by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

—– Original Message —–
From: “Jonathan”
To: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:51 PM
Subject: Capitol Hill Blue: Bush’s Depression: Been There, Reported That
Peter Baker wrote in The Washington Post over the weekend. “Aides who never betrayed self-doubt now talk in private of failures selling the American people on the Iraq war, the president’s Social Security plan and his response to Hurricane Katrina.” Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich echoes that sentiment. “I think the Administration realizes the larger system has failed,” Gingrich says. “They are not where they want to be on Iraq. Katrina was an absolute failure.” “It’s a standing joke among the president’s top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States, or, as he is known in West Wing jargon, POTUS,” Evan Thomas wrote in Newsweek on September 19. Thomas talked to “several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president.” Thomas went on to report “Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty. After five years in office, he surrounds himself largely people who agree with him.

—– Original Message —–
From: “Thomas”
To: “Jonathan”
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: Capitol Hill Blue: Bush’s Depression: Been There, Reported That

(from Thomas) Regarding the article on the level of depression among staff members regarding GWB’s state of mind and emotions: If that’s really the way it is, then it sounds pretty gloomy. The author presents GWB as a Captain Queeg, a Nixon in distress. Whatever is true is real. We’ll see. I have seen no indication of this, but I am not in the inner sanctum. Being under attack by half the nation tries men’s souls. I can understand the emotions that might arise. And of course, we all want to think that we, or the chosen leader of our favorite party, would not be subject to, or give in to, the pressures of our humanity. We all want our leaders to be gods from Olympus, but all we have available are men.

(From Jonathan) I didn’t ask, about your belief. I ask, “WHAT would make you THINK that this administration was interested in promoting democracy?” What evidence have you seen, what policy papers have you read, what news have you heard? Do not include superficial slogans. `I am interested in in-depth analysis, not blind trust. What would even make you think that politicians live by Christian principles, other than their lip service?j

