Racism and the Public Schools
Karl M. Bunday
It is interesting that the originator of compulsory school
attendance in the United States, Horace Mann, appears to have been a
participant in the earliest explicit racial segregation of a public
school system. As a person whose immediate family are "minority"
members, I pay great attention to "race" issues as they relate to
education. I have done considerable research on effective schools
for "minority" persons and on the origins of school segregation,
which I will share with you here.
The 1954 decision that declared school segregation on the "separate
but equal" rationale unconsitutional, Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) had to undo a legal climate produced in
large part by an earlier decision of the Court. That earlier
decision, the odious Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), had to
do specifically with compelled segregation of passengers on private
railway lines by state statute. The Plessy opinion, in which one
justice did not participate and from which one dissented, mentioned
public school segregation as support for the idea of more general
patterns of race segregation, including those imposed on private
actors by state regulation. The "separate but equal" rationale is
clearly expressed in a Massachusetts case cited in Plessy, namely
Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198, 206 (1849).
Sarah Roberts was the daughter of Benjamin Roberts, an
African-American inhabitant of Boston. Just like Topekan Mr. Brown
and his daughter more than a century later, the Robertses lived in
an integrated neighborhood, and the nearest public school to their
home was one reserved for whites. Mr. Roberts sought to have his
daughter attend the nearby white school rather than one farther from
his home for "colored" students--again, just like Mr. Brown. As
noted in the published opinion in the Roberts v. City of Boston
case, the practice of segregating African-American children from
other children in Boston "common" schools went back to the early
nineteenth century. Quoting the opinion, "In 1846, George Putnam and
other colored citizens of Boston petitioned the primary school
committee, that exclusive schools for colored children might be
abolished, and the committee, on the 22d of June, 1846, adopted the
report of a sub-committee, and a resolution was appended thereto,
which was in the following words:--
'RESOLVED,
that in the opinion of this board, the continuance of the separate
schools for colored children, and the regular attendance of all such
children upon the schools, is not only legal and just, but is best
adapted to promote the education of that class of our population.'"
Sarah Roberts, through her father, represented by lawyer Charles
Sumner, then challenged that school committee decision as
unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution. The court's
opinion, delivered in the March term, 1850, by Shaw, chief justice,
held that the separate schools for African-American children did not
violate the rights of the Roberts family. Chief Justice Shaw wrote,
"It is urged that this maintenance of separate schools tends to
deepen and perpetuate the odious distinction of caste, founded in
the deep-rooted prejudice in public opinion. This prejudice, if it
exists, is not created by law, and probably cannot be changed by
law."
This to brings to mind a historical question about the leadership of
Massachusetts public schools at that time. In 1846, when the Boston
School Committee passed its resolution confirming its policy of
operating segregated schools, Horace Mann was secretary of the
Massachusetts Board of Education, living in Boston. Mann, before he
became secretary of the state board, had been a lawyer practicing
law in Boston. Volume VIII (1846) of Mann's Common School Journal
includes reprints of several resolutions from the Boston School
Committee--but not the one in question, as near as I can tell from
perusing the whole volume. Volume IX (1847) quotes an opinion by
Chief Justice Shaw in a school finance case. So it is apparent that
Mann was generally aware of the activities of the Boston School
Committee and of opinions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court related
to common schools.
When I first mentioned this historical issue in the summer of 1995
in an E-mail mailing list frequented mostly by professors of
education, a superb scholar of educational history (Stephen Arons of
the University of MA) pointed out these additional facts:
"The Roberts case was more nefarious than Bunday's description
indicates. As I understand it, near the end of the 18th century
Black parents petitioned the Boston school comm. for separate
schools because of the mistreatment of blacks in integrated schools.
They got nowhere and so started their own (private) schools.
Eventually the Boston School Comm. started helping with the
financing, but before long this turned into control, including
dismissing a black principal chosen by the parents. Then blacks
petitioned for integrated schools and lost in the Roberts case. Five
years later, the Mass legislature passed a law making segregation by
race in public schools illegal (Mass Laws 1855, ch 256 sec. 1) which
resulted in closing black schools, reducing textbook aid to black
children, and re-segregation by race within the public schools."
