Never in human history has there been as much personal liberty on the planet as there is today. Because of this great expansion of personal freedom, many Westerners are rightly zealous to maintain it. “Live and let live” has become the byword of the day and people are constantly warned not to be judgmental or intolerant of others, lest someday those others become intolerant of them.
A great mass of Westerners have become “civil libertarians,” who regardless of their political affiliation or religious ideals believe in personal freedom as a supreme right that should not be trampled.
At the same time, there is a growing cultural war going on in Western societies. On one side of the cultural war is a group I will call for simplicity’s sake “liberal secular humanists.” On the other side is a group I will describe as “Biblical-based conservatives.” Civil libertarians are often caught in the middle of the battle between these two groups but usually feel more sympathetic toward the first group. This is a huge and ultimately costly mistake for civil libertarians. The ascendance of liberal secular humanist ideas will inevitably lead to greater and intractable restrictions on personal freedom, and many of the victims will be people who are civil libertarians.
Defining Terms
First, let’s define some terms. Who are civil libertarians? They are people whose lives have been made better by the expansion of personal freedom living primarily in the modern, industrialized societies including the United States and Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. These people recognize they have more personal liberty to believe as they want, travel as they want and work as they want than any other time in human history. Regardless of whether or not these people believe in a Creator, they agree with the Declaration of Independence’s credo that freedom is an “self-evident,” “inalienable” right.
Because of this love for freedom, some civil libertarians take more extreme positions such as opposing any public religious expression at all. The ACLU is one of these groups. But the silent majority of civil libertarians are people of basic common sense who understand that freedom is a precious commodity that is often the first victim in any disagreement. These people understand that people with power will often lash out against those who contradict them and that a just society should protect the rights of the minority to express opinions, including religious opinions.
So, the first goal of true civil libertarians should be to be on the lookout for tyrants and potential tyrants, groups or individuals who try to suppress opinions that don’t agree with those in power.
Who are liberal secular humanists? This is a broad coalition of groups that may not even realize it is a coalition. But in general, these are people who hold up standards like “tolerance” and “nondiscrimination.” This group believes that the human race is progressing due to the inevitable evolution of secular humanistic ideas. This group believes that all of the most important recent improvements in society – the end of slavery, better race relations, more income equality – are due to its efforts to create a more humane and just paradigm. This group believes that moral standards will change over time and that people should adjust to the new moral standards as they come about. But the primary foundation of the belief system of this group is human “reason,” the supreme ability of human beings to create new and more just rules and standards over time.
This group completely dominates European and Canadian politics. At its core are Greens and other environmentalists, “progressives,” Social Democrats, radical feminists and pro-homosexual groups.
The other group, “Biblical-based conservatives,” is diametrically opposed to the secular humanist ideal because it believes that moral standards do not change over time. This group sees history as cyclical rather than an inevitable progression toward some man-made paradise. This group believes that human beings are flawed and have a tendency toward making mistakes and need guidance from a Creator to know the difference between right and wrong. This group believes that many recent improvements in society have taken place because they are part of the Creator’s plan and points out that good religious people played an important role in all of the most important societal advancements.
Most importantly, this group believes in something called the “Laws of Nature,” which are right there in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. This group believes that the Natural Law, which basically corresponds to the 10 commandments, is something implanted on human consciences by the Creator. This group states that violating the Natural Law will lead to anarchy and unhappiness and recommends that societies worldwide accept the Natural Law so they can function well. This group holds that belief in the Creator is the anchor that helps societies through difficult times and warns that marginalizing or ignoring the Creator will inevitably lead to chaos and loss of personal freedom because human beings are incapable of maintaining a justice society without Divine guidance.
The group currently dominates politics in the United States and Israel and is a shrinking minority as a serious political force in the rest of the Western world.
