Category Archives: Church



“The early biographies of Francis tell us that he used the TAU very often as an expression of his devotion to the Cross of Jesus. The TAU was also spoken of at the IV Lateran Council by Pope Innocent M.” It is recorded: “The person who bears on his forehead the sign of the TAU shows in his way of life the splendour of the Cross -, who bears the TAU has crucified the flesh with its vices and sins; who bears the TAU affirms by this: in nothing else do I wish to glory except in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Who bears the TAU will find mercy, in this, sign of a life converted and renewed in Christ… Therefore, be ye champions of the TAU and of the Cross!”

“Obedient to the call of the Pope, Francis signed himself with the TAU of penance. It would be his favorite symbol reminding him and his friars of their vocation to preach penance and conversion to Christ. This would be the Crusade of St. Francis, a crusade not of armed soldiers to recover Jerusalem, but a crusade of penitent men from Assisi to preach to everyone: ‘Do penance… be converted and bring forth fruits worthy of penance.'”


This coat of arms has been the symbol of the Franciscan Order for many centuries. The image of the two crossed arms, each with a nail wound in the hand represent both Christ and St. Francis who received the Stigmata (the wounds of Christ) in his body two years before he died.
The cross behind the arms is actually the letter ‘T or ‘tau’ which is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
Francis was very fond of the passage in the prophet Ezekiel (9:4) which refers to the faithful of God all being signed on the forehead with the letter ‘tau’. Francis often signed his letters with this symbol. Pope Innocent III used this image from the prophet Ezekiel for the theme of the opening homily of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). The Tau became a symbol from the Council for spiritual renewal in the Church. It is thought that Francis was present at this council and used the Tau from that moment on.

The Catholic Church’s résumé

The facts are:

We are members of the oldest Christian religion in the world.

The Catholic Church was founded in the year 33.

We believe in the real body and blood of Christ in our communion.

The next oldest Christian Church is the Lutherans and they have only been around for about 500 years.

The Mormons have only been here since 1829.

In the year 33 there were no hospitals. Today, one out of five people in this country receive their medical care at a Catholic hospital.

In the year 33 there were no schools. Today,the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in it’s more than than 250 Catholic Colleges and Universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic High Schools and its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools.

Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world. We should all be proud to be Catholic.      

There are more the 77 million Catholics in this country. It takes an estimated 50 million votes to be elected president. When you go to polls in 2016, I urge you all to vote for those who would oppose abortion, and stand on the side of truth and rightiousness. May you be guided by your moral compass and help to return this great land of which Our Redeemer has so bountifully blessed to the greatness that it once was.      

Want to enter the Mission Field? Take these notes and pass them on to your Catholic as well as Non-Catholic friends. May you all be blessed and touched by the Holy Spirit as you step out in Faith.

“And lead us not into temptation”

Temptation is a trial of fidelity
The following article is from The hermeneutic of continuity blog written by a Catholic priest in Britain, Fr. Tim Finigan. I have often wondered myself about the words of the Lord’s Prayer, “And lead us not into temptation”. Instinctively I knew that God does not lead us into sin (or the near occasions of sin). We are perfectly capable of doing this ourselves. And we often confuse, as Father Finigan points out, temptation with sin. Temptation ¹ Sin. Temptation is rather a trial of fidelity, integrity, virtue, constancy. In short it is a test. And we really don’t like tests. And, as Father points out, the next line of the prayer asks God to “deliver us from evil” (or as some translations have it, personifying evil, to “deliver us from the Evil One.”)

I have included below a line by line Latin/English Our Father.
Father Finigan has included a beautifully illustrated page from a Medieval Bible (these were painstakingly done by hand by monks) as an intro to his blog.
From Meriam Webster her·me·neu·tic noun \ˌhər-mə-ˈnü-tik, -ˈnyü-\
Definition of HERMENEUTIC

1 plural but sing or plural in constr : the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)

2 a method or principle of interpretation
An article in today’s (London) Telegraph is headed, “‘Blasphemous’ Lord’s Prayer corrected by France’s Catholic Church.” I think that ‘blasphemous’ is over-egging the pudding and that there is a danger of focusing on the wrong word.

The previous French version of “et ne nos inducas in tentationem” was: “Ne nous soumets pas à la tentation” (do not submit/subject us to temptation) and this is to be replaced by: “Et ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentation” (do not allow us to enter into temptation.)

Clearly we do not want to say that God would subject us to a temptation to be uncharitable to someone or to drink too much or to look at pornography on the internet. We would certainly prefer to say that we ask Him not to allow us to be tempted in such ways.

However I don’t think that the translation of “inducas” is the problem, but rather the translation of “tentatio.”

The word “temptation” in modern European languages now generally refers to temptations that proceed from concupiscence (the disordered desire consequent on original sin) or those which come about because of our previous habits of sin.

In the Greek New Testament, the word “peirasmon” (peirasmon) was used in a different way, for example of the temptations of Christ – who did not suffer from concupiscence or past habits of sin. It is also used, for example, by Our Lord Himself when he said to the disciples “You are the men who have stayed with me in my trials” (Lk 22.28) It would be absurd to render this verse as though Christ were saying that the apostles had stood by him in temptations to sin (He didn’t have any.) Our Lord was tested and put through trials by the devil at the beginning of His public ministry and finally through His passion. (This also applies to the depressingly common misunderstanding of Hebrews 4.15, especially in the Jerusalem Bible translation.)

Therefore we ask the Father not to lead us into the time of trial, not to allow us to be subjected to the onslaught of the devil. We know that He will not do anything that causes us to sin or in any way exacerbate the effects of original sin or our own past sins. We are asking Him to deliver us from evil, as the next clause in the Lord’s prayer makes clear.

If we want to re-translate the Our Father, it would be better to recognize the modern use of the word temptation and replace that (“Do not lead us into the time of trial” / “Do not put us to the test” or some other such adjustment) rather than worry about the word “inducas.”

Evolution vs. God

Subject: Creation–evolution controversy

Video about evolution vs Creation (Ray Comfort)
Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1) the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of openmindedness on the part of both camps.
Unlike the scientific community, a 2012 Gallup survey reports, “Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.”[19]

How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.
Ray Comfort repeatedly challenges the interviewees to produce evidence for one ‘kind’ of creature changing into a different ‘kind’. The students and professors are of course only able to give examples of animals adapting to their environment (Darwin’s finches are still finches, for example, and sticklebacks are not only still fish (as one would expect in these timeframes, to be fair, as pointed out), but still sticklebacks). As has been overwhelmingly shown on this site and elsewhere for many years, change over time, the usual evolutionist’s mantra, does not equal molecules to man evolution. The real issue is what type of change, and whether it is capable, even given millions of years, of achieving the major transformations that evolutionists believe have taken place.
The problem with this argument is obvious: Darwinism and Genesis do clearly overlap. The Bible does not merely speak of the who and the why. It also makes explicit claims concerning the how. Likewise, even a cursory review of the evolutionary literature indicates that evolutionary scientists routinely make assertions concerning the who and why questions. It is just not intellectually honest to argue that evolutionary theory deals only with the mechanisms of the existence of the Cosmos and that the Bible deals only with the meaning of creation.
A much more specific and pointed question asked respondents if man evolved “with no involvement from a higher power.” There was a clear consensus among the 4,008 Blaze News readers who responded. While six percent answered affirmatively, an overwhelming 94 percent of the readers who took the poll rejected this notion.
Scientist still discovering things which changes many of their current theories.
Ed Kelly gave me a video to wacth called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Below is a description of what the film is about and the arguements. 
 Intelligent Design View
“Unlocking the Mystery of Life” starts by describing Charles Darwin’s trip to the Galapagos Islands and how it influenced him to write his “On the Origin of Species” describing Natural Selection as an explanation for evolution.