Wow. The black citizens of Boston couldn't win for losing, even
though they lived in the city with very early government oversight
of the schools, the same city where Horace Mann campaigned to make
school attendance compulsory. (Mann succeeded in persuading Boston
school authoities to make attendance compulsory in Boston during the
pendency of the Roberts case. Massachusetts became the first state
to compel school attendance in 1852 (Mass. Stat. 1852, ch. 240),
just as Mann reached the end of his life.)
No wonder that contemporary observers such as Frederick Douglass
suggested rejecting the public school system, even in the North.
Frederick Douglass learned to read as a slave in Maryland, from
fellow slaves. He bought his first book with the meager cash income
he had as a child slave. That book broadened his horizons and
prompted his escape north and eventual involvement in publishing and
public speaking on behalf of abolition and equal rights. Douglass,
who never attended any school, wrote in the editorial "The True
Light" in the newspaper North Star, November 9, 1849, "From places
of instruction and amusement, open to all other nations under the
sun, we are excluded; . . . from respectable trades and employments,
we are excluded; from the Lyceum Hall and the common school, the
sources of light and education, we are as a people excluded."
It is undeniable that contemporary observers in the abolition
movement both knew of and deplored segregation in northern common
schools. Frederick Douglass gave this specific advice in his "Letter
to American Slaves from Those Who Have Fled American Slavery," North
Star, September 5, 1850: "Send not your children to the school which
the malignant and murderous prejudice of white people has gotten up
exclusively for colored people. Valuable as learning is, it is too
costly if it is acquired at the expense of such self-degradation."
Douglass also noted in "A Gigantic Evil," North Star, December 5,
1850, that the slave state laws against educating slaves (in or out
of school) gained their power not from strict enforcement, which was
rarely heard of, but because slaveholding prejudice against slaves
combined with the slaves' low income to offer little incentive for
anyone in the slave states to provide education to slaves. (There
were courageous abolitionists who, when they could not arrange mass
escapes of slaves, traveled to accessible places in the slave states
to surreptitiously instruct slaves in literacy, as is amply attested
in historical materials from various places.)
Here's my historical question: With segregation of blacks from
whites being a well-known feature of northern public schools
(including those in Boston) was it disingenuous for Horace Mann to
write of the "common school"? Isn't it equally disingenuous for
white "professional educators" who would deny black parents their
choice of how to educate their children to write of "common schools"
or "protecting the rights of minority children" today?
Karl in MN
http://learninfreedom.org
Will Williams
"Karl M. Bunday" wrote:
Good job, Karl. You've just made a good case for total physical separation
of the races, and against so-called "separate but equal" segregation; and
certainly against force integration of the races in public education or
otherwise.
Have you studied the life of Marcus Garvey? He was a great Black
nationalist who led the "Back to Africa" movement which was quashed by our
government and the egalitarian crowd.
Daniel Mittleman
If Karl's post below piqued your interest, I would like to recommend
to you the *best* non-fiction book I've read in my life. It is called
_Simple Justice_ by Richard Kluger. He covers the several cases that
made up Brown vs. Board of Education introducing the reader to the
people behind the cases and the actual education experiences they had.
It is a wonderful and educational read.
Will Williams
"Daniel Mittleman" <da...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
>If Karl's post below piqued your interest, I would like to recommend
>to you the *best* non-fiction book I've read in my life. It is called
>_Simple Justice_ by Richard Kluger. He covers the several cases that
>made up Brown vs. Board of Education introducing the reader to the
>people behind the cases and the actual education experiences they had.
>It is a wonderful and educational read.
Great! It's good to look at all sides of a question. The best book I've
seen on that subject is _The Burden of Brown_ by Raymond Walters (347
pages, $16.95 available at <http://www.natvan.com> on-line books.
Raymond Wolters is a professor of history at the University of Delaware, a
university near where some of the most intense desegregation battles were
fought. He documents the struggles, the perpetrators (notably, the NAACP
and ADL), the resistance, and the horrifying results.
By 1955 the desegregation in Washington, DC, schools had resulted in
exposing White students to extremely vulgar language and Black males who
fondled White females in the halls. Blacks brought with them their 18-point
lower IQs, rampant VD, and unwed pregnancy. Foolish liberals thought Blacks
would adopt White behavior. What happened instead was that White students,
initially repealed by the Blacks, began behaving more like them.
One of most the interesting desegregation battles occurred in Prince Edward
County, Virginia. There, Whites resisted vigorously and valiantly for a
decade. They even closed their public schools rather than integrate them.
White students, even those with moderate incomes, then attended all-White
private schools. This schools were quickly built, bare-bones affairs, but
still turned out students that went on to do well in prestigious colleges.
Other major battles he relates occurred in Clarendon County, South
Carolina; New Castle County, Delaware; and Topeka, Kansas.
We know integration was disastrous, but by documenting the damage done by
the race-mixers who are determined to make Blacks and Whites "equal,"
Professor Wolters can arm you with the specifics to prove just how horrible
it is.
Teach your children well...
WWW <www.natvan.com>
Special Agent Orange
I'm addressing the subject header more than the content of Karl's
interesting post. My oldest has been home educated through 8th grade.
When he was 11, I was curious so I asked him if he had ever heard the
"N word." He had not and had not the slightest idea of what it meant.
Had he been in publick skool where the races tend to segregate
themselves in the cafeteria and the playground, I'm quite sure he
would have been indoctrinated at an early age to this word and it's
derogatory use as well as dirty talk on sex, or perhaps former surgeon
Jocylen Elders' well thought out position on masterbation.
I came away convinced that another advantage of home ed is that it
maximizes the ability for color blind parents to raise color blind
children.
Ian McKinney
Will Williams
Julie Pascal
Special Agent Orange wrote:
>
> I'm addressing the subject header more than the content of Karl's
> interesting post. My oldest has been home educated through 8th grade.
> When he was 11, I was curious so I asked him if he had ever heard the
> "N word." He had not and had not the slightest idea of what it meant.
> Had he been in publick skool where the races tend to segregate
> themselves in the cafeteria and the playground, I'm quite sure he
> would have been indoctrinated at an early age to this word and it's
> derogatory use as well as dirty talk on sex, or perhaps former surgeon
> Jocylen Elders' well thought out position on masterbation.
>
> maximizes the ability for color blind parents to raise color blind
> children.
Absolutley!
-Julie
randall.pratt
Ian McKinney wrote:
> ...It remainds me of the naive tourists
> who are unaware of the dangers in Black neighborhoods and think nothing
> of driving through one. Their naivete is shattered as they are
> car-jacked, raped, assaulted, or murdered by the non-white denizens.
> Some live and learn not to repeat the mistake. Others don't get that
> chance.
>
> Regards,
> Ian McKinney
> Western Imperative Network
> http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Wow! We must be really naive. We not only drove through
these neighborhoods, we actually moved into one! Hmmm...
Funny, but we've never experienced anything like what Mr.
McKinney wrote about...
Seriously, I personally think that it's unlikely we'll see
a truly "color blind" society any time soon. We've seen racial
and cultural strife for centuries. It's a part of our human
condition (called "sin").
I remember a day when my daughter (3? years old at the time) was
playing with a neighbor and suddenly exclaimed, "Look, you
have dark skin, and I have light skin...and you have a blue
ribbon in your hair and I have a purple one!" Skin color differences
were no more significant than different ribbon colors. My daughter
is 9 now. She has white friends and black friends, Asian
friends and friends who speak Spanish in the home. They're all friends.
And she knows they each have a different history.
I remember back in college when a friend of mine announced his
engagement. I was shocked when he told me of the flack he was getting
from his family. You see, he was Chinese and she was Finnish. It had
never occurred to me that he was "different" from me before then. Sooner
or later, our color-blindness is always shattered by the reality of
our world.
But I still firmly believe that we ought to work to understand
ourselves and those that are "different" from us -- whether that
means different skin color, different cultural habits, different
faiths (and the list goes on...). And I've met too many "bad" whites
and too many "bad" blacks and too many "bad" Chinese...and plenty of
"good" whites and plenty of "good" blacks, and plenty of "good"
Chinese... to think that any one of our races/cultures has a corner
on "goodness"
No, I'm not color blind. Yes I have prejudices. But I'm not content
to stay that way, either. When I see something in me that is ugly (and
I believe prejudice is ugly), I want to change it. And by God's grace
I will change.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Pratt - rpr...@bell-labs.com
Microelectronics/Mass Storage Design
\ oo
Lucent Technologies \____|\mm
Bell Labs Innovations //_//\ \_\
/K-9/ \/_/
"First things first, but not /___/_____\
necessarily in that order." -----------
- The Doctor (Dr. Who - Meglos)
http://members.aol.com:/rpratt7/interest.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian McKinney
>Ian McKinney wrote:
>
>> ...It remainds me of the naive tourists
>> who are unaware of the dangers in Black neighborhoods and think nothing
>> of driving through one. Their naivete is shattered as they are
>> car-jacked, raped, assaulted, or murdered by the non-white denizens.
