UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH BY BRANNON S. HOWSE The Source of All Truth If what Hitler did was evil ?and it was evil ?then there has to be a standard for good and evil. There has to be a standard for truth and untruth. Truth has to be fixed and unchanging, or it would not be truth. I believe that what Hitler did was evil, and I base that on the absolute truth of Christianity, God's Holy Word. Hitler killed 11 million Jews and non-Jews and is the personification of evil. That, my friend, is a true statement, but what makes it true? What is truth? What is the standard for truth? Why do we instinctively know that we are not to steal, cheat, lie, murder, commit adultery, and covet, among other sins? Why do we feel guilty when we do those things we know we should not? Let's answer these truth questions that are foundational to the Christian faith. The answer to these questions is what sets Christianity apart from all other world religions. The answers to these vital questions will also expose the liberals' secular humanist worldview for what it is - a big lie. James 1:17-18 states: Whatever is good and perfect comes to us from God above, who created all heaven's lights. Unlike them, he never changes or casts shifting shadows. In his goodness, he chose to make us his own children by giving us his true word.1 According to this verse, God's Holy Word is truth. But why is the Bible true? We know the Bible has withstood thousands of years of scrutiny. The Bible has withstood the hatred and attacks of skeptics and critics to be proven the most trustworthy document ever written. Despite being penned by more than 40 authors from over 19 different walks of life over some 1,600 years, the Bible is a consistent revelation from the beginning to the end. So the Bible is a truthful document, but what makes it true? The source of all truth is God. The Bible is a reflection of God's character and nature, and that is why the Bible is infallible. In John 14:6, Jesus Christ, who came to earth as God incarnate, declared, "I am the way, the truth and the life." We don't lie, steal, murder, cheat, commit adultery or bear false witness against our neighbor because it is against God's character and nature. Why were so many radical liberals and humanists threatened by Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ"? The reason is because Jesus, himself, made the all-time most politically incorrect statement when He said, "I am the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life, no man comes to the Father except through Me." Jesus was saying that following, serving, and believing in Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, or any other individual was not going to guarantee you eternal life. Jesus was saying that all other attempts to receive salvation or reach heaven apart from Him are wrong and futile. This is an extremely intolerant message in today's world. Why are liberals so offended by Jesus' proclamation that He is the only way, truth, and life? Because it means their definitions of truth ? that are in direct opposition to Jesus Christ ? are wrong. Josh McDowell set out to disprove Christianity and became one of the world's greatest Christian thinkers and defenders. McDowell wrote: God is the original. He is the origin of all things that are in existence. And if we wish to know if anything is right or wrong, good or evil, we must measure it against the person who is true. "He is the Rock," Moses said, "His work is perfect…a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he" (Deuteronomy 32:4, KJV).You see, it is the very person and nature of God that defines truth. It is not something he measures up to. It is not something he announces. It is not even something he decides. It is something he is.3 This means that moral and spiritual truth isn't simply abstract or philosophical; it is innately concrete. Why? Because truth is a person. It is best understood as a "who," not as a "what." And when we are careful to keep truth within that personal, relational context, it can change everything in the minds and hearts of our young people and the whole postmodern generation! Josh McDowell described the transformation that takes place in our thinking and worldview when we see truth as a "who" instead of a "what" as follows: This shift from "what" to "who" will mean a major shift in how we think of Christianity and how we teach our kids the Christian faith. How we relate to moral and spiritual truth should no longer be thought of merely as a philosophical concept or abstract idea but rather how we relate to a person. Scriptural commands and rules should no longer be seen as merely instructions to obey but rather as ways to relate to a person…. Jesus is the embodiment of truth.5       Remember one of the original questions we endeavored to answer in this chapter? What is truth? The answer: truth is a person. Truth is God and His Son, Jesus Christ, who came to earth as God incarnate. Rejecting Truth is Rejecting God Because God is truth those that reject truth are rejecting God, whether they now it or not. When the humanistic liberals attack truth in education, truth in law, truth in public policy, truth in economics, truth in sociology and truth in science, they are not only attacking the character and nature of God but the very person of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Whether consciously aware or not, the humanist liberal knows that God is the only one true God. Whether consciously aware or not, they reject Him when they reject truth. No Other God Isaiah 45:5-6 states: I am the Lord; there is no other God. I have prepared you, even though you do not know me, so all the world from east to west will know there is no other God. I am the Lord, and there is no other.6 Because God is truth, when an individual rejects truth, they are rejecting God. They cannot claim they do not know truth because God has created every man to know He exists. According to Romans 1:19: "Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." When the liberal suppresses truth they are attempting to suppress God. Romans 1:18 states: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Perhaps the next time your watching Fox News or CNN and see one of those red-faced liberals getting all hot and bothered by a student who wants to invoke the name of God in a graduation speech or a teacher who has been teaching creation and evolution and allowing students to choose for themselves which is true, you will realize just what motivates him or her. It is the personal desire to suppress or hold down truth. Such people will try and suppress Him every chance they can. Postmodernism is Impossible Because God is truth, postmodernism is false because man did not create God. Postmodernism is the belief that truth is created by man and not discovered. How can man create God? This is equivalent to saying that the painting created the painter. Truth is not "what" but "who." God is truth and man cannot and did not create God. John 1:1 reads: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."7 Logos is Greek for Word, which is a title for God. So the verse is saying that in the beginning was God, and God was with God, and God was God. In other words, in the beginning all that existed was God. God was not created, but He has always existed. God is infinite. God created man. Man did not create God, thus the postmodern worldview is a lie. Moral relativism is the belief that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong or good and evil. Morals and ethics are autonomous and can evolve and change to fit the needs and desires of an individual and society. God is always the same. He is always good, and He always opposes evil. Therefore, moral relativism and situational ethics are false. The Consequences to Rejecting Truth God is truth and those that reject truth have no excuse on Judgment Day. Romans 1:20 states: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Perhaps while watching Hannity and Colmbs on the Fox News Channel, you have listened with astonishment as some radical liberals profess their beliefs in some illogical, false doctrine. Their belief is so clearly false that you wonder how they could be so stupid to believe such a lie. The answer to that question is very simple. Because God is truth, those who continue to reject truth will become stupid. The person who continues to reject God by rejecting truth will suffer the consequences of becoming stupid. Rejecting truth means that one is not only rejecting the deity of God, but they are also rejecting God's truth concerning man and the moral law He has placed upon the heart and conscience of every man and within creation. For those who think I am being too harsh, I refer you to the truth of the Scriptures. I am only basing this belief upon the Bible. Romans 1:21, 22 says: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they become fools."8 One Bible commentary says that the word fools, as used in Romans 1:22, is a Greek word that literally means to "become stupid, worthless or purposeless." Second Thessalonians 2:10-11 states: "Because they did not receive the love of truth so as to be saved. For this reason, God will send them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false."9 The radical liberal continues to reject God and suppresses God by suppressing the truth. The result: He becomes stupid, worthless, or purposeless. Now maybe you will better understand why those crazy liberals not only espouse, but believe, the illogical, meaningless, worthless, and stupid things that they do. The poor crazy liberal cannot help but believe stupid things because they have become ignorant because of their prideful rejection of God by rejecting truth. Therefore, God allows them to become stupid and believe what is false, what is a lie, what is untruth. Man is the Measure of All Things Because God is truth, if you reject truth, you are rejecting God. When man rejects God, he seeks an alternative allegiance, or worship that revolves around man or creation. Romans 1:23 says: "Man exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."10 If you don't worship God by living for Him, serving Him, obeying Him, being in total submission to Him and His character and nature, then that which you do serve or upon what you base your thoughts, actions, beliefs, and philosophy become your god. Romans 1:23 expresses the truth that anyone who rejects the truth rejects God and thus worships and serves either "corruptible man" meaning, they worship or serve another human being, or they worship animals or other creations. Man's refusal to acknowledge and glorify God leads to a downward path: first, worthless thinking; next, moral insensitivity; and then, religious stupidity (seen in idol-worship). Romans 1:25 states: "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the creature who is blessed forever more." In a sense, this verse repeats the truth of verse 23, but it expresses more. The truth of God is not only the truth concerning God but also God's truth concerning all things, including mankind. This truth is that people are creatures of God and can find true fulfillment only in worshiping and obediently serving God the Creator.12 Hindus in India worship cattle as being sacred. Other cultures worship birds. The individual