THE HUMANIZATION OF AMERICA

[Dana]

THE HUMANIZATION[1] OF AMERICA
IN CULTURE, EDUCATION AND LAW
Robert L. Waggoner[2]

This country was founded primarily upon theistic values that produced a
mostly theistic culture. However, theistic values have been and are now
challenged by the values of secular humanism. Theism and humanism are now
locked in a great cultural struggle.[3]
A casual observer may see how a culture functions, but only later discover
why. A culture changes when its people change their way of thinking. Whereas
theism has been and is generally promoted by individuals and churches,
humanism has been and is promoted primarily by our nation's public
schools.[4] After Americans had been sufficiently taught humanistic values
through public schools, humanists then worked through the judicial system to
enforce humanistic cultural values. At the same time, they have used various
forms of electronic media to popularize humanism and diminish theism.[5]
In this document, cultural differences between biblical theism and modern
humanism will be contrasted by looking at changes which have occurred to the
family, since the family may be considered as a microcosm of the culture.
While all causes responsible for changes in the culture cannot be indicated,
some that were accomplished through education and law will be noticed.
Culture
While culture in a limited sense might include behavior and manners in the
arts, media, and scholarly pursuits, culture will be discussed here in an
anthropological sense. As such, culture is "the sum total of ways of living
built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to
another."[6] It consists of patterns of behavior characteristic of a
society.
Generally speaking, a culture derived from biblical theism differs
drastically from a culture derived from humanistic ideology. That humanistic
values have increased in the American culture and that theistic values have
been diminishing may be illustrated in many ways, one of which is by
observing historical changes in the United States over the past century.
Since the family is a microcosm of the culture, then a brief overview at
what has been happening to the family will illustrate changes in the culture
in the United States. How humanism has overthrown theism in culture through
education and law will then be observed.
The institution of the family has been assaulted drastically by humanistic
ideology since World War II. Our former theistic morality has been replaced
by humanistic immoralities of abortion, divorce and sexual permissiveness.
Pornography and homosexuality also challenge Christian morality, while
theistic family authority and economics are challenged by humanistic
philosophies of materialism, feminism and statism.
Probably the first major indication to the populace that theistic thinking
has been suppressed by humanism was the announcement, which caught most
theists off guard, that abortion had been legalized in the United States.[7]
Since its legalization, "[a]bortion has grown into a five hundred million
dollar a year industry in the United States. . . . It is the most frequently
performed surgical operation."[8] Legalization of abortion effectively
nullified the requirement that medical graduates take the Hippocratic oath,
which was theistic in origin.[9] Legalization of abortion has been
successful, however, only because theists "have allowed themselves to become
assimilated into a corrupt and promiscuous culture."[10] Humanism must not
therefore be perceived as being strong; rather, humanism has gained control
of the culture because biblical theism is very weak.
The ideology of abortion relates to other human life issues which theists
must also face in this growing humanistic culture. These issues other human
life issues consist of euthanasia and infanticide. Since these are all
endorsed by humanists,[11] then theists can either fight to win the battle
against abortion, claim the next battleground, or lose by default in all
areas.
Next in importance to abortion, the most significant area for consideration
in humanism's attack on theistic culture is the destabilization of marriage.
This is accomplished in many ways, but principally through divorce. Whereas
in 1900 there was less than one divorce for every nine marriages, now there
is one divorce for every two marriages. The United States now has the
highest divorce rate in the world.[12] This change has come mostly since
1950, when, "for every 100 children born, 12 entered a broken family. Today,
for every 100 children born, 60 will enter a broken family."[13] Unless
curtailed by legislation, the current divorce rate will probably remain a
predictable feature or our culture for the foreseeable future. Back in the
early 1980s John Naisbitt predicted that by the 1990s "more than a third of
the couples first married in the 1970s will have divorced."[14] Each year,
about one million children experience the divorce of their parents, 1.25
million are born out of wedlock, and another 1.4 million are aborted.[15]
Consequences to a culture from divorce are significant. "Child abuse is
growing steadily, and child sexual abuse is growing fastest of all. In
short, Americans are literally turning against their children. But adults
suffer as well from the breakdown of the family institution. Studies clearly
show that those who divorce suffer shorter life expectancies, poorer
physical and psychological health, and lower standards of living."[16]
"[M]ore than a third of the children born in the 1970s will have spent part
of their childhood living with a single parent (and emotional and financial
consequences of this trend will be commensurately large)."[17]
Divorce also cripples children emotionally. Almost invariably, whenever
parents divorce, children blame themselves. Tim LaHaye, a nationally
renowned marriage and family counselor, declared that "[t]oday's easy
divorce practice will result in a whole generation of psychologically
wounded adults who, when entering the marriage stage of life, will be
incapable of giving selfless love to either their partners or their
children, thus compounding current tragedies."[18]
An early pro-family advocate, Connie Marshner, has observed that divorce,
"has become one of the major causes of a whole range of social ills
afflicting children and youth, from promiscuity to suicide to drug and
alcohol abuse. . . . We have a generation and a half of walking wounded,
people who suffered through their parents' divorce and are still scarred by
it."[19]
The rapid increase in divorce also indicates a weakness of theism within the
culture. Because theism is weak, humanism managed to initiate no-fault
divorce laws in many states during the 1970s. No-fault divorce laws have
largely removed the social stigma attributed to divorce that came from
theism. Even the term divorce is now often legally changed to dissolution of
marriage. The ease with which divorce is now obtainable contributes to its
increase.
The once strong code of sexual morality of our society has given way to
sexual permissiveness. It is increasingly common for unmarried youth to
engage in sexual cohabitation with one another. Even the language of sexual
misconduct has changed. Whereas society once used biblical expressions of
fornication and adultery, now the talk is about pre-marital and
extra-marital affairs. Those who engage in such conduct defend their actions
on the grounds of personal freedoms, saying that "two consenting adults have
the right to do whatever they please in the privacy of their own homes."
This sexual permissiveness weakens families.
Several other ways which sexual permissiveness demonstrates itself, in
addition to divorce, would include the rise of pornography and
homosexuality. While these are themselves cause for alarm, it must not be
overlooked that it is sexual permissiveness which permits them. Pornography
began its major onslaught against marriage and the family with the advent of
Playboy magazine in the early 1950s. Since then, the attack has intensified.
Pornography dirties minds. It distorts the sexual realities of marriage.
"Fully two-thirds of the sexual problems in marriage can be traced to the
use of pornography."[20]
Dr. Victor Cline, Professor of Psychology at the University of Utah, a noted
researcher and lecturer in the effects of pornography, wrote that as "a
marriage and family therapist I have the unfortunate opportunity to daily
and continually see what the sad and often tragic outcomes are when men get
involved in pornography. It is a direct attack and assault upon the family
and marriage relationships."[21] "Either our society accepts the tenets of
the perverts and becomes a free-love bastion, or we protect our way of life
by supporting mature sexuality. There can be no compromise. Perversion and
mature love cannot exist side by side. Each destroys the other."[22]
Homosexual lifestyles are increasingly attacking the morality that is based
upon biblical concepts of marriage. Although homosexuality is strongly
condemned by the Bible (Leviticus 18:22; 22:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1
Corinthians 6:9-10; see also 1 Tim. 1:8-11; 2 Pet. 2:6-10; Jude 7.), it
appears to be growing in its quest for acceptance as an alternative
lifestyle. The primary threat of homosexuality to the sanctity of marriage
appears to come from homosexual activists pushing for legalization of
homosexual marriages as a civil right.
Humanism has been so successful in its war against the family that it
threatens to change the definition of the family. Traditionally the family
has been defined "in its narrowest sense, [as a] social group consisting of
parents and their children. This is the nuclear, or conjugal, family, which
has been found in most societies, either as the sole existing form or as the
basic unit in a broader system."[23] However, the term is now often used, at
least by avowed humanists, to mean "a group of individuals living under one
head (household) . . . the basic unit in society having as its nucleus two
or more adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of
their own or adopted children."[24]
Humanistic philosophies also seem to be changing the theistic nature of the
family in areas related to family economics and authority. Whereas wages
were once based upon the assumption that a man should receive a "family"
wage, (i.e. should be able to support his family on his single income), it
is now assumed that wages should be based on "individual"
considerations.[25] Moreover, while taxes on individuals and corporations
have steadily declined, taxes on a couple with four children rose an
incredible 223 percent from 1960 to 1984.[26]
When men could not by themselves earn sufficient for family desires, then
their wives also sought employment away from their husbands and children.
Whereas in 1890 less than one in twenty women worked outside the home, less
than a century later it was up to one half.[27] It is now estimated that
two-thirds of all wives (67 percent) are employed in the labor force. The
number of mothers working outside the home increased five-fold from 1940 to
1978. Nearly half of those were mothers of pre-school children, and almost a
third were mothers of children under three years of age.[28]
Family authority and responsibility is also changing. Whereas once a family
considered itself responsible for the care for it's aged, that time is
almost gone.[29] While a family is generally considered responsible for
educating and providing for its own children, if the family does not fulfill
its obligations in accordance with bureaucratic policies, then a family may
be in danger of losing its children to civil authorities.[30] In Eisenstadt
v. Baird, the court extended unmarried persons the right to determine the
appropriate use of contraceptives.[31] This ruling contributed to the court'
s declaration of a woman's right to abortion in Roe v. Wade.[32] Thereafter,
in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, a husband no longer had a right to deny
his wife an abortion nor did an unmarried minor woman need parental consent
before an abortion.[33] The case of In re Synder indicates that a child may
achieve separation from parents on grounds of incompatibility.[34] "In light
of the abortion and contraceptive cases, the right of the parents to assume
authority over their children has been lost."[35]
Over the last half-century, a growing humanistic legal system, which has
endorsed individual humanistic rights of abortion, divorce, pornography, and
homosexuality, has been assaulting theistic values of the family. Whereas
the family is considered the basic unit in a society founded upon theistic
principles, individual rights have now come to be considered superior to
those of the family. As a result, family authority, responsibility and
wealth are generally diminished. These changes have occurred not only
because of a growing humanistic persuasion in law, but also because more
than a century ago a humanistic educational program was set in motion to
change the American culture.
Education
The primary means by which the United States has been humanized has been
through its government school system with its compulsory attendance and
taxes. History indicates that while schools existed in colonial America they
were generally private and considered as extensions of the home.
For the first two-hundred years in American history, from the mid-1600s to
the mid-1800s, public schools as we know them were virtually non-existent. .
. . In these two centuries, America produced several generations of highly
skilled and literate men and women who laid the foundation for a nation
dedicated to the principles of freedom and self-government. . . . The
private system of education in which our fore-fathers were educated included
home, school, church, voluntary associations such as library companies and
philosophical societies. . . . The Bible was the single most important
cultural influence in the lives of Anglo-Americans. Thus, the cornerstone of
early American education was the belief that "children are an heritage from
The Lord." Parents believed that it was their responsibility to not only
teach them how to make a living, but also how to live. As our forefathers
searched their Bibles, they found that the function of government was to
protect life and property. Education was not a responsibility of the civil
government.[36]
Early in the history of the United States, the courts had no doubt that
education was a function of the parents and no more a function of the state
than is the begetting of children. Education was seen as an aspect of
child-rearing. With the birth and development of state schools, however, the
courts steadily invaded the area of parental authority, and the school came
to be seen, not as an aspect of family government, but of civil government.
Numerous decisions established that "Public education is not merely a
function of government; it is of government. Power to maintain a system of
public schools is an attribute of government in much the same sense as is
the police power or the power to administer justice or to maintain military
forces or to tax." The state thus assumed an important aspect of parental
authority. It is supposed by many that the ground of this assumption is the
welfare of the child; the courts, on the contrary, have made clear that it
is in terms of the welfare of the state. 'The primary function of the public
school, in legal theory at least, is not to confer benefits upon the
individual as such, the school exists as a state institution because the
very existence of civil society demands it.'[37]
Since the education of children was assumed to be the responsibilities of
parents, rather than of civil governments, education was not compulsory but
was supported by family and philanthropic funds. Schools were not funded by
government taxes, except in Massachusetts.[38]
Teachers were considered as instructors for the purpose of imparting
knowledge. The aim of education was to promote theistic values.
The colonial schools all had the teaching of religion as their chief aim and
their main component. Massachusetts, in 1647, adopted what they called the
'Old Deluder Act.' The Act said: 'It being one chief project of ye Old
Deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of The Scripture, it is
therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after ye Lord
hath increased ye number to fifty house-holders, shall henceforth appoint
one in their town to teach all children.' In other words . . . the aim of
education in the colonies was to bring children to The Scriptures and to
God. . . . Colonial education was thoroughly Christian, and provided a means
for the covenant people to insure the preservation of the Biblical
commonwealth for their descendants.[39]
That was quite different from today when government schools seem intent on
prohibiting the teaching of Christian values while secularizing and
socializing children. Teachers are often considered as "change agents" to
change the thinking and values of children.[40] The state is now considered
primarily responsible for educating children for the benefit of the state.
According to a New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling, the purpose of public
schools is for "the protection and improvement of the [S]tate as a political
entity."[41] An Oklahoma appellate court has stated that "the moment a child
is born he owes allegiance to the government. . . . [And] the government . .
. places him under guardianship . . . that he may acquire that education
which will enable him afterward to discharge the duty which he owes to his
country [that is, the State]."[42] A California district court of appeals
contended that the state's educational system has a "primary" function of
training "school children in . . . loyalty to the [S]tate."[43]
The current legal assumption is that the state owns all children and
property.[44] The courts have declared that whatever authority parents have
"is derived from the state," that "there is no parental authority
independent of the supreme power of the State," and that "a child is
primarily a ward of the State."[45] Considered together, government schools
now constitute the largest socialistic institution within the nation.[46]
The content of education was then considered to be a body of knowledge
consistent with theistic values. Religion was considered important. Hence,
moral education from a Christian perspective was part of the curriculum.
Now, however, the content of education seems to be a body of knowledge
consistent with humanistic values. Religion is considered not only
unimportant, but perhaps harmful. Hence, all education funded by government
taxes must be secular.
Before 1930 the phonetics method was generally always used for the teaching
of reading. Teachers were generally authoritarian using corporal punishment
when needed. Students were promoted to the next grade only when the material
had been learned. Now however, the "look-say" method is used to teach
reading about eighty-five percent of the time.[47] Teachers are generally
permissive, having no disciplinary authority. Students are often promoted
automatically to the next grade level whether or not the assigned subject
matter has been learned.
The general educational results were then much better than now. While
government statistics do not record the rate of literacy in colonial
America, or in its earliest years under its federal constitution, there are
historical records which give indications of the high level of education
attained by Anglo-Saxons in the early history of this nation. These records
are not generally known to most school teachers and parents, but they
demonstrate that the general public is not as literate today as it once
was.[48]
Around the 1800s, the adult illiteracy rate was extremely low. Dupont de
Nemours, who surveyed education at the request of Thomas Jefferson, said
that "most young Americans . . . can read, write and cipher. Not more than
four in a thousand are unable to write legibly - even neatly."[49] Moreover,
in 1820, Daniel Webster noted "that in England not more than one child in
fifteen possesses the means of being taught to read and write; in Wales, one
in twenty; in France, until lately, when some improvement was made, not more
than one in thirty-five. Now it is hardly too strong to say, that in New
England every child possesses such means. It would be difficult to find an
instance to the contrary, unless where it should be owing to the negligence
of the parent; and in truth, the means are actually used and enjoyed by
nearly every one. A youth of fifteen, of either sex, who cannot read and
write, is very seldom to be found."[50]
By 1930, it was only at 1.5 percent.[51] Children were expected to achieve
better than their parents. Students were generally well behaved. At the turn
of the twentieth century, when most Americans were still educated in the one
room country school house and long before massive amounts of money were
spent on education, the record indicates that the general public was still
much better educated than now. Now the adult illiteracy rate stands at about
twenty-five percent with another forty percent barely literate.[52] Children
are not expected to achieve equal to their parents. Christian values and
character qualities appear constantly damaged by government schools.
Students are often rowdy while violence seems to be increasing.
Some understanding of why schools have changed from being theistic in
orientation to being humanistic can be gained by a brief historical overview
of education in the United States. While there was no need for government
funded public schools in the early 1800s, Unitarians desired a secular
rather than a theistic society.[53] They therefore worked to achieve that
objective by beginning the first tax funded school in Boston in the early
1800s.[54] By the 1830s Horace Mann, an effective state legislator, had been
secured to be their secretary of education. He studied the educational ideas
of atheist Robert Owen and began to implement those values into the American
school system.[55] Mann and other educational designers intended that only
secular subjects should be taught in the government public school system.
Samuel Blumenfeld illustrates their determination to keep theism out of
public schools by citing an incident. In March of 1838, a list of books was
being compiled for common school libraries which Horace Mann and the Board
of Education were planning to assemble. The idea was to get the legislature
to fund the costs of such books. The recording secretary of the American
Sunday School Union, Frederick A. Packard, sent a letter to Mann asking him
if a particular book, John S. Abbott's Child at Home, would be suitable.
Packard wanted to see how biased the Board would be. It didn't take him long
to find out. Mann rejected the Abbott book on the grounds that it was too
sectarian in content and that the law of 1827 forbade the use of sectarian
books 'favoring any particular religious tenet' in the public schools.
Packard replied that the law also required that the common schools teach the
'principles of piety,' and he asked Mann how these 'principles of piety'
could be taught 'without favoring some particular tenet.' It was a dilemma
that would remain an inherent part of the secular state education right up
to the present. But, back in 1838, Mann insisted that the Abbott book, as
well as all other books issued by the American Sunday School Union, were
unsuitable for the common school libraries. For Mann, it was important to
consolidate secularism's capture of public education. There could be no
compromise on this issue.[56]
The humanizing process through public schools was thus established, but was
slow in its development because rural America was reluctant to change. With
the urbanization of the nation in the late nineteenth century secularization
increased. Other major factors increasing humanization in education were
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the arrival of John Dewey and
other humanists as re-designers of American education in the late nineteenth
century. Twentieth century educators continued their anti-theistic lead.
Who are these Humanists? Well, other than John Dewey and Horace Mann, who
set the stage back in the early 1900s for using public education to promote
the religion of Humanism - just to mention a few: B. F. Skinner, whose
operant conditioning is widely used in classrooms and taught in most college
education courses today; J. L. Moreno, who designed sociograms, role playing
and psychol-drama; Maslow, whose Third Force Psychology was used as the
basis for the National Training Laboratories, founded by the N.E.A.; Dr.
Carl Rogers of the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, well-known for
many forms of sensitivity training; Dr. Lester Kirkendall of SIECUS, and Dr.
Albert Ellis, clinical psychologist who, among other things, espouses
glorious theories on premarital sex; Dr. William Glasser, whose so-called
educational philosophy was rapidly placed in classrooms under the title
"Schools Without Failure," and whose Reality Therapy is an integral part of
many educational programs; Dr. Robert Carkhuff, self-proclaimed "militant
humanist" and designer of human and educational development series for
guidance counselors and teachers; Jerome Bruner, author of the obnoxious
MACOS program; and last but certainly not least to this discussion, Louis
Raths and Dr. Sidney Simon - designer and promoter of Values Clarification
Programs and Values Changing curriculum.[57]
They would all diminish theism and promote humanism in the schools.[58] In
addition, the National Education Association would continue to follow
humanistic thinking. Rousas J. Rushdoony provides an illustration and
analysis of humanism in the N.E.A.
In 1951, the Educational Policies Commission of the N.E.A. issued a
statement, written by William G. Carr, and titled, Moral and Spiritual
Values In The Public Schools. It expressed the hope that 'this report will
encourage in homes, churches, and schools a nationwide renaissance of
interest in education for moral and spiritual values.' The commission
declared, 'By moral and spiritual values we mean those values which, when
applied to human behavior, exalt and refine life and bring it into accord
with the standards of conduct that are approved in our democratic culture.'
[59]
Notice that values desired by the commission are not divine moral and
spiritual values but rather those which are in accord with the standards
"approved in our democratic culture," that is, human standards! "The NEA
have remained remarkably faithful to the Humanist Manifesto since 1933. For
all practical purposes, the public school has become the parochial school
for secular humanism. Its doctrines pervade the curriculum from top to
bottom."[60]
Dewey intended that America's public schools should be the means by which
the religion of humanism would be taught to all Americans.[61] While Dewey
intended to change the way Americans think, he realized that "[c]hange must
come gradually. To force it unduly would compromise its final success by
favoring a violent reaction."[62]
The correlation between government schools and humanism is not an accident
of history. Dewey and his colleagues took the anti-God philosophy of
humanism and built it into the very structures of America's public schools.
John Dewey was probably the most influential signer of the first Humanist
Manifesto. Dewey's disciples have continued to build upon his humanistic
foundations. In 1930, another signer of that first Humanist Manifesto,
Charles F. Potter, envisioned a growing humanistic world as a result of
public schools. He wrote, even before the manifesto was published in 1933,
that "[e]ducation is thus a most power ally of humanism, and every public
school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting
for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to
stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teachings?"[63]
In 1961, an editor of Humanist magazine declared that "public education is
the parochial education for scientific humanism."[64] For this reason,
humanists have had strong interest in passage of strong bills for federal
aid to public education.
Unlike these humanists, Charles Hodge, a Presbyterian minister, had foreseen
in 1887 that secularism in government schools would produce great evil. He
noticed that
The tendency is to hold that this [educational] system must be altogether
secular. The atheistic doctrine is gaining currency . . . that an education
provided by the common government should be entirely emptied of all
religious character. The Protestants object to the government schools being
used for the purpose of inculcating the doctrines of the Catholic Church,
and Romanists object to the use of the Protestant version of the Bible and
to the inculcation of the peculiar doctrines of the Protestant churches. The
Jews protest against the schools being used to inculcate Christianity in any
form, and the atheists and agnostics protest against any teaching that
implies the existence and moral government of God.
It is capable of exact demonstration that if every party in the State has
the right of excluding from the public schools whatever he does not believe
to be true, then he that believes most must give way to him that believes
least, and then he that believes least must give way to him that believes
absolutely nothing, no matter in how small a minority the atheists or the
agnostics may be. It is self-evident that on this scheme, if it is
consistently and persistently carried out in all parts of the country, the
United States system of national education, separated from religion, as is
now commonly proposed, will prove the most appalling enginery for the
propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social
nihilistic ethics, individual, social, and political, which this sin-rent
world has ever seen.[65]
Public schools in the United States did not generally become compulsory by
law until the decade following 1910. With compulsory taxation to support
public schools and compulsory attendance of the nation's children, humanism
had a captured audience and could easily move through the schools to expunge
theistic thinking from the culture.
When humanism had sufficiently replaced theistic thinking as the dominant
value system for society, then a series of legal cases began in the courts
in 1947 that further removed theism from the schools.[66] The impact from
these court decisions was felt immediately in the public schools. As a
result of removing public prayer from the schools in 1962 there came an
immediate increase of immorality in the nation.
David Barton took a statistical look at what has happened since 39 million
students were ordered to stop praying in public schools. He noted that
When a ruler is overthrown, so are his laws, his ways of doing things. The
overthrow of God was no exception. Progressive rulings systematically
prohibited the observance of His standards. No longer was there a valid
platform for condemning disrespect, adultery, covetousness, theft, murder,
etc. The 1980 case Stone v. Graham forbade teaching standards of conduct
from something having a religious origin; the Ten Commandments were
prohibited from schools. Had the Ten Commandments originated with Plato or
Aristotle, they would still be allowed in schools. It makes no difference
that they are beneficial to man; they had a religious origin,[67]
Many Christian parents have begun to sense that their children are not safe
in public schools, not only for their physical safety, but also for the
preservation of their faith.[68] For this reason many theists have opted for
private schools and home schooling. Given the nature of the conflict between
parental rights and government assumptions regarding the schooling of
children, legal conflicts are inevitable.[69]
Moreover, the question is now beginning to be raised regarding the
permanence of public schools. "Ninety years have gone by since Dewey set
American education on its progressive course. The result is an educational
system in shambles, a rising national tide of illiteracy and the social
misery caused in its wake."[70] Many parents now want options for their
children's education apart from government schools. All educational options
are resisted by the educational establishment, however, because what is at
stake, from a humanistic perspective, is not just the education of children,
but primarily control over the culture. That's why a humanistic perspective
in law is important to humanists.

