Secular
Fundamentalism Part-1 "A Secular Orthodoxy"
As promised in my post on my friend and brother in Christ
who is suffering religious persecution from the Secular Fundamentalists in the
military, here is part one in a 5 part series on the dangerous new
fundamentalism-Secular Fundamentalism. If you missed my post on Nathan Somers
story it can be found here. Nathan has demonstrated the virtue of FORTITUDE as
he is pursued by fundamentalists chasing him with the chains of FEAR.
A Secular Orthodoxy
Secular Fundamentalism, the rigid bullying form of Secular
Humanism, is by far the dominant religious worldview in Western civilization
due to secular fundamentalists’ successful "evangelism explosion" for
secularism in the public school systems, universities, and the media. The four pillars of Secular Fundamentalism
are resting on a shaky atheistic foundation that, in time, will cause the
entire secular house to fall. In fact, I believe that the rise of the
"new" Atheism of old ideas is due to the fact that atheism seems even
more unreasonable thanks to the microscope, telescope, and neuroscience. Here
are the four apostles that write and hold revivals for atheism, the foundation
of this dangerous new fundamentalism:
Sam Harris (or Zoolander--do you see it?)
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Daniel Dennett
They even go around the US and Europe and hold Secular
revivals! Here is a flyer for one of their revivals in 2007 right here in
Washington DC:
Now that we have the foundation, we move to the four pillars
of secular fundamentalism: (1) A dichotomy exists between faith and reason; (2)
Evolution is a fact that accounts for origins; (3) Miracles are supernatural
events that are impossible; (4) God is created in the image of man. Mounted on
top of these four pillars, the house of our society has been under construction
for the last 150 years with the blueprints of secular humanism derived from
ideas that can be found in the humanist manifestos.
However, these four pillars that hold the load of the
secular house of our society have severe cracks in them that are beyond
repair. Will this secular house
still be standing twenty years from now?
How severe are the cracks?
The secular fundamentalist owners of the house are trying to avoid
having to answer these questions by keeping the questioners out through good
old-fashioned name calling and bullying as I mentioned in my initial post
here. The owners of the house are
made up of evolutionary scientists, media personalities, and the
self-proclaimed elite of our educational institutions that serve as the new
gnostic spiritual guides transforming our Universities into Seminaries for
Secularism. Nevertheless, the
crowd of theists outside is growing, the evidence is mounting, and numerous
secular owners are turning in their keys and removing their names from the
deed.
Presenting a Religious Worldview
Throughout the various news media outlets in the United
States and Europe there is only one religious worldview that is permitted to be
openly orthodox—Secular Humanism[1].
Given that the media has an enormous influence over the thinking of our
culture, ideas and their acceptability are unfortunately controlled and managed
by this one worldview. Worldview
is defined by the dictionary as: the overall perspective from which one sees
and interprets the world; and a collection of beliefs about life and the
universe held by an individual or group.[2] I use the term religious when referring to Secular Humanism
because both Humanist Manifesto I and II define this worldview as religious and
the United States Supreme Court has agreed with this conclusion in at least two
rulings.[3] (Please checkout footnote 3 below. I got this information from
Lexis Nexis Legal database)
Some history may be helpful at this point. The secular
worldview is best expressed by the three manifestos written by humanists and
promoted by the many humanist organizations around the world. Indeed these manifestos serve the same
purpose as the many creeds, dogmas, and statements of faith found in the
numerous world religions.
Nevertheless, humanists were very careful when choosing the term
‘manifesto’ instead of ‘creed’ or ‘dogma,’ two words with religious overtones. The word manifesto is derived from the
Latin word manifestus, literally, gripped by the hand; hence, palpable or
obvious.[4] Thus, to the secular fundamentalist these manifestoes are public
declarations of the obvious—what, to them, is obviously true about reality. In actuality, the term itself does not
matter since the purpose and usage of these manifestos are the same as the
dogmas and creeds of any religion; namely, putting forth a system of core
beliefs, principles, or opinions that are rigidly held.[5] A manifesto is slightly different from
a religious creed or dogma in that it also outlines specific goals and
aspirations necessary for the implementation of the stated beliefs and
principles in a society. We are well past the implementation phase and are
rapidly entering the extermination phase where beliefs and those whom hold them
are bullied and removed from the market place of ideas.
Some of you will be shocked when we enter the phase where
the people themselves are exterminated as has happened in every atheistic
society in the 20th century where more people have died under crusades for
atheism than the Crusades of all other preceding centuries combined! Stalin was
responsible for 20,000,000 deaths. Mao Zedong whom Anita Dunn named "her
favorite political philosopher" (See link) is responsible for an
incredible 70,000,000. Believe it or not Hitler comes in a distant third at
10,000,000! At this point these new atheists usually get upset because this is
"unfair" to make this comparison; however, it is not untrue. These
regimes were supposed to be atheist utopias, free from what Karl Marx called
the "opiate of the masses". Dinesh D'Souza notes "Atheism became
a central component of the Soviet Union's official ideology, it is still the
official doctrine of China, and Stalin and Mao enforced atheistic policies by
systematically closing churches and murdering priests and religious believers.
All Communist regimes have been strongly anti-religious, suggesting that their
atheism is intrinsic rather than incidental to their ideology."[6] Some
utopia!