It contends that while Natural Selection is good at explaining small changes, such as beak sizes, it does not do so well at explaining the evolution of entire species or at the cellular level. It then lists a number of molecular machines found in the cells such as trucks that carry supplies from one end of the cell to the other and machines that convert light to useable energy.

Michael Behe describes how he began to doubt evolution when he encountered the bacterial flagellum with its flagellar motor. This molecular machine is composed of numerous parts, such as a stator, rotor, driveshaft, and propeller that can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm.

Behe coined the term “Irreducible Complexity,” which describes that multiple components are required to make a function work. If any of these parts are missing, then the mechanism will not work. All components must be present simultaneously for the mechanism to work.

A mousetrap and the flagellar motor are cited as examples of Irreducible Complexity. The flagellar motor is composed of about 40 protein parts, such as a driveshaft and propeller and if any of these parts are missing then the motor doesn’t work. Evolution requires that you can explain how the system can be built gradually when there is no function until you have all those parts in place. For example, how could even the tail of the flagellar motor evolve when it didn’t serve any purpose until the motor is completed? But how could the motor evolve without the tail. We are caught in an apparent Catch-22.

In 1996, Behe published his book Darwin’s Black Box arguing that Natural Selection could not explain the bacterial flagellum or any other Irreducibly Complex biological system. Therefore, these systems point to an Intelligent Designer.

One explanation given by evolutionists is co-option in which natural selection uses components from an existing machine to create a new machine. However, Scott Minnich argues that this does not apply to the flagellar motor since it is composed of 40 components – Ten of which are used for other functions in the cell, but what about the other 30? And even if you had all the parts, what caused them to be constructed into the motor? He then states that there is no explanation for how this complex machine was produced by Darwinian mechanism.

The video then goes into a discussion of DNA and how proteins are assembled. The graphics for this section, as well as much of the rest of this video, are quite impressive.

William Dembski states that human beings detect the activity of intelligence when they observe a highly improbable object or event that matches a recognizable pattern. Small probability and specification equals information. For example, Mt. Rushmore is obviously created by intelligence and not by chance. We see the same thing in DNA which stores and incredible amount of specific information about the construction of the organism. This specific information and low probability point to an Intelligent Designer.

“Unlocking the Mystery of Life” shows some of the shortcomings of our knowledge of the cell and how it came to be. This is good. These questions need to be answered. Pretending or believing that evolution has answered these questions when it hasn’t doesn’t help science and people should be aware of these shortcomings. But just because a question hasn’t been answered doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t eventually be answered.

Its three main arguments for an Intelligent Designer are:
Irreducible Complexity – Even the originator of this says it doesn’t disprove evolution. He also says that Irreducibly Complex functions, such as the flagellar motor, could have evolved. [see explanation…]

The evolution of DNA can’t be explained – Yet, they totally ignore ten years of research into the RNA World theory that answers many of the questions raised by this video. [see explanation…]

The math of William Dembski disproves evolution – The mathematician who created the formulas Dembski based his work on says that they aren’t applicable to the type of systems he uses them for. And even Dembski himself says that his NFL theorems don’t disprove Darwinian evolution [see explanation…]

What does this leave us with? Well, we have the overall theme put forth by the video that the parts of the evolutionary pathway that have not — yet — been explained by evolution, must have been performed by an Intelligent Designer. Yet, it offers no evidence for this designer or even suggests what the designer might even be. And even if evolution is shown to be unable to produce life as we know it, this doesn’t prove a designer. Suppose I say the moon is made out of cheese and you say it made out of jello. I then prove that jello won’t hold together in such a large ball. Does that prove that it is made out of cheese?

Science has only recently had the ability to examine the inner workings of the cell in any detail. Naturally, many new, unexpected, and unexplained phenomena are being discovered. This is to be expected and shouldn’t surprise anyone. It is the usual first step of any new exploration.

Discovering what it out there. There will be then be a time gap until the new discoveries are understood and explained. Evolution, slowly, one by one, seems to be explaining these new discoveries. Granted, it still has a long way to go and many of these new discoveries still seem very mysterious. But to claim, “hey here’s something that we don’t understand, therefore it must have happened outside of nature,” is a bit premature. That’s possible, but more likely, it just means that we don’t yet understand how that aspect of nature works and not that nature doesn’t work and we must invoke outside forces to explain it. Once there was no way for science to explain medical conditions such as epilepsy. Since science couldn’t explain it, it was thought that it must be caused by forces outside of nature such as demonic possession. Luckily, scientists didn’t accept this explanation and pressed forward. Likewise, they are pressing ahead and showing how supposedly “Irreducibly Complex” biomechanisms can and do evolve. As we learn more about how nature works, the theory of evolution may have to be modified and improved, or it may even have to be scrapped and replaced with a better theory. These new discoveries will go a long way towards creating new medicines and technologies. But, simply throwing our hands up in the air and proclaiming we don’t understand it, therefore it must have happened outside the laws of nature leads us nowhere.

Other information
See Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design for a refutation of the mousetrap analogy.
Other Reviews
Nothh Texas Skeptic
No Mystery in the NCSE – Rebuttal of NCSE Review

Michael Behe
Behe’s Beliefs and Works
Flagellar Motor
The Turn of the Screw: The Bacterial Flagellar Motor
Half a Mousetrap Doesn’t Work – IC Unravels Darwin
Wikipedia – Flagellum
Journal of Bacteriology, December 1999
THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM -An Example of Irreducible Complexity
Evolution of the Flagellar Motor
Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
Background to “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum”
Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella
Here’s a list from
Early evolution of microtubules and undulipodia
Flagellar beat patterns and their possible evolution – “The most sophisticated flagellar mechanisms are best explained as having been evolved for the collection of particulate food”
A temporary flagellate (mastigote) stage in the vahlkampfiid amoeba Willaertia magna and its possible evolutionary significance
The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of eukaryote flagella – no abstract avail
+ Molecular analysis of archael flagellins: similarity to the type IV pilin-transport superfamily widespread in bacteria
Molecular evolution of the C-terminal cytoplasmic domain of a superfamily of bacterial receptors involved in taxis – “The gene coding for the C-terminal cytoplasmic domain of these proteins apparently evolved through gene duplication from a common ancestor”
Dynein family of motor proteins: present status and future questions – evolution of Dynein via gene duplication
Origins of the nucleate organisms – “The phylogeny supports the hypotheses that the flagellum developed from the spindle system”
The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of microtubules, mitotic spindles and eukaryote flagella – no abstract avail
The evolution of cellular movement in eukaryotes: the role of microfilaments and microtubules – no abstract avail

Dispute the Evolution of the Flagellar Motor
Evolving the Bacterial Flagellum Through Mutation and Cooption
Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison, By: Michael J. Behe

Evolutionist View
The “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” video states that Michael J. Behe believes that bacterial flagellum (the bacteria with a propeller) is Irreducibly Complex (IC) and could not have evolved.
However, in 2000 (four years before this video was released), Behe said[, h]e hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually. He also says, “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.”

Also note that Behe is an evolutionist.
I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think evolution occurred, but was guided by God.*

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism–natural selection working on variation–might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution p. 5)

The video also states that there is no evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. This is simply FALSE. The producers of the video may not agree with the explanations, but to claim that none exist is simply false. See The Flagellum Unspun, Answering the Biochemical Argument from Design, and Publish or Perish for a list of other papers describing the evolution of bacterial flagellum.
It has been shown that the base of the flagellar motor is the Type III secretory system (TTSS) that exists in many bacteria. This is composed of a subset of the flagella motor’s parts, yet is fully functional for another purpose. Hence, even though some parts were removed, the flagellar motor would still serve a biological purpose. Look at Behe’s (the speaker in the video and the creator of the Irreducible Complexity concept) own definition:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution p. 39)
This excludes the flagellar motor from being an example of Irreducible Complexity. To be fair, one might argue that the Type III secretory system (TTSS) is itself an example of Irreducible Complexity (IC). But that is not the point. The point is that even after some of the parts of the flagellar motor are removed, it can still serve a useful (Darwinian Selectable) purpose. Therefore, by definition, the flagellar motor is not Irreducibly Complex as stated by the video. Granted, this does not tell us how the flagellum evolved, nor does it imply that the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. It only that shows that is not IC.

