Download Do All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism

Do All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism?
Robert L. Waggoner
Whether theists know it or not, and whether theists like it or not, children of theists are
being taught humanism in public schools. This teaching weakens theism in many children, and
destroys it in others, especially since theistic parents are unaware that much of what children are
learning in public schools is anti-theistic. The result is that homes, churches, and the nation suffer
the consequences from humanistic indoctrination in public schools.
People have been so accustomed to thinking public schools generally teach theistic values, that most
theists, especially older folks, think it incredible that all public schools now teach humanism. Yet,
that is precisely what all public schools now teach, according to many expert observers of modern
public education. Here are a few of their assessments.

“The modern creationist movement and the resistance of secular educators to this
movement have brought into clear focus one very important fact. Our American public schools and
secular universities are controlled by the religious philosophy of evolutionary humanism.
Furthermore, through its pervasive influence on the graduate schools and the textbook publishers,
this powerful concept has had significant impact even on most Christian schools.”2

“At present, the state schools are an establishment of humanism. They teach and propagate a
philosophy of life which does more than omit Christianity: it is radically at war with biblical
religion. Until we recognize that schools are establishments of religion, and that all education is
inescapably a religious activity, we cannot come to grips with our cultural crisis. It is necessary,
therefore, to recognize that the most central religious exercise of any culture is education. The
religious faith of a society comes to focus in its education.”3
“It was . . . Dewey who began to fashion a new materialist religion in which humanity was
venerated instead of God. This is basically the religion of secular humanism, and this is what has
become the official religion of the United States, for it is the only religion permitted in its public
schools and totally supported by government funds. The Constitution of the United States forbids
the government from establishing a national religion. But we have one, whether the people know it
or not.”4
1Copyright
© by Robert L. Waggoner, Revised, 1998. Permission is given to reproduce and
distribute this document for non-commercial educational purposes when unaltered and provided copyright
and authorship is given.
2Henry Morris, “The Religion of Evolutionary Humanism and the Public Schools,” Up With
Creation! ICR Acts/Facts/Impacts, 1976-77, ed. by Duane T. Gish and Donald H. Rohrer (San Diego, CA:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1978), 312.
3Rousas John Rushdoony, The Philosophy of The Christian Curriculum (Vallecito, California:
Ross House Books, 1985), 176.
4Samuel L. Blumenfeld, N. E. A.: Trojan Horse In American Education (Boise, Idaho: The
Paradigm Company, 1984), 55.
“The NEA has 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.”5
“The modern State has asserted its responsibility to educate children. This is the means by
which the modern State has arrogated to itself the position of the established god on earth. The
government schools have become the established religion of every nation on earth. Humanism,
1
which is the worship of man and his works, rests on this crucial institutional foundation: the
taxsupported,
State-regulated, hypothetically neutral, deeply religious humanist school system.
There can be no neutrality, yet the government schools have almost completely stamped out
Christianity and the law of God by means of the neutrality myth. The State forces Christians to
finance schools that teach a rival religion, the religion of humanism. The State has also attempted
to regulate Christian and independently financed schools. At every point, the State has substituted
tenured bureaucrats who are virtually impossible for parents to remove from authority, while it
has removed parents from the seats of power in setting curricula or any other standards. The
modern State, which is a messianic, supposedly man-saving institution, has used the taxsupported,
compulsory schools as the primary means of stealing children from God, by removing
them from parental control.”6
However much theists may dislike these statements, theists must, in all fairness, ask how
educational observers like those quoted above, arrived at the conclusion that all public schools do
indeed teach humanism. Is there sufficient evidence to warrant this conclusion? Just how those
persons quoted above arrived at their conclusions may not be known. However, a line of reasoning
that leads to no other logical conclusion can be given. First, the argument is given – then the
supporting evidence.
In syllogistic form, the argument may be stated as follows:
Major Premise: The theory of evolution is now taught in all public schools.
Minor Premise: The theory of evolution is a major doctrine of modern humanism.
Conclusion: Therefore, all public schools now teach humanism.
Although logical, the syllogism does not indicate the significance of the evolutionary
perspective either in modern public education or in the philosophy of humanism. That will be
shown by supporting evidences in major and minor premises. The argument and evidence may be
summarized, in outline form, as follows:
Argument and Evidence
I. Major Premise: The theory of evolution is now taught in all public schools.
A. The current “creation-evolution” controversy in the teaching of biology is not the issue. The
primary issue is: Which worldview – creation or evolution – should serve as the educational
philosophy for public schools?
5Ibid.
288.
6Gary North, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory (Tyler, Texas: Geneva
Divinity School Press, 1983), 94.
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 3
B. Beliefs about origins are important because they determine beliefs about all educational
subjects, methods, and purposes.
1. In public education, the theory of evolution is considered to be, at least in theory, the
philosophical and psychological foundation for all public education. It is . . .
a. The key to all knowledge
b. The key to all educational methods
c. The key to all educational purposes
2. Special implications for creationists – Public education denies existence of God, the
validity of supernatural revelation (i.e., the Bible), and the spiritual nature of man.
C. The creation worldview is now beginning to threaten the philosophical foundation of all
modern public education. That’s why it is so strongly opposed by the educational
establishment.
II. Minor Premise: The theory of evolution is a major doctrine of modern humanism.
2
A. Documents of humanism emphasize evolutionary beliefs.
B. Significance of theory of evolution to humanism
1. It is the foundation of the religion of humanism.
2. It is the integrating factor of all life for humanists.
3. It is supposedly scientific. Therefore, it tends to make humanism creditable.
III. Conclusion: Therefore, humanism is now taught in all public schools, to the degree, at least,
that the theory of evolution is the philosophy under girding educational content, methods, and
purposes.
IV. Argument and Evidence Re-Enforced To realize the extent to which modern public
education is humanistic (that is, anti-theistic) imagine what public education would be like if it
were theistic. That is . . .
A. If creation were the key to all educational subjects
B. If creation were the key to all educational methods
C. If creation were the key to all educational purposes
V. Conclusion
Argument and Evidence Expanded
I. Major Premise: All public schools now teach the theory of evolution.
“One of the most amazing phenomena in the history of education is that a speculative
philosophy based on no true scientific evidence could have been universally adopted and
taught as scientific fact, in all the public schools . . . . This is the philosophy of evolution. . . .
When creationists propose, however, that creation be taught in the schools along with
evolution, evolutionists commonly react emotionally, rather than scientifically. Their
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 4
“religion” of naturalism and humanism has been in effect the established religion of the state
for a hundred years, and they fear competition.”7
A. The current “creation-evolution” controversy is not the major issue.
That all public schools now teach an evolutionary view of origins is so evidently true that
should anyone declare otherwise he would likely not be considered creditable by professional
educators. Since the Scopes Trial at Dayton, Tennessee in 1925, evolutionary teachings have
become the norm in all public schools in America.
Although it may be argued that a majority of Americans believe in creation rather than in
evolution, and although preachers sometimes give sermons against believing in evolutionary
doctrines, the theists, as a whole, have done very little to protest the teaching of evolution in public
schools.
The first significant blast in the last half-century against the theory of evolution was in
1961 when John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris published their book, The Genesis Flood.8
Since then, momentum has been gathering among creationists for the presentation of scientific data
affirming creation and refuting evolution. The result is that creationists and evolutionists are now
locked in legal, educational, and polemical battles throughout America.
Whereas creation and the theistic worldview were once dominant in American public
schools, they are, for all practical purposes, now legally excluded. Evolution and the humanistic
worldview occupies the high ground. Evolutionists characterize their beliefs as scientific, while
they characterize creation as religious and therefore unscientific. But evolutionism is as much a
religion as is so-called creationism. Moreover, creationists generally believe that the case for
creation can be better established by arguments from scientific data than can the case for evolution.
Even so, evolutionists are determined that creation not be given equal hearing with
evolution in public schools. Creationists have debated evolutionists in public forums, and have
generally gained more favorable reception from their audiences than have evolutionists. The result,
3
however, is that evolutionists are now hesitating to debate creationists publicly.
In judicial arenas, however, creationists are generally defeated, not by the evidence, but
seemingly by prejudices of the judiciary. The educational establishment does everything in its
legal power to keep creationists from presenting scientific data for its view of origins. Court cases
in Arkansas and Louisiana have demonstrated that the teaching of creation is not acceptable in
public schools.
Creationists, generally, see the battle to get creation taught alongside evolution as the
major battle for Christian faith in public schools. But it isn’t. Nor is it to legalize prayers or bible
7Henry
M. Morris, “Evolution, Creation and The Public Schools,” Creation, Acts, Facts, Impacts.
ed. by Henry M. Morris, Duane T. Gish, George M. Hillestad (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974),
109.
8John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its
Scientific Implications (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961).
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 5
readings in schools. The real issue is: Which worldview – creation or evolution – will serve as
the philosophical foundation for public education?
Creationists have long since lost the major battle for Christian faith in public schools. And
most creationists do not even know what it was, when it happened, nor how. It happened when the
proponents of evolution devised and superimposed their own worldview upon American public
education. It happened when John Dewey, G. Stanley Hall, James McKeen Cattrell, Edward L.
Thorndike, John B. Watson and other educational philosophers and psychologists of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries exchanged the Bible for the Darwinian theory of evolution
as the foundation of all knowledge. The theory of evolution also became the philosophy under
girding instructional methods and educational purposes. This happened without theists, generally,
even being aware that there was a battle to be fought. Creationists lost!9
B. Beliefs about Origins are Important Because They Determine Beliefs about all Educational
Subjects, Methods, and Purposes.
The study of origins is important, but not especially because it provides the framework for
studies in biological sciences. Rather, the study of origins is important because one’s beliefs about
origins are the foundation for all other beliefs. It also determines educational methods and
purposes.
1. In public education, the theory of evolution is now considered to be, at least in theory, the
key to all knowledge.
To believe in the creation of our natural universe requires belief in a supernatural being
who has power and purposes greater than what is demonstrated by the natural universe. To believe
in evolution requires belief in a self-existing universe. It requires belief that this natural universe
is all that exists, that it evolves by chance and that all things are only physical. For evolutionists,
nothing is spiritual or eternal.
One’s beliefs about origins color his thinking about all other subjects – whether physical,
social, ethical, or philosophical. The physical sciences – biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy,
etc. – are all predicated upon one’s views of origins. Did God create the heavens and the earth and
all things in them? (Psalm 148:3-5; Romans 1:20; 1 Corinthians 11:12; Hebrews 2:10; 3:4.). Did
creation occur in a seven-day week as declared by scripture? (Genesis 1:1-2:4; Exodus 20:11). Or
has a self-existing universe evolved over billions of years to become what it now is? Does nature
operate only by chance?
The social sciences – psychology, sociology, politics, etc. – are almost entirely premised
by evolutionary concepts – that mankind is only physical, descended from an ape-like ancestor;
that all societies, like individuals, evolve; that might makes right, and that the survival of the fittest
4
is justification for aggression and overthrow of others.
Modern historians are generally committed to doctrinaire evolutionary concepts in the
interpretation of both ancient and modern history. They see no place for God to work in the affairs
9For
further information, see Blumenfeld, 40-62.
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 6
of mankind in either biblical or contemporary history. Therefore, for them, biblical history must be
considered as saga, legend, or myth.
In the teaching of ethical and moral values – truth, honesty, decency, etc. – one’s beliefs
about origins determines one’s behavior. If all things evolve by chance, then there are no
absolutes, all things must be relative. Right and wrong are always flexible according to current
social standards. One can therefore act in whatever manner may be desired by himself or his
society. On the other hand, if God created mankind and holds mankind accountable to a consistent,
universal standard, then there are absolutes. One must behave according to God’s absolute
standards.
The major philosophies – whether political, psychological, sociological, etc. – having
major impact upon the modern world, are all evolutionary philosophies. These are all taught in
public schools. All modern public education is anti-biblical and anti-theistic to the extent that all
subjects taught in public schools presuppose that all things evolved. Even in such subjects as
speech, math, meteorology, etc. which have very little evolutionary content, textbooks and/or
teachers often introduce their subjects with an endorsement of evolutionary origins.10
Evolutionary presuppositions in modern education require an automatic rejection of a
supernatural God who created and sustains all things. It requires rejection of supernatural
revelation about God and all other aspects of reality. And it requires rejection of the spiritual
nature of man. Since humanity is presumed to be only physical, then education regarding mankind’s
spiritual nature is intentionally not addressed by modern public education.
2. In public education, the theory of evolution is now considered to be, at least in theory, the
key to all instructional methods.
The theory of evolution is not only the philosophical foundation for all subject content
taught in public schools, it is also the psychological basis, at least in theory, for all instructional
methods now used in public schools. Psychology is the study of the human mind as demonstrated
by human behavior. The workings of the mind are important for both teaching and learning.
Educators want to know how the mind works in order that teachers may guide students effectively
in the learning process.
Conclusions derived from studying the mind are largely dependent upon presuppositions or
assumptions brought to the study of the mind. Creationists generally believe that the mind of
mankind is distinct from the brain and that it is somehow related to the spiritual nature of humanity.
(In the Bible, Jesus told about a rich man who died and afterward, “in hell” remembered Lazarus
and his five brothers who were yet living on earth (Luke 16:19-31). In order for that to be, his
memory, a faculty of the mind, had to have existence beyond the life of the human body. Thus,
biblically speaking, the human mind is something more than physical.
10For
further information, read Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution (San Diego: CLP Publishers, 1974), 25-45; Rousas John Rushdoony, 37-43; and Raymond F. Surburg, “The Influence
of Evolution,” Darwin, Evolution, and Creation, ed. by Paul Zimmerman (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1959), 169-204.
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 7
Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe that human beings are only physical, and that
human minds are only physical. The mind is not distinct from the brain. Mind and brain are but one
and the same. For evolutionists, the mind is not a special faculty capable of receiving ideas. Rather
5
it is merely an ability that has evolved, like any other ability, to help a human being to adapt to his
or her environment. These differing presuppositions are directly related to instructional methods.
Because creationists and evolutionists differ in their presuppositions regarding human nature and
the nature of the human mind, they logically differ in their educational methodologies.
Although public schools in America were once mostly theistic, with the coming of
evolution and with its adaptation as the root source of educational philosophy and psychology,
public schools became humanistic. Modern public education, often referred to as progressive
education, is but the application of ideas derived from evolution as the basis for instructional
methods.
Progressive education grew out of the new experimental psychology based on the
belief that man is an animal, a product of evolution with common ancestry with the ape,
and could therefore be studied like any other animal. In Germany, where the new
psychology originated, Darwin’s main support came from Ernst Haeckel, who maintained
that psychology was a branch of physiology and that mind could therefore be fitted into
the scheme of evolution. Haeckel was also responsible for the idea that during
embryological development higher organisms like man relived their evolutionary history
– that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. That hypothesis has since been proven false, but
it has become the basis of the way reading is taught in most American schools. The looksay
method of teaching reading was promoted by the progressives on the ground that
children should go through the different stages that the human race went through in
learning to read: pictography, ideographs, and finally the alphabet. The application of the
dictum that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” in reading instruction has led to a literacy
disaster.”11
All educational psychology (and most other psychology also) is based on the theory of
evolution. Behavioral psychologists, such as Edward Lee Thorndike and John B. Watson, derived
from Charles Darwin the stimulus-response techniques now used in teaching. Thorndike, the father
of behavioral educational psychology, wrote, “[n]o where more truly than in his mental capacities
is man a part of nature. His instincts, that is his inborn tendencies to feel and act in certain ways,
show though out marks of kinship with the lower animals, especially with our nearest relatives
physically, the monkeys. His sense-powers show no new creation. His intellect we have seen to be
a simple though extended variation from the general animal sort. This again is presaged by the
similar variation in the case of the monkeys. Amongst the minds of animals that of man leads, not
as a demigod from another planet, but as a king from the same race.”12 The assumption that the
theory of evolution is the philosophical foundation for all knowledge and all instructional methods
lead to an additional assumption, namely, that the theory of evolution is also the philosophical
foundation for all educational objectives.
11Samuel
12Ibid.,
L. Blumenfeld, The Blumenfeld Education Letter, IV, 6 (June 1989): 5.
quoting Edward L. Thorndike, Animal Intelligence, 294.
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 8
3. In public education, the theory of evolution is now considered to be, at least in theory, the
key to all educational purposes.
Because creationists believe that mankind is both physical and spiritual, creationists are
concerned with truth, and with the acquisition and use of knowledge for both time and eternity. For
creationists, the purpose of education is therefore to train the mind, to develop moral character by
teaching children God’s laws, to prepare and to discipline the young to serve God. Creationists
are interested in children knowing all things needful to become independent of their parents, to
lead faithful Christian lives, and to build their own Christian homes. Creationists are interested in
educating for both time and eternity. For creationists, learning relies primarily on use of cognitive
6
skills.
On the other hand, because evolutionists believe that mankind is only physical,
evolutionists are not so much concerned about imparting knowledge to children as they are
teaching children how to solve social problems, to adapt to their physical and social environments.
Evolutionists are interested in teaching children things that relate only to time – not to eternity –
things like self-realization, social adjustment, and financial success.
The stimulus response techniques now used in teaching is indicative of changes in the
purposes of education. Americans have traditionally believed that schools were to foster the
intellectual development of children by teaching them basic skills. They were to cultivate their
minds through study of systematic knowledge produced through the centuries, and to instill an
understanding of their heritage and culture. However, modern educational philosophy intents for
schools to modify behavior and to inculcate evolutionary values and vacillating emotional
adjustments. Some educational philosophers have gone so far as to redefine education as therapy.
For such purposes “[e]very school classroom in America must now be regarded as a mental clinic.
Every teacher must be regarded as a facilitator or psycho-therapist. And every child in the
classroom must be regarded as a patient.”13
4. In public education, the theory of evolution is increasingly becoming, in actual practice, the
key to all knowledge, all instructional methods, and all educational purposes.
Many theists in America’s public schools will argue that they and many other teachers and
administrators certainly do not believe that the theory of evolution is the key to all knowledge,
instructional methods, and educational purposes. And they are right. But it doesn’t matter whether
they believe it or not. The fact is that the theory of evolution is, by design, worked into textbooks
and other curriculum guides. When schoolteachers follow those guides, and they must at least to
some degree, then they, however unconscious of it they may be, are implementing the intentions of
educational philosophers and psychologists.
Without the general public’s awareness, the theory of evolution has changed public
education. The change has come gradually, but it is now accelerating faster because evolutionists
now have a stronger hold on the educational system.
13Nancy
Pearcey, “What Is Evolution Doing To Education?” Bible-Science Newsletter (January,
1986), 7 quoting from the widely used Hawaii Master Plan for Education.
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 9
Conclusion of Major Premise
The current creation-evolution controversy is a surprise to evolutionists and to the
educational establishment. They thought that the creationists’ perspective was dead. The
unforeseen possibility that creation might now be allowed equal hearing with evolution, even if
only in biology classes, is a genuine threat to them. Should creationists win adherents, if only in
biology classrooms, then it would not be long before creation would become a threat to
evolutionism in public schools, not only as the way all things originated, but more significantly, as
the philosophical foundation for all subject content, teaching methods and educational purposes.
Evolutionists, and the educational establishment, are not about to risk that possibility. That’s why
the teaching of creation in public schools is so strongly opposed today by the educational
establishment.
If, in the teaching of origins in biology classes, equal treatment were to be given to
alternative perspectives, i.e. to evolutionism and creation – either by elimination of evolutionism
from biology instruction, or by inclusion of creation in biology instruction, then many contenders
for equal treatment would probably be satisfied. However, this would not be equal treatment, not
even in biology, because evolutionism would still be the philosophical foundation for other
aspects of biology curriculum. Moreover, evolutionism would continue to be the philosophical
7
foundation for all subject content, methods, and purposes in all other courses at all grade levels.
The two philosophical systems – creation and evolutionism – are incompatible. Neither
can tolerate the other. Either one or the other will prevail in public education. Evolutionism is now
in control. Theistic parents must awaken to the danger which evolutionism presents to the faith of
their children. The threat is very real. In defense of theistic families who send their children to
public schools, and also of theistic school administrators and teachers who are employed by
public schools, it may be said, theists, generally, are not consciously aware that evolution is the
root source of educational philosophy and psychology in American today.
