Wednesday, March 20



            America must awaken and realize that we do still have a choice between those extreme opposite views.  However, if we do not act quickly, that choice will have been made for us—by Secular Humanists.   

            Perhaps a definition of Secular Humanism should be a prelude to this article.  It is:

1) An approach to education that uses literary means or a focus on the humanities to inform

2) A variety of perspectives in philosophy and social sciences which affirm some notion of

       ‘human nature’ (by contrast with anti-humanism).

3) A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice whilst specifically rejecting

        supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making.

4) An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.


            It will come as no surprise to you to know that many of those people involved in education at all levels, those who write and deliver the daily news, and many in positions of leadership in all aspects of government are Secular Humanists.  It is a self-perpetuating philosophy since many schools and universities will not knowingly hire a teacher or professor who holds Christian values and beliefs.  Because Humanists have been very successful in blocking almost all mention of God in the public arena—and since there is no proscription regarding espousal of the Humanist dogma—anywhere or anytime—the way would seem clear for this philosophy to establish a level of dominance in our country’s institutions that some perceive as a very real danger to civilized society.

            Why should Americans be concerned about the rising tide of Secular Humanism in our country?  After all, these are good people—Americans, like us.  Their intentions are honorable, aren’t they? 

            One of the primary problems with Secular Humanism is its philosophy of ‘situational ethics’.  What is that?  It is a system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes.  More than that, it is denial of the very existence of moral absolutes.  For a real application of that philosophy, consider: for you to abort your baby minutes before he/she could have experienced a very normal live birth—in your mind, that would constitute murder.  For a secular humanist to commit a similar act, it might be perceived by that individual perfectly legitimate to have performed what they would describe as only a ‘late-term abortion’.  The Humanist Manifesto(s) (1933 & 1973) says, “Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.”  Further, “(H)umanists still believe (in 1973) that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith.” (Italics mine). . . “But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.  While there is much we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are and will become.  No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.” (Again, italics mine). 

So . . . if you would like to do something that appears on the face of it what Christians would deem immoral, unethical or wrong—EVEN ILLEGAL—you should not allow that opposition to deter you.  YOU can decide what is right and wrong; nobody has the right to determine that for you.

            Perhaps one thing we can all agree upon is that there must be a list of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’—otherwise murder, armed robbery, rape would be pandemic, wouldn’t it?  So no matter whether you are Humanist or Christian, can we agree that certain things are proscribed and others are required—or at least, recommended?  Otherwise there can be no ‘civil’ in ‘civilization’.  The question then becomes, who sets the rules?  Who is going to come up with the mores and traditions that we live by? 

            I would like us to agree on a maxim that all behaviors that are endorsed by any society ought to be ones that, if practiced by everyone in that society, would at least not be inimical to civilization.  Does that not sound reasonable?  I can assure you, however, that we are not going to agree on this very basic issue.

As an example of a behavior upon which we will not agree is the homosexual lifestyle, which is offered by the homosexual community as simply ‘a totally acceptable alternative’ to that practiced by heterosexuals. Is that true?  It seems to me that the truth is, if every person in our society pursued the homosexual lifestyle, the human race would cease to exist.  Yet that lifestyle is embraced enthusiastically by our humanist brethren.  Oh, I suppose we could rely solely upon artificial insemination for reproduction of the species, but even the name of that procedure sounds phony.  It might be a god-send for those opposite-sex couples who cannot have children, but as the first recourse for procreation, it is impractical, foolish and absurd.  Yet the homosexual lobby represent theirs as only an ‘alternative’ lifestyle—intimating that the world would be better off—at least, no worse off—if everyone followed their lead.

            Permit one more example of intractable differences between secular humanists and Christians.  That would be abortion.  If that practice is really acceptable to our society, what is to prevent the government from deciding that people of a certain strata of society—for instance, the rich—can no longer have babies; that all babies due to a couple making more, say, than $250,000 a year must be aborted.  Oh, that could never happen, you say.  If society—NOT GOVERNMENT—has no well-defined, fully enumerated code of acceptable conduct and action, such a thing can happen.  One other consideration:  What would be the result if every pregnant woman in America availed herself of the procedure of abortion, on each and every pregnancy?  Again, the human race would cease to exist. If our civilization is going to continue, obviously not every pregnant woman in our society can abort her baby.

            Does that mean, then, that some folks can be guided by laws of their choosing, while less enlightened people must follow ‘other’ rules?  We’ve just hit upon the reason that Humanists reject Christianity—they don’t want to be bound by ‘rules’—particularly those that have their roots in the Christian ethic.  Some are even intelligent enough to realize that if every person in America chose to adhere to and obey only those laws of which they approve, the result would be chaos, anarchy and certain dissolution of all societal constraints.

