Truth Magazine

By Wilson Adams

Humanism is the most fraudulently displayed and dangerous religion in America today. And it is a religion. Please don’t be deceived into believing that humanism is just a philosophy. That is the masquerade humanists have utilized for years to mislead millions. And, too, don’t be conned into thinking that because religious people believe in God, those who do not believe in God are not religious. That constitutes another mass deception the humanists have used to their advantage for years. Humanism is unmistakably and demonstrably a religion; an evangelistic religion that seeks to win converts and produce change in the moral fiber of this nation.

Humanism Is A Religion

Humanism has been a religion since its inception. However, only in the last few years have its advocates admitted it. Nine times, the Humanist Manifesto I (the humanist bible) clearly calls its beliefs a religion and concludes with the words, “So stand the theses of religious humanism.”(1) Lloyd Morain, former president of the American Humanist Association, stated:

Down through the ages men have been seeking a universal religion or way of life . . . . Humanism . . . . shows promise of becoming a great world faith.

Humanists are content with fixing their attention on this life and on this earth. Theirs is a religion without a God . . . . (emphasis added).(2)

The United States Supreme court calls humanism a religion. In the 1961 Torcasso v. Watkins case, Justice Hugo L. Black noted: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others” (emphasis added.)(3)

We tend to think that belief in God is a religion, and therefore disbelief is not a religion (and that is what humanists want us to think!). By using our faulty thinking against us, they have called their doctrine secular humanism, ours religion. Then by claiming that morals originated with the Bible, they, too, are labeled as religious. Thus, both religion and morality are excluded from our schools while secular humanism and amorality are advanced daily.

Thomas Jefferson, American statesman, author of the Declaration of Independence and instigator of much discussion over separation of church and state which finally led to the First Amendment, understood the problem and defined the term religion to include “all believers or unbelievers of the Bible If his definition is correct, and I believe it is, then if belief and its biblical moral values are expelled from our public schools, so also must we remove humanist unbelief and its resultant amorality. After all, our Constitution forbids that the government do anything to establish or advance religion. And secular humanism is a religion!

The Ten Religious Characteristics of Secular Humanism

1. They have a Bible. Humanist Manifesto I authored by John Deway in 193 3; and Humanist Manifesto II authored by Paul Kurtz in 1973 are the sacred scriptures to the humanist and serve as the basis for the principles being taught regularly in our schools. These two brief volumes are shocking to any godly individual and even more so when one discovers that they were signed by some of the most influential people in education today.

2. They have a stated dogma. All religions are based on doctrinal teachings. Humanism is no different. It has a well-defined theology centering around five areas:

* Atheism – disbelief in God.

* Evolution – belief in evolution.

* Amorality – rejection of absolute morals.

* Autonomous Man – deification of man as supreme.

*Socialist One World View – belief that man should build a one world community.

Tim LaHaye, in his book, The Battle for the Mind (pp. 130-131), states, “The theological position of humanism is so well-defined and established that if it were expelled from our public schools and its disciples were retired from government service through the ballot box, they would immediately declare themselves officially a religion and file as a tax exempt religious organization. They cannot do so now because they receive over 140 billion dollars annually to operate their vast network of churches, called schools, colleges, and universities. Why should they collect donations to support the propagation of their religion when, through our taxes, we pay for their services? Parents are compelled to send their impressionable children to schools where in the name of academic freedom, only the religion of humanism can be taught.”

3. They have an object of worship. The humanist god is man himself.

4. They have a priesthood. Every religion has a priesthood, no matter what it is officially called. Since the religion of humanism chose public education as its main method to influence the thinking of future generations we should not be alarmed to observe that the signers of the Humanist Manifesto I and II appear to be the Who’s Who list of American education. Here is a priesthood that earns its living communicating the religion of humanism in our public schools.

5. They have missionaries. Every religious body has its missionaries who preach and proselyte. Humanism is no different.

Before the religion of humanism became the official dogma of our public schools, teachers were trusted educators of our young, who took seriously their responsibility of teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and the other necessary skills of life. That is no longer the case. Today’s teachers, according to some educators, are “change agents” – that is, agents of social change. As incredible as it may seem to you, their objective is to change our nation’s generation of children from their commitment to traditional moral values and the values of their parents to the new humanist values (which in my studied opinion are no values at all).(4)

Yes, under the disguise of academic freedom, these humanistic missionaries are free to teach their atheistic, amoral beliefs while ridiculing the Judeo-Christian ethic at every opportunity. One humanistic educator said, “If education is to meet the current and future needs of our society, humanistic objectives and humanistic thought must operate at the heart of every school and classroom in the nation.”(5) Sadly to say, in many places it does.

6. They have seminaries. The majority of graduate schools in the United States have been completely taken over by humanist thought, particularly is this true in the educational field. Today it is virtually impossible to get a PhD degree from any university that is not overwhelmingly humanistic in its teaching. Present-day teachers seminaries are called teachers colleges.(6)

7. They have their own temples. Humanists never need to raise money for the buildings to teach their religious doctrine. Their temples are called schools; their churches are called colleges; their cathedrals are called universities – and we pay for and provide them!

8. Humanism is rooted in eastern religions.

Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself. It has its roots in classical China, Greece and Rome; it is expressed in the Renaissance and the Enlightment, in the scientific revolution, and in the twentieth century.(7)

Such may explain why a relatively new course entitled, “Comparative Religions” is infiltrating our high schools. It is a humanistic affront to Christianity in which 90% of classroom time is spent exposing students to eastern religions of Buddhism, Taoism, Mohammedanism, and Hare Krishna. This course is a thinly opportunity to teach the mystical religions of the East to our children and at our expense. And why? Because humanists know what few Christians realize: humanism is the outgrowth of those Eastern religions.

9. They have a view of death. Science cannot prove or disprove life after death, but humanists teach as fact that it does not exist. How can they be so dogmatic? By faith, of course. Consequently their view of death and eternity is part of their religious propaganda. Such may once again explain why the course Death and Dying is now being offered to many high school students. It serves as an excellent way to attack the traditional beliefs in God,salvation, life after death, and other truths taught in the Bible.

10. They are religiously intolerant to any view but their own. “Academicfreedom ” is only an American dream. It means freedom for homosexuals, lesbians, feminists, abortionists, Marxists, and almost every other conceivable anti-moral, anti-American teaching, except the recognition of God the Creator of the traditional moral values that Christians and others share. In essence, “academic freedom” is religious intolerance.

Humanistic Educational Intolerance (chart by Tim LaHaye)
They Freely Teach	They Totally Forbid Teaching
Atheism	God the creator
Evolution as fact	Creation as scientific
Situation ethics	Moral absolutes
Explicit sex education	Biblical view of sexuality
Perversion as acceptable	Homosexuality as wrong
No life after death	Eternal life, heaven and hell, judgment
These concepts can be taught freely during school hours to captive children.	These concepts cannot be taught on school premises – even after school hours end.

There can be no doubt that humanism is a religion. Mel and Norma Gabler of Garland, Texas, who are acknowledged to be the most informed individuals in the country on the context of public school textbooks, state unhesitatingly, “Humanism is a no-God religion and as much a religion as Christianity. This no-God religion is being passed on to our children through public education, in a subtle but effective manner.”(8) Yes, when a Unitarian Sunday school teacher can promote over 90016 of his religious beliefs in the public schools by labeling them “education” or “scientific humanism,” and get paid for it – that has to be the religious sham of the century!

Humanism Inspires Evangelistic Zeal

Leading humanists are filled with an evangelistic fervor to preach their humanistic gospel. With their hold on government, education and the media, 275,000 humanists are able to determine the direction of 216 million people. Consider that issues such as abortion on demand, legalization of homosexuality, ERA, government deficit spending, the size of government, elimination of capital punishment, national disarmament, increased taxes, women in combat, unnecessary school busing, etc., would all be overwhelmingly rejected if voted upon by the American people, but, our politicians continue to enact such legislation that is against the will of the populous. Why? Simply, we are being controlled by a small but extremely influential army of committed humanists who feel duty bound to turn traditionally moral-minded America into an amoral, humanistic country.

We must understand that our enemy is not the Soviet Union or Red China; it is the American humanists in government, in education, and in the media. And until we realize that humanism is a religion, and an evangelistic one at that, the humanists will continue to mentally brainwash and poison our young. I am against the religion of humanism for two basic reasons: I am a committed Christian, and I am a committed American. Humanism is vigoriously opposed to both. It is the most dangerous religion in America.

Endnotes

1. Humanist Manifestos I & II (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 15.

2. Clare Chambers, The SIECUS Circle (Belmont, HA: Western Islands, 1977), p. 92.

3. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism (New York: Frederick Ungar Pub. Co., 1977), p. 24.

4. Tim LaHaye, The Battle for the Public Schools (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell Co., 1983), p. 83.

5. Arthur W. Combs, “Humanism, Education, and the Future,” Educational Leadership 35 (January 1978), p. 303.

6. LaHaye, p. 84.

7. Humanist Manifesto I & II, p. 15.

8. LaHaye, p. 81.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 401-403
July 5, 1984

By Steve Wolfgang

A problem encountered by many who have attempted to discuss “humanism” is agreement upon a definition of exactly what it is. Is it simply interest in (or devotion to) a study of “humanities”? A concept of inherent dignity of humans? A distinction between “man” as opposed to animals and/or “nature”? Or a “secular” humanism which seeks to enthrone man and his will at the expense of faith in God? Is it membership in some “organization”? Or something quite different?

Due to constraints of space, and for the limited purposes of this article, it shall be necessary for us to confine our discussion to those who endorse the concepts of Humanist Manifestos I and II; or, even more specifically, those who are “card-carrying” humanists, that is, those with some affiliation with the American Humanist Association. Thus, while it is possible to identify as “humanists” a wide variety of thinkers (Darwin and Marx, Nietsche and Sartre, Freud, Fromm, and Skinner, Bultmann and Kung, as well as others), we are concerned here with a more specific set of individuals.

