Hello, and welcome to Episode 12 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic perspective on origins.
I'm your host, Keith Jones.
In this episode, we explain that the ongoing impact of Darwinism on today's youth involves
more than the Holocaust of abortion.
The ongoing assault on children also includes indoctrination into the humanist worldview
through the leveraging of Darwinism in the educational system.
You will learn that for more than a century, humanist educators have viewed children as
evolved animals to be trained and conditioned to reject Christianity in favor of this humanist
worldview.
This means that the influence of Darwinism goes far beyond the science classroom.
Darwinism is at the very core of Western educational philosophy.
The moral freefall that has occurred in the Western world since 1900 can only be understood
in light of the spiritual warfare being waged in public school classrooms.
As we begin to discuss this dark influence of evolution theory, it is important to express
our understanding that Christian teachers are sometimes not aware of the deeper agenda,
and we understand that jobs could be at risk if teachers openly oppose the entrenched educational
philosophy.
However, ideas have consequences, and sometimes the greatest impact of false ideas, such as
Darwinism, occur in areas least expected or desired.
As you digest the following information, ask yourself how different the Western world would
now be if Darwinism had been correctly rejected as a failed theory devised to prop up atheistic
philosophies, and consider the moral obligations of Catholics to restore the truth.
One of the consequences of Luther's revolt in the 1500s was the rise of various unorthodox
faith groups.
Among the more notable was an anti-Trinitarian movement with roots in Switzerland and Poland
that would spread to Britain in the late 1600s where it would come to be called Unitarianism.
Darwin's grandfather described Unitarianism as a featherbed to catch a falling Christian,
even though Charles Darwin's mother and his wife Emma were Unitarians, as was Darwin's
close friend Charles Lyell.
Unitarianism denies the reality of the Holy Trinity and other essential Christian doctrine
as being beyond reason.
As Unitarianism became firmly established in England, it soon came under the influence
of rationalism and materialistic philosophy, primarily through Joseph Priestley, a chemist
and close friend of Charles Darwin's grandfather.
In 1777, Priestley wrote of his intention to
"...inquire whether, when the nature of matter is rightly understood, there be any
reason to think that there is in man any substance essentially different from it."
Priestley concluded that man is made up entirely of matter.
Such materialistic writings soon forced him out of England.
He came to America and established the first permanent American Unitarian congregation
in the 1790s.
The Unitarian faith took root and spread in the United States.
By 1850, Unitarians had drifted further toward a religion of atheism and following the publication
of The Origin of Species in 1859, most Unitarians quickly integrated Darwinism into their beliefs.
Thereafter, an increasing number of Unitarian leaders came to acknowledge that their faith
had essentially become a godless philosophy that starkly opposed Christianity.
The movement eventually adopted the name of humanism in the early 1900s and integrated
similar belief systems including Carnesian rationalism.
In 1933, at the Conway Memorial Lecture, one of the period's leading rationalists stated,
This call for unity was in response to the 1933 publication of the Humanist Manifesto
that formally communicated the fundamental principles of humanism to the world.
Throughout the Humanist Manifesto, one again finds the unmistakable mark of evolutionary
thinking.
The document opens by stating,
The Manifesto then set forth 15 foundational tenets.
The first involves the claim that the universe is self-existing and not created.
Second, man is part of nature and has emerged as the result of a continuous process.
This evolutionary claim, in turn, meant to the humanists that man is not a mind-body
composite and our religious culture is, itself, the product of a gradual development.
The fifth tenet explains that the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable
any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values, and this is followed by the statement
that the time has passed for theism.
Henceforth, religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly
significant and can include labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation.
Seeking fulfillment in the here and now is the explanation of the humanists' social
passion.
The tenth tenet proclaims that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes
of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
The thirteenth tenet calls for institutions to be transformed such that they promote humanism
and this includes religious institutions.
The fourteenth tenet declares that a profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate
and a radical change must be instituted.
A social and cooperative economic order must be established and will entail the redistribution
of the means of life.
