Views: 2<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It is no secret to those of us who have lived a few decades that our nation has suffered a catastrophic decline in moral principle and behavior over this span. Those who are 20 or fewer years old are incapable of fully recognizing this decay, because its onslaught was well underway when they were born\u2014they have known little different. While not all of our fellow citizens of decades passed lived by an absolute moral code, the vast majority nonetheless recognized that such existed and should be honored.<\/span><\/p>\n The forces at work to produce this degradation have been many and they have been working patiently for a long time. However, all of these elements have one devastating philosophy in common. I will allow it to describe its warnings, aims, stratagems, and consequences when it describes itself honestly:<\/span><\/p>\n I am a threat that is even more sinister and dangerous to mankind than global military terrorism. I do not grab dramatic headlines by attacking skyscrapers with hijacked airplanes or crowds with car bombs, causing immediate physical injury or death. The grave danger I represent lies partly in the fact that most people do not recognize me for the threat that I pose. I employ cultural and ethical terrorism. I subtly attack the spirits and minds of men, undermining and eroding the very cultural and moral foundations upon which sane and civilized lives are built. My weapons of war are demonic ideas that urge the unfettered pursuit and fulfillment of every fleshly desire. I elevate mankind and his human nature to absolute supremacy and encourage each person to formulate his own moral standards. I corrupt, rot, and damn the souls of men. I foment anarchy and destroy civilization. I am Humanism. <\/strong>1<\/sup>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A Primer on Humanism<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It is impossible to discuss the nature of man and his morals without discussing aberrant concepts of both. All abnormal and erroneous views of these subjects of which I am aware, at least in the Western World, reside under this one philosophical umbrella\u2014Humanism<\/strong>. Some have confused Humanism with \u201chumanitarianism\u201d\u2014the charitable desire and inclination to be helpful to other human beings. Others have even wrongly identified Humanism with the \u201chumane\u201d organizations that seek to protect animals from unnecessarily cruel treatment. Humanists typically portray Humanism as a superior and innocent philosophy that pursues \u201ctruth, justice, and the well-being of the human spirit,\u201d as one Humanist indicated to me several years ago, but do not be deceived by such palaver.<\/span><\/p>\n Humanists claim two major branches of their philosophy: Secular <\/em>and Religious<\/em>. However, this distinction is completely artificial. The only difference between the two is that Religious <\/strong>Humanists\u2014such as the Unitarian-Universalist Association (better known as the Unitarian Church)\u2014dabble in some free-wheeling, secular-oriented \u201creligious\u201d ritual and ceremony, usually on Sundays. These \u201creligious\u201d meetings may feature a poet doing a \u201creading\u201d laced with four-letter profanities, a Hindu lauding his panoply of gods, or a Wiccan explaining the advantages of witchcraft. Secular <\/strong>Humanists, on the other hand, make no such pretense regarding religion. One does not misspeak, however, when he says that a Humanist is a Humanist is a Humanist. When most of us think of Humanism, we likely think of the term, Secular Humanism, <\/em>which correctly describes all dedicated Humanists, whether they style themselves \u201cReligious\u201d or \u201cSecular.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Contrary to the denials of some Humanists, they are well organized and wield a powerful influence. Our federal government is riddled with Humanists in every branch and agency and at the highest levels of power. The Department of Education is especially shot through with Humanists whose policies and pronouncements eventually make their way into the public-school classroom by means of humanistic teachers in colleges of education and textbooks written and approved by Humanists. The major news media are largely owned, operated, and staffed by Humanists.