Formerly the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center
Download a Permanent Printable PDF Version of This Article.
Vic Biorseth, https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com
In the Catholic American Thinker view, Secularism poses the greatest danger to the thinking Catholic, the thinking Protestant and the thinking Jew by quietly killing their ability to do good critical thinking.Secularism is less a culture or a way of life than an anti-culture and opposition to an existing way of life. It exists only to oppose theism and spirituality. Nevertheless its strongest supporters consider it to be a culture and themselves to be cultured. It is an ethos, of sorts, that is different than the common Judeo-Christian ethos; when I ask practicing secularists what the name of their new ethos is, I just get blank stares. For want of a name for this major ethos, I have supplied one myself: the ethos of BMDFP10 and atheists. I base this name on the moral norms and practices clearly evident and observable among practicing secularists.
Following is a brief description of the “secular” cultural rules of order, as recognized by just about all societies everywhere.
Rules of Secularism: - Atheist “Morality”
It doesn’t matter where on this Earth you go, most people, or at least someone, in every nation knows what the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is, and they know what monotheistic morality is. What we in Western culture live by is monotheistic morality; that’s it’s name, and everybody knows what it is. But this “other” morality, this secularism, this new-world-order that promotes shacking-up, or living in sin, under the new and glorified title of significant otherhood, and that promotes, right along with illicit sex, the idea of single-parenting, and that promotes inclusiveness and non-judgementalism toward such things as sodomy, sexual perversion and license under the new and glorified titles of gay and lesbian and bisexual, - just exactly what, pray tell, is it’s name? Where did it come from? What’s it doing here? How did it get itself established in law? Why are professional teachers teaching it in the same public schools in which Holy Scripture is religiously censored? Why do the Clintons favor it? Why are soldiers being taught to tolerate it? Why does show-biz love it?
Let us begin to seek the truth about secularism.
We depend upon the anchor of tradition much more than we know; we discover how much when we are confronted with the un-traditional approach. Young people, too young to be very tradition oriented, are easily swayed in the non-traditional or the un-traditional or the anti-traditional direction, particularly in those early years of life most associated with rebellion against parental authority, and which also coincides with the period in life when the hormones begin to roar. Children are quite open to secularism during this formative part of their lives. We all know what our nation’s “old” moral tradition is, the monotheistic tradition of modern, post-Colonial America; but we cannot even consider the subject of tradition without discussing the “new” tradition, the trend toward the latest new-world-order, the tradition born of the religion of secularism, an intolerant, Pharisaic, partisan, zealous denomination of atheism.
Devotees of secularism will protest this treatment on the grounds that secularism is not a religion, because it recognizes and worships no deity, and indeed it denies the existence of any deity. But then, Buddha insisted that he was not a god, and Buddhists are not necessarily theists, and yet Buddhism is recognized as a religion, indeed a major one.
Religion is generally recognized as an organized system of solid, firm beliefs in the truth of given teachings or doctrines or dogmas for which there is no solid, physical, empirical evidence, evidence which you can see and feel and touch. The theist believes in the existence of one or more gods the existence of whom he cannot prove; the atheist believes that one or more gods do not exist, and he cannot prove that they do not; the secularist goes farther, and opposes by any and all means possible all ideas of spirituality and sacredness of any kind.
If both theists and atheists hold firmly to their opposite beliefs in the absence of convincing evidence of their positions then both believe in what they believe based solely upon faith, and they may be said to be faithful. The faithful may accurately be called disciples, meaning students or followers or devotees of the given belief system, be it theistic or atheistic; you may call this what you will, I will call both positions religious.
Only one of these opposing religious positions can be correct. At the crux of the issue is where the clear, obvious, intricate and perfect designs for everything actually came (and come) from. Just where did the grand design of the incredibly complex and intricately balanced symphony of perfect actions and reactions that make the simplest one celled life form work, or that make the universe work, or that explain how the singularity in a black hole might go “bang,” or that explain, in the archaeological record, the dramatically sudden appearance of a fully formed and fully functional eye, all come from? The monotheist’s God, the polytheist’s gods, or the secularist’s “blind watchmaker?”
Atheists are clearly in the distinct minority everywhere, from Brazilian jungles to Arctic wastelands to Manhattan Island, and so, if they are to convince the rest of us, the burden of proof of their position should rest upon their shoulders; why should a world full of theists and spiritualists just roll over and deliver themselves of their traditional beliefs in the absence of good proofs providing good reasons for them to all do so? But the faith of atheism has no proofs, only faith; and secularism blindly and unthinkingly operates based upon the dogmas of secularism. Let us look at some of them.
Secularism Dogma Number One: Darwinist Gradual Evolution.This is the cornerstone dogma of modern secularism, based solely upon Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, which describes the gradual evolution of species, GESGOEAEOT2 , and which is discussed in great detail elsewhere in this site. It is taught in most schools, by government edict, as the exclusive “scientific” dogma on life, the nature of life and origins of life.
Darwin based his theory regarding the sources of different species solely upon his observations of variation of breeds within species; different kinds of finches, different kinds of sheep, etc. No such similar observations between species have ever been made, by Darwin or by anyone else, before or since. No link species, which is to say the absolutely required intermediate “species” between any two species, current or fossil, have ever been found, although the theory absolutely requires their existence. Darwin himself postulated that the number of link species must indeed greatly outnumber the “successful” species; so, pray tell, just where might one of them be?
There exists no evidence of gradual evolution of any organ, let alone species, or of the complex system relationships required of complex organs, such as eye-nervous system-brain, or wing-nervous system-brain, etc. There exists no empirical evidence of the gradual evolution of any species. The fossil record only shows sudden appearances and just as sudden disappearances of fully formed species, each with fully formed organs and systems of organs.
This theory is pure dogma, and nothing else. The beauty of the theory of evolution is that it so nicely explains virtually everything as regards differences and similarities in all living organisms. And, strictly within species, evolution and natural selection can be shown to work; the rest seems to just “follow,” without real need for solid evidence. This nice, neat explanatory tool is overly attractive in and of itself, even in the complete absence of any empirical evidence. So it doesn’t need any. Not only does none exist, but the theory’s strongest adherents are not even looking for any. The theory’s neatness proves it, in their minds.
The “unified theory” of physics is still being sought, but, the unified theory of life is recognized world-wide as Darwin’s theory of evolution, which can explain anything. Only when we examine the solid evidence (which dose not exist) do we see that, in truth, it explains nothing. Nevertheless this theory has been made into the basis of the widely recognized “well known facts,” the “consensus of thought” and “conventional wisdom” of the entire world, as regards the origins and variations of life, and it has spread into the nature of life, and it has nearly hopelessly infected all of biology.
Secularism Dogma Number Two: Separation of Church and Science.
This dogma was born immediately after Secularism Dogma Number 1, and the two dogmas very strongly compliment and support each other.
Separation of Church and science allows the unified theory of life to expand into the entire field of biology, again, without requiring any solid proofs of the original theory. This dogma teaches that no theist, particularly no monotheist, and even more particularly no Christian can be trusted with science, or to do good science. Secularism is completely intolerant of all other religions; the Carl Sagans of the world are completely incapable of considering any non-secular viewpoint, and modern pop science proves again and again to be incapable of critical thinking, or any thinking, about any non-secular approach to any question, and, today, this incapability extends even to secular theory.
Examples abound. Thus far, in all of history, scientific experiments fail to prove, that is, they disprove, the idea that non-living chemicals and compounds can somehow arrange themselves into organisms, spontaneously or otherwise, and somehow begin to live; yet modern pop science firmly believes, and teaches the rest of us, that that is precisely how life began, or continuously begins.
Thus far, in all of history, mountains of existing hard fossil evidence fails to prove, that is, it disproves, orthodox gradual Darwinism, yet modern pop science firmly believes, and teaches the rest of us, that all species, without exception, very gradually evolved from other species.
Secularism Dogma Number Two calls into question any finding of any scientist, regardless of his credentials, who professes a belief in God. It began with the clear and overwhelming majority of eminent scientists of the day who disagreed with Darwin himself; they were ultimately written off by following generations as having a scientific bias because of their religion, and, as far as the most orthodox disciples of Darwinism were concerned, the matter was closed.
This dogma has made great strides, even legal strides, in separating science from religion, or at least in making a lot of scientists practice their religion quietly or under cover. It has even imposed itself in civil law. In America, science openly recruits only atheists, and it openly discourages only orthodox religion. It has sought and gained laws and regulations and rules prohibiting the teaching of anything other than evolution, and even in legally defining science, and who is a scientist.
An excellent and wonderfully successful political move. Redefine science. If you can’t prove your theory make the opposition to it illegal; if other scientists disagree with your theory, discredit them and put them out of business. It works very well. I call this legal science, but in truth it is, quite literally, political science.
Through law, the new unified “naturalist” theory spreads its influence beyond Darwinism, and even beyond biology to all the hard sciences, and proves to all objective observers that atheism in general and secularism in particular are very repressive religions that restrict the advance of knowledge, and breed lots of mini-dogmas that, by the nature of secularism dogma, are required to be accepted and not questioned.
Secularism Dogma Number Two has done much to kill empiricism, critical thinking and objectivity in favor of dogmatic scientific consensus. Whenever any dogmatic scientific theory is on the line, weak statistical correlation, trivial, anecdotal and circumstantial “evidence” that supports the popular hypotheses is acceptable; but independent, objective confirmation of “facts” is not, lest a dogmatic theory be proven falsifiable, in violation of all secularism dogma.Thus do modern virologists “know” that HIV causes AIDS, perhaps by miraculous transformation. Thus do modern paleontologists “know” that something, indeed a very long line of somethings, GESGOEAEOT2 , evolved into a tyrannosaur, and then it, and all other link species, preceding all species that ever existed, went poof, and just disappeared from the archaeological record. Like magic.
