The Humanist Manifesto, the Religion of Leftism and Progressivism
“Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared” (1 John 2:18).
Few seem to realize that much of the division in the United States and the West is a clash of religions: It is the clash between the remaining vestiges of the Judeo-Christian worldview and the rise of godless Humanism.
I will not try to argue that America is a Christian nation; it is not. If it were, we would not have aborted 60 million of our own children and sacrificed them to the gods of self and sexual “freedom”. If America were a Christian nation, we would never come close to a judicial fiat legalizing the oxymoron known as “homosexual marriage”. If it were a Christian nation, sin would not be advertised and celebrated; it would be properly ostracized and shamed. And yet, to deny that America and the West arose out of a distinctly Judeo-Christian worldview would be a denial of history. Christianity and cultural-Christianity were foundational to America and Western culture. (I suggest finding and reading any number of good books by Gary DeMar on the subject.)
However, today, Americans appear given-over to the religion known as Humanism also known under the terms of “Progressivism” or Leftism, with young people today smitten with socialism and Marxism as well. It is of grave concern that in America one political party has aligned itself with this new religion and adopted much of the religion’s tenets as truth, even as gospel. Of course, even false religions and false philosophies have some bits of truth within them; “Brass is more easily mistaken for gold than clay is…”
First, let us define the word “religion”. Dictionary.com defines it as: “A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects…. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.” Let me allow the Humanists themselves to define religion: “Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life…. Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation…”
We Christians agree with the Humanists that “Nothing human is alien to the religious.” Christ-followers have always believed that there is no difference between the sacred and the secular. Colossians 3:17 tells us, “whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (See also 1 Corinthians 10:31.) Religion is worldview is philosophy is how we each see life and how we live and act in the world. (This is the very definition of “worldview”.)
The first Humanist Manifesto (Read it here.) was released in 1933 and signed by 34 people, including John Dewey, who could be called the father of the American educational system. In this short document, the writers use the term “religious humanism” four times. Thus, the men who signed the first Humanist Manifesto believed themselves to be adherents to, or the founders of, a religion.
A worldview lacking foundation
The Humanists’ general beliefs are a form of philosophical materialism, which says that there is no God and there is no supernatural, only the physical material stuff of the universe exists. The Humanists write, “We are convinced that the time has passed for theism” (i.e. “the time has passed for belief in the existence of a God or gods”). They believe that mankind arrived on scene only as part of a natural evolutionary process, religious belief is only a product of culture and environment, and they believe that society itself is also evolving. (Here one can see the idea of “progress” or “progressives” since they assume humanity and society are moving in a better direction or can do so under their guidance.) “Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism.” (Note the word “control” in that sentence. “Progressives”, socialists, Marxists, and elites seem enamored with the word “control”; freedom-loving people, not so much.) Because the writers believed that the age-old religions could no longer keep up with science and modernity, a new religion was needed; therefore, the establishment of “such a religion [as religious Humanism] is a major necessity of the present.” In other words, “We see no value in traditional religions; therefore, we are starting up our own religion.”
So, with God excluded, mankind becomes the center. This stands in opposition to one of historical Christianity’s primary understandings, which is that “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” In the Humanist view, all is for mankind’s “fulfillment” (and that is certainly a loaded word). In the Christian worldview, all is for God’s glory (Isaiah 43:7, Romans 11:36, etc.). Human beings are only fulfilled when in proper relationship with God and in fulfilling His purposes for us. His Word and His commands are the blueprint for how life and human interactions work.
Critics of theism may say, “So, we are supposed to ignore the material world and everything around us, including our own innate desires, in order to follow a bunch of rules, pray to some invisible deity, and hope for some cloudy heaven?” Well, first of all, the rules of that “invisible deity” as pointed out by Jesus are, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40, NIV); so, caring for other human beings is part and parcel of Christianity and the history of Christianity demonstrates this. Secondly, such people ignore the fact that it is within the context of a Judeo-Christian worldview where the ideas of “unalienable rights” arose, where the foundations of educational establishments, hospitals, orphanages, abolitionist movements, etc., arose, and where even the idea of fair treatment of one’s war time enemies arose. Historically, one does not see the same in nations that did not share the Christian worldview.
