Hidden Secular Agenda

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Forward: Describing the secular is not neutral discovery, recognition, declaration of war, and first engagement.

The Main Battle Line

Where the advancing secular army meets Judao-Christian moral norms

Once upon a time, I was a soldier, in a far distant place called Vietnam. And then I came home and read what the media was saying about what was going on there, and knew that what they were reporting was all false. Every bit of it. That's what originally lit my fire.

This website was not supposed to be; the thoughts laid down here were born while writing an actual book on another subject for another purpose. The other book was (is) The Theistic Individual Sovereign American Citizen Versus The Secular Liberal Intellectual Media Complex and the Centralization of All Power. Which might sound more like a chapter than a title. It started out as a shorter titled and strictly secular book, on what I thought were strictly temporal topics. When I began writing it, I was fairly irreligious, almost to the point of being agnostic, I was angry, and I was out to prove a point; a temporal point. Certain that most, indeed almost all of what I was hearing and seeing and reading via the mainstream American media, which I now refer to as the SLIMC, was slanted at best and quite often just plain false, I set out to tell the truth, at least as regards what I thought were the most important issues, which were economic, political, legal, individual rights oriented, national defense related, and so forth; the social issues of our day, at that time.

But I began the work with a personal vow to be and remain objective and open and fair in ascertaining all of the “facts” I planned to publicize as best I could. Never dreaming, of course, where that trail, or any trail objectively followed, would eventually lead. (Fair warning: pursue the Truth hard enough, and you will find Him.)

After the book started getting pretty large, I found it necessary to go over the whole thing again with significant modifications, because things that I had learned through objective research affected so many other things that I had already written. This happened twice. Even the title changed; first, with the addition of the centralization of all power clause; then again, with the words Theistic and Secular added, after I began to realize that the real root of the differences between the modern Left and Right, or the new era liberal and conservative positions, has much more to do with non-belief versus belief than it does with capitalism versus Communism, or with Democracy versus Socialism. As it turns out, all forms of Marxism, including Communism and Nazism / Fascism, cannot stand or even survive without a close partnership with, and indeed dependency upon, secularism, which means, of course, total opposition to any idea of religion or spirituality, and complete divorce from and even war against the basic morality that springs from Western thought, meaning, of course, Judao-Christian thought.

Each time I found that some infamous lie had been perpetrated, proving the lie wasn’t quite enough; I had to know why the lie was told. How could such deception become so widespread and accepted; how could so many buy into the clear, basic, fundamental Marxist immorality which states that the ends justify the means, and support and perpetrate and spread the lie, always, ostensibly, for the good of the masses. Always for some grand social plan, created by the elite, for the non-elite, paid for by the masses, suffered by the masses, justified and enforced by the elite. I learned, late, that the Church has much to say on each of the issues I explored; and I learned that there were no exceptions to that statement. And that what the Church had to say was always the right thing. And so Sovereign Citizen was becoming a religious book, and even a Catholic book, something it wasn’t supposed to be, and wasn’t originally intended or designed to be.

Enter A Man's Testimony, the final title, while it was still in book form. Now, of course, it is the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center website. All of the most strictly Catholic thought recorded here grew out of work on Sovereign Citizen, was put here, and added to, as my faith has grown and as the Spirit has moved me. Sovereign Citizen ultimately became Testimony, which became this website. The early positions became heavily Christian, and then heavily Catholic, but the original primary thrust of it was to call devout Jews and Christians of every stripe and spot to unity against the advance of secularism, and against the social damage and the basic immoral thrust of secularism.

If this site seems a little schizophrenic, it might be because so much of it was written by an almost pure secularist, who became a strong believer and continued writing, and who then moved deeply into Catholic orthodoxy while still writing. Secularism, in and of itself, turns out to be The Enemy. Born of the flawed theories of such secular “thinkers” as Darwin, Freud and Marx, strengthened by the flawed direction of such secular “leaders” as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, justified, protected and spread by such secular organizations as the United Nations, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Supreme Court, taught by secular academia, popularized by the secular media, secularism presents the world with the greatest mass of error and misinformation imaginable by man.

We have all heard the proposition of physics which states that nature abhors a vacuum. Question: when we drive God out of anything, what, exactly, will eventually take His place there?

Secular is not neutral.

America and the world are now reaping what secularism has sown. Consider the court invented “constitutional” principle of separation of Church and state, which, of course, like so many modern “constitutional” principles, cannot be found in the constitution. And consider the fact that separation of religion and anything at all is very strictly against the religion of anyone at all who professes to hold to any real religion at all. There is no religion that teaches its disciples to put aside and disregard the entire religion at any time under any conditions for any period of time or for any reason.

But our courts would have us “put aside” Christ and the Decalogue and the Beatitudes every single time we dare to step up to the podium or the lectern or the microphone or the camera or the blackboard or the jury box or the polling place or the town hall or the House floor or the Senate floor or the pool hall or - anywhere at all. Worst of all is solidly secular academia, with its rigidly enforced campus speech codes and legal censorship of free Christian expression, and secularized science, with its new legal redefinition of science itself, and even legal definitions, if that makes any sense at all, of who’s a scientist. All of this is aimed, not particularly by discernible central plan, at what we are daily witnessing, which is, the religious cleansing of a society.

We are prodded by popular social pressure and encouraged by the intellectual elite everywhere to keep our religion out of public view and not allow it to enter public discourse on issues. (Currently, this applies to “mainstream” religion only; astrology, psychic-guiding and other new-age, non-Western, faith-based thought is allowed and even encouraged. For the moment. Secularism clearly recognizes its most dangerous enemy, and secularism encourages all that may detract from its enemy.)

We are actually forced by law to be, or to pretend and appear to be, atheist. Which, as we shall see, is a strictly faith-based religion. (The atheist cannot prove that God does not exist; he has no evidence, yet he believes, often with a faith stronger than the faith of believers. He has faith; he believes by faith alone; he is religious. Secularism is the leading denomination of atheism, and it goes farther, in that it not only denies God, but all possibility of spirituality of any kind. The pure secularist denies the very idea of sacredness and holds nothing whatsoever to be sacred. The pure “naturalist” must first be a secularist, and a pure materialist. In the secularist view there is only the material, only what you can see and feel and touch, and nothing more. All things and phenomena have natural explanations; anything not yet naturally explained simply await the advance of secular knowledge to be able to explain them. There are no mysteries; all things are knowable; there is nothing that is not or will not eventually be known by man.)

To be secular is to both act and appear to be atheist and decadent.

Our constitution prohibits the legislature from establishing an official state religion; and, of course, the legislature didn’t do that. The court did. There will be much more later on the official state religion of secularism. While congress naps, the court consistently makes new law out of thin air. Just as the court once “constitutionalized” a right to choose, the choice involving whether or not to choose to own human beings, it has more recently “constitutionalized” a new right to choose, with this new legal choice involving whether or not to choose to abort someone, invalidating legislated, representative state law all across the land, with one quick press-release type decision, giving birth to a new multi-billion dollar completely unregulated human butchery industry, fed, encouraged and popularized by secular thought in high places everywhere, and again, as always, at the expense of Western thought.

Secular: 1. Not spiritual and not sacred. 2. Not concerned with religion or with religious belief. 3. Pertaining to things of the world and not to things spiritual or holy. 4. Pertaining to the body and not to the soul. 5. Secular concerns involve providing for the support of physical life, preservation of physical health and temporal prosperity. 6. Secular power is that which superintends and governs the strictly temporal affairs of men, the civil or political power, and is contradistinguished from spiritual and/or ecclesiastical power. (Note that this is the temporal, or the worldly as opposed to the religious connotation of the word. In the Church, there are secular orders and religious orders; the brothers or sisters or fathers belonging to a religious order usually live a somewhat monastic life, if not fully cloistered, and as such they are sheltered from the world to some degree. But a diocesan priest, for example, is “out in the world” preaching the word, and he is considered by his religious brethren to be a secular. This material is written by a layman for other laymen, and for us, the simple definition found in most any dictionary should suffice. We are talking about issues that pertain to us laymen, out in the world.)

Secular power has no legitimate authority over spiritual and/or ecclesiastical matters, just as spiritual and/or ecclesiastical power has no legitimate legal authority over purely temporal matters. However, it may successfully be argued that spiritual and/or ecclesiastical powers hold some moral authority over the behavior of holders of secular power, at least in a free, majoritarian, representative Democracy, and the reverse is not true. (Moral authority is not civil authority.) Pure secularism has no moral base; it has no morality; it has nothing to moralize about. Since even before the signing of the Magna Carta, the morality that forms the basis for common law, all civil law, and the basis even for Western Civilization itself, is the Ten Commandments, and secularism has nothing remotely similar to offer as a moral base.

Secular is not merely atheist; it is proactively and aggressively anti-theist.

To secularize something is to remove and expunge from it all sense of spirituality and holiness. A secularist is one who actively secularizes. Secularization is religious cleansing, pure and simple. The secularist denies God, spirituality, the sacred, the very idea of sacredness, and all that is holy. Note well that an important aspect of morality is that, for an act to be considered truly to be moral, it must be performed by a free agent exercising his own free will, and most usually this only happens under the motive of obedience to Divine will. When this aspect of morality is removed, the only “moral” motive left is avoidance of temporal punishment.

What this means is that working, efficient, voluntary and effective morality is inseparable from religious discipleship. And it is my contention that the secular media, or the SLIMC, which includes all of the major networks and every major news publication in the country, and secular academia, and all of public education and even much of parochial education is not only secular, but ever increasingly secularist, and that they actively secularize. In that respect they are kindred spirits with all of the greatest open opponents of Christianity, free Christian religious expression, and Christian morality ever to infect our national history, including the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the courts, and the United Nations.

While willfully chosen morality is vitally important for a man, it is even more important for a whole population. But the seed of a lie has been planted in our minds and into our national psyche, and it has grown into the idea that, to view something from a secular viewpoint is the only way to view it from a neutral perspective, because religions all come with doctrinal or dogmatic or spiritual blinders preventing objectivity and neutrality. In point of fact, secularists prove again and again and that they are largely incapable of objectivity and neutrality. They accept such immoral teachings as, for instance, the Marxist principle that the ends justify the means. No devout Christian or Jew can ever accept that teaching, but a secularist can accept it. Stalin did; Hitler did; Mao did; all Marxists accept it because all Marxists, before they are Marxists, are secularists.

Secular is not a synonym for neutral.

Once you buy into the ends justify the means, you become a potential liar, or even murderer, provided that the ends justify the means. Still, we seem to feel that in contentions between religions, at least, the only possible neutral party must be secularism. We fail to realize that secularism despises all religions, and only takes sides with any religion against another in order to first destroy the one it hates or fears the most. The perfection, the smoothness, the beauty of the secular neutrality lie is such that we don’t even know it’s a lie; we participate in it; in point of fact, most secularists don’t even know that they are secularists. The key to the whole discussion lies in the revelation of the single lie that is at the core of the whole thing, which can be done with one simple statement: secular is not a synonym for neutral.

Indeed there is nothing neutral about secularism. It is imperative that you know that American secularism is anti-theism, which is not the same thing as atheism. Today, most of us don’t know that, and we don’t even think about it. But it gets worse. It is not possible to be objective if one cannot be neutral. “Advanced” secularism goes so far as to deny the very existence of objective truth, in favor of, not only moral relativism, but even physical relativism. We’re talking about variable reality here, the belief that what’s real for you might not be real for me, and some other form of reality might apply to someone else. See? Once secularized, anything goes. Once secularized, if it feels good, do it. Once secularized, the ends justify the means.

