User menu

Utility Nav

User menu

News

Worldview Weekend

The World's Premier Biblical Worldview, Web-Based, Radio, and Television Network.
Help Us Spread The Word

Click Here to Donate by Credit Card


Click Here to Donate with Paypal


Or partner with us by making a tax-deductible monthly contribution




 

Secular Humanism: Marginalizing Christians with their own faith

I was recently forwarded an article entitled "10 Myths About Secular Humanism" from Free Inquiry Magazine by authors, Matt Cherry and Molleen Matsumara, and also a piece about how America has become a de facto theocracy, "Overthrowing the American Theocracy" by Skeeter Thompson. The latter piece dealt with how the inscriptions, "In God We Trust" on coin and currency, and also the addition of the words "Under God" in today's version of the Pledge of Allegiance, among other things, have turned America back to an age of superstition and "undarkenment."

I am astounded that Skeeter somehow gets the idea that the phrase "Under God," is an expression of an outdated model of physics, rather than an expression of God's complete sovereignty. One immediately thinks of Rod Serling and that spooky music as Thompson expounds on this point. Thompson wants to overthrow the current theocracy, ostensibly returning to the days prior to "Under God," but also to a time when prayer, Bible reading and Ten Commandments were still allowed in schools. I guess he didn't think through this very carefully.

This author makes an appeal for Christians to privatize their faith, because, according to him, any religious influence in public denigrates religion. The authors of the "10 myths" piece assert in one of their refutation planks, that secular humanism is falsely characterized as a "religion" by certain spokespersons opposed to secular humanism.

Think of the implications of weaving these two concepts together. Christianity must be tethered to one's private conscience alone, because it is a system based on religious faith; whereas secular humanism, being an ideology that is non-religious, must be allowed to fill the vacuum and dominate every venue of society and institution of social discourse. A rather convenient linkage of ideas wouldn't you say? Here is your pistol, now please shoot yourself in the foot.

Much is said, even in certain Christian circles regarding personal piety, and nobody should ever deny or neglect the vital importance of private cogitation and devotions. Yet one wonders how you carry out the cultural mandate, leaving your faith on the hat shelf in the bedroom closet? Many of us in our formal worship pray these words in reciting the Lord's Prayer, "...Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven..." We might ask whether God's will should be done, in part, because of us, or just in spite of us.

People of this persuasion are often willing to use selected quotations of Christ himself, though they may not even be believers, in order to sell Christians of this social perspective.

Secularists like to use a few pat citations to suggest our country's founders didn't want any acknowledgments of God in the public square. They might further try to stump you by asking whose God you are going to acknowledge. But despite their twisted sophistry, they are found wanting time and again.

Look at the following statements by the first president, and father of our nation, George Washington.

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

In the first Thanksgiving Address, commemorating the drafting of our First Amendment, (where the religion clauses are located) Washington emphasizes that it is the magistrate's duty to acknowledge God. He would make a great secular humanism, huh?

Then there is Washington's retirement from public service, in his Farewell Address, he says interesting things about the connection between religion and government.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

It's enough to give a secularist a heart attack!

Is Christ merely Lord in the recesses of one's private chambers, or in all of life, especially as it pertains to cultural and political policy? The strategy is utterly transparent: you can't get everyone to throw away their Christian beliefs, so get them to privatize their convictions. Then people can run around saying "Jesus in Lord," while being ruled by a tyranny of decadent "secularocracy." Ultimately someone's morality, and not some ethereal neutrality, will be the social standard. God invented life, who better knows how to live it? How can "...Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven...," if Christians allow a wholly, and not holy, secular mandate? You might as well be boiling frogs in a pot very slowly.

Here is a statement from Cherry and Matsumura about where humanist ethics come from "...humanists derive their meaning and values from the natural world. Secular humanism is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview." The problem is that naturalism declares that man and the universe are ultimately nothing more than material and energy that have taken their present form purely by chance. What sort of meaning and values can be distilled from that version of reality?

Of course humanists will agree with Christians on things like murder, lying and stealing being wrong, but of what basis? They may say that such rules are in the best interest of mankind, but if humanity is the accidental product of energy and material, why is the "best interest of man" even relevant? The humanist seems to be pilfering his purpose from a worldview that isn't his, and that leaves him with his feet firmly planted in mid air. No sale here.