Category Archives: Religion

California charter school removes Christian books from library

River Springs Charter School

Springs Charter Schools, aka River Springs Charter School, is a charter school in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, southern California.

On its “About Us: Vision & Mission” page, Springs Charter Schools describes itself as “created and is operated by parents” and that “We value Parent choice and involvement, Using the community as the classroom, Fostering a child’s innate creativity, Collaborating to achieve goals, Building relationships, and Personalizing learning.”

What the page leaves out is that Springs Charter Schools also values CENSORSHIP and ANTI-CHRISTIANITY.

Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a conservative legal defense organization in California, is sounding the alert that Springs Charter Schools is violating the First Amendment by removing library books based on their perceived Christian content.

In an email, PJI states:

A parent of students enrolled at Springs Charter Schools was recently shocked to see some of the books being targeted for removal, including the well-known account of Holocaust survivor Corrie ten Boom, The Hiding Place.  The parent contacted PJI after library personnel explained to her that they had been directed to remove Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books from Christian publishers.

PJI attorney Michael Peffer sent the school a cease-and-desist letter on August 22, citing long-established Supreme Court precedent that strongly disapproves of school libraries removing books based on opposition to their content or message.   
 
Last week, the Superintendent of Springs Charter Schools, Dr. Kathleen Hermsmeyer, ignored the precedent in PJI’s letter and instead insisted, “We . . . do not allow sectarian materials on our state-authorized lending shelves.”
  
PJI President Brad Dacus commented, “It is alarming that a school library would attempt to purge books from religious authors.  Indeed, some of the greatest literature of Western Civilization comes from people of faith.  Are they going to ban the sermons or speeches of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?  What about the Declaration of Independence that invokes the laws of nature and nature’s God?  We are calling on Springs Charter Schools to immediately reverse their ill-conceived and illegal book-banning policy.”  
 
PJI responded to the school this week by sending a public records request and is prepared to take further legal action if the school continues to ignore its constitutional obligations.  

To contact the Pacific Justice Institute:

Brad Dacus (916) 857-6900

Scrolling through the Springs Charter Schools’ very long list of “Administration Contacts(Bloated Bureaucracy Alert!), I can’t find any contact info for its superintendent.

As if that could end my search. [smirk]

From the California Department of Education website:

Kathleen M. Hermsmeyer
Superintendent
Ph: (951) 252-8800 ext. 891
Email: kathleen.hermsmeyer@harborspringscharter.org

Kathleen Hermsmeyer, 47

Kathleen Hermsmeyer, 47

I also saw this on Springs Charter Schools’ very long list of “Administration Contacts“:

Enchanted Learning – Amber Zielinski (951) 252-8841

“Enchanted Learning”? I dread to ask what that is.

H/t FOTM’s MomofIV

~Eowyn

Coming Soon to a Theater Near You

In the 60’s and 70’s, we had several well-received realistic horror movies: The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, etc. Made by veteran craftsman, these movies were not the make-believe fables that many thought them to be, but rather honest portrayals of very real demonic possession.

The 80’s and 90’s followed with a slew of low-budget, over-the-top slasher movies: Halloween (and its sequels), Friday the 13th (and its sequels), etc. Made independently by young casts and crews looking to break into the business, these movies were taken for what they were, mindless driven aimed at the pot-smoking high school and college crowds.

Today, we have an onslaught of slickly made, big-budget horror spectacles made by autonomous corporations, as seen on the posters below. The casts and crews of these “new” horror movies all appear to be either members of, or at least highly influenced by, the satan-worshipping illuminati. These movies are not intended as entertainment. They are meant to indoctrinate a new generation into the satanically possessed new world order. The same new world order being promoted by the United Nations and the Democratic Party.

image

image

image

image

What time is it?

Did you know that prophecies account for nearly one third of the Bible?

Revelation 1:3 says, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.”

Two recent essays point to the unsettling and troubling times we live in. Is the time near?

~Eowyn

Helm's Deep

Victor Davis Hanson, “Are the Orcs Winning?,” PJMedia, Sept. 7, 2014:

J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings was sometimes faulted by literary critics for caricaturing the evil orcs as uniformly bad.  All of them were as unpleasant to look as they were deadly to encounter. There is not a single good orc or even a reformed orc in the trilogy. The apparent one-dimensional assumption of men, hobbits, dwarves, and elves is that the only good orc is a dead orc. So the absolutist Tolkien tried to teach us about the enduring nature of absolute good and evil. Apparently he did not think that anything from his contemporary experience might allow him to imagine reforming or rehabilitating such fictive folk.

