In 1964 then President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty. Those who
were the poorest among society were told the government would take care of
them and help them to work their way out of poverty and become stronger,
more self-reliant people. We spend a trillion dollars a year helping the
poor and trying to eliminate poverty. It has been almost 50 years since that
war on poverty was declared and we are still fighting it. Politicians tell
us today that poverty is still with us, people are not any stronger or more
self-reliant. In fact in the last 50 years since President Johnson declared
the war the cost of eliminating poverty in the United States has increased
each year and it doesn't appear the war has any end in sight.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2014/Sep/06/images/ads/current/class_green.png)
I have a question: If every person in the United States is required to
adhere to an educational academic curriculum that excludes the morality
teachings of the Bible, and be taught instead the humanistic, secular,
evolutionary teachings of the survival of the fittest, is it possible the
Department of Education is in direct opposition to all governmental
departments that focus on welfare and strengthening the human condition?
When the government confiscates money from individuals through taxing and
redistributes that money to "the poor" is that government arm not saying in
effect, "We do not believe in the message of evolution that is being taught
in our public schools, and will do everything in our power to avert the
concept of 'the survival of the fittest.'"
[to top of second column]
|
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2014/Sep/06/images/ads/current/christian_village_lda_061014.png) Perhaps it would be a good idea for government to at least look
at the goals and outcomes of their efforts on which money is being
spent. If there are confounding or totally contradicting conclusions
coming from different governmental agencies, it seems we are only
spinning in place flaming ourselves into destruction.
Perhaps there is a more sinister side to this secular practice.
If each adult is subject to learning the fate of the survival of the
fittest as they are required from children to young adult to sit in
classrooms and lecture halls hearing the rationale for evolution and
at the same time be categorized into a classification of social
status that relegates the need for governmental dependency through
distribution of minimal subsistence, does that not create a
double-edged dependency tool that keeps the less fit in a situation
of barely surviving? From that perspective the "fittest" become
those whose task becomes the "distributors" of the goods and the
creators of the policies to maintain the educational system to
convince every person their evolution to humanness is only a process
and their place can only be assured by their continued support of
the distribution efforts of the "fittest" among them.
[By JIM KILLEBREW]
Click here to respond to the editor about this
article.
|