<\/span><\/p>\n The entertainment industry is a ready vehicle of Humanism because its owners, producers, and the majority of its players have sold their souls to Humanism. Some are \u201cdeliberate\u201d Humanists out of devotion to the philosophy; they are \u201ccard-carrying\u201d Humanists\u2014it is their religion. Multitudes are merely \u201cpractical\u201d Humanists, having embraced humanistic thinking without joining any Humanist organization; they are not even conscious of the source of their thinking and behavior. Among these are those who have mindless ambition for wealth and\/or power. Still others have fallen prey to the principles of Humanism because they pursue the guiltless fulfillment of fleshly lusts, particularly of the sexual variety. Humanism affects not only the USA, but other nations as well. Most of those who are in key positions in the United Nations are dedicated Humanists, which explains many of that organization\u2019s irrational and liberal social, economic, and ecological policies.<\/span><\/p>\n Independent American Humanists published the first Humanist Manifesto <\/em>in 1933, signed by thirty-four of our fellow citizens (including John Dewey, the \u201cfather of public education\u201d). To give some structure to the advancement of their cause, the American Humanist Association (AHA) was formed in 1941. The Humanists have an official journal, The Humanist Magazine<\/em>, and their own publishing house (Prometheus Books). True to their relativistic credo, they amplified and updated their \u201cbible\u201d by publishing the Humanist Manifestos I and II <\/em>in 1973, this time claiming signatures from several nations. In 2003 they published Humanist Manifesto III<\/em>, which has several hundred signatories and for which they are still soliciting signatures through the AHA Website.2<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Secular Humanists come in a variety of sub-philosophies. In 1983, Norman L. Geisler wrote an interesting and helpful book titled Is Man the Measure? <\/em>subtitled, An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism<\/em>.3<\/sup>\u00a0<\/sup>Geisler categorized and evaluated the following varieties of Secular Humanism (the names in parentheses are their principal originators\/advocates):<\/span><\/p>\n All of the foregoing subdivisions of Humanism share at least the following credo:<\/span><\/p>\n bad enough, but Humanists also cannot abide the very idea <\/strong>of God, as Humanist Manifestos I and II <\/em>testifies:<\/span><\/p>\n 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…. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; …As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity…. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species…. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves….5<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n They thus replace God the Creator with lifeless, imaginary forces and processes to explain man\u2019s origin, nature, and purpose. Humanism views man as wholly physical\u2014an accidental combination of spiritless material molecules. Therefore, man has evolved to become the ultimate life-form, and Humanists exalt and fix all their attention upon his desires, ambitions, achievements, and interests for his physical lifespan. To them, that is all he has.<\/span><\/p>\n Accordingly, Humanists believe that all standards of moral behavior have arisen from within men, either individuals or communities. Their \u201cbible\u201d (Humanist Manifestos I and II<\/em>) states:<\/span><\/p>\n We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous [i.e., governed solely by the individual, DM] and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest…. In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures unduly repress sexual conduct…. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered \u201cevil.\u201d6\u00a0<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Humanists vigorously oppose the very suggestion of moral absolutes. Paul Kurtz, editor of the Manifestos<\/em>, and former editor of The Humanist Magazine<\/em>, wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to Absolutist morality<\/strong>, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered in the course of ethical deliberation (emph. DM).7\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This assertion is evolutionary theory applied to morals, and such quotations could be multiplied, indicating that Humanists absolutely despise what they derisively label, absolutism<\/em>. There is no static, absolute moral standard; \u201cmorality\u201d is relative and is whatever men determine it to be. We are therefore answerable only to ourselves.