This article on Worldnet Daily about a boy who was seized from his parents home in Colorado by a swat team is one of the latest examples of the totalitarianism that is coming here in the West. I'll let the reader go through the article to get the appalling details, my point is simply this: This is where we are going as far as the power of the State and I attribute it mainly to secularism's dominance in the public square.How might that be? Well, simply put, the secular humanists aren't fond of children learning ideas that are outside of their worldview, they are dangerous. This family and their parenting philosophy of homeschooling Christians was out of step with the secular states' religion, teaching radically harmful ideas like people are made in the image of God and there are moral absolutes etc. Just like we have seen recently in Germany families that refuse to bow to the secular government education many have had their children taken away.
Granted, the main issue in this instance was not education and as of right now families can opt out of the government education programs, but the issue certainly is related. Outlawing homeschooling is the next logical progression for the secularists as is taking place in Europe.
Again though, how can I blame this on secular humanism? Well, as Schaeffer argues in "A Christian Manifesto" (the title is a play on the "Humanist Manifesto") that we once had a government that was under the rule of law, meaning that law was king, the state was under the law. God is the law giver. This gives citizens liberty and restricts the government. However, God has been removed from our understanding of law (and thus lex rex) in favor of a secular humanist framework and Christianity no longer is the intellectual and moral framework of the culture in general (aside from whether individuals really were true believers, Christianity still at one time was the consensus). As this has happened the power of the State has become autonomous and has grown tremendously.
That's the nutshell of the argument, and why we are where we are. We are moving more and more into a police state as our individual freedoms continue to be eroded in the name of various "dire causes" like terrorism, the environment, etc. The time will come within my lifetime I believe when Christian families will not be able to educate their children according to their conscience because the State's elites will see that as potentially harmful.
To wrap up, this isn't supposed to be like one of those sandwich board "The End Is Near!" sort of message from the Charles Manson look alike on the street corner. Firstly, we should praise God for the freedoms we still have, secondly we need to in the current freedoms labor to turn the clock back (I wish Christians would get off the Neo-Con bus and wake up to some one like Ron Paul) and lastly we need to be on our knees before our God at whose word nations rise and fall.
9 comments:
You have a point there Bobby!
Here's my antedote:
Psa 149:5 Let the godly exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their beds.
Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,
Psa 149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples,
Psa 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron,
Psa 149:9 to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all his godly ones. Praise the LORD!
Not until we lay down our natural arms and pick up His Spiritual Arms, these things will go unchecked.
Praying, kneeling, sitting, standing, jumping around or walking, let's do it, do it, do it!
Let's pray!
Here's what gets the 8th Angel to pick up fire from the Altar and cast it to the earth!:::>
Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne,
Rev 8:4 and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.
Rev 8:5 Then the angel took the censer and filled it with fire from the altar and threw it on the earth, and there were peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and an earthquake.
Rev 8:6 Now the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared to blow them.
Wow that psalm was really powerful Michael, there is the arms for the Christian revolutionary!
I'm curious as to whether there are any news networks other than WorldNetDaily and its right-wing Christian companions that have covered this story. After doing a Google search and a browse through a few of Colorado's major news sites, I haven't found anything at all on the subject. Quite a remarkable thing for the big networks to miss a story of this caliber, which suggests that one of a few things is happening:
1. WND and/or one of its like-minded news sites concocted the story, or modified the details of an existing story to such a degree that it is unrecognizable as the original in terms of details of the events and the identities of the people involved.
2. WND and/or one of its like-minded news sites was privy to exclusive information that all of the major networks have either not, as of yet, become aware of, or are prevented from reporting on for some reason.
3. The major networks are engaging in a large-scale conspiracy aimed at suppressing the details of this particular event for reasons that, given the magnitude of the alleged bungle by the local SWAT team and the extreme newsworthiness of the story in question, are quite a mystery. WND, however, has somehow managed to resist the overwhelming might of the giant networks and has published the scathing truth for the world to see.
Obviously, I'm a little skeptical of the latter two. I also find the fact that none of Colorado's local news stations appears to have anything at all to report about the event a teensie bit suspicious. Am I mistaken? If I'm not, doesn't that say something about using WND to make a point about anything?
In addition to being concerned with the ever-encroaching threat of totalitarian rule, I might also advise being critical of your sources. I've found that a major flaw with the tactics of many right-wing Christian bloggers is their willingness to accept data and information from highly suspect sources without questioning it. I'm sure there's plenty of valid stuff out there to support your position, so it's really unnecessary to rely on the obvious garbage. Of course, I could still be wrong about WND's apparent use of a line of total bullshit on this story, but it sure doesn't look like it.
Also, any plans to continue our earlier discussion from your Polemics of Science post? I was kinda enjoying it. I can repost my latest response on a more recent post of yours if that's helpful.
Cheers.
Yeah Bob! Do your homework!
I just did a quick google search myself and found two local articles:
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080108/VALLEYNEWS/248366321
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/09/man-who-blocked-treatment-son-11-claims-overreacti/
The only mainstream article I found in my 5 minute search was on aol. But it looks like the AP did pick it up.
