Apologetics – Page 95

One Characteristic Of Babel Humanistic Statism

Ironically, at the same time that humanistic statism de-personalizes life and man, it speaks often about ‘the Brotherhood of man’ a term from family life. This doctrine of brotherhood, however, is an intellectual concept and an abstraction. It has nothing to do with family life, even though the term ‘family of man’ is often used. This idea of the brotherhood refers to the statist integration of races, nationalities, and cultures to form a homogeneous blend in which all the distinctives of each are lost. The God given personal identities and ways of white, black Oriental, and other peoples are all offensive to these statists. They seek to create a humanity which has no personal identities but acts, responds, and functions in terms of social evolutionary plans. Theirs is a plan for death and they call it life.”

R. J. Rushdoony
The Roots of Reconstruction — pg. 323

What RJR is noting we might call “universal racism.” Universal racism would be that racism that treats people in an unloving way who do not agree that “integration of races, nationalities, and cultures to form a homogeneous blend in which all the distinctives of each are lost” is a good thing. Actually, the problem of Universal Racism is far more prevalent today then any other kind of racism

McAtee Dissects Leithart’s Call For Protestantism’s Burial

Recently, the Cambridge learned Rev. Dr. Peter Liethart opined over at first things,

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/11/the-end-of-protestantism

that Protestantism is over.

I am taking the opportunity to poke some holes in his thesis.

The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.

Leithart is a Master at linguistic deception. Here he tells us that the Reformation lives on while Protestantism is dead and yet the Protestantism he describes in his article sounds a good deal more like your average epistemically self conscious Reformed congregation then it does the Methodists, Nazarenes, Lutherans and Independent Baptists I know of. So, while Leithart says we need to throw the dirt on dead Protestantism, the corpse he describes as dead reads to be a description, in many respects, of historic Reformed theology.

Peter J. Leithart (PJL) writes,

When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they ain’t. What I’m calling “Protestantism” does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.

Dr. Leithart claims that Protestants define themselves as “not Catholic” and yet I find most of Protestantism has a great deal in common with Roman Catholics. Rome teaches a Universal Atonement, so does most of Protestantism. Rome teaches justification by faith plus works. So does most of Protestantism. Rome denies irresistible grace and unconditional election and total depravity. So do the Wesleyans, many many Baptists, most modern Congregationalists, as does your garden variety Pentecostal. What JPL should be arguing is not that Protestantism needs to be buried but that Protestantism embrace its inner Roman Catholic self. It is not a burial that is needed in terms of Protestantism but a marriage. Those are much more fun to market.

However, if we posit that there is some linguistic deception going on here then what we read PJL advocating is the burial of the epistemologically self conscious Reformed Church. It is that Church which understands that its worldview and identity stands in contrast to both Roman Catholicism and to contemporary Protestantism.

PJL writes,

Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.

Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.

Bret responds,

PJL’s Reformational Catholicism sounds a great deal like just garden variety Reformed thinking except for the conspicuous absence of the nasty word “alone.” It is true we Reformed people don’t do Papal claims, host veneration, or Mary and Saint praying, but what we Reformed people do do when we talk about salvation as a gift of God is that we do say it is received by faith alone. We also insist that also say that all tradition must be judged by Scripture alone. When Dr. Leithart loses these “alones” we Reformed types — those very chaps that Dr. Leithart insists need to be buried — begin to smell a Papist in the woodpile.

In these “alones” is the difference between both the Reformed Faith and Roman Catholicism and the Reformed Faith and the Reformational Catholicism that PJL is championing in his First Things piece.

When PJL suggests that “all tradition must be judged by Scripture” and then seemingly describes Scripture as “the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church” all kinds of red lights go off and bells start ringing. First of all as sons of the Reformation we insist that all tradition must be judged by Scripture alone and we have always been suspicious about “the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church” because one of our founders spoke about how Pope’s and councils can err. Our understanding of the Church is that it is ministerial in these matters and not magisterial. Perhaps that is what PJL intended. Perhaps it isn’t. Either way the absence of those “alones” makes us about to be buried corpses nervous.

