Was the above living cell due to random chance?
Webmaster Homepage

My Answer to a Secular Fundamentalist

by Lewis Loflin

Definition of pseudo-religion as used on this website: a philosophy or non-theistic belief system(s) that carry the emotional force and outlook of a religion. Relying largely on emotion, a "believer" displays narrow-mindedness and dogmatic thinking equal to the worse religious fundamentalist. They can be just as intolerant of dissent-attacking opponents as deniers, etc. They wrap the "belief" in false authority - scientific jargon, government, etc. "Belief" becomes interchangeable with "faith."

An atheist stated in a recent e-mail that "religion" only applies to Christians, Jews, etc., and they have no right to bring their beliefs into politics. Restrictions don't apply to secular beliefs because the separation of church and state is in the Constitution. Only Christians have "religion."

OK, here is my reply: all people have a religion, but in many cases, it's simply a godless philosophy being used as a substitute. Religion isn't a system of belief as much as how one believes. Marxism, environmentalism, and secular Humanism are among the most popular. Broadly I agree with columnist Dennis Prager in calling this hodge-podge the pseudo-religion of Leftism.

The term separation of church and state doesn't exist in the Constitution, and the word is religion, not the church. That statement was hijacked from Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists and referred to the protection of freedom of conscience, not the removal of God from public discourse.

Excluding Christianity and Judaism from the public sphere while pandering to Leftism is, in fact, a violation of the Constitution because the government is supposed to be neutral.

Leftism is anything but tolerant and neutral. As a "pseudo-religion," Leftism is just as dogmatic and often organized as any revealed religion. They have a view as to how people should live, what they should think, etc. They have a religious structure regardless of their lack of a god.

Just as the outlook of, say, Christianity, Judaism, or classical Deism often determines the individual's view (political, social, etc.), these non-theistic secular pseudo-religions do as well. What they share in common is a hatred of traditional values, individualism, etc.

Leftism economically is fascism, a fusion of business and state; in the pseudo-religious sense is secular Humanism with a smattering of Eastern Religion, New Age religion, and Environmental pantheism; individual liberty and freedom are trumped by collective rights and entitlements. Without personal rights, there are no rights.

In other words, the basis of our liberties, culture, etc., as understood by the American Founders, was based on a reasonable and active God who gave us our rights and Protestant Christian culture. Under our traditional values, our rights come from God and are immutable, whereas, under Leftism, our rights and liberties are at the whims of the mob and those that manipulate them or buy them off.

There is a great deal of overlap between various forms of Marxism/socialism, environmentalism, and secular Humanism. In fact, one of the top people in the secular Humanist movement, the late Paul Kurtz, claims Marxism is applied Humanism. (Or Humanism in practice.)

I really don't care what this other person believes. The simple fact is that most of these people who reject God and invent some philosophy as a substitute have little use (if not outright hostility) towards our traditional values and our individual liberties. To begin with, that was the real goal: destroy the system and replace it.

The ultimate goals of Leftism are purely political. Since rights (as Leftism sees it) are defined by whoever has the most guns or can usurp the legal system. We, in reality, are at their mercy. They could be "enlightened," but that seldom happens.

As long as we keep these intolerant secular pseudo-religions out of politics, I have no problem. When they use politics to shove it down the public's throats, according to the Declaration of Independence, we have a right as free citizens to take up arms and defend those liberties.

For example, science has been poisoned by public money and politics. Instead of following the scientific method, they use computer models like crystal balls and then select a few to dictate the results as facts, and we have to accept this on faith.

Those that question this are called heretics, deniers, etc. Their funding, jobs, etc., are threatened, etc. (This is related to manufactured climate change, the linchpin of their efforts to remake society. It is being discredited as the political/social agenda falls under more scrutiny.)

Right back to the Inquisition. Liberal social programs fail because their underlying premise (humanity is a product of their environment) is flawed and taken on faith alone. But like any other blind belief, they will fight like hell to protect it any way they can. (And protect the vast wealth they consume and the power they usurp in the process.)

That is why secular humanists, liberals, progressives, secular fundamentalists, or whatever name these hide behind demand massive gun control and the public be disarmed. The rise of the Tea Party has driven them insane. Their entire belief system is about power and nothing more.

Their view of democracy is the "popular" vote; they dictate what we can vote for and manipulate the system to bypass the individual. The court system has been usurped and used to overthrow undesirable voter outcomes. The former Soviet Union had elections and a constitution, too.

So I challenge this person to prove what I wrote is wrong and be specific. Otherwise, he is welcome to his secular beliefs-faith however he sees them.

On Religion and the Fall of Civilization by Will Durant

An Overview of Manichaeism. Its influence on Protestantism through St. Augustine.

Gateway Pages for this website:
  » General Subjects
  » Archive 1   » Archive 2   » Archive 3
  » Archive 4   » Archive 5   » Archive 6
  » Archive 7   » Archive 8   » Archive 9

Note Mr. Mendes and Mr. Sacks don't necessarily express my view. Lewis Loflin.

Guest writer David Mendes:

Guest writer late Leslie Sacks: