Concerning "The Gospel of Darwin," 1/3/2005

The theory of evolution is not an account of how life began on this planet. It is an explanation of how, once life had begun, species gave rise to multiple and diverse new species with different adaptions. Note that the theory, that mutation and natural selection were the principle generators of new adaptions, could be mistaken, without affecting the conclusion that somehow, humans share common ancestors with monkeys, and indeed with mulberries. That Antony Flew (who by his own account is ignorant of research in abiogenesis, and on the basis of that ignorance seems to have invoked a god-of-the-gaps) thinks that the origin of life implies a Designer does not mean that he rejects any aspect of the theory of evolution. Phillip Johnson (and his allies like Behe and Dembski) neatly elides the difference between "evolutionists have not to my satisfaction explained X in detail" and "evolutinists cannot ever explain X," and imagines that this confusion is evidence for a Designer. Since he will not pose testable hypotheses about the methods, purposes, and design philosophy of this Designer, he cannot obtain evidence of a more conventional sort (i.e. facts that the hypothesis explains better than rival accounts) for it.

Racism is not a logical consequence of evolutionary theory. Racism is based on the idea that there is some racial essence shared by all and only members of a race, and that some racial essences are superior to others. Darwin's theory, in contrast, holds that there is variation in all groups, with more variation within "races" than between them. Darwin himself pointed out that there is no trait on which a white man could rest his claims of racial superiority, which is possessed by all white men and no persons of other races. The entire theory is opposed to the idea of essential traits of races, or even species. It also, for that matter, replaced the older "evolutionary ladder" (which was based on the older scala natura, the ladder of creation), in which some races and species are higher than others, with an "evolutionary tree" in which differences reflect different adaptions to different environments and ways of making a living, rather than greater and lesser degrees of perfection.

Note that Darwin did not, in The Origin of Species, discuss the evolution of human beings (except in a single sentence promising that light would be shed on this issue in the future). He used the term "races" in that book as a synonym for "varieties" -- variations within a species on which natural selection can act. There is no reference in the title to human races, nor any implication that the "white race" is the "favored race."

Of course, Darwin's writings are not, in fact, evolutionists' scriptures (they feel no need to treat them as inerrant, and indeed delight in finding areas where they can show Darwin wrong), and he is not its prophet. It is not sufficient to show that Darwin held some belief to show that it is an implication of the theory; rather, you need to show that the belief is actually implied by the ideas of differential reproductive success of variant offspring, and common descent. But it is still perhaps worth noting that Darwin did not hold the beliefs you attribute to him.

For example, that Darwin concluded that men, on average, are more intelligent than women does not mean that this is the only conclusion on this subject that can be drawn on "Darwinist" premises. It is, moreover, grossly wrong to infer from Darwin's conclusion that he thought women were "biologically inferior" to men (indeed, the only criterion of "biological inferiority" -- "fitness" would be better -- than can be justified in Darwinist terms is production of fewer surviving descendants -- but obviously women must have exactly as many surviving descendants, on average, as men). Unless you hold -- or wish to assert that Darwin held -- that anyone more intelligent than you is superior to you -- it cannot be held that a group which is, on average, more intelligent than another (but not more successful biologically) must be "biologically superior" to the latter group. Note, by the way, that the theory of evolution is, in fact, about biology and change in populations over time. "Fitter" is not equivalent to "morally superior," or "higher," or "more deserving," or "better" (except in the sense of "better at leaving descendants").

I do not think that Hitler actually based his ideas to any great extent on Darwin's -- certainly the only references to "evolution" in Mein Kampf are to the evolution of political institutions, not races or species. Their emphasis on the selective breeding of humans, and their purely negative conception of selection -- getting rid of bad traits, not accumulation beneficial changes -- is quite different from Darwin's emphasis on natural selection to produce changes in species and races. Certainly hatred of Jews (and, elsewhere, a belief in the inferiority and proper servile status of "colored races") existed before Darwin -- and flourished, after him, at least as strongly among opponents of his ideas as among his supporters.