Thus do English political scientists “know” that mad-cow disease is linked, perhaps by yet another miraculous transformation, to some other disease that killed a half dozen or so English people, and they know it with enough certainty to seriously propose and promote the complete destruction of the entire beef industry of England. Modern pop scientists can just feel the correctness of these things.
Secularism Dogma Number Three: Mental and Emotional Darwinism, or Freudianism.
Once the secularist devotee has a firm foundation in the first two secularism dogmas, Freudian sexology is a natural. The acceptance of evolution and the systematic elimination of any possibility of rational and public opposition to the idea of “naturalism” clears the road for, if not openly opposing, then pointedly ignoring any faith-based morality at all. Orthodox religion has become for the most part, quaint, interesting, but irrelevant to modern life.
We have seen that secularism and atheism reject the very notion of sacredness, and hold nothing to be sacred. Freudianism attacks the very notion of sin, and it attacks guilt and shame, it accuses the “cause” of guilt, orthodox traditional religion, of grievously injuring the minds and psyches of poor innocent sinners. It recommends the elimination of “inhibitions,” particularly sexual, and encourages sexual “freedom.” It teaches that many if not all varieties of mental and emotional disorder are caused by repressed memories of some dark sexual nature, things that were so horrible that we block them from our memories, which is why, fools that we are, we don’t know that these things happened. Until we are helped to remember by experts at, perhaps, hundreds of dollars per hour. More and more we see today that people are being helped to remember things that could not possibly have ever happened.
Nevertheless we can see the effects of secularism dogma number three with just a cursory glance at radical feminism, which is clearly obsessed with all topics sexual. Get a bunch of them together for seminar or for UN council on this or that, and, whatever the report or output of the seminar or council may be called, the overwhelming number of topics that it touches upon will be of a sexual nature. You can bet on it. Sex is the overwhelming obsession of radical feminism, following right down the trail of the Freudian thought that tells us that sex drives the world and is the center of everything.
This attitude of promotion of sexual freedom, meaning sex outside the normal social bounds and the “normalization” of deviant sex, brings Freudianism, like secularism, onto a direct collision course with orthodox religion, which it must oppose. And so the “soft” sciences join the real sciences in opposing the source of morality. Secularism Dogma Number Three, in strongly reinforcing ideas of naturalism while opposing any ideas of spirituality, very successfully promotes the idea of sex more as something natural and less as something sacred.
The animal side of man is emphasized, and, you would think that this would tend to reduce human sexuality to the level of animal mating. But you would be wrong. The sole purpose of Freudian sex is pleasure. Procreation and continuation of the species and natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with it, else there would be no need for such things as drugs and devices for contraception, and abortion would not be promoted as a way out of the “inconvenience” of pregnancy. Freudian sex is beneath animals.
But, thanks to secularism, the general thought process among a lot of people today runs along the line that sex is a purely natural thing, and it is so “natural” that Churches who oppose non-marital sexual entanglements actually oppose nature. A pretty effective lie.GESGOEAEOT2 . Capitalism is (was?) just a point in the evolution of such systems, the ultimate, and, of course, eminently predictable perfect system will be a Socialist utopian paradise in which there will be no government.
I saw a cartoon once that depicted the theorized ultimate final result of the evolution of man, the perfect end of the trail. He was depicted as having a small, weak little body, puny little arms and legs, a prominent index finger, supposedly for pushing buttons, and an enormous head to house his theoretically enormous brain. Don’t hold your multi-generational breath waiting for either evolutionary event to occur. First, world Communism is already in crash and burn mode, and quite unlikely to ever return to its former prominence, and second, people today are using their brains less, not more, and third, young people can scarcely be seen to ever lift a finger. At least not an index finger.
But Secularism Dogma Number Four does not give up so easily. Marxism is still marketable, and it still successfully attacks the rule of subsidiarity. Thus we see Hillary and Billary, and the UN, and, if it existed, an inter-Galactic authority or organization, showing intense interest in such provincial, local, and even family matters as child abuse, and the lucrative new legal field of children’s rights. The Marxist reason that only the highest existing levels of government should seek to meddle in the lowest level family matters is quite simple: higher levels of government do not yet exist.
At the same time that Marxism destroys subsidiarity it directly attacks tradition. Question: What’s the cause of child abuse? Marxist answer: Why, the traditional family, of course. Worst of all, Marxism has and continues to very successfully promote the idea that Capitalism, in an of itself, is immoral. The existence of “Robber Barons” and other bad-apple Capitalists is offered as proof that the whole Capitalist barrel is rotten; the idea that Capitalism and high morality are somehow antagonistic and even mutually exclusive systems has gained so much ground all over the world that it has to be recognized as Marxism’s most grand and successful lie.
All Capitalists are immoral; if you are a Capitalist then you must be immoral. Nothing Marxism has ever done or attempted to do has injured free markets more. Hollywood hammers this theme as though it had no other. Quite possibly most Americans currently believe wrongly that Capitalism is immoral and evil.
Secularism Dogma Number Five: Moral and Philosophical Relativism.
This one is just plain stupid. This kind of stupidity does not come naturally to anyone; people have to be educated into it. Another, and more accurate, name for it is Optional Reality.
The proposition is that what is true for person A may not be true for person B, and that reality is different for person A than for person B, and that what is right and wrong for person A may not be right and wrong for person B, and that all moral issues cannot be resolved by any rules such as the Decalogue, and that there are always gray areas for which no rules may apply anyway.
This is an evil dogma of secularism that seeks to justify, rationalize or excuse any action at all. You cannot make rules vague without making morality vague, and you cannot make laws vague without injury to order. Do we really want vague order? Kind-of sort-of order, or usually order?
Many of the people who push this crap are very highly educated, which proves two things: First, that advanced education is no substitute for common sense, and second, that the current state of higher education is highly questionable. What is true for one of us is true for all of us; truth does not change. Right and wrong do not change. Reality does not change. There exists, and there will exist, no issue that cannot be defined and judged by existing monotheistic morality.
There are no gray areas. Only levels of mercy and punishment are affected by mitigating circumstances, not reality, and not right and wrong. If a rich man and a starving man both steal, both commit a crime, and it is wrong for both of them, despite the fact that we may justify mercy shown toward one and not the other. Individuals and groups are always capable of varying levels of mercy and punishment, but it is not the right of any individual or group to redefine wrong as right, no matter how smart they may think themselves to be or how much authority they presume to have.
An immoral law is no law, and men such as Christ, Ghandi and King have shown us all that immoral law must always be resisted by moral men.
Secularism Dogma Number Six: Separation of Family Members from Family.
This dogma of secularism is based on an old Communist principle that comes to us right straight from Marx and Engles, mostly Engles, who early on recognized the family as an obstacle in the path of obtaining total subservience and commitment of the masses to the Party and to the god-state. How could the future worker be expected by the Party to ever become completely submissive and subservient to the god-state while that worker felt that he owed any allegiance at all to his family?
Under pure Socialism, which is to say, in the absence of subsidiarity, the mortal enemy of pure Socialism, there is no level of authority other than the Party, and even the Party must somehow disappear after “utopia” is achieved. The family has authority, therefore the family must go.
Radical feminism has jumped on this theme, and we see today radical feminism, homosexuals and the UN seizing on it like a pack of determined pit bulls. This is the source of such truly screwy ideas as “the family, in all its forms.” Radical feminism and its sometimes-dependent always-ally UN, directly attacks the notion of the normal, traditional family.
And so we see serious proposals for global recognition of five “genders” instead of two, the legal establishment of homosexual marriage, and homosexual adoption. This is where hypocrisy reaches the freak level. Many of these people who want to get “married” have been living in an active homosexual relationship for years, clearly exhibiting a lack of belief in the sanctity of marriage and the value of any other monotheistic tradition, and so, one might ask, why do they want to get “married?” What will the difference be?
Most of these people are, of course, directly and flatly opposed to all monotheism. However, some few of them actually, unabashedly seek - get this - homosexual marriage in a Church or Synagogue, with full ritual and blessing of the cleric and the faith. Obviously they have not followed the faith up until now, and they do not plan to follow the faith after the “marriage,” so why the blatant hypocrisy of seeking a blessed and sacramental marriage in a faith that condemns homosexuality?
The general reasons usually given for bureaucratic, or state, or lukewarm or heretical religious marriage of homosexuals involve monetary or economic concerns, such as filing income taxes differently, obtaining property leases differently, mortgage loans, health insurance, etc., all of which may apply differently to the married than to the unmarried. All are purely capitalistic, for-profit reasons.
The milder forms of the feminist/homosexual/UN attack on the family follow another line. First, that the only “real” differences between men and women are “institutional” or environmental, or learned behavior. See? Second, that the normal family is purely the invention of a world-wide, diabolical conspiracy, by men, to promote, institute and maintain “patriarchy,” and to keep all women in permanent subservient roles. Third, that men can successfully fulfill the rolls of mothers and household managers just as well as women, and that women can successfully fulfill the rolls of fathers and bread-winners just as well as men.
While a thread of truth can often be found in all of these ideas, they do not on the whole represent very good thinking.
First, there are vast natural differences between men and women, and all the learning and all the environments and all the institutions in the world had nothing to do with these differences. The differences between men and women range from the immediately obvious, to the cellular, to the molecular, to the genetic, to the chromosome level, and to the DNA level.
Men may not be, and indeed certainly are not, morally or intellectually superior to women, but only real fools may ignore or dismiss the clear and vast physical and temperamental differences between men and women.
Second, on the grand, global male conspiracy theory, I can only say that, if it is true, then I am deeply wounded that I have been so carefully and studiously left out of it.
Third, anyone, male or female can have a career, or be a homemaker, or both. Lots of people do it all the time. But fools can talk about rolls all they want to, mother rolls, father rolls, homemaker rolls, breadwinner rolls, roll playing, roll reversal, role models, and so forth. But this is real life and not a roll, and there are some real life facts that simply cannot be ignored.
