Chapter 13

Implementing the Humanist Agenda: Progressive Politics

Humanism vs. Christianity
The Polarization of America

by Patrick Vosse

Living Water at the Oasis
Living Water at the Oasis

Part Three
Polarization of America

Chapter 13 - Implementing the Humanist Agenda: Progressive Politics

Having a practical philosophy such as Humanism is not of much use unless there is a means of implementing it. Ancient philosophies such as Platonism, Epicureanism, or Sophism were discussed, sometimes with noisy passion, but they were not imposed. Even through the 18th century opposing philosophies were matters of intellectual combat, not action. But the rise of Humanism changed all that. There are two methods that Humanists have available to implement their philosophy. They can enter into dialog and debate and, if their argument is convincing, win the hearts and minds of the rest of society. However, much of society initially rejected many elements of the Humanist position and the Socialism that it gave rise to. Failing to convince, the alternative method has to be implemented...force, specifically, political force.

The tenets of Humanism implied social change and that required a vehicle of change, progressive politics. Progressivism, in it early stages, was a political attitude advocating changes or reform aimed at helping those facing harsh living and working conditions. The focus in the late 19th century was on laws regulating tenement housing, child labor and better working conditions for women.

The term Progressivism emerged in the late 19th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, particularly the poor urban conditions. The concern of these early Progressives was that power politics and conservative economics were indifferent to those without economic or political power. However, progressive politics was initially more of a philosophy than a practical political machine. Progressives needed a practical political vehicle that shared their ideals and objectives. They found it in Socialism. Or, more precisely, Socialism found the Progressives. Before discussing the development and implications of Progressivism, we need a clear definition of Socialism. Socialism is:

Socialism is, first, the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production–the land, factories, mills, mines, banks, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. Socialism is also the name given to a body of scientific and philosophic thought which explains why the Socialist form of society is now a necessity, the forces upon which its achievement depends, the conditions under which and the methods whereby it can be achieved.
It will be obvious at once that the basic principles of Socialist society are diametrically opposite to those of Capitalist society in which we live. Socialism stands for social or community property. Capitalism stands for private property. Socialism is a society without classes. Capitalism is divided into classes–the class owning property and the propertyless working class.

Socialism is usually thought of as a form of government that advocates public ownership and public control of wealth. A socialistic government wants the wealth of the nation spread out in such a way that the money is equally distributed among the country's citizens. Socialism is in favor of tearing down the class structure and forming a classless society. In this way, it was born out of Marxism.

This definition of Socialism implies "distribution of wealth" and "social justice", two concepts also implied in the Progressive agenda. However, we should not consider Progressivism solely a liberal phenomenon. Republicans, normally thought of as the "poster children" for conservatism, have their share of Progressives as well. In fact, Theodore Roosevelt, the champion of many conservative causes, was the most significant champion of Progressivism in the first part of the 20th century. He was the founder of the Progressive Party. We should keep in mind that Socialism is, in the Marxist philosophy, the transition step between Capitalism and Communism. By definition, Socialism is anti-Capitalism, anti-religion, anti-individualism. Socialism is collectivism and government control of the collective.

Before we begin the discussion regarding Progressivism, it will be helpful to recall the main points of Humanism as defined in the Humanist Manifesto. The references in parentheses refer to the Humanist Manifesto, Appendix 3.

  • Religion is an outdated concept. Morals are defined by the collective society and are relative to conditions. Religion and references to God are "illusionary and harmful." The theory of evolution disproves the concept of divine creation. Ethics are situational and require no religious sanction. The purpose of life is to pursue a "good life here and now." The influence of religion must be eliminated. (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and Closing Statement)
  • Individuals should have complete freedom of choice, without religious interference. Individuals should have complete freedom of sexual preference and expression. There should be no control of sexual activities between adults. (Articles 5 and 6)
  • The individual has the right to suicide, euthanasia, and abortion. (Articles 8)
  • Society should develop alternative economies that provide for all the basic requirements in order to eliminate poverty. Societies should provide universal education, a minimum guaranteed annual income, and basic health care. (Articles 10 and 11)
  • There must be a World Government without nations or national borders, a World Legal System, a World Economic System, a worldwide centrally controlled communication and transportation system, and a World Environmental Control System. (Articles 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17)

It will help to see the agenda of Progressives if these Humanist tenets are kept in mind in the following discussions.

A Brief History of Progressive Politics

By the end of the 19th century, the American economy was thriving, but there was a dark side to the prosperity. Workers were exploited. In a sense, the African slaves had been replaced by women, children, and men who had no leverage in the workplace, many of whom were immigrants. This was a time of convergence of many new concepts. Marx and Engles published the Communist Manifesto in 1848 and the ideas that formulated Socialism had swept Europe. The humanist philosophies of Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche were popular positions among the educated. Darwin's theory of evolution had become an adjunct philosophy to Humanism and Atheism in general. The time was perfect for the "perfect storm" of politics and social issues to converge. However, as popular as these philosophies were among the elite, the common folk remained skeptical. It became increasingly clear that Humanism, in whatever form, would not be readily accepted by the populace in general; pure Marxists knew that implementation of the philosophy would come only by force.

However, there were those who saw an alternative to implementing Humanism by force – the Fabian Socialists. Fabian Socialists took their name from the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus. He was famous for defeating opposing armies by hit and run harassment that gradually wore the opponent down to a point where Fabian could mount a final attack that swiftly subdued his enemy. The Fabian Socialist proposed the same technique for gradually manipulating society in slowly accepting pieces of Socialism, little by little, until a critical mass is reached and then, when sufficient progress is made, the society will suddenly tip completely to a Socialist state. This is the technique Progressives are using in Western Europe and North America today. A cornerstone of Fabian Socialism is Social Justice, a concept that permeates Humanism and Progressivism (discussed in the following section).

Those concerned with the exploited workers identified the problem as uncontrolled Capitalism, corruption, and a population disenfranchised from making crucial decisions. These early Progressives saw government control as the solution. Regulation of the capital systems and the important elements of a humane society appeared to be necessary at the central government level. Unbridled, corporations did not assume any responsibility for the condition of workers or their families. And, the urban environment was rapidly deteriorating. The message of Socialism struck a harmonic chord. The clarion of Communism - "workers of the world, unite" - was well received by factory workers who, individually, had no voice. It seemed that the answer to the Progressive's concern was Socialism and the growing Humanism movement.

However, some of the workers had already united. During the 1850's, German immigrants brought with them Socialism, already well established in much of Europe, and the concept of unions. They began Marxian Socialist unions such as the National Typographic Union in 1852, United Hatters of 1856, and Iron Molders' Union of North America in 1859. During the 1880's and 90's the concept of worker's right as opposed to Andrew Carnegie's philosophy, shared by most fiscal and social conservatives, that individuals had an basic right to hold private property, accumulate capital, and manage their wealth as they see fit without external interference. These two concepts, the corporation's right to manage its affairs without external interference and the workers' rights to control working conditions, were on a collision course.

By the early 20th century, the concept of unions had taken root and integral with the concept was Socialism. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was formed in 1905 as a breakaway element of the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The founder of the AFL, Samuel Gompers, was strongly opposed to Socialism and some of the member wanted to expand the social agenda. They formed the IWW with a group of radical Socialists with the goal of overthrowing the employing class, i.e. the owners and managers of the industries for which they worked. They saw the relationship between the employer and the employed as a class struggle in the same way that Marx expressed it in the Communist Manifesto. Their activities extended beyond the direct interests of the worker to include opposition to World War I, expansion of social justice policies, opposition to, and elimination of the capitalist system. However, these concepts were not limited to liberal union leaders. There was also a growing cultural movement that had a definite liberal flavor. This is expressed by the Socialist League:

Trade Unionism and Socialism have thus a common origin and the aim of Socialism is only possible of achievement by the working class becoming victorious in the struggle against Capitalism.
This means that the Trade Unions should recognise that all the efforts of the working class must be directed to the goal of the conquest of political power. Their fight in the industrial field must be linked with the fight to obtain a Socialist Government which, backed by the might of the working class, would transfer the ownership of the means of production and distribution from private hands to social ownership

Those who joined unions were merely looking for a way to secure a fair wage and decent working conditions. Many were indifferent to politics and philosophy. That is still true today, however, many union members are now well versed in politics and may not agree with the policies and politics of their union leaders. For example, Andy Stern, previous president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is quoted as adapting the Communist motto,

"What we're working toward is building a global organization. Because workers of the world unite? It's not just a slogan any more; it's a way we are going to have to do our work."[3]

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO has met with European Socialist to promote an international tax.[4] He is endorsed by the Socialist Equity Party,[5] Humanitarian Socialist Party,[6] and the Freedom Socialist Party,[7] among others. As recently as September 2010 he admitted that his primary goal was not the improvement of union members' wages but to transform America to conform to the Progressive philosophy.[8]

Social Justice

The industrial revolution brought great prosperity to the United States. But with that prosperity came greater gaps between the classes. Industrial giants accumulated great wealth. The middle class merchants and family businesses thrived. The immigrants, unskilled laborers, and women did not do so well. Government corruption was for sale, racial discrimination was alive and well, health care was not available to the poor, and homelessness and hunger were common. In 1870, there were more than 80,000 child laborers and, by 1900, that number had risen to 1.7 million. The percent of women in the workforce was less than 15 percent. All these conditions were blamed on Capitalists' abuse of power. The message of Socialism rang true to many, particularly the elite, the educated, and the activists. The educated were exposed to the philosophies of Voltaire, Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche and their message of Humanism and its fundamental premise, Atheism. As Marx was persuaded by these philosophies, so were many Americans. The growing call for reform caused many to look for answers and they found them in Humanism and Socialism. Humanism was a fundamental element common to the philosophers mentioned above and it can be expressed in several ways: Moderate liberalism, Socialism, and Communism are the more popular positions. In the early 20th-century America, it was expressed as Progressivism with the goal of establishing social justice in America.

Social justice is concerned with groups or classes of people as opposed to justice for the individual. Social justice can be defined as: the application of the concept of justice on a social scale implemented through the equal distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society. It is essentially "Socialism light." It is concerned with correcting "historical injustices", redistribution of wealth, and giving the central government sufficient power to assure all citizens have an equal social and economic condition.

So far in this discussion, see significant polarization between liberals and conservative in areas of politics and economics, but nothing to alienate Christians or their moral principles. However, there is something lurking in the shadow over there to the "left."

The Progressive Party

Dissatisfied with the GOP and President Taft's strong conservative position, Theodore Roosevelt led progressive elements out of the Republican Party to form the Progressive Party in 1912. Roosevelt was named the presidential candidate for the Progressive Party. He finished well ahead of the GOP candidate, but lost to Woodrow Wilson. In 1916, Roosevelt returned to the GOP and the Progressive Party and the Progressive Party dissolved for a time. The party reemerged in 1924 with a platform that included: government ownership of public utilities, a progressive tax that would tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor, establish collective bargaining (unions) as a requirement, and subsidies to certain elements of the economy. The party did not do well, possibly because of the progressive extremes of Woodrow Wilson, and again dissolved.

In 1948, dissatisfied with Harry Truman, New Deal Democrats formed a new iteration of the Progressive Party. The new Progressive Party was strongly supported by the Communist Party and opponents successfully used this against them. By the early 1950's the Progressive Party, as a national entity, had disappeared. However, local elements continue today, particularly in Washington State and Vermont. Throughout its history, the Progressive Party openly supported Socialism. Progressives were responsible for prohibition, amendments to the Constitution that changed the selection of senators from appointment by state legislators to direct election, and women's suffrage.

1900 to 1930: Laying the Foundation

The American Socialist Party was formed in 1901 by Victor L. Berger, Job Harriman, and Morris Hillquit of the Socialist Labor Party and Eugene V. Debs of the American Railway Union. In the early 1900's it was the only serious opposition to Capitalism in the United States. It reached its peak in 1912. In 1910, one thousand Socialists were elected to state and local offices. Eugene Debs ran for president against Woodrow Wilson in 1912, but got only 6 percent of the vote. In 1924, plagued by internal divisions, the party joined with the Progressive Party. By the end of the 1920's, the Russian revolution had caused many to be wary of Socialism and those who maintained their philosophical agreement with Marxism, mostly the well-educated elite, found it more acceptable to refer to themselves as "Progressive." In 1905, author Upton Sinclair founded the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which soon had chapters in the leading universities. Lively young men and women discussed the "New Gospel according to St. Marx." Universities were considered to be favorable ground for Progressive thought.

Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat, but might as well have been a member of the Progressive Party. He was elected President in 1912 and began a decade of social reform that laid the foundation for the Humanism in American politics that we see today. His administration was marked by the expansion of a large and powerful federal government. With a Democratic congress, he was able to accomplish the following:

  • The Federal Reserve Act that established a central federal bank to control monetary policy.
  • The Federal Trade Commission.
  • The Clayton Anti-Trust Act that was considered to be very favorable to union growth and influence.
  • The Federal Farm Loan Act established the government as the primary source of financing for the agricultural sector.
  • Imposed union demands on railroad management (Adamson Act).
  • The first progressive income tax was established by the 16th Amendment.

Despite his campaign promises to support African-American issues (a promise that drew large numbers from the Republican Party) he was responsible for the expansion of segregation throughout the federal government and the military. He considered the United States Constitution outdated and had an agenda to change it through amendments. He particularly opposed the system of checks and balances. His policies were considered pro-socialist, pro-union, and anti-Capitalist. During his second term, he:

  • He entered WWI, breaking his campaign promise to stay out of the conflict.
  • Initiated the military draft.
  • Promoted labor unions. Union Leaders were frequent visitors to the White House.
  • Established federal control of the railroads.
  • Was the major force behind the establishment of the League of Nations.

During the war, Wilson's administration expanded its support for unions and established a commission for pro-Wilson propaganda and censorship. Although Wilson's actions were extremely polarizing politically, they did not result in a Humanist-Christian polarization. In fact, many Church leaders, particularly Catholics whose congregations consisted of a significant number of union members, were supportive of Wilson's policies. Wilson, however, laid the foundation for a Socialist government. He planted the seeds that would eventually grow into a Humanistic emphasis in government. His policies created a climate of acceptance of Humanism and this did eventually polarize Humanists and Christians.

An example of Humanist activism is Margaret Sanger. Sanger was an Atheist, Socialist, Humanist, and a strong proponent of birth control, a position that was in direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Her stated reason was that women in the slums were merely breeding machines and that the large families resulted in poverty and anguish. The Humanist must help these people to rise above this condition and birth control was an essential part of the effort. As second reason for her activism was to elevate women and free them from family responsibilities so they could pursue their full potential. In 1916, she opened the first family planning and birth control clinic and in 1921, she founded the American Birth Control League. Although opposed to abortion herself, the family planning clinics that grew out of her efforts eventually resulted in millions of abortions. On the surface, except for the opposition of the Catholic Church and a few other Church leaders, Sanger's family planning philosophy was not polarizing and many church leaders approved of it. But that something lurking in the shadows to the "left" began to emerge. It turns out Margaret Sanger's motives were not entirely altruistic. As a Humanist, she was a strong proponent of eugenics and euthanasia. Her reasons for promoting birth control for the poor, uneducated, and "racially inferior" included "improving the human race." Here are a few of her quotes:[9]

We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all–that the wealth of individuals and of state is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.

Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes.

... Degeneration has already begun. Eugenists demonstrate that two-thirds of our manhood of military age are physically too unfit to shoulder a rifle; that the feeble-minded, the syphilitic, the irresponsible and the defective breed unhindered; ... that the vicious circle of mental and physical defect, delinquency and beggary is encouraged, by the unseeing and unthinking sentimentality of our age, to populate asylum, hospital and prison. All these things the Eugenists sees and points out with a courage entirely admirable.

Sterilization of the insane and feebleminded and the encouragement of this operation upon those afflicted with inherited or transmissible diseases, with the understanding that sterilization does not deprive the individual of his or her sex expression, but merely renders him incapable of producing children.

Birth control is thus the entering wedge for the educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use their interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, hygiene and infant welfare. The potential mother can then be shown that maternity need not be slavery but may be the most effective avenue to self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

Even if we accept organized charity at its own valuation, and grant that it does the best it can, it is exposed to a more profound criticism. It reveals a fundamental and irremediable defect. Its very success, its very efficiency, its very necessity to the social order, are themselves the most unanswerable indictment. Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the "failure" of philanthropy, but rather at its success.

Margaret Sanger was not the only progressive voice for eugenics. Oliver Wendell Holmes said;

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Bertrand Russell said:

It must be admitted, however, that there are certain dangers. Before long the population may actually diminish. This is already happening in the most intelligent sections of the most intelligent nations; government opposition to birth-control propaganda gives a biological advantage to stupidity, since it is chiefly stupid people who governments succeed in keeping in ignorance. Before long, birth-control may become nearly universal among the white races; it will then not deteriorate their quality, but only diminish their numbers, at a time when uncivilized races are still prolific and are preserved from a high death-rate by white science. This situation will lead to a tendency --- already shown by the French --- to employ more prolific races as mercenaries. Governments will oppose the teaching of birth-control among Africans, for fear of losing recruits. The result will be an immense numerical inferiority of the white races, leading probably to their extermination in a mutiny of mercenaries.[11]

George Bernard Shaw said:

We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ...

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them.

The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it ... If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?[13]

H. G. Wells said:

I believe that if a canvass of the entire civilized world were put to the vote in this matter, the proposition that it is desirable that the better sort of people should intermarry and have plentiful children, and that the inferior sort of people should abstain from multiplication, would be carried by an overwhelming majority. They might disagree with Plato's methods, but they would certainly agree to his principle. And that this is not a popular error Mr. Francis Galton has shown. He has devoted a very large amount of energy and capacity to the vivid and convincing presentation of this idea, and to its courageous propagation. ... Indeed, Mr. Galton has drawn up certain definite proposals. He has suggested that "noble families" should collect "fine specimens of humanity" around them, employing these fine specimens in menial occupations of a light and comfortable sort, that will leave a sufficient portion of their energies free for the multiplication of their superior type.[14]

It is apparent that, with Humanism as implemented through the Progressive movement, there are agendas within agendas and not all good work results in altruistic deeds. For many of the leaders of Progressivism during this period, elimination of poverty meant elimination of the poor. However, there is a more important observation that explains the Progressive hypocrisy. The Progressives began to use Darwin's evolution as expressed through Francis Galton's application, eugenics, as a philosophy to justify their agenda. It becomes clear why evolution is so important to the Humanist agenda. Other elements of progressivism that laid the foundation for the Humanism-Christianity conflict were in the areas of law and education. We will discuss these in detail later, but here we will cite three examples that proved to be significant many years later.

On December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes was appointed to the Supreme Court. He was noted for many important contribution to American jurisprudence during his term of 30 years, however, there are two elements of his legal philosophy that became embedded in American law and, ultimately, American society that have supported the Humanist agenda and the resulting polarization against Christianity. Holmes believed there are few restraints on the power of government to enact laws that furthered its interest. This, of course, was a fundamental tenant of Socialism and a strong central government as opposed to emphasis on individual rights. His philosophy was termed moral relativism and this is an important tenant of Humanism (see Appendix 3). Another legal philosophy Holmes was instrumental in establishing was "legal realism." Legal realism states that statutes and case law is only a component of legal decisions and judges must consider social implications as well. Legal realists believed that the law should be used to achieve social purposes and balance social interests. This eventually led to the establishment of judicial activism. Judicial activism is defined as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."[15]

The second example of significant Humanism milestones during this period is the formation of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Roger Nash Baldwin formed the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB) in 1917 to defend conscientious objectors during WWI. The name was changed to the ACLU in 1920 and assumed a broader interest. The ACLU will be discussed in detail later in this chapter, however, the Scopes evolution-creation trial in 1925 set the tone for how the ACLU would oppose Christianity and its principles in education and all areas of society to the present. This is the first major court action made by the ACLU and it is interesting to note that it was not about conscientious objectors, for which the organization was purportedly founded, but to establish the teaching of evolution in schools.

The third example is the formation of the American Federation of Teachers (ATF) in 1916. This group was " a militant, Marxist organization, using force, politics, pressure, and propaganda to gain control over teachers and thus build power for itself."[16] Although the ATF never attained significant membership, it was in direct competition with the National Education Association (NEA). This resulted in the NEA adapting many of the socialist/leftist policies that were increasingly popular with the teachers of the period.

By 1930, the government had extended federal power and control significantly, the framework for abortion was established, unions had extended their influence and control, the legal system had formed the roots of judicial activism, and Progressivism had entered the classroom. Some polarization between Humanism and Christianity was emerging, particularly in the areas of family planning and evolution, however, society in general was still essentially Christian in spirit. Then the financial crisis of the Great Depression hit and the next phase of Progressivism was launched.

1930 to 1950: The New Deal

During a campaign speech in 1932, presidential candidate Franklin Roosevelt coined the phase the New Deal. "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people," he said. He then summarized the New Deal as a "use of the authority of government as an organized form of self-help for all classes and groups and sections of our country." Essentially, Roosevelt intended to implement Socialism as a solution for the Great Depression. During the Roosevelt administration, the Progressive agenda advanced significantly. Among the programs initiated were:

  • The American labor movement advanced through the National Recovery Act (1933), the Wagner Act (1935), and the National Labor Relations Act (1935), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938). All of these increased the influence of unions and the Socialist policy of federal government controlling business affairs.
  • The Social Security Act of 1935.
  • Control of the nation's financial system and certain businesses advanced through the Emergency Banking Act (1933), Federal Emergency Relief Act (1933), Agriculture Adjustment Act (1933), Abandoning the gold standard (1935), National Employment System Act (1935), Glass-Steagall Banking Act (1935), and the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act (1935).

All of these measures polarized the country politically. The conservatives opposed the socialistic agenda of the administration and the liberals criticized Roosevelt for not taking the opportunity to advance socialism even more. Marxist influenced unions held demonstrations and strikes to pressed for more liberal actions. However, in spite of the liberal criticism federal control and power advanced considerably during Roosevelt's first term. During his administration, Roosevelt appointed eight justices to the Supreme Court:

  • Hugo Black: Black voted against court opinions that would require union members to foreswear membership in the Communist party and the Smith Act which made it a crime to "advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States." His opinions also included: separation of church and state, prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, and opposition to the right to privacy.
  • Stanley Forman Reed: Generally considered a moderate, Justice Reed was also closely tied to the more liberal elements of the Supreme Court, particularly Justice Frankfurter.
  • Felix Frankfurter: Justice Frankfurter was a close friend of Roosevelt. His legal philosophy was considered moderate, however, he tended to interpret the law in such a way as to give federal government the most power. He was strongly influenced by Oliver Wendell Holmes, a close friend. He rejected the first Amendment right to free speech in the case of Jehovah Witnesses' refusal to salute the flag in public schools. Frankfurter believed that the Supreme Court should make its decisions with "due reference to public opinion" thus affirming Holmes "judicial activism" philosophy.
  • William O. Douglas: He was prone to express his opinions based on philosophy, current affairs, and literature rather than judicial sources, i.e., he was a judicial activist. He often voted with Justice Black on issue involving liberal policies.
  • Frank Murphy: Justice Murphy was often criticized for making decisions based on emotion rather than reason. He usually sided with the liberal elements of the court: Black, Douglas, and Rutledge.
  • James F. Byrnes: Justice Byrnes was another close friend of Roosevelt and is well known for supporting Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Federal and Supreme courts with liberals who were judicial activists that would support the New Deal.
  • Robert H. Jackson: Justice Jackson was considered a moderate not noted for any significant achievements during his tenure.
  • Wiley Bount Rutledge: Rutledge was a politically active supporter of Roosevelt's New Deal and carried his politics to the Supreme Court. He was considered a member of the "liberal axis" of the court along with Justices Black, Murphy, and Douglas.

By the end of the 1940's, judicial activism had become apparent throughout the federal courts and the Supreme Court. The effect would be felt with increasing impact until the present and have a significant role in the polarizing of America.

The Wagner Act of 1935 was particularly important for unions and the Marxist elements that used unions as a tool to further Socialism and impede Capitalism. The act conferred legal status on the unions, provided for the right to strike, and establish the National Labor Relations Board to conduct elections among workers desiring to establish unions. This was important in furthering the influence of unions and the Socialist agents that were using unions to further the Humanist philosophy.

Humanism had been a growing element in philosophies for over 100 years. During the first three decades of the 20th century, there had been a growing concern for the welfare of the poor and an awareness of corruption and class differences brought about by unrestricted Capitalism. With the politics changing toward a more Socialistic climate, Humanism became more integrated within the population. In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was published (Appendix 3) and with it Humanism moved from esoteric philosophy to a popular movement.

1960 to 1990: The Great Society

You may wonder why I have devoted so much space to unions. What is their link to the Humanism-Christianity polarization? The link is power. In the first part of this chapter, I mentioned that Progressives had either to win the hearts and minds of the people or force their agenda through political power. Unions are a significant political advantage if their leaders are on your side. The Socialist influence over the unions could provide money to political campaign funds from the union dues and by influencing members to donate to a particular candidate. The members also represented a significant number of votes. With this political power, the union leaders exerted, and still exert, a significant influence over political decisions.

The Socialist Party, USA, in 1956, chose to stop running candidates of its own, except on rare occasion. During the 1960's, we began to work in the Democratic Party. This is where our allies in the civil rights and trade union movement worked and continue to work politically. We are proud of what we helped accomplish within the Democratic Party, particularly the civil rights legislation and anti-poverty programs of the 1960's. The struggle continues.[17]

After WWII, it was not popular to be "Red". The Russian Communists were the enemy in a cold war that would last three decades. Anything Marxist was considered anti-American and, for some, its Atheism made it anti-Christian. However, even if the Progressive could not boldly proclaim their philosophy, they continued to advance their agenda.

Winston Churchill's quote, mentioned earlier, "If a man is not a liberal when he is young, he has no heart. If a man is not a conservative when he is older, he has no head," was well heeded by the Marxists. The majority of Americans were opposed to Marxism and would not be a productive target for Progressive propaganda. The youth, on the other hand, were ripe for the message. The 1960's was a time of social change among the youth. Experimentation with drugs and sexual promiscuity was growing and gradually becoming accepted by an ever widening circle of young people. Experimentation has always been a part of growing up and exploring new ideas. The youth of the 60's were the perfect target for the Socialists. Two organizations are worth mentioning: Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground.

Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) focused on peaceful demonstrations to protest the Vietnam War, racial inequality, corrupt government, Capitalism, and the need for implementing the Humanist agenda. They were also Libertarian on matters such as drugs and free sex. Their immediate objectives were admirable, but the means for achieving them hinted at significant Marxist influence. They sought the restructuring of the American government and were openly pro-Communist and pro-Soviet. SDS spread throughout university campuses, recruiting both students and professors, and was a significant player in the development of liberal politics for that generation. Using the "crisis" of the Vietnam War as the stimulus, they sought to stir up anger over race, sexual inequality, rights for homosexuals, class distinction, and other social issued. It was a long-term plan to change the minds of the young and impressionable. During the 1960s, more than 50 percent of the nation's population was under 18 years of age. If these youth could be turned into Progressives, 30 years later they would be the leaders in business and government and the Progressive agenda would be the official policy of America.

A significant characteristic of the Socialist youth movement was rebellion against authority. You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows was the title of a position paper they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a "white fighting force" to be allied with the "Black Liberation Movement" as well as other radical movements to achieve the destruction of US imperialism, i.e. Capitalism, and achieve a classless world, i.e. world Communism. This, of course, was one of the major goals of the Humanist Manifesto. They attempted to advance the Progressive agenda through violence, believing that the years of non-violent protests had achieved little. They advocated the violent overthrow of the government and were involved in several significant bombings and other crimes. Like the SDS, their target membership was largely university students and liberal professors.

The plan to indoctrinate future leaders was successful. Today the Progressive Movement has made significant inroads into the Democratic Party and the judicial system. It is this influence that has caused much of the conflict between Humanism and Christianity today. But where did this radicalism come from? It seemed to come suddenly on the scene, but actually it was decades in the making..

In 1946, Dr. Benjamin Spock published Baby and Child Care. The book revolutionized the common approach to raising children. Prior to the book, typical child care involved discipline, respect toward elders and authority, and a structured life. Spock threw that all out the window. He proposed letting the child grow up freely, without strong discipline or structure. The result was a generation of unruly children who had little or no respect for authority. Three decades later child psychologists generally agreed that Spock was wrong, but it was too late. The BBC New reported on Spock's life shortly after his death and quoted several prominent child psychologists:

  • In a society confused about how properly to discipline children - if at all - teachers still argue for the right to smack unruly pupils.
  • Some parents, confused about where discipline ends and abuse begins, find their children running free rein over bedtime, food fads and temper tantrums.
  • UK child psychiatrist, Professor John Pearce, is on record as thinking that childcare over the years has gone astray. "I would warn against free expression," he says. "Children need to develop self-control or they become overactive. It's sad when parents are too frightened to set boundaries."

However, a generation of children raised in the 50's and 60's were conditioned to getting their own way and receiving instant gratification. This was the generation of "do your own thing." All authority was rejected because it imposed discipline. The National Education Association is still influenced by Dr. Spock and his recommendation to avoid the discipline of competition and authentic achievement:

"... Also, within the limits of a particular society, individualistic and competitive impulses must be subordinated increasingly to social and cooperative tendencies."[18]

It was a generation ready for the message of radical Socialism and the moral philosophy of Humanism. It should be noted that the good doctor Spock was one of the leaders of the anti-establishment movement, a radical who almost went to prison for conspiracy to overthrow the government.

An indulged generation without discipline grew to expect entitlements. They considered it to be a "right" to _______ (fill in the indulgence of your choice). Society, they thought, could bestow rights to individuals or groups on demand. Initially it was the right to practice hedonism, as one might expect of the 60s youth. The right to free sex and open drug use topped the list. As the generation matured, the rights demands increased. Women's rights and minority rights expanded right in a positive way, however, by the time these youth were dancing to Saturday Night Fever at the disco, the rights demands ventured into new and less positive areas. Gay rights, the right to free education, animal rights, the right to free health care, the right to abortion, and the right to euthanasia and suicide burst upon the political scene and caused a cultural shock wave. However, no one should have been surprised, a quick scan of the Humanist Manifesto will reveal that all these "rights" are expressed a core beliefs of Humanism. We will revisit this generation in some of the sections that follow.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in advancing Progressive agendas and Humanism. Judicial activists supported the concept of society-created rights on demand. Prior to the Great Society there was a period in which the Court made decidedly liberal and judicially activist decisions. This was the Warren Court administered by Chief Justice Earl Warren from 1953 to 1969. Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower, but all of the Associate Justices were appointed by Roosevelt or Truman and were committed New Deal liberals. Warren soon fell in step with their Progressive agenda. Among the Warren Court's decisions that furthered the polarization in America were the following.

  • Prohibition of the Bible in schools. Abington Township School District v. Schempp, (1963). At the time, four states required reading from the Bible in public schools before starting classes for the day and twenty-five states provided for optional Bible reading. Edwin Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist, brought suit against the Abington Township School District in Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of the state law. The judge ruled in Schempp's favor. During the court proceedings, the state law was amended to allow that children could be excused from the Bible reading if they had a written note from a parent. However, Schempp was not satisfied and the case went before the Supreme Court and the prohibition of Bible reading in public schools became law. Although there was a clear history of both prayer and Bible reading in public schools, the Supreme Court's ruling had the clear aroma of judicial activism. In his concurrence opinion he wrote although aware of the "ambiguities in the historical record" and felt a modern-day interpretation of the First Amendment was warranted." He continued, "Our interpretation of the First Amendment must necessarily be responsive to the much more highly charged nature of religious questions in contemporary society. A too literal quest for the advice of the Founding Fathers upon the issues of these cases seems to me futile and misdirected...nothing in the text of the Establishment Clause supports the view that the prevention of the setting up of an official church was meant to be the full extent of the prohibitions against official involvements in religion". This decision accomplished two Humanist agenda items: it furthered opposition to religious expression in public schools and weakened the constitutional protection of religion from state interference. Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion included the following comment:
  • If religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed in an artificial and state-created disadvantage.... And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.

  • Prohibition of prayer in schools. In addition to Abington Township School District v. Schempp, there were two other pivotal cases that furthered the anti-prayer agenda of Progressives in the 1960's. "The Regent's School Prayer" (Engel v. Vitale, 1962) was concerned with the prayer the New York school system had established to be said at the beginning of each day. The prayer is as follows:

    Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

    The recitation of the prayer was challenged and the case eventually was heard by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled against the recitation of the prayer. In the majority opinion, Justice Black stated, "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers ... the Regent's prayer are inconsistent both with the purposes of the Establishment Clause and the Establishment Clause itself." The reaction from Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina was shared by many Christians, "I should like to ask whether we would be far wrong in saying that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that God is unconstitutional and for that reason the public school must be segregated against Him?"
  • "School Prayer" (Murray v. Curlett, 1963) was a lawsuit initially brought against the school board of Baltimore because of its establishment of a prayer in the schools at the start of the day. The suit was brought by Madelyn Murray O'Hare, a militant left wing Atheist with close ties to the American Communist Party, and the local court judge dismissed the petition stating, "It is abundantly clear that petitioners' real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system." The case went to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and the court ruled, "Neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to stifle all rapport between religion and government." The Supreme Court, however, found in favor of the plaintiff thereby prohibiting prayer in schools. It was in this case that the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" was coined. In fact, the phrase does not appear in the Constitution.
  • Reduction of pornography restrictions. Roth v. United States, (1957). Samuel Roth ran a literary business and was convicted under a federal statute criminalizing the sending of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy" materials through the mail for advertising and selling a publication called American Aphrodite, containing literary erotica and nude photography. David Alberts, who ran a mail-order business from Los Angeles, was convicted under a California statute for publishing pictures of "nude and scantily-clad women." Although the majority opinion upheld the convictions, it redefined obscenity more strictly and required that the offending material be taken in context with the whole. This opened the door for more liberal interpretations of pornography that resulted in an increased judicial activism regarding pornographic material throughout the 1960' and 70'.
  • Removal of restrictions on the teaching of evolution in schools. The prohibition against teaching evolution had been established as law in many states for decades. It was during the Warren Court that the promotion of evolution and prohibition of creation began. The case was Epperson v. Arkansas, (1968). United States Supreme court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine.

By the time Lyndon Johnson became president all the pieces were in place for a major advancement of applied Humanism. The Supreme Court during, the period from 1969 to 1986, is the Burger Court administered by Chief Justice Warren Burger. The Burger Court was responsible for many decisions that advanced Progressivism and cause polarization between Humanism and Christianity that remain today. Chief Justice Berger was readily confirmed because of the consensus that he was a conservative and would move the Supreme Court back to a more neutral position. However, he was merely one moderate in a court with a majority of liberals. Several of the more prominent decisions of the Berger Court are summarized below.

  • Legalization of abortion. Roe v. Wade, (1973). The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. The decision set up the test for determining the state's right in regulating abortion as follows:
    • In the first trimester, the state's two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way.
    • In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health."
    • In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

    This case set the tone for an increasing legal tolerance for abortion. The majority opinion included the following:

    The judges recognize the "sensitive and emotional" nature of the controversy; asserts that the difficulty is further complicated by "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones"; and describes how the court should approach a problem of this character: "by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection", but also (because "[w]e seek earnestly to do this") by "medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries."

    In other words, judicial activism that considered politics, the environment, and the changing attitude toward abortion was a factor in the Court's decision. The dissent included the following comments:

    · The Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

    · I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

    Essentially, the dissenting opinion pointed out that the decision was not based on the Constitution but was largely a mater of yielding to a popular trend. Another reason given in the majority opinion was that the Court could not find any historical precedent for making abortion a crime. However, by 1900, every state had laws that made abortion a crime. This may be the finest hour for judicial activism and the advancement of Humanism.

    A part of the court's decision in Wade vs. Roe that caused much "head scratching" is Section IX, In Section IX, the Court adds that there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus. The fetus would have such a right if it were defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include protection of the unborn, according to the Court. The Court emphasized that its determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection neither meant to reference, nor intervene in, the question of when life begins:

    We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

    While the Court was struggling with whether a fetus was "alive" or whether is was a person, courts in the majority of states held that violence to a woman that cause her fetus to abort was murder because the fetus was a person. A doctor that aborts a baby in a clinic is just doing his legal right, should he hit the same woman and cause her to abort the fetus, he is a murderer. Indeed, this judicial inconsistency was a win for the Progressives and this thinking would mark much of the Progressive jurisprudence that followed.

  • Prohibition of teaching creation in schools. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, (1982). The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". A federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause[19] of the U.S. Constitution. In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science," the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature in emphasizing origins of life as an aspect of the theory of evolution. While the subject of life's origins is within the province of biology, the scientific community does not consider the subject as part of evolutionary theory, which assumes the existence of life and is directed to an explanation of how life evolved after it originated. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator. This last comment by the Court is, in fact, not true. The very heart of the issue is that evolution by natural selection precludes a divine influence. To even hint at a Creator causes activist judges heartburn. In addition, evolution through solely natural means must include, as discussed in Chapter 6, how the process began, i.e. how life began.

    In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court continued the reasoning of McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act" that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science." The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. It is interesting to note that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit endorsement of religion, just the establishment of religion. One of the most important federal holidays is Christmas.

    It has been argued that the application of the Establishment Clause to prohibit teaching creation in schools is an example of judicial activism in that 1) there is no law establishing a religion, 2) the Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from establishing a religion but that prohibition does not extend to states and 3) may violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Although the examples above indicate the alarming trend of Humanism gradually being applied to the American society, the real danger in these examples is that judicial activists can quietly make legal changes that would never pass in Congress. Faced with an agenda with issues that would not be acceptable to the majority of Americans, all you need is a Progressive president and a sufficient number of like minded (or easily corrupted) members of Congress to appoint activist Federal and Supreme Court judges. Activist judges can do what the politicians do not have the votes to accomplish. If necessary, they can even overturn laws passed by the citizens.

1990 to 2010: The Polarization of America

By 1990, the leaders of the '60s and 70's revolutionary groups had matured, but still maintained their ideologies. Their goal remained the same, but their methods were less overt and more acceptable to the conservative majority of Americans. We again quote Winston Churchill, "If a man is not a liberal when he is young, he has no heart. If a man is not a conservative when he is older, he has no head," unfortunately some of the rebels of the 60's did not make the transition. Marxism, although now decriminalized, was not a good platform for political activism. Environmentalism and Progressivism were the new "in" labels. However, the principles of Humanism, Socialism, and Marxism remained intact. The liberal training recommended by Dr. Spock was well entrenched in this generation's psyche.

The period from 1900 to 1990 saw many changes, legal and social, that advanced Humanism in the United States. Abortion went from socially unacceptable and illegal to become legal and, except for Christians and many who hold those principles, an acceptable means of birth control. Homosexuality went from socially disgusting and illegal to an acceptable sexual alternative and legal. Publicly honoring God became illegal. Public schools went from teaching biology without evolution, to being required to teach evolution, to being prohibited from teaching creation. Pornography, once relegated to the darker elements of society had become open, readily available and a "normal" part of human sexuality. Assisted suicides and euthanasia, once considered murder, began to be accepted and legal in a few states. Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations had morphed into the United Nations with increasing power.

However, even though the past century had seen the advancement of Humanism beyond anything anticipated, Progressives considered their work incomplete. Their objective is to implement the Humanist Manifesto completely and to integrate Humanism into society legally and culturally. Let us consider some of the more important legal decisions that advanced Humanism since 1990.

  • Teenage abortion without parental notification. Hodgson v. Minnesota, (1990). This case was a challenge to a state law that required a minor to notify both biological parents before having an abortion. The ACLU secured for teenagers the option of going to court to obtain authorization for an abortion, when they could not or would not comply with a parental notification law.
  • State laws prohibiting homosexual practice made unconstitutional. State v. Morales, (1992). Texas statute that criminalizes private sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex is unconstitutional.
  • State laws prohibiting homosexual practice made unconstitutional Commonwealth v. Wasson, (1992). A Kentucky law against consensual sodomy is unconstitutional.
  • State laws prohibiting homosexual practice made unconstitutional City of Dallas v. England, (1993) Citing State v. Morales, Texas state appellate court affirms lower court decision finding prohibition on hiring gays and lesbians as police officers unconstitutional.
  • State laws prohibiting homosexual practice made unconstitutional Campbell v. Sundquist, (1996). A Tennessee law against consensual sodomy is held unconstitutional.
  • State laws prohibiting homosexual practice made unconstitutional Powell v. Georgia, (1998). The Georgia State Supreme Court finds the law making consensual sodomy a crime which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bowers to be unconstitutional as violating the state Constitution's privacy protections.
  • Partial-birth abortion made constitutional. Stenberg v. Carhart, (2000). The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief calling on the Court to invalidate Nebraska's "partial-birth abortion" ban. The Court decided for the plaintiff resulting in the continuance of partial-birth abortion. This allowed the killing of the baby as the crown of the head was exposed.
  • State laws prohibiting homosexual practice made unconstitutional Lawrence v. Texas, (2003). A Texas law making sodomy with same-sex partners illegal, but not with opposite sex, is unconstitutional. This case expressly overturns Bowers v. Hardwick. [20] The case was brought before the Court by the ACLU.
  • State laws prohibiting homosexual practice made unconstitutional State v. Limon. The first case to rely on Lawrence v. Texas, as precedent, Kansas law allowing for mixed-sex statutory rape to be punished less severely than same-sex statutory rape is unconstitutional.

The radicals of the 60's and 70's were now entering positions of power: in education, law, and politics. The election of 2008 was a turning point in the implementation of the Humanist philosophy through the power of Progressive politics. During the campaign, Hillary Clinton said she was a Progressive in the model of the classical Progressives of the early 20th century and that Margaret Sanger was one of her most admired example. Recall that Margaret Sanger was the one who opened the door that eventually led to legal abortion and was eugenicist that proposed limiting births among the "less desirable" components of society as well as more drastic actions to limit the undesirables. However, Clinton's loss in 2008 was not a blow to Progressivism, the White House is now full of the radicals raised on Spock's philosophy, some admitted Marxist, some who have associated with the President were members of the SDS and Weather Underground.

However, the infiltration is in Congress as well. In October 2009, the American Socialist Party (ASP) released the names of 70 members of 111th Congress who belong to their caucus,[21] the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA). At the time the ASP released the list, there are 23 members of the Judiciary Committee, eleven of which are members of the DSA.

As mentioned before, Progressivism is about power, the power to implement Humanism in our society. With control of our government by liberal Democrats, the polarization of America is becoming more apparent with every presidential speech, new law, and each judicial decision. With so many Socialists on the Judicial Committee, Progressives are in an excellent position to veer the judicial climate toward the Humanist agenda.

Legal Agendas ~ Judicial Activism

The fundamental principle upon which the United States is built is a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people." The drafters of the Constitution were concerned that the new government should not have unlimited power and that it should be accountable to the people. The result was a government divided into three branches that would provide checks and balances. In theory, if one branch began to exert too much power the other two could provide a check. However, what happens when one political party or ideology controls all three branches? What happens if that party is influenced by an ideology antagonistic to Christianity?

Federal judges are appointed for life and, in a perfect world, are above and separate from politics. But this is not a perfect world. When politicians with an agenda are in power for a significant amount of time, they will be in a position to appoint numerous judges with a philosophy sympathetic to their agenda. In 1937, the New Deal Democrats tried to pass a bill that would allow for the appointment of more Justices to the Supreme Court as well as the lower Federal Courts. This would allow the President Roosevelt to pack the Judiciary with sympathetic judges in sufficient number that his controversial policies would be upheld in court. The bill failed but legislation is not necessary to achieve the same goal. If ideologies such as Humanism become a force in the government for a sufficiently long period, the Judiciary will be stacked in favor of that ideology.

However, a biased Judiciary in itself is not sufficient to implement Humanism. Cases that advance the Humanists agenda must be brought before the courts. If the society in general does not agree with the Humanist agenda, no one will challenge issues such as illegal abortion, prayer in schools, or pornography. There must be an agent that will bring these issues before a liberal, activist Judiciary so legal decisions can be rendered in support of the Humanistic philosophy. Enter the ACLU.

American Civil Liberties Union

Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise ... We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.

Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

At its inception, the American Civil Liberties Bureau was organized to help consciences objectors and those charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. Roger Nash Baldwin became head of the organization in 1917. In 1920, the name was changed to the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin continuing as president. Other founders of the ACLU were Walter Nelles as chief counsel, Norman Thomas, William Foster, Jeannette Rankin, Jane Addams, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver, Helen Keller and Felix Frankfurter, who later became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. This group was strongly and admittedly Humanist and Marxist. Here is a sampling of their ideologies.

  • Roger Baldwin: He is quoted as saying

    "I joined. I don't regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted."

    He supported the Soviet Union, Communism and Socialism in all its forms. After refusing to comply with a draft notice, Baldwin deliberately violated the Selective Service Act, which resulted in a celebrated trial and a jail term of one year. Baldwin was raise as a Unitarian and credited that to the formation of his philosophy. Another of his quotes that define the objective of the ACLU is,

    "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

  • William Foster: Foster was National Chairman of the Communist Party USA and a ACLU co-founder. This Communist was famous for his 1932 quote:

    "The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the whole body to forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on."

    He was the author of Toward Soviet America.
  • Norman Thomas: Thomas was a Presbyterian minister and radical Socialist who advocated the total abolition of Capitalism. He was also a eugenicist, wanting to stop reproduction of "undesirables". He ran as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party a total of 6 times.
  • Justice Felix Frankfurter: Frankfurter believed that the authority of the Supreme Court would be reduced if it went too strongly against public opinion and was an early advocate of judicial activism.

The ACLU has numerous policies that oppose the moral principles of Christianity and Christianity itself. We will begin with the express goals of the ACLU regarding religion, they are:[22]

  • Halt the singing of Christmas carols like "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" in public facilities;
  • Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various occult groups;
  • Disallow prayer--not just in the public school classrooms, but in locker rooms, sports arenas, graduation exercises, and legislative assemblies;
  • Terminate all military and prison chaplains;
  • Deny Christian school children access to publicly funded services;
  • Eliminate nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols from public property;
  • Repeal all blue law statutes;
  • Prohibit voluntary Bible reading in public schools--even during free time or after classes;
  • Remove the words "In God We Trust" from our coins;
  • Deny accreditation to science departments at Bible-believing Christian Universities;
  • Prevent the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms;
  • Terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits for private, i.e. parochial, schools;
  • Purge the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance

The ACLU was essentially on the fringe of Progressive activism, defending anti-establishment activists and Marxists who went too far, until 1925 when the Scopes trial gained national attention. As mentioned previously in Chapter 8, the ACLU worked out a plan with John Scopes, a high school teacher, in which Scopes would teach evolution from a textbook that included a chapter discussing Darwinian evolution. No one had objected to the lack of evolution in the school. In fact, the community was predominantly Christian and the verdict that found Scopes guilty reflected the community's position. No one's civil rights had been trampled upon. The case was contrived to test the waters regarding the teaching of evolution in schools. Although the ACLU lost the case, the notoriety they received was a significant factor in their expansion beyond defending anti-establishment activists. It should be noted that the ACLU won on appeal to a liberal court. The tactic of conjuring up a problem where none existed in order to press a Humanist agenda was established and is still used today.

Below is a summary of some of the cases in which the ACLU either initiated (as in the case of the Scopes trial) or supported as a "Friend of the Court".

