Is Socialism Our New Nationally Established Religion?

Bonnie

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2004
9,476
673
48
Wherever
By Tom Brewton (07/29/05)

Federal education funding to teach socialism amounts to establishing the secular religion of socialism as the official national church.

The following letter was mailed to Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas:

Dear Mr. Chief Justice:

This letter is in regard to the Court's recent decision in the Washington State religious scholarship case. The purpose is not to disagree specifically with the Court's decision, but to question what constitutes a religion, the establishment of which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

It can be demonstrated that secular and materialistic socialism is a religion. That being the case, any use of Federal funds by public schools and universities for the teaching of socialistic doctrine constitutes a prohibited establishment of a specific religion.

That socialism is a religion:

Socialism's codifier, Henri de Saint-Simon, himself called socialism a religion. His last major work was entitled The New Christianity. Saint-Simon said that the highest socialistic regulatory council should control education so that nothing but the catechism of social justice might be taught (e.g., Darwinian evolution, multiculturalism, Keynesian economics, deconstruction, legal realism, and critical studies).

Saint-Simon's more famous colleague Auguste Comte went so far as to create The Religion of Humanity as part of his materialistic philosophy of Positivism.

Comte's Religion of Humanity was approvingly cited by John Stuart Mill in his Chapters on Socialism, in which he mused that the educational system should be changed to indoctrinate the people with the principles of socialism.

The late Bertrand Russell, one of the world's most prominent spokesmen for socialism, said of the World War I German socialist party, "For Social Democracy is not a mere political party, nor even a mere economic theory; it is a complete self-contained philosophy of the world and of human development; it is, in a word, a religion and an ethic. To judge the work of Marx, or the aims and beliefs of his followers, from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook the whole body and spirit of their greatness." (from Lecture One, German Social Democracy).

Irving Howe was, as you know, a leading New York socialist intellectual after World War II, as well as the founding editor of Dissent magazine. In A Margin of Hope: An Intellectual Autobiography, he wrote, "Call it liberal, call it social democratic, a politics devoted to incremental reform even while still claiming a utopian vision, how can such a politics satisfy that part of our imagination still hungering for religious exaltation, still drawn to gestures of heroic violence, still open to the temptations of the apocalypse? Perhaps it was recognition of this fact that led the leadership of the European social democracy in the years just before the First World War to maintain some of the "revolutionary" symbols and language of early Marxism, though their parties had ceased to be revolutionary in any serious respect. Intuitively they grasped that the parties they led were not just political movements but, in some sense, branches of a "church" "

In A Yippie Manifesto, published in May 1969, Jerry Rubin wrote, "America and the West suffer from a great spiritual crisis. And so the yippies are a revolutionary religious movement.A religious-political movement is concerned with peoples souls, with the creation of a magic world which we make real.We offer: sex, drugs, rebellion, heroism, brotherhood. They offer: responsibility, fear, puritanism, repression."

To round out the liberals' own characterization of socialism as a religion, start by comparing the similarities in structure between socialism and Christianity. Each has a theory about human nature that prescribes conditions of daily life and holds forth a promise of future redemption for all of humanity, a vision of future perfection that becomes a controlling factor in the daily lives of Christians and socialists. Christians look to salvation and life after death. Liberal-socialists look to The Religion of Humanity's promise of perfection of man and society, here on earth, by means of materialistic structures planned and administered by intellectuals.

For liberals, there being no God, the ultimate source of legitimacy and authority is the ever-changing ideas of social justice in the minds of intellectuals. Applying that view to our Constitution is the process of judicial activism.

Christianity, like it or not, was the sole unifying structure of Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. For the Judeo-Christian tradition, Original Sin was humans over-reaching to become God-like by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. The message was that humans are God's creatures and must obey God's Will. Neither Salvation, return to the Garden of Eden, nor eternal bliss, is possible within this world.

