“Those People” Need Christ Too

by G C Forsman

Jesus, friend of sinners, we have strayed so far away
We cut down people in your name but the sword was never ours to swing
Jesus, friend of sinners, the truth’s become so hard to see
The world is on their way to You but they’re tripping over me
Always looking around but never looking up I’m so double minded
A plank eyed saint with dirty hands and a heart divided

Oh Jesus, friend of sinners
Open our eyes to the world at the end of our pointing fingers
Let our hearts be led by mercy
Help us reach with open hearts and open doors
Oh Jesus, friend of sinners, break our hearts for what breaks your

 ~ Casting Crowns

As Christians, we are doing an absolutely horrible job of sharing Christ with with world. I have thought this for some time now, and a recent post (An Open Rebuke… Er… Letter to the Western Church) by my friend Daniel M. Klem got me to thinking.

Certainly there are great people that God is using to make a difference, but what about each and every one of us who claim to be Christians?  Are we doing our part? How many people have you spoken with about Christ lately? How many Gay people have you convinced that Christians do not hate them? How many times have you crossed the racial lines to show the love of Christ? Do your actions show others that Christ really does make a difference in your life? Do your actions make others want what you have, or do they drive people further from Christ?

Paula White said, “God doesn’t focus on your current state, He speaks to you from your future! He knows your potential!” Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we saw the potential in each other instead of everything that’s wrong with a person. Maybe if we spent less time talking about people, and more time praying for them things could change.

Make an effort to love others through Christ as they are,
and leave it up to God to transform their lives!
~ Paula White

Zimmerman Trial: Reality?

by G C Forsman

Now that everyone has had a night to sleep on it, let us take a realistic look at the Zimmerman trial.

In recent history, there have been a few trials that have captured the country’s attention and caused division among the American people. OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and now George Zimmerman are prime examples.

The days of news and information are long gone, Walter Cronkite must be appalled by what is happening in the media. Today’s newscasts are News Entertainment Shows, with the emphasis on entertainment. Have you stopped to think about why there is so much unrest about what happens in the courts?  Let’s take a little journey, keep an open mind, we can figure this out.

OJ Simpson was crucified by media and others.  He was tried and convicted before the trial even started.  Casey Anthony was declared the most horrible woman in history, and George Zimmerman was branded a racist.  Was their portrayal accurate, were they deserving of  the infamous notoriety? News media filled our heads with so-called facts about what happened, when in reality their comments were based on pure conjecture unclouded by actual facts.

As these trial began, we thought we knew what the outcome would be. None of the presupposed outcomes were delivered. The actual facts delivered in the courtrooms did not match the media hype.

Now let’s look a bit deeper into the Zimmerman case. This was a horrible tragedy, a young man’s life was ended before it ever got started. According to the media, Martin was an innocent youth walking home from the store.  According to Zimmerman, Martin was entirely to blame for the situation. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

The media built a story that Martin was a good boy and the victim of racism. Information that came out in other markets claimed that Martin was a troubled youth on drugs, involved in a jewelry store robbery and the break in and robbery of a local home. In actuality, it is possible that both of these played a role in this situation? Is it possible that Zimmerman had racist issues despite having white, hispanic, and black heritage? Is it possible that Martin was acting suspiciously, and possibly known in the neighborhood as a young wanna-be gangster?

The real question in the Zimmerman case is about the stand your ground law. Does a person have the right to protect themselves and use whatever force they deem necessary to provide that protection? Is it possible to see into a person’s mind to determine whether or not they believed their life was in danger? Should the law be changed or abolished?

We all need to take a step back, stop attempting to make everything about race, and look at reality. In a recent poll on television, the “news entertainment world” has deemed that racism is once again growing in our country and that division along racial lines is worse now than it has been in quite a few years. Why is that? Who or what is driving people on all sides to foster hatred for each other?

God has been being systematically removed from our society in earnest since the 1960s. Without faith, there is no hope. And without hope, people wallow in the pool of darkness that has become our society unable to see good in anything or anyone. The morality of our society is unraveling at an unprecedented pace and instead of placing the blame where it belongs (on ourselves for allowing the moral decay of our nation) we blame everyone else. We refuse to take responsibility for our actions, and seek any reason we can conjure up to point at someone else because we could not have possibly been so stupid or morally inept to have caused any of this mess ourselves. Search for God while He may be found, turn from the wickedness, and begin anew. Allow God to show you the love and peace your life should have, and allow Him to use you to show that love and peace to someone else. Love, peace, and morality will begin to grow exponentially, and our society will begin to turn around.