Today’s Key Battlefield
The key battlefield issue today between secular humanists and Biblical-based conservatives is homosexual marriage and the supposed “discriminatory” behavior of private groups such as the Boy Scouts that exclude open homosexuals. An honest study of this and other key causes of the secular humanist group will show that while they claim to promote “tolerance” and “nondiscrimination” their true goal is to repress and prohibit the free speech of those who dare to disagree with them. People who truly love liberty should be appalled.
Let’s consider the Boy Scouts of America first. The Boy Scouts are a group that wholeheartedly subscribes to the Biblical worldview. Their motto includes the Scout Oath, which is that the scout will do his “duty to God and my country” and will keep himself “morally straight.” The Boy Scouts have stated repeatedly that “an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath.”
This position is clearly at odds with the secular humanist worldview and its pro-homosexual wing. Given the difference between the secular human worldview and the Boy Scouts’ worldview, the secular humanists had some choices. They could have ignored the Scouts altogether or they could have formed their own, separate Gay Scouts group.
A Vital Point
There is a vital point that has been missed by most of the media in this debate: the United States Constitution provides the right for private groups to choose their membership based on their own standards. Private chess clubs have the right to be filled with chess players, not checkers players. Private men’s clubs have the right to exclude women. Private black clubs have the right to exclude whites. That is what being a private club is all about.
There is a crucial point here: it is basic common sense and a very foundational precept of social justice that people should be able to choose their own friends and the type of people with whom they associate. If we trample on people’s rights to choose their own friends, and form their own “club” including these friends, we are undermining one of the key pillars of human liberty that is so dear to most people in the West.
If the homosexual lobby were truly interested in human liberty, it would simply leave the Boy Scouts alone and form its own group of Gay Scouts. But that is clearly not the goal. The goal is the destruction and censorship of a group with which it disagrees. The goal is to end the freedom of the people who belong to the Boy Scouts to decide with whom they choose to associate. The goal is tearing down something, not building up something.
The relentlessness of this campaign is mind-boggling. Pro-homosexual groups are systematically moving from city to city trying and often succeeding in badgering groups that support the Boy Scouts – such as the United Way – to end this support. The Boy Scouts have bravely stood up against this battle, but liberal secular humanists and their allies in the media have succeeded in painting the Boy Scouts as the bad guys when in fact they are simply the victims.
People who love freedom of personal choice should consider this issue extremely carefully. Today it’s just the Boy Scouts. Tomorrow it could be another group that is more important to you. The point is that if we allow the Boy Scouts to be persecuted we are opening the door for others to determine for us what groups we can and cannot belong to. Is that really the kind of society we want to build, where anybody who doesn’t like my values can determine for me with whom I associate?
Marriage Attacked
So, today it’s the Boy Scouts. Tomorrow it’s marriage. Because that’s the next target of secular humanists.
In our modern culture, you are free to have a wide variety of lifestyle choices. Gays are free to be out of the closet and prideful. Transexuals are free to flaunt themselves. People who live together without being married are not harassed or questioned.
Even amidst the most sexually liberal groups, there has been a tacit understanding that marriage either stands for something or it stands for nothing. Social liberals often make the choice not to get married because they are not willing to make that type of commitment and they are not interested in having children. Until recently, even the most liberal social experimenters understood that marriage meant a commitment that usually involved raising children.
Biblical conservatives understand that marriage is the very foundation of a society. In this worldview, God created Adam and Eve and asked them to populate the Earth because the man and the woman have unique, complementary roles. The man is not complete without the woman, nor the woman without the man in a family setting. Study after study has shown that children are happier, more respectful, learn better and adjust better to society when being raised by their mother and father.
Homosexual marriage has now been legalized in Canada, in addition to at least two European countries. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to decide to legalize homosexual marriage. So, what’s the big deal?
Marriage is a heterosexual club. It’s very purpose has always been to support the traditional family: father, mother, children. Homosexuals have until recently not been part of that club. Gays and lesbians can have “public commitment ceremonies.” They have the complete right to live together and revel in their lifestyle. And given the very nature of the majority of homosexual relationships, where the commitment level is significantly lower than in heterosexual relationships, gays and lesbians have chosen not to pursue marriage because it is a foreign experience.
Until now. Now, they want in the club. But, just as allowing homosexual troop leaders into the Boy Scouts would change the very nature of what the Boy Scouts are and what they stand for, allowing homosexual marriage would change the very nature of what marriage stands for.
What possible legal justification could any court use to refuse a woman from marrying two men if the definition of marriage is changed to allow homosexual marriage? Wouldn’t that be “intolerant” and “discriminatory” toward that polyandric group?
The Pro-pedophila Movement
It’s worth reminding ourselves that the pro-pedophilia movement is growing in lockstep with the increasing normalization of homosexuality. Groups such as the “Man-Boy Love” organization are asking for “tolerance” and are insisting on the decriminalization of sex acts between adult males and young boys. If current trends continue, it will be legally impossible to justify keeping pedophilia a criminal act. And why not? After all, if men can marry other men, then men should be able to marry a 17-year-old boy. And if he can marry a 17-year-old boy, shouldn’t he be allowed to marry a 15-year-old or a 13-year-old? And if they’re married, they should obviously be allowed to have sex. And if he can have sex with a boy he’s married to, shouldn’t he be allowed to have sex with any boy at all, including the ones that catch his fancy while walking around the mall?
The horror with which thinking people greet this situation is appropriate. What exactly is going to happen to our culture when we begin normalizing this type of behavior? Is this really the type of society we want, where any and all sexual behavior goes? If raising children is difficult today, imagine a culture where pederasts roam free scoping out potential “dates” among teenagers and even younger children with complete impunity and legal protection.
How exactly will this scenario lead to greater freedom for anybody except for sexual deviants? The majority of people will huddle in their homes afraid to let their children out of their sight.
Is This Scenario Extreme
Is this scenario too extreme? It would appear not. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in his dissent to the recent Court decision shooting down anti-sodomy laws that the court’s position opens the doors for gay marriage. The point is clear: any attempt to normalize any non-traditional sexual behavior will inevitably lead to normalizing all non-traditional sexual behavior.
Again, the tactics of the secular humanists who support gay marriage do not create greater human freedom. Gays have the freedom to be with other gay adults with or without homosexual marriage. The strategy is purely destructive. The strategy is to force their way at gunpoint into a club that has until now been somebody else’s club, not because they want to really join the club but because they want to destroy the club entirely.
It is worth noting that all democratic considerations of gay marriage have ended in failure for the homosexual lobby. State after state that has voted on gay marriage has turned it down. So, the gay lobby has turned to the courts to overcome the will of the majority of people. And the gay lobby has mounted a massive propaganda campaign to demonize anybody who disagrees with its position.
People who dare to defy the gay lobby are labeled as “homophobes” which is really a very clever code word that means “afraid of homosexuals because he thinks he might be one.” Stop and think about this for a second. The key insult that the homosexual lobby uses against pro-family groups is that they are afraid of gays because they all secretly feel they might have gay tendencies. Inherent in that insult is the recognition that there is simply not right, not natural, about homosexual activity. By throwing around the code word “homophobe,” gays are tacitly admitting that there is something wrong and unnatural about their acts, but they are insisting on the right to do it anyway.
There is a pattern at work here that is worth noting. Secular humanists have mounted a series of campaigns on key social issues, and their tactics are very similar in each campaign.
A Pattern
Let’s look at the pattern:
1)First, ask for tolerance for acts that are wrong.
2)Second, ask for decriminalization of the acts that are wrong.
3)Third, marginalize and intimidate those who question the acts that are wrong.
4)Use the courts or other non-democratic means to impose the minority will on the majority.
5)Discriminate against and be intolerant toward those who remind the world that the acts that are wrong are still wrong.