As we shall see, however, these individuals span the whole scope of human thought – not only philosophy, religion, and ethics, but history, psychology, sociology, political science, literature, music, and other art forms, to say nothing of the natural sciences. Thus, this humanistic way of seeing the world has seeped into every area of study and thought.

Beginning with Humanist Manifesto I, it is logical to begin with John Dewey, reputed to be a major author of the document. Partly due to his long tenure at Columbia University’s School of Education, Dewey had as much or more influence as anyone on the course of American educational philosophy. James, Hitchcock, history professor at St. Louis University and author of What Is Secular Humanism? (an excellent book) notes that “the manifesto certainly represented Dewey’s personal beliefs, and through it he was able to disseminate them widely and strategically.”(1)

Also a signatory of Manifesto I was Harry Elmer Barnes, an historian who also taught for many years at Columbia University in New York City. In his History of Historical Writing, Barnes applauds “a notable and healthy secularization of supernaturalism enormously declined,” but that “the findings of modern have . . . undermined the older dogmatics and apologetics,” making it “woefully apparent how inadequate are the orthodox conceptions of the extent, nature, and control of the cosmos.”(2)

Besides Lester Mondale, whole half-brother became vice-President in 1977, other signatories included men such as Charles Francis Potter, author of The Lost Years of Jesus Revisited, a book that attempted to portray Christ as a sort of re-made mythical desert Essene.(3) Attempting to capitalize on the furor over the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has been described by a respected bibliographer of the Scrolls as a book that “from front cover to last word was clearly sensationalism” and whose author was characterized as a “pulp writer” without “the slightest degree of Qumran scholarship.” This same scholar further remarked that Potter wrote “with one obvious purpose: to attack historic Christianity.”(4)

Also signing Manifesto I was Edwin Arthur Burtt, sage Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University. In a lengthy and informative chapter on “Humanism” in his book, Types of Religious Philosophy, Burtt identifies at least one strain of humanism as “a further development of modernism.”(5) The chapter contains a number of revealing statements such as: “Jesus had no appreciation of the value of intelligence as the most dependable human faculty for analyzing the perplexities into which men fall . . . His theory of the world . . . is squarely opposed to the scientific naturalism that a frank assessment of experience increasingly compels modern man to accept.”(6)

Also affixing his signature to Manifesto I (and II as well) was John Herman Randall, Jr., philosophy professor at Columbia University. In his book, The Making of the Modern Mind (published not long after Humanist Manifesto I was distributed), he includes a chapter on “The Religion of Reason: The Spread of the Humanistic Spirit.” Included in that chapter are the following comments: “a careful examination of [Old Testament] prophecy, taken in a literal and not a highly figurative sense, makes it quite impossible to believe that Jesus ever fulfilled a single one.”(7) Furthermore, “the great philosopher Hume” in Randall’s opinion “so demolished [the value of miracles] that to this day apologists have had their greatest difficulties, not in proving Christianity by miracles, but in explaining how such impossible ideas ever crept into the record.”(8)

Thirty years later, not long before signing Humanist Manifesto II, Randall wrote that although it is “an unacceptable conclusion” that Jesus never actually existed, he allowed that critics had “thrown doubts on all the positive evidence for his existence” and that even so elementary a belief “that Jesus of Nazareth did live on earth” is something that “seems to rest on . . . faith rather than on any evidence.”(9) Furthermore, according to Randall, “Christianity, at the hands of Paul, became a mystical system of redemption, much like the cult of Isis, and the other . . . mystery religions of the day.”(10)

Other signers of Manifesto I included David Rhys Williams (minister of First Unitarian Church of Rochester, NY for more than thirty years), Rabbi Joseph Jacob Weinstein, and Roy Wood Sellars, philosophy professor at the University of Michigan for more than fifty years.

Humanist Manifesto II

The number of individuals signing Humanist Manifesto II is much greater than for the first Manifesto. Many of the signees are “humanist counselors” or individuals connected in some official capacity with various humanist organizations. Several are psychologists or medical doctors, and there are a significant number of Unitarians on the list. One of the most numerically significant groups, as might be expected, are college professors. These professors come from various universities on several continents, and span the range of disciplines from philosophy to anthropology, mathematics to education, religion to psychology, and others.

An overview of some of the better-known individuals endorsing Manifesto II is provided by Hitchcock:

The list of signers for the second manifesto was considerably longer than for the first, indicating that Humanism had become more respectable in the intervening forty years. It included:

– influential philosophers Brand Blanshard, Antony Flew, Sidney Hook, John Herman Randall, Jr., and Sir Alfred Ayer;

– authors Isaac Asimov and John Ciardi;

– Paul Blanshard, for many years the most prominent anti-Catholic writer in the United States;

– prominent scientists Francis Crick, Andrei Sakharov’ Zhores Medvedev, and Herbert Muller (Sakharov and Medvedev are Soviet dissidents);

– Edd Doerr, director of the organization Americans United For Separation of Church and State (formerly Protestants and Other Americans United), which played a major role in the secularizing of public education in the United States after World War II;

