Atheism NEEDS Evolutionism

Without the theory of evolution, the Humanist would have to rely on God as the explanation for life, which would necessarily destroy his atheism and hence his Humanism.  Therefore, every Secular Humanist embraces the theory of evolution.

David A. Noebel in Understanding the Times, p.267

Sexual Fidelity Increases Pleasure

Fidelity in marriage maximizes sex itself.  The discipline of focusing one's mental fantasies on the marriage partner alone has the great benefit of intensifying sexual fulfillment.  Furthermore, the pure in heart are safeguarded from the deception of an unreal world created by skillful photographers and makeup artists.  The illusion created constantly in our society is that the world is filled with young, beautiful, available, eager, perfect bodies awaiting the conquest of the smart playboy or playgirl. One is easily seduced into thinking he is missing out on something, and by feeding his imagination on this fare he sets himself up for failure in a marriage that cannot compete with the mirage.  If he had never indulged his mind in such a dream world, he might have discovered more quickly and more fully that sexual fulfillment itself is most intense, most enduring, and constantly growing only in the commitment of two who have become one flesh exclusively and permanently. 

Robertson McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, p.191

Creating the Herd

Entertainment, advertising, and television surround us with disorganized clamor of yearning and alienation, while education systematically turns students into autonomous units of will and ego, of “empowerment” and “self-esteem.”

That combined influence of education, popular culture, and television, has already produced results in our society.  One result is a large pool of people who respond readily to manipulation because they have been cut off from the knowledge (of God, of culture, of right and wrong) that would enable them to sift their experience and evaluate it.  Another result is a breed of young people who have learned to feel good about themselves while behaving in ways that are ruthlessly anti-social.  The same influences create both the herd, and the psychopath who cuts from the herd.



Brooks Alexander, “Abolished Man: From Instruction to Indoctrination in the New Education,” SCP [Spiritual Counterfeits Project] Journal, Vol. 16:4, P.5-6

All Cultures Are NOT Equal

Most women’s studies, racial and ethnic studies, and gay and lesbian studies are intellectual hoaxes, programs of propaganda an mutual support. It is hardly surprising that denials of the possibility of rationality should come from groups whose excuse for existence is threatened by rational inquiry.  The knowledge that science produces, moreover, often results in a picture of the world that is anathema to the more rabid egalitarians, for that knowledge may demonstrate there there is a hard, concrete reality blocking the egalitarians’ path forward.  Radical feminism is put in peril by scientific proof that some sex-role differences are inherent and cannot be dismissed as mere social constructs.  To multiculturalists, empirical investigation is dangerous because it will demonstrate that not all cultures are equal in their capacity to equip their members for success in the modern world.  Contrary to the claims of the multiculturalists, there are not different ways of knowing.

Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p.267

Student Indoctrination

As early as elementary school, students have been encouraged or recruited to take stands on complex policy issues ranging up to and including policies concerning nuclear weapons, on which whole classes have been assigned to write members of Congress or to the President of the United States.  College admissions committees can give weight to various forms of environmentalism or other activism in considering which applicants to admit, and it is common for colleges to require “community service” as a prerequisite for applicants to be considered at all — with the admissions committee arbitrarily defining what is to be considered a “community service,” as if, for example, it is unambiguously clear that aiding and abetting vagrancy (“the homeless”) is a service rather than a disservice to a community.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.516

Hedonism Blinds

It is not pain that has driven the West into emptiness; it has been the drowning of meaning in the oceans of our pleasures.  Pleasure gone wrong is a greater curse than physical blindness.  And blindness to the sacred is the cause of all evil.

Ravi Zacharias, “Existential Challenges of Evil and Suffering,” in the book, “Beyond Opinion,” Ravi Zacharias, author and general editor, p.206-207

Our Culture of Narcissism

We have phony rich people (with interest-only mortgages and piles of debt), phony beauty (with plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures), phony athletes (with performance-enhancing drugs), phony celebrities (via reality TV and YouTube), phony genius students (with grade inflation), a phony national economy (with $11 trillion of government debt), phony feelings of being special among children (with parenting and education focused on self-esteem), and phony friends (with the social networking explosion).  All this fantasy might feel good, but, unfortunately, reality always wins.  The mortgage meltdown and the resulting financial crisis are just one demonstration of how inflated desires eventually crash to earth.

Jean M. Twenge, Ph.D. and W. Keith Campbell, Ph.D., “The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement,” introduction (2009), as cited by David Kupelian, How Evil Works, p.81

We Are Committing National Suicide

Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address

Anti-Godism

There are many, many ways to worship God but only one way to reject Him.  Thus, many different views can share one basic urge: the rejection of God.  This, I think, best accounts for both the divided nature of the conservative movement and the congruence of the far Left.  It helps explain the unlikely uniformity of the anti-God alliance.  Why do gun-control advocates make common cause with militant abortion advocates?  What interests do either of these groups share with the homosexual lobby?  Why can these groups nearly always be found standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the multiculturalism militia and the condom counselors?  Clearly, they must all share a great unifying principle, which, whether intended or not, is anti-Godism.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "America's Real War," p.60

Islam Is More Than a Religion

Islam cannot be defined as a religion in the Western sense of the word; neither can it be termed as a faith.  Muslim scholars state that Islam is an all-encompassing system — a sociopolitical, socioreligious system, as well as a socioeconomic, socio-educational, legislative, judiciary, and military system governing every aspect of the lives of its adherents, their relationships among themselves, and with those who are non-Muslims. . . . 

In Islam, the very idea of a “choice” is not only an anathema but is also regarded as an anti-Islamic concept.  Freedom of choice does not exist in Islam; neither is religion a private or personal matter.  All decisions have already been made by Allah and his prophet Muhammad, so Muslims have no choice but to follow these divine regulations, as we see prescribed in Sura 33:36: “It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.  And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in plain error.”

Sam Soloman, “Challenges from Islam,” in the book, “Beyond Opinion,” Ravi Zacharias, author and general editor, p.62, 70

Sex "Education"?

[W]hen the long downward trend in teenage pregnancy and venereal disease suddenly reversed after the attitude-changing exercises known as “sex education” were introduced into American schools in the 1960s, it was the parents who were left to pick up the pieces when a teenage daughter became pregnant or an adolescent son caught some venereal disease.  No teacher had to pay anything toward the financial costs or to lose a moment’s sleep over what had happened in these young people’s personal lives, and verbal virtuosity enabled the changed values which “sex education” promoted to not only escape censure but even to continue to foster the impression that what was called “sex education” was the solution, even when it turned out empirically  to be an aggravation of the problem.

Like so much else, “sex education” fit the vision, which exempted it from the requirement of fitting the facts.  Moreover, because these indoctrination exercises in promoting different values were called “education,” their legitimacy in the schools escaped serious scrutiny, as did their role in the results that followed.


Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.516

It All Began With Woodrow Wilson

During the presidential election campaign of 1912, Wilson explicitly invoked Darwin to justify an evolutionary understanding of the U.S. Constitution that would allow the federal government to dramatically expand its powers over the economy.

According to Wilson, the Constitution betrayed the Founders’ “Newtonian” view that government was built on unchanging laws like “the law of gravitation.”  In truth, however, government “falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life.  It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life.”  Hence, “living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.  Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of Life … [I]t must develop.”  Wilson averred that “all that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.”

The doctrine of the evolving Constitution articulated by Wilson and other Progressives opened the door to much greater regulation of business and the economy, eventually paving the way for the New Deal.  But once the door was opened to regulate the rich, there was no reason increased government powers should not also be used to regulate the poor.  The stage was thus set for a different kind of Social Darwinism, one based not on laissez faire but on the idea that government should scientifically plan and regulate even the most intimate questions of family life.

John G. West, "Darwin Day in America: How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science," p.122

Beware of "Experts"

In an age of technology and expertise, we have been convinced that we should listen to the “experts” rather than common sense in determining the norms, values and attitudes of our families, our churches and other trusted institutions.  Cultural relativists urge us to adapt to the changes of our times, which they define as “progress” rather than mere change whose inevitability is not assured.

Anne Hendershott, The Politics of Deviance, p.154

The Right Worldview

If our country gets the wrong answer to the worldview question, then it will get the wrong answer to moral questions, as well.  And that’s exactly why our culture is where it is today.   We’ve allowed the atheistic worldview to take over without challenging its validity.  Homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia are symptoms of a wrong worldview.  The correct worldview recognizes that life isn’t all about me! me! me! — it recognizes that we have a duty to others, as well.  We’re not here to simply please ourselves — to take the easy way out of difficult and inconvenient situations — but to bravely serve God and others as the Moral Law instructs.  The Moral Law mandates that we protect life, not destroy it.  Until we accept this truth and act on it, our nation will teeter on the brink of self-destruction.