This leads to a blurring and obfuscating of reality, whenever the desirable ends seem to justify the otherwise immoral means. Secularism itself has an agenda, that being, further secularization. To the degree that they are secular, all referees, judges and justices lack neutrality and objectivity. To the degree that they are secular, all courts lack neutrality and objectivity. To the degree that they are secular, all states, governments and governmental bodies lack neutrality and objectivity. To the degree that they are secular, all scientists and all sciences lack neutrality and objectivity. To the degree that they are secular, all educators, at all levels, lack neutrality and objectivity. To the degree that they are secular, all publishers, editors, writers, journalists, networks, broadcasters and news anchors lack neutrality and objectivity. To the degree that they are secular, all institutions lack neutrality and objectivity. To the degree that you are secular, you lack neutrality and objectivity.

The slyness of the “secular is neutral” lie and the slanting and slurring of the spoken word continue to work their special evil magic. Again, secularism is anti-theism, which is not the same thing as atheism. The atheist has no particular agenda and cares little about what you or I might believe; but this is not the case with the secularist. The agenda of secularism in America is, first, anti-Christianity, second, anti-theism, and lastly, anti-spirituality. At different points in the agenda secularism will favor some religions over others, always opposing the majority of the moment; they will lie to achieve secular goals, and that is a definitive attribute.

Secularists lie.

Secularism will always support, and even invent, mushy religions over orthodox ones; an example is the new UN invented Earth goddess worship. The immoral spawn of secularism is Socialism, and it must be recognized as anti-majority, always; to be a proper Socialist is to seek, cause, instigate and feed class warfare, to the end of achieving dominance over the majority first, and the state eventually, and, of course, these very desirable ends justify even very ugly means to achieve them.

Smooth secular lies.

We don’t even see it happening. Think about it. By what strange logic should an overwhelmingly Christian land legally prohibit educators from teaching Christianity to the children? By precisely what strange mechanism did the educators themselves ever come to feel that this is good, and right? Why is it that whenever we hear any questions like these the first thing that pops into our heads is a “constitutional” principle, which not only cannot be found to be in the constitution, but is clearly refuted by the words, writings and actions of the nation’s founders and fathers, and the constitution’s framers and ratifiers?

It begins so smoothly. The uniquely Christian idea of freedom of religion paves the road for recognition and tolerance of other religions, even in minute minorities, within the social unit, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But what seems to logically follow is the idea that, when considering laws or regulations or policies affecting the whole population, in deference to those of other minority faiths, we must, temporarily, of course, put aside our religious teaching and moral guidance while the “higher” topic is considered. We so easily forget that purposely disregarding religion, for a moment, or for anything, is very strictly against the religion of everyone who has a religion, and it is most certainly against the religion of the national majority, which is Christianity.

And then we must look at the topics for which this sort of thing is demanded. A good example is when two sodomites want to legitimately “marry” each other. Of course, they are not required to be Jewish or Christian, and therefore we cannot impose our majority religious morality upon them, and so, it is reasoned, we should put it aside and disregard it while we deliberate on this matter and settle it. When we do so, we put aside our ability to tell right from wrong. We never even ask the obvious religious freedom questions, such as, what faith do the sodomites claim, or what faith were they raised in, or what recognized faith, anywhere, teaches the goodness of sodomy. Or, in fact, are the sodomites representatives of any minority at all, other than an obviously perverse and immoral minority. Or, most importantly, particularly in any Western nation, what moral reason can there ever be to put aside the common morality of the nation?

There are only two possible reasons. One reason must be an immoral reason, to promote something immoral, as we, in our vast majority, would recognize it. The other reason is, quite simply, to purposely oppose the interests of the majority, a motive common to all who would promote class warfare, or strife, for any reason. We must look at how this is happening, why it is happening, and what we can do about it.

Open secular promotion of immorality and decadence.

I submit for your consideration the statement that this giant contest swirls and revolves around ethos. Ethos is the foundational characteristic spirit and/or attitude of a community or a people or a nation. The ethos of Western civilization is and has always been Christian. At center of the Western ethos is the Creed, the Commandments, the Beatitudes, the Theological Virtues, the Cardinal Virtues, the Seven Deadly Sins, the consistent Christian teaching of right and wrong, good and evil. This is how we order our lives, and it is how we deal with each other and with outsiders. While there are differences in the ethos of different kinds of Christians, all Christians share a common core ethos with each other, and with the Jews, who may be thought of as the ethical and spiritual elder brothers of the Christians.

But what is the ethos of the secularist? There is no official name for it. I will give it a name: it is the ethos of BMDFP and secularists, and will later describe it in detail, with the description based solely upon clearly observable secular behavior. Here it will suffice to say that secularism opposes the Creed, the Commandments, the Beatitudes, the very idea of virtue and vice, the very idea of sin or of evil, and denies any fixed, universal, invariable sense of right and wrong. Secularism denies the sacred, and the very idea of sacredness, and holds nothing whatsoever to be sacred. In the interest of such movements as multi-culturalism and inclusiveness and “big tent” political movements we are pushed into accepting a broader and broader ethos, or the denial of any certain ethos in favor of not only tolerating, but teaching and preaching, the idea that anything is acceptable, which is the idea that anything goes.

But, if I may dissent from this, if we have no Creed, then we have chaos. And if we do not all (or most of us) have a common ethos, a common morality, then we have no morality at all. If we do not have a morality, then we are not a people, and we are not a nation. Every-man-for-himself morality is nothing but pending anarchy awaiting an opportunity. One nation needs one morality.

The current concerted attack seems to be against Westernism in general. In favor of what? Easternism? Ideas such as freedom of religion, individual liberty, the dignity of man, representative Democracy and so forth are not common to Hinduism, Taoism or any other Eastern religion; they are all born of Christianity. Gandhi didn’t derive his ideas of freedom and Democracy for India from his Hindu faith; he brought them home to India after visiting Christian England. And those ideas took root and sprouted differently there than in the West because the Indian people, in their majority, have a different moral base. Today the Hindu majority party is looking at establishing a purely Hindu national cultural and religious identity for India, meaning, of course, a religious cleansing, and they plan to use Hitler’s Nazi Germany as a model. There is nothing in particular in Hindu moral teaching to prevent this kind of direction, for individuals or for states.

The moral Commandments of the Jews and the Christians, i.e., those Commandments dealing with man’s relationship with his fellow man, impose behavioral restrictions on devotees, which operate at home, at work, in the market place and everywhere, and which are generally recognized throughout the world as those wise restraints that make men free. If they present a burden, they also present some rights, among them the right to expect others to accept the burden, too, making civil life more predictable and peaceful. Each “burden” a Commandment imposes brings with it certain recognized “inalienable” individual rights, which will be discussed in more detail later.

Only Socialist and secular societies operate under the ethos of BMDFP and secularists.

This moral, Western Culture view, much of which has been adopted in civil law even by non-Western nations simply because it makes so much sense, is what gave birth to such seemingly unrelated traditions of men as civility, the temporal basis (if there is one) of Western civilization, and chivalry, and the lesser virtues that come down to us as manners. Throughout all of Christendom, throughout all of Western civilization, one does not need to be a blue-blood to understand what is meant by ladylike and gentlemanly behavior. Wealth Of Nations was written, in 1776, by a Christian. The Declaration Of Independence was written, also in 1776, by Christians, and by near-Christian Deists who were raised and educated as Christians in a Christian culture, and who lived by the Ten Commandments.

There is nothing wrong and everything right with Western culture. What secularists don’t like about Western culture is that it is imperfect, and secularists seek perfection on Earth, and they think that they can obtain it or produce it. Jews and Christians know that perfection, in anything, is not possible in this world; Socialists (who are necessarily secularists) disagree, and seek to create Utopia: Heaven on Earth. Every time any secularist or other anti-Western thinker sees any imperfection or corruption at all, anywhere in Western culture, religion, tradition, or any institutions like Democracy and capitalism (and there is plenty of it,) they point and scream and puff and thunder, and then they point the way either to some far less perfect Eastern tradition, or to some impossible to achieve utopian goal.

They deliberately lie and declare that religions are the sole causes of all wars and strife, and that idealistic, neutral secularism is above such things. The priests of religion A in country A disagreed with the priests of religion B in country B, and so they started a war. Right. It was Hitler’s priests, and Stalin’s priests, and Hirohito’s priests, and Mussolini’s priests, and Mao’s priests who caused all the grief in the last great war. Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Mussolini and Mao were all devout, worshipping, prayerful men, really and truly, and perhaps I can interest you in some ocean front property in Iowa. The death camps and gulags and enslavement of nations of the twentieth century did not come about due to Western Culture's moral norms, but due to open rejection, repudiation, and direct opposition to them, by atheists and/or secularists and/or adherents to non-Western thought.

The detrimental effect of secularism on our collective perception of objective truth is staggering, and the later treatment on education will bring some of it out in more detail. But the evidence can be seen any day, any time, on television. We have had a President (Billary) and a Vice President (Algore) who are determined to legislate the weather, governmentally modify the global climate, and fight a “greenhouse” monster that cannot empirically be shown to even exist, and do it at enormous cost to us. We have huge corporations filing for protection under bankruptcy laws and coping pleas in cases in which objective truth is clearly on their side (silicone, tobacco,) but they simply cannot afford to defend themselves any more in the secular courts. We have a secular media super-hyping these stories in shrill tones that would have us believe that a whiff of second-hand tobacco smoke might drop an elephant in its tracks at twenty paces. Whole industries and the whole economy have been modified to eliminate and replace, at high cost and far less efficiently, such things as Styrofoam and Freon, all with absolutely no effect whatsoever on the environment that was supposed to be corrected. (We still have the same old ozone-holes; we’re still alive.)

There is no critical thinking. (See the thinking Catholic page.) There is no wisdom. There are only great, growing, numerous piles of facts that are somehow equated to wisdom. Even when the facts are not even learned any more, they are merely made available for easy reference. The commercials for the internet’s new super wide channel, available through your TV as well as your computer, is a good example; it shows shot after shot of smug, confident, knowing young faces, as the scenes constantly switch from school to laboratory to planes to traffic to scuba scenes to rockets, all interspersed with the smug, knowing faces, and, of course, the voice over lines: “This is the future.” “This is how we’ll live.” “This is how we’ll work.” “This is how we’ll learn.” In point of fact, what its saying is, this is where knowledge is; don’t worry about learning it, you can always access it when you need it.

But the internet will not make you smart, and a lack of an old fashioned classical education will not make you a good user of easily found facts. Most any Rabbi, Priest or Minister will tell you that the very beginning point of wisdom is proper fear of God. You won’t learn that in public school today. Secularism is dumbing us down, and lowering the culture into something degenerate, and making us feel good about it. For awhile. Because secularists see the beginning point of wisdom somewhat differently. Secularist wisdom involves acceptance or recognition of, or identification with, some grand, perfect, Utopian end, the accomplishment of which is deemed to be so good, so necessary, so needed as to preclude or eclipse the importance of anything else, including even physical evidence, reality and truth. And there are always ends within ends.

Secular causes override common sense.

There are those who would seek to legislate or decree global temperature, and there are those with smaller pet ecosystems to worship. There are those who seek to create the absolutely perfect global society, and there are those who are more interested in politicizing and controlling one particular classroom or office or department or local Church. Some would clone and gene-splice and genetically engineer the absolutely perfect man, in some new image, and there are others who would simply like to eliminate all of the Downs Syndrome people, or spinabifida people, or black people, or Jews. History shows again and again that the grand planners always wind up with something opposite or nearly opposite what they plan for. Or, that they actually produce or strengthen that which they first attacked and demonized and sought to destroy.

Authority is a good example. Communists, for example, oppose authority to the point of revolution; they renounce authority and “authoritarian man” at every opportunity to do so. But what did Lenin replace the legal authority of the Czar with? A level of absolute, total, iron-fisted authority that no Czar had ever even dreamed of.

A difference between secularist thinkers and Western thinkers involves the existence of objective truth. Whatever other differences there are, this is The Big One. Western culture recognizes the existence of objective truth which is completely independent of the mind of man, and that it continues to exist and it continues to be true, regardless of what we think about it, or whether we think about it at all, or are even aware of it. In short, absolute truth exists, it does not change, and we cannot affect it. Devout Jewish and Christian believers go farther, and claim to know, by faith, What, or Who, are at the center of all Truth. The position of secularists regarding objective truth is murky at best. Most secularists will avoid the issue; some of them will on occasion admit some grudging acceptance of the principle of its existence. They will usually admit that when the tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, that yes, it does make a sound, because the laws of physics do not change simply because we’re not present.