Law
Laws in a culture that is derived from biblical theism contrast sharply to
laws in a culture that is derived from humanism. These differences in legal
perspectives may be illustrated by contrasting examples of legal cases from
an era when theism dominated the culture with examples of legal cases in the
present era when humanism dominates the culture. Causes and consequences of
these changes in the legal system will also be noted.
While many examples might be given of Christianity being the foundation for
common law in the first century of our Constitutional Republic, only two
will be noted.[71] Consider first the case of Abner Updegraph who as a
member of a debating society said the wrong thing. A grand jury indicted
him, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tried and convicted him of blasphemy
in 1824. An excerpt from the indictment is as follows: "Abner Updegraph . .
. not having the fear of God before his eyes, contriving and intending to
scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and
the scriptures of truth . . . did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively,
despitefully and blasphemously say . . . 'that the Holy Scriptures were a
mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained
a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.'"[72]
Updegaph's attorney made the expected arguments citing "free speech," the
First Amendment, etc. But the jury was shocked that a learned group such as
a debating society would treat a serious subject with "levity, indecency,
[and] scurrility." Such an organization is fit only to "qualify young men
for the gallows, and young women for the brothel," the jury said.[73]
This decision was not an anomaly. Another case involved a Frenchman named
Stephen Girard who settled in this country. When he died in 1831, he
bequeathed his estate worth over $7 million to the city of Philadelphia.
Girard directed that the city use the money to build an orphanage and
college. As an adherent of French Enlightenment philosophy, Girard opposed
all education connected to Christianity. He stipulated that the Christian
faith could not be taught in his college, and that ministers could not serve
on staff or even set foot on the premises.
Girard's will was contested strenuously in court, primarily because no one
had ever willed money to a city before, and his heirs opposed it. Attorneys
on both sides found his anti-Christian requirements ludicrous. The
plaintiffs called them "repugnant." The defendants found them "obnoxious."
The court agreed. "The purest principles of morality are to be taught. Where
are they found? Whoever searches for them must go to the source from which a
Christian man derives his faith - the Bible."[74]
Contrast these cases with a couple examples of more recent years. In Chico,
California, Mrs. Evelyn Smith, a widow, had a vacant duplex for rent. An
unmarried couple wanted to rent it, but Mrs. Smith refused. Her biblical
convictions that sexual cohabitation should be reserved for marriage would
not allow her to live with a clean conscience if she rented to unmarried
couples. Shortly after her refusal the California Department of Fair
Employment and Housing contacted Mrs. Smith. They told her they would file
charges against her for "marital status" discrimination. An attorney for the
state said Mrs. Smith was trying to force her beliefs on others.[75] In
Anniston, Alabama, first grade students were told to bring their favorite
books to school for "Show and Tell." But when six-year-old Eric Pearson
brought in his favorite book, Jesus Loves Me, he was told to take it home
because it was against the law.[76]
However, until the last quarter century, the legal profession generally
upheld Judeo-Christian moral beliefs. "Not all of these people were
Christians, but those who weren't generally respected the common heritage of
values derived from biblical teaching." [77] These examples illustrate that
there has been a fundamental shift in legal thinking in this nation. This
shift in legal thinking relates to how theists and humanists view
differently both the nature and the extent of law. Because these two
different legal perspectives are still very much in conflict in American
jurisprudence, the way a particular court case is settled may depend upon
how a judge or judges think.
Regarding the nature of law, theists accept common law in addition to
statute law, while humanists do not. That is, because theists believe in God
and his word, they believe the Bible constitutes the foundation of authority
for all law. If a matter is prohibited by God in scripture, then, for
theists, that is sufficient as law whether or not it has been codified into
statute law.[78] Since laws are considered as derived ultimately from God,
and since God does not change, then, for theists, laws remain constant. On
the other hand, humanists accept as law only that which has been codified
either by legislatures or by the judiciary. Since laws are considered as
derived from humanity, and since people and situations are constantly
changing, then, for humanists, laws and their interpretations are constantly
changing. Therefore, no one can know the law or its meaning until a judge or
judges declare it. This means that case law, or precedent law, is vital in a
humanistic society.
Theists and humanists differ in their understanding of the extent of
authority for civil laws. Since theists believe that God is ruler over the
family, the church, and the state, and since God delegates different
functions to the governance of family, church and state, then each of these
institutions is limited in its governance of its own sphere under God. On
the other hand, since humanists believe that God is not relevant to
humanity, then governance of all humanity must come ultimately under the
state that is considered unlimited in its authority. This humanistic
perspective grants judicial supremacy to the courts and permits them to
assume an active role in establishing, supervising and regulating
bureaucratic agencies.
There are at least three major reasons why our laws have changed from being
dominated by theism to being dominated by humanism, all of which developed
over more than a century. Two of these reasons are developments from
anti-Christian concepts while the third developed from within the Christian
community as a reaction to the dogmatism of the Protestant Reformation in
Europe.
Political Pluralism: When the national constitution was written,
Enlightenment thought was making its impact upon the minds of Americans.
More than a hundred years previously, the colonies, with but one exception,
established theocratic governments. That one exception was Rhode Island.
Whereas other colonies had a covenant foundation that meant that God-given
religious precepts undergirded civil government, Rhode Island had a contract
foundation which meant that human "secular" interests undergirded civil
government. In Rhode Island, religious beliefs were officially a matter of
indifference. Whereas other colonies had each required its officials to take
a religious oath of office, Rhode Island officials were required only to
take an oath "to walk faithfully" and "in the presence of God."[79]
The framers of the U. S. Constitution followed the Rhode Island pattern,
rather than those of other colonies, probably because denominationalism,
stemming from the Reformation movement, had demonstrated that theists did
not agree on the teachings of scripture regarding religious beliefs and
Enlightenment influences. Moreover, the personal influence of Sir Isaac
Newton led to great confidence in the use of human reasoning apart from
scripture. The framers of the Constitution therefore elected a form of
government that required adherence to no formal religious beliefs. In what
was perceived as religious matters, it followed a policy of political
pluralism.
In the matter of religious oaths, the pattern selected was consistent with
such a pluralistic policy. The U. S. Constitution declares that "no
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States."[80] The founding fathers saw religion
as separate from government, a matter for individuals, not the state.
Religion was considered an aid to national government, not a part of it.
While the founders utilized prayer to begin daily sessions of congress, they
did not presume that biblical precepts would support law, politics or civil
governments. In actuality, the religious freedoms enjoyed by Christians have
come not from the Constitution, but from the religious beliefs of its
founders. The Constitution itself does not recognize the sovereignty of God,
but relies upon the will of the people. It relies upon human reasoning, not
God, for guidance. And while there are many elements within our national
constitution which reflect Christian perspectives, our national charter must
nonetheless be said to be humanistic, not Christian.[81]
Although our national forefathers held theistic perspectives and interwove
those concepts into many statutes as well as the moral fibers of this
nation, such theistic beliefs cannot continue indefinitely in a nation whose
legal structures do not acknowledge the sovereignty of God. In essence, our
humanistic form of civil government, separated as it is from the sovereignty
of God, can lead its citizens in no other course than away from God. This
means that Christian beliefs, once held in high esteem by governing
officials, will be increasingly less respected with the passing of time.
Theists have often failed to realize they cannot make God their master in
individual, family and church government, while on the other hand they make
the state an idol.[82]
Theory of Evolution: The second major reason for a shift in thinking about
the nature of law is the theory of evolution. Until Darwin's publication of
The Origin Of Species in 1859, everyone generally assumed that truth is