First, a real mother is absolutely irreplaceable. Period. Second, a real father is likewise absolutely irreplaceable. Anyone who tells you otherwise is dreaming. Children from normal traditional families do better in life than do children from abnormal and non-traditional families. They are better adjusted, better achievers, are more stable and have less problems. Children of a dead real parent do better in life than do children of a divorced or separated parent. Are you paying attention? Dead people make better parents than do divorced people.
Children of a widowed family do better in life than do children who lost a parent to divorce or separation or desertion, provided that the widowed parent does not remarry while the children are still at home.
Bottom line: tradition is good. Tradition is just as good for families as it is for individuals. John Paul the Great told us that the communion of a husband and wife produces the community of the family. I submit that the stability and normalcy of the majority of family communities transfer directly to stability and normalcy of the larger community and to the nation.
The poor average achievement records of children of broken and dysfunctional and non-traditional families provides the probable, predictable achievement results of the children of future official homosexual “families,” raised in homes under the specter of sodomy and perversion. The “normalcy” and acceptability of these proposed “families” is currently being taught to your children in public schools, in curricula paid for by your tax dollars despite the fact that you never saw anything about any of it on any ballot. You can just shut up and get on the cattle car.
Secularism Dogma Number Seven: Separation of Church and State.
Basically, this is a myth created by our highest court and pretended to have something to do with our Constitution. It does not. Based upon a letter once written by Thomas Jefferson it is pretended that Jefferson opposed government support of religion. He did not; indeed, as president, he supported religion, with words, actions and money. Dogma Number Seven is a complete fabrication with no basis whatsoever in truth. A very successful lie. Almost all Americans think that Separation Of Church And State is actually a part of our Constitution. It is not.
Thomas Jefferson, who brought religious freedom to Virginia, who referred, in our Declaration of Independence, to men as having been created, and also referred to their Creator, once wrote in a letter to some Danbury Baptists, in which he described, in principle, a hypothetical wall separating Church and state. The purpose of that idea, as later in the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment, was not to suppress religion, but to free it; the idea expressly prohibits state sponsored religion and state controlled religion, not any other state relationship with religion, and certainly not religion itself, and it quite specifically prohibits state interference with any free religious expression. Any where, any time, under any circumstances.
Historically, state sponsored religion has ultimately resulted in the suppression of other religions within the state; so has state sponsored opposition to free and open religious expression. Nevertheless, in any society, civil law and faith-based morality are inter-dependant one upon the other. Thus, even in an overwhelmingly monotheistic state such as America, civil law, while still based upon the Decalogue, should 1) not specifically address the first three Commandments, which describe our relationship with God, 2) not prohibit, prevent or hinder anyone from obeying the first three Commandments, and 3) strongly address and positively reinforce the last seven Commandments, which describe our relationship with each other - the wise restraints that make men free.
The purpose of civil law is to allow us to predictably and peacefully cooperate with each other in living our lives, while the purpose of spiritual law is to allow us to become saints, and these are totally different purposes. I would not think of trying to force you to accept or even acknowledge my faith, and you would be ill advised to attempt to force your faith on me. But I think we would both agree that civil law ought to prevent me from murdering you, and you from murdering me. The very idea of “murder” is born of spiritual morality, not of any secular thought or philosophy.
Truly devoted secularists cannot understand or grasp what a saint is or what sainthood means, and so the purpose of spiritual law is completely lost on them, and therefore any discussions with secularists regarding why euthanasia, for example, should always be considered to be wrong, are almost always a pointless waste of time for spiritualists.
But so long as the overwhelming majority of us are spiritual-oriented our civil law must protect and positively address the idea of the sanctity of human life, whether any devout secularists like it or not.
The first clause of Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, the establishment clause, states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” anyone who can read will recognize at once that this clause places two constraints upon the government regarding religion, and places no constraints whatsoever upon religion regarding government, or regarding anything else. First, the government may not establish an official state religion, or any religion, and second, the government may not adversely affect the free exercise of religion, by anyone, anywhere, any time, under any circumstances.
Religions and Churches and religious people are perfectly constitutionally free to vote, run for office, rally, advocate political candidates and issues and agendas, raise and spend political funds, and participate in any other political activities that American citizens are free to participate in. If they wish, they may publicly pray or preach or evangelize while they do it.
Read it again; it’s very important to you. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. There’s nothing complicated about it. We are granted by the founding fathers full freedom of, as well as from, religion.
Our salvation is completely our own concern; it is no matter for the state to decide, and no religious leader may assume any legal authority over us, or any other authority that is not granted or accepted by us. But today’s liberal politicians and justices and other examples of the best and brightest of Liberaldom put an interesting spin on the clear English of the establishment clause, and seek to prosecute or persecute or deny tax exemptions to Churches or religious groups who have the audacity to openly express political opinions and even actively campaign for political candidates and issues.
Interestingly, many politicians and bureaucrats also interpret the establishment clause to mean that they, being in public service and in the public eye, must not be, or must pretend to not be religious, and must not wear or display religious symbols or be seen or heard to kneel, pray or utter anything deemed religious. It is therefore sometimes very difficult to tell them apart from either the true unbelievers or the ones who are simply too proud to be seen in public on their knees before their God.
It is very easy to forget that the Declaration of Independence of our nation was also a declaration of dependence upon God Almighty, as the closing words solemnly declare: “...for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” The true meaning of this passage is lost on secularists, who do not recognize Divine Providence, and who do not even begin to understand the word sacred. Their pledge is not sacred, their word is not sacred, their honor is not sacred - they hold nothing at all to be sacred, because they deny the very idea of sacredness. It’s part of their religion.
The first Amendment bans laws that would establish a state religion; it has also been interpreted to place a wall of separation between the Church and the state. Jefferson, the first to use the term, intended this “wall” to protect religions from government; today’s officials interpret its intention to be to protect government from religion. In the 1947 Everson case the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and extended the meaning of “establishment” to include “aid” to religion or religions.
Justice Black, for the majority: “The “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 one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religions organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by laws was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State.””
It would appear that this is close to what Jefferson intended: for your Church to rule your spiritual world, your government to rule your secular world, and neither to interfere with the other in any way.
But Justice Black went considerably farther than Jefferson, and liberal government has been pushing it farther ever since. There was no original intention by Jefferson or any other founder to disallow support, monetary or otherwise, to one or many or all religions, and there was nothing wrong with such support before Justice Black, and there is nothing wrong with it today, except in one way: it may be argued that the federal government has no business addressing religious matters at all, in any manner whatsoever, along with a host of other matters not rightly in the domain of the government. Jefferson’s “wall” referred only to government establishment and/or prohibition of religion, apparently a principle to difficult for Justice Black to comprehend.
Later in the same year (1802) after he wrote of the “the wall of separation” in a letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association, as President, Jefferson signed legislation providing tax exemption for churches in Alexandria County. The following year he made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians pledging federal money to erect for them a Catholic Church and to support their priest.
His wall of separation certainly did not mean that the government or members of the Government were thereafter prohibited from supporting or practicing or publicly espousing religion, or teaching Sunday School in their spare time.
The Founders used to begin all proceedings, public or private, with prayer, and they did so on the day following the ratification of the Bill of Rights; they certainly did not intend to place themselves or their successors in the position of not being able to pray publicly, invoke the name of God in public speeches, quote Scripture to any audience including school children, or teach religion in their spare time, perhaps at a public school. What they did intend was to not legislate religion, and to not allow the government to hinder or restrict or control religion or religious expression. Period.
Thus may you be free to change Church affiliations, change religions, change states, change townships, and/or “vote out the rascals.” Perhaps this concept is to tough for the more modern and more miniature political and legal minds of today. The “principle” of separation of Church and state has nothing whatsoever to do with our constitution as written and amended. In point of fact it is a pure invention of devout secularists and secular activists who happen to have been sitting on the court at the time. This “constitutional principle,” as applied since its invention, has contributed mightily to every major social problem in America, from crime to drugs to educational crisis to family crisis to business and work ethics to aborting and euthanizing people, and on and on.
We don’t really have a crime problem, as such. We have a morality problem. Separation of Church and state provides an excuse for a pure form of part-time atheism called secularism, which supports its parent religion of atheism, which simultaneously promotes evil and directly attacks all tradition, orthodoxy and mainstream religions that oppose evil.
Secularism is evil, pure and simple. State secularism must begin to be widely recognized for what it is, which is a religious persuasion officially established, promoted and enforced by the state. Its main agenda is religious cleansing, concentrating on Christianity, and, for the secularists, the ends justify the means.
Secularism - separation of religion and anything at all - is immoral. And, if you are any variety of mainstream monotheist, then secularism is also against your religion. Currently, it is also the law of the land.
I ask you to take a moment to quietly think about the idea of separation of Church and, not only state, but, anything at all. What moral purpose could there possibly be for you to put aside and disregard your deep religious beliefs, for a moment, or for an issue, or in an environment? Pick a time frame, pick a topic, pick a place, and think about it; perform a thought experiment. After having put aside your religious beliefs and your faith-based moral standards, and having considered the secular topic or made the secular decision or done the secular business, in the end, have your religious teachings and moral standards regarding the apparently vitally important secular topic changed? If not, then, why did you disregard them?
So that a decision could be made in direct opposition to them? Can there be any other reason? The only possible answer to that last question must be no. Sodomy, for example, is against my religion. Not forthrightly, clearly and at every opportunity renouncing sodomy is against my religion. Not being judgmental about sodomy is against my religion. Looking the other way and being silent about sodomy is against my religion. Pretending that sodomy is not against my religion is against my religion.
As it is with sodomy, so it is with aborting people. So it is with euthanizing people. So it is with sterilizing people. So it is with illicit sex, whether natural or perverse, under any circumstances whatsoever, even when “protected” and “responsible” and “safe”; illicit sex is still illicit sex, and illicit sex is still against my religion.
What it comes down to is that secularism - separation of religion and anything - is against my religion. Period.