Secular "truth" equals some secular agenda.

But secularists generally have an agenda, and if anything, including truth, gets in the way of the agenda, then it has to go. A good, meaning a worthy agenda, as seen by secularists, deserves any means at all to promote it, and if the truth itself must suffer for the worthy agenda of the moment, then so be it. This shows a remarkable difference, between secularists and Christians, involving the value assigned to truth. Not only the great truths, or eternal truths, but all truth, even some very simple truth regarding something very mundane, ordinary and seemingly unimportant. Very frequently in daily life it may be seen that secularism cannot stand truth, and it cannot tolerate the unrestrained public pronouncement of truth. And secularism cannot tolerate real objectivity, because real objectivity always drives relentlessly toward truth. Sooner or later the devout secularist must recognize and accept the fact that he operates to oppose the truth, or he must stop being a secularist and become something else. Secularism opposes even objectivity.

Because of this opposition to truth and objectivity it may be seen that secularism opposes history. Clearly Socialism, the firstborn child of secularism, hates history because history so very clearly damns Socialism. But history contains the evidence that objective truth seekers search for, and so periodically secularists seek to destroy history. Hitler, Stalin, all the great secularists burned books, but history is a hard thing to kill. The next best thing to killing history is to rewrite it, from a secularist viewpoint; then it becomes secular evidence, which can support all sorts of agendas. We see that a lot today; the old empiricism sometimes seems to be dead, among modern authors.

History On Trial; Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past, by Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree and Ross E. Dunn, is a case in point, proving that modern “historians” are no longer immersed in scrupulous research and open, objective, honest recording. It’s loaded down with ideology, of the current variety, speaking of “groups” and “struggles” and “exploiters” and “the exploited.” The book supports the currently touted National Standards for history revision in order to include more women and minority members in history, whether they were actually involved in historical events or not. This book pretends that historians, past and present, never did work with integrity and honor, that the job of historians was and is to “interpret” and re-interpret and revise history, and that we, Americans, have always disagreed and argued about our own history, and that our own history has never been “settled.” They seek a “democratic” history; like, we should vote on what happened in the past. They liken the task of the historian to that of the lawyer, gathering evidence and building a case to present before the jury; lawyers write briefs, and so do “historians.”

I agree, if we’re talking about secular historians. A lawyer has a client, just as a secular historian has an agenda. A lawyer presents only the facts that make his client look good, and will not present or will oppose and censor with all his strength evidence that makes his client look bad. So it is with the secular historian and his pet agenda. These secular agendas, growing in size and number, are the reason that honest history is so out of vogue on the American campus, which, by the way, is today just as overwhelmingly secularist as the American population is overwhelmingly Christian. Most universities in America no longer have a history requirement in their degree programs. They may still have a history department, but not a history degree requirement. This is not isolated. Only one Ivy League college still has a history requirement, and it is likely on the way out. American academia is secular, and secularists hate history as much as they hate truth and objectivity. Fortunately, history is almost impossible to kill, and history can reveal truth. And it can do so because of the honor, integrity, and professionalism of past historians.

There are all sorts of examples of secular distortion of truth in the news. Take the Global-Warming threat-to-all-life-as-we-know-it invention, for instance. First of all, the Earth is supposed to have warmed one degree Fahrenheit over the last century, a statistically insignificant amount that is completely meaningless. Over the previous two decades it actually cooled, by some equally insignificant and meaningless fraction of a degree. More currently, consensus among most experts is that it is warming. Only something like 17% of all of TTRSTF think that that might be a problem, that it might be caused by man, and that there might be something man can do about it. Secularists today totally disregard all past ice ages and climatic cycles in favor of promoting the notion of an eminent man made global disaster.

There is a scientific theory that global temperatures might, at some future date, be affected by increasing carbon dioxide, but, like many theories, it remains a theory with absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever to back it up. (Carbon dioxide is the gas that we exhale when we breathe.) Even core samples of polar ice must take into account that polar ice might not always have been polar, and that we don’t really know how or when or where the geologically drifting plates supporting the continents might have begun their migrations or ended them (if they’re ended,) in relation to the actual poles and the equator. Of course, plate tectonics is just another theory, but it’s proof, or acceptance, might have an affect on any core sample evidence for or against a global warming one. So where we are at is a place where most scientists cannot agree whether the Earth is cooling or warming, most scientists have no opinion one way or the other, and one small group thinks that the Earth is warming, and that human activity is the cause. And the only actual scientific theory regarding warming that does not sound half-baked involves the possibility that increasing carbon dioxide might in the future cause some global warming, a so-called “greenhouse effect.” Maybe.

The secular knows all, sees all, predicts all . . .

But what do we, of the great unwashed masses, hear about it from on high, and from the secular media? Well, Teddy Turner told Larry King and Larry King’s audience that he had personal evidence that the polar ice caps are melting and we’re all doomed because he has been watching one of his private beaches just washing away, tide after tide, until it’s all eroded and gone. No mention, and there will be none, of wave and tidal action building up any other beaches anywhere else in the world, because Teddy knows for a fact that the globe has warmed and is warming. See? But when a group of global warming skeptics tried to run a paid advertisement on Ted Turner’s network, CNN, it was not allowed to be broadcast, because it was deemed to be unsuitable for CNN, because, one of the rules at CNN is, when it comes to environmental matters, there will be no objectivity. The secular agenda comes first.

And, we've seen our past President and Vice President, Billary and Captain Planet, before they trotted off to Kyoto for a UN conference (of course) on global warming, inviting a hundred or so TV weather forecasters into the white House to recruit them as predictors of global-warming doom. Possibly the last part of television broadcasting we thought we could trust, the weather, has been actively politicized. Meteorologists who have great difficulty today predicting ten days out in advance are now asked to “predict,” in a global-warming sort of way, ten years out into the future. The proselytizing rhetoric was masterful. The local TV weathermen were first flattered and built up to hero level, and then told that they personally would, in the future, have a tremendous effect, perhaps a globe-saving effect, on the future of all mankind and life on Earth, merely by the way they broadcast the weather. Which means, of course, to stop being so objective. Just like Teddy Turner, Billary and the Cap’n know for a fact that the globe is warming, and they aim to stop it, and the ends justify the means.

Most frequently heard quote from a secularist hero with a straw-dragon cause? “We don’t have time to do a study!” When we remember that there is no empirical evidence supporting an existing or even a future global warming menace, then we must look at the actual words of the proponents. They don’t say that the Earth might be warming, or that it could be warming, or that they think that it might be warming; what they state in fact is that it is warming, and they state it emphatically, in the absence of evidence, and that makes them liars with another agenda, or pompous posturing fools. Their motives are political rather than scientific, humane or heroic. There will be more later about this truly masterful straw-dragon, terrified-population, hero-politician to the rescue political strategy.

Another example involves the secular agenda to “mainstream” homosexuals into every aspect of public life, corporate life, political life, military life, even Church life. This agenda seeks to get the Christian majority to change, for the worse, in it’s attitude toward deviant illicit sex. We’re talking about the “normalization” of sodomy and perverse sexual acts, and the promotion of the public’s acceptance of “life styles” involving this very specific activity.

But, of course, they will not describe it in such truthful, straight-forward language. What they call it is gay and lesbian lifestyles, and different sexual orientations, and cutsie little terms like that. But what they are promoting is a new “morality” of sodomy and perverse illicit sex, pure and simple. In plain English, President Clinton and the Democratic Party was pro-sodomy. Pro-sodomy, you will note, is a position that is irreconcilable with Western culture, and with the Christian morality it is founded upon. And so again we see automatically raised in our minds questions regarding viewpoints on the value of truth.

For instance, did Hillary and Billary recommend to Chelsea that she ought to consider getting herself involved with illicit homosexual sex acts, and if not why not, and if not then how does that jibe with the fact that Hillary and Billary publicly promote the acceptability of open lifestyles involving active illicit homosexual sex? How many faces do they have, and which one, if any, is real? This particular secular agenda is victoriously marching all across the nation. Why? How?

We see major corporations like AT&T, IBM, Disney and others doing things like supporting and sponsoring the Gay Games, and Gay Pride events, and requiring employees to attend sensitivity seminars in which they are taught to accept and welcome illicit perverts and sodomites into their ranks, and, not only to not renounce sin as sin, but to be tolerant and to not be judgmental, and, in a word, to put their religion aside. And so we must ask the same honesty questions that we ask of Hillary and Billary, but we must ask them of the board members or executives or managers at these sponsoring and supporting organizations. Do they promote illicit perverted sex acts among their children at home; how do they treat the subject with their parents and other relatives, friends and neighbors; how do they treat it with their pastors; how do they treat it with the guys they go hunting or fishing with; the poker club; the golfing buddies; and how do all of these positions compare to their public pronouncements and corporate actions? How many faces do they have, and which one, if any, is real?

They are putting their morality aside. Like all other forms of illicit sex, sodomy and perversion is wrong; if you do not believe that sodomy is wrong, then I invite you to play the Name That Morality game, because you are operating under some foreign morality that no one here ever heard of, or you operate under complete immorality.

Secular infection of Protestantism.

It goes farther. If we would pursue truth all the way, then we must ask some hard truth questions of our Protestant brothers, and if they are honest and objective, then they must openly and honestly and objectively seek the answers to these questions. What exactly is Protestantism? When and where and how did it begin? What does history tell us? How does what Protestantism teaches differ from what the Church founded by Jesus Christ teaches, and why? How does what Protestantism teaches today differ from what Protestantism taught then, and why?

Is there historical justification for calling Martin Luther the father of Protestantism, the father of divorce, the father not only of the combination of Church and state, but the divine right of kings to rule in matters both temporal and spiritual? Did he really have a filthy mouth, an uncontrollable will and a sinful nature, and did he, as a Catholic Augustinian monk and a consecrated priest, under a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience, actually wed a consecrated nun, and take up residence with her on sacred ground, in one of the many monasteries pillaged from the Catholic Church in the bloody revolution known as the Reformation?

The denominations or churches founded by such men as Luther, who originally broke from the Church, and those who broke from him, and from each other, or who, wittingly or unwittingly, joined or contributed to the revolution—Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VIII, Knox, Fox, Wesley, Smyth, Smith, Dowey, Eddy and countless others; how does their original “church” teaching compare to their contemporary church teaching, and how does any of it compare to the original, and same, Catholic teaching?

The very instant, historically speaking, that Luther broke from the Church, Calvin, Zwingli and others broke from Luther, and the partitioning and splintering that resulted in hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations began. Thanks solely to Luther, the Reformation took the European originally Catholic reformers into a historical tunnel, and they came out the other end as, primarily, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist and Methodist; they all, obviously, had differences, and continued splintering and splitting. And, thanks to Henry VIII, the Anglican Church went into and came out of that deforming historical tunnel, too; a little more orthodox than the others, perhaps. But what they all had in common was Luther’s first dogmas, which would become the universal Protestant dogmas, Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone,) Sola Fides (faith alone,) the “universal priesthood,” in which everybody is a priest, and complete rejection of Papal authority, apostolic succession and all Church authority. Whatever any denomination may call itself, including even “non-denominational,” if they adhere to these dogmas of Luther, then they are Protestant.

I submit for your consideration the statement that, with the sole exception of the Greek Orthodox Church and any church that may have split from it, any Christian denomination that does not recognize Papal authority is Protestant, and has its roots in some branch of the Reformation. I openly challenge you to disprove that statement.