            Bertrand Russell once made a speech in which he stated his reasons for not being a Christian.  He laid out a persuasive argument against a belief in God, including many fairly salient points.  Chief among these arguments, however, was his idea that a benevolent God would not deny His children anything that would make them happy, nor could he possibly consign them to Hell for any violations of his autocratic rules.  In other words, why should it be a concern of God if drinking alcohol to excess makes a person happy? Nothing should prevent that person from drinking--copiously, if he chooses.  If having sex outside wedlock makes you happy, by all means, have sex out of wedlock.  If there is a God, what business is it of His?  Would He deny His children the enjoyment of something that they desire so much?  In other words, don’t let yourself be bound by rules that some amorphous God has tried to lay down for you.  Man has perfect knowledge of what is best for him, and should make his own decisions about matters of right and wrong.  Do you see any danger in such an approach?

            Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat, upon studying the American experience with a democratic Republic, in the 1830s made the following widely-quoted observation: “America is great, because America is good.  When America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”  What did he mean by that?  Think about that statement for a moment.

            A lesser known observation of de Tocqueville was his expectation that the new Republic could not long exist.  Why?  He believed that her constitution provided far too many freedoms for her citizens; freedoms that some would abuse in due time, bringing about the dissolution of the Republic.  That leads to the question, did the founding fathers fail to see the dangers inherent in building so many freedoms into our constitution?  Did these men, so forward-thinking and wise in so many ways, have a blind spot when it came to anticipating problems associated with any peoples’ penchant for abusing the freedoms given them?  By the way, secular humanists hold that man is good and getting better every day.  Man doesn’t lapse, if left to his own devices.  He gets more pure, more thoughtful, more wonderful each day that he lives.  I’ve seen precious little evidence of that purity of character and actions, but secularists are positive that this is true.

            I do not think the founding fathers failed to consider that man might become less earnest in his concern for the rights of others.  They had considered that possibility.  They thought it unlikely to present a problem as long as the citizens of America remained true to those Christian convictions that guided their everyday activities.  Why would a nation and a people be so foolish as to reject the leadership of a loving God?  If you doubt that the founding fathers had any such considerations in mind when they drafted and approved the constitution, let us review what some of these men wrote and said about Christianity and the Constitution, contemporaneous with the adoption of that document.  These men were thoroughly convinced that America was and would forever remain a Christian nation. 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Also, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity . . . I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God”—John Adams, our second President.  One other quote from Adams, seconded by John Hancock, the one whose signature on the Declaration of Independence was written so large:  “We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”

“Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also is . . . that of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experiment to be its best support.”—Thomas Jefferson.  (Freedom OF religion; not freedom FROM religion—my observation.)  More: “The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to the happiness of man.”  Also, “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”  One more from Jefferson:  “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”  (He penned that latter phrase in a letter to an old one-time foe, John Adams.)

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men.  I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building (the drafting of the Constitution) no better than the builders of Babel (the biblical tower to heaven that collapsed)”—Benjamin Franklin; in his eighties at the time he said this.

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles”—George Washington.  Also, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”  And, “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ”—Washington, in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779.  One more quote of Washington, from a speech May 2, 1778 at Valley Forge: “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”  Still wonder whether Washington was a Christian?

“We’ve staked our (the American nation’s) future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all our heart”—James Madison.

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.  For this very reason, people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”  And, “The Bible is worth all the other books which have ever been printed’—Patrick Henry (“Give me liberty or give me death!”)

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”—John Jay, writer of some few of the Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

“Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure . . . are undermining the foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free government”—Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence.  Go back and read that statement a second time.  It cannot be better said.  Those words are as applicable today as they were then.  That is the clearest statement of why we, the citizens of the United States, must not allow the Christian faith upon which our nation was founded to be relegated to the ash bin of history by this country’s so-called ‘intelligentsia’.

            Is man well fitted to rule himself, to draw upon a code of conduct and rules of proper behavior of his own construction?  A cursory study of the history of the world would seem to indicate that man is ill equipped for long-term self-governance.  Select any ancient civilization, and you will find that its rulers sooner or later succumbed to the temptation to abuse others in pursuit of ‘rights’ the ruling class claimed for themselves.  Rulers have always clothed their claims in a lovely wrapper to make them palatable, if not attractive to the great unwashed. In the end, however, whether it be royal families or so-called ‘democratic’ leaders like those in China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, etc., all are or sooner or later will become more interested in amassing personal power and wealth than they are in the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the masses.  We are not saying that every individual in each ruling class is totally absorbed in his/her own self-aggrandizement and prosperity, but that certainly has proven to be the prevailing penchant.  The question is and always has been, is man indeed good and getting better?  Is man his own god, and would he, left to his own devices, deal fairly and justly with his fellow man?  Is it in man’s basic character to be as concerned for the rights of others as he is for his own rights?  My answer to those questions would echo that of the Founding Fathers—an emphatic “no”.

            There is an old saying for which I regret that I am unable to make proper attribution, or even quote it exactly, but it goes like this: ”If the people of any society or nation adhered strictly to the teachings of Jesus Christ, they would need no laws.  A society or government that is not guided by the Judeo-Christian or a similar ethos cannot pass enough laws.”

