Assaults on Faith and Family - Part 2 (Part 1, Part 3)
Mandatory Training in Orwellian Thinking?
By Berit Kjos - September 7, 2009
Skip down to PRAXIS
Emphasis added
|
|
Assaults on Faith and Family - Part 2 (Part 1, Part 3) Mandatory Training in Orwellian Thinking? By Berit Kjos - September 7, 2009 Skip down to PRAXIS |
Emphasis added |
"The bourgeois family will vanish.... Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate...? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention...."[1] Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto
"John Dewey wrote...that the Bolsheviks were engaged in 'a most interesting sociological experiment...' using progressive educational ideas and practices to 'counteract and transform... the influence of home and Church.'"[2] Dr. Dennis Cuddy
"Years before he had inflicted... dialectical materialism on a long-suffering world, Marx called for what had to be accomplished—the ‘ruthless destruction of everything existing.’ That destruction would wipe out religion, the family, morality... and everything that made Western civilization…. The seemingly modest instrument was the [Frankfurt] Institute of Social Research... dedicated to neo-Marxism.'
"...the greatest harm came when the Frankfurt School decamped to America, courtesy of John Dewey and Columbia University."[3]
Remember that proverbial frog in a pot of water? It finally died, since it didn't notice the slow-rising heat.
Few saw the early signs of the Neo-Marxist ideology that has invaded our schools and universities. But back in Teddy Roosevelt's days, who would have guessed that a major goal of Dewey's "progressive education" was to weaken the traditional family, trade freedom for collectivism, and replace Christianity with an evolving form of "spiritual" solidarity?[4]
In his 1908 article, "Religion and our Schools," Dewey wrote that "dogmatic beliefs" were "disappearing." Decades later, while presiding over the American Humanist Association, he co-authored the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. Notice how his words reflect today's emerging churches?
"Any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today, must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present."[5]
Fast-forward to the 21st century. The ever-present dialectic process now reigns in churches as well as schools. And in cities across America, Alinsky-trained "community organizers" work side-by-side with students doing their "service-learning" from coast to coast. Meanwhile Christian families face rising opposition. For example,
"A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as 'well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level' has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too 'vigorous' in defense of her Christian faith. The decision... reasoned that the girl's 'vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [a court assigned] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.'...
"...a guardian ad litem [assigned to represent the interest of the child] concluded the girl 'appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith' and that the girl's interests 'would be best served by exposure to a public school setting' and 'different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.'"[6]
Did you catch that? The court tells us that this Christian girl -- an excellent student -- does not have the right to "choose" which religion best "suits her own needs" until she has examined many other "systems of beliefs." Only as "a young adult" would she know enough about the world's diverse religions to choose a suitable system.
Would that rule apply to Muslim children? Buddhist children? Hindu children?
Of course not! In today's "progressive" global culture, the "enemy" is Christianity. Other religions are protected. After all, they are essential to the new vision of "unity in diversity."
You see, today's change agents consider Biblical Christianity a major obstacle to global solidarity. And nothing erodes Christian values more effectively than immersion into small groups led by trained facilitators who guide the diverse members toward a pre-planned unity of heart as well as mind.
The Marxist practice of PRAXIS
But there's more to this manipulation. The path to pluralism calls for a strategic blend of group consensus [an evolving THEORY] and collective PRACTICE: active immersion into a community with diverse social and moral values. Such "service-learning" has become a norm in schools, colleges, and service organizations everywhere.
Based on Hegelian dialectics, Marxist ideology, and Antonio Gramsci's gradualism, this manipulative process spread around the world during the 20th century. Its blend of an evolving consensus or THEORY and collective PRACTICE would be called PRAXIS. It would seal the new lessons in "open" minds, while undermining all forms of traditional certainties. It would shift the public mindset from the solid rock of Truth and facts to the shifting sands of collective opinion.
Karl Marx first mentioned PRAXIS in 1844. According to the double-speak of the Encyclopedia of Marxism, it's "just another word for practice in the sense in which practice is understood by Marxists." And according to various Marxist documents, Marx saw it as the continual interaction of "theory-and-practice, in which neither theory nor practice are intelligible in isolation from the other."[7]
In other words, the group must continually confirm its evolving theories with corresponding practice. Its members must be ready to compromise for the sake of consensus (the evolving THEORY), and then PRACTICE its new views through some kind of group action or service -- followed by a time of group REFLECTION.... The process is repeated again and again, ad infinitum.
Not all groups fit this mold. Many Christian groups are grounded in facts, truth and certainty. They seek God, not CHANGE! They act on His Word, not popular opinions. Their hope cannot be quenched by the world's changing opinions:
"This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast..." Hebrews 6:19
The Marxist view of Christianity -- the "religion" of his time
To Karl Marx, Christianity was detestable! He hated it! And since its various expressions had spread throughout Europe, it had to be eradicated. So, in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law, he wrote,
"Man makes religion, religion does not make man.... Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[8]
From a Communist perspective, it makes sense. But from a Biblical perspective, it's nonsense! Marx believed in continual CHANGE. Christians believe in unchanging Truth, which clashes with that dialectical progression. Christianity can't be squeezed into the Marxist revolutionary process. Nor can Marxism fit into God's churches without perverting both Truth and faith. The two are incompatible!
The Encyclopedia of Marxism rationalizes the word "absolute" to fit its evolving theories:
"...the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative."[9]
This distinction is important. Apart from God's unchanging Truth, there is no concrete hope or certainty to stand on, because man's unending desire to redefine reality knows no bounds. Few examples are more disturbing than the distortions of God's Word in today's postmodern churches.
Training our Youth in Marxist Praxis
An Internet survey of American colleges will quickly expose the acceptance and popularity of Praxis. Take the University of Wisconsin. Its page on "Service Learning Pedagogy" sounds innocent enough. It seems to reflect the Christian tradition of loving and serving the poor and needy, but it actually fits right into the Marxist formula for change: Facilitated Dialogue (establishing a preplanned, transformational OBJECTIVE) or THEORY + PRACTICE (practical experience that changes values) = PRAXIS. Its website affirms this process:
"The process of critical reflection is an essential element of service learning. It enhances student learning by connecting the service and the academic experiences. It links THEORY with PRACTICE."[10]
The real purpose is calculated CHANGE. Whether the students' assignment involves homeless shelters, drug and addiction issues, community organizing, medical care, or environmental issues, they will be led toward emotional involvement with those who "hurt," be they humans, animals or a "fragile earth." They learn to evaluate reality through subjective feelings, which can easily be manipulated. Like the students in the infamous Clinton's Governor School, they are trained to see life from an irrational -- often a revolutionary -- perspective.
When students are immersed in morally "diverse" contexts that mock Biblical values, they are likely to emerge with a disturbing familiarity with unforgettable corruption. They learn to "tolerate" practices that mock our God, empathize with those who face the painful consequences of bad choices, and accept social evils as a normal condition.
The actual transformation in student values will usually be measured by assessments done before and after each service-learning experience. These assessments are key to documenting the effectiveness of the program. The website for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities shows the significance of "reflection" and "assessments: