Category Archives: Issues

Remembering History

Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them.

~ Deuteronomy 4:9 ~

Today is 9/11. To Americans, this was the start of the war on terror. To most Millennials, this marked one of the greatest, formative changes that they would experience in their lives. To the world, well, I’m not sure how much it affected them. I was in America, watching our little television in our basement with my mother and little brother, later watching my parents hug and cry and us trying to comfort them. I did not understand then what historic event had happened. Things certainly changed. Police and military awareness was heightened, relations with our neighbors became more strained, travel become more complex, and so much more. I cannot know how much things changed.

I began teaching a history course at my Church’s Wednesday night study last week. The kids I teach are between the ages of 9 and 12. We are still pretty early in time; we’re only at the Rebellion-Flood. But I realized that for most of this kids, the most formative, communal events in their lives have probably been the current and previous U.S. Administrations. They probably do not watch the news. They know almost nothing about history. Explaining to them that the oldest person at our church  (he’s 96) didn’t have a tv or cell phone or computer blew their minds. Telling them the number of wars we went through during that time was also intriguing to them. But these kids have always known war, though like myself, in a distant manner. How can I explain to them the significance of 9/11 tomorrow?

That Tuesday morning shook the world. It shook my world. But 9/11 is not the most important event that happened in history. How do I explain to this children that history is magnificent, important, impactful? How do I explain all of world history, from Creation to the present, lead to who they are today? How do I explain the Revolution, the age of discovery, the Magna Charta, Charlemagne, the Romans, Christianity, the Persians, Asia, Israel, Mesopotamia, Babel, the Flood, and Creation is the history of them, especially when no one has taught them that? How do I show how world history is the only history you can really teach to understand the present when they don’t even know what happened 17 years ago?

The verse above from Deuteronomy is God speaking to the Israelites about their history. God told the Israelites to teach their children and grandchildren about all that had happened to them: the exodus, the conquest, Abraham, and going back to creation. Why? So that this history – their history – would not fade from their minds. Scripture speaks on remembering history and valuing learning quite frequently. History and learning is important, and starting with God is the only way to do it (Prov. 1:7). Why is it so important? Because if the next generation forgets, they will forget who brought them there, which is exactly what happened in ancient Israel. History is the story that lead us to today. We were lead here by God.

God has brought us thus far. He brought us through 9/11. He brought us through two World Wars. He brought us through changing governments, falling empires, persecution, floods, and everything that happens seemingly only to us. We teach history not only to know but to remember all that God has done for us, to see how everything is connected, how everything points to God’s hand.

I doubt 9/11 will be soon forgotten in the minds of Americans. I would think the same is true for the impactful events unique to each people around the world. My prayer is that we remember to teach our children, the next generation, what happened before them. They are going to shape the future and they are going to experience things that came from something that started long before them. They need to know what happened in our lives and what happened before us. They don’t know, and they need a teacher. So I will teach my class and will, Lord willing, teach my own children one day. Let us not forget the days that are past, no matter how ugly, frightening, shameful, or wonderful they are. Let us not forget but remember and teach the next generation lest this history fade from our minds.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

Review – Creation: Basics & Beyond

51z3-mhcvxl

 

 

Publisher: The Institute for Creation Research

Authors: Morris III, Morris, Lisle, Johnson, Jeanson, Guliuzza, Tomkins, Hebert, Shwerwin, and Thomas.

 

 

The Institute for Creation Research’s book Creation: Basics & Beyond provides, as the cover indicates, an in-depth look at “science, origins, and evolution.” More explicitly, this book explains in detail the relevancy of Genesis in regard to science, history, morality, our worldview, and how we live. This book shows how the first couple chapters of Genesis, not to mention all of Scripture, impact who we are as people and how we view ourselves and the world around us.

Creation: Basics & Beyond is divided into five main sections in addition to an introduction, conclusion, and final argument for creation in an appendix. This relatively succinct book – it contains fewer than 350 pages – tackles subjects on worldview, biology, geology, dinosaurs, and astronomy. Within each of these sections are a series of papers that are simple and short enough for a reader who does not spend their days reading science journals to enjoy, but detailed enough to gain hearty knowledge and will not bore the technical reader. This book tackles issues like: the Day-Age Theory; is Genesis history or poetry; macro and micro “evolution”; DNA; the origin of “races”; how fossils are actually dated; does continental drift happen; the significance dragon legends; distant starlight and its answers; UFO’s; and the multi-verse theory. These are only a handful of the various topics scientists from multiple fields addressed in this book.

I found the book to be easy enough to read for a variety of readers and enjoyed it thoroughly. While I read it from cover to cover, as one of the authors indicated, it could be read piecemeal. A reader could simply pull out a chapter to read without particular  need of previous or following chapters. However, I found it better to read from beginning to end as 1) I try to read like that when I can and 2) the book also follows a logical format that adds to the following chapters if you read them “in order”. Also, some chapters reference other chapters for readers to review for more information separately. But, the papers can stand alone.

There were, though, a  couple of points in the book I did not agree with. They were mainly found in the section on the origin of races, ironically enough, as that is what my own book is about. However, they made some assumptions on the person of Nimrod that, from my own research, I cannot say is fully accurate, or is at least difficult to prove. While Nimrod is likely to have been the instigator of Babel (which seems to agree both Scripturally and extra-biblically), Scripture never explicitly says it was him, nor what his influence was.

Additionally, while there are 70 “nations/family groups” mentioned in Genesis 10, we do not know that there were only or as many as 70 languages formed. In fact, with as many languages that have died out, with as many that look similar, with as many that are nearly impossible to tell which are original and which are a “copy”, saying there were specifically 70 is a matter of opinion that still needs more research. Overall, however, I found the book to be most accurate, and the rest of this particular chapter to be based solidly on Scripture and good science.

The main goal of Creation: Basics & Beyond, addressed in both the introduction and conclusion, is to show the inherent and inerrant truth of Scripture, mainly Genesis, and how this book of beginnings has an earthly and eternal impact on our lives. It also addresses how rejecting Genesis also has moral, social, and historical implications. This is why the book begins with addressing worldviews. While you could pick up this book and start in the middle, or end, knowing what and why you believe something is important in any area of life, including Genesis, as it is the foundation of most of our social, moral, historical, and spiritual structures we base ourselves on. Creation is more than the opposite of evolution, rather, it constitutes the basis for everything we believe, whether we reject or adhere to it.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

Dependence on Independence Day

John Adams to his wife Abigail.

But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.—I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not.—I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.—Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

————

While Adams was incorrect in saying that future generations would celebrate on the 2nd, he was correct that we out to celebrate it as a day of deliverance and praise to God. It is by His grace that this nation was founded. It is only by Him that we can do any good – in this land or anywhere. We can do nothing by our own reason or strength. Let us strive this day not only to remember what our founders sacrificed to give us this great country but also praise and give thanks to God for the blessings He gives us everyday, long before and long after this nation exists, and who saved us from more than a tyrannical government. He is our rock and our fortress (Psa. 18:2, 19:14).

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.

~ Psalm 33:12 ~

I pray you have a wonderful independence day, but let us not forget Him on whom we depend.

~Rose

When Your Calling is Home

“You are not here to get your ‘Mrs.’ degree.”

It was my first week at college and I was in a “freshman seminar” class (which was as  pointless as it was a waste of time). The professor spoke these words to her new students to make sure that they knew one thing: by the time they were done, they would have their vocation set. Indeed, the professor reminded us on multiple occasions that a vocation was more than just what religion called for, but what our professional careers would be. This did not include marriage.

I was shocked by the statement. Though I was there to learn, my goal in life was to become a wife and mother. But after the surprise wore off, I was saddened by her statement, for this was a Christian university, one that, I thought, would be doing what they could to encourage strong, Christian marriages that would bring up strong, Christian families that would do likewise.

Now this professor’s statement did not speak for the school or even all of the professors. It is, however, in the back of the minds of many people. This is not a problem found solely in the Church but one that, like many, have seeped in from the culture. The issue is this: women should not subjugate themselves to marriage and children but should put their careers first. While I am not so very shocked at seeing this in our secular culture, I am shocked at how often I hear a similar sentiment in the Church.

In the last year, my husband and I have been to at least half a dozen churches (between internship, seeking calls, moving, and finally finding a call). At each one we went to I was asked, “So what job are you looking for?” It is never, “What do you like to do?” or “How is married life?” or “How are you adjusting to moving again?”. Now that we have moved again, I frequently hear, “Are you looking for a job? Such and such place is hiring. Here’s their number.” It is always assumed that I must be looking for a job. After all, what else would I be doing? I find this frustrating, despite the fact that I know they have good intentions. Here is my issue:

I have a job. Multiple, in fact. I am a full-time wife, homemaker, author, artist, daughter, and hopefully future mother. I frequently teach Sunday school and sing with the band on occasion. I care for my garden, train our dog, and make sure the house stays clean.  I make sure food is ready for every meal, watch people’s kids, and try to keep spending below income. In what part of that do I need a “real job”? This is my life.

But, most of the people who ask if I’m looking for a “job” do not understand this. Actually, I’d rather say most of these women, for the majority of people who talk to me on this subject are women. These are women who have worked out of the house their whole lives and still, strangely, can’t seem to find a reason to go home. These are women who have been ingrained with the idea that they cannot find fulfilment in a husband, in children, in caring for the duties at home, for fulfilling their God-given duties. Instead, they were told to wait for a husband until after school. They were then told to wait until settled in a career until having kids. Then they were told to only have a couple of kids and to take fulfillment out of a career. They were told that the things that make them a woman were not good enough.

In turn, that is what these women tell me, whether they know it or not.

How these people would laugh if I told them that I, like many of my friends, want to have at least four children, I want to home-school them, and if I never had another “real job” in my life I would be as happy as a saint. They would laugh and say, “Sure, dear, we’ll see you in five years.”

Why does this happen in the Church? Why does my recognizing that children are a blessing and an inheritance from the Lord invite scorn? Why does my and my husband’s desire to teach our children from when they are young incur mockery? Why does the fact that I want to stay and be the helpmate of my husband from home produce derision, as if I am somehow less or think so little of myself for wanting this? I know my abilities and my worth. I know God has called me to what I do. Why then do so many people in the Church reject these things? Of all the places in the world, this  should be the place where such desires are praised! What happened to the praise of the “Proverbs 31 Woman”?

I wish I could show people all the things my mother does. I wish I could show them that not having a college degree, marrying, and having three children was the best thing that could have happened to her. I wish they could see the way that she uses her God-given abilities to support my family, to help other families, and to fulfill her calling. I wish they could see the way she adores my father, thanking him for being the one to work out of the home, never wishing to take his place in that role. I wish they could see it, and I wish they could see that potential in other young women.

I see nothing wrong with women going to college. In fact, I would encourage it. I learned much, got my degree, and met my husband there. I laugh now when I think of that professor from my freshman year. I see nothing wrong in women working, especially if to provide for the needs of their family. I work every day. But what I cannot fathom is why people in the church would be telling young women that dreaming of getting married, of having and raising children, of being homemakers will make them less than what they are. Fulfilling their God-given calling by using their God-given abilities is nothing but good. What better thing is there to aspire towards?

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

A Chimerical Idea

To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.

~ James Madison

Though the idea has since escaped us in recent days, it was once widely recognized that people are corrupt. People are sinful, evil, desiring wrongdoing. It is only through careful instruction, typically from youth, that our debase nature is curved. It is for this reason we have government, laws, churches, the Bible. When we gain instruction in our youth, our adulthood choices are better-guided.

But what has this to do with liberty? This has to do with self-government, or responsibility. If people are able to govern themselves, they are able to govern their households. And if their households, then their community. If their community, then their country. This was the intent of our founders. They knew that men were inherently bad, thus they made it where tyrannical rule was most difficult to achieve. It was the people who had the power. But what does self-government look like? Self-government is living with good manners, putting others’ needs above your own, being courteous, civil, working to the betterment of yourself, virtuous. Self-government is recognizing the bad within oneself and striving to do what is right in spite of it, hopefully with the acknowledgement and help of the Lord.

When people are self-governed, the sanctity of life, the ownership of property, and the respecting of opinions reign in freedom and liberty, and then people are truly happy. But to say that this is possible without virtue is chimerical because it is
“incapable of realization” (“chimerical.”).

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

~Benjamin Franklin

Human rights only exist so long as people are self-governed and virtuous. Without such a foundation in the hearts and minds of people, liberty and happiness dissolve. And it is only if we are a virtuous people that we will be able to deserve those things we cherish.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 


Works Referenced

“chimerical.” The Online Etymology Dictionary. 2017. Accessed 29 Apr 2018.

Skousen, Cleon. The 5000 Year Leap. National Center for Constitutional Studies. 2011. pp. 49-57.

Beware the Slow Death

Our freedoms will likely not be lost in one swift blow, but instead by the careful and steady hand of “silent encroachment”. This is why we must remain on the side of truth, on the side of what is right. Let us not be self-serving but seek to serve truth and justice. Encroaching on the rights of one person or group is to encroach on them all. Our government leaders must be reminded of their bonds: the Constitution. We give them their power; they do not give us ours. We must not let them take our property, our rights, and our liberty from us. For if they do, they will surely take our lives.

~Rose

——–——————————————–

The above images come from the book The 5000 Year Leap.

Never Again…?

Yesterday was Holocaust Remembrance Day for the Jews, called Yom Hashoah. The U.S. had a day of remembrance a couple of months ago, but that day came and went without much comment. Coincidentally, today happens to be a day when a mass grave of Jews found in Poland was announced in 1943. This mass grave, of course, was of Jews murdered during the Holocaust. But apparently this history has been forgotten over the past few decades. According to a new survey,

41 percent of Americans don’t know what Auschwitz was, including two-thirds of Millennials. Approximately 22 percent of Millennials had not heard of the Holocaust, and 41 percent thought 2 million or fewer Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.

(Ben Shapiro)

This is troubling, but not surprising. It is no wonder considering most young people do not know what Nazism, Communism, or Socialism is. After all, they wanted to elect a self-proclaimed socialist! No decent or well-read person would dream of doing such a thing. But young people do not know how many died in the Oktober Revolution, WWI and WWII, or during the Holodomor, nor do they know how these events came to fruition. Many young people do not know the recent events in our history that changed the world, for good or ill, nor why those things happened. They do not know the past.

What is worse, they do not care.

The fact that they do not know and do not care to know is the most troubling of these facts. Many people do not know the past and they do not wish to learn about it. Last night I watched a film called Hotel Rwanda. It was the first time I had seen the film and the first time I thought to look deeper into the history of that genocide. To be quite honest, I had never even heard, to memory, of the Tutsi and the Hutu before four years ago. But I sought to overcome that deficiency and looked up information on it. I am glad I did too, because it better helps me understand what is going on in South Africa at present.

I do not want to be ignorant of my personal history. I do not want to be ignorant of my country’s history. I do not want to be ignorant of world history. How can I hope to be a cause for change, a means of good, a word of instruction if I am in ignorance?

There is a quote that is hopefully well-known and cannot be over-emphasized:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

(George Santayana)

This is rather true, and I fear I see that across the globe today. People cannot remember the past. Thus, people who do not know about 1400’s Spain do not see a problem with mass migrations of young, male immigrants flooding Europe. People who do not know anything about the Fall of Rome, the Visigoths, and WWII do not pay attention to what Germany is doing with its military. People who do not know about who Marx, Malthus, Lenin, and Stalin were also don’t stand aghast at the fact we almost elected a self-professed communist as President. People who do not know about the English, French, and American revolutions are not afraid when the powerful subjugate citizens by weakening the Constitution. People who do not know about the Holocaust, the Holodomor, or what Eugenics is do not see the problem with abortion and physician assisted suicide.

People do not know history, so they do not know the folly of their ideas. Instead, they are work to destroy what they don’t understand. They wish to do what has been tried – and failed with unimaginable bloodshed. This is to our shame.

The following is a clip from the Band of Brothers. This scene is on the liberation of a concentration camp. This short clip is sickening, and yet it is only a fraction of the atrocities committed against people, a fraction of the over six million people who were murdered in these camps. We can only imagine what these people went through and what these soldiers experienced when they found them.

I have not investigated the numbers, but it is frightening to me that there is even a possibility of two-fifths of Americans who do not know what Auschwitz was. How has our country forgotten the horrors? How have we forgotten the atrocities committed across the world? How do we think we can solve the problems in our own country when we do not even know how and why we got here? How can we hope to stop evil in its path when we do not even recognize it?

How can we say “never again” if we do not remember what should never happen again?

How can we recognize the present if we forgot the past? How can we stop future atrocities if we do not remember past ones, refusing to learn and recognize them?  Will we recognize when our freedoms, our rights, our persons are being stripped of our ownership when they are being stripped away? Or will we, in our ignorance, stand by and say, “Let’s do it again!” while we feast and watch the circuses? As I watch the world, I mourn as I see us repeat history once more.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose


For more information on atrocities that should never be forgotten, go to this series called The Revolutionary HolocaustDo not be distracted by the narrator. Listen to the stories, investigate the facts, know what evil should be prevented.

On the Liberty of the Press

 

Author: David Hume

Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

 

 

In looking for something to read, I came across David Hume’s Of the Liberty of the Press. While Hume and I disagree, for the most part, on the best form of government,  I do agree with him on the importance of the press. He begins this essay noting that foreigners find Britain’s freedom of the press surprising. This is due mainly to the fact that other governments are absolute and they do not allow such political, social, or religious freedom. These freedoms were even better realized in America, but this essay was written before the founding.

Part of what makes the people free is the freedom to speak. Liberty is kept by people, and people keep it, in part, by speaking. But such liberty can be taken away if the people are silent or are silenced. This is why we in America have the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to religion, and so many other liberties. These are natural rights, but as Hume says, such liberty can be taken away slowly.

‘Tis seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.

He compares such a loss of liberty with slavery. Slavery did not become so great or so well accepted all at once but it disguised itself “in order to be received.” This is true for any freedom, right, or liberty we enjoy: it can be taken away piece by piece. Liberty is not lost all at once, but it can be lost and perhaps not regained, at least for a time (unless there is a revolution, to which I direct you to the Declaration of Independence).

And this is why we should strive to defend our rights lest any person, group, or government try to deny us of them. One way to do this is to keep the press free. We should not permit people or ideas to be shut down or encourage censorship, even if we disagree with what is said! We should allow dissenting or opposing opinions! This is often how change happens. If something is wrong, we can speak out. If we believe something to be true, we can publish it without fear of a loss of liberty.  Let us keep the market of ideas open. In this way we shall preserve liberty. To do anything else would result in a loss of liberty. We must not allow “such a bare-faced violation of liberty” by a “despotic government” or anyone else. If we stand by while people – with whom we agree or disagree – are silenced, we may conclude like Hume that the liberty of our country “is gone forever when these attempts shall succeed.”

~Rose

Problems of Convenience: A Modest Propsal

 

 

a_modest_proposal_1729_coverAuthor: Jonathan Swift
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

Commentary

Jonathan Swift, Irish by parentage but Englishman by citizenship, wrote A Modest Proposal in 1729. During the time he wrote this, there was great suffering in Ireland, and the English seemed to be at a loss as to how to deal with that problem. As the name might suggest, Swift hoped that his readers would be convicted to respond to the plight in Ireland by considering his “modest” proposal. Though he is possibly best known for his novel Gulliver’s Travel’s, Swift was at his best when he was writing satire, and that is what A Modest Proposal is: satire. Those who first read this piece probably did not think this “proposal” was satire at first. Their assumptions may have been based on many things, including the somewhat misleading subtitle and the fact that something really did need to be done in Ireland. Although what Swift wrote was for a specific time and place, his message still applied 100 years afterwards and still applies in the present.

As was true during most of the time Ireland was under British rule, Swift’s time saw a great oppression of the Irish people. It is not as though the people were intentionally abused, but their suffering was there nonetheless. They were poor, dirty laborers. Many of the imports to England came from Ireland, while the Irish starved. In general, the Irish were treated as the lessor of society. Because of their great suffering, the Irish often sold themselves to various shipmasters, traders, and colonists so that they might leave their wretched land and eat. Selling themselves for work, often to pay for their passage, was the only way for most of them to find prosperity and freedom because they had no money.