The clearest and most unmistakable historical results of Luther’s Reformation involved civil authority placed over ecclesiastical authority. The Czar of Russia was the head of the the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Emperor of Germany was the spiritual leader of the Lutheran Church, and the Kaiser was the religious potentate of Lutheran Prussia, the King of England was the spiritual head of the Church of England, and so on. This was in accordance with Luther’s dictum, Cujos regio, ejus rligio, or Whoever’s reign, his religion. In one region, Pfalz, the religion people were legally allowed to practice was arbitrarily changed four times in eighty years under this stupid Protestant rule. Even as radical as Luther’s dogmas were when they were new, they have been super-radicalized since.

Where is Sola Scriptura today? Every man for himself Scripture interpretation. Every man or woman, adult or child, scholar or illiterate, genius or imbecile, Zoroastrian, Hindu or atheist automatically comes fully imbued with full Scriptural interpretive authority, fully equal to the authority of Martin Luther or the pope or anyone else. Anyone who wants to, including even someone with solely an entrepreneurial reason, can declare himself a preacher, build a church, put up a sign, advertise, perhaps preach his first couple of sermons on tithes and offerings, and be in business, and a potentially very lucrative business at that. You could do it, and I could do it.

Where is Sola Fides today? Christian ministers actually preaching against good works. Do-it-yourself final judgment. Millions of people declaring themselves to be “saved,” for all eternity, well ahead of time, saving Jesus the time and trouble of judgment. Normal and otherwise intelligent people with a strong personal conviction that they have absolute assurance of salvation, no matter what, even if they live a life of sin. Deformation would be a more appropriate term than Reformation. Some of the champions of Protestantism (See Note 1) and I use that term not in any derogatory sense, but simply because I cannot think of a better one—have much in common with the secularists, it would seem.

(Note 1: My Problem is that there is no Pope and no real authority, (although some denominations have bishops) for any denomination that began its life by rejecting authority. When we are speaking about Catholicism, and we speak of the position of the Church, everyone knows who the ultimate authority is, but if you are talking about, for instance, Evangelicals, who is the ultimate authority? Pat Robertson? I don’t think he would claim “authority,” and I don’t think others would submit to it; but he is a champion of sorts, an eloquent spokesman for Evangelicals and others. There are several “champions” who are widely known, frequently seen and heard by the public, and often seem to speak for many denominations; indeed, you may see and hear some of them many times and not be certain what their own specific denomination is. Their preaching is beautiful, inspirational and soul stirring, and we generally watch and listen to them whenever EWTN is broadcasting cartoons or Spanish programming. These are the men and women I think of whenever I think of any hierarchy or authority or spokesmen for a Protestant denomination or group of denominations. Their “authority” seems to be of the generally accepted variety.)

Many of them project Martin Luther as some sort of Saint, a truly holy man, and one who “reformed” a wayward Church; this is a viewpoint that can only be arrived at by a very selective reading of history, a reading involving even censorship. Any honest, objective reading of history cannot possibly miss the flat out immorality of Martin Luther, particularly if you read his own written words. “Be a sinner, and sin boldly; but believe more boldly still” is a good example. This is unmistakable, anti-Decalogue immorality. He actually, in his own spoken words and in his own writing, renounced not only the Decalogue, but the entire Pentateuch. And yet you will occasionally hear a Protestant champion positively reflecting on Luther’s “Earthy” or “robust” Christianity, and casting it in a good light.

Whenever you hear this sort of thing, your are listening to lies of commission and omission. And, it may be shown, history has been very selectively written, by Protestant authors, in a manner not entirely unlike that of the modern secularist “historians.” Any denomination that does not recognize that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, and any denomination that refers to the Pope, or to the Church, as the “whore of Babylon” or similar language, I can personally testify, did not arrive at his conclusion through objective historical research. These kinds of Protestants, where they are not simply ignorant, despise real history just as strongly as do the secularists. I am most suspicious of obviously well spoken and well read “champions” who treat the likes of Martin Luther as some sort of sacred icon.

When you know that truth exists, then you must seek it. When you know the truth, then you must embrace it and proclaim it; when you have embraced it, then you may not leave it, and, if you are called, then you must preach it .

If you ever wondered about a time line regarding the Christian denominations, irrefutable history provides one, and here it is.

And the list goes on, and it probably grows faster than it can be recorded. Pentecostalism, which was just born at the beginning of the 20th century, now has over 38 “major” denominations. America alone has over 250 recognized Protestant denominations, and the world has around 7,900. I have heard Protestant arguments to the effect that some Protestant denomination or another existed in ancient times in opposition to the Church proper, practicing “underground” or something. Even granting that Catholics have burned Protestant manuscripts, and Protestants have burned Catholic manuscripts, history is still so vast and recorders so numerous that no significant event can ever be completely wiped out, by anyone. At least there should be a record of a record. And yet there is a compete absence of any real, tangible record of any such massive underground operation anywhere. Protestantism is completely new, historically speaking, and the currently most popular, growing and vocal denominations are also the newest ones, and the most rapidly branching and splitting. Inventing a new Gospel and starting a church can be quite profitable, after all.

I submit as irrefutable fact the statement that the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself. The historical evidence backing that statement is overwhelming and incontrovertible. And so any knowledgeable and literate Protestant minister who remains a Protestant is faced with a very serious logical dilemma. Jesus said that His Church would not err, and He declared to Peter, the rock upon whom He would build it, that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, and that He would guide it into all truth. So if, as some or most Protestant ministers claim, the Catholic Church was indeed founded by Jesus Christ, but that it “went astray” or “wandered into error” then they must claim either that Jesus Christ lied, or that the Roman Catholic Church was not the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. Those are the only two, thin, spindly little legs that Protestantism has to stand on. Jesus said that His Church would not err, and Protestantism says that it did err. Or that there was a fifteen hundred year gap between Pentecost Sunday and the founding of some favored Protestant denomination or other, and that that one was the real Church of Christ. And in between was — well, nothing. And all the other denominations are fakes; sham churches invented on the whims of mere men.

We must remember that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides were unheard of and completely unrecorded in all of history right up until Martin Luther’s usurpation of the word Christian, and his pretense of correct spiritual teaching, direction and authority, and his personal alignment and alliance with the gates of Hell in direct opposition to the true Church Christ founded. All Sola Scriptura Christians have many, many problems with Scripture; this is just one of them. Sola Scriptura itself has a problem with Scripture. So does Sola Fides. There will be much more later on the details of the most serious Protestant dilemmas. Luther gets a special treatment, because his own writing, his own words, are so purposely and studiously ignored today, and because his revolution lead to and fed philosophical relativity, which lead to and fed indifferentism, which lead to and fed apostasy, which is the necessary forerunner of generations of atheists, and which provides ample fodder for secularism. More on this later; here I will only say that there is but one truth, and there is but one revelation, and there is but one interpretation. Not millions. Not dozens. Not even two. One.

There is one and only one Holy Spirit-guided authority, which is preaching one and only one Gospel. That being said, the fact remains that we are predominantly a Protestant nation, and a majoritarian Democracy. Both our faith and our constitution demand religious tolerance; all we can do is point the way toward the truth as best we can and let the chips fall where they may. This does not mean that we must be silent in the face of error and immorality, or that we should not do what we can to support truth and oppose error and the wrong. To the credit of modern Protestantism, most well established denominations have disavowed Luther’s worst immoral teachings, perhaps not formally, and perhaps even unknowingly, and they have adopted or evolved Christian positions that are now much closer to old Christian orthodoxy than Luther’s revolution ever would have allowed.

There are in America many millions of Protestants who actually do good works and do not consider themselves to be damned, and who regard the wages of sin to be damnation, even if they have been “saved,” and some few who even know and can explain correctly and truthfully what an “indulgence” is and always was, and how that relates to Luther’s revolution. Better still, mainstream American Protestantism has clearly moved away from Luther’s idea of subservience of the Church to state domination, and even where this movement is not complete, it is in the right direction.

Our own declaration of independence, and our first amendment “establishment clause” are evidence of a strong and early American aversion to rule by Divine Right, which moves us all back toward the Catholic teaching. Christ said to Pontius Pilot that His kingdom was not of this world. The Church’s sphere of influence involves faith, morals, and religious discipline, and she has no interest in or authority over matters purely temporal, political or secular, notwithstanding the many false statements to the contrary by her detractors. When civil law or political issues touch upon faith or morality, she may be expected to speak up; but she has never sought control of any state, although many states have sought control of her. The sole reason for the Vatican state is to keep the Church free from control by any secular authority.

The state deals with national security, law, and order. The Church deals with the Gospel, good and evil, and eternal salvation. And, salvation itself must involve a strictly voluntary and purely free will human decision; no one can be clubbed or bludgeoned or driven into Heaven. Religions such as Islam seek to, quite literally, force the world to submit to God. By contrast, the Church seeks to encourage people to love God. Islam grows by use of the sword; the Church grows by appealing to the heart.

(Note well the numbers involved here, because we live in a nation that claims to have a representative government. There are over two billion Christians in the world, over one billion of them are Catholic and one billion are represented by the various Protestant denominations, and Eastern Orthodoxy. Christianity represents over one third of the world population. In America, there are over seventy million Catholics, and some two hundred million Protestants. Of the remainder of the population in America, Jews alone outnumber every other religious minority, combined, by a very wide margin. Catholicism represents the largest single Christian denomination in America, by a very large margin. And Catholicism represents the largest single religion of any kind in the entire world, although by a smaller margin.)

Secular infection of Catholicism.

But it goes farther still. If we would press on with the pursuit of truth, then we must ask some hard-truth questions of our more liberal Catholic brothers. To understand what they meant when I heard Catholics saying that they considered themselves to be Catholic, but they opposed the dogmas of the Church, I went fairly deeply into the dogmas and doctrines to find out what the complaints were about. At the very beginning of this exercise there was a gnawing suspicion that something about the statement didn’t quite compute; how could you be Catholic and not accept Catholic dogma? The answer, of course, was that you can’t, and you don’t even need the Catechism to tell you that. But I went ahead with it anyway, because I wanted to know why dogma and doctrine and catechesis was causing a problem with so many people, and also, dogma (ours, not theirs) seemed to be another dividing point between us and the Protestants.

Some of the dogmas I looked at, I had a problem with, too. So I looked at the underlying truths; and—most important—I looked at the reason for the dogma; for if, as the Church claimed, the Tradition—the Sacred Teaching of Christ and the Apostles—never changed, then why did all the dogmas have different dates of origination? I learned a lot. What I found was a great, pure, majestic thing of grand and awesome beauty. From the beginning, the Tradition, the oral teaching, was not formally written down; the early fathers wrote fairly copiously about the teaching, but nobody actually documented it as we so commonly do today, merely for the sake of formal documentation of virtually everything. Until the Tradition was challenged by someone.

Following the traditional methodology established in Acts 15, which documents the first council of Jerusalem, called for just such a purpose, the fathers called great councils to defend some teaching; the binding decision of the council, with the Holy Spirit, was then transmitted to the whole Church. The official teaching didn’t ever begin on that day; it was always reinforced on that day, quite frequently the same day that an opposing teaching might have been declared to be heresy. Unrepentant error holders who persisted in their teaching were sometimes declared heretics and anathema.

In other words, the Church now bound all disciples to acceptance of the new dogma, which had always represented an ancient Church teaching. All of the early councils were of this variety. Dogmas were always declared in self-defense of ancient Traditional teaching of the Church, and the councils weren’t even called unless and until there was some threat to the Tradition. My favorite prime example is just one little piece of the Council of Trent, the part which deals with the Canon, or list of books, that make up the Bible. Many Protestants like to claim that that Council, called long (far too long) after the beginning of the disaster of the Reformation, and which dealt with a huge number of issues, marks the time when the Catholic Church added apocryphal books into the Bible. (The Catholic Bible contains 73 books, the Protestant Bible contains only 66, because Martin Luther threw out seven books.)

What the Council declared to be the official Catholic Bible was St. Jerome’s Vulgate, prepared under the very specific direction of the Pope and the Bishops of the Church, completed by St. Jerome in AD 400, and in continuous use by the Church ever since. All 73 books of it. This was the world’s first one-book, one-language Bible, and it is the only one ever addressed by Church Council, because only once was it ever seriously threatened with replacement.

