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).
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.
The Church proposes but the world imposes.
6 comments:
McGuinty is a Christianophobe who wants to cram LGBT propaganda down our throats and the throats of our innocent children. He is committed to evil.
McGuinty's attitude toward the Catholic Church and the Catholic schools is reprehensible. No matter how hard he strains to force the "gay" agenda on us, we will not abandon God's Commandments and the Church's teaching for a measly bowl of rotten porridge. Let's all work to get this militant pro-homosexual, anti-Catholic bigot out of office.
For our children and for a better future.
Are you noticing a pattern here? When Protest the Pope in the UK iniated its hate campaign against Pope Benedict XVI and the Church, it employed the tactic of bullying. Likewise, atheist nut job Brian Bridson has used his hate propaganda blog "philosophers haze" (at least he acknowledges that his mind is in a haze) to lash out at Pope Benedict XVI, the priesthood and Catholic Church in general. These are angry and militant and potentially violent individuals who have such a deep and abiding hatred for the Church founded by Christ that they will, if they have the opportunity, commit violence. Remember Protest the Pope and the calls to "bomb the Vatican"?
These people are absolutely chilling.
I left this comment at Protect the Pope but it really applies here as well:
"...if we are mere products of evolution, then anything can - and will be - justified. When British atheist and evolutionist Christopher Hitchens engaged in a debate with Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig, an audience member twice asked him to label bestiality as an immoral act and he refused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU
Dr. Craig [correctly] noted that the question posed to Hitchens was a good one and that it helped to illustrate that atheism cannot offer objective moral standards.
If we abandon the objective moral standards which come to us from the Decalogue and from the Natural Law, who will decide what is moral and what is immoral? Majority consensus? Let us not forget that a lynch mob is a majority.
The idea of a government panel examining ways to silence Christian opposition to homosexuality is the stuff of fascism. I hadn't heard about the Ontario Panel. Thank you for writing about this. Dear God what is happening to Canada?
It was Cicero who said that:
"..right is based,not upon men’s opinions,but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another,so exactly its counterpart,as all of us are to one another…And so,however we may define man,a single definition will apply to all.”[ Cicero,Laws I x 28-30]
It was Pope John Paul II,who said that: "Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a ‘system’and as such is a means and not an end. Its ‘moral’ value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it,like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive ‘sign of the times,’as the Church’s Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the ‘common good’ as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.
The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable ‘majority’opinions, but only the acknowledgement of an objective moral law which, as the ‘natural law’ written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience,an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis."(Pope John Paul II,Evangelium Vitae,No. 70).
Post a Comment