To summarize: The Type III secretory system (TTSS) is a subset of the parts of the flagellum (i.e. a flagellum with parts removed) and has a Darwinian selectable function, therefore demonstrating that the flagellum can serve a function with some of its parts removed and therefore is, by Behe’s definition, not an example of Irreducible Complexity (IC). Granted, we don’t yet know for sure what the intermediate stages were (and they probably don’t even include TTSS), but intermediate stages are clearly possible, therefore the flagellum is not IC, and ID does not need to be invoked to get the flagellum.

This information has been known since shortly after Behe published his book in 1996. Why is it necessary for the producers of the video to present false information if their arguments would stand up without them?

See The Flagellum Unspun for more information on TTSS and the References for possible evolutionary pathways for the flagellum.

But to be fair, this still ignores the main issue. Has “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” found something that can not be explained by evolution and therefore needs an Intelligent Designer? After all, isn’t that the point of this video? But remember, even Michael Behe, the originator of the term Irreducible Complexity and the one who initially introduced the flagellar motor as an example says:
He hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually. He also says, “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.”
So not only is the main example given not an example of Irreducible Complexity, but even it were even Behe says that it would NOT disprove evolution. If the video producer’s goal was to present an accurate portrayal of the issues, then wouldn’t this information be important? Remember, Behe made these comments some FOUR YEARS BEFORE the video was released.

The “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” video lists William Dembski as a mathematician at Baylor. Although he did head Baylor’s Institute for Faith and Learning, he has never had any affiliation with Baylor’s mathematics department. To list him as a mathematician at Baylor is misleading. The point of this is not to create an ad hominem attack. Regardless of his credentials, his ideas may still be correct. However, it does speak to the integrity of “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” when it repeatedly presents inaccurate and misleading information.

If the producers of this video repeatedly present false and misleading information, then you should take any other information they present with a large grain of salt.

It spends much time refuting theories about the evolution of DNA that were disproved by biologists in the 70s, yet ignores the “RNA World” theory which has been around for about ten years and answers many of the questions raised by this video. Are these the actions of someone dedicated to presenting accurate information?

Dean Kenyon states that new biochemical discoveries further weakened his conviction that amino acids could have organized themselves into proteins. This caused him to doubt biological evolution.
Luckily, other scientists didn’t follow his lead and just throw their hands up in the air and proclaim “Gee golly, I can’t figure it out, it must have a designer.” They continued the research and developed theories such as the RNA World.

Recent lab research has demonstrated processes by which RNA can evolve into DNA. While one can’t fault the producers of the video for not mentioning this since it was discovered after the video was made, it does show the danger of defining God as “The God of the Gaps.” The gaps are getting smaller all the time. See ‘Accelerated evolution’ converts RNA enzyme to DNA enzyme in vitro
Thanks,Tracy Tischendorf Bowie, MDcell: 603-343-3593

“Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.”

What has happened to our schools

Good morning, good people!
From Deacon Dennis, OFS

If the school year hasn’t started in your area, it will soon. Many of us are older and no longer have school aged children, but many have grandchildren and/or nieces/nephews of that age.

If you haven’t had this experience, I have.  In fact I had the experience of having my children in a Catholic grammar school whose Religion teacher wasn’t even Catholic and later in a (very expensive) “Catholic” high school in our area run by an un-named religious order of women (Mercy me!) whose curricula both in the religion spheres and civil spheres were anything but Catholic. In fact, due to the complaints of many really Catholic families to the diocese (I wasn’t one of the school’s favorite people), the school no longer touts itself as a “Catholic” high school but simply as a “Private” high school, in spite of it’s being named after a Catholic Saint.

