First I would like to provide this explanation of what exactly is secular humanism:
In summary, the Humanist Manifesto I dealt with 15 major themes, or convictions, of secular humanism. It asserted that the universe was self-existing and not created; that man is a result of a continuous natural process; that mind is a projection of body and nothing more; that man is molded mostly by his culture; that there is no supernatural; that man has outgrown religion and any idea of God; that man’s goal is the development of his own personality, which ceases to exist at death; that man will continue to develop to the point where he will look within himself and to the natural world for the solution to all of his problems; that all institutions and/or religions that in some way impede this "human development" must be changed; that socialism is the ideal form of economics; and that all of mankind deserves to share in the fruits from following the above tenets.
Then came the need for an updated Manifesto:
It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.
So came the greed of Humanist Manifesto II:
Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring measures. We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue. The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality -not for the favored few, but for all of humankind. Only a shared world and global measures will suffice.
A humanist outlook will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together. This outlook emphasizes the role human beings can play in their own spheres of action. The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear-minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life (ibid., pp. 14, 15).
Humanism is the new religion, the new God who gives meaning to life as the old one never could. This is the interloper into divinity which the Christian must challenge and answer.
I would like to focus on two assumption from Humanist Manifesto II:
Fifth: The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.
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 the 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.
The Humanist Manifesto II also promotes a one-world government. Clearly giving up our sovereignty is an anti-American position. Here is a tie in to the abortion issue:
The use of abortion appears to be allowed by both articles fourteen and fifteen of Manifesto H. Article fourteen states that "excessive population growth must be checked" and article fifteen calls birth control techniques a "human right." Taken with the previous Manifesto II statement in arti-cle six regarding abortion as a human right, we can see that it is very likely that the secular humanists, if given the chance, would solve popula-tion booms with, among other things, abortions. We repeat what we said earlier: does it contribute to the dignity and value of the individual human life to murder it if it is inconvenient, if it doesn't fit into the world plan for conservation of resources and if it just happens not to have been born yet? Christians cannot agree to taking innocent human life in the name of any world plan.
So now that we have some understanding of secular humanism, we should next concern ourselves with how it is being promoted:
Another organization is The Sex Information and Education Council (see The Siecus Circle: A Humanist Revolution, Claire Chambers, Belmont, MA: Western Islands Publishing Company, 1977). The Sex Information and Education Council is humanistic in its outlook and policy.
SIECUS is the force behind public education’s comprehensive sex education. Here is what they say they are about:
SIECUS-the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States-has served as the national voice for sexuality education, sexual health, and sexual rights for over 40 years.
SIECUS affirms that sexuality is a fundamental part of being human, one that is worthy of dignity and respect. We advocate for the right of all people to accurate information, comprehensive education about sexuality, and sexual health services. SIECUS works to create a world that ensures social justice and sexual rights.
In 2003 Fox News reports on this controversy:
Taxpayer funds are being used for school sexuality education programs that subvert the idea of abstinence for teens and target children as young as 9 years old with lessons on masturbation, condom use and homosexuality, say opponents of the courses.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (search) came under heavy fire last year for its "Programs That Work" (search) initiative, which offers a number of lessons targeting different age groups from elementary schools through high school.
But Robert Rector, a public health researcher at the Heritage Foundation (search), said he has learned that the lessons continue to be taught in schools around the country despite the fact the Bush administration pulled the plug on the program.
These programs, I can say with confidence, are still being promoted through the CDC — even though they are trying to hide it," Rector said.
A CDC spokeswoman denied that the agency has continued officially promoting the controversial programs, but stands behind their efficacy for high-risk youth populations. Kathy Harben also did not deny that the programs might still be employed by public health organizations and schools.
"We are backers of teens being abstinent," Harben said, adding that "Programs That Work" has nonetheless been "proven to be scientifically effective" for certain populations. She also that that the CDC continues to fund other safe-sex programs that might be considered controversial by some.
"Our bottom line is our communities are the best judges about what are the best programs for their schools," she added.
Pro-safe sex organizations say the Bush administration is doing a disservice to schools and students by emphasizing abstinence-only programs over what they call "comprehensive sexuality education."