PJL wrote,

Though it agrees with the original Protestant protest, Reformational catholicism is defined as much by the things it shares with Roman Catholicism as by its differences. Its existence is not bound up with finding flaws in Roman Catholicism. While he’s at it, the Reformational catholic might as well claim the upper-case “C.” Why should the Roman see have a monopoly on capitalization?

A Protestant exaggerates his distance from Roman Catholicism on every point of theology and practice, and is skeptical of Roman Catholics who say that they believe in salvation by grace. A Reformational Catholic cheerfully acknowledges that he shares creeds with Roman Catholics, and he welcomes reforms and reformulations as hopeful signs that we might at last stake out common ground beyond the barricades. (Protestants also exaggerate differences from one another, but that’s a story for another day.)

A Protestant believes (old-fashioned) Roman Catholic claims about its changeless stability. A Reformational Catholic knows that the Roman Catholicism has changed and is changing.

Bret responds,

I quite agree with PJL that the Reformed faith is the alone Catholic faith. I also agree that we share some words, creeds and concepts with Roman Catholicism. However, I must insist that as those shared words, creeds, and concepts like it distinctly different worldviews (Augustinian vs. Pelagian) that those shared words, creeds, and concepts end up having diametrically different meanings.

And yes it is true that we are skeptical of both Protestant (for example, Free Methodist, Church of God — Cleveland Tn., Assembly of God, etc.) claims to salvation by grace and Roman Catholic claims to salvation by grace. A denial of the doctrines of Grace as well as a denial of the “Solas” lead us to being skeptical because in claims to salvation by grace we always find salvation by not grace. So, again, the burial that PJL is looking for is not the burial of Protestantism but the burial of the Reformed Church.

PJL wants to get beyond the barricades but until we can agree on those “alones” the barricades will remain. To give up those alones as being absolutely necessary is to give up our reason for existence. It is to give up everything. It is to be buried.

PJL writes,

Some Protestants don’t view Roman Catholics as Christians, and won’t acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a true church. A Reformational Catholic regards Catholics as brothers, and regrets the need to modify that brotherhood as “separated.” To a Reformational Catholic, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s a billion-member Church of Jesus Christ centered in Rome. Because it regards the Roman Catholic Church as barely Christian, Protestantism leaves Roman Catholicism to its own devices. “They” had a pedophilia scandal, and “they” have a controversial pope. A Reformational Catholic recognizes that turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is turmoil in his own family.

Bret responds,

I absolutely insist that many Roman Catholics are Christian. At the same time I equally insist that Roman Catholicism, as expressed in the Council of Trent is not Christianity. Rome, with its council of Trent likewise anathematizes me. Oddly enough, though I agree with PJL that a scandal in the Roman Church hurts us all but only because Joe Sixpack doesn’t distinguish between Roman Catholic Churches and Protestant Churches today.

PJL seems to suggest that all because 1 billion Roman Catholics exist therefore they must be a Church. Has it really gotten to the point that counting noses determines what is and isn’t a church? Mormonism has 14 million members and insist that they are part of the Church. Should we include them as well? Mormons talk about Jesus. They talk about sin. They use much of the same language. Why not include them?

PJL writes,

A Protestant views the Church as an instrument for individual salvation. A Reformational Catholic believes salvation is inherently social.

A Protestant’s heroes are Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their heirs. If he acknowledges any ancestry before the Reformation, they are proto-Protestants like Hus and Wycliffe. A Reformational Catholic gratefully receives the history of the entire Church as his history, and, along with the Reformers, he honors Augustine and Gregory the Great and the Cappadocians, Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus, Thomas and Bonaventure, Dominic and Francis and Dante, Ignatius and Teresa of Avila, Chesterton, de Lubac and Congar as fathers, brothers, and sisters. A Reformational Catholic knows some of his ancestors were deeply flawed but won’t delete them from the family tree. He knows every family has its embarrassments.

