VOL. 14, NO. 6
Sept. 20, 2012
No Higher Power: The Treacherous Trio of Myths
Spawned by Obama’s “Separation of Church and State”
In her newest book, No Higher Power, Phyllis Schlafly and journalist George Neumayr rip away all masks from Barack Obama’s “War on Religious Freedom” in America and reveal the “ominous shadows” of Obama’s hypocritical calls for “separating church and state” in our contemporary American culture and Constitution. The Obama agenda utilizes state power to war on orthodox religious views and values and casts across America “ominous shadows (of non-orthodox religious weapons),” including three myths long perpetrated by Humanistic/Reconstructionist forces in America’s culture war. These shadows are dispelled by the light of the truth of inseparability of church and state (i.e., the truth that religious thinking/values cannot be separated from legal thinking/values).
Humanists/Reconstructionists are vicious in attacking the truth of inseparability. But the Constitution is embedded in one worldview, and can be embedded in only one worldview. This unassailable truth is viciously attacked by Humanists wielding at least three weapons (arguments) in their attack against inseparability: (1) There are no absolutes and therefore no inevitable, fixed relationships between different worldview components; (2) America must be a “pluralistic” (i.e., “diverse”) nation – a culture embracing all different views and values concerning worldview; (3) given propositions (1) and (2), we must be tolerant of the “diversity” in America. “Relativism” is a belief; “pluralism” is a condition; and “tolerance” is an attitude.
These three myths are symbiotically related elements of “postmodern illogical logic.” Humanists allege that because all positions regarding truth, meaning, values, etc., are relative, there will be an inevitable pluralism/diversity of views and values permeating our culture. Because no view or value has any claim to superiority over any others, we must be tolerant of all views and values.
America has suffered incalculable damage from these three fictions masquerading as facts. We Constitutionalists must empower ourselves for more effective warfare by understanding the following facts rooted in inseparability. In this “Briefing,” we address the first of the Treacherous Trio – the ABOLUTISM OF RELATIVISM.
“Relativism” is a frantically defended belief at the core of Humanism. The Humanist house of cards collapses without relativism. But relativism is nonsense. This fact is demonstrated by approaching the issue from four different perspectives.
- Logic.The statement, “There are no absolutes,” is an absolute statement. Or, stated in opposite fashion, “Everything is relative” is an absolute statement. Relativism is inherently oxymoronic.
- Language.We human beings could not communicate verbally with one another if “everything is relative.” Indeed, American culture today is in collapse partially because many Americans use the same words in verbal communication, but attach drastically different meanings to those words without clarifying to one another the difference in their meanings.
Words central to our law and culture – “justice,” “fairness,” “liberty,” etc. – are bandied about by Humanists who thereby entrap many uninformed Americans who think their meanings are our meanings. Humanist/Reconstructionist judges lead the pack of “word manipulators” who have confused and damaged the nation by attaching Humanist meanings to the Judeo-Christian phrases of the Constitution (e.g., “liberty,” “due process of law,” “equality,” etc.). The Obama agenda now builds on this deadly foundation.
- Life. No Humanists can actually live without absolutes in the real world. Their own writings opposing absolutes are actually absolutist themselves. The following quotes contain absolute terms which are italicized for emphasis. From the Fifth Premise of the Humanist Manifesto I: “The nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.” “[t]he way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs.” “Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.” (Humanist Manifesto I, 2) The Fourth Premise of the Humanist Manifesto II declares that “There is no substitute [for reason and intelligence]: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. (Humanist Manifesto II, 5) And the Ninth Premise argues that “The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives.” (Humanist Manifesto II, 7) The new “Obama language” is rife with similar examples.
- Law. Law collapses without absolute categories. Every law inherently divides behavior and statuses into mutually exclusive categories – e.g., murder v. non-murder, marriage v. non-marriage, etc. At the heart of each category must be a set of fixed qualities – absolute characteristics which any behavior or status must meet to fall into that category. A behavior cannot be both murder and non-murder. A status/relationship cannot be both a marriage and a non-marriage. If legal categories (e.g., “marriage”) are expanded so far that any relationship falls into that category, the category has no meaning. Law plunges into chaos. The current push toward legalizing same-sex marriage illustrates only too well the morass into which “relativistic” law will push America. Law must have logic as its driving force and language as its expression. To the degree that logic and language are destroyed by the chimerical myths of Humanism/ Reconstructionism, so is law.
The Obama war on religious freedom thrives on a dastardly diet of “relativism.” But the nation cannot survive on such poisonous constitutional and cultural food. The question we therefore face is posed at the end of the Schlafly/Neumayr book: “Will Americans join him [Obama]? Will the cult of Obama triumph? Or will Americans at long last reassert their God-given freedoms? The stakes are high, and the choice is ours.”