>> Some live and learn not to repeat the mistake. Others don't get that
>> chance.
>Wow! We must be really naive. We not only drove through
>these neighborhoods, we actually moved into one! Hmmm...
>Funny, but we've never experienced anything like what Mr.
>McKinney wrote about...
Not yet.
>Seriously, I personally think that it's unlikely we'll see
>a truly "color blind" society any time soon. We've seen racial
>and cultural strife for centuries. It's a part of our human
>condition (called "sin").
No, it's called an instinct. And trying to eliminate it only causes
weird and degenerate behavior the same as if the government tried to
outlaw sex.
>I remember a day when my daughter (3? years old at the time) was
>playing with a neighbor and suddenly exclaimed, "Look, you
>have dark skin, and I have light skin...and you have a blue
>ribbon in your hair and I have a purple one!" Skin color differences
>were no more significant than different ribbon colors. My daughter
>is 9 now. She has white friends and black friends, Asian
>friends and friends who speak Spanish in the home. They're all friends.
>And she knows they each have a different history.
However, skin color by itself doesn't mean much. Race is a totally
goes much deeper than merely skin color.
But, so what, your daughter has non-white friends? That has nothing to
do with Black violence against Whites, America becoming a non-white
majority nation, the extinction of the White race, how the schools
have been destroyed, or any of a thousand other problems created by
idiotic liberal race policies.
[remaining liberal babbling deleted to reduce nausea]
Regards,
Ian McKinney
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/
Ken Winters
Ian McKinney wrote:
>
> [remaining liberal babbling deleted to reduce nausea]
If you really wanted to reduce nausea you would have never posted :-)
Ken
--
*************************************************************
* LarKen Software Inc. http://www.larken.com/ *
* *
* Wholesome children's software that Teaches AND Entertains *
*************************************************************
Ian McKinney
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:57:35 -0700, Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net>
wrote:
>Ian McKinney wrote:
>>
>> [remaining liberal babbling deleted to reduce nausea]
>
>If you really wanted to reduce nausea you would have never posted :-)
Wow aren't you a witty ass.
John Q Adams
Racism is where you find it. Many places in this world you're looked down
on if you marry white.
Japan, for one.
Let's consider what's between the ears, not what's on the outside.
However, even then, when I worked on a farm summers while going thru
college, I met a farm worker who could only be regarded as simple-minded.
But he was a complete master with the axe. He could make anything with just
an axe. In pioneer times, he would have more valuable than anyone I have
ever met.
What can Will Williams do that no one else can do? Rant racism louder? Or
more ignorantly?
randall.pratt <rpr...@bell-labs.com> wrote in article
<357D885F...@bell-labs.com>...
chuck...@hotmail.com
In article <357db6f1...@news.usaor.net>,
i...@usaor.net (Ian McKinney) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:57:35 -0700, Ken Winters <kwin...@olympus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Ian McKinney wrote:
> >>
> >> [remaining liberal babbling deleted to reduce nausea]
> >
> >If you really wanted to reduce nausea you would have never posted :-)
>
> Wow aren't you a witty ass.
Watch out Ken, you wouldn't want to be accused of fighting a battle of wit
with an unarmed man.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Will Williams
"John Q Adams" <j...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>Racism is where you find it. Many places in this world you're looked down
>on if you marry white...Japan, for one.
And in my circles a dim view is taken of a White who marries outside of his
or her race. So? Why don't you bitch and whine at the Jap loyalists instead
of to White loyalists? I admire a Jap who wants to keep his gene pool
homogeneous. He's got a Hell of a lot better instincts than John Q. Adams,
that's for sure.
>Let's consider what's between the ears, not what's on the outside.