Dear Jonathan,
Regarding your request for specifics about evidence that the leadership, government, Republicans… really want democracy in Iraq, and/or live by Christian principles. Yes, I do believe we are trying to create democracy in Iraq. Although, I personally think it will probably produce results other than what we want because their culture, religion, history has sent them in directions other than we would want to choose for them. But yes, we are trying to give them a choice, possibly a limited one, but nevertheless, an opportunity for choice. I think it’s one of our secular values that we worship, thinking that democracy will solve all manner of ills.
Why do I believe that we want democracy? I get that from a general feel of the news, talk shows, reading your links to the liberal media sites, Book TV, talking with people, and my past history. I choose not to engage in the effort to quote sources to validate this perspective. I know you do not believe we are trying to create democracy in Iraq, or anywhere else, but instead are using that as a façade to extract resources, set up puppet governments, or make environments favorable to corporate interests. You have a whole cadre of allies on your side, Moore, Soros, Kennedy,,, the NYT, the Guardian, etc. There are many naysayers, doubters, etc. who frame everything in terms of the evil and/or incompetent Republicans, the stupid, arrogant, melancholy, isolated, nepotistic, and theocratic GWB. They frame the Republicans, President, Christians, etc., regardless of the action, inaction, words, and tone as bad, wrong, not enough or too much. This group can be virtually counted on to diminish whatever happens or is done in a negative light. The portrayal of the abject failure of the Republicans, et al on such a consistent basis leads me to believe that we are looking at people who are looking at life with a particular lens. Regardless of what comes in front of their lens, life is colored with that particular bias. (Note: I don’t claim that the apologists for the Right are looking at life without their own lens. I merely note that the Left is coloring life through their lens quite strongly.)You ask, “Do I have anything that supports, denies, and shows how wrong this polar group is?” No, I don’t. I don’t even try. It isn’t my issue. I refer you to people who are champions of the polar opposite to your camp, Hannity, Rush, Bauer… The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, Washington Times, etc … These people have made a career out of looking at the other side of the picture, the opposite polarity to your worldview. But, such a reference and all the data they present would be dismissed by you, as you have done so many times when I have presented an article or quote from any of the Right wing sources. You have simply slandered them with single word dismissals, refusing to even comment on the points they bring, having judged their character to be so low that you could dismiss anything they say by simply slandering their character and thereby impeaching their testimony and perspective to the point of not even needing to consider it or reply on the basis of the merit of their points. So, will I try to meet you on that level? No. I will not. I am not the executor of the policies of the present. I am not the defender of the policies of the present. I am a visionary. I have a view of how the world should be. You have a view of how bad the world is now, that is the polarity, the station of life you have chosen to uphold. As you noted once, there is value in looking at the negative, as it illuminates the problems that need to be solved. That is the perspective that I frame the barrage of negativity of the Left. It is interesting to me what the other half says. I do not believe that the Republicans have the corner on corruption and power-mad motivation. But I am certainly willing to consider that perspective. But, it looks to me like a caricature or cartoon version of reality; it illustrates the problem in simplistic terms, colored to fit a certain perspective. Again, my purpose in my writing is not as an apologist for the way things are. I am almost completely uninvolved in creating the current political reality. I write and analyze the circumstances of the political realm and publish my thoughts. But my efforts probably do not have a great deal of influence on creating the current political execution. My effort is an attempt to create a vision of tomorrow that I can promote, and turn into a political manifestation.
Yes, I have a dream, a dream where every child can grow up knowing the Truth about God, where children will be disciplined rightly to follow the ways of Truth. I have a dream that someday we will live in a country where the True God is unabashedly proclaimed from the Statehouse, Courthouse, and everyman’s house. I have a dream that people will be judged by the merit of their character based on the perfect Law and Character of God. Yes, I have a dream. I can already see the forces lining against me. I see people who misunderstand the words and intent of my dream. I see people who accuse my dream of having implications of tyranny and imposition of Theocratic discrimination. Such interpretations are erroneous projections that my vision does not include. I see the culture war and the spiritual war that will break out with the overt articulation and advocacy of a True Christian Nation that embraces the spirit of the Framers non-establishment of a State religion as they practiced it themselves. When the ideals of man present such strong polarities, it brings men’s passions to high heat, which does not bode well for peace. When the heat is sufficiently great, a fire will ignite, and it will burn away the impurities. There will be a cleansing ahead that will require every man to make a decision as to which side of the aisle he wishes to stand.No, I am not the one to come to for validation about anything someone else is doing. My commitment is to create a world that actually does work, not in defending how someone is doing it now. Other people are very interested in that task; it is not my calling. I look at the issues of the day in terms of lessons to be learned and examples of principles of life, grist for the mill of philosophical contemplation and a fulcrum upon which to leverage change for the future.T.(from Jonathan) We are talking about PUBLIC POLICY in a representative democracy, which requires transparency and objectivity, first and foremost. Your world sounds more like a cult that is proudly disconnected from reality. Martin Luther King and Gandhi had visions that were grounded in reality and manifested peacefully. As for being powerless to do anything: The most important thing any individual can do, especially someone that loves the Lord, is to bear witness to the world around you.j

—– Original Message —–
From: “Steven”
To: “Thomas Lee Abshier, ND”
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Capitol Hill Blue: Bush’s Depression: Been There, Reported That

Wow! I can appreciate the plight and the passion of a visionary. As I said before, what stops me regarding your vision is your rhetoric, your choice of words. If the particular words that you use are critical, then so be it. If I understand correctly, your position seems to be that we need to get back to (return to) the True Way as designed by God. How does your vision differ from the regressive Fundamentalism that seems to be sweeping the globe in resistant reaction to today’s rapid pace of change?

Dear Steven,

(From Steven) “If I understand correctly, your position seems to be that we need to get back to (return to) the True Way as designed by God.”