constant and absolute. Now the general assumption within our society is that
truth is changing and relative. While Darwin's book was about organic life,
he set forth the principle of evolution as the cause of all life, and the
process by which everything continues.
Thus, the theory of evolution implies denial not only of the existence of
God and the biblical account of creation, etc., but also constant change in
law, and all other things. The theory of evolution came to be considered as
the key of all knowledge. Law came to be considered no longer as a constant
standard, understood by inductive and deductive processes of reasoning, but
as a current though changeable norm for human behavior at a given time and
place.
The process by which law was taught to lawyers changed in the early 1870s
when Christopher Langdell, dean of the Harvard Law School, began to apply
the theory of evolution to legal education. Previously, law students might
learn legal statutes by studying law books in lawyers' offices throughout
the nation. When law came to be viewed as changing, it then became necessary
not only to read legal statutes, but also to study "case" law, that is,
court interpretations of legal statutes. The idea came into being for the
first time that the law did not necessarily mean what it says. Rather, the
law means what the judges say it means.[83]
Thus, the theory of evolution changed civil government from rule by law to
the generally unstated but nonetheless practiced rule by man. With the
practice of rule by man came also a quiet omission of a higher law that
comes from God. The highest legal authority in the land, in legal practice,
has come to be considered not God, but man; not man as legislator, but man
as judge.
Pietism: Within the Christian community, the dogmatism of the Reformation
movement was resisted by what is now known as pietism. Pietism seems to have
had its roots in the work of Philipp Jakob Spener in the early 1670s in
Frankfort, Germany. Pietism asserted the primacy of feeling over dogma. It
stressed separation from the world, but not like the hermits or monastics.
For pietists, the Christian life was one that emphasized the Christian's
personal relationship to God through Bible reading and prayer. It stressed
Christian acts of charity and kindness. Pietists did not emphasize
participation in the things of this world, including the administration of
civil governments.
With the passing of time, the tendency therefore was for theists to withdraw
from participation in civil governments. Historian Gary North notes how this
happened in nineteenth century America.
In the North, it was the preaching of the so-called Social Gospel, which had
been preceded by the Abolitionist movement, that turned the theologically
liberal churches to political action. Many fundamentalists had been led by
the perfectionist preaching of Charles G. Finney and others in the West
(meaning, in our era, the Midwest) into the Abolitionist crusade, and from
there it was a short hop to the Social Gospel. The disillusioned
conservatives who remained conservative turned inward. . . . Pietism
replaced the older concern for voluntary social welfare, which Alexis de
Tocqueville had pointed to in the early 1830's as one of the distinguishing
marks of American democracy. The concern for preaching, soul-winning, church
growth, and Sunday schools steadily replaced the broader social and
political concerns that had once caught the attention and sacrifices of
American Christians. The theological liberals became political retreatists.
The battle went to the liberals by default. . . .
In the American South the Civil War had taken its toll. The older
leadership, which had been educated, conservative, and Christian . . . lost
its position after the war, and especially after the mid-1880's. The
populist "rednecks," with their newly discovered Jim Crow rhetoric, steadily
replaced the experienced, educated leadership which had attempted to keep
peace in relations. The new men were fundamentalists, if anything. They did
not have the broader vision of Christian civilization which had motivated
the pre-war Southern politicians. . . .
The Civil War broke the strength of the older, traditional Christian
leadership, North and South, and inaugurated a new federal sovereignty that
has scarcely looked back. It was the turning point in American political
history. The defection of the fundamentalists after the 1870's led to the
triumph of the secular humanists. American fundamentalism changed the focus
of concern in the churches. Preachers ever since have been expected to
'preach the gospel, not dabble in politics,' which invariably means not take
a stand in opposition to whatever political drift local fundamentalism has
allowed the humanists to engineer. Secular humanists set the goals and tone
of politics, and the fundamentalists either remained aloof or else took a
stand as political conservatives - a conservatism which itself was
theologically neutral and ultimately humanistic." [84]
As a whole, theists no longer felt they had duties and responsibilities
regarding the governance of society. This type thinking meant that the
administration of civil affairs, wherein law is dominant, was left without
guidance from theistic principles.
The consequences of humanism as the foundation and practice of law leads
inevitably to at least three results within society. First, it elevates the
legal profession above all others. The importance of the legal profession,
in Colonial times, was comparatively minor to what it is today. A lawyer
then was but a practitioner of the law, and a judge only applied the law to
specific situations. Today, however, judges interpret the law, and in some
cases like Roe v. Wade, make it say what they will. Through this process,
judges become legislators, making laws, and imposing them upon all citizens.
Moreover, in Colonial times, when law was yet thought to be derived from
God, the legal profession was considered but a means for regulating a
portion of life - that related to the public righteousness. Now, however,
that God has been removed from law, the state, through its legal
professionals, is presumed to be the highest and final authority regulating
everything.
The second consequence of humanism in law is that it makes atheism the
foundation and norm for society. Rousas John Rushdoony has observed, "At
present, law has been severed from God and is in essence atheistic; it
presupposes a sovereign man, not the sovereign God. . . . Atheism in the
20th century has conquered church, state, and school. The atheistic vision
of a social order stripped of God's law has been realized."[85]
The third result of humanism in law is that the state has now begun to
destroy theistic family values and perspectives. It has greatly diminished
the importance of the church in communities, and, if continued, the state
will ultimately endorse violent and physical persecution against Christians.
Christians have but to look around themselves to see family members whose
lives have been devastated by divorce, abortion and other sinful practices
which have been legalized because of the influence of humanism in law.
Humanism has impacted against the family also in many other ways not
considered legal - such as drug abuse, pornography, homosexuality, etc. -
but many of these would have been severely restricted were it not for an
environment of permissiveness which was created partially by legalization of
humanistic values.
Conclusion
A thought provoking assessment of changes humanism has brought about in
modern America is given by William A. Stanmeyer. He writes that
in the watershed generation since World War II, secular humanism took an
aggressive, intolerant, even imperialistic stance. Through variegated
cultural and legal changes, secular humanists have modified the public order
so that it no longer reinforces Christian values or supports private
religious efforts to transmit traditional standards, norms, and values to
one's children. Society's public policies and laws are no longer a simple
extension of the basic commitments and priorities of the Christian
individuals who make up that society. In field after field of human
endeavor, an extraordinary transformation has taken place, as if a butterfly
has reversed the process of metamorphosis and changed from a beautiful
winged flutterer back to an ugly crawling caterpillar. A society not long
ago Christian is now pagan, and the change took place right before our eyes!
At the risk of some over-simplification one could summarize the
metamorphosis this way: three decades ago, the secular humanist voice was
scarcely heard in public policy; two decades ago, it was one among a few;
one decade ago, it became the loudest and most influential; in the decade to
come, it will seek to silence all other voices. As they seek to gain control
of the organs of public policy, the secular humanists will attack enclaves
of Christian communal life, such as schools, hospitals, and other charitable
organizations transfused with religious commitment. Their goal will be to
reduce Christian influence on public morality to the most token and
accidental sort.[86]
After giving numerous examples of how humanism has changed, and is still
changing our society, Stanmeyer then says, "an ominous pattern is
developing: a multifaceted campaign is mounting to remove Christian
influence from society entirely - from its schools, its medical practice,
its social service institutions, its laws."[87]
Although theists generally recognize that cultural changes are occurring in
this nation, theists have not generally known much about humanism nor how it
has produced cultural changes through education, law, media, and other
professions. Only when theists understand humanism and how it operates will
theists be able to develop strategies to recapture the culture.