The books used in the American History curriculum, for example, completely passed over, discredited, or eradicated any mention of Catholic influences in the United States.  Catholic explorers (and Missionaries), if named at all, had their names secularized (for example, Jesuit Father Jacques Marquette who explored the upper Mississippi River was simply “Marquette” and the picture depicting him was airbrushed to have him dressed in buckskins [a la Davy Crocket] in lieu of his Jesuit habit).  No mention at all of the efforts of Blessed Junipero Serra, OFM, in California or other Catholic Missionaries or even Spanish secular efforts in the American Southwest.  American History only began in 1620 with the Pilgrims setting foot on Plymouth Rock to escape Religious (Anglican) persecution in England and later Catholic persecution in Holland (any time the word “Catholic” showed up it was always in negative terms).  Earlier Spanish explorations by DeSoto, Ponce de Leon, and other Conquistadors were mentioned only because their names were so familiar in Florida and the Caribbean, but again the concurrent Catholic missionary efforts were depicted in negative terms vis a vis the Native Populations.  Christopher Columbus was vilified for bringing Catholic missionaries to these shores.

Any mention of Catholic social principles in the Social Studies courses? – ZIP.

The Religion Teacher that they had was terminated mid-year the year my daughter began at this school (his first year of teaching) because he was “too Catholic” in his efforts to instill not only basic doctrine but also to fill-in the gaps with Catholic principles in other areas. 

As a result, despite anything we did at home, because of what they learned in school (children are so malleable at those tender school ages, they believe what they are taught by trusted adults) my children no longer practice their Faith, to the heartbreak of both myself and Cathy. (Remember also, the school has these kids longer during their waking hours than we do).

Deacon Dennis, OFS

After reading Deacon Dennis’ email, above, my research led me to “Common Core” …

Sending your children to a Catholic school? Caveat emptor…
Published Thursday, September 5, 2013 A.D. | By The Motley Monk
With the new academic year having gotten underway, it’s always good for parents to assess what their children will be learning, especially with the curriculum being nationalized.
In 2009, the National Governors Association launched the Common Core State Standards Initiative (“Common Core”) which is an attempt to nationalize the curriculum so that high school students who graduate in every state that adopts the Common Core will “be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.”
Who possibly could be against that goal?

In her book, Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left’s Assault on Our Families, Faith, and Freedom, Marybeth Hicks tells parents who enroll their children in Catholic schools they should be very wary, if not opposed to the Common Core.
Why so?
Not for the usual reasons conservatives assert: who’s really behind the Common Core (e.g., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation along with David Coleman, President of the College Board and architect of the Common Core) as well as the content it requires students to learn (e.g., social justice mathematics, using class and race conflict to explain American history).
Hicks tells her readers how the Common Core [that has infected the public school system] now is infecting Catholic schools nationwide because, although dioceses are not required to adopt the Common Core, they must do so if students are to demonstrate mastery on the tests measuring what students have learned (as that is measured using the standard of the Common Core designed by Coleman whose company makes the tests).  Hicks quotes Sarah Dalske, a Catholic school parent living in Sacramento:
My children go to Catholic school, and over 100+ [d]ioceses have adopted the [Common Core] because it’s what “has to be done” if we want our kids to get into college and be prepared and also be prepared to enter the “workforce” and earn a “living wage.”
In a letter Dalske wrote to the Diocese of Sacramento, she argued:
[Are] you telling me in future grades my kids will be reading such books as “Freakonomics” and “The Tipping Point,” learning that *abortion is one of the [things that would] lower crime…?  How would Catholic school teachers reconcile this while simultaneously teaching that all life is sacred and every baby has the right to life, that every person is given a soul at the moment of conception by God and has the God-given right to be brought into this world?….After all the new and confusing math and reading lessons, and the “literacy” lessons through science, history and technology, after all the testing, where will the time be to teach our children their faith?
The lesson for parents who send their children to Catholic schools?
Lest they believe Catholic schools provide immunity from the infection of a curriculum that’s opposed to Catholic teaching, they had better—like Sarah Dalske—investigate precisely what their children are being taught and when they are being taught it.
In Catholic schools, the goal of training the nation’s youth for the workforce is not antithetical to the goal of educating their souls in the faith of the Catholic Church.  If Dalske’s statistic is correct, in many dioceses the former may become more prominent than the latter…if it hasn’t already.
See more at:

