Whose Values Will Save America - Secular Humanist Values or Judeo-Christian Values?
My friend David Limbaugh hits the nail on the head with his latest article entitled “Secularists Often Behave As They Claim Christians Do.”
The secularists demanding the removal of specks from Christians’ eyes are oblivious to the planks in their own. Their paranoid predispositions about Christians lead them to the very type of oppressive behavior they wrongly ascribe to Christians. If anyone is guilty of wanting to foreclose debate and impose their values on others, it is these hyperventilating secularists.
They are the ones who have decreed there’s a consensus on global warming and attempted to stigmatize dissenters as paid mouthpieces for “evil” energy companies. With their absence of self-reflection it must never occur to them that in their professed monopoly on “science,” they squarely violate the fundamentals of the scientific method by forbidding debate and insulating their theories from scientific scrutiny.
They malign intelligent design proponents for daring to subject their dogma — and distortions — to the rigorous re-examination scientific methodology requires.
They seek to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance, though one poll reveals that only 14 percent of Americans agree with them.
They brand as bigots opponents of the societal sanctioning of homosexual marriage. Some even pronounce certain scriptural passages on homosexuality “hate speech” that leads to violence, as if to disapprove of any behavior is to hate it or its practitioners and leads to violence against them.
Likewise, many pro-abortionists speciously argue that pro-life advocacy leads to violence against women — never mind the violence against the unborn.
The secular left condemns traditionalists for “legislating morality” and invading our bedrooms. Their quasi-religious fervor apparently blinds them to their efforts to wield governmental power to impose their own values, whether on homosexual marriage, abortion, wealth redistribution or socialized medicine.
As discussed on these pages previously, the religion of the Left is Humanism. It is a Supreme Court recognized tax payer exempt religion that has, for the past 40 years, been establishing a quasi-(secular) Humanist theocracy in America by pushing Christianity out of virtually every corner of the public square and replacing it with their own religion of Humanism- the anti-theistic belief that man is God. Its primary tenets include Darwinian evolution, moral relativism, human induced global warming, multiculturalism, abortion on demand, redistribution of wealth (communism), and the redefinition of the family (i.e. normalizing homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general). They have been very successful instituting many of these tenets via activist courts, public schools (NEA), the media, entertainment industries, and academia. They have largely used the Soviet doctrine of the “separation of church and state” to con Americans into compartmentalizing their Christian faith while they have been simultaneously imposing their own religion of Humanism on society at large. It bears repeating a quote from C.F. Potter, founder of the NY Humanist Society regarding using the public schools to indoctrinate children from his book “Humanism: a New Religion”:
Education is a most powerful ally of Humanism & every American school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, & teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of a five-day program of Humanistic religion teaching? So very Humanistic is modern education that no religion has a future unless it be Humanism. The religion of tomorrow in America & all the world may not be in all respects identical with the religious Humanism we are advocating in this book, but it will be mightily like it & of the same spirit.”
Now I, like David, don’t blame the Humanists for advocating and advancing their core religious beliefs and values (although I oppose the furtive way they go about it). But I think it bears recognizing that the moral relativism of Humanism which dominates much of Europe will not save Western Civilization from the Jihadists who seek to impose Sharia law throughout the world and establish a global caliphate. Only those who adhere to Judeo-Christian values based on absolute truth- God’s Truth- and a belief that our rights emenate directly from God (the God of the Bible- the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and that we have a fundamental God given right to freely excercise our religious beliefs- will protect and defend Western Civilization from extinction.
That’s right. It will be up to spirit filled Bible believing Christians to protect and defend Western Civilization.
The post modernist Secular Humanists throughout Europe are laying down. They have virtually given up the fight and have submitted to the Islamists. After all, Humanists don’t believe in God or eternal life (i.e. Heaven) so their embrace of Nihilism comes very easy to them. That’s why Europe is often referred to as Eurabia and London as “Londonistan.”
Somebody’s values will always predominate a society. The main question we face in America, it seems to me is, which values will predominate ours? The answer to that question, I believe, will largely determine whether we will be able to preserve America and Western Civilization in general. And I am sorry, but if there are some in our country who are not willing to fight those who seek to destroy our great nation and subjugate us under totalitarian Islamic Law, they should shut up and get out of the way and let those who think America is worth preserving do it ourselves. I would rather die than live under Sharia law. And folks, don’t think it can’t happen here in America. It’s all about values and whether we will we be willing to sacrifice our lives to preserve them for our children. That is the great calling of our generation. And it won’t happen by burrying our proverbial heads in the sand and calling Islam a “religion of peace” and installing foot baths for Muslims on college campuses. That I can assure you.
Source: 
August 28th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Vets for Freedom Respond…
I know that quite a few of you guys read the NYT’s op-ed from the 82nd Airborne guys, seven of em, a few weeks ago. Here’s a chunk: The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in……
August 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
In order to educate myself on what the tenets of Secular Humanism actually are, I visited the website for the Council for Secular Humanism: http:/www.secularhumanism.org. According to the link entitled “Declaration,” secular humanists welcome everyone to share in the following ideals:
1) free inquiry;
science and technology;
2) separation of church and state;
3) the ideal of freedom;
4) ethics based on critical intelligence;
5) moral education;
6) religious skepticism;
7) reason;
9) evolution; and
10) education.
In explaining these ideals, the website states the following:
1) Free Inquiry
…
Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. … Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
2) Separation of Church and State
…
Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.
3) The Ideal of Freedom
…
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law.
4) Ethics Based on Critical Intelligence
…
The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life;… Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism…. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation….
…
7) Reason
…
Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction….
…
9) Evolution
…
We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum.
With the exclusion of Darwinian evolution, these ideals differ significantly from what Gregg claims are the primary tenets of “the religion of the Left”: “Darwinian evolution, moral relativism, human induced global warming, multiculturalism, abortion on demand, redistribution of wealth (communism), and the redifinitionof the family (i.e. normalizing homosexual marriage and homosexual in general).” As already stated, rather than moral relativism, secular humanists believe in truth, objective standards, and ethical values and principles, in that they emerge and can be discovered through the free exchange of opposing opinions and ethical deliberation. In other words, rather than embracing Nehilism, which denies the possibility of an objective basis for truth, secular humanists embrace the free exchange of opposing opinions and ethical deliberation as bases for truth. Multiculturalism, abortion, redistribution of wealth, and the redefinition of family are never mentioned as secular humanist ideals. Furthermore, with regard to radical Islamists, the preface to the list of ideals of secular humanists states, “Regrettably, we are today faced with a variety of antisecular trends:…a rapidly growing and uncompromising Moslem clericalism in the Middle East.” Therefore, secular humanists obviously recognize the real threat that radical Islamists pose.
Obviously, the principles that Gregg claims drive the “religion of the Left” differ significantly from the central ideals of secular humanism. Therefore, any attempt to equate the two appears unfounded.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am
J.C.,
Let’s be careful to examine semantics here. The Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as a religion. You have given us their “ideals” which are their core beliefs stated in a palatable, welcoming, “harmless” way. They wouldn’t tell us what Gregg is telling us–their moral/spiritual agenda as a religion. Gregg tells us what drives them. I don’t trust godless organizations to lead me to the truth. I watch what they do, not the words that they use.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:30 am
JC, I didn’t cite the religion of Secular Humanism as the religion of the Left. I cited the religion of Humanism and there is an enormous difference.
Again, here is what I said in the post:
“As discussed on these pages previously, the religion of the Left is Humanism. It is a Supreme Court recognized tax payer exempt religion that has, for the past 40 years, been establishing a quasi-(secular) Humanist theocracy in America by pushing Christianity out of virtually every corner of the public square and replacing it with their own religion of Humanism- the anti-theistic belief that man is God.”
Here is what the first Humanist Manifesto states http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html (there are 3 which have changed thru time):
Here is the Third Manifesto which wasn’t republished until 3 years ago (which is substantially shorter and more vague (I think intentionally so) here http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm:
But let’s review the 2nd “Humanist Manifesto” http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html which has been in existence for the vast majority of the 20th century to determine what their core values are that they have been advancing in public schools for over 50 years. I think that as I said in the post there is a firm basis for all the tenets being taught by Humanist teachers in our Humanist public schools of “Darwinian evolution, moral relativism, human induced global warming, multiculturalism, abortion on demand, redistribution of wealth (communism), and the redefinition of the family (i.e. normalizing homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general).” (Quoting from my original post.) Also, I want to be clear, I am not claiming that every teacher is a Humanist. But the vast majority are and more importantly the curriculum itself is very much Humanistic. Humanism is a religion and it is being systematically enforced in our government run public schools.
First-“No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.” Their religion is inherently anti-theistic and rejects the very notion of God . the religion of Humanism as I have previously stated is the belief that salvation is derived from man and that there is no higher being than man. CF Potter, the father of Humanism envisioned public schools as the place where this major tenet would be firmly inculcated. Refer to accompanying quote above by CF Potter).
Third- “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.” Here again the religion of Humanism affirms moral relativism- that moral values are “situational” not based on the moral absolutes found in the Bible.
Fourth- “Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses.” Again, Humanism denies an “intelligent designer” and seeks to affirm that Humans are the highest form of intelligence (i.e. there is no God). Humanism is Communism and affirms the very same atheistic tenets.
Fifth- “The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value.” This one is somewhat ironic given their support for abortion on demand in the Sixth Tenet.
Sixth- “In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.” Again, the religion of Humanism is based on “situational” ethics. The individual determines their own personal morality since Humanists reject “Puritanical absolute morality.” Thus, Humanism actually promotes all those things that are taught and encouraged in schools (sex ed starting in kindergarten including homosexual, bi-sex, transgender normalization, abortofacients freely distributed by nurses in public schools, opposition by the Left (especially the NEA) with regard to parental consent for teenagers having an abortion). These are all tenets recognized by the religion of Humanism that is actively promoted in public schools.