Paula Deen: What is the Truth?

by G C Forsman

It seems nearly everyone is talking about Paula Deen.  A good friend encouraged me to read both a summary of charges against her, and Ms. Deen’s Deposition. After that, we had a healthy discussion on the topic.  I thought you might be interested in what I found.

Here is a summary of charges:

Paula Deen, while planning her brother’s wedding in 2007, was asked what look the wedding should have. She replied, “I want a true southern plantation-style wedding.” When asked what type of uniforms the servers should wear, Paula stated, “well what I would really like is a bunch of little n*ggers to wear long-sleeve white shirts, black shorts and black bow ties, you know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around;

Black staff had to use the back entrance to enter and leave restaurant;

Black staff could only use one bathroom;

Black staff couldn’t work the front of the restaurants;

Brother Bubba stated his wishes: “ I wish I could put all those n*ggers in the kitchen on a boat to Africa”;

Bubba asked a black driver and security guard “don’t you wish you could rub all the black off you and be like me? You just look dirty; I bet you wish you could.” ;

Bubba on President Obama: they should send him to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, so he could n*gger-rig it;

Bubba shook a black employee and said” F your civil rights…you work for me and my sister Paula Deen;

The manager of the Lady & Sons restaurant threatened to fire all the ‘Monkeys’ in the kitchen. When Paula found out…she slapped him on the wrist and suggested that the employee visit her mansion so he felt special and could be massaged.

And you can read Paula’s deposition here.

I found it interesting that the woman who brought the charges is white. I, as many others, assumed it was a woman of color, and a disgruntled employee. This manager employee (from Bubba’s restaurant) claims to have witnessed the abuse for years, thinking that one of the employees directly involved would say something.  But then she realized that these employees were enduring the abuse in order to feed their families.  Finally reaching her limit, she blew the whistle.

Between the charges, and the deposition, it seems Ms. Deen was interested in duplicating an experience she had at a restaurant (where middle aged black servers were used, dressed in black pants, white dinner jackets, and bow ties) for her brother’s wedding. The rest of the charges are alleged against her brother and a restaurant manager in her employ.  I was surprised to discover (via the EEOC) that an employer can treat their employees as horrible as they want, as long as they treat everyone the same.

Let’s be realistic. Although it should not be, we all know there are many people out there who use racial and other slurs. I do not think there are many people who can honestly say that they have never said something stupid in their lives. If someone wants to discontinue supporting Paula, they are well within their rights to do so. Everyone, on both sides of the issue, is being terribly sensitive. Free speech gives us the right to say any dumb thing we want. The question is “Should a person’s life (white, black, gay or whatever) be destroyed because of something stupid they said?” If that’s the case, I think most of us would be in ruins. As individuals, we can stop buying products from people if we don’t like them, but the PC police shouldn’t ruin a person’s life.

The other question is “Did Paula Deen know of the alleged incidents and ignore them, or was she unaware?” It does seem that Ms. Deen trusted her brother much more than she should have. If employees, and a consulting company, thought Bubba was the problem at the restaurant, and the restaurant was losing money, why didn’t she do something?  I understand wanting to trust and support your sibling, but would not it help him more if the problems could be resolved and the restaurant began to turn a profit?

Everyone is responsible for their words and actions.  Does not Ms. Deen have the responsibility to know what is going on in her restaurants, and take appropriate actions?  Do we believe that she knew and did nothing?  Is it possible that she really did not know because of her busy schedule? Is the politically correct movement out of control? So where does that leave us? It seems apparent that Bubba has issues. Is Paula deserving of all the destruction coming her way? Should people be crucified over words spoken? Many would contend that Paula knew and did nothing. There are also those who believe her apology was not sincere. How much responsibility does the media have in this situation? Was Paula standing by her brother, or covering for him? Being from Georgia, should Paula been more sensitive to the racial issue? Did Paula both know about and perpetuate the environment of racist hostility and sexual harassment?

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I believe there is good in everyone. Since this is a civil suit, it seems that it is Paula’s word against the word of her accuser.

Wealth is measured in many ways. Did Paula allow money to become her measure of wealth and forget to store her treasures up in Heaven? One thing is certain, this will play out in the public eye. It is my sincere hope, however this plays out, that everyone will learn something about loving their neighbors.

Al, Jesse, are you paying attention?