There are other evidences, for instance those regarding the linguistic nuances that prove that the ancient texts quoted by Jesus and the Apostles were from the same sources used by St. Jerome; however, the mere existence of the Vulgate, in all of its 73 books, in all its glory, that comes down to us today completely unchanged, settles the question. This is typical; this is the common thread that runs through all of it. What we are looking at here is something ancient, and pure, and true.

The Church is deeply involved with and intertwined with Divinity. She was established by Jesus Christ—God—and is continuously guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church is holy. The popes and the bishops are regularly touched by the Holy Ghost. Which is not widely recognized today, even within the Church. The most popular Church teaching among doctrine haters regards contraception and abortion, items born of Nazi eugenics, fed by the perverse “sexual revolution” of the 60s and 70s, and strengthened by false teachings regarding another straw-dragon, the ever popular population problem, which is dealt with elsewhere in this site. As usual, the Church is right, the opposition is wrong, but the opposition sounds right, and the Church is made to look old, stodgy, unscientific and unrealistic. This represents a horrible social problem.

But there is another serious internal problem in the Church, and it involves how many in the Church would replace our ancient liturgy, which might be appropriately termed a Liturgy For the Ages with something new. Continuously new. Many dioceses and parishes seem to have joined something like a Liturgy Of The Month Club, and in some, a monthly revision of the liturgy is not nearly often enough. They remove even the Crucifix. They remove the Blessed Sacrament. They remove the kneelers. They remove sacred art. They even modify the Scriptural Lectionary, the liturgical, calendar oriented Bible from which the daily and Sunday Mass readings are read from every day, and why do they modify it? Well, so that it can be really neato-peachy-keeno today, which means, to be inclusive, and not so judgmental, and to get rid of all those awful masculine pronouns and patriarchal references, and to, like, get with the times.

We are to believe that the sexist writing of all of those Neanderthal inspired writers might have been OK in the past, but that nobody wants any of that old time religion any more. After all, most of the Protestants are “up to date.” All of these things, but particularly the lessening of the importance of the Eucharist, drive toward the destruction of Catholic faith. It might be driving toward the destruction of the Church itself, but that drive, we have it on very good authority, is destined to fail. But the Eucharist is the central point of our faith. It is the central point of the whole Church and of each individual Catholic Church, each of which should be designed with the Eucharist as its focal point, its center, its purpose for being.

It is the Eucharist, it is Christ, here with us, our Emmanuel, more than anything else that separates us from the Protestants. Scripture is loaded with the importance of it. The Last Supper; Christ’s entire Eucharistic discourse in John 6; There is 1 Cor. 10, and 1 Cor. 11, and many others. What could be more plain than 1 Cor 11:29? How could any Catholic dare to remove the Body of the Lord to some little side chapel somewhere because He’s “in the way” of other activities? What other activity replaces, even temporarily, Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar, on sacred ground, inside a Church built and consecrated for His purpose? Who are these new liturgists, and what exactly inspires them? Exactly how do they differentiate themselves from the Protestants?

Read Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping Of The Altars for a description of what the Reformers did to the Churches and what they forced upon the unwilling English Catholic population, even despite the best intentions of Henry VIII, once the “Reformers” were free to act. First it was the crucifixes, then the Blessed Sacrament, then they chiseled and gouged off the faces, hands and feet of all the bas relief statuary, then they smashed all the Scriptural stained glass windows, and on, and on, and on. The finest art in England was burned or smashed or defaced. The people were not allowed to kneel during the consecration; then the consecration itself was not allowed. This is a close parallel to what today’s modern liturgists seem to want to accomplish.

This was a resurrection of an ancient heresy (among others,) condemned by the second council of Nicea way back in 787; it was called iconoclasm, and declared to be a heresy. It seems to keep coming back. The goal — in my personal opinion — seems to be, that once someone has split from the Church, or once someone has decided against some part of the Church, then they must then do all in their power to destroy the Church and all traces of it. I have been in Catholic Churches that I couldn’t tell were Catholic Churches. It makes me want to vomit. How do today’s Catholic reformers reconcile their own Catholicity with the fact that they oppose Church teaching, Church authority, and pretend to “evolve” the truth laid down by Christ and the Apostles in the one Church rightly prophesied by Him to withstand even the worst that Hell can offer? These people are simply a new breed of Protestant, following the wide and easy downhill path, worn down by others, spiraling from orthodoxy through looseness through rebellion through secularism to — nothing. To spiritual death.

Gal. 1:6-9:

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

2 John 1:9-11:

Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.

Acts 20:28-30:

Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

2 Peter 2:1-3:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousness, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not: and their perdition slumbereth not.

All of these things operate to modify our sense of morality. We are morally drifting; as a nation, we have lost our moral bearings. The ancient, traditional morality of Western civilization is based upon the Decalogue; the Ten Commandments. So is civil law. We are talking about monotheistic morality here, and everybody on Earth knows what that is. But we need to spend some time thinking about what it’s being replaced with, right under our noses, while we even participate in the activity.

Secular right and wrong.

There are entirely new lists of rights and wrongs that have little or nothing to do with the eternal truths, the beatitudes, the sermon on the mount, or how we are supposed to treat one another, and they have their basis in error and falsehood, most of which is taught in the same schools in which holy Scripture is religiously censored. Children are actually being taught, and have been being taught for some time, that the world is going to run out of natural resources, in their lifetimes, and they believe it; children will generally tend to believe what their teachers tell them. Not only does this teaching have no empirical evidence whatsoever to back it up, but evidence abounds that more and more natural resource deposits are found every year in quantities that could not possibly be consumed in thousands or millions of generations. Ten thousand Saddam Hussiens all operating simultaneously and without any opposition could not possibly destroy the world’s natural resources in any lifetime. They couldn’t even get it all out of the ground in time to burn it, or spill it, or whatever. They couldn’t even begin to tap all the untapped sources, and they couldn’t fully exploit what’s already being mined and drilled and produced.

There are incredibly vast reserves of known resources, off shore, on shore, in remote areas and in not so remote areas, that are currently not even being considered to be tapped, for political reasons, or for environmental reasons, or for price-control reasons, or for profit reasons, or some other problem that needs to be resolved to make it worthwhile to someone. But younger generations are convinced by their false education; to them, whatever conserves natural resources is right, and what consumes them is wrong, and the Decalogue’s rules of right and wrong can take the back seat.

They’ve been taught that an “unfair distribution” of resources (and everything else) exists, and that these resources need fair redistribution. The term unfair distribution itself implies that everything was once gathered by someone, and then unfairly distributed. Nonsense, of course, but that’s modern teaching. It goes along with the false teaching that we in America and other developed countries consume more natural resources than do the more populous underdeveloped ones, when in point of fact we produce far more resources, and we produce far more of everything else, including food, than we consume. Of course we consume more than third-world countries; but then we also produce more, far more than we consume. We couldn’t possibly consume it all, and because we can’t consume it all, and because we can’t even export it all, and because it’s not particularly profitable to do so, we produce far, far less than we are capable of producing.

Each big, successful lie usually has a germ of truth embedded in it. Most of today’s young scholars don’t even know that people produce natural resources, just as people produce wealth, and people produce food. Nothing that we get at Kroger’s or at the Shell station or from the local power company grew in any enchanted forest or was picked by elves, or popped into your gas tank, or came out of the electric socket in your house by magic. If it all just stayed in the Earth, it wouldn’t even be a resource. The simple free market capitalist principle at play here has been in operation — when allowed to be — ever since man moved into task specialization, which was a very long time ago, and it says that each free man in the free market place produces more than he consumes, else he does not get paid; the principle operates for nations the same as it does for individuals. This principle is the source of wealth.

This very simple principle operates automatically everywhere that it is free to operate, and in those places another new person is viewed as human capital, because he will produce something, and he is valued by society, because he increases the wealth of society. He is a provider. In those lands where this principle is not free to operate automatically, another new person is never viewed as human capital, but rather, as a problem; merely as another mouth to feed, and he is not valued by society, because he drains wealth from society. He is a dependent.

If this problem is to be resolved, it will not be by redistributing everything, it will be by modifying the social structure that restrains healthy normal men from being or becoming independent providers and producers and wealth builders instead of dependent mouths to feed, and this is something that cannot be done from outside the society. It took a great revolution to do it here, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears to maintain it. But here we are, in our decline, and whole generations firmly believe that redistribution is right, and unfair distribution is wrong, and, again, the Decalogue’s rules of right and wrong can take to the back seat, while a more up-to-date set of values takes over.

Just as secular Marxists plan and work for “Utopia,” a perfect, flawless society, certain secular elitists who like to think of themselves as naturalists plan and work for a perfect, flawless, “Utopian” human being. This is the Nazi dream of the super race. Men made in another image. (As a side note, this is just one of many areas we will address in which the objective truth seeker may prove for himself that, as a general rule, men who call themselves or like to be referred to as naturalists hate and oppose and try to change and gain absolute control over nature.) They plan for the “improvement” of the human race by dark of night and with new, high gloss, politically corrected language, when they publicly speak of it at all, to blur what’s going on and make it look good, ever since the ideas of Hitler fell into great disfavor in Western societies. Aiding them in their task is one of the most successfully spread and accepted lies being taught in schools today, and that is the straw-villain myth of the population problem, which gives the “experts” unlimited opportunities to exploit the science and push it farther.

Eugenics is what it was called in the days of the Nazis. Today the biggest proponent of it in America, and probably in the world, is called Planned Parenthood, an organization that is widely thought of as a do-good, public-service group. In actuality, a cursory examination of their own printed material will show that they oppose parenthood, but not sex, of any variety. They oppose new children, but promote the natural causative activity. Again, the natural purpose of sex is procreation and the naturalists oppose that nature, but not the natural causative activity. Naturalists opposing nature, by any means available. They have been doing it for so long and failing at it that they have become obsessed with it.

They push pills, condoms, abortions, sterilizations, all kinds of talks and seminars and literature on the mechanics of sex and sodomy and perverse sexual activities, and the goodness of masturbation. That’s what they’re about, really; getting more people involved in illicit sexual activities. But also, they are about good old fashioned Nazi eugenics, in the tradition of their foundress, Margaret Sanger, whom we will discuss later. They push human control here and everywhere, but mostly they push it in those other countries, where the people are black, or brown, or yellow, and where there are so many more of them. And they push it in the poorer, third-world countries, because increased birth rates there are seen as a potential problem for us, sometime down the road. It is crucial for the objective man to recognize the attempt here to institute a new and deadly idea of right and wrong in our society.

The euphemisms are so smooth. Population control sounded too severe and too authoritarian, perhaps too Nazi, so it became family planning. And any Family planning that involves contraception and abortion and sterilization is, with just a little bit of thought, an oxymoron. And so it became reproductive rights. But, it may easily be argued, no one can be forced to reproduce; forced reproduction is called rape, and it’s against the law. We have always been and still are free to choose to marry or to not marry, which means that we’ve always had reproductive rights. So now it’s women’s reproductive health. But powerful drugs and hormones taken for birth-control purposes, surgical means of birth control, aborting babies at any term of pregnancy, and sterilization are all items that have nothing whatsoever to do with women’s health, except to harm it.

If you ask the normal will it help or will it hinder question regarding women’s health, the answer will come down on the hinder side every single time. But Hillary used the smoothest one so far, as she spoke up in Argentina on how “family planning” is absolutely “crucial to advancing the progress of women.” How? Progress in what direction? Screwing more and having less babies? It doesn’t work, as Planned Parenthood should well know by its many decades of failure experience; but they don’t know, or they have another agenda. All birth control methods, without exception, have a failure rate, and none are trustworthy disease preventers. The more people screw, the more babies they will have; its kind of a rule of thumb. The more illicit sex is promoted, the more disease will increase and spread; that’s another rule of thumb.

