HARVARD PROFESSOR UNDER FIRE FOR BASHING HOMESCHOOLING AS PARENTAL "AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL", CALLING FOR "PRESUMPTIVE BAN"

Harvard Prof Who Wants to BAN Homeschooling HUMILIATED as WHOLE WORLD is HOMESCHOOLING!!!

★★★ A NEW CONSERVATIVE AGE IS RISING ★★★ The Harvard Professor Who called for Homeschooling to be BANNED is suffering from some serious humiliation as WHOLE WORLD begins HOMESCHOOLING; that’s what we’ll be talking about on today’s video. We’re going to look at the latest example of liberals embracing ILLBERALISM with this call to ban homeschooling, and how it actually ends up showing how much leftist liberals at war with reality; you’re going to love it!

HARVARD PROFESSOR UNDER FIRE FOR BASHING HOMESCHOOLING AS PARENTAL "AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL", CALLING FOR "PRESUMPTIVE BAN" 

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: https://christiannews.net/2020/04/23/harvard-prof-under-fire-for-bashing-homeschooling-as-parental-authoritarian-control-calling-for-presumptive-ban/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 

purposes:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A Harvard law professor is coming under fire after she characterized homeschooling as parents having “authoritarian control” over their children and called for a “presumptive ban” on the practice.

Elizabeth Bartholet, a Morris Wasserstein public interest professor of law and founder of the Child Advocacy Program, recently told Harvard Magazine that while parents have “very significant rights to raise their children with the beliefs and religious convictions that the parents hold,” sending their children to school does not limit those rights.

“The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous,” she stated. “I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.”

The magazine pointed to her views as recently published in the Arizona Law Review, where Bartholet called for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling and stated that it is “a realm of near-absolute parental power” and a “regime [that] poses real dangers to children and to society.”





In her 80-page piece, she characterized some homeschool parents as “extreme religious ideologues” who question evolution, suppress women and espouse racist views. Bartholet cited, for example, the “Quiverfull” and “Stay-at-Home Daughter” movements as concepts that deprive girls of opportunities by “confining” them to their homes and fathers/husbands.

“A very large proportion of homeschooling parents are ideologically committed to isolating their children from the majority culture and indoctrinating them in views and values that are in serious conflict with that culture,” she wrote.

“Some believe that women should be subservient to men; others believe that race stamps some people as inferior to others,” Bartholet claimed. “Many don’t believe in the scientific method, looking to the Bible instead as their source for understanding the world.”

Read her paper in full here.

In her remarks to Harvard Magazine, Bartholet further opined that it is a threat to democracy for homeschooling not to be regulated so as to ensure that the level of education is equivalent to that of public schooling, citing among other matters, teaching on “nondiscrimination” and “tolerance.”

“From the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,” she told the outlet. “But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.”

Bartholet also expressed concern that “people can homeschool who’ve never gone to school themselves, who don’t read or write themselves.” She said that the allowance of staying at home could hide child abuse cases whereas teachers would otherwise be on the lookout for signs of mistreatment.

While also conceding that some parents may be “capable of giving an education that’s of a higher quality and as broad in scope as what’s happening in the public school,” she still felt that the burden should fall on parents as to why they must homeschool.

However, homeschooling advocates are now pushing back against Bartholet’s views, including one Harvard graduate who was homeschooled herself.

“Homeschooling, and the lessons and characteristics I learned and honed during the first 18 years of my life, prepared me to succeed — no, excel — at one of the most difficult and prestigious universities in the world,” wrote Melba Pearson for the site Medium. “The idea that a government, already so inefficient and inadequate in so many areas, can care for and educate every child better than its parent is wrong.”

She noted that studies show that homeschoolers test as well or higher than their public-schooled counterparts and that public school students have higher rates of being bullies, drop-outs or suicidal.

“Statistics consistently demonstrate higher levels of abuse, bullying, suicide, and drop out rates in children and young adults who were educated in the public school system,” Pearson argued. “Homeschoolers are frequently more ‘community minded,’ ‘socially aware,’ ’empathetic,’ and ‘democratic’ than those publicly educated.”

“There are always outliers, but given the thousands of students in public schools who are bullied, abused, and end up committing suicide because of their educational atmosphere, I am shocked more isn’t being done to address those issues first,” she opined.

