It is a matter of historical record that America's Founders 

deliberately began public education with Biblical teaching. 

No one can argue that the early Primers and texts used by

students were filled with Scripture. Our Founders were 

motivated by concern that the reasons for establishing this 

nation would be lost or forgotten and that strange teachings

would creep in, resulting in citizens forgetting that our 

freedoms come from our Creator (As specifically and purposely

stated in the Declaration of Independence), rather than from

governments, committees of elitists, change agents

or busybody, politically correct social planners. While 

self-proclaimed defenders of 'church state separation' 

fret that Bible-believing Christians are plotting to somehow

establish a 'theocracy' in this country, they are not the 

least bit concerned that the religious doctrines and social 

goals of the Humanist Manifestos 

(http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html) have been 

systematically imposed on Americans for decades.  The very words, 

'separation of church and state' are of Humanist origin. 

They are indeed a mantra of the political Left, but they are 

not found in our Constitution ('Separation of Church and 

State are found in the old Soviet Constitution, Article 52, 

and in the Humanist Manifestos, but what our Constitution 

states is:  "Congress shall make no law regarding an 

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 

thereof." Both Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are 

designed to prevent government from meddling in the firmly 

held faith of citizens, not the other way around). Instead 

of E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one), we are urged 

to "celebrate diversity" (Often 'diversity' means we must support 

'gay rights' - special rights based solely on claimed sexual

behaviors - or suffer accusations of 'bigotry'). Instead of 

respect for innocent life, we are urged to honor a 'Choice' 

that results in over a million unborn children being killed 

each year. Instead of respecting the laws of nature and of 

nature's God, we are urged to affirm and normalize all 

'sexual orientations'. Instead of cherishing our nation and 

its sovereign right to existence and self-rule, we are urged

to join the global brotherhood of man and submit to 

'world courts'. Instead of wisely and responsibly using and 

enjoying our country's abundant natural resources, we are 

bombarded with hysterical warnings of ecological disaster 

(Often hoaxes such as the picture of the polar bears on a 'melting ice 

floe'), and we are urged to lavish worshipful, unquestioning 

attention on scientifically questionable environmental extremism, no matter what the 

cost to citizens and taxpayers.  Instead of recognizing the 

prosperity-producing power of responsibility and industrious 

effort, we are taught to clamor for 'economic equality,' or 

the equitable re-distribution of wealth and property. All 

these concepts (Often foisted on captive audiences of 

other peoples' impressionable children in the public schools

at taxpayer expense, not to mention preached by LeftMedia 

and the Hollyweird elite) are teachings from a secular 

religion that quietly advances its goals while hypocritically

issuing ominous warnings of the perils of mixing religion and

politics. If we enlightened moderns truly prize fairness, 

tolerance, diversity and acceptance of all viewpoints, 

however, why is it that Christianity, the proveable faith of our 

Founders, is always the sole target of so-called 

separation experts and 'civil rights' advocates? How is it that



these same Christianity-purging crusaders contentedly accept
obvious government recognition of Islam through construction of
ceremonial foot-washing stations in public areas? Would they
accept baptismals, altars or confessionals constructed in the same areas?


And who has decided for us that a perversion of human 

sexuality which has contributed to an ongoing, deadly 

epidemic in our nation should enjoy advocacy in the public 

schools? (If you doubt this is happening, see: 

http://www.e-z.net/wtv/bf120295.htm

The conclusion, for any objective observer, is that religion

is most certainly being advocated in the public schools and 

throughout society. But that religion is not Christianity. 

Instead, it is the religion spelled out in the Humanist 

Manifestos I and II (http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html). How

exploitative and manipulative, to force a set of beliefs on

people without even bothering to notify them of the source.

It is revealing that the Humanist Manifestos clearly state that

their purpose is to replace Christianity with Humanism. Can

you imagine the outrage and the uproar if Christians stated

that they intended to establish their religion in American

public policy? What a double-standard the Left is imposing 

on you and your loved ones! Are you willing to accept it?

                                                                  -Bob Larimer

"The church shall be separate from the state, and the school from the church"

Sound familiar?  This is the 'freedom' offered to Christian youth in the public school system.  Often advocated by the ACLU and carefully guarded by school district lawyers.

Only one problem with it:  The words come from the old, failed Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), Article 52. The words are also found in the Humanist Manifestos (http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html), a self-proclaimed new religion designed specifically to replace Christianity.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not contain the words 'separation of church and state.'

Instead, our First Amendment states:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Can you see who is protected, and from what, by these words?

The citizen is protected from government, not the other way around.

Government is not free to limit or decide what we believe.

Citizens are totally free to take their firmly held beliefs into the marketplace of ideas in our society. That marketplace includes the workplace, government institutions such as Congress, and the public schools.

We do not want government teaching or advocating a particular religion, and certainly the public schools would do no better teaching Christianity than they do geography or any other of the subjects in which American students typically lag behind in other developed nations.

But there is no Constitutional provision, nothing, to limit a student's right to express his or her faith while at school.

Encourage your student to speak out!