There is nothing difficult about this. Sex and babies kind of go together, as do illicit sex and illegitimacy, and illicit sex and venereal disease. There is no such thing as safe illicit sex; there is no such thing as foolproof birth control. And the legitimate birth rate, or even the entire birth rate, in Argentina, or Brazil, or anywhere else in the world, is not going to hurt us in America in any way shape or form; that’s a sick, dangerous notion with roots that go deep into racism and Nazism, and it sets the stage for scapegoating, and it prepares the young to do terrible things in the future, if the ends may be seen to justify the means, and their morals are low enough, or if Western morality is replaced by something less.

We have no interest, we have no business, we have no right to pressure other nations into acceptance let alone state enforcement of eugenic practices. The sexual immorality that seeks to replace Western sexual morality has found residence in the Whitehouse (in the past, thank God) and in the UN and in Planned Parenthood, and that immorality quite consistently seeks to eliminate, by unnatural, nature-defeating means, the consequences of illicit sex, while promoting illicit sex, of every variety imaginable and some varieties that are quite unimaginable in polite company. This is a “morality” that hates babies, hates families, and, really, hates people. Particularly poor people and people of other races, who are deemed to be inferior, and who are in need of genetic weeding, or pruning, or elimination.

Secular perfectionism.

That the elitists have set themselves an impossible task is beyond their intellectual capacity to discern. Perfection is the goal, and the ends justify the means. Buried in their teaching are the seeds of future Holocausts. And the chief perpetrators probably act more from scientific and social stupidity than from evil intent. Note well the new “right and wrong” rules that move the Decalogue farther back into the back seat; if you’re not sure, ask your kids, and they’ll tell you. It is now moral to regularly abort babies with birth control pills. It is now moral to fornicate as long as you are responsible about it. All sex is legitimate if it is consensual and “safe.” Other sexual “orientations” are absolutely no different than heterosexuals and should be treated no differently in any circumstances. Particularly if they want to be scoutmasters or baby sitters or teachers or priests. And abortion is fine, so long as the secular media continues to religiously censor the products of abortion, from any term of pregnancy, so that the public does not ever see the actual reality of it.

All of these new replacement “right” and “wrong” rules contribute in some way to strife and class conflict; some more than others. A real strong one comes from the inclusiveness and radical feminist movement, sometimes referred to as the Femi-Nazi movement. It has already forced (although it didn’t take much force) the media and academia to modify all language in common use, to not, Heaven forbid, exclude anybody in any sentence that anyone might utter to anyone, from the newsboy to the ice-cream vendor. They seek to force us to use unnatural language, language that does not come readily to mind or to tongue and that always comes out stilted and queer sounding. For no valid reason.

Anyone who does not recognize that the word “man” has, among other things, a generic meaning that includes all members of the species, is a rather poorly educated semi-literate in need of remedial English classes, and I don’t particularly care how many advanced degrees they might hold. Inclusiveness, particularly of the feminist variety, drives a class wedge between women and men, and between women and other women; it causes strife and discord. At the center of it is another “struggle” lie about another “group” that has been “exploited,” and this time around the villain is ugly old Patriarchy and Male Authoritarianism, which, of course, act to enslave women. Especially all of the Ph.D.s among them.

Women who buy into this crap go through torments and anguish and agonizing over such things as who they are, who they should be, and who’s the scapegoat. Society did it. Society must go. This is the beginning of a new revolutionary feminist, and the Left loves it, because strife is good. And so we see all sorts of impossible rules popping up all over the place, regarding quotas by other names, “Equal Opportunity” that is anything but equal, “Affirmative Action” that is, when it is not purely racist, purely sexist. When ever any of these labels are attached to any help wanted add, it seems to me that it would be more efficient to simply re-word it to say “white men need not apply.”

Secular intolerance.

But it goes farther than hiring and firing and promoting and demoting. It begins to infect the rules of Democracy. Corporate rules, and even private club charters, and even Church council By-Laws, are using Femi-Nazi wording and rules. The most common involve how “candidates” for office must be numerically representative of races, ethnicities and sexes among the membership; and not only candidates, but actual elected office holders. Now, just how do you do that, and remain a Democracy? If no woman candidate comes forward, or allows her name to be placed on a ballot, what do we do then? After all, we have a rule, and we must live by our rules. So, the only alternative is to drag some woman, kicking and screaming, against her will, into candidacy, so that we can have a sexually balanced group to elect from. And, if nobody votes for her, what then? After all, we have a rule, and we must live by our rules. So, she must forcibly be put into office, and the voters may be damned. And Democracy may be damned. The rule says that for every man in office, there must be a woman in office, and so the rules take over, and the humans take a back seat.

Obviously, this is another example of shear stupidity that approaches the lunacy level, and it cannot work, but note well that you personally can very easily prove for yourself that these kinds of rules exists everywhere. You don’t have to look too far to find them. In your office, in your factory, in your Church, in your club, in your City Council. Look around. So whatever favors the advancement of a woman (or a black, or a Hispanic, or a homosexual, or a handicapped person,) it is right and whatever favors merely the best and most practical candidate for the job is wrong, simple practicality is wrong, and this new sense of right and wrong moves the Decalogue farther back into the back seat, perhaps even out of the back seat and into the trunk.

All of the contentious issues we are talking about here have within them the possibilities of some new strain of class warfare; these are all issues which set us against each other and cause social strife. The divisions, meaning the “groups,” are at least twice as numerous as the issues themselves. At the farthest extreme, of course, we find the lawless pitted against the victims of crime, who are in league with the law enforcers. I present here for your consideration an observation that seeking freedom, without proper restraint, leads to loose morality. And immorality leads to submitting to random impulse. And improperly restrained impulsiveness eventually lands one into a direct collision with legal authority. And those collisions eventually lead to the complete loss of freedom, which is, of course, the first thing that was sought, and the one thing that was desired.

Kenneth Minogue tells us that Western countries contain two roughly distinct sets of people who are at odds with each other, and he describes them as “those independent souls who manage their own lives—let us call them the Individualists — and those whose lives constantly place them in contact with authority in the form of policemen, social workers, prison officers, and so on — we may call them the Impulsives.” (National Review, November 10, 1997; Id Control, by Kenneth Minogue, pages 46 and 64)

His examples are all quite familiar. Promiscuous teenage girls inevitably become “one-parent-families” living on welfare and supervised by social workers. Doped no hopers, people who prey on people, and people who can’t keep their fingers out of the till feed the growing job market that employs the police, the prison services, the courts, the probation officers, the bail-bondsmen, and on, and on. The Impulsives seem to be gaining; but at the same time, and not of their own doing, so are the police, and the state, and central authority. What is perhaps less recognizable for most of us is the idea that the upper levels of any elite class or order or authority or political power who promote freedom best, and in the most unrestrained way, actually move us toward the eventual loss of all freedom. Whenever we, individually or collectively, move away from the voluntary, willfully excepted restraints of Western morality, no matter how “free” that may seem to make us feel at the time, we move away from freedom and ever closer to total slavery. We need to turn our individual faces, and our national face, back toward God.

Secular values.

In any list of “values” touted today you will generally not even hear any of the Commandments of God. Some will even list such things as being vegetarian as a virtue, before (or without) any mention of the theological virtues or the cardinal virtues. Some will list an environmental injury of some kind before (or without) any mention of the seven deadly sins. The problem is that there is a thread of truth behind each of the new “values” that are supplanting Western morality. Yes, we should conserve the environment, yes, we should eliminate pollution, no, we should not smoke, no, we should not drink to excess, yes, we should live in a more healthy manner, yes, we should be kind to foreigners, yes, we should fasten our seat belts, yes, we should wear helmets on motorcycles and bicycles, and on, and on, -- but, what about God?

The minute we began to refer to it as “our” environment instead of “His” creation, we began to go astray; an inch off course at the beginning point can be miles off course down the line. And we’ve had several major changes of moral direction, all for the worse. Even if you only look at the temporal issues and leave God out of it (a particularly stupid thing to do,) you see that we have stepped aside and allowed Big Brother in the door, and he now tells us more and more what we may or may not do in our private lives. Ask a smoker. Yes, he shouldn’t smoke; I agree; but he does smoke, and now Big Brother has the gall to step into his private sphere of activity and tell him what he may or may not do, even on his own land, even on his own time, even in his own company.

And you and I, non-smokers that we are, are standing by and watching, or worse, participating, in this reduction of individual rights, in this usurpation of all individual authority and autonomy, and this centralization of power, which threatens to eventually render us all into complete dependents of some new god-state. Secularists frequently remark on the arrogance of Christians for automatically assuming that their morality is somehow better than any other, although many others exist in the world, and some are, in theory, older, and perhaps somehow better. How do we dare make such an assumption? It’s easy. Christian morality is superior to every other set of morals in existence, in a practical sense as well as in a spiritual sense. Monotheistic morality is at least eight thousand years old, and Christian morality is two thousand years old, and it hasn’t changed, and most of the non-monotheistic world has adopted at least part of it, simply because of its justice, practicality and orderliness.

Got a better morality? Show me. Name it. Hitler and Stalin have amply demonstrated the morality of the secularists. I submit as irrefutable fact that the Papacy of the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest surviving uninterrupted, continuously living institution in the world today, by a very wide margin. The unchanged Truths it protects have become the bedrock of national constitutions and international rules of order and agreements. Whether monarchies or Democracies, Christian nations in general do better than do others; in fact, they help others. Between a Christian land and a non-Christian land, which is more free? Of course the Decalogue is the best moral foundation in the world; what else can even compare to it? The UN? Planned Parenthood? This is the truth secularism hates, and seeks to censor. The media will never allow any orthodox Catholic uninterrupted time at the podium, and the Protestants are only slightly less censoring in that regard.

What they all prefer is a Catholic they can be comfortable with, who professes to be Catholic, but then finds a way to let everyone know that he disagrees with some “archaic” teaching or other, just enough to show that he’s not really a Catholic, but someone the Protestants or the secularists can get along with. Every Catholic ever seen in the secular media will be seen to oppose some Catholic teaching, or he will not be seen in the secular media. Period. There has to be some controversy in which he is unsure of himself, or which he is agonizing over, or in which he takes a position against the Church. And it’s the same with any programming that touches on Catholicism.

The secularist American major national media will not — it cannot — show orthodox Catholicism as it is, or in any positive way. It’s against the secular media rules. Satan knows his enemy. I offer as proof of this statement one outspoken American citizen, sometime Presidential aspirant Alan Keyes, who again and again comes back to the same bedrock Christian morality on issue after issue, and isn’t heard, isn’t taken seriously, isn’t even considered in the running, by the major secular media. And if the secular media does not want him in the running, then he will not be in the running. Mr. Keyes’ problem is not that he is too black; it is that he is too Catholic.

The only Catholics the secular media (and probably the Protestant majority) would ever promote as being politically viable are Catholics like the politicians from the Kennedy family, which is to say, nominal Catholics, or situational Catholics, or conditional Catholics. People who are Catholic on Sunday, or during a baptism or a wedding or a funeral, but not at, like, a pro-choice rally, and not when it’s time to address the Gay and Lesbian Special Rights Movement, and not when it’s time to economically or politically pressure some other country to force eugenic practices on their own people.

Keyes opposes, for instance, all threats to the inalienable rights of any and all innocent human beings to continue to live, and he opposes them under all circumstances. That is simply too strong and too moral a position in this secular American age. Secularists flatly oppose that position, and predominant Protestant morality is far too secularized, and too soft and mushy to even recognize the clear and simple Christian principle involved here, let alone unconditionally back it. Irrational fear of Catholicism often exceeds even recognition of simple right and wrong, and the ability to correctly identify the true enemy of truth.