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/colorado-raid-angers-family/n20080108065309990012?cid=207
Cool, thanks Lisa.
Looks like I blew it on the research. My Googling skills are not what they used to be, it appears. A mitigating factor in this instance is that, if you happen to Google at this moment in time the details of this case (namely “Shiflett” and “SWAT”), you will find nothing for two to three pages but the WND article, and blogs commenting in support of the WND article. After more careful sifting, however, I did come across the Aspen Times report on the matter on the fourth page. In any case, an apology is owed for the ill-informed snarky comment: Sorry ‘bout that, Bob.
Still, I’m curious about a few things:
1) At what point should a paramedic defer to the decision of a parent to refuse medical assistance in the case of potentially life-threatening injuries sustained by a child? (This is a bit of a complex question given the inability of a paramedic to ascertain on the spot whether or not said parent is actually capable of treating the injuries, regardless of what they say, and that the extent of those injuries would otherwise remain unknown until a formal examination was performed.)
2) What are the pre-requisites that need to be met before the SWAT team is called in, and were they technically met in this case?
3) Do you feel that WorldNet Daily has presented a balanced and reasonably informative report on the events that transpired?
Hey Uber,
Sorry for taking so long at getting back, I have been busy, hence the lack of bloggage on my part. You asked some great questions (ones I myself asked upon reflecting on this sort of situation) you asked:
"1) At what point should a paramedic defer to the decision of a parent to refuse medical assistance in the case of potentially life-threatening injuries sustained by a child?"
I don't know. The issue really a difference between socialism and personal freedom. Should the state have the right to take people's children from harmful situations...I am sure we all want to say "Yes" when we think of scenarios where individuals are so incompetent or abusive that they seem to loose their right to parent. However, this becomes a slippery slope, how do we define incompetent and abusive? Many would say that raising your children in a Christian manner is abusive. Or even simply not sending your children to the government schools is a form of neglect. This is where it gets sticky and seems to lead toward tyranny and statism.
"2) What are the pre-requisites that need to be met before the SWAT team is called in, and were they technically met in this case?"
Well, I think they needed to establish the fact that the boy was in serious danger before kicking peoples doors in with guns in their faces. People saw the boy, and saw that he was in no real harm, thus it would seem that shoving machine guns in these citizen's faces was grossly unnecessary and a violation of their constitutional rights. (No matter what the numb-skull judge says)
"3) Do you feel that WorldNet Daily has presented a balanced and reasonably informative report on the events that transpired?"
Well, you know there is a bit of a spin, but it seems like a situation like this really speaks for itself. The other news outlets where I read this story to a degree seemed to sanitize the situation a bit and try to make the father look bad and the state not so bad.
However, this becomes a slippery slope, how do we define incompetent and abusive?
I might respond by asking: In matters of potentially serious physical injury, how much time we should spend trying to assess the competence of the parent? Should the paramedics have given Shiflett a quiz to assess his ability to diagnose head trauma? Would he have gone for such an assessment, ridiculous as it sounds, if they had offered it?
Or even simply not sending your children to the government schools is a form of neglect.
I don't think the issue of public schooling (which still is not mandatory, as you yourself have noted) is relevant to this issue. It's very much a medical issue, not an educational one. The implication for requiring care by the paramedics are much different than those of of requiring education by teachers.
Well, I think they needed to establish the fact that the boy was in serious danger before kicking peoples doors in with guns in their faces.
Precisely how could they have established the amount of danger the boy was in if Shiflett refused to let him be examined properly? Since Shiflett wasn't exactly the most co-operative fellow and had a history of confrontational behaviour... well, that's a matter for the next point:
Well, you know there is a bit of a spin, but it seems like a situation like this really speaks for itself.
For the situation to speak for itself, I would argue that all the details would need to be present, which they were not. The author of the WND article chose to present very specific points (that an armed response team had entered the Shiflett home to retrieve the boy and that the boy’s injuries were ultimately not serious, for instance) and omit others (that Shiflett had a history of threatening behaviour and, more importantly, the degree to which he had dealt harshly with the paramedics and, later, children’s service). You criticize the other news outlets of putting too much emphasis on Shiflett’s prior hostile behaviour, when this actually does a lot to inform the decision of the Sheriff to act in the manner he did. Further, the article, at no time, actually mentions whether or not the proper criteria were actually met to send in the response team in the first place. Finally, the very specific kind of language WND used to portray the entire situation rather obviously betrays their right-leaning agenda and the accompanying distaste for anything they can construe as “socialized” (this kind of approach is how you managed to lump this situation in with your beef with education). Given this, any information they present becomes suspect in terms of its overall accuracy.
Hi Bob!
I would like to invite readers at this blog to please watch the message at the following link. I also hope that you will be motivated to share your comments!
Marriage: The Image of God
Go to the site and click on the arrow on the right of that particular message.
When you view this video, you will see what the illicit sexual battles being faced by the church today are really all about. The fact is, it is not really only a physical battle, but more importantly, an ultimate type of spiritual battle that is transpiring.
Sincerely,
Christine W.
Post a Comment