Mike Donnelly of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) likewise told Fox News that “Bartholet’s call for a presumptive ban on homeschooling because she considers American homeschooling parents too ignorant or too religious goes against the weight of decades of scholarly research on homeschooling which demonstrates positive academic, civic and social outcomes.”


Deuteronomy 6:6-9 reads, “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house and on thy gates.”

____________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://www.wayoflife.org/friday_church_news/21-18.php
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research 
purposes:
HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR SAYS HOMESCHOOLING IS DANGEROUS, PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE 24/7 AUTHORITY OVER THEIR CHILDREN 
(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from Erin O’Donnell, “The Risks of Homeschooling,” Harvard Magazine, May-June 2020: “A rapidly increasing number of American families are opting out of sending their children to school, choosing instead to educate them at home. Homeschooled kids now account for roughly 3 percent to 4 percent of school-age children in the United States, a number equivalent to those attending charter schools, and larger than the number currently in parochial schools. Yet Elizabeth Bartholet, Wasserstein public interest professor of law and faculty director of the Law School’s Child Advocacy Program, sees risks for children—and society—in homeschooling, and recommends a presumptive ban on the practice. Homeschooling, she says, not only violates children’s right to a ‘meaningful education’ and their right to be protected from potential child abuse, but may keep them from contributing positively to a democratic society. ... ‘From the beginning of compulsory education in this country, we have thought of the government as having some right to educate children so that they become active, productive participants in the larger society,’ she says. ... In a paper published recently in the Arizona Law Review, she notes that parents choose homeschooling for an array of reasons. ... surveys of homeschoolers show that A MAJORITY OF SUCH FAMILIES (BY SOME ESTIMATES, UP TO 90 PERCENT) ARE DRIVEN BY CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, AND SEEK TO REMOVE THEIR CHILDREN FROM MAINSTREAM CULTURE. Bartholet notes that some of these parents are “extreme religious ideologues” who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy. ... ‘But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints,’ she says, noting that EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SUCH AS GERMANY BAN HOMESCHOOLING ENTIRELY and that countries such as France require home visits and annual tests. ... ‘The issue is, DO WE THINK THAT PARENTS SHOULD HAVE 24/7, ESSENTIALLY AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL OVER THEIR CHILDREN from ages zero to 18? I THINK THAT’S DANGEROUS,’ Bartholet says. ‘I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.’”


TERRIFYING LIBERAL TYRANTS WANT TO BAN HOMESCHOOLING BECAUSE THEY HATE CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN BELIEFS 

(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from Timothy Carney’s response to the Harvard Magazine rant against homeschooling, from the Washington Examiner, Apr. 22, 2020: “It is important to remember that there exist terrifying liberal authoritarians who think homeschooling is horrible and should be banned because it gives parents, particularly conservative Christians, too much control over their children’s education. Harvard Law School hosts a program called the ‘Child Advocacy Program,’ or CAP, which works on weakening ‘parent rights’ and diminishing the idea of ‘family preservation,’ done in the name of fighting abuse. Fighting abuse is good and important. Children often need protection from abusive parents. But the latest crusade by CAP’s director, Harvard law professor Elizabeth Bartholet, is basically to abolish homeschooling. ... based on this second-hand anecdotal evidence of some horrific cases, Bartholet tries to create a presumption that homeschoolers are abusers. ... Much of her argument is standard, paranoid ‘what’s to stop x from y’ reasoning. She argues that under current state laws and enforcement, there are all sorts of bad things some parents could be doing. ... But her real worry isn’t children getting no education. It’s children getting the ‘wrong’ education. ... she grants there are legitimate reasons to pull your children from school. But she is really worried about religious parents who don’t like public schools teaching their children transgender ideology, moral relativism, or radical feminism. To drive that home, Harvard Magazine had an insane picture illustrating the story. Public school children are all running around freely, while the homeschooled child is locked in a literal prison made of books--including the Bible. (Oh, and Harvard Magazine misspelled ‘arithmetic’ in the illustration.) ... This is Alice-in-Wonderland, truth-on-its-head stuff. ... The notion that public schools provide more meaningful education than the average homeschooler is also insane. The idea that homeschoolers are, de facto, not exposed to ‘community values, social values, democratic values’ is also totally unfounded. Unless, again, by ‘social values,’ she means the values of the secular Left. ... If you live in a state with a Democratic legislature, you need to worry about these people. They will craft an agenda to make it illegal to homeschool your children unless you can prove good reason. They will do this precisely because they don’t want conservative Jewish, Muslim, and Christian parents passing down their values. And while these activists will lead by focusing on the rare and horrific abuses, they clearly believe that religion and conservative values count as ‘maltreatment.’ These people have a dangerous agenda. We shouldn’t ignore their work.”