<\/span><\/p>\n The late Joseph Francis Fletcher wrote his infamous book, Situation Ethics: The New Morality<\/em>, in 1966, while an Anglican theologian who still claimed to believe in God. He deceptively misnamed his book; it actually trumpeted the old immorality<\/strong>. However, it gave great impetus to the \u201csexual revolution\u201d that was beginning to flex its muscles at the time. As Darwin\u2019s theory had done a century before (and as I will discuss later), Fletcher\u2019s ideas gave an \u201dexcuse\u201d for indulgence to those who wanted to engage in \u201cguiltless\u201d recreational sexual activity, while still feigning belief in God. After all, Fletcher was a \u201cbeliever,\u201d was he not? Before he ceased this pretense and openly joined the Secular Humanists (as a signatory of Humanist Manifestos I and II<\/em>), he almost single-handedly assailed the absolutism of Biblical morality. Because of his book, the term situation ethics <\/em>became sort of a code-term to indicate all anti-Christian and relativistic ethical philosophy. The following statement from Fletcher summarizes his Humanist moral relativism:<\/span><\/p>\n It all depends on the situation…. In some situations, unmarried love could be infinitely more moral than married unlove. Lying could be more Christian than telling the truth. Stealing could be better than respecting private property. No action is good or right in itself. It depends on whether it hurts or helps people, whether or not it serves love\u2019s purpose\u2014understanding love to be personal concern\u2014in the situation.8\u00a0<\/sup>Contrariwise, Christianity is Theocentric\u2014centered on God. It recognizes the existence of God, credits Him as Creator, and duly acknowledges Him as the Center of the universe. Christians hold that man has worth and that his life has meaning only because God created him in His image and gave him purpose. We further hold that man is not merely a superior animal or physical specimen, but an immortal spirit in a physical body who is answerable to the Creator Who has revealed His Will in the Bible. Christians contend that God\u2019s revealed Law is the absolute standard <\/strong>of behavior for mankind.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Even in the broadest popular use of the term, Christian <\/em>(far removed from its Biblical usage in most cases), it is evident that Christian <\/em>and Humanist <\/em>are utterly antagonistic. In this fact lies the accelerating aggressiveness of the movement to eradicate God, Christ, and the Bible from any place in the public life of our nation. Humanists and\/or Humanist philosophy are behind it all. Their assault against anything pertaining to the Bible is grounded in their determination to rid the world of all moral absolutes.<\/span><\/p>\n The Darwinian \u201cExcuse\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n From the Humanist credo listed earlier, the last listed item is the subject of this study: Humanism\u2019s belief in moral relativism and its denial of moral absolutes.<\/strong> While they did not start organizing and coordinating their efforts until 1933, Humanists go back a long way. Many Humanists credit the words of Protagoras, fifth century B.C. Greek philosopher, Man is the measure of all things<\/em>, as the foundation of their creed. However, he was certainly not the first to adopt what is now known as Humanist philosophy.<\/span><\/p>\n God\u2019s people are not surprised that He foresaw this damnable philosophy, as demonstrated by the numerous Biblical passages in which it is addressed, exposed, and condemned. Five centuries before Protagoras, David described the consummate Humanist:<\/span><\/p>\n The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good\u201d (Psa. 14:1).9<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0Still a century before Protagoras, Jeremiah categorically condemned Protagorean philosophy in his classic inspired observation:<\/span><\/p>\n O Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself<\/strong>; it is not in man <\/strong>that walketh to direct his steps (Jer. 10:23, emph. DM).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Noah\u2019s era was full of Humanists. In his day \u201cGod saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth\u201d (Gen. 6:12). Thirteen centuries before Christ, the long period of the judges was characterized by its rejection of God\u2019s objective standard in the Law of Moses. The people were all Humanists at heart, for \u201cevery man did that which was right in his own eyes\u201d (Jud. 17:6b; 21:25b). The first Humanist was simply the first man who denied God, decided that as a man he was the apex of existence, and determined to manage and live his life on his own terms.<\/span><\/p>\n The existence of God and the doctrine of creation imply, among other things, man\u2019s immortality and his accountability to his Creator by means of His revealed Will. Dostoyevsky, in his monumental novel, The Brothers Karamazov<\/em>, has Ivan Fyodorovitch correctly observe: \u201cThere is no virtue if there is no immortality.\u201d10<\/sup> Ivan implies that if God does not exist, everything is permitted. He got it exactly right: If God does not exist, man does not have a creator; he is a mere accident of \u201cnature.