Abortion And The Gay Agenda: Secularism's Big Guns

For approximately one thousand years after the fall of Rome, European civilization comprised a religion (Roman Catholicism), a morality (based on the revealed word of God and the natural law implanted in man by his Creator), and a political hegemony (in which the Church was both a secular ruler and a moral and spiritual influence on other rulers.) This “Catholic Civilization” was not seriously threatened by numerous dissenters who, from time to time, sought to weaken the Church and obtain a greater freedom either for themselves or for one of the new Nation-States.

The Protestant Revolution (to give it its accurate name) seriously weakened the authority and the influence of the Church. In the political sphere, it strengthened existing political powers and gave rise to new ones, many of which broke their ties with the Church in order to preserve their independence. The rulers of these kingdoms often solidified their political power by appropriating Church property and doling it out to their supporters. They also appropriated religious authority (Cuius regio, eius religio). In the moral sphere, even though the Protestant powers retained and continued to enforce the Judeo-Christian ethical system, the weakening of the Church and the Catholic Faith, and the strengthening of the secular state, laid the groundwork for the secularization of morality.

This new “Christian Civilization” migrated with Europeans when they sailed to the distant shores of North, Central, and South America, and, later, to Australia and New Zealand.

The decline of its political authority reduced the role of the Church to that of moral arbiter, and even that only in parts of Europe. The rise of the Nation-States, controlled by self-confident men with a secular perspective working for secular purposes, saw the re-birth (the renascence) of the belief that “MAN” was the center of the Universe; that, as Protagoras said two thousand years earlier, Man was the measure of all things, and that he was therefore answerable only to himself. Reveling in their greater freedom, some began to challenge the moral/ethical basis of Christian Civilization. Thus began (c. 1750) the so-called Enlightenment. (“So-called” because as someone once pointed out, history is written by the winners.) Men no longer felt a need for spiritual guidance or for spiritual sustenance. Philosophers, writers, kings and their advisers, and educators discarded considerations of religion, eternity, and God, and substituted considerations of power, wealth, and trade. “Science” provided materialistic and naturalistic explanations for many phenomena; and it promised that it would soon provide similar explanations for everything. (This was a matter of faith, not of science. It still is.) Rousseau was only one of many whose writings gave rise to a belief that man was perfectible and that his institutions were corrupt. The seeds of a “Secular Civilization.” were planted.

As Secular Civilization waxed, Christian Civilization waned. The traditional morality of society was replaced with one based on humanism, either atheistic or agnostic. Right and Wrong no longer arose out of the nature of man; they were no longer set for all eternity by the revealed Word of God. Whether something was Right or Wrong now depended on whether it contributed to the accumulation of wealth and power, on the one hand, and to the “freedom” of man on the other. Men became “free” by ridding themselves of the constraints imposed by an unseen God, constraints written down in a book thousands of years old, and enforced by Church officials.

But constraints were still necessary. The rulers of society supplied them. For the word of God Man substituted his own word; and the givers of this word became the new gods.

Some precepts were carry-overs from Judeo-Christian morality: thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal. But other precepts were discarded or revised. Exceptions were made. The standard was, What is expedient for the ruling class? This was often disguised as, What is good for the nation?

(((Interjection No. 1: The change can be summarized by an example from modern America. It used to be against the law to murder unborn children, but permissible to smoke. Now, smoking is a crime in many places, and is always a social sin, while murdering unborn children is a constitutional right, protected by the government.)))

For some time, this new lawgiver was a king. After the “Glorious” and the American Revolutions, the lawgiver was a legislature composed of the commercial and landed elite of the nation. Democratic theorists convinced many that everyone had a right to partake, if not in the actual framing of laws, at least in choosing those who did frame them. (The French Revolution failed to attain its democratic ends, but the widening of the franchise by peaceful means was successful in England and the United States.) In some countries, in some circumstances, the courts became the ultimate lawgiver.

(((Interjection No. 2: What is right, what is wrong, sometimes changes overnight. On January 21, 1973, abortion was considered by many a form of murder. The laws of many states prohibited it outright; those that allowed it in some circumstances restricted it. Abortion was a crime, and the abortionist was prosecuted. On January 22, 1973, abortion became a constitutional right. Abortuaries advertised in the newspapers and competed with each other. They applied for and were granted public funds, some of which they put in their pockets, some of which they spent to kill babies more efficiently. Why did this occur? Why did everyone, even those who opposed the abortion decision, meekly accept it as if the Court’s members lived on Mount Sinai? It was accepted because Americans had been conditioned to believe the Supreme Court’s word WAS law, and that the LAW was sacred.)))

