The Weekly Sam: Is Humanism a Religion by Sam Blumenfeld
The question we ask is important. For humanism is the world view of our educational
leaders, of the textbooks they write, of the psychologists who counsel our youngsters on
values, sex and death. In short, it is the world view of the curricula used in the public
schools. In fact, humanism forms the philosophical basis of what passes for teacher
education in our state colleges and universities.
Establishments of Religion
Thus, if humanism is indeed a religion, then what we have in our public schools and state
colleges and universities are government-supported establishments of religion, which are
patently unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
In fact, it should be pointed out that on March 4, 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard
Hand, in Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., ruled that
secular humanism is a religion. The 172-page ruling defines religion and concludes,
after reviewing the relevant aspects of humanism, that “For purposes of the First
Amendment, secular humanism is a religious belief system, entitled to the protections of,
and subject to the prohibitions of, the religious clauses.”
Three Key Documents
Judge Hand wrote:
“The entire body of thought has three key documents that furnish the text upon which the
belief system rests as a platform: Humanist Manifesto I, Humanist Manifesto II, and the
Secular Humanist Declaration.
“These factors … demonstrate the institutional character of secular humanism. They are
evidence that this belief system is similar to groups traditionally afforded protection by
the First Amendment religion clauses.”
The judge then went on to demonstrate that 44 textbooks being used in the public schools
of Alabama were written from the humanist point of view and thereby constituted an
illegal establishment of religion. The judge ordered the books removed from the
schools.
Judge Hand’s Order Reversed
On August 26, 1987, the 11th Circuit Court reversed Judge Hand’s order banning the 44
textbooks. The higher court did not address the question of whether secular humanism is
a religion for First Amendment purposes, but asserted that it was not being promoted in
the textbooks that were banned. Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. wrote:
“Use of the challenged textbooks has the primary effect of conveying information that is
essentially neutral in its religious content to the school children who utilize the books;
none of these books convey a message of government approval of secular humanism. …
“There simply is nothing in the record to indicate that omission of certain facts regarding
religion from these textbooks of itself constituted an advancement of secular humanism
or an active hostility towards theistic religion.”
And so the books were put back in the schools.
The Wrong Question
But the question is not whether the textbooks were humanistic or not, but whether the
entire government education system is an establishment of the humanist religion. All of
the rationales used to remove Bibles and other manifestations of the Judeo-Christian
theistic world view from classrooms are based on the First Amendment’s prohibition
against government establishments of religion.
But if it can be shown that the entire government system of education — from elementary
schools to the state colleges and universities — are establishments of the humanist
religion, the courts would have no choice but to order the closing down of these
institutions.
There can be no government establishment of religion in the United States, whether it be
in the form of a house of worship or of a school system embracing a religious dogma.
From Non sectarianism to Secularism
When the public schools were first established, the courts ruled that the schools had to be
nonsectarian, that is, not favoring any particular Protestant denomination. That they
were essentially Protestant in character was generally acknowledged. In fact, the reason
why Catholics established their own private parochial school system was because they
recognized the Protestant character of the government schools.
After the turn of the 19th century, however, as humanist progressives took control of the
government schools, no sectarianism gradually gave way to secularism. Secularists hold
that any government institution that promotes or supports belief in the existence of a
supernatural being is an establishment of religion.
As more and more judges adopted the secularist point of view, order after order was
handed down stripping the public schools of the last vestiges of nonsectarian Christianity.
Curricula were revised, new textbooks written, new programs instituted so that today’s
public schools not only no longer reflect the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage but now
constitute the most powerful educational machine for the propagation of humanism
among the American people.
Filling the Vacuum
The secularists had no intention of creating a neutral, nontheistic vacuum in our schools.
Their plan always was to get rid of Judeo-Christian values and replace them with their
own. In this way, the government schools have become, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
establishments of the humanist religion.
Today, humanist beliefs are inculcated through such programs and concepts as values
clarification, sensitivity training, situational ethics, evolution, multiculturalism,
globalism, transcendental meditation, sex education, death education, humanistic and
behavioral psychology, etc. All of these programs are marbleized throughout the
curriculum — in reading, language arts, math, social studies, health education,
psychology, art, biology, and other subjects. It is impossible for a student in a
government school to avoid or escape the all-pervasive influence of humanist ideas and
beliefs which confront and accost him daily every which way he turns.
That the plan of the humanists was to supplant traditional theistic religion with a new
secular man-centered religion of their own can be proven by simply quoting the
humanists themselves. The best source of these quotes is The Humanist magazine.