            Here comes the sad part of this division between Christians and Secular Humanists.  I do not know whether Secular Humanists can bring themselves to abide any longer by the laws and mores of the Christian ethos, but I am absolutely certain that Christians cannot accept many of the tenets that Secular Humanists embrace.  These unacceptable tenets would include but not be limited to unbridled abortion, embracing of the homosexual lifestyle, and acceptance of same-sex marriage as equivalent to the union of man and woman (which has been the norm for eons).  If you earnestly believe that abortion—killing a viable baby, even if it is in the mother’s womb—constitutes murder, how can you compromise on that?  Could you say, “Oh, as long as you only kill a couple thousand a year, I suppose that would be acceptable.”  Or, “If you choose to abort the children of (one or another ethnic group), or those of members of a specified socio/economic strata, or the children of those that I oppose politically, I suppose it will be okay”.  No.  No.  A thousand times, “No”.   

            One of the most cherished beliefs of a Christian is the sanctity of human life.  It is simply my opinion, but firmly held that the increase in incidence of child abuse and sexual abuse of children was given a tremendous boost when courts held that a woman might legally abort her viable baby.  Some of you are going to reject that sort of thinking out of hand.  However, if you can stick with me for a few moments, I’ll try to explain why I believe that.  If a viable fetus in a woman’s womb has no value (and it surely has precious little, or the mother would not choose to abort it), then when does value attach to that child?  When he is actually allowed into this world as a live baby?  No.  He can’t even walk, he can’t talk; he can’t do anything of any value to society.  All he does is eat and poop. Surely he has no value. 

            What about when he learns to walk, and he can say a few things?  Is he of value then?  And if so, what gives him that value?  NO.  He still can’t work.  He can’t contribute anything to the family’s budget—indeed, he is a net drag on the family.  Surely he has no value.

            You see, when we declare a viable baby of insufficient value as to warrant his/her being delivered into this world, are we not making a judgment about that baby’s absence of worth?   The fact is that many babies are aborted simply because they are an inconvenience—something that the mother (in those instances) failed to consider when she agreed to unprotected sex.  A topic for a future discussion is the failure of many Americans to consider that there are consequences to our actions; some of which we cannot avoid, dodge or defer.  If then we decide the baby—it is NOT a fetus, it is a baby—is unworthy to be allowed to live, can anyone truthfully deny that the possibility exists that elderly people are sooner or later going to be declared of no worth, and the earnest opinion offered that they should be euthanized?  Remember the discussion of “death panels” that came up during the brief discussion of the Health Care Law?  Brief, because the bill was hurried through to passage before the people had the opportunity to learn about the law’s provisions.

            German pastor Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemoller, during the National Socialist reign in his country wrote after witnessing the Nazi brutalization of various groups within that nation:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

            They”—which in a pluralistic society like America is synonymous with “we”—have  come, in the minds of many Americans, for the unborn child—and many of us did not protest; at least not loudly and strongly enough.  Who is next?  The elderly?  The indigent?  The mentally or physically handicapped?  Who is going to speak for them?

            No, no—I’m NOT accusing the United States government or Secular Humanists of Nazism or anything of the sort.  What I will tell you is that when I was shipped to Germany with the 3rd Armored Division in 1957, as a 19-year-old slightly familiar with that nation’s history, my expectation was that I would confront the world’s most wicked people.  After all, had not the Germans murdered millions of Jews and others they deemed unfit for their state?  They just had to be the vilest of human beings—if you could even call them human—on the face of the earth.

            Imagine my surprise when I found that the German people were very friendly, courteous, kind and for the most part accepting of American G Is.  I remember asking myself, How could this be?  How could a populace as congenial as I find the bulk of the Germans to be—how could they be led to commit such atrocities?  Do you have an answer for that?

            What keeps each of us from giving in to our basest instincts?  Why are there not more heinous crimes committed?  Why are people considerate at all of each other?  They are, you know.  What prompts that civility?  Is it the goodness that wells from the breast of every man?  Is it the Secular Humanist ‘Code of Conduct’?  IS there any such thing as a ‘Secular Humanist Code of Conduct’?  Should there be one, how effective can it be when one of the principles of Humanism is that every act must depend upon the situation in which it was committed before any judgment can be rendered  as to whether it was right or wrong.  Further, the Humanist might well reject ANYONE’S idea of what is wrong—for him!  After all, the goodness in HIS heart is at least as trustworthy as the goodness in the heart of any other human being.  Therefore, he would feel justified in saying neither society nor any person IN that society can make valid decisions for him.  What is right for that decision-maker might well be wrong for me, and vice-versa.

            Jesus taught that we should “love one another”.  Not just the ones that love us, but we are even to “pray for those that despitefully use you.”  It was God who gave us what is known as the Golden Rule:  Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.  As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently intimated, “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, that has come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

            Which rules would you rather follow?  Which philosophy would you trust to insure civility and the rule of law?  Secular Humanism . . . or the teachings of Jesus Christ?   









No comments:

RINO Blog Watch (Blog)

RINO Forum - User Submitted News

RINO Forum - Elections

Recent Posts

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Views (since Blogger started counting)

Blog Archives

Follow by Email - Widget 13

Click Here To Become A Conservative Blogs Central Blogger

Back to TOP