[1]The term humanization is preferred to secularization because humanism
includes much more than secularism. Humanism is an umbrella term under which
many other philosophies - such as naturalism, materialism, statism,
feminism, etc. - may be categorized. Because America has been humanized in
more ways than secularism, the broader term is sometimes preferred.
[2]Copyright © by Robert L. Waggoner, 2000. Aside from slight revisions,
this document constitutes the second chapter of the author's unpublished
doctoral project dissertation, entitled, Biblical Theism vs. Secular
Humanism: A Class To Train Theists To Confront Humanism at Erskine
Theological Seminary, 1999. Permission is granted to reproduce and
distribute this document for non-commercial educational purposes if
unaltered and whenever copyright and authorship is noted. All other rights
reserved.
[3]"We are caught up in a great battle, one which historians will write
about in the future as one of the most important in the history of mankind.
. . . There is a great war under way - a spiritual war - and the
overwhelming majority of Christians aren't aware of it. We are losing, and
we are losing by default. . . . the future of all generations to come after
us depends on the outcome of this conflict which we now ignore." Donald
Wildmon, "Dirty Words and Pictures Not the Problem," National Federation For
Decency Journal, (October 1984): 2.
[4]That secular humanism is a religion and that it is promoted in public
schools may be clearly established from many sources. One of the best is by
David Noebel, J. F. Baldwin and Kevin Bywater, Clergy in the Classroom: The
Religion of Secular Humanism, (Manitou Springs, Colorado: Summit Press,
1995). Following an introductory chapter, this book exhibits reduced
photocopies of title pages and quotations from forty-five different sources,
authored mostly by secular humanists, which declare their belief that
humanism is a religion. A concluding chapter thoroughly documents that the
primary means of promoting humanism is through public schools. For example,
on page 126, "Leading Secular Humanist attorney Leo Pfeffer says that if the
teachings of Humanism were removed from the public school system 'the
consequences may be no less that the disintegration of our public school
system.'" The quotation is from "How Religious Is Secular Humanism?" The
Humanist, (September/October, 1988): 50.
[5]Although James Hitchcock fails to discuss the role of education in
humanizing America, he gives an otherwise good overview of the historical
trends and leading personalities in the development of humanistic values
since the Renaissance. See James Hitchock, What is Secular Humanism? Why
Humanism Became Secular and How It Is Changing Our World (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Servant Books, 1982).
[6]Random House Webster's Unabridged Electronic Dictionary, 2nd Edition,
Version 2.0 Software: (1994-96) s. v. "culture."
[7]Officially, this happened on January 22, 1973 in the U. S. Supreme Court
decision, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[8]George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood
(Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. 1988), 23.
[9]"The earliest medical guild appeared on the Aegean island of Cos, just
off the coast of Asia Minor. Around the time that Nehemiah was organizing
the post-exilic Jews in Jerusalem to rebuild the walls, another refugee from
Babylonian occupation, Aesculapius, was organizing the post-exilic Jews on
Cos into medical specialists - for the first time n history, moving medical
healing beyond folk remedies and occultic rituals. It was not long before
this elite guild had become the wonder of the Mediterranean world under the
leadership of Hippocrates, the son of Panacea, the son of Hygeia, the son of
Aesculapius, the son of Hashabia the Hebrew, an exile of fallen Jerusalem.
In other words, the great Greek school of healing that gave us the
Hippocratic oath, that gave us the scientific standards for hygiene,
diagnosis, and systematic treatment that form the basis for modern medicine,
wasn't Greek at all. It was Hebrew, the fruit of Biblical faith." Ibid. 82.
[10]Ibid. 201. George Grant then said, "An analysis of Planned Parenthood's
clinic visit records highlights what dismal truth. A random sample of nearly
thirty-five thousand medical charts from fourteen affiliates coast-to-coast
revealed that sixty-two percent of the girls receiving abortions identified
themselves as Evangelical Christians. Another twenty percent professed to be
either Catholic or Orthodox. Of those eighty-two percent, a full seventy-six
percent not only specified their religious preference, they identified their
local Church membership and pastor."
[11]"The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be
recognized." Humanist Manifesto II, Sixth. "To enhance freedom and dignity
the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all
societies. This includes . . . a recognition of an individual's right to die
with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide." Humanist Manifesto II,
Seventh.
[12]"In 1900, for every 1,000 population in US, there were 9.3 marriages and
only .7 divorces. Rates held fairly firm, increasing to 12 marriages and 2
divorces per 1,000 population in 1940. . . . In past 50 years, number of
divorces in US has soared 700%. Today, US has highest divorce rate in world.
. . . In 1982 in USA, one divorce for every two marriages; a total of 1.2
million divorces (5 divorces ever 1,000 persons in nation.)" Rus Walton,
Biblical Principles Concerning Issues of Importance to Godly Christians
(Plymouth, Massachusetts: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1984), 140.
[13]Patrick F. Fagan, "The Breakdown of the Family," Issues, 1998
(Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1998), 165, citing David B. Larson,
James P. Sawyers, and Susan S. Larson, "The Costly Consequences of Divorce:
Assessing the Clinical, Economic and Public Health Impacts of Marital
Disruption in United States." National Institute for Healthcare Research
(Rockville: Maryland, 1995), 43-49.
[14]John Naisbitt, Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives
(New York: Warner Books, 1982), 262.
[15]Fagan, Ibid.
[16]Naisbitt, Ibid.
[17]Fagan, Ibid.
[18]Tim LaHaye, The Battle For The Family (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1982) 162-163.
[19]Nancy Pearcey, "Family Politics: An Interview with Connie Marshner,"
Bible-Science Newsletter, XXVIII, 2, (February, 1990): 10-11.
[20]LaHaye, The Battle For The Family, 179.
[21]Victor Cline, "Psychologist Cites Porn's Effects On Children, Men," NFD
Journal, (November/December, 1985): 13.
[22]Melvin Anchell, Sex and Insanity (Portland, OR: Halcyon House, 1983),
95.
[23]The New Columbia Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., s. v. "family.".
[24]Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981 ed., s. v. "family."
[25]"[R]research shows that, in the current generation of two-earner couples
with children, both spouses together now have less real income than their
fathers had as a single wage-earner (while their mothers were fulltime
homemakers). The current generation of parents is working longer hours for
less real income and much less family life than their parents had." Phyllis
Schlafly, "More Employed Hours But Less Income," The Phyllis Schlafly
Report, XX, 5, Section 1 (December, 1986): 2.
[26]Ibid., 4.
[27]"In 1890, less than 5 percent of all American wives worked outside the
home for wages and salaries. By 1940 this figure had increased to 17
percent, but the most dramatic increases followed World War II. In 1947, 20
percent, or one out of every five married women was employed in the labor
force. The proportion rose to one in four (25 percent) by 1950, one in three
(32 percent) by 1960, and one out of two (48 percent) by 1980." Lenore J.
Weitzman, "Changing Families, Changing Laws," Family Advocate (Summer,
1982): 6.
[28]Ibid.
[29]"In 1980, two-thirds of all elderly owned a house fully paid for. This
compared to only one-eighth of those under 55. Social Security, moreover,
had almost totally displaced family-based support, the percentage of the
aged receiving aid from their children falling from 52.5 percent in 1957 to
a mere 4 percent. Indeed, the elderly were now twice as likely to report
providing financial help to children as to report receiving it. Allan C.
Carlson, Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis (New
Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1988), 221.
[30]"We are approaching the excesses of the Swedish model, in which the
directorate of social affairs may issue orders to remove any child from its
parents to be reared wherever the directorate sees fit. Officials have the
power to enter any house at will in order to investigate conditions. They
may order the police to remove children forcibly and without court order. In
1968 this was done to twenty-one thousand children. These are not the
actions of lunatics but rather follow logically from the idea that the state
is lord of all and can tolerate no rivals." Herbert Schlossberg, Idols For
Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation With American Society
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Publishers, 1983), 216.
[31]45 U.S. 438 (1972).
[32]410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[33]428 U.S at 74.
[34]532 P. 2d 278 (1975).
[35]John W. Whitehead, The Stealing of America (Westchester, IL: Crossway
Books, 1983), 80.
[36]Robert A. Peterson, "Education in Colonial America," 1979, cited by Rus
Walton, One Nation Under God (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987),
61.
[37]Rousas John Rushdoony, The Messianic Character of American Education
(Phillpsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1963), 322, 323,
with quotations from Newton Edwards, The Courts and the Public Schools, The
Legal Basis of School Organization and Administration, Revised Edition,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 23, 24.
[38]"The general principle in the matter of public education is that anyone
is free to found a public school and to direct it as he pleases. It's an
industry like other industries, the consumers being the judges and the state
taking no hand whatever. . . . There has never been under the sun a people
as enlightened as the population of the north of the United States." Alexis
De Tocqueville, quoted in George W. Pierson, Tocqueville in America (Garden
City: Anchor Books, 1959) 293-294. "Apart from New England, where
tax-supported schools existed under state law, the United States, from 1789
to 1835, had a completely laissez-faire system of education . . . there were
no compulsory attendance laws anywhere. Parents educated their children as
they wished. . . . There was no need for any child to go without an
education. The rate of literacy in the United States then was probably
higher than it is today." Samuel L. Blumenfeld, Is Public Education
Necessary? (Boise, Idaho: The Paradigm Company, 1985), 27.
[39]William B. Ball, as quoted in "On the Mandate for Christian Education,"
Letter from Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock Foundation, May, 1986, 3, as cited
by Walton, One Nation Under God, 60.
[40]See Morris, Barbara M. Change Agents In The Schools (The Barbara M.
Morris Report, P. O. Box 756, Upland, CA: 1979) and Eakman, B. K. Educating
for the New World Order (Portland: Oregon: Halcyon House, 1991).
[41]Blair Adams and Joel Stein, Who Owns The Children? (Grand Junction,
Colorado: Truth Forum. 1983), 40, quoting Fogg v. Board of Education, 82 A.
173, 175.
[42]Ibid., 40, quoting Ex parte Powell, 1028 (emphasis added by authors).
[43]Ibid., 41, quoting In Re Shinn, 16 Cal. Rptr. 165, 168.
[44]"The rights of the parents in his child are just such rights as the law
gives him; no more, no less" Ibid., 40, quoting Allison v. Bryan, 97 P. 286.
"When a provision in the tax laws permits the taxpayer to keep a portion of
his money, the Internal Revenue Service calls this a 'tax expenditure,' or
an 'implicit government grant.' This is not tax money that the state has
collected and expended but money the citizen is permitted to keep by not
taking it. In other words any money the citizen is permitted to keep is
regarded as if the state had graciously given it to him. Everything we have
is from the state, which therefore has the right to the fruit of our labor."
Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its
Confrontation with American Society, 187, citing Kenneth E. Boulding and
Martin Pfaff, eds., Redistribution to the Rich and the Poor: The Grants
Economics of Income Distribution (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1972),
169, 174-175, 201.
[45]Ibid., 40, quoting Ex parte Powell, 1028, and Allison v. Bryan, 97; 282,
287, 286.
[46]"Some years ago I asked Nobel economist Milton Friedman why it was,