While many theists in the teaching profession may sense the undesirability of evolutionary
assumptions within their own curriculum content, teaching methods and purposes, and while they
may therefore alter it in accordance with their own theistic perspectives, they cannot thereby
overcome the strong hold that evolution has upon public education. With each passing generation,
the strength of evolution becomes more firmly entrenched in public schools.
II. Minor Premise: The Theory of Evolution Is A Major Doctrine of Modern Humanism
A. Documents of humanism emphasize evolutionary beliefs.
Humanism is a major influence in today’s world largely because of the theory of evolution.
Evolutionary ideas are fundamental to modern humanism. The first four of fifteen articles in the
first Humanist Manifesto emphasize evolutionary beliefs.
“First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”
“Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the
result of a continuous process.”
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 10
“Third: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of
mind and body must be rejected.”
“Fourth: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly
depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development
due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage.
The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded to that culture.”
The second Humanist Manifesto also acknowledges the importance of evolution, but not
as strongly. The first article declares that “[a]s non-theists, we begin with humans, not God, nature
not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries,
however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.” The second article contains the statement
that “science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.”
The ninth item in A Secular Humanist Declaration is more cognizant of the current
creationevolution
controversy. “Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final
formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by
the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists
concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by
the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by
fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that
creationists theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This
is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process.”
B. Significance of the theory of evolution to humanism
The significance of the theory of evolution to the philosophy of humanism may be declared
in at least three ways. First, it is the foundation faith tenent of the religion of humanism. Humanist
cannot prove that there is no God, that people have no souls, that there is no heaven or hell, that
mankind will not live after death, that mankind is basically good, that there are no absolutes, or
8
even that all things have evolved over billions of years. These are not supportable by the scientific
method, yet they are all declarations of belief. They are all in the realm of religious faith.
A humanist, Octavius B. Frothingham, wrote a book in 1872 entitled Religion of
Humanity, “in which he used the doctrine of evolution to establish a humanistic, naturalistic
concept of religious and ethical values.”14 The importance of the theory of evolution in
confrontation with theism is declared by another humanist, Charles F. Potter, a signer of the first
Humanist Manifesto. He declared “[i]t will be remembered that the theory of evolution found its
bitterest and most persistent opponents among the theistic religionists. Only gradually and with
reluctance has orthodoxy readjusted its theology to make room in it for the theory of evolution.
There are many Theists today who believe in evolution, but they have had to make over their idea
of God considerably. Indeed, they have not yet succeeded in making a satisfactory adjustment. It is
still to be seen whether or not Theism will survive the shock which the theory of evolution has
given it.”15
14John
Eidsmoe, The Christian Legal Advisor (Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1984), 189.
F. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), 15.
15Charles
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 11
Second, the theory of evolution is considered by humanists to be the integrating factor of
all life. One of this century’s best know humanists, Julian Huxley, put it this way. “The new
ideasystem,
whose birth we of the mid-twentieth century are witnessing, I shall call humanism,
because it can only be based on our understanding of man and his relations with the rest of his
environment. It must be focused on man as an organism, though one with unique properties. It must
be organized round the facts and ideas of evolution, taking account of the discovery that man is part
of a comprehensive evolutionary process, and cannot avoid playing a decisive role in it.”16
Third, the supposed scientific affirmation of the theory of evolution tends to give humanism
creditability. Edwin H. Wilson, writing in The New Humanist, declared that “what we are calling
humanism is a subtle, permeating influence growing organically out of the progress of scientific
knowledge wherever that knowledge is effectively related to human life.”17
It is therefore only logical to humanists that the theory of evolution should be taught in all
public schools. When therefore evolution is taught in public schools as proven scientific fact, as it
now is, it means that school children think that evolution is more significant than creation – which
is increasingly disdained as religious superstition. Both science and education are therefore
presumed to be allies of humanism. In this respect, the importance of public schools is under
scored by statement from Charles F. Potter. “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism,
and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools,
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 teaching?”18
Through public education, evolutionary beliefs promote humanistic values. This is as was
intended by John Dewey and other educational philosophers and psychologists who designed the
present public educational system.
III. Conclusion: Therefore, humanism is now taught in all public schools to the degree, at least,
that the theory of evolution is the philosophy under girding educational content, methods, and
purposes.
It would be a mistake to presume that humanism is taught in public schools with respect
only to the theory of evolution, or of the natural sciences. It is also taught in ways that are unrelated
to the theory of evolution. But the argument here given and its accompanying evidence should be
sufficient to those who doubt it that humanism is indeed taught, in some form, and to some extent,
in
9
all public schools in America.
Moreover, it must not go unnoticed, that whenever private schools use public school
textbooks, and/or educational methods, and whenever Christian or other private school teachers
(who must generally be certified by the state approved, humanistic oriented, teacher-training
colleges) use, even unconsciously, humanistic educational philosophy and psychology in their
16Julian
Huxley, The Humanist Frame (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 14; as cited by
Eidsmoe, 183.
17Cited by Potter, 129.
18Ibid. 128.
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 12
classrooms, then Christian and other private schools, unknowingly, also indoctrinate students in
humanistic values and purposes.
Argument and Evidence Re-enforced
IV. The extent to which modern public education is humanistic may be better realized by imagining
what public education would be like if it were theistic. If creation were the philosophical
foundation for all public education, then it would be the key to educational content, methods,
and purposes.
A. If, in public education, creation were the key to all knowledge, then . . .
1. People would readily acknowledge the concept of a creator. The universe and all things in it
would be understood as originating from a common source – the Creator. Similarities
between living things, whether plants or animals, would not be construed as related by
evolutionary families, but rather as products designed by the same designer. The order and
arrangement of nature would be an indication that knowledge may be ascertained by
observation and experimentation because nature is generally consistent, rather than chaotic.
All things would then be perceived as having purpose in the mind of the Creator.
2. People would recognize that just as creation requires a Creator, and just as the natural was
produced by the supernatural, so also knowledge would be understood as derived from both
natural and supernatural sources. People would not then be prejudiced against Divine
revelation as a creditable source of knowledge for public education.
3. People would not be blinded to the fact that mankind has a spiritual nature. Mankind would
be recognized as the highest form of all living things, but he would also be considered as
distinct and different from all other living things. The study of human psychology would not
be based only on the study of animal nature, because it would be understood that mankind is
more than physical in nature. Psychological conclusions would be based upon both divine
and natural revelation.
4. All subjects taught in public schools would be taught in harmony with creation perspectives.
Historians, for example, would not look upon the course of human events as chance
happenings. Rather, history would be viewed as a record of human events wherein God
works out his will. Moreover, biblical history would be taught along with profane history.
The significance of Christ, not only in his earthly life and times, but throughout human
history, would be emphasized. Moreover, godly men throughout all human history would be
portrayed as examples which students should appreciate for their character and good works.
The actions of not only individuals, but also of nations would be viewed in accordance with
their conformity to God’s revealed word.
B. If, in public education, creation were the key to educational methods, then . . .
1. All educational methods used in teaching would be consistent with biblical ethical and
moral values. Because there is a Creator, and because He has created all things orderly, it
follows that there are absolute truths and standards by which all things should function –
10
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 13
including all human behavior. Then, to follow the creator’s absolute truths and standards,
students would be taught to look to divine revelation, not to human judgments, or to natural
revelation.
2. The manner of learning would be that which is most consistent with acquiring a knowledge
of both divine and natural revelation. The most consistently used methods of learning would
be those that aid in the acquisition of knowledge, such as memorization and recitation.
Emphasis in learning would be on development of each student’s cognitive skills. Testing of
students to verify their understanding of a body of knowledge would be extremely important.
Testing would seldom be through guessing – such as in true-false, or multiple-choice tests.
C. If, in public education, creation were the key to all educational purposes, then . . .
1. The purpose of education would be to impart knowledge concerning the Creator and all His
creation. It would not be, as when evolution is supposed to be the key to all educational
purposes – to socialize students that is, to prepare students to live in a socialistic society.
The sciences, along with their technological benefits, would advance for the good, not for
the harm, of humanity.
2. All students would be taught that their lives should be spent in glorifying God and in serving
their fellow man, rather than self. Students would therefore be directed to pursue
occupations of unselfish service, not those of selfish materialism and hedonism. The quality
of human life would thereby be increased in every community.
3. All public schools would teach that everyone is accountable to God, and will at the end of
this earthly life be judged by God to spend eternity either in heaven or hell, depending upon
each man’s beliefs and conduct in this life.
Conclusion:
So effective has been the use of public schools by humanists, that public schools, at least
until recently, have been the single most effective medium for humanizing our culture. While the
media, especially television, may now have replaced public schools in their over-all effectiveness
in developing anti-theistic biases in America, public schools continue in second place, at least.
Humanistic entrenchment and momentum within public education means that public schools
will become increasingly more humanistic and therefore increasingly more anti-theistic in the
coming decades. Humanism is so firmly entrenched within public education that it is impossible
for theists to bring about educational changes in keeping with theistic principles.
Theistic parents who refuse to consider that public schools are increasingly anti-biblical
and anti-theistic are endangering their ability to impart their theistic faith to their children. While
some communities have large percentages of theists as public school teachers, administrators, and
counselors, there is no indication that, in those public schools, the educational content, methods
and purposes are theistic. Educational philosophers and psychologists – not public school boards,
administrators, and/or teachers – determine educational content, methods and purposes. However,
not one of these educational philosophers and psychologists is know for theistic convictions.
All Public Schools Now Teach Humanism 14
What therefore are theists to do? Here are three suggestions. First, theists must realize that
God has not authorized civil governments to teach children. That is the responsibility of families.
Second, theists must give serious consideration to alternative educational arrangements for their
children. If theistic schools are not available, then theistic families may wish to work together to
start theistic schools, or they may wish to teach their own children at home. Third, since public
schools are not biblically authorized by God, since public schools are a primary medium for
growing anti-theistic values in our society, and since public schools cannot be altered for theistic
purposes, then theists should seek to privatize all education.
11
These proposals may be thought radical by theists because contemporary theists have
generally not heard them expressed. Moreover, theists have been so accustomed to schooling their
children in government schools, that the thought of such drastic changes in national forms of
education may seem unrealistic. However, theists must thoroughly investigate public schools in
light of biblical teachings. If what is here written is biblical and true, then theists should accept it.
If what is here written is neither biblical nor true, then theists should reject it.
The problem many theists have with these proposals is not one of intellectual acceptance.
Rather, the problem is generally emotional. Because theists are so accustomed to educating their
children in public schools, theists, like all others in our society, have built their life styles in such
fashion to accommodate public education. To remove children from public schools, and to seek
alternative educational arrangements for their children, will require a change in life style for many
theistic parents. Theists generally don’t want to change their life styles. Theists are comfortable
and complacent with public schools. Theists therefore generally resist seeking educational
alternatives for their children. Theists want to think the problem is not as bad as it has been
pictured, or perhaps it will just go away. Don’t count on it. Theists must face reality. And the
sooner theists confront this major problem, the better for Christian homes, the church and the
nation.
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM1
The watchman on the wall of an ancient city had to be alert for signs of danger. His
responsibility was to inform others of what he saw. Should he detect a foreign army about to
attack, he needed to sound an alarm. In our own American history, we remember the midnight
ride of Paul Revere—from Charleston to Medford, and on to Concord and Lexington.
So through the night rode Paul Revere
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm.2
Likewise, we must sound an alarm regarding humanism and the dangers it presents to
Christians. I wish it were possible for us to shout, as did those watchmen on ancient walls,
“The enemy is coming!” But that’s not the message about humanism which we must convey.
That message would imply that we are here, and that humanism is off over yonder somewhere.
Our message—one which leaves us with a sinking feeling—is more comparable to the
announcement that “we’ve got termites in our woodwork!”
Humanism is not coming. It’s already here! It has already done much damage. It has
already eaten far into the structures of our society. It kills unborn babies. It hurts youth with
drugs. It dirties minds with profanity. It turns children against their parents. It robs families of
their wealth. It severely damages and often destroys Christian families. If left alone, humanism
will eat its way through the country until eventually it has destroyed all Christian homes and
churches.
While Christians look with horror on these destructive trends, humanists actually
believe their way of thinking will produce a better world. They say that “[t]he next century can
be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and everaccelerating
social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered
the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we
stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and inhabit other planets.
Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce
disease; extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human
12
evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide human-kind with
unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.”3
That sounds good, doesn’t it? However, humanists cannot succeed in their quests
because they leave God out of their plans. Humanists believe that men are capable of guiding
and directing themselves. They know not that “it is not in man who walks to direct his own
1Robert
L. Waggoner, Embattled Christianity: A Call To Alarm The Church To Humanism, The
Third Annual Shennandoah Lectures (Shennandoah Church of Christ, 11026 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, TX
78230.) Pensacola: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1989, 65-85. © Copyrighted.
2Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “Paul Revere’s Ride,” Harvard Classics. New York: P. F. Collier &
Son Company, 1910, Vol. 42, “English Poetry,” 135.
3Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifesto I and II, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973, Preface to
Manifestoes I and II, 14.
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 2
steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). They know not that “there is a way which seems right to a man, but its
end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). They know not God’s declaration that “all
who hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36.). They know not that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and
the life” (John 14:6) or that Jesus came that we might have life, and have it more abundantly
(John 10:10).
A society built on humanistic principles is a society which will destroy itself. Our
society is not rapidly deteriorating. Much of this deterioration is because people have turned
away from Christian principles and seek guidance from humanistic values.
Most Christians do not understand humanism, and therefore do not realize its dangers.
As I travel among churches, I often ask for a show of hands to see how many in church
audiences have read any of the basic documents of humanism – Humanist Manifestos I and II,
and A Secular Humanist Declaration.4 Out of one hundred people, generally only two or three
raise their hands. Have you read these documents? If not, you should! Humanism is the number
one modern philosophical enemy of Christianity. We cannot effectively oppose it unless we
understand its values, its goals, and its methods.
In order to understand the basic goals of humanism, we need to look only at its basic
documents. That’s because these documents were written for the express purpose of declaring
the values and goals of humanism. Humanist Paul Kurtz underscored that fact when he wrote in
the Preface to Humanist Manifestos I and II that these documents are intended “. . . not as
dogmas or credos..., but as the expression of a quest for values and goals that we can work for
and that can help us to take new directions. Humanists are committed to building a world that
is significant, not only for the individual’s quest for meaning, but for the whole of humankind.”5
Moreover, the endorsers of Humanist Manifesto II invite others in all lands to join them “in
further developing and working for these goals.”6
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
Our perception of humanist’s objectives may be increased by making some preliminary
observations about the subtleties of humanism. These observations may also help protect us
against deception from humanist language. First, the language used by humanist to express their
goals seems intentionally low-key, and may sometimes also be appropriate for declaring
Christian goals. This arouses minimal opposition. This technique may be illustrated by looking
at two sentences in the thirteenth article of Humanist Manifesto I.
4Humanist
Manifesto I was drafted by Roy Wood Sellers. It was first published in The New
Humanist, (May/June, 1933, Vol. VI., No. 3). It was signed by thirty-four people, including John Dewey.
Humanist Manifesto II was first published in The Humanist (September/October, 1973, Vol. XXXIII, No. 5).
It was signed by 114 prominent persons, including Isaac Asimov, Edd Doerr, Anthony Flew, Sidney Hook,
Lester Kirkendall, Paul Kurtz, Corless Lamont, Lester Mondale, and B. F. Skinner. A Secular Humanist
Declaration was drafted by Paul Kurtz. It first appeared in Free Inquiry, (Winter, 1980/81, Vol. I, No. 1, 3-6).
13
In that issue it was endorsed by 58 people from 8 countries, among which were Isaac Asimov, Joseph Fletcher,
Sidney Hook, Floyd Matson, and B. F. Skinner. Twenty-three additional endorsements arrived too late for
publication and were listed in the next issue.
5Paul Kurtz, ed, Humanist Manifestoes I and II, 14.
6Same as above, 24
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 3
Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the
fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of
human life is the purpose and program of humanism.
Notice particularly the last sentence. However, let’s reword it -- without changing its
meaning – so that the goal is more obvious. The sentence then might read, “The purpose and
program of humanism is the intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of
[all] associations and institutions with a view of the enhancement of human life.” Notice: “All
associations and institutions” includes homes, churches, schools, businesses, professions,
governments, organizations, etc. Humanists want to transform, control, and direct them
according to humanistic values and goals. Humanists want to convert the world to their way of
thinking and acting. Does not the original wording minimize opposition?
Moreover, the language expressing goals of humanism may sometimes be appropriate
also for declaring goals of Christianity. Should not the “purpose and program” of Christianity
be to transform, control, and direct, “all associations and institutions?” Should not all
associations and institutions operate by Christian values and goals? Is not Christianity
applicable to all aspects of life – including all associations and institutions? Of course!
The point is – humanists have found themselves in a world dominated by Christian
values and goals. They do not like Christian teaching and behavioral standards. They want a
totally different philosophical standard to govern human thinking and behavior. They are
committed to eliminating Christianity. That commitment is stated in these documents in a
manner calculated to forcefully declare their goals yet to intentionally minimize their
resistance.
A second preliminary observation is that vocabulary terms used by humanists
sometimes have special meanings. When we are unaware of these special meanings, we may
be inclined to agree with what they say. However, when we understand what humanists mean
by certain terms, we will probably disagree with them. For example, humanists believe that
“the conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized.”7 What do
humanists mean when they declare that these conditions should be “humanized?”
The answer comes from knowing what humanists believe about humanity. For them,
human nature is very limited. Humanists believe that man is only physical, not spiritual. They
believe that humans evolved rather than were created. They believe that man has no
relationship to deity or to supernatural revelation, and that therefore man needs no guidance
apart from his own reason and intelligence. Therefore, to “humanize” the conditions of work,
education, devotion, and play mean to remove from them any divine proscriptions regarding
human conduct. For humanists, all conditions related to man should be determined only by
human intelligence and reason. When we understand vocabulary terms in the same sense as
humanists do, we then understand their goals more clearly.
A third and final preliminary observation is that humanism, by its very nature, consists
not only of ideas but also of a specific method by which it operates, A Secular Humanist
7Humanist
Manifesto II, Eighth.
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 4
Declaration observes that “secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a
14
method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.”8 The method of
humanism is the same as its message, namely, that God and divine revelation must be
eliminated from all ethical considerations. Humanism insists that man determine for himself
what is right and what is wrong by his own critical thinking. Humanists want everyone to make
decisions without considering God and to act as if there is no God. For humanists, God is not
relevant. They want Christians also to think and act as though God is not relevant.
BASIC GOALS OF HUMANISM
With these preliminary observations in mind, we are now ready to look at five basic
goals of humanism and their potential consequences.
1. Humanists want to replace religions based on supernatural beliefs (like
Christianity) with a religion based only on natural beliefs. They believe “that any religion
that can hope to make a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs
of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”9 No less than eight
of the fifteen articles of the first Humanist Manifesto explicitly describe the new religion of
humanism.10
The first manifesto affirms that “religious humanists regard the universe as self existing
and not created.”11 Humanists assert “that the nature of the universe depicted by modern
science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.” They
“insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of
intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relation to human needs. Religion must
formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.”12 They are
convinced that the time has passed for theism.13 Therefore, “religious institutions, their
ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as
rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.”14
While the first manifesto is plain spoken in its rejection of the supernatural, the second
manifesto seems more hostile. It declares that “traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions
that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice
to the human species.”15 Humanists think that “promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal
damnation are both illusory and harmful.” Traditional religions and other ideologies are said
to be “obstacles to human progress.”16
8A
Secular Humanist Declaration, 5.
Manifesto I, Preface
10First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Twelfth, Thirteenth. These all use such expressions as
“religious humanists,” “religious humanism,” “religion,” or “religious.” However the other seven articles
also relate to religious beliefs. The concluding paragraph begins with the sentence “So stands the thesis of
religious humanism.”
11Humanist Manifesto I, First
12Humanist Manifesto I, Fifth
13Humanist Manifesto I, Sixth
14Humanist Manifesto I, Thirteenth.
15Humanist Manifesto II, First.
16Humanist Manifesto II, Second.
9Humanist
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 5
The new religion desired by humanists is intended as a foundation for social changes.