The commandments of the new morality in democratic countries emanate from the framers of public opinion: from the educators, the politicians, and the judges, aided, abetted, and supported by those who controlled the media. These commandments are always subject to change, because circumstances are always changing. “Public opinion” became synonymous with what the public would accept, and the public would accept what it had been conditioned to accept.

For a quarter of a millennium, Secularism has been engaged in a struggle with Christianity for power, a struggle for the loyalty, for the very soul, of the human race.

In Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings,” the battles between the forces of Good and of Evil intensify throughout the story, until the climactic Final Battle outside the gates of Mordor. In like manner, the battles between the Christian and the Secular Civilizations have intensified over the years. These battles have involved a myriad of issues (divorce, the teaching of evolution, Sunday “Blue Laws”). There is no doubt that the Secularists have had the better of the struggle for some time. The phrase “Slippery Slope” is used by the Christian side to summarize the process by which the acceptance of one belief leads to the acceptance of others. And because people will act as they believe, policies are adopted to embody, to legalize, and to legitimize the new beliefs. What Christians view as defeats, as movement down the “slippery slope,” Secularists view as steps up the ladder of Progress (always capitalized).

(((Interjection No. 3: Example: the right to privacy was first used to strike down laws prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices by married people. Then it was used to strike down laws prohibiting the use of contraceptive devices by anyone, married or unmarried. Then it was used to justify the deliberate murder of unborn children. The result: about forty million babies killed between January 1973 and late 2005.)))

(((Interjection No. 4: Secularism began by challenging the influence of religion in governmental affairs. The First Amendment prohibits governmental interference with the practice of religion, and prohibits the establishment of a state-supported church. Within a decade, there was a “wall of separation between Church and State.” Secularism next challenged Church control of education; it won that battle, and now we have education controlled by the State. Secularism now objects to any display of religion in public places: no moments of silence at football games; no crèches on lawns owned by any agency of government; no posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings; no Christmas songs of a religious nature. Retailers are pressured into removing “Merry Christmas” and substituting “Happy Holidays.”)))

After World War II, the Secularists felt secure enough in their positions of power and influence to attack the basis of Christian Civilization, in a kind of All or Nothing confrontation. That Final Battle is being fought now. Most engagements are on the spiritual and philosophical level--- the level of ideas, propaganda, and law. (The Law creates its own reality; it is a perfect example of Idealism in action. Recall how abortion went from a crime to a right.) But there have been some physical skirmishes and physical casualties, too. (An abortionist is killed when his clinic is bombed. A mother of four who dares to tell a gay man that his actions are sinful and that she will pray for him is murdered and buried in the floor of his apartment.) Perhaps the secularists judged that Christian Civilization was ready to collapse and needed only the coup de grace; or perhaps they just became impatient to establish a society founded only on the word and wishes of Man; whatever the reasons, they decided to attack the family.

These days, when the word “family” has been perverted, we need to define the term. By “family,” I mean a father and a mother, living together, committed to each other and their children; in many cases the family circle includes an older blood relative. “Family” includes a man and woman united in marriage who have no children. “Family” does not include two homosexual men or two lesbians living together; nor does it include a man and woman living together, with or without children.

The secularists know the importance of the family to Christian Civilization. They know that if they can destroy the family, the last barrier to their domination will disappear. Like sharks in the water, they can smell the blood flowing from the wounds already inflicted.

((( Interjection No. 5: A court has recently ruled that parents have no say in what their children are taught in public schools. Marriages are easily dissolved, even when there are children. Thirteen- or fourteen-year-old girls can obtain abortions without parental consent or even knowledge. Condoms are handed out in high school. Fifth-graders are taught how to put them on bananas.)))

Why do the Secularists seek the destruction of the family? Because it is the basis of civilization. It is a natural unit: a man and a woman, bringing forth children, caring for the next generation, ensuring the continuation of the species and the preservation and progress of culture.

The family regulates the sexual drive and the relations between the sexes. It provides a bulwark against license and self-indulgence and their effects.

This is why conservatives and traditionalists love and support the family as an institution; and this is why the secularists hate and seek to destroy the family.

If secularists succeed, they can build a new civilization on a different basis. (And what other basis could there be but the State? But that is whole separate story.)

How do you destroy the family? You attack its basic function (its control of the sexual drive), and you do this by attacking its members at their weakest point. And what is the weakest point of most people, most of the time? It is the libido.