Dr. Norman Geisler & Frank Turek, "Legislating Morality," p.203

There Must Be Moral Absolutes

If there is no absolute beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict.  We are merely left with conflicting opinions.

Francis A. Shaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, p.145

Living Together vs Marriage

You can't say to someone, "I love you.  Let's live together to see what happens."  On those terms, either of you can split at a moment's notice.  As a result you never really can be yourself or feel free to disagree without fear of losing the other person.  You can never have the liberty to share your deepest feelings.  You have to hold back.  The relationship doesn't get a chance to grow because it is based on a conditional acceptance which is the cover for the self-gratification of two people indulging themselves in what they politely term a meaningful relationship.  Real commitment, on the other hand, says, "I am willing to spend my life with you to see you grow." . . . 

Others say, "For as long as we both shall love . . . ."  Love may have some cold spots, and it alone will never be enough to hold two people together.  It's commitment that carries them over difficult times.  Commitment is what God intended between a man and a woman.  That is why he set up marriage - to express a lifelong commitment.


Michael Zadig, HIS, March 1977, p.7, as cited by Robertson McQuilkin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, p.191

Indoctrination in Education

Among those with a sense of mission are those who teach the young, whether teachers in the schools or professors in colleges and universities.  Those among the academics or school teachers who lack either the inclination or the talent to become public intellectuals can instead vent their opinions in the classroom to a captive audience of students, operating in a smaller arena but in a setting with little chance of serious challenge.  In such settings, their aggregate influence on the mindset of a generation may be out of all proportion to their competence — not simply in what they directly impart, but more fundamentally in habituating their students to reaching sweeping conclusions after hearing only one side of an issue and then either venting their emotions or springing into action, whether by writing letters to public officials as part of classroom assignments or taking part in other, more direct activism.  In these cases as well, there are few, if any, constraints beforehand and no accountability for the consequences afterwards.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.515

"Affirmative Action" is Unfair

Sometimes preferential policies are justified as a form of reparations for a past history of discrimination.  That would make sense, however, only if we ignore individuals and think of races as undifferentiated blocs whose members live forever.  The individual beneficiaries and victims of past discrimination are now almost entirely unknowable.  It is hardly sensible to prefer a person who has not suffered discrimination because a member of the same race or sex suffered it thirty years ago.  Whatever happened in the past, in the present the policy does harm to guiltless individuals and benefits those who have suffered no harm.  At some point, history must be accepted for what it is, history.

Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, p.238

Humanism is Inconsistent

Although they claim to be humane, they promote the killing of innocent life (abortion, euthanasia).  Although they claim to be scientific, they violate basic laws of science.  Although they claim to be rational, they violate fundamental principles of reason.  Although they claim that all ethics is relative, they do so with an absolute statement.  In the final analysis, then, secular humanism is not a consistent position.

Norman Geisler, “Is Man the Measure?” p.161, cited by Dr. Harold J. Berry in, What They Believe, p.240

Secular Humanists Are Unsure of Their Ideology

When a group is afraid to let others address an issue, it indicates the adherents are unsure of the validity of their position.  Those who believe in a standard for truth don’t believe truth will hurt by letting others express their views, no matter how erroneous those views are.  But notice how insecure the humanists are: “We deplore the efforts by fundamentalists . . . to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks.  This is a serious threat to both academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process.”

Dr. Harold J. Berry, What They Believe, p.237

Live As A Human!

We absolutely must realize that if we just keep going along with whatever compulsions and drives we see rising up in us, and wallow in them, and justify them, and condemn anybody who dares to ask the tough questions, we’re living as animals, not humans.

And believe me, that’s no truly living.  Unless, of course, you’re a goat.

David Kupelian, How Evil Works, p.46

Pluralism

To accept pluralism is not to embrace openness but to reject one’s own tradition for another, the pluralist’s.  Pluralism renders vacuous the notion of being in a given religious tradition.  How is this preserving the uniqueness of individual religions?

Alison Thomas, “Challenges From Youth,” in the book, “Beyond Opinion,” Ravi Zacharias, author and general editor, p.42

Non-Judgmental Society

What a non-judgmental society amounts to is that common decency is optional -- which means that decency is likely to become less common.

If you took all the mumbo-jumbo out of our educational institutions, how much would be left? Students could finish their education years earlier and end up knowing a lot more than they know now.

I must have heard the word "diversity" proclaimed in ringing tones as a great benefit to society at least a thousand times -- and probably closer to a million -- without even once hearing a speck of evidence provided, or even suggested as a way to test whether that is true or false.

