Secular Humanism has all the characteristics of a religion. The Secular Humanist places man at the center of things. In the Humanist Manifesto II, which was released in 1973, humanists called for a new faith: "...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. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Responsible minds look to other means for survival." (Humanist Manifesto II, The Humanist; September/October 1973, p. 4). Humanism is, therefore, fundamentally at odds with Christianity which regards God and not man as the supreme value of the universe.
Because Humanists recognize the importance of the public schools in advancing their man-centered religion, they do everything in their power to ensure that children are indoctrinated into the tenets of Humanism even as they attack faith-based schools. It was Paul Blanshard, writing in The Humanist, who said, "I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all the other myths of alleged history." (The Humanist State, March/April 1976, p. 17).
Humanist John Dumphy, also writing for The Humanist, said "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another servant, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become and area of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never realized Christian idea of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved." (The Humanist, January/February 1983, p. 26).
Richard Dawkins, and atheist and evolutionary biologist, is doing his best to wage war against faith schools in Britain. Even though Johann Hari, columnist for The Independent, has celebrated what he refers to as "the slow whining death of Christianity" in Britain, writing that, "My country, Britain, is now the most irreligious country on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else," Mr. Dawkins is alarmed at the tremendous growth of faith schools in Britain. We read here, "The number of faith schools in Britain is rising. Around 7,000 publicly-funded schools - one in three - now has a religious affiliation." And Richard Dawkins, being a propagandist for the new religion of Humanism, finds this intolerable. "Enough is enough" he says.
And so it can be seen that Humanists in the UK are engaged in a propaganda war against religion in general and Christianity in particular. When it suits their agenda, they express "alarm" at the tremendous growth of faith schools. At other times, they proclaim cheerfully that Christianity is dying. Humanists are not interested in truth. Their goal is the elimination of religious belief, and most especially belief in Christianity, because it stands in the way of their own religion.
Humanists have a right to believe as they do. But so do people of faith. Tolerance of different beliefs is an essential ingredient of a free society. But Humanists do not embrace such tolerance. They are, in fact, the most intolerant as they seek to indoctrinate and coerce others into their belief system.
While the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."
This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."
In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.
9 comments:
What a devastating critique of the religion of Humanism. These people hate the Catholic Church because she alone stands effectively in the way of their religion and their desire to create a "utopia" of free sex and a godless state.
Dawkins wants primacy for his religion. He is, like Terry Sanderson, a religious proselytizer preaching an atheistic humanism which offers mankind not hope but only despair. He is a bigot who is intolerant toward religion.
Nonsense. A/As don't care a BIT whether you believe in imaginary gods and goddesses. What we DO care about is you attempting to indoctrinate our hildren into your ridiculous beliefs, especially in the public school science classroom.
"Devastating critique"? LOL! More like "pathetic whine."
More pathetic is the attempt to characterize our disbelief in your gods and goddesses as a "religion." It would, in fact be laughable if it weren't so sad and ridiculous.
The fact that secular humanism is a religion is a point recognized even by secular humanists. Again, as humanist John Dumphy said, "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preacher, for they will be ministers of another servant, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subjects they teach regardless of the educational level - preschool daycare or large state university. The classroom must and will become and area of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery and the new faith of humanism resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never realized Christian idea of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved." (The Humanist, January/February 1983, p. 26).
In other words, Humanism is an intolerant religion which seeks to engage in indoctrination and coercion and to eradicate Christianity.
Anonymous writes, "More pathetic is the attempt to characterize our disbelief in your gods and goddesses as a religion."
First of all, we do not believe in "gods and goddesses." Secondly, Secular Humanism has been labelled a religion notonly b Secular Humanists as Paul noted, but by the United States Supreme Court. From Wikipedia:
The phrase "Secular Humanism" became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
The footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins referenced Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption.
The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to Humanism but did not mention the term Secular Humanism. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of Secular Humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word secular to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the Fellowship of Humanity and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example, Christian humanism.
Another case alluded to in the Torcaso v. Watkins footnote, and said by some to have established secular humanism as a religion under the law, is the 1957 tax case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957). The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics. The case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.
I think I've got Dawkins' motivation.
The brute truth is that, at all income levels, the more religious you are, the more children you have.
Immigration? That comes from countries with high birth rates, which, you guessed it, are religious countries.
So, the demographics are quite stark for humanists/atheists like Dawkins, so they must appropriate other people's children to even have a chance of competing in the democratic stakes.
So, note how he seeks to undermine parents' rights to educate their children and tries to impose nebulous children's 'rights', ones they obviously are unfit to exercise until they have completed their primary and secondary education.
One thing I find odd about Dawkins. As religious education is so weak at the tertiary level in the UK, why doesn't he have greater confidence in secular education at that level?
Something I found unpleasant about the programme was the focus on veiled Muslim women. They are far, far less common than bare-headed or merely scarfed Muslim women in the UK, so why emphasise the point? To scare the horses?
A school on the West Coast is holding up Lucifer as a model:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/
Default.aspx?id=1126896
The termite colony cannot sustain itself so it must "appropriate other people's children" to survive. Good thoughts anonymous.
Can't wait for Dawkins to debate Dr. William Lane Craig.
Oh wait. Dawkins won't debate him. He knows he is outmatched.He wouldn't fare any better than "God is Not Great" himself, Chris Hitchens who quite frankly looked foolish in his debate with Craig.
So much for the irrationality of Christianity ey?
Post a Comment