Swift saw the plight in Ireland and the apathy in Britain. Therefore, he wrote his proposal in hopes of waking up the British to the reality they were ignoring. There were many problems in Ireland that the English saw. For one, the Irish had far too many children, who were a “grievance” to society and their parents. They were beggars, thieves. They even demanded the charity of England, who took most of their goods through trade. Moreover, they were Catholic, leading in part to the great number. Swift also notes some of the horrid practices among these people who, as it was well know, were dying and rotting before them in filth, misery, and starvation. Swift writes,

There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas, too frequent among us, sacrificing the poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman beast.

This was a great grievance, and the English looked down upon the Irish because of it. But the British missed how their deeds were causing the death via starvation of those same children. Indeed, much like the supposed cannibals of Montaigne’s essay, Swift compares the English to a similar inhumanity. But what is Swift’s solution to this great problem? Well, since the English are already devouring the Irish by devouring their only supply of food, already withholding the support that Ireland needed, already treating them as livestock, Swift proposes that they eat them.

Yes, literally. Or figuratively. His proposal is straight-faced satire, and Swift does in fact go through the many ways a person could eat a child. You can fillet them, roast them, boil them, and, to make sure that nothing is wasted of so plentiful a crop, use their skin for gloves and boots. Indeed, the mothers and fathers would care so much for their children if they could make even three pounds per child. Even a few shillings would give them enough for bread! And then, since they will not have to care for their children after about a year, which before they would have had to raise the babe to adulthood – what an expense! – they can have more children which they can sell for money. The meat will be good and nourishing and the land better able to support others because of their sacrifice. Even if the meat cannot last long, Swift writes, he is sure that there is a “county which would be glad to eat up a whole nation” before it went bad.

By using the workers for food, the tenants of the land could have food to give to their lords, “as they have already devoured most of the parents, [they] seem to have the best title to the children,” like one would treat a mare or sow and their offspring. Some will have to be kept for breeding, but all of the extra people can be slaughtered without hindrance. After all, Swift writes, they are going to die of old age, disease, accident, or starvation anyway. And there really were, he reminds, too many Papists. Why not make the best use of them for the whole country, not to mention those poor starving, struggling parents? This will then support the parents and the country. As his proposal is “of no expense and little trouble,” he can see no reason why anyone would object to it.

Now Jonathan Swift was not actually saying that the English should eat the Irish. Rather, he was pointing out the problem with England’s apathy towards the plight in Ireland. They saw Ireland as a means for trade and supply. Ireland was better off forgotten until they needed it for food, like corn, wheat, or potatoes. The land and its people were not good for much else. Swift is merely pointing out that if the English are so calloused that they are willing to let the Irish starve so that the citizens that live in England may live, then they might as well go the whole way and literally eat the people themselves. They already were being devoured.

Swift’s writing seemed to have fallen on deaf ears, for a similar problem arose during the Victorian Era. During this time, a great famine broke out, and, like before, England basically ignored it or came up with excuses: they are lazy; much nutrition can come from other common plants; we cannot let them become dependent; what would happen if our citizens found out we were financially supporting the Irish?; and so on. In their eyes, the Irish were the unwashed masses, not really citizens of England. They were those who practiced Catholicism and brought this upon themselves by having too many children. They did not really deserve the help of England.

In short, many were practicing ideas that had long since been growing in popularity. These ideas were first plainly written by men such as Thomas Malthus. In his book  Principles of Population, he stated that it was good for the masses, the lessor of society, to die out so that, plainly speaking, the strong could survive. If the land could not produce enough to support the people, they would naturally select themselves to reduce the population.

Many different groups of people were viewed this way – from Africans to the Irish. In fact, only a handful of years after the Famine had basically ended, Darwin wrote his infamous book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Not many know the full title of his book, but he meant what he said. Many during Darwin’s time felt the need for the lessor races to die out so that the higher races might live on and not be burdened by those below.

irish-anglo-negro

The above image comes from a book called Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View written by H. Strickland Constable. The point of this drawing was to show that the Irish are actually descended from Africans, thus making them less human than Europeans. This idea is false on two counts: first, while the Irish and Africans are brothers in the sense that they descend from Noah’s sons, they are not related in the way that Strictland, or others, proposed; second, their origin of descent does not make them more or less human as all are of one blood and are children of Adam formed in the image of God. We may think it barbaric that brothers would treat each other this way, but we are not far from this reality in our own society today.

This was both the main problem and the mainline idea that permeated societies of that time: different races existed and those different races were more or less human. Because of this, millions were oppressed and killed. And while the Irish, among others, were killed for the sake of convenience and apathy among the British, today such an apathy and desire to murder for convenience happens with abortion. Do we really think this practice is any different from England’s? Do we not devour the children? Do we not see them as animals, not quite human, merely a burden to us and society? And if we do not think this, do we not hear it? Do we not find ways to excuse their deaths and encourage their mothers to lead them to the slaughterhouse? Thousands die each day via abortion, yet many people do not care, do not know what it is, or desire it. While the culture is changing, it is not happening quickly enough. Many more will die to the hand of convenience before this horrendous atrocity ends.