given the appalling and obvious failures of socialism everywhere in the
world contrasted with the stunning successes of market capitalism, that most
American students still graduated from high school with such a surprisingly
socialist perspective. His answer was characteristically clear: 'Because
they are products of a socialist system - namely public education. How can
you expect such a system to inculcate the values of free enterprise and
individual entrepreneurship and competition when it is based on monopoly
state ownership, abhors competition, and survives only through compulsion
and taxation?'" Warren T. Brookes, "Public Education and the Global Failure
of Socialism," Imprimis, XIX, 4, (1990): 1.
[47]"The major reason why we have 23 million functional illiterates is that
the proven best method of teaching reading - PHONICS IN THE FIRST GRADE - is
not used in 85% of U. S. public schools." Phyllis Schlafley, "Phonics - The
Key to Reading," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, XIX, 2, Sec. 1 (September,
1985): 1.
[48]"In fact, the historical evidence indicates that prior to the
introduction of public education and compulsory school attendance, Americans
were probably the most literate people in the world. It is even probable
that the decline in literary taste in this country began with the growth and
spread of public education with its watered down literary standards." Samuel
L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse In American Education (Boise: The Paradigm
Company, 1984), 2.
[49] National Education in the United States of America (Newark: University
of Delaware Press, 1923), 3-5; cited in R. J. Rushdoony,. The Messianic
Character of American Education, 329-330.
[50]Daniel Webster, speaking at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1820. The Works
of Daniel Webster, Vols. I & II, Boston, 1851 cited by John Eidsmoe, The
Christian Legal Advisor (Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1984), 289.
[51] "[F]igures for illiteracy in 1910 issued by the U. S. Bureau of
Education and quoted in the January 30, 1915 issue of James McKeen Cattell's
own weekly publication, School and Society: 'Statistics compiled by the
Bureau of Education for use at the Panama-Pacific Exposition, show that of
children from 10 to 14 years of age there were in 1910 only 22 out of every
1,000 who could neither read nor write.'" Samuel L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan
Horse In American Education, 102. "Illiteracy statistics in America in the
1930s show that the problem was small and could be soon solved: native born
whites 1.5%, foreign-born whites 9.9%, blacks 16%. A 1935 survey of Civilian
Conservation Corporation (CCC) enrollees, presumably from low socio-economic
groups, found only 1.9% to be illiterate." Phyllis Schlafly, "Hyprocrisy
About Banned Books," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol.XIX, No. 4, Section 1
(November, 1985): 2.
[52]"Today the national illiteracy rate is estimated at 25%, and at least
40% for blacks. Inner-city schools are a disaster almost beyond
comprehension. In Chicago inner-city schools (which are 82% black or
Hispanic), the high school dropout rate is over 50%. Of those who remain in
high school, more than half are marginally illiterate and fail at least two
courses a year." Schlafly, Ibid. "The Department of Education estimates that
there are 24 million functional illiterates in the United States, virtually
all of whom have had from eight to twelve years of compulsory public
schooling." Samuel L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse In American Education,
102.
[53]"At present, Humanism has brought all things, including most churches,
under the sway of man the lord. The purpose of state schools, as laid down
by Horace Mann, James G. Carter, and others was twofold: first, to establish
centralism, the priority of the state over every area of life, and second,
to eliminate Biblical faith. The founders of statist education in the United
States were Unitarians. They rightly believed that control over the child
through the schools is the key to controlling society. Control over the
schools will determine control over state and church finally." Rousas John
Rushdoony, The Philosophy of The Christian Curriculum (Vallecito, CA: Ross
House Books, 1981), 172.
[54]For additional information about the history of America's public
schools, read Samuel L. Blumenfeld, Is Public Education Necessary?, Samuel
L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse In American Education, and Paolo Lionni,
The Liepzig Connection, (Sheridan, OR: Delphian Press, 1988).
[55]"[Humanism] is or has been very powerful in its influence on public
education because Horace Mann, one of the early humanists, said that the
true church of the future would be the state controlled school. So Mann saw
the school as the basic church, the established church of a humanistic
society. As a result, the school has been the focal point of humanistic
activities, or humanistic missionary endeavor. And most successfully so." R.
J. Rushdoony, cited by Robert K. Skolrood, Douglas T. Smith vs. Board of
School Commissioners of Mobile County (Chesapeake, VA: The Freedom Council
Foundation, 1985), 60.
[56]Samuel L. Blumenfeld. Is Public Education Necessary?, 196-197.
[57]Jo-Ann K. Abrigg, Values Changing - Whose Values? (Longview, Texas:
Educational Research Analysts, 1977), 6-7.
[58]"Dewey was one of the founders of the American Humanist Association, the
beliefs and teachings of which, for all practical purposes, constitute the
state religion now fostered in our school system. His belief in the
evolutionary ascendancy of man and the right of the state to guide future
evolution through the training of its young is primarily responsible for
modern secularism and experimentalism in the schools." Henry Morris,
Education For The Real World (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1977),
23-24. See also Paolo Lionni, The Leipzig Connection.
[59]Rousas J. Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia: Culture, Crisis, and
Education (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961),
63.
[60]Samuel L. Blumenfeld, N.E.A.: Trojan Horse In American Education, Ibid.
228.
[61]He said "[w]hy should we longer suffer from deficiency of religion. We
have discovered our lack: let us set the machinery in order to supply it. .
. . Education is the modern purveyor, and upon the schools shall rest the
responsibility for seeing to it that we recover our threatened religious
heritage. John Fentress Gardner, The Experience of Knowledge (Garden City,
NY: Waldorf Press of Adelphi University, 1975), 213-214, cited by Onalee
McGraw, Family Choice in Education: The New Imperative (Washington, D.C.:
The Heritage Foundation, 1978), 41.
[62]Samuel L. Blumenfeld, "Revelation Via Education," The Blumenfeld
Education Letter, III, 10 (October, 1988): 8.
[63]Charles F. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1930), 128.
[64]Joe R. Burnett, The Humanist, 6 (1961), 347.
[65]A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1887), 283f.
[66]Four court cases were most significant: Everson v. Board of Education of
Ewing Township, - 330 U.S. 1 (1947) which declared (contrary to our nation's
historical understanding) that there should be a separation of religion from
government. Engel v. Vitale - 370 U.S. 421 (1962) in which the U. S. Supreme
Court saying that the power, prestige and financial support of government
could not be given to a particular religious belief had the impact of
removing the right of Christian values from public schools. Other
significant cases were Board of Education v. Allen. - 392 U.S. 236 (1968)
and Thorton v. Caldor, Inc. - 53 Law Week 4853 (1985). Because of these and
other court declarations, every agency of civil government now considers
itself duty bound to remove Christian values from all public practices.
[67]David Barton, America: To Pray or Not To Pray (Aledo, Texas: WallBuilder
Press), 159. In addition, David Barton demonstrated that there is no other
major cause to which growing immoralities in America can be attributed than
the court's removal of God from public schools.
[68]"The crisis in education in America is a crisis of conflicting purposes
and conflicting goals. The government schools have their own agenda, and
Christian parents have another. Those parents who persist in sending their
children to the public schools help perpetuate the crisis through their
patronage and support of a system that is in conflict with their own
professed beliefs. And the simple truth is that Christians will never wrest
control of the system from the humanists, for the latter have so thoroughly
shaped the system in their own image that no accommodation with Christianity
is even remotely possible. Thus, handing one's children over to the
humanists for education is tantamount to handing them over to Satan." Samuel
L. Blumenfeld, "The Home School Movement and Christian Revival," Chalcedon
Report, No. 302, (September, 1990): 2-3.
[69]For further information regarding parents rights in education, see John
W. Whitehead, The Rights of Religious Persons in Public Education (Wheaton,
Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991).
[70]Samuel L. Blumenfeld, The Blumenfeld Education Letter, 8. See also Myron
Lieberman, Public Education: An Autopsy (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1993).
[71]For a thorough treatment of this subject, see David Barton, The Myth of
Separation (Aledo, Texas: Wall Builder Press, 1989).
[72]Ibid., 51-52.
[73]Ibid., 53.
[74]Ibid., 61-62.
[75]Litigation Status Report, "CWA Defends Widow Who Won't Rent to Unmarried
Couples," Concerned Women For America (February, 1988): 6; (also June,
1988): 9-10.
[76]Linda McMillan, "Alabama School Discovers First Amendment," Religious
Freedom Alert, Vol. III, No. 4 (July, 1987): 11.
[77]Tim Minnery, "Regain The Culture," Citizen (January, 1991): 4.
[78]"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of
the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious
tenets; not Christianity with an established church . . . but Christianity
with liberty of conscience to all men. Thus this wise legislature framed
this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This
is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably
[undeniably] proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built
on the foundation of reverence for Christianity . . . In this constitution
of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the
laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity .
. . without which no free government can long exist." The Peoples v. Ruggles
cited by David Barton, 54.
[79]Kavenaugh, W. Keith (ed) "Organization of the Government of Rhode
Island, March 16-19, 1641-42," Foundations of Colonial America: A
Documentary History, 3 vols. (New York: Chelsea House, 1973) I, 343, cited
by Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX:
Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 313.
[80]Constitution, art. VI.
[81]For further information about humanistic foundations of our national
constitution, see Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism
(Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) Part 3: 307-553. For
information about Christian foundations of our national constitution, see
John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding
Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 1987.
[82]"By contending that civil policy should not be based upon or favor any
one distinctive religion or philosophy of life (but rather balance the
alleged rights of all conflicting viewpoints), pluralism ultimately takes
its political stand with secularism. . . . The pluralist approach
transgresses the first commandment by countenancing and deferring to
different ultimate authorities (gods) in the area of public policy. Instead
of exclusively submitting to Jehovah's law with fear . . . the pluralist
attempts the impossible task of honoring more than one master in civil
legislation (Matthew 6:24) - a kind of 'political polytheism.'" Greg L.
Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Position," in Gary Scott Smith (ed.), God and
Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government (Phillipsburg,
New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1989), 30.
[83]See John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, Chapters 4, 5, 6.
[84]Gary North, (ed.), "Symposium on Politics," The Journal of Christian
Reconstruction. Vol. V, No. 1 (Summer, 1978): 1-2.
[85]Rousas John Rushdoony, Christianity and the State (Vallecito, CA: Ross
House Books, 1986), 52.
[86]William A. Stanmeyer, Clear and Present Danger: Church and State in
Post-Christian America (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983), 4-5.
[87]Ibid., 7.