\u201d If he is merely an animal, he is completely earth-and time-bound\u2014wholly mortal. If he is wholly mortal, there are no such things as virtue and vice for his kind, any more so than for dogkind or monkeykind. That is, without God, there is no basis <\/strong>for moral laws or ethical absolutes. Unbridled, selfish, carnal instinct becomes the sole basis of \u201cright\u201d and \u201cwrong.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Thomas J.J. Altizer was a professor of religion at Emory University, a Methodist school in Atlanta, when he published his book, The Gospel of Christian Atheism <\/em>(quite an oxymoron!). This book, coincidentally (?) published the same year Fletcher published Situation Ethics <\/em>(1966), made him the principal modern spokesman for the blasphemous \u201cGod is dead\u201d movement of the last half of the 1960s (note that both of these men began as liberal theologians and that both of their books and the \u201csexual revolution\u201d appeared on the scene simultaneously). Altizer was at least rational enough to admit that moral absolutes are rooted in God, and that if we \u201cremove\u201d God, we remove the standard of moral restraints:<\/span><\/p>\n Once God has ceased to exist in human experience as the omnipotent and numinous Lord, there perishes with Him every moral imperative addressed to man from beyond, and humanity ceases to be imprisoned by an obedience to an external will or authority.11<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n While one theologian (Fletcher) was attacking moral absolutes by urging relativism, depending on the \u201csituation,\u201d another (Altizer) simultaneously sought to obliterate them by proclaiming their Source to be dead. Should we wonder that these men greatly helped unleash the cruel beast of family-and home-destroying sexual promiscuity?<\/span><\/p>\n Atheism, with its unspeakably horrible implications and consequences, is Humanism\u2019s foundation. Evolutionary theory, materialism, and moral relativism compose most of its superstructure. If evolution explains origins, then man is nothing more than a highly developed paramecium. Grant them the dogma of evolution and Humanists are correct in arguing that men are under no moral obligation to behave a certain way. We are thus accountable to no one but ourselves, and we need not think about duty, good, evil, right, wrong, truth, error, conscience, or consequence of behavior any more than an earthworm or a housefly does\u2014unless it pleases us to do so. In fact, by Humanist dictum there is no way for one to determine one act to be \u201cgood\u201d and another \u201cevil,\u201d and duty <\/em>and obligation <\/em>are rendered nonsensical terms. Make no mistake about it: The foregoing description is precisely the mold into which the Humanistic secularists are seeking to stuff our great nation as rapidly as possible (be they in the entertainment business, politics, broadcasting, the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Association, or even much of so-called \u201cChristianity\u201d). Their alarming success is evident on every hand.<\/span><\/p>\n When Darwin published On the Origin of Species <\/em>in 1859, setting forth his theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest\u2014evolution, now all but universally accepted in the Western World\u2014he handed Humanists a \u201cscientific excuse\u201d for abandoning belief in the personal Creator\u2014God to Whom men are accountable. Some philosophers immediately rejoiced at its implications and jumped at the \u201copportunities\u201d it presented. If men arose through the evolutionary process merely by natural means, they were not created. If they were not created, there is no Creator\/God. If there is no God, the Bible is just another book written by men, itself a product of literary evolution. If the Bible is not from God, we can forget all of its confining laws and prohibitions. Darwin\u2019s theories doubtless gave great impetus to the philosophy of Nihilism\u2014the denial of meaning and purpose in such things as established morals, religion, and political institutions\u2014that had begun to rise among German philosophers about the same time. Some\u2014perhaps many\u2014were just looking for this very excuse. In 1937, the late British-born Aldous Huxley, more candid than some, admitted his moral relativist motivation for being a Humanist:<\/span><\/p>\n I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed that it had none…. For myself…the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was…from a certain system of morality…because it interfered with our sexual freedom.12<\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I suspect that many have latched onto and cling tenaciously to the religion of evolution from the same motivation.