Thus, socialism is the economic goal of humanist philosophy.
The manifesto closes by stating that the religious forms and ideas of our fathers are no longer
adequate.
Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the
world of his dreams.
That he has within himself the power for its achievement.
He must set intelligence and will to the task.
These tenets make it clear that humanism is completely dependent upon Darwinian evolution
for its intellectual justification.
Humanism cannot stand if Darwinism is false and that is why I can say that when I was
a humanist, my entire worldview depended on the truth of Darwinism.
The humanist manifesto also makes it clear that humanism and Christianity cannot be reconciled.
Humanists see it as their mission to eliminate Christianity from the modern world.
The humanist dependence on Darwinism and their opposition towards Christianity has
only become more magnified since the humanist manifesto.
In The Philosophy of Humanism, Corliss-Lamont writes that
"...biology has conclusively shown that human beings and all other forms of life were
the result not of a supernatural act of creation by God, but an infinitely long process of
evolution."
Moreover,
"...matter is self-existent, self-active, self-developing, self-enduring.
Intellectually, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for philosophy by positing
a supernatural creator or first cause behind the great material universe."
Explaining the moral implications, Lamont writes,
"...no human acts are good or bad in or of themselves.
Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by its consequences for the individual and society."
Alluding to Christianity, he writes,
"...for more than two thousand years now, this Western world has had its fling with
all sorts of charming but extravagant myths and romantic but fanciful philosophies.
It is high time for us to cast aside the intellectual vagaries of the past, to think and act as
mature men and women, ready to cope with reality as it is.
We can take no more important step than to discard the illusion of immortality."
With the battle lines drawn, the humanists maneuvered to overthrow Christianity, and
it was obvious to them that Darwinism was the key.
While theistic evolutionists may insist that Darwinism need not be linked with materialism,
as is done by humanists, it is important to recognize that there were only two things
needed for materialistic evolution to be taught to generations of students.
First, the leading scientists became dominated by materialism, and second, humanists gained
control of public education and incorporated their philosophy into the curriculum.
Concerning the dominance of leading scientists by the philosophy of materialism, surveys
indicate that this dominance was already achieved in the US by 1914.
Once this control was gained, it was jealously guarded, which is why, as documented in episode
1, more than 95% of the biological arm of the NAS, a self-electing body, currently consists
of atheists who are philosophically committed to materialistic evolution.
This means that the only thing required for the materialistic and humanistic worldview
to be taught in the biology classroom, and indeed in all subjects, is for the educational
establishment to be similarly committed to converting public school children into a false
worldview.
Unfortunately, the educational establishment was a very early convert to Darwinism and
emerging humanistic philosophy.
The stage was set for this takeover as early as 1805, when the Unitarians gained from the
Calvinists effective control of Harvard University, the institution having the largest influence
on education in the United States.
Other collegiate institutions that heavily influenced the direction of education also
abandoned their Christian past, as the Darwinian view of children as evolved animals seized
the mind of educational theorists in the 1870s.
The man-as-animal view of educators found support in the emerging field of experimental
psychology, which was led by Wilhelm Wundt and other Germans who were early converts
to the Darwinian zeitgeist, or spirit of the age.
Many educational theorists from the United States traveled to Germany for training in
the late 1800s, and many experienced a dramatic conversion to Darwinism.
The educational giant and pioneer G. Stanley Hall, for example, received his doctorate
at Harvard University and later studied under Wundt.
Hall wrote that, "...Germany almost remade me.
The only wholehearted scheme of things which I had accepted with abandon was that of an
evolution which applied no whit less to the soul than to the body of man.
This was bedrock."
Hall believed that man's mental activity was just as much a product of slow evolutionary
tendencies as the body, and revealing the combined influence of Descartes and Darwin,
he wrote of the common view held by educational theorists at the start of the 20th century.
Nature and man, there is nothing else outside, above, or beyond these in the universe.
And only now is man beginning to realize that he is truly supreme in all the universe we
know and that there is nothing above or beyond him.