Now, we have an agreement with PJL. Protestantism is hopelessly atomistic. However, I don’t need to go to the artificially re-imagined Reformational Catholicism to find covenantal (social) categories of salvation. I only have to look to the Reformers. The whole individualistic thing marks Protestantism as being different from both Roman Catholicism and Reformed covenantalism. I would welcome the burial of datable conversion, decisional regeneration, walking the sawdust trail, the mourners seat, that “askingJesusintoyourheart” Protestantism. But I can do that without embracing PJL’s Reformational Catholicism.

I have learned from many of the names cited by PJL, however, I think we must be careful who we include and how we include people in that list. Will we also include the Borgia Popes, Tomás de Torquemada, Pope Leo X, Bloody Mary, Mary Queen of Scots, Cardinal Reginald Pole, House of Valois or any number of other “Christian” villains of Church History?

PJL writes,

Protestants are suspicious of a public, “Constantinian” church. While acknowledging the temptations of power, a Reformational Catholic views public witness as an expression of the Church’s mission to the nations.

A Protestant mocks patristic and medieval biblical interpretation and finds safety in grammatical-historical exegesis. A Reformational Catholic revels in the riches, even while he puzzles over the oddities, of Augustine and Origen, Bernard and Bede. He knows there are unplumbed depths in Scripture, never dreamt of by Luther and Calvin.

Bret responds,

Constantinianism is an inescapable category. All nations are formed with implicit or explicit State churches. The Crown and the Mitre always walk together. Most Protestants and many Reformed are too dull to understand that.

PJL argues for a maximalist hermeneutic. But how maximalist shall we go and how shall we know when Alexandrian hermeneutics have gone to far?

I agree that the pseudo scientific historical-grammatical hermeneutic is sometimes insufficient but we better know the dangers of other approaches before we go to them. I’ve read some of Leithart’s family members hermeneutics and it is a Alice in Wonderland experience all over again.
blockquote>PJL writes

A Protestant is indifferent or hostile to liturgical forms, ornamentation in worship, and sacraments, because that’s what Catholics do. Reformational Catholicism’s piety is communal and sacramental, and its worship follows historic liturgical patterns. A Protestant wears a jacket and tie, or a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, to lead worship; a Reformational Catholic is vested in cassock and stole. To a Protestant, a sacrament is an aid to memory. A Reformational Catholic believes that Jesus baptizes and gives himself as food to the faithful, and doesn’t avoid speaking of “Eucharist” or “Mass” just because Roman Catholics use those words.

This is where PJL gets kind of creepy. To a Reformed person this all sounds like smells and bells religion. PJL insist that it is an aid to memory but how many Roman Catholics can tell you what the incense at a Roman Catholic funeral is supposed to do to the memory? The Reformed have always centered on the clarity of the Word. This doesn’t mean that high liturgy is necessarily evil but it does mean that high liturgy better be overshadowed by the centrality of the spoken Word. If Reformational Catholicism is going to take us off the centrality of the Word then Reformational Catholicism can keep re-imagining the Reformation all it wants.

PJL writes,

Protestantism has had a good run. It remade Europe and made America. It inspired global missions, soup kitchens, church plants, and colleges in the four corners of the earth. But the world and the Church have changed, and Protestantism isn’t what the Church, including Protestants themselves, needs today. It’s time to turn the protest against Protestantism and to envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation, a new way that happens to conform to the original Catholic vision of the Reformers.

Bret responds,

Here we get to the nub of what Peter is about. Peter wants to rethink, re-articulate, and re-apply the Reformation. He says it is about Protestantism but it really isn’t about Protestantism except in a very minor way. It really is about those blasted Reformed Churches that won’t go along with all his high worship, alone-less Christianity, and the non Roman Catholic friendly opposition. I quite agree that Protestantism needs buried but I would say it needs buried because it has to much in common with Reformational Catholicism which has to much in common with Roman Catholicism.

