We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
I received an email from one of the authors of the Mother Jones issue that attacked Christian involvement in politics and social issues (December 2005). Throughout this author’s article he continually misrepresented me and others. I’ve answered these objections previously in articles and books and I did not feel it was necessary to do again. It gets tiresome after awhile. Mother Jones (MJ) has an agenda. I understand that. I don’t expect reciprocity.
The author believes he is being religiously neutral. Of course, there is no such thing as neutrality, religious or otherwise. For the secularist, neutrality is the absence of religion. We saw “religious neutrality” in action when school districts refused to allow any mention of Christmas.
He writes further: “You do not know where I stand on abortion or any other religious topic, so you might want to pause before stating what you believe I believe.” This is a cop out. He writes for two avowedly pro-abortion magazines: Mother Jones and Creative Loafing. He is carrying their water, and he would say that I am carrying water for people I associate with. When he makes the distinction with me, then I’ll make it with him. I don’t agree with every person in “my camp.” If you want to know what I believe, then read what I write. And when you decide to read what I write, get it right when you go into print. Don’t attribute views to me that I do not hold.
What is the end-game of “religious neutrality”? We don’t have to go very far to see its effects on a culture. An article that appeared in USA Today on January 9, 2006 (11A) explains where “religious neutrality” can lead. Former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing summed up the dominant European view: “Europeans live in a purely secular political system, where religion does not play an important role.” James P. Gannon, the author of “Is God dead in Europe (And what might that mean for America?),” writes: “Among the consequences of Europe’s abandonment of its religious roots and the moral code that derives therefrom is a plunge in its birth rates to below the replacement level. Abortion, birth control, acceptance of gay marriage and casual sex are driving the trend. Europe is ‘committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself,’ according to George Weigel.”
One of the best demonstrations of “religious neutrality” can be found in a study of the French Revolution. The revolutionaries couldn’t kill the people fast enough, all in the name of “reason” and the overthrow of religion. “Religious neutrality” leads to Soviet-style Communism and Hitler-style persecution of alternative worldviews. The people who joined in the Russian Revolution and voted for Hitler didn’t bargain for what they got, but they got it nevertheless. The same is true for those who stormed the Bastille. It seemed like such a good idea at the time.
The author claimed that his “religiously neutral” worldview would not result in my “Taliban-type worldview.” Since 1973, 1.5 million pre-born babies per year have been killed through the legalization of abortion. What have we heard about religion and abortion? They don’t mix. When you keep religion out of the abortion debate, tens of millions of preborn babies die.
When the Taliban fired cannons at giant, ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan in 2001, the world community was outraged! And yet, the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are on their own secular crusade to eliminate any public display of religion in government buildings, on government property, and in schools. The city seal of Las Cruces, New Mexico is being challenged for its religious content because of the three crosses appearing on the seal. Ten Commandment displays are being challenged everywhere. In the latest evolution case, Darwinian evolution can’t even be challenged in terms of science. This is the secular Taliban at work in America.
Richard Dawkins, the high priest of the evolutionary religion, has this to say about parents who teach their children about religion: “Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods. It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation.” He doesn’t say what he would do about this, but if it’s “child abuse,” then there’s a role for the State.
Dawkins is best known for his much-cited comment in The Blind Watchmaker that evolution “made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.” His atheistic anthem is John Lennon’s Imagine: “Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. ‘You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one.’” At least Dawkins is honest enough to admit that there is no such thing as “religious neutrality.”
 James P. Gannon, “Is God dead in Europe (And what might that mean for America?),” USA Today (January 9, 2006), 11A.
 K J M Varma, “Taleban [sic] presses cannons, tanks to destroy Buddhist statues” (March 1, 2001): www.rediff.com/news/2001/mar/01tale1.htm
 Richard Dawkins quoted in “Dawkins: Religion equals ‘child abuse’: Scientist compares Moses to Hitler, calls New Testament ‘sado-masochistic doctrine’” (January 8, 2006): www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252