"It’s more than just about the plumbing, about how the body functions," said Adrienne Verrilli, spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (search) (SIECUS), which has so far received over $500,000 from the CDC as part of a five-year cooperative agreement for school health projects.
"We also stress the importance of the relationship, and communicating," Verrilli said. "It’s not as if we don’t want people to delay sexual activity, that’s what we all can agree on, but we want to talk to kids in a comprehensive way."
Here is more on the controversy:
SIECUS, comprised of a public health and education network as well as a lobbying arm that works with the leading gay and lesbian organizations, feminists, HIV/AIDS and pro-choice groups, has developed its own "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education."
The guidelines, published in 1991, cover 13 very broad subject areas "from communications skills to proper medical information to assisting parents with talking to their kids," Verrilli said.
"They’re not a curriculum, they are really a pick-and-choose for communities," she said.
Among the choices in the guidelines are recommendations to teach children as early as 5 years old about masturbation and homosexuality. As early as age 12, children might be learning about having fantasies about other kids of their own gender, mutual masturbation to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, and that legal abortion "is very safe."
Verrilli said with 20,000 copies in circulation, the guidelines "have become the most widely recognized and implemented framework for comprehensive sexuality education across the country."
The SIECUS Web site also recommends several other links for teens, including Planned Parenthood’s Teenwire (search), and Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice (search). All offer graphic descriptions of sex acts, how-tos for so-called safe "sex play" and other hints and suggestions for achieving sexual pleasure.
Opponents of safe-sex education point out that many organizations that provide resources like these get some form of state and federal assistance to pursue their agendas, and say that taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going.
"All these things in schools are funded with government money, it’s their bread and butter," said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents’ Rights Coalition (search) in Massachusetts, which has gone head-to-head with Planned Parenthood (search) and other groups in front of the state legislature.
"[They] stand to lose money if parents stop these programs. They never want parents to have a choice," Camenker said.
It is disturbing to know that we have anti-American, anti-God, and anti-family secular humanist ideology in our public education systems as those of religious faith are turned away due to the so-called separation of church and state. But during the Referred Law 6 campaign, the pro-abortion advocates used religion to garner support for their cause. Here is the admission by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights:
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is honored to have worked alongside South Dakota Pastors for Moral Choices in reaching out to the faithful with a positive, moral basis to keep abortion legal. The vote shows that we have the power and the ability to stand up for what is right. We are grateful for the tremendous outpouring of support from our partners in religious communities and organizations and our supporters throughout the nation.
RCRC was on the ground in South Dakota and talked to hundreds of people. We learned that some voters rejected the instructions of their own churches— often from the pulpit—to vote for the ban. Our message was more in touch with what most people believe—that abortion is a personal decision for a woman, guided by her faith. Again and again, people told us, "Women deserve trust and respect."
Not only is the RCRC position on abortion in line with that of the secular humanists, so is their position on sex education. Here is what the have a one of the "Healthy Family" (remember that was what the South Dakota pro-abortion advocates called themselves)initiatives:
Comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education
Yes, the same program created by the secular humanist SIECUS. So why in the world would we have a religious coalition that is promoting the ideology of secular humanism? They say that they, "reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality." And that, "the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased." Why would Christian religion agree with those secular humanist that believe:
We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural ....
But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.
I find this alliance very strange. If you take a look at the RCRC memberships, not only will you find the United Methodist, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ, but also "Humanistic Judaism". Think about a religious coalition adopting the ideology of a worldview that puts people above God.
So if they want to say they have a religion of abortion, and a religion of sex, then they should not have their cake and eat it too. If they want to remove religions based on God from public education, then the religion of the RCRC should also be removed from public education, let alone funded by the federal government through the Center for Disease Control.
Perhaps someone should put together some legislation at both the state and federal level to remove the religion of the secular humanist from public education. Most don’t know that Planed Parenthood has a Clergy Advisory Board, meaning that they too have a religion…a religion that is allowed in public education curriculum, but not God and prayer. Is that fair? Is that what we should consider equal protection? Would our Founding Fathers allow God to be removed from the public sphere in order to make room for Planned Parenthood?
Recent Comments