Perhaps Peter sees the mounting opposition to the Church in the public square in the various shades of humanism that is pressing down on us and so thinks that a new coalition has to be built to stop that. As such, he is willing to give up many of the central tenants of the Reformation in order to build that new coalition. Even if he succeeds he will fail if that is the case.

Reformational Catholicism, as championed by PJL has to many jagged un-tucked in corners in order to make a cohesive worldview. It may be the case that it will draw many people in but its incoherence combined with the fact that it does not correspond with reality will assure that it never becomes what the Reformation was and continues to be.

William Graham Tullian’s Washington Post Article

In the below link,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/10/17/the-missing-message-in-todays-churches/

William Graham Tullian (WGT) offers some good points and some points I’m not sure of. Because it is all confused and jumbled together the article could be confusing. I won’t be interacting with the whole article, so I encourage the reader to access the whole article to make sure and get the whole context.

WGT opens

America’s churches came back into the media limelight a few weeks ago after a well-publicized Pew study showed a meteoric rise of Americans claiming no religious affiliation, shooting up from seven percent in 1990 to 16 percent in 2010. The percentage more than doubled for those under the age of 30, reaching almost 35 percent. The group is now being referred to as “the religious nones.”

Bret offers,

It might have been helpful here had someone noted that it is impossible to be a “religious nones.” Now, certainly people may not self identify with a religion but that doesn’t make them any less religious then the person thought to be the most religious person on the planet. Part of what it means to come to intellectual maturity is to realize that religion is an inescapable category and that the lives of all people is conditioned by their religion. The flight from religion never happens apart from a flight to religion.

WGT

There has been no lack of theorizing to account for the numbers. Some chalk it up to a more visibly secularized society, others to doctrinal confusion, and others to the social media-fueled culture of distraction among today’s youth. Some dismiss the charge as alarmist, claiming that young people have always had a distaste for organized religion. The list goes on.

Bret

If my above paragraph is true (and it is) then it follows that societies never become more secularized as it is as impossible for societies to be a-religious as it is for individuals to be irreligious. If more secularized societies means that the society as a whole is operating apart from a religion foundation then the notion that societies become more secularized is ridiculous. Man, rather considered as a individual or in his societal role, is a hopelessly religious being.

WGT

In a recent column for CNN, Rachel Held Evans opined that, “what millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.” Speaking as someone who has spent the past forty plus years in the bosom of American Evangelicalism, she is certainly onto something. The “what” is the issue, not the “how.”
You don’t have to be a sociologist to know that we live in a culture of asphyxiating “performancism.” Performancism is the mindset that equates our identity and value directly with our performance. It casts achievements not as something we do or don’t do but as something we are (or aren’t). The money we earn, the car we drive, the schools we attend, aren’t merely reflective of our occupation or ability; they are reflective of us. They are constitutive rather than descriptive. In this schema, success equals life, and failure is tantamount to death.

Bret

If WGT is correct about “performancism” then what the culture needs above all is the law preached to them to remind them of their performance failure. The last thing these performance hounds need to hear is that God accepts their failures apart from a confessed recognition that all their performances (even the best of them) are as filthy rags before God. They should be told that their schema is correct. Success does equal life and failure is tantamount to death and the fact is that the most successful of them in the congregation are failures.

You see my problem with WGT is I sense that WGT wants to rush to the Gospel solution before setting the law hook. WGT’s message leads people to conclude, “It’s ok if my performance isn’t good enough because God isn’t exacting.” But God is exacting and God does demand performance.

My next problem is that the performance hounds are only self disappointed regarding their performance. An awareness needs to be opened to them that they need be more concerned about the fact that God is disappointed with them. The good news of the Gospel is not they have no need to be hard on themselves but rather that because of the Lord Christ God is no longer hard on them. This is not an unimportant distinction because, with notable exceptions, the emphasis on WGT’s article is how self is hard on self. The problem that those who refuse to attend church have instead is that God is more hard on them then they will ever be on themselves.

The fact that WGT’s article is anthropocentric regarding people’s performance issue makes me wonder about the article as a whole.

