A Brave New World

When it comes to politics, I usually find myself stressing ((I don’t necessarily mean distressing, but just stressing in general.)) over American issues.

Today I hang my head and grieve for our friends to the North, where in Quebec a 12 year old girl is able to have a judge overturn her father’s disciplinary grounding.

I’m halfway through the book Brave New World ((Disclosure: This is an affiliate link.)) by Aldous Huxley; in it, the concept of parentage is one for the history books. The state raises children, and the state controls them through pleasure. Rampant and experiential sexuality is encouraged as young as possible.

Today, seventy-six years later, a Canadian father is unable to discipline his preteen daughter for posting inappropriate pictures of herself on the Internet.

I hear a lot of people comparing certain things with 1984, but folks, I submit we’re heading fullspeed into a collision with a truly brave new world.

Hat tip: Dan Phillips

5 thoughts on “A Brave New World”

  1. Walt Dickinson

    Hey Rick, I thought you’d be interested in this…


    The House of Reps. is soon to be voting on House Concurrent Resolution 362, which is a piece of legislation practically aimed to start a war with Iran. The link I provided will take you to a page where you can write an e-mail to your elected officials in Congress and tell them to vote against this Resolution.


  2. Meanwhile our senate is passing a bill making spanking children illegal.

    One more way they continue to exalt their own wisdom against the wisdom of God. Thinking themselves wise they have become foolish.

  3. Brandon: I’m reading the very enlightening A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer, and it is making just what is happening to Canada and the United States very clear. He points out that, despite increasingly popular opinion, the culture of the West is very much based upon the idea that the Law of God is final, and a great deal of governmental tradition can be traced back to the ideals of (if I remember correctly) Rutherford’s Lex Rex or the Law and the Prince, which was banned in England as treasonous because it violated the divine right of kings by emphasizing that even they were subject to God’s Law and that any governmental action contrary to the Law of God was tyranny and ought to be resisted.

    America & Canada are forsaking any semblance of biblical heritage; secular humanism has taken over, and the natural result is going to be tyranny. For the Christians, that also means persecution is around the corner. Eventually — perhaps sooner rather than later — it will become treasonous for us also to stand for our faith.

  4. “America & Canada are forsaking any semblance of biblical heritage; secular humanism has taken over, and the natural result is going to be tyranny.”


    Maybe you should read the Constitution (again?). How many references to God or religion do you find in it??

    You’ll notice that in each such instance, the reference is negative. Whatever one’s opinion of the faith of the founding fathers, when it came to writing down the supreme law of the new country, they very much went secular.

    If you want to complain that America is forsaking any semblance of biblical heritage, you are certainly free to. But you should be aware that such forsaking dates back to 1787 and the writing of the constitution.

    Of course, some complain we live under tyranny today. Freedom/tryanny, it all depends on ones perspective.

  5. After having read Schaeffer and learning what affects the Reformation had on society and government, I disagree.

    If America was founded upon secularist principles, then I can’t help but wonder why a majority of the original states were able to give certain benefits to specific churches or how they were able to tax citizens to raise money to support Gospel preaching. Today there’s no way that would pass — true secularist thinking has taken over — but when the framers of the Constitution were still alive and kicking, well, it seemed to work.

    The view of government and the role thereof and the view of people in general that the founders of our nation held were very much in agreement with biblical precepts. This is why certain rights are “inalienable”; in a secular nation, nothing is inalienable for the only rule is majority rules, and the majority is by no means immutable nor its judgments indelible.

Leave a Comment

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

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

the Rick Beckman archive
Scroll to Top