So, you think it's just a paint job, eh?
>However, even then, when I worked on a farm summers while going thru
>college, I met a farm worker who could only be regarded as simple-minded.
>But he was a complete master with the axe. He could make anything with just
>an axe. In pioneer times, he would have more valuable than anyone I have
>ever met.
You are the one to be regarded as simple-minded. That man of the soil
probably has more dignity and worth and common sense than a pompous snob
like you'll ever be able to comprehend.
>What can Will Williams do that no one else can do?
Lots of things. I can wiggle one ear at a time. Can you?
I'm a professional portraitist. How's that? You want to try and match me
in that endeavor? I've been an athlete, a soldier, a student and a teacher,
an architect, a builder, a developer, a realtor; I've headed both a
religion and a political party and I've got more courtroom experience as a
civil libertarian than most lawyers. I always like a new challenge, but my
life's purpose in recent years has been to seek a renewal of my people --
the White people -- and I direct nearly all my energy into that effort.
What do you do with your life? When you are dead what mark will you have
made on this world, John Q. Adams?
Gerriinsd
In 1989 our family moved to downtown Pasadena,CA, . The area was an
interesting mix of emigrants from all over Mexico and South America, Black
Americans, and foreign students who attended Fuller Seminary, with their
families. We were one of the very few white families there. We went to visit
the local school to see about signing up our kids, but were told that white
kids were not allowed to attend there, but had to be bussed several miles to
another town, Altadena.
An interesting side effect of this busing is that the scout programs in
the area have been severely affected. Children are not able to attend
after-school clubs because they have to catch the bus to get home, but often do
not know what's going on in the home ndighborhoods because they do not attend
school with the other kids there.
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Racism and the Public Schools
>From: "Karl M. Bunday" <don't_send_ads_...@tc.umn.edu>
>Date: Sat, Jun 6, 1998 01:54 EDT
>Message-id: <6lalfp$2vu4$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>
Ken P.
In article <357D885F...@bell-labs.com>, rpr...@bell-labs.com says...
> Seriously, I personally think that it's unlikely we'll see
> a truly "color blind" society any time soon. We've seen racial
> and cultural strife for centuries. It's a part of our human
> condition (called "sin").
Since when is racial consciousness a sin?
> I remember a day when my daughter (3? years old at the time) was
> playing with a neighbor and suddenly exclaimed, "Look, you
> have dark skin, and I have light skin...and you have a blue
> ribbon in your hair and I have a purple one!" Skin color differences
> were no more significant than different ribbon colors.
The idea that race is nothing more than skin color is to physical
anthropology what illiteracy is to literature.
Question authority,
Ken P.
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/imp/
Special Agent Orange
i...@block.spam (Ian McKinney) wrote:
>Keeping you children ignorant on race is no different than keeping them
>ignorant about any other reality.
No potatohead, innocence != ignorance. A complete education includes
the advising our children of the existence of derogatory slurs that
should not cross Christian lips as well as the recognition of clear
cultural differences.
Ian P. McKinney
How about the truth about racial matters, should that be taught?
Will Williams
i...@usaor.net (Ian P. McKinney) wrote:
>(Special Agent Orange) wrote:
>>i...@block.spam (Ian McKinney) wrote:
>>
>>>Keeping you children ignorant on race is no different than keeping them
>>>ignorant about any other reality.
>>
>>No potatohead, innocence != ignorance. A complete education includes
>>the advising our children of the existence of derogatory slurs that
>>should not cross Christian lips as well as the recognition of clear
>>cultural differences.
>How about the truth about racial matters, should that be taught?
Not from Xian lips, Ian, the thin ones anyway. The thick-lipped Xians use
their own pulpits to rally the natives.
Ken P.
In article <6lq4aq$isg$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>,
nospam_...@mindspring.com says...
> i...@block.spam (Ian McKinney) wrote:
> >Keeping you children ignorant on race is no different than keeping them
> >ignorant about any other reality.
> No potatohead, innocence != ignorance. A complete education includes
> the advising our children of the existence of derogatory slurs that
> should not cross Christian lips as well as the recognition of clear
> cultural differences.
Generalization is inductive reasoning. It is a central component of
intelligence and learning. Expecting the behavior of an individual to be
similar to that others in his group is a form of self-defence. Keeping
one's children ignorant of dangers in their midst is immoral.