Peter Hitchens, former adherent to the Humanist/Leftist/“Progressive” (H/L/P from here on.) views has written: “Only one reliable force stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. Only one reliable force restrains the hand of the man of power. And, in an age of power worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.”
I would point out the foolish Humanist idea of everything existing for “the fulfillment of human life”; after all, the fulfillment of the whole may not mean the fulfillment of any particular individual. (Thus, many Leftist “isms” like socialism, communism, and Marxism, subvert the individual interests to the interests of the whole; the individual matters not. This is called collectivism.) The individual may be, at times, opposed to the whole. And how can anyone or anything possibly decide or measure what fulfills the whole? Is it “majority rules”? Does it mean a few elites decide what is best for all?
As one writer said, essentially: The world has problems, difficulties, and pain, but “only the perspective of a philosophical elite governs what is to be done about it.”
Return to the word “control”: The “intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions”, remember? Someone or some group gets to decide what kind of transformation, what kind of control, etc. As history has shown us, the “controllers” are usually exempt from that which is imposed upon the majority. We have seen it in the rule of kings and priests. We have seen it in the rule of dictators. We have seen it even in western and American governments. If laws are passed controlling our lives, the “deciders” are often exempted from those laws. No one can go to a barbershop or salon during lock down, but somehow the elites are getting their hair cut and styled. If there are food shortages, the controllers do not lack food. If the police are pulled back during riots and unrest, the untouchables remain protected behind walls and security. If guns and weapons for self-protection are confiscated, the rule-makers remain safe. Controlling elites must protect themselves so they can continue to control and direct everyone else’s happiness… or lack thereof.
“When once the majority has determined that a certain [way of doing things] is beneficial, that [way of doing things] without further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never seems to occur to modern legislatures that although ‘welfare’ is good, forced welfare may be bad.” – J. Gresham Machen.
It is important to note that throughout the Manifesto, a great many problems exist. For instance, their first affirmation is to say that “the universe [is] self-existing and not created.” As mentioned, this is materialism. As Carl Sagan famously said, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” The evidence for these statements was and still remains, non-existent. Science has not and cannot ever prove such a statement. It is a tenet of faith. And since the Humanists listed it first, might we safely say that it is the foundation upon which their whole worldview rests and out of which all other tenets flow? For Christians, our foundational belief would be more along the lines of “In the beginning, God.” All we believe flows from that. There is certainly a whole lot more reason and logical evidence for the foundational Christian assumption than for the Humanist assumption. According to the Christian worldview, denial of “In the beginning, God” sends humanity (and therefore Humanists), on a trajectory of self-destruction and death (Romans 1:18-32, etc.).
A self-defeating worldview
The third tenet of the Manifesto tells us that “humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.” If I am to understand it correctly, this would mean the mind is not to be considered separate from the body; it is nothing more than the material tissue which we call the brain. The mind is not separate from the material world, but “does its thing” only according to physical causes, chemical reactions, etc. What they are therefore telling us is that their very thoughts, in fact their whole Manifesto, has only arisen because of bio-chemical happenings in their physical brains and nothing more. My disbelief in their worldview, then, would be the same kind of phenomena. If this is true, then their point of view and mine would be equally valid (and equally invalid). If their third tenet is true, anything anyone believes, would simply be due to biochemical reactions, environment, chance, and evolution; no one could ever be told that they are thinking wrong, believing wrong, or even doing wrong. It would be the equivalent of saying someone was wrong for having indigestion or for sneezing. Still, they believe that the things formulated by their material brains are superior to the things formulated by Theists’ brains. This makes no logical sense. Their Manifesto is, therefore, the equivalent of indigestion.
When “Thought is replaced by electro-chemical neural events. Two such events cannot confront each other in rational discourse,” writes John Polkinghorne, theoretical physicist, theologian, and Anglican priest. “They are neither right nor wrong. They simply happen.”
Their fourth affirmation underscores their self-defeating points. It tells us, in essence, that religions are part of a gradual development (social evolution) and are generally a product of culture and environment: “The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.” If they are using that to discount the “old” religions, saying that they were a product of “old” cultures and societies and the Humanists are part of the new, the new invalidating the old, they are practicing chronological snobbery while also being relativists. They are not arguing whether or not the history or philosophies of the past were true, only that “We have something shiny and new. Ooh, look, shiny.” They invalidate their own belief system (as relativism always does) because the Humanists are also, then, only products of their own environment and culture (and mindless bio-chemical brain functions, etc.). And though these ideas were/are new to them, it will soon enough be announced in someone else’s manifesto: “We are convinced that the time has passed for Humanism.” (This, of course, should be evident from the practices of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.) So why the Manifesto, Humanists? Your ideas keep telling us to ignore you.
“I saw that all who lived and walked under the sun followed the youth, the king’s successor. There was no end to all the people who were before them. But those who came later were not pleased with the successor” (Ecclesiastes 4:15-16, NIV)
Their fifth tenet calls any supernatural basis for values (ideals/ethics/morals) “unacceptable” and says, “Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.” First off, their third tenet (above) makes it unnecessary for them to ever make any statement again since every idea and belief, even if contradictory, is what happened to each of us thanks to evolution. Secondly, what does a phrase like “human needs” mean? It is as ambiguous as the Constitution’s “pursuit of happiness” which has already divided us in a thousand ways. To each individual the meaning of “human needs” may be something different, even diametrically opposed.
And what does “Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method” mean? The scientific spirit and method, huh? The scientific method cannot even prove that we think. If the Scientific Method was the only way to know what was true… it would have to prove itself, which is an impossibility; it cannot prove itself. And what are the steps of the scientific method? Observe, question, form a hypothesis, experiment, analyze and draw conclusions. If they are talking about morality, values, ethics, the purposes of society and human life… explain how the scientific method arrives at any of these. It does not and cannot. Many “ism” leaders of the past determined that it was good for them, or beneficial to their society, to murder, abort, or “experiment” upon those in opposition to, or disagreed with, them. Suppose those in power form the hypothesis that the “ends justify the means” and thus lying, cheating, and slandering can be experimentally used? Oh wait…
By the way, Science cannot give us future hope. Science tells us all will die and in the long run all life in the universe will die. We have no control over when and how the sun will die and destroy all humanity, but it will happen if the materialistic-scientific worldview is true. C.S Lewis dealt with this in essays such as the Funeral of a Great Myth, The World’s Last Night, Is Theology ‘Poetry’?, etc. All they have to offer us is smoke and mirrors: “Live as though life has meaning, sacrifice for future generations so they might have it better than us, even now the first person may be living who will live to be a thousand years of age…” Good luck with that. No, atheist Bertrand Russel was more truthful when he admitted:
“Man is the product of causes which had no prevision [plan or thought] of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
So how will the foundationless Humanists determine morality or values? Remember that our western-American culture based its values upon being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. No Creator… no rights. It is like voting a union into your shop; you immediately lose all previous benefits and everything has to be renegotiated. Only now, you are negotiating with the untouchable elites as to what your rights will be… if they feel like giving them to you. How did that work throughout the 20th Century with all of those “God-free” versions of Humanism in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba, etc.? Did the majority of citizen’s get to negotiate their rights from those regimes? Who benefited and who suffered?
“The only radical novelty in values that any society has ever come up with has been negations,” writes Roman Catholic philosopher, Peter Kreeft. “Just as an occasional individual shows up who is color blind, or tone deaf. But no one ever shows up who sees a color no one ever saw before, or hears a note not one ever heard before.”
So how will the new moral values be determined? Will it be through utilitarianism, which is defined loosely as that which brings the most happiness to the most people? (Again, begging the question, who decides on the meaning of happiness, how can such a thing possibly be measured, and whose happiness will be sacrificed for the whole?) Will it be pragmatism, loosely defined as “that which works determines what is true…” But fools do not seem to realize that their own methods can then be turned against them. If their pragmatism has shown that lying or cheating wins elections, that slander and censorship vanquish opposing ideas, or that rioting and violence brings them gain of some sort, they have done nothing but sanction use of the same against them. If they have discovered by their alchemy these things work and are therefore right and moral, they may never decry others using their methods against them. It is their own “morality” being used against them.
Live by the sword and die by the sword.
A totalitarian worldview
We must keep returning to the word “control” which they use in their thirteenth tenet (already quoted): “Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.”
Note they first and foremost single out that “religious institutions” must be “reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows”. There is no “live and let live” with Humanism. “They” have determined that the time is done for Theism and in their Manifesto, they state that now religious institutions and, of course, beliefs and teachings must change; i.e. become Humanist in form and practice or disappear from the public square.
This is where “Progressive Christianity” comes from. It is most often marked by disbelief in the miraculous, disbelief in the truthfulness of the Bible as the revelation of God, disbelief in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, disbelief in more than half of what Jesus said in the gospels, etc. It is a reconstructed religion that shares very little with orthodox historic Christianity and shares just about everything in common with Humanism. J. Gresham Machen, one of the founders of Westminster Seminary, wrote much against this “Progressive” or “Liberal Christianity”, especially in his work Christianity & Liberalism where he says,
“The difference between those two views is the difference between two totally diverse religions. It is high time that the issue should be faced; it is high time that the misleading use of traditional phrases [by the Liberals or H/L/P] should be abandoned and men should speak their full mind. Shall we accept the Jesus of the New Testament as our Savior, or shall we reject Him with the liberal Church?”
But the Humanists move into the Christian and Roman Catholic worlds, and then change meanings, definitions, and long-held doctrines, and claim that what they have is the real Christianity but, of course, they have only a farce. The Humanists are being deceptive here, but if they believe the deception works, it will continue. They see it as their advantage when they know that Christians are not to be, and cannot be, deceptive. As one conservative often says, “Truth is not a Left-wing value.” They think it is to their advantage to lie, slander, use fallacious arguments, even scream “separation of Church and State” when a church is traditional (but certainly never shout that when a “church” shares their H/L/P doctrines). Thankfully, in the way of Truth and orthodoxy there have been a great many people who have destroyed the Humanist arguments including G.K. Chesterton, Machen, Lewis, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Ravi Zacharias, Peter Kreeft, Voddie Baucham, etc. Meanwhile, the Humanists plot further infiltration.
However, if the true churches cannot be infiltrated and swayed, they must be controlled from without, by government. We are currently living in a time of what many consider a test run for government control over the churches. Consider California’s war against Grace Community Church regarding whether they can be open or not, penalized or not, pastors arrested or not, etc. One might also recall people like Bernie Sanders saying that a practicing, believing Christian “is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.” Meanwhile, a politician like Joe Biden, who talks about the importance of his Roman Catholic faith, but supports abortion and expanding abortion “rights”, and performs a “homosexual marriage” ceremony, etc., i.e. a person who shows their religion is Leftism and not Roman Catholicism, is lauded as a “person of faith” while a more traditional Roman Catholic politician like Mike Pence, who adheres to the tenets of the faith, are lambasted as being horrible “insidious” human beings. The bottom line, as to whether they are considered “good” or “evil”, is whether they adhere to an H/L/P religious worldview or whether they do not.
“Agree with us and be accepted, even anointed. Disagree and be destroyed.”
Socialism… or worse
The fourteenth tenet of Humanism could easily be mistaken for a Bernie Sanders speech: “[We] are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.”
“Profit-motivated society” may, of course, be problematic on multiple levels, especially in the case of crony-capitalism where the elites and those in government rake in money and benefits in order to protect and bail out certain businesses from actual market fluctuations. However, capitalism has helped people out of poverty and despair way more than socialism and communism have. Socialism and communism have demonstrated that they do achieve “the equitable distribution” of poverty, hunger, and death. Remember that the elites never suffer until they find themselves on the wrong side of the next “orthodoxy”.
But note the word “controls” again. It tells us that methods and controls MUST be instituted… MUST be established… and they want it to be FREE and VOLUNTARY, for the common good, of course. When a parent says that a child MUST take out the trash, is it free and voluntary? When controlling elites say that certain changes, deprivations, certain closures MUST occur, for the common good, are they free and voluntary? Of course, not. Even now we are hearing the mantra of “We are all in this together” but it is so easily proven to be untrue. Small business owners are losing their businesses, Congresspeople and those at the public teat are not losing anything. Low- and middle-income people and those working two jobs with children kept out of school are suffering, while those with fat cat salaries giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to their candidates are not suffering. We are NOT all in this together. The Humanists tells us their ideas MUST be instituted and established. They like to say, “Science” when Science has fifty different theories. The main point is to obey when they say, “Obey!” and to jump when they say, “Jump!”
