Freedom Defender

Reporting on politics, society, principles, Christian interest and news that intrigues me.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

The Rise of the Godless Religion

There are many articles about the Religious Right, but founding fathers of liberal and conservative beliefs were both God fearing people. Television had shows where people were free to mention God. Now Political Correctness has pushed God out of Television and seeing 50's TV shows that mention God are refreshing, but shocking.

Were Democrats never religious? Did Democrats never believe in God. They once did. JFK a Democrat President said "There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and laughter". Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter said "You can not divorce religious belief and public service. I've never detected any conflict between God's will and my political duty. If you violate one, you violate the other". So the real story is not religion forcing its way into the right-wing, but godlessness that entered the Democrat party.

How did the Democrats loose their Christian roots? When did they forsake Christianity? When a new religion of Secular Humanism forced its way onto the scene and usurped control of the Democrat Party is when they left Christianity.

The Secular Humanists now control much of the Democrat Party. Who are these people? And what do they really believe? The Secular Humanist religion has a list of affirmations (they don't like to call them beliefs), which are listed online, here. The history of the establishment of their religion (although they like to say that they are not a religion) is on a "religious movements" website here.

How did these Secular Humanists get so powerful? This is really a one word answer... lawyers. I guess maybe Judges too... so lawyers and Judges (who are just glorified lawyers anyway). Lawyers started cashing in on suing the people of the United States (they sued the government, who would raise citizen's taxes to pay for it) for prayer and the mention of God in school. Lawyers initially started suing on behalf of Atheists and Secular Humanists. Once they saw how much money they could make off of attacking God... lawyers were SOLD!

Lawyers have traditionally aligned themselves with the Democrat party. Leftists would say that it is because they side with the common man against the big business interests. I've heard that the way that Lawyers find suing God so lucrative is one of the loopholes in Title 42 of the United States Code (which seems to be supported by section 405(2)(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this says "the Commissioner shall take into consideration the amount available for grants under this section"). Through this, lawyers can get paid by the Government grants (charging the US taxpayer) anytime they bring a lawsuit in the name of "non-Establishment of Religion clause" (where the lawyers get paid for attacking God references in public arenas and further promoting the government establishment of Atheism/Secular Humanism). Whether the plaintiff wins or looses... the government pays (the taxpayer is charged), for providing a service for the "public good" (where the "public good" means removing God from the Declaration of Independence). This is a systemically discriminatory Federally subsidized assault on God, at the expense of the taxpayer. Our government policy further promotes Atheism/Secular Humanism as the Establishment through this public funded anti-God assault on the Freedom of Religion (1st Amendment).

Furthermore leftist allies in the press have also contributed to the rise of Secular Humanism. A reporter from beleifnet, in April of 2003, describes the ascension of the atheists/Secular Humanists in politics and the media:

"journalists' parochialism blinds them to one of the biggest stories in American politics: how the Democratic Party has become a stronghold of fervent secularists, and how secularism ‘is just as powerful a determinant of social attitudes and voting behavior as is a religiously traditional outlook.’

Among political journalists, what you might call the "official story" holds that religious conservatives bullied their way onto the American political scene with the election of Ronald Reagan, and rudely brought into the political arena the culture war that had been raging since the 1960s.

That’s exactly wrong, say Bolce and De Maio, who attribute the "true origins of this conflict" to "the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic Party, and the party’s resulting antagonism toward traditional values."

Until relatively recently, both major parties were of similar mind on issues of personal morality. Then came the 1972 Democratic Convention, at which secularists--defined as agnostics, atheists, and those who seldom or never attend religious services--seized control and nominated George McGovern. Prior to that year, neither party had many secularists among its delegates. Democratic delegates were split between religious and moral traditionalists on one side, and secularists on the other. They fought over moral issues: abortion, women’s rights, homosexuality, the family.

But in what Bolce and De Maio call a "secularist putsch," the non-believers triumphed, giving us what Richard Nixon mocked as the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion," and instigating--with help from the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973--the long march of religious and moral conservatives to the GOP, which became the party of traditionalists by default.

By 1992, the parties had become thoroughly polarized around religious orientation. Only 20 percent of white Democratic delegates (N.B., this secular-religious antagonism is a white voter phenomenon, the authors say) went to religious services at least once a month, while over three times that number of white Republican delegates did.

But while the media have thoroughly reported the key role religious conservatives play in Republican Party politics, they’ve ignored the role militant secularists play in setting the Democratic Party's agenda. "Secularism," say Bolce and De Maio, "is no less powerful a determinant of attitudes on the contentious cultural issues than is religious traditionalism." Indeed, Republican traditionalists have not polarized politics by becoming more conservative, as conventional wisdom would have it. Instead, secularists (and to a lesser extent religious moderates) have become more liberal.

