We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will be finally achieved.
As you can see, Dunphy is a worldview thief. He steals from the Christian worldview—“love thy neighbor”—so he can prop up his man-centered worldview that cannot account for either love or neighbors given the assumptions of atheistic, evolutionary humanism. Since the beginning of evolutionary time organisms have eaten their “neighbors” with no regard for either law or morality. See this violent chimpanzee attack if you want proof. Would Mr. Dunphy have had the encroaching and murderous chimps arrested? David Attenborough and his film crew did not intervene. But we’re told that chimpanzees share 97 percent of human genes. If it’s OK for chimps to kill and eat their neighbors, then why is it immoral and illegal for humans to do it?
Periodically Mr. Dunphy sends me emails with one of his articles attached. The latest was titled “Classic Confrontations: ABC vs. the Christian Conservative” published in the Summer 2010 issue of The Secular Humanist Bulletin. Mr. Dunphy attacked the Christian conservative view that homosexuality is a sin. Of course, the Bible is quite clear on this, but Mr. Dunphy engages in a labyrinth of obfuscation to discount the Bible and any opinion by Bible-believing denominations. Instead, he counters that so-called “Christian denominations such as the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopal Church” would strongly disagree. If he wants to engage in a denominational bean count on the issue, he would lose. Of course, like the judge in the Proposition 8 case, numbers don’t matter for Mr. Dunphy and his secular compatriots when they’re stacked against you.
I was glad to see that Mr. Dunphy has a favorable attitude toward the Declaration of Independence. He quotes the following from a humanist fellow-traveler: “How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (which our nation was built on) where it says ‘All Men are Created Equal’—and try treating them that way for a change? Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your crutch for your existence.”
I found this statement interesting since the Declaration of Independence was compiled by many writers hundreds of years ago. A document written more than 230 years ago can be considered archaic. I wonder what people in the year 4000 will think of its principles. Moreover, there are millions of people around the world who consider its principles fictional.
Mr. Dunphy would have done well to quote the entire section of the Declaration that includes the phrase “all men are created equal.” Here’s the entire thought:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Imagine that. The signers, even Jefferson, believed in God as creator. I didn’t know that Secular Humanists believed in God. But they need Him to make their worldview work since there is no way to account for human uniqueness and value without Him.
A Secular Humanist might argue that “the pursuit of happiness” must include homosexual practices since engaging in such practices make some people “happy” (gay). But of course there are all types of behaviors that make people happy but are immoral, some of which are prohibited by law.
The signers of the Declaration appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world.” It’s evident that they understood that ultimately God judges behavior. Contrary to the Declaration, Mr. Dunphy and his Secular Humanist friends must presuppose that (1) God does not exist and if He does exist (2) that He is OK with homosexual behavior, neither of which can be proved empirically or logically. Of course, if God does not exist, then there is no such thing as equality since evolution is the most unequal of methods, “nature, red in tooth and claw” and all of that. “Gay bashing” might even be deemed appropriate given evolutionary assumptions—homosexuality is an aberrational genetic mutation, a hopeful monster gone awry.
Anybody with a modicum of common sense knows that homosexuality, to use Secular Humanist jargon, is irrational. The parts don’t fit. It’s like pounding a square peg in a round hole. Now, if Mr. Dunphy owned a garage, would he hire a mechanic who used a hammer on a part that required a screwdriver? I don’t think so.
If his son continually swished his penis in the toilet after defecating, I suppose he would tell him how inappropriate and unsanitary this was. If he continued to do this as an adult, I know he and others would think there was something wrong with him. But if he uses an orifice “where the sun don’t shine” that has the same defecatory effect, it now becomes a cause célèbre of the “more liberal than thou” crowd.
All Secular Humanists who support homosexuality have a problem: The Bible condemns it, reason condemns it, and evolution condemns it. All that’s left is personal preference with no moral constraint for any one. In the end, the person or persons with the biggest club wins.