Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. . . (excerpt from Hippocratic oath).

Just as I choose a ship to sail in or a house to live in, so I choose a death for my passage from life (Seneca, 4 B.C. – A. D. 65).

Not only is there conflict between truth and secularism regarding death, there is an ambivalence within secular circles regarding the proper esteem one is to have regarding his own death, that of his loved ones, and that of society at large. The Hippocratic Oath (though pledged to all the gods and goddesses of Hippocrates’ day) seems to be at conflict with some philosophers of ancient Rome. This early confrontation between approaches to death is the precursor to a modern conflict of enormous proportions: pro-life or pro-euthanasia/abortion. In no arena of philosophical discussion is the difference between faith in God and secularism more pronounced than that of attitudes toward death. Many are struggling with this mysterious and often tragic passage from life to death and have no ethical foundation upon which to choose. Is suicide an alternative? Is abortion murder? Do we withhold life support from aging parents? These are significant questions. But where are the answers?

Does Secularism Hold the Answer?

“… Secularization is the process by which the world is de-divinized.” “To call someone secular means that he is completely time-bound, totally a child of his age, a creature of history, with no vision of eternity. Unable to see anything in the perspective of eternity, he cannot believe that God exists or acts in human affairs. Moral standards, for example, tend to be merely those commonly accepted by the society in which he lives, and he believes that everything changes, so that there are no enduring or permanent values.”

If one does not believe that he possesses an eternal spirit, how is it possible to make a rational decision about its disposition? Such is the position of the secularist/humanist. One might as well ask a horse or cow about eternity as to ask a secularist about the value of life.

“We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans and not God, nature not deity.”

Believing that man is but a “naked ape,” secularism has spawned a host of aberrant behavioral problems. Since “there are no enduring or permanent values” in their view, life itself has no moral connection to death. Like the Epicurean philosopher of old (Acts 17), he advocates, “if it feels good, do it.” Consequently, every facet of the American way of life is being contorted, as well as the American way of death. Education, entertainment, religion (limited to the social gospel), the home, politics, the courts, congress, the media and many individuals are being warped and fueled by an insatiable desire for materialism and self-gratification with a philosophical rationale. The “me, too” generation has come of age with a vengeance. From Madonna (the “Material Girl”) to Phil Donahue (Mr. “Do Anything For A Rating”), America has embraced adultery, homosexuality, promiscuous sex, the drug culture, live-in “relationships,” skin-heads, filthy speech (under guise of free speech), and pornographic “artistry” supported by tax dollars. While the popular vernacular expresses it as “let it all hang out,” or “get in touch with yourself,” this life style is the end result of secular Marxism, Darwinism and Freudism. From Friedrich Neitzsche to John Dewey, Betty Friedan to Roseanne Barr, Shirley MacLaine to Madelyn Murray O’Hair; from the National Endowment for the Arts to the National Education Association, from Hollywood to the National Organization for Women (NOW), all these and many more have one common denominator: secular-ism. Is it any wonder that Shirley MacLaine supposes that she has been re-incarnated dozens of time? Is anyone surprised that NOW is led by a lesbian? Can anyone so enamored of a hedonistic life-style (spiritual death) really propose serious consideration of physical death? However, let there be no doubt that for one to understand the secularist view of death, one must acknowledge the secularist view of life. While the Christian recognizes that the manner of life on earth will affect the destiny of existence hereafter (“For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” [Rom. 8:13]), the opposite view does not. “The continuity of a human body is a matter of appearance and behavior, not of substance. The same thing applies to the mind. We think and feel and act, but there is not, in addition to thoughts and feelings and actions, a bare entity, the mind or the soul, which does or suffers these occurrences.” One’s view of life, therefore, will affect one’s … Its View of Death .. . view of death, as cause and effect.

Secularism and Death: Abortion and Euthanasia

While a lack of biblical faith (typical of secularism) does affect every second of human existence, it also adversely affects a view of and preparation for death. Not only does the deceptive philosophy keep one from a moral preparation for life after death, it actually hinders one from a humane consideration of death during life. Two examples are noteworthy: abortion and euthanasia.