“In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious
emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to
promote social well-being.”17 “Religious humanism considers” the goal of a man’s life “the
complete realization of human personality” in the here and now. “This is the explanation of the
humanist’s social passion.”18 “It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and
attitudes of the kind associated with belief in the supernatural.”19 “Believing that religion must
15
work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to
encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.”20 For humanists, “religion
consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing
human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship,
recreation – all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living.”21 The
religion of humanism therefore need not necessarily include formal worship assemblies. Even
so, it is important to emphasize that the religion of humanism wishes not just to influence, nor
even to dominate, but rather to control every aspect of human life.22 In so doing, it desires to
remove God and all supernatural beliefs from all human affairs.
If humanists successfully implement this goal, then they will have eliminated the
relevancy of God and all other supernatural beliefs from all human affairs. This has already
been accomplished in the area of law. One of the most knowledgeable men in America about
humanism, Rousas John Rushdoony, declares in his book Christianity and The State, that
At present, law has been severed from God and is in essence atheistic; it presupposes
a sovereign man, not the sovereign God. Churchmen, by their acceptance of
contemporary, non-Biblical law, have given assent to atheism as the religion of
society. The result has been the virtual disappearance of atheism as an organized
movement, because our antinomian churches advocate precisely what atheism worked
to introduce, the supplanting of theocratic Biblical law with humanistic statist law.
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.23
In the field of medicine, humanism is the cause for over a million and a half babies
being aborted annually. It is now moving to legalize euthanasia, infanticide, and suicide. In
education, humanism has legally removed Bible reading and prayer from public school
classrooms. In field after field, little by little, humanists are implementing this goal as they
seek to transform, control, and direct all associations and institutions.
2. Humanists want to replace Biblical ethics with Humanistic ethics. Although
humanists recognize “the central role of morality in human life,”24 they mean by morality
17Humanist
Manifesto I, Ninth.
Manifesto I, Eighth.
19Humanist Manifesto I, Tenth.
20Humanist Manifesto I, Twelfth.
21Humanist Manifesto I, Seventh
22Humanist Manifesto I, Thirteenth.
23Rousas John Rushdoony, Christianity and The State, Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1986, 52.
24A Secular Humanist Declaration, 4.
18Humanist
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 6
something entirely different than what Christians mean. Generally speaking, Christians believe
that man needs guidance from God, and is ultimately accountable to God. Christians believe
that God determines what is right and what is wrong, and that ethical values are revealed by
God to man through scripture. Christians believe that all human conduct must be consistent
with what God says is right. Since God is one (Mark 12:29, 32; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; Galatians
3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; James 1:17) then God gives but one universal standard. It is absolute and
constant. God’s single ethical standard, when used as a social norm, produces moral
conformity in society.
This contrast between Christian and humanistic ethical values is easily documented.
The second humanist manifesto says that “. . . moral values derive their source from human
experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological
sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of
16
life. Human life has importance because we create and develop our futures.”25
Additional statements from A Secular Humanist Declaration say that “ethics was
developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral
systems based upon divine authority.”26 Humanists maintain “that ethics is an autonomous field
of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and
that human beings can cultivate lives of virtue and excellence.”27 Humanists “are opposed to
Absolutist morality,” yet they “maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values
and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation.”28
Reason and intelligence are the means by which humanists determine their ethical
standards. “For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be judged by critical reason,
and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their
own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior.”29
“Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind
possesses. There is no substitute: . . .The controlled use of scientific methods . . .
must be extended further in the solution of human problems. . . . Reason should be
balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled.”30
For humanists, ethics must conform to whatever brings happiness. “Happiness and the
creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are
continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life here and now. The goal is to
pursue life’s enrichment...”31 Since happiness relates not only to individuals, but also to
groups, it has social importance. Humanist “philosophers have emphasized the need to
25Humanist
Manifesto II, Third
Secular Humanist Declaration, 4.
27Same as above
28Same as above
29Same as above
30Humanist Manifesto II, Fourth.
31Humanist Manifesto II, Third.
26A
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 7
cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual’s
obligations and responsibilities toward others.”32
The ethical values of humanism are a grave threat to a society based on Christian
ethical values. If fully implemented, the ethical values of humanism would completely destroy
a society whose conduct is governed by Christian ethics. If the taking of God’s name in vain,
the telling of falsehoods, the practice of adultery, or even the act of murder by abortion,
euthanasia, or suicide is judged by an individual’s reasoning as necessary for his happiness,
then, to fulfill his human needs and desires or to solve some human problem, such conduct is
considered ethical by humanists!
Humanists seek to implement their system of ethical values through public schools.
They believe that public schools are fundamental to their cause. They say that “education
should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies.”33 They “do
not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property;
hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values.”34 They contend that in a
world of humanism, “reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and
supported by custom.”35 Therefore, humanists “believe in the right to universal education.”36
More specifically, they say
“We support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an
appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to
encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free
17
choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral
to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young
people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the
history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in
a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves.”37
Since humanism rejects supernaturalism, then whatever moral values humanism teaches
in public schools must of necessity reject moral values related to supernatural beliefs and
standards taught by Christian parents. Public schools, in one degree or another, now utilize
humanistic values education in a wide variety of courses and grade levels.
Humanism now controls public education in America. Humanism has a safe haven for
teaching humanistic values to children of Christian parents. Christian parents can therefore
expect that public schools will increasingly become anti-Christian. Christian parents must
therefore begin to consider educational alternatives for their children. Through the teaching of
humanistic ethics to the school children of this nation, humanism is well on its way to realizing
its goal of replacing Christian ethics in our society with humanistic ethical values.
32A
Secular Humanist Declaration, 4.
Secular Humanist Declaration, 10.
34A Secular Humanist Declaration, 5.
35Humanist Manifesto I, Eleventh.
36Humanist Manifesto II, Eleventh
37A Secular Humanist Declaration, 5.
33A
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 8
3. Humanists want to replace the family as the basic unit of society with the
autonomous individual. The family is not important to humanists. Rather, “the preciousness
and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value.” Humanists “reject all
religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual.” They believe in
“maximum individual autonomy” (that is, individual self-rule). For humanists, “the
possibilities of individual freedom of choice . . . should be increased.”38
Notice how placing the individual in the central role destroys the home and family.
First, the demands of humanists for individual sexual rights, if fully implemented, would
destroy the institution of marriage. Humanists believe “individuals should be permitted to
express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire.” They think that
“intolerant attitudes often cultivated by orthodox religion and puritanical cultures, unduly
repress sexual conduct.” They believe that “the right to birth control, abortion, and divorce
should be recognized.” They “do not wish to prohibit by law or social sanction, sexual
behavior between consenting adults.”39 For humanists, marriage is generally insignificant.
Humanists think marriage is only one of many sexual arrangements of convenience. For
humanists, non-married couples living together, as well as communal, homosexual and lesbian
marriages, are equally as acceptable as are heterosexual marriages. This means that divorce
must be readily available to married persons.
Second, the demands of humanists for elimination of all discrimination based on sex, if
fully implemented, would destroy the Biblical role of the sexes within marriage. Humanists
“are critical of sexism or sexual chauvinism.” They “believe in equal rights for both men and
women to fulfill their unique careers and potentialities as they see fit, free of invidious
discrimination.”40 This means that husbands would not necessarily be heads of their families
(Ephesians 5:23.), nor that wives would necessarily be “workers at home” (Titus 2:5, NASV),
as is true in Christianity.
Third, the demands of humanists for individual rights in an open and democratic
society, if fully implemented, would destroy parental authority and responsibility. Humanists
18
are committed to extending “participatory democracy in its true sense to . . . the family . . .”41
This means they would give children authority equal to that of their parents in all family
matters. Moreover, since humanists wish to eliminate all discrimination based on age, and
since they wish all individuals, if unable to provide for themselves, to have society to provide
for them “means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including whenever
resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income,”42 then children would have
the authority and the means to divorce their parents and leave home at whatever early age they
may choose. Moreover, parents need not concern themselves with the moral education,
discipline and training of children, inasmuch as that responsibility is assigned by humanists to
public schools.
38Humanist
Manifesto II, Fifth.
Manifesto II Sixth.
40Humanist Manifesto II, Eleventh.
41Humanist Manifesto II, Eighth.
42Humanist Manifesto II, Eleventh
39Humanist
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 9
Fourth, the demands of humanists for individual civil liberties, if fully implemented,
would destroy the legal right of one member of the family to influence another family member’s
personal decisions, even in matters of life and death. Humanists believe that “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 of suicide.”43 This means, for example, that the civil liberties of a wife would
prohibit her husband from making legal objections should she seek to abort his unborn child. It
means that parents would have no legal right to object should a teen-age son or daughter seek
professional medical assistance in committing suicide.
The success of humanism in replacing the family as the basic unit in society with the
autonomous individual may be evaluated by recognizing what legislative and judicial actions
have led to the deterioration of the family in America. The United States now has the highest
divorce rate of any nation in the world.44 That’s because “In the last ten to fifteen years about
one-third of the states have enacted ‘no fault’ divorce laws, and most others have such grounds
as ‘irreconcilable differences’ or ‘cruel and inhuman treatment’ which are often interpreted by
the courts to mean essentially the same thing as no-fault divorce. . . . no fault divorce means
that neither partner has to prove that the other has broken the marriage contract in any way.”45
In the interest of eliminating from society distinct biblically authorized sex roles,
humanists have promoted for many years the passage of an equal rights amendment. By 1973, it
had passed both houses of Congress and was ratified by thirty state legislative bodies. Needing
only eight more states to ratify it, it was well on its way to becoming a constitutional
amendment. Had it not been for Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum, it would almost
certainly be national law today.46 Having failed to obtain by one Constitutional amendment an
all encompassing law against sexual discrimination, humanists are now seeking to achieve
their desired objectives through legislative enactments such as “Parental Leave,” “Comparable
Worth,” “Unisex Insurance,” and tax supported day-care centers.
Judicial authorities often deny parental authority and control over their own minor
children. Parents no longer have legal authority over an unmarried minor daughter’s decision
for an abortion. Because the court considers that minors have a legal right to privacy,
contraceptives may be freely dispensed to minors. Minors can be counseled by pro-abortion
groups, and, in some states, can even obtain an abortion without parental consent or
knowledge. A father now has no legal authority over his unborn child in his wife’s womb. A
minor child may choose, on the grounds of incompatibility, to become a ward of the court
19
rather than continue living with parents.47 While humanists yet have much to accomplish before
43Humanist
Manifesto II, Seventh
Walton, ed. Biblical Principles Concerning Issues of Importance to Godly Christians.
Plymouth, Massachusetts: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1984, 140.
45John Eidsmoe, The Christian Legal Advisor. Milford, MI: Mott Media, Inc. 1984, 89.
46Carol Felsenthal. Phyllis Schlafly: The Sweetheart of The Silent Majority. Chicago: Regnery
Gateway, 1981, 234-276.
47For a discussion of the courts influence over family matters, read “Judicial Schizophrenia: The
Courts and The Family,” Chapter 7 of John W. Whitehead, The Stealing of America. Westchester, IL:
Crossway Books, 1983, 73-81.
44Rus
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 10
the autonomous individual can be said to have replaced the family as the basic unit in society,
they have also accomplished much in achieving this goal.
4. Humanists want to replace our republican form of representative selfgovernment
with a democratic socialist government. Before 1930 American textbooks
always designated our nation as a republic. A republican form of government is one “which
derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the body of the people and is administered by
persons holding office with the consent of the governed.”48 Now, however, it is common
practice for school textbooks to designate our nation as a democracy.
While our government is not yet one of pure democracy, that’s the direction humanists
wish all our institutions to go. Humanists say, “We are committed to an open and democratic
society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school,
the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized
to include widespread involvement of people at all levels - social, political, and economic.”49
What humanists mean by “an open and democratic society” and by the phrase
“participatory democracy in its true sense” is that everyone should have equal authority – no
more and no less. When they say that “decision-making must be decentralized” in “the school,
the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations,” they mean that in making decisions
each student should have as much say as a teacher, that each child should have as much
authority as a parent, and that each employee should have as much input as does an employer.
In the name of democracy, humanists want to destroy the authority delegated to specific
individuals and to delegate that authority to groups.
The humanistic ideal of a democratic society has special implications for the areas of
religion and economics. Regarding religion, since humanists believe that “the conditions of
work, education, devotion and play should be humanized,”50 then there will be no divine or
fixed standard to which all the people may appeal for making their decisions. Decisions must
be made in keeping with the changing will of the people. That’s because people are said, by
humanists, to be “more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.”51 In
essence, the ideal government of a nation, for humanists, is one where God is absent and where
there is rule by men rather than rule by law.
More significantly, “because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists
believe in the principle of separation of church and state.”52 They believe that “the separation
of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives.”53 What humanists
mean by the separation of church and state, however, is not the same as what Christians mean.
48Noah
Webster, The American Dictionary of The English Language. New York: S. Converse,
1928; facsimile edition by Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco; as cited by Rus
Walton, One Nation Under God, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, 16, 199. n. 24.
49Humanist Manifesto II, Eighth.
50Same as above
51Same as above
52A Secular Humanist Declaration, 2.
20
53Humanist
Manifesto II, Ninth.
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 11
Historically, Christians have meant by the separation of church and state that the
federal government should not fund any particular denomination from tax revenues. What
humanists mean, however, is that Christianity should not influence civil governments in either
the content of governmental decisions, or in the process by which those decisions are made.
Since no one wants a national denominational church, the separation of church and state, from a
Christian perspective, is a non-issue. Then why do humanists keep applying to current events
the issue about separation of church and state? Is it not because humanists want Christians to
refrain from influencing public policies with Christian values?
In this, however, humanists are guilty of duplicity. While humanists do not want
Christian ideology to influence civil governments, they want their own ideology to be the
foundation of civil governments. Some humanists may falsely claim that humanism is not a
religion, but no one can deny that humanism is an ideology. Moreover, all civil governments
operate by ideological and religious principles. If our government therefore does not operate
by principles of the Christian religion, then it will operate by principles of some anti-Christian
religion.
Humanists have already achieved considerable success in separating Christian
influence from the governance of society. There are now reports of literally thousands of cases
of religious discrimination against Christians in America. Christians no longer enjoy religious
freedom in America. Religious freedom for Christians has been reduced to religious toleration.
And while religious toleration for Christians is still at a high level, it is being steadily reduced
as local governments restrict churches with zoning ordinances, and state and federal
government agencies declare various church ministries (such as education, day-care services,
etc.) to be secular, not religious, and therefore under civil rather than religious jurisdiction.
Regarding economics, “humanists are firmly convinced . . . that a radical change in
methods, controls, and motives must be instituted.”54 They want to “democratize the economy
and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common
good.”55 Humanists say that “humane societies should evaluate economic systems . . . by
whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize
poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life.”56
In a world of humanism, “individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own
betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health,
and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed
annual income.”57 For humanists, “. . . a socialized and cooperative economic order must be
established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal
of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently
cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.”58
The “radical change in methods, controls, and motives” desired by humanists has
already been implemented in many ways. The insistence upon democratization of the economy
54Humanist
Manifesto I, Fourteenth.
Manifesto II, Tenth.
56Same as above
57Humanist Manifesto II, Eleventh
58Humanist Manifesto I, Fourteenth
55Humanist
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 12
has produced numerous government initiatives for old age pensions, social security, and other
government redistribution programs that now operate through state and federal welfare
agencies. These social welfare programs of our civil governments have some undeclared
21
assumptions that are contrary to Biblical values. Chief among these is the governmental
assumption that all citizens and property belong to the government. However, “the earth is the
Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” (Psalms 24:1; see also Psalms 50:10-12; Job 41:11).
Acting as if they own everything, civil governments seemingly presume the right to
confiscate through taxation whatever they will from property owners in order to give it to
whomever they will. Under these governmental arrangements a man is not fully allowed his
God-given responsibility to be a steward of all resources God has given to him. Moreover, an
individual’s need and the “equitable distribution of the means of life” are the primary criteria
used by civil governments to determine who shall benefit from its treasuries. Again, however,
this is not God’s way. God’s way is for a man to work for whatever he receives (Genesis
3:19; 2 Thessalonians 3:10). God works (John 5:17) and he expects man to work (Ephesians
4:28; 2 Thessalonians 3:12).
Not everyone is able to work, therefore children, the elderly, and others should be
provided for by their own families (1 Timothy 5:8). The poor should be assisted by
compassionate and caring individuals (Luke 12:25-37; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 John 3:17; James
2:14-17). Laziness is forbidden (Proverbs 22:29; 24:3-27; 28:19). The humanists’ idea of
enforced sharing of this world’s goods is contrary to Biblical principles.
Humanists want a democratic rather than a republican form of government because a
democratic form of government is consistent with humanistic concepts regarding the nature of
man and ethical values, whereas a republican form of government is consistent with biblical
concepts regarding the nature of man and ethical values. The biblical concept of man is that all
men sin (Romans 3:10, 23).
Since no man is free from sin, then any man who has governmental authority over other
men may become very evil in his rulership over them. A republican form of government
consists of numerous checks and balances against the potential evil which men may do through
governmental power. Moreover, when men are expected to live by absolute values based upon
God’s word, then men in a republican form of government may be self-governing. In a
republican form of government, when men fail to live by absolute standards, they are then
judged by those standards. These concepts demand human accountability locally. Hence, in a
republican from of government, city and county governments are strong while state and national
governments are weaker.
On the other hand, the humanist concept of man is that man is basically good, and that
therefore all men may be relied upon to do what is basically good. Since it is supposed that
man is basically good, then in a democratic form of government, it is thought that the best and
wisest of men should rule over the rest of men. Moreover, since humanism contends that
ethical and moral values are relative, situational, and autonomous, then a democratic form of
government is one of men rather than of laws. These concepts result in the centralization of
power. Hence, in a democratic form of government, the national government with its
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 13
bureaucracies and agencies are the most powerful while weaker state and local county and city
governments are restricted by national regulations.
Humanists have already done much to achieve their goal of changing our national form
of government from a republic to a democracy. The republican form of national government is
still in place, but its effectiveness has been greatly eroded. In many instances they have turned
statesmen into demagogues, liberty into license, and progress into chaos. Even so, they have
not yet been fully successful. If they should fully achieve this goal, it will be but for a passing
moment because “a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist
only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.
22
From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits
from the public treasury – with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal
policy, always to be followed by dictatorship.”59
5. Humanists want to replace multi-national governments with a one-world
government. The ultimate goal of humanism is to build “a world that is significant.”60 By that
expression, humanists mean that the best option for humanity is “to transcend the limits of
national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all
sectors of the human family can participate.”61 Humanists “deplore the division of humankind
on nationalistic grounds.”62 They “look to the development of a system of world law and a
world order based upon transnational federal government.”63 This requires that nations “reduce
the level of military expenditure and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented
uses.”64 It also requires centralized “cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly
depleting resources.”65
Moreover, since the problems of economic growth and development are considered
worldwide in scope, developed nations are said by humanists to have a moral obligation to
provide “massive technical agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth
control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe.”66 And since humanists generally
consider technology to be a vital key to human progress and development, then humanists
“would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social
grounds.”67 “Communication and transportation” must be expanded. “A world wide system of
television and radio for information and education” must be developed that “diverse political,
ideological and moral viewpoints” may be shared.68
59Alexander
Fraser Tyler, quoted by James Madison, Federalist Papers, as cited by Rus Walton. One
Nation Under God. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987, 19.
60Paul Kurtz, ed. Humanist Manifestos I and II, Preface, 4.
61Humanist Manifesto II, Twelfth
62Same as above
63Same as above
64Humanist Manifesto II, Thirteenth
65Humanist Manifesto I, Fourteenth
66Humanist Manifesto II, Fifteenth
67Humanist Manifesto II, Sixteenth
68Humanist Manifesto II, Seventeenth
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 14
Humanists declare that since “we are responsible for what we are or will be,”69 then
we should work together for a humane world. They believe that “. . . commitment to all
humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow
allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human
potentiality. What more daring a goal for human kind that for each person to become, in ideal
as well as practice, a citizen of a world community.”70
Although humanists are far from achieving this goal they have already put many systems
into place for a one-world government. The United Nations charter is based upon the precepts
of humanism. UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and other UN auxiliary organizations
are all influential throughout the world. The International Court of Justice (commonly referred
to as the World Court) is now functioning, although most nations abide by its judgments only
whenever it suits their respective wills. Many countries now consider it standard practice to
give foreign aid to other countries. Public demonstrations promoting peace, demilitarization,
and the cutting of national defense budgets are also common.