Likewise, of course, nationalism and laissez-faire capitalism (an odd pair, somewhat at odds with one another) both had their proponents long before people latched onto Darwin's theory as a justification for attitudes and preferences they already had. You note that George Bernard Shaw complained that the world jumped at Darwin; he noted, indeed, that supporters of the most diverse and contradictory ideologies found support for their ideas in Darwin's writings. It cannot be, I think, that Darwinism logically implies both untrammeled capitalism and total socialism; either the theory has no coherent content (a criticism, indeed, but not the one you make), or its content concerns biology only, and not economics, politics, or ethics (my own view, of course).

What I have seen of purely scientific criticisms of the theory of evolution are as fallacious and error-ridden as the sociological and ethical criticisms. Behe offers a claim about "irreducible complexity" that ignores the possibility of components of complex systems being modified (losing or gaining functions) instead of being merely added or deleted. Dembski argues as if not proving a thing happened amounts to proving it could not happen, and blithely attributes to his unindentified Designer whatever motives and abilities might be necessary to explain whatever feature of living things has caught his fancy. Many critics of evolution cite Denton's argument that lampreys (jawless fish) are as distant biochemically from jawed fish as they are from mammals -- which would be a valid criticism of an evolutionary ladder, but is expected from a Darwinian evolutionary tree. It is no favor to students to assume that there are actual valid, scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory, and demanding that they be taught, when legislators are entirely ignorant of what those criticisms actually are and whether they have any merit.

-- Steven J. Thompson
Peoria, Illinois

Friday, January 21, 2005

Fascism with a Smile

Subject: State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part I

Oh thank god there are still people left with old-world sensibilities. My name is Devin Lafayette, I am 29 years old, but no victim to the new world and its endless feel-good sedation techniques. Your article hits it on the nose. I was just watching the presidential innauguration a few hours ago, watching all the poor, smiling victims, HOORAY past Bush and his cronies secluded in their glass shield, and a wise cliche that my Dad always speaks to me came to mind, " The more things change, the more they stay the same." How true. It was never more apparent to me how the nullified masses will cheer and salute anyone, if that is what they are told, and sold to do.

How can so many people, generation after generation, fail to see the clearly displayed rotten graffiti on the wall? It is so obvious! I weep for the passing of time, when the day comes when the intelligent people from the old world, are altogether displaced by the young mucks who grew up not in a world with value, or understanding of real truth, their souls being entirely plucked out early, and replaced with cheeseburgers, pornography, and violent video games. ( we live in a generation of twisted individuals whom find it okay to make a video game of the assasination of JFK and profit off of it) What will become of us when these people become the predominant class? When they become the elders, that the young people turn too? Such is truly dreadful notion.

How can we prevent this? What can be done? How can we a a whole ( those of us who have retained our ability to discern, and think responsibly) somehow alter this fork in the road that has been paved for us, steering us into darkness? If the masses refuse to learn from history, does that mean that we as well must go down with their ship, as once again, it repeats itself?

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Fascism With A Smile

Subject: State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part I

Mr. Whitehead:

You are very correct about the slow erosion of our society as "Fascism" becomes the norm. Unfortunately, the transition has very secret, deep roots in the nation's history. At least one manifestation came with the infamous Executive Order 9835, promulgated in secrecy by Harry Truman in 1947. That act set off years of illegal activity by federal inquisitors. Reportedly, more than six-million people had their lives traumatized by Star Chamber sessions They were marked by vague accusations, no witnesses, and innuendo There were no actual charges and more importantly, no defense attorneys. And even toward the end, when the Order was modified by President Eisenhower, there were no convictions. A few hundred people were fired for what was probably an attitude problem. Perhaps they did not grovel sufficiently.

The times also produced a joker of sorts,in the entry of the very secret military into the arena. For example, the AFOSI embarked on a parallel program. Whether it was a part of the Truman Order or independently, the OSI followed the same general pattern of illegalities. However, they added mail-opening, burglary, slander, and those deadly background interviews which always featured the "C" word. (Now replaced by the "T" word.)

Congress saw no reason to react to the Truman effort. And it certainly wasn't interested in 'tangling with the secret police. Eventually, the civilian side faded into a seldom mentioned history. But the advantage of an anointed, secret military eventually led to a multiplication of alphabetical organizations seldom if ever answerable to anyone.