SEVENTH: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies…It also includes a recognition of an individual\\\’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide…” Humanists support euthanasia and the “right to suicide” and you wonder why there is an epidemic of teen suicide in America today?
Eighth- “We are committed to an open and democratic society…” Ironically, the “Open Society” is George Soros’ organization used to promote a one world international government which was originated by Saul Alinsky, a Marxist who Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on- who was one of Hillary’s role models growing up.
NINTH: “The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives.” Although Jefferson used this term in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists 11 years after ratification of the 1st Amendment to assure them the federal government would not impose a federal religion on the states, the term itself can be found in article 52 of the former Soviet Union’s Constitution which called for an absolute “separation of church and state” essentially banning Christianity and establishing the state religion of atheistic Humanism. Humanists today are attempting to do the same thing in our society as I have noted previously.
TENTH: “Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.”The “common good?” If that is not blatant Marxist language I don’t know what is. Humanism expressly advocates redistribution of wealth (i.e. Communism).
TWELFTH: “We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate…” Humanists believe in building a “world community.” Is it any wonder why kids are historically illiterate with regards to U.S. History? Humanists have been pushing this globalist multi-cultural curriculum for years in our schools and teaching our kids how the Founders were racists and homophobes etc.. and how bad America is.
THIRTEENTH: “This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes.” I wonder if the Jihadists will agree to this one?
FOURTEENTH: “The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources.” There’s that word “cooperative” again- another tell tale sign that Humanism is Communism by another name expressly advocating an international one world government. What do you think the Kyoto Protocol and other “global warming” Treaties and taxes are all about?
FIFTEENTH: “The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide — through an international authority that safeguards human rights — massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.” Wow, it’s no wonder they cut this wording out of the “new and improved” fourth “Manifesto.” Humanism advocates global socialism- pure and simple. This is what Humanists believe and this is the type of stuff they have been indoctrinating kids with in public schools with for 50 years.
SIXTEENTH: “Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind.” Again, Humanists believe that man is God and that we can have utopia on earth if only we have access to education and technology. Even though we have never had access to as much info as we do in 2007 and still have epidemic rates of divorce, depression, teen suicide, STDs, 1.5 million dead babies per year, etc.)
SEVENTEENTH: “We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease.” Humanists call for “open borders” and therefore oppose national sovereignty. Humanism seeks a one world global government with no borders.
JC, you\’re a thoughtful person. Read the \”Manifesto\” yourself http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html and ask yourself honestly if the \”Humanist Manifesto\” isn\’t really just the \”Communist Manifesto\” by a differnet name and if, as I have argued, that Humanism (i.e. atheistic Communism) isn\’t being actively advanced in our society particularly in our government schools. Also, real C.F. Potter\’s quote from his book about the goal of Humanism and how they would use schools to indoctrinate children inculcating the religion of Humanism into their impressionable minds. To me it is clear. What do you think?
August 29th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Gregg,
Thank you for the clarification (I do mean that). In your post, you did make reference to “post modern Secular Humanists” and “a quasi-(secular) Humanist theocracy,” so it was not clear that you recognize a distinction between Humanism and Secular Humanism. I will read what you have referred me to.
Candace,
I am glad to hear that you find the ideals of Secular Humanism “palatable,” “welcoming,” and “harmless.”
As to Secular Humanists’ “moral/spiritual agenda, “what drives them,” and “what they do,” I am unclear as to what you are referring to.
As to your claim that the Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as a religion, you will have to advise me as which cases you believe hold that Secular Humanism is a religion under the Constitution. In this regard, I will offer you a word of caution: many cases include footnotes, dicta, and other references that are not the actual holding of the Court and therefore do not establish precedent that courts recognize and are required to follow.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
JC, Actually the two are very similar and often used interchangeably. And although you are not aware of it the Supreme Court has recoginized Secular Humanism as a non-theistic religion in 1961( Torcaso v. Watkins). There are many differnet varieties of Humanism including \”Modern Humanism\” which I have referred to as \”Humanism\” as well as \”Secular Humansim\” which is for the most part an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought movements which are almost exclusively atheistic belief systems.
Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973 which I noted previously. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two.
At any rate, as I have argued the major tenets of Humanists in general as described in their \”Manifesto\” are the very core tenets and beliefs advanced in public schools and other areas of society for the past half century.
And for the reasons I have previously provided I don\’t believe that Humanist ideas (as outlined in their Manifesto) are “palatable,” “welcoming,” and “harmless\” at all. The religion of godless Humanism has been responsible for the vast majority of the mass murder in the 20th Century (hundreds of millions have been murdered by Humanist Communists, Socialists, and Nazis.) That is what happens when man plays God which is what you get with Humanism. It\’s that simple.