Is there any reason you should allow a hostile, replacement religion to impose its views on your school, your student and his or her classmates?

Do you prefer freedom, or censorship of your beliefs?

Take a stand!


-Bob Larimer

In an Op-Ed piece, nationally syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman dramatically denounced the ban on partial birth abortions passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate Judiciary committee.

Employing the "inflammatory inaccuracy" she claims to abhor, she attempted to persuade readers that the "Oh My God" reaction to bad news during an ultrasound examination must logically lead the horrified mother to a decision to abort the child. Any compassionate person would agree, right?

When my then-pregnant wife, Rose, was informed that her ultrasound examination had revealed abnormalities in our unborn baby Caitlin's spine and head which usually indicate brain and spinal malformations, she was scheduled for another ultrasound one week later.

We prayed our way through a very long week and then went to keep the appointment. With Rose on the exam table, a lump in my throat and the room seeming to hum louder and louder, I listened as the doctor and a technician explained that they wanted to be certain of any problems early on, so that we could exercise our option to "terminate the pregnancy."

I have never been more proud of Rose than when she raised herself up off the table and demanded to know: "Why would I kill my own baby?"

After a very thorough ultrasound exam, the doctor stated that she could see only a very minor abnormality and that it probably would have no serious consequences.

The pregnancy progressed and on the morning after our daughter's birth, the pediatrician on duty entered my wife's room and happily announced, "I've just examined your baby and she's perfect!"

If we had given in to the subtle, yet powerful, pressure and listened to the 'experts,' typified by Goodman and the "caring" crowd who stand against any restrictions on abortion, our little Caitlin Marie would be dead. Another victim of "Choice." Instead, she is a bright, healthy child (Editor’s note: At the original time of this article, Caitlin Marie was 20 months old. She had been speaking in complete sentences for about 1 ½ months and she sang, ran, danced, played with her dolls - she was a very careful little mother! - and won arguments with her 3 ½ year old brother by wrestling him to the floor and sitting on him. Caitlin is now a beautiful 12 year old, has a bubbly personality and wacky sense of humor, plays violin, loves arts and crafts and sings special numbers for our church's Music Team).

I wonder if anyone who participated in the "medical procedure" of taking Caitlin's life would have had the integrity to tell us that there was nothing wrong with her after all.

A Seattle radio station interviewed me a few days ago following a news release by my organization, Washington for Traditional Values (WTV), which congratulated House members for their efforts to ban partial birth abortions. I was not too surprised when the program's host announced that he and his wife were also pressured to abort their child. They too resisted and now have a happy, healthy child. A lady who volunteers part time secretarial work for WTV tells a very similar story about her daughter.

Goodman questions National Right to Life leader Maureen Malloy's statement that "on demand" abortions are performed on "healthy women carrying healthy babies." I think Goodman should really be asking: Who is actually doing the demanding? How many frightened young couples and terrified single women are stampeded into ending the lives of their own healthy children?  Should a possible imperfection - often mis-diagnosed - be enough to condemn an innocent baby to death?

Last Sunday, the day of Goodman's abortion column, while on a family visit to a shopping mall, Caitlin gave her very first wave to her proud Aunt Merna. Then, just to be sure we were convinced, Caitlin batted her eyes, smiled and waved to each of us in turn.

For Goodman, it would simply have been a woman's choice if that little arm and hand had been severed and pulled out through the birth canal. It would have been the compassionate thing to do if the small head and face had been crushed, forever destroying the miracle of creation.

Goodman objects to the "graphic" nature (read uncensored reality), of the pictures that will be shown in Friday's Senate Judiciary hearing.

Too bad. If it will help save the lives of little ones like Caitlin, and help America to consider what compassion really is, maybe a little dose of grahpic reality is a healthy thing.

Bob Larimer

Consider please:

An eagle has just laid an egg in her nest. Shall a representative group of people from all points along the political/religious/environmentalist spectrum discuss whether the contents of the egg exhibit the properties of life, whether the egg will hatch to be an elephant, egret or eagle, whether it would be morally wrong or right to steal the egg from the nest for research purposes and whether or not to end the life inside the egg?

The egg doesn't care. Doesn't even know what it is. But if allowed to grow, it will eventually result in a majestic adult eagle.

The egg does have one advantage over the human 'zygote' however. By mutual human agreement and letter of law, it is protected.

The developing human is not.

This is societal schizophrenia, and it is in direct conflict with that primary guarantee of human liberty eloquently phrased by Thomas Jefferson and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

Those who justify killing the developing human being do so for reasons which they have concocted for their own purposes. Whatever their motives and reasons, they can never conceal the reality that a human life has been extinguished each time the 'medical procedure' of abortion is carried out.

What was alive and full of potential is now dead.

This is not medicine.

There are simple scientific, medical tests which can demonstrate that the tiny developing human possesses life and is indeed human.

These are not religious arguments. The claim that they are such simply provides a convenient straw man for pro-death people to flail away at.

There really is no good excuse for taking the lives of innocent little human children.

No excuse.

                                                                               -Bob Larimer