Note: *About the statement that “abortion would lower crime,” isn’t it intresting that the UN believes abortion would lower the poverty level in the world.

Three Moms against Common Core Christel Lane Swasey, Renee Braddy and Alisa Ellis By Christel Lane Swasey

Question to the Three Moms: Joanne Tolles April 16, 2013 at 3:24 pm

There is no doubt that Ayers is a scarey dude with high powered friends and a destructive agenda. However, I am looking for the connection between Ayres and Common Core. Is he directly involved with CCSSI or PARCC? Does he have some influence over specific individuals involved? I need help connecting the dots.

One of the connecting dots is that the Smarter Balanced test will replace the standardized tests in all the states. It was designed by Linda Darling Hammond, a colleague of Bill Ayers. The Common Core has it’s beginnings in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge; Bill Ayers was one of it’s 3 co-authors. Arne Duncan, United States Secretary of Education and a whole host of other individuals are influenced by Ayers. Teachers are being taught strategies by Ayers proteges. Just google Bill Ayers and the Common Core. Stanley Kurtz and Danette Clark are two excellent sources on how over the last 30 years radical Marxist communists have gained control of American education.]

Unrepentant anti-American and former terrorist Bill Ayers is highly respected in certain circles. He’s welcomed with open arms to speak to university students nationwide.  His writings are welcomed at the New York Times.  He’s gets magazine  interviews and is glamorized by Hollywood .
He’s an important associate of the powerful Linda Darling-Hammond, she who calls the big shots as an Obama education advisor and for Common Core testing consortia SBAC.
Many teacher’s colleges  roll out the red carpet for him  – it’s incomprehensible, but true.
Ayers has never swayed from preaching against Americanism and fighting for the overthrow of America and the implementation of communism. He’s never apologized for the violence he caused in America during the Vietnam War. He’s never actually discussed education much; it’s only a tool to him, a useful one to create the end of capitalism and the beginning of American socialism.
Yet people listen to him.
He was the keynote speaker at this year’s Association for Teacher Educators conference.   
Here’s his University of Southern California speech: . 
He’s been invited as a featured speaker at the University of Nebraska, Minnesota State, Georgetown University Law Center, New York University, University of Wyoming — the list is long.
At last year’s “Change the Stakes” meeting he told listeners to grab control of political power by using schools and local communities.
And here’s a super scary one: an interview about Ayers’ original plans for “re-education centers” and “elimination” of people who would not be re-educated in the Anti-American philosophy.  The interview is with Larry Grathwohl, who worked with Ayers during their violent Weather Underground days.
Then there’s an unbelievable Ayers in an out of control radio interview with Larry Elder that was also rebroadcast on Hannity.
What’s Ayers’ message? He wants students to help him overthrow America as we know it and become global (communist) citizens, free of the U.S. Constitution and traditional values.  His message has nothing to do with education reform and everything to do with using teachers and schools as change agents for socialist indoctrination. He’s open about it.  He says:
“The great challenge for our generation to find a way not just to live differently as individuals, but to find a way to think differently about what work means, to think differently about citizenship means, to think differently about what it means to be a ‘citizen of the world.’  One of the great dangers that we live in right now, is I don’t think there’s any question, and I don’t think any of you would question, that the American Empire is in decline–that economically, and politically, and inƒ some ways culturally, that we are in decline.  And yet, the United States remains the most powerful, weaponized military system the Earth has ever known.
That’s a treacherous combination.  A declining economic power, and an expanding military power.  And we are going to have to find ways to re-imagine what it means to live in this coun–  in this world.  And here we are 4% of the world’s population, 4.5% of the world’s population, consuming vast amounts of natural resources, consuming vast amounts of finished goods, and no politician will say that the empire is declining and that the game is over. ” 
America, stop inviting this man to teach our teachers.  Please.