– leading “sexologists” Albert Ellis, Lester A. Kirkendall, and Sol Gordon;

– influential psychologists H.J. Eysenck and B.F. Skinner;

– Allen F. Guttmacher, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America;

– Lawrence Lader, chairman of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws;

– Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal clergyman and the leading proponent of “situation ethics” in the United States;

– Betty Friedan, founder of the National Organization of Women; – Gunnar Myrdal, a Swedish economist with worldwide influence;

– A. Philip Randolph, a long-time leader in both the labor and civil-rights movements in the United States.(11)

Those perhaps most readily recognized by readers of this journal might be Joseph Fletcher, of 1960’s “situation ethics” fame, Antony Flew (whose 1975 debate with Thomas B. Warren on the existence of God is still in print), and rabid anti-creationist writer Isaac Asimov.

With the number and diversity of those openly advocating the views explicitly stated in these documents (as well as the less obvious “hidden agendas” implicit in the writings of many of these individuals), is it any wonder that our society is heading so rapidly toward an open hostility to anything remotely resembling Christianity? Unless this trend is reversed by believers bravely and willingly standing up and speaking out, we may see in our lifetime the sort of open hostility that was present in the first century. Of course, the Christianity will survive, even as it did then, but it may prove to be a time of trial beyond the wildest imaginations of twentieth-century American Christians. Truly it is a time to watch and pray.

Endnotes

1. (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1982), p. 13.

2. (New York: Dover Publications, 1937, 1962), p. 292.

3. (Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Books, 1958).

4. William S. LaSor, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 18.

5. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1939), p. 352.

6. Ibid., p. 359.

7. (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1940), pp. 282, 292.

8. Ibid.

9. Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), pp. 145-146.

10. Ibid., p. 154.

11. Hitchcock, pp. 14-15.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 417, 434-435
July 19, 1984

By David Pratte

(Editor’s Note: The following is also available in tract form from the author. In addition, the author has written a number of other tracts and booklets that will be of interest to parents regarding topics relating to schools and humanism. For further information, readers may contact David Pratte at the address given above.)

In the Humanist Magazine (Jan/Feb, 1983, p. 26), humanist author John Dunphy says:

. . . a viable alternative to [Christianity] must be sought. That alternative is humanism. I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level . . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new . . .. the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism . . . .

That friends, is a declaration of war. Our children are under attack in the classroom day in and day out, yet many parents do not even know the war has begun! When parents do show concern about this danger, about all they hear from educators is denial and ridicule. Despite the denials, consider the evidence that humanism is indeed the predominant philosophy of modern public education.

* The preface to the humanist book Humanist Ethic says:

. . . a large majority of the educators of America and of the western world are humanist in their outlook. The faculties of American colleges and universities are predominantly humanist, and a majority of the teachers who go out from their studies in the colleges to responsibilities in primary and secondary schools are basically humanist, no matter that many maintain a nominal attachment to church or synagogue for good personal or social or practical reasons.

*John Dewey, who is probably the greatest influence in modern education, was an endorser of the first “Humanist Manifesto.”

*At least 33 of 58 original signers of the “Secular Humanist Declaration” were educators.

*Shirley Hufstetler, first secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, was on the board of directors of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.

Consider also the following chart that contrasts the views of educators with those of the American public:

View of Education Policy-Makers
View	Public	Educators
Homosexuality is immoral	71%	30%
Abortion is immoral	65%	26%
Smoking marijuana is immoral	57%	30%
Premarital sex is immoral	40%	27%
Divorce should be harder to get	52%	19%
God loves me	73%	40%
via Connecticut Mutual Life Report on American Values in the 80’s.

In this study, we will examine several particular doctrines of humanism. For each doctrine, we will document the humanist view by quoting official statements of the American Humanist Association (primarily the Humanist Manifestos and the Secular Humanist Declaration). We will then quote public school texts and materials to show how the humanist views are propagated in the classroom.

We do not affirm that all classroom teachers are humanists. But when one knows what to look for, he finds humanistic ideas far more widespread in schools than most educators realize or admit. And most parents are totally unaware of this.

Evolution And Materialism

Humanist Doctrine:

. . . we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few, or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses . . . . We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments . . . . We have found no convincing evidence that there is a separable “soul” that . . . . survives death. (Declaration, pp. 18,19).

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created …. Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process …. science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces (Manifestos, pp. 8,17).

Public School Teachings:

It is widely known that the Bible, God, and prayer have been banned from the public schools, mainly as the result of the efforts of the atheistic/humanistic American Civil Liberties Union and Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Evidence for evolution is regularly presented in public schools, but it is a rare textbook that gives evidence for creation (some teachers present it without aid of a text).

Indiana is typical. We have 7 texts approved for use in public high school biology classes. On the average, they devote 46 pages to evolution, and zero to creation (some mention creation, but say it is religion and not science, so they ignore it). Here are typical quotes.