Tolkien’s literary purpose with orcs was not to explore the many shades of evil or the struggle within oneself to avoid the dark side; he did that well enough in dozens of once good but weak characters who went bad such as the turncoat Saruman the wizard, his sidekick Wormtongue, a few of the hobbits who had ruined the Shire, and, best of all, the multifaceted Gollum. Orcs, on the other hand, are unredeemable. Orcs, goblins, and trolls exist as the tools of the even more sinister in proud towers to destroy civilization, and know nothing other than killing and destruction. Their reward is to feed on the crumbs of what they have ruined.

In the 21st century we are often lectured that such simplistic, one-dimensional evil is long gone. A ubiquitous civilization has so permeated the globe that even the worst sorts must absorb some mitigating popular culture from the Internet, Twitter, and Facebook, as if the sheer speed of transmitting thoughts ensures their moral improvement.

Even where democracy is absent, the “world community” and a “global consciousness” are such that billions supposedly won’t let Attila, Tamerlane, and Genghis Khan reappear in our postmodern lives. To deal with a Major Hasan, Americans cannot cite his environment as the cause, at least not poverty, racism, religious bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, or any of the more popular –isms and-ologies in our politically correct tool box that we customarily use to excuse and contextualize evil behavior. So exasperated, we shrug and call his murdering “workplace violence” — an apparent understandable psychological condition attributable to the boredom and monotony of the bleak, postmodern office.

But then suddenly along comes the limb-lopping, child-snatching, and mutilating Nigerian-based Boko Haram. What conceivable Dark Age atrocity have they omitted? Not suicide bombing, mass murder, or random torture. They are absolutely unapologetic for their barbarity. They are ready to convert or kill preteens as their mood determines for the crime of being Christian. In response, the Nigerian government is powerless, while the United States is reduced to our first lady holding up Twitter hashtags, begging for the release of the latest batch of girls.

Is the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab worse? It likes the idea that it is premodern. In addition to the usual radical Islamic horrors of beheadings, rape, and mutilation, Al-Shabaab even kills protected elephants, perhaps thousands of them, to saw off tusks and fund their killing spree. They seem to make the medieval Taliban look tame in comparison.

Roger Cohen, “The Great Unraveling,” New York Times, Sept. 15, 2014:

(Note: my words are colored teal)

It was the time of unraveling. Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?

It was a time of beheadings (ISIS). With a left-handed sawing motion, against a desert backdrop, in bright sunlight, a Muslim with a British accent cut off the heads of two American journalists and a British aid worker. The jihadi seemed comfortable in his work, unhurried. His victims were broken. Terror is theater. Burning skyscrapers, severed heads: The terrorist takes movie images of unbearable lightness and gives them weight enough to embed themselves in the psyche.

It was a time of aggression. The leader of the largest nation (in land mass) on earth (Russia) pronounced his country encircled, even humiliated. He annexed part (Crimea) of a neighboring country (Ukraine), the first such act in Europe since 1945, and stirred up a war on further land he coveted. His surrogates shot down a civilian passenger plane (MH17). The victims, many of them Europeans, were left to rot in the sun for days. He denied any part in the violence, like a puppeteer denying that his puppets’ movements have any connection to his. He invoked the law the better to trample on it. He invoked history the better to turn it into farce. He reminded humankind that the idiom fascism knows best is untruth so grotesque it begets unreason.

(See “Was it really a Russian INVASION of Crimea?” )

It was a time of breakup. The most successful union (United Kingdom) in history, forged on an island in the North Sea in 1707, headed toward possible dissolution — not because it had failed (refugees from across the seas still clamored to get into it), nor even because of new hatreds between its peoples. The northernmost citizens (Scotland) were bored. They were disgruntled. They were irked, in some insidious way, by the south and its moneyed capital, an emblem to them of globalization and inequality. They imagined they had to control their National Health Service in order to save it even though they already controlled it through devolution and might well have less money for its preservation (not that it was threatened in the first place) as an independent state. The fact that the currency, the debt, the revenue, the defense, the solvency and the European Union membership of such a newborn state were all in doubt did not appear to weigh much on a decision driven by emotion, by urges, by a longing to be heard in the modern cacophony — and to heck with the day after. If all else failed, oil would come to the rescue (unless somebody else owned it or it just ran out).