Socialism exhibits all the same elements: a Garden of Eden (the State of Nature), original sin, and a promise of salvation revealed in sacred texts delivered by revered prophets. For socialists, Original Sin was the invention of private property and the resulting scramble of individuals to amass property, which introduced greed, avarice, aggression, crime, and wars. But unlike Christianity, socialist salvation is attainable without divine intervention, through the political state, by future generations here on earth.

Socialist salvation, however, is not an individual matter. It applies to the collective masses, in which individuals have no political significance beyond their class identity. Be it noted that our nation was incontrovertibly founded on principles of individualism, not secular and materialistic collectivism.

To be considered true religions, doctrinal beliefs must achieve multi-national and cross-cultural acceptance. Socialism clearly qualifies, having spread from Western Europe to all parts of the world. It has been adopted by countries in the Middle East, Africa, and the Far East, including three of the most populous nations in the world: Russia, India, and China. Great religions commonly are associated with the lives and teachings of larger-than-life individuals such as Moses, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed. Socialism qualifies in that respect also. Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, and Charles Darwin delivered their revelations of materialistic Truth in the first sixty years of the 1800s.

Marx has become a mythical, god-like figure to billions of people around the world. American school children are taught that Darwin was the embodiment of science and truth, despite the fact that there exists not a single proof of his speculative theory (see Cal-Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson's Darwin on Trial and Gertrude Himmelfarb's Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution). Thomas Huxley and American socialists like John Dewey used Darwinian evolution theory as a battering ram against morality and spiritual religions, particularly Christianity.

John Adams said that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, self-constrained by individual morality; that it would work for no other. Darwin's "bulldog," Thomas Huxley, said that there is no such thing as sin, merely the struggle for survival. Dewey taught that there is no morality, because material conditions are the sole source of human nature, and those conditions change continually in Darwinian fashion. Their fellow socialists Hitler and Stalin found nothing to quibble about in those doctrines.

The prophets of the socialist religion proclaimed that human nature could be returned to its State-of-Nature benevolence by the abolition of private property. Political societies, indeed all of humanity, could be perfected here on earth by restructuring government to place it in the hands of intellectual planners. The state-planner, the minister of socialist religion, sees himself as a modern-day Moses uniquely qualified by his knowledge about the so-called Immutable Law of History to guide humanity to earthly perfection, back to the Original State of Nature.

That the secular and materialistic religion of liberalism (the American sect of the international religion of socialism) is antithetical to and wholly incompatible with the fundamental principles of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution; proselytizing with Federal funds for the religion of socialism is therefore unconstitutional
:

The American War of Independence was based philosophically upon John Locke's Second Treatise, which was founded entirely in natural law. The legitimization for both the ouster of James II and George III was that each had broken the natural-law compact that postulated inalienable, individual natural-law rights to life, liberty, and property. "No taxation without representation."

Jefferson's references in the Declaration to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" are meaningless except in the context of natural law. Ditto with regard to the Bill of Rights.

Natural law, since Aristotle, has been identified with the teleological, intelligent-design paradigm of the cosmos. Aristotle's natural law, via Aquinas's Summa Theologica, opened the field of European medieval law to the concept of separation of church and state into political and spiritual realms. One dealt with making people good citizens, the other with making people good humans. Both were rooted in natural law, and natural law was God-given. This was the entire foundation of everything that we now call Western civilization.

Everyone from Franklin to Washington continually invoked the Deity's blessings for the success of the American cause of independence, and later the Constitution. But American liberal-socialism demands that only the secular doctrine of socialism and Comte's Positivism be taught in our schools. Because of support from our Federal courts, socialism has been established as the only scientific truth. The natural-law, spiritual-religion foundation of our nation has been dismissed as ignorance from a pre-scientific age. If that position holds, then the Declaration and the Constitution are meaningless drivel that "evolves" in Darwinian evolutionary fashion, subject only to random, chaotic materialistic forces.


As our first socialist Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, repeatedly wrote, there is no such thing as a higher law of morality, merely whatever a particular judge thinks that the law ought to be. As you know, Holmes opined that, if secular materialism changed public opinion to the belief that we should scrap the Constitution and institute Bolshevism, then neither the Court not the Constitution should stand in the way. That contempt for tradition and precedent, for the entirety of Western civilization, has, too often since the 1920s, informed Federal judicial practice, making the Constitution into a Rorschach ink-blot.