New species of living plants and animals have come about as the result of changes in the old species . . . . The theory of evolution attempts to answer the question: How did so many different kinds of plants and animals come about? . . . Evolution is therefore being studied as the process by which life not only diversified, but first arose . . . . Of all the theories you may study in biology, the theory of evolution occupies a unique place . . . . It is so much a part of the foundation of biology that science can hardly be understood without it (Biological Science, Heath, pp. 47,74,64).

. . . studies demonstrate that we are much closer to our nearest relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, than was imagined even a decade ago . . . . [In earlier centuries, the] commonly accepted explanation for the origin of species was the one outlined in Genesis, that God created the species during the original six days of creation . . . . The Biblical doctrine of creationism was placed in some doubt as important fossil discoveries were made . . . . The alternative to creationism . . . was transformism, also called evolution . . . . An evolutionary approach orients this book” (Anthropology, Random House, pp. 10,25,26,12).

. . . no major pattern of scientific evidence that conflicts with [Darwin’s] theory has turned up (Biology, Scott-Foresman, p. 222).

Parents, do you know what your children are being taught? Do you care?

Situation Ethics

Humanist Doctrine:

Thus secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief . . . . For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life . . . . As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to Absolutist morality …. Secular humanism places trust in human intelligence rather than in divine guidance (Declaration, pp. 15,24).

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest . . . . We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life’s enrichment . . . . (Manifestos, p. 17).

Public School Teachings:

Students in public schools regularly face exercises designed to modify values and attitudes, often called “values clarification,” “values education,” “morals education,” etc. This is especially common in sex education, social studies, psychology, sociology, etc., but can be found in any subject at any grade level.

These exercises involve questionnaires, role-playing, and group discussions of challenging and often controversial moral and personal issues. Students are often assured that “there are no right or wrong answers.” Conclusions are reached, not on the basis of research to accumulate and evaluate evidence, but on personal feelings and opinions along with peer pressure (hence, “pooled ignorance”). Appeals to authorities, like the Bible and parents, are disallowed. If a student appeals to the Bible as his proof, for example, he is asked, “But how do you think it should be?” Difficult hypothetical situations are invented to make it appear that traditional absolute values will not work.

A typical example, used in nearly every school, is a lifeboat (or bomb shelter) with too many people in it. Students must consider the people and decide who to kill so the others can live.

An English teacher in our local high school gave students a questionnaire in which they had to express opinions regarding these and other questions:

How do you feel about a school doctor who gives out birth control pills to high school students on request? . . . . How would you feel if your son brought a girl friend home for the weekend and shared his bedroom with her? How do you feel about a decision to permit an unmarried faculty member of a university to continue to teach after she has become pregnant? . . . How do you feel about a wife who is 6 weeks pregnant with her first child who has an abortion without consulting her husband?

The high school text Person to Person, published by Bennett (teacher’s edition, p. 52), suggests the following statements to which students are to say if they agree or disagree. But they are first assured that, “There are no right or wrong answers”:

To find out if they are sexually suited for each other, a couple should have intercourse before marriage . . . . if a couple is in love, it is all right to have sexual relations before marriage . . . One way to tell a date “I like you” is to have intercourse with him or her . . . . If people have a safe birth control method, it is all right to have intercourse before marriage.

An exercise on page 308 of the student edition of this book tells students to choose another student as partner, pretend they are married, and role-play making arrangements for their divorce!

We found the following example in our daughter’s third grade social studies text, Windows On Our World, published by Houghton-Mifflin (p. 135). Students were to state agreement or disagreement with statements including the following, and compare their views to others in the class:

It is wrong to eat meat on certain days . . . . It is wrong to work on Sunday . . . . It is wrong to work on Saturday . . . . After I die, I will be born again as someone else . . . . After I die, I will live in another place.

Examples could be multiplied a thousand times. Remember, all these issues are to be discussed without reference to the Bible (which has been effectively banned from the school), and with any attempt to appeal to authority being disallowed, and in the face of strong peer pressure.

Defenders of these techniques say they simply help students decide what they believe. But the real effect is to teach kids to ignore all authority and objective evidence, and reach conclusions on the basis of subjective personal feelings, opinion, and peer pressure. Situation ethics is the fundamental tenet, and humanism is the big winner.

Are these exercises in your child’s school? Have you investigated? No example we can give would compare to the shock value that comes from seeing these things in your own child’s schoolwork!

Marriage And Sexual Morality

Humanist Doctrine:

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized . . . neither do we wish to prohibit, by law of social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil” . . . individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire” (Manifestos, p. 18).

Public School Teaching!

These subjects come up in health class, family living, parenting, social studies, psychology, sociology, etc. Much of it falls in the heading of “sex education,” though educators often disguise it with terms that are less likely to alert parents. As such, it can be found in almost any class.

The most influential sex education organizations are Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and Sex Information & Education Council of the US (SIECUS). They are totally dominated by humanists. The American Humanist Association gave the honorary title of “Humanist of the Year” to SIECUS executive director Mary Calderone and PPFA’s founder Margaret Sanger. Other prominent sex educators who are affiliated with humanist organizations or have endorsed humanist documents are: Albert Ellis, Alan Guttmacher, Sol Gordon, Lester Kirkendall, John Money, Deryk Calderwood, Ira Reiss, etc., etc.