Like this:
Posted April 8, 2013 by Christel Swasey in Uncategorized
MSNBC Video: Your Children Belong to Us
Judy Park Introduces Common Core SAGE Tests to Wasatch School District »

Wow, pretty frightening. They’re going after our children, trying to indoctrinate them with their social agendas in the schools. How do we stop this? I guess the same way they’re trying to do it, on a local level, by getting involved, speaking out, getting informed and fighting back and standing up to it in our schools and communities.

Tom Lidiak April 23, 2013 at 6:23 pm

I had a teacher in college who used to say, “The problem with democracy is that it will eventually embrace the poison that will kill it.” Bill Ayers is just such a poison.

Education News


Posted by Donna Garner Education Policy Commentator on January 6, 2013 in Commentaries, Daily, Insights on Education, Teachers | 1 Comment
Linda Darling-Hammond and Bill Ayers are closely associated with Columbia Teachers’ College where the social justice agenda is heavily enmeshed throughout the College.

1.6.13 — Info. on Linda Darling-Hammond, Bill Ayers, Lucy Calkins, CSCOPE, Common Core Standards – from Donna Garner:

Linda Darling-Hammond is listed in CSCOPE materials (Ector County ISD website) as one of those who developed CSCOPE. Darling-Hammond is Obama’s education consultant who helped to establish the parameters for the Common Core Standards and is shaping the national assessment.

Early in Obama’s presidency, it looked as if he was going to appoint Linda Darling-Hammond as his Secretary of Education. Instead, Obama decided to empower Darling-Hammond to complete the federal takeover of the public schools by authorizing her to help develop the national tests (i.e., assessments). These assessments are the centerpiece in Obama’s plan to put the federal government in charge of what gets taught each day to public school students.

Guest Post by Dr. Gary Thompson

Forward by Christel Swasey: Dr. Gary Thompson is a valiant defender of children, (if you don’t know anything about him you must go to Goggle) not only in his clinic, but also in the public square. He’s written and spoken extensively about the damages to children via Common Core testing and standards.

Dr. Thompson took on a reporter at the Deseret News, calling his reporting on Common Core “a case study of deception and lies by omission.” He points out that the reporter has omitted key facts such as the biggest elephant-in-the-room: the fact that huge financial interests are driving the marketing of Common Core in Utah. Thompson points out that the reporter did not follow up to fact-check the School Improvment Network’s (Common Core proponents) claims that opponents of Common Core are “misled”.

Thompson points out that Deseret News readers deserve to know what’s motivating Common Core proponents who throw out accusations against those questioning Common Core: they’re defending their financial interests, tooth and nail. They fight the idea of allowing full and legitimate public debate about Common Core to happen. It’s their rice bowl.

But it’s OUR KIDS.

The fact remains that there are serious questions about Common Core that remain unexplored by the general public despite the fact that the Common Core standards, tests and data collecting now governs their children’s lives.

Many more dots to connect. … Dennis
Few people are talking about common core, but we should be, as it poses a serious threat to American education.
Common Core, now adopted by 45 states and DC, is a set of national standards and goals related on the surface to English and math that have far-reaching implications into who controls curriculum (teachers teaching to the national test), along with implementing data-mining for a jaw-dropping universe of facts provided to the federal government about your children and you. Can I implore you to watch this video of a Common Core creator celebrating the collaboration with Obama’s data team and how to use data to achieve political ends?
Common Core has dismal quality, puts us behind other countries, views teaching as job training and not the development of our children’s minds, and has backers that would make your head swim were you to conduct even a perfunctory search.
– See more at: