Truth Magazine

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

By Tom Moody

“Wow, I didn’t know I was going to get to do this so early in the course!” The philosophy professor then hurried out of his classroom, returning minutes later with an overhead transparency displaying, to his class of 18-19 year olds, four supposed Bible contradictions.

This was the scene last fall at Jefferson Community College in Louisville, on the first day of a philosophy class. A young lady who is a member of the South End church was in the class and, upon direct questioning from the professor, stated that she believed the Bible to be the word of God. When the professor had read the “contradictions” he demanded that the Bible believer try to explain them. When she would try to comment, he would cut her off in mid sentence and attempt to demonstrate that she had no reason or logic whatever for her belief.

While we are saddened and repulsed by such bullying bigotry, should we really be surprised? For at least two generations, a major, though often subtle, movement has been underway to make ours a thoroughly humanistic society. To accomplish their ends, advocates of humanistic thinking must not only work to fill minds with their philosophy, but must also eliminate the Bible. Humanism and the word of God are mutually exclusive. Humanists hate the word of God and will do all in their power to ridicule, demean, and belittle it.

Humanism – An Exclusive Philosophy

Humanism is a philosophy which focuses on man as the measure of all things, the highest order of intelligence. Humanism denies the existence of God or any objective standard of right and wrong. Humanism, therefore, not only makes no room for divine revelation, but of necessity excludes it.

Humanist Manifestos I and II, declarations of beliefs (signed by over 275 humanists, many of them prominent in education, psychology, publishing, etc.) states:

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable (emphasis mine throughout article, TM) any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.(1)

Humanists Make Direct Attacks On Revelation

There have always been those who question or deny the authority of God’s word. Even among leading religious figures for the past century, dangerous theories have been promoted which have undermined true faith. However, humanism goes much farther even than modernism in its view toward the Bible. Modernists, though denying verbal inspiration and affirming biblical errors and contradictions, will at the same time uphold the Bible as being of great value.(2)

The view of the true humanist, is much more radical:

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs do a disservice to the human species . . . . As non-theists, we begin with humans, not God, nature not deity.(3)

Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the “ghost in the machine” and the “separable soul.” Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.(4)

Paul Blanshard, an editor of The Humanist (a slick national publication) wrote:

The evangelists reverently call the Bible “The Book”, and they say it is God’s word. Let’s be blunt about it. By no stretch of the imagination can the Bible be called either the revealed word of God or the errorless work of God. It is not one book, and it is not holy. It is very bad history and even of questionable morals . . .(5)

Humanism is not indifferent toward the Bible – but is at all out war against it. The quotations we have given are fully typical and representative of humanistic thinking toward any revelation from God. Sadly, many Christians are indifferent toward humanism and its effects. It is time we took up the battle before losing it by default!

The Danger Of Humanism’s Attack

Just how serious a threat is humanistic philosophy, and in particular, its assault on the Bible? Are we really discussing something of substance, or are we simply paranoid of a few crusty professors harmlessly kicking around their views in their ivory towers? The fact is that humanism is seeping into every facet of society. In fact, some organizations, such as the American Humanist Association, are more “evangelistic” than some churches.

In Free Mind, a newsletter of the AHA, a plan for “humanist advocacy” is announced in which the design is “that of providing a visible, vocal, Humanist presence to the community, and continuing to reach out to others actively to explain the Humanist alternative . . . .”(6)

We do not know how successful the AHA has been with their “advocacy” program, but the overall effectiveness of the spread of a humanistic philosophy which is in direct conflict with God’s word and religion is evident.

Consider a few examples in my community:

In the Louisville Free Public Library, if you walk into the children’s section, one of the first signs you will see is on a row of books labeled in large letters: “Religion – Myth – Fairy Tales”.

Examining some of these books, written for small children, one would find a book entitled How Our World Came To Be. This book consists of various mythological views of creation such as the “Hindu Golden Egg” myth. The final chapter is concerning the “two tales” of creation in Genesis.

Another book in the “children’s section” of our public library is: Gay – What You Should Know About Homosexuals, by Morton Hunt. The review on the jacket flap states:

Mr. Hunt also reviews the long oppression of homosexuals . . . and concludes with a portrait of the kinds of homosexuals who are well adjusted functioning members of society.

The first book of its kind, this young person’s guide provides a sound basis for living with the present day realities of homosexuality in out world.(7)

This book which obviously disregards Bible teaching on homosexuality is recommended by the School Library Journal.

Humanistic influence in conflict with the Bible abounds in school textbooks. A required history of civilizations text at University of Louisville, speaks of the formation, and revising of the Old Testament text which has left such “traces” as the “two different views of the Creation” which 44 were not reconciled when the text received its final polishing.” On the same page of this text, it is asserted that: “There is good reason to doubt the main lines of Biblical tradition” and that “Moses organized the tribes of Israel and some neighboring Canaanites into a confederation bound by a covenant to the god he named YHWH . . .”(8)

A sociology textbook used both at University of Louisville and Jefferson Community College is so full of humanistic, anti-religious editorial comment that the references are too numerous to list in this article. The section of the text on “religion” quotes Karl Marx to explain religion’s “sociological function.”(9) Much of the section deals with witch burning and radical, militant religionists. A reader might get the impression that such is representative of what religion is about. The textbook speaks of young people in brainwashing cults who “caused their families great anguish by taking seriously the Biblical injunction, ‘He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me . . . . “(10)

This text, being used to teach teenagers, speaks of a debate on evolution in which the advocate of creation was ridiculed and embarrassed.(11) It promotes abortion and defends homosexuality.

What we have shown are minute samplings of the teaching and influences being used, particularly upon young people, in which there is not just another point of view suggested, but wherein faith in God and in His word are openly and viciously attacked. Remember, for humanists to succeed in their objectives, they can allow no quarter whatever to belief in Deity or acceptance of any revealed, objective, universal standard of right.

What Does The Bible Have To Offer?

The only way Christians can combat the vicious and desperate influences of humanism and its war on the Bible, is by being so knowledgeable and conversant in the Scriptures that we can effectively wield the mighty sword of the Spirit.

A Christian who meditates upon the law of the Lord and hides it in his heart will have no difficulty seeing the vast superiority of Christianity over humanism or any other vain philosophy. The Bible has something real, stable, and valuable to offer us.

The Bible offers a reasonable and satisfactory explanation of our beginning (Gen. 1). The Bible tells the origin and gives a clear definition of sin (Gen. 3; 1 John 3:4; Jas. 4:17). The word of God explains His plan for redeeming man from sin; it gives complete instruction on how to be freed from sin (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:1-7, etc.)

The Bible offers a perfect guide for day to day living: teaching the value of time (Eph. 5:15-16); honesty (Eph. 4:25,28); the putting away of every vice which is harmful to one’s self and others (Col. 3:5-9); benevolence and kindness in thought and deed (Col. 3:11-14). The Bible condemns all partiality and prejudice (Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:26-28; James 2:19). The Bible teaches moderation, patience, and peace (Phil. 4:4-8).

Humanism stresses that this life is all there is – that our existence is extremely brief and ultimately hopeless. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches us that while the outward man perishes, the inward man is renewed day by day. God’s word offers us eternal life and provides the motivation to live an honorable, godly life, that we might live eternally with God.

The Bible and humanistic philosophy are at war. The battle is bitter, but there is only one way that wickedness can prevail: If Christians fail to study and practice the teaching of God’s word.

Endnotes

1. Paul Kurtz, editor, Humanist Manifestos I and 1I (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1981) p. 8.

2. These quotes from Harold DeWolfe and Harry Emerson Fosdick indicate the modernist view which attacks the Bible, yet sees value in it. In A Theology Of The Living Church, DeWolfe wrote, “The human fallibility of the Bible does not preclude the possibility of its divine inspiration nor of its unmatched moral and religious authority” p. 75). In Modern Use Of The Bible, Fosdick wrote, “The man who ministers . . . must have gone through the searching criticism to which the last few generations have subjected the Scriptures and be able to understand and enter into the negations that have resulted. Not blinking any of the facts, he must have come out with a positive, reasonable, fruitful attitude toward the Book” (pp. 5-6).

3. Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I and II, pp. 15,16.

4. Ibid., pp. 16,17.

5. Paul Blanshard, “Humanism Versus Orthodoxy,” The Humanist, March/April, 1978, p. 17.

6. “The Humanist Advocate Program,” Free Mind Vol. 22, No. 4, June 1979, pp. 1,3 (newsletter of the American Humanist Association).

7. Morton Hunt, Gay – What You Should Know About Homosexuals.

8. M. Chambers, The Western Experience, Vol. I (Alfred A. Knopf, Pub., 1983), p. 24.

9. Ian Robertson, Sociology (New York: Worth Pub. Inc., 1981), p. 409.

10. Ibid., p. 432.

11. Ibid., p. 445.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 403-405
July 5, 1984

By Ronny Milliner

Humanists “reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history” (A Secular Humanist Declaration, p. 18). Not only do they reject the miraculous, but they also have a very degrading view of those of us who do believe in the miraculous. Paul Kurtz, the editor of the humanist magazine Free Inquiry, wrote in that publication, “I think that if he (Jesus, RM) existed he was either a disturbed personality and/or a magician . . . . Anyone who believes that he was sent by God . . . is, in my judgment, clearly disturbed” (“Letters to the Editor,” Free Inquiry, Spring 1984, p. 3). In the same issue of that paper is an article entitled “On Miracles.” Its author Randel Helms, affirms, “It requires theological maturity to outgrow the idea of miracles – a truly adult outlook to accept that the processes of the world are sufficient and sufficiently blessed, that the laws of nature never have and never will be set aside” (p. 44). In spite of the fact that we might be considered “clearly disturbed” and immature, we do believe there is sufficient evidence to show “that God has intervened miraculously in history.”

If there is no such thing as a miracle, then Christianity cannot exist. There is no such thinj as a non-miraculous Christianity. As one has well stated, “If opposition to the supernatural is consistently carried out, it cannot stop with denial of miracles, but must carry the person straight over into agnosticism or atheism. It is the height of inconsistency for the modernist to admit the existence of God and yet to deny the miracles recorded in Scripture on the ground that they are opposed to natural law. A little reflection should convince anyone that the whole theistic conception of the universe is at stake in the denial of miracles” (Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology, p. 53). It is either miracles or atheism – there is no other choice.

The Definition Of Miracle

Webster defines a miracle as “an extra-ordinary event manifesting a supernatural work of God.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says a miracle is “an extraordinary work of God…. transcending the ordinary powers of Nature, wrought in connection with the ends of revelation” (Vol. III, p. 2062). The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible states, “Miracles are events in the external world wrought by the immediate power of God and intended as a sign of attestation. They are possible because God sustains, controls, and guides all things, and is personal and omnipotent” (p. 399).

Here the humanist objects and says, “There are no breaks in the orderly sequence of things” (Randel Helms, “On Miracles,” Free Inquiry, Spring 1984, p. 45). He observes that since we have never observed a break in nature then such has never occurred. There is not now, nor ever has been, a miracle, because that would be a disruption in the laws of nature. Such reasoning begs the question.

Howard F. Vos has well answered this objection. He wrote, “It should be clear, then, that the laws of nature are merely observations of uniformity or constancy in nature. They are not forces which initiate action. They simply describe the way nature behaves – when its course is not affected by a superior power . . . . It is contrary to the laws of nature for immense steel ships to float or for airships weighing many tons to fly. Other factors have been introduced . . . . Is God less than man?” (“Miracles,” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, p. 1136).

Also C.S. Lewis, in his book, Miracles, has provided a good illustration. “It is with them as with the laws of arithmetic. If I put six pennies into a drawer on Monday and six more on Tuesday, the laws decree that – other things being equal – I shall find twelve pennies there on Wednesday. But if the drawer has been robbed I may in fact find only two. Something will have been broken (the lock of the drawer or the laws of England) but the laws of arithmetic will not have been broken …. In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her own resources, she (nature) could never produce them” (pp. 70,75).

But our understanding of miracles can be further enlightened by looking at the four different words in the Bible which are used to describe them. Sometimes the word “work” is used as in John 9:3, “Jesus answered, It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.” The Greek word used here is ergon and defined as “deed, accomplishment – of the deeds of God and Jesus, specifically the miracles” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 308). This word emphasizes the source of miracles. They are the works of God; they cannot be the works of men (including magicians).

We find Nicodemus using the word “sign” to describe the miracles of Jesus. He said, “Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” The Greek word here is semeion and means “a sign, mark, token; … of miracles and wonders by which God authenticates the men sent by Him, or by which men prove that the cause they are pleading is God’s” (Thayer, p. 573). Here we see the purpose of miracles – to show that one was from God and that his message was divine instead of human.

The third word used is “wonder” or teras which W.E. Vine says is “something strange, causing the beholder to marvel” (Vol. IV, p. 228). Peter uses this word in Acts 2:22 when he said, “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.” The word “wonder” shows the effect of miracles. They were such awesome events that they caused amazement in those who witnessed them.

The final word used is the word “power.” Used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:12 this word, dunamis in the original, means “the power of performing miracles” (Thayer, p. 159). This last word emphasizes the cause of miracles. They are done by such a great power that it can only be the power of God behind it.

The Evidence Of Miracles

“We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural.” So reads the Humanist Manifesto II. The reason they have not found the evidence may be the same reason a robber can’t find a policeman. We believe the evidence is there. Let us examine it with an open mind and honesty.

First of all what kind of evidence can we expect. It is certainly not a personal testimony, for we both agree that there are no miracles today. So we will make our case from historical evidence. Charles P. M’Ilvine wrote, “There are various descriptions of evidence, as the evidences of sense – the evidence of mathematical demonstration – the evidence of testimony. Each of these has its own department of subjects. A question of morals cannot be demonstrated by mathematics, or proved by the senses. A question of historical fact can be settled only by testimony. We are just as certain that such a man as Napoleon once lived, as that any proposition in geometry is true – though one is a matter of testimony, the other of demonstration. We are quite as sure that arsenic is poisonous, as that food is nutritious – though one is, to most of us at least, a matter of testimony only; while the other is, to all, a matter of sense . . . . Mathematical evidence is evidently inapplicable to the question. It is a matter fact belonging to another century, and therefore intangible by sense. Nothing remains but testimony. This is perfectly appropriate to the question” (“M’Ilvaine’s Review of Hume on Miracles, ” pp. 7-9).

John W. Montgomery agrees, as he expressed, “The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether in fact it has occurred. The problem of ‘miracles,’ then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not in the realm of philosophical speculation” (History and Christianity, p. 75).

We will call two witnesses to the stand. One is a Galilean fisherman by the name of John, and the other a physician called Luke. John was a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, and wrote a book about this unusual Nazarene. There has been found a fragment of a manuscript of the Gospel of John, called the Rylands Papyrus, dated from 100-150 A.D. Irenaus, writing around 185 A.D. and a student of John’s student, Polycarp, affirms that John was the writer of the fourth Gospel. We learn from other historical writings that this man was willing to suffer great persecution for the belief he had in what he had written. John states his reason for writing in John 20:30-3 1, “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God-, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Our other witness was a traveling companion of the apostle Paul, a former persecutor of the early followers of Jesus, but who, for some reason, changed to become a fervent follower of the Nazarene. W.M. Ramsay, after comparing Luke’s writings with known facts of the first century, concluded, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; . . . in short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians” (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 222). Luke states in the beginning of his book, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught” (Lk. 1:14). Luke, as a man of science, was only interested in “the exact truth.”

What do these two reliable witnesses have to say about the miracles of Jesus? First, they show that the miracles of Jesus were varied. He showed power over diseases (Jn. 4:46-54; 5:1-9; 9:1-7; Lk. 4:38-39; 5:12-26; 6:6-10; 7:1-10; 8:43-48; 13:10-17; 14:1-6). He showed power over demons (Lk. 4:31-36; 11:14; 8:26-39; 9:38-42). He showed power over nature (Jn. 2:1-11; 6:16-21; Lk. 5:1-11; 8:22-25; 9:12-17). And He showed power over death (Lk. 7:11-15; 8:4142; Jno. 11: 17-44). (What magician ever raised a man who had been dead for four days?) The miracles of Jesus were also numerous (Jn. 20:30; Lk. 4:40-41; 7:21-22). His miracles were done publicly (Lk. 6:6-11; 9:37-43; 18:35-43). His miracles were qffirmed by His disciples (Jn. 2:11), the multitudes (Jn. 6:14), the cured (Jn. 9:11,24), and even by His enemies (Jn. 11:47-53). The miracles of Jesus also confirmed His claims. Jesus could say, “I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:35,48,51), because He had fed over 5000 with 5 loaves of bread (Jn. 6:5-13). Jesus cold say, I am the light of the world” (Jn. 8:12; 9:5), because He gave light to a man born blind (Jn. 9:1-7). Jesus could say, “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn. 11:25), because He gave life to a dead man (Jn. 11:38-44). No sane man would make such claims! But Jesus did and proved the proclamation by the miraculous signs.

The Attacks Of Miracles

The Jews were the first to attack the miracles of Jesus. Their attack was not a denial of the miracles, but rather they attributed Jesus’ power to the Devil (Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22-27; Lk. 11: 15-22). Jesus’ answer remains the same today, “And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?”

The Pantheist has denied miracles on the basis that God is nature. But the truth is God is above nature. The Pantheist would put a strait jacket on God and His power.

The Sceptic doubts the possibility of miracles. Let him doubt no longer, but examine the evidence and accept the only reasonable conclusion – Jesus did miracles!

The Rationalist says that the miracles are only myths made up by writers centuries later than the time of Jesus. But as we have seen the evidence comes from men who lived in the first century. They lived and wrote during the time when miracles were being done. If we accept the historical evidence for Julius Caesar, why will we not accept an even stronger historical evidence for Jesus and the signs He performed.

The Critic argues that the testimony is full of mistakes and contradictions. Where is the proof? This argument has been made for centuries, and we still are waiting for the first contradiction to be given.

Conclusion

Friends, without the miraculous we have no hope. Paul reasoned in 1 Corinthians 15 that if the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus is false and thus our hope in Christ is only in this life “we are of all men most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:16-19). “Without the miraculous element Christianity would have no message, no solace for our age . . . . The only answer to the choppy seas of life is a Savior who can say, ‘Peace, be still.’ The only hope for victory over Satanic power is through the One whom the demons recognized and obeyed. The only hope for the body in this life and the next lies in the One who is Lord of life and death. The only hope for the soul rests in the one who died for our sins and rose again and ever lives to make intercession for us” (Howard F. Vos, “Miracles,” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, p. 1137).

Let us remember, “these (signs) have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn. 20:31).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 393, 408-409
July 5, 1984