(From Thomas) You’ve captured my stand perfectly! But, I make no pretense that returning back to (or finding for the first time) the True Way designed by God is trivial, obvious, or simple. I do not pretend that we can obtain this goal by pursuing a prescription as simple as “just following what it says in the Bible.”
The “True Way designed by God” is not something I can tell you with certainty, nor do I believe it can be done by anyone with an absolute authority equivalent to God’s mandate. Every situation has within it a unique blend of circumstances that requires a proper action that can only be determined by a right judgment of the hierarchy of principles involved. In other words, the application of the Law, the Word of God, the Truth of His Way, is not expressed explicitly in the Bible for many (or most) life situations. But, I believe that we can find the seeds of Truth hidden in the parables, instruction, history, and prophesy in the Bible. Jesus described the Kingdom of Heaven like a man who found a treasure buried in a field, and sold all he had to obtain it. Truth, like treasure, is hard to find, but when found is worth the sacrifice of every other principle that we thought was valuable.
As we travel through life and encounter various moral dilemmas, we must make a choice and decide the proper action based on an accurate standard of Right and Wrong. I believe that Perfect and Proper Standard can be found in the Spirit behind the Words of the Bible; but finding that Truth requires great effort, great study, intent, and desire. We need not pretend that this process of divining truth can be reduced to a formula, slogan, or simple reliance on a person or book. Rather, the process of making an evaluation of truth in each circumstance is individual, and any two equally dedicated Christians may come to different conclusions or valuations regarding the same moral dilemma. But, this does not affect the validity of Christianity as a moral system, reflect upon its underlying Truth, or impugn its value as a standard by which to govern a nation. Man’s judgment does not determine Truth. God’s judgment and Truth remains unmoved by man’s errors, rebellion, or disagreement. God stands alone as the sole arbiter and standard of Truth, while man struggles in this world to understand and learn from consequences of His natural law.
The difficulty of seeing the fullness of God’s will and way in any circumstance, and the lack of absolute certainty about the path or its endpoint is the very factor that allows us to operate as free moral agents in this world of force and mechanistic causation. Uncertainty is a necessary ingredient of free will, which in turn makes it possible to grow, learn, and become mature in our evaluation of life and its multivariate complexity.
I believe God’s design criteria for the universe included a requirement that man would find life interesting. Thus man’s life experience should include uncertainty, painful and pleasurable consequences, the potential for reward and failure, rules that were written on the heart of man, and the possibility for increased success with study, work, and wisdom.
I believe that opening the Bible and reading about commandments or restrictions on behavior would probably produce poor results when applied without a broader and deeper level of insight into the more expansive will and Way of God.
Such a perspective is meant to give pause to the zealot who would go into the statehouse and begin to dictate law based on the Bible. Some Biblical principles are easily recognized as appropriate to nearly universal applicability. But most real world issues require a consideration of many competing principles. Thus those men, who take on the task of imposing legislative restrictions and requirements on society, should be mature and broadly experienced with people and concepts.
There are many philosophies of life and morality represented within the United States. Thus, those members of minority religions or philosophies need reassurance that their position will be considered in the public debate. And, of course this principle is one of the central principles of our Democratic Republic. Every man has a right to have his voice heard, but no man has the right to have his voice and views imposed upon all of humanity without the agreement of the representatives. Thus, the Secular Humanists, Buddhists, and Atheists all have a right to contribute to the public discourse. But, they have no right to exclude the Bible from open consideration in the public debate.
The point of highest contention is whether the public, a community or state, should have the right to choose to indoctrinate their children in the religion of their choice, and to do so with public funds? And the answer is yes. To do so does not violate the First Amendment prohibition against establishing a Religion.
This is, of course, a dangerous option to give to people, since a community could decide to include indoctrination into witchcraft, New Age, Islam, or Buddhism into the children of a region. But, that is the risk that the Founders took when they allowed the States to make their decisions about matters not included in the Constitution.
The concept of a limited Federal Government, with all other rights being retained by the States, has within it the possibility of allowing a local people to choose to indoctrinate their children based on the local standards and culture. Such is the choice of a government of the people.
We see the same issue being played out now in Iraq and Afghanistan where they are choosing to put themselves under the rules of an Islamic state if they wish. And, while it is not to our benefit that they do so, it is the prerogative of a free people to place certain restrictions on themselves.
In the case of our own history, the Founding documents and the Founding Fathers did not explicitly prohibit the inclusion of Christian worship, prayer, and Bible reading in their writing of the Constitution. And, in fact, their actions supported the performance of Christian rituals and readings in the Congressional chambers. They passed laws that funded Christian action for missionary outreach. The philosophy of the Separation of Church and State, where Christianity was prevented from being involved in anything governmental, may have been an opposition perspective by some of the Founders or a concept considered in the debate. But, it was certainly not the dominant concept of the final document, it was not desired by the People, nor was it implemented in law until 1947 in the unconstitutional ruling of Everson vs. Board of Education.
