Heidelberger’s religion of humanism

Cory Heidelberger continues to throw accusations that are not true. Here is the latest:

Tuesday I highlighted the rank hypocrisy of the Christian Right that will embrace a topless model as their spokesmodel. (It could be the repressed fundagelicals just like the excuse to look up "Carrie Prejean" on Google Images.) My point is that the objectification of women (complete with fake breasts) does much more harm to our national moral fiber than any two guys holding hands and trading wedding rings.

Bob Ellis finds this point to be "Cory's teenage spin."

The comment of Bob Ellis was on a post of mine where I pointed this out:

Heidelberger has no clue about tolerance as he doesn’t understand "all is forgiven". The role model is not Carrie Prejan, but Jesus Christ. The Bible account of His treatment of the prostitute is the tolerance that is granted to all sinners, including those whose sexual immorality has included sex with the same sex.

Yes Carrie Prejan has more work to do in order to have a closer relationship with God, but don’t we all? He who has no sin, throw the first stone. For those who are brave enough to admit their sins, seek the grace of our Lord, which defines tolerance.

Heidelberger’s religion of humanism defines this as sexual tolerance:

SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

That was from the Humanist Manifesto II. Note that tolerance includes "sexual behavior between consenting adults". But then Cory’s point regarding "objectification of women" is considered immoral. The hypocrisy is obvious since models like Carrie Prejean are "consenting" to what the humanists and Cory are calling exploitation. So the humanists develop a moral law, but then violate with another moral law. And humanists are also hypocritical in regard to religion. Here is their position:

Conservative Christians sometimes complain that Humanism is really the official religion of the public educational system. They feel that the traditional wall of separation between church and state has been breached, and that Humanism has taken over the public schools. This is not an accurate view.

Not an accurate view? Well this is from the Humanist Manifesto I:

SEVENTH: 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.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

So the Humanists began by saying they are a religious movement, but then they deny that when it comes to protecting their indoctrination and exploitation of children in public education. This goes beyond hypocrisy and crosses the line into the area of deceit and lies. Cory is also issuing a lie when he blames Christianity for the "objectification of women", a violation of the moral law from the Humanist religion. If the humanist were intellectually honest, they would understand that their promotion of sexual freedom creates the environment for the "objectification of women" to prosper. And it is in the "prosperity" that some women consent. To deny that is a refusal by the humanists to take responsibility for their error of moral conflicts.

Clearly we have a huge divide in philosophy in regard to true Christian theology and the theology of the secular humanists. Christian morals come from God, whereas the morals of Secular Humanists come from men. The Humanists are violating the Natural Law foundation of America. The purpose of the Progressive movement is to destroy the Natural Law based Constitution of America so that they can implement the Hegelian philosophical premise of state control. This is all being done through the public education system with the establishment of the Humanist religion. The proof is in the fact the John Dewey, the father of modern public  education system, signed the Humanist Manifesto I. Again the difference is whose laws do we follow, God's Natural Laws (as stated in the Declaration), or the law of men (as is the case in the progression of state control from fascism to socialism to communism).

And there is a second area where the Progressives are promoting their agenda, and that is in the Drive-by media. Cory’s post can be found at Keloland where Bob Ellis and myself are not allowed. Not very tolerant. Which goes to show that it is the worldview of teh humanists that are intolerant. Their worldview cannot dominate unless they remove God's truth from the discussion. Such is the case in public education.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

Missing from the above post: the clear link between my beliefs and the "manifesto" you cite. I say objectification of women (as represented by Miss Prejean's choices and the faux-beauty industry) is bad. If some "manifesto" says objectification of women is good, then I disagree with that manifesto on that point.

[caheidelberger]

And what's this monkey business about my having a religion?

[Steve Sibson]

Cory,

The clear link is John Dewey, the father of Progressive education. He signed the Humanist Manifesto I that I cited. It is the religion that is being established by the education system that you are a part of. If you would take the time to read the post and the links provided you would understand that the Manifesto says objectification of women is "bad". Which I agree. But unfortunately the adult consent rule of the same manifesto violates that premise. Your religion is contradictary.

That was the point of my post. Go back and read it, but this time use an open mind.

[caheidelberger]

"your religion" -- you still haven't shown me the document that proves it is my religion. And if you think I've never read it, then it seems completely illogical to assume that it is my religion. Show me my membership card!

[Steve Sibson]

Cory,

Don't sweat it. I didn't know I had adopted the religion for years. That's the thing about effective indoctrination. Read the Manifestos and compare to your belief system.

But then again, I remember you admitted to being a secular humanist more than once. So what's up?