Question authority,
Ken P.
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/imp/index.html
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) writes:
[]
> Generalization is inductive reasoning. It is a central component of
> intelligence and learning.
And innappropriate generalization is a logical fallacy. Generalization
must be done correctly to lead to learning. An important component of
correct generalization is starting with correct categories.
> Expecting the behavior of an individual to be
> similar to that others in his group is a form of self-defence.
And how do we know how to define these groups? Should we expect the
group of all men to behave the same way? Should we expect the group of
all USA'ns to behave the same way? Should we expect the group of all
brown-eyed people to behave the same way? Should we expect the group
of all people named Ken to behave the same way?
> Keeping
> one's children ignorant of dangers in their midst is immoral.
Should I warn my children of the dangers of Kens? Shall I tell them to
read your posts and expect all people named Ken to behave like you?
No, it would be foolish of me. And that is how intelligent it would be
to tell my children to expect all people with dark skin to behave the
same way.
Jayne
Ken P.
In article <980613.173508...@mmalt.guild.org>,
jay...@spambait.guild.org says...
> ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) writes:
> > Generalization is inductive reasoning. It is a central component of
> > intelligence and learning.
> And innappropriate generalization is a logical fallacy. Generalization
> must be done correctly to lead to learning. An important component of
> correct generalization is starting with correct categories.
Suppose you were a prehistoric farmer, and over the last twenty years or
so you have observed that your crops grow much better in the black soil
than in the orange soil. Would you tend to favor the black soil over the
orange soil for your next new field, or would you be indifferent because
you weren't sure if you were considering correct categories? The point
is that we make our decisions based upon the best information we have at
the time.
In the case of race, we know that there are hereditary-based, racial
diffeneces in behavior. See:
http://www.amren.com/rushton.htm
http://www.bookworld.com/rushton/excerpt.htm
Question authority,
Ken P.
Western Imperative Network
http://www.usaor.net/users/ipm/index.html
James B. Crigler
>>>>> "KP" == Ken P <ke...@usaor.net> writes:
KP> Question authority, Ken P.
Okay. I question yours.
--
Jim Crigler <cri...@seo.com>
Schwartz Electro-Optics, Inc. Voice: (407)298-1802 x200
3404 N. Orange Blossom Trl. Fax: (407)290-9666
Orlando FL 32804-3498 USA
Elaine Harvey
James, are you still talking?
Amy Jones
Ken,
Being familiar with the body of work to which your hyperlinks refer, I must
argue that based on that body of work, there can be made NO assumption that
there are "heredity-based, racial differences in behavior." The body of work
to which you referred the other posters in this thread CANNOT be seen as a
valid study to ANY Bible-believing Christian.
One statement by Mr. Rushton is, (and I am copying/pasting from the link):
A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a species.
As a student of biology, I don't recall ever learning of any subdivisions of
the species, Homo sapiens.
Another statement by Mr. Rushton is:
Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was
created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to
believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the
laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms.
And another:
Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years
ago,
branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia 70,000 years
after that, a "negroid" is someone whose
ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20
generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa
It is obvious that Mr. Rushton is a believer of evolution, and one could
suppose that he is a secular humanist, by his writings. It is obvious, also,
that any Bible-believing Christian could never take his work as anything
other than evolutionary error. Our Creator, the Lord our God, did indeed make
man in his image, and the only differences in behavior between men is a
measure of the degree of his God-like-ness. Bad behavior is the result of a
sin nature that is corrupted and non-repentant. All men are sinners ("For ALL
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23, and "The wages
of sin is DEATH but the gift of God is eternal LIFE." Romans 6:23) but those
of us who have been born again and are fervently working towards
Christ-like-ness will usually exhibit better, or even good, behavior ("But
you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness,
faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith.
Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called... In the sight of
God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus...I charge you to keep
this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only
Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who
lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see...." I Timothy
6:11-16)
I will stand on the Bible and the claims made therein, and I will refrain
from considering the theories of a secular humanist, evolutionist who
purposes ideas that fly in the face of Truth.