The materialistic and secular doctrine of socialism, pushed by the ACLU (e.g., the Scopes monkey trial), liberal-socialist politicians, and the teachers' unions, in effect decapitates Western civilization. We see this daily in denigration of subject matter produced by "dead white men" and John Dewey's maxim that "dead" history has no place in the Progressive Education curriculum. William F. Buckley, Jr., documented it in his 1951 God and Man at Yale, and Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate have updated it in The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on Americas Campuses.

Saint-Simon and John Dewey were correct in perceiving that control of education is the most effective way to destroy the essence of Western civilization and replace it with the secular and materialistic religion of socialism. We may hope that education will be rebalanced to require fair presentation of the doctrinal foundations of our Constitution, as well as the dogma of liberal-socialism
.
May we hope that the Federal judiciary will abandon its suicide pact with the liberal-socialists?
Sincerely,

Thomas E. Brewton


http://www.americandaily.com/article/8491
 
Great article. I keep telling peole that atheism is a religion, making many of the same points, but they never believe me unless they're not atheists. Secular progressives don't even see themselves as a religion anymore, they simply see themselves as the 'enlightened,' who must spread their superior knowledge to us ignorant masses. In some ways, they see themselves as God, or at the very least, prophets, who must convert the unbelievers for their own good. However, we cannot be trusted to make the right decision when presented with their philosophies, so it must be forced through whatever means necessary, a.k.a. judicial activism.

if secular materialism changed public opinion to the belief that we should scrap the Constitution and institute Bolshevism, then neither the Court not the Constitution should stand in the way.

Actually, not true. If the people of the US want to switch to Bolshevism, then the people should change the Constitution, not ignore it. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no other law should be considered above it in any legal context, whatsoever. If the people decided they wanted a Christian theocracy, I imagine Holmes would be arguing that the Constitution and the judiciary should stand in the way for their own good.

The secular progressives have nearly succeeded in indoctrination through education, and you can already see them at work against the last defense we have against them, the family. With no-fault divorce, gay marriage, and many other 'progressive' causes destroying the nuclear family, as well as celebrities like Oprah attempting to make this structure outdated, the family is faltering. However, the family is probably the only thing left to teach people traditional values. I'm glad I came from a stable family, but that's become the exception, rather than the rule.
 
Does anyone know what this case was all about? The case name may help..I didn't see any info in the post about what was before the court. Maybe I missed it.
This letter is in regard to the Court's recent decision in the Washington State religious scholarship case.
That doesn't help.
 
archangel said:
are you Gems hubby...or what?

Jeez, no wonder you never know what's going on in a thread. You're blind.

Do you know anyone else on the board well enough that they can call you and read the question to you?
 
Mr. P said:
Does anyone know what this case was all about? The case name may help..I didn't see any info in the post about what was before the court. Maybe I missed it.
That doesn't help.


I have no clue as to what this is all about except some want PC ansewers! :blah2:
 
MissileMan said:
Jeez, no wonder you never know what's going on in a thread. You're blind.

Do you know anyone else on the board well enough that they can call you and read the question to you?


Go back to the underground pit...you have lost all credibility with me....! Whats with the misselman avatar handle anyway...sound cute or are you dissenting...hummm?
 
archangel said:
Go back to the underground pit...you have lost all credibility with me....! Whats with the misselman avatar handle anyway...sound cute or are you dissenting...hummm?

Put down the mouse and get your butt down to the VA. Tell them you ran out of your meds about 3 weeks ago, they'll fix ya right up. Come back and attempt a discussion when you're coherent again.
 