The Humanists Organize
The forerunner of The Humanist was The New Humanist which first appeared in 1928 as
a monthly bulletin of the Humanist Fellowship, an organization formed by Unitarian
students from the University of Chicago and its related theological schools. Its early
editors — Harold Buschman, Edwin H. Wilson, and Raymond B. Bragg — were young
Unitarian ministers. It was on the initiatives of Bragg that the drafting of A Humanist
Manifesto (1933) was begun. Professor Roy Wood Sellars wrote the first draft. The
Manifesto appeared in the April 1933 issue of The New Humanist.
The Manifesto was more than just an affirmation of the humanist world view, it was also
a declaration of war against orthodox, traditional religion. The Manifesto’s views
toward religion can be summed up as follows:
1. The purpose of man’s life is “the complete realization of human personality.”
“[T]he quest for the good life is … the central task for man.”
2. The humanist’s religious emotions are expressed in “social passion,” in a “heightened
sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.”
3. Humanists believe that “all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of
human life.” Therefore, “the intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions … is the purpose and program of
humanism.”
In other words, the humanist must take over society’s associations and institutions in
order to transform them into instruments of humanist purpose. This includes the
institutions of traditional religion.
The Manifesto states: “Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms,
ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as
experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.”
A Messianic Mission
In other words, the messianic mission of the humanists is not to build new institutions of
their own, but to subvert and appropriate the institutions of others. This is not a new
idea among humanists. The Unitarians subverted Harvard and took it from the orthodox
followers of its Calvinist founders. Religious liberals have appropriated Yale, Princeton,
Dartmouth and other institutions founded by the orthodox.
The loss of these institutions, incidentally, has forced conservative Christians to create
new institutions of their own: Liberty University, Regent University, Bob Jones
University, Pensacola Christian College, Patrick Henry College, and others. The rise of
these new institutions has dismayed the humanists who believed that once the major
institutions of traditional religion were subverted and taken over, the influence of theistic
religion would fade forever. The hopeful demise of traditional theistic religion is a
theme frequently expressed by humanist writers.
Humanism as Religion
Roy Wood Sellars, who drafted Humanist Manifesto I, wrote in The Humanist (Vol. I,
1941, p. 5), an article “Humanism as a Religion,” in which he stated:
“Undeniably there is something imaginative and daring in bringing together in one phrase
two such profoundly symbolic words as humanism and religion. An intimate union is
foreshadowed in which religion will become humanistic and humanism religious. And I
believe that such a synthesis is imperative if humanity is ever to achieve a firm and
adequate understanding of itself and its cosmic situation….
“Religious humanism rests upon the bedrock of a decision that it is, in the long run, saner
and wiser to face facts than to live in a world of fable.”
The Worship of Humanity
Oliver L. Reiser, a signer of the Manifesto, writing in the same issue of The Humanist,
states:
“The one great hope for democracy lies in the development of a non-supernaturalistic
religion which, unlike other intellectual movements, will be non-academic in its appeal to
all civilized individuals. This new foundation for a coming world-order must be the
emergent outcome of the thought-content of a universalized culture….
“The god of this coming world-religion, that is, the object of reverence of scientific
humanism, is the spirit of humanity in its upward striving.”
Another signer of the Manifesto, William Floyd, wrote in The Humanist (Vol. 2, 1942, p.
2):
“The religious philosophy of humanism as a substitute for metaphysical theology will
enable men to realize the highest value in life without surrendering their minds to any
final dogma or any alleged revelation of the supernatural….
“To fill the need for a modern conception of religious foundations the Humanist
Manifesto was issued in 1933.”
Another signer, E. Burdette Backus, wrote in Vol. VI, p. 6 of The Humanist:
“[Humanism] is indeed a religion, and the extent to which it is capable of eliciting the
emotions of men is limited only by a degree in which those who have made it their own
shall succeed in embodying its full riches.”
Natural vs. Supernatural Religion
In an article, “Religion Without God, (The Humanist, Vol. VII, 1947, p. 9), Kenneth L.
Patton wrote:
“A naturalistic religion is just as inclusive of all that is within the world we know as is the
supernaturalistic or theistic religion.
“Whereas the theist pins his faith and hope in his God, the humanist and naturalist pins
his faith in the natural world, and in man as a creature within it, and his faith is no less
magnificent, courageous and hopeful than that of the believer in God.”
The Fourth Faith
In June 1951 The Humanist published an article by Manifesto signer Edwin H. Wilson,
“Humanism: The Fourth Faith.” He wrote:
“Today, I am suggesting that there is in the world as a present and potent faith, embraced
by vast numbers, yet seldom mentioned — a fourth faith — namely Humanism. This
fourth faith — with rare exceptions such as some Universalist or Unitarian churches, a
few independent Humanist Fellowships and the Ethical Societies — has no church to
embody it…. Theirs is a secular faith.”