--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.

[OGLE...@stupid.com]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:40:39 GMT, "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote:

>This country was founded primarily upon theistic values that produced a
>mostly theistic culture.

Bullshit

First settlers were religous zealots who abused fellow settlers and
the indigenous populations

By the time of the "founding", people were so fucking fed up with
religious bullshit they deliberately left it out of constitutional
construct.

========================================================================================================

>From: danaraf...@worldnet.att.net (danaraf...@worldnet.att.net)Subject: golden/brown showers

>View this article only

>Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30

>swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
>no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
>satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
>showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
>also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.

>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

[Scott Erb]

"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
news:6d9c3d9656e4f058...@news.meganetnews.com...

> THE HUMANIZATION[1] OF AMERICA
> IN CULTURE, EDUCATION AND LAW
> Robert L. Waggoner[2]
>
> This country was founded primarily upon theistic values that produced a
> mostly theistic culture. However, theistic values have been and are now
> challenged by the values of secular humanism. Theism and humanism are now
> locked in a great cultural struggle.[3]

It's called modernism and progress. Hopefully this kind of overturning of
theism and mythology will take place in the Mideast.

[Martin McPhillips]

"Scott Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:c8i949$lnt$1...@murdoch.unet.maine.edu...

>
> "Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message
> news:6d9c3d9656e4f058...@news.meganetnews.com...
> > THE HUMANIZATION[1] OF AMERICA
> > IN CULTURE, EDUCATION AND LAW
> > Robert L. Waggoner[2]
> >
> > This country was founded primarily upon theistic values that
produced a
> > mostly theistic culture. However, theistic values have been and
are now
> > challenged by the values of secular humanism. Theism and humanism
are now
> > locked in a great cultural struggle.[3]
>
> It's called modernism and progress.

Actually, Scott, it's called post-modernism and moral
relativism, and it leads to the death of reason. What
we know as modern progress relied on reason and
had nothing to do with the abandonment of religion.

> Hopefully this kind of overturning of
> theism and mythology will take place in the Mideast.

Scott doesn't even think that Iraq can manage a
constitutional democracy, but he hopes to see the
entire basis of Islamic civilization overturned.

Is Scott hoping for a New Communist Revolution?

[Rico]

Call me crazy, but could some one tell me what is wrong wioth Humanism?
Putting PEOPLE (Humans) first sounds like a pretty good thing to me.

fundamentalism, the greatest threat to world peace

[Rico]

Maybe it is simpler then that he wants to put Humans ahead of the spirit in
the sky.

[Martin McPhillips]

"Rico" <rico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10aq40r...@corp.supernews.com...

Humanism doesn't put people first. It substitutes elitists for God,
who then proceed to put themselves first. (Cf. the Soviet Union,
Cuba, Massachusetts.)

[Scott Erb]

"Rico" <rico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:10aq43b...@corp.supernews.com...

> >Actually, Scott, it's called post-modernism and moral
> >relativism, and it leads to the death of reason. What
> >we know as modern progress relied on reason and
> >had nothing to do with the abandonment of religion.
> >
> >> Hopefully this kind of overturning of
> >> theism and mythology will take place in the Mideast.
> >
> >Scott doesn't even think that Iraq can manage a
> >constitutional democracy, but he hopes to see the
> >entire basis of Islamic civilization overturned.
> >
> >Is Scott hoping for a New Communist Revolution?
>
> Maybe it is simpler then that he wants to put Humans ahead of the spirit
in
> the sky.
>
> fundamentalism, the greatest threat to world peace

For someone to consider humanism to be post-modern shows that they have no
clue what post-modern means. Some on the Christian right throw out that
term as some kind of blanket condemnation of the "secularists", but
post-modernism of the kind they are talking about pretty much peaked in the
late eighties, and doesn't have very many adherents at all. The far right
likes to set up straw man demons that simply aren't relevant.

The modernization of religion is something that happened to Christianity
from the 1500s to the present. The church went from being the central facet
of politics and life, controlling even knowledge and education, to finding a
niche role in a busy, secular world. The church fought this for a long
time, and some pentacostal movements counter it through appeal to emotion
and belonging, which is in some ways closer to post-modernism than reason
based secular humanism, as it rejects reason and science in favor of
emotion. Pre-modern Christianity was used to rationalize massacres,
slaughters, discrimination against women, anti-semitism, and the like.
Modernized Christianity has moved far away from those, in most cases. Islam
is much like pre-modern Christianity, due in large part to the dominance of
the Ottoman Empire, a military authoritarian system that didn't modernize
with Europe, especially outside its core in modern Turkey (which,
accordingly, has moved farther along the path of modernization).

One reason for terrorsim is that it is a reaction to the modernizing
influence of the West in the region. Ultimately, the anti-modernizers are
destined to lose, but they can cause a lot of damage on the way down. They
yearn for a culture war, a clash of civilizations that will unite their
people. They want that because most in the Mideast are tempted more the
allure of modern life than by religious extremism. But if war, emotion, and
anger overtake reason and rational self-interest, they can expand their
movement. I suspect that our policies in the region are aiding them in that
effort, even if we manage to kill current leaders and many current
adherents.

[Cary Kittrell]

Excellent post!

-- cary

[Martin McPhillips]

"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:c8l6a0$b3a$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...

Now, that was the best laugh of the morning, the
fact that you are serious.

[Rico]

humanism
3 : a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or
values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and
stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for
self-realization through reason

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Nice try though.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

[Martin McPhillips]

"Rico" <rico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:10as9hk...@corp.supernews.com...

I love it when they run for the dictionary to define
something like "Humanism."

Read my description and your dictionary definition
and then put them together with the examples that
I gave. (Well, Massachusetts was a joke, sort of.)

[Harper Dean]

You can giggle like a knuckle-dragging oaf all you like--it's a smart
and prescient post and you clearly haven't the reading comprehension to
grasp what the poster is on about.

H.D.

[Martin McPhillips]

"Harper Dean" <hmd...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:2h6ng9F...@uni-berlin.de...

I've been reading and debunking Scott Erb's
nonsense for years. Thankfully, he no longer
responds to me and I can just point out
his lies and correct his mistakes and be
done with it without feeling obliged to
continue the wearisome exchanges that
he likes to engage in.

He doesn't know his own field, and
frequently just makes stuff up out of whole
cloth. His two principal interests are socialism
and anti-Americanism.

FYI.

[Harper Dean]

Martin McPhillips wrote:

> I've been reading and debunking Scott Erb's
> nonsense for years. Thankfully, he no longer
> responds to me and I can just point out
> his lies and correct his mistakes and be
> done with it without feeling obliged to
> continue the wearisome exchanges that
> he likes to engage in.