Gregg
August 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
J.C.
Yes, you are right about the wording of Secular Humanism to be obiter dicta. I use the words “Humanism” and “Secular Humanism” interchangeably and I stand corrected.
In the case of Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, the court determined that activities of the Fellowship of Humanity were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and were therefore entitled to a tax exemption.
To be clear, I do not find the core “ideals” of secular humanism in your post to be palatable, welcoming or harmless. I was being flippant. When I read through the list that you presented, I noticed wording that would make one think secular humanism is really quite harmless, when it is not. Any godless philosophy is not one that I advocate because I do not believe that life is best lived by placing ultimate faith in humans or centering one’s life in humans and their ever-changing values and emotions.
Whether it’s Humanism or Secular Humanism, both advocate human reasoning rather than religious beliefs that center on God. I believe that this is harmful for our society. As Gregg stated above, somebody’s values will dominate a culture. J. C., I am becoming one of those people who is willing to learn how to stand up for Judeo-Christian values and not let the Humanists or Secular Humanists go unopposed as they seek to change the culture.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:53 am
You are presumptuous in thinking that this country being dominated by Christianity is somehow better than it being dominated by Islam. Look throughout history: the ancient countries that were ruled by Christianity were just as bloodthirsty and unjust as the Muslim ones today. It is all a bunch of mythological nonsense, and America will be much better off if it isn’t ruled by religion at all.
The sooner more people can realize this, the sooner our country can begin to grow into a prosperous future.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Gregg,
Why is your blog not letting me post my response?
August 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
you just did.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I was able to post that question but not my response to your comments. I receive the error message, “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”
Is it because my response is too lengthy?
August 31st, 2007 at 7:51 am
Gregg and Candace,
There seems to be a problem with the length of my response, so I’ll try to summarize it:
1)Since Torcaso v. Watkins, at least two federal appellate courts have specifically rejected the notion that Torcaso v. Watkins established secular humanism as “religion” under the Constitution:
Kalka v. Hawk (D.C. Cir. 2000);
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (9th Cir. 1994); and
Grove v. Mead School District (9th Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in all of these cases.
Another common myth perpetuated by the religious right is that Nazis and Hitler were atheists. This cannot be farther from the truth.
http://atheism.about.com/od/isatheismdangerous/a/HitlerAtheist.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
In addition, communism/socialism in Russia was nothing like the secularism that many people claim it was and much more religious than people know. (again, I’m having trouble posting anything longer than this summary, so I’m forced to edit my explanation out.)
So, quite contrary to those who boldly declare that belief in a Judeo-Christian God is necessary for the survival of our civilization, it is not nearly that simple.
Nonetheless, because you are so convinced that Judeo-Christian religious faith is so vital to our survival, I honestly would be interested in knowing what actions you think a person of Judeo-Christian faith can take that a secular humanist cannot in order to perpetuate our civilization.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:56 am
(addendum to previous post)
With regard to communism/socialism in Russia…
As for the horrors of communism/socialism, it is interesting to note that before the Russian Revolution in 1917, millions of Russians, for hundreds and hundreds of years, had been told that the head of the church, the czar, was the head of the state, and everything was due to him. Stalin, great politician that he was, realized what a great opportunity this was for him, inheriting a population of millions that were servile, fatalistic, and superstitious. With this mindset already inculcated in his followers, Stalin directed an inquisition, heresy hunts, and trials, proclaimed miracles, and insisted that all things were due to him, the Leader. Furthermore, Stalin always was careful to keep the powerful Russian Orthodox Church on his side, much like Hitler and Mussolini’s deal with the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, communism/socialism in Russia was nothing like the secularism that many people claim it was and much more religious than people know.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:12 am
JC:
Interesting historial discussion. My guess is that a rebuttal will be about how the Nazi’s and communists were only using religion as a selling point (like a car salesman), but did not really believe in it.
Real Marxist communists back then were anti-religion. But Stalin knew how to keep power. With the Nazi’s, there is a much better argument behind the fact that Germany’s Christianity and Nazi-ism were very closely linked. Stalin just used it as a marketing ploy I think.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Optimist,
Thanks for the kinds words.
You certainly may have a reasonable point regarding Stalin.
The real frustrating thing is that regardless of whether the communists or Nazis were athiests, it is not the non-believers that carry the burden of demonstrating why believing in their ideals is necessary for our civilization’s survival. It is those of Judeo-Christian beliefs who have made the claim that if we do not believe as they do then our civilization is doomed. Therefore, it is they who carry the burden of proof. That is why I posed the question that I did.
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
JC,
You did not respond to my previous pts that:
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”At any rate, as I have argued the major tenets of Humanists in general as described in their ”Manifesto” are the very core tenets and beliefs advanced in public schools and other areas of society for the past half century.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”And for the reasons I have previously provided I don’t believe that Humanist ideas (as outlined in their Manifesto) are “palatable,” “welcoming,” and “harmless” at all. The religion of godless Humanism has been responsible for the vast majority of the mass murder in the 20th Century (hundreds of millions have been murdered by Humanist Communists, Socialists, and Nazis.) That is what happens when man plays God which is what you get with Humanism. It’s that simple.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”
So I will assume that you concur with my assessment.
As to Nazis (Hitler) being Christians as you falsely assert I suggest you study your history. This could not be further from the historical truth.
consider Hitler\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s comment, on on April 7, 1933, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2006/10/12/were_nazis_christians_are_christians_fascists
Furthermore you may want to consider the following,
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”University of Calgary professor emeritus Karla Poewe\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s New Religions and the Nazis (Routledge, 2006) shows that those who developed the Nazi religion \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”were decidedly anti-Christian because they saw Christianity as a Jewish phenomenon . . . in the 1920s to the 1940s to be anti-Semitic meant being anti-Christian and vice versa.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”
Poewe shows how influential pro-Nazi ideologues like Jakob Hauer saw Christianity as \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”a foreign faith and psychology imposed on Germany.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” They praised \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”Aryan religion\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” that did not place good and evil in opposition and attacked \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”the absolutism of Christianity.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” One key developer of Nazi theology, Hermann Mandel, complained that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”the Pauline-Augustinian-Reformed teachings about original sin [are] insulting to the ethical and moral feeling of the Germanic race.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”
Nazis, Poewe notes, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”learned their anti-Semitism outside of the church, then hated the church because it would not affirm their anti-Semitism, and finally developed their outright rejection of Christianity.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” Some people cite an aged Martin Luther\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s criticism of Judaism and call him a Nazi forerunner, but Poewe quotes a statement of the pro-Nazi German Faith Movement: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”We have no point of connection with Luther, for we have no sense of a relationship to the Bible as a godly holy book, nor to Christ as a Messiah-Savior.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”
Hitler himself wanted to kill not only all Jews but also fervent Christians who would not bow to him. He said, on April 7, 1933, \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” In that way he was like many of today\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s Islamo-fascists: They are out to kill Jews but also Christians and other Muslims.
The twisted history that leads many Jews to equate Christianity with Naziism contributes to an antagonism especially evident in Israel: With the small country fighting for its life, it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s sad that ultra-Orthodox Israelis in the southern Israel town of Arad are persecuting Messianic Jews there (\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”Igniting intolerance,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” Oct. 22, 2005).\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12221
Hitler did work publically to co-opt the Christian churches but privately condemned them stating that \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”christianity is an invention of sick brains…senseless… and indecent.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” as described in Robert Spencer\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”religion of peace: why Christianity is and Islam isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’t\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” which I highly recommend you read.Hitler knew that national socialism could not peacefully coexist with Christianity so he planned to eradicate it and millions of Christians were murdered in concerntration camps as a result. he called Christianity a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”disease.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”
And by the way Hitler was a big admirer of Japanese Shintoism and Islam which are totalitarian theocratic religions -as I am sure you know.
While Hitler and other Nazis may have used biblical quotations (like Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher did\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” applying Jesus\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’ words in John 8:44 for example as justification for their anti-Semitism and goal to exterminate the Jews, they merely twisted and distorted Jesus\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’ words to justify their demonic purposes. Hitler and some other Nazis may have used the Bible to justify their murderous actions, but that alone does not mean that they were followers of Jesus Christ. Think about it. How can you claim to be a Christian- to have the Jewsish Messiah in your heart- and hate Jews? You can\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’t hate Jews and follow the Jewish messiah. The Nazi Totalitarian Socialists were for the most part virulently anti-Christian and most definately anti-Catholic in particular. Their anti-Semitism was rooted in Darwinian racial theories that claimed that Aryans were the master race and the Jews untermenschen. (scum, the lowest form of life) similar to the Islamists view that Jews are like \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”apes and pigs\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\” and Christians and other Pagans not significantly higher on this list. Again, just because somebody quotes the Bible to justify their actions or beliefs doesn\\\’t make them a Christian. Democrat-Socialists do it all the time to advance their Socialist agenda (redistributive taxation, radical environmentalism, welfare, etc…) but selectively ignore the parts in the Bible about homosexuality being sinful, marriage being inviolable, and innocent life being prescious. And as I have said before, the Left in America are primarlily Humanists. Their agenda and goals are almost identical to the Humanist Manifesto I quote above. They may call themselves \\\”liberals\\\” although that is now more of a disparaging term and one they have effectively scuttled favoring instead to refer to themselves as \\\”secular progressives\\\” (by the way the Progressive Party in America was backed by the Soviet Union) as I am sure you know). But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… well you know the rest. They are Humanists who actively endeavor to impose their religion of Humanism on American society.
Humanism is a godless atheistic religion. It is the very same religion that the Communists and Nazis practiced and attempted to impose on the world. It is a godless religion where man plays god. It is the religion of the Left in our country in many regards as I have demonstrated. And it has been soley responsible for the mass murder of close to 150 million in the 20th century alond. And yes, JC, I am saying that Western Civilization that is under girded and founded on uniquely Judeo Christian values and beliefs is special, unique, and superior to any other culture including (and especially) Islamic and Humanistic (communistic/socislistic) cultures. That is a historical fact that and it is therefore up to you to disprove. But unless we want to be living under Sharia Law it will be up to all of us who benefit from living in the freest most prosperous civilization of all time (Western Civilization) to band together (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, Hindus etc…) to defend it from the Islamists and Humanists who seek to destroy it. At any rate, this topic is the subject of my next book so stay tuned. And thanks for your thoughtful comments and posts. I like the discussion.
Gregg
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Oh,and JC I am sure with regard to your first comment that:
“1)Since Torcaso v. Watkins, at least two federal appellate courts have specifically rejected the notion that Torcaso v. Watkins established secular humanism as “religion” under the Constitution:
Kalka v. Hawk (D.C. Cir. 2000);
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (9th Cir. 1994); and
Grove v. Mead School District (9th Cir. 1985).
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in all of these cases.”
I am sure that you know that federal appellate courts cannot overturn Supreme Court decisions. And the original decsion in Torcaso v. Watkins still stands as the “law of the land” until it is overturned by the Supreme Court. And until that time “Humanism” is a “religion” as I originally stated.(a point that you admitted that you were originally unaware) see post #5
Gregg
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Gregg,
No, I don’t necessarily agree with your assessment of humanism and the public school system. I didn’t reply to that part of your post simply because, well, quite frankly, I don’t really care about whether you think humanism is what’s being taught in schools and whether you think it is the root of all evil.
With regard to Torcaso v. Watkins, you are absolutely right that federal appellate courts cannot overturn US Supreme Court decisions and that US Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land. In Torcaso v. Watkins, however, the Court did not hold that secular humanism is religion for First Amendment purposes. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the cases I cited, federal appellate courts have not recognized Torcaso v. Watkins as holding that secular humanism is a religion for First Amendment purposes.
Torcaso v. Watkins invalidated a provision in the Maryland Constitution that required state officials to declare their belief in the existence in God. In what is known as a dictum footnote, or a footnote containing a personal comment or opinion that is not necessary to the final result in the case and establishes no legal precedent, Justice Black wrote, “Among the 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.”
As I stated, since Torcaso v. Watkins, at least two federal appellate courts have specifically rejected the notion that Torcaso v. Watkins established secular humanism as “religion” under the Constitution.
I never admitted secular humanism is a religion. In one of my previous posts, I simply thanked you for your clarification that you do not equate secular humanism with humanism (although you see very little difference between the two).
Again, I honestly would be interested in knowing what actions you think a person of Judeo-Christian faith can take that a secular humanist cannot in order to perpetuate our civilization.
It’s your claim, not mine. It’s not about proving or disproving anything, at least at this point. It’s about first understanding the viewpoint of people who the claims you do.
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
J.C.
The Catholic Church, the church that baptized Hitler, has formally apologized for its failure to decisively challenge Hitler’s Nazi regime and his extermination of nearly 6 million Jews. See this article www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N13/vatican.13w.html or do a Google search on the topic. Your article tells us that Hilter himself was never officially censured or excommunicated by the Catholic Church. However, a formal apology by the Catholic Church for its failure to act in response to the clearly anti- Christian activities of Hitler’s Nazi regime is very,very significant. Just because someone invokes the name of Jesus, it does not a make him a Christian. Jesus Himself said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (check out Matthew 7:21)
Just thirty years ago, Public Television ran Holocaust documentaries every single Sunday that I could remember. They did this presumably so that we wouldn’t forget. Hitler’s regime was evil. When Judeo-Christian values predominate a culture, that culture recognizes what is good and what is evil. It does not call “evil” as “good.” I remember clearly everything that Gregg has stated above about Hitler claiming the Aryan race was the master race. I remember being taught about his obsession with the Aryan race. I can still call to mind Hitler’s wagging finger as he talked. Crowds had to stand at attention while he ranted on and on for hours. I am personally acquainted with author Tille Shulze, who had to stand as a seven year old in Germany at one of Hitler’s speeches with her arm in that “Heil Hitler” position for long periods of time. Her book, Tillie’s Story, would open your eyes to what it was like to live under Hitler, who may have been many things but Christian wasn’t one of them.
JC, you ask what actions a Christian can take that a secular humanist cannot in order to perpetuate our civilization. The evidence is clear. A true history of the United States, not a revisionist one, will show you that we have been blessed because our God is the Lord and not one man, one philosophy, one church denomination, one great military general, one super monarchy, one great atheist or anything else. Secular humanists have not and cannot achieve what a people can achieve whose God is the Lord.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Anyone want to guess who said this?
“Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We’ve just had a — wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday’s attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.
These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.
The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.
The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.
When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race — out of every race.
America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.
Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.
I’ve been told that some fear to leave; some don’t want to go shopping for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.
Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.
This is a great country. It’s a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They’re outraged, they’re sad. They love America just as much as I do.
I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.”
And a decent read that shows some interesting angles is John Esposito’s Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality.
I am Catholic. I am proud of my religion. Just in case anyone was about to question that.
Terry
PS: The above was from President Bush
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Terry,
Yup. That settles it. That noted expert on Islam and the Koran George W Bush said Islam is a \”religion of peace.\” I guess the discussion is now ended.
Come on Terry. The President has been correct on many things but calling Islam a \”religion of peace\” (and similarly refering to Jihadists as \”those folks\” instead of the more accurate description- Islamic throat cutting barbaric 7th century savages) is not one of them. President Bush is exactly 100% wrong. when he stated:
\\\\\\\”The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.\\\\\\\”
As I and others have documented including our guest on Pundit Review Radio last night Islamic expert Robert Spencer noted Islam is not a \\\\\\\”religion of peace.\\\\\\\” It is a militant and ultra-violent anti-Semitic/anti-Christian religion based on imposing Islamic Sharia law and establishing a global caliphate which may be \\\”peaceful\\\” for those who submit, but ultra violent even deadly for those who don\\\’t including the \\\”apes and pig\\\” Jews and apostate Muslims wher the penalty for leaving the religion is death.
Properly understood it is a theocratic totalitarian ideology. Having said that, not all its adherents are violent Jihadists- for the most part because most Muslims are not Arabic and can\\\\\\\’t read Arabic- the only language in which the Koran can be properly understood and interpreted according to Islamic Scholars and experts themselves. Perhpas most Mulsims are peaceful citizens- no doubt the majority are. But it is also true that a significant number also believe that homocide attacks are justified (Close to a quarter of Muslims in the US believe so and also believe that Bush coordianted 9-11 with Israel- that it was an \\\\\\\”inside job.\\\\\\\”)And even if 10% of the 7 million US Muslims subscribe to the fundamentals of Islam which include the tenet of Jihad- that equates to about a quarter of a million Jihadists in the US. We know what 19 can do. How about 750,000 who share the same core belief that Jihadist terrorism is justified by the Koran and that Sharia law surpasses US law? Spencer and Islamic expert Gregory Davis who we have had on our show both debunk the notion perpetuated by Bush and others that Islam is a \\\”religion of peace.\\\” If you are in doubt, I would highly recommend reading Robert Spencer\\\\\\\’s book we discussed last night \\\\\\\”Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn\\\\\\\’t.\\\\\\\” Spencer is a world renowned subject matter expert on Islam and would urge you to give it a read.
And why would you mention that you are a \\\\\\\”Catholic?\\\\\\\” Why even bring that up? What does that have to do with the discussion?
As to Candace\\\\\\\’s comment to JC regarding JC\\\\\\\’s statement:
\\\\\\\”…what actions a Christian can take that a secular humanist cannot in order to perpetuate our civilization.\\\\\\\”
again, just study history. Western Civ was not founded on Secualar Humanist Principles. It was founded on Judeo-Christian ones that begin with the premise that man attains his rights not from men or the state but from God. Humanism denies any higher authority than man and therefore rejects the notion of inalienable rights. This is a key distinction. And another is that Humanism has been responsible almost exclusively for the mass murder of the 20th century. If you want to really understand the fecklessness of Humansim to preserve society just look at Europe where the churches are virtually empty and where nihilistic atheistic humanist Eruopeans have essentially submitted to the Islamists. Humanism will not preserve Western Civ. Only those who are comitted to a Judeo-Chritian uniquely Western world view based first and foremost on religious liberty will.
Gregg
September 4th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Gregg,
I will quote straight from A Secular Humanist Declaration, issued in 1980 by the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (now the Council for Secular Humanism):
“As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Therefore, I find it hard to claim that secular humanists “reject the notion of inalienable rights.”
You simply state that western civilization was founded on Judeo-Christian values and mention atrocities that you claim humanists caused. Fine. For the sake of argument, let us accept those to be the case. Again though, I would be very interested in knowing what actions a person of Judeo-Christian faith can take that a secular humanist cannot in order to perpetuate our civilization.
(By the way, I find this discussion interesting as well, much more interesting than I thought I would, and I am not being facetious when I say that.)
September 4th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Considering that Bush has based many of his actions on the fact that he believes that the Arab world can be turned into democracies, it is slightly disturbing to think that his actions are based on a huge mistake.
And I am going to pick up the book. He was interesting the other night. I would recommend you pick up the one I suggested as well.