Thomas Sowell, "Random Thoughts," 30 September 2014

The Choice

I am suggesting that just as there are two answers to the questions of where we came from and where we shall end up, there may only be the same two ways to settle the question of what we should be doing during our life: namely, either following the pro-God worldview or the anti-God worldview.  The alternative, indifference to God, is unworthy of men or women and is therefore practiced chiefly by non-human life forms such as cows and carrots.  In reality there are very few agnostics.

I suspect that most of our cultural institutions are now firmly in the hands of those who reject the Almighty.  Those who run our entertainment and news media are consistently shown by polls to attend worship services far less, and to be less likely to have a religious affiliation, than the nation's population as a whole.  Those who run our schools, universities, and courts are constantly implementing anti-God doctrines no matter how often they might invoke His name.  I am not even too certain of many of our churches and synagogues.  It is time for the rest of us to recognize that there is a war being waged and to fight back.


Rabbi Daniel Lapin, America's Real War, p.57

Movie Discernment

When you go to the theater, do you simply let the story wash over you?  Or do you have the skills to analyze what a film is saying?  A movie generally communicates its perspective through the lead character.  What the main character learns or discovers is what the filmmakers want the audience to learn. . . .

When watching a movie, we should be asking:  What worldview is the movie communicating?  Are there elements that are true?  Are there elements that are false and destructive?  If Christians do not learn to ask those questions, they may well absorb nonbiblical ideas without even being aware of it.  T.S. Eliot once noted that the serious books we read do not influence us nearly as much as the books we read for fun (or the movies we watch for entertainment).  Why?  Because when we are relaxing, our guard is down and we engage in the "suspension of disbelief" that allows us to enter imaginatively into the story.  As a result, the assumptions of the author or screenwriter may go unnoticed and seep all the more deeply into our consciousness. When we "suspend disbelief," we must take care not to suspend our critical faculties.


Nancy Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, & Meaning,"  p.253

Reducing Behavior to "Brain Disorders"

The tendency to reduce all behavioral problems to brain disorders that should be solved primarily through drugs is indicative of just how uncritically our society has embraced the philosophy of scientific materialism.  Scientific materialism adds plausibility to the idea that all behavioral problems, including criminal activity, can be fixed through biological and chemical interventions, even if research has yet to sustain such a claim.

The consequences of this overselling of science as the solution to crime and misbehavior have been tragic.  Instead of improving the human condition, it has led to dehumanization, with criminal defendants and delinquents treated as guinea pigs for experiments in the service of scientific ideology.


John G. West, "Darwin Day in America: How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science," p.101

Redefining the Language

In major cultural transitions, words often change their meanings as new norms evolve and old cultural constraints loosen.  . . . [T]hose involved in the politics of deviance often foster subtle changes in the language as part of a larger campaign to alter perceptions.  An effective media campaign — one, for instance, that pushes for standards of behavior based on individual desires rather than moral categories — begins the redefinition with a linguistic assault.  The man who preys on boys becomes someone seeking only “intergenerational intimacy,” and the promiscuous teenager is redefined as simply “sexually adventurous.” In an age of imagery and sound bites, the reality of a given behavior can be less important than the emotions with which the behavior is packaged.

From the rights-based, pro-choice rhetoric of those promoting assisted suicide, to the medical jargon of those promoting the disease model of addiction, advocates for redefinitions of deviance know that the side that wins the linguistic high ground generally wins the debate.  In the not-so-distant past, words like “crazy” and “deeply disturbed” were connected with suicide.  Today, they have been replaced with words like “dignity” and “autonomy,” while those who oppose assisted suicide legislation are themselves stigmatized as “zealots” who want to strip the vulnerable of their last rights in the pursuit of cold moral abstractions.

The process of redefining deviance is a subtle one, and the changes in language we have discussed are so incremental and innocuous that the new meanings appear almost invisibly.

Anne Hendershott, The Politics of Deviance, p.153-154

Brave New World?

There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.  Government by clubs and firing squads, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient -- and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.  A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.

Aldous Huxley, 1946 forward to Brave New World.

Multiculturalism Is a Failure

Multiculturalists argue that different cultural values are morally equivalent. That's nonsense. Western culture and values are superior. For those who'd accuse me of Eurocentrism, I'd ask: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan; is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed. In some countries, homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to Western values?

Walter E. Williams, “Multiculturalism Is a Failure,” 17 Sep 2014, townhall.com