What Not To Do
In my last post, IS MULTICULTURALISM A RELIGION?, I supposedly ratted out Chris Nicholas, the host at Renegade Press. At least that is what he says in his REACTION. When we post stuff on the Internet, it is there everyone to see, but by his own admission Nicholas plays to emotion, not logic. And that is what I wanted folks to realize when I point them to Broken Windows, the post that inspired IS MULTICULTURALISM A RELIGION? When we set aside all logic, discard the wisdom of our forefathers, and let our feelings governed us, just believe whatever we wish to believe, we too think like and sound like Nicholas, vulgar and childish.
That’s the tragedy of letting politicians stuff our children’s heads with multiculturalist fluff. Even though our children’s heads may be full of nothing, they are very proud their heads are full. Moreover, they want to please us by parroting back what they have learned, and because we once went to schools run by politicians it takes us awhile to realize how little sense they make.
Consider who Nicholas quotes.
You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.’ -Winston Churchill
Just as the heyday of the British Empire was coming to an end, Churchill served as its Prime Minister, perhaps the United Kingdom’s greatest Prime Minister. And what caused Churchill much sorrow?
I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. — (from here: a speech at Lord Mayor’s Luncheon, Mansion House, London, November 10, 1942)
Churchill spent his life defending the British Empire, an empire composed mostly of black and brown men run by white Christians. Yet Churchill was a wise man. Grudgingly, he accepted the inevitable. He understood that Britain did not have the strength to hold the empire together, that the British people would not hold their empire together by force. Therefore, he did his best to enable its peaceful fragmentation. Thus confused, people now debate the extent of Churchill’s bigotry (see here, here, here, and here).
What To Do
Since 
For something even better, please visit Madison and Hamilton: “Democracy Violates Natural Law” at The American Post-Standard. What that post entails is a thoughtful discussion of the ethics of government. That is, in his post
For what it is worth, I added my two cents in the comment trail at Madison and Hamilton: “Democracy Violates Natural Law.”
What do we use as the basis of our ethics. The founders of this nation used the Bible to provide the ethical foundation of our government. If you doubt that, or you are just curious, I suggest a visit to The Bible’s Influence. Here we have a scholarly, but very readable, anthology of articles that demonstrate the wide scope of the Bible’s influence on America.
Note that the thrust of The Bible’s Influence seems to be the promotion of the Bible as the subject of study in the education of our children. Here I may have a little disagreement with the authors. I seriously doubt the competence of our public education system to provide instruction related to the Bible. Why? Those who don’t believe the Bible have great difficulty understanding what it says. They don’t want to believe the Bible. Because they don’t want to believe the Bible, the Holy Spirit does not help them understand it. So it is that we sometimes hear otherwise well-educated scholars saying idiotic things about the Bible. For a good explanation of the problem, see What is the biblical doctrine of illumination?
Citizen Tom 
I often meditate religiously, either in church or in prayer. But meditation can also have a completely non-religious manifestation. It can be a physiological process of quieting the mind and controlling respiration and heartbeat. Perhaps the word “to meditate” causes some confusion for people who assume that it only has religions content. If state schools in California or elsewhere are actively preaching Hinduism, that’s a constitutional problem that has seriously threatening implications for our Republic and for Hinduism (because I agree with you that the last people on earth who can competently teach any religions are state employees, be they teachers or otherwise). But if they are trying to get kids to take a few deep breaths and calm down, I don’t see a problem.
I suppose if we call everything we disagree with a “religion”, it provides some purchase for either saying that that “thing” should not be taught in our government schools or used in other government contexts, because we see the value of separating our democratic government mechanisms from the dispensation of religion, or, alternatively, because we can then say that our “thing” (whichever religion we espouse) should be treated no differently and thus brought into the schools and other organs of government, because we have no concerns about government and religion becoming inter-mixed.
I suggest that this is sophistry, however. Religion is a pretty clearly defined field. We know what the major religions of the world are as well as the content of their major tenets. “Humanism”, what you call “multi-culturalism”, “secularism” , meditiation, psychoanalysis, “Evolution” (or “evolutionism” as you put it), “gravity”, “plate tectonics, “liberalism”, “conservatism” (at least for these last two in their political contexts), etc., etc. are not religions. They are more attitudes, theories, or philosophies that are independent of a system of beliefs about a Superior non-natural Being and afterlife teachings. Trying to envelop them in a religious semanticism strikes me as more or less a simplistic verbal parlour trick being used for fairly pedestrian political agitprop purposes. But, then again, that’s what blogdom is largely about these days.