But you didn't point out anything, you just chortled.

> He doesn't know his own field, and
> frequently just makes stuff up out of whole
> cloth.

If you found a flaw in his logic, do tell--I'm nothing if not educable.

[Martin McPhillips]

"Harper Dean" <hmd...@astound.net> wrote in message

news:2h6pvcF...@uni-berlin.de...

> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>
> > I've been reading and debunking Scott Erb's
> > nonsense for years. Thankfully, he no longer
> > responds to me and I can just point out
> > his lies and correct his mistakes and be
> > done with it without feeling obliged to
> > continue the wearisome exchanges that
> > he likes to engage in.
>
> But you didn't point out anything, you just chortled.

That's correct. I just had a good laugh, as
I often do at Scott and his frequent or would-be
sycophants.

Just as I have also gone through similar
packets of nonsense by him either as a whole
or line-by-line on too many ocassions to
count.

> > He doesn't know his own field, and
> > frequently just makes stuff up out of whole
> > cloth.
>
> If you found a flaw in his logic, do tell--I'm nothing if not
educable.

Well, then, let me educate you by distinguishing
between logical statements, faulty premises, bad
facts, and just making stuff up. Liars can be plenty
logical.

[SPQR]

"Dana" <#$%@%$#.com> wrote in message news:<6d9c3d9656e4f058...@news.meganetnews.com>...

> THE HUMANIZATION[1] OF AMERICA
> IN CULTURE, EDUCATION AND LAW
> Robert L. Waggoner[2]
>

> [ Nothing of value snipped. }

If we went through this drivel and replaced "god" with "allah,"
replaced references to bible verses with references to the koran; we
would discover that this author is making the same argument made by
Osama Bin Laden and his gang of fundamentalists.

No difference between christian zealots and muslim zealots -- except
that most of the muslim zealots wear beards.

>>>>
SPQR
<<<<

[Bob LeChevalier]

"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>I've been reading and debunking Scott Erb's nonsense for years.

Thankfully not on the education groups. We already see more of your
nonsense than we need to.

>Thankfully, he no longer responds to me and I can just point out
>his lies and correct his mistakes

I don't see any pointing out or correcting in this post or any of your
prior ones. Not that I care, but your claim is not backed up by your
post.

>He doesn't know his own field,

Whereas you simply don't know anything.

>and frequently just makes stuff up out of whole cloth.

You seem to be looking in a mirror.

>His two principal interests are socialism and anti-Americanism.

The post you responded to was neither about socialism or about
anti-Americanism.

lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

[Martin McPhillips]

"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:7ptsa09hcqeee7cgs...@4ax.com...

> "Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >I've been reading and debunking Scott Erb's nonsense for years.
>
> Thankfully not on the education groups. We already see more of your
> nonsense than we need to.

Ah, it's Postmodern Bob, my ignorant rube friend from
the sacred circle of the atheist dirt worshippers of
alt.education.

What I've come to understand about you, Bob, and
mind you this is still in the theoretical stage, is that that
little fake language that you fool around with has, well,
shorted you out. Your head wires are crossed.

That would account for the apparent characterological
deficits that you exhibit when, for instance, something
is placed right in front of you and you pee in your pants
rather than admit that it's there. (Cf. our little discussion
of dual sovereignty, etc. etc.)

Then, of course, there's your denial of the very
existence of Western Civilization, which earned
you your final Postmodern Bob's Postmodern
Hell bona fides.

So, I can understand why you've been so angry
of late about so little. I'd lay off the little fake
language and see if things start to clear up for
you. (Don't let the fact that it's coming from me
stop you from messing with the little fake
language; it could snap you out of it.)

[Viejo Vizcacha]

"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mbprc.132467$WA4....@twister.nyc.rr.com...

I am glad that you can laugh. Most people would be worried at being so
ignorant. But if there is something that defines fundamentalist right
wingers in America today is their total ignorance about almost everything,
and their willingness to laugh at anyone who knows anything. It would not
surprise me in the least to learn that their desdain for academia is
grounded in desdain for knowledge rather than the political views that
academia has.

VV
VV

[Dana]

"Scott Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message

news:c8l2sd$kss$1...@murdoch.unet.maine.edu...

>
> "Rico" <rico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10aq43b...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > >Actually, Scott, it's called post-modernism and moral
> > >relativism, and it leads to the death of reason. What
> > >we know as modern progress relied on reason and
> > >had nothing to do with the abandonment of religion.
> > >
> > >> Hopefully this kind of overturning of
> > >> theism and mythology will take place in the Mideast.
> > >
> > >Scott doesn't even think that Iraq can manage a
> > >constitutional democracy, but he hopes to see the
> > >entire basis of Islamic civilization overturned.
> > >
> > >Is Scott hoping for a New Communist Revolution?
> >
> > Maybe it is simpler then that he wants to put Humans ahead of the spirit
> in
> > the sky.
> >
> > fundamentalism, the greatest threat to world peace
>
> For someone to consider humanism to be post-modern shows that they have no
> clue what post-modern means.

As the idiot Scott comes back thinking he knows something, only to show us
he still knows very little.
But then he is a leftist.

[Rico]

I love it when they are too stupid to know when they have just been proved
WRONG.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

[Rico]

Read tagline, apply your favorite or least favorite religion as a prefix.

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

[Martin McPhillips]

"Rico" <rico...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:10avbb0...@corp.supernews.com...

Did you put your dictionary definition together
with my description and the examples I gave
as I suggested? Was that a little beyond
your reach?

[Viejo Vizcacha]

"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:39Orc.50327$mX.19...@twister.nyc.rr.com...

If there is a common denominator among fundamentalist Christians supporting
Bush is that they are not just plain ignorants, but take pride in their
ignorance, most of the time do not even have an idea of how ignorant they
are. They also make fun of concepts, ideas and proposals that have not been
described in the bible, convince themselves that this makes them great
debaters.

VV

[Scott Erb]

"Viejo Vizcacha" <Elbie_Jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ewwrc.680$Yp1...@nntp-post.primus.ca...

>
> I am glad that you can laugh. Most people would be worried at being so
> ignorant. But if there is something that defines fundamentalist right
> wingers in America today is their total ignorance about almost everything,
> and their willingness to laugh at anyone who knows anything. It would not
> surprise me in the least to learn that their desdain for academia is
> grounded in desdain for knowledge rather than the political views that
> academia has.

It's been that way with the *far right* (as opposed to traditional
conservatives) for a long time. Read *Before the Deluge* by Otto
Friedrichs concerning Berlin in the 1920s. Fascist movements emerged
primarily by attacking society as losing its moral values, attacking
academia, engaging primarily in personal attacks on opponents (President
Ebert fell for the bait and fought so hard to defend his honor that he
neglected getting an appendectomy and died in office), and in essence trying
to promote emotionalism over reasoned discourse. Even at home, In Maine
Margaret Chase Smith saw her political career damaged as people attacked her
for daring to speak out against her fellow Republican Joesph McCarthy as
early as 1950, before McCarthy was discredited and destroyed (some
neo-fascists try to claim now that McCarthy was right, a weird attempt to
rehabilitate him, trying to pretend that the 'Verona papers' somehow prove
his points -- that is blatantly false, but apparently some follow the old
Goering dictate ' the bigger the lie, the more people will believe'.) For
the nazis, the "liberals, pacifists, socialists and intellectuals" were
subverting German society, trashing German values, and driving the country
into the gutter, afraid to stand up and confront Germany's enemies. I don't
think the far right could ever get away with going down a route like the
Nazis did, they are in reality even a minority within the conservative
movement (and in many ways they are anti-conservative at base, as was
Hitler, even though he managed to get support from traditional
conservatives).

But you hear traces of the similar kind of evil -- calls to nuke Mecca or
Muslim cities in response to a major terrorist attack here, disdain for
"Muslim animals" as some posters put it, a kind of dehumanization that can
lead to massive abuse (look at Abu Ghraib, and that was in a period of
relative calm). I know some would say "Goodwin's law," I mentioned Hitler,
end of thread. But those who don't learn from history, don't realize how
important it is to confront that kind of influence, and make sure it can
never again get strong enough to shape a country. Hitler only got 3% of the
vote in 1928 and wasn't considered serious.

[Scott Erb]

Point on post-modernism, from John Rapley, *Globalization and Inequality*,
p. 12:

"Fundamentalism is understood to mean a resistance to the intellectual and
cultural pluralism that has arisen with modernity and even more so with
postmodernity. Instead, stress is put on a return to the fundamentals, the
basics of a given faith. The irony is that fundamentalism, which in
practice fiercely opposes postmodernism, owes more to it than it would like
to admit. In particular, its vision of a past golden age is less a
historical fact than an ahistorical artifact, invented more out of loyalty
to present needs than past truths."

(the author argues that both postmodern and fundamentalist politics offer no
real solution to the problems faced due to globalization)

[Madelin McKinnon]

Some prosecutors do not know the difference between somebody who is
kidnapped while she is walking her dog, and somebody who voluntarily
goes to the fair.

If Michael Jackson conspired to abduct an entire family, falsely
imprisoned them and committed extortion by threatening grave
consequences if they accused him, why is he still a free man? If Laci
Peterson wasn't kidnapped, why is she dead? These must be really tough
questions for Prosecutors who do not understand the difference between
an abduction and a voluntary visit to Neverland Ranch.

The grand jury indictment allowed prosecutors to avoid holding a
preliminary hearing before a judge to show there is enough evidence to
put Jackson on trial, and now, Prosecutors claim that Michael Jackson
was a flight risk, just like Scott Peterson allegedly was. It looks
like prosecutors who have no evidence seek to make the news by
claiming that their innocent targets are flight risks.

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/dunlap.htm