6)Use criminal sanctions against the people who still say the wrong acts are wrong.
7)Make illegal the institutions that still dare to teach that these acts are wrong.
8)Take away the property of those who dare to continue to insist that these acts are wrong.
This precise process was proceeding beautifully for the pro-abortion lobby until recently. The pro-abortion cause, a favorite of secular humanists, is today at step 5 of this plan. The key step of the pro-abortion lobby was to make it wrong to be against abortion by painting everybody who is against legalized abortion as a violent fundamentalist extremist. But the horrifying reality of 40 million murdered babies in America since Roe v. Wade made abortion legal against the majority will has begun to change the political landscape. Miraculously, more and more young people are growing up to understand the basic wrong with abortion, and the recent decision against partial birth abortions is a sign that the pendulum may be swinging the other way.
Now, let’s consider the pro-pornography crowd. Today, we are at number 5 of the pro-pornography crowd’s plan to flood the world with sexual images. Despite the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of anti-pornography filters on Internet access at libraries, the anti-pornography movement has been successfully marginalized. Major universities now offer classes that require students to watch and even participate in pornography as part of the class. Consider for a moment Hollywood’s law suits against Cleanflicks and other companies that try to cut pornography out of movies. It is only a matter of time until speech limits are imposed on speaking out against pornography and institutions that oppose pornography will be criminalized and their property confiscated.
The Campaign Against Free Speech
Skeptical? Ponder for a moment the issue of “hate speech” against homosexuals. In Canada and some Western European countries, it is illegal to oppose homosexual activity. Media are prohibited from publishing Biblical passages condemning homosexuality (you know we are in trouble when Western countries are censoring the Bible). Biblical conservatives who have dared to challenge this law have been prosecuted, fined and thrown in jail. Unless the pendulum swings back, it is only a matter of time until churches or any organization that point out that homosexuality is a sin will be subject to prosecution in these countries and the United States.
Again, is this the type of society people who love freedom are willing to tolerate? Do we really want to criminalize the beliefs of others?
Time and again, secular humanists use extremist tactics to force their agenda upon the world. Take for example, the European Commission’s consideration of legislation that would make it illegal for broadcasters and advertisers to show sexist images. The law would ban “stereotyping” women’s roles, a definition so broad that a huge bureaucracy would need to be developed just to monitor and approve television content. The key proponents of these laws are radical feminists who are offended by the things they see on television and want to force everybody else to accept their values.
It is worth noting that many Biblical conservatives are also offended by many of the things on television, but, in contrast to radical feminist groups in Europe none of the major Biblical conservative groups today supports censorship. These groups have asked broadcasters to tone down the mind-numbing amount of sex and violence on television today and have asked for “children’s hours” and other steps to protect the young, but they do not support censorship. They pressure advertisers and try to appeal to moral standards, but they do not take the radical steps that the feminists in Europe support, because, unlike the secular humanists, Biblical conservatives believe in the basic right of human freedom.
One of the most poignant examples of the extremes that secular humanists are willing to go to to pursue their agendas involves institutes of higher learning. Because of the complete domination by secular humanists of the faculty and administration at almost all campuses, conservative thoughts and opinions have practically disappeared. Conservatives or libertarians at major university fight pathetic battles for free speech against an unending tide of dissent that refuses to allow them to be heard.
It is worth noting that most of the elite universities in the United States started out as Christian-based institutions. Until very recently, students were encouraged to read the Classics and explore a wide variety of different viewpoints. Students with radical viewpoints were not shouted down but were allowed to pursue their studies as part of the learning process. Today, of course, universities have simply become training center for people with secular humanists worldviews. The only opinions that are allowed to be expressed are those that fit that worldview.
The tyranny of the secular humanist viewpoint should be expected. The vast majority of human existence has involved despotic leaders suppressing anybody with the temerity to oppose them. This is simply part of human nature: people with power do not enjoy being contradicted. Once secular humanists gain control of an institution such as a university, they feel an overwhelming desire to make sure their ideas dominate.