In this follow-up to my post Hey Al, Jesse, are you happy now? my friend Daniel begins to address the greater issue at hand behind the men. Keep watching, Daniel has another piece planned on this topic.

a simple man of God

This last week a friend of mine blogged about some of the silliness surrounding the Trayvon Martin killing, and I re-blogged it over here. Today, I look into it further.

An unfriendly man pursues selfish ends; he defies all sound judgment.

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
Proverbs 18:1-2

I often wonder if men such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton knew they would become such media lightning rods when they began public speaking. I like giving the benefit of the doubt that they truly began as individuals seeking equality and peace.

However, it would appear that, as it is said, “power corrupts.”

These are men who seem to enjoy the spotlight more than true justice to the point that they say some truly foolish things.

These are men who seem to enjoy saying what they think both before and after they…

View original post 262 more words

Needed: A Marxist-Style Analysis to Understand and Combat the Extreme Left’s Hegemony

by Barry Rubin

Ironically, those opposing the current hegemonic ideas and political forces in the United States and Europe must develop a Marxist-style analysis of what has happened. To call the current dominant ideas and political currents socialist, Marxist, Communist, leftist, progressive, or liberal is not meaningful and conceals more than it reveals. The movement must be understood on its own terms in order to understand it and see how it differs from its predecessors.

The problem of revolutionary movements has been to find a group to be the motive force in fundamentally transforming society. Next, they must analyze which groups can be made into allies and which must be defeated.

The Marxist Analysis of the Social Battle

Marx and his followers identified the industrial working class as that revolutionary force. Here’s how the idea appears in the 1848 Communist Manifesto:

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

Marxists posited that the workers’ condition would worsen and that no reform could improve their situation, forcing them to become revolutionaries. Their main ally would be the lower middle class, wiped out by big business and new technology:

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat …

In contrast, who are the revolution’s enemies? Capitalists, clergy, and those elements that benefit from capitalism. And along with them:

The “dangerous class,” [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

Note that in many ways the post-Marxist left reverses this analysis. The lumpenproletariat becomes its ally along with those — many of them prosperous — who benefit from the government’s management of capitalism. In contrast, Marx’s description of the revolutionary forces sounds more like a description of Tea Party members.

Why Marxism Failed

This is a complex subject, but given limited time here are some key points:

– Capitalism didn’t decline but advanced, raising living standards across the board. So Marx was wrong about capitalism. Rather than a generalized misery (think of London during the second half of the nineteenth century), the “victims” today are a small minority, 10 to 20 percent, who have been left behind. And even these people receive welfare and other benefits beyond the wildest dreams of the poor in every other country and every historical era in the world.

– The working class prospered, preferring material betterment rather than a transformation of society. So Marx was wrong about the proletariat, especially in the United States. What’s important to remember is not that this group struggled to improve its life and working conditions but that it succeeded.

– This adjustment of society to solve these problems was due to many forces. One was improved technology and methods of organization, created by the capitalist system. Another was reforms, usually brought by liberal and social democratic parties and the institution of trade unions.

– The workers were responsive — at the time more than the elites — to the appeals of religion, patriotism, and traditional culture.

– Communist regimes failed miserably.

– Minority groups and women improved their status often — in contrast to Marx’s conception — with massive support from the society as a whole. Dramatic changes took place in relatively short periods. When Michelle Obama said she was ashamed of her country, she blotted out everything from the Civil War to federal support for the civil rights movement to huge changes of attitudes on the part of Americans. Note that an aim of the post-Marxist left is to erase all of this good will and progress in order to stir up grievances and hatred.

The Post-Marxist Left’s New Analysis

Gradually, Communists understood that things weren’t developing as predicted. There were many attempts to adjust to this unpredicted reality, ranging from Vladimir Lenin’s theory of imperialism through such thinkers as Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukacs, the Frankfurt School; Third World-oriented interpretations like that of Andre Gunder Frank (whose book Hugo Chavez gave to Obama); Saul Alinsky; and the 1960s New Left. One of the most important New Left strategists from the 1960s, Carl Davidson, headed the Progressives for Obama group in the 2008 election. Bill Ayers pioneered using education for indoctrination.

The new approach argued that the proletariat and lower middle class had largely “sold out” and was now the enemy, clinging to guns, religion, and hatred of those different from themselves. This treason was related to racist and imperialist privilege. Swollen with imperialist and “white-skin” privilege, the United States was the cancer of the world. America was evil and Americans were the enemy, a stance quite different from that of earlier left movements.