The conflict between secularism and Westernism (Christianity) operates at many different levels. It is evident in the Left-Right argument over Socio-economic organizations of markets, states and populations, as seen between Socialism and the combination of free market capitalism with representative, meaning majoritarian, Democracy. It is evident in the Left-Right argument between scientists who promote “ends justify the means” views of reality, and those increasingly fewer ones who stubbornly and relentlessly seek simple objective truth. It is evident in the Left-Right argument between the idea of “evolutionary” religion that is capable of changing with the times to match varying social realities and the newly discovered scientific “realities” of the moment, and the opposing idea of an immutable, unchanging, Divinely Revealed Truth regarding faith, morality, and the rules of human behavior.

Stopping the secular.

This website establishes the battle lines between secularism and Western civilization on social and scientific issues, and it addresses the conflict between semi-secularized Christianity (or Protestantism) and the Church, and it addresses the conflict between semi-secularized Catholics and the unchanging Church proper, and describes how we got to this point. The first conflict deals with seemingly non-religious social reality issues, and how these social issues and trends are affected, whether helped or hindered, alternatively by secularism and Christianity.

The next conflict gets closer to home, touching on the continuous modification of our collective national sense of Judao-Christian morality - right and wrong - and exactly what’s causing these dramatic moral changes. Revealed Truth regarding Christian morality tells men how to regard and behave toward one another, and it tells them nothing about how to treat or pursue any particular field of science; yet science (or pseudo-science) so often today is used to tell men to regard or behave differently toward each other. Perhaps the core “war” question regards whether a science or a religion is the best vehicle for the establishment of a morality.

In each area of conflict, the key object is how we are to regard and treat our neighbor, and exactly who is teaching each viewpoint, and what their ethos or foundation or basis is. In each area the site provides a seed or some fuel for the development of a plan of action for individual men; if this situation is going to get turned around, men are going to have to do it, and the first thing we need to reform is ourselves. There’s just you and me, buddy, and if we don’t do it won’t get done. None of us are going anywhere worth going until our faith is right. I pray that simply seeing some social issues from a different perspective might provide incentive or catalyst to positively modify some attitudes and actions regarding those issues. Men must lead the way, and that means that individual men must first reform themselves.

The trail to national or world redemption begins with prayer and a return to basic faith and devotion to God, on the part of individual men, as an integral part of the normal, popular, accepted expression of manhood itself. Secularism’s greatest victory is in the spread of the lie that there is something un-manly about the free expression of religiosity, and that religion is something best left to the women, except on the Sabbath, when great, big, hairy-chested, manly types like you and me can take time out from our more important worldly work to pay lip service to the faith, and to keep up appearances.

Church, when attended at all, becomes, for many, an unfortunate necessity for peace in the home, something to occasionally just grit your teeth and do, when not engaged in real work, and when not on vacation, and in between football games and beers. For millions of American men, Church is something that interferes with T-times, and fishing time, and hunting time, and sleeping-in time, and sports. That, my friend, is the almost totally achieved goal of secularism: to emphasize the world, and the worldly, and all non-spiritual issues, at the expense of faith, and faith-related issues, and faith’s relationship to all issues. So that we loose track of priorities, and of things most important.

We need to return to prayer, and to make prayer a normal part of our lives, and to not be ashamed, but proud of it, even when some of “the guys” catch us praying. There is no reason on Earth that devout men should not hold their heads up high. So the some of this site is devoted to prayer and liturgy. There are some devotions that have been extremely beneficial to me, and I hope that they will be beneficial to you.

Atheism denies God, or gods, and is otherwise ambivalent about believers or about any other people. Secularism, however, denies all possibility of any spirituality, other-worldliness, or any non-material reality, and denies it in a very activist way, which is to say that it attacks spirituality wherever it finds it. Secularism denies not only the sacred, but the very idea of sacredness itself; secularism holds nothing whatsoever to be sacred and opposes the idea of sacredness. What is worse is that secularism pretends to be neutral while it does this work, which, of course, makes secularism a liar.

We think of the secular position being the one that is neutral between, say, the Baptist position and the Catholic position, when in truth it opposes both, although at any moment in time, it may in a very sly way favor one over the one it seeks to destroy first. If secularism is anything at all it is a concentrated attack on the very idea of sacredness, and all things held to be sacred by men. Secularism is an absolute requirement for any form of Marxism, and must be voluntarily adopted or ruthlessly enforced in any land in which Socialism is to be used as the socio-economic control system. By the Socialist teaching that the ends justify the means, secularism justifies lies told for social purposes, and, really, anything at all.

If Decalogue-based monotheistic morality has any serious enemy anywhere, the most serious visible enemy it has is secularism. In every regard, but most especially in regard to treatment of truth, the difference between Divinely inspired morality and secularism is immediate, stark and clear. In the Gospel of John (Jn 8:44), Jesus Christ, God Himself, gives us the two famous titles of Satan, describing him as a liar, and a murderer. These two titles go together. In this site, in many places and on many topics, you will find references to secular distortions of truth and even flagrant lies, and the promotion and teaching and multiplication of error, which, in many cases, leads to a general lowering of public estimation of the value of human life, and, quite often, directly causes the loss of innocent human life, sometimes on a grand scale.

In other cases secular distortion of truth and open falsehood contribute directly to some loss of freedom, some migration of power from the people to the state, and some increase in barbarism; in many cases these moral abuses indirectly lead to eventual loss of innocent human life. The pattern is quite clear and unmistakable.

Secular media travesty in Vietnam.

I started out looking at the many years worth of media lies regarding the Vietnam war, which destroyed the will of the American people to resist the Communization of Southeast Asia and caused the loss of the war, not on the battlefield, where not one American unit ever lost one single battle, but on the streets of America. That research got me into the Communism-Americanism questions, which in turn got me into economics, social philosophy and political thought, and that, ultimately, dumped me into the core of the truth versus falsehood question, which, of course, must touch on morality, which must touch on faith, and the opposition to it.

In our culture, as in all Western culture, morality and faith are completely inseparable and inter-dependent. You cannot do injury to one without doing similar injury to the other, and you cannot help one without similarly helping the other. Sovereign Citizen sought to address the more political and social aspects of the war between truth and error, and how that war has adversely affected our Constitutional rights and the very idea of America; Testimony (and, now, the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center) cuts to the core and directly attacks the lie of secularism itself.

Defend the faith? Hell, I intend to attack the enemy. Now that I recognize secularism for what it is, I intend to attack it directly, everywhere I find it. I will publicly identify it and paint it orange at every opportunity. When it’s in the open, I will directly attack it; when it attacks me, I will meet it head on; every time I see any part of it above ground, I will take a shot at it. The Spiritual attack on Satan must be led by the Holy Father, the clergy and all who have taken Holy Orders, with all the help we can give them through tithes and offerings and prayer and action.

But as a layman, my chief interest is in the more material and temporal manifestations of evil, which express themselves as error and untruth. Material error and falsehood are items which laymen, operating in the temporal world, can do something about, in a very material way. The more public that the war between material error and material truth is made, the better. The more clear the public language the better. Only Catholics have nothing whatsoever to fear from the unrestrained objective search for truth in any field of human knowledge, and therefore Catholic laymen should be leading the material world fight for truth. It is true that the Church and her ordained ministers are best equipped to lead and teach and direct us toward Transcendental Truth. It is also true that we who earn our daily bread out in the material world have much to say about Material Truth, and that we have a duty, and every right, and every reasonable expectation, first, to sound off, and second, to be heard.

Be aware of this: you will not find politically correct speech or pro-feminist wording in this site. I will write as I speak, in plain old English, as used today in contemporary America as opposed to academia or show-biz or Washington or elitist society. The English language lacks a gender-neutral pronoun, and the most commonly used English collective pronouns are masculine; big deal. The French language lacks a gender-neutral pronoun, and, I am given to understand, the most commonly used French collective pronouns are feminine. But we don’t hear about French men having hissy-fits and flying into blue snits over terms such as Madam Liberte or La Belle France, and whimpering that such terms somehow marginalize or denigrate or exclude half of the French population.

Modern academicians whine that today’s children and youth do not understand the term “man” when used as a generic term for the human race; they have been educated, by academicians, to understand that it means, solely, the male of the species. This idiotic reconstruction, or deconstruction, of the meaning of English words has even infected well educated and even elderly adults who should know better. The idea seems to be that, since our children have been taught in error, we adults need to adopt the same error in our thinking rather than attempt to re-educate our poorly educated children.

There will be more on the state of American education later. We do not need to follow the lead of academia and be taught by children when we know that it’s supposed to be the other way round. I will not search for gender-neutral pronouns; if you are not smart enough to know that a phrase such as “all men” or “mankind” includes women, then I can’t help you. Get out your red pencil and start editing your own copy of this site, because I’m not going to do it. And then, go to India or any other third-world country and get yourself the decent kind of a fifth-grade English language education that you can’t get here in America any more; you can use it. The same thing goes for races; I’m not going to bend over backwards to hyphenate some ethnic characteristic to “American” just to be “inclusive.” You don’t need to call me a Lithuanian-Norwegian-American, and I don’t need to call you anything even approaching that stupid level of ethnic or racial title. Get over it.

One last thing: I don’t know about you, but I’m getting pretty tired of seeing American men being turned into any kind of wimps, but most especially, spiritual wimps. It may be seen, usually, that men may enter into lively discussion, debate and argument about anything at all, and go at it with joyful vigor, with one exception. We can argue about sports, politics, fishing, cars, calibers or gauges, women, kids, dogs, anything at all - except our religion.

One of us mentions religion, and suddenly we all begin to tip-toe around and whisper and look sincere, and we furrow our brows and assume a look of extreme concern, and we ask questions so very gingerly and diplomatically, and we nod and bob our heads in apparent acceptance of the ridiculous, because, goodness gracious, religion is just such a personal thing, and, why, Heavens, if we say something divisive, why, one of us might just burst into tears, poor dear. If you’re packing the required equipment of manhood, and you cannot defend your faith, then you need to get a faith, or leave the field. Men don’t need to mince words when they’re talking to other men, and I don’t intend to.

This site is about human rights versus totalitarianism; individual liberty versus social planning; individualism versus collectivism; liberty versus equality; Capitalism and Democracy versus Socialism. Therefore it is also inescapably about the enormous, irreconcilable chasm of differences in moral, religious, economic and political philosophy that stretches, yawns and disappears between the American populace on one side, and the ruling class of America’s intellectual elite on the other.

This is my main contention:

1) That the power to control and direct our individual and collective destiny is finite, fixed, and has limits, and that the government gains power only at the expense of power of the people, and vice versa. Most of this limited power, always more than 50% (and the more the better, within reason) should always be held by the people, and be expressed as individual rights which give the people the ability to control their own lives and meet as much responsibility as they are willing to assume. Of that smaller amount of power which remains with the government, most of it should reside at the lower levels; i.e., the township should have more power than the county, the county should have more power than the state, and the state should have more power than the nation; those elected representatives with the most power and ability to affect our day to day lives should have to face us squarely in the town hall.

2) That the citizens of the United States of America are sovereign in this land, as they were intended to be by their founding fathers. That three major areas of citizen sovereignty, although not the only ones, which should never be surrendered or compromised in any way are:

A) the open market place, where every penny in any citizen’s pocket represents that citizen’s potential vote for whatever goods, services, investments or nonsense that he and he alone decides that he needs or wants or can afford. No one, least of all any government agency, should ever be able to tell him how to spend one single penny from his pocket, or to restrict the open market place.

B) the voting booth, where the sovereign citizen gets his opportunity to endorse, reject or replace public servants and public issues.

C) the jury box, where the sovereign citizen sits in judgment upon, not only the facts of the case and guilt or innocence of the accused, but the law itself. As we shall see, despite any judge’s instructions to the jury to try the facts alone, the jurist has not only a right, but an obligation, to vote his conscience and, for example, acquit an obviously guilty person when the law under which the accused is charged is itself unjust and stupid. This is the sovereign citizen’s only opportunity to repudiate bad law created by his supposedly representative government. Sovereign American citizens should never be forced by their government to live with bad law, and their government should never hold so much power as to be able to force them to do so.

