Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Students: It’s okay to kill toddlers

Published

on

If you’ve ever seen “Naked Gun 33 1/3,” you’ll remember the “Thelma and Louise-esque” spoof scene following “Jane’s” (Priscilla Presley’s) stun-gun takedown of an overly friendly, redneck trucker. Jane’s gal pal rushes to Jane’s aid and, grabbing her firmly by the shoulders in overly-dramatic style, attempts to quite literally shake some sense into the now murderous Jane. While Jane’s loyal friend diligently shakes Jane with melodramatic gusto, the darling Jane’s hairstyles keep magically changing with each firm jolt. It always makes me laugh. Watch:

Well, that very movie scene has been replaying in my mind for the past few minutes as I attempt to mentally digest the behemothic amount of deleterious imbecility I have just observed, courtesy of a University of Tennessee – Knoxville student. I’d like to get into my car, drive myself all the way to the other side of the state, find that young man, and then give him a good, hard shake by the shoulders until his hairstyles start changing a few times!

In an interview with Students for Life of America’s Appalachian Regional Coordinator, Brenna Lewis, the UT student, the stultus magna – “great fool” – announced his support for infanticide… for the infanticide of two-year-old children. Lord help us! There is trouble in Rocky Top! (Or, at the minimum, there’s yet another prime specimen proving himself fit to wear orange – that is, UT orange.) To be honest, as an aunt, this makes me a bit nervous, considering UT-Knoxville will be gaining my smart, hard-working, handsome and precious nephew this coming fall. Is apathy toward infanticide a standard part of the curriculum?  But, I digress…

Though alarming, this college student’s morbid apathy toward the murder of toddlers is not the real problem here. What should haunt every American in our beds at night – shaking us awake with night sweats and parched mouths – is this college student’s colossal, stupefying and credulous stupidity? I recognize the harshness of this statement: I am identifying a young man, a college student as ignorant. My statement is not sweet or nice.  Then again, a mindset that is accepting of the killing of children is not a sweet or nice mindset.  So, please, make no mistakes about my sincerity regarding this matter. Though harsh, I mean every single word.

Let’s examine why…

Evidence for Ignorance:

Stultus Magna’s argument in concurrence with infanticide appears, based on observation, to be a result of (a) his painfully obvious inability to exercise critical thinking or deductive reasoning, or to merely formulate cognizant, coherent assumptions and conclusions; and (b) his preoccupation with an erroneous understanding of “sentience.” It can also be said that this college student appears to be unaware of the various modes of communication that humans have employed for millennia; both verbal and nonverbal. Thus, in essence, this poor young man is essentially functioning as a highly literate moron; it is as if he were little more than a trained monkey banging together two brass symbols. A loyal pup, Stultus Magna simply follows the script of the academic bioethicists, the death educators, and the Malthusian euthanasia enthusiasts. Original thoughts are for the birds.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, online, has an excellent explanation of what it means to be sentient. After watching the video of this college student (below) and given the easily comprehensible concept of sentience (quoted below), we can confidently declare Stultus Magna to be ignorant regarding the term’s meaning; ignorant beyond a reasonable doubt.

“You may have guessed that sentient has something to do with the senses. The initial spelling sent- or sens- is often a giveaway for such a meaning. A sentient being is one who perceives and responds to sensations of whatever kind – sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell. Sentient ultimately comes from the Latin verb sentire, which means ‘to feel’ and is related to the noun sensus, meaning ‘feeling’ or ‘sense.’ A few related English words are sentiment and sentimental, which have to do with emotions, and sensual, which relates to more physical sensations.”

NOW WATCH:

If an infant is hungry, does he not feel that hunger? If so, is he not sentient? Will the hungry infant cry out to be fed? If the infant does cry out to be fed, is not this cry a form of communication?

If a toddler falls upon rough pavement, will she cry? If she cries, are not her cries a form of communication?

Do some young children, not yet verbal, attending day care not bite peers in frustration? Would this be an expression of nonverbal communication, as well as a clear indication of emotion?