So what was the revolutionary strategy to be? The most important basic principle is that the left must, in effect, wear a burqa, concealing its true nature and goals, pretending to be liberal or — stealing an old liberal reformist term also used by the Communists — progressive. This is purely opportunistic, a descendant of the 1940s Communist Party slogan claiming that “Communism is twentieth-century Americanism.” In the current incarnation, left-wing radicalism is said to be twenty-first century liberalism. Millions of Americans accept these ideas with no idea of their origin or goals.

Second, rather than struggling to weaken the capitalist state to overthrow it, the strategy was to work “within the system” to seize control of the state apparatus in order to transform the society. Thus, the state is to be strengthened as a tool for transforming society rather than defeated.
Such a tactic, called “entryism,” is by no means new. Historically, however, Communist forces ruined the effect by turning captured organizations into “front” organizations that too obviously followed the party line. They also lacked sufficient cadre to take over major institutions, and faced strong, conscious opposition. Now, however, the New New Left had lots of cadre, money, and flexibility while the opposition was disorganized and unaware of what was happening. Victory was astonishingly easy.

Third, structural changes in capitalism also indicated the best strategy. These included a “new working class” of experts and technicians along with the tilt toward managerial power over ownership best foreseen by James Burnham. These people, along with the children of the wealthy and capitalist, could be recruited to support the movement through educational indoctrination and perceived self-interest. Believing in efficient, “intelligent” management they would be inclined to think that the government would be the best agency to run things rather than the market.

Ironically, as a result, the radical left was better financed than its conservative opponents for the first time in Western history. The well intentioned could be manipulated by appealing to their concern for the environment and the poor. Whole sectors of society could be won over by appeals to self-interest through government payments.

Fourth, the cultural-intellectual battle was even more important than economic appeals. A high priority was put on seizing control of universities, schools, the news media, publishing, and the entertainment industry. They would be used to indoctrinate people with the movement’s ideas. As Marx wrote:

The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated.

In other words, the new ideology argued for the abandonment of the Enlightenment and the principles of the American Founders: open debate, fairness, and professional ethics. It argued that these notions were phony means of maintaining capitalist hegemony. Since there was no such thing as objective truth and everyone was biased, there’s nothing wrong with lying and silencing dissent to serve the revolution. A journalist can be proud to slant his article; a professor pursues the greater good by twisting reality. The educator should be indoctrinated and become, in turn, the indoctrinator of others.
These efforts were not a coordinated conspiracy. Indeed, one of the advantages of the “post-Communist” or “New New Left” is precisely this lack of centralization. The Leninist model — a single disciplined party, an idealized Communist motherland — proved to be major handicaps. Having a party or party line would raise suspicions and opposition. Having an idealized society — as the USSR had been — was counterproductive for the left when that society was shown to be horrible and their loyalties shown to be against America. The battle was thus carried out by like-minded cadre and loose networks. Even to argue that such a movement and ideology existed — as this article does — is portrayed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

At the same time, though, don’t doubt that these ideas, tactics, and strategies were explicitly discussed within the movement. There is massive literature on this rarely used by critics. When someone does exploit the evidence to show what has been going on — as with Stanley Kurtz’s book on Obama, Radical in Chief — the result is remarkably persuasive. And that is precisely why the camouflaged revolutionaries who control the means of idea and information production, who pretend they are just plain liberals, must ignore or ridicule such explanations.

The strategy was greatly assisted by another factor — a new definition of the revolutionary forces. The proletariat was replaced by elements of the new technological-intellectual-managerial elites. Since these people had high levels of education, power, and money, they were far more empowered than the proletariat had been.

Much of this sector was linked to the state. Increasing government spending could be portrayed as something that would benefit “everyone” with “free stuff.” In fact, such a policy was in the class interests of those advocating it, including the recipients of government grants, for welfare or other purposes, and employees of the state. Crony capitalism benefited those big companies that went along with the program (General Motors, General Electric, “green energy” scams). See cartoon, above.

Much of the alliance would be built on cultural-intellectual lines. As Bill Ayers and his colleagues posited in the early 1970s, the key was to use race and gender; Third World peoples (including illegal immigrants and Muslims); gay movements, and other “out-groups,” including a lumpenproletariat dependent on government payments. Even the planet Earth itself was co-opted into this coalition through global warming.
This provided the movement with the cultural-intellectual equivalent of nuclear weapons: any critic could be accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. Those in the intelligentsia and professional classes who would laugh at being called “enemies of the working class” cringe and surrender at the hint of being called one of these new “-isms.”