Here’s what you do. You convince people that Christian Civilization has kept them enslaved to rules and regulations for centuries. You convince them that religion and morality are shackles; that they will be happier, freer, and that they will “Find Themselves,” if they liberate their libidos and indulge themselves. You convince them at the same time that the family is the Great Inhibitor, the Great Tyrant standing between them and their “personal fulfillment.” You attack the family by demanding that the sexual drive be liberated, that it be freed from restrictions. You develop or apply technologies that result in human life, as Huxley predicted would happen. You even attack the very meaning of the word “family” by applying it to the perverted relationships of sodomites and lesbians.

Your weapons include pornography and artificial birth control. You make it as easy as possible to break the bonds of marriage. You adopt welfare policies that encourage men to walk away from the responsibility of raising their children; you extol single parent “families,” (the single parent being almost always the mother). You teach the children as early as possible that sex is a form of recreation, and that they have right to indulge themselves, regardless of what their parents say. You publish books, exhibit movies, and broadcast television shows full of promiscuity and infidelity; you never, ever, show any negative effects of these behaviors. You start with popularizers like Kinsey, a pervert, and call him a scientist; and like Hefner, a pornographer, and make him a cultural hero. You are confident that the “Great Thinkers,” the “Best Minds,” of our times are ready to support you with deep philosophical rationalizations—the Professor Singers, who extol infanticide as well as abortion; and Supreme Court Justices, who make the murder of children and the commission of sodomy legal rights.

You strike your blows in the name of “Freedom.” But what you offer is “License.” You promise that everybody will be free to indulge in any and every sexual desire, free to fulfill any and every sexual fantasy. You convince them that there will be no untoward consequences, and that nobody will be judged. Who, after all, is fit to judge anyone else?

The Slope is indeed Slippery. When you have started downhill by preventing the conception of a child, what comes next? The disposal of children already conceived, legally and with mass-market economies. What comes naturally after sexual license between the sexes, where anything goes as long as “nobody gets hurt”? Sexual license with members of the same sex. Gays and Lesbians are now given their “rights;” they and their perversions are not only protected by hate-crime legislation, but esteemed and honored. As we slide further downhill, we meet affiliated perverts: Bisexuals, Transsexuals, and Transgenders.

In this country alone, about forty million babies have been murdered since January 1973, and the toll goes on. Abortion supporters claim that half of all abortions are performed on thirteen-year-old girls impregnated by drunken stepfathers; the other half, they claim, are performed to save the lives of the mothers. But we all know these two categories entail a minuscule proportion of abortions. The great majority are provided to women who simply don’t want any more kids; or to women who don’t want kids at all because motherhood would interfere with their careers on the pro tennis circuit, in the office, or in Hollywood

It is almost beyond comprehension: we not only allow, we positively celebrate, we protect as a basic human right, the freedom to murder innocent human beings. The bra-burning feminists are fond of repeating one of the more ignorant mantras of the abortion industry and its supporters: “If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Whom are they trying to kid? Abortion IS a sacrament. Look around. A supreme Court nominee who even hints that he or she might possibly, perhaps, in some circumstances, theoretically question the right of abortion has no chance of being confirmed—none whatsoever. The attempt to impose even the slightest restriction on the unlimited right to murder babies is met with hysteria; such restrictions are presented as the first step in a return to a theocracy in which the Church will control women’s wombs; any restrictions would constitute a tyranny that would make Nazi Germany seemed gentle. A pro-life Democratic governor of a large, populous state is denied the right to speak at a recent Democratic National Convention. A President with the morals of a rutting pig is forgiven the most egregious conduct because he is “right” on abortion, even to the extent of honoring in the White House women who have paid abortionists to perform “partial birth abortions” on their offspring.

Homosexuality is fixated on the physical. It is temporary, spontaneous, sterile, and unloving; the male variety is often violent. Think about what gay men do to each other. This act becomes a symbol of freedom; gays enthuse over it, even though it leads to incurable diseases. It is an act of perversion, not of love, and it epitomizes what the gay agenda is all about. Homosexuals delight in their perversions. It is their way of venting their hatred of Christian Civilization and of the family. Heterosexuals don’t give a damn what homosexuals do to each other. Heterosexuals give very much of a damn what homosexuals are doing to society, to morals, and to civilization.

Abortion and the gay agenda are the loci of the most bitter, most portentous battles in the war that is being waged between Civilizations. That supporters of those issues have won so many battles is emblematic of the collapse of moral values in America.

What abortion and the Gay agenda have in common is their hatred of the family. That is why a supporter of one is almost always a supporter of the other.

What greater attacks on the family can be imagined than abortion and homosexuality? Besides allowing the consequences of illicit sex to be erased, abortion kills the offspring of marriage; it prevents a family from coming into existence, or prevents the growth of an existing family. What better way to destroy the family than to destroy the product of the family?