As for the Catholic comment, I was just thinking that some reading this could have a tendency to equate respect for another religion with a dislike of my own. Which is not the case.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
J.C.,
You ask what actions a person of Judeo-Christian faith can take that a secular humanist cannot take in order to perpetuate our civilization. We’ve answered you. However, I’m thinking you are directing this toward individuals. What can one person do? Plenty. A person of Christian faith relies on a vertical relationship…that of one between God and man. A secular humanist relies on lateral relationships…man to man. Man has ever-changing desires, motives and emotions. There is no stability in secular humanism because it is based on a reliance on man as its sovereign source. The Christian has God as the source of inalienable rights, for example. These rights are inalienable, non-transferable, inherent and inviolable and they come from God, not the government or any other human source. The only way they need protection is if some man or government or organization tries to take away what God has already given. The Christian then lives knowing that he has a right to life, a right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness. He orients his life living in relationship with God first. The action that a Christian takes to perpetuate our western civilization is to live in relationship to God and all other actions that he does flow from there. This has a rippling effect for the perpetuation of civilization. The secular humanist cannot take such action or perpetuate our civilization because his orientation is toward man and man’s ever-changing desires. No civilization can survive when the line is always moving and actions are in accordance with rights that are believed to come from government or some other man-made organization.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Candace (and Gregg),
As I have said in previous posts, if you are trying to argue that secular humanists do not recognize certain unalienable rights that must be protected without exception, you have a very difficult, if not impossible, hill to climb. As stated in the document that outlines the core ideals that secular humanists recognize:
“As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
(See http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration#freedom)
I cannot conceive of a clearer way to state that secular humanists recognize, and hold dear, the very rights you claim they do not. Furthermore, quite contrary to your claim, secular humanisits do not believe these rights “come from government or some other man-made organization.” As stated, secular humanists defend those rights from “ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them.”
You claim, “There is no stability in secular humanism because it is based on a reliance on man as its sovereign source,” and that a “secular humanist cannot take such action or perpetuate our civilization because his orientation is toward man and man’s ever-changing desires.”
If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that secular humanists do not recognize any source for objective truth. As I have stated, however, secular humanists recognize the free exchange of opposing opinions and ethical deliberation as sources for objective truth. Rather than moral relativism, secular humanists believe in truth, objective standards, and ethical values and principles, in that they emerge and can be discovered through the free exchange of opposing opinions and ethical deliberation. In other words, rather than embracing Nehilism, which denies the possibility of an objective basis for truth, secular humanists embrace the free exchange of opposing opinions and ethical deliberation as bases for truth.
With regard to the issue of what should serve as the source for objective truth, I find the discussion with regard to another article in this blog interesting. Several people argued that there have been those who have engaged in dreadful, terrible, terroristic acts in the name of God, and therefore, God should not serve as the source for objective truth. In response, those of Judeo-Christian beliefs argued that those who engage in dreadful, terrible, terroristic acts in the name of God are simply claiming they are acting in the name of God but are either not really acting in the name of God or misinterpreting scripture.
But how does anyone really know whether someone is genuinely acting in the name of God or misinterpreting scripture? I suppose the person of Judeo-Christian beliefs would say that in order to be able to identify true ethical and moral behavior, you must study and understand scripture, discuss scripture with those around you, and deliberate on how scripture should apply to the natural world know.
If this is the case, it is not the belief in God that separates those who act ethically and morally from those who do not. Rather, it is the acts of studying, understanding, discussing, and deliberating upon what is ethical and moral that separate the two groups. In other words, rather than a belief in God, it is the free exchange of opposing opinions and ethical deliberation, the very sources of objective truth that secular humanists recognize and hold dear, that are the true sources for ethical and moral behavior.
Maybe you and Gregg are arguing that perpetuating our civilization requires more than acting ethically and morally. If that is the case, than again, I would be interested in knowing what actions those of Judeo-Christian beliefs can take to perpetuate our civilization that a secular humanist cannot.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
J.C.,
Yes, the one action that secular humanists do not take that Christians do is to place their ultimate trust and hope in the Lordship and leadership of Jesus Christ. If you’ve never read the gospel of John in a readable and reliable version, I highly recommend that you get a copy of the Bible. New Living Translation or the New International Version of the Bible are popular but there are others like the Contemporary English Version or New King James Bible. The goal of reading the gospel of John is to help acquaint you with this Jesus that we Christ-followers talk about and follow. Perhaps you will see what makes us tick or why we believe that we can perpetuate our civilization better than the secular humanists. We’ve given you the historical angle, facts, and personal experiences. Now, it may be time for you to examine with a critical eye what people of Christian faith believe and why their faith has helped perpetuate western civilization thus far. I think that this would help you understand our view that it takes more than human dialoguing to retain our civilization and our way of life.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Candace:
As I understand your post, you do not believe that acting morally and ehtically is enough: you believe that people must “place their ultimate trust and hope in the Lordship and leadership of Jesus Christ.”
Although I am not really sure what that entails, am I right?
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 am
car dealer insurance indiana…
softest throngs bloodiest:expensive lurks?euphemism …