Whether people wish to admit it or not, the genocides that have happened around the world – African, European, or otherwise  – all of them are committed because of ideas purported by Malthus and his followers, like Darwin, Galton, Sanger, and others. People are killed for difference, hate, and convenience. They are killed because at one point in time, after years of whispers, men finally began to say what they desired to be true, that it was not only natural, but good for certain people to be eliminated, or left to die, for the sake or progress and convenience. And as Swift wrote, we have propped up these people as if they were the “preserver of the nation” despite the fact that they are among those who aided in its destruction. Do we really think we are any different from the British in the way they viewed their subjects as our nation treats abortion? So I ask you: will we look on in horror at our current state, as we do at Swift’s modest proposal, or will we continue to be those who future generations will look on with disgust?

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 

Eating Our Own “Of Cannibals”

essays_28montaigne29

 

Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

Author: Michel De Montaigne

 

 

 

 

 

I was encouraged some years back to read a piece by Michel De Montaigne called “Of Cannibals.” I was under the impression that is was something like “A Modest Proposal,” which is possibly my favorite piece of satire. While I would not call this satire, the way that Montaigne displays truth through contrast is similar. By comparing the people of Brazil during the 16th century with the Europeans of that same time, Montaigne demonstrates that our vices and supposed virtues are not all that different; our humanity with its shortcomings equal. Despite the fact that Europe considered itself a noble race, instead of the descendants of a barbarous people, such as the Hungarians, Gauls, Scythian, and Celts that preceded them – besides even the Greeks and Romans – the people of Europe, as all people do, carried on a nature and performances that were, by all accounts, barbarous. Though this essay was written to people of a certain time and place, its message still applies today.

Indeed, just as we do today, Europe had deemed itself developed, virtuous, full of valor, and enlightened. They were superior in body and mind to the barbarous nations they encountered. But as Montaigne writes, they judged these things not “by reason’s way” but by what was popular, socially accepted, the norm. Instead of highlighting faults via truth, they compared what was akin to themselves as good; what was not similar, the opposite, was deemed bad. The author quotes an encounter out of Greek history:

“I do not know what barbarians these are, but the formation of this army that I see is not at all barbarous.”

This is not a description of some group we might call barbarous, such as the Celts, Thracians, or Gauls, but of the Romans. Everyone who was different was a barbarian to the Greeks. This idea runs through the essay by comparing the regular practices of cannibals with those of Europe. His point is that while they seem foreign, we are much akin.

What are the virtues of this South American people? In truth, the virtues are similar to those of Europeans. They marry and have children. There are leaders, prophets, preachers. They hunt and have war. In fact, Montaigne notes, their way of waging war is not dissimilar to Europe’s wars even if their motives are. They are not wasteful nor too greedy. They call each other brother, and father, and child. While their food may be different in some ways, people of Europe and the Americas can enjoy it just as well.

Most of all, they are human. They make songs and poems, much like the Greeks, Montaigne notes, and their beds are like those found on Europe’s ships. They have swords, and grills; they shave, and eat and drink fish and wine. These people are told two things: have valor and love their wives. They not only have religion but a soul – an immortal one at that.

While these people still need Christ, we should be ashamed, Montaigne notes, as we basely look upon them. While not all cultures are equally noble, not all “noble” ones are good. Each has its faults to various degrees, and each needs to look at itself and see its faults along with its successes. This, however, we refrain from doing. “From this vice spring many great abuses,” he states.

How many of the above virtues seem to differ from those said to be upheld by the people of the 15th to 17th centuries in Europe? How different are they from those we claim to hold now? It should be noted that during the time of Montaigne, the war between the Catholic’s and Huguenots had broken out. In other places, it was the Catholics and the Lutherans; still others, the Anglicans, and Waldensians, and Tyndales, and Wycliffes, and Calvins, and so on. Not all were organized sects of Christianity, but all were workers of the Word. They sought the reform the Church needed, not to become like the world, but to better hold to the teachings of Christ. Yet what were these Christians doing? Were they having councils to work things out as in the early Church? Were they working to find agreement or examining their own faults? Were they trying to find the unity in Christ that He so desires?

No, they were eating themselves alive.

But there never was any opinion so disordered as to excuse treachery, disloyalty, tyranny, and cruelty, which are our ordinary vices.

Montaigne was not only talking to the religious community and its leaders; he was talking to the whole of Europe. But there is no doubt who bears the greatest moral responsibility. The people of that time snubbed their noses at such “debase” cultures that existed in the Americas. The leaders of Europe, religious, political, and otherwise, treated their brothers, their “halves,” as through they were of another race. It was as though they denied the teachings and the Word they claimed to uphold.

Not that these barbarians and cannibals should not be looked at with horror – cannibalism is horrible and evil; it strikes me as fitting that it should have the word ‘bal’ in it – those same people failed to recognize that same barbarism within themselves.

Though the cannibals denied the humanity of their brothers by eating them, they still recognized it within themselves in relation to the others. Yet with all the advancement that the world had made, however much it had been enlightened, however much freedom the Gospel brought, the world and its leaders failed to stand upon their own foundation and thus denied the humanity of their brothers, fathers, and children, “among neighbors and fellow citizens and what is worse, on the pretext of piety and religion.” They persecuted not their enemies, but their brothers.

So we may well call these people barbarians, in respect to the rules of reason, but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity.

Truly here are real savages by our standards; for either they must be thoroughly so, or we must be; there is an amazing distance between their character and ours.