With that foundation in place and on top of the four
pillars, the secular worldview expressed in these Humanist manifestos has
indeed moved to the forefront as the worldview held by those in the media as
the obvious truth. Now, truth is
defined as conformity of assertions to reality.[7] Consequently, secularism’s
fundamentals are the implicit truth used by this cultural force as the
measuring stick for determining the validity of ideas and views. In other
words, Secular Humanism’s principles as spelled out in the manifestos, is the
overall perspective that those in the mainstream media use to interpret the
data of reality. As a result, any
individual or group that holds to secular orthodoxy is presented by the media
as "mainstream" or "middle of the road", while those that
hold to the more conservative worldviews that challenge secular
fundamentalism's claims are presented as "right-wing" or "far
right".
The conservative views are not the middle of the secular
worldview’s road; instead they are to the right of their presumed secular
orthodox center. For example, a
1996 survey of 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional
correspondents found that only 2% considered themselves conservative.[8] In another study by Professors Robert
Lichter and Stanley Rothman that looked at the socio-economic makeup of the
most influential news outlets found that 86% of journalists seldom or never
attend religious services.[9] The
conclusion of the study: “A predominant characteristic of the media elite is
its secular outlook.”[10] And
recently on CNN’s program Reliable Sources Steve Roberts, Professor of media
and journalistic ethics at George Washington University observed, “I think one
of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism.”[11] Later on in the program Professor
Roberts admitted that, “I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in
the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves
as people of faith."[12]
Moreover, a recent more in depth media study found that the when the
media wanted to quote a think tank or policy group as an authority for a given
subject, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—the legal arm of secular
fundamentalism— ranked number two overall.[13] Consequently, the media has revealed by their views,
lifestyle, and authoritative references that secularism is their religious
worldview of choice.
The secular fundamentalism held onto by the mainstream media
is important because in today’s culture with multiple 24 hour news sources,
news magazines, newspapers, and news websites, the media controls the way
public debates are framed. The
topic of origins, for instance, is usually framed in light of the media’s
secular worldview and presented to the public as faith versus reason (pillar
#1), religion versus science, or even church versus state. For example, the
front page of The San Francisco Chronicle read “Anti-evolution teachings gain
foothold in U.S. schools; Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism”[14] The article goes on to present
Intelligent Design, the scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution (pillar
#2), as if the challenge is not scientific at all. The message is clear: Darwinian naturalistic scientist is
for reason and Intelligent Design scientist is for faith. PBS even went so far as to pull
Unlocking the Mystery of Life, a science film that explores the theory of
intelligent design, from airing and no longer sells the DVD on its website.[15] This labeling is
unfortunate because the secular worldview that is embraced by those in the
media is also a religious one.
If you are interested in this important topic of origins the
absolutely best book that I have ever read on the topic is called New Proofs For The
Existence of God that can be found
on Amazon here . Please note my review of the book on the Amazon. It is the top
pick, so let's keep it there!
So friends who love politics I have news for you. The media bias is not toward Democrats as you may believe, but toward Secular Fundamentalism! It may land in one political camp more often but that is because this politician is seen as more closely aligned to the Secular Orthodoxy of the media itself.
In closing, let's look at the 2013 commencement speakers.
The LA Times reports "conservatives need not apply" in an article on
2013 commencement speakers that can be found here. What is once again the case not one single conservative was
invited to speak at our infamous poison ivy leagues, and in the top 100 ranked
schools the evidence that the university has become seminaries for Secular
Fundamentalism is clear. Now don't get caught up in political categories, but
the worldview of these speakers.
I will post part-2 in this special series on Secular
Fundamentalism soon. In the meantime please share this with your friends and
family by using the easy social media or e-mail buttons below this article.
Building men of virtue in a culture of
vice,
Peter P. Lackey, Jr.
Founder, Man's Ultimate Challenge
"It is essential to a virtue to be about the difficult and the
good" - Thomas
Aquinas
Footnotes:
[1] The terms secularism, secular humanism, and humanism are
used interchangeably when referring to this worldview, and the terms humanists
and secularists are used interchangeably when referring to those that promote
this worldview.
[2] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(2000) 4th ed., s.v. “worldview.”
[3] For more information about these cases see United States
v. Kauten, No. 134, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 133
F.2d 703; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 3882, February 8, 1943 and United States v.
Seeger, No. 50, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 163; 85 S. Ct.
850; 13 L. Ed. 2d 733; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1666, November 16-17, 1964, Argued,
March 8, 1965, Decided.
[4] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995)
3rd ed., s.v. “manifesto.”
[5] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995)
3rd ed., s.v. “dogma”, “creed.”
[6] Dinesh D'Souza,
What's So Great About Christianity, (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007),
215.
[7] The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary (1995)
3rd ed., s.v. “truth.”
[8] Rowan Scarborough, “Leftist press? Suspicious right,” The
Washington Times, 25 April 1996, A-2.
[9] L. Brent Bozell III, And That’s The Way It Isn’t: A
Reference Guide To Media Bias (Alexandria, Va: The Media Research Center,
1990), 50, quoting S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman, “Media and Business
Elites” Public Opinion (October/November 1981).
[10 ]Ibid., 51.
[11] Steve Roberts, “Battle Over Terri Shiavo; Are
Journalists Paying Enough Attention to Religion,” interviewed by Howard Kurtz,
Reliable Sources, 27 March 2005.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, “A Measure of Media
Bias,” December 2004, [study on-line] available from
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm; Internet,
accessed March 15, 2005.
[14] Anna Badkhen, “Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in
U.S. schools;
Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism,” The San Francisco
Chronicle, 30 November, 2004, A-1.
[15] “PBS pulls intelligent design documentary,” United Press
International, January 8 2004.