Cases Supporting Marxism

1925 Gitlow v. New York. The first ACLU Supreme Court landmark. Though upholding the defendant's conviction for distributing his call to overthrow the government, the Court held, for the first time, that the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the free speech clause of the First Amendment and is, therefore, applicable to the states. That is, it is legal to make statement calling for the overthrow of the government.

1927 Whitney v. California. Though the Court upheld a conviction for membership in a group that advocated the overthrow of the state, Justice Brandeis explained, in a separate opinion, that under the "clear and present danger test" the strong presumption must be in favor of "more speech, not enforced silence." That view, which ultimately prevailed, laid the groundwork for modern First Amendment law.

1937 DeJonge v. Oregon. A landmark First Amendment case, in which the Court held that the defendant's conviction under a state criminal syndication statute merely for attending a peaceful Communist Party rally violated his free speech rights.

1957 Watkins v. United States. Under the First Amendment, the Court imposed limits on the investigative powers of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which had found a labor leader in contempt for refusing to answer questions about his associates' membership in the Communist Party.

1958 Kent v. Dulles. The Court ruled that the State Department had exceeded its authority in denying artist Rockwell Kent a passport because he refused to sign a "non-Communist affidavit." The right to travel, said the Court, is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

1967 Keyishian v. Board of Regents. A law, requiring New York public school teachers to sign a loyalty oath, fell as a violation of the First Amendment. The decision, capped a series of unsuccessful challenges to both federal and state loyalty and security programs. It rejected the doctrine that public employment is a "privilege" to which government can attach whatever conditions it pleased. This opened the door for Marxists in the US government.

1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio. After the ACLU's 50-year struggle against laws punishing radical political advocacy, the Court adopted the ACLU view of the First Amendment -- which the government could only penalize direct incitement to imminent lawless action and invalidated the Smith Act and all state sedition laws restricting radical political groups.

Cases Supporting Pornography

1946 Hannegan v. Esquire. A major case that opened the door to pornography distribution. The Court severely limited the Postmaster General's power to withhold mailing privileges for allegedly "offensive" material.

1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio. Justice Potter Stewart's famous statement, that although he could not define "obscenity," he "knew it when he saw it," crowned the Court's overturning of a cinema owner's conviction for showing "The Lovers".

Anti-religion cases and cases that oppose Christian principles

1947 Everson v. Board of Education. The Court found school boards' reimbursement of the public transportation costs incurred by parents whose children attended parochial schools constitutional, but Justice Black's statement -- "In the words of Jefferson, the clause...was intended to erect a 'wall of separation between church and State'..." -- was the Court's first major utterance on the meaning of Establishment Clause.

1962 Engel v. Vitale. In an 8-1 decision, the Court struck down the New York State Regent's "nondenominational" school prayer, holding that "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers."

1963 Abingdon School District v. Schempp. Building on Engel in another 8- 1 decision, the Court struck down Pennsylvania's in-school Bible-reading law as a violation of the First Amendment.

1965 U.S. v. Seeger. In one of the first anti-Vietnam War decisions, the Court extended conscientious objector status to those who do not necessarily believe in a supreme being, but who oppose war based on sincere beliefs that are equivalent to religious faith.

1968 Epperson v. Arkansas. The Court ruled that Arkansas had violated the First Amendment, which forbids official religion, with its ban on teaching "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals."

1971 U.S. v. Vuitch. The Court's first abortion rights case, involving a doctor's appeal of his conviction for performing an illegal abortion. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to convict, but expanded the "life and health of the woman" concept to include psychological well-being, and ruled that the prosecution must prove the abortion was not necessary for a woman's physical or mental health.

1973 Roe v. Wade / Doe v. Bolton. One of the Court's most significant decisions, Roe erased all existing criminal abortion laws and recognized a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. In Doe, the companion case, the Court ruled that whether an abortion is "necessary" is the attending physician's call, to be made in light of all factors relevant to a woman's well-being.

1985 Wallace v. Jaffree. An important church-state separation decision that found Alabama's "moment of silence" law, which required public school children to take a moment "for meditation or voluntary prayer," in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A critical, though less than total, victory for reproductive freedom. While upholding parts of Pennsylvania's abortion restriction, the Court also reaffirmed the "central holding" of Roe v. Wade: that abortions performed prior to viability cannot be criminalized.

1992 Lee v. Weisman. The Court ruled that any officially-sanctioned prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause.

The ACLU is well funded by Progressives who want to implement the Humanist agenda and this financing enables the ACLU to employ a tactic that furthers Humanism without litigation – extortion. An example of this tactic is the ACLU agenda to eliminate any element of Christianity from the public schools. If a school has a holiday program and plans to include a Christmas song, the ACLU will approach the school board and threaten to sue to prevent the song. The school board may be supportive of the Christmas song, but faced with the expense of litigation against the well-funded ACLU, they yield to the demand and take the song off the program. This type of extortion occurs all the time.

However, Progressive lawyers, by themselves, are not sufficient to change the laws established by the Constitution, the American society, and Congress. To change the laws that would uproot the moral fabric of America requires the cooperation of like-mined activist judges.

Judicial Activism

As Progressive politics grew in power, the Humanist philosophy grew within the judicial system. Politicians select the judges who serve in the Federal Courts. When conservatives are in power, they appoint conservative judges and, when liberals are in power they appoint liberal judges. This is not merely a party designation within the political system because conservatives and liberals can be found in both parties. However, Democrats have a much higher percentage of liberals, Progressives, Humanist, and far left liberals than the Republicans do.

Beginning with Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Supreme Court, and eventually the entire Federal Court system, began the adoption of legal realism. The legal realists advanced two general claims: 1) Law is indeterminate and judges, accordingly, must and do often draw on extralegal considerations to resolve the disputes before them, 2) The best answer to the question "What is (the) law?" is "Whatever judges or other relevant officials do". This philosophy opened the door to judicial activism in which a judge can bring his or her personal philosophies into the decision making process.

A complete discussion of judicial activism must include judicial precedent. Judicial precedent originated with English common law as a means of maintaining consistency in areas where there is no codified law (statutes) and the judge makes a decision based solely on the conditions and facts of the case. The judge essentially makes the law. When a similar case comes before another judge, that judge relies heavily on the previous decision when deciding the case before him. This assures consistency and uniformity within the judicial system when there is no written law. It is referred to as "case law." Where there are laws established by a legislative body, the need for precedent should be limited since the primary guide to the decision is the written law. However, with the rise of Progressive politics and the appointment of activist judges, judicial precedent has been increasingly applied to decisions involving statutory law. A comparison of the effects of decisions made by judicial conservatives and judicial activists is given in Figure 7.

Figure 7A, describes judicial conservatism that consistently uses the written law as the primary guide in every case. If precedent is used in a previous case, the judge may or may not rely on that precedent in the case before him. For instance, if the judge considers the precedent in a previous case inconsistent with the written law, he would ignore the findings in the previous case when considering the case before him. Figure 7B, describes judicial activism that consistently uses precedent in making decisions regarding written law. If the precedent is well established but results in inconsistency with the written law, the judicial activist will rule based more on the precedent than the written law.

In the case of a Federal Court, for example, Figure 7 shows the results of each judicial philosophy. In the case of judicial conservatism (A), decisions are made within the confines of the written Constitution. Decision "B" veered slightly from the constitutional limits and the judge did not give great weight to decision "B" when making decision "C". Decision "C" remains well within the constitutional boundaries as do following decisions.

In Figure 7B, decisions are made with judicial activism that relies on precedent as much or more than written law. Decision "A" veered slightly from constitutional intent and, when case "B" was being considered, decision "A" was relied upon as much as the written law. Since the judge in case "B" was an activist, decision "B" veered a little more in the direction of the judge's philosophy. These errors are accumulative and process continues until decision "D" is far outside the intent of the written law. This is how it is possible for the Constitution to make the restriction that Congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of religion to Federal Court decision prohibiting private prayer in schools.

Figure 7. Graphical comparison between the effects of judicial conservatism with limited precedent application and judicial activism with excessive precedent application.

When liberal Progressives are in power in the executive and legislative branches of government, irregardless of party affiliation, the Humanist ideology inevitably becomes the driving force in judicial activism. Progressives will appoint like-minded liberals to the bench. If possible, the tie to the ACLU will be strengthened and in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a current Justice of the Supreme Court, who was the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Another example is Stephen Reinhardt, Ninth Circuit Judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter, considered to be one of the most liberal judges in the Federal Court system. His decisions have been the most overturned by the Supreme Court of all Circuit Court judges. His connection to the ACLU is rather intimate, His wife, Ramona Ripston, is the Executive Director of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU. That chapter of the ACLU brings most of their appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. Bedroom side bars?

There are many examples of judicial activism (and unfortunately the number is increasing) but we will consider three significant areas here. Both abortion and Christian activities in public have been challenged by the activist with a logic that can only be explained by judicial activism with extreme bias. In addition, the concept of eugenics, popular during the 1920's, was supported by the "father of judicial activism", Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a remarkably biased decision.

Abortion: Within minutes of conception, the genetic material of the sperm and egg combine to produce a unique DNA. That DNA defines the individual and is the same throughout the fetal development and throughout that person's life. There is no specific point when you can define an organic change in the individual in which before that point the fetus is not a person and after that point the fetus is a person because the fetus is a human throughout its existence. The fact that there is biological change in the womb makes no difference; our bodies are continually changing before birth, after birth, and for the rest of our lives after birth. The DNA in the fetus is human, that is a confirmed scientific fact universally acknowledged. The fetus is human from conception.

Courts throughout the nation recognize this fact and if an act of violence is committed upon a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the fetus, at any stage of development, the assailant is arrested for murder of the fetus. However, the judicial activist want to support abortion because they buy into the Humanist philosophy and want to further its inclusion in society. The Supreme Court decided that, in the case of abortion, the woman has the right to the privacy of her body and, the fetus is part of her body (even though it has unique DNA different from hers). Further, the court does not know when a fetus become a "legal person" so they cannot confer a constitutional right to life on the fetus, even though a murdered fetus is granted that right. The abortion decisions are more that just bias and activism on steroids, they border on incompetence. Let us examine the logic of these illustrious justices.

First, it must be acknowledged that the fetus is human and, for the justice using normal logic, that should end the argument–do not kill other humans. However, a justice with an agenda must resort to a type of convoluted reasoning some call legalese. The Supreme Court activists resort to legal definitions. While it must be accepted that the fetus is a human being, they claim that in order to confer protection on the human fetus, the fetus must be a legal person according to the Fourteenth Amendment. What does the Fourteenth Amendment say about this?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Court's opinion included some creative reasoning. In Section IX, the Court adds that there was no legal grounds for factoring into this balancing test any right to life of the unborn fetus. The fetus would have such a right if it were defined as a legal person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include protection of the unborn, according to the Court. The Court emphasized that its determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection neither meant to reference, nor intervene in, the question of when life begins:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Recall that scientist agree that the fetus is human and the question before the court is whether to kill it or not. You cannot kill something if it is not alive in the first place. The Supreme Court Justices are considering whether it is legal to kill a human fetus and cannot get their minds around the issue of whether it is alive or not. Instead of struggling with that issue, which can only lead to the conclusion that it is illegal to kill a fetus, they perform a legal slight of hand that would impress Houdini. They claim that, in order to prevent killing the fetus, it must be proven that the fetus is a person According to the Fourteen Amendment, only then could it be given due process protection. If first you don't succeed ...

The dictionary definition of a person is simple and straightforward: A human being. Science determined that the fetus is a living human being so one would think the illustrious justices in all their wisdom could get their minds around that fact, but that would no yield the conclusion their Humanist agenda requires. The justices claim that in order to receive the constitutional protection of life, the fetus must meet the definition of a legal person. This is an interesting approach to a difficult problem. Common usage, and common sense, says that a human being is a person. If the activist justices use that approach, they have to rule abortion illegal. They do not want to do that, so they redefine person.

Biology requires the fetus be considered a living human person as defined by common use in the dictionary. In law, it is the common use of a term that is used unless expanded or modified for specific reason in a statute. Up to this point, the term legal person had never been applied to a human being. It was used to give a particular legal status to non-human entities such as corporations, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, trustees and so forth. Always the status of legal person was conferred by statue; the legislature not the judiciary conferred the status, and only to an organization. The judicial activist had to step over the constitutional separation of powers and redefine person in the case of a fetus. For the first time, the term legal person was applied to a human being. Are you still with us? And they wonder why lawyers have such a bad reputation.

The Fourteen Amendment was passed in 1868 as a means of conferring full constitutional rights to African- Americans whose right had been denied. The wording does not expand the meaning of person it merely extends its inclusion to those whose rights had been denied. The justices on the Supreme Court knew this. However, this gave them the opening they needed. Now came an example of judicial gymnastics that would win a gold medal in the Olympics. The Court said that, since the original constitution did not expressly confer rights to the fetus as a legal person and the Fourteenth Amendment did not expressly confer right to the fetus, the fetus did not have a right to constitutional protection! According to this thinking, the only rights YOU have are those expressly stated in the constitution. That is exactly the opposite of the reality. The purpose of the constitution was to establish a federal government and restrict its power. The government only has the right expressly stated in the constitution, the individual's right come from God. If the Supreme Court cannot find a reason to reject abortion in the constitution or the amendments, it is a matter of state jurisdiction or congress to make a law. But the states did make laws making abortion illegal and congress never pressed for a federal law on the matter because it was too sensitive an issue and political suicide. However, the judicial activists usurp the authority established by the constitution and made their own law. One might understand this if it occurred in a lower court, but the Supreme Court is the nations last resort to protect the constitution.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Harry Blackmun. He wrote that the judges recognize the "sensitive and emotional" nature of the controversy and that the difficulty is further complicated by "population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones". He then described how the court should approach a problem of this character: "by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection", but also (because "[w]e seek earnestly to do this") by "medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries." In other words, the decision was based on population growth, pollution, poverty, race, and society's attitude toward abortion, not the law. This is the definition of legal activism.

Anti-Christianity: The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court breaks this phrase into two clauses. The Establishment Clause refers to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Free Exercise Clause refers to the remainder of the sentence, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The activist interpretations made by the Court broaden the Establishment Clause to go far beyond its stated intention.

  • The restriction prohibiting Congress from making a law establishing a religion was expanded to include states, cities, school districts, and most public venues. This violates state sovereignty.
  • The Establishment Clause refers to the passing of legislation but the Court broadened this to include any religious activity as a part of a public function even if it is not regulated, nondenominational, and voluntary.
  • The courts have prohibited the display of Christian symbols in public venues but allowed the display of Jewish and Islam symbols, stating that the later are not religious.

At the same time, the Supreme Court has virtually ignored the Free Exercise Clause.

  • Christians are not allowed to hold a Bible study on school grounds.
  • Prayer, in any form now is prohibited in most public functions.
  • University professors may not discuss their faith.
  • Pastors may not mention the political aspect of social issues from the pulpit.

Eugenics: Earlier in the chapter we discussed the effort by elitist Humanist to promote eugenics in an effort to "improve" the human race by eliminating the "undesirables" in our society. Margaret Sanger championed birth control in the areas populated by the poor and undesirable element of society. even today family planning clinics are predominantly in neighborhoods populated by African-Americans, Hispanics, and others the elite deem undesirable. This mind-set reached its peak in the 1920's and by that time several states had enacted laws the required forced sterilization of the "feebleminded", epileptic, handicapped, and those deemed to be inferior and likely to contaminate the gene pool.

Carrie Buck was a 17-year old woman who was poor, ignorant and had given birth to a child that resulted from her rape by a member of her foster family. Carrie's Mother had been committed to a state institution for being promiscuous. At the time promiscuity could be interpreted as a symptom of mental deficiency. Be cause Carrie had a child out of wedlock, authorities made the same "diagnosis" for Carrie and proposed that Carrie's child, Vivien, would turn out to be an "imbecile" like her mother and grandmother. The proposed to sterilize Carrie to prevent further contamination of the human gene pool. The case went as far as the U. S. supreme Court.

The prosecution presented several experts in eugenics and they gave evidence that people like Carrie Buck caused the human gene pool to degrade and could eventually cause humanity to "devolve" because natural selection would normally eliminate these undesirable individuals but in a civilized society they can survive and continue to breed. Even then eugenics was considered pseudo-science by the reputable scientific community, but it was an important element of the Humanist philosophy espoused by the social elite.

In his opinion written for the majority of the Supreme Court in the case, Justice Holmes stated, "three generations of imbeciles is enough." No one had investigated the mental competency of either Carrie Buck or her mother, however, it was a convenient means of eliminating those considered "less than optimum for the improvement of the human race." On October 19, 1927, Carrie was sterilized. Judicial activists in America implemented racial purification long before Adolph Hitler and his Nazi "super race" put these ideas into practice.

Earlier In the book, I mentioned Aristotle's quote, "Law is mind without reason." What would he say about judicial activism?

Progressive Education

We've been unwilling to work continuously with high school kids as we did in building up college chapters. We will only reach the high school kids who are in motion by being in the schoolyards, hangouts and on the streets on an everyday basis. From a neighborhood base, high school kids could be effectively tied in to struggles around other institutions and issues, and to the anti-imperialist movement as a whole.[23]

Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.[24]

Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are...[a] National Department of Education...the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.[25]

To some extent, liberal thinking has always been associated with universities ever since the Renaissance. However, liberalism became the predominant position among university professors and administrators in the 60's.The target of these Progressives is the young mind. Not all professors are liberal, however the number is significant and appears to be growing. The vast majority of university professors identify themselves as liberal and vote Democrat. A study conducted by Neil Gross of Harvard University and Solon Simmons of George Mason University gives a profile of university professors in America.[26] The results are given in the tables below.

Political orientation of American university professors
Political orientation of faculty members by sector
Political orientation of faculty members by age
Percentage of Faculty 
Members, by Age, Identifying as Left Radicals or Activists

The survey also identified the professors very liberal on issues that affect Christians. For example, the study showed that 74.7 percent believe it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain an abortion for any reason and 68.7 percent think there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships.

There is an interesting observation regarding Table 7. Notice that the percentage of liberal activists and radicals increases with age. In most cases, people become more conservative with age but apparently, with Progressives the opposite is true. However, these are not Progressives found in the general population, they are academics. Recall the radical of the 60's and 70's, the SDS and Weather Underground. As in the case of politics, they are now resident in our universities. And, because of typical advancement policies in universities, many are in positions where they can influence curricula and tenure approvals.

Author Lovejoy and John Dewey, the same John Dewey who established Progressivism in public education, founded the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915. Among the association's goals is to establish academic freedom and tenure. These were not always part of a professor's benefits package. Prior to AAUP, the universities had control over curricula and could fire a professor for teaching against the policies of the university. Academic freedom means that a professor can teach whatever he or she wants and tenure means there is nothing the university can do about it – at least they cannot dismiss the professor. In 1967, the Supreme Court case, Keyishian v. The Board of Regents, the Court established the constitutionality of academic freedom and that such freedom can be interpreted differently as social conditions change. This was judicial activism without apology.

Other goals of the AAUP are[27] greater faculty control of university curriculum, greater faculty control over awarding tenure, removal of accreditation of religious institutes of higher education, more say in university budgets, just to name a few. Faculty control over curricula and tenure means no accountability. A majority of liberal professors on a faculty (the norm) can block legitimate professors from research grants, tenure, and publishing. This is the reason evolutionary scientists who challenge Evolutionism are never heard. It is also the reason issues such as global warming are biased to the left and can be used as a tool to promote Humanism agendas. The AAUP has been criticized for censuring religious universities, such as Brigham Young University and Catholic University of America, because many do not adhere to the academic freedom defined by the AAUP. The AAUP website publishes a list of censured universities and colleges.

How successful has liberal bias been in our universities and colleges? Jill Laster in her article College Makes Students More Liberal, but Not Smarter About Civics[28] cites Richard Brake's report from the Institute of Civil Literacy, The Shaping of the American Mind. The institute found that people who had attained at least a bachelor's degree were more likely than Americans whose formal education ended with a high-school diploma to take a liberal stance on certain controversial social issues. For example, 39 percent of people whose highest level of education was a bachelor's degree supported same-sex marriage, compared with 25 percent with a high-school diploma. The trend continues with advanced degrees: About 46 percent of people with master's degrees supported same-sex marriage, as did 43 percent of people with Ph.D.s.

The survey found that, in general, a college education does not bring students up to a high level of civics knowledge. According to the institute's 2008 report, based on a survey of 2,500, people whose highest level of educational attainment was a bachelor's degree correctly answered 57 percent of the questions, on average. That is three percentage points lower than a passing grade, according to the survey's authors. An earlier survey showed that years in college were only slightly correlated to civics expertise. For a 2006 report, the institute surveyed 14,000 college freshmen and seniors on basic civics questions. It found seniors answered an average of 53 percent of the questions correctly, just 1.5 percent higher than freshmen.

This raises the question: If our teachers are being processed through these Progressivism factories with questionable results, how good is public school education today? Laster's article quotes Brake, "College graduates, whether it be current or graduated in the past, seem to have difficulty knowing basic things about our government and our history," Mr. Brake said. "Does college share all the blame? Of course not – this is a systemic problem, from K through 12 and all the way up. But universities train our teachers and train our leaders, so they play a role."

In her book, The Deliberate Dumbing of America, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle on the Progressive agenda, directed by the government to purposely crash our education system. Her observations are particularly shocking when compared to the Humanist agenda (Appendix 3). Her most disturbing claim is that the public school curriculum is designed to prepare our children to work in a world economy, directed by a world government. And this has been growing on for decades. The question is, why?

A dumb population that does not use critical thought and is discouraged from challenging and questioning the established consensus is much easier for the "puppet masters" to manipulate. All dictators know this. Whenever there is a revolution and the established society is overthrown, the first to be eliminated are the academics, writers, philosophers, and theologians. These are the strength of a democracy, but they are a threat to a socialistic society and the social engineering that implements the liberal Progressive program. This is why the children are being indoctrinated in the public schools.

Evolution, secularism, sexual promiscuity and deviation, drugs, atheism–and that is just in elementary schools. Things really get interesting in high school. We often get upset over the possibility of socialized medicine. However, our public school system has been socialized from the beginning. There is more to the education problem than Atheism and morals. Brian Arner[29] cites the following statistics.

  • United States is 49th in the world in literacy (The New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
  • The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
  • One-third of our science teachers and one-half of our math teachers did not major in those subjects.
  • Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the Earth. Seventeen percent believe the Earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
  • "The International Adult Literacy Survey ... found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's, The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78.)
  • Our workers are so ignorant, and lack so many basic skills, that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

No discussion regarding American education and its influence on the Humanism-Christianity conflict would be complete without mentioning the National Education Association (NEA). The NEA is the largest union in America and is one of the key players in implementing Humanism and the Progressive agenda. Appendix 4 list several statements from the Tenth Yearbook of the Nation Education Association (1932) that describes the founding principles of the organization. Two examples are given here,

...Emotional conditioning does determine a great deal of one's attitudes toward persons, things, and ideas, and is responsible for a large part of one's outlook on life. Conditioning is therefore a process which may be employed by the teacher or parent to build up attitudes in the child and predispose him to the actions by which these attitudes are expressed.

Presumably, the person, which has specialized in child psychology and other sciences, is better prepared to engineer a group of boys and girls in certain socialized activities than is the lay parent ...

More examples are given in Appendix 4 and they present an alarming representation of what philosophy is guiding teachers in our public school. The problem is not merely poor academic performance; the real problem is that our children are being indoctrinated with the Humanist Manifesto. Sex education in public schools has gone a long way past the birds and the bees. In some school districts, children are taught how to perform sex acts – graphically. And those classes are not limited to how to perform heterosexual acts; the children are taught how to perform homosexual acts and there have been report of some teachers encouraging student to try them out. Practice makes perfect?

The Wellesley, Massachusetts middle school on May 25, 2010, took a class to a large mosque where the students prostrated themselves, prayed to Allah, then heard a sermon from the Imam. Where was the ACLU? Imagine what an outcry we would hear if that class went to a Catholic Church to hear Mass or an Evangelical revival. The bias is obvious and connection between Humanism and Islam is discussed in the section below and in Chapter 14. It would appear that John Dewey's vision of Progressive Education needs some revision; perhaps back the basics would be a good start.

However, Humanism is not limited to American schools. The United Nations education program was approved in 1946 at the first United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Conference. One of the first items on its agenda was the creation of "A Study Of Education For International Understanding in the primary and secondary schools and in institutions of higher learning of Member States, to be conducted by the Member States with the assistance of the UNESCO Secretariat." Each nation was required to conduct a study of how textbooks treated the subject of international agencies and world government. The National Education Association in 1954 published a book (in compliance with UNESCO) to instruct educators in the proper methods of teaching children about the benefits of world government. It had specific chapters dealing with each benefit and one chapter on how to develop world-minded teachers. The issue of altering world history through educational textbooks was so important that two chapters were dedicated entirely to that subject. We will discuss the issue of world government and the role it plays in the Humanism-Christianity conflict in the next chapter.

A Religion Without God

Humanism in its purest form is atheistic. Humanists have no use for a religion that teaches there is a God, there is sin, and all men need salvation. If you want to send a Humanist into orbit, just mention Jesus! Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses and that could be the slogan of Humanism. In fact, Marx got the concept from Humanist philosophers. However, as in the case of politics and education, Progressives know that religion cannot be eliminated directly and a gradual process of social engineering must be used.


You may have noticed that many of the persons named in our previous discussions have something in common – Unitarianism. The Humanist Manifestos were written by Unitarians and most of the signatories were Unitarian. Charles Darwin and his family were Unitarians as was John Dewey, Roger Nash Baldwin and Supreme Court Justice Harold Hitz Burton to name a few. In fact, all the major players in the implementation of the Humanist-Marxist-Progressive agenda are Unitarians.

Unitarianism first emerged in Europe in the 17th century in Transylvania. The philosophies of the Enlightenment were developing an Atheism that was opposed to Christianity and Unitarianism filled the gap between these spiritual poles. It became a formalized religion in England in 1774. However, the underlying philosophy of Unitarianism was not new, in fact, it is the millennia-old heresy of Arianism that plagued the Early Church.

Unitarianism appeared in the congregational churches in Massachusetts as a reaction against the revivalism of the Great Awakening (1740-43). By the late-18th century, Unitarianism was popular among the Harvard elite, and emerged full bloom in the early-19th century as a rational, liberal religion that rejected the divinity of Christ as well as the Calvinist view of Man as spiritually degenerate. Unitarianism was the predominant religion in Boston during the 19th century. The Unitarians believed that man was not only morally perfectible, but that education was the only true way to salvation. Since they believed that evil was caused by ignorance, poverty, and social injustice, they were convinced that only a good liberal education, provided by the government at no charge, would solve society's problems. As one might expect, Unitarianism is in direct contradiction to Christianity. Below is a summary of the major area of difference between Unitarianism and Christianity.

Source of Authority: The Unitarians deny the divine inspiration and absolute authority of the Scriptures. They claim the Bible was merely the creation of men, and therefore, the Bible contains many "inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and errors." They substitute human reason for revelation as their source of authority, and believe there are no absolute or infallible guides, including reason. In fact, Unitarians desire a world religion that "draws from and honors the teachings of all of the great religious traditions.

Trinity: Unitarians deny that one God exists in three Persons. Instead, they claim that Trinitarian doctrine was added by the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325.

God: The Unitarians hold a variety of liberal views about God: Some do not believe that he is a person, but instead claim he is an impersonal spirit, a natural force, or a principle. Some even claim that he is a created being, not supernatural. Others even deny his existence completely.

Jesus Christ: Unitarians deny the deity of Christ--that he is not God and Savior, but only a good man and teacher. They claim that the apostles and other Christian writers added to the Scriptures the teachings concerning Christ's atonement for sin.

Salvation: Unitarians teach that the essence of salvation is character development ("deeds not creeds"), rather than faith in Jesus Christ. It is a social gospel that reigns supreme and allows every person to do whatever is right in his own eyes as long as he is sincere about it.

Hell: Unitarians hold the belief that no one will be eternally condemned. They, therefore, deny the existence of hell, claiming it is unreasonable for a loving God to send people to a place of eternal torment. They believe that we suffer the consequences of sin in this life only.

The Unitarian rejection of the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, and salvation gave them a certain amount of common ground with Islam. Unitarianism and Islam have, in fact, a long history of commonality--opposition to Christianity.

Unitarians and Muslims both believe that the New Testament is an uncertain guide to the actual events of this early period. Muslims regard the books of the New Testament as mainly the product of the followers of Paul of Tarsus, who did not know Jesus, but whose followers became dominant.

Bilal Cleland

The Unitarian agreement with Islam regarding Christianity is clearly stated: "Islam is a corrective to, not an aberration from, Christianity." Islam and Unitarian – The Quest for Truth and Justice is An excellent article showing the bond between Islam and Unitarianism.[31] It should be noted here that Unitarianism accepts all religious pursuits except Christianity. We will discuss the impact this union has on the polarization of American in Chapter 14.

Collective Salvation

"And recognizing that my fate remains tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country."

President Barak Obama

"It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

President Barak Obama

Wherever you find a Progressive, there is a good chance you will find a person who believes in collective salvation. Not all Progressive have that philosophy, but an increasing number do. If a Humanist has any "religion", it will be collective salvation. Humanism is Atheism. However, Atheism is poor politics; at least it used to be. For the Progressive politician, collective salvation is a convenient way to appear religious and not deny his Atheism.

Collective salvation began with the teachings of Liberation Theology, a movement that began in Latin America in some segments of the Roman Catholic Church. It developed into several related philosophies, such as Black Liberation Theology, Social Justice Theology, Eco-Theology. However, the underlying philosophy is much the same in each case. Essentially, Liberation Theology requires three fundamental elements:

  • an oppressed group
  • a group identified as the oppressor
  • a set of philosophical/theological principles to glue a different worldview and the teachings of Jesus into one convenient package of social action to correct the gap between the "oppressed" and the "oppressor," a social gospel.

The common thread through these philosophies and collective salvation is Marxism. The key ingredient of this social gospel is social justice as is human rights. The salvation of Liberation Theology consists of three requirements:

  • Historical inequities insofar as they affect current injustices should be corrected until the actual inequities no longer exist or have been perceptively "negated". For example, the injustices inflicted on the Blacks in the past (slavery, segregation, and social and economic inequalities) must be corrected by compensations to the current generation of Blacks.
  • The redistribution of wealth, power and status for the individual, community and societal good.
  • Those in power are responsible to ensure a basic quality of life for all its citizens. This may be the Church or it may be government.

This concept, like so many concepts found in Humanism, sounds good on the surface, but has a rotten core. Like the words of one of the more famous Social Justice advocates:

In these days of difficulty, we Americans everywhere must and shall choose the path of social justice..., the path of faith, the path of hope, and the path of love toward our fellow man.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Whereas Christianity is interested in the individual, Social Justice is concerned with the group, a collective. An "oppressed" group is identified with a corresponding "oppressor" group. Members of the oppressor group can only find salvation by correcting the injustices inflicted on the oppressed group. As long as there are poor in our society, we must work out our salvation through programs that eliminate poverty. For the Progressive (and Marxist), Capitalism is an oppressor and the only way to individual "salvation" is through the collectivism of Socialism. The concept of collective salvation can only recognize a good in Christianity in as much as there is a social gospel of works, the Social Church mentioned in Chapter 4. Faith has no meaningful part in salvation – particularly faith in Jesus as a Savior rather than merely a teacher.

Collective salvation is a religion of secularism. Religion raises the question: Whom do you believe in? The Christian believes in God and is begotten son, Jesus. Collective salvation puts faith in humans and is a quasi-religious manifestation of Humanism.

The Two Faces of Environmentalism

The environmental movement mirrors the evolution movement. In both cases, there is a rigorous scientific component and a philosophical component with a Humanist agenda. The methods used to promote Evolutionism, discussed in Part 1, are remarkably similar to those being used to promote a philosophical Environmentalism. The objectives of Evolutionism and Environmentalism are strikingly similar as well.

Very few will honestly disagree with the need to protect our environment, prevent pollution, clean up areas that present a danger to our health, and assure that we all enjoy a healthy environment. These are the goals of the environmental scientists. However, there are elements that use the label "environment" as a political tool as in the case of "evolution" as discussed previously. Whereas Evolutionism was used as a tool to challenge creation being taught in public schools, and eventually anything at all associated with Christianity, Environmentalism is being used to establish a world government (HM2, Articles 12 through 17). Steven Bernstein has written an excellent summary of how liberal Environmentalism is transforming into a global governance program.[34]

During the 60's, many of the young "rebels" looked to alternative religions for spiritual satisfaction. Hinduism, Buddhism, and the emerging New Age Movement grew in popularity, as well as European paganism. Atheism and the concept of humans evolving from the earth and only a more advanced animal merged with the growing Environmentalism movements. Today there is a movement to make ecology a religion. This is a predominant premise of the "deep ecologists." A few quotes will define this new religion that attempts to merge Christianity with pagan earth worship.

Theologians in this area (of ecological concern) are contributing new understandings of incarnation as the Logos of the entire universe, of sacraments as containing sacred elements of nature, of ritual as reflecting the great seasonal cycles, and of ethics as embracing eco-justice. The theological formulation of this is expanding the traditions and grounding religious practice in a larger sense of significance.
Where does this leave us? I believe, with a sense of hope regarding the alliance of religion and ecology. That is because it is both a field and a force: a field growing within academia, which is trying to break down its "silo disciplines" and enter into an interdisciplinary conversation for a sustainable future; and a force of empowerment on the ground and in religious institutions, for religious leaders and laity alike. (Mary Evelyn Tucker, in Love God Heal Earth)

Rev. Canon Sally G. Bingham, p.199-200.

When Jesus of Nazareth arose from his grave, the first person to see him was Mary of Magdala. It is no accident that at first she mistook him for the gardener. Jesus is the gardener, arisen to redeem all of creation. Christ the gardener has returned. This is the good news. God's plan for the redemption is no less bold or powerful that his original, creative one. The difference is that, although we were not part of his original creative team, we are invited to be on the redemptive one. Caring for creation is not a new theology, rather, it has simply been forgotten.

J. Matthew Sleeth, M.D., The Green Bible, p.I-22.

Out of these movements came a new philosophy of the order of nature. The scriptural order of nature has earth and inanimate objects at the bottom and humans on top. The secular order of nature is just the opposite, with humans on the bottom, as shown in Figure 8. The secular sees humanity as a disease that is infecting the living earth, Gaia.

We became the Earth's infection a long and uncertain time ago when we first used fire and tools purposefully. But it was not until about 200 years ago that the long incubation period ended and the Industrial Revolution began; then the infection of the Earth became irreversible. Ironically this was the time when Malthus first warned of the danger, and James Hutton and Erasmus Darwin first glimpsed the nature of a living Earth.
Individuals occasionally suffer a disease called polycythaemia, on overpopulation of red blood cells. By analogy, Gaia's illness could be called polyanthroponemia, where humans overpopulate until they do more harm than good.

James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, p.233.

Figure 8. A comparison between the scriptural order of nature and the secular order of nature.

It is the secular order of nature that forms the basic philosophy of the Environmentalists. It is this philosophical order of nature that allows an environmental regulation that stops farming on thousands of acres in California in order to protect a small minnow. It is his philosophy that places more value on an eagle's embryo than a human embryo as mentioned above. It is this philosophy that exposes the hypocrisy of Humanism that claims to promote the advance of humanity while at the same time devolving the human condition. The young rebels were naïve and the Progressives saw the opportunity to use their secular Environmentalism as they did Evolutionism to promote their movement.

During the decades from 1970 to 1990, the Eco-socialism movement gained considerable influence and organization. Eco-socialism is based on the principle that Capitalism and private ownership allows environmental degradation whereas Socialism would allow for the control of the environment in a more responsible way. This is ironic considering the rape of the environment by Communist countries. However, in the liberal camp facts are a nuisance that one must not allow to interfere with policies and decisions. Economic globalization by Capitalist was seen as the cause of much of the environmental degradation in developing countries and the creation of poverty and exploitation of the people. In this way, ecology was linked to social justice. The goal of the Eco-socialist is to establish a worldwide Socialist approach to the control and financing of environmental protection. They share that goal with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund to name just two international organizations.

Already in the process of being implemented is the effort to establish a World Government (Humanist Manifesto 2, Articles 12 through 15). The method is surprisingly similar to that used for manipulating evolution to further Atheism and oppose Christianity. In this case, it is climate change.

The warnings of a global warming crisis are based on computer models. Under the best of conditions, computer models predicting tomorrow's weather are less than perfect; but predicting climate change over 50 or 100 years is just speculation. The earth's weather systems are too complex. There are too many variables. Any computer model is only as good as the program and the data used in the calculations. If the programming makes inaccurate assumptions (and, in this case there are many assumptions) or data is incomplete or erroneous, then the computer's answer will be wrong. The classic computer programmer's motto: garbage in, garbage out. However, if one wanted to show that the world is headed for a climate crisis, it is a simple matter to do so. Merely adjust the program and make assumptions that move the answer to show a looming crisis. And, of course, the data used must be accurate and honest.

The New York Times reported[35] that email messages between prominent American and British climate researchers were obtained that indicated a rather unscientific bias among some of the global warming advocates in the scientific community. The messages revealed the use of statistical tricks to indicate climate warming when no such warming was supported by the data. Other data that contradicts climate change was withheld. These scientists were puzzled by the lack of warming and presented incorrect information to support their bias toward global warming. Recall the scientific method (Chapter 3). Here the "scientists" changed the observations to fit their hypothesis. Real scientists change their hypothesis to fit the observations. There may be a crisis or not. As in the case of evolution, we just do not know. However, whether or not there is evidence of global warming is not the issue. The crisis is just a tool to justify a Humanist agenda. The important issue for the Humanist is that there is a perceived crisis.

Liberal scientists funded by liberal Progressive political elements press the issue. Many established scientists have published articles that challenge the global warming position. For example, Michael Crichton, in his book State of Fear, cites over 50 publications in scientific and profession journals by reputable scientists that challenge the science behind the "climate change crisis." However, as in the case of evolution, the politically motivated "establishment consensus" dismisses these objections outright. In the meantime, our children are taught that we must do whatever is possible to correct this "crisis". They assure us that the existence of the crisis is supported by statistics and computer models. Who can argue with that? But remember Einstein's comment,

"Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable."

As every scientist knows, statistics are pliable enough to agree with the research grant objectives.

The United Nations is in the forefront of this movement. The climate change initiatives sponsored by the UN have the two elements aimed at furthering the establishment of a world government.

  • Tax developed nations that emit excessive amount of CO2 and disburse the funds to less developed countries.
  • Establish a world government administrative agency to enforce the regulations, collect the taxes, and disburse the funds.

United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, in a New York Times op-ed published 25 October 2009, stated that climate change initiatives "must include an equitable global governance structure." It does not matter whether there is global warming or not. Just as the real purpose of Evolutionism is to establish an Atheistic society, the purpose of the climate change "emergency" is to establish a world government. Or, at least begin the slide down that slippery slope.

The Intimidation of Political Correctness

We have devoted this chapter so far to the political implementation of the Humanist agenda through the power of Progressive politics, judicial activism, and other influences that force Humanism onto the American populace. However, there is another influence at work that is much more subtle, political correctness. Politically correct is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, or behavior that seeks to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related contexts. Politically incorrect connotes language, ideas, and behavior unconstrained by a perceived orthodoxy or by concerns about offending or expressing bias regarding various groups of people.

The question is: who defines what is politically correct and what is politically incorrect? One man's political incorrectness is another man's truth. There is no question that, in a civilized society, all must be sensitive to each other's feelings. A civilized society is civil. However, acceptance and sensitivity to another person's activities or beliefs has limits. In our society, one is not politically correct if he accepts a neo-Nazi's advocacy of killing Jews. However, in Nazi Germany in the '40's such opposition was indeed politically correct. Political correctness is determined by those in society who have the influence to set such standards, usually the media, academia, and the government.

During the '70's, political correctness emerged with the concept of gender neutrality. It was politically incorrect to refer to a fireman or a policeman–they are a fireperson or a policeperson. The concept was expanded to include race, Black was out African-American was in. Is a person of Egyptian or an Algerian decent an African American? Drugs have become recreational. Eventually political correctness expanded to the point that late-night talk show comedians found great material for their monologues with examples of PC.

However, the Progressives have used political correctness as a tool for their agenda in support of the political judicial, and educational activism. It is politically incorrect to deny global climate change. It is politically incorrect to say abortion is murder, that is insensitive to the poor girl. The derogatory terms that referred to homosexuals are replaced by "gay" and "alternative sexuality". It is politically incorrect to refer to Jehadist terrorists as Muslim. Although a public holiday, it is politically incorrect to wish someone "merry Christmas". That might offend a non-Christian. It is politically incorrect to mention Jesus. That might offend everyone! It is politically correct to refer to, often with a smirk, Evangelical Christians as far right extremists. Who cares about their sensitivities? It is politically correct to refer to Creationists as ignorant and superstitious. The bias is obvious and there is no question who is setting the political correctness standards. Such political correctness has saturated the media and is taught in the schools. It intimidates and prepares the public mind-set to accept the Progressive agenda. It is subtle, but it is extremely effective.

As mentioned earlier, Humanism defines sin only as an infraction against society. In that case, society defines sin. How does society define sin? Society defines political incorrectness as a social sin and political correctness is imposed on the society. Is that dogmatic? If a teacher mentions Jesus in the classroom, activist judges say she has committed an illegal act. But the word police say she has sinned. Social sins are replacing sins against God. The impact is subtle but profound.

Our thoughts are formed in words. Restrictions on words can restrict our thinking. Children are taught the politically correct rhetoric that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and those who voice the opinion that homosexuality is a perversion of nature are chastised for committing a social sin. Children cannot mention Jesus in school, wear a crucifix, or include anything Christian in Christmas because it is politically incorrect, a social sin. What effect will years of this indoctrination have on the child?


Writing this chapter has been something of an adventure. There is an old saying that states, "If you want to really learn a subject, teach it." I can attest to the truth of that having taught science and engineering. I would like to expand on that saying, "If you want to really know a subject, write a book about it." When I began writing, I thought I had a good grasp of the subject. And I did, as far as it went. However, as I continued my research, I found myself being drawn in deeper and into new areas. This was particularly true of this chapter. I was already aware of the fundamental conflict between Evolutionists and Christians and how Humanism was at the root of the dispute. I was already aware of the Humanist rejection of Christianity and most of the moral principles held by Christians. I had a good understanding of the philosophical development of Humanism and its increasing pervasiveness in our society. I thought I had enough to write this book. I was wrong. I had just scratched the surface. The subject is much more complicated and convoluted than I originally thought; in writing this book, I learned a lot.

For instance, I now know that, while evolution in itself is a major point of conflict between Humanists and Christians, it has a greater role to play in developing the Humanist agenda. It is a tool that opens usually locked doors and allow the slide down several slippery slopes in the implementation of the Humanist philosophy. It is a thread woven throughout the fabric of Humanism and Humanism's agents of implementation, Marxism and Progressivism.

I also came to realize that the Progressives are patient and perseverant. It has taken a century for the Humanist agenda to grow from something Americans rejected to a predominant force in politics and society. There have been several setbacks to their agenda, however, in each case, they regroup and move forward.

The Progressives are organized and clever. I learned that Humanists are united by a common philosophy; an ideology, a purpose that tends to coordinate itself. It is not a conspiracy in which some people got together and devised a master plan. Yes there were groups that devised the Humanist Manifesto, Progressives, the Socialist and Communist Parties, and, perhaps many other like-minded groups such as SDS and the Weather Underground. However, the glue that binds them into a common cause is their commitment to Humanism. This allows liberal political agendas to be supported by activist judges. It allows scientists to ignore rigor and the scientific method in their research in order to support questionable dogmas of Humanism. It allows the teachers to readily buy into the propaganda and include the Humanist philosophy in classroom curriculum. It allows the Church to be contaminated with a social gospel that supports Humanism but cannot be found anywhere n the Bible. As an example of how these groups work together, consciously or unconsciously, is given in Table 8, below. The table compare the Communist implementation schedule, taken from the Communist Manifesto, and how it is being implemented by Humanist groups.

Table 8. A comparison between the implementation agenda given in the Communist Manifesto and the actions of Progressives over the past century.

A comparison between the implementation agenda given in the Communist Manifesto and the actions of Progressives over the past century

Figure 13. Percent of federally owned land in each state. As the amount of federally owned land continues to increase, state sovereignty proportionally decreases.

The Progressives learned that the direct approach is not successful in their effort to fundamentally change the American society and politics against the people's will. A gradual process is called for; one that nudges us along the path so slowly that we do not realize what has happened until it is too late.

The most disturbing thing I learned is that Humanism is not humane. Humanism is for the selected few with social and educational achievement. Through selective birth control and abortion, the less successful elements of our society are discouraged from reproducing. The moral standards of Christianity that place man above the animals is mocked.

Perhaps the most important thing I learned is that both Humanist and Christians are fixed in place. Their beliefs are diametrically opposed. Their positions are different at the basic and fundamental level. The differences are organic; no compromise is possible on either side. The polarization is intense and immutable. If one advances, the other retreats. It is a zero-sum game and both sides believe it is the only game in town.

[1] Marxists Internet Archive: J. T. Murphy, Trade Unions and Socialism

[2] Marxists Internet Archive: J. T. Murphy, Trade Unions and Socialism

[3] Source: Interview on the Glenn Beck program, Fox News, November 3, 2009.

[4] Source: The Blaze,




[8] The Blaze, 6 January 2011

[9] The following quotes are from Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (1922).

[10] Decision of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Buck vs. Bell

[11] Bertrand Russell, "ICARUS or the Future of Science" (1924)

[12] George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

[13] George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

[14] H.G. Wells, Mankind in the Making, Chapter II, (1903)

[15] Black's Law Dictionary

[16] America's Teacher Unions,

[17] Social Democrats, USA website,

[18] The National Education Association's Tenth Yearbook

[19] The First Amendment's reference to religious freedom: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is broken into two clauses. The Establishment Clause refers to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Free Exercise Clause refers to the remainder of the sentence.

[20] The Supreme Court had accepted Bowers v. Hardwick, a challenge to the sodomy law of Georgia. The Court upheld Georgia's sodomy law on June 30, 1986, ruling that there was no privacy right to engage in homosexual sodomy.

[21] Source: Tysk News,

[22] ACLU Policy Guide, 159-190.

[23] You Don't Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows, 1969, Karin Asbley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Home Machtinger, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd and Steve Tappis. This is considered to be the "Manifesto" of the Weather Underground Movement.

[24] ohn Dewey, 1899

[25] Toward Soviet America, William Z. Foster, National Chairman of the American Communists, 1932

[26] The Social and Political Views of American Professor, presented at a Harvard University Symposium.

[27] AAUP website

[28] The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 5, 2010


[30] An address to the congregation of the Unitarian Peace Memorial Church, Melbourne, Australia, April 13, 2003


[32] Xavier University Commencement Address, August 11, 2006

[33] Wesleyan Commencement Address, May 25, 2008:

[34] Liberal Environmentalism and Global Environmental Governance, EBSCO Publishing, 2008

[35] Andrew C. Revkin, November 20, 2009

[36] Natural resource Council of Maine (

Copyright © 2011 by Patrick Vosse
All Rights Reserved

Click the link below to return to
Purity Publications Free Christian Ebook Store: