Agenda 21, Secular Humanism, and the Animalization of Americans

Conservative Underground ^ | 15-Sep-2009 | Linda Kimball

[metmom]

And the atheistic regimes of the 20th century were better than that?

Ones like the USSR under Lenin and Stalin?

China under Mao?

Cambodia under Pol Pot?

Name me one atheistic government which has the benevolence which has been demonstrated by the USA and much of Europe.

Betty boop is right. Atheists are, at the moment, living on the coattails of a society what was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

You can point to groups that have perpetrated evil in the name of religion. People will use anything to justify their actions. But when you get to the basics of what Christianity is about, there is no justification for that evil.

It's interesting that so many atheists point to evil done in the name of religion in their efforts to tear down Christianity, but never point to people who do good in the name of their religion.

Look at Mother Theresa. The Amish reaction when that gunman gunned down those school girls in PA.

Why not use those as examples of what Christianity can lead to, especially since they clearly follow the teachings of Christ?

[OldSpice]

The Inquisition and similar Christian movements made life a living hell for the Jews.

Don’t assume that the history of Christianity is all peaches and cream, only because you restrict your perspective to the last 200 years or so, alone, which is when secular forces tamed this religion.

Communist regimes are destructive. No argument about that. But don’t blame Atheism for Stalin’s pogroms that he ran for political purposes. They didn’t believe in no god- they made Stalin, god. Likewise, Pol Pot and the others. “Dear Leader” is an offshoot of this belief system- and not Atheism. Hitler wasn’t an Atheist. He was raised Catholic. Stalin had a religious background, too. In fact, the latter attended a seminary, and did well there.

Ayn Rand was an Atheist. Likewise, some of the most eminent Founding Fathers (Deism is a precursor of it). Do they even show a whiff of the madness that the Communists and Socialists are eager to spout? Quite the contrary, wouldn’t you say?

[OldSpice]

"In my soul I feel just that terrible pain of loss,” she wrote in 1959, “of God not wanting me — of God not being God — of God not existing.” According to the book, this inner turmoil, known by only a handful of her closest colleagues, lasted until her death in 1997."

During her crisis of faith, did Mother Teresa turn into a monster?

[betty boop]

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man.

Where did the law of identity come from? And in what way does it shed any light on human nature? To say that "Man is Man" doesn't tell us what "Man" is. Without knowing that, how can we determine what "are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival?" I am sure there'd be nearly as many different opinions about that as there are men to opine.

Rand just wants us to understand the moral law as something emergent from purely naturalistic principles. She sees the naturalistic principles; but has no explanation for them.

To put it into more technical terms, she wants to have an epistemology (and a moral philosophy) without an ontology.

Do you see what I mean, Raymann?

[betty boop]

Religion is not a promoter of any particular governmental form at all. It promotes a system of moral law.

Let me qualify that statement: "Religion in America is not a promoter of any particular governmental form at all." [This is not uniformly the case in the Arab world, however.]

Why do you feel it relevant to invoke "popes from the old days" in support of your claims? A religious institution — a church — is not a "governmental form"; it is a private, not a public institution. It draws a clear line between what is owed to God, and what is owed to Caesar; and it's in the "God business," not the "Caesar business." Moreover, adherence to a religious institution is entirely voluntary: Churches do not have the power of compulsion that all States enjoy.

Moreover, at least the Catholic Church strongly discourages its clergy from serving in public office — as illustrated by the case of Fr. Robert Drinan, a former congressman from my home state. Pope John Paul II point-blank told him to leave the priesthood if he wanted to continue serving in Congress. Fr. Drinan chose to leave Congress.

The Reformed Church doesn't seem to have a similarly strong aversion to public service by its clergy. We know of many ordained ministers who serve in public capacities, as congressmen and governors, for instance. As far as I can tell, such people have never used their offices of public trust to recruit people into churches, or to advance the interests of any particular religious denomination.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

There are differences among denominations, to put it mildly. But there is in general no disagreement about what constitutes the Judeo-Christian moral philosophy — which is the very foundation of the Constitution and thus our system of equal justice under law.

[Raymann]

To the best of my knowledge, most objectivists hold ontology to be a scientific rather then philosophical pursuit. You want to know the physical nature of man is, ask a scientist.

As for the “law of Identity”, that’s pure Aristotelian thought. That horse has been beat too many times for me to explain that.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for all of your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

Are you as sick as I am, of the total inversion of reality that these idiots are trying to perpetrate on the American people right now?