Hello scout. Long time no see. Welcome back.
Religion is a pretty clearly defined field?
😆
That’s from a lawyer. Doesn’t the profitability your occupation rest upon our inability to clearly define anything?
I will readily admit either yoga or transcendental meditation can be practiced without any religious intentions. Nevertheless, both are clearly religious practices, and trusting politicians not to turn yoga and transcendental meditation into religious practices is foolhardy.
One the things I find quite ironic is the mixed messages we send. For example, whenever Hollywood makes an adventure movie, if they have an opportunity often as not they will slam some defense agency as untrustworthy. At the same time, whenever Hollywood makes a tearjerker that involves poverty, an educational deficit, or a medical problem, our government just has to do something, and in this case we are suppose regard the government as trustworthy. Yet the same people run both our defense agencies and our health, education, and welfare programs.
Frankly, I worry more about giving our leaders the power to interfere our health, education, and economic decisions than I do giving them the power to protect us from an occasional foreign threat. In fact, I think keeping the busybodies from interfering with our health, education, and economic decisions would help put the focus back where it belongs.
Everything is a religion. Prove to me that I am wrong. Your comment itself is religious.
This may be off topic. I watched NBC Nightly News this evening. Some schools are using the religious practice of meditation, which originated in ancient Asia, in the classroom as a coping mechanism for the children. Do you smell that folks? It smells like hypocrisy. So, let us rid prayer and the Word of God in our educational system, yet let us introduce a religious practice of meditation. Where are the atheists? Why are not the atheists crying to high science and demanding to stop this religious practice? Oh. . .wait. . .so long as it is not Christianity, any religion is permissible, including their own (i.e., secularism, atheism, and evolutionism). Hypocrisy!
Good observation. Like yoga, Hinduism inspired transcendental meditation. Both are religious practices.
I totally agree with your following statement.
“I seriously doubt the competence of our public education system to provide instruction related to the Bible. Why? Those who don’t believe the Bible have great difficulty understanding what it says.”
Regards and goodwull blogging..
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
Road to Concord is masterful blog, I don’t 100% with it at all times, but rarely does anyone agree with anything 100% of time, but Joe, the writer, will let any present their case in a fair forum for debate. However, be prepared to defend your position! The dedication, intellectual prose and girth of the blog makes me thoroughly jealous. It’s a shame I don’t have the time to spend to ramp up my own in the same fashion. I would recommend it to any!
I also give your blog some PR as well Tom, don’t worry!
Thanks. What you write is good. Don’t worry about the quantity. I am certain you are doing something worthwhile with that time.
The sad fact is is that the gentleman had approved my first comment thus allowing the second comment pre-approval. He however has deleted it from his page.
Not too surprised. I suspect he thinks we are out to embarrass him, but he can’t have it both ways. When we make public pronouncements on controversial subjects, freedom of speech permits debate.
Perhaps, but you were very polite with your refutation, what brought me into the fold and perhaps made me a bit polemic myself is when he committed the ad hominem and decided profanity was a appropriate course of action to address your critiques. Maybe I am an old soul but I certainly do not think that it’s very efficient to usher in world peace by acting in such a manner. And like you addressed, when you publicly post your ideas; prepare for criticism! One can be very diplomatic with one’s prose in refutation of such critique. To tell someone to go “f-themselves” because their ideas credibility was challenged is incredibly “Bush-league”
It certainly does show someones integrity and maturity, and that’s what in fact embarrassed him whether he knows it or not.
His total obstinate approach is really what bothers me the most. It reminds me of a child putting their fingers in their ears closing their eyes and screaming, “Not listening!” How can we operate in a world with these people? Those who preach tolerance but lack tolerance, how do were operate a government in our own nation with those who basically say, “I see your facts, but I simply do not care!”
There is a deeper question. What can we do to help such people? Think about the irony. When Nicholas attacks others because they do not believe what he believes, he becomes the very monster he claims to condemn. Is not a bigot someone who refuses to see the truth?
Multiculturalism is a sign of corruption. When people enslave their neighbors, no matter how they do it they commit a sin. Thus, when the people of the South enslaved blacks, they sinned. Today, when politicians use our government to redistribute the wealth (multiculturalism being a tool of indoctrination), the people who support such robbery and enslavement (milder though it may be) sin. Therefore, we have a soul problem, and that is what should concern us. What can we do to help our fellow sinners?