HARVARD TO HOST PRO-HOMESCHOOL FORUM 

(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from “Harvard to Host Pro-Homeschools,” Townhall, Apr. 24, 2020: “Amid outcry from homeschooling advocates and allies [against the ‘Homeschooling Summit: Problems, Politics, and Prospects for Reform’] Harvard announced on Friday that they would be hosting a virtual discussion that would effectively counter the suggestions being put forward by the original summit. Titled, ‘The Disinformation Campaign Against Homeschooling,’ the May 1 event will precede the summit hosted by Harvard Law and being presented by the Kennedy School of Government. The event is also organized by the student-run group, Ideological Diversity. ‘Speakers will discuss the dishonest attacks on homeschooling that have been pervasive in the media and academia and also address the failures of public education,’ the event website states. The discussion will take place via virtual call host Zoom and is open to all, no RSVP required.  Speakers include the Director of School Choice at the Reason Foundation Corey DeAngelis, author of Unschooled, Kerry McDonald, education scholar Peter Gray, homeschooling advocate Patrick Ferenga, and documentary filmmaker Cevin Soling.”


HOMESCHOOL ADVOCATE ANSWERS ANTI-HOME SCHOOLING HARVARD PROFESSOR 

(Friday Church News Notes, May 1, 2020, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - 
The following is excerpted from Michael Farris, “Harvard Law Professor Attacks Homeschoolers, as She Envisions Them,” Townhall, Apr. 22, 2020. Farris is president of Alliance Defending Freedom and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. “Should homeschooling be banned? Harvard Magazine and one of Harvard’s law professors, Elizabeth Bartholet, think so. This is despite the fact that Harvard University admits an appreciable number of homeschooled students to both its undergraduate and graduate programs every year. ... Bartholet argues that homeschooling denies children a meaningful education. In so doing, Bartholet fails to demonstrate any familiarity with valid social science research. The literature demonstrates that homeschooling works very well academically—including in some ways that many would find surprising. In public schools, family income is a strong predictor of a child’s academic success. In homeschooling, children from lower-income levels not only outscore their public school socio-economic counterparts, but they also score comparably to homeschool students from higher income levels. ... I personally know two homeschool students who are Harvard Law grads and clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court. Another Harvard alum is the current solicitor general of West Virginia. I taught constitutional law to all three at Patrick Henry College. And two more of my PHC students, who were also homeschooled, clerked for the Supreme Court after graduating from the University of Virginia Law School. Moreover, dozens of homeschooled students in my personal sphere of friends have been elected to state and local offices. ... Thousands of homeschooled students actively participate in the electoral process every cycle through a program called Generation Joshua. ... Perhaps the most troubling thing found in this article is a clear display of bigotry by Professor Bartholet. She argues that a chief evil at hand arises from the fact that as many as 90 percent of homeschooled children live with conservative Christian parents ‘who seek to remove their children from mainstream culture.’ ... Any form of bigotry coming from one of its professors should cause Harvard trustees to be concerned.”
______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://christiannews.net/2020/05/01/us-canadian-conferences-of-catholic-bishops-consecrate-nations-to-mary-ask-her-to-intercede-amid-pandemic/

ALEX NEWMAN: EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER~BEHIND THE DEEP STATE

ALEX NEWMAN: EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER~BEHIND THE DEEP STATE

In this episode of Behind The Deep State, host Alex Newman explains how the Deep State is using the public-school system to indoctrinate your children to submit to their New World Order. Throughout the video Alex shows you the proof and breaks down what is going on. From United Nations "sustainable development" agreements like Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, to UNESCO's takeover of education with the World Core Curriculum based on the teachings of Luciferian Alex Bailey, the facts are clear. Protect your children now!  ▶️ More Videos: Alex Answers Your Coronavirus Questions https://youtu.be/Z7ne4q3ZDkI Fighting Coronavirus With Tyranny & Globalism https://youtu.be/yU_vKl5LnU8 Deep State Weaponizing Coronavirus Against Freedom https://youtu.be/NCOMBWlYyr8 🎓 Special Issue - Rescuing Out Children http://bit.ly/rescuing-our-children

THE LEFT IS PANICKING THAT THE PANDEMIC WILL ENCOURAGE HOMESCHOOLING

THE LEFT IS PANICKING THAT THE PANDEMIC WILL ENCOURAGE HOMESCHOOLING 

Can’t have parents teaching children 

to think for themselves now, can we?