Towards the beginning of his essay, Montaigne present this illustration:

When I consider the inroads that my river, the Dordogne, is making in my lifetime into the right back in its descent, and that in twenty years it has gained so much ground and stolen away from the foundations of several buildings, I clearly see this is an extraordinary disturbance…

He notes also that rivers are subject to change, going one direction this day and another yesterday or tomorrow. Yet this illustration is more than rivers as the cannibals are more than those who eat people; each are representational. Europe had a stream of new ideas running through it, some going one way and others the opposite. While Christianity had brought great prosperity, some of those who taught it did so without the truth in their hearts and with wrong motives, thus corrupting the foundation of the world around them.

In the same way, the new ideas and ways of thinking, the new way people looked at the world around them had changed, and not entirely for the good. Where certain leaders had eroded the good foundation of Christ that had existed for many years before, the “new thinkers” eroded the foundation near to completion, one that is seemingly gone today. While many enlightened people thought themselves as having gained much ground, they had in the process destroyed the foundation on which they and their gains rested. They had, in essence, thrown off their newfound freedom to return to the treacherous and barbarous ways of their origins.

I am not sorry that we notice the barbarous horror of such acts, but I am heartily sorry that, judging their faults rightly, we should be so blind to our own. I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead.

Between religion, social, and political persecution, the world was a hotbed of hatred.  Some might say that it is still today. Those claiming Christianity were heretics and hypocrites; the social classes were divided further by new, debase teachings of science, and the political wars intermingled and corrupted the two. Because of this strife, the people of Europe were literally eating themselves alive from the inside out. How ignoble to think this any different from the cannibals! Instead of capturing and killing our enemies, we do this to our brothers.

Both then and now, no matter the continent, we have been unable to look ourselves into the mirror of law and see our own faults, be they social, political, or religious. We have let ourselves become subjected to the “human disease” that infects all: the sinful nature. We pride ourselves in being clever and “advanced,” a loaded term of evolutionary origins and connotations, yet we “cannot help altering history a little” to excuse our current faults. We have not found our valor, honor, and worth in heart, will, and creed, but instead in strength and “survival of the fittest.” We are not “a character fit to bear true witness” of ourselves.

So what is the solution? If you were to ask Montaigne, he would probably say that we should look to the cultures of others who resemble the original nature of people. I am not so sure that this is the case. While it is good to learn from other cultures and take the good and learn from the bad, it is not good to model after them entirely. Likewise, the sinful nature is always present; without Christ, we are truly barbarous and enslaved.

Thus, we should be on the side of truth, regardless of whom it benefits in a passing moment. We should examine ourselves to see the faults within and compare ourselves to the truth, destroying and drowning our old Adam (Psa. 26:2, Lam. 3:40, 2 Cor. 13:5). Let us not become mired in tribalism and “us vs. them.” Learn. Do not decided what is good or bad by man’s fleeting and faulty wisdom but by God’s. Jet us judge things by “reason’s way,” by God’s way. It is His will that is unchanging, and His Word that is true and right. His design for us is the nature we should attend to. In this way, we can acknowledge our faults without fear and can lay down our shame, because we know a God that forgives. But let us do so now and share such truth and unity with others and end our incessant gorging of the flesh.

Blessings to you and yours,

~Rose

 


 

De Montaigne, Michel. “Of Cannibals.” vol. 1 The Norton Anthology of World Literature, W. W. Norton & Company. , 2nd ed., New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 2009, pp. 1631-40.

 

The Legacy of the Rev. Dr. King

As today celebrates the legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, I thought it fitting to talk about him and that legacy. I would be shocked to find someone in America who did not  know who this great man was, let alone what his legacy is. I would expect to hear at least the initials “MLK” in response to anyone who was asked the author of the “I Have a Dream” speech.  Most should know that Rev. King sought peace, equality, liberty, and unity. People know these things. Yet in the course of time, many have forgotten a group of people whom he also fought for. This is a group of people who were at risk then and are perhaps at a greater risk now. Though many have denied them their life and liberty, some are still speaking out for them. This is a group of people who are fought for by his niece, Alveda King; they and she are who I will talk about today.

Dr. Alveda King is the niece of the Rev. King. Many have, do, and will claim to follow in the footsteps of this great man, but none hold to his beliefs and work as hard as he did than this woman. No, she is not heard of much, and you might have never heard her name; but she is out there fighting for the lives of the unborn just as strongly today as her uncle fought for justice during his day. Yet from the time of the march till now, the future children that he spoke about has not gotten better, but worse. In that time, Planned Parenthood has expanded from “birth control” to advocating murder on demand. Alveda King agreed with a recent billboard that stated, “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” (Starr) Instead of supporting the removal of the billboard, she said it should be “posted in every city” (Starr).

Regarding the abortion industry, she says that the truth is being hidden from the African-American community; they do not know of the number of babies that are aborted (Starr). They do not know that Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who supported eugenics, specifically of the African-American population. Alveda King said,

“Black people in New York and all over the country should be outraged at the numbers of black babies we lose every single day to abortion. … An astonishing 60 percent of African-American pregnancies in the five boroughs of New York City end in abortion. That’s unfathomable.”