Man sees his destiny, which is to rule the world within and without by the power that
comes from knowledge.
He must go on learning to control where he has been controlled.
This is his vocation as man.
Science is both his organ of apprehension and his tool by which he must make his sovereignty
complete.
We will now explain how humanist theories of education made their way into the classrooms
of America, largely through the influence of the National Education Association, or
NEA, which has roots dating to the establishment of the National Teachers Association in 1857.
Since its founding, the NEA has grown to gain tremendous influence and control over public
education.
In 2017, the NEA claimed more than 3.2 million members.
In 1879, Thomas Bicknell, who would become NEA president five years later, called for
the formation of an elite body of educators within the NEA for the purpose of discussing
questions involving the principles and philosophy of education and sustaining an advisory relation
to state and national systems of education.
The National Council of Education was formed in 1880 and one of its early debates was what
philosophy would be the driving force of the nation's education system.
Darwinian materialism soon won out, thanks in part to the influence of council member
John Dewey, a former student of G. Stanley Hall.
In 1904, Dewey became a faculty member at the influential Teachers College of Columbia
University and would become known as the father of American education.
Dewey lost his faith as a young man through the writings of Huxley, Spencer, and Darwin.
His philosophical direction was largely settled in the 1890s with the reading of Principles
of Psychology by William James of Harvard University.
This work prompted Dewey to view socialized man as the grand achievement of evolution.
In A Common Faith, Dewey wrote that primitive man's fear created the gods and that,
The religious element in life has been hampered by conceptions of the supernatural that were
embedded in those cultures wherein man had little control over outer nature and little
in the way of sure method of inquiry and test.
John Dewey, the father of American education, was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto and
he unapologetically sought to use the classroom to achieve the humanist aims.
Writing in Darwinian terms in Democracy and Education, he explained,
It is the business of the school environment to eliminate, so far as possible, the unworthy
features of the existing environment from influence upon mental habitudes.
It establishes a purified medium of action.
Education aims not only at simplifying but at weeding out what is undesirable.
Every society gets encumbered with what is trivial, with dead wood from the past.
The school has the duty of omitting such things from the environment.
As a society becomes more enlightened, it realizes that it is responsible not to transmit
and conserve the whole of its existing achievements, but only such as make for a better future
society.
The school is its chief agency for the accomplishment of this end.
In Dewey's eyes, the dead wood to be eliminated was Christianity, and the agent of selection
was to be the school system.
In 1933, the year in which he signed the Humanist Manifesto, the father of American education
proclaimed in Teacher magazine,
There is no God and there is no soul.
Hence there are no needs for the props of traditional religion.
With dogma and creed excluded, the immutable truth is also dead and buried.
There is no room for fixed, natural laws or moral absolutes.
The issue for humanist educators was how to leverage the educational establishment to
replace the religious beliefs of the past.
Darwin would provide the answer, in part, through Edward Thorndike, an enormously influential
educational theorist whose experimental background involved the training of chickens through
conditioning techniques.
Thorndike believed that just as an animal's behavior can be controlled, so can children
be trained and directed to act in ways desired by those in control of education.
After all, he reasoned, humans are but evolved primates.
Commenting on this view of children as evolved animals who are to be trained, educational
expert Samuel Blumenfeld comments,
The idea that evolution is merely a theory taught in the biology classroom is erroneous.
Evolution is at the very basis of modern public education.
School materials have been designed to teach students as an animal, using Thorndike's
stimuli response techniques which are now universally used throughout American education.
As the field of experimental psychology continued to digest the implications of Darwinism, the
offshoot of psychology, called behaviorism, soon emerged, as expressed by John B. Watson
in the 1920s.
It is the business of behavioristic psychology to be able to predict and to control human
activity.
Why do people behave as they do?
How can I, as a behaviorist working in the interests of science, get individuals to behave
differently today from the way they acted yesterday?
How far can we modify behavior by training, conditioning?