Years ago, H. L. Mencken suggested that all government employees should wear uniforms. He reasoned that the rest of the population would recognize the problem and react. When that occurred in NAZI Germany, it was already too late. Here, they may just settle for armbands. A rampant, gold dollar sign over a coiled bull whip would seem appropriate.

Respectfully,
George B. Morgan

Problem in America

Subject: TRI Attorneys Ask Federal Court to Protect Students’ First Amendment Right to Access Information Concerning Origins of Life

Mr. Whitehead,

It's interesting to read different ideas in the email comments but it isn't surprising to see a school sup't. to deny Darwinism being taught in the schools. While claiming it's a theory;no other theory (especially what we know to be fact) is allowed. Without a doubt, we are in a Culture War and America is under attack by the Left doing the same work as the Communist. The Left has the same criteria as they do, they only go by different names. Public Education has become the #1 Enemy because our children are being indoctrinated with lies and being turned against their own country. College Ed. has become the finishing touch for producing anti American citizens that now embrace the New World Order. The Amer. people have become so lazy and spirituality dead that they no longer can focus what is happening. The Good News is -it is the sign of the times and The Lord's Coming can't be far away. All Nations are turned into Hell who forget God. The ACLU is a Communist front and Judges who do not uphold the Cons't. prove to be the enemy of a free people and should be removed. Even the LEFT fails to realize that when you can finally remove any mention of God,etc., the liberties that were enjoyed will be in the ash bin of History. America should memorize 2nd. 7:14.

Thank You

Carolyn Watson

Fw: Article on Fascism

Subject: State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part I

Dear Mr. Whitehead,

I completely agree with your article. When I look at this country, I am very afraid, too. My question is---what do we do? I'm an ordinary citizen. I'm not that smart, but I am smart enough to see what is happening. I live in North Carolina. I write my Congressmen & Senators constantly. I can give you samples of their replies. Senator Burr generally doesn't respond at all. Three months ago, I did receive a letter from him that said, "I'm in the Senate now. Write to Virginia Foxx who represents your district." I have written frequently to Virginia Foxx who was previously in our state legislature. Her typical response is, "You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree. Thanks for writing." Letters to Elizabeth Dole are generally answered in this fashion, "Yes, that's important. Maybe I'll vote on it if it comes up." John Edwards was a good Senator and wrote intelligent and caring responses to most letters, but he is no longer with us. Our representatives do not represent us.

I read a lot of articles like yours. I write my own letters in our local newspapers. What we all want to know is--what do we do? How do we fight this administration right here in our own lives and our own towns? And how do we fight this "fanaticism" that seems to be taking over the country. Talking about it, writing about it, bitching about it is not accomplishing anything. Tell us what to do about it. How do you raise the "consciousness" and "awareness" of a country?

Thank you,
Leisa Gunter

Your Article dated 1/17/2005

Dear Mr. Whitehead;

Regarding your article of 1/17/2005.

It was an interesting read, however, don't you feel that the Conservative forces who have blindly followed, supported, and helped, quite literally, cover-up the overt actions toward the ends you describe, of George Bush, have indeed become the new "Nazi Party"?

What I mean by that is simply this. Look what happens if anyone even dares to critisise Bush. They are immediatly branded unamerican, traitorous, liberal communists, or worse, terrorist supporters, by the very people who support Bush, regardless of the nature of the critique.

Honestly Mr. Whitehead, can you honestly say that if current trends continue, will it not be Conservative Republicans who are the "villians" you so aptly describe.

I'm interested to hear your take on this.

James Betteridge

Comments on your article

Our local newspaper ran your article concerning The State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile. I could not agree with you more. It is amazing to me that more people are not opening their eyes to this fact.

I am a good democrat and would like to think that republicans are to blame for this situation. I can see the Bush organization heading in this direction. The really big concern is how to stop this from happening.

Being a retired educator, I believe the public schools have to perform their job in teaching and demonstrating how citizenship works. The public schools teach government as a pure history form and do not teach a hands-on participation of the democratic system. It would be nice to see the children learn how precincts work, how officials get on the ballot, how votes are counted, where the check and balance systems are located to prevent fraud in their state, etc.