BY MARK TAPSON

SEE:https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/04/left-panicking-pandemic-will-encourage-mark-tapson; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow on Popular Culture for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

One of the more significant social and political consequences of the coronavirus pandemic is the fact that countless American parents of public school-enrolled children suddenly find themselves faced with the daunting prospect of having to homeschool those kids for an indefinite period of time. When normalcy returns, most of those families, who for various reasons are unable or unwilling to continue homeschooling, will simply fall back into their old groove and schooling will resume as before. But many parents may find themselves enlightened and excited about homeschooling’s benefits and how it actually operates, as opposed to common misconceptions, which are usually pejorative. This is a possibility that the secular leftist elites in education will not tolerate.

Decades ago progressive activists realized that revolution was best brought about not through overt attacks on the Establishment, but through subversion from within its structures – in particular, the field of education. After all, children are the future, and thus the surest and most direct way to mold the future is to mold impressionable young minds who are a captive audience for progressive, social justice indoctrination. This is why domestic terrorists like Barack Obama’s ghostwriter Bill Ayres and his (literal) partner-in-crime Bernardine Dohrn abandoned bombmaking for the Weather Underground and became respected, credentialed educators working primarily with children (Ayres earned two master’s degrees in Early Childhood Education and a doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction; the law professor Dorhn is one of the founders of the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University School of Law).

The secular left is terrified of losing control of America’s children to homeschoolers, who tend to be (but are not always) conservative and often religious. The secular left also resents the notion of parental control; after all, as former MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry put it bluntly in a network promo several years ago, “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” Harris-Perry too was a college educator. In light of developments due to the pandemic, the left is gearing up to clamp down on any increased interest in homeschooling.

One example of the left’s offensive against homeschoolers: the Daily Caller reports that in June, Harvard Law School will be hosting an invite-only “homeschooling summit” to discuss the “problems of educational deprivation and child maltreatment that too often occur under the guise of homeschooling, in a legal environment of minimal or no oversight.” The event, which will host speakers from education and child welfare policy backgrounds as well as academics, policy advocates, and legislators, is sponsored by Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program, in cooperation with the Academy on Violence and Abuse, the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, the Institute for Human Services, the New York Foundling, the William & Mary Bill of Rights Institute, and the Zero Abuse Project. Note how many of those organizations focus on child abuse. That’s because homeschooling parents are often demonized as abusers of their own children in order to justify government intrusion – oops, I mean “oversight” – into private homes.

Among the featured speakers is Harvard Law’s Elizabeth Bartholet, a co-organizer of the event, who has written extensively about the “rapidly growing homeschool phenomena,” which she considers a “threat” to “children and society.” Her June 2019 article, “Homeschooling: Parent Rights Absolutism vs. Child Rights to Education & Protection,” is recommended reading material for the event. The abstract of the piece reads: “This article calls for a radical transformation in the homeschooling regime, and a related rethinking of child rights and reframing of constitutional doctrine. It recommends a presumptive ban on homeschooling, with the burden on parents to demonstrate justification for permission to homeschool” [emphasis added]. Look at that again: a ban on homeschooling, with parents forced to argue for permission from the government to homeschool their own children.

In the article she states that “society loses out” when parents homeschool their children, and homeschooled children are not instilled with the “skills needed to participate productively in society as adults through employment” and will grow up “alienated from society, ignorant of views and values different from their parents.” This is absolutely false. On the contrary, Americans are more aware than ever now that it is our disastrous public school system that churns out students ignorant of their own history and alienated from their parents, their country, their culture, and their God. Our school system from pre-K through graduate school has shifted from transferring knowledge and life skills to children, to indoctrinating them in a social justice agenda while demonizing other viewpoints and even Western culture itself as rife with intolerance, bigotry, racism, and capitalist exploitation.