Yes I am.

Fortunately, the polls are detecting an ever-increasing buyer's remorse. For the wrong reasons, no doubt, but the door is prying open to begin correcting the drift.

[Raymann]

To the best of my knowledge, most objectivists hold ontology to be a scientific rather then philosophical pursuit. You want to know the physical nature of man is, ask a scientist.

As for the “law of Identity”, that’s pure Aristotelian thought. That horse has been beat too many times for me to explain that.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

I would add that in Israel - which is under constant threat being surrounding by people who believe they have no right to exist at all - about a quarter million residents own personal firearms.

That is a deterrent to any would-be invader.

[Alamo-Girl]

We live in an age when the enemies of the United States of America are just as likely to be domestic as foreign. Indeed, the cancer seems to be lodged in the very bosom of the body politic. If it succeeds, even such tinhorn dictators as Chavez, or Ahmadinajad could wipe us out with ease, with impunity.

American is strong because of her ideas, her universal values. If we lose those, America dies.

But Americans will not let that happen without a fight, if need be. Let the world hear this from the lips of a quite average American citizen.

And seconded by another.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Alamo-Girl]

There are differences among denominations, to put it mildly. But there is in general no disagreement about what constitutes the Judeo-Christian moral philosophy — which is the very foundation of the Constitution and thus our system of equal justice under law.

SO very true.

Also crucial to our form of governance is the judicial oath which has power because the truth of a matter may be known only to the affiant and God. If the affiant does not believe in God - a doctrine of post mortal existence punishment for false testimony - then the oath has no power.

For instance, as I understand Islam, telling a lie under oath is not a sin to them as long as the purpose of Allah is served by it.

And to underscore your point, here are the primary source documents of America. Our country is Christian at the root.

[Rocco DiPippo]

"I can't think of one who was an atheist. I can think of several who were Deists." As Ed McMahon might have said, "Yes sir, you are correct!"

For instance, Jefferson fits the bill as a Deist, but certainly not as an atheist.

[r9etb]

Evidently Rand thought that unalienable rights could be secured on some other basis than that which the Founding Fathers insisted upon. But she never really tells us what that basis is. I gather the dear lady just had an enormous blind spot.

I would argue that it was not a "blind spot." Instead, I suspect that Rand's atheism was actually the starting point of her philosophy, as opposed to being a logical consequence of it. She may well have wanted to find some way of justifying the last 6 Commandments without having to deal with the unpleasant (to her) implications of the first four.

You can see hints of this if you take seriously the basic premises of Rand's philosophy. They really don't hold up to sustained analysis; at the very least, they don't hold up as "objective" premises. In fact, in many respects they're not even consistent among themselves. And her "highest moral purpose" -- pursuit of happiness -- isn't even an objective concept.

Her biggest error -- and it's clearly an error -- is to suggest that "man -- every man -- is an end in himself," represents an objectively true statement. Just to pick one among several objections to this, reference to the real world (in accordance with Rand's own demands) suggests that we are much more plausibly characterized as a means to our children's ends.

A charitable person might suggest that the childless Rand never grasped the implications of being a parent. OTOH, given the fact that Rand was a rather ardent supporter of abortion, it would seem that she understood full well the implications of parenthood and, in typical fashion, she simply blasted past the problem, hoping nobody would notice.

Note that we need not even invoke God to see that Rand's philosophy is built on sand. Acknowledgement of God's existence only makes the collapse more spectacular.

This is all pretty obvious stuff -- certainly not something that could easily be missed by a person who accorded such weight to reason and logic. I've concluded that her philosophy was rooted in a) her own towering ego; and b) a childishly emotional opposition to the One who posed the greatest threat to it.

Perhaps you recall the little anecdote from Atlas Shrugged, when the toddler Dagny Taggart threw such a fit in church that they never took her back. This was almost certainly Rand expressing her own essentially child-like reaction to the implications of God and His Church.

[betty boop]

To the best of my knowledge, most objectivists hold ontology to be a scientific rather then philosophical pursuit. You want to know the physical nature of man is, ask a scientist.

Well Objectivists may hold to that view if they like. It is unhistorical regardless.

As for wanting to know the "physical nature of man ... ask a scientist" — but what if I want to know what MAN is, not just his physical nature? He is obviously much, much more than science alone even has the methods or competence to address. To "reduce" him to what science can study strips him of what makes him truly human.