The divide has become so stark that the authors have discerned a new kind of voter: the "anti-fundamentalist." Twenty-five percent of white respondents in a survey called the American National Election Study expressed serious hostility towards religious conservatives, as opposed to only one percent who felt this strongly against Jews, and 2.5 percent who disliked blacks and Catholics to a strong degree. (Ironically, these are people who say they "‘strongly agree’ that one should be tolerant of persons whose moral standards are different from one’s own.") Eighty percent of these voters picked Bill Clinton in 1996, with 70 percent choosing Al Gore in 2000.

In other words, if the country's first Catholic presidential candidate, Al Smith, ran for president today, his enemies wouldn’t be the Bible Belt anti-Catholics rustics he faced in 1920, but today’s urbane anti-Christian bigots of liberal coastal cities.

This could be the most important development in American party politics of the past 20 years, say Bolce and De Maio—and America’s two leading newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, have both completely missed it. In a search of the Lexis-Nexis database of domestic political news stories, op-eds, and editorials those papers published from 1990 to 2000, the authors found only 14 stories that mentioned the religious gap between the two parties.

During this same time span, the Times and Post published 392 articles on the gender gap—which represented a 9 percent differential in favor of the Democrats. The average religious gap in these same elections was 42 percentage points."

But their most striking finding was the near total lack of editorial and news coverage devoted to the increased importance of secularists to the Democratic Party. The numbers are mind-boggling: 43 stories on secularist Democrats, 682 stories on traditionalist Republicans. In 1992, the Times alone published nearly twice the number of stories about Evangelicals in the GOP than both papers did about secularists among the Democrats for the entire decade.

The bias is even worse among television journalists, who filled the airwaves with stories about the "Religious Right" and the Republican Party, but who didn’t file a single story about the Secular Left’s relationship to the Democrats.

I suspect that most reporters, editors, and producers would be shocked by these findings. They really do think of themselves as, to pinch a phrase, "fair and balanced." Yet Bolce and De Maio cite a poll showing that a majority of TV news directors and newspaper editors felt that Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians "have too much power." Fully one-third considered these believers to be "a threat to democracy." The same survey found that only four percent thought nonbelievers had too much influence, and the number of media professionals who perceived secularists as a threat was … zero.

America is a far different place from its newsrooms. Belief in God is, for most Americans, a sign of character. According to a March 2002 national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, more than half of those polled thought negatively of "nonbelievers." Only half that number had a low opinion of the "Christian conservative movement."

Bolce and De Maio wonder if the media elite consciously do the Democrats a favor by not pointing out what, for all intents and purposes, they are: the Godless Party. 'Perhaps it is for this reason more than any other,' they write, 'that we do not hear in election-night analyses and postmortems that Democratic candidates have shorn up their base among the unchurched, atheists, and agnostics, in addition to the ritualistic accounts and warnings about how well Republicans are doing with evangelicals of the Christian Right.'" (Beliefnet - Are the Democrats Anti-Religion?)

In summary, rich elitist lawyers sued the taxpayer to use Federal Funds (taxpayers money) to forcefully eliminate God from the mainstream. This assault first focused on the school systems to eliminate all religions besides Atheism and Secular Humanism from Schools. Then it seems that through section 404 of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Secular Humanists used taxpayer money to propagandize the teachers into compliance with the Secular Humanist agenda. Section 404 says, "The Commissioner is authorized to arrange, through grants or contracts, with institutions of higher education for the operation of short-term or regular session institutes for special training designed to improve the ability of teachers, supervisors, counselors, and other elementary or secondary school personnel to deal effectively with special educational problems". This shows how the lawyers could proselytize public school teachers in the Secular Humanist religion at the expense of the taxpayer. (Preparing the groundwork to popularize this view to generate further profit for themselves at the taxpayers expense)

With the teachers fully proselytized and the rich lawyers promoting the Secular Humanist cause with federal public grants (taxpayers money), the Teachers Unions and the rich Lawyers imposed the Secular Humanist view upon the unsuspecting Democrat party in 1972, as the above article states. The media allies of the Unions and Lawyers promoted the Secular Humanist agenda. The media spun the events of the late 70's and 80's into the Religious Right bringing religious issues into politics. Which in reality, it was the Secular Humanist agenda which had a new alternative religious view already 'been brought' in 1972! (and those who believe in traditional religious Freedoms - had to align with the Republican party to have a voice).

There is difficulty in repealing this law. Repealing this law would also repeal public funding to prevent minorities from being discriminated against. If the Secular Humanists/Atheists continue to oppress religions, besides themselves, through the misuse (using it exactly to the opposite of it's intention) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious groups may be forced into a corner to repeal parts of the Act, leaving minorities vulnerable, just to get some relief from religious oppression. I pray that it doesn't have to come to that.


Post a Comment

<< Home