SECULAR HUMANISM OR CHRISTIANITY?
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
students.
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.
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:
Post a Comment