In addition, Alveda King points out that, as they have always done, Planned Parenthood focuses most of its facilities, “78% of abortion clinics,” in minority neighborhoods (King).  Across the county, more than a third of abortions are of African-American children, despite their being a minority population (Hodges). She also notes that in the past Sanger enlisted “the help of black ministers” to further the goal of killing off this population.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” ~ Margaret Sanger

So while many advocate for abortion in minority communities and excuse infanticide because, as they say, these women need abortion to succeed, they do not speak the truth. Abortion does not help or empower women, least of all those of African descent. No, abortion kills them and their children, deprives them of motherhood, exterminates them. It makes them a victim. Alveda King warns people, saying,

To this day many in the Black Community continue to defend Planned Parenthood while still many others in the community don’t have any idea about the agenda of Planned Parenthood. But there are those, like Al Sharpton and Sister Song, who are in leadership positions that know of Planned Parenthood’s agenda but refuse to accept the facts and continue to back their play against people of color.

The Black Community needs to unite and let Planned Parenthood know that we have value, we matter and we will not stand by as they continue to kill our future generations.

Despite the fact that many leaders support Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand, this is not something that Rev. King would have wanted. He spoke out for the family, especially for it to be unified in light of the “emerging epidemic of fatherless homes” and “the breakdown of the family due to premarital sex” (Schilling). He was against abortion as it broke down the family, it was often the result of fatherless homes, and it was a great evil (Schilling). Along with single parent and fatherless households, abortion has risen astronomically in the African-American community.  Alveda King described he uncle thus: “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was pro-life and pro-marriage and pro-family.” (Schilling)

People may or may not know that Planned Parenthood offered him an award, but he was most wary in receiving it and in the end it was only accepted by his wife, not him (Schilling). As the above quote by Sanger should suggest, it is doubtful that Planned Parenthood’s intentions were noble. He was not an advocate for abortion, despite Planned Parenthood’s praise of him. Thier praise is deceptive, especially when they speak on “reproductive health rights” and “worldwide family planning” (Schilling). Alveda King writes,

The bigger problem is that this simply isn’t true. In the Planned Parenthood lexicon, phrases like ‘reproductive health rights’ and ‘worldwide voluntary family planning’ are code for abortion, which my uncle never advocated. I know this because I grew up in the same values system that nurtured him …

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. A woman has a right to say what she will do with her body. The baby is not her body.

Instead, it is an injustice that they are killed, either indiscriminately or discriminately. Both are wrong. And Rev. King is not without his voice either. Though he was speaking on the early Church, he was clear when he said that, “By their effort and example they brought to an end such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.” (Letter from Birmingham Jail) He also implies such duties to responsibility, justice, and the next generation in the following,

“The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” (Priests for Life)

 

People know about the Reverend. They know he stood for equality and peace, yet they shun those same opportunities to the unborn today. The leaders who support abortion, and especially Planned Parenthood, know the deception and know the ultimate goal of abortion. Like Europe under Nazi control, this is another tactic for the extermination of the less desirableness, as they are called. It is sickening. Sadly, most have been beguiled by the lies.

Abortion needs to end. I am thankful that people like Alveda King recognize abortion for what it is: evil and murder. The legacy of Rev. King is the same as the founders: that all men are created equal and deserve the right to life and liberty, and that these rights are given by the Creator (“The Declaration of Independence.”; “I Have a Dream…”). Are we going to continue the legacy of life and liberty, or the opposite? If you have trouble deciding, consider this:

Little black boys and girls will never hold hands with little white boys and girls if they have all been murdered before they are born.

Will we someday look back on abortion as we do on slavery? We will wonder how people could have ever thought this was a right thing to do? How long do we let this continue? How will our descendants look on us tomorrow if we do not fight for the lives of the unborn today?

Blessings with you and yours,

~ Rose

 


Works Referenced

Hodges, Mark. “CDC: 35% of aborted babies are black.” lifesitenews.com, 5 Dec. 2016. Accessed 15 Jan. 2018.

King, Alveda. “Eugenics and Planned Parenthood.” Priests for Life: Alveda King’s Blog, Priests for Life, 27 June 2011. Accessed 15 Jan. 2018.

King, Martin Luther. “I Have a Dream…“. Archives. 1963. Accessed 15 Jan. 2018.

Priests for Life. “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights of the Unborn.” Priests for Life, Priests for Life. Accessed 15 Jan. 2018.

Rev. King jr., Martin L. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” King Encyclopedia, 16 Apr. 1963. Accessed 15 Jan. 2018.

Schilling, Chelsea. “King Niece: Planned Parenthood Falsely Portrays MLK as Pro-Abortion.” http://www.wnd.com, 10 Aug. Accessed 15 Jan. 2018.

Starr, Penny. “Alveda King: ‘The Most Dangerous Place for An African American Is in the Womb’.” cnsnews.com, 25 Feb. 2011. Accessed 15 Jan. 2018.

“The Declaration of Independence.” The Heritage Foundation. 4 July 1776. Rpt. 2008. Print.

 

The Top 5 Issues Facing Black Americans

Black Fathers Matter

The Most Important Question about Abortion

Black, Millennial, Female and… Conservative

 

The featured image is not mine can can be found here.