My own experience is that scientists would rather not get involved in ontological issues at all, because ontology smacks of philosophy, and thus is unacceptably subjective. (Don't forget, the scientific method claims to be wholly "objective.")

The fact is, both ontology and epistemology are major disciplines in philosophy and always have been. As it turns out, I've been doing a little thinking on these subjects recently, and even drew a picture:

And of course I recognize the Law of Identity as being Aristotelian logic! You don't have to explain it to me. But what A = A is, is a statement about a logical relation. It has nothing to say about the actual nature of A. One can posit the relation; but that doesn't tell you anything about WHAT is doing the "relating." How can one say one has any real knowledge of A from merely considering the relation A = A? Arguably, one can't.

Here's another little picture I drew that is in many respects similar to the one above:

If there is no correspondence between the natural world and an "equivalent orderliness of the Self," the observer of the natural world runs the risk of being misled about the nature of reality.

I merely mention this, because Ayn Rand evidently detested Plato. As much as she loved his student Aristotle, she condemned possibly the greatest psychologist (i.e., someone who deals with the order of the personal self) of all time as a "socialist." (You just can't make this stuff up.) And then she got some kind of strange notion that Aristotle "turned on" his teacher — because HE was an honest man and proto-objectivist, while Plato was a mystical moron and professional cadger.

This evidently being Rand's view, I just do not regard her as a serious thinker at all. Sorry.

[betty boop]

Perhaps you recall the little anecdote from Atlas Shrugged, when the toddler Dagny Taggart threw such a fit in church that they never took her back. This was almost certainly Rand expressing her own essentially child-like reaction to the implications of God and His Church.

Great catch, r9etb! I'd forgotten about that particular episode. But I do recall that I found Dagny a thoroughly repugnant character throughout the book, and was well aware at the time that she was merely the projection of Ayn Rand's self-glorified ego.

Sigh. I agree with you that Ayn Rand started out to prove that her atheist philosophy was tenable. Alas, not only did she never prove that at all, but rather (inadvertently) showed that atheism is fundamentally irrational.

At least that was my takeaway from Atlas Shrugged. Go figure.

Thank you ever so much, r9etb, for your deeply perceptive and well-analyzed commentary.

[betty boop]

For instance, as I understand Islam, telling a lie under oath is not a sin to them as long as the purpose of Allah is served by it.

Allah is not a god of truth — of the Truth that "sets one free"; he is a god who demands submission....

Thank you so very much for pointing out how indispensable a role the Oath of Office plays in keeping our system "honest." Or at least is supposed to.... (Oath-breakers are legion these days.)

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your as-ever perceptive essay/post!

[betty boop]

Fortunately, the polls are detecting an ever-increasing buyer's remorse. For the wrong reasons, no doubt, but the door is prying open to begin correcting the drift.

Obama and friends seem to think the American people are totally stupid, weak, unprincipled, and selfish. When he finds out this is not the case, he probably won't consider it a "wake-up call" that he needs a course change. He'll probably just get angry — and nasty.

I can't wait for him to show his "true colors." I figure it's just a matter of time....

[OldSpice]

Let me qualify that statement: "Religion in America is not a promoter of any particular governmental form at all." [This is not uniformly the case in the Arab world, however.]

Agreed. But you must also accept that religion in America is REFORMED religion. Not the old religion of the stakes and chains fame.

 

Why do you feel it relevant to invoke "popes from the old days" in support of your claims?

They were influential, religious, and more importantly, corrupt tyrants. The Founding Fathers have had far more acerbic words than mine, to describe them, AND their institution.

 

A religious institution — a church — is not a "governmental form"; it is a private, not a public institution. It draws a clear line between what is owed to God, and what is owed to Caesar; and it's in the "God business," not the "Caesar business." Moreover, adherence to a religious institution is entirely voluntary: Churches do not have the power of compulsion that all States enjoy.

The Catholic Church was condemning Jews, setting opinions forcing them to flee, or risk persecution, forcing the Protestants to flee to America, charting the planet to allot foreign lands and foreign people to its own sycophants, and of course, selling sins for monetary benefit. I don't think anyone can twist all of these to make the institution seem pious.