According to Wilson, the other three faiths are Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism.
Since many of the signers of the Manifesto were Unitarians, it is not surprising that
Wilson identifies the Unitarian church as belonging to the fourth faith.
In 1952, The Humanist (Sept.-Oct.) published an article by Julian Huxley, “Evolutionary
Humanism: The World’s Next Great Religion.” Mr. Huxley wrote:
“Out of the needs of our time, through the evolutionary process, a new religion is rising.
By religion . . . I mean an organized system of ideas and emotions which relates man to
his destiny, over and above the practical affairs of every day, transcending the present
and the existing systems of law and social structure. . . . I believe we have nothing to lose
by using the word ‘religion’ in the broadest sense to include nontheistic formulations and
systems as well.”
In the next issue of The Humanist, Huxley wrote:
“The next phase of history could, and should, be a Humanist phase. Let us help toward
its emergence.”
The Glorification of man
In an article, “The Humanist Faith Today” (The Humanist, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1954, p. 180),
we read:
“Since humanism appears as a genuinely living option for many people, especially
among students, teachers, and intellectuals generally, it may be appropriately studied as a
religion. Indeed, it is not unfair to call it the fourth main religious option, along with
Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism, for thoughtful men in the contemporary
Western world….
“What remains of religion when the Humanist criticism has completed its work? The
Humanist replies that devotion to human and social values emerges as the essence of
religion. As [Corliss] Lamont has written, the Humanist postulates that ‘the chief end of
thought and action is to further earthly human interests in behalf of the greater happiness
and glory of man.’”
In 1959, George E. Axtelle, newly elected president of the American Humanist
Association, said:
“Ours is no revealed religion. It is a religion, an intellectual and moral outlook shaped
by the more sensitive and sympathetic souls of our time….Ours is a task, not a
doctrine….Our fundamental goal must be to make the Humanist Way of Life a reality in
our communities, our state and our nation.”
The New Religion
In the January-February 1962 issue of The Humanist, Sir Julian Huxley wrote an article,
“The Coming New Religion of Humanism.” He said:
“The beliefs of this religion of evolutionary humanism are not based on revelation in the
supernatural sense, but on the revelations that science and learning have given us about
man and the universe. A humanist believes with full assurance that man is not alien to
nature, but a part of nature, albeit a unique one…. His true destiny is to guide the future
course of evolution on earth towards greater fulfilment, so as to realize more and higher
potentialities….
“A humanist religion will have the task of redefining the categories of good and evil in
terms of fulfilment and of desirable or undesirable realizations of potentiality, and setting
up new targets for its morality to aim at….
“Humanism also differs from all supernaturalist religions in centering its long-term aims
not on the next world but on this….The humanist goal must therefore be … The
Fulfilment Society.”
Secularists Object
Not all humanists agreed with Huxley. Harry Elmer Barnes and Herbert T. Rosenfeld
responded with an article of their own in the July-August 1962 issue. They wrote:
“In our opinion, Sir Julian has set forth not the Humanist ideology of today, but a truly
noble and eloquent Unitarian sermon. It is Unitarian doctrine, pure if not simple….
“It was, of course, frequently argued in earlier decades of our century that Humanism is a
secular religion, but in the light of the history of thought and culture, the terms ‘religion’
and ‘secular’ are, in our view, mutually exclusive….If there is any one thing which
characterizes and justifies Humanism it is complete and undeviating secularism….
“If Humanism is identical with the latter [Unitarianism] in its ideology, we see little basis
for a separate Humanist movement or organization.”
Unitarian minister Edwin H. Wilson, one of the founders of the humanist movement,
responded to the Barnes-Rosenfeld article in the Nov.-Dec. 1962 issue. He told of how
the magazine was founded by Unitarian theological students. He went on:
“The American Humanist Association itself was organized soon thereafter by a group
composed primarily of liberal ministers and professors who were predominantly
Unitarians and considered themselves as religious humanists. At the time of its
incorporation in 1941, the decision was made not to try to establish humanist churches
but to function as an educational movement among humanists wherever they were found.
“The early literature of the movement was devoted chiefly to the development of
Humanism as a distinctly religious position….
“Of the 34 persons who signed the Humanist Manifesto in 1933, all but four can be
readily identified as ’religious humanists’ who considered Humanism as the development
of a better and truer religion and as the next step ahead for those who sought it….
