Secular humanists maintain that separation of Church and State is a fundamental precept of democracy; that Christian principles applied in politics and law “discriminate” against other religions and citizens with no religion; and that the teachings of the Bible are irrelevant to our enlightened modern era. Too many nominal Christians are inclined to agree with them these days.
The unfounded but pervasive notion is that secular humanism is somehow “neutral,” while Christianity is intrinsically biased and prejudiced. Put another way, the threadbare boilerplate that “politicians shouldn’t impose their own views on anyone else,” is applied only to people of serious religious faith – mainly Christians.
However, what is politics but a systematic and structured process for imposing someone’s views on everyone? In democracies this is by mandate and temporary – but political parties essentially exist in hope of imposing a point of view in government. Why it is acceptable for humanists, liberals, socialists, and other secularists to impose their views on all and sundry when they get elected, but not for Christians to do likewise if successful at the polls?
Why are liberal humanist politicians perceived as “neutral” when they advance and impose their ideological points of view on issues like abortion and gay rights as public policy, but Christians denounced as “oppressive” and “intolerant” if they even publicly express Christian principles, let alone try to impose them in law?
Same issues; same venue; different points of view. Anyone perceive a double standard here?
“But nobody has the right to impose ‘their morality’ on others,” goes the familiar cant. It never seems to occur to these mostly well-meaning locutors that if we are to have a rule of law rather than total anarchy, then somebody’s moral beliefs must be imposed.
What is criminal law about, if not moral principles? These principles don’t just materialize out of thin air. If society has no right to impose moral order, then the logical consequence would be that everyone should be allowed to follow whatever moral course they desire. That may sound nice and liberal and tolerant in theory, but I don’t think that even the most addled of secularists would want to live in such a society in practice.
For example, all civilized societies have determined that murder should not be a personal moral choice, but the self-styled “neutral” secularists believe, in theory, that the only legitimate determinant of public morality should be personal choice. Their position, although popular, is both philosophically and practically asinine.
The fact is that secularist social ideology is based on an gross lie, to wit: that moral neutrality is possible. It isn’t, which makes the secularists’ success in brainwashing most of the public, including a banefully large proportion of professing Christians, that their moral ideology is actually “neutral,” one of the most audacious mass deceptions in history.
Not content with convincing most of the populace that secularist moral ideas are really “neutral,” the secular humanist juggernaut rolls on, seeking to stereotype anyone who does not share its point of view as “intolerant” and “hateful.” The terminology is deviously calculated. Since humanists have gulled society into accepting the enshrinement of “hate crimes” and “hate speech” in the Criminal Code, labelling their ideological opposition “hatemongers,” even if the alleged “hate” is actually just faithful articulation of the time-honoured moral principles and tenets of the Christian religion, is hardball tactical brinkmanship.
For example, recently Michael Bliss wrote in the National Post: “Homophobic views are becoming like racist views, outside the boundaries of civilized discourse …. A Canadian politician in the year 2000 can’t have homophobic associates any more than he can have anti-Semite or anti-black followers.” In secular humanist estimation, condemnation of homosexual behaviour in both Biblical Testaments, as well as in doctrinal statements as diverse as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Atlantic Baptist Convention’s policy paper on homosexuality, is evil and equivalent to racism.
What Bliss is really saying is that no one who actually believes what the true Christian religion teaches has any right to participate in Canadian politics. This is “neutrality?”
Canada’s cultural heritage is undeniably Christian, and those who say they love this country should think long and hard before tossing that heritage aside in favour of the shallow banality of secular humanism.
Unfortunately, many religious Canadians have been bullied and bamboozled into rationalizing and subjectivizing their faith, no longer attempting to ask “What is right?” – but rather merely, “What is right for me?”
If Christians withdraw meekly from the democratic political process, the result of this abdication of moral leadership will be radical re-paganization of our culture. Western civilization was built and sustained by Christianity, and won’t survive long without it. Must we experience a wholesale reversion to pagan barbarism before that reality sinks in?