Hidden Secular Agenda

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 numero