“The Silent Scream” is an apt epitaph for :r fetus being cut apart in the womb. Not yet able to voice its pain, the unborn baby opens its mouth to grimace its anguish. Dry statistics of millions upon millions of abortions in America and around the world carry the message of innocent blood that cries out to God (Gen. 4:10). Used as a form of birth control, abortion has received the stamp of approval of the United States Supreme Court in the Roe v Wade decision (1973). The Women’s Liberation Movement demands abortion as one method of freeing its advocates from the bondage of motherhood into the freedom of a secular career. While early decisions of the court allowed abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, advocates are challenging for abortions in the last trimester (up to the actual moment of delivery!) even when viability (ability to survive outside the mother) is possible.

Let me raise a warning: a baby in the womb and a baby in the crib are neither viable in the true sense of the word. If we can become so hardened to death in the womb, what is to keep us from becoming hardened to death in the crib (in the case of diseased or retarded babies)? Hitler’s Germany has shown us how far a “civilized” nation can go into madness. The madness of abortion is upon us. Secularism has America in its grip on a national level. “Pro-choice” (a misnomer, since it only allows one choice: abortion) is as American as the Clinton/Gore Administration, as Ann Richards in Texas, as the U. S. Supreme Court.

But we are not finished yet. At the other end of the spectrum of life there are other persons who are not viable: the aged, infirm and mentally impaired. It should not be surprising that a calloused and cold-hearted person that would not have natural feelings (Rom. 1:31) toward babes in the womb would also not have natural feelings toward the aged. Euthanasia is now becoming an accepted alter-native to nursing homes.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Detroit pathologist with an inventive streak, has built a “Mercitron” killing machine (which is, in the finest American tradition, becoming “new and improved”) so that patients can commit suicide. While some states in America are passing laws aimed at making “mercy killings” illegal, some nations (the Netherlands, for example) allow it. Again Hitler’s Germany comes to mind. Malcolm Muggeridge, an opponent of euthanasia, commenting in “The Humane Holocaust,” said, “It took more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of mercy.”

We have, in this country, an organization dedicated to “mercy killings” (within the law, of course), the National Hemlock Society. Dr. Kevorkian is committed to aiding suicides even if he breaks the law. ‘The leader of the Hemlock Society, Derek Humphrey, has written an explicit “how-to” manual on suicide entitled, Final Exit. There are over 500,000 copies in print and it has made the New York Times best seller list. Not to be outdone, Dr. Kevorkian has written Prescription: MedicideThe Goodness of Planned Death.

A more pragmatic approach to suicide than one of “goodness” is that of the American wit, Dorothy Parker. She wrote:

Razors pain you;

Rivers are damp;

Acids stain you;

And drugs cause cramp.

Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give;

Gas smells awful;

You might as well live.

Recognizing that there is a legitimate area of concern for those who are opposed to the extra-ordinary and mechanical continuation of body functions after death has occurred, there remains a distinction between preserving life and taking life. Euthanasia is the planned, premeditated taking of life, whether that of yourself or another.

The Bible Holds the Answer

Though secularists reject the Word of God out of hand, wise men seek its counsel. “The fool has said in his heart, `There is no God’ (Ps. 14:1). Those who “give up the knowledge of God” think they are wise, but they are fools (Rom. 1:22).

A reverence for life is incompatible with the secularist agenda. But whether in the womb or on aged feet, life is a sacred gift from God and must not be treated with contempt nor discarded without compassion. God has said, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). It is a short step from the denial of God to a maltreatment of those made in his image.

Our nation is deep into the practice of both abortion and euthanasia. It has embraced secularism and has denied the God of Heaven. Believing, as I do, that God judges nations in time and raises nations up and deposes them (Dan. 4:17), I tremble when I consider the sure judgment of a righteous God upon the blood that cries from the ground. There has never been a time when God has overlooked evil. I don’t believe he will start now to do so. Let us pray that the gospel of Jesus Christ will have free course in our land once again and that people will come to repentance before we go beyond the reach of his patience and reap the bitter fruits of wickedness.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 5-7
February 3, 1994

By Wilson Adams

Let’s set the record straight (no pun intended!)  I like music. Always have. I have a stereo in my house, exercise with a Walkman on my side, and drive with an Infinity sound system in my car. I grew up on 8 Tracks, Casey Kasem’s “Top 40 Countdown,” and a pretty good album collection (which has gone the way of the yard sale). I also believed that having a car with a quadraphonic speaker system was more important than having one with an engine. Sound typical?