Despite the fact that capitalism has met past “group” grievances, new complaints are continually manufactured to ensure that opportunity, past reforms, and capitalist productivity will never get credit for solving problems. Just as the Stalinist USSR had to create counterrevolutionary agents, the New New Left must create accusations of racism, etc. to argue that American or Western or capitalist society can never offer justice.

Equally important, the left could not compete on complaining about low living standards since Western — and especially American — capitalism had achieved tremendous gains that enriched the average working people. It therefore switched to the argument of inequality: the injustice was not poverty as such but difference. Marx argued that the workers would never be able to purchase goods, say — in today’s context — automobiles, television sets, or homes.

Obama complains that not everyone has the same quality goods. The tactic, then, is not nationalization of the means of production — which remain in private hands — but redistribution of wealth. This may be more economically damaging than a socialist economy, since successful capitalism is simultaneously left in place and sabotaged.

Historically, radical Marxists defined the capitalist state as bad. Since it could never be used to do what they wanted, it must be subverted. In contrast, the New New Left views the capitalist state, if they control it, as the best base for furthering their agenda. That is why the former were revolutionaries while the latter practice what Obama called “fundamental transformation.” A “revolution” so subtle they can persuade millions of people that it isn’t even happening.

An icing of populism was thrown over the whole movement; the attempt to sell the slogan of the “99 percent versus the one percent” is a prime example of that tactic. One could easily argue that the self-conscious revolutionary cadre are the “one percent.” That “one percent” took over leadership of the approximately 25 percent of the population that is non-radical liberal, adding on various constituencies through material benefit or misdirection (those who want to help the poor, fight racism, etc.) until a majority is achieved in elections.

Thus, “false consciousness,” traditionally a tool that revolutionaries thought benefited their enemies, is now turned into an asset by those who have mastered the art of public relations and all of the modern methods of manipulation. One might call this system the mass production of false consciousness. That is why the New New Left seized control of these instruments, leveraging them into political control. Historic Marxism was the exact opposite, getting into control of the means of material production to seize state power.

All that was needed is a leader who embodies those characteristics. In that sense, Obama is not so much of a Manchurian candidate but a Manichean candidate, that is someone who seems to embody all that is “good” (young, black, hip, handsome, intellectual, compassionate, modern, urban and urbane, etc.) and able to conceal the true import of the movement and its goals. What’s important is not where Obama was born but where the ideas he espouses were born.

Finally, since the existing society is evil and rotten, those warring against Western democratic states were external allies. And in the early twenty-first century that means predominantly revolutionary Islamists, along with some radical nationalists (notably, for example, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez).

Any attempt to counter this movement, its ideology, and its control of key institutions must begin with a proper understanding of the enemy. Moreover, it should be emphasized that those people who know most precisely that the above analysis is true are those who are quickest to ridicule it.

Yet to portray what is happening now as merely a typical example of past liberalism misses the point and plays completely into the radical forces’ hands. And real liberals face precisely the same task as their ancestors, particularly in the 1930s-1960s era: how to oppose the far left that seeks to corrupt their ideas, and to throw these radicals out of controlling their institutions. This task has not even begun.

One weakness of the radical movement, however, is clear. The old revolutionaries created a new regime that ensured their hold on power. Failures, such as economic decline, need not worry them because they could repress any dissent and did not need to win fair elections. The New New Left, however, is trying to run an existing capitalist society in which its misfit policies inevitably produce failure and even disaster. What they are doing is somewhat akin to trying to get your computer to boot up by hitting it with a club. There are also big holes in its control over information, allowing reality to shine through.

Thus, the failure of their program will be increasingly obvious and sooner or later they will be voted out of power. There is a big difference, however, between “sooner,” when the damage might be reversed, and “later,” when things have gone too far, too many people bought off or indoctrinated, and too much debt accumulated.

Retrieved from:  http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/04/10/needed-a-marxist-style-analysis-to-understand-and-combat-the-extreme-lefts-hegemony/?singlepage=true

Hey Al, Jesse, are you happy now?

By G. C. Forsman

We all became witnesses to the unfolding travesty after the tragic death of Trayvon Martin.  The usual suspects led the way as the media circus ensued.   Division and racial hatred were preached by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the New Black Panther Party.  What had started as a plea for justice from a grieving family, became a scream for vengeance under the direction of those who seek to divide us- those who want us to fight among ourselves so we don’t notice what they’re really doing.  Even the President failed to call for cooler heads to prevail, and added fuel to the fire.

