There is something terribly wrong in America's institutions of higher learning. Ward Churchill, William Woodward, Kevin Barrett, and now Peter Singer...

An internationally known Princeton "bioethicist" and animal-rights activist says he'd kill disabled babies if it were in the "best interests" of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child's life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

...

Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights. With only a "rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists" still protecting life as sacrosanct... To the rest, it will be a commodity to be re-evaluated regularly for its worth.

...

He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

...And this "Bioethicist" would allow up to 28 days after birth to kill an infant. Why 28 days? Why not 30? Why not 90? Or 180? In Mr. Singer's world escaping the womb offers no sanctuary to innocent life. Innocent life, by the end of 28 days, would have to prove its worth... Or face execution. Of course Mr. Singer would call it euthanasia, but that's merely a question of semantics; the end result would be the same.

Is this what passes for wisdom in Academia today? The Universities, of course, defend their professors claiming their personal beliefs are irrelevant to their posts as instructors. I disagree.

---

I read at another blog some time back a reference to Wisdom in the book of Proverbs as being referred to as 'she'. That somehow this meant that since real wisdom proceeds from the mind and mouth of God, that use of the feminine 'she' indicated that Jesus might have been a woman... I'm probably getting this wrong, and I'm further sure that a correction from the blog owner may well be offered in comments, but the commenter-- not the blog administrator --seemed to not mind so much that the trinity might be replaced with the 'Feminine.' But that was my impression.

In Proverbs chapter 1 we get the following...

Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD

A simple reading of verses 20 to 29 picture Wisdom and God as being synonymous. What the commenter I've mentioned fails to grasp is the use of 'personification', that is, giving human/emotional attribute to the inanimate... Borrowing from a previous post and author Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

So it is Wisdom that cries out in the streets, the main concourses, in houses of government, and the homes of every single person. And Wisdom is God. Turn now to 1 Corinthians 1:24

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Jesus is the Wisdom of God? Is it then Jesus who cries out in the streets, the main concourses, the houses of government, and in every home for man to turn away from the world's wisdom and hearken unto God's Wisdom. It was Wisdom that stretched out his hand... Wisdom to know that by doing so He would draw all men unto Himself.

But the world despises the wisdom of God, preferring instead the likes of Ward Churchill, William Woodward, Kevin Barrett, Peter Singer and so many more. And some question whether homeschooling should even be allowed. Never-mind that children who are homeschooled consistently do better on standardized tests. Thankfully, home schooling is not illegal here in the U.S. like it is in Germany...

Germany Imprisons Mum. Dad and Kids Flee to Austria
--by Alexandra Colen

Last Thursday the German police arrested Katharina Plett, a homeschooling mother of twelve. Yesterday her husband fled to Austria with the children. Homeschooling is illegal in Germany since Hitler banned it in 1938. The Plett family belongs to a homeschooling group of seven Baptist families in Paderborn. We wrote about their case last year.

Stefan Sedlaczek of the Catholic website kreuz.net heard about her arrest on Saturday. He reports today that a female plain-clothes police officer rang at Katharina Plett's house on Thursday around 11:00 am. When she opened the door other police officers, who had hidden themselves, forced their way in. Mrs Plett was allowed to change, but a police officer followed her into her bedroom in case "she would arm herself and shoot us all." The woman was able to inform her husband by mobile phone before the police brought her to Bielefeld.

The authorities later informed her husband that she has been imprisoned in Gelsenkirchen. Apparently she has been given a ten day prison sentence....

Yesterday, Katharina's husband fled with their children to a Christian family center in Wolfgangsee in Austria. A homeschooling couple from Hamburg has also fled to Wolfgangsee. Their case was covered in the media. In Austria parents are entitled to homeschool during a one year trial period, after which the authorities decide whether the parents are allowed to continue homeschooling or not.

George Orwell's vision of the future is not with us today, though many lament the intrusion of Big Brother into their daily private lives. Wal Mart is currently under attack by Democrats and Unions for not paying a living wage, when in fact Wal Mart pays its employees better than the television station where I work. But the Democrats aren't interested in lobbying for me a living wage... whatever that is.

And while Dems and Unions complain about how horrible Wal Mart is, they couldn't care less that Wal Mart is beginning to institute mandatory dress codes that don't include a crucifix worn about the neck as a statement of faith-- or fashion --because it might be offensive to others. Why aren't Democrats and Unions applauding Wal Mart? Why isn't the ACLU demanding Wal Mart cease and desist in their attempt to stifle religious liberty?

No. Big Brother isn't here yet, but he's knocking at the door of your heart. And if you'd only open up and let him in, he could indoctrinate you, fill your heart with heresies, govern every aspect of your life, and make you ten-fold the child of hell.
--that was beautifully crafted rhetoric by the way...

There is something very wrong in the heart of men. And it's time to stop believing that those who govern us have our best interests at heart, when in fact, they have only their own interests at heart. You still have a voice. Speak up now, or forever hold your peace... at the threat of punishment, pain, imprisonment, or worse... At the barrel of a gun.

"But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me..."

Genesis 6:3 says "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

God gave man 120 years to repent, while Noah built the ark. And when the ark was finished He still waited... "for yet seven days" perhaps hoping some others would repent and be saved. But after seven days the rains came, and finally in verse 16 it says that "the LORD shut him in."

God will not always strive with man... Repent now while He may be found. No the world is not as George Orwell and Ray Bradbury envisioned it, but looking out the window I see it is nonetheless grim-- A storm is gathering... light is dimming, and night will soon come when no man will be able to work.


UPDATE: September 17, 10:05 pm

Returning to Peter Singer's quote:

"From the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

This is perhaps the greatest illustration of the divide between righteousness and evil. The classic, "Yea, hath God said...?" The ultimate Golden Calf... taking that which is holy and pure and making into the image of creeping things. This is the crux grammata of Mr. Singer's euthanistic vision, it's what allows him to make the statement that children may be killed-- up to a certain, clearly define point! An arbitrary period of 28 days.

In another statement attributed to Singer:

"I've written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans..."

To Singer it is therefore a greater sin to murder someone with a catalog of memories and hopes for the future, than a new born child. In the article he is quoted as saying, "Normal humans have such plans, but I don't think cows do." It is then clear he is not speaking specifically to new born infants, but since he is free to warp logic with the previous statement that no differences exists between the 'foetus and the newborn baby' he has opened himself up to counter-criticism-- Babies-- it is fair to assume --are about as aware of having a past and future with plans for said future, than Singer's proverbial cow. Besides which, his entire argument, all talk of cows aside, is built to defend the position that it is fine to kill new born babies up to 28 days. Therefore, the killing of Stanley "Tookie" Williams is a graver sin-- despite being guilty of murder --than killing a child of 21 days because of Down Syndrome. With this one statement Peter Singer justifies two Liberal positions... Abortion is the sacrosanct right of all women, and Capital Punishment is a travesty of justice. The former is now demonstrated to be acceptable, and the latter a heinous crime.

This is truly a sick and perverse ideology.