Today, depending on the mood, I may listen to pop-rock or country tunes. (Although I’m getting partial to the latter. A sign of maturity?) Sometimes I’m even into classical. (A sign of real maturity!) Why am I telling you this? Because I want you to know that I’m not some out-of-touch preacher who hates music or who believes that his kind is the only kind. Quite the contrary.

And something else. Young people need to know that the Bible isn’t against music either. From the first genealogical record of Genesis which mentions Jubal as “the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe” (4:21), to an entire collection of songs occupying more space in the Bible than any other book, music has played a key role in the history of man. And wasn’t it King Saul who hired a young “skillful musician” named David to play in the palace? (See 1 Samuel 16:14ff.)

Music isn’t the problem. Like other things, there is good and bad. Country songs which glorify drinkin’ and cheatin’ and “Tight Fittin’ Jeans” are not much different than some of the suggestive lyrics of Rock `n’ Roll. Such songs should be avoided. Thus, it’s not music style or preference that concerns me. It’s content. And influence.

The Influence of Music

There is no question that music influences. Ask the creators of Sesame Street or Barney who have found music to be the key factor in learning and memorization. The success of these programs proves that children do learn from what they see role modeled before them. All of which raises an important question: At what age does a child cease to learn from the use of music, words and images? Answer: Never.

August, 1981 ushered in the age of music television with the birth of MTV  a powerful cultural force that has influenced a generation and boosted music sales like nothing before. Maybe you’re kids don’t watch it (Good for you!) but chances are they have been influenced from peers who do.

Here are two questions I would like to ask parents: (1) How many hours per day does your child listen to music? (The average for today’s teen is 4-6 hours!) (2) What are they listening to? (You’re probably thinking that, with obnoxious sound and incomprehensible lyrics, who knows?) But please don’t ask: Who cares?  because you should.

Some of today’s musicians are communicating positive messages in their music. Some aren’t. All too often what kids are hearing from CD’s, MTV and live concert performances is that drugs are okay, sex is great and violence is acceptable. In fact, Heavy Metal, the most disturbing element in contemporary music (and fast becoming the music of choice among pre-teens and adolescents) deals with themes that would (and should!) shock most parents, if they knew.

Five Major Themes of Heavy Metal Music

1. Alcohol and drug abuse. After Vince Neil, lead singer of Motley Crue, was arrested in 1985 for drunk driving in which one person was killed and two others critically injured, he explained his thought on alcohol: “I love to drink … but I’m not going to drive anymore. And I think we should tell our fans . . . Don’t drink and drive, not don’t drink. Do whatever you want to do man … shoot up heroin, I don’t care, do it, have fun, it’s your life.” Amazing. It’s no surprise that their songs reflect the same attitude.

In License to Ill, the debut album of The Beastie Boys, there are 95 references to drug and alcohol consumption. Newsweek reported on the group by saying, “Among other things, the boys lustily hymn the joys of girls, gunplay, and getting high. ” The beasties are quoted as saying, “The band only wants to bring a little fun into the lives of all the 13-year-old girls who buy their records.” This is the same group that encourages all girls in the audiences of their concerts to bare their breasts while at the same time hoisting a twenty foot long hydraulic penis on stage. (I’m sorry if that is offensive but it’s about time we open our eyes to reality.)

2. Suicide and death. Here are the words to Ozzy Osbourn’s Suicide Solution: “Breaking laws, knocking doors, but there’s no one at home. Made your bed, rest your head, but you lie there and moan. Where to hide, suicide is the only way out. Don’t you know what it’s really about?”

The cult band, Suicidal Tendencies, sing Suicide’s An Alternative from their debut album: “Sick of life . . . Sick and tired . . . no one cares. Sick of myself . . . don’t wanna live. Sick of living . . . gonna die! Suicide’s an alternative!”

The suicide rate among teens have tripled in the last three decades. 600,000 teens attempt suicide every year and many succeed. True, not every young person who listens to heavy metal music is going to commit suicide. But some will. And some have.

3. Graphic violence. WASP is a band whose concert violence includes the simulated execution of a nude woman. Lead singer Blackie Lawless said, “After we use the rack, I’ll cut the girl down, throw her over my shoulder, take her to the center of the stage and drop her in this contraption. It’s like a meat grinder . . . It’ll spray her all over the audience. We’ll even pass out raincoats. The sicker they get, the sicker we’ll get.” Their song Anything Goes from their album Appetite For Destruction glorifies rape. (WASP carries the label of Capitol Records, a leader in the music industry.)

Another group, Guns N’ Roses, released an album with an explicit rape scene on the cover and their song “It’s So Easy” also glorifies rape. The Misfits sing: “I’ve got something to say, I killed your baby today. It doesn’t matter much to me . . . as long as it’s dead. I’ve got something to say, I raped your mother today. It doesn’t matter much to me . . .” (This at a time when rape is rampant.)

4. Fascination with the occult. The group AC/DC invites their fans to join them on the Highway to Hell. Other bands such as Megadeath, Slayer, Venom and Merciful Fate provide “how to” guides in their songs dealing with themes from sacrifice to sex with the dead. Venom sings: “Candles glowing, alters burn, virgin’s death is needed there. Sacrifice to Lucifer, my Master . . . Bring the chalice, raise the knife, welcome to my sacrifice!” Tom Jarriel on ABC’s 20/20 program noted, “The Satanic message is clear, both in the album covers and in the lyrics, which are reaching impressionable young minds.”

5. Explicit Sex. In the sixties it was Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones singing, “Let’s Spend the Night Together,” which caused such a major uproar that some radio stations refused to air the song. That’s nothing compared to some of the lyrics of today.

In the song Sister, from the album Dirty Mind, rock star Prince sings, “My sister never made love to anyone but me. She’s the reason for my sexuality.” (Other Prince songs and lyrics from the group Van Halen, Madonna and others, go beyond what can even be printed!) When 2 Live Crew released their debut album, a Florida store clerk was arrested for selling obscenity to a minor.

The Dead Kennedys, a punk rock band, released an album in 1986 with an enclosed poster entitled “Penis Landscape.” Labeled as “a work of art” this poster was so hard-core that Playboy Magazine when reporting on the story blacked out the explicit parts of the poster. There was a time when hard-core pornography was available only in porn shops to those over age 21. However, a growing number of record companies have succeeded in making explicit material available to anyone at any age.

P.M.R.C.

Through the work of Tipper Gore and others, the Parents Music Resource Center has fought to force the music industry to print lyrics on the covers of all records, tapes and CD’s so that parents can be aware of the content. They have succeeded. But it will do no good if parents continue to look the other way. That is the one thing we cannot afford to do.

Let’s talk, look, and listen. Let’s encourage our teens to enjoy good songs with positive, uplifting lyrics. (They do exist!) Let’s turn off MTV (or have it disconnected if it is a problem) and teach our kids the art of selectivity when it comes to music . . . and then practice it ourselves (Phil. 4:8). (For more information, contact: P.M.R.C., 1500 Arlington Blvd. Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 15-16
February 3, 1994

By Gary Henry

The secular society in which we live is the result of influences that have come at us from several different directions. Of these various influences, none has been any more powerful than Hollywood. The fare served up to us by TV and the movies has been more destructive to the religious character of our culture than anyone can accurately measure. We have been hit hard by our entertainment.

Two excellent books have recently dealt with the corrosive social influence of the entertainment industry. Robert and Linda Lichter and Stanley Rothman have written Watching America (Prentiss Hall, 1991), a penetrating look at how TV has portrayed and changed American society since the 1950’s. The authors state: “During the past four decades, television has transcended its role as mere entertainment to become a potent force shaping everyday life. The average American now watches more than four hours of TV each day, and the average household keeps a set on more than seven hours a day. The full force of television’s impact is rarely felt in a single program or even a single season. It is the long-term result of exposure to an artificial reality so pervasive it has become a major part of the social environment” (3).

More recently, Michael Medved has written Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (Harper-Collins, 1992). Says Mr. Medved: “As a nation, we no longer view the show business capital as a magical source of uplifting entertainment, romantic inspiration, or even harmless fun. Instead, tens of millions of Americans now see the entertainment industry as an all-powerful enemy, an alien force that assaults our most cherished values and corrupts our children. The dream factory has become the poison factory” (3).

The secularization of America is damage done, in part, by the relentless assault of Hollywood on the public image of religion. For many years now, the movies and TV have tried to pretend that religion is nothing more than a relic from the past. Despite the fact that studies have repeatedly shown that around 50% of the U.S. population still considers religion an important part of their lives, a recent Gallup survey showed that only 5% of TV characters practice religion in any way. Mike McManus, a syndicated religion and ethics columnist, comments, “You’d never know by looking at TV that religion is a source of joy for so many people . . . It’s as if religion didn’t even exist.” And on those rare occasions when religious people do appear in movies or on TV, they are usually portrayed as unintelligent, maladjusted, and of questionable worth to society. No other group in society would stand for such misrepresentation of the facts, but the attempted obliteration of religion by Hollywood has gone unopposed for the most part.

The almost totally secular view of society in entertainment should not be surprising. As a group, the individuals who produce movies and TV programs are very much more secular in their own lives than the U.S. population at large. Regarding the personal religious convictions of those in the TV industry, for example, Lichter, Lichter, and Rothman write: “Television’s creative leaders have moved toward a markedly more secular orientation. Ninety-three percent had a religious upbringing, the majority (59 percent) in the Jewish faith. An additional 25 percent were raised in some Protestant denomination, and the remaining 12 percent as Catholics. Currently, however, 45 percent claim no religious affiliation whatsoever, more than six times the number of those who were not raised in any religious tradition. This is also greater than the proportion who currently profess to any particular religion. Defections have occurred from all faiths, so that only 38 percent now call themselves Jews, 12 percent remain Protestants, and 5 percent have retained their Catholic faith. Moreover, most of those remaining affiliations appear to be purely nominal. Ninety-three percent say they seldom or never attend religious services” (13, 14). What would we expect from a group that is so predominantly non-religious, if not a distortedly non-religious picture of American life in their “art

Whatever harmful effects their secular vision of America has done to our society, however, the TV and movie producers themselves deny any responsibility. They are quick to claim credit for any enlightening, uplifting effect entertainment has had on our culture  but they will have none of it when the public tries to hold them accountable for damage done. It does no good to point out the obvious connection between the glut of promiscuous sex and lawless violence in entertainment and the rampant growth of these things in our communities. Studio executives stoutly insist that the good messages they send out have a beneficial effect on America and the bad ones simply have no effect. Columnist Brent Bozell recently illustrated this vicious double standard by quoting an executive who had been involved in the production of Lethal Weapon 3, a movie full of brutality and violence. In one scene the stars fasten their seat belts, since it was thought that this would encourage young people to do the same. But what about the violence? Would not the young people imitate that too? No, said the executive: “If, when we send out any message that we consider good . . . people immediately imitate what they see. But when it comes to anything negative, anything destructive, no one imitates that.”

The truth is, however, nearly everything Hollywood does affects our culture, the bad as powerfully as the good. Homosexuality is a good example of how Hollywood can change public opinion for the worse on social issues. Who can deny that Americans in general have adopted a much more accepting attitude toward homosexual conduct as a result of “sensitive” movie and TV portrayals of homosexuals, the AIDS-related deaths of many popular Hollywood stars, and the frequent public appearances of entertainment figures with red “AIDS Awareness” ribbons conspicuously attached to their clothing? The simple, unpleasant truth is that Hollywood is systematically breaking down our social resistance to homosexuality. If the day comes (as by all appearances it likely will) when homosexual conduct is accepted as moral by the average American, we will in large measure be able to thank the entertainment industry.

George Gerbner, of the Annenberg School of Communication, is quoted as saying, “If you can write a nation’s stories, you needn’t worry about who makes its laws.” Art and entertainment are just that powerful in forming the character of a people. In a society like ours  one which is even more fascinated by entertainment and entertainers than most  citizens are even more vulnerable to the influence of things like television and movies. What is even more scary is that those who write our stories and those who make our laws consort together, and often are the same people! No aspect of the recent presidential election was more disturbing than the courting of Holly-wood movers and shakers by Bill Clinton. It makes a disturbing comment on the power of the entertainment establishment that a major presidential candidate felt the need to curry favor with it. During the campaign, the president is reported to have said in a speech on the West Coast that he wanted Hollywood to help “write the script” for a new America. Since his election, entertainment celebrities have had easy access to the corridors of power in Bill Clinton’s administration. Nothing should be more alarming to those who wish to preserve this country and the religious basis of its culture.

But we should not despair. The Christian is capable of literally turning off the secularistic influence of the entertainment business. When we have the courage to say “no” to anything that degrades rather than recreates, we will have a chance to make a difference in society. When it comes to TV and the movies, we can be “blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Phil. 2:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 13-14
February 3, 1994

By Dick Blackford

After a twenty years’ nap, Rip van Winkle woke up to find he had slept through a revolution. I fear many Christians are sleeping through a revolution and are unprepared for conflict. While Nikita Kruschev will not get the satisfaction of seeing America buried “without firing a shot,” a philosophy similar to his has made successful inroads into the educational, legal, cultural, entertainment, and religious halls of our time and nation. This attack has been aimed at the foundation upon which western civilization stands  the view that this world was created by a God of justice and the moral teachings of the Bible (Prov. 14:34).

This is a call to battle. Not because of physical danger, but because of the danger to souls that have been and are being lost. It is not a battle of bullets and bombs but of ideas and concepts. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4, 5). If anyone should be able to meet the arguments of humanists, it should be Christians. Since Christianity is of the heart (Matt. 22:37; Rom. 10:10; 6:17,18), we cannot coerce, but must convince. As the twentieth century comes to a close, a new day is dawning. For many, it will not be good.

There are very few areas in which Christianity and secular human-ism agree. We could say that secularism is the antithesis or opposite view of Christianity  every step of the way. Secularism is a godless religion that deifies man and is intolerant of its opposite, Christianity. Even the Humanist Manifesto calls it a “religious and moral point of view” (3) and “a growing faith” (24). (Note: all page references will be to Humanist Manifesto I and II.) This manifesto proports to be a sophisticated treatise designed to give dignity to the humanist philosophy. In reality, it is the most corrupt, vulgar and degrading piece composed in this century. It is designed to destroy the dignity of man, his beliefs, his values, his life, and his soul.

Secularism’s View Of This World

“Secular” (Latin, saeculum) means “age” or “time.” One who is secular is bound by time. He is one whose hope is confined to the here and now. We are told that “Religious humanism seeks its . . . fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion” (9). And, “we strive for the good life, here and now” (17). This accords exactly with the view advocated by Charles Smith, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism in his debate with a gospel preacher in 1929, that “Our fourth fundamental is Hedonism, the doctrine that happiness here and now should be the motive of conduct” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, 27. Italics mine in all three quotes).

In short, the humanist philosophy is similar to the Epicureans who said, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” and this world is all there is. You only go around once. There is no judgment day. Jesus taught there are two worlds: the one that now is and that which is to come (Mk. 10:29,30). With humanism’ s view that there are no moral absolutes (“right” and “wrong”), it is easy to see the outcome of such a philosophy. It would amount to a free-for-all in the area of morality.

A “One-World Government”

When humanists say, “The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperative” (19), they mean to exclude all ideologies except humanism. They say “People are more important than decalogues, rules, prescriptions, or regulations. We look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based on transnational federal government” (21).

In order to accomplish this “we urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended” (23). This would make the government number one in the life of every citizen. The New Testament church would be secondary. In fact, the statement continues,

… commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiance of church . . . What more daring a goal … than for each person to become . . . a citizen of a world community . . . Humanism … is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential intelligence, good will, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead.

It has been two decades since the Humanist Manifesto II was written. The perceptive observer of current events in the news is well aware of our government’s bowing to the United Nations, our “One-world Government.”

The advantage to humanism in a totalitarian government is the implementing, world-wide, of its philosophy of:

1. God and salvation. “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves . . . we begin with humans, not God” (16). “Traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith” (13). Consider these words from a dedicated humanist:

The Bible is not merely another book, an outmoded and archaic book, or even an extremely influential book; it has been and remains an incredibly dangerous book. It and the various Christian churches which are parasitic upon it have been directly responsible for most of the wars, persecutions, and outrages which humankind has perpetrated upon itself over the past two thousand years … I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … These teachers must embody the same 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 . . . 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, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of `love thy neighbor,’ will finally be achieved (John Dunphy, “A New Religion For A New Age,” The Humanist, January/February, 1983. My emphasis, db).

2. The Universe. “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created” (8, emphasis added).

3. Man. “Man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process … we can alter the course of human evolution . . . Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams” (8, 14, 10).

4. Morals. “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is . . . situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction . . . neither do we wish to prohibit . . . sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered `evil”‘ (17, 18). These “varieties” would include adultery, lesbianism, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality.

The Role Of Government

In A “One-World Government”

Since man rejected God’s form of government God has allowed (not necessarily approved) many forms. A totalitarian government could be allowed the same as many nationalistic governments. The danger lies in what philosophy controls that government. In a one-world government that has no fixed base (such as the Ten Commandments), law will be arbitrarily decided by what is good for society at the time and in its practical results (pragmatism). For example, since humanists deny God then life is not sacred. Therefore .aborting babies is no problem since over population and welfare children are not “good” (practical) for society.

Biblically, God has given government as an agent of justice to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:1-4;1 Pet. 2:13-17). This presupposes some absolutes. And we say without hesitation that any attempt to produce world peace that excludes the Prince of peace is doomed for failure.

Morality In A “One-World Government”

How many times have we heard humanists and those misled by them say, “You can’t legislate morality?” They mean only biblical morality. Actually, they have redefined morality and are already legislating it. Morality has to do with ecology and “this world.” Notice: “Ecological dam-age, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value” (21, 22). This is why humanists can get so upset over rain forests and saving the whales and the snail-darter, but favor abortion, suicide, and mercy-killing. Again, “it is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide . . . massive assistance, including birth control techniques (they would include abortion, db)” (22). Their morality would compel the redistribution of wealth. “Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basic” (22). And, “we would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral . . . grounds” (22). Thus, they see no problem with harvesting aborted babies for research and profit.

The Role Of The Church

In A One-World Government

One may think there is no role for the church in a godless society, but there is, at least in the transitional period. Humanism has infiltrated churches. “Many within religious groups believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move above and beyond the divisive particulars . . . of past religions . . . ” (15) “Religion must work increasingly for joy in living” (9). They mean in the here and now, since they don’t believe in a hereafter. “All associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life” (9). “Certainly, religious institutions must be reconstructed as rapidly as experience allows … ” (10). The reason many churches have trouble deciding the simplest of moral issues is because they have been infiltrated by humanists and are in the process of reconstruction. “We believe … that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species . . . Some humanists believe we should interpret traditional religions and rein-vest them with meanings appropriate to the situation” (16). Humanists don’t mind if you give lip service to God as long as it doesn’t affect the way you act and live. This is why many politicians can invoke the name of God while making humanistic decisions diametrically opposed to God’s will.

Jesus implied religious division would cause the world not to believe (Jn. 17:20-23). Today’s professed believers have worked against the prayer of Jesus with their denominational creeds, councils, and dogmas and have played into the hands of humanists who claim they can unite all men. Most churches have lost their ability to influence society and are preaching a generic gospel that soothes itching ears (2 Tim. 4:3). Many have become clubs de-signed to entertain and meet our social desires and have become impotent to affect any real good in the battle for the mind against the highly organized and aggressive forces of humanism. Conclusion: Humanism’s means of accomplishing their goals is three-fold: the legal system (consider the work of the ACLU), the media (especially television and music), and the classroom (consider values clarification, evolution, sex education minus morality, etc.). I ask the reader, how well do you think they are doing?

The difference between communism and humanism could safely be said to be about 5%. The differences between Christianity and humanism are about 98%. That communism’s goal to bury us “without firing a shot” is the same as the humanists is expressed in these words: “The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless non-violent adjustments” (23). What difference does it make what they call themselves if their goal is basically the same? If communism can accomplish most of its goals by changing its name and compromising on a few points, they are more than glad to do so and have done so many times in the past. Humanism bears far closer kinship to communism than to Christianity. They are like Siamese twins. I have always believed the optimism over the so-called “death of communism” was premature. A part of communism’s plan since its origin has been to zigzag as a means of throwing others off track.

One can be a Christian in any society, but it is far more difficult and dangerous in a godless society than a free society. My fellow Christians, it may be later than you think. Let us close with the words of the late Will Durant: “The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, nor Europe vs. America, not even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 2
February 3, 1994