It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth (USA) was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix. Civil wars between Arabs could fester. Enemies might even kill other enemies, a low-cost gain. Middle Eastern borders could fade; they were artificial colonial lines on a map. Shiite could battle Sunni, and Sunni Shiite, there was no stopping them. Like Europe’s decades-long religious wars, these wars had to run their course. The nation’s leader (POS) mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.

It was a time of hatred. Anti-Semitic slogans were heard in the land that invented industrialized mass murder for Europe’s Jews. Frightened European Jews removed mezuzahs from their homes. Europe’s Muslims felt the ugly backlash from the depravity of the decapitators, who were adept at Facebooking their message. The fabric of society frayed. Democracy looked quaint or outmoded beside new authoritarianisms. Politicians, haunted by their incapacity, played on the fears of their populations, who were device-distracted or under device-driven stress. Dystopia was a vogue word, like utopia in the 20th century. The great rising nations of vast populations held the fate of the world in their hands but hardly seemed to care.

It was a time of fever (Ebola). People in West Africa bled from the eyes.

It was a time of disorientation. Nobody connected the dots or read Kipling on life’s few certainties: “The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unraveling for what it was and what it had wrought.

The Homeless. Do We Even Look? Are You Sure?

This should leave a bit of a lump in your throat. I know it did me.   :(

————————————————————————————-

If a family member posed as a homeless person, would you recognize him or her?

That’s the question a new campaign — Make Them Visible — is asking. In a video produced by ad agency Silver + Partners and Smuggler for the New York City Rescue Mission, several people come face-to-face with their relatives and significant others dressed as homeless people. However, not a single participant recognizes their mother, brother or wife.

“There’s only one person that didn’t make it into the film — because they couldn’t handle the fact that they walked by their family,” video director Jun Diaz of Smuggler production company told Fast Company. “It happened every time.”

The jarring social experiment, staged in Tribeca and Soho near the mission’s shelter, shows just how invisible homeless people are to pedestrians on the street.

“We don’t look at them. We don’t take a second look,” Michelle Tolson, director of public relations for the New York City Rescue Mission, told The Huffington Post.

Tolson explained that the ad agency and production company hired actors for a documentary video and quietly contacted each person’s family to see if they would be interested in being apart of the social experiment. While the family members were in on the ruse, the participants had no idea they were being set up, and only learned after the fact when they watched themselves walk past their “homeless” family member.

“The experiment is a powerful reminder that the homeless are people, just like us, with one exception,” Craig Mayes, executive director of New York City Rescue Mission, said in a statement provided to HuffPost. “They are in trouble and in pain. And they are someone’s uncle or cousin or wife.”

Watch how each person reacts after the big reveal in Make Them Visible’s video above.

~Steve~

PS, The NYC Rescue Mission is a personal Charity I’ve supported for over 25 yrs. Just happened upon this vid and thought you may like it. Here is a brief bio of the joint and link for more info.   Thanks. Steve

The New York City Rescue Mission, America’s First Rescue Mission, has had the same goal since 1872: to provide hope, food, clothing and shelter to people in crisis in New York City.

Founded by Jerry and Maria McAuley, New York City Rescue Mission has been serving the city since 1872.

 http://nycrescue.org/

h/t Digg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/23/make-them-visible-homeless-video_n_5200574.html

Gaystapo corporate intimidation at JP Morgan Chase

Gaystapo

Remember my post of 2½ months ago, on Chase Bank, in a company survey, asking its employees to declare their loyalty to LGBT? (LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender)

Each year, JP Morgan Chase sends its employees a survey asking questions related to management and other non-controversial issues. The survey this year included, for the first time, a question asking if the employee is “An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.”

That question is understood by some employees to be a veiled threat because the survey is not anonymous.

Here’s a follow-up that chillingly fleshes out what that survey means. Although the account below does not specifically name JP Morgan Chase, the similarities are too striking to be otherwise.