In some ways, this goal of modern humanism is quite similar to a goal once held by
some ancient humanists. The ancient humanists had said to one another, “Come, let us build a
23
city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be
scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4). As these ancient people left
God out of their plans and efforts, so also do modern humanists who want to build a one-world
government. And as those ancient humanists acted in pride to make a name for themselves, so
also do modern humanists act in pride, thinking that by human reason and intelligence modern
man can guide himself in the full development of his potential.
But just as God then confounded their languages and turned their tower “unto heaven”
into a tower of Babel, so also will God confound these modern humanists and leave in rubble
their attempts to build a one-world government. We may be sure of this because God casts
down the haughty and lifts up the humble (2 Samuel 22:18; Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter
5:5; Isaiah 10:33; Proverbs 16;18; 18:12; 22:4; Luke 14:11; 18:14).
CONCLUSION
However much Christians may believe that humanism leads to destruction and that it
will ultimately fail, humanists think otherwise. They “believe that it is possible to bring about
a more humane world, one based upon the methods of reason and the principles of tolerance,
compromise, and the negotiations of difference.”71 They are confident that they can “initiate
new directions for humankind.”72 Their assessment is that “the true revolution is occurring and
can continue in countless non-violent adjustments.”73
However much Christians may not wish to acknowledge it, “the influence of secular
civil humanism in the West since the Enlightenment has generally followed an ascending
69Humanist
Manifesto II, In Closing
as above
71A Secular Humanist Declaration, Conclusion.
72Humanist Manifesto II, In Closing
73Same as above
70Same
SOUND THE ALARM: THE GOALS OF HUMANISM 15
course. Even in the United States, where religion remains a powerful social force, civil
humanism is now probably the dominant value system within the intellectual community. It
thereby exerts strong influence over the entertainment and news industries and over the higher
levels of the education system and the government bureaucracy. Leo Pfeffer, a distinguished
authority on church-state relations, has written, ‘Secular humanism [is] a cultural force which
in many respects is stronger in the United States than any of the major religious groups or any
alliance among them.’”74
In view of the accelerating growth of humanism, it seems abundantly clear that
professed Christians are not being the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and a leavening
influence within society. Professed Christians are not exterminating the termites of humanism.
The sad fact is that many professed Christians seem altogether unaware of the existence of
humanism. Such Christians are therefore totally incapable of assessing the damages done by
humanism. More significantly, such Christians are unable to oppose humanism.
If humanism is ever exterminated, and if our culture is ever to be firmly established
upon Christian principles, then all who profess to be Christians must act immediately to
implement Christian values within all civil governments and agencies, and also within all other
institutions, organizations, and human associations. Unless the Christian religion comes to
prevail over the religion of humanism in America, then we may expect that, as humanists more
fully achieve their goals, this nation will continue on its downward path of moral degeneration.
As we look at the goals of humanism, and the degree to which they already have
achieved their goals, we who profess to be Christians should be alarmed at the effectiveness
with which humanists are achieving their objectives. If ever there has been a time in these
United States for Christians to respond to shouts of alarm, this is that time.
24
74A
James Reichley, Religion in American Public Life, Washington , DC: The Brookings Institute,
1985, 47, with quotation from Leo Pfeffer, “The Tr iumph of Secular Humanism,” Journal of Church and
State: 19, Spring, 1977, 211.
THE HUMANIZATION1 OF AMERICA
IN CULTURE, EDUCATION AND LAW
Robert L. Waggoner2
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
1The
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.
2Copyright © 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.
4That 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.
5Although 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
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 2
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
25
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
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).
6Random House Webster’s Unabridged Electronic Dictionary, 2nd Edition, Version 2.0 Software:
(1994-96) s. v. “culture.”
7Officially, this happened on January 22, 1973 in the U. S. Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973).
8George 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
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 3
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
26
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
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.
10Ibid. 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.
13Patrick 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), 4349.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 4
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
27
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 extramarital
affairs. Those who engage in such conduct defend their actions on the grounds of personal
14John
Naisbitt, Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives (New York: Warner
Books, 1982), 262.
15Fagan, Ibid.
16Naisbitt, Ibid.
17Fagan, Ibid.
18Tim LaHaye, The Battle For The Family (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1982) 162163.
19Nancy Pearcey, “Family Politics: An Interview with Connie Marshner,” Bible-Science
Newsletter, XXVIII, 2, (February, 1990): 10-11.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 5
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
28
nucleus two or more adults living together and cooperating in the care and rearing of their own or
adopted children.”24
20LaHaye,
The Battle For The Family, 179.
Cline, “Psychologist Cites Porn’s Effects On Children, Men,” NFD Journal,
(November/December, 1985): 13.
22Melvin Anchell, Sex and Insanity (Portland, OR: Halcyon House, 1983), 95.
23The New Columbia Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., s. v. “family.”.
24Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981 ed., s. v. “family.”
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 6
21Victor
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
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.
26Ibid., 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.
28Ibid.
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
29
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 7
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
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.
3145 U.S. 438 (1972).
32410 U.S. 113 (1973).
33428 U.S at 74.
34532 P. 2d 278 (1975).
35John W. Whitehead, The Stealing of America (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983), 80.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 8
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
30
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,
36Robert
A. Peterson, “Education in Colonial America,” 1979, cited by Rus Walton, One Nation
Under God (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 61.
37Rousas 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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 9
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
31
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
39William
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.
40See 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).
41Blair 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.
42Ibid., 40, quoting Ex parte Powell, 1028 (emphasis added by authors).
43Ibid., 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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 10
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
45Ibid.,
40, quoting Ex parte Powell, 1028, and Allison v. Bryan, 97; 282, 287, 286.
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 46“Some
32
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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 11
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
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.
50Daniel 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%, foreignborn
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
33
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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 12
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
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.
54For 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.
56Samuel L. Blumenfeld. Is Public Education Necessary?, 196-197.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 13
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
34
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 socalled
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
57Jo-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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 14
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
35
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.
59Rousas
J. Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia: Culture, Crisis, and Education (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1961), 63.
60Samuel L. Blumenfeld, N.E.A.: Trojan Horse In American Education, Ibid. 228.
61He 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.
62Samuel L. Blumenfeld, “Revelation Via Education,” The Blumenfeld Education Letter, III, 10
(October, 1988): 8.
63Charles F. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1930), 128.
64Joe R. Burnett, The Humanist, 6 (1961), 347.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 15
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
36
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.
65A.
A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of
Publications, 1887), 283f.
66Four 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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 16
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.
67David
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.
69For further information regarding parents rights in education, see John W. Whitehead, The Rights
37
of Religious Persons in Public Education (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991).
70Samuel L. Blumenfeld, The Blumenfeld Education Letter, 8. See also Myron Lieberman, Public
Education: An Autopsy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 17
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
71For
a thorough treatment of this subject, see David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo,
Texas: Wall Builder Press, 1989).
72Ibid., 51-52.
73Ibid., 53.
74Ibid., 61-62.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 18
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.
38
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 JudeoChristian 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
75Litigation
Status Report, “CWA Defends Widow Who Won’t Rent to Unmarried Couples,”
Concerned Women For America (February, 1988): 6; (also June, 1988): 9-10.
76Linda McMillan, “Alabama School Discovers First Amendment,” Religious Freedom Alert, Vol.
III, No. 4 (July, 1987): 11.
77Tim 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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 19
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
39
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
79Kavenaugh,
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.
80Constitution, art. VI.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 20
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
40
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.
81For
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.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 21
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
41
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
83See
John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, Chapters 4, 5, 6.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 22
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
42
legalized because of the influence of humanism in law. Humanism has impacted against the family
84Gary
North, (ed.), “Symposium on Politics,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction. Vol. V,
No. 1 (Summer, 1978): 1-2.
85Rousas John Rushdoony, Christianity and the State (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1986),
52.
The Humanization Of America In Culture, Education and Law 23
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.
86William
A. Stanmeyer, Clear and Present Danger: Church and State in Post-Christian America
(Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983), 4-5.
87Ibid., 7.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM
Robert L. Waggoner1
Humanism is the primary modern philosophical enemy of Christianity. Even so, most
Christians know little, if anything about it – what it is, or how it functions. The term “humanism”
has been around since the Renaissance, although only recently has the man on the street began to
43
use it. Many who do use the term do not sufficiently understand its ideals and concepts.
To help clarify this lack of understanding, “humanism” and some of its related terms will
be defined within their historical and philosophical contexts and some short working philosophical
definitions of modern humanism will be given. Humanism will be shown to be a method for
making decisions. Major philosophical concepts of humanism will be briefly noted, after which
terms that modify humanism will be discussed. Finally the seriousness of humanism will be
demonstrated by noting its progress in its opposition to Christianity.
Humanistic Terms Often Need Clarification
Humanism is often confusing to people because the primary meanings of many of its basic
words have changed. Humanism is often associated with related words such as “humanist,”
“humane,” “humanities,” and “humanitarian.” Words may sometimes have dual meanings.
However, their primary meanings are generally consistent with the time period in which they are
used. Modern humanism frequently promotes its acceptance by utilizing confusion created by
words that have dual meanings. A proper understanding of humanism requires knowledge of how a
particular word is used within its historical or philosophical context. The original meanings of
words related to humanism are generally best understood within their historical context. The
current meanings of these words are generally best understood within their philosophical context.
Humanism
Although “humanism” is a philosophical, religious and moral point of view as old as
human civilization itself,”2 and although “humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical
Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment to the scientific revolution of
the modern world,”3 the primary impetus toward the development of modern humanism comes
from the Renaissance era, and was strongly re-enforced by the so-called age of Enlightenment.
Petrarch (1304-1374) is considered to be “the father of the new humanism.”4 A steady
stream of professional humanists came after Petrarch. For Petrarch and his peers, humanism meant
veneration for the works of ancient humanity, especially the literature of Greece and Rome.
1Copyright
© by Robert L. Waggoner, 1987, Revised, 2001. Permission is granted to reproduce
and distribute this document for non-commercial educational purposes when unaltered provided that
copyright and authorship is given. All other rights reserved.
2Paul Kurtz, “Preface,” Humanist Manifestos I and II. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973), 3.
3Paul Kurtz, Same as above, 15.
4Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and
Culture (Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Company. 1976), 58.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 2
Although the content of humanistic studies at first included early church history, Renaissance
humanism clearly emphasized non-Christian literature.
Humanist
Most humanists of the early Renaissance, being Catholic, would have claimed themselves
to be Christians. Strictly speaking, a “humanist” then was a scholar who engaged in the study of
“humane” literature. It was then called “profane” to distinguish it from biblical literature. The
“humane” literature then studied was primarily the classical Greek and Latin languages and the
ancient non-Christian literary documents written in those languages. Since these scholars studied
primarily the “humane” literary works of humanity, their studies were categorically referred to as
the “humanities”.
The word “humanists” during the Renaissance era simply described an individual who was
a student of humane literature. Although a “humanist” may still be a student of humane literature,
the term today does not necessarily refer to a student of humanities. That’s because as Renaissance
humanists studied ancient humane literature, they began to accept the beliefs, values, and concepts
they read from non-Christian literature. It was not long until they came to prefer a sort of human
44
autonomy rooted in the belief that man is his own judge – totally independent from God. God was
either removed from their portraits of reality, or God was placed in the far distant background, and
man was positioned at center stage.
Because humanists rejected God in practical matters, the word “humanist” came to mean
not only one who studied ancient works of humanity, but also one who believed ancient nonChristian human ideals and values. Whereas the word “humanist” had originally designated what a
person did, it came in time to designate what a person believed. The word “humanist” may now
describe one who is not even a student of the humanities, but who nonetheless believes those
concepts that have come to public consciousness from “humane” literature.
Humanities
The study of humanities for university students today differs from the study of humanities by
Renaissance humanists. University students today generally read modern translations of ancient
literary words such as Homer’s Illiad and The Odyssey, and the Latin works by Ovid and Virgil,
etc., although they do not generally study these works in their original languages. Moreover
humanities as studied by modern university students is not limited to literature. Rather, the study of
humanities generally includes many other type works of humanity in such fields as music and the
arts, in addition to a historical study of the Renaissance humanists and their works.
Humane
Like the words “humanities” and “humanist,” the word “humane” sometimes undergoes
changes in its meaning. Whereas it was once designated non-Christian literature, it is now often
used to imply human conduct that is kind, tender, merciful and compassionate. This meaning of
“humane” is changed because of its association with a concept of modern humanism about the
nature of man, namely, that man is basically good.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 3
The Bible does not teach that mankind is basically good. Rather it declares that by Adam
sin entered into the world (Romans 5:12), that everyone sins (Roman 3:23; 3:10), and that
therefore all everyone is in need of salvation (Romans 1:16, 17; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:1-3; 5:9).
This does not mean, however, that all people are basically evil. Rather, the Bible declares that
people are free to choose whether they will do good or whether they will do evil (John 5:28-29; 2
Corinthians 5:10).
The humanist portrayal of mankind as basically good reflects the strong influence of
modern humanism upon our culture. Moreover, cultural acceptance of humanity as “humane” has
now influenced the general concept of humanism, so that many, who do not realize the horrible
consequences of modern humanism, mistakenly think that a humanistic lifestyle is one of
compassionate concern and caring for humanity.
Humanitarian
Likewise, the word “humanitarian” has also changed its meaning from what it was
originally. “Humanitarianism was the term originally applied to the followers of a group of
eighteenth-century theologians who affirmed the humanity but denied the deity of Christ. It was
later used when speaking of the Religion of Humanity, and it carries the subsidiary meaning of the
worship of the human race. It is only recently that humanitarianism has come to imply almost
exclusively the doing of good deeds that help people. That recent usage should not be allowed to
obscure the origins and motivations of humanitarianism. It is above all a religious term.”5
Just as words related to humanism have had their meanings changed, so also the meaning of
“humanism” itself has also changed. Whereas “humanism” once referred to respect for classical
writings of antiquity, the term has now come to mean a respect for human (as opposed to Godly)
values that are recorded in these non-Christian documents. Modern humanism must therefore be
understood within its philosophical context, not its historical origins.
45
Humanism May Be Defined Philosophically
There is no single philosophical definition of humanism that is a commonly accepted
standard for everyone. There are about as many definitions as there are scholars who discuss the
subject. Nonetheless, some basic ideals of humanism may be perceived through reviewing some
short working philosophical definitions.
“Simply defined, humanism is man’s attempt to solve his problems independently of
God.”6
“Humanism is the religion which deifies man and dethrones God.”7
5Herbert
Schlossberg. Idols For Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with
American Society. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 50, with footnote, “See the Oxford
English Dictionary, Vol. 5, 445; also Encyclopedia Brittanica, 11th ed., 1911, Vol. 13, 872.”
6Tim LaHaye. The Battle For the Mind. (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1980), 26.
7Homer Duncan. Secular Humanism: The Most Dangerous Religion in America (Lubbock, TX:
Missionary Crusader, 1979), 7.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 4
Humanism is “a pre-occupation with man as the supreme value in the universe and the
sole solver of the problems of the universe.”8
“Humanism is a philosophy which affirms the value of what is human, or which holds
that humans have value in and of themselves.”9
“Humanism is the viewpoint that men have but one life to live and that human
happiness is its own justification and needs no sanction or support from supernatural
sources; that, in any case, the supernatural does not exist.”10
“Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the
measure of all things.” It “means Man beginning from himself, with no knowledge
except what he himself can discover and no standards outside himself.”11
The basic idea of humanism was expressed by the ancient Greek, Protagoras (c. 485-415
BC) when he said, “Man is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are; and of things
that are not, that they are not.”12 Humanism sounds positive, being for man. However, to the
Christian, humanism is really negative, being against God. “Humanism is a polite term for
atheism.”13 In practice, humanism is a system of beliefs about humanity that excludes God from
reality and makes man the judge of all things.
Humanism Is A Method For Making Decisions
However helpful scholarly definitions may be, humanism cannot really be understood until
it’s realized that it is primarily a method to be used in making moral decisions. As Paul Kurtz puts
it, “[s]ecular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and
discovery of rational principles.”14
This method is best understood when illustrated. Below are three paragraphs of a magazine
article designed for teenagers.15 As you read these paragraphs, see if you recognize modern
humanism. You’ll notice that the word “humanism” (or its related terms) does not appear in these
paragraphs. However, some basic concepts of modern humanism are there. Ask yourself whether
you agree with the ideas expressed in these paragraphs. Here’s the first one.
8John
Eidsmoe. The Christian Legal Advisor (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1984), 180.
Geisler. Is Man the Measure? An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 104.
10Corliss Lamont. The Philosophy of Humanism. (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.,
1949).
11Francis Schaeffer. The Christian Manifesto. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), 23-24.
12Milton C. Nahm, ed. Selections From Early Greek Philosophy. (Crofts, 1934), 239, as cited by
A. James Reichley. Religion in American Public Life (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1985),
9Norman
46
42.
13James Curry, President of American Humanist Association. Quoted from FAC-Sheet #18-A,
“Humanism,” Plymouth Rock Foundation, O. Box 425, Martborough, NH 03455-1425.
14Paul Kurtz. “A Secular Humanist Declaration”, Free Inquiry, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, 1980/81, 5.
15The source of this article is unknown to me. I received it as a clipping from a friend.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 5
“Decisions are an essential part of living. You have to make decisions every day of
your life, from deciding what to wear to school to deciding what type work you want to
do for the rest of your life. You even have to decide whether or not you want to have a
sexual relationship. This is what the decisions section is about.”
That paragraph is primarily introductory. While there may be nothing within it with which
we would disagree explicitly, an older generation than ours would have been shocked to read that
there are implied alternatives regarding “whether or not you want to have a sexual relationship.”
Godly people understand that a “sexual relationship” outside of marriage is sinful. “You
shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18) “Flee fornication” (I Corinthians
6:18), and “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in
his heart” (Matthew 5:28), are but a few prohibitions from God on this subject. For all who
respect God’s authority, there is no reason to even consider the question of “whether or not you
want to have a sexual relationship.”
Now read the second paragraph.
“We’ve asked a doctor, a minister, two parents and three teenagers to tell us how they
feel about sex. These are their opinions and not necessarily yours. We only hope that
when you read their letters, you will be able to understand why they made the kind of
decisions that they did. This will hopefully help you find the why’s behind your
decisions.”
Did you notice the implication in that paragraph? What is implicit there is explicit in the
next paragraph.
“The decision of whether or not to have sex is not a one-time thing. Each time that you
have or do not have sex, when the opportunity arises, a choice is made. It takes careful
thought. Think about your feelings, important people’s opinions that you value, your
religious beliefs, and any other thing that influences how you think, feel, or behave. You
are the only person who knows what is right for you. The final decision is yours.”
Do you agree that you are the only person who knows what is right for you? Did you notice
that in these paragraphs appealed to the only human authorities? These paragraphs do not appeal to
Divine authority – God, Christ, or the Bible. Nor do they suggest that any human authority is better
for you than you are for yourself! In other words, these paragraphs teach that you are sovereign in
determining your own conduct!
In contrast, the Bible teaches that God is the only sovereign being (Genesis 1:1; 14:19;
Exodus 8:22; 15:18; Deuteronomy 4:39; I Chronicles 19:11-12; Psalms 22:28: 24:1; Acts 17:2431; Romans 14:11). The Bible teaches that man needs guidance from God because “the way of man
is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). “There is a
way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25).
Placing humanity at the center of all things, and making humanity the judge of all things is
the primary belief and method of modern humanism. While modern humanism may be considered a
type of atheism, it is unlike atheism in that it does not generally argue about the existence of God.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 6
Its method is simply to assume that God does not exist. By assuming that God does not exist,
humanism dismisses God as irrelevant and makes man his own God. Because humanism rejects
God and the Bible, moral decisions can then be based only upon what man learns from nature
47
through natural experiences and observations. While all men may glean from the best of human
wisdom in arriving at personal moral decisions, in the final analysis, each man determines for
himself what is right and what is wrong.
This belief and process of modern humanism is boldly declared within basic documents of
humanism. Humanism affirms that “moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems
from human needs and interest.”16 “We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that
denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in
maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility . . . the possibilities of
individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.”17 The sixth article of
Humanist Manifesto II declares that “individuals should be permitted to express their sexual
proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire.” The fourth item of A Secular Humanist
Declaration states that “secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or
that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral.” And the conclusion of that
document includes the statement that “secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather
than in divine guidance.”
Philosophical Concepts of Humanism
Modern humanism is a method of thinking that dethrones God and deifies humanity. It is
also a philosophical worldview that has certain well-defined major concepts. While all humanists
do not necessarily subscribe to every aspect of these concepts, they are generally agreed upon a
broad consensus. These concepts are clearly documented by Humanist Manifestos I and II, A
Secular Humanist Declaration, and A Declaration of Interdependence: A New Global Ethics.18
Major philosophical concepts of modern humanism can be summarized under three basic
categories – God, nature, and man. Concepts regarding the first two categories can be quickly and
easily summarized. Regarding God – humanist generally believe either that God does not exist, or
16Humanist
Manifesto II, Third.
Manifesto II, Fifth.
18Humanist Manifesto I was drafted by Roy Wood Sellers. It was first published in The New
Humanist, (May/June, 1933, Vol. VI, No. 3). It was signed by thirty-four people, including John Dewey.
Humanist Manifesto II was first published in The Humanist, (September/October, 1973, Vol. XXXIII, No.
5). It was signed by 114 prominent persons, including Isaac Asimov, Edd Doerr, Anthony Flew, Sidney
Hook, Lester Kirkendall, Paul Kurtz, Corless Lamont, Lester Mondale, and B. F. Skinner. A Secular
Humanist Declaration was drafted by Paul Kurtz. It first appeared in Free Inquiry, (Winter, 1980/81, Vol.
1, No. 1. 3-6). In that issue it was endorsed by fifty-eight people from eight countries, among which were
Isaac Asimov, Joseph Fletcher, Sidney Hook, Floyd Matson, and B. F. Skinner. Twenty-three additional
endorsements too late for publication then arrived for listing in the next issue. A Declaration of
Interdependence: A New Global Ethics first appeared in Free Inquiry, (Fall, 1988, Vol. 8, No. 4, 4-7). It
was endorsed by fourteen Humanist Laureates of the Academy of Humanism. This document was also
endorsed by the Board of Directors of the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the Tenth World
Congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 7
17Humanist
that, if he does, he is not relevant to mankind. Humanists therefore believe that theism is unrealistic
and detrimental to humanity. Regarding nature – humanists believe that the universe is
“selfexisting,”
that nature is all there is, and that all things within nature, including mankind, evolve by
chance.
Humanist concepts regarding mankind are not so briefly summarized. Humanism is
essentially a human-centered philosophy. It is concerned primarily with mankind’s physical and
moral natures. But these must be understood, according to humanists, by human reasoning,
48
scientific observations, and critical thinking rather than by divine revelation.
Humanists realize that tensions exist between themselves and theists and that if humanism
is to prevail over theism, then God and Divine revelation must be excluded from the process by
which people acquire knowledge of all things. They therefore insist upon the right to inquire freely
about everything and to act according to their own understandings of humanity and nature without
social or legal restrictions imposed upon them by believers in God. If humanists are to achieve
their desired freedoms and objectives, they think it essential to their cause that public policies in
governmental, professional and social areas of human life not be determined according to Divine
revelation, but only from knowledge gleaned by human reasoning, scientific discoveries, and
critical intelligence.
Humanists believe that humans have only a physical nature. They deny that mankind is
spiritual, or that humans have life after death. Humanists believe that mankind is self-sufficient
through the use of reason and critical intelligence. That is, they think that humanity needs no Divine
guidance or direction from any source other than humanity. Humanists believe that humanity is
basically good. That is, they think people do not sin, and therefore that people have no need of
eternal salvation. Since humanity is assumed to be basically good, then whatever mankind does
which does not encroach on others’ freedoms is also thought to be good. Thus, the use of
pornography, by those who desire it, is sanctioned by humanism.
Humanists believe that man is a moral being. Morality to humanists, however, does not
mean the same thing as it does to Christians. Christians believe that moral standard is set by God.
It is absolute, constant, and fixed by God in scripture. For humanists, however, moral standards
are relative, situational, and autonomous. That is, for humanists, morality is pluralistic, determined
by each person for himself. A person is moral, according to humanism, whenever he or she does
whatever he of she thinks is right. For Christians, however, a person is moral whenever he or she
does whatever God says is right.
Humanists believe there is one moral principle that is universal to all people. That’s the
principle of “moral equality.” By that, humanists mean that all people are morally equal.
Therefore, all discrimination, whether based on age, sex, religion, race, color, national origin, etc.,
is considered to be immoral. Humanists apply their principle of moral equality to all people in two
major ways. One is related to sex, the other is related to economics.
As applied to sex, the humanistic principle of moral equality means that men and women
have equal authority, rights, and functions, in every aspect of life. In other words, there should be
no distinguishable differences of authority between men and women in society, and neither should
there be distinguishable differences of sexual roles between men and women. In practical terms,
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 8
this means that husbands should have no more authority over their families than do their wives, that
wives should have no more responsibility for house-keeping than do their husbands, and that
husbands should have no more responsibility for providing for their families than do their wives. It
also means that marriage is but only one legitimate arrangement of convenience for cohabitation
between men and women. It means that homosexual and lesbian marriages are just as permissible
as are heterosexual marriages. It means that unmarried couples living together are equally as
respectable as are married couples and that “short of harming others or compelling them to do
likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their
lifestyles as they desire.”19
As applied to economics, the humanistic principle of moral equality means that society
“should provide means to satisfy basic [individual] economic, health, and cultural needs, including
wherever resources make possible, a guaranteed annual income.”20 In other words, humanism is
generally opposed to an economy based upon capitalism. It usually insists upon an economy based
49
upon socialistic premises. In practical terms, this means that there should be no economic
categories of the rich and the poor, but that all individuals should be economically equal. It means
that individuals are not necessarily responsible to provide economically for themselves and their
families, but that civil governments are responsible for providing economic needs for all their
citizens. It also means, whenever this principle is carried to its logical conclusion, that nationalism
must eventually be eliminated, and that in its place must be established an international one-world
government. Since economic growth and development is worldwide in scope, humanism declares
that “it is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide – through an international
authority that safeguards human rights – massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic
assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe.”21
Humanists believe that in order to help less-developed nations become more self-sufficient “we
need to work out some equitable form of taxation on a worldwide basis.”22
Modifiers of Humanism: Secular, Religious, and Christian
Any assessment of humanism would not be complete if it did not include an understanding
of terms that sometimes are used to modify the word “humanism”. Three major terms often used to
modify humanism are “secular,” “religious,” and “Christian.” Confusion often surrounds these
terms as modifiers of humanism just as confusion surrounds the word “humanism” itself.
Secular Humanism
The most common term now used to modify humanism is the word “secular,” which comes
from the Latin saeculum. It means ‘time’ or ‘age.’ Secular is that which pertains to this world,
temporal, related to, or connected with worldly things. Secularism knows nothing of the majesty of
a sovereign God who transcends and rules over the universe.
19Humanist
Manifesto II, Sixth.
Manifesto II, Eleventh.
21Humanist Manifesto II, Fifteenth.
22Paul Kurtz, “A Declaration of Interdependence: A New Global Ethics,” Free Inquiry, (Fall, 1988,
Vol. 8, No. 4, 6).
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 9
20Humanist
In contrast to secularism, Christianity promotes belief in God and in heavenly and eternal
things. No one doubts that Christianity is a religion. Humanists want people to equate religion with
concerns about God, the church, personal salvation, and things heavenly and eternal. Since
humanists reject beliefs about God, personal salvation, eternal life, etc., humanists want people to
think of humanism as secular, not as religious.
A major modern popular concept of the secular is that there are certain areas of human life
and activity that may be legitimately separated from religion. These areas of life are now generally
presumed to include politics, the arts, education, science, commerce, entertainment, economics,
foreign affairs, environmental issues, industry, journalism, transportation, business, civil
governments, etc. By applying the term “secular” to all these areas, humanism identifies itself with
all these areas, and seeks to separate them from the influence of religion.
Humanists argue that religious people should confine their religion to matters of worship
and attending to the spiritual needs of individuals in their private lives. They argue that religion is
only a private matter, and that therefore Christians should have nothing to do with these public
matters. Many who profess Christianity seem to have accepted this humanistic way of thinking.
Humanists have deceived many professed Christians into believing that the categorical distinction
between the secular and the religious is a proper distinction. It is not! The Bible never makes a
categorical distinction between the secular and the religious. In fact, the modern concept of the
secular, as distinguished from the religious, is never found in the Bible. This categorical
distinction is a relatively modern concept, unknown to history until after the time of Thomas
Acquinas (1225-1274 AD).
50
Religion touches all areas of life. The Christian religion is just as concerned with life in
this world as it is with eternal life. For Christians, there is no area of life that should not be
regulated by the word of God. “Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord
Jesus” (Colossians 3:17). Any Christian who thinks his religion is only a private matter has too
limited an understanding of Christianity. Christians cannot be the salt of the earth, the light of the
world, or a leavening influence within the world unless the Christian faith is applied to all public
and private sectors of life.
Religious Humanism
Humanists have not always wanted people to think of humanism as secular. They now want
people to think of them as secular because that now seems to be to their advantage. There was a
time, however, when humanists thought it was to their advantage to be known as a religion. They
then used the word “religious” to modify humanism. Although modern humanists do not now
generally refer to their philosophy as a religion, and although many of them will object to modern
humanism being classified as a religion, it is nonetheless true that modern humanism is indeed a
religion.
Modern humanism claims to be a religion. Claims made by humanists that humanism is a
religion date back more than a century. “As early as 1872, Octavius B. Frothingham wrote
Religion of Humanity in which he used the doctrine of evolution to establish a humanistic,
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 10
naturalistic concept of religious and ethical values.”23 In 1930, Charles F. Potter, one of the signers
of Humanist Manifesto I, wrote a book entitled Humanism: A New Religion. The first sentence in
the preface states, “The purpose of this book is to set forth . . . the main outline and principal
points of the new religion called humanism.”24 Many other statements in that book also claim that
humanism is a religion. The signers of Humanist Manifesto I believed that the circumstances of
their world had “created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of
religion.”25 They believed that “to establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”26
They declared that in “order that religious humanism may be better understood, we, the
undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary
life demonstrate.”27 Humanist Manifesto I affirmed fifteen principles. Of these, eight use language
that requires recognition that humanism be considered a religion. The last paragraph of that
document begins with the words, “So stands the theses of religious humanism.”28 Forty years later,
Paul Kurtz stated that Humanist Manifesto I “was concerned with expressing a general religious
and philosophical outlook”29 He also noted that Humanist Manifesto II also addressed itself to
“the problems of religion.”30
In addition to claiming to be a religion, humanism has religious characteristics. Among
these are faith assumptions, attempts to answer basic and ultimate religious concerns, creedal
statements, etc.31 Moreover, humanism has been legally declared, on several occasions, to be a
religion. The U. S. Supreme Court declared in 1961 that among “religions in this country which do
not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism,
Taoism, Ethical Culture, secular Humanism and others.”32
Humanists apparently do not now wish for humanism to be considered a religion because –
with the prevailing concept of the secular as opposed to the religious, if humanism were generally
thought of as a religion – humanism would then have no better standing in the popular mind than is
now generally given to Christianity. Moreover, humanism would then not be able to identify itself
with the secular. In short, religion was once held in high esteem in this country. Now, however,
religion is out, secularism is in!
As religion, humanism is a form of self-worship. Humanism as self-worship in our society
manifests itself in two primary ways. One is the quest for things (materialism) and the other is the
51
quest for pleasure (hedonism). The quest for these makes many moderns act like they think
humanity is only physical and temporal. Whereas humanism emphasizes self-hood, Christianity
23John
Eidsmoe, 189. (See chapter 12, “Humanism as an Establishment of Religion,” 179-199).
F. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930).
25Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I and II, 8.
26Same as above.
27Same source, 7.
28Same source, 10.
29Same source, 3, opening statement in Preface.
30Same source.
31For further discussion of humanism as a religion, read Chapter 12, “Humanism as an
Establishment of Religion,” of John Eidsmoe, The Christian Legal Advisor, 170-199; and Homer Duncan,
The Religion of Secular Humanism and The Public Schools, (Lubbock, TX: Missionary Crusader, 1983)
32367 U.S. 488 (196), footnote 11.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 11
24Charles
emphasizes self-denial (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). For Christians, material things
and pleasurable experiences are not evil in themselves, but their singular pursuit causes modern
man to forget the spiritual nature and eternal destiny of his soul. Christians should remember that
Jesus taught that in order to gain life, one must lose it (Matthew 16:25; Luke 17:33; John 12:25).
Christian Humanism
Just as the term “religious” preceded “secular” in modifying humanism, so also did the
word “Christian” precede “religious” in modifying humanism. There are two senses in which the
word “Christian” has been used as a modifier of humanism. The first sense is of Catholic scholars
like Erasmus of Rotterdam and Thomas More in England who studied ancient classical literature,
but who professed belief in Christ. The other sense relates to persons of more recently times, like
C. S. Lewis and other Christian apologists. For them, humanism meant something different from
that indicated by modern humanism. For them, humanism referred to the dignity of man as created
by God and made in Cod’s image. Man’s eternal worth, his dominion over nature, his immortality
and his creative ability were central concepts of Christian humanism. Even here, however, many
who considered themselves Christian humanists had so compromised Christianity with naturalism
that they were often more in tune with modern humanism than they were with Christianity.33
The strength of modern humanism is such that, for all practical purposes, the expression
“Christian humanism” is now a contradiction in terms inasmuch as genuine Christianity is
generally realized to be just the opposite of humanism. Paul Kurtz, a leading spokesman of modern
humanism and former editor of The Humanist magazine, says “Humanism cannot in any fair sense
of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and the creator of the universe.
Christian Humanism would be possible only for those who are willing to admit that they are
atheistic Humanists. It surely does not apply to God-intoxicated believers.”34
Humanism Is Now The Primary Philosophical Enemy of Christianity
Until the 1960s the word “humanism” was seldom heard by the man on the street. Most
Christians seem to find it difficult to believe that in the battle for the mind of modern men,
humanism has confronted Christianity and now appears to have greater influence in the Western
World than does Christianity. Christians know that biblical morality has severely deteriorated
since mid-twentieth century, but Christians have generally not known why.
Now, all of a sudden, Christians are beginning to learn that humanism has ruling control
over every discipline of study in all public elementary and secondary schools, and in all state
colleges and universities; that humanism is the major ruling philosophy in all major professions
such as law, medicine, the media, sociology and psychology; and that it’s values dictate most
policies of our federal and state bureaucracies. Humanism rules in industry and commerce, in the
52
33For
a discussion of “Christian humanism,” read Chapter 8, “Christian Humanism,” of Norman L.
Geisler, Is Man The Measure? An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism, (Grand Rapids: Baker book
House, 1983), 95-107.
34Cited by James Hitchcock, What Is Secular Humanism? Why Humanism Became Secular and
How It Is Changing Our World, (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1982), 15, 17.
INSIGHTS INTO HUMANISM 12
arts and in foreign affairs. Humanism has turned the Christian world upside down – a reversal
from accomplishments of apostolic Christianity! (See Acts 17:6).
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 take 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”35
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.”36
Conclusion
We who claim to be Christians have allowed humanism to make fundamental changes
within our culture. Humanism will continue to change our culture until and unless we Christians
understand it. We must rise up against modern humanism, “stand in the gap” (Ezekiel 22:30), do
battle against it where it is most operative and powerful, and restore the principles of Christianity
to the cultural and legal foundations which govern our society.
35William
A. Stanmeyer, Clear and Present Danger: Church and State in Post-Christian America.
(Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1983), 4-5.
36Same source, 7.
ORGANIZED HUMANISM PRODUCES
A GROWING ANTI-CHRISTIAN SOCIETY
Robert L. Waggoner1
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
53
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in
heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand
in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” (Ephesians 6:12-13, N-KJV).
Introduction
Many Christians realize we’re in the midst of a philosophical and cultural anti-Christian
revolution. However, most Christians do not understand how to fight against the forces producing
this revolution primarily because most do not understand their philosophical enemy. When the
philosophical enemy is identified and understood, then the means of resistance can be more readily
determined. The primary philosophical enemy confronting Christians today is humanism.
Humanism has had growing influence since the Renaissance, although most of that time it
was not an organized movement. However, during the last century, humanists have organized
themselves. Through their organizations, humanists have been able to produce a thoroughly antiChristian cultural revolution. Because of their organized efforts, the influence of humanism is now
regarded by many as greater in the western world than that of any other religious group or of any
combination of other religious groups.2
Since humanism has become so extremely influential through its many and varied
organizations, Christians should become much better informed, not only about humanism, but also
about its many organizations. What follows is an attempt to chronicle some of the major historical
developments in the founding of humanistic organizations in this country.
Early Organizational Efforts
One of the first efforts toward organizing humanism in America was made by Dr. Felix
Adler, a former rabbi. He is responsible for organizing the Society for Ethical Culture in New
York City in 1876. This was the first of some thirty autonomous societies for ethical culture to be
organized. These were eventually unified by the American Ethical Union (established by Dr. Adler
in 1889) and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (established in 1952). Dr. Adler also
founded the Ethical Movement in 1893 and it was organized internationally. The Philosophy Club
of Faculty was founded by Dr. Adler in 1904 at both Columbia University and Union Theological
Seminary. At later dates, John Hopkins, Princeton, and Yale also had a Club of Faculty organized
on their campuses.
1Copyright
© by Robert L. Waggoner. Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this
document for non-commercial educational purposes provided it is unaltered and copyright and authorship
are given.
2A James Reichley, Religion in American Public Life, Washington , DC: The Brookings Institute,
1985, 47, with quotation from Leo Pfeffer, “The Triumph of Secular Humanism,” Journal of Church and
State. Vol. 19, Spring, 1977, 211.
2
In addition, other organizations were established either by Dr. Adler, by persons of similar
values, or were eventually spawned by organizations which Dr. Adler had founded earlier. Among
these were Free Kindergartens, Neighborhood Guild, the Good Government Club (now known as
the City Club), Settlement Houses, Child Study Associations of America, Legal Aid Society,
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, American Civil Liberties Union,
and Planned Parenthood centers.3
Among other organizations whose leaders have strong ties with these humanist
organizations are the “National Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy (SANE), the Fabian
Socialist Movement, World Federalists, USA (formerly the United World Federalists), Americans
for Democratic Action (ADA) and various agencies of the United Nations.”4
Major Organizational Growth In the 1920s and 1930s
In 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union was established by Roger Baldwin in New
York City. It had previously existed as American Union Against Militarism, and as National Civil
54
Liberties Bureau. “The ACLU is actually a carefully decentralized grassroots network of fifty-one
separately incorporated affiliates, over four hundred local chapters, and approximately five
thousand volunteer lawyers from coast to coast.”5 It “is the world’s oldest, largest, and most
influential association of lawyers, political activists, and social reformers.”6 While the ACLU
does not promote itself as a humanistic organization, its values are generally consistent with those
of humanism. It has had great success in transforming America’s legal system by removing
Christian values as the foundations for law and replacing them with humanistic ones.
In 1929, Charles F. Potter, having preached formerly for a Baptist church and then for the
Unitarians, founded the First Humanist Society of New York, as a religious society. In 1930, he
wrote a book entitled, Humanism: A New Religion,7 in which he declared in the first sentence of
the preface that the “purpose of this book is to set forth . . . the main points of the new religion
called humanism.”
The early harbingers of humanism were followed in 1933 by the publication of the first
Humanist Manifesto. It was signed by thirty-four influential national leaders – the first and the
most notable of which was John Dewey. This document rejected traditional Christian beliefs in
favor of naturalism, materialism, rationalism and socialism. It also declared that the purpose of
humanism is to evaluate, transform, control, and direct all institutions and organizations by its own
value system. In short, this was a declaration that humanists intended to produce a cultural
revolution by removing Christianity from its foundational underpinning of American society and by
substituting humanistic religious beliefs in its place. Later major documents that would further
specify humanistic ideologies and goals include Humanist Manifesto II (1973), A Secular
3See
Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution, (Belmont, Mass.: Western
Islands, 1977), 60-61.
4Same source, 61.
