Spineless Secularism

Modern secularism, having rejected any eternal, transcendent values and ideals, is strictly pragmatic. It is, therefore, exclusively concerned about what works, what give desirable results, at least for the secularist.

Secularism is also parasitic. It invades economically healthy societies, compromising them economically, morally, legally, and even spiritually, making them vulnerable to an assortment of pathogens – hedonism, moral relativism, and Islam.

How does this happen? Well, for one thing, Islam allows no criticism:

• [33:57-58] Those who insult God and His Messenger will be rejected by God in this world and the next—He has prepared a humiliating punishment for them—  and those who undeservedly insult believing men and women will bear the guilt of slander and obvious sin.

• [33:59-61] Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garment hang low over them, so as to be recognized and not insulted: God is most forgiving, most merciful. 60 If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We shall arouse you [Prophet] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. 61 They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed. (Haleem) 

• Bukhari (59:369) - This recounts the murder of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, a Jewish poet who wrote verses about Muslims that Muhammad found insulting.  He asked his followers, 'Who will rid me of this man?' and several volunteered.  al-Ashraf was stabbed to death while fighting for his life.

• Bukhari (4:241) - Those who mocked Muhammad at Mecca were killed after he had retaken the city and asserted his authority.

Consequently, even in moderate Malaysia, “Cops seek duo [two people] over Facebook insults on Islam,” (Bernama, April 17, 2015).

How do secularists deal with the Islamic intolerance of free speech? Do they proclaim, as Patrick Henry did, “Give me liberty or give me death?” Or do they take the pragmatic path of least resistance, claiming that “Islam is a religion of peace” and criminalizing anyone who claims otherwise or creates a cartoon or book critical of Islam. In fact, one influential secularist goes a step further to proclaim, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Principle is routinely sacrificed for short-term comfort. Liberty and freedoms of speech and religion are sold in exchange for pleasure. Justice is a commodity freely replaced for a fleeting measure of peace.

What will happen if Muslims attack the offices of Facebook, as they had Charlie Hebdo, because Facebook allows articles critical of Islam? Would the secularists stand against this or would they declare, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?” I think we already know the answer.

Society cannot consistently be nourished by modern secular pragmatism and stand. It will fall to those of conviction, even malevolent conviction. Instead, society must re-embrace its eternal foundation of truth.

How to Justify Intolerance towards People with Different Viewpoints

 

I recently wrote about the rising tide of intolerance against Christians. One atheist associate responded:

• The tolerant are intolerant of the intolerant. That's an unresolvable paradox. Forcing you to stop discriminating against other people, forcing you to stop judging the divorced, or other religions, forcing you to uphold freedom from religion in classrooms. That might seem like a form of persecution, because it's only pointed at the religious. But it's just a result of wanting a tolerant society. Nobody wants Christians dead or gone, or even to stop talking. We just want you to stop pressing your religious convictions on others.

Here is my response:

You justify intolerance towards the intolerant – and you identify Christians as the intolerant – as an “unresolvable paradox.” I’d rather call it an unjust double-standard. You discriminate against Christian intolerance while giving your own intolerance a free-ride. This is both illogical and unjust.

Instead, we are all intolerant of certain things, and we should be. We – and society - shouldn’t tolerate murder, kidnapping, libel, unjust standards, and pedophilia. These will cause the unraveling of society.

Therefore, if we are all “intolerant,” we need to dialogue more precisely about what behaviors merit intolerance and what behaviors can be tolerated without horribly destructive consequences.

The claim to be “intolerant of intolerance” is therefore unworkable and counter-productive. We shouldn’t be intolerant of a law that is intolerant of murder or extortion. Instead, such “intolerance” should be welcomed and supported.

But should society be intolerant of certain viewpoints? Should socialists refuse to tolerate the expression of capitalist ideas? Or should Republicans forbid the progressive reasoning for higher taxes for the wealthy? Such intolerance would stifle free thought, learning and becomes the tool of repression of any ideas that go against the interests of the State? Do you see where your reasoning leads?

For some reason, you feel justified in silencing the expression of our religious convictions. Some argue that religion has no place in the public. However, such reasoning would silence everyone! All law is an expression of values, and values are an expression of religion, whether formal, nameless, theistic or not.

Values cannot be derived from science. Science can only tell us what is and not what ought-to-be. This instead is the provenance of religion. Besides, when we express our ideas and vote, we are no more “pressing [our] religious convictions on others” than you atheists are doing.

If we are all going to live peacefully together, we must be willing to grant each other the same rights as we possess, without trying to justify our unwarranted intolerance as “an unresolvable paradox.”

Just Say “No” to the Military

The military has become a hostile place for Christians. Just recently Todd Starnes of FOX reported that:

The Air Force Academy removed a Bible verse posted on a cadet's whiteboard after it determined the posting had offended other cadets. The [offending] cadet wrote the passage on the whiteboard posted outside his room. "I have been crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," [Gal. 2:20].

Mikey Weinstein, director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, complained that:

"It clearly elevated one religious faith (fundamentalist Christianity) over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution," he said. "It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism and supremacy at USAFA."

While Weinstein demanded disciplinary action against the cadet and his superiors, the AFA demurred. Retired General Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council responded:

"Once the academy allowed cadets to use these whiteboards for their personal use, censorship of religious commentary is unacceptable. Either the Air Force Academy is very confused about the Constitution of the United States or they don't really believe in the liberties that are provided by that document."

I wonder if Weinstein would protest if instead a cadet had drawn an obscene sexual drawing or if he had advertised a gay pride event. Certainly, others would have been offended by such expressions. After all, everyone is offended by many different expressions. If mere offense became the basis for our laws and regulations, we would all be required to live in isolation.

While it is understandable that the Christian faith is offensive to some, it is equally understandably that the secularist faith is offensive to others. In fact, every law is offensive to somebody. Instead of bringing us together, our present form of secularism has driven us apart into hostile and competing camps.

Instead, we need sane laws – laws that will enable us to live together and at peace with our varying worldviews. To this end, freedom of expression and religion, as protected by our Constitution, must be reaffirmed.

Until this time, those who have become the victims of an increasingly militant and totalitarian secularism will be coerced to run-for-cover. Perhaps it’s time for Christians to avoid the military until guarantees for their rights can be reaffirmed.

The UN, Parents, Children’s Rights, and the Catholic Church

 

Under the guise of the “protection of children,” the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of the Child under precept #26 recommends that:

• The Holy See bring all its laws and regulations as well as its policies and practices in conformity and make full use of its moral authority to condemn all forms of harassment, discrimination or violence against children based on their sexual orientation or the sexual orientation of their parents and to support efforts at international level for the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

By promoting a highly self-destructive lifestyle that, according to surveys, shortens the male homosexuals’ life by 20-24 years, the UN has lost all credibility, especially in light of the fact that real human rights violations – namely, the genocide of religious minorities in many Islamic countries - are vainly crying out for attention.

In their mindless dash to enforce gay rights, the UN has ignored many of the costs:

1.     Attenuated lifespan

2.     The Proliferation of STDs, Substance Abuse, Suicide, Mental Illness Endemic to this Lifestyle.

3.     The Fact that all of the Major World Religions have Ruled against it

4.     The Historical Evidence that this Lifestyle Produces a Dead End

5.     The Suppression of the Freedoms of Speech and Religion to Achieve this End

6.     The Resulting Gender Confusion and Sexualization of Children

7.     The Breakdown of Values that have Produced the Greatest Civilizations.

Of course, the Committee knows better than their own parents regarding the welfare of children and has demonstrated that it is more than willing to limit parental rights in favor of their own “enlightened” agenda:

• #32. The Committee reminds the Holy See that the right of children to freely express their views constitutes one of the most essential components of children’s dignity and that ensuring this right is a legal obligation under the Convention, which leaves no leeway for the discretion of the States parties… (c) Encourage, through legislation and policy, opportunities for parents and guardians to listen to children and give due weight to their views in matters that concern them and promote parenting education programmes, which build on existing positive behaviours and attitudes.

Who is to determine these “positive behaviours and attitudes?” The UN, of course, and the parents and church must fall in line and submit to “opportunities for parents and guardians to listen to children and give due weight to their views!” While the UN hypocritically champions the free speech of children, it extends no such privilege to their parents other than re-education. Indeed, we have a lot of prior horrific experience with States that claim that they know what is best for children and therefore limit parental influence:

• Lenin had said: “The best revolutionary is a youth devoid of morals.” His word being law in Communist organizations, all members work secretly to make young people of both sexes anti-social and immoral. Children up to teen-age are taught to rebel against the discipline of the home. Parents are represented to their children as old-fashioned. Parental authority is scoffed at. The subverters argue that parents have lied to their children since they were old enough to listen, regarding Santa Claus and where babies come from. The subversives claims parents are the victims of reactionary teachings and capitalistic exploitation. The child is encouraged to educate the parents in regard to modern and progressive ideas. They are warned that, for their own good, they must refuse to be dominated or disciplined by their parents. The purpose of this subversive campaign is to destroy the sanctity, and unity, of the home which is the foundation upon which our civilization is founded.

If parental influence can be neutralized, what then is left to influence our children? The sexualizing influence of the culture – the permissive, morally-relativistic schools and the morally-indulgent media! Meanwhile, parents must only listen to their children and give their words and desires full respect.

Discipline? Forget it! Our children are free moral agents, according to the UN, and what we teach our children better reflect this:

•   #40. The Committee reminds the Holy See that all forms of violence against children, however light, are unacceptable and that the Convention leaves no room for any level of violence against children… ensure that an interpretation of Scripture as not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in Church teaching and other activities and incorporated into all theological education and training.

While the UN demands that children have their say, it is not as accommodating to their parents or their religion. Evidently, the UN has reached such a state of enlightenment that it can confidently dictate to us how we are to understand and teach the Bible.

The UN demands to reign supreme over all areas of the family – religion, education, values, the works. After all, “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future,” as Adolph Hitler confidently professed. How then does the world government own the youth? By making itself the supreme authority in all family matters:

•   #41. The Committee is concerned about the Holy See’s position that civil authorities should intervene in the family setting only in cases where a proven abuse has been committed in order not to interfere with the duties and rights of the parents.

The UN demands the right to intervene whenever! How can the UN demand such authority? Has it been able to shed the gentle light of reason in these areas? Has it demonstrated that it is the better and more loving caretaker of our children?

In contrast, the wise King Solomon knew a critical truth about mothers. When two women came before him, each claiming maternity over a certain baby, Solomon ordered that the baby be cut in two – one part given to each claimant. At this, the real mother cried out:

•  “Please, my lord, give her the living baby! Don’t kill him!” But the other said, “Neither I nor you shall have him. Cut him in two!” Then the king gave his ruling: “Give the living baby to the first woman. Do not kill him; she is his mother.” (1 Kings 3:26-27)

The UN is the “other” claimant. It does not love the children as the real mother and will allow their destruction in order to promote its blind and tyrannical agenda.

Gov. Cuomo: Intolerance Wearing Robes of Leadership

Are we viewing the creation of a dictatorship? During a WCNY radio interview with Susan Arbetter on “The Capitol Pressroom,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo railed:

• “Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

Cuomo also urged the “extreme” conservatives to “figure out if your extreme conservative philosophy can survive in this state, and the answer is no.”

What are “New Yorkers?” Evidently, Cuomo doesn’t recognize those of us who are opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage or weapon control as “New Yorkers.” I guess that only those who share his views are New Yorkers. And, naively, we had thought that he represented all the residents of our state!

Would he then recognize us as Americans? Of course, if we are not New Yorkers – and we are therefore stateless – then we can make no claim to be Americans either! Are we now illegal aliens, liable to deportation merely because we don’t share his political agenda?

I wonder if we could still retain our New York residency if we believe in gun control but not SSM and abortion? But then there is also the question of pedophilia, smoking in public places and adultery! Here’s what I am getting at – I wish that the governor would lay it out on-the-line. How many of his opinions must we sign-off on in order to retain our New York citizenship? And if we can’t pass the test, will Cuomo pay to have us resettled elsewhere?

I doubt he is prepared to do this – not with the New York economy the way it is. Perhaps if we officially become “illegal aliens,” we will be treated a lot better. However, it seems that our governor would deny us even this status – his words are far harsher towards us!

If we are not New Yorkers after living here for all of our lives, what are we? It seems that this is not the way this country had always been. My governor wants to deny me the freedom to express my views. He claims that we “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” However, he had sworn to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution upholds our rights to vote and to express ourselves, even if our opinions aren’t popular with the governor. Is he seeking dictatorial control?

Ironically, the views that he opposes do not advocate the violent overthrow of the government, the murder of the infirmed and elderly, or even the denial of any constitutionally guaranteed rights. Instead, he finds offensive beliefs that had previously been held by all Americans, even all American presidents. Even Barack Obama had affirmed traditional marriage, and yet Cuomo is not trying to deny him citizenship. Nor is he demanding that Bill and Hilary forfeit their New York citizenship because of their advocacy of DOMA!

Perhaps, instead, it is governor Cuomo who should be stripped of his citizenship for not upholding the very principles he had sworn to uphold. Rather, it is necessary for all of us to find ways to live together despite our differences. This is what it had once meant to be an American.