News reports have been flooded with examples of hatred being put into action.  In Illinois, a 78 year old white man was beaten and robbed by a group of black youths while they stated “this is for Trayvon.”  A white visitor to Baltimore was beaten, robbed and stripped of everything (including clothes) by several blacks while groups of black witnesses looked on and laughed.  In Phoenix, a Hispanic man was shot dead during a minor altercation at a fast food drive through with a black man.

So my question remains;  Al, Jesse, are you happy now?  Martin Luther King Jr. would be ashamed of what you have made of his wonderful civil rights movement.  Remember ~ “I have a dream that one day a man will be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.”  Instead of love and support for the grieving family, you have provided a new movement where people are judged by the color of their skin.  The content of your character has been revealed, and it is not good.

What America’s Youth Can Learn from Booker T. Washington

By 

Born in a slave hut April 5, 1856, was Booker T. Washington. In dire poverty after the Civil War, he moved to West Virginia to work in a salt furnace and coal mine. At age 16 he walked 500 miles to attend Hampton Institute in Virginia and later Wayland Baptist Seminary in Washington, DC. In his book, Up From Slavery (1901), Washington wrote:

“Perhaps the most valuable thing that I got out of my second year at the Hampton Institute was an understanding of the use and value of the Bible. Miss Nathalie Lord, one of the teachers, from Portland, Maine, taught me how to use and love the Bible…”

“I learned to love to read the Bible, not only for the spiritual help which it gives, but on account of it as literature. The lessons taught me in this respect took such a hold upon me that at the present time, when I am at home, no matter how busy I am, I always make it a rule to read a chapter or a portion of a chapter in the morning, before beginning the work of the day. Whatever ability I may have as a public speaker I owe in a measure to Miss Lord.”

In 1895, Washington gave an historic speech at the Atlanta Exposition, of which he wrote:

“The afternoon papers had forecasts of the next days’ proceedings in flaring headlines… I did not sleep much that night…The next morning… I also kneeled down and asked God’s blessing… I make it a rule never to go before an audience … without asking the blessing of God upon what I want to say.”

Washington taught in West Virginia until he founded Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. In the spring of 1896, Washington wrote to George W. Carver, who had just received his Masters Degree from Iowa State Agricultural Institute:

“Tuskegee Institute seeks to provide education — a means for survival to those who attend. Our students are poor, often starving. They travel miles of torn roads, across years of poverty. We teach them to read and write, but words cannot fill stomachs. They need to learn how to plant and harvest crops… I cannot offer you money, position or fame. The first two you have. The last, from the place you now occupy, you will no doubt achieve. These things I now ask you to give up. I offer you in their place-work-hard, hard work-the challenge of bringing people from degradation, poverty and waste to full manhood.”

Washington wrote:

“While a great deal of stress is laid upon the industrial side of the work at Tuskegee, we do not neglect or overlook in any degree the religious and spiritual side. The school is strictly undenominational, but it is thoroughly Christian, and the spiritual training of the students is not neglected. Our preaching service, prayer-meetings, Sunday-school, Christian Endeavour Society, Young Men’s Christian Association, and various missionary organizations, testify to this.”

Starting with 33 students, by the time Washington died, Tuskegee Institute had grown to 1,500 students and a faculty of 200 teaching 38 trades.

“If no other consideration had convinced me of the value of the Christian life, the Christlike work which the Church of all denominations in America has done during the last 35 years for the elevation of the black man would have made me a Christian. . . . As a rule a person should get into the habit of reading his Bible. You never read in history of any great man whose influence has been lasting, who has not been a reader of the Bible.”

On May 24, 1900, Washington delivered “The Place of the Bible in the Uplifting of the Negro Race,” at Memorial Hall in Columbus, Ohio:

“The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it… No man can read the Bible and be lazy.”

Washington became friends with the leading men of his day, including John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Presidents William Howard Taft and Calvin Coolidge, and was received by the Queen of England in Windsor Castle.

He was the first African American to have his image on a U.S. postage stamp, 1940, a U.S. Coin, 1946, and was the first African American elected to the Hall of Fame, 1945. Washington declared:

“In the sight of God there is no color line, and we want to cultivate a spirit that will make us forget that there is such a line anyway. I shall allow no man to belittle my soul by making me hate him.”

Retrieved from: http://godfatherpolitics.com/4559/what-young-blacks-and-whites-can-learn-from-booker-t-washington-who-was-born-on-this-day-156-years-ago/