The opponents to this concept of original intent argue that the Founders were deists. But, such a position is unlikely since the majority of the Founders were evangelical pastors or elders. And, even those who were arguably deists (Jefferson, Franklin, Paine…) have testimonies that sound remarkably similar to a Christian confession of faith. Each of the Founders probably went through a time in his life when he questioned the Christian faith, the place God had in relationship to man or made comments that cause one to question his commitment to Christianity. But, those comments in nearly every case could be countered with an even stronger affirmation of a personal belief, and recognition of the place God has in governing and inspiring the affairs of men.
Even assuming there were a small fraction of the Founders who were Deists; this fact does not require that we follow a minority opinion in our current interpretation of the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution was crafted as a document that was meant to guide and pattern the minds, hearts, and actions of men to perpetuate that social structure until it was properly amended by the will and consent of the governed. It is against the usurpation of the people’s right and sole authority to amend the original intent that the conservative cry was raised against activist judges who are legislating based on a Living Constitution.
Regarding the determination of Truth, we cannot simply look at the Bible divorced from an examination of the full spectrum of life. To do so would be akin to reading an instruction manual without any knowledge of the machine to be assembled. The instructions are only fully comprehended when they are compared with the actual objects and issues of the human experience. As such, we must include scientific, philosophical, sociological, and historical fact and opinion as examples of metaphor to give texture and object to the consideration of public policy.
As people living in God’s world, our behavior should not contradict the Word of God regardless of the cultural or natural possibilities. But, each man stands before God alone, and everyone is responsible to God for his own judgment and valuation of God’s principles. We can choose to listen to any teaching, writing, or legend. We can model our lives according to the metaphors of nature or history. And each man who uses the Bible as his standard will use his own concepts to judge the relative importance of the various Biblical principles.
When using science and nature to guide human behavior we can be thrown far afield by examples of animal behavior. In particular, the prohibited sexual behaviors of the Bible are still inappropriate for human morality regardless of the practices of another culture or animal species. For example, penguins will mount penguins of the same sex when the opposite sex is in short supply. Female black widow spiders will eat their male partner after mating. And various species will eat their babies. The variety of behaviors seen in nature covers virtually the entire spectrum of possibilities. To assume that mankind may practice and institutionalize animal behaviors, just because such natural examples exist, is to attribute humanity with no distinction from our animal brethren. And, it appears that the evolutionists wish to make this argument. Then, having made that case, we can with a logical and sequential validation, adopt the desired spectrum of animal behaviors as sanctioned in the human repertoire.
The evolutionist and his spiritual counterpart, the Secular Humanist, believe that we need no God to dictate or declare Truth; rather, they replace the Holy Spirit with the guidance of an innate sense of right/wrong. They hold that each man has an inner standard to which he is responsible, and it is against this standard alone that we should govern ourselves. Similar variations of this philosophy are seen in the occult practices of the Mason, mystic, Wiccan, earth worshiping, pagan religions which follow the creed, “Harm none, and do what thou wilt.” or “Do what thou wilt is all of the law”. Others believe that Buddha had the best insights about walking through life’s struggles and pain with an attitude of harmlessness.
While this list of the various spiritual paths is not exhaustive, we can see in each element of error, and elements of truth. And this is as we should expect it to be. The Holy Spirit speaks within each of our hearts, and God is calling each of us to perfection. A man who is behaving well behaves well regardless of his spiritual affiliation. Jesus endorsed the work of unbelievers that supported His goals and purposes. Each of these systems has truth an error embedded within it, just as Christians and Christianity can embrace wrong goals. Every spiritual path has much support within its own community. And each of them could be used as the basis for a societal organization. But if there is truly a Truth, then they are not necessarily the closest expression of God’s intent for man’s path of relationship to self, other, and God Himself.
I believe Truth will express itself ultimately in reality as a flourishing, growing, prosperous, happy, and healthy people. I believe that the Truth can be found in the Bible, but applying it properly to the full spectrum of life circumstances requires great study, insight, and maturity. Throughout our lifetime we struggle to integrate and apply the Truth of Scripture to the experiences and situations of life. Wisdom comes from the experience of making mistakes, listening to instruction, engaging in study, and submitting to the guidance of mediation. It is our job as people to govern and judge ourselves and relate with each other in the best possible way. That is the responsibility and authority God has given to us. I believe it is in this exercise of relationship that we develop our souls, and that our character so developed lives on beyond this life.
The real issue we are discussing is the problem of establishing a standard of life. Without a standard, we have no way of judging ourselves or governing our behavior. A foundation of the Secular Humanist religion is fairness/equality, the maximization of pleasure, and minimization of pain. And while such a standard has value, it lacks the specificity that may be required to truly hit the mark in following God’s way.
The legislative and justice systems must have within them a standard upon which to measure the appropriateness of law and enforcement. The Bible, as a source putatively from God, presents the possibility of complying with a higher standard than human perception and tastes. But, to choose the Bible as our source of authority and judgment requires that we have adequate proof to make that claim.
A study of Christian apologetics explores the evidence and arguments that the Bible was divine in origin and that the Biblical faith is consistent within itself and produces the highest of human experiences. But still, there will be doubters, and we can note that other religions have their own apologetic; each believing its path is the best. It is for this reason that many have chosen the easy route of accepting all paths as adequate or equal. But, such a perspective leaves us with no standard other than our own feelings when choosing between conflicting standards.