Now, Ken P., if you are not posting in this *.christian newsgroup to
participate in the encouragement and edification of Christian believers, I
would politely and respectfully ask you to consider carefully whether
cross-posting to our group is appropriate. To the best of my knowledge this
newsgroup was created for like-minded believers to bolster each other in
their homeschooling choice....if you would like to debate the merits of
Christianity or tenets of our faith, there are appropriate newsgroups for
that as well. I'd suggest looking for a group with the word *theology in its
title.
Respectfully yours,
Amy
Ken P.
In article <lzwwaie...@jim.seo.com>, cri...@seo.com says...
> >>>>> "KP" == Ken P <ke...@usaor.net> writes:
>
> KP> Question authority, Ken P.
>
> Okay. I question yours.
Aren't you the clever one! O.K. When the hippies were running around in
the 60's shouting "Question authority," what they meant by "authority"
was: persons or groups invested with the power to command and enforce
laws or to otherwise exact obedience; government; organs of opinion. I
use the word in the same sense. I would hope that people would take a
critical look at the institutions that create public opinion and how and
why that public opinion is created. Ironically, the leftists who used
"Question authority" in the 60's were railing against institutions that
were largely under their control by that time anyway.
Raven
In article <3586E231...@earthlink.net>, amyj...@earthlink.net
says...
> Ken P. wrote:
>
> > > It is obvious that Mr. Rushton is a believer of evolution,
> >
>
> So I see that you also believe in evolution over the Creation?
This binary thinking looks interesting.
Is there an FTP site where I can download it?
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com (discontinue in June 1998)
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
Jayne Kulikauskas but replace spambait by mmalt
[m.e.h-s.m removed]
Amy Jones <amyj...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Ken writes:
[]
>> I realize that there is hostility between Fundamentalist Christians and
>> so-called "secular humanists." However the two groups have much in
>> common with one another. Both belive in humanism, the belief that man is
>> not really part of the animal kingdom and is not subject to the same
>> natural laws that govern the development and behavior of other animals.
>> Some, but not all, humanists base their belief on the Judeo-Christian
>> doctrine of special creation.
>No, Ken. Christians do not believe in "humanism." Well, I could
>qualify that. There are a lot of people who call themselves Christians
>that don't really know diddly about what they believe.
As a person who considers herself both a Christian and a humanist I
find that a rather offensive remark. I have read and studied a great
deal about my religion and I do know what I believe.
>However, as a
>Christian, I do not believe in "humanism." I believe the Word of God,
>that says, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let
>them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
>livestock, over all the earth, over all the creatures that move along
>the ground.
[]
Humanism is a philosophical movement that arose during the
Renaissance period. Many of these first humanists were Christians. A
good example of one of these is Desiderius Erasmus, a scholar known
for translating the NT from the Koine, rather than from the Vulgate.
He was a correspondent of Martin Luther.
Although humanism is currently dominated by secular humanists, there
are still Christian humanists. Christian humanists believe that human
beings have a unique worth and dignity due to being made in the image
of God. Secular humanists also believe in a special role for human
beings, but do not base this role on a belief in God.
I may disagree with much of what Ken has written elsewhere, but his
comments on the relationship between Christianity and humanism are
accurate. I think you may be confused by having heard "humanism" only
used to refer to secular humanism and so you are not aware of the
wider meaning for this word.
Jayne
Special Agent Orange
ke...@usaor.net (Ken P.) wrote:
>My favorite Biblical character is Thomas the Doubter. Of course, I
>realize that the Biblical reference to him was only made as a preemptive
>strike upon skepticism.
Thomas had other faults that tend to constrain me to consider others
as a possible "favorite Biblical character." When the Lord reveals
that Lazarus, whom they had heard was sick, was now dead; Thomas
responds to the bad news with, "Let us also go, that we may die with
him." Upon reading that, I say to myself, "what a strange, useless
thing to say...." And look at the surrounding context of Thomas'
statement - no one even paid him any attention, as if to say, "There
he goes again..."
Skepticism can be healthy, depending upon the authority in question.
But the skepticism of Thomas involves the doubting testimony of
someone who demonstrated to Thomas' eyes that he could control the
weather; that he could raise people from the dead, having done so
three times, that he could heal the blind; and, after having done all
this, had predicted his own resurrection. If confronted with one so
powerful, I would advise giving the words of that person more credence
than a "see and believe" attitude. My .02 worth.