WGT,

Performancism leads us to spend our lives frantically propping up our image or reputation, trying to have it all, do it all, and do it all well, often at a cost to ourselves and those we love. Life becomes a hamster wheel of endless earning and proving and maintenance and management, where all we can see is our own feet. Before long we are living in a constant state of anxiety, fear, and resentment. A few years ago, Dr. Richard Leahy, an anxiety specialist, was quoted as saying, “The average high school kid today has the same level of anxiety as the average psychiatric patient in the early 1950s.”

Bret

Naturally self is always concerned about self. This is a succinct definition of sin. The last thing we need to tell the performance hounds is that God gives them permission to not be concerned about performance. In point of fact what they need to be told is that God is more demanding of them than they will ever be of themselves. Of course when they become convinced of their inability to live up to God’s standards then we give them the good news of Christ performance for them and that God is satisfied with Christ’s performance for them.

WGT

Sadly, the church has not proven immune to performancism. An institution theoretically devoted to providing comfort to those in need is in trouble because it has embraced the same pressure-cooker we find everywhere else.In recent years, a handful of popular books have been published urging a more robust and radical expression of the Christian faith. I heartily amen the desire to take one’s faith seriously and demonstrate before the watching world a willingness to be more than just Sunday churchgoers. The unintended consequence of this push, however, is that we can give people the impression that Christianity is first and foremost about the sacrifices we make rather than the sacrifice Jesus made for us – our performance rather than his performance for us. The hub of Christianity is not “do something for Jesus.” The hub of Christianity is “Jesus has done everything for you.” And my fear is that too many people, both inside and outside the church, have heard our “do more, try harder” sermons and pleas for intensified devotion and concluded that the focus of the Christian faith is the work that we do instead of the work God has done for us in the person of Jesus.

Bret

I’m going to need a list of all these pressure cooker Churches because I don’t know where they are at.

Still, there is much to like in this paragraph. I only wish we didn’t need to create false dichotomies as if emphasizing Christ’s performance for us means that our performance doesn’t matter. Even St. Paul could say,

“by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Obviously Christ performance is what is central — and the centrality of that needs to remain central — but the effect of Christ’s performance for us is dimly reflected in our performance for Christ and if we care not about our performance for Christ then we must ask ourselves if we care about Christ’s performance for us.

WGT

Furthermore, too many churches perpetuate the impression that Christianity is primarily concerned with morality. As my colleague David Zahl has written, “Christianity is not about good people getting better. It is about real people coping with their failure to be good.” The heart of the Christian faith is Good News not good behavior.When Sunday mornings become one more venue for performance evaluation, can you blame a person for wanting to stay at home?
As someone who loves the church, I am saddened by the perception of Christianity as a vehicle of moral control and good behavior, rather than a haven for the discouraged and dying. It is high time for the church to remind our broken and burned out world that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a one-way declaration that because Jesus was strong for you, you’re free to be weak; because Jesus won for you, you’re free to lose; because Jesus succeeded for you, you’re free to fail.

Bret

Again, we must beware false dichotomies. It is true that Christianity is not primarily concerned with morality but that doesn’t mean that Christianity isn’t proximately concerned about morality. Certainly St. James was concerned with morality. If one reads St. John’s epistles you can see that he is concerned about morality. St. Paul is concerned about morality when he asks, “What shall we say? Shall we go on sinning that grace might increase? God forbid! It is just not helpful when Christian ministers write as if morality is not a concern of the Christian God.

And the Zahl quote just isn’t accurate. Christianity is about good people getting better. It is true that none of our “good” in an absolute sense but by God’s grace alone we are transformed from glory unto glory (II Cor. 3:18). Christianity teaches that we are not what we will be, but it also teaches that we are not what we once were.

The fact that Christians do begin, with serious purpose, to conform not only to some, but to all the commandments of God indicates that by God’s grace alone we are being changed.

The fact that Christianity is seen about Christians being moral is seen in Paul’s words to the Ephesians,

But ye did not so learn Christ;

21 if so be that ye heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth is in Jesus:

22 that ye put away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit;

23 and that ye be renewed in the spirit of your mind,

24 and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth.

25 Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his neighbor: for we are members one of another.

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

27 neither give place to the devil.

28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need.

But of course it is not only about good people being constantly renewed by Grace alone. It is also about comforting the afflicted who see that they are not yet what they are called to be. Christianity is also about helping real people cope with their failure of not being good. The Christian faith encourages people to press on

13 Brethren, I count not myself yet to have laid hold: but one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before,

14 I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

15 Let us therefore, as many as are mature, be thus minded: and if in anything ye are otherwise minded, this also shall God reveal unto you:

So the Church has a word of hope and comfort to the floundering and it has a word to those who are not floundering. To those who are floundering the word is, “It is true you are a great sinner, but Christ is a greater Savior.” To those who are not floundering the word is, “further in and farther up.”

WGT

Grace and rest and absolution–with no new strings or anxieties attached–now that would be a change in substance.

Was The Lord Christ attaching strings when he spoke of the necessity to deny one’s self, take up his Cross and follow?

Riddlebarger’s R2K Tomfoolery

Quoting the Gnostics

“I see the Kingdom of God as very narrowly focused as tied to the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the activities that go on with the ordinary means of grace in the local church…

I don’t think the Christian school has a whole lot to do with the Kingdom of God. So that puts me kind of in an odd and unhappy place in many circles.

Now the Christian school is a wonderful thing. I took my kids to them, I would encourage those who want to provide a Christian education for their children to consider that option. I’m not against them at all. But I do want to keep the Kingdom of God tied to Word and Sacrament and not to the education of our kids, in terms of math and science and football and that kind of stuff.”

URC minister Rev. Kim Riddlebarger

_______________________

Don’t miss what is going on here.

1.) Church = Kingdom of God. If it doesn’t happen in the context of the Church it isn’t Kingdom work.

2.) Riddlebarger makes a serious mistake in referring to any school as “Christian.” If Education is not Kingdom work then how can any school be referred to as Christian in any way?

3.) Riddlebarger is admitting here the a child’s education is completely disassociated with any notion of the Kingdom of God. If this is so then why doesn’t Kim send his children to a yeshiva, or a Madrasa, or a Government school? Hey … education is not part of the Kingdom of God so it’s ALL good.

4.) Kim implies that Math and Science are worldview neutral. Try sending your children to a Hindu school where the belief that “all is one,” and that all is illusion and see what kind of Math and Science they receive if the Hindus are being consistent with their own Worldview.

Dostoyevsky On The Goal Of Egalitarianism

Here is a classic description of the socialist concept of equality as described by Dostoyevsky in his “The Possessed.” It is referred to as “Shigalyovism.”

“The thirst for education is already an aristocratic thirst. As soon as there is family love, there is a desire for property. We shall throttle that desire: we shall unleash drunkenness, scandal, denunciations: we shall unleash unprecedented debauchery; we shall extinguish every genius in his infancy. Everything must be reduced to the common denominator, total equality.

Each belongs to all, and all to each. All are slaves and equal in slavery. In extreme cases it will mean defamation and murder, but the main thing is equality. First there will be a drop in the standard of education, in learning and talent. A high level of learning and talent is accessible only to the very brainy. We must abolish the brainy! The brainy couldn’t be anything other than despots and have always brought more debauchery than good. We will execute or exile them. We will cut out Cicero’s tongue, gouge out Copernicus’s eyes, stone Shakespeare to death — that Shigalyovism! Slaves must be equal: freedom and equality have never yet existed without despotism, but here must be equality in the herd, that Shigalyovism!

If after reading this quote one isn’t alarmed at how much we are seeing this come to fruition in our own communities there isn’t much hope to ever convince. The unleashing of debauchery is seen in the sexual agenda that is everywhere in the State schools. The desire to extinguish genius is seen in the policy that was “No Child Left Behind.” No one needs to be convinced regarding our drop in the standard of education. If we don’t see that, the only reason we can’t see that is because we have become part of the “drop.”