Would not each example above clearly indicate sentience?

The Science:

The Child Development Institute’s 2017 chart, “Ages and Stages: Birth to 5 Years,” provides examples of typical behaviors observed in young children in several developmental categories (also referred to as domains): physical, linguistic, emotional, social. As stated on the chart, babies 2-3 months in age smile [at faces], and babies 4-6 months of age visibly “enjoy being cuddled.” At 7-9 months old, a child “protests separation from mother,” and “enjoys peek-a-boo.” Between the ages of 10months to 1 year, children will begin to show “fear of strangers,” and will respond to his name, wave goodbye, understand the meaning of “no,” and play Pat-A-Cake. At 18 months, those infamous temper tantrums begin. Combined, a clear progression of development emerges: the development of clearly sentient little people.

In my years of teaching, every child who passed through my preschool classroom knew the difference between a toddler and a tree, between a two-year-old and a plant – an ability that Stultus Magna, on video, declared himself to be without. Not once have I met a Kindergartener who believed toddlers were incapable of communication, regardless whether that communication was done in verbal or nonverbal fashion. Not a single precious first grader was foolish enough to consider toddlers or infants to be anything other than, as I put into the adult language of this subject, conscious persons, responsive to sensory input, persons capable of experiencing and communicating emotions. Kids get it! I’ll say that again- kids get it!

 Are we being untaught?

My Junior-Kindergarten students may not have been able to button their pants or tie their shoes, but every one of those awesome little kiddos was a thousand times more intelligent than this UT student. So, what’s the deal? How can a simple concept – the sentience of a human being, a concept so easily understood by children – prove so difficult for adults to comprehend? Is it perhaps possible that adults might be unlearning the obvious? Are we perhaps being taught, being instructed in the denial of our own senses? I believe the possibility should at least be considered.

Stultus Magna isn’t the only articulate, young, credulous college student to use sentience as an acceptable excuse for ending another’s life. The Young America’s Foundation (YAF) is a conservative college student organization that often hosts speakers at various college campuses. At a YAF question and answer session following his speech, conservative thinker Ben Shapiro was approached by a student who used sentience to justify abortion. The exchange is quite interesting in several ways: (a) it demonstrates how easy it is to disintegrate any argument which is in congruence with justifying the ending a life on the grounds of sentience(b) the video serves as evidence that young people are being instructed in intellectually weak, insubstantial theories and that educators are not providing the proper, academically necessary activity of weighing, examining, and deconstructing those theories; (c) the video is also chilling in its foreshadowing: as we sadly now see, thanks in part to Stultus Magna, sentience is now being used to justify the killing of post-birth humans. Watch:

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” 
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Collected Works

Being instructed in weak, insubstantial theories have very real consequences long term, as do misunderstanding of or changes to the meaning of words. The demonstrated elephantine, deleterious ignorance may be a luxury for Stultus Magna, a grown adult, but it is precisely this very willful idiocy and a baneful dose of toxic apathy that is dangerously raising the stakes for our society’s toddlers. Ignorance has raised the stakes to life or death. Accepting infanticide can only come from a hypnosis-like idiocy. Stultus Magna is a young man whose mind has been infected with relativism, as he has quite evidently been taught to deny and to second-guess what his own eyes can see. Stultus Magna may be one student, but, in our tragic reality, he in many, many students. He is a generation untaught.

The plight of Stultus Magna is unacceptable ignorance, life-changing ignorance, and, potentially, life-ending ignorance.  Think about that…

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of ThePaintingPastor.org, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. ed

    January 5, 2018 at 9:47 pm

    Well said.

    Amen !

    Kudos.

    Thank you for posting this.

    • Paige Rogers

      January 6, 2018 at 1:18 am

      Thank you, Ed!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Video: What is a Classical Liberal?

Published

on

By

A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.

In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.

OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?

Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.

The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?

Published

on

Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.


This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?

Published

on

By

Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.