An opportunity to participate, a stake in the action, and fair rules in every state will help foster elections that cannot be stolen. When people believe they have control, they will not turn over their freedom to any one person.

Thank you again for your efforts and concerns for our USA.

Barbara Tyson

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Fascism with a Smile

Subject: State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part I

I hope that in the future you write an article about all of the communists currently writing blogs, articles, etc. who masquerade as Christians and patriots (and pastors), when they are nothing of the sort. Anti-Americans all, with no solutions to anything, only continually tearing down. Hey, that's just like the fascists before Hitler took over!! What a coincidence...

Barb Witt

Friendlinesses

Add to this the entertainment and drug industries that distract and numb us from feeling any type of reality, and we are ripe for "friendly fascism."

The irony of this is while we are in the "Information Age," people tend to be more acquiescent to being dumbed down than one would otherwise expect. This irony is manifest in George Bush's delivery in that he comes across as the "common man." He is "common" but not in the homespun sense. People will not tend to want to outshine the man at the top, while excusing his own gauchery and gaffes, they will be less likely to improve upon their own, more likely to accept their own down'd dumbery as being part of the clique.

Complementary yours,
Alamaine
Grand Forks, North Dakota, US of A

friendly fascism

Dear Mr. Whitehead,

Thank you for your article posted at Rense' s site.... It's worse than you estimate... please see : The 911 Commission Report, Omissions & Distortions, by David Griffin, just out a few weeks ago. Also, www.globaloutlook.ca

Best Wishes,
Mike Marino

State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile-Part I

Dear Sir,

How can a man who never graduated from High School and has survived as a white male Israelite of 70 years answer an educated intellectual like yourself. With the small amount of facts just given, intellectual don't have time to listen to lowlife non-college canon-fodder like myself. Maybe, since I won't have time to write too much before being cliked off I can get one word of advice in before the click happens. Why don't you get your intellectual head out of the sand and read "The Protocols of Zion" by Victor E. Marsden; "OUR ENEMY THE STATE" by Alfred Nock; "THE MAN VERSUS THE STATE, by Herbert Spencer; "INVISIBLE CONTRACTS" by George Mercier; and the Holy Scriptures by the Living God - I AM. Thank you for your time.

Ronald-Richard family of Stradling

Monday, January 17, 2005

John Whitehead's article on Darwin

Subject: The Gospel of Darwin: Its Sordid History

I must take exception to a statement by John Whitehead in his article 'The Gospel of Darwin: Its Sordid History'. He makes a broad brush stroke when stating in the second paragraph that public schools teach Darwinism as fact. I have been in public education for 29 years and 28 of those have been as a public school administrator. I have never seen Darwinism taught as fact, only as a theory. This includes elementary, middle school or high school. My children have never had Darwin's
theory presented as fact in public school or college. I would think that Whiteheads statement, like Darwinism, is no more then theory, not fact based on any kind of research. He is spouting what he detests in his own format. That is dangerous ambiguity at its worst, almost a Rush Limbaugh flaw! Thank you and have a good day! Now to the good fight based on facts and not on hearsay!

Dr. Alan L. Meyer, Superintendent
East Marshall Comm. School Dist.
Gilman, Iowa

Monday, January 10, 2005

Why are we on the defense rather than the offense ????

From the beginning to the end of our Bible, God tells us we are to be on the offense, not on the defense. I do not read anywhere that it says we are to defend ourselves, God tells us He will lead and back us when we go forward for Him... It is up to US to doing the Going Forward !!!

We are letting the ACLU do the offense and we Christians are kept on the defense. They are using a lie to keep us running all over America putting out fires they start !!!

Since there is no such statement in our Constitution that says, "Separation of Church and State", WHY ARE WE NOT GOING ON THE OFFENSE AGAINST THEIR ORGANIZATION ????? We are going after the symptoms rather than the cause of our problems !!!

This article tells us about the ACLU's lie that is causing all the problems.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42268

Bama J Rowan
Ellijay, GA