Humanism

It is commonly believed that education is aimed at teaching children the 3 R's: "reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic." Those who believe that this is the basic function of education are badly mistaken.

Education has far more important functions.

In 1979, the mother of a San Francisco high school graduate sued the district because her son, after twelve years of public "education," was barely able to read and write. An appeals court ruled that the district was not negligent, however, because: "The science of pedagogy [teaching] itself is fraught with differences and conflicting theories."

Therefore, since no one knows what education is or what it is supposed to do, the district couldn't be held responsible for not teaching a child to read and write or anything else, for that matter.

One of the reasons for the sad state of the "science" known as education has been the gradual introduction into the school system of the religious philosophy known as Secular Humanism.

One of the conclusions of the Reece Committee Investigating Tax Free Foundations, according to the Committee's chief counsel, Rene Wormser, was that the evidence compiled during the investigation: "leads one to the conclusion that there was, indeed, something in the nature of an actual conspiracy among certain leading educators in the United States to bring about Socialism through the use of our school systems. The movement. . . was heavily financed by leading foundations."

Mr. Norman Dodd, former director of the Congressional Committee, identified the source of some of these trends when he testified before the Illinois Joint Legislative Committee on Regional Government, in 1978. He testified about the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who realized that ". . . they must control education in this country. So they approach[ed] the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that the task be divided between the two of them. The Carnegie Endowment takes on that aspect of education that has a tinge of international significance and the Rockefeller Foundation takes on that portion of education which is domestic in this relationship."

Congressman Eugene Cox confirmed Mr. Dodd's conclusions when he testified: "The Rockefeller Foundation's funds have been used to finance individuals and organizations whose business it has been to get communism into the private and public schools of this country."

But the planners faced an immense problem. The American public was not ready to accept the introduction of communism into the school systems of the nation. The plan was to change the name, but not the basic philosophy, so that the American people would allow it to be taught in their schools.

The new name of the communist philosophy became Secular Humanism.

Secular is defined by the dictionary as being: "of or relating to worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and religion; worldly."

Humanism has been defined by the American Humanist Association as: "the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life."

Notice that Humanism, according to its own publications, is also a religion, a new way of living in and looking at the world.

Karl Marx was one of the first to link the philosophy of Communism with the philosophy of Humanism, when he said: "Communism as a fully developed naturalism is Humanism." And again: "Humanism is the denial of God, and the total affirmation of man . . . . Humanism is nothing else but Marxism."

And in 1970, the New Program of the Communist Party, U.S.A., stated that: "Marxism is not only rational, it is humanist in the best and most profound meaning of the term." 7

Sir Julian Huxley, a leading scientist, wrote: "I use the word humanist to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind, and soul were not supernaturally created but were products of evolution and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings but has to rely on himself and his own powers."

The Humanist philosophy and religion is not new, but it took a formalized step in 1933 when a group of scientists, educators, ministers, authors, and others published The Humanist Manifesto. This document contained three introductory paragraphs and then a series of 15 planks detailing the position of their new philosophy and religion.

A partial reading of this manifesto reveals just what the Humanists believe in:

"The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical change in religious beliefs through the modem world.

"Science and economic change has disrupted the old beliefs.

"Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with the new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience.

"In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit Humanism.

"We therefore affirm the following:

"First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

"Second: Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

"Sixth: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism (a belief in a Creator.)

"Fourteenth: The humanists are firmly convinced that the existing acquisitive and profit motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the acquisitive distribution of the means of life be possible."

A brief review of each of these statements reveals the nature of the Humanist philosophy and religion.

The first plank details the position that the universe has always existed and was not created. Therefore there is no need for a Creator.

The second plank states the belief in evolution as the history of man; that man has arisen from nothing as the result of his constant battle with his environment.

The sixth plank states that the Humanists believe that the time for theism [a belief in a God or Gods], has passed. Therefore, the Humanists believe, since there is no Creator, that there is no need to believe in one. The Humanists are atheists.

And the fourteenth plank states their belief that the free-enterprise system is inadequate and that it must be replaced with the communist system of forced sharing of all goods produced by the society.

Therefore, the Humanists in 1933 who signed this Manifesto placed their philosophy and religion squarely on a three-legged platform. The Humanists were Evolutionists, Atheists, and Communists.

Their beliefs are in complete agreement with the philosophies of Weishaupt, Marx and Lenin.

But the most significant impact of this Manifesto is the fact that one of the thirty-four signers in 1933 was John Dewey, the so-called "father of Progressive Education." Mr. Dewey's place in the field of education was made clear in 1974 when Saturday Review celebrated its 50th anniversary. The magazine polled the leading individuals in the various fields of endeavor, including education, and asked them to identify the most important individual in their respective field.

The leading educator during those 50 years, 1924 to 1974, according to those educators polled by Saturday Review, was John Dewey, the Humanist.

One of those polled by the magazine said this about Professor Dewey: "No individual has influenced the thinking of American educators more."

John Dewey made his views known to the observer in a series of books and publications during his days in education. One of his proclamations contained his basic philosophy about God and religion. He wrote:

"There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent absolutes."

Here is Dewey expressing his views on two subjects of interest:

• The question of truth, and
• The question of moral absolutes.

Dewey's position that "immutable truth is dead" defies human logic. The word "immutable" means, according to the dictionary, "unchangeable," and the word "truth" means an "established fact." Just how an "unchangeable," "established fact" can be "dead" is apparently not considered relevant to Dewey.