(From Steven) “How does your vision differ from the regressive Fundamentalism that seems to be sweeping the globe in resistant reaction to today’s rapid pace of change?”

(From Thomas) I would not impose a proof-texted fundamentalist version of the Bible on the world. I do not believe that we should require that laws conform to a particular creed or interpretation of the Bible. Rather, I believe that the entire society should use the Bible as a source of reference when debating how to judge the specifics of life situations. I do not expect conformity or agreement in this debate. I expect simply that the societal debate will be sobered by the consideration of the Word of God (and the leading of the Spirit of God) when this perspective is included in the debate.
This is a very different paradigm than simply following what the Pope said was true, or judging things based on a Baptist or Amish creed. Such an imposition of a religious standard on a people is a theocracy. The problem with a theocracy is that mortal men are given the power to enforce their judgments in the name of God. Men can execute the greatest tyranny when they feel responsible to no higher authority than themselves, after having judged themselves absolutely pure and acting as agents of God.
In other words, I do not advocate a Theocracy, nor do I advocate a State religion. Rather I advocate the implementation of a free market for religion. I believe people have a right to band together, to create a generally accepted religious perspective. Purging all expression of religious symbols from the state houses and public proclamations will not produce a religion-free nation; it will merely promote a de facto state religion of Secular Humanism.
I believe your choice of the word “Regressive” in your question refers to the Islamic Fundamentalism. You wonder how an implementation of a Christian nation would be different than Wahabe, Taliban, and Militant Islam?
The Fundamentalism of Islam has taken the 7th century teachings of a pedophile warlord and implemented them with fanatical obedience to the literalness of his words and their traditions. If these words are true, then they should be followed.
Again, I am not advocating a theocracy, a religious test of heresy or orthodoxy to be applied to anything. I am advocating that Christianity be allowed to be taught, practiced, considered and honored in public institutions.
A major problem with every religion is the temptation by its practitioners to take the words of the teacher, guru, avatar, or savior out of its holistic context. A proverb, example, or instruction can be isolated from any larger work and implemented as though it was an accurate representation of the entire system of belief. Thus, to moderate this tendency for individuals to exaggerate the universality of a particular teaching, the entire culture should be involved in the debate. The meeting and consideration of many minds tends to moderate the extreme views of the isolated proponent of a religion.
I note that some people feel that Christianity has the tendency to be “regressive” in areas of human sexuality. I recently heard a senator refer to the “progress” that has been made in this area in modern times. The progress, of course, refers to the fact that we have thrown off many of the restrictions regarding sexuality. It appears that those who oppose the concept of a Christian nation most fear that such a consideration would take us back to a time of more modest sexual expression.
There have been errors made by Christians in the past, as have been made by people who have followed Secular principles. People are the arbiters, the mediums for the interpretation of the Word of God. People make errors. It is for this reason that it is with fear and trepidation we should make absolute statements that declare that God has ordained our judgment.
But as humans, we are in charge of governing ourselves. God’s rule is true, and the consequences of violating His Law will be administered; still He is not present overtly directing our decisions, so we must take the responsibility to make a judgment about the absolute Truth or Error of our choices.
Some principles in the Bible regarding the standards of behavior are stated so clearly throughout the whole body of scripture that a Biblical worldview cannot ignore that concept. Such restrictions or requirements of behavior will rise to the top of the principles that are implemented in a Christian Nation. The other more fine points, ones that have more qualifiers, will be the source of more divergent opinion, compromise, and debate.
In other words, if the Bible truly is the Word of God, and as a society, if we followed the general and clear patterns of Biblical prescription and prohibition, we would execute the major patterns properly. The central thesis of the advocacy for a Christian Nation is that if we really seek to know and hear the spirit of God’s voice speaking to us in our daily lives, and implement Godly legislation to regulate group behavior, then life on Earth could manifest its full potential.