“My conviction is that a probe into what is actually believed would show that the ‘liberal
Unitarian position’ and what is generally presented as Humanism — whether as a religion
or as a philosophy — differ very little….
“One minister who belongs to the A.H.A. said: ‘We Unitarians in my church have no
ideological conflict with the American Humanist Association. Naturalistic Humanism is
our position.’
“Barnes and Rosenfeld question whether a secular religion is possible. Not to make any
one word too important, one could argue that today’s Unitarian Universalism is a secular
religion….
“Now for expediency. In the Torcaso case the court recognized Buddhism, Taoism,
Ethical Culture and Secular Humanism as religions existing in the United States which do
not teach what is traditionally considered belief in God. We should at least ask
ourselves whether there are not practical advantages to be had by accepting this
decision.”
And so, to Wilson, and many other humanists, “secular religion” was not a contradiction
in terms. The words defined a nontheistic faith. Comments by readers of the articles
appeared in the January-February 1963 issue. Opinion was divided. The hard-core
atheists objected to the use of the word “religion,” while the Unitarians agreed with
Wilson.
Humanist Manifesto II
In 1973 the humanists produced Humanist Manifesto II, an affirmation of the earlier
document with updated views on the world’s social problems. The new Manifesto was
as hostile to traditional theistic religion as the earlier one. It said:
“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the
prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their
prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith.
Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with
false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival….
“We believe…that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation,
God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human
species….We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of the supernatural; it
is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the
human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity….
“[We] can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there
is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No
deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”
Ethics and Sexuality
Manifesto II also spelled out the social and political agendas for humanists:
“We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is
autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction….We strive
for the good life, here and now….
“In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox
religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth
control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized….Short of harming others or
compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual
proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire.”
World Government
The humanists again committed themselves to the goal of World Government.
Manifesto II states:
“We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a
turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national
sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors
of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of
world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.”
Anyone who bothers to study the curriculum of American public education will find in
virtually every course and program the tremendous influence of humanist philosophy. It
almost seems as if the public schools have become the parochial schools of humanism
wherein American youngsters are aggressively indoctrinated in humanist values and
ideas.
In fact, humanist editor Joe R. Burnett suggested as much in the Nov.-Dec. 1961 issue of
The Humanist (p. 347) when arguing in favor of federal aid to education. He said:
“Humanists obviously have a vital interest in the passage of a strong bill for federal aid to
public education. Without wanting to push the analogy too far, one might say that public
education is the parochial education for scientific humanism.”
If that was the case in 1961, it is even moreso today. In short: Public education today is
a government-supported establishment of the humanist religion.
(This article was written by the late Sam Blumenfeld in the early 1990s, and is part of the Sam Blumenfeld Archives-a free on-line resource: http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/main.htm
The Blumenfeld Archives
Camp Constitution Director On A New Hampshire Left-Wing Hate List
Recently, The Granite Grok published a list of over 500 conservative activists from around New Hampshire created by former New Hampshire State Senator Jeanne Dietsch: https://granitegrok.com/blog/2024/01/are-you-on-the-list-of-right-wing-extremists-in-new-hampshire-i-am Dietsch labeled those on her list an “anti-Democratic extremists.” She also has a link on her website where people can request additions to her “anti-Democrat extremists” list.
Among the names on this hate list is your truly. Dietsch has me listed as a “Christian Nationalist” who directs “a far right Evangelical camp.” It appears that Ms. Dietch is following the lead of Congresswoman Maxine Waters who urged people to confront Trump supporters. Her goal is to have those on the list, silenced, intimidated, canceled, fired, boycotted or worse. While I can’t speak on behalf of the other people on her hate list, many of whom I know personally and consider then friends, I think this list will only motivate those on the list to work harder to promote liberty and freedom. While I am not concerned about my personal safety, and my son’s, I am worried about the safety of wife and daughters who may be targeted as a result of this list. If, so, I will hold her legally responsible,
Ms. Dietsch is certainly no moderate. She supports open borders, opposed to fossil fuels, and thinks the Koch Brothers control New Hampshire. In June of 2020, her elitism and anti-Democratic worldview was on display when she was quoted at a House Education Committe meeting: “this idea of parental choice, that’s great if the parent is well-educated. There are some families that’s perfect for. But to make it available to everyone? No. I think you’re asking for a huge amount of trouble.”
Cenk Uygur and His Conservative Supporters
Meet Cenk Uygur host of the Young Turks which was named after a group of Muslims who committed genocide against the Christian Armenians from 1915-1923 where 600,000 to 1.5 million souls including women and children were murdered. Uygur has denied that the Armenian Holocaust happened. He was born in Istanbul, Turkey in 1970, and at the age of eight moved to the United States. As a young man, he was conservative but since then has become a hard leftist. He was raised in a secular Muslim home but now considers himself an agnostic. He harbors a particular contempt for conservative Evangelical Christians.