Consider secularism to be part-time atheism. If you hold to any form of theism at all, i.e., if you are not an atheist, then part-time atheism is against your religion, too. Whether you choose to recognize that fact or not, I do, and I will not ever practice part-time atheism. This puts me at odds with such diverse and powerful organizations as AT&T, Disney Corp., the current US government, the United Nations, the entire secular media and virtually all of show biz. All of whom, for instance, promote or sponsor such ideas, events and causes as gay rights, the gay games, general acceptance and mainstreaming of homosexual lifestyles, homosexual “families,” the idea of five (5) genders instead of two, public school curricula that puts smiley faces on sodomy, and so forth.
So be it. They are all pro-sodomy; I am anti-sodomy. Spokesmen for this particular New World Order like to attack this kind of position and grandly pronounce that “anyone with that sort of attitude needs to lose it.” Well, I’ve got it, and I’m not loosing it. Christianity is not a part-time job and I am not a part-time Christian. If you are a mainstream Christian or a Jew, then secularism is against your religion, and the “principle” of separation of Church and state is against your religion; your Scripture and your Tradition and your clerics and your theologians and your spiritual advisors and your elders do not teach you to disregard or put aside your faith or your faith-based morals, ever.
There can never be any good, decent, moral reason for you to ever disregard your religious teaching and morality for even one second. Weak and lukewarm legislators, justices and presidents who publicly pretend to be religious may, under their invented principle of separation of Church and state, temporarily pretend to be atheist while they determine whether to legalize euthanasia, or to homosexualize the military, or whatever, but you and I cannot, and must not.
Atheism brutally “cleansed” religion from the Socialist nations under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho and others, by direct action, using torture, imprisonment, deportation and mass murder. Secularism, which may be thought of as a sneaky form of atheism, is accomplishing precisely the same ends for neosocialism here, by hypnotizing and anesthetizing citizens into thinking that secularism is neutral, and that there exist issues and work that are of a “higher nature” that require the putting aside of backward, non-progressive, hindering, provincial religious principle. It’s a lie.
You are expected, by the state, to put aside Jesus Christ, or to put aside Moses, and always to put aside the Decalogue, for the “higher” purpose of the moment. Well, at this moment, I feel like a salmon going opposite the direction of all the other salmon, or like the only lemming running uphill, away from the water, and everybody else is going the other way. My position is definitely against the grain. It is non-inclusive, divisive, homophobic, anti-choice, and even un-American. That’s the only one that really bugs me.
Anyone who dares to openly oppose the bogus “constitutional” principle that not only allows but induces people who claim to be devout worshipers of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob to pass civil laws or rules or regulations or policies in direct violation of the laws of the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will be immediately labeled, by the state, as un-American.
The well packaged, softer-appearing atheist denomination of secularism quietly and easily accomplishes here for neosocialism precisely what pure, open atheism so brutally accomplished elsewhere for Socialism: the complete religious cleansing of a people.
Again, the media shows itself to be an extension of the state, in complete harmony and near lock-step with the Democratic Party in general and with neosocialism in particular. Every single major broadcasting network in America is secular, and their treatment of subjects religious range from pure avoidance through irreligious to pure anti-Christian.
As it is with the major media, which ought to be recognized as the secularist media, so it is with show biz; the Hope and Crosby days are done. Other than a Christmas carol or a Hanukkah greeting during the holidays, thrown out like a bone to keep the peasants quiet, you will never see the cardinal rule of separation of Church and media violated. The elite of America join with the UN in promoting the idea that mainstream religion, like Western culture, is evil, and that the lack of it is good.
The direct opposition to God is quite official. But we can see the domain of the state spreading farther, as, clearly, the state, meaning occupants of high political office and those in high authority in various bureaucracies and official capacities, sees other people’s children, collectively, as an extension of the state. Which is why we see separation of Church and students, or, separation of Church and children. The all-knowing state is determined to inculcate its own “morality” and value system into the children of the nation whether parents or pastors like it, or even know it, or not.
The workplace is seen as an extension of the state, hence, separation of Church and work. The public itself is seen as an extension of the state, hence, separation of Church and public. Big business almost universally sees itself as an extension of the state, hence, at Christmas time, in the market place and in the malls, Santa is in and Jesus is out, and we have separation of Church and marketing. Our very common secular education induced anesthetized moral state leads us to make immoral decisions that never would have been otherwise considered.
Today, if you flip through the pages of the paper or flip through the channels on TV you are likely to find, say, a Catholic who has been taught and is expected to believe in the principle of separation of Church and state, or, say, a Jew who has been taught and is expected to try hard to “objectively” consider the secular view, honestly trying to debate or argue or negotiate or editorialize or decide the always very limited extreme conditions under which it might be appropriate to euthanize someone, which is equal to deciding the limited extreme conditions under which it might be appropriate to abort someone, which is equal to deciding the limited extreme conditions under which it might be appropriate to commit infanticide, and on, and on. And this despite the fact that the professed faith of monotheists requires them to hold human life to be sacred. Always.
Secularism Dogma Number Eight: Separation of Church and Education.
This dogma of secularism flows from and is a logical extension of Secularism Dogma Number Seven. Now that most schools are public, meaning paid for by you and me and increasingly controlled and run by government bureaucracy, and now that the Federal government has imposed itself upon even local systems in a major way, the schools may be thought of as an extension of the state, and, of course, we must have separation of Church and state. It’s a “Constitutional” principle, see?
Schools may only teach secular Darwinist thought. Schools may not teach orthodox religion. Schools may not entertain Biblical morality, or Biblical anything. Schools may not teach any theory opposing Darwinism, or even that such theories exist, or even that any controversy exists between any scientists on the matter. And, of course, schools must teach inclusiveness, multi-culturalism, the acceptability and normalcy of sodomy and sexual perversion, that homosexual families are normal, the acceptability, desirability, the “morality” and the mechanics of “responsible” fornication, “safe” promiscuity, “protected” sodomy, and so forth.
This is arguably Secularism’s most valuable and profitable dogma. What it amounts to, in actuality, is the view that children are somehow part of or an extension of the state, or that the state owns all public school children. The unavoidable result is separation of Church and children, which means, in truth, separation of religion and children, and the beginnings of separation of parents and children.
The state inserts itself between parent and child, and suppresses all religion except secularism in the environment in which the child spends most of his receptive, learning hours. This represents the most damaging variety of official, state, forced immorality.
And yet, in an interesting twist, all monotheistic moralists are publicly attacked and made to look and feel guilty about their moral positions; the charge is made again and again that “they” are seeking to force “their” morality upon “us.” But, one might ask, who are “they,”, who are “us,” and what are we talking about here? Have you ever seen a Christian or a Jew force anyone else’s child to pray? Ever?
Again and again, when the atheists who love fornication and pornography and sodomy protest and squeal that practicing monotheists are seeking to impose “their” morality upon “us” we quickly loose track of who is imposing what upon whom. Practicing Christians and Jews, which most of us are, do not teach their children to copulate like little animals, but rather the morality and correctness of chastity. Then state paid professional educators hand them condoms, and sneak about in the dark of night procuring secret abortions, for other people’s minor children.
Again, when the atheists who love fornication and pornography and sodomy protest and squeal that devout Jews and Christians are seeking (horrors!) censorship, we loose track of how Biblical teaching is now ruthlessly censored by the state everywhere. The squealing secular tail wags the silent monotheistic dog with ever increasing vigor.
Secularism Dogma Number Nine: Separation of Church and Media.
This is another manifestation or extension of Secularism Dogma Number Seven, apparently because the major media largely sees itself as an extension of the government, or at least of the Democratic Party, which indeed it is.
The media follows this dogma religiously. In an overwhelmingly Christian nation, with an enormous and powerful Jewish minority, you would logically expect the occasional religious expression, ejaculation or quick and simple prayer, at least rarely, on the major networks on the news, or even the weather, or anywhere at all, but that is not the case. At the scene of a disaster, the camera may briefly pause on some minister or religious person who invokes the name of God or calls people to prayer, but never, ever will any reporter or network representative do such a thing. A simple “thank you Jesus,” or “thanks be to God,” or “please, dear Lord, help these poor people,” coming from the lips of any media employee would be a sacrilege against Secularism Dogma Number Nine, and is strictly forbidden, under possible penalty of Heaven.
The grievous ramifications of such a grave sin involve promoting, through broadcast, the very idea that God just might exist and that He just might do something. Of all the far too many channels available to me via cable, only two of them are strictly religious, and a couple more often have religious programming, and a few rarely have some, like an hour or so on Sundays. All the rest of the time on those channels, and all the rest of the channels may be considered to be “secular,” a fierce and almost heretical denomination of atheism, and they never, ever, acknowledge the existence of God.
The only exception to this rule that I have observed involves some of the non-religious fishing, hunting and outdoorsman type programs that sometimes close with a quick acknowledgment of God and of His great providence, and a request for viewer thanksgiving to Him for our many blessings. That’s it. The rest of the stations and networks would sooner go to Hell than acknowledge God.
Try to imagine, say, a weather man greeting us with a simple blessed be God forever, or, may the peace of the Lord be with you, instead of the usual, good morning. If he or she were not fired on the spot, then they would quickly be transferred and/or “laid off” under some pretext. Our faith may not allow us to be so intolerant, but the faith of secularism absolutely demands complete intolerance.
Secularism Dogma Number Ten: Separation of Church and all public interaction.
This flows from all the results and effects of all of the previous atheist dogmas of secularism; the people are being secularized by them, without realizing it. We seem to be anesthetized. Again, America is without question an overwhelmingly Christian nation with a whole lot of religious Jews, but it’s very hard to tell, out in public.
People speak of religion in public, if at all, in very hushed tones, with furtive glances about to make sure nobody overhears the conversation. We are quite nervous about religion in public. Speak the name of Jesus out loud, and you are likely to hear “Shhh!” from someone very near you, while others glance about, laugh nervously, seek to change the subject, or leave. Speaking religiously in public has become a social taboo.