<\/span><\/p>\n Let us not forget that Paul declared that all who deny the manifold evidence of God\u2019s creative power in the natural world and give themselves over to every vile lust are \u201cwithout <\/strong>excuse<\/strong>\u201d (Rom. 1:18\u201332, emph. DM).<\/span><\/p>\n Effects and Consequences<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n If Darwin was right, there is no God. If there is no God, Humanistic relativism is valid, and we should not censure Huxley and his ilk. At least two generations have been fed such poisonous Humanistic philosophy to one degree or another in our public schools, forced from the top down. The home environment that for many generations taught Bible-based moral principles (and insisted on adherence to them) will never be known by millions of children as the poison of situation ethics has caused normal family life to implode. It is no mystery (and no mere coincidence) that values placed on human life and private property in our nation are at an all-time low and continue to decline. Why should they not do so, if men believe they are mere animals and are bound by no moral absolutes?<\/span><\/p>\n The foregoing definitions and descriptions, and the fact that Humanists occupy numerous places of great influence and authority, explain the major source of the burgeoning and destructive secularism in our nation. Following are some of the effects that are directly related to Humanistic ideology:<\/span><\/p>\n Humanistic Relativism is to blame for the moral collapse since the middle of the twentieth century in the USA, the influence of which is far out of proportion to the actual number of card-carrying Humanists. Infidel theologians, who, for almost two centuries, have spewed forth the poisons of German Rationalism, Modernism, Existentialism, and more recently, Postmodernism, have been (and are) their willing accomplices. In fact, many of these religionists are proud signatories of the Humanist Manifestos. Through their seminaries, they have spawned several generations of denominational pulpiteers who treat the Bible as a fairy- tale product of literary evolution. Many of them question or deny every fundamental tenet of the Gospel. These skeptic sermonizers have robbed the masses of their faith in God, in the Bible, and in its absolute moral principles, leaving them sitting ducks for Humanistic propaganda. As long as the Bible was a dominating influence in our nation\u2019s culture, Humanism\u2019s moral relativism could not thrive. It has flowed freely, however, into the vacuum left by the faith- demolishing work of the infidel theologians.<\/span><\/p>\n Humanism feels no threat from any religion except Christianity, because the Bible declares that its God, its religion (the church), and its ethical doctrine are exclusive, objective, and absolute. This fact explains the constant denigration of those whom the left calls \u201cright wing religious fundamentalist hayseeds\u201d in the \u201cJesus states.\u201d To oppose an Humanistic-inspired behavior or policy makes one a \u201cbigot.\u201d Accordingly, Humanists do not oppose, but actually encourage, promotion of pagan religions in the public schools and elsewhere (i.e., Wicca, \u201cNative American\u201d religions, Islam, New Ageism, Eastern religions, et al.).<\/span><\/p>\n Inconsistencies, Self-Contradictions, and Absurdities<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As with all flawed belief systems, Humanism is rife with inconsistencies, self- contradictions, and absurdities.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0To be consistent they must therefore avoid\u2014at all cost\u2014the use of such words as all, none, never, always<\/em>, should, should not, duty, obligation<\/em>, must, completely, universally, <\/em>and (above all), absolutely<\/em>. After observing that such terms are taboo for moral situationists\/relativists,13<\/sup> Fletcher, in his book on situation ethics then miserably fails at avoiding them. For example, he preaches: \u201cNo <\/strong>unwanted and unintended baby should ever <\/strong>be born (emph. DM).\u201d14<\/sup> \u201cLove is the only norm<\/strong>…. The ruling norm <\/strong>of Christian decision is love: nothing else <\/strong>(emph. DM).\u201d15<\/sup> Such statements are clearly absolute declarations, which they profess to despise.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0Geisler correctly emphasized the absurdity of relativism in pointing out that what Fletcher is really saying is:<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\n
\nHumanism, as its name implies, is rabidly anthropocentric\u2014man-centered. This fact is<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n