This Progressive paragon of virtue supports the legalization of bestiality “where the animal is being pleasured” which even surprised his self-loathing, foul-mouthed side-kick Ana Kasparian. In 2019-2020, he ran twice-for California’s 25th Congressional district. The first election was a special election to fill the vacant seat, and the second was the general election. All the left-wing PAC money couldn’t get him a seat in Congress. He initially was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, but ‘The Bern” withdrew his endorsement after learning of Uygur’s racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic comments he has made over the years. He is a 2024 candidate for President of the United States knowing full well that he is Constitutionally unqualified.
(Uygur and Lessig at Harvard 2011)
In September of 2011, I encounter him at an event at Harvard University’s School of Law called A Conference on the Constitutional Convention that was co-hosted by Mark Meckler and leftist Harvard law professor Larry Lessig. Cenk was interviewing Lessig, and they both hoped for a “runaway” Article V convention. I videotaped the conversation. Readers can find that video on Camp Constitution’s YouTube channel. In the wake of the Harvard event, Uygur formed Wolf PAC-a group that is lobbying for an Article V Convention. Mark Meckler followed by forming Convention of States (COS), and Lessig founded the May Day PAC.
The goal of Wolf PAC ostensibly is to hold an Article V Convention to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would end “corporate personhood” and give the federal government more power over elections. They were able to get five states pass Article V applications, but two of the states have wisely rescinded leaving only RI, VT, and CA with extant Wolf PAC resolutions. In the 2016, and 2018, election cycles, Wolf PAC used 80% of its funds for salaries and expenses.
What is an Article V Convention?
Our founders gave us two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution found in Article V of the U.S. Constitution:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”
While the first method has been used a number of times, the second method where states apply for a convention has never happened and for good reason.
Since its inception, Wolf PAC lobbyists have tried unsuccessfully to get their Article V Resolutions passed in New Hampshire. Convention of States and now Term Limits USA have been collaborating closely with Wolf PAC. COS, which enjoys the support of many well-meaning conservatives, have vociferously denied working with Wolf PAC, but such an alliance was on full display on January 19 at the New Hampshire State House where the House Committee on State and Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs held hearing on HCR 8 and HCR 9.
HCR 8 is a vaguely written resolution, sponsored by Wolf PAC that calls for New Hampshire to pass an application for an Article V Convention to introduce amendments that would end corporate personhood and have free and fair elections-a euphemistic term that, in reality, would give more power to the federal government over elections. The electoral college would also be on the chopping block. HCR 9 is a resolution to rescind New Hampshire’s only application for an Article V–a resolution which I fully support. While an accurate number of extant applications depends on how they are counted, it appears that Congress is looking at those that are similarly worded. We may be just a few states away from the 34 needed.
Despite the wording, a resolution applying for an Article V Convention cannot limit a convention. Supporting amendments that would give the federal government more power over anything should be strongly rejected by conservatives, and any self-respecting person or organization on any side of the political spectrum should have nothing to do with Cenk Uygur. But not in the Granite State where we witnessed the New Hampshire director of COS along with some of its supporters, as well as Mr. Ken Quinn, the out-of-state lobbyist for Term , testifying for the Wolf Pac resolution, and against the resolution to rescind.
Mr. Quinn, who spends a good portion of his time trashing conservatives who oppose his well-funded agenda, harbors a particular hatred of The John Birch Society (JBS), an organization that has done much to thwart his desire for an Article V Convention. He engages in childish antics like superimposing tin foil hats on pictures of JBS leaders. (As an aside, the late New Hampshire Governor Mel Thomson was not only a member of the JBS but served on its national council.) Back in 2016 while Quinn was a lobbyist for COS, its New Hampshire group sent out an E-mail accusing the JBS of bribing State Senator Kevin Avard. This was a bold-faced lie which was exposed by a friend who was receiving unsolicited E-mails from COS. COS has been involved in other dirty tactics around the nation. In South Dakota, State Senator Mark Willardsen returned a $1,000 donation to COS when he learned that COS was running attack ads against his opponent that were “full of half-truths, innuendos and outright lies.” This may explain why COS leadership have a cozy alliance with Cenk Uygur.