Homosexuality attacks the idea of a life-long commitment of one man and one woman to each other, open to the transmission of life. The demand that “unions” of gays be accorded the status of “marriage” epitomizes the contempt that secularists, homosexuals, and atheists have for Christian Civilization. It is a parody, a conscious, deliberate mockery, of marriage. The Gay agenda is a direct attack on the family, on the young, on the future.

These are two “freedoms” long desired. Abortion, sodomy, and lesbianism: these the world has always had. But they were hidden, always done in secret, in the dark. Why? Because they are, on top of everything else, perversions of nature. Nature intended men and women to meet, to reproduce, and to raise the children in a family. Nature did not intend humans to kill their young. Nature did not intend men to sodomize each other, nor women to use toys on each other.

These issues are recognized by almost everyone to be the lynch pins of the battle between the Judeo-Christian morality and culture of Christian Civilization and the atheistic/secularist morality and culture of Secular Civilization.

Funny. I read something earlier that was really interesting.

Basically, the gist of it is, if every mention of God was removed from our Declaration of Independence (endowed by the Creator) and replaced with 'man', our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would no longer be inalienable. After all, if man can hold our rights, they can just as easily take them away.

I believe that a human's moral compass (and, as a result, the rule of law that came from these morals when society became large enough to require such laws) was divinely inspired. After all, men are so fallible. In this day of relativism, black is white, good is evil, and vice-versa. What would be the point of law if humanity could simply change it on a whim if it doesn't fit their comfort zone or perceived vision of how the world should work (for instance, a law on sodomy; "Oh no, it hurts the homosexual's feelings! Let's change it!" Or perhaps legislation to ban guns...like in San Francisco, a clear violation of the Second Amendment).

Law is meant to enforce the limitations upon sinful behavior. Behavior is known as sinful because morality and our own consciousness know that it is sinful. However, if humans can change law to where evil behavior is no longer forbidden, then what would be the point of having laws to begin with?

So to cut this post short...the human sense of good and evil had to be divinely inspired by a higher intelligence (aka God). We're too imperfect to have created such laws on our own without help.

After all, everyone sins.

MORAL ABSOLUTES and HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA Pings.

DISCUSSION ABOUT:

"Aborton and the Gay Agenda: Secularism's Big Guns"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail either MillerCreek or wagglebee.

To be included in or removed from the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PINGLIST, please FreepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2K.

Regarding another posters willingness to rely on mens concious to make laws for us, I remind all of these facts.
1. Exterminating whomever in death camps in Nazi Germany was legal, it was the LAW.

2. During Nuremburg, very few of those held has any moral misgivings at all, most were proud of them work regarding purifying a race.

3. See nos. 1 and 2, and you will know why depending on men is totally a fools game.

Bible Thumpers are just MooseLimbs without the balls

Bible Thumpers? You mean people that believe the Bible to be the revealed Word of God, that he has laid out a plan of salvation, and that they ought to follow it, right?

Using lib pejoratives like that gets you nowhere, and your comparison between Christianity and Islam betrays a serious lack of background in Biblical and/or Qur'anic studies.

You made no logical points and your posts are idiotic.

As opposed to what?

The Earth being created in six days?
A talking serpent tempting Eve with fruit of the "tree of knowledge"?
God destroying the world (except for a Carnival Cruise Zoo) with 40 days of downpours?

Are [you] 13 years old??

I'm not the one that believes in fairy tales.

Maybe it would help by explaining (mind you... not proselytizing) what I believe.

First... every religion has got it somewhat wrong. They all are trying to throw their dart at the purpose of 'life, the universe, and everything' - and all miss the mark.

It's SUPPOSED to be a personal and paradoxical journey for truth, but we form these cultish retreats because we're afraid of doing the hard work of introspection to find what works for us, individually.

Well, you've got it partially-right, that faith journeys, ultimately, is up to the individual. But we don't live in a vacuum. Humans are social creatures.

Hmm. Your anti-religion stance is interesting.

After all, you've said yourself you don't care what other people believe. If people claim their beliefs are superior to yours, why should you care? You're set in your ideals. If someone tries to convert you, you'd probably just laugh them off. After all, why should you care? At least, that's the impression I get from you: someone who has his beliefs and doesn't care if other people tell him he's wrong for believing whatever it is you believe.

I wonder then, why you seem to be so anti-religion (particularly Christianity and Judeism)?

Is it because that you don't want to be held accountable for your actions by a higher power? Is it because you don't want to believe in judgment at the end of your life?

Just a question.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!