The Reason

From the early beginnings of America to this day, George Washington’s Farewell Address has been considered to be one of the most illustrious documents produced in the history of the nation.  Shortly after its 1796 publication in a Philadelphia newspaper, it was reprinted by countless other newspapers across America and was also distributed in pamphlets.  The Senate commemorates the Farewell Address by reading it annually near the same time of  the year as its original publication. The article, “Washington’s Farewell Address”, written by  The Heritage Foundation, describes the influence of Washington’s statements by saying, “the  Farewell Address constitutes the central statement of the American purpose.” (n.d.)  This  analysis will cover the outstanding points of the document and attempt to capture a portion of  Washington’s vision for the young nation of America at this uncertain time. The Farewell Address was never actually delivered orally by George Washington, but

The signers of the Mayflower Compact were Separatists.  They desired a government that promoted liberty rather than a denominational government similar to what they had experienced in Great Britain.   This post will attempt to describe the differences between the views of “the Separation of Church and State” in our time and theirs. The basis for the often quoted “Separation of Church and State” can be found in the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote responding to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.  The Danbury Baptist Association was concerned about a rumor of a national denomination being established (Patton 1995).  Jefferson responded by quoting the part of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Jefferson then said that the establishment clause formed a “wall of separation between church and State.” The critical point is that this separation was a protection of the Churc

Education is a valuable tool in the hands of those who wish to change a nation.   As Herbert Schlossberg said in his book Idols for Destruction, “ One of the most useful tools in the quest for power is the educational system” (1983, p209).   Process Philosophy has undoubtedly controlled our educational system for   some time.   Its fundamentals have changed our way of thinking and unwittingly altered the worldview of Christians and non-Christians alike.   As Glenn Martin states in his book, Prevailing Worldviews, “ For the last century and a half, it has been process philosophy which has been filtering down from the intellectual community into the general culture” (2006, p153). Since this philosophy is prevalent in our culture, how did it come to dominate our academic system?   In the 1830’s, Horace Mann was very influential in bringing education under state control in Massachusetts (Krause, 2014, Module 4.3).   This soon spread over the

Components of a Communist's Worldview based on Martin's Four Subsidiary Philosophical Questions    Discerning the components of a worldview can be challenging at times.  However, the time spent doing so is definitely advantageous when one recognizes how it affects our view of every part of our lives.  The objective of this essay is to identify the standpoints of a communist’s worldview based on the “Four Simple, Subsidiary Philosophical Questions” (Questions on Ontology, Epistemology, Axiology, and Teleology) from Glenn Martin’s book, Prevailing Worldviews.      Communism almost by definition asserts a naturalistic ontology.  This worldview, being the, "Vision of man's mind displacing God as the intelligence of the world," (Chambers, 1987), denies the existence of any force or power greater than the progressive capabilities of the human mind.  This belief is not only a preference to communism but is virtually indispensable to it.  As one of the most promi

So I decided to make a blog to post some of my school projects to... If you are a person with lots of spare time on your hands,this is the blog for you!:)