Quinn, ostensibly advocating for a limited convention, defended the idea of the need for structural change in the U.S. Constitution. John Adams once quipped that “facts are stubborn things.” If he were around today, he may have added “And so are screen shots:
It is important to point out that the vast majority of the supporters of COS and Term Limits USA are decent and honorable people that would have no part in COS tactics nor ally themselves with Cenk Uygur.
An Article V Convention, which we have never held, cannot be limited to a single amendment or topic. There are no laws guiding a convention, and rules and laws cannot be passed by state legislator. It is the job of Congress under the necessary and proper clause of Article 1, Section 8 to make laws or rules that would guide a convention. While I share many of the concerns that supporters of an Article V Convention, holding a convention and adding amendments to a constitution that is regularly ignored by Congress is not the solution. Readers are asked to contact their state reps urging them to oppose HCR 8 and vote for HCR 9. For those who would like more information on this critical issue, feel free to contact me. My E-mail is campconstitution1@gmail.com
A Federal Government Publication Affirms That Education is “A matter reserved for the states’
A special thank you to Alex Destino of Gloucester, MA who motivated me to write this article and make the short video embedded below:
About ten years ago, I stopped in a library in Medfield, Massachusetts, a town about 40 miles West and South of Boston. At its book sale, I found “Formation of the Union Under the Constitution” in 1943 which was published to celebrate the Sesquicentenial-150 years of the U.S. Constitution. It was published by the U.S Government Printing Office which was totally controlled by the New Deal Democrats. It is an excellent book that contains the History of the United States detailed information on how the U.S. Constitution was formed, copies, a circular letter from Governor John Hancock expressing his opposition to an Article V Convention, and a chapter of Liberty Documents from the Magna Carta to the Monroe Doctrine. Starting on page 121 of the book, we find a series of questions and answers. One of the most interesting questions in the book is found on page 128: “Where, in the Constitution is there mention of education? And the answer in this New Deal publication: “There is none; education is a matter reserved for the states.”
Since there hasn’t been any amendment added to the Constitution to make federal funding constitutional, the Department of Education, and all funds going to school and colleges are unconstitutional. The Department of Education should be abolished, and all federal government funding of schools must end. Sadly, there isn’t much political will to make this happen. But that can change. Let’s begin by letting elected officials at all levels know that we have a federal document published under a New Deal Democrat Administration that those who vote for and accept federal funds for education are violating their oaths of office.
While the book is out-of-print and there are a limited number of hard back copies available, Camp Constitution makes the book available as a free PDF: https://campconstitution.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/History-of-the-Formation-of-the-Union-Under-the-Constitution.pdf
Here is a short video I made on the subject:
An Open Letter to Congressman Steube: Don’t Let The Atheists At The Freedom From Religion Foundation Bully You Into Taking Down Your Christian Flag
Dear Congressman Steube:
I just got word that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is attempting to bully you into taking down the Christian flag that you have on display outside your Washington D.C. Office. I am the plaintiff in the “Shurtleff v Boston” case which was a 9-0 precedent setting U.S. Supreme Court victory. www.lc.org/flag The City of Boston, the same city that holds parties for non-whites only, and up until the Supreme Court took our case in September of 2021, allowed local communist groups to fly the flags of Communist China and Cuba, refused to grant me and my organization Camp Constitution. www.campconstitution.net
Thanks to God and the efforts of Liberty Counsel, we won our case and the city had to pay our legal team $2.1 million in legal fees. Our case helped put the “Lemon Test” to rest and made it more difficult for members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to bully town and city officials as well as private citizens. Here is a link to their amicus brief against us https://lc.org/PDFs/LC/Brief-Amicus-Opp-FFRF.pdf
Keep that beautiful flag flying.
Blessings,
Hal Shurtleff, Director
Camp Constitution
Alton, NH
Congressman Steube’s flag in front of his office on the left, and our flag flying over the City of Boston on the right
The Weekly Sam: Is Your Child Attending A Zoo? Or How to Evaluate Your Child’s School Book Proposal
Introduction: One of the most important decisions parents must make is choosing a
school for their child. For most parents, the choice is pretty limited to the public school a child is
assigned to. In some communities, parents do have a choice among schools. But how are parents
to know which school is the best one? What should they look for? What kind of questions should
they ask? This book will help parents evaluate a school so that they can make a decision based on
personal observation and objective information.
Chapter One: Where do we start? First you must find out if the school has a well-articulated philosophy of education that determines what is taught and how it is taught. You must
find out if the school operates within the framework of a mandated reform program assisted by the
federal government, requiring a specific form of curriculum. If this is the case, then the purpose of
the school is to serve the needs of the government rather than the needs of your child. If the
schools in your town are so conducted, then you may want to consider a private school or
homeschooling. Government directed school reforms will be discussed in a later chapter.