This is my main challenge: that if anyone would contest the principle of the basic sovereignty of the American citizen, particularly in the market place, the voting booth or the jury box, or would contest the power of the citizen to largely control his own destiny, then let him do so openly, in broad daylight, before the public, in a loud clear voice, and without ambiguity.

These conditions, if enforced, immediately eliminate the Communists and Marxists of various persuasions from participation, because 1) their published arguments have been thoroughly repudiated and trashed by history, and 2) their veiled arguments cannot stand the light of day. The remaining liberal neosocialist Left wingers are confounded by the requirement to be clear and without ambiguity. For there is no question that the basic fundamental argument of the liberal Left is that they consider the general populace to be far too dumb to be able to govern themselves; but they will go to considerable lengths to avoid saying so out loud or in so many words, because after all, the general populace, dumb though it may be, still owns the voting booth.

The main thrust of this site is based upon two contentions, one regarding Catholics, and the other regarding secularists, and both regarding truth and its treatment. These are my contentions:

First, that devout Catholics, and only devout Catholics, have absolutely nothing to fear, nothing to loose and everything to gain regarding results from any objective, open, honest, relentless quest for truth, in any field of human knowledge. If research or learning more interests you, then pursue the truth relentlessly; if you remain objective, you will not be disappointed. If you love to read, then read broadly. The more you learn the stronger your faith will become.

Second, that devout secularists always have a plan or an agenda or a purpose which is of greater value to them than is the truth. This plan or agenda or purpose is, for them, the worthy end that justifies any means at all that may be used to satisfy it, including even the deformation of the truth. Secularists have much to worry about in confronting real, actual truth; and so they suppress it. The ends justify the means. There is much about the life of the typical secularist that cannot stand the light of day, and there is much about secular theories of all kinds that cannot stand the light of any real, open, objective investigation.

Any true search for truth must of its nature be very broad based; the seeker must cast a very large net, and throw nothing away, and examine all. Evidence for or against ideas and ideals are found in unpredictable places. Any broad based quest for truth will lead to the recognition of the unmistakable relationships between the great religious positions, and the economic positions, and the socio-political positions alive in the world today. These relationships are unavoidable, if the search is broad enough.

First, within the largest religion on Earth, the religion that is the cornerstone of all of Western culture, we find the direct, unbreakable linkage between the faith and the morality held by the disciples of Christianity. Whatever helps or hinders either one equally helps or hinders the other. Last, at the other end of the spectrum, is secularism, which stands in direct opposition to all spirituality and all sense of the sacred, and this secularism masks itself and portrays itself as a “neutral” and an “objective” proponent of “truth,” when in fact it’s real purpose is to oppose, live outside of, and even destroy the morality of Westernism.

It is between these two extremes that we find all of the other major contentious issues that we will deal with. Not the least of which is the contention between Socialism and Capitalism under Jeffersonian Democracy. The former demands complete submission to the god-state, and the later demands individual responsibility complimentary to the Christian revelation involving salvation available only through the exercise of individual free will. Before one may be a true Socialist one must first be a secularist, because of the ruthless barbarity and basic immorality required of Socialism. We will go into the various Socialisms such as Nazism, Fascism and Communism later; they all quote most the writings of the great “Socialist thinker,” Karl Marx, who, as we shall see, wasn’t exactly the brightest of history’s great thinkers. If you didn’t know that Nazism was a form of Marxism, then here’s a little quote for you: “Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.” - Adolph Hitler, 1941. (The Road To Serfdom, F. A. Hayek, Chapter II, page 30. Refers to a public speech in February 1941, recorded in the Bulletin of International News, published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, XVIII, No. 5, 269.)

Marx’s ideas are so illogical and fatally flawed and his ideals are so impossible and unworkable as to be stupid. His own words in the Communist Manifesto and in Das Kapital prove it. Utopia - meaning the achievement of worldly perfection and man-made Heaven on Earth - was the purported ultimate goal of Marxism’s grand plan. History records the barbaric means the various Marxisms have used while pretending to be trying to achieve that utopian end while in reality they merely centralized power and established dictatorships that were ruthless and immoral to the point of utter and complete barbarity. Predictably and repeatedly.

Great bronze idols of Lenin and Stalin and Mao still stand in some places. This is the “morality” that thrived behind the iron curtain and the bamboo curtain, the morality of the state gulag, the state concentration camp, the state death camp, the state reeducation camp, state terror, state torture, and the state killing fields. But there are subdivision issues even within this great issue. Many who claim Christianity simultaneously hold to basic Socialist ideals, and the great “Socialist thinker” they all quote the most is Marx, and the “Social Science” they preach and teach and adhere to is fundamental Marxism.

The morality of the predominantly Christian masses ranges from that of the original unchanged Apostolic Gospel through the myriad Protestant gospels and on out into the fringe denominations with Christian origins but which are today hardly even recognizable as Christian, and as it moves in that direction it becomes less Christian, less Western, and even less recognizable. And less monotheistically moral. Secularism recognizes and exploits these differences. If you would conquer, first, you might be wise to divide.

Morality is no longer largely viewed as a constant, the one thing that does not change; morality is now seen to change with the times and bend with the breeze. Evidence of where in this spectrum various Christians stand is their current public positions — and the very idea that these positions might only be current — on such issues as Nazi eugenics, which is currently promoted by such organizations as Family Planning and the United Nations. We’re talking human control here, in the forms of both negative and positive genetic engineering to gain a more perfect race (at least in the view of which ever racists are doing the engineering at the moment,) and in the forms of applying pressure on nations of predominantly “inferior” races to impose contraception, abortion and sterilization upon their own peoples, and in the promotion of the “morality” of aborting people and euthanizing people who are judged, by someone else, to have a “poor quality of life.”

This involves the attempted systematic elimination of nature and of all “natural” consequences. As in the promotion of consequence-less sex, for instance. The idea that young people need to be taught that individual and mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex and homosexual sex are good and satisfying and stimulating activities in which they should participate, in order to “delay the onset of normal sexual intercourse and its resulting consequences.” And further, that they should be taught the mechanics of “safe” fornication and “protected” sodomy and “responsible” promiscuity. The lessening of the value of human life, the lowering of the dignity of man, and the open promotion of illicit perverted sex. This is what the elite of our society today seek to teach and to mentor, in secret, to your children, at your expense. This is the morality of Planned Parenthood, and this is the morality of the United Nations. This is the morality of the Clintons. This is the prevailing morality (hopefully, until now) of our courts. This is the morality of most of the Democratic Party, and of many in the Republican Party. This is the near universal morality of academia, and it is the overwhelming morality of our entire national electronic and printed news media. This is the clearly prevalent morality of entertainment today, a day in which we are quite regularly and predominantly entertained by sin and by violence.

I submit that this morality is not Western, it is not Christian, and it is not representative. But this is the morality of the elite, powerful few, and we now may expect to be punished for daring to oppose it. Anti-abortion protesters in Crown Point Indiana learned that, when they were charged with trespassing (while demonstrating) and sentenced by Superior Court Justice Bernard Carter to attend classes given by Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion profiteers in this country if not the entire world. Which should be seen by all as precisely the same thing as a sentencing into a Maoist reeducation camp. If you don’t agree with the morality of Big Brother, we’ll send you off to forced sensitivity training to learn the goodness of state sponsored, state protected, tax paid human butchery, as a first step in your state forced moral reeducation.

Secular demographics.

As this fundamental immorality is pressed upon us from above, we are further “educated” in the big social lie of the new American “Pluralism” that says that we are not a Christian nation, but a sort of hodgepodge mixture of various cultures. A flagrant falsehood. America is overwhelmingly Protestant. Period. Over 86 percent of Americans claim to be Christian, and all of those except 14 percent claim membership in specific, recognized denominations. Another 1.8 percent are religious Jews, and all other religions together, meaning Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, American Indian spiritualists, Unitarians and everything else are less than that, at 1.2 percent, which, all together, still represents a smaller number than America’s non-religious Jews. Only 8.2 percent of us actually claim no religion at all, while fully 98% of us profess some sort of belief in God.

Where are all the atheists? Where’s the Pluralism? Where’s the exploding Muslim population we keep hearing about? Where are the real statistics? Why is it that the US Census so specifically avoids asking any questions about religious affiliation? Elitist social secularism seeks the Balkanization of America by false public claims and slanted reporting, and the outright suppression of public Christian religious expression, and it uses the “pluralistic nation” lie to pretend sensitivity to groups that don’t exist in order to publicly justify doing it. (The Best of The Public Square; selections from Richard John Neuhaus’ column in First Things; The Institution Religion and Public Life: Pluralism and the Wrong Answers; pages 17-18.)

The secular elite tell us, as the major part of their lie, that the reason for purposeful muting, exclusion and even censorship of “religion” in public life is that we are now a pluralistic society in which we cannot assume that the Judao-Christian morality is broadly shared. Even though Gallup and everyone else say that we are nearly 90 percent Christian. And the only religion that is muted, excluded and censored in public life is Christian, and the more orthodox it is, the more it is suppressed, by the courts and by the ACLU, who act in concert.

This lie is very important to the new Marxist direction, which involves something new, something that might be foreign to Marx, the violent, bloody revolutionary. It involves achieving unrepresentative government gently, while pretending and appearing to be representative, and gaining control. And the chosen path is through the new United Nations, and, to paraphrase Bush One, it may be seen to be a kinder, gentler path to typical Marxist totalitarian dictatorship, eventually, it is hoped, on a global scale. In the UN, no one needs to pretend to have been elected or to represent anyone; they are just accepted, universally, as “experts” to whom we should listen, who bring us global wisdom, and who, in their wisdom, recommend new laws that we should impose upon ourselves for the good of the global community. The UN is an excellent platform from which to govern, because it is subject to no nation’s constitution or laws, most importantly, ours, which involves clear, concrete, individual citizen’s rights.

Gorbachev presented a kinder, gentler form of Communist. If it wasn’t for a basic streak of moral decency in him, perhaps, the Soviet Empire would have been slower in crumbling. But note well that Gorbachev was and is an old time Communist who rose under Stalin, and who has never renounced Communism, and who is still a Communist. There is a reason for his gravitation toward the UN, and for the strong UN association with others such as Maurice Strong, and Al Gore, and Family Planning, and UNESCO. They are all birds of a feather. And the UN moves on with its plans for Global Governance, and other global projects with cute names.

But there is perhaps an issue of greater importance than what future person or group or entity might come to be in charge of this international governance, and that issue involves salvation and damnation, but of groups rather than of individuals, which is not the usual way we think of it. I am not equipped to make grand pronouncements regarding group or cultural or national or international salvation or damnation; this is merely personal conjecture and editorializing. Just as there are outwardly visible signs of a man’s sense of spirituality and decency which may lead us to guess, however inaccurately, about his likely salvation or damnation, there are outward signs in society that might lead us to guess the same thing about neighborhoods and nations. These outward signs are what we call culture; they deal with the nature of a people. Look at our art, and our music. Look at our entertainment. Look at our laws, and at our court decisions, and at our justice. Look at what is encouraged and protected in public, and look at what is not, and then recoil in shame.

A truly great American, Chief Joseph, told us that “It dose not take many words to tell the truth.” Profoundly true. In just about all topics covered in this site, the Catholic view is briefly given, or is not given, because it is assumed to be so obvious as to be not needed. When I attack the secular view of the same topic, I must spend a lot more time and a lot more words simply describing it, because what I’m describing, in just about every case, is based upon a lie, which isn’t widely perceived as a lie. Some are very elaborate and tangled lies, and they take many words just to untangle them and expose them for what they are. Because many lies require such elaborate untangling and unraveling; I pray that Chief Joseph, if he is listening, will forgive my many words, and that all of them might be used in the service of truth, which we all need to learn to love as well as he did.

The primary goal of the honest man is, always, differentiation between truth and error; don’t loose track of it. Keep your eye on the ball, and test everything. Seek the Truth. Find the Way. Live the Life.

Reference Material

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.