MissileMan said:
Put down the mouse and get your butt down to the VA. Tell them you ran out of your meds about 3 weeks ago, they'll fix ya right up. Come back and attempt a discussion when you're coherent again.



ya sound just like all the wacko military wannabees of the present day...all show and no go!So is Gem your wife or what? You seem to be dodging the question...and yes I am a 19% disabled vet of the VN era...no meds prescribed or needed ..and you Capt.BS?
 
archangel said:
ya sound just like all the wacko military wannabees of the present day...all show and no go!So is Gem your wife or what? You seem to be dodging the question...and yes I am a 19% disabled vet of the VN era...no meds prescribed or needed ..and you Capt.BS?

You are making absolutely no sense at all, WTF are you blabbering about? I asked you to answer my question, and you accuse me of dodging one. That's why I've been trying to figure out if you're blind or off your meds.
 
Mr. P said:
Does anyone know what this case was all about? The case name may help..I didn't see any info in the post about what was before the court. Maybe I missed it.
That doesn't help.

I found this:

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hamilton/20031204.html

Some on Locke above, this seems more concise and probably what is being referred to:

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20031212_brownstein.html

Locke v. Davey: The U.S. Supreme Court Case
In Locke v. Davey, the plaintiff is a student in the state of Washington who wants to use the money from a state-funded college scholarship program to pursue theological studies toward a degree in pastoral ministry. But as construed by the state courts, the Washington Constitution forbids the use of public funds for education of the clergy.

As a result, Davey - even though he was otherwise qualified to receive the scholarship money -- was denied funding. He sued, claiming among other things that his federal constitutional Free Exercise Clause right to practice his religion had been violated.

An important precedent here is the Supreme Court's Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision. There, the Court upheld a state's decision to include religious schools in its primary and secondary school voucher program.

Under Zelman, it may well be the case that the State of Washington could, consistent with the Federal Constitution, fund Davey's religious education if it so chose. But the question before the Supreme Court right now is whether Washington must do so because it funds scholarships that may be used for nonreligious pursuits.
 
MissileMan said:
You are making absolutely no sense at all, WTF are you blabbering about? I asked you to answer my question, and you accuse me of dodging one. That's why I've been trying to figure out if you're blind or off your meds.


by your not answering my question as to whether Gem was your spouse...you answered my question...she chewed me out saying you(?) were a Capt.In the AF and you were a "Misselman" answer your question as to whether I am on meds or you and yours? I was both a Buck Sgt and LT...during the VN conflict...so bite me! :crutch:
 
MissileMan said:
I would think that if this kid qualified for a scholarship, he should be able to choose what school to attend, and what field to study. I'm not sure how this fits a separation issue.

I was responding to Mr. P's query, certainly not getting into whatever you and Arch want to do...
 
archangel said:
by your not answering my question as to whether Gem was your spouse...you answered my question...she chewed me out saying you(?) were a Capt.In the AF and you were a "Misselman" answer your question as to whether I am on meds or you and yours? I was both a Buck Sgt and LT...during the VN conflict...so bite me! :crutch:

Actually, I was referring to my original question that you replied to: Is democracy a religion?

FYI, I was in the AF, I retired as a MSgt. I use the name MissileMan because I maintained ICBMs and ALCMs for over 20 years. The avatar is a Minuteman because I worked on the Minuteman III for the first 17 years of my career. AND, I am not married to Gem.
 
Kathianne said:
I was responding to Mr. P's query, certainly not getting into whatever you and Arch want to do...

I was responding to the info you provided about the court case. Had nothing to do with the sidetrack Arch created.
 
MissileMan said:
Actually, I was referring to my original question that you replied to: Is democracy a religion?

FYI, I was in the AF, I retired as a MSgt. I use the name MissileMan because I maintained ICBMs and ALCMs for over 20 years. The avatar is a Minuteman because I worked on the Minuteman III for the first 17 years of my career. AND, I am not married to Gem.



Then I hold no grudge...thats all you had to say....cause I was beginning to wonder about ya!...Have a nice day and just answer the next questions without using the VA med comments...Not really productive in the real world...it attached you to another poster without ya knowing it! :whip:


and for your info I was Army...My brother was AF...we cut each other all the time...as well as my Step dad who was a Navy Pilot during the 2nd WW....see we all can get along as long as honesty prevails! :crutch:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top