that is committed to the religion of the New Age worships "mother earth" because of his or her pantheistic belief that all is God and God is all, instead of worshipping the creator - God. Rejecting Truth Leads to Culture Decay Because God is truth, those who reject truth will accept that which is immoral and unnatural as being natural. The battle over same-sex marriage is a perfect example of what happens when a culture, society, and nation reject truth. As unnatural as it is for two men or two women to engage in sexual activity and marry each other, the rejection of truth causes the radical liberal to be given over to the lie of untruth so that they actually believe their perversion is natural and acceptable. Therefore, they are made worthy of being condoned by society. According to Romans 1:26-28: For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.13 The consequence for a nation that rejects truth is runaway immorality, crime, and hedonism. Hedonism is the belief that the highest pursuit in life is pleasure. The Humanist Manifesto I openly states a belief in hedonism. Woe to the Nation that Rejects Truth The nation that rejects truth will become immoral, corrupt and a very dangerous place to live. Since 1963, America has witnessed an incredible rise in rape, murder, assault, divorce, and immorality. Ideas do have consequences, and the consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that made it illegal for students to read the Bible, pray, or acknowledge the truth of God has our nation spinning into depravity. Americans have allowed the liberals to get God out of our nation's schools and tell our students that truth is relative and situational. Without a fixed belief system that acknowledges right and wrong, students are left to do what is right in their own eyes. As you read the verses below, put the verse in context of today's American culture and try to tell yourself that the rejection of truth by our nation has not impacted everyone in a negative way. Romans 1:28-32 states: "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.14 The nation that rejects truth is only left with the reasoning of man, which results in a loss of freedoms and eventual tyranny. The liberals' assault on truth is paramount to the successful proliferation of their humanistic worldview in the area of law, science, economics, education, sociology, government, and religion. The humanist has to deny truth in the area of law to be free from the laws of nature and of nature's God. Only then can humanistic man write his own laws that change to fit his evil desires and belief that morality and the law evolve. The liberals have to attack truth if evolution is to successfully replace God, the creator of nature and nature's laws, in the minds of millions of Americans. The denying of an all powerful, all knowing God, who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked is the ultimate goal of humanism, and evolution is how the humanists seek to accomplish that goal. Unless you deny truth, you cannot believe in evolution, which is unscientific and mathematically improbable. The liberals have to attack truth in their on-going war of excluding the Christian worldview from America's schools and institutions in favor of Secular Humanism. The liberals have to attack truth in order to call America's biblically-based economic system of free enterprise and capitalism evil. The secular humanists' economy of choice is socialism with its unjust and unbiblical concept of redistribution of wealth, confiscation of private property, rewarding of laziness, and disrespect for private contract. Socialism empowers a government through ill-gotten gains and the sin of coveting and stealing what the just and righteous have acquired by the sweat of their brow. The liberals have to attack truth if their humanistic organizations are to receive a religious, tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service while at the same time telling the courts and the American people their beliefs are secular so they can be the federally-funded religion of America's educational system. The liberals have to attack truth to convince Americans of the humanistic definition of marriage and sex. Only through a humanistic worldview can marriage be defined to include same-sex couples. Only through a humanist worldview can sexual promiscuity, experimentation, and an "if it feels good, do it" philosophy be justified. The liberals have to attack truth to proclaim that man's rights are not given to man by a non-existent God, but rather man's rights are granted, secured, and protected by the highest authority that exists - the government. Postmodernism: The Liberals Assault on Truth The liberals attempt to assault and deny absolute truth by proclaiming that all truth is relative and situational, thus man must decide what is right or wrong based on each situation he encounters. Postmodernism is the belief that truth is not discovered by man but created by man. Man creates truth when he surveys every situation and then chooses a course of action that will give him the best results. This idea comes from the humanist worldview that proclaims man is the measure of all things; therefore man is free to do what is in his own best interest. If man is the measure of all things, then man is free to decide for himself what is and is not true. This is exactly why you will hear someone say, "That may be truth for you, but it is not truth for me." A postmodern worldview actually allows two opposing truth claims to be equal, unless the opposing worldview is based on a fixed, moral absolute standard. Such an opposing view is not seen by the postmodernist