SIECUS Study Guides are used to tell classroom sex education teachers what to teach. Study Guide #5, for example, says on page 25:

We must examine the potential impact of the [premarital sexual] relationship upon ourselves and the others who are involved. It is just such an examination that has led to the popularity of situational ethics, for it is abundantly clear that for some people having premarital coitus can contribute to the development of responsibility . . . to a sense of integrity and self-realization.

The official “SIECUS Position Statement” says regarding pornography: “It is the position of SIECUS that: The use of explicit sexual materials (sometimes referred to as pornography) can serve a variety of important needs in the lives of countless individuals.”

In 1973 Alan Guttmacher, who was then the head of PPFA, said: “. . . the only avenue the International Planned Parenthood Federation and its allies could travel to win the battle for abortion on demand is through sex education . . . .”

Locally, efforts to get sex education in schools usually come through local “planned parenthood,” “family planning,” or abortion clinics. In Indiana, like other states, federal tax dollars are used to support these clinics. Girls at any age can go to get contraceptives and abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. “Educational materials” and speakers are also offered to local schools. The Indiana Family Health Council is a federally-funded source of materials to teach sex education. Its catalog describes the film Vir Amat, which is used to teach sex educators proper attitudes:

Two young men, who have lived together for over a year, share their relationship and sexual pattern. The film begins showing them preparing dinner while enjoying kissing, joking, and flirting. After dinner, they move to the living room where they stimulate each other manually and orally to orgasm. Post-orgasmic play continues the element of fun and affection, which is shown throughout the film. The film de-mythologizes homosexual relationships, showing two ordinary men in a warm, loving relationship.

In discussions of parenting, the value of spanking is almost invariably undermined. Page 315 of Child Growth and Development, published by McGraw-Hill, for example, lists “unsatisfactory” forms of punishment, and the first two items listed are: “Spanking because it puts too much stress on the child as a ‘bad child’ and too little on the wrong act . . . . Other physical punishments . . . . All physical punishment has the danger of turning into child abuse or causing injury when the adult is really angry. For this reason alone, it should be avoided.”

Easy divorce is also advocated. Your Marriage and Family Life, published by McGraw-Hill, says on page 430; “If happiness is the goal of marriage, some marriages must be dissolved . . . . These results confirm the view that having happy marriages and happy children means we must allow some marriages to break up.” This text was used in our local high school.

Again, examples could be multiplied. We do not affirm that all these objectionable ideas are found in every school. But all of them have been found in some schools, and most of them are found in most school districts.

Conclusion

What should parents do? Do not take our word for anything. Do your own investigating.

1. Accept the fact that the primary responsibility for your child’s education rests on you the parent, not on the government (Eph. 6:4; Deut. 6:49; Prov. 22:6). You must be responsible, even when they are at school. If your child is lost because of the influence of the schools, while you did little or nothing about it, God will hold you accountable.

2. Inform yourself about the kinds of humanistic teachings that are in the schools (we will give good sources of information later).

3. Get to know the teachers in your children’s school. Be a classroom assistant, etc. Work with the administrators to influence what teachers your children have.

4. Read textbooks, sit in on classes, review films, etc. Especially insist on seeing teachers’ manuals. (Established parents organizations affiliated with the schools are usually no help in this. They are dominated by the educators.)

5. Diligently teach your children the truth at home to arm them against false teaching.

6. Tell your children’s teachers exactly the kind of teaching you will not allow to be given to your child, or at least that you want the teacher to inform you and ask your permission before the teaching is given. Write a letter to the schools about this and have it put in your child’s permanent record.

7. You may try to work with other parents to modify school district policy regarding areas that are of concern. Good luck! Lots of us have tried and failed, but others have succeeded.

8. If your schools will not respect your parents rights and your children are being harmed spiritually, take them out of the public schools and put them in a private school (but check it out carefully – many of them are also objectionable), or else teach them at home yourself (this is legal in most states – we know because we’re doing it).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 396-397, 410-411
July 5, 1984

By Jeff Smelser

Humanism, as set forth in the Humanist Manifestos, is represented organizationally by the American Humanist Association (AHA). This organization was formed in 1941 by some of those who had signed the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. It is under the auspices of the AHA that The Humanist is published, and it was in this periodical that Humanist Manifesto Il was originally published in 1973. The AHA “is not primarily an action organization,” but instead serves to encourage co-operation with “specialized organizations devoted to kindred causes” that can actively work to achieve various Humanist goals.(1) In particular, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are both mentioned by name as being organizations which Humanists “should relate to and strengthen.”

The ACLU

In 1978, New Republic reported that the ACLU was 44more active than the National Organization for Women in litigation involving women’s rights” and was “almost as active as Planned Parenthood in litigation involving the right to abortion.”(2) Concerning First Amendment issues, there seems to be a conflict within the ACLU between those who would adhere to a strict interpretation of that amendment, and those who in reality are using that amendment to propagate secularism.

ACLU officials still are arguing among themselves over the propriety of a lawsuit by their Indiana affiliate . . . which forced public schools to stop using a biology textbook because the book argues on behalf of divine creation. Some of the civil liberterians felt . . . that the use of the book amounted to a flagrant violation of the First Amendment’s ban on an establishment of religion. Others feel that the ACLU, committed as it is to freedom of speech, should never under any circumstances have become involved in an effort to ban the use of a book.(3)

The fact that the AHA can speak of the ACLU as representing a kindred cause should not be surprising in view of the background common to the AHA and Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU. “The American Humanist Association . . . was organized by Unitarian clergyman; and finds its continuing support in those whose philosophy and purpose are closely allied with Unitarianism.”(4) Likewise, Baldwin traced his social activism as well as his view of Jesus as less than “a divine figure” though a teacher of “great stuff” to his Unitarian upbringing in Boston.(5) As a boy, Roger was greatly impressed with the elder Baldwin’s acquaintance with such Unitarian notables as William Ellery Channing and Edward Everett Hale.

In later years Baldwin occasionally wrote for The Humanist. On one occasion he reviewed a book for The Humanist by Corliss Lamont whose credentials as a Humanist include being named “Humanist of the Year” for 1977, being signatory to Humanist Manifesto II, and serving as honorary president of the AHA. Baldwin gave this evaluation of Lamont’s book: “It reads like an expanded annual report of the Civil Liberties Bureau.”(6) In addition to Lamont’s Humanist affiliations, he also sat on the ACLU board for many years, thus further demonstrating the compatibility of Humanism and the ACLU. (Eventually, Lamont did reject the ACLU because of its stand against communism.) Baldwin served as Director of the ACLU until 1949, but thereafter continued to influence the Union as a member of the National Advisory Council.

A philosophical link between the Humanist movement and the ACLU is the rejection of absolute truth. Humanist Lucien Saumur notes that “natural laws and natural rights imply . . . absolute laws and absolute rights,” and then asserts, “there are no such laws and rights but . . . only relative laws and relative rights.”(7) Whereas the founding fathers of this nation believed men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” Humanists believe in neither Creator, nor rights endowed by a Creator. So also modern jurisprudence largely ignores the concept that manmade law should reflect an absolute, divine law, or what is sometimes referred to as “natural law,” and supposes that one’s rights and duties are defined wholly by human statute and precedent. Author Wiliam H. McIlhany refers to this as “legal positivism” and observes that the ACLU leadership, “with its large contingent of lawyers, is greatly influenced by the notions of positivist legal theory.”(8)

The ACLU and Humanists also find common ground on the subject of “economic rights.” Humanist Manifesto II advocates “a minimum guaranteed income.” The rationale behind this begins with that same old premise – no God, no absolute standards. Readily derived from this premise is the declaration, “might is right”(9). Easily discernable is the potential chaos that would result if everyone used his might to attain everything he deemed his right; and especially disconcerting is the realization that others have more might than me. Therefore, the Humanist urges policies which he unrealistically supposes will keep everyone provided for and satisfied, and thereby avert social unrest and upheaval. Thus, Lamont speaks of “economic democracy,” which he says implies the right to “a higher and higher standard of living for the whole population as the over-all wealth of a nation increases.”(10) Thus the first Humanist Manifesto called for “a socialized and co-operative economic order . . . to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible,” and Humanist Manifesto II speaks of the “need to democratize the economy.”

Similarly, in 1977, “the ACLU board, after considerable debate, adopted a potentially far-reaching resolution putting the organization on record in favor of ‘economic rights.'”(11) Baldwin himself thought of civil liberties “only as tools for social change,” and the social change he had in mind was the resolving of “economic conflict.”(12)

The value of such as a political philosophy is not the point here. Whether the reader supposes that as a political tenet, “economic democracy” (a misnomer) is practical or impractical, the point is the rationale of the Humanist for such a tenet, and the corresponding position of record adopted by the ACLU. Clearly, there is reason for the AHA to think of the ACLU as one of those organizations “devoted to kindred causes.”

Planned Parenthood

Another organization specifically mentioned among those which the AHA views as being “devoted to kindred causes,” and which “Humanists and Humanist groups should relate to and strengthen” is the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.(13) This organization owes its existence to the work of Margaret Sanger in the early part of this century. Her philosophy was described in The Humanist:

The word “Humanism” in its present religio-scientific rueaning was not then current. But call it Freethought or Rationalism or Secularism, it was . . . Margaret Sanger’s creed. The first paper she founded and edited was called The Woman Rebel, and its masthead bore the motto: “No gods, no masters.” At her conviction in 1917 she was asked what her religion was; she answered, “Humanity.”(14)

Margaret Sanger continued as honorary chairman of Planned Parenthood until her death in 1966. She was named “Humanist for the Year” for 1957. Alan F. Guttmacher, another noted Humanist, served as president of Planned Parenthood from 1962 till his death in 1974. Guttmacher is listed among those who signed Humanist Manifesto II.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is also known as Planned Parenthood/World Population, and it is this appelation that suggests the connection with the Humanist movement. The goal of the Humanist movement, as described in Humanist Manifesto II is “to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community.” However, the Humanist sees population growth as a threat to such a community. First of all, confronted with “raidly depleting resources” the Manifesto insists, “excessive population growth must be checked by international concord.” Secondly, according to Humanist Julian Huxley who spoke of stress resulting from overcrowding, “stress will manifest itself in mental instability and all kinds of social and political disturbance.”(15) In decrying the withholding of government funds from groups and organizations involved in abortion studies or assistance, the November/December, 1983 issue of The Humanist complained, “What population program will be next?” For the Humanist, abortion is merely a population control program to ensure social tranquility in a world community.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is this country’s affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). The work of the IPPF is based in part “on the conviction that human progress depends on a balance being struck between world population and natural resources and productivity.”(16) In an address to the IPPF in 1967, C.M. Carstairs warned, “When because of increasing over population, the standards of living actually decline at the very times when people’s aspirations have been raised, the stage is set for further outbreaks of collective irrationality and violence.”(17) When Planned Parenthood advocates abortion, it is doing so for the same reason the ACLU advocates “economic democracy.” Based on the belief that “no diety will save us; we must save ourselves,”(18) and on the conviction that man can save himself by creating a world community in which poverty has been eradicated, the Humanists argue for guaranteed minimum incomes, and abortion as a means of birth control. For the consistent Humanist the abortion issue is not a question of whether or not the fetus is a human being.(19) He is not concerned that abortion represents the killing of a human being.” For the Humanist, who argues that “a particular means may have unfortunate by-products and yet be justified because it achieves the main end in view,”(20) abortion is merely a means justified by its end. The end is a population small enough for all to enjoy a high standard of living on limited resources. It’s the “we threw the old man out of the life boat so the rest of us would make it” story. Abortion is a tool to achieve a Humanist goal, and Planned Parenthood is one of the organizations through which Humanists work to implement this tool.

There are numerous organizations, from the National Organization for Women (NOW) to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which were founded by Humanists and/or are led by Humanists. However, we must not suppose that such organizations are comprised entirely, or even primarily of Humanists. Certainly many of the members of these organizations have no idea what Humanism is and have never heard of the Humanist Manifestos. We make note of a Humanist’s complaint concerning opposing influence in some of these organizations:

Among the international agencies, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and the World Bank, despite the good intentions of most of their staffs, have all been manipulated and compromised from within and without by the Catholic Church.(21) Also remember that the ACLU resolution to go on record in favor of “economic rights” was adopted only “after considerable debate,” and there was quite an internal debate concerning the banning of science books which taught divine creation. But even those in such organizations who know nothing of Humanism are being influenced by, and unwittingly influencing others for Humanism.

What should the Christian’s attitude toward such organizations be? The Christian should never become so enmeshed in any political or social organization, whether it be the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, the PTA or the NRA, that his thinking about duties, his fellow-man, or life in general reflects a human ideology, or philosophy, rather than the word of God. On the other hand, the Christian should never become so much an opponent of an organization that he opposes the organization more than he opposes sin. “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood.” Nor is it against executive boards and national councils. It is “against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Our armor is truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, the word of God, and prayer (Eph. 6:14-18), not the Moral Majority, Family Life Seminars, or other such counter organizations. We should never be motivated by a fear that Satan might overcome us by superior organization. The victory will be ours.

Endnotes

1. “Intergroup Relations of the American Humanist Association,” The Humanist 23 (January/February 1963):25.

2. J. Mann, “Hard Times for the ACLU,” New Republic (15 April 1978):13-14.

3. Ibid., p. 14.

4. Vergilius Ferm, ed., The American Church of the Protestant Heritage (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), p. 161.

5. Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin, Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976), p. 6.

6. Roger Baldwin, “A Non-Communist on Civil Liberties,” The Humanist 16 (May/June 1956):147.

7. Lucien Saumur, The Humanist Evangel (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982), p. 65.

8. William H. McIlhany, II, The ACLU on Trial (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1976), p. 104.

9. Saumur, p. 68.

10. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, 6th ed. (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1982), p. 268.

11. Mann, p. 14.

12. Roger Baldwin, Letter to the Editor, New York Times, 11 April 1933, p. 18.

13. “Intergroup Relations,” p. 25.

14. Miriam Allen deFord, “The Woman Rebel, “‘The Humanist 25 (special issue/spring 1965):95.

15. Alan S. Parks, “Social Effects on Sexual Function,” Impact of Science on Society 18 (October-December 1968):286.

16. Richard Hankinson, comp., Agencies and Organizations Working in the International Population Assistance Field (Paris: Development Centre of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1973), p. 54.

17. Parks, p. 286.

18. Paul Kurtz, “Humanist Manifesto ll,” The Humanist 33 (September/October 1973):6.

19. Saumur, pp. 70-1.

20. Lamont, p. 237.

21. Stephen D. Mumford, “The Vatican & Population Growth Control – Why an American Confrontation?” The Humanist 43 (September/October 19 83):19-20.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 398-400
July 5, 1984