5George Grant, Trial and Error: The American Civil Liberties Union and Its Impact on Your
Family, (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1989), 29.
6Same source, 23
7New York: Simon and Schuster.
3
Humanist Declaration (1980), and A Declaration of Interdependence: A New Global Ethics
(1988).
Other Major Organizational Advances
The Humanist and Free Inquiry Magazines
Major advancements in humanistic efforts were achieved in 1941 with the coming of The
Humanist magazine, the founding of the American Humanist Association and the establishment of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The Humanist magazine claims (on its frontispiece) to
present “a non-theistic, secular, and naturalistic approach to philosophy, science, and broad areas
of personal and social concern. It focuses on humanistic ideas, developments and revolutions.”
This publication actively promotes a cultural revolution. “Humanistic revolutions are underway in
religion, education, health care, family structure, civil liberties, housing, institutional care, racial
equality, treatment of animals, birth control, ecology. These are most evident in the westernized
nations.”8 While there are many humanistic magazines, another major humanistic journal began, in
the winter of 1980/81, with the publication of Free Inquiry magazine, edited by Paul Kurtz, the
best known if not the most influential humanistic philosopher in the United States.
The American Humanist Association
The American Humanist Association was founded in Illinois as a tax-exempt organization
for educational and religious purposes. The Bylaws of the American Humanist Association,
amended in 1968, “reflect that the Association has a legal status as a ‘religious organization.’” The
roots of AHA go back to 1927. University of Chicago professors and students then “began
55
publication of a mimeographed sheet called The New Humanists. This group became the New
Humanist Association and organized the Humanists Press Association. In 1934 they changed their
name to the American Humanist Association.”9
When it was incorporated in 1941, the AHA “became the formal representative of
Humanists in the United States and Canada.”10 The organization was derived largely from
Unitarians who considered themselves religious humanists.
Planned Parenthood Federation
The roots of Planned Parenthood go back to 1916 when Margaret Sanger founded the first
birth control center in the United States. Birth control leagues soon spouted up all over the country.
They were united first under the name of National Birth Control League then the name was changed
to American Birth Control League. In 1941 the American Birth Control League became the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America. Then in 1963 this group became affiliated with World
Population Emergency Campaign. Planned Parenthood has probably done more than any other
group in the world to promote pre-marital and extra-marital promiscuity, abortion, and condom
distribution. Its founder, Margaret Sanger was named Humanist of the Year in 1957.
8Lloyd
L. Morain, The Humanist, July/August, 1984.
Turner, “Organized Humanism,” Humanism: Devotion to Man, (Tampa, FL: Florida College
Bookstore, 1985), 100.
10Claire Chambers, 65.
9Allan
4
United Nations and Its Agencies
In 1945, the United Nations was established. Some persons connected with the United
Nations might object to it being designated as a humanistic organization. However, its charter is
consistent with humanistic precepts, and several of its agencies, such as World Health
Organization (WHO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), have usually been directed by leading humanists. Moreover, these agencies generally
have policies that mirror humanistic goals and objectives.
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies
In 1949, a major humanistic training institute, The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies,
was founded in Aspen, Colorado. Although its central office is in New York City, the Aspen
Institute has major centers of activity in many places, including Tokyo, Hawaii and Berlin.
Probably the most important is located in Maryland, just outside Washington, D. C., where it is
most accessible for training national leaders. Its purpose is to conduct advanced seminars in
global ideology and humanistic studies. It trains “leading officials of the Trilateral commission,
the White House, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation . . . the World Bank, the
Council on Foreign Relations . . . etc.”11 Through The Aspen Institute, humanist have a plan of
action by which trained national humanistic leaders seek to implement the revolutionary values of
humanism into cultural structures.
International Humanist and Ethical Union
In 1952, the influence of international humanism again accelerated with the establishment
of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. This super federation of over thirty-five
humanistic groups and associated organizations, including American Humanist Association, now
claims over 4,000,000 members in twenty-four countries. It is linked to the United Nations as a
non- governmental organization on a consultative status.
Sex Information and Education Council of the United States
In 1964, Dr. Mary Calderone, a member of Planned Parenthood, and five others,
established the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) to promote
sex education in public schools. While its articles of incorporation claim it has a religious
56
purpose, its religion is definitely humanistic. Since 1964, the “SIECUS orbit has expanded to
envelope publishing houses, film producers, governmental and private agencies, foundations,
medical societies, educational institutions, and religious bodies. This massive network of
interlocking organizations is the power structure through which SIECUS operates to exert pressure
on local schools and an unsuspecting public to adopt its sex education program.”12
11Michael
Loyd Chadwick, “Global Ideology, Humanistic Studies and the Aspen Institute,”
Freeman Digest, 1979, 1.
12Claire Chambers, same source, Forward, xiii.
5
The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism
In 1980, The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH) was founded by
Paul Kurtz, who serves as its chairman. CODESH seeks to demonstrate the viability of a
thoroughly secular, humanistic way of life. It sponsors several organizations, such as The Academy
of Humanism, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, and The Secular Humanist Aid and Relief
Program. Among its many publications are Free Inquiry magazine and The Secular Humanist
Bulletin. It also sponsors annual lecture conferences to explore controversial topics of interest to
humanists.
Public Schools, NEA, and other Educational Agencies
A less obvious but highly successful attempt to organize humanistic values into American
culture was the effort made by John Dewey and others in the late nineteenth century. They captured
public schools and incorporate humanistic values (although not generally designated by that name)
into curriculum content and teaching methodology in every classroom in America. Through
educational agencies (such as the National Education Association (NEA) and its various state
affiliated organizations) and through educational courses in teacher training colleges and
universities, humanistic values have been successfully preached to our nations teachers (generally
without teachers being aware of it). Teachers have then passed those values on to their students.
Humanism has also entered the school classroom through school textbooks. Modern educational
philosophy and psychology is thoroughly humanistic.
The result, declared by a humanist back in 1930 but only recently realized by some
Christians, is that “every American public school is a school of Humanism.”13 And this is not
likely to change, because humanists fight to keep the public school as an institution through which
its ideas may be imparted to our nation’s children. Through public schools, children are
“humanized.” Then, they then grow up to assume positions of responsibility and leadership in
every possible vocation, whether in the arts, politics, or profession. And they carry their
humanistic values with them from the schools to their professions. As a result, humanistic values
permeate every facet of our culture.
A Growing Anti-Christian Society
Humanistic ideas are little known by Christians. Those ideas are reinforced by organized
efforts to implement them through public policies that restructure all social, political and cultural
institutions. When those organizations (including public schools) which implement humanistic
ideas are not recognized to promote values contrary to those held by Christians, then Christians
generally have mixed reactions when those organizations began to achieve their objectives.
On the one hand, some Christians are confounded - not understanding what’s happening nor
why. On the other hand, some Christians have been so weakened in their convictions by humanistic
ideals that they are simply not concerned - they have no will to resist. Most Christians are
therefore simply not prepared to deal with the humanistic cultural revolutions now facing us.
13Charles
F. Potter, Humanism: A New Religion, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1930), 128.
6
57
Christian leaders must therefore initiate educational programs to inform Christians not only
about humanistic ideas, organizations and tactics, but also about appropriate measures to defend
themselves and their families, and to take offensive measures to overthrow these anti-Christian
cultural revolutions.
The growing influence of humanism has already produced a loss of Christian freedoms and
a growing anti-Christian sentiment in this country. Unless Christians get more understanding of
humanism and its many organizations, objectives and processes, and until Christians effectively
resist these organized efforts, Christian freedoms will continue to decrease and Christians will be
everywhere out maneuvered in efforts to mold public opinion and shape public policies in keeping
with Christian values.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES?
They’re Being Destroyed By Humanism! That’s What!1
Robert L. Waggoner
I am a concerned Christian parent who was once jolted by the sudden realization that my
cherished Christian values are not necessarily held by my own children. I am not a professional
marriage counselor, sociologist or philosopher. As a gospel preacher, I am concerned because I
have witnessed the growing deterioration of Christian homes and observed conflicting values
between some godly parents and some of their increasingly worldly children.
I designed a questionnaire and mailed it to some leading brethren, hoping to gain some
insights and to verify my own perspectives. From the replies to that questionnaire I have gained
some beneficial insights and, for the most part, had my own conclusions verified.
Almost without exception, those who responded to my questionnaire agreed that not only
the American home, but also the Christian home is deteriorating today. Moreover, most also
agreed that the American home (and also the Christian home) have deteriorated not only from what
it was two generations ago but also from what it was a decade ago. However, they generally
believe that the deterioration of our Christian homes is not as rapid as other American homes
because the spiritual foundations of our Christian homes gives them greater stability.
Our homes are deteriorating on two levels. One relates to husbands and wives. The other is
about what’s happening to our children. Indications of what’s happening to husbands and wives
may be assessed through studying such things as divorce, adultery, wife beatings, etc. My concern
is primarily with our children.
The quality of a Christian home can be assessed, at least in part, by the spirituality of its
children. I have observed that one of the best ways to assess the spiritual strength of a congregation
is to evaluate the spirituality of its leaders by the criterion found in I Timothy 3:4, 5 and Titus 1:6.
Paul told Timothy that an elder must be one “who rules well his own house, having his children in
submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he
take care of the church of God?”)2 It is true that churches that are spiritually strong have children of
elders, deacons, Bible class teachers, preachers and other leaders who are faithful Christians.
Moreover, those churches wherein children of church leaders are not faithful to the Lord are
generally weak spiritually and to the same extent as those children are not faithful Christians.
Applying the same standard to our Christian homes, we can say that those Christian homes
are spiritually strong wherein all children are faithful to the Lord. The opposite is also true. Those
1©
Copyright, 1984 by Robert L. Waggoner. Revised, 1989. This speech was first delivered at
Alabama Christian College lectures, September 19, 1984, after which it as put into tract form. The tract is
58
now out of print. Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this paper for non-commercial
educational purposes if copyright, author’s name and address are given. All other rights reserved.
2N-KJV.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 2
Christian homes are spiritually weakened in which its children are unfaithful to the Lord and
generally to that extent. The Christian home is deteriorating today because it is failing to establish
strong Christian faith in its children.
In defense of many godly parents who have sincerely tried to raise their children to be
faithful Christians but feel themselves to have failed with at least one child, it must be said that all
respondents to my questionnaire agreed that it is more difficult for Christian parents to raise their
children today than it was two generations ago and most think it is even more difficult than just a
decade ago. Why? What’s happening? And what can we do about it?
Respondents to my questionnaire gave many reasons why Christian parents have more
difficulty in raising their children today than did those two generations or even a decade ago.
However, the reasons given were not appreciably different whether contrasting present difficulty
with two generations ago or with a decade ago.
When asked if they believed that the modern philosophy of humanism was the primary
cause for the deterioration of our homes, an overwhelming majority said, “yes.” Even so, there
appeared to be some discomfort with attributing all our modern problems of child raising to
humanism. Various other reasons were given such as “worldliness,” “materialism,” “secularism,”
“peer pressure,” “narcissism,” “influence of television,” “break down of authority,” “our
permissive society,” “decline in values,” etc.
It would be naive to suggest that the philosophy of humanism, by itself, is the basis for our
complex problems in raising our children to be Christians. The modern philosophy of humanism
was preceded by skepticism and higher criticism which, for much of our world, effectively
destroyed the authority of scripture. Darwin’s theory of organic evolution produced the social and
psychological sciences, revived ancient humanism and, throughout the Western World, completed
the process of toppling God from the hearts of many. To suggest, therefore, that humanism is the
major hindrance to modern Christian parents in raising their children, is not to be unmindful of
these many other allied influences.
Now, maybe some of you are like I was a few years ago. I had never heard of humanism.
Then one day my high school son announced to me that he did not believe in God. I was shocked!
He knew the Bible far better than most Christian young men his age. Why should he not believe in
God? How had he been so influenced, that in spite of what I thought was good Christian training,
he was turning away from those truths and values? I wondered - what’s happening and why is it
happening? Because if I could find the answers to these questions, then I might learn what to do
about it. I started looking around, searching for answers and in the process, I saw the same thing
happening to many other Christian families. Others saw it happening a long time before I did.
Speaking of Americans generally, Barbara M. Morris wrote in 1976,
“Parents who have not lost one or more of their teenage children are a rarity these days.
Children are lost in the degradation of drug abuse, living promiscuously, or have otherwise
rejected parental and religious beliefs and traditional moral behavior. Others are dead
from an overdose of heroin or pills, in prison, or just plain gone - their whereabouts
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 3
unknown. Each kind of loss is profound and devastatingly painful to the survivors, the
parents and the rest of the family.3
My research has led me to the conclusion that, through the public schools, the television
and movie industries, music, the media and other means, the philosophy of humanism has
59
permeated, if not saturated, every facet of our culture, including all but very conservative
churches and has become the working philosophy of all our professions and many of our
businesses. Its scope is international, being accepted not only throughout the western world but
also influential upon third world nations. The United Nations charter, for example, is founded upon
the precepts of humanism.
This paper is not about humanism, but rather about its destructive influence in our families
and what we can do about it. In order that we know what we’re talking about, I must describe
humanism. Then after seeing how it has ascended to first place in our world, we’ll better
understand how it is destroying our Christian homes.
Humanism is a godless religion which makes man the only standard by which all
things are judged. Modern humanism is not to be confused with what we often call humaneness or
humanitarianism. It is rather a militant philosophy which believes that man is but the evolutionary
product of nature. It denies the existence of God, the authority of scripture, life after death, sin,
heaven, hell, etc. While not a new philosophy, it was somewhat dormant until the advent and
acceptance of Darwin’s theory of organic evolution in the western world. Its beliefs are
documented by Humanist Manifesto I and II, published in 1933 and 1973 respectively. Humanism
is the primary philosophy behind such modern social and political issues as the Equal Rights
Amendment, the Gay Rights movement, abortion and the right to suicide.
Most Christians find it difficult to accept the idea that, in the battle for the mind of
modern man, humanism has confronted Christianity and now appears to have won! Most of
us have heard very little, if anything about humanism. When we hear that this philosophy has ruling
control over every discipline of study in our state colleges and universities, that it is the ruling
philosophy in all major professions such as law, the media, sociology, psychology and medicine,
that its philosophies dictate the policies of our federal bureaucracies, such as our national welfare
programs, and that it rules supreme over the entire educational establishment of our nation, we
stand amazed!4 Our first inclination is to doubt it. But when we examine the evidence and verify it,
then we wonder, how did it happen?
3Barbara
M. Morris. Why Are We Losing Our Children? (Upland, Calif: Barbara Morris Report,
1976) 1.
4For information regarding the rise of humanism in modern times, read Frances A. Schaeffer’s,
How Shall We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. Old Tappan, NJ:
Fleming H. Revell Co. 1976. For documentation of the influence of humanism in the legal profession, read
John W. Whitehead’s, The Second American Revolution. Elgin, IL: David C. Cook Pub. Co. 1982. For a
brief treatment of influence of humanism on our homes, read James M. Parsons’ The Assault on the
Family. 1978. Pro Media, Box 2222, Melbourne, FL 32907.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 4
At present, the vast majority of Americans have not yet rejected Judeo-Christian morality
or even belief in the existence of God. What I am saying is that most persons now in control of
institutions and governing forces of our society are far more inclined to operate on humanistic
rather than on Christian principles.
The manner in which humanism has won its controlling position is important because it has
a direct bearing on how Christian parents must fight the influence of humanism on their children.
Humanism is now on the throne because it has been promoted deceptively through our public
school system. The dominant person in 20th century American education has been John Dewey. As
a socialist, Dewey wanted to make America a collectivistic nation. Through placing socialistic
teachers in the American school system, Dewey would unsettle our nation from its Biblical
foundations.5
Dewey’s disciples became teachers at teacher training colleges throughout the United
States. Those colleges then graduated teachers whose outlook on life was humanistic. Soon the
60
educational establishment became humanistic, and public schools of higher education produced
graduates of humanistic persuasion. These people now direct most of the controlling agencies of
our entire society. Their next target is to change the thinking of the majority of our people from
Judeo-Christian ethics to humanistic ethics, and their means of doing it is through all the facilities
at their command, especially the public school system.6
The methods used by humanists in the public school system are not at all direct. They are
subtle and deceptive. Through such class techniques as role-playing, survival games, encounter
group sessions, daily journals, sensitivity training, etc. the public schools are turning our children
5Dewey
said, “Why 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 Adelphia University, 1975, pp.
213-214 via Onalee McGraw, Family Choice in Education: The New Imperative. Washington, DC: The
Heritage Foundation, 1978, p. 41. Relevant quotations demonstrating present intent of the educational
establishment are as follows: “We are the biggest striking force in this country, and we are determined to
control the direction of education.” “We will need to recognize that the so-called ‘basic skills,’ which
represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools will be taught in one-quarter of the present school
day. The remaining time will be devoted to what is fundamental and basic.” Catherine Barrett, President,
National Education Association 1973, from Solveig Effers, “Unions vs. Education” Roll Call. April 5, 1973
via Onalee McGraw, (same source as above, pp. 54, 56). “…the battle for mankind’s future must be waged
and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a
new faith; a religion of humanity…utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in
whatever subject they teach…” John J. Dunphy, “A New Religion For a New Age,” The Humanist, ed. by
Paul Kurtz, 43:1 (January/February, 1983), 25-26.
6Two small but excellent booklets, both written by Onalee McGraw and published by the Heritage
Foundation, Washington, DC, documenting humanistic entrenchment in our public schools are: Secular
Humanism and the Schools: An Issue Whose Time Has Come, 1976, and Family Choice in Education:
The New Imperative, 1978. Read especially Carl Sommer: Schools in Crises: Training for Success or
Failure, Houston: Cahill Pub. Co. 1984. 375pp.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 5
away from God and destroying our Christian homes.7 It is surely not news for many of you that our
junior and senior high campuses, and sometimes our elementary schools also, are actually major
centers of drug distribution. Here also sex education is taught, without biblical moral values, in
such courses as health, physical education and home economics, to promote sexual freedom.8 Peer
pressure, now recognized in our modern culture to be a greater motivator of a child’s actions than
parental guidance, comes from school associates who do not share that child’s parental values.
I requested those who received my questionnaire to send me some true examples which
would effectively illustrate what is happening to our Christian homes. Here are two illustrations
related to the destructive influences of humanism, as taught in our public schools.
“A woman who lives just around the block from us pulled her children out of public
school when a middle school teacher informed her son’s class that they should try
homosexuality and heterosexuality to discover what they were meant to be.”
“Another woman’s first grader has played the ‘Lifeboat Strategy’ in his school and two
of the persons in the boat were Jesus Christ and the boy’s mother. The little first grader
(not knowing any better) came home bragging that he had thrown his mother out of the boat.
Later, her high schooler came home and she asked him about what goes on in school. He
informed her that it was ‘religious fanatics’ like her who were standing in the way of
people’s pleasure. He said sex was merely a need like eating and sleeping and he could
fulfill the need with whomever he wished. He had learned this in school.”9
Your child might not have had similar experiences while enrolled in the public schools, but
61
there are increasing probabilities that they will. Although humanism has won its present position
primarily through its use of public schools, it influences the public at large in many other ways, the
most significant being the television and movie industries. Among respondents to my
questionnaire, regarding the most important ways humanism is making inroads into our Christian
homes, television ranked first, public schools second, music third and movies fourth.
Since television ranked first, a few things need to be said about its influence on our
Christian homes. During 1983, Americans watched television an average of seven hours and two
minutes per day. The major offerings on television for children are sex and violence. Violence
especially influences character development of small children and sex greatly influences older
7For
an eye opener about humanistic teaching methods, read these two books by Barbara M.
Morris, Change Agents in the Schools and Why Are We Losing Our Children? published from Upland,
California, The Barbara Morris Report. To learn how humanism is taught in public school textbooks, read
James C. Hefley, Are Textbooks Harming Your Children? Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1976, and a brochure
by the Mel Gablers, Humanism in Textbooks (Secular Religion in the Classroom) 1983. P. O. Box 7518,
Longview, TX 75607.
8For a good evaluation of sex education in the public schools, read David Pratte, Sex Education in
the Public Schools. Printing Service, 1822 Highland Dr., NW, Cullman, AL 35055, 1982.
9A personal letter to author from Dick Sztanyo (quoted by permission).
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 6
children. Daytime soaps average two intimate sexual acts per hour and ninety-four percent of all
sexual activity on daytime television occurs between unmarried persons.10
We have long known that we must be careful about what our children watch on television.
Most parents have tried to monitor the TV set. However, I have come to the conclusion that there’s
no practical way to regulate television except not to have one. The writers and producers of
television shows have announced their intention to change the values of the American people, and
they are doing it.11
The music of America is degrading the minds of our youth. Not only rock music, but also
country and western music makes a significant impact upon the morality and life style of our
children. Most of this music is humanistic in philosophy. David Noebel has written that:
“Rock has turned our young ladies into sex machines, our young men into dirt balls and
has abolished pride in personal appearance. It has degraded love, sex and marriage while
upgrading lust and lasciviousness. It has made a mockery of morality and has encouraged
bisexuality and homosexuality. And while attacking God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and
Christianity, it has expressed sympathy for the devil. It has opened the door to the occult
and paganism. It has alienated children from parents and widened the generation gap. It has
downgraded patriotism and preached violent revolution. It has tarnished our nation’s
culture and promoted and sustained the drug culture. It has become our teenagers’ number
one addiction.”12
Many older adults do not enjoy this kind of music and do not listen to it. Therefore, they
have no idea of its influence upon their children. Much of popular country and western music is
immoral and seductive. Christian parents cannot build strong Christian character in their children
unless these influences are greatly minimized.
We now need to look more intently at the results, and then make some suggestions
regarding what we can do about it. My questionnaire listed eighteen different results of humanism
and requested that respondents rank them in order of greatest to the least significant. The ten most
noticeable results of humanism on our Christian homes which they ranked in the order of their
importance are: first, pre-marital sex; second, divorce; third, materialism; fourth, adultery; fifth,
selfishness; sixth, disobedience; seventh, alcoholism; eighth, pornography; ninth, abortion; and
tenth, profanity. All but two, divorce and adultery, relate to humanism’s impact upon children
62
10Brian
Galloway, “Television: For Better or For Worse,” Gospel Advocate, ed. by Guy N. Woods,
Nashville: Gospel Advocate, Vol. 126, No. 15, Aug 2, 1984, p. 470.
11From Lichter/Rothman Report, cited by Donald Wildmon, The National Federation for Decency,
Drawer 2440, Tupelo, MS 38803, via World Radio News, Nov/Dec ‘83. For full account, read S. Robert
Lichter, Stanley Rothman, Linda S. Lichter, The Media Elete, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler,
Publishers, Inc. 1986, 342pp.
12David A. Noebel, Rock N’ Roll: A Prerevolutionary Form of Cultural Subversion, Summit
Ministries, Manitou Springs, CO: 80829, 1980, p. 2. Read also Bob Ethington, How Satan Attacks the
Minds of Teens, Broken Arrow, OK: Christian Communications Inc., 1981.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 7
while they are yet living with their parents. And those two, divorce and adultery, are results of
humanistic conditioning of children prior to their marrying.
Christian parents want their children to be fine, wholesome Christians and they want to be
proud of their children. But when a child is drawn into shameful sins, the parents and other family
members are greatly affected as is also the church. When a teenage child goes astray, his parents
go through a whole series of emotional experiences. They are first shocked and disappointed, then
deeply hurt. They blame themselves, feel some guilt and remorse after which they seethe in anger
and build up resentment against the wayward child before they may be able to get a good handle on
their new situation. It takes time for Christian parents to be able to talk objectively about their
traumatic experience. Being shamed by their wayward child, they may withdraw from association
with fellow Christians. Some may even excuse their child’s conduct and think the sin not so bad
after all.13 When a teenager goes morally astray, his brothers and sisters are also affected. They too
may feel some shame by association. This is a time filled with many tensions.
Here’s a true story which illustrates the growing sinfulness of our times. A Christian
couple had two teen-age daughters. The father was a deacon in the local congregation. Without
benefit of marriage, the younger daughter became pregnant. When she told her mother, her mother
insisted, against her daughter’s wishes, that she quietly have an abortion. By the abortion her
mother hoped to cover her daughter’s shame. Afterward, when the older daughter, who was away
at a Christian college, found out about the abortion, she said to her mother on the telephone, “You
have killed your unborn grandchild and by that you have lost your older daughter. You’ll never see
me again. I’m never coming home.”
When one member falls, the whole family is affected and so also is the local church.
Churches experience a sense of shame and often lose the leadership of an elder, deacon or
preacher because someone from an otherwise good Christian home was involved in fornication. In
the above instance, when the daughter became pregnant, her mother’s pride was at stake. To keep
her pride, she’d have to cover the sin. Proverbs 13:28 says, “He who covers his sins will not
prosper, but whosoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (N-KJV). Jesus requires
humility and self-denial. The mother’s ego got in her way. We have to deny ourselves in order for
Christ to rule in our hearts.
It is appalling that among some Christians, abortion has become acceptable! Before it was
legalized by the US Supreme Court in 1973, abortion would not have been acceptable by these
same people, not because they then thought it was illegal (which it was) but because they then
thought it immoral (which it is). Now abortion is sometimes treated, even by some believers, with
no more concern than is an operation to remove gall stones.
13Typical
of some books dealing with parental heartache when teenage children go astray are Joy P.
Gage, Broken Boundaries, Broken Lives, 1981 and When Parents Cry, 1980, both published by Accent
Publications, Denver, CO; Guy Greenfield, The Wounded Parent, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982;
John White, Parents in Pain, Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1979. Churches might wish to use a good
tract written by Holbert and Stella Rideout, Help For Hurting Parents, Christian Tracts, Haun Publishing
63
Company, Box 3426, Pasadena, TX 77501.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 8
Then there’s the older daughter who condemned her mother and sentenced her to the loss of
a daughter’s loving care. Christian children should not give up on their wayward parents any more
than Christian parents should give up on their worldly children.
And what about the husband and father - the deacon in the church? How will it affect his
ability to lead? Churches are weakened to the extent that its families are shamed by sin.
A decade or so ago I heard an instructor from one of our preacher training schools say that
of the twenty-five young people who were in his own church youth group as he was growing up,
only three, at the time of his comment, were faithful to the Lord. If my personal observation is
correct, these things are happening now far more frequently than when I was a young college
student thirty-five years ago. And I am not alone in that opinion. In response to my questionnaire,
one lady, a retired school teacher wrote:
“The more I learn about Christian families, the more convinced I am that practically all
of them have major problems of some kind among themselves. It either is getting worse or
people are getting more open about their sins. It seems to be both. They no longer can
blush!”14
When Christian parents discover that one of their children has chosen a life-style
incompatible with Christianity, those parents are deeply hurt. When so many of our Christian
families are affected, you can be sure there are a lot of bleeding and hurting hearts in the church.
And since, because of our shame, there is a general tendency to hush up our problems, our families
stand alone and hurt quietly. Henry Thoreau said, “Most people lead lives of quiet desperation.”
However, we should put our egos aside, acknowledge our children’s waywardness and our own
faults, humbly reach out to each other’s bleeding hearts and resolve that in spite of all that has
happened, we’ll keep on doing our best to be loyal to Christ, our Lord and King.
The brotherhood is seriously affected. Worldliness in our Christian homes is stifling
church growth! One widely traveled, well known and well informed evangelist, in a letter
accompanying his completed questionnaire wrote,
“I have had opportunity to see the church nationwide like few people do. The following
is what I see:
1. Very few homes are encouraging young men to preach because many would quit if
they could make a living.
2. Personal evangelism is as dead as a hammer.
3. Interest in the local church is at a standstill.
4. Our youth have no sense of mission.
5. Morals are at an all time low.
6. There are fewer Bible majors in our Christian schools than ever before…”15
14A
15A
personal letter to author from Rita Rhodes Ward.
personal letter to author from Jerry Jones.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 9
Henceforth, Christian parents must be more dedicated to the task of raising their
children. They must be more knowledgeable of the problems their children will face in this
world and they must be more purposeful to achieve their desired goals of child raising.
You may have known these things for some time. You may have known some things were
wrong, but did not know what, nor why. Or perhaps you are learning things you had not the faintest
notion was even a problem. In any case, we’ve all got to do something about the growing problem
of humanism and worldliness which is facing our children and grandchildren. Now, what are we
going to do about it?
64
My questionnaire asked for suggestions. The answers received were both general and
specific. Generally, almost everyone said that Christian parents must teach, teach and keep on
teaching their children. Many emphasized the value of daily home devotionals. We must seek God
through prayer. Christian parents are going to have to become more militant in their
Christianity and involve their children in the process. Find ways to involve your children in
benevolence, in teaching, in converting the lost to the Lord and, by the process of involvement,
show them that Christianity is a superior way of life.
Here are some specific things which Christians can do. First, for those young people who
are not yet married, I must emphasize that your own future happiness as a Christian, as well as
that of your unborn children, is now more than ever dependent upon your selecting a Christian for
your life-time mate. With the anti-Christian sentiment now growing in America, it is foolish for a
young Christian not to marry a Christian! By a Christian I do not mean one in name only, but a
dedicated working believer.
Second, parents of very young children may want to give serious consideration to not
owning a television set. Children not brought up on television will not find it so difficult to do
without. Young Christian couples may not want to be without a television set, but if they are to be
successful in raising their children to be strong Christians, they may be forced to do without.
Third, fathers must become more actively involved in raising their children, not
leaving those tasks almost altogether to their wives. In nearly every congregation I know, I see
three things: one, there are not enough men spiritually qualified to be elders and deacons; two,
there are not enough men trained and willing to teach bible classes in the local congregation; and
three, there is much too large a drop-out rate among teenage boys from church. My wife has
suggested to me that these three things may be directly related to the fact that in our culture, we do
not train our boys to be fathers. We train girls to be wives and mothers. From early childhood they
play with dolls. But boys play with toys not related to fatherhood, but to career potentials. Boys
play with cars and trucks, etc. Somehow, we need to develop ways by which our boys can learn to
become, not just better fathers, but better Christian fathers.
Fourth, parents of pre-school children must make a decision as to how they are going
to educate their children. Personally, if I had children ready to start kindergarten, I’d not send
them to the public schools. If a private Christian school was not available, my wife and I would
educate our children at home. There is a growing home education movement in America today.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 10
Legal requirements governing home education vary from state to state.16 You may have to disobey
state laws regarding education. “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
Fifth, if your children are already in the public schools, you may find it difficult to
alter their educational arrangements. If parents and their children are all agreeable to change to
a Christian school, or to home education, great! If not, then parents must learn all they can about
humanism and about what goes on in the public school.17 Parents must then warn their children of
the real dangers to their faith and help them fight against ungodly pressures from their classmates
and teachers.
Sixth, inasmuch as our American teen culture is obsessed with music, especially of
the rock ‘n roll type, Christian parents must give more careful attention to the music to
which their children listen.18 Both the beat of the music, as well as its lyrics, need to be
evaluated in relation to children’s character development. Moreover, parents must instill within
their children a desire to rid themselves of the sinful and to concentrate on that which is pure and
wholesome.
Seventh, Christians must not hesitate to become involved with local, state and national
social, political and civic affairs. That’s part of being the “salt of the earth” and “light of the
65
world.”
In addition to what individual Christians can do for their own families, there are several
things the local church can do. First, churches need to do more teaching in the area of
Christian evidences. There is much material and many informed brethren are available to teach.19
Second, for a good program of youth involvement in the local congregation,
coordinated under the direction of local leadership, there is none better than the Lads to
Leaders/Leaderettes program developed by Jack Zorn.20 Those churches which have given
16For
further information about teaching children at home, I recommend browsing through Mary
Pride’s, The Big Book of Home Learning, Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1986, 347p. It discusses
home school philosophies, organizations, books, curricula, publishers, legal helps and much, much more.
17Most helpful to me has been the publication of Pro-Family Forum, edited by Lottie Beth Hobbs,
P. O. Box 8907, Ft. Worth, TX 76124. Many excellent resource materials, some of which are named in
these footnotes, are available from Pro-Family Forum.
18Two excellent books about rock music by David A. Noebel are The Marxist Minstrels, Summit
Ministries, P. O. Box 207, Manitou Springs, CO 80829 and The Legacy of John Lennon: Charming or
Harming a Generation? Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Publishers, 1982.
19I particularly recommend the materials dealing with creation and evolution called Science and
Nature: Two Votes For God by brethren Bert Thompson and Wayne Jackson. Their addresses are: Bert
Thompson, 5251 Millwood Rd., Montgomery, AL 36109; Wayne Jackson, 3906 East Main St., Stockton,
CA 95205.
20Jack Zorn, Lads to Leaders/Leaderettes, P. O. Box 6231, Montgomery, AL 36106-0231.
WHAT’S HAPPENING TO OUR CHRISTIAN HOMES? 11
good local leadership to this program are quick to praise it as most helpful to their youth. Churches
which have not utilized this program would be wise to consider it.
Other suggestions might also be made, but these are enough for now. When churches learn
well the nature of this problem, other ways of meeting it will occur.
Our nation is now in the midst of profound and extensive social changes. Twenty-five
percent of American public school children are now from single parent homes. And while there
may be a return to political conservatism, there is as yet no indication of a return to a widespread
morality based upon biblical principles. We stand at the crossroads while the two major
philosophies of humanism and Christianity contend with each other for the future of America and
the western world. Which will it be?
We can look backward and think of the ‘good ole days’ when most folks had stronger
moral stability than today. We can look at our present plight when the fruits of immorality are
beginning to be observed in the social changes of our times. And we can look to the future and,
assuming there is no return to biblical morality, lament the coming decadence which will quickly
end the political freedom of our nation and the western world. But all this is to wring our hands in
vain!
We cannot answer for our nation. We cannot even answer for others, but we can answer
for ourselves. In these times when “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places,” we need to heed Paul’s admonition to “put on the whole armor of
God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:11-12).
Working as leaven in the world, we may, by the grace of God, change the flow of human
affairs. But then again, we may not. Wise prophets of old, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, were unable to
stop the deterioration of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, although they seem to have slowed their
decaying processes. But whether or not we are able to affect the course of nations, we must try.
We must make every effort to raise our families in righteousness and to inspire them as best we
can to godly service.
66
When Joshua, the battle weary captain of Israel, came to the close of his life, he could look
back, better than any other, and see a time when Israel in unbelief had perished in the wilderness.
He could reflect upon a new generation who, by faith, took the promised land. He could realize the
present faithfulness of the people to the Lord. That was a golden era of faith and godliness. Yet
Joshua knew that after he died, people would turn away from the Lord. He, therefore, gathered
them together at Shechem, rehearsed their history with them, emphasized God’s gracious care for
them and charged them to fear God and serve Him. As he concluded his charge, he left, resounding
in their ears, this resolution: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).
May that also be our resolution and may it inspire others to do the same.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America1
© Robert L. Waggoner
It was March of 1775 when a young attorney rode horseback into the small town of
Culpepper, Virginia. He was totally shocked by what he saw!
There, in the middle of the town square, a man was tied to a whipping post, his back
laid bare and bloody with the bones of his ribs showing through the flesh. He had just
been whipped. He had been, like Jesus, scourged mercilessly with whips having been
laced with pieces of metal.
The attorney is quoted as saying, ‘When they stopped beating him, I could see the
bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve
such a beating as this.’
The reply given was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take
a license. He was one of the twelve men who were locked in jail because they refused to
take a license.
This minister said: ‘I will never submit to taking your license. I am controlled by the
Holy Spirit and authorized by God Almighty and will not allow you to control me by a
license, no matter what you may do to me!’
With that statement, those who were trying to control these ministers and their
ministries by requiring them to be ‘licensed,’ took this minister and scourged him to death
three days later.2
Shortly afterward, this young attorney arose to address his fellow delegates in the Virginia
House of Burgesses. He concluded his famous speech with these words.
Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! - but there is no peace. The war has actually begun!
The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding
arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that
gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what
course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”3
1©
Copyright. This manuscript was a speech given by the author at the annual lectures of the Shenandoah
Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas in February of 1989, and published in their lectureship book, Terry M.
Hightower, ed., Embattled Christianity: A Call To Alarm The Church To Humanism, Shenandoah Church of
Christ, 11026 Wurzbach Road, San Antonio, TX 78230, 213-227. Additional material is given related to footnote
35.
2Donald Sills. “Leaders Should Learn from Heritage,” Religious Freedom Alert, Vol. II, No. 1, February,
1986, 2, quoting a tract published by Christian Religious Freedom Council.
3 Same source as above. The complete speech of Patrick Henry may be found in A. Craig Baird, American
Public Addresses. (NY: McGraw Hill, 1956), 29-36.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 2
67
You probably recognize the last sentence of that address and therefore know that the young
attorney in this story was none other than Patrick Henry. Most of us recall that Patrick Henry made
a fiery speech that lent support to, and helped bring about, the American Revolution. What most of
us do not recall, or perhaps never knew, is that Patrick Henry’s speech was motivated by his
experience in seeing men denied their religious freedom by their civil authorities.
Patrick Henry went on to defend preachers who wanted freedom to conduct their ministries
free of government interference. And then, with the ratification of the United States Constitution’s
Bill of Rights in 1791, religious freedom was guaranteed for all American citizens by the First
Amendment.
This was not the first time, however, that Christians have faced persecution because they
would not take a license from civil authorities. The Apostle John wrote of it in the thirteenth
chapter of the Book of Revelation. This chapter discusses two beasts - a beast rising up out of the
sea – which probably symbolized the Roman empire, personified by the reigning Caesar, and a
beast coming up out of the earth – which probably symbolized the imperial priesthood which
promoted Caesar worship.
Caesar worship was an outgrowth of patriotism to the Roman Empire. As Rome conquered
the ancient world, she established trade routes, stopped robbers and pirates, set up a common
postal system, established law and order, and brought peace, safety, and prosperity to conquered
territories. The people were grateful.
Caesar worship developed gradually. As early as 195 BC the city of Smyrna had erected
an altar to “the goddess of Rome.” In time, something akin to divinity came to be attributed toward
the city of Rome. Then in 44 BC, the day after his death, Julius Caesar was deified by the Roman
Senate. After that, the people wanted to deify the living Caesars. The Roman Caesars were at first
reluctant. Caesar Augustus, however, did permit a temple to be erected jointly in his own name
and that of Rome. The cities of Asia Minor had already begun to compete with each other for the
favor of erecting a temple to the worship of Caesar.
Rome wanted to unite all its people. It built the Pantheon in the city of Rome. The idea
behind that was to make the capitol city the religious capitol of all peoples Rome had conquered.
However, this was not as effective as had been hoped. When Caesar worship grew from the
populace, Rome saw in it a way to unite all its people. Thereafter, Caesar worship was
encouraged. The surest route to political power in the provinces of Rome was through the imperial
priesthood.
This is what John referred to in the last part of the thirteenth chapter of the Book of
Revelation. Regarding the imperial priesthood – the beast coming up out of the earth – John said
that
. . . he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in
their right hand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had
the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom, Let him
that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and
his number is six hundred three score and six (Revelation 13:16-18.).
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 3
The mark in the right hand or on the forehead constituted a license. If you had it, you could
buy or sell. If you did not have it, you could neither buy nor sell. To get that license, you were
required to worship Caesar. However, Christians could not do that because to worship Caesar - to
say that Caesar is Lord - meant that they had to reject Jesus as Lord. The result was Christian
persecution. The beast coming up out of the earth had power to “cause as many as would not
worship the image of the beast should be killed” (Revelation 13:15). So great and terrible was the
persecution that Rome is said to have been “drunken with the blood of the saints and with the
68
blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6).
Religious persecution is something we read about. It is a part of church history. Or it
happens in other countries. It is not supposed to happen in America! However, for Christians,
religious freedom may be quickly vanishing in America! In the last two decades we’ve seen too
many denials of religious freedom to assume that in the future we will have religious freedom as
we once had.
For those unfamiliar with recent denials of religious freedom in America, it may prove
helpful to list some cases where religious freedoms were denied. Religious freedoms may be
denied in many ways. Especially significant are those religious freedoms denied in occupational
employment, education, and in government regulations of churches and their ministries through
bureaucratic licensing and zoning ordinances.
Believers in Christ are beginning to realize that in the workplace their religious freedoms
may be denied to them almost anytime. Kathy Pierce, a hospital receptionist at the University of
Alabama hospital in Birmingham told supervisors when she started working in the Obstetrics and
Gynecology Department that she had religious based objections to admitting women for therapeutic
abortions. Later, however, when another employee had to be out of the office, she was ordered to
process the admission of abortion patients. When she refused, she was suspended without pay for
two days and placed on probation for four months – a penalty which later was amended to 90
days.4
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 is 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.5
Believers in creation are especially discriminated against in the academic workplaces.
Jerry Bergman, himself discriminated against because of his creationists beliefs, wrote a book
entitled, The Criterion: Religious Discrimination in America in which he declares that belief in
creation will hinder a Ph.D. candidate in biology from obtaining a degree in most public colleges
and universities; that if one already has his Ph.D. and is looking for a teaching position – if it is
4Eric
Johnston, Chapter Update - Alabama, The Rutherford Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1. Spring, 1988, 23.
Status Report, “CWA Defends Widow Who Won’t Rent to Unmarried Couples,” Concerned
Women For America, February, 1988, p. 6; also June, 1988, 9-10.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 4
5Litigation
known he’s a creationist – he’ll likely not be hired; that if one is already teaching without tenure –
and it is discovered that he is a creationist – he’ll likely not obtain tenure.6
In the educational arenas, religious freedoms are frequently denied at all levels. Elevenyearold Rebecca Higgins gave an oral book report to her sixth grade classmates at Venice Area
Middle School in Florida. She gave her book report on the Bible because she believed it was “a
very important book which can serve as a guide for daily living.” Afterward, she gave copies to
nearly 30 students who wanted copies. During the next class period, however, a teacher barged
into the classroom, confiscated all copies of the Bibles, and then escorted the girl to the
principal’s office where she was interrogated by school administrators and denied the right to call
her mother.7
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 law8. In Moss Bluff, Louisiana,
Valedictorian Angela Kay Guidry was denied the right to give her graduation address at Sam
69
Houston High School because she refused to remove from her speech some carefully chosen
remarks about how meaningful Jesus had been in her life.9 In Lakewood, Colorado, Ken Roberts, a
public school teacher, was directed to remove from his classroom library two Bible related
books, and to not leave his Bible on top of his desk because these might give an appearance of
religion.10
Churches have also had many of their religious freedoms challenged. In Lewisville,
Nebraska, the Faith Baptist church preacher defied a ruling by the state Department of Education
that required all church school teachers be certified by the state. In response, a Nebraska court
ordered the church school closed. When the preacher and his congregation refused, the Sheriff and
his deputies carried people bodily from the church building one evening as they were holding a
prayer vigil. They then padlocked the doors of the church building. They allowed entrance into the
building only for worship assemblies. The fathers of the pupils were jailed, and the preacher was
imprisoned for criminal contempt.11
In Painesville, Ohio, a Nazarene church faced the possible loss of property tax exemption
when it used its facilities for five days a week as a day care for children.12 A U.S. District judge in
Virginia declared that church day care centers are not ministries of the church and are therefore
6Jerry
Bergman. The Criterion: Religious Discrimination in America, (Richfield, MN: Onesimus
Publishing, 1984), xi-xv.
7“School Board Erred In Seeking Bibles,” The Rutherford Institute Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 3,
September/October, 1986, 17; also Vol. 4, No. 2, March-June, 1987.
8Linda McMillan, “Alabama School Discovers First Amendment,” Religious Freedom Alert, Vol. III, No.
4, July, 1987, 11.
9Mike Yorkey, “Angie’s Graduation Speech Censored,” Focus On The Family, June, 1988, 2-4.
10Beverly LaHaye letter to Concerned Women of America (September, 1988), with copy of memo from
Ken Roberts to Kathy Madigan, dated 9/18/87.
11George Hansen, To Harass Our People: The IRS and Government Abuse of Power. (Washington, DC:
Positive Publications, 1984) special section, “Assault on Religion,” SS12-SS20.
12Robert Melnick. Chapter Update - Ohio. The Rutherford Institute Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 3, JulySeptember, 1987, 21.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 5
subject to state regulations.13 A federal district judge in Virginia said in 1976 that it was unlawful
for a man to conduct a Bible study in his own home, even if the only participants were members of
his own family!14
These are but a few of the many denials of religious freedoms faced by all who profess
Christianity in America. Moreover, the number of cases appears to be accelerating. Its been
reported that in 1976 there were no more than 45 cases of litigation in the courts involving
conflicts between church and state. A decade later, the estimate was up to eight thousand.15 The
Freedom Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia indicated that in the first six months of 1984 over
200 cases of religious discrimination were reported to them.16
The question that naturally comes to mind is “why?” Why are Christians today being
denied their religious freedoms? Why must Christians face discrimination in the workplace? Why
are Bible reading and prayers now prohibited in public schools? Why has there been a general
change in cultural attitudes toward God, Christ, the Bible, the church, and Christians generally?
Why do public policies of government agencies now frequently discriminate against Christians?
The answer is that a new religion – a religion totally opposed to Christians – has arisen,
quietly and almost unnoticeably, to positions of great influence and power. It began to rear its ugly
head during the Renaissance. For a while it was suppressed by the Reformation movement.
However, it reasserted itself and produced the so-called period of the Enlightenment. Slowly, but
with increasing rapidity, it grew. It is now the primary religious threat to Christians in America.
This religion is “secular” humanism.
70
We will not understand why religious freedoms are denied to Christians until we realize
that we’re in the middle of a religious war. Humanists also want religious freedoms. Humanists
want freedom to peddle hard core pornography without opposition from Christians. Humanists
want freedom to abort their unwanted, unborn babies. Humanists want freedom from public
recognition of God. Humanists want freedom from Christian morality and ethics. Because
humanists want freedom from lifetime marriage commitments, they have fought for and obtained
no-fault divorce laws in many states and obtained very lax divorce laws in most other states.
Because humanists want acceptance of homosexuality, they now fight for legislative enactments
against all sexual discriminations. They want to legalize homosexual marriages. Then homosexual
and lesbian poor families can receive government welfare from taxes paid by Christians.
The religious freedoms desired by humanists are obviously not compatible with religious
freedoms desired by Christians. Freedom of religion for one group means denials of religious
freedoms for the other. Either Christian values dominate our society and give freedom of religion
to Christians but deny it to humanists, or humanistic values dominate our society and give freedom
13Steven
Graber. Chapter Update - Virginia. The Rutherford Institute Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 4, OctoberDecember, 1987, 21.
14John W. Whitehead, The Separation Illusion. (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1977), pp. 150-151, citing
Independent Record, Thermopolis, WY, January 22, 1976.
15Donald Sills, “Understanding Freedom Threats Vital Key,” Religious Freedom Alert, Vol. 1, No. 4,
February, 1985, 15.
16War on Religious Freedom: The Mask of Neutrality, Virginia Beech, VA: The Freedom Council, 5.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 6
of religion to humanists but deny it to Christians. Either one or the other will prevail and thereby
suppress the other. Religious freedoms for both groups cannot co-exist.
The humanistic worldview is the basis for many current public policies that produce
religious discrimination against Christians. As Christians begin to perceive what is happening,
Christians are usually startled to observe that humanists now occupy the high ground. They are
firmly entrenched and well fortified in the principalities and powers of this world.
Christians can understand better why their religious freedoms are often denied to them
when Christians learn how basic concepts within humanism are transformed into public policies.
A brief look at two of these concepts should be sufficient. The first concept is that of the theory of
evolution.17 The second is rejection of the supernatural.18 These two may be considered together
inasmuch as one is but the flip side of the other.
The theory of evolution has to do with much more than biology. Those who accept the
theory as fact generally reject the existence of God, creation, the spiritual nature of man, the deity
of Christ, salvation from sin, and life after death. The theory is presumed to be the key of all
knowledge. Humanists contend that the universe is self-existing, that all things evolve by chance,
that humanity is but part of nature, and that only through nature can man know anything. Notice
what
all this implies regarding the formation of public policies.
First, if it is true that all things evolve, as declared by the theory of evolution, the Bible
must also have evolved. Within thirty years after Charles Darwin set forth his theory of evolution
in Origin of Species in 1859, the evolution of the Bible was popularized in colleges and
universities. Although it had been universally believed for over 3000 years that by the inspiration
of God, Moses had penned, 1400 years before Christ, the first five books of the Old Testament, it
now became fashionable to believe that the Pentateuch had evolved from sources referred to as J,
E, P, and D (and by combinations of those letters) and that the Pentateuch came to be in its present
form only a hundred years or so before the Jews were taken into Babylonian captivity. In like
manner, other Old and New Testament documents were also said to result from evolutionary
71
17“Humanism
believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous
process” (Humanist Manifesto I, Second). “Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the
scientific spirit and method” (Humanist Manifesto I, Fifth). “Science affirms that the human species is an
emergence from natural evolutionary forces” (Humanist Manifesto II, Second). “Although the theory of evolution
cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless
supported impressively by the findings of science” (A Secular Humanist Declaration, 9).
18“It is only by assuming responsibility for the human condition and in marshaling the arts of intelligence
that humankind can hope to deal with the emerging problems of the twenty-first century and beyond. If we are to
succeed in this venture, must we not abandon the archaic dogmas and ideologies that inhibit creative explorations
and solutions?” (Paul Kurtz, Preface to Humanist Manifestos I and II, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973, 4)
“We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or
creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. . . . Any account of nature should
pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so”
(Humanist Manifesto II, First). “But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a
full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions...inhibit humans from helping
themselves or experiencing their full potentialities” (Humanist Manifesto II, First). “Secular humanism...is
opposed to all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction for their values or espouse rule by dictatorship”
(A Secular Humanist Declaration, 1st paragraph). “We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity” (A
Secular Humanist Declaration, 6).
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 7
developments. These notions deny the inspiration of the Bible. They reject divine authority. They
make biblical messages no more significant than any other great piece of human literature.
Second, if it is true that all things evolve, as declared by the theory of evolution, then there
are no fixed legal standards. All things, including law, must be relative. Slightly more than a
decade after Darwin wrote Origin of Species, the evolution of law began to be taught by
Christopher Langdell, Dean of Harvard Law School. This revolutionized the study of law in the
United States.19 By applying the theory of evolution to law, legal statutes need no longer be
absolute. Legal statutes no longer mean necessarily what they say. They can only mean what the
courts say they mean. When the humanistic theory of evolution is applied to law, it is then
impossible to have rule by law. It is only possible to have rule by men.
Third, if it is true that all things evolve, as declared by the theory of evolution, then, since
mankind is the highest form of known natural intelligence, people assume they must decide what is
best for themselves and other natural creatures in their changing natural circumstances. In essence,
man becomes his own god! Moreover, since some people are considered more intelligent than
others, then it is assumed that the more knowledgeable must decide what is best for everyone. This
elite group of knowledgeable people, dominated by the legal profession, must govern everyone.
This they try to do through civil governments, directing all economic and other human and natural
resources according to their own wills.
Now it must be admitted that a majority of Americans today do not believe in the theory of
evolution. However, a very large number of the designers and makers of public policies in
government bureaucracies today do believe the theory is true and therefore act accordingly.
Moreover, many theists who work in government bureaucracies fail to translate their Christian
beliefs into public policy declarations. By that failure, many theists may act like they believe the
theory of evolution. Public policy is often made, therefore, without the fear of God, with little
appreciation of biblical truths, with no understanding of man’s spiritual nature and needs, with no
consideration of judgment to come, and with little thought for life after death. It is believed that
man is basically good, and therefore, according to humanistic theory, human authority is valid and
sufficient.
Public policies would be vastly different, however, if theist made policies based on their
beliefs. Imagine what public policy would be if made in accordance with concepts of the
existence, relevancy, and providence of God; the authority of scripture; the doctrine of creation;
72
the spiritual nature of man; the reality of sin in all accountable humans; redemption through Christ;
judgment to come; and the eternal destiny of the soul. Under these conditions, public policy should
be based upon absolute standards, recognize a rule of law rather than a rule of men, and seek
consistency with the word of God.
While humanists may momentarily be passively tolerant of politicians who publicly invoke
the name of God, they are highly displeased if public policies are made in keeping with Divine
principles. Humanists insist on rejection of traditional religious beliefs as unscientific and
19John
W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution. Elgin, IL: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982),
46-47.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 8
inappropriate for human guidance.20 They want government policies to be altogether “secular.”
They imply that the First Amendment requires the total separation of religion from all civil
government. However, the First Amendment was originally intended to restrict only the federal
Congress, not congressional bodies of the various states, nor religious practices of the people.
Moreover, the founding fathers of this nation realized the necessity of religion for good
government. George Washington said, “[o]f all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . Reason and experience both
forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”21
The U. S. Congress, in 1787, declared with the passage of the Northwest Ordinance that
“religion, morality, and knowledge” are “necessary to good government and the happiness of
mankind.”22 John Adams observed that “[o]ur Constitution was made for a religious and a moral
people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”23 Moreover, Thomas Jefferson
was president of the school board in the District of Columbia when the books used to teach
reading in the schools were the Bible and Isaac Watts’ hymnal.
Notwithstanding this intent of our founding fathers, humanists want to neutralize the
influence of Christianity in civil governments. Humanist Manifesto II declares that “[t]he
separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperative.”24
However, all governments must operate by religious or ideological principles. If governments do
not operate by principles of the Christian religion, then they will operate by principles of some
other religion. Some humanists think humanism is a religion. Others say it is not. But no one can
deny that humanism is an ideology. What humanists really want is to substitute humanism in place
of Christian influence upon civil governments. To do this they must neutralize Christianity.
Although the process of secularization was already neutralizing Christian influence in
America, the neutralization process has quickened since 1947 by a series of legal decisions by the
Supreme Court. Some statements by the Court will demonstrate that the Court now differs from our
founding fathers regarding the role of religion in government and in society.
In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township,25 the Supreme
Court said that “[t]he ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid
20 “Traditional
moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and
tomorrow. False ‘theologies of hope’ and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with
existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples” (Humanist Manifesto II, Preface). “Secular
humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance” (A Secular Humanist Declaration,
Conclusion).
21Farewell Address (19 Sept., 1796), in John C. Fitzpatrick, ed. The Writings of George Washington. 39
vols. (Washington, DC: The United States Government Printing Office, 1931-44) 35:229.
22Article III of Northwest Ordinance of 1787, in Mortimer J. Adler et. al., eds. The Annals of America,
20 vols., by 1977 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968- ), 3:194-195.
23Address to the Militia of Massachusetts, 1798, via “Some People Think God Has No Place In Our
Government,” Virginia Beach, VA: The Freedom Council.
73
24Humanist
25330
Manifesto II, Ninth.
U.S. 1 (1947)
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 9
one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”26] However, our founding
fathers would have disagreed because when the First Amendment was ratified, nine of the thirteen
original states had their own established churches.
Regarding a specific school prayer, the Court declared in 1962 in the case of Engel v.
Vitale27 that it was improper to place the “power, prestige, and financial support of
government...behind a particular religious belief.”28 Since the prayer was of no specific
denomination but reflective of Christianity generally, what the court did was to establish disbelief
in God as the national religion in America. An even stronger statement was made by the Court in
1968 in the case of Board of Education v. Allen.29 The Court said that “to withstand the strictures
of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and primary effect that
neither advances nor inhibits religion.”30 In 1985 the Court was even more explicit. It declared in
Thorton v. Caldor, Inc.31 that “to pass constitutional muster...a statute must not only have a secular
purpose and not foster excessive entanglement of government with religion, its primary effect must
not advance or inhibit religion.”32
These Court declarations regarding the First Amendment have had the effect of exchanging
a citizen’s right to freedom of religion for society’s freedom from religion. Moreover, because of
these Court declarations, every agency of civil government considers it now proper to remove the
Christian religion from all public practices. In essence, the theory of evolution is now replacing
the Bible as the foundation of civil governments in America. That’s the major reason Christians
now face religious discrimination in America.
What about the future? Will current trends in religions discrimination lead ultimately to
Christians being physically and violently persecuted in America? Perhaps! Historically, there have
been two stages in the attack on the church. First, the state and its agencies are secularized.
Second, the state attacks every prerogative or privilege of the church in an indirect manner so that,
in disguised fashion, its right to exist is denied.33 For the most part, the Supreme Court has already
secularized the state. Various prerogatives of the church are now being attacked. Religion is being
removed from the schools and other public domains.
It is possible that churches in America may someday face restrictions that have been
imposed in communistic countries – since communism is but a political form of humanism. These
restrictions are: first, churches and their members must be registered; second, only in registered
church buildings are Christians permitted to worship collectively and to talk about the Lord; third,
Christians are forbidden to teach religion to their children; and fourth, Christians are given the
least desirable menial jobs.34
26330
U.S. at 15
U.S. 421 (1962)
28370 U.S. at 431
29392 U.S. 236 (1968)
30392 U.S. 243
3153 Law Week 4853 (1985)
3253 Law Week at 4853
33John W. Whitehead. The Stealing of America. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1983), 100.
34Jan Pit, Persecution: It Will Never Happen Here? (Orange, CA: Open Doors, 1981), 42-43, cited by
John W. Whitehouse, above.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 10
27370
To some degree, these restrictions are already being imposed in America. For example,
churches have to be registered with the IRS regarding tax laws. Sometimes the federal government
seeks to bring a church under control through IRS audits. Zoning ordinances also restrict Christians
74
from gathering within certain designated areas for worship. The state, through its various
bureaucratic agencies, is asserting itself and making demands that Christians often seem too
willing to concede to the state.
Civil legislation leading toward the persecution of Christians, if it comes, will likely be in
the form of restricting freedoms of religion to whatever the state perceives as necessary to protect
public safety, order, health or morality. On the surface, this sounds good, but such laws would give
the state authority to determine the nature of morality. It would probably contain wording which
would prohibit intolerance or discrimination based upon religious belief. It would probably not
allow for any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religious belief.
Such a law would prohibit a Christian employer from preferring a Christian job applicant.
It would prohibit a job applicant from preferring a Christian employer. It would make parents
subservient to civil authorities in teaching religion to their own children. Many other implications
might also be derived from such a law. Do not think that such a law might not be passed. Such a
law has already been passed in the Australian Commonwealth.35
Unhappily, some Christians have little recognition of the issues at stake. Their attitude
seems to be that Christians should not seek to influence laws and regulations passed by civil
governments, saying that we cannot advance the Christian religion in government and politics
because these must be religiously neutral! Don’t you believe it. Our religion must direct us in
everything we do. Paul said, “Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord”
(Colossians 3:17). Neutrality in politics, or in any other area of life, is rebellion against God!
Christians today are finding themselves often in situations like that faced by Peter and the
apostles. The Sanhedrin council had called them to task, asking, “Did we not strictly command you
not to teach in this name?” The council had presumed, like many civil governments now presume,
that they could license the preaching of the apostles. But Peter and the other apostles said, “We
ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:28-29). That should be our resolution also.
However, just as the apostles were persecuted for their refusal to obey those Jewish
authorities, so also Christians today must expect to be persecuted. When persecutions come - and
they will - then may our attitudes be as was theirs. May we rejoice that we are counted worthy to
suffer shame for His name (Acts 5:41).
To what extent will persecution come? Will we be beaten, as were the apostles? Will
some of us be killed, as was Stephen (Acts 7:54-60) and James (Acts 12:2)? Already some, like
the Baptist preacher in Lewisville, Nebraska, have gone to prison because they refused to yield
their Christian convictions.
Christians should keep two things in mind. First, persecution seldom occurs everywhere at
the same time. Second, the enemy attacks weak places first – where he can expect to achieve an
35 Ian
Hodge, “The End of Religious Liberty ‘Down Under’,” Chalcedon Report, No. 342, January, 1994,
31-36.
Will Christians Be Persecuted In America 11
easy victory. That victory, however, may establish a legal precedent by which the enemy is
enabled to attack and win stronger positions.
Because you may not be persecuted when others are, and because you may think yourself
strongly fortified, you may think you need not fight alongside other Christians in the battle for
religious freedoms. That’s what the enemy wants you to think. That kind of thinking leads to defeat
for Christians. Martin Niemoeller well describes that kind of thinking – and its futility. He said,
In Germany they came first for the communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
75
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.36
When Patrick Henry saw religious persecution, he spoke up. What will we do?
J. Federer, America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations. Coppell, TX: FAME
Publishing Inc., 1994, 480, cited from John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1980. 824.
36William
76