aldenswan.com

From the Telegraph.co.uk:

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Communist leader of the Soviet Union, has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.

Accompanied by his daughter Irina, Mr Gorbachev spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.

His arrival in Assisi was described as “spiritual perestroika” by La Stampa, the Italian newspaper.

“St Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ,” said Mr Gorbachev. “His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life,” he added.

Mr Gorbachev’s surprise visit confirmed decades of rumours that, although he was forced to publicly pronounce himself an atheist, he was in fact a Christian, and casts a meeting with Pope John Paul II in 1989 in a new light.

The Telegraph, however, got nearly everything wrong about St. Francis, but that’s beside the point. According to the Times Online, Putin has joined the Orthodox Church as well:

Mr Gorbachev has long acknowledged that he was influenced by his grandmother, an Orthodox believer and is a a regular participant in peace conferences in the Umbrian town where St Francis is buried. Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, has also turned to Orthodox Christianity and wears a cross round his neck.

People laughed at Ronald Reagan when he had voiced suspicions that Gorbachev was a “closet believer.” Well, it seems that Reagan was right once again. It’s not clear exactly when Gorbachev made a full conversion to Christianity, but it appears that there were at least seeds going back to his childhood, and his meeting with the Pope can now possibly be looked at in a new light.

What impact will this have on Russia? It’s hard to say. I’m not an expert (or even a novice) at Russian culture, but I suspect that there are many Russians who - while maintaining the official atheism - had some leanings toward Christianity who may at least consider Gorbachev’s admission of faith as reason to reconsider.

It’s good news for Gorbachev, obviously, and can only help bolster the church in Russia.

For those of you interested in the recent California Appellate Court ruling concerning homeschooling, here’s a response that a friend of a friend received to her e-mail to the Governor’s office:

From: governor@govmail.ca.gov < governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Date: Mar 10, 2008 5:42 PM
Subject: Re:Homeschooling
To: [deleted]

Thank you for contacting me about the recent Second District Court of Appeals ruling on home schooling.

Every California child deserves a quality education - but it is the parents’ right to decide what’s best for their children. Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education.

This ruling is outrageous and must be overturned by the courts. If the courts do not act to protect parents’ rights, then - as elected officials - we will.

Again, thank you for adding your voice to this important issue.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Technically, homeschooling is not legal in California. All homeschooling - and there is a lot of it - is done as home-study programs under either the public or a private school. However, a private school can exist merely as a record-keeping service for self-study programs. It’s a funky setup, but it’s worked okay. However, being that homeschooling is technically illegal, there is some potential for abuse and persecution from the State in it’s various forms (and it does happen, more often than it should).

Perhaps this ruling is a good thing, as it’s opened some eyes about the situation. It’s probably time that California establishes some real homeschooling legislation.

When I was young, I was taught that America was the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Bullshit. America might have been the land of the free, once; but (if it ever was) those days are long gone. That is, unless you redefine “freedom” as meaning freedom for those who happen to be in power, which has been the historical understanding of freedom.

I’m starting to think that very, very few people are really concerned about freedom as an ideal or even a general principle. Again, they may be “all about” freedom, but mainly, people are only concerned for their own freedom, with little concern for freedom across the board (especially if it infringes on their freedom). What makes this work is that many people are also wiling to trade real freedom for a sense of security (even if false) and irresponsibility. For some, a lack of responsibility is freedom: “freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” This tendency of sheep to be sheep and leaders to be fascists creates, for some, the ideal state of affairs, and works well for fundamentalist preachers as well as for politicians. Fascism, therefore, is alive and well, all over the place.

From the end of WW II into the seventies, we saw a major cultural shift take place as those really concerned with freedom for different sets of people than those in power, such as blacks, women, and even liberals (prior to this, even the liberals were conservative). It was a good thing, freedom for everyone. But, was it really freedom for everyone, or just others wanting to create new fascisms? I think it probably started well, but these kinds of things often turn into tools of the new wannabe fascists. I won’t mention any names.

Today, it seems we have a variety of fascisms fighting for control. We have, of course, the Homeland Security boys, who have been dismantling our personal freedoms in the name of security and patriotism. On the other hand, we have our education systems, which are under the control of another fascist regime, secularism. Certainly secularists were the oppressed of years ago, but what they’ve accomplished is not equality or intellectual freedom; no, they’ve now become the oppressors. As I understand it, this is the main point being made in Ben Stein’s new documentary, Expelled, which I won’t discuss any further here. While some may laugh this off as an absurd, extremist claim, I think it is impossible to examine the situation objectively and not conclude that there is a type of fascism at play; it’s certainly not “freedom.”

The latest strike in the war against freedom, this too involving an educational system, is this week’s California 2nd District Appellate Court ruling that parents do not have the right to teach their children at home. The Cal. Dept. of Education (with the obvious support of the teachers’ unions) has been fighting the rights of parents for years, under the general principle that “the state knows best.” Now, if this isn’t fascist thinking, I don’t know what is. Yes, I know that it is phrased “in the best interest of the child,” but seriously, if they really cared about the children, don’t you think the state would do a better job of educating the ones they have? We have the worst educated children of any industrialized nation, and homeschooling children are shown to outperform those in public schools. If you were concerned about the children, which side would you be on?

I don’t believe that the state is concerned about the children. I think their first concern is Federal funding - based on head counts - to keep the system alive, and their 2nd concern is placating the teachers’ union. It’s about power - in Sacramento as opposed to the local school boards - and money. I also suspect that it’s about indoctrination, as it seems more money is going into various indoctrination programs (no free-thinking allowed) than teaching kids to read.

You can call it fascism, or you can call it greed; but what it is, is another loss of personal freedom.