I support many of the goals of the conservative movement and Christian Coalition. As a support to these concepts, Rabbi Lapin wrote the book, “America’s Real War” where he makes the case that we are a Christian Nation and have every right to make that choice.
I see a Christian Nation forming with a loose implementation of Christianity throughout society. I see this Christian Nation as a continuation of the Founders vision. I see a nation where we openly consider Biblical principles in every area of life. I see a society that includes a consideration of God in every area of human endeavor: science, politics, history, and psychology, etc. I believe we will eventually see a day when the social and physical sciences will be seen as part of a larger unity inside of God’s larger plan.
The Fundamentalist movement, as I understand it, believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; a concept which I endorse. But, typically the word “Fundamentalism” now carries the tone of anathema, a people and philosophy that takes words of scripture out of context or imputes God’s will with certainty to situations, and then applies those words with force to people and situations. Such blunt interpretations proceed from the mouths and hearts of spiritual babes.
Such simplicity is tempting, but horrors evolve out of such immaturity. I would hope that an entire nation debating and considering foreign and domestic policy, social contracts, expenditures, and regulation of personal and group behavior would be able to bring a mature perspective of the very rich tapestry of possibilities that the Bible presents regarding many areas of life. We note that the message of Jesus was grace, but grace was dependent upon accepting His Lordship. Forgiveness is always possible, but true repentance is the doorway to clemency. A people who continue to violate God’s Law will find that they are continually under the curse of a cause an effect sequence embedded in the structure of life.
I believe that the Bible is the seed from which the speaking of the Holy Spirit can be given voice in our hearts. I believe by making its study open and common, and the basis for philosophy and debate, that we are opening ourselves up for the Holy Spirit to give us Biblical/Godly solutions to our problems of government, relationship, and resources.
I believe the Word of God needs to be understood in the context of reality, specific situations, and experimental fact. Psychology has prided itself in being an experimental science, and as such experimental conclusions can be taken as fact and truth. Given that God’s law is the only Truth, we must resist the temptation to accept a societal norm to commit a sin as the equivalent of God ordained Law. A society’s attitude toward sin does not make it right or wrong. The fundamental judgment of Truth and sin (by God) is untouched by cultural standards. We cannot “advance” in our morality and outgrow the actual standards of God. In other words, the consequences of destruction still come with the commission of sin, regardless of whether it is intentional, out of ignorance, or socially sanctioned. There may be slight modifications in an outcome, or sequence, or severity of the consequences depending on the context… but nevertheless, the general pattern of a downward drift (or lack of attainment of the heights) will be produced by the practice of error (as defined by God).
To be specific, the change of the culture’s attitude toward adultery, homosexuality, and abortion does not change the reality of the Biblical prohibition. Human sexuality is the issue that is most often the point of contention when we talk about Biblical standards. In general, most of us agree about theft, murder, and lying, etc. The passion to express our sexual tastes, without repercussion or guilt, I believe is the major resistance many people feel with regard to the embrace of Christianity.
People get caught by their desire for their particular form of (unGodly) sexual expression, and they do not want to be restricted by a belief system that appears to be simply a cultural convention. The Bible, therefore, becomes the enemy of the Secular Humanist because it stands in the way of instituting a new world where man chooses the standards that seem best. People rebel strongly against any effort to inhibit their sexuality. Thus, the first and most important barrier to free societal sexual expression is to remove the general consideration of Biblical instruction. Removing prayer, Bible reading, posting of the 10 Commandments, etc, all moves this agenda forward.
The Word of God contains the power to prick and awaken men’s consciences. It convicts men’s hearts of their error, and those who wish to act with impunity in front of their own conscience must reduce its stature in their own lives. And, to remove the possibility of social stigma or sanction, it must be removed as a major influence in establishing the standards governing the law of the land.
I believe the desire to express this particular human passion has produced the largest portion of the rebellion against Christianity/God’s Word as a social standard.
Sincerely yours,