Bartholet claims that “many” (how many is “many”?) homeschoolers “promote racial segregation and female subservience” and teach their children to – gasp – “question science.” (When progressives use the phrase “question science,” what they mean is that no one should question the leftist politicization of science. They see science not as a method of observation and investigation, but as a belief system that it is blasphemy to “deny,” at least when its conclusions conform to their agenda. Leftists are perfectly comfortable denying science – basic biology, for example – when it doesn’t suit their political needs.)

Bartholet continues her smearing of homeschoolers: “Some homeschooling parents are extreme religious ideologues who live in near-total isolation and hold views in serious conflict with those generally deemed central in our society. For example, some believe that women should be totally subservient to men and educated in ways that promote such subservience,” her article reads.

Another speaker and co-organizer is Prof. James Dwyer of William and Mary School of Law, who argued in his 2001 book Religious Schools v. Children’s Rights that “fundamentalist Christian and Catholic schools may be damaging to children,” through the “excessive restriction of children’s basic liberties, stifling intellectual development, the instilling of dogmatic and intolerant attitudes” as well as “excessive guilt and repression.” Girls especially risk a diminished self-esteem, the book’s summary says. He argues that state policy should be to focus on what is best for children “from a secular perspective.” Because leftist elites, and not parents, know what is best for our children.

A third speaker is Robert Kunzman, associate professor at the Indiana University School of Education and author of Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling, who also argues for a secular perspective in education and for government “regulation” of homeschooling.

My wife and I are conservative Christians and we have homeschooled our young children from day one. We intend to keep doing so all the way through the college level if necessary. Why? Because as I’ve noted, the leftist-dominated education system from top to bottom is a toxic mix of incompetence, political indoctrination, bureaucratic indifference, and increasing lawlessness among the students themselves as school authorities refuse to discipline certain demographic groups. We homeschool because studies show that homeschooled children are better-educated, better-socialized, and better behaved than their public school peers. We homeschool because it strengthens bonds within our family and among our community of like-minded homeschoolers. We homeschool because we want the best for our children and for our country. We do not, as leftist educators and politicians would have you believe, chain our children in the basement, beat them for failing to memorize the Old Testament, and have them salute the Confederate flag. We teach them to think and read broadly and critically. We teach them that science is an ongoing process, not a dogma. We teach them life skills. We pass on our Judeo-Christian values, which built the greatest, freest, and most tolerant civilization in human history. We teach them to appreciate our culture, our country, and our God. We are raising free American patriots, and we’re part of a surging number of American parents doing the same. As the coronavirus pandemic introduces even more parents to this option, watch the intolerant cultural Marxists of the left wield all the power and hate they can muster to suppress us.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

The Constitution was written to define what government can and cannot do. Did it state anything about Education? Find out what the Founders intended and where America is headed as Dr. Duke Pesta and Alex Newman discuss the schooling situation in America. ▶️ More Related Videos - Get Them OUT! Rescuing Our Kids from Public Schools: https://youtu.be/G74e8TrQAMI - Government is Failing to Educate Our Children: https://youtu.be/VBFfzkv-HD4 - Young America | Illuminati Influence on Education: https://youtu.be/Hch3Q53eEec

ALEX NEWMAN: CONSIDER HOMESCHOOLING AMID CORONAVIRUS

ALEX NEWMAN:

CONSIDER HOMESCHOOLING 

AMID CORONAVIRUS 

Former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas said parents should view the current pandemic as the "greatest opportunity of their lives" to take control over what their children are learning. In this exclusive interview with The New American magazine's Alex Newman, Douglas urged parents to consider homeschooling and using online resources in place of government schools. Douglas, who serves on the board of Public School Exit, also went through the history of the individuals who orchestrated the government takeover of education. She talks about the proper way to teach reading, too. And she warns about the sexualization, dumbing down and indoctrination in government schools. Finally, she talks about how important it is for God to be at the center of true education.

ALEX NEWMAN: DUMBING DOWN YOUR CHILDREN~BEHIND THE DEEP STATE

ALEX NEWMAN: DUMBING DOWN YOUR CHILDREN~BEHIND THE DEEP STATE

The Deep State is dumbing down your children and they are getting dumber at a faster rate than ever before thanks to the government public school system. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), over two-thirds of 8th graders are not proficient in any of the core subjects (math, reading, writing, science, and history). The situation for high school seniors is even worse, as only one-fourth of high school seniors are proficient in math and one-third are proficient in reading according to the NAEP. For the sake of our children’s education and future success, it’s time to get them out of the public schools. More episodes on solutions coming soon!

PATRICK HENRY COLLEGE: GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, COUNTER-TERRORISM EXPERT ISSUES WARNING ABOUT PULPIT & PEN, "EVANGELICAL DARK WEB"

HOMESCHOOLERS BE WARNED!

ABOVE: BRIAN AUTEN

SEE: https://www.phc.edu/faculty/bjauten

ABOVE: 

Dr. Michael P. Farris is Chancellor Emeritus of Patrick Henry College and Chairman and General Counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

In 2000, Dr. Farris became the founding president of another unique educational venture: Patrick Henry College. PHC is a four-year Christian college with the mission of training students through a classical liberal arts curriculum and apprenticeship methodology to impact the world “for Christ and for Liberty.” 

GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, COUNTER-TERRORISM EXPERT ISSUES WARNING ABOUT 

"PULPIT & PEN", "EVANGELICAL DARK WEB" 

SEE: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/09/05/govt-intelligence-analyst-counterterrorism-expert-issues-warning-about-pp-evangelical-dark-web/; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

A United States government intelligence analyst and counter-terrorism expert has issued a warning about Pulpit & Pen and what he calls the so-called “Evangelical Dark Web.” The analyst has evaluated the influence of our “insurgency” and then issued bullet-points for how to best resist our influence.







Brian Auten is a counter-terrorism expert, a “supervisory intelligence analyst with the United States government” and also serves as an adjunct professor in the Department of Government at Patrick Henry College. Putting his intelligence experience to use, Auten gave a briefing to the Social Justice Warriors and evangelical leftists about increasing growth and influence of the “Evangelical Dark Web” (as he calls it).

Auten, who has been analyzing the “exploding interest in more communitarian aspects of church life and the integration of the gospel with what might be labeled “progressive” social justice concerns” since at least 2009, also teaches Counterterrorism at PHC’s Special Intelligence Program. He writes for the Roman Catholic and ecumenical First Things, and serves the Center for Public Justice, a leftist think-tank with political Dark Money funding. The Center for Public Justice regularly partners with the progressive National Association of Evangelicals and the liberal Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).







The article from the intelligence analyst, entitled Notes on the Evangelical Dark Web, says…


The “evangelical dark web” is a designation adopted by a group of evangelical social media personalities and bloggers centered around a few various web sites such as For the Christian Intellectual, Pulpit and Pen, Sovereign Nations, and Enemies Within the Church. The movement is a self-proclaimed insurgency meant to combat perceived liberalism in other evangelical organizations and denominations. While it’s own positions are broadly in keeping with the political beliefs of the old guard Religious Right, it’s rhetorical positioning is more in keeping with a neo-fundamentalist stream of evangelicalism.


Defining the so-called Evangelical Dark Web…








One could assert that the self-proclaimed “evangelical dark web” is insurgent in character. Its overall aim is institutional takeover. Its intermediate aim is intellectual capture of the “target population” (e.g. 18-30 year old conservative evangelicals, particularly males).

Its strategy is multi-form and typical for insurgencies:

*embarrass the regime in power

*make it [the regime] appear weak and corrupt







*create (online) zones of counter-control

*tempt the regime in power to over-respond in a heavy-handed and/or inept manner

*through expansion of its captured target population over time, overwhelm the regime.

Its primary tactic: the rhetorical hammer.


To be honest, that’s pretty accurate. Auten is probably a good intelligence analyst.

Really…stone-cold accurate. Well done.

However, then the counterterrorism expert informed his Evangelical Intelligentsia reading base how to run counter-insurgency attacks and defenses against the Evangelical Dark Web:


Granting that characterization, an obvious question for those orthodox Protestant Christians who reject the evangelical dark web is how to run an effective counterinsurgency against the “evangelical dark web?” These are some embryonic thoughts:

Counterinsurgency has three traditional components: isolate and degrade insurgent activity, build target audience resiliency (e.g. strengthen, defend, and counter-radicalize), and lastly, if and where needed, reform the at-risk regime.


Well, this advice is nothing new. As I wrote back in 2014, citing Nicolaus Klein (although the quotation is often attributed to Gandhi), “First they ignore you. Then, they ridicule you. Then, they attack you and burn you. And then, they build monuments to you.”

Ridiculing or mocking is what Auten means by, “isolate and degrade insurgent activity.”

Then, also as I explained back in 2014 in the hyperlink above, they then attack. This is what Auten means by “counter-radicalize.”

By “counter-radicalize,” Auten does not mean that the Intelligentsia should themselves attack, but that they should radicalize their minions to do it for them (like the ERLC uses its Research Fellows). In fact, Auten clarifies that the worst thing our enemies could do is to address us directly.

Auten writes, “A critique of the evangelical dark web by the Gospel Coalition, ERLC, the New York Times, Washington Post, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or a byline by Emma Green, Peter Wehner, John Fea, Warren Throckmorton, et. al. will backfire and easily become ammunition for the next round of attacks.”

Spot on advice.

I’m not trying to help the enemy, but eventually, their ego gets the best of them and when they directly respond, they lose…every time. Their only option, should they want to survive, is to ignore or retreat.

However, it’s the third stage of resistance that Auten begrudgingly suggests that I’m most interested in. Auten writes, “and lastly, if and where needed, reform the at-risk regime.”

If the “regime” would just reform to begin with, we wouldn’t have to be out doing ideological guerrilla warfare in the first place.

According to Auten, the Evangelical Dark Web includes For the New Christian Intellectual, Pulpit & Pen, Sovereign Nations, The Capstone Report, and Enemies Within the Church.

I don’t speak for any of the other organizations, but I will go on record as saying there is a resistance.

There are many of us, thousands upon thousands, who are the Social Justice Contras. We cannot be eradicated. We cannot be silenced. Our cause is righteous. Our weapon is truth.

We live in the “regime’s” head, rent-free. We keep them up at night. We are, for them, the boogeyman and the Jabberwocky. And in the end, we are the monster under their bed. Behind every bush and under every rock, you’ll find part of the resistance, and we are ready.


For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (Romans 10:3-5).

DAVID CLOUD'S WAY OF LIFE ARTICLES

IMPORTANT RULING FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION BY THE U.S. EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT 

(Friday Church News Notes, August 30, 2019, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from David French, “A Federal Court Strikes a Powerful Blow for Freedom of Speech and Religious Freedom,”National Review, Aug. 24, 2019: “Earlier today, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutional order, limited the reach of expansive nondiscrimination laws, and protected a Christian couple from having to choose between their business and their conscience. The facts of the case are simple. The plaintiffs, Carl and Angel Larsen, are videographers who create ‘commercials, short films, and live-event productions.’ While they work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, they will not produce videos that advance viewpoints that violate their Christian beliefs. That includes videos that ‘contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.’ The Larsens hoped to begin producing wedding videos, but Minnesota interpreted its human-rights act to require them to ‘produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all.’ Minnesota would also require them to produce videos that depicted ‘same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally positive light.’ This raised the possibility that a gay couple who didn’t like the subjective quality of a video the Larsens produced for them could seek state sanctions based on alleged sexual-orientation discrimination. With the assistance of my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Larsens filed suit, claiming that Minnesota’s rule would compel them to speak in support of messages they oppose. The trial court ruled in favor of the state, and the Larsens appealed. One of the key constitutional questions of our time is whether the First Amendment will retain its supremacy and potency even as nondiscrimination rules and regulations expand in scope and reach. In this case, the Eight Circuit answered with an emphatic ‘Yes,’ and it did so through a majority opinion that provided a clear roadmap for future courts and future controversies. Judge David Stras’s majority opinion begins with a simple, obvious, but crucial conclusion. The Larsens’s wedding videos are a ‘form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection.’ ... To put it plainly, Minnesota was attempting to engage in one of the most intrusive state actions on the First Amendment. It was attempting to compel the Larsens to deliver a message they opposed. ... Judge Stras understands this reality quite clearly. ‘Even antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are,’ he writes ‘must yield to the Constitution. And as compelling as the interest in preventing discriminatory conduct may be, speech is treated differently under the First Amendment.’ ... We can expect that Minnesota will appeal to the Supreme Court, and if the Court accepts review it will be difficult to see SCOTUS reversing the court of appeals. The case that wedding videos represent protected speech is very strong, and once it’s deemed to be protected speech, the Court would have to contradict key prior precedents to overcome the Larsens’ rights of conscience and compel their speech as a condition of doing business. One should always be cautious when projecting case outcomes, but the Eighth Circuit has laid the judicial foundation for a ruling that should, ultimately, reaffirm the primacy of the Constitution in American law.”

