A vital link in the government plan to conform U.S. churches to the UN vision of a sustainable community

Excerpts from Charlotte Iserbyt's latest book,

the deliberate dumbing down of america


For background information see: Conforming the Church to the New Millennium

The UN Plan for Your Mental Health

Richard D. Land, president-treasurer of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, is also a member of the National Commission on Civic Renewal. This partnership between government, churches and civil society helps explain show how globalist leaders are manipulating public opinon through a self-serving "civil society." This euphemistic "civil society" does not represent the true public anymore than the World Council of Churches represents Christian church members -- or euphoric and mystical entitity called "the people" represented the masses in Communist countries. It's a smokescreen used to manipulate public opinion, to intimidate contrary voices, and to implement an unthinkable agenda without congressional approval.

In her well-documented book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Charlotte Iserbyt has included several pages verifying the part played by this National Commission in the new social management system. Please take time to read and ponder her excerpts below. Concerned Christians need to understand how the net has been cast for bringing the churches as well as families into compliance. To establish the envisioned solidarity, the new 21st Century community requires both conformity to its new politically correct standards and full citizen participation with its manipulative programs. The following excerpts are taken from pages 371-375: 

ON JANUARY 25, 1997 THE FIRST PLENARY SESSION OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CIVIC RENEWAL was held. Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Commission operates out of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, a research center at the University of Mary­land at College Park. One common theme running through the numerous reports produced in 1998 as a result of the Commission’s study of the “deplorable” lack of citizen involvement, crying out for partnerships, etc., was that elected officials are no longer able to meaningfully contribute to the decision-making process when seeking answers to societal problems.  Those chosen to promote political and social “action” in our “needy” communities came from all political persuasions — a clever technique which made the Commission seem all-embracing and allows for public ownership of the projects selected for implementation and encouragement. When one had Ernesto Cortes, Jr. of the Industrial Areas Foundation repre­senting the political left and former Secretary of Education William Bennett representing the political right — which is increasingly controlled by “neoconservatives”— it was not unreason­able to expect that discussions would result in reaching “common ground” politics of the “radical center;” which is an abandonment of principle by both the right and the left. A list of high profile Americans involved in the National Commission on Civic Renewal will be in­cluded at the end of this entry.  Why is the National Commission on Civic Renewal being created at this time? The Commission says that:

 “In spite of recent improvement in the economy, both experts and ordinary citizens have become increasingly troubled about what they see as a decline in the strength of our social fabric and in the quality of our civil and civic life. Basic institutions at the family and neighborhood level have come under intense pressure; voting and other forms of community and political participation have declined; Americans’ trust in large institutions and in one another has plunged. The Commission will seek to address these ills: by gathering and assessing information and advice from a wide range of voices; by inventorying, studying, and highlighting promising civic organizations around the country; and by offering specific recommendations for improving our civic and civil life.”  ....Excerpts from The Final Report of the National Commission on Civic Renewal: A Nation of Spectators — How Civic Disengagement Weakens America and What We Can Do about It (1998) follow:  

       Defining the Challenge of Civic Renewal

In America we do not depend on kings, clerics, or aristocrats, or (for that matter) on techno­cratic elites or self-appointed leaders to serve as the “vanguard” for the rest of us. [This is a strange comment in light of the makeup and conclusions of the Commission and its expert consultants, ed.] We believe that the capacity for democratic citizenship must be nurtured in institutions such as families, neighborhoods, schools, faith communities, local governments~ and politi­cal movements—and therefore, that our democracy must attend carefully to the health of these institutions.... We believe that building democracy means individuals, voluntary associations, private markets, and the public sector working together — not locked in battle.... We believe that democracy means not only discussing our differences, but also undertaking concrete projects with our fellow citizens to achieve common goals....p. 7-8)

 A New Movement.

New organizations are refocusing the attention of families, schools, and communities on the formation of civic character....

…But we believe that the current level of mistrust [of government and large institu­tions, ed.] is inconsistent with civic health. Americans cannot love their country if they have contempt for its government.... (p. 10-11) 

[Berit's comment: Notice the implication that "civic health" and the proper "formation of civic character" would clash with "mistrust" or "contempt for its government." Americans who truly understand and appreciate our constitutional and God-given freedom tend to be most concerned about the erosion of those rights and the transformation of the nation they love. See The UN Plan for Your Mental Health. For example, ponder the next statement in the National Commission report:]

Meeting the Challenge of Civic Renewal.

The goals of civic renewal are straightforward: to strengthen the institutions that help form the knowledge, skills, and virtues citizens need for active engagement in civic life; to remove the impediments to civic engagement wherever they exist; and to multiply the arenas for meaningful and effective civic action.... (p. 12)


We therefore challenge every citizen to become an active member of at least one association dealing with matters of local neighborhood, church, or community concern. [Is this a chal­lenge to the “44%” who cannot presently be tracked and controlled in their “civic and volunteer” service? ed.]...  


It means sweeping away impediments to adoption. It means dramatically reforming foster care and establishing a national norm that no child should spend more than one birthday without a permanent home in a stable, loving family. It means a massive new partnership among the public, private, and voluntary sectors to provide adult mentors for one million young people now languishing on waiting lists across our land.

[Author's note: “A national norm”? Who keeps track and evaluates? Who decides what is a “stable, loving family”? “Massive new partnership”? “Adult mentors for one million young people... on waiting lists”? What waiting lists? To be adopted, to have a mentor? These partnerships mean that government will coordinate the activities of the private and voluntary sectors to accomplish enforceable standards in the area of family life. The Commission also acknowl­edged that a healthy mistrust of government is essential for a “democracy.” This writer be­lieves it to be essential for the preservation of freedom as well. Perhaps what our nation needs is an even higher level of citizen mistrust which would result in more people going to the polls to vote out rascals.]


Every neighborhood should assume responsibility for matters of significant local concern, emphasizing areas where neighbors can do meaningful civic work together. For example:

neighborhood crime watches; cleaning, repairing, and patrolling public parks; escort services for students walking from home to school in the morning and back in the afternoon.... (p. 13)

...We applaud the efforts of organizations such as the National Civic League, the Center for Democracy and Citizenship, the Civic Practices Network, the Center for Living Democracy, the Pew Partnership for Civic Change, and [Heritage Foundation’s] Policy Review: The Journal of American Citizenship to identify promising community-based empowerment efforts, to make this information available to communities searching for usable models, and to weave together local activities into a wider community-based movement for civic renewal. Schools.

First, we add our voices to others — such as the Communitarian Network, the Character Counts! Coalition, the Character Education Partnership, and the Center for Civic Education — in support of a far greater emphasis on civic and character education. We believe that our schools should foster the knowledge, skills, and virtues our young people need to be­come good democratic citizens.... While the National Commission has not reached agreement on mandatory community service for high school students, we are impressed with the ways in which well-designed community work carefully linked to classroom reflection can enhance the civic education of students.... Every state should require all students to demonstrate mastery of basic civic information and concepts as a condition of high school graduation. [Citizenship, OBE-style]

In addition to their role in forming civic competence and character, we believe that the overall performance of our schools has important effects on our civic condition. To cite but one example: students consigned to failing schools are far less likely to achieve full participation in civic life. Free citizens must be educated. For this reason, we offer some proposals to improve teaching and learning....

Despite the political and substantive difficulties, the federal government should spur the development of a voluntary national testing system with high standards and make it available for adoption (or adaptation) by states and localities. (p. 15)

The federal government, states, and localities should cooperate to increase parental choice through such measures as open enrollment and public school choice within districts (and even beyond). Within five years, every state should enact meaningful charter school legislation, and the federal government should dramatically increase its support for charter schools. (pp. 14-16)...

Faith-based Institutions.

Faith-based institutions should take full advantage of new opportunities under federal law to receive public support for activities such as job search programs, “second chance” homes for unmarried teen parents, child care, and drug treatment, while maintaining their religious character. The federal government should broaden this new partnership with faith-based institutions to cover the maximum feasible range of social services.... The federal government should revise the tax code to increase incentives for charitable contributions and to recognize the charitable efforts of all Americans, including poor and low-income families....

Individual faith-based institutions should band together into community-wide coalitions to achieve important civic objectives....

... We call for the mobilization of public, foundation, and corporate support for new ventures, such as John Dilulio’s Jeremiah Project, which will help gather credible data about the effectiveness of faith-based activities, mobilize resources, and direct them to promising faith-based programs.  

[Author's Note: This is the most frightening “partnership” proposal of all. When the government “partners” with another entity, it is always the government who sets the standard—and enforces it. While there may be worthwhile efforts that many churches in a community can agree upon and work together to accomplish, again, this should be decided on the local level by the churches involved without any coordination by any other entity to satisfy its goals and aims. Gathering “credible data” about “faith-based activities” so that resources can be directed to “promising faith-based programs” is exactly what the writer was referring to earlier when she cautioned the reader about partnering churches or “faith-based institutions” with the government.]  

At this point in her book, Charlotte Iserbyt lists some prominent members of the National Commission on Civic Renewal. They include Co-Chairman William Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Carnegie leader John Gardner, and Oz Guiness who led the controversial Williamsburg Charter Character Education Project, as well as Richard Land, president-treasurer of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

You can order The Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt, by credit card ($29.95 plus $6.00 shipping) from:

| Home | Armor of God | Christian Persecution | His Word | Our Articles