Civil libertarians need ask themselves if Biblical-based conservatives would be any different. And the answer for modern times would, surprisingly for some, be yes.
The Major Difference
The major difference between Biblical-based conservatives and secular humanists is, of course, their view of man’s relationship with Deity. Secular humanists, whether they are nominally “religious” or not, believe that human reason should dominate decision-making, and Biblical conservatives rely on God-given tradition and the Natural Law.
Biblical-based conservatives believe they will be held accountable before God for their actions on Earth. They believe a society should be run on certain unalterable principles, the majority of which are expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Most conservatives believe God Himself inspired the principles framed in our founding documents. That is why conservatives constantly want to hearken back to the original meaning of the Constitution in looking at how a society should be administered. To run a truly just society, we must constantly ask ourselves how the Founding Fathers would have adjudicated these issues.
The Founding Fathers were clearly aware that there was something special about the Judeo-Christian tradition. They understood that Biblical-based values created just the right mixture of liberty and virtue to promote freedom and happiness. The very nature of these religions, which for the most part did not force religious conversions, were unique at the time.
Over time, the uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian tradition has continued and become more marked. While Muslims are threatened with death for converting to another religion and Hindus suffer persecution, Christians and Jews are given complete freedom to believe as they please. Yes, America produces tens of thousands of evangelist and Latter-day Saint missionaries who travel the world trying to convert people, but the process is completely voluntary. If somebody does not want to be converted, the missionary will accept the rejection and go on his way.
The Judeo-Christian tradition insists that its followers hate the sin but love the sinner. Forgiveness and loving your enemy are basic precepts. Jesus ordered Christians not to judge others without first looking at your own failings. And Jews and Christians are also told to follow the Natural Law, which includes the 10 commandments.
Central to the Judeo-Christian tradition is the idea that the freedom we have achieved as a society is unique and God-given. Consider carefully President Bush’s statement at the 2003 State of the Union: “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.” This quotation is central to understanding the Biblical-based conservative viewpoint: it is against God’s will to restrict the liberty of others.
Secular humanists have no such foundational philosophy. Their morality changes with time. One day something is wrong and then because a small group of people decide that it’s actually right, it becomes right. Then opposing what has always been wrong becomes an intolerant and discriminatory position because the minority view has decided on its own that morality has to change to suit the new, “modern” viewpoint.
A Shifting Worldview
So, in the “modern” viewpoint, what is right and what is wrong? Well, it depends. Murder is sometimes wrong – except when you want to murder an inconvenient baby or an inconvenient old person – and then it becomes right. Stealing is sometimes wrong – except when you are stealing from people who deserve to have their things stolen, such as rich people and people whose viewpoints disagree with your own. Discrimination is wrong – unless you discriminate against conservatives, Christians and white people – in which case it is right. Is respecting your mother and father right or wrong? Well, sometimes it’s right but sometimes in our modern culture the kids simply know best. Don’t they?
Consider for a moment the decades of denial of liberal secular humanists regarding the evils of Communism. Today most thinking people, including some secular humanists, have begun to recognize exactly how horrific Communism was under Stalin and Mao and how terrible it continues to be under Castro. Millions were murdered in the name of “reason” and “progress,” killings that were really about the maintenance of tyranny. Why did liberal secular humanists spend decades defending these systems? Why do some of them still have the effrontery to defend Castro today, in the wake of the recent murders of people who dare to speak out against the dictator?
The reason it is difficult for liberal secular humanists to find their moral bearings is that they have no centered system of beliefs. They have no moral anchor on which to determine right and wrong. Ethics become situational, and justifying behavior that most people understand as immoral becomes easier and easier.
People who value personal freedom should consider this issue with extreme care. In a secular humanist-dominated world, it is only a matter of time until the group that is persecuted is one that is important to you.
2003 Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