Rod Dreher writes for The American Conservative, Sept. 9, 2014, that he received a long e-mail from a reader “who works in management at a major corporation.” The email detailed “how the bureaucracy in his company is collecting more and more data on its employees at the same time it’s tightening the screws on the internal culture of diversity,” and that “traditional Christians are going deep into the closet there.”

Dreher then quotes from the reader’s email:

If you don’t sign up to be a member of the LGBT “ally” group, they notice—especially if you are (or are potentially going to be) a manager. LGBT employees need to be supported by their manager. The manager is the front line with such questions as “I need to have off next Friday because my partner is having surgery” or “do my partner and I qualify for corporate adoption benefits?” If you’re in a same-sex relationship and you don’t know if your manager is an ally, this is a very scary conversation to have. People want to know it’s safe to confide in their manager without fear of being judged.

The company needs to know which managers can be trusted to this end and which can’t. No matter how openly supportive you may be of LGBT employees, the company wants to track who identifies as an “ally” openly, and who doesn’t. If they don’t count allies and non-allies, they won’t be able to prove things are “improving” nor will they be able to target managers for further inclusion coaching. So, by making it “safer” for some employee demographics to be open about their personal lives, they’re inadvertently closeting others.

[...] The end game is as Big Brotherish [...] People need to be made aware of what’s coming. 

Dreher comments that “It doesn’t take a paranoid to see where this is going. It just takes someone who has worked for a corporation, and who has seen how powerful the phrase ‘hostile work environment’ can be.”

Dreher concludes that he doesn’t think what the “major corporation” (cough, cough, Chase Bank) is doing is “persecution” of Christians, but that “it is something. And it is real.”

The Oxford Dictionary defines “persecution” as:

  1. Hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs
  2. Persistent annoyance or harassment

I’m not as decorous as Dreher, and I call “PERSECUTION” what this “major corporation” (JP Morgan Chase) is doing to its employees who decline to openly declare their “loyalty” to LGBT.

H/t California Catholic Daily

See also:

~Eowyn

Sermon in a Smile

Whom the Son sets free
is free indeed!

Live like someone left the gate open!

Live like someone left the gate open!

I saw this photo in Facebook, and have no idea who the photographer is. Please, if this is your photo, let us know, so we can give you credit. In the mean time, thank you for the smiles. ~ TD

Reaction to Obama’s ISIL counterterrorism policy speech

Dr. Eowyn:

Critical views on the POS’s policy regarding the jihadist Islamic State include:

1. Derision at his calling the ISLAMIC STATE neither Islamic nor a state. Just as medical doctors can’t hope to cure an illness if they can’t even properly name it, how is America to defeat IS if the Obama administration can’t even properly identify what it is?

2. Obama’s arrogance in saying, once again, he’ll do it alone with or without Congress.

3. Pointing out that Obama, once again, ignored U.S. military leaders’ expert judgment, this time on the futility of air strikes on IS without ground troops.

4. Pointing out that there is no “coalition” behind Obama’s new policy — not from our European allies, nor from any of the Arabic states. Notice the total silence emanating from Egypt.

The above 1-4 mean certain failure for the POS’s announced strategy in dealing with the Islamic State. That in turn means (a) More millions of taxpayer dollars spent on air strikes will be wasted; and (b) IS’s slaughter and persecution of Christians in Iraq and Syria will continue.

The one exception from the critical analyses is David Brooks of the New York Times and PBS News Hour pundit. Obsequious Brooks actually compared Obama to Moses. It would be funny if Brooks isn’t such a revolting brown-noser. That this man is still given credibility and prestige is a sad commentary on the media and the gullibility of the American people.

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

On Sept. 10, 2014, thirteen days after admitting he had no strategy to deal with the Islamic Caliphate or State (IS, aka ISIL, aka ISIS), President Barack Obama finally unveiled his “counterterrorism” policy against the IS from the State Floor of the White House.

(For a summary and video of his speech, see “Obama announces U.S. ‘counterterrorism’ policy against ISIL“.)

Below is a sample of reaction to his speech. Note that my words are colored green.

~StMA

obama-horns

writes in the Washington Post, Sept. 10, 2014:

[...] Although Obama promised a “steady, relentless effort” in a nationally televised address Wednesday night, he also said that “it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL,” using a common acronym for the Islamic State.

Such a mission was not the U.S. military’s preferred option.Responding to a White House request for options to confront the Islamic State,

View original 2,826 more words