Watson's views reflected the self-appointed mission of humanist educators to modify student
behavior and to train succeeding generations to become humanists.
As parental rights were dismissed and all avenues to escape the indoctrination were
targeted, laws were proposed to make private schools illegal.
However, in 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that such
laws were unconstitutional.
Four years later, the alarming direction of education was denounced by Pope Pius XI in
the encyclical Divini Ilius Magistri on Christian education.
In it he stated in part,
The family holds directly from the Creator the mission and hence the right to educate
the offspring, a right inalienable, because inseparably joined to the strict obligation,
a right anterior to any right whatever of civil society and of the state, and therefore
inviolable on the part of any power on earth.
On this point the common sense of mankind is in such complete accord that they would
be in open contradiction with it who dared maintain that the children belong to the state
before they belong to the family, and that the state has an absolute right over their education.
Therefore, it is the duty of parents to make every effort to prevent any invasion of their
rights in this matter, and to make absolutely sure that the education of their children
remain under their own control.
And above all, to refuse to send them to those schools in which there is danger of imbibing
the deadly poison of impiety.
Let it be borne in mind that the school owes its existence to the initiative of the family
and of the church long before it was undertaken by the state.
Hence the school is by its very nature an institution subsidiary and complementary to
the family and to the church.
It follows logically and necessarily that it must not be in opposition to, but in positive
accord with those other two elements, and form with them a perfect moral union, constituting
one sanctuary of education, as it were, with the family and the church.
Otherwise it is doomed to fail of its purpose, and to become instead an agent of destruction.
Of course, humanistic educators had no intention of being obedient to the successor of Saint Peter.
For Christianity was their avowed enemy.
As the downward spiral continued, Pope Pius XII correctly perceived the war of worldviews
behind the indoctrination, stating in the 1939 encyclical Certum Laetitiae.
We raise our voice in strong, albeit paternal, complaint that in so many schools of your
land Christ often is despised or ignored.
The explanation of the universe and mankind is forced within the narrow limits of materialism
or of rationalism, and new educational systems are sought after which cannot but produce
a sorrowful harvest in the intellectual and moral life of the nation.
Pope Pius XII noted that the methods of education were producing moral as well as intellectual
degradation.
This was not news to humanist educators, who long before had made the decision to indoctrinate
at the expense of teaching basic skills and reading, writing, and arithmetic.
As early as 1911, for example, G. Stanley Hall declared that very many men have lived
and died without any acquaintance with letters.
And Thorndike wrote,
The program of the average elementary school is too narrow and has been primarily devoted
to teaching the fundamental subjects, the three R's, artificial exercises like drills
on phonetics, multiplication tables, and formal writings are used to a wasteful degree
and include content that is intrinsically of little value.
Such views led to the increasing removal or de-emphasis of proven techniques such as phonics
to help students learn to read.
Consequently, the collapse of basic levels of educational achievement has been the clear
result.
To cite just one example, by 1920 the US illiteracy rate had fallen to 2.2%, while today 45 million
Americans are functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level, with only half
of American adults reading at or above an 8th grade level.
But then humanist educators, who aim to usher in a socialist society, have always understood
that indoctrination is much easier when students are dumbed down and do not think independently.
As one socialist put it, mankind must be divided into two unequal parts.
One-tenth receives personal liberty and unlimited right over the other nine-tenths.
The latter must lose their personality and become a kind of herd.
As the war years came, educators learned from effective military indoctrination techniques
and sought to incorporate these into the educational system.
By the 1960s, influential educational theorists Benjamin Bloom and William Spady openly declared
that the purpose of education is to direct
the intended behavior of students, the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or
feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction.
By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulation of the ways in which students
are expected to be changed by the educative process, that is, the ways in which they will
change in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions.
Bloom and Spady wrote that the behavior to be directed includes changes in interest,
attitudes, and values.
But rather than instilling the values of parents, the values taught should reflect the school's
view of the good life for the individual in the good society.
Since the educational philosophy was that of humanism, it was natural that if students
were trained to pursue the good