As economist Thomas Sowell has written,
“The question is not what anybody deserves. The question is who is to take on the God-like role of deciding what everybody else deserves?”
One must realize that the Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933 when, believe it or not, FDR was often named in conjunction with Hitler and Mussolini as being a progressive forward-thinker (read “Humanist thinker”). These three were considered to have shared or similar views of government control of just about everything in order to make the overall lives of their respective people better. Complete government control, without restraint, in order to fix national, economic, and social problems was the order of the day and both Hitler and Mussolini praised many of FDR’s programs.
I find somewhat troubling their eleventh affirmation that “humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.” It’s hard to know what they mean here but “social and mental hygiene”? “Hygiene” is defined as a “practice conducive to the preservation of health.” What does “social hygiene” mean? Eugenics? Forced sterilization? Humanists and “Progressives” of the early 20th Century were big into these ideas and practices. Margaret Sanger, patron saint of many on the left, once said, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.”
What is “mental hygiene”? Does that mean “re-education” for those who might not agree with the H/L/P vision and direction? The French Revolution, the USSR, Hitler’s Third Reich, all desired to do away with traditional religion. State approved religion was allowed; however, the children were often taken away for state sponsored indoctrination, especially on Sundays. We see it again today when people are arrested for preaching on street corners or in front of abortion clinics. We see it when florists, bakers, and photographers are sued, fined, threatened with loss of their businesses, or sentenced to “sensitivity training” after refusing to cater to homosexual weddings. One particular philosophy, one particular group is being favored; their happiness above all considered, not that anyone can prove how catering to such a small group makes societal or human happiness greater, while threatening and squashing the majority with non-Humanist views matters not. (Then again contradiction is always the result of false philosophies.)
And one writer tells us:
“Soviet power was—as it was intended to be—the opposite of faith in God. It was faith in the greatness of humanity and in the perfectibility of human society. The atheists cannot honestly disown it” (Peter Hitchens ).
Now, let’s take one more look back at where the Humanist Manifesto states, “Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.” The Humanists here admit that religion permeates all. Leftists and secularists (oftentimes synonymous with Humanism), though, have told us for years that Christianity must be kept out of the public square. (“Separation of church and state,” remember?) Yet they expect and desire their religion to permeate all (government, law, universities, schools, churches, media, entertainment). Humanists here admit that religion cannot be separated or compartmentalized. Refer to the Bible for an anti-abortion position, to take a position against the homosexual movement, or to support a pro-death penalty position and be lambasted; invoke it for climate change, welfare, or socialism and be praised. If religion permeates all (and it does) and then those who adhere to traditional religion are told our religion is not allowed to permeate politics, or our florist shops, for the sake of sensitive H/L/P adherents, how can we not draw the conclusion that they expect us to forsake our religion and adopt theirs? (Or be ostracized.)
“Thus no one was allowed to buy or sell things unless he bore the mark of the beast – that is, his name or his number” (Revelation 13:17).
Societal and mental hygiene indeed.
NOT the ones we’ve been waiting for
The Humanist Manifesto ends with these words: “So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.”
I am reminded of the words of President-elect Barack Obama: “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
We can save ourselves.
Good luck with that.
“The great ideological divide is between those who believe that theories should be adjusted to reality and those who believe that reality must be adjusted to fit their theories. Many of the horrors of the 20th century were created by the latter. And such people are still with us, in many movements” (Thomas Sowell).
I would challenge every reader to check out the Humanist Manifesto for yourself and tell me where it is the same and where it differs from modern “Progressivism” or Leftism or the Democrat Party Platform.
Humanism/Leftism/“Progressivism” (H/L/P) is a religious worldview that, in many ways, is in direct militant opposition to the Judeo-Christian worldview. The latter has been the foundational cornerstone of the West, its freedoms and inalienable rights. The former has helped produce poverty, the gulags, the dictators, and human death on a mass scale. Those who espouse H/L/P and invoke mindless, aimless evolution; their naturalistic worldview destines humanity and all progress for death and annihilation yet, through smoke and mirrors, they promise purpose, hope, and Utopia. (Sorry, purpose and hope are borrowed from the Theistic worldview.) They cannot even prove their own foundational beliefs. They tell us there is no basis for thought and then tell us to listen to their thoughts. They tell us that all religions and worldviews are fundamentally baseless, products of random environmental and evolutionary causes and then want us to give credence to their newly invented religion.
They tell us life should be ordered toward human fulfillment, etc., yet leave all their terms ambiguous. They speak of progress but offer no destination. They reject the old religious virtues and promise new ones based on Science, which has no say in virtue or morality, good or evil. They do show their totalitarian tendencies, however, as did their 20th century protégés. All the old religions and philosophies must conform or be cast off. It is their time; they should be the deciders and controllers. They brook no competition; they feign neutrality; they infiltrate both church and state while shouting “separation of church and state”. All others must fall in line and bow to the elites.
They have demanded the keys to the kingdom.
But we, Christ followers, must be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) “for what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship does light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Come out and be separate. “Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). And, although we realize there are human groups and organizations at war with the Judeo-Christian worldview, we must be prayerful, knowing that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12, NIV).
And though this world, with devils filled,
should threaten to undo us,
we will not fear, for God has willed
His Truth to triumph through us.
The Prince of Darkness grim,
we tremble not for him;
his rage we can endure,
for lo! his doom is sure;
one little word shall fell him.
To read more of my columns go here.
 I suggest reading a great column entitled “We Must Stop Sacrificing Children on the Altar of Sexual Pleasure” at https://stream.org/stop-killing-babies-for-sexual-pleasure/
 The lack of shame in this country always reminds me of the words of God in Jeremiah: “Are they ashamed because they have done such disgusting things? No, they are not at all ashamed! They do not even know how to blush! So they will die just like others have died. They will be brought to ruin when I punish them, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 8:12).
 Part of the seventh affirmation in the Humanist Manifesto, 1933. https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto1/
 John Dewey was partially responsible for adding kindergartens to schools in order to get children out from their parental influence as early as possible. (Consider the push for daycare these days, a push to get children out from under parental influence almost immediately.) People like Dewey and Woodrow Wilson believed the government needed to interfere and stop children from having their parent’s values. Wilson famously said, “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” Dewey thought it should begin much, much sooner.
 This alone is problematic and also symptomatic of the state of our current national education system. That is to say, we have at this present time a national educational system where the program is to saturate children and young people with H/L/P goals, ideas, and propaganda. Meanwhile, whatever does not further the Humanist/Leftist religion will be anathema to the system. This means we need to rethink and very possibly discard today’s educational system (with some exceptions) in order to educate, which means in part “to lead out”. We need a new Exodus, especially for Christians. We need the Light to shine into darkness once again (Isaiah 9:2, Matthew 4:16). As Christian apologist and teacher, Voddie Baucham has pointed out: “Education is discipleship. Whomever is educating our children is discipling our children. Jesus said, ‘A pupil is not above his teacher, but everyone, when he is fully trained, will be like his teacher’” He said, “We cannot continue to send our children to Caesar for their education and be surprised when they come home as Romans.”
 As defined by Wikipedia: “Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental things and consciousness, are results of material interactions.”
 Author Jonah Golberg on French philosopher Auguste Comte, “whose biggest claim to fame was his coinage of the term ‘sociology’. Comte argued that humanity progressed in three stages and that in the final stage mankind would throw off Christianity and replace it with a new ‘religion of humanity,’ which married religious fervor to science and reason” (Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, copyright 2007, published by Doubleday, page 97).
 Of course, if it is evolutionary, with no mind or purpose behind it, then there is no guarantee that the next things down the evolutionary process will be “better” or beneficial for the “human species” as evolution is not concerned with humanity or anything else for that matter. Also, it has been pointed out, that the idea of “progress” must have an end goal or ideal in mind; one cannot make progress without having a destination.
 The answer to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wsc/index.html?_top=http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html
 The Rage Against God, copyright 2010 by Peter Hitchens, published by Zondervan, page 113.
 Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance, The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law, and Education, copyright 1995, published by InterVarsity Press, page 119.
 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 9.
 God’s very name YHWH or “I AM” gives a glimpse into His foundational self-existence.
 See Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover or Prime Mover arguments or even Peter Kreeft’s First Cause Argument: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
 As Francis Crick, British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, said, “‘You’, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
 Note something that the H/L/P do: They say the old is not written in stone; it is obsolete; it must go and be replaced by our new ideas. But then, we are told that their ideas are the best and here to stay. Consider any Supreme Court ruling with which they disagree: “We will fight until this is overturned!” but when they receive a ruling in favor of Humanism (Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges) they say that the Court has ruled and expect it to be the law of the land forever.
 “Stop to think for just a moment… Can you prove to me that you think? By which of the five senses do you prove it? How does the scientific method prove your thoughts? And can the scientific method even prove that the scientific method is valid? What of the scientist and the scientific method as a way to prove what is true, real, or factual? In Francis Bacon’s assessment, our senses, and by extension even the scientific method, are imperfect and fallible…. Karl Popper [also] exposed the same flaws in the scientific method…” https://blogs.bible.org/impact/stephen_j._drain/what_did_the_philosophers_know__and_when_did_they_know_it_part_2
 Let me give several examples of how “Progressive”/Leftists/Humanists believe in the ends justify the means: 1. Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare admitted that “lack of transparency” was key to passing the law, that if the people knew what was in it, they would not want it; so obfuscation was necessary to pass the law. 2. Leftist Harry Reid lied about presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s tax returns. Much later, when confronted with his lies, Reid simply and proudly said, “They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” 3. Feminists gave Bill Clinton a pass on his sexual harassment and alleged rape of women, since it furthered their cause. One feminist, Nina Burleigh, made a very crude statement ending with, “I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show [Bill Clinton] their gratitude for keeping [abortion legal and] the theocracy off our backs.”
 Or as Woody Allen tried to put it humorously: “More than any time in human history, humankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other leads to total extinction. Let’s pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”
 Peter Kreeft, The Best Things in Life, copyright 1984 by Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, page 167.
 Consider again Harry Reid’s statement in the footnote above. If his lies worked, then they were “pragmatic” and therefore, by philosophic pragmatism the lie would be correct or good action.
 C.S. Lewis discusses how morality, and the idea of “You can’t do that to me; that’s not right”, leads inevitably to the belief in the existence of God, even the Christian God, in his book entitled Mere Christianity.
 Emphasis added.
 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Chapter v: Christ, page 93.
 Here I am reminded of a C.S. Lewis quote: “I insist that wherever you draw the lines, [boundary] lines must exist, beyond which your doctrine will… cease to be… Christian: and I suggest also that the lines come a great deal sooner than many modern [preachers] think. [Therefore] if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially [sic] as Christians or as [clergy] but as honest men.” He continues: “We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: What we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them” (C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock, copyright 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C.S. Lewis, published by Eerdmans, pages 89-90).
 Remember the Wikileaks letter that spoke of the need for, basically, an internal revolution within the Roman Catholic Church which would turn it more secular? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6293
 “The strongest argument for socialism is that it sounds good,” writes economist Thomas Sowell. “The strongest argument against socialism is that it doesn’t work.”
 Socialist Bernie Sanders has three houses, mind you. Do as I say, not as I do.
 Note: “In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt summoned the nation: ‘If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.… I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.’ [Never waste a crisis, right?] “The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised ‘Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies’ and ‘the development toward an authoritarian state’ based on the ‘demand that collective good be put before individual self‐interest.’” https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt
 From The Pivot of Civilization, 1922.
 One can easily research the “National Socialist” infiltration of the churches and church leadership, which Dietrich Bonhoeffer “rebelled” against. The Nazi influence in the churches removed pastors and leaders of Jewish descent, then removal of the Old Testament even. Martin Niemöller began the Pastor’s Emergency league and then the Confessing Church arose. But, again, the Humanist/leftist/progressives would not allow for the church to be their competition for the hearts and minds of the people. Conform or be crushed.
 The Rage Against God, copyright 2010 by Peter Hitchens, published by Zondervan, page 138.
 “The fascist movement that gave birth to the ‘Russian-Italian Method’ was in reality a religious awakening in which Christianity was either to be [discarded as undesirable] and replaced or ‘updated’ by the new progressive faith in man’s ability to perfect the world” (Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, copyright 2007, published by Doubleday, page 139).