as being equal but as actually being unacceptable and intolerant. The Christian believes that God created truth for man to discover and that God's truth is for all times, all places and all people. Man will be held accountable by God at the end of his life for what he did with that truth. To the postmodern humanist, Christianity is the devil - the reason for all the problems in our society and world. It is the Christian worldview that is slowing progress, prohibiting equality, and sabotaging world peace. In a postmodern, humanist worldview there is absolutely no tolerance for Christianity and its biblical worldview. It is not only acceptable for a humanist to be intolerant of Christians and Christianity; it is the duty of every humanist. If you think I exaggerate, then why don't you discuss with a humanist liberal about God's fixed moral laws and the need to adhere to those laws? Watch how they respond. It will not be pretty. You have not seen intolerance until you have seen it first hand, in all its fury, from one that swears an allegiance to humanist tolerance. The Father of Postmodernism The Humanist Manifesto II states: "We believe that intolerant attitudes by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct . . . the many varieties of sexual exploration should not be considered evil . . . A civilized society should be a tolerant one."15 Michael Foucault was a French philosopher who was one of the founders of "postmodern thinking." Foucault believed that homosexuality was a species not an action. Arthur Herman in his book, The Idea of Decline in Western History, wrote to Foucault that "even the notion of truth itself was a ruse of power."16 Herman went on to write: During his visits to the United States in the late seventies, Foucault became fascinated by San Francisco's gay scene with its bathhouses, leather bars, chains, whips, 'glory holes,' and sadomasochistic rituals. When Foucault learned that he had contracted AIDS as the result of his pursuit of sexual transgression, that too became in his mind just another limit-experience: sex as a form of death, as well as the power to give death to others through sex. For at least two years after he contracted AIDS (from 1982 to 1984), Michel Foucault continued to visit his various gay orgy sites, knowingly passing the diseases on to his anonymous partners. "We are inventing new pleasures beyond sex," Foucault told an interviewer. "In this particular case, sex as murder."17 Postmodern thinking allowed Foucault to justify murder for the purposes of his own evil desires and sexual pleasure. Realizing how warped Foucault was should assist you in understanding how warped his postmodern worldview is and the negative consequences it can and is having, not only on America, but also on the world. Postmodernists claim that each culture or community is free to determine for themselves what is right or wrong. Stanley J. Grenz points out in his book, A Primer On Postmodernism that "truth is relative to the community in which a person participates. And since there are many communities, there are necessarily many different truths." This kind of postmodern thinking is now understood and accepted by young and old alike. Overdosing on Non-judgmentalism The following is an excerpt from a U.S. News & World Report article relating the fears of college Professor Robert Simon who says he has never met a student who denied the Holocaust: What he sees quite often, though, is worse: Students who acknowledge the fact of the Holocaust, but who can't bring themselves to say that killing millions of people is wrong.... "Of course, I dislike the Nazis,' one student told Simon, but who is to say they are morally wrong?" Overdosing on non-judgmentalism is a growing problem in the schools. Two disturbing articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education say that some students are unwilling to oppose large moral horrors, including human sacrifice, ethnic cleansing, and slavery because they think that no one has the right to criticize the moral views of another group or culture.19 Why would a student say they did not agree with Hitler, but cannot say what he did was wrong? This is positive proof that ideas have consequences. The liberals have been so successful in infiltrating America's educational system with moral relativism, situational ethics, and a postmodern worldview that students will not bring themselves to say that what Hitler did was WRONG. Author Alan Wolfe wrote, "That even those who believe that they ought to make the self-destructive behavior of others their business generally do so defensively."20 When Does Religion Become Evil? Charles Kimball, a college professor at a well-known university, recently wrote a book titled, When Religion Becomes Evil. One of the signs the author gives for religion becoming evil is when the religion makes absolute truth claims. He wrote, "When zealous and devout adherents elevate teachings and belief of their tradition to the level of absolute truth, they open the door to the possibility that their religion will become evil."21 Today's postmodern followers believe that any time you proclaim convictions based on absolute moral truth, you are being intolerant. According to professor Kimball, it looks as if we are also evil. However, the ironic thing the good professor does not seem to understand is that by his own definition he is evil. A religion is by definition "a collection of beliefs." The good professor has a religious worldview whether he wants to admit it or not. Everyone does. The professor said he believes in evil. You cannot have evil without an absolute standard of right and wrong. Therefore, the