Here's my response to the lengthy reply by Georgiana Preskar. I'll extend the final word to her, even though it's our blog. In other words, after this I'm done and she can reply if she wishes.
Ms. Preskar writes:
Thank you for your great review of my comments about your review of Seeds of Deception:Planting Destruction of America's Children They were honest and I certainly did not take them as a put down in any way. In fact I am enjoying my interactions with people on my Book. I will respond to your comments.
Hoorah!
You mentioned the circle as being out of place in my explanation of the tools used in the Marxist Dialectic. I agree that the circle is used in many settings. Teaching religious education, I used it myself. We use it now in Bible Study. It is useful in bonding people, but it is with people who hold the same beliefs.
Actually, in the program I teach in, the whole goal is to challenge student's beliefs so that they either discard them or reinforce them. It's called critical thinking, and it's what we've been doing here. Now, that may not be the purpose of SEED's circle, but it does mean that you are unjustified in extending the criticism to circles in general, as you seem to in your book.
The SEED circle is used to include and exclude in order to change people's minds and win them over to their belief system. LOVE is the motivating force for changing SEED attendees from traditional values to SEED values of moral relativism. The group wins over the person to their side. This is far different than using it to bond people of similar beliefs.
To play devil's advocate, maybe their old beliefs were false ones. Wouldn't an evangelical Christian try to engage a non-Christian in the same sort of dialogue to convince them of the truth of Christianity? Yes, I know it's relativism, but aren't they still persuading people of the truth of relativism (no, I don't think that statement is incoherent).
The pagan circle has very special rituals connected to it accompanied by spells and other magic. This is far different than a circle simply to share our beliefs with each other or pray to God. It is used for evil in many of these instances.
As for you thinking the Marxist Dialectic is not part of our society, just take a look at our society and one cannot deny it. Everyday teens debate their parents, but now they win because they are using the dialectic to get their parents to compromise. Amazing that years ago parents simply said "NO" and did not have to give their children explanations. They were smart enough to know that when you get out of the "IS" and the "absolutes" that one can easily be compromised in decisions.
Maybe they "win" because parents are bad arguers, not because parent's "compromise." Maybe teens have better reasoning skills......maybe. Regardless, saying that everything proves that Marxist dialectic is occuring is the equivalent of saying nothing is. Why is parents saying "NO" without explanation even good? I HATED it (like any child) when parents didn't give reasons for their decisions. If parents make a decision, I think they're obligated (just like the rest of us!)to have sufficient reasons for making the decision. Parents, after all, are not infallible.
If you truly understood the Marxist Dialectic you would see how this is happening. There must be two opposing views. Each position is a thesis. The opposing view is the antithesis. In order for the final stage of synthesis to arrive, each side must put aside their differences and come up with a solution that is good for both.
Technically, this is Hegelian, not Marxist, but I digress......
Can you honestly say that political correctness is not the Marxist Dialectic? Can you honestly not see that setting up the oppression and victim status and teaching it in classrooms across America is not the Marxist Dialectic in action? Please I ask that you rethink your stand on this issue.
Well, actually, as I've emphasized, I'm in agreement with you on a number of points. I think PC is hogwash. I think that moral relativism is bankrupt. I'm against state sanctioned homosexual marriage. I simply want better reasons than what you've given in your book.
As for Rick Warren (people can read your comments), I think the claim rather funny. I know someone who works in Warren's office and he is certainly not "new age" like some of the authors you mentioned happen to think. Incidentally, Deceived on Purpose is simply laughable. His argument is essentially that Eugene Peterson translates "in earth and in heaven" as "above and below," which is actually a new age term. It also just so happens that in 1st century Jewish/Hellenistic cosmology, the Heavens were "above" and the earth "below." I'm no fan of the Message, but it will take much more than ONE COINCEDENTAL PARALLEL to convince me that Peterson is secretly a new-age guru. I'll point out he only has ONE TEXT that he mentions.
It was remarkable that once again they did not focus on the Massachusetts Scandal or pedophilia or the horrors of teachers being trained to go back to the classroom with anti-American and pro-homosexual ideas. Instead I realized they would have defended Rick to the death. It only backed further my theory of brainwashing for these people were in Stage 4 of Mind Control, Chapter 9 in my Book.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. I followed your resources of the "Massachusets Scandal," and it turns out that none of them are from reputable news sources. The only reference I could find was here. This is the sort of rumor-mongering that wouldn't stand up in a court of law, nor is sufficient to actually persuade me that it happened or that you're right. Secondly, you've set it up so that anyone who disagrees with you is under "Mind Control"--is brainwashed. That's essentially what you accuse me of, when you claim that I'm "not able to understand." Do you see, Ms. Preskar, that the same charge could apply to you? You're position is utterly watertight--anyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed. This simply isn't an intellectual virtue.
The Message directly misquotes the Bible and interprets differently even the Our Father. Mr. Anderson, I will take the Lord's Word any day over The Message. I will listen to God, at the end of Revelations, as He told us not to reword His Words. I will also listen to Him about not signing covenants as Rick Warren has people do in his 40 Day Program.
Do you read it in Greek? In Hebrew? You know, God's word was written in Greek and Hebrew, and I actually won't stand to read it in anything besides this. That's why I don't read the Old Testament--I don't know Hebrew.
Peterson's Message is a paraphrase, a free translation. Your NIV or KJV, or NKJV or RSV is also a translation. See above for other complaints about claims about the Message.
We actually got the attention of the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings about this program and hopefully she will take some action. This is SERIOUS stuff and nothing to push aside. We are not only talking about a life filled with disease of mind, body and soul, but our children's eternity.
Hoorah.
You next said that my info was everywhere and nothing new. I must ask why did so many people write me and tell me they had NO idea it had gone so FAR? Many people who read the book had no idea about the Homosexual Manifesto, nor the Massachusetts Scandal, nor the murders of innocent children by homosexuals, nor the homosexuals involvement in Nazi Germany, nor the White Privilege information, nor the pedophilia info., nor the book list of GLSEN and especially the SEED material. In fact many did not even know there was a Humanist Manifesto or that WEAVE had taken on a liberal stand in Sacramento to teach our children homosexuality and white privilege.
Again, I would simply ask you to read a tad more closely. I said that there was no reason to discuss the "horrors of the homosexual lifestyle." Frankly, what you say is not new. I was unsurprised at what I read.
I did not mean to offend you by saying that I do not think you "got" the Book, but when you say things like mind control and brainwashing do not exist when it is right before your eyes, I can not think anything different.
Please try. It's not "right before my eyes" like you suggest. You can continue to call me blind, but I might continue to call you paranoid. What would be the point? If you give me the benefit of the doubt, then we can discuss together whether the instances you identify ARE ACTUALLY instances of brainwashing--so far, I'm just not convinced. But if you simply call me "blind" and keep shouting at me, we'll never go forward.
And now, I am done. I would publicly invite Ms. Preskar to respond in the comments,but then Mere-Orthodoxy will move on. There is new ground to be explored and new ideas to discuss. This conversation has been illuminating for me, but now it must end.