 

Moreover, at least the Catholic Church strongly discourages its clergy from serving in public office — as illustrated by the case of Fr. Robert Drinan, a former congressman from my home state. Pope John Paul II point-blank told him to leave the priesthood if he wanted to continue serving in Congress. Fr. Drinan chose to leave Congress.

The Catholic Church has been forced to reform too. It was only in the old days that they could indulge in criminal and immoral prospects, and hardly anymore today, although the amount of wriggling the officials of this institution performed to suppress the problems of child molestation by priests and others, is telling of the remnant strands that still persist.

 

The Reformed Church doesn't seem to have a similarly strong aversion to public service by its clergy. We know of many ordained ministers who serve in public capacities, as congressmen and governors, for instance. As far as I can tell, such people have never used their offices of public trust to recruit people into churches, or to advance the interests of any particular religious denomination.

I was not talking about the 'Reformed' Church per-say; I was referring to the institution of religion in general, which had to endure massive pruning and taming for it to be acceptable in these modern times. I'm talking about the period between the mid-1700s to today.

 

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Please see the above point.

There are differences among denominations, to put it mildly. But there is in general no disagreement about what constitutes the Judeo-Christian moral philosophy — which is the very foundation of the Constitution and thus our system of equal justice under law.

This is hilarious! The founding of America, and its population by refugees, has a LOT to do with the general "disagreements" that endangered their lives back in the old country. The hatred of the Catholic Church and similar institutions in the young America, was founded on these incidents. The modern revisionists want to gloss over this ugly part, and act as if nothing happened. Guess what, without the differences, there wouldn't have been an America, as we know today.

 

"Judaeo-Christian" is another revisionist term. It's a word not much older than a century. For all the years before, and some after, Jews were legitimate targets of hate.

 

"Judeo–Christian is purely a Christian myth... The term "Judeo–Christian tradition" and "Judeo–Christian morality" are wrong and misleading. They are a slap in the face for all the great teachers throughout history, whose responses to today's moral questions would in no way resemble those of the Vatican or the Christian Right, and whose attitude towards sin, physical pleasure, human dignity, and the earth differ vastly from those of Christianity."

-- Gershon Winckler, The Way of the Boundary Crosser: An Introduction to Jewish Flexidoxy, p.221

 

"Once one recognizes that Christianity has historically engendered anti-Semitism, then this so-called tradition appears as dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective). For Christians, the concept of a Judeo–Christian tradition comfortably suggests that Judaism progresses into Christianity -- that Judaism is somehow completed in Christianity. The concept of a Judeo–Christian tradition flows from the Christian theology of supersession, whereby the Christian covenant (or Testament) with God supersedes the Jewish one. Christianity, according to this myth, reforms and replaces Judaism. The myth therefore implies, first, that Judaism needs reformation and replacement, and second, that modern Judaism remains merely as a "relic". Most importantly the myth of the Judeo–Christian tradition insidiously obscures the real and significant differences between Judaism and Christianity."

-- Stephen M. Feldman, A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State.

[OldSpice]

Deism != Christianity.

Deism is closer to Atheism, in that it believes in an uninterested Creator who does not interfere in worldy affairs.

Deism is a natural parent to the Atheist / Agnostic eventuality, when the scientific advances are considered, primarily Darwin’s theory.

[spirited irish]

snip: Before that, men and women were being burnt at the stake, stretched, whipped and decapitated over nonsensical religious dogma.

Spirited: Little if anything do you actually know about the so-called ‘Age of Reason.” Just prior to the cannibalistic French Terror it was nothing less than conceited men worshipping their own minds. Yet the mind-worshippers stood in mute horror as the likes of the Marquis de Sade declared ‘passion’ as the new god of Reason. And why not? If Thomas Paine’s ‘mind’ was his own church, meaning that whatever frothy pabulum it bespoke was ‘reason,’ then the disordered passions of the Romantics was reason as well. And pray tell, who was to tell them no?

It was completely unrestrained demonic-passions that led to the-—to use your words—’burning at the stake’ of millions upon millions of ‘bourgeoise’ witches.

And over what? Over “nonsensical devilish gnostic irreligious dogma.”

Furthermore, it has not escaped notice that you, in avidly defending your atheistic dogma, are in actual fact engaging in apologetics for evil. For rather than righteous anger on behalf of the children and ranchers to whom evil is being done, you choose instead to assume the 3 monkey squat (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) in order to defend the indefensible.

Man really is a Jekyll and Hyde. And by your ‘choice,’ you prove it.