Call it separation of Church and restaurants, separation of Church and taxi-cabs, separation of Church and work, separation of Church and everything, except Church. On the rare occasion when someone makes a religious comment or reference, shortly thereafter someone quietly says, and more often thinks, something along the line of, don’t you just hate it when someone has to bring religion into everything, or when a person is stuck on the topic of religion, or other words to that effect.
It is vitally important for the young man to note the fact that it hasn’t always been this way. Once, not so long ago, the prevalent thought was, don’t you just hate it when someone tries to drive God out of everything, or when a person studiously avoids the spiritual side of every topic? We are changing from a spiritual people toward being a purely worldly people, a people who oppose God, conversations about God, thoughts about God, the “normalcy” of God.
Look in the store windows and try and find any sign of the religiosity of the American people who shop there. The rare little shop that sells religious books and literature, music, T-shirts, art and so forth is viewed as an anomaly, a quaint, interesting, eccentric little shop, probably run by harmless, sweet little religious nuts; the rest of the stores in the mall or shopping center or downtown area are more “properly” secular.
It’s the same with grocery stores, or car dealerships, or sporting goods stores, or hobby shops. And all the people and homes and cars you see appear to be “properly” secular. Those few cars with religious decals or bumper stickers or those little fish on them are viewed by many as owned people who must be zealots of low intellect.
Looking around the bus terminal or the department store or the restaurant or the bowling alley, can you tell that the overwhelming number of people within your view are religious, or claim to be? Is it ever quite clear, as you look about your own nation, that untold tens of millions of us regularly observe the Sabbath? Seen anybody say a blessing before partaking of food in a restaurant or at a theme park or at a festival lately? If so, did they seem to be in the majority? How about in an Italian restaurant or an Irish pub or a Jewish deli?
How about in your own dining room, or perhaps at your coffee table or in your room in front of the TV? Does it seem to you that saying a blessing before a meal, in public and in private, has somehow become something shameful, or embarrassing, or uncomfortable for “normal” people? Have you noticed that in modern movies and TV entertainment that bedtime prayers, where portrayed at all, are absolutely restricted to children, supervised by non-participating adults?
Isn’t it interesting that even the most religious people do not publicly discuss or proclaim or in any way identify themselves with religion, outside of the church or prayer group? Did you ever wonder why?
The only time you are likely to hear anyone invoke the name of God in public is when someone is angry and thinks that the last name of God begins with a capital D, or when someone uses the holy name of Jesus as a swear word. That happens a lot, and with some, anger has little or nothing to do with it, it’s just common every day language. Public expression of religion is now considered to be ill mannered, because it makes so many people uncomfortable.
Today, in America, open public expression of mainstream religion takes real guts; a reality that is quite shameful. Heaven forbid you should give any praise to God in front of an atheist; the poor, delicate little dear could suffer an acute attack of poor self esteem.
And now the California Supreme Court has settled a landlord-tenant case in which religious landlords must rent their property, their investment, to an unmarried couple who intend to live there in a state of sin (they had been turned down for tenancy for religious reasons, because the landlords renounce fornication as sinful; the tenant-candidates filed suit, it wound up before the State Supreme Court, and the court, of course, is secular.)
How could the court make such a religiously intolerant decision? How could they force people to either profit from sin or go out of business, particularly when there are already so many unscrupulous, sinful and secular landlords around?
Well, in the court’s own words, we are now supposed, and legally expected, to “leave our religion at the doorway to the marketplace.” So now we have another new law. Separation of religion and free market capitalism.
Well, why not?
The only “civil rights” no one has any more with certainty, in the view of the courts, are the right to the actual, active practice of any religion at all (other than secularism and atheism,) but Christianity in particular, outside the home and the Church, and the right to allow one’s faith or faith-based morality to touch any particular aspect of one’s life, from business to leisure to speech to education to law to child-rearing to politics, to anything. Clearly the Church itself, and the home, and individual privacy, are next.
Secularism is comfortable. Being secular means never having to prove your point. So long as the ends justify the means, and so long as it is something deemed for the good of society, or perhaps for the good of the state, or perhaps for the good of the environment, in the view of the elite, then such things as rules of evidence, peer review, duplication of experiments, falsifiability and so forth may be dispensed with. Often issues of science are settled in court, of all places. And court is, of course, secular.
Secularism is legal, and it is the only religion that is legalized; in some jurisdictions no alternative position is legally acceptable. Recent court decisions on silicon and tobacco prove the point; often court-found “truth” becomes a matter of how able someone is to fend off giant tides and oceans of liberal litigation before they “cop a plea,” or plea-bargain, or just settle, having already filed for protection under bankruptcy laws. What does it matter if you’re innocent if you can’t afford to defend yourself?
Even bankruptcy is often much cheaper than relentless defense of truth, once the wave of avenging litigants includes even governments, local and federal, and even multiple States all at once. The innocent defendant would need millions or billions in money and eons in time to mount a proper defense of simple truth, which might be more properly found in the laboratory than the court.
Bottom line: it’s often cheaper to plead guilty. As we shall see, a secular theory may be given, accepted, acted upon and even taught as fact, without need of satisfying any rule of falsifiability or even verifiability and it will be accepted, first by the intellectual elite, then by the larger society. The combative secular challenge, “what’s your alternative theory?” becomes, in and of itself, evidence, if the only alternative theory offered in response is other than a secular one, or is offered by a person who is not secularist, and is therefore either illegal or unacceptable by the secular elite.
The first rule of secular elitism says that, in general, the people are too ignorant to know what’s good for them, and they need to be taken care of by those who know better how to do it - the Leftist-liberal intelligentsia. This rule holds true even for well educated and quite literate populations; they need to be taken care of, poor fools. They only think that they know what’s best for themselves at any point in time. They don’t understand the facts as reported by the intelligentsia.
The facts of secularism are, as all good intellectuals know, what comprise our nation’s conventional wisdom, and generally accepted theory, and well know facts, about - well, about everything. Examples? What happened in South Vietnam was just an innocent little civil war, the sole object of which was to depose an oppressive government, and therefore the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations should never have involved us in it in the first place; the Earth is warming (or cooling again) due solely to the actions of man; ozone holes are growing (or, ozone holes are shrinking;) ozone holes are causing skin cancer; silicone breast implants cause a disease called connective tissue disease or something; a national 55 mph speed limit saves lives; the harmless HIV retrovirus has something to do with AIDS; there is such a thing as safe illicit sex; there is such a thing as acid raid; you need airbags in your car to protect your children; ALAR sprayed on apples kills people; AZT treatments for HIV infected people (or any people) do not cause those people to loose their immunity, rapidly waste away and die of AIDS-like symptoms; past tobacco (and, soon, liquor) advertising “proven” to be aimed at children is now retroactively illegal, or at least retroactively capable of making perpetrator companies subject to suit by everyone, simultaneously, including even multiple state governments; Ho Chi Minh was a Vietnamese citizen, and a nationalist leader, and a kindly old man who loved little children; Dioxin is the deadliest substance known to man; there are extra-terrestrial alien corpses frozen and stored at Wright Patterson Air Force Base; Pope Pius XII ran a secret Vatican operation called the “Rat Hole” in which he smuggled Nazi war criminals out of Europe and into South America; the Love Canal property-value and economic disaster actually had something to do with a real environmental and health hazard; the biggest problem facing man today is, well, man, in the form of the well known human population problem, which is so serious as to require ever increasing human control programs; in the McMartin pre-school case, old lady McMartin sexually abused hundreds, perhaps thousands, of little children over the course of years, violently penetrating their privates with big butcher knives while she flew about on her broom; Corvairs are unsafe at any speed; General Motors engineers specifically designed Chevy pickup trucks (and Ford designed Pintos, and Chrysler designed Jeep C-Js) for the sole purpose of killing and maiming their own customers, for profit; if it weren’t for tobacco, we know with utter certainty that the total national death rate would drop by over 400,000 people each year; and on and on, forever.
If you believe even one single piece of the junk above, then maybe I can interest you in a bridge in Brooklyn or some ocean-front property in Nebraska. In the secular view, if you don’t already know that each of those items is absolutely factual, then you’ve proven the elitist point that you don’t necessarily know what’s good for you, poor dear, and you need to be taken care of. Perhaps you need to study the secular gospels. Watch the network news; read the mainstream press, and then maybe you’ll begin to know and accept some of this stuff, and become wise, like the elitists.
That’s what’s happening to your children. An example of what I’m talking about here involves the tobacco issue. Before prohibition about 25% of the population regularly consumed enough alcohol to be concerned about prohibition, which is to say, the 75% of the population shouldn’t have cared at all. Especially when we all know that alcohol does dreadful harm when overused, and that some small percentage of us always needs to totally avoid it. It wasn’t the health issue, and it wasn’t even the moral issue involved with drinking, per se, that caused the overwhelming popular uproar against prohibition.
It was the recognition of big brotherism. The state was daring to step in and tell a man what he could or could not do in his own house. We are now in a period before the legal prohibition of tobacco. Only about 25% of us still smoke, which means that 75% would be largely unaffected by tobacco prohibition, except for the economic disruption from the systematic destruction of a very large industry and a substantial branch of agriculture. And yes, smoking is bad for you, and lung cancer is not any nicer than serosis of the liver, and we all know that we shouldn’t smoke.
But—what ever happened to our recognition of big brother when he puts his foot in the door, and makes demands upon us in our own homes? All these claims about any particular factory or farmer being responsible for insurance or Medicare costs of tobacco users is just pure crap. Insurance companies and governments are and have been perfectly free to deny claims for health coverage to any claimant who recklessly endangers his own health or life; they do it all the time. Get yourself killed while sky-diving, and, guess what? Your insurance company will not pay off.