POOREST 20% OF AMERICAS ARE RICHER ON AVERAGE THAN MOST NATIONS OF EUROPE 

(Friday Church News Notes, August 30, 2019, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from James Agresti, “Poorest 20%,” The Stream, Aug. 27, 2019: “A groundbreaking study by Just Facts has discovered that after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and Food Stamps--the poorest 20% of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the U.S. ‘poor’ were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest. Notably, this study was reviewed by Dr. Henrique Schneider, professor of economics at Nordakademie University in Germany and the chief economist of the Swiss Federation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. After examining the source data and Just Facts’ methodology, he concluded: ‘This study is sound and conforms with academic standards. I personally think it provides valuable insight into poverty measures and adds considerably to this field of research.’ [This refutes] a July 1st New York Times video op-ed that decries ‘fake news’ and calls for ‘a more truthful approach’ to ‘the myth of America as the greatest nation on earth,’ Times producers Taige Jensen and Nayeema Raza claim that the U.S. has ‘fallen well behind Europe’ in many respects and has ‘more in common with developing countries than we’d like to admit.’ ... The high consumption of America’s ‘poor’ doesn’t mean they live better than average people in the nations they outpace, like Spain, Denmark, Japan, Greece, and New Zealand. This is because people’s quality of life also depends on their communities and personal choices, like the local politicians they elect, the violent crimes they commit, and the spending decisions they make. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the privilege of living in the U.S. affords poor people with more material resources than the averages for most of the world’s richest nations. ... The Times closes its video by claiming that ‘America may once have been the greatest, but today America, we’re just okay.’ In reality, the U.S. is so economically exceptional that the poorest 20% of Americans are richer than many of the world’s most affluent nations. Last year, the Times adopted a new slogan, ‘The truth is worth it.’ Yet, in this case and others, it has twisted the truth in ways that can genuinely hurt people. The Times makes other spurious claims about the U.S. in this same video, which will be deflated in future articles.”

EVANGELICAL HOMESCHOOLING CLASSICAL EDUCATION 

(Friday Church News Notes, August 30, 2019, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The cover story for the August 2019 issue of Christianity Today is “The Rise of the Bible-Teaching, Plato-Loving, Homeschool Elitists” by Louis Markos. It describes the growth of evangelical homeschooling curriculum that provide a classical education that aims to “raise up a generation of Christians who know the Bible and who live virtuous lives, and who are also firmly grounded in the pagan classics of ancient Greece and Rome, as well as the Roman Catholic classics of the Middle Ages.” An example is Mars Hill Academy, which “balances pagan (i.e., Homer, Aristotle) and medieval Christian (i.e., Dante, Chaucer) authors with major authors from the last 500 years of European and American literature (i.e., Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Faulkner).” The author claims the movement began in the 1940s with Dorothy Sayers, who was influenced by C.S. Lewis and “was a lover of all things classical and medieval.” Based on Sayer’s work, Douglas Wilson founded Logos School in 1981. The mention of C.S. Lewis is a loud warning to those who have ears. Christianity Today thinks it is a good thing that “increasing numbers of evangelicals” have “followed Lewis” to “fantasy lands populated by wizards” and “to the Catholic Middle Ages” and to the pagan “works of ancient Greek and Rome.” Christianity Today thinks it is a good thing that “Lewis helped unlock in the evangelical soul a longing for things of which they had been taught to be suspicious: tradition, hierarchy, liturgy, sacrament, numinous awe, and literature that was not specifically Christian.” We consider this, rather, to be evidence that C.S. Lewis was a dangerous man. To be familiar with pagan works can be helpful to the Christian life and ministry (in the sense of understanding world history, for example), if carefully examined through the lens of Scripture, but to sit at the feet of pagans and to search for light in their gross darkness is unscriptural foolishness. Christianity Today admits that “this tectonic shift in the evangelical world has led significant numbers of conservative Protestants to become Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican--not only out of a longing for liturgy and sacrament but because the classics brought with them a re-encounter with the early church fathers.” But that’s OK, they say, because “they maintain much of their passion for the Bible” and “stand at the forefront of a new conservative ecumenism.” This is nonsense. To accept false sacramental gospels that damn souls to eternal hell is neither biblical nor “conservative.” Christianity Today has been leading God’s people astray since its founding by Billy Graham in 1956. “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper” (Psalm 1:1-3).