professor, by his own definition, is practicing an evil religion. The professor believes in the absolute truth of evil because of his religion, which is the collection of his beliefs. He is forcing it on others, which then means by his own definition, he is practicing evil. Don't think for one minute that America's students are not being indoctrinated with this anti-Christian propaganda. In fact, one humanist, a liberal educator who has brainwashed hundreds of thousands of teachers, is Dr. Bill Spady. He was one of the biggest promoters of outcome-based education in the 1980s and 90s. Spady encouraged teachers to prepare students to deal with the intolerance of Christian conservatives when he declared: Despite the historical trend toward intellectual enlightenment and cultural pluralism, there has been a major rise in religious and political orthodoxy, intolerance, fundamentalism, and conservatism with which young people will have to be prepared to deal.22 The new tolerance movement not only requires you to refrain from telling people that their beliefs, ideas, or lifestyles are wrong, but it requires that you accept and value their beliefs, ideas and lifestyles. In September 2004, former U. S. Vice President Al Gore revealed just how dangerous radical, humanist liberals can be when he went after President G. W. Bush. President Bush not only called the terrorists evil, he sought to bring capitol punishment to bear upon them through the use of the military. President Bush also has stated in several interviews that he cannot separate his Christian faith from the presidency. The worldview of President Bush is offensive to postmodernists like Gore. They see him and his Christian faith as evil because the President not only believes in absolute truth, but he uses the power as Commander in Chief to track down, arrest, and punish the terrorists who attack America. In a 12,000-word profile on his "life and times" in The New Yorker magazine, Gore also revealed how the liberals like to preach tolerance but are the most intolerant. Here's what Gore had to say about the faith of President George W. Bush: "It's a particular kind of religiosity. It's the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim."23 Can you believe what you just read? Gore equated Wahhabi Islam, which has led to beheadings, massacres, the 9/11 attacks, child killings, and countless horrors, with the president's evangelical Christian faith. Think about it. Gore could have been president. Don't tell me that a humanist liberal like Gore who believes New Age doctrines, based on occult foundations, is not the one to be feared. Gore has openly proclaimed his animosity toward evangelical Christians, which may include you, but certainly includes President Bush. The Liberals would certainly include others like him such as Franklin Graham, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, David Limbaugh, Josh McDowell, Tom DeLay, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Dr. James Dobson, Mrs. Star Parker, Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, and me. Do you think the people above are real dangers? I certainly don't. A Christian worldview involves practicing compassion, turning the other cheek, respecting all men, and desiring to be as wise as a serpent but as gentle as a dove. These characteristics do not posses a threat to anyone unless they are evil. History is filled with individuals who have valued a commitment to a radical secular humanist worldview, denied the God of the Bible, and held pagan philosophies that laid the groundwork for the justification of abuse, imprisonment, and murder of countless human beings. When was the last time a true evangelical Christian beheaded someone, blew up a building filled with innocent people, flew a plane into a building, or killed children in the name of God? It was Christians and their Christian worldview that led to the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, the first American hospitals, the first rescue missions for the homeless, and of course, the pro-life clinics that provide healthcare and adoption services that save thousands of babies from slaughter each year. As politically incorrect as it may be to say this, I believe the worldview of people like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy makes them dangerous as they hold to a worldview that approves, justifies, and succeeds in taking innocent lives through abortion and even late term abortion. The worldview that has allowed Gore and his friends to justify voting in favor of legislation and policies that allow for and fund the killing of unborn babies is the same worldview that allowed Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini to justify the murder of millions. Such a comment may seem extreme to some Americans, but facts are facts. Not only are humanist liberals like Al Gore dangerous, but they are the enemies of America as Al Gore and his liberal friends attack, bemoan, and seek to destroy the proclamation and influence of the very Christian worldview upon which America was founded. Founding Father Dr. John Witherspoon would certainly agree that the majority of today's radical, secular humanists are enemies to America: [H]e is the best friend to American liberty who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down on profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [do not hesitate] to call him an enemy to his country.24 Indeed religion can be evil. Islam is an evil and violent religion among many. However, I contend that Gore and Kimball are wrong when they seek to proclaim the moral absolutes of Christianity as evil. History reveals that the 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries, and secular humanism was the foundational worldview of those committing the atrocities. The U.S. Supreme Court Declares Humanism is a Religion In 1961, the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was initially disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court, however, ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions [religions that believe in one God] could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In a footnote it clarified what it meant by non-theistic religions."25 In a footnote to the decision, Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black wrote, "Among religious in this 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."26 Slam dunk! The Court's footnote acknowledging humanism as a religion laid the groundwork for multiple lawsuits that have allowed conservatives to stop the federal funding of humanism in our schools. Right? Wrong. Dr. David Noebel, president of Summit Ministries and one of America's premier worldview authors and speakers, is also a regular keynote speaker at the Worldview Weekends. Dr Noebel bemoans the Court's double - standard - decisions often give the religion of humanism a free pass while stripping away the religious freedoms of more and more Christians under the misinterpretation of the First Amendment. Noebel noted: Unfortunately, the Court has not been consistent in applying this understanding to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a 'wall of separation' between church and state, why are only theistic religions disestablished? If Secular Humanism is a religion - something the U.S. Supreme Court has claimed, and something countless Humanists proclaim - why is it allowed access to our public schools when there is to be no established religion?27 Having It Both Ways Dr Noebel notes: Paul Kurtz, author of Humanist Manifesto II and editor of Free Inquiry, one of the most popular humanist magazines, attempted in his book, Eupraxophy: Living Without Religion, to prove that Secular Humanism is not a religion. Why does Kurtz have the need to argue that humanism is not a religion when the Humanist Manifesto I and countless humanist authors, professors, and humanist ministers say that humanism is a religion? Kurtz himself answered this question saying: "For if humanism, even naturalistic and secular humanism is a religion, then we would be faced with a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof."28 The dirty little secret of the humanists is that they know that humanism is a religion, but they will deny it when it puts at risk the federal tax dollars that Congress appropriates to fund countless textbooks and programs in America. In 1986, Paul C. Vitz, a professor of psychology at New York University, was commissioned by the United States Government to study the state of education in America. Vitz's findings documented that a group of secularists and liberals had been effective in pushing their religion into the textbooks of America through the radical censorship of the name and truth of God. Who is funding all this secular and liberal propaganda? American taxpayer fund this censorship and liberal revisionist history. In his report, Vitz wrote, "[A] very widespread secular and liberal mindset appears to be responsible. This mindset pervades the leadership in the world of education and a secular and liberal bias is its inevitable consequences." Vitz went on to write, "Most disturbing was the constant omission of reference to the large role that religion has always played in American life. This fact has been seen as a fundamental feature of American society by foreign observers since de Tocqueville."30 Not only has the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that humanism is a religion, but the Internal Revenue Service has recognized it as a religion for years. Numerous organizations including the American Humanist Association have a "religious" tax exemption. In the July 8, 2000, issue of the Dallas Morning News, an article titled, "Atheists need fellowship, too," written by Selwyn Crawford read: "The North Texas Church for Free thought - nicknamed the 'church for the unchurched' - has become a model for other atheists congregations, sparking interest in similar ventures around Texas, the nation, and the world."31 The Supreme Court says humanism is a religion. Many humanist groups, organizations, and humanist churches have a religious tax exempt status recognized by the IRS. "Yet some insist that they are not religious," Noebel said. "Why? The main reason seems to rest in their desired access to the public schools."32 Letting the Humanists Make Our Case While Kutz is arguing that humanism is not a religion because of his fear of the 1961 Supreme Court footnote in the case Torcaso v. Watkins that declared humanism is a religion; his colleges have and continue to stack up the evidence for us that proves that humanism is a religion even according to the humanist movement. The Humanist Manifesto I describes humanism as a religion, again and again: "The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs…. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate."33 Notice that the Manifesto refers to humanism as "religious humanism." Curtis W. Reese, a signatory of Humanist Manifesto I, wrote, "Within the liberal churches of America there is a religious movement which has come to be known as humanism."34 In his book, Humanist Religion, Reese wrote, "When a man commits himself to a great cause, we say that his cause becomes his religion."35 Ray Wood Sellars, author of Humanist Manifesto I, wrote: "Humanity has struck its tents and is again on the march toward a religious faith, which I dare to believe will provide us with a religion greater than Christianity." Sellars continued, "The religion of humanism will be a growth due to, and resting on, the cooperative spiritual life to the making of which will go a multitude of minds and hearts." Despite the fact that Ray Sellars is a humanist, I am sad to say, he was a bit prophetic when he wrote, "Now I am convinced that the humanistic religion into which Christianity will gradually be transformed will correct this mistake."38 Many Churches and Christians have merged a humanist worldview with Christianity. This mixture of two opposing worldviews has created that which has a form of godliness but denies God. The Scriptures foretell of this coming apostasy within the church. This falling away from traditionally held biblical truths will lay the very foundation for the apostate church to accept the false teaching of the last days of which the Bible often speaks. Despite that fact that he was a pastor for more than 10 years, Charles Francis Potter became a Unitarian pastor. Potter was also a signer of Humanist Manifesto I. In his book, Humanism: A New Religion, Potter wrote: "Humanism is a new religion altogether." Interestingly enough, Potter, in his book, not only introduces the very question we are asking, but he answers it for us. "Is humanism a religion? It is both a religion and a philosophy of culture."40 John H. Dietrich, a Unitarian minister and a signatory of Humanist Manifesto I, wrote in a booklet called, Humanism: "There has grown up within the liberal churches of America a very definite movement known as Humanism, which is seeking to ground religion in human living rather than in some supernatural existence, by interpreting the good life in terms of human values and by directing man's religious aspirations toward the enhancement of human life."41 Harvard Divinity School professor Harvey Cox recognizes Secular Humanism as "a new closed worldview which functions very much like a new religion . . . where it pretends not to be a world view but nonetheless seeks to impose its ideology through the organs of the state."42 The documentation from the speeches, books, booklets, and papers written by the world's leading humanists - both those from American and around the world - could fill volumes. Indeed, the proof is there for those who dare to realize that America has indeed rejected the wishes of her Founding Fathers and allowed Congress to fund and the Courts to defend a religion with which the majority of Americans do not identify nor do they agree. There is no such thing as religion-neutral. The National Education Association (NEA), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Democratic National Convention (DNC), and every other anti-God organization in America are not religion neutral. Some of the world's premier humanists admit that humanism is a religion. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that secularism is a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Abington Township v. Schempp, 1963, wrote: The state may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus, "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . refusal to permit religious exercise thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.43 There is even a magazine published for those who practice "religious socialism." The following is found on the magazine's Web site: Religious Socialism is the quarterly publication of the Religion of Socialism Commission of the Democratic Socialist of America. It is the only periodical dedicated to people of faith and socialism in North America." The website goes on to say, "It is open to people of all faiths whose socialism is in some way inspired by their spiritual identity.44 The Religion and Socialism Commission "has held conferences and seminars dealing with what we feel is an intrinsic connection between religious beliefs and the fight for social justice." Even the Humanist Manifesto I acknowledges that everything is a religious issue. "The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained." I rest my case. Even the humanists understand that all issues are religious issues. All Issues Are Religious Issues Many who hold to liberal positions may not know the foundational worldview of their beliefs, values, and ethics, but that makes it no less a religious position. To the credit of many humanists, they understand something that many self-professing Christians do not - that every issue is a religious issue. A few years ago I had a phone conversation with a man who was the acting president of a well-known religious organization. This man told me that he believed that abortion was a moral and political issue but not a spiritual issue. I was so amazed at this comment that I had to repeat what he said to me and asked him if I heard him correctly. The acting-president of this Christian organization confirmed that I had heard him correctly. Fortunately, due to other comments made publicly that were in the same vain as his remarks to me, this man was not confirmed by his peers as the official president of this religious association. This man's belief that abortion is not a spiritual issue but a moral and political position is sadly consistent with what many in today's evangelical churches believe. I respect that the honesty and intellectual integrity of many self-professing liberals and humanists who openly admit that they hold to certain ideas, beliefs, values, and ethics based upon a religious worldview. My conflict is often not with those who admit their liberal beliefs and do not try to hide that their convictions come from a religious worldview but from those who deny a religious worldview as the foundation of their science, ethics, morals, values, economics and law. While at the same time many liberals are screaming that they want a religion-free school system, government, and American culture. The reality is that they simply want to replace America's founding religious belief system, which has given us the longest running constitutional republic in the history of the world, with a religious system that has been the failed foundation of the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and North Korea, among other countries. This lie, which too many Americans have had forced upon them by dogmatic liberals, must be uncovered so that their agenda and efforts can be thwarted. Even today, many who once called themselves "religious humanists" are begging their readers, followers, peers, and colleagues to stop calling it "religious humanism." Why? Because they fear that such an admission will cause the courts to rescind the free pass that humanism currently receives as it is taught and funded in America's schools. The current battle to maintain our freedoms will be more easily won and secured if enough Americans awaken to the liberals' dirty little scheme of claiming religious neutrality while attempting to replace America's foundational religious worldview for their religious worldview which says government is the highest authority, not God. As conservatives seek to reclaim America and defend and protect our freedoms that are given to us by God, it is imperative that we understand that we are fighting a religious and spiritual worldview battle regardless of what the liberals claim. In the courts, the schools, the State Houses and the U.S. Congress, every issue being discussed is a religious issue. More often than not, when liberals and conservatives are debating issues - those who are diametrically opposed based on ethics, values, beliefs, and ideas - the bottom line is a battle between a secular humanist worldview and a Christian worldview. Notes 1New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation 2Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Weiland, The Revised & Expanded Answers Book, (Master Books, Green Forrest, AR., 1990) p. 17. 3Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler, Beyond Belief to Convictions, (Tyndale House, Wheaton, IL., 2002) p. 54 5Ibid; p. 55 6New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation 7New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation 8>New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation 9New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation 10New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation 11Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. 12Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. 13New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 1:28). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 14New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 1:28). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 15Humanist Manifesto II 16Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, (The Free Press, New York, 1997) p. 355. 17Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, (The Free Press, New York, 1997) p. 356-357. 18Grenz, Stanley, J., A Primer on Postmodernism, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, (Grand Rapids, MI), p. 14. 19U.S. News & World Report, July 21, 1997. 20Alan Wolfe, Moral Freedom: The Impossible Idea That Defines the Way We Live Now, (W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2001), p. 80. 21Charles Kimball, When Truth Becomes Evil (Harper, San Francisco, CA 2002) 22William Spady, "Future Trends: Considerations in Developing Exit Outcomes". Sept 1987, quoted in Goals 2000 Research Manual, compiled by James R. Patrick, Moline, IL. Citizens for Academic Excellence. 1994. p. 121. 23The New Yorker Magazine Fall of 2004 24David Barton, quoting John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 46. 25Ibid; p. 7. 26Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961). 27Dr. David Noebel, Clergy in the Classroom (Summit Press, Manitou, Springs, CO. 1995). p. 8. 28Paul Kurtz, Eupraxophy: Living Without Religion, (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1989) p. 80. 29Paul C. Vitz, Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books, 1986), p. 1 30Ibid, pp. 2-3. 31Dallas Morning News, Atheist Need Fellowship Too by Selwyn Crawford, July 8, 2002 32Dr. David Noebel, Clergy in the Classroom (Summit Press, Manitou, Springs, CO. 1995). p. 135. 33A Humanist Manifesto I, 1933, the manifesto was first printed in The New Humanist, May/June 1933, (Vol. VI, No. 3). 34Curtis W. Reese, Humanist Sermons, (The Open Court Publishing Company, Chicago, IL. 1927), p. V. 35Curtis W. Reese, Humanist Religion, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1931), p. 53. 36Roy Wood Sellars, Religion Coming of Age, (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1928), p. 125. 37Ibid; p. 252. 38Ibid; p. 270 39Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New Religion, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1930) p. 3. 40Ibid; p. 114. 41John H. Dietrich, Humanism, (American Unitarian Association, Boston, Mass, 1933), p. 11 42Harvey Cox, The Secular City: Secularization and urbanization in Theological Perspective, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1965, 1966), p.18. 43U.S. Supreme Court Case, Abington Township v. Schempp, 1963. 44From the website of Religion of Socialism Commission of the Democratic Socialists of America found at dsausa.org 45Ibid;