All they have to do is provide clinical evidence that Fred’s lung cancer was caused, with certainty, by smoking a pack a day for fifty years. But the critical point here is not whether smoking causes cancer or drinking causes liver problems. The important point is that times, and the people, have changed since prohibition. The 25% who smoke are not indignant or combative; they behave like whipped dogs. You see them daily, uncomplaining, often freezing their buns off or standing with an umbrella in the rain, near some door to the office in one of the small zones where they are still allowed to smoke.
And the 75% who do not smoke have been schmoozed into big-brother’s camp, certain, CERTAIN, that second-hand smoke, getting a little whiff of someone else’s cigarette, is exactly and precisely as deadly, DEADLY, as taking a long, deep drag off of a lit cigarette. Why, they couldn’t say it on CNN if it weren’t true, could they?
In the 30s, the largely non-drinking public actually adulated the criminals, bootleggers and rum runners, largely because they opposed big-brother. In the 90s, we are more dependent; now we only get angry on queue from big-brother.
But the FDA, already one of the largest and fastest growing bureaucracies in control of us, has officially declared tobacco to be a drug, to be controlled by them, and the citizens may be damned. Can you think of any medicinal purpose for the prescription of tobacco? No? Well then, what other purpose could the FDA have for declaring it a drug, other than the planned prohibition of it?
After the FDA wins the tobacco turf-war with the BATF, they will be the next bureaucracy to be issued machine guns and Darth-Vador - look-alike all-black SWAT suites, with giant FDA letters on the back. Watch and see. Secularist science demands more bureaucracy, and cigarette police.
Perhaps the single most significant and telling area of difference between secularist and monotheist philosophical positions involves conscience, and the idea of a proper conscience, and the proper formation of the proper conscience. Most will accept as a given the need for a proper conscience to be trained and formed in the individual, beginning, preferably, during early childhood. But, exactly what is a “proper” conscience?
It is the interior, almost natural sense of right and wrong. Now much right and wrong is, to some degree, natural, and naturally discernible; but it does not follow that children have no real need to be taught, with some precision, correct behavior and the difference between right and wrong. So the question becomes one of, exactly, what is right, and what is wrong? These things are judged in vastly different ways, between advanced secularists and advanced monotheists, even recognizing the deep sub-divisions within each camp.
All monotheists begin with the Ten Commandments; all true secularists reject the Ten Commandments. Devout Jews move deeper into the ancient Mosaic Law; devout Christians move deeper into the Cardinal Virtues, the Beatitudes, the Way of the Lord.
On the other side, devout naturalists place environment and/or selected favored species or habitations above all, and that which hurts them is bad, and that which helps them is good.
And devout Socialists place society or the state or the proletariat above all else, and that which helps the state is good, and that which hurts the state is bad. And, of course, once one understands the core of this sense of right and wrong, the ends justify the means.
We have several secularist sub-cultures touting their own pet sets of morals; one group’s morality is based strictly upon whale health, and the survival of the rain forests, and the protection of coral reefs.
Another group’s morality is based upon the fact that someone somewhere does not have as much as does someone else who is somewhere else. Another group’s morality is based upon the forced training of the majority in sensitivity and non-judgmentalism toward some minority or group of minorities. Another group’s morality delves deeply into the social solutions of non-problems, such as, acid rain, global warming, greenhouse gasses, the AIDS crisis, the human population problem, the rape of the planet, the horrors of Capitalist industry, limited natural resources, and so forth.
And if these “experts,” in their respective areas, have established new rules for determining right from wrong on social or national or global or inter-galactic levels, then, what is the new moral code at the individual level? Generally, if whatever you want to do doesn’t harm a whale or a tree, or put a suspended particle in the air, or produce an unburned hydro-carbon, or contribute to industry, or consume a natural resource, then—if it feels good, do it.
The only prohibitions to individual pleasure seeking involve all the new rules pertaining to safe fornication and responsible promiscuity and protected sodomy and friends-don’t-let-friends-drive-drunk, and so forth. This is the secular replacement system for the Ten Commandments.
Everything else, for the secularists, involves only manners and civility and security, and can be covered by random or planned “situational ethics” educational programs to suite the need as the need arises.
A truly terrifying number of parents today tell their children to “let your conscience be your guide” when the children have never been trained properly in any idea of a sense of right and wrong, and a proper conscience has yet to be formed in them.
Professional teachers are the ones children spend most of their formative learning time with, and today’s teachers, for the most part, are teaching not monotheistic values, but secular values; educators today, in general, oppose Western culture, meaning Christianity.
The new “moral” child is the one who is becoming a zealous little ecology-cop anxious to openly chastise his own parents for not properly separating their plastic and aluminum waste, or for using “weed-and-feed” on the lawn, or for going to Kroger’s or transporting him to soccer practice in a gas-guzzler.
But there is a condom in his pocket, and he still doesn’t know his multiplication tables, and his reading is sub-par, and his writing is illegible, and his language is course and vulgar, and his communication skills are lacking.
Secularism emphasizes, and even over-emphasizes, self; children are taught to dream, to dream personal dreams, to have high self esteem and a high self-image, to hang onto their dreams and expect them to come true, in the full expectation that they indeed will come true, if the dreamer remains true to his dream.
There’s nothing wrong with a little positive thinking, but we’re turning out hordes of unrealistic proud little selfists here. The evidence that this secular “morality” has gotten a stranglehold on our youth and on a major part of our entire society is highly visible, daily, on secularism’s greatest billboard, television; secularism owns the networks.
On a recent show, Oprah interviewed Madonna, who was anxious to tout her new musical glorifying the Argentine Fascist Eva Peron, and to bubble over her own new little bastard child. Holding nothing back, Oprah threw her some real hardballs.
What was Madonna going to teach her daughter? “Self Respect.” Of course. The audience loved it. The next, more pointed question, what was she going to teach her daughter about men? Duh, well, if she taught her self respect, she wouldn’t need to teach her anything about men. This, of course, brought out the whoops, squeals, screams and whistles that represent today what used to be known as the standing ovation.
Talk show audiences just love this new, avant-garde “morality,” and deep, oh, so deep, secular philosophy. The networks are pursuing the primary school Class Of 2000, year by year, to examine their sexual mores. The class is now in its sophomore year of high school. In a classic example of secularism’s new “openness,” individual students are periodically followed up on to get more and more titillating little details about their illicit sex life, which is, for the most part, quite active.
A typical question asked by sensitive, oh so sensitive, non-judgmental adults, was, at what age did you lose your virginity? Typical answers were 15, 14, 13-and-a-half. Was that too young? Almost universally they thought that they were too young at the time; but their wording and body English said that, that was then, and this is now. What was their sex life like; for some it was boring, but that didn’t stop them from full participation. For one it was just something to do, like going to a movie, or eating candy, or playing a game. For some it was as much a habit as cigarettes or alcohol. (Yep.)
Some were very unhappy because they had no current girlfriend with whom to have sex. Were they sorry that they had become sexually active; only a few girls were, and it was mostly disappointment rather than being “sorry.” One vowed to not have sex any more, until some unspecified time expires, or some event occurs. Perhaps she would fall in love; she understands that sex is much better when one is “in love.”
Only one remained a virgin. Was she religious? Absolutely not; religion had nothing to do with her decision to go against the tide. Her virginity was something very special and precious, and she was reserving it for just the right man, when she was old enough (which was an unspecified age,) or when she was really, I mean, like, really, in love. How did another religious yet sexually active young girl reconcile her Christian faith and heavy Church involvement with a life of illicit sex? Well, the two things don’t have much to do with each other; she has her Church life, and her social life, and they don’t intermix.
Which sounded much more like some Oriental “compartmentalizing” of different aspects of one’s life than true Christian discipleship, which willfully directs all aspects of one’s life. No one discussed marriage. The parents were even more interesting than the children. Some were “crushed,” but they got over it. Most of the children talked freely with their parents about their sexual activity. Parents today are so cool. But most of them declined to be interviewed. One who did not decline was a “right on” Mom, who strongly counseled her children against sex, but, just in case, supplied them with condoms, with advice that, if you are going to do it, at least be smart about it.
My, my; how smart. It gets worse. Expert advice from on high, with most of the “recognized” expertise coming from groups like Planned Parenthood and teacher’s unions like the NEA, recommends sexual gradualism, a sort of Darwinist evolutionary sex, in which children are taught by adults various perverted ways to achieve sexual gratification without actually having normal sex, thus “postponing” normal sexual activity. Now we’re really getting smart.
This is the new secular morality at the individual level. There is no such thing as a bastard, because there is no such thing as illegitimacy, because there is no such thing as illicit sex; there is only sex, which is neither licit nor illicit. When a child is “old enough” or has “gown up some,” and the opportunity presents itself, he is generally expected to, and should expect to, have some sort of a sexual experience.
Single-parenting is being normalized. Pre-marital sex is being normalized. Sex and commitment don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other. In fact, there is no absolute “commitment.” Marriage and sex don’t necessarily have much to do with each other. Religion and sex don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other.
And at the core of it, we find secularism doing precisely what it falsely accuses Christianity of doing, which is, of course, imposing its value system upon us. The worst charge any school kid or teacher can make against another kid, or anyone, is that he is imposing his values on someone else. Provided those values are Christian values.
But the shoe is on the other foot. Christianity recognizes and respects the free will of disciples and opponents alike; secularism does not. Campus speech codes and thought control are spreading, through the courts and the media, into the rest of society, and any time any of us raise any Christian principle to address any public problem, we will be attacked as politically incorrect bigots from the dark ages.
I predict that incidents and severity of punishment for such offenses by Christians will rise proportionate to how the imposition of secular values upon the larger society will be rewarded. I don’t care how hard you try, you can’t get away from this stuff. Just like Marxist egalitarianism, and the new zealousness of the eco-nuts, and inclusiveness, and multi-culturalism, and sensitivity, this purely secular “morality” is touted, directly or indirectly, everywhere you look.
Talk shows, Sit-Coms, the soaps, dramas, adventures, series, specials, the news, advertisements, even cartoons. Even Churches are infected with it. It has not only taken over the classroom, it has taken over an awful lot of homes, or monotheistic parents would never be giving their children condoms, and lots of young children of Christians would never be discussing their sexual activities on TV.
At the individual level, morally speaking, secularism is selfism. Monotheism emphasizes sacrifice, and service, and selflessness. Not nearly as attractive. Monotheistic religion, taught and reinforced in the home, is the only hope today for children in whom is to be formed a proper monotheistic conscience. I have said elsewhere in print that free market capitalism organized under majoritarian representative Democracy is vastly and automatically superior to Socialism, as an economic and as a social organizational system; but there is one rather exceptional condition attached to that statement: the population must be moral.
Monotheistically moral. A monotheistically immoral majority population will turn free market capitalism and representative Democracy into a social travesty, a massive greedfest bound for failure. In immorality may be found the cancerous seeds to cause the self-destruction of majoritarian representative Democracy.
Immorality begets more immorality. The children of immoral parents may be predicted to be more immoral than their parents. If you think kids are bad today, wait until they have kids.
Let me give you a very simple but fool-proof test for determining with some accuracy whether a particular adult is monotheistic or a secularistic. All it takes is one simple question. Ask it, and then watch, as well as listen, to the answer, because there is often likely to be as much or more said via body language and facial expression as might be said in any verbal response. This is the question:
In which single way, between positive, neutral or negative, do you feel that the subject of active sodomy should be presented to the people in general and to children in particular?
Don’t change the question; don’t mince words; take care to see and hear the entire response. It may be a very long one.
One of the three positions must be taken, which implies that the logical option to not present the subject to the people at all is not an option; there is only one of three possible answers available to the respondent. (And indeed today, presentation of this topic to the public and to children is not an option; it is being presented to the people in general and to children in particular, in neutral-to-positive ways, every day, by the state, the media and academia.)
Only negative responses are monotheistic, positive responses are either secularistic or pagan, and neutral responses reflect thought that has been secularized to some degree.
Respondents who get upset over the “judgmental” wording, and who prefer softer, nicer terms such as gay and lesbian lifestyles, or alternative lifestyles, or whatever, are secularized.
People who refuse to answer are secularized, at least. This question, and others like it, should be publicly presented to every political office holder, and every educator, judge, editor, star, personality, and media talking-head in sight. On camera.Here's the bottom line: Our historic ethos of Judeo-Christian morality is being replaced by an ethos of BMDFP10 and Secularism. Are we going to stand still for in, individually and collectively?
Let us pray.
God of all hopefulness, grant us the time and the will to repent of our sins and to make amends for our ways. Grant that we might each of us always seek and promote truth, and walk in right paths. Lord, in Your mercy, forgive our individual weaknesses; when our faith falters, help our unbelief; what we sometimes lack in faith, let us make up for in faithfulness, in faithful behavior, and in doing Your will.
Merciful Father, let Your Spirit move across the face of the Earth and touch the hearts of all of our leaders, judges, journalists, educators and scientists, that they might be receptive of truth, that they might come to know and properly fear You, and that they might thereby come to promote objective truth and to oppose error. Let the scales fall from their eyes, Lord, that they might see all error and falsehood for what it is, and that they might recognize the father of error for what he is. Silence their thoughts, Lord, humble their intellect, that they might find the simple faith of little children.
In Your great mercy, grant them every grace needed to fully repent of every sin, and to willfully come fully into Your fold. Grant them simple common sense, Lord, and adult judgment, that they might begin to lead us and teach us in right ways. Grant them discernment, Father, and make them lovers of truth, that they might know honor. Grant them wisdom, that they might support objectivity over subjectivity.
And then, Lord, when we have aligned our will with Yours, let us become a Godly people in a Godly nation, walking in truth and righteousness, that we might all come into Your everlasting kingdom forever.
In Jesus’ name we pray.
Smart-Assed Acronym Hover-Link Footnotes: For the convenience of those readers using devises that lack a mouse, these footnotes are provided for all webpages, in case any webpage contains any hover-links. (If you don't have a mouse, you can't "hover" it over a link without clicking just to see the simple acronym interpretation.)SLIMC1 Secularist Liberal Intellectual Media Complex
Culture=Religion+Politics; Who Are We? Vic Biorseth
The Brilliantly Conceived Organization of the USA; Vic Biorseth
Return to the BLOG page
Return to the HOME PAGE
Respond to This Article Below The Last Comment
Date: Sun Jul 22 03:55:10 2012
I am curious as to what your views are as to current drugs that have a government enforced prohibition (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, etc) when you make the following statement: "And yes, smoking is bad for you, and lung cancer is not any nicer than sclerosis of the liver, and we all know that we shouldn’t smoke. But—what ever happened to our recognition of big brother when he puts his foot in the door, and makes demands upon us in our own homes? " We all know that smoking and drinking alcohol are bad for persons, but I think most would agree (except for some on the nanny state left, and some extreme conservatives who have dry counties in the South) that it is an individual's choice to do harm to one's own self. Having considered this, and ignoring possible secondary consequences (i.e. driving while high), do you think if a person consumes an illicit drug in the sanctity of their home, they should be punished? I am asking to rule out secondary consequences in your decision, for the reason we do not outlaw alcohol even though many drive drunk, kill others, or commit other crimes while having consumed alcohol. And to disclose my beliefs, though I am a Catholic and do not use drugs of any kind (except caffeine), I do feel that a person should have the right to without government interference if it is in the sanctuary of their own home. Obviously, if a person commits a crime while using a substance, they would be punished for that crime committed. Thank you for your reading, and have a blessed rest of the weekend.
Date: Sun Jul 22 06:30:20 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
The most important principle of American Federalism is that the purpose of the federal government is to provide a cohesive overall government for national defense and well-being, not to direct our lives and not to rule the states. That’s why the powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated by the Constitution. The fact that that principle has been radically violated since at least Woodrow Wilson does not mean that the principle has changed, Article 1 Section 8 still says the same things.
Legality of drugs and other substances is a subject properly left to local and state authorities. We had our national experiment with prohibition; it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, and it took another constitutional amendment to end it. Richard Nixon’s War On Drugs was ill conceived, counter-productive, a waste of national treasure and resources and – of course – another expansion of government and migration of power from the people to the government. Especially egregious was the fact that it even went beyond our own shores in enforcing American policy.
Now, with all that being said, the Secularism movement has worked hard to eliminate any sense of sin or wrongfulness in the pure self indulgence involved in “just getting high,” let alone any potential longer term health risks, including the seemingly permanent stoned state visible on the face of the burn-out. In fact, Secularism promotes the opposite of self control. The notion of “dropping out” of the constricting adult culture is steeped in adolescent rebellion that resists rules just to resist rules, and ignores or denies the original source of the rules.
Would we Americans still be Tocqueville’s “good people” if some of us were always stoned or drunk, and the rest of us saw no problem in that?
If a substance is declared illegal its use should be prohibited; if not, its use should be left alone. That includes tobacco. At the federal level, that sort of thing should require a constitutional amendment to make it illegal. Failing that, the substance should be left entirely alone by government.
An exception to this involves the right of the people to legal protection from criminals, and some drugs induce criminal behavior just to get the drugs, and that criminal behavior is not necessarily limited to just feeding a personal drug habit. There are many criminal activities involved in the drug market. The statement that these activities would disappear if the drugs were legally available is false. The drugs would still have a cost, and some users would not be able or willing to pay the cost. Unless and until the drugs were free and easily available everywhere, crimes would continue to be committed just to obtain them.
So, the question becomes, do we want to, at tax-payer expense, somehow make opium, heroin, oxycotin, etc., free and available on demand to anyone and everyone, including your children? Would we the tax-payers be able to keep up with the ever growing demand?
If so, what kind of a people would we have become?
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Converted Page to SBI! Release 3.0 BB 2.0.
Date: Thu Nov 20 2014
From: Vic Biorseth
Changes pursuant to changing the website URL
and name from
Thinking Catholic Strategic Center to
Catholic American Thinker.
Pulled the trigger on the 301 MOVE IT option June 1, 2014. Working my way through all the webpages. .
If you want to build a completely independent and personally owned actual website, like this one, this is how you do it.
Never be lukewarm.
Life itself demands passion.
He who is indifferent to God has already forfeited his soul.
He who is indifferent to politics has already forfeited his liberty.
In America, religion is not mere window dressing and citizenship is not a spectator sport.
Do not allow our common destiny as a whole people to just happen without your input.
Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life; please God, and live forever.
Catholic American Thinker
Free E-zine Subscription
You will receive immediate email newsletters with links to new articles as they are published here. Your email is perfectly secure here; we use it only to send you the
Catholic American Thinker
and absolutely nothing else.
Arguments Pro and Con Pages
We love a good argument. Here are some of our favorites.
Argument: The Good, The Bad and The Pointless. On the Reasoned Argument. (In the absence of reason, there is no valid argument.)
The Arguments pro and con under girding the Catholic American Thinker. Foundational arguments pro and con under girding Western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethos.
Artificial Contraception: Tool of Materialism with which to destroy Monotheism.
Acceptance of Artificial Contraception marked the single most destructive turning point in the history of Western Culture, marking the end of moral norms, foretelling tolerance of anything at all.
Refuting the Origin Of Species pseudo-scientific theory of Charles Darwin.
If Darwin’s Origin Of Species is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting the Repressed Memory Syndrome scientistic theory of Freudianism.
If Freudianism’s Repressed Memory Syndrome is a true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting Marxism and sub-theories of Socialism and Communism, as Scientism.
If Marxism represents any sort of true Scientific Theory then there must be a preponderance of evidences supporting it. Show us any of it.
Refuting Separation of Church and State as a Constitutional Principle.
If Seperation of Church and State cannot be found in our Constitution, what makes it a Constituional Principle? Nothing. It is NOT a Constitutional Principle.
Argument opposing Sharia law as brutal, oppressive and murderous.
Opposing Sharia Law means opposing brutal domination, wife beating, child abuse and even bloody murder.
Our argument supporting the Rule of Subsidiarity, practicality and common sense.
The moral and organizational Rule of Subsidiarity is crucial to the rights of man and essential for freedom.
The Sexual Revolution: Sexual Freedom, or enslavement and degradation?
The Sexual Revolution was supposed to free us, rather than enslave us, and uplift us, rather than degrade us. It was a lie from the beginning; it degraded whole cultures and attacked human dignity.
Our argument against Earmarks: the infamous Line Items of Pork Barrel Politics.
Legislative Earmarks feed corruption through skimming, lobbyist paybacks, hidden political agendas and more, by providing a huge political Pork Barrel feeding frenzy.
You cannot legislate morality is the false claim of the immoral.
We MUST legislate morality, as long as the legislature is representative of the people. Otherwise, what is legislated reflects the whim of the dictator(s) of the moment.
The religion as a private matter argument that cannot stand the light of day.
Claiming one’s religion as a private matter is a neutral thing, unless the one with the claim is in authority over us, as an official or a “representative” politician.
Our arguments against un-Constitutional Gun Control laws, rules and regulations.
The British feared that, absent "gun control", the militias in the colonies could become as "regulated" and fearsome as the British "Regulars" themselves.
Renouncing the great Communist Lie in its older, current and newer forms.
The whole “Communist Dream” is a lie; the history of “Communist Revolution” is a lie; virtually everything about Communism is just one big elaborate flagrant categorical lie.
Our argument supporting the Fair Tax as a sensible and practical Tax Revolution.
Fair Tax presents the possibility of a real, popular, voter-supported, tax payer supported, grass-roots supported Revolution in America, and a radical change for the better.
Argument against Public Education, which is, in fact, Government Indoctrination.
Public Education equals State Indoctrination, pure and simple. Education is beyond the scope of government and not what our government is constituted to do.
Argument against National Health Care, which is, in fact, Socialized Medicine.
National Heath Care equals Socialized Medicine, pure and simple. Medical Practice is beyond the scope of government and not what our government is constituted to do.
Values Versus Ethos: If we are not a Christian people then what the hell are we?
Obama set up the values versus ethos argument. He declared that we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens with “values”. What are these values and where did they come from?
Being pro choice or pro woman's right to choose equals being pro abortion.
Saying you are pro choice, or pro right to choose, is saying you are pro abortion. Period. Pro choice equals pro abortion.
Warning all bourgeoisie: Obama will destroy the middle class.
Take fair warning all bourgeoisie, i.e., members of our vast middle class: the Marxists despise you and intend to conquer you once and for all.
The English national language of the United States of America.
There is no good argument against an English national language for America. What other language should we all speak here?
We argue against income minimums and caps, and for a free and private market.
Income minimums and caps are Marxism’s “moral” bait to gain popular support for Socialism on the path to typical Marxist absolute dictatorship.
Our argument against unions and for a more open and free marketplace.
Arguing against unions and other free market interventions is seeking greater excellence in market goods, services, employees and employers, through free and open competition.
The Thinking Catholic responses to questions re perpetual virginity of Mary.
From the "brothers of the Lord" to "The Davinci Code" to the word "until" in Matt. 1:24-25, the ancient Hebrew cultural notion of Professed Perpetual Virginity is doomed to be repeatedly challenged.
The contentious issue of Infallibility of Papal and Church teaching.
On matters of faith and morals, and matters relating to Divine Revelation, our central Catholic trust is in the Infallibility of the Holy Ghost, Peter, and The Church, acting together.
Our argument against fads, fashions, popular trends and herd instinct.
If speaking against fads makes me square, un-cool or un-hip, then so be it. All fads are, in microcosm, expressions of rebellion against tradition.
What does normalized, mainstreamed, open homosexuality say about us as a people?
Our argument against open homosexuality is an argument for the continuance of Western Civilization, and the Western Culture Ethos and the normative family.
The Marxism of Obama: Marching America into another Socialist dictatorship.
Vic Biorseth describes the self-documented Marxism of Obama which is still not widely recognized among the American citizenry. Obama “change” is Socialism, pure and simple.
Catholic Marriage Annulment: Is it merely the Catholic version of Easy Divorce?
Ecclesial law regarding the Catholic marriage annulment process has not changed, yet the numbers of annulments granted in America have rocketed. Why?
Opposeing affirmative action / equal opportunity programs as racist. Affirmative action (racial preference) requires racial exclusion, which is, definitively, racism.
Against diversity for the sake of diversity. Why do Marxists always seek more?
Our argument against diversity for the sake of diversity, which weakens and ultimately replaces ideology and ethos.
Against political moderation: America was not founded by indecisive moral wimps.
Political Moderation provides neither leadership nor opposition, but merely a moral drag that historically prolongs moral debates and ends up hurting morality.
The Death Penalty: Is our justice system too corrupt to be trusted with it?
The death penalty is too strong a sentence when serious questions exist re the truthfulness of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and even forensic scientists.
Constitutional America: The argument for a return to basic rule of law. The arguments for a return to the Constitutional America intended by the Fathers and expected by the People through their Representative Government.
The Population Problem: A Real Problem, or a typical Scientistic Myth?
If England has a higher population density than China, and Hong Kong's is higher than Bangladesh, then maybe the real problems are not related to any over - population problem.
Definition of Marxism: Total control of means of production, including workers.
The definition of Marxism describes the social, economic and governmental philosophy of Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto.
Anti-American Politics, pure and simple, describe Democrat Party strategy.
Anti-American Politics are practiced by all Leftists. Marxism, at any level, is antithetical to the very idea of America. To be Marxist is to be an anti-American.
The Godless Left leads the young and naive to their utopian Hell.
For an honest comparison of the effects on youth, we need to look to the history of the Godless Left versus the Religious Right.
My anti anti-American arguments are attacks on falsehoods, in support of truth.
American Communists hide their true identity and disguise themselves as anti anti-Communists. Using their playbook, I hereby identify myself as an anti anti-American.
Deliverance From Evil goes to the heart of the hot political debate in America.
Americans increasingly pray and work for deliverance from evil, as they slowly wake up to a threat that is not merely political in nature.
Background history of the recent Catholic reformation (revolution?) in liturgy.
Reform of the Liturgy began with good intentions toward minor changes, yet almost permanently trashed Latin, and Chant, and, etc., etc., etc.
Our definition of pro American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary. Anyone, anywhere, may be a patriot. Definition of pro American: one who loves and adheres to the American Constitution.
Our definition of anti American goes considerably deeper than the dictionary.
Anyone, anywhere, may oppose nationalism or national pride. Definition of anti American: one who ignores or opposes the American Constitution.
Islam is the enemy; the non-Islamic world just dosen't know it yet.
I keep saying that Islam is the enemy here, and you keep not wanting to hear it. But it's true.
A submission of the “The Church is rotten to the core” argument and its basis.
If indeed the church is rotten to the core then all is lost; unless, of course, the statement is untrue.
Our argument opposing Libertarianism as an amoral conservative vote-splitter.
Opposing Libertarianism may seem counter-intuitive until you realize that it’s just another form of moral relativism.
Why is this American Christian nation not called a Christian nation?
This American Christian nation is oddly referred to as something other than a Christian nation. Why?
Argument Against the Anti-American UN: Why do we support such an antagonist?
The staunchly anti-American UN has a major goal involving world governance, and America is in the way of that effort.
Either limit the scope of government or limit citizen liberty.
Scope of government has broadened so much that there is now little of the living of life that is not subject to regulation.
A fatal false premise is a deadly logical trap for the mal-educated person.
A Fatal false premise with broad general consensus will always trump reason, evidence and critical thinking.
Faith versus Atheism: Is atheism really just a silly superstition?
The Faith versus Atheism argument is at the root of every other important argument.
“Are you saved” might be the conversation starter with a devout Protestant.
First, are you saved; then, are you saved by having been “born again” (but not by Baptism) are the two popular questions of Protestantism.
Is the Bible the sole authority for teaching Christianity?
If Holy Scripture is the sole authority for Christian teaching, then, where does it say that in Holy Scripture?
Marxism Socialism Communism – what’s the difference between them all?
Marxism Socialism Communism are all mistakenly held to be different things, but they are one and the same.
Can we outlaw Marxism in the USA and still be a free thinking society?
I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
Can we outlaw Islam in the USA and still be a free thinking society?
I say we can and should outlaw any ideology that seeks the elimination of Constitutional America.
Is faith alone the sole requirement of salvation?
Luther’s dictum says that man is justified by faith alone. Is it true?
Argument for Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The Federal Reserve Act did not prevent the Great Depression, so why does it still exist?
Argument to Repeal Amendment XVI, the Income Tax Amendment.
Repeal Amendment XVI and the very idea of progressively taxing income.
Argument to Repeal Amendment XVII and the Politicizing of the Senate.
We need to repeal Amendment XVII and restore our Senate to its original status.
Toward a return to argumentation; the lost art of reasoned verbal combat. A return to argumentation requires a return to critical thinking. Is it too late for Western man?
Secularism is clearly "the enemy" in the culture war; so, what, exactly, is it? Secularism is an aggressive and very pro-active form of atheism, in that it not only disbelieves, but it actively attacks belief itself, on all fronts.
"We belong to the Church militant; and She is militant because on earth the powers of darkness are ever restless to encompass Her destruction. Not only in the far-off centuries of the early Church, but down through the ages and in this our day, the enemies of God and Christian civilization make bold to attack the Creator’s supreme dominion and sacrosanct human rights.”--Pope Pius XII
"It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."--St. Francis of Assisi
Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.—Winston Churchill
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.—Ayn Rand
If you can't find the page you're looking for, try the