Chapter Two: The physical environment. Whether parents know it or not, the
physical environment of a building and classroom can have a positive or negative effect on the
child. The parent must ask: Would I enjoy being in this building or classroom six hours a day, five
days a week, for a whole school year? Is tbe atmosphere in this classroom conducive to learning
or is there too much noise and distraction? Ask for permission to actually sit in a classroom for an
hour or two to see what goes on among the students and how the teacher handles the kids.
The seating arrangement is also important. If the children are seated in rows and the teacher
is the focus of attention in front of the class, then the class will probably be conducted in a
traditional manner. If the children are seated behind little tables grouped together so that they can
openly socialize and do group work then the class will be conducted along “progressive” lines.
Because there is significant difference between the traditional and the progressive models, a
parent should know which model the school has adopted. Some schools try to combine both
models. The school you’re looking at may be one of those.
Chapter Three: The Traditional Model. What is its philosophical basis? The emphasis
is usually on teaching academic skills, maintaining classroom discipline, sometimes having a dress
code, using textbooks, teaching subject matter as separate disci plines. In the kindergarten and
primary grades reading is usually taught with phonics, and arithmetic is learned primarily by rote
memorization. Few public schools today adhere to the traditional model. To find that model,
parents may have to consider private alternatives. The advantage of the traditional model is that
children learn their basics pretty well and student behavior is well controlled.
Chapter Four: The Progressive Model. Most schools today have adopted the
progressive model of education. You will know it the moment you enter a first-grade classroom.
The children will be seated around tables, chatting or working in groups. The walls will be
decorated with all sorts of posters, pictures of animals, etc. The teacher will not be the focus of
attention. She is now a facilitator. Occasionally she will read to a group of kids seated on the floor
and will have a dicussion with them. Her teaching program usually includes whole-language,
invented spelling, the new math, etc. Subject matter will be interdisciplinary. The atmosphere may
seem chaotic, but it is believed that each child is learning on his or her own. The advantage of this
model is its informality and general permissiveness.
Chapter Five: Teachers. When you put a child in a school you are entrusting that child
to a complete stranger. Most parents assume that their child’s teacher is qualified and certified. But
experience, sometimes painful, has taught us that some of today’s teachers may not only be
incompetent, but also immoral. How can parents know what kind of individual is their child’s
teacher? If possible, get background information on the faculty: colleges attended, degrees earned.
If the school does not have such information, you might talk with the teacher and elicit the
information you want in a chatty, friendly, non-threatening way.
Chapter Six: Teaching Reading. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
That certainly applies to the field of reading instruction. Faulty teaching methods can cause reading
problems, and it behooves parents to find out how reading is being taught in the school. This
chapter will explain the various ways reading is being taught, how to evaluate different programs
and what questions to ask. Although educators have declared that the reading war between
phonics and whole language is over, it is doubtful that it really is. Thus, it is most important to
know what to look for in a school’s reading program.
Chapter Seven: Writing and Spelling. You would think that such subjects would be
taught in a way that would virtually satisfy all parents. Unfortunately, that is not the case. One of
the questions most often asked by parents is how to improve an older child’s spelling. More often
than not that child was taught writing by the invented spelling method, which, unfortunately,
creates spelling problems. Again, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If you teach
spelling in a logical, rational way, you can avoid developing bad spelling habits. Also, find out
how your child will be taught to write: cursive first or print first? The proper sequence makes all
the difference.
Chapter Eight: Math. Millions of children emerge from our schools with poor
mathematical skills. Usually the problem can be traced back to the first and second grades and
how the child was taught arithmetic. Again, prevention can guard your child against mathematical
dysfunction. There are good ways and bad ways to teach arithmetic. This chapter will help
parents recognize the good and the bad ways.
Chapter Nine: The new federally mandated curriculum. Most parents are not aware of
the sweeping reforms that are being implemented in schools across the nation. These radical
changes may persuade you to seek alternatives for your children. The new curriculum is the result
of three important pieces of legislation passed by Congress in 1994: Goals 2000; School-to-Work
Opportunities Act; and the Improving America’s Schools Act. It is important for parents to
understand the ramifications of these acts. They are changing the goals of schooling and what
children are to be taught. They also include gathering extensi ve personal data about your child
which will become a permanent record in a federal computer in Washington.
Chapter Ten: Music, Art, and Foreign Language. Most parents want their children to
be exposed to the arts and some study of music. Does the school teach art? Does the school teach
children to play musical instruments? If not, does it at least teach music appreciation? Does the
school have a band or a chorus? Foreign language is another way of expanding a child’s cultural
horizons. Find out what languages the school offers. For some parents, cultural education is an
important way to instill love and appreciation of the arts and reading. It provides nourishment for
the soul. If a school is deficient in this area, you may not want to put your child there.
Chapter Eleven: Computers in the classroom. Is the school technologically up to date?
About the Author
Samuel L. Blumenfeld has written ten books on education, including:
The New Illiterates
How to Tutor
Alpha-Phonics: A Primer for Beginning Readers
Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children
He is considered one of the world’s top authorities on reading.
He has lectured in all fifty states as well as in Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand.
He is very well known among homeschoolers and has spoken at many
homeschool conventions over the last fifteen years.
Dr. Blumenfeld also edited The Blumenfeld Education Letter for ten
years, keeping a close watch on the growing illiteracy problem.
He presently is a columnist for World Net Daily and several other
internet websites and writes regularly for Practical Homeschooling.
Prior to becoming a full-time writer, Dr. Blumenfeld was an editor
in the book publishing industry in New York.
He worked at Rinehart & Company, The Viking Press, The World
Publishing Company, and Grosset & Dunlap.
He decided to write this book after reading an article about Tom
Cruise’s struggle to learn to read. Tom says:
“When I was about 7 years old, I had been labeled dyslexic. I’d try to
concentrate on what I was reading, then I’d get to the end of the page
and have very little memory of anything I’d read. I would go blank,
feel anxious, nervous, bored, frustrated, dUlTlb. I would get angry. My
legs would actually hurt when I was studying. My head ached. All
through school and well into my career, I felt like I had a secret.”
Tom was a victim of the faulty teaching methods in his school. Had
his parents known how he was being taught at school, his years of
agony and failure could have been avoided.
The Blumenfeld Archives
Camp Constitution Instructor Professor Willie Soon Interviewed by Tucker Carlson
Our good friend and Camp Constitution instructor Professor Willie Soon was interviewed by Tucker Carlson. A link to the interview on X: https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1744777758507504061
At about 46:58, Professor Soon promotes Camp Constitution. We have been blessed by having Professor Soon and his family attend and teach at our week-long family camp since 2017. Here is a link to a YouTube playlist of Professor Soon’s classes at our camp:
https://studio.youtube.com/playlist/PL7jnzBzBiNYDpYp8KORgRjO5tIsDsjyh-/videos
Visit Camp Constitution’s On-Line Shop
Camp Constitution has an on-line shop where we offer books, yard signs, pins, and bumper stickers. Here is a sample of some of the items in the shop:
We just added a Ten Commandments Yard Sign:
https://campconstitution.net/product/ten-commandments-yard-sign/
Teach your children how to read using phonics or encourage members of your church, friends, neighbors and extended family members to use phonics by getting a copy of Sam Blumenfeld’s “Alpha-Phonics:
https://campconstitution.net/product/alpha-phonics-by-sam-blumenfeld/
A Camp Constitution Press reprint of a 1958 book written by a former black communist with a foreword by Rev. Steve Craft, Camp Constitution’s chaplain. If you want to understand what is happening today it is important to understand what happened a generation ago. The names change but the plan is the same:
https://campconstitution.net/product/color-communism-and-common-sense-by-manning-johnson/
A first edition paperback on the classic None Dare Call It Conspiracy: https://campconstitution.net/product/none-dare-call-it-conspiracy-paperback-1st-edition/
This came out in a time when it was “unfashionable to acknowledge that there was a Deep State.
While Communist China may own many American politicians, there were many in the Unted States that helped the communists take over China. This book tells the story: https://campconstitution.net/product/again-may-god-forgive-us-2/
These are just a sampling of the many items available from our on-line shop. All proceeds from the sale of the books and other items goes to support Camp Constitution.
Camp Constitution’s Annual Report for 2023
|
A link to an audio presentation: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/shurtleffhal/episodes/2024-01-01T10_03_25-08_00
Our Most Popular YouTube Video in 2023-A Republic, Not A Democracy by Dan Smoot
Camp Constitution’s most popular video for 2023 is Dan Smoot’s “A Republic Not A Democracy” a film clip just under eleven minutes long We received close to 33,000 views and gained over 500 new subscribers. Dan Smoot, authored several books including The Invisible Government-one of the first books exposing the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, and The Business End of Government and his autobiography People Along The Way- copies of the later are available from our on-line shop: https://campconstitution.net/shop/?product-page=1 He also hosted “The Dan Smoot Report” which aired on a number of T. V. stations. This video is from one of his “Dan Smoot Report” programs.
Please view, share this video and others from our channel, and become a subscriber.