Now that Mitt Romney has publically come out against nationalized, collective curriculum, also known as Common Core, let’s figure out why it matters. What’s so bad about nationalized education, or collectivism generally?
Is the issue as simple as: “Mitt’s for liberty” and “Obama’s for forced collectivism”? —Yes.
For those of us who are new to learning our civic duty, who didn’t notice that Obama’s policies– from medical care to school calorie counting to U.N. sustainability to common core– each push socialism/communism, here are some links you can read (later) showing that Obama is a lifelong socialist-marxist-communist.
So what if Obama’s a socialist or a marxist or a communist?
Well, socialism, Marxism and Communism ask us to give up the Constitution, for forced collectivism.
That’s why the FBI keeps files on communists; communism is opposed to everything the U.S. Constitution is about. It’s about overthrowing the Constitution and the free way of life for a collectivist philosophy that eliminates local control and individual control. One of its main tools is collective education: aka common core.
David O. McKay said, “Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government, and it would be necessary to destroy our government before Communism could be set up in the United States. . . .[Communism] even reaches its hand into the sanctity of the family circle itself, disrupting the normal relationship of parent and child, all in a manner unknown and unsanctioned under the Constitutional guarantees…”
For readers who like the Book of Mormon, there’s a chapter in Sterling Allen’s book, “The Vision of All,” that shows how Karl Marx, the father of communism/socialism, is akin to Korihor, the anti-Christ in the Book of Mormon. Full text here: http://www.greaterthings.com/Books/Vision/Temporal/Ch-6_Past_2nd-Gath/Communism_birth.htm
Here are excerpts:
“…One of the things Karl Marx is known for is his closing statement in the Communist Manifesto:
“…Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”
This is comparable to Korihor’s statement: “I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads….” (Alma 30:23.)
Marx said “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”(1) He identified essentially two great classes of people that seem always to emerge: the bourgeoisie, or the oppressors, and the proletarians, or the oppressed.(2)
Korihor hinted at a similar grouping when he accused the religious leadership: “…Ye keep [this people] down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands….” (Alma 30:27.)
Marx also claimed that the proletariat are deprived of that which they have worked for, and that the capitalists unjustly milk the worker for profit.(3) Compare this with Korihor’s assertion that the supposedly oppressed people “durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires.” (Alma 30:28.)
Korihor’s above statements also ring familiar with Marx’s philosophy that religion is merely “the opium of the people.”(4) Marx claimed that religion was merely a man-made tool used for exploitation.(5)
Both Korihor and Karl Marx bluntly renounced belief in Christ, reducing it to “a foolish and a vain hope.” (Alma 30:13.) Bruno Bauer, a close associate of Marx, reflected Marx’s sentiments, calling the Gospels forgeries and saying that Jesus had never existed, and therefore Christianity was a fraud.(6)
Korihor labeled the prophecies “foolish traditions” and said that the people’s religious beliefs were “the effect of a frenzied mind” which lead them “away into a belief of things which are not so.” (Alma 30:14,16.)
Both Korihor and Marx’s reasoning was founded on certain false premises–perhaps because “the things of the Spirit…are foolishness” unto the natural man, for “they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14.) This is made quite clear in the Nephites’ record. There, Alma asked Korihor, “…Believest thou that we deceive this people [with `oppressive’ religion], that causes such joy in their hearts?” (Alma 30:35.)
…Both Korihor and Marx taught that “when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.” (Alma 30:18.)(8) Furthermore, Marx felt that “self-preservation is the supreme instinct in man, and therefore his whole pattern of human conduct must [be] governed by an attempt to wrest the necessities of life from nature.”(9) This resembles Korihor’s philosophy that “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength.” (Alma 30:17.)
…Today, with all the Communist system’s cosmetic make-overs, many have been inclined to believe that it is not the dangerous beast it used to be. The sheep’s clothing has become so innocent-looking today that few are repulsed by it. The question we might ask ourselves, though, in this day of great paradoxes is how much has the hiding wolf underneath changed?(13) We know that when Karl Marx, the celebrated father of Communism, was asked what his objective in life was, he professed, “To dethrone God…!”(14)
Similarly, when the Nephite account introduced Korihor, it condensed his entire deceitful message into this one statement: “There should be no Christ.” (Alma 30:12.) Perhaps this is what prompted the official Church statement: “The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed! We consider it the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work among men that exists on the face of the earth!”(15)
The Communist philosophy and the so-called improvements upon it are not restricted to Communist countries. Its abundant disciples may be found in many nations. Usually they are not considered Communists. Preferable titles seem to be: Marxist, socialist, leftist, and humanists–to name a few. Some of the most important work done for the Communist cause is accomplished by these non-Communist hands. Apparently, the main reason they cling to the Marxist line or variations thereof is that its teachings, like those of Korihor’s, are “pleasing unto the carnal mind.” (Alma 30:53.) Nephi warned us, “…Wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God….” (2 Ne. 28:26.)
… Korihor, like many who embrace the leftist line, also “verily believed that [his teachings] were true; and for this cause [he] withstood the truth….” (Alma 30:53.)”
–end of excerpt–
People who embrace socialist philosophies often are sincere and passionate in their beliefs, yet they have been fooled; they believe the reforms are good and helpful, but they aren’t.
–How can they be good, when they limit liberty and individual freedom?