When Dewey took this second position, on the absence of fixed, moral absolutes, he aligned himself further with Communist thought. Lenin himself also spoke similarly on the issue of morality when he stated: "We, of course, say that we do not believe in God. We do not believe in eternal morality. That is moral that serves the destruction of the old society." And further: "Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat."

Lenin identified the source of man's concepts of morality as religion. He wrote: "We must combat religion. Down with religion. Long live atheism. The spread of atheism is our chief task. Communism abolishes eternal truths. It abolishes all religion and morality."

JOHN DEWEY, THE 'FATHER OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION' AND ABOUT WHOM IT HAS BEEN SAID: "NO INDIVIDUAL HAS INFLUENCED THE THINKING OF AMERICAN EDUCATORS MORE," WAS A LEADING AMERICAN AETHEIST. HE WROTE, "THERE IS NO GOD AND NO SOUL. HENCE, THERE ARE NO NEEDS FOR THE PROPS OF TRADITIONAL RELIGION. WITH DOGMA AND CREED EXCLUDED, THEN IMMUTABLE (UNCHANGEABLE) TRUTH IS ALSO DEAD AND BURIED. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR FIXED, NATURAL LAW OR PERMANENT MORAL ABSOLUTES."

The question of how something that is fixed, absolute, or eternal can be abolished escaped Lenin, as it apparently did Dewey. The only thing possible is for these two to abolish those human agencies that teach morality: the family and the church. Once that is done, it is then possible to offer mankind an alternative: the "new morality."

This thinking slowly emerged and evolved into what today is called "Situation Ethics" which teaches that what is moral is determined by the individual and the situation in which the individual is involved. It is expressed as follows: "What is good for me may be evil for you; what is right to do at one moment may be wrong the next."

And ". . . whatever is the most loving in the situation is the right and good thing. It is not excusably evil, it is positively good."

Professor Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian theologian, wrote a book on the subject of situation ethics which includes the following statement: "For me, there are no rules, none at all. Anything and everything is right and wrong according to the situation. What is wrong in some cases would be right in others. And this candid approach is indeed a revolution in morals."

It was indeed a revolution in morals. It was the new morality that was consistent with the economic theories of Communism, the scientific theories of evolution, and the religious theories of atheism.

A little twist to the morality of Situation Ethics was expressed by by Ernest Hemingway, the noted author. He has been quoted as saying: "I know only what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after."

(It was not explained by Hemingway how he would attempt to rationalize the actions of a mad killer who killed because it gave him "pleasure." It would also be interesting to see what Hemingway would do if one of these "pleasure" seekers attempted to take his life.)

The morality known as Situation Ethics has also pervaded the teaching of sex education in the schools of the United States. One of the many lawsuits challenging what was taught in those courses was the one brought in San Francisco by an ad hoc committee of parents and teachers suing the State of California Board of Education to bar the teaching of sex education when it teaches that there are no right and wrong values.

The attorney for the plaintiff told the court: "This kind of teaching is summed up by the comment in a teachers' guide that says: "We hope you have learned that there are no right and wrong answers. Each person has a viewpoint that is right for them."

There are some who blame the high suicide rate among the young with the teaching of "no-values" sex education. The young student is taught that whatever he desires and believes will give him pleasure is proper to take, and when he does, the same society that he thought had taught him these values comes to punish him. This poses a frequently insurmountable dilemma for the student who can see no other way out but suicide.

But such sexual freedom is not inconsistent with the plans of the great planners. Aldous Huxley in his 1948 book entitled Brave New World explained the plan:

"As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends . . . to increase. And the dictator. . . will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, the movies, and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate."

So Humanism has become the new religion to replace the traditional Judaic-Christian religions. In fact, the president of the American Humanist Association, Lloyd Morain, has stated that Humanism is ". . . a religion without God, divine revelation or sacred scriptures."

The position that Humanism is a religion was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1965, when it ruled in the case of U.S. vs. Seeger: "A humanistic. . . belief that is sincerely professed as a religion shall be entitled to recognition as religious under the Selective Service Law."

And again, in the case of Torcase vs. Watkins, the Court ruled that: "Among religions in the country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

So when Madlyn Murray O'Hair got the Supreme Court to remove the right of the children to open their school day with a simple prayer because she wished to separate "Church and State," what she was doing was substituting one religion for another: a belief in God with a belief in Humanism. Mrs. O'Hair knew this because she had been the editor of the magazine, The Free Humanist, and was elected to the Board of the American Humanist Association in 1965, and was elected in 1973 for a second four-year term.

Other humanists, or others who have expressed a faith in the Humanist religion, include Walter Mondale, President Jimmy Carter's Vice President and the 1984 Democratic nominee for President. He is on record as saying this about his religious beliefs: "Although I have never formally joined a humanist society, I think I am a member by inheritance. My preacher father was a humanist, and I grew up on a very rich diet of humanism from him. All of our family has been deeply influenced by this tradition including my brother Lester, a Unitarian Minister, Ethical Culture Leader, and Chairman of the Fellowship of Religious Humanists." (Mr. Mondale is, or has been, a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.)

Lester Mondale, Walter's older brother, is a signer of both The Humanist Manifesto I, the one written in 1933, and The Humanist Manifesto II, written in 1973.

The Humanist Manifesto II, published forty years after the first Manifesto, basically reiterated the beliefs of the first Manifesto, but this time the Humanists called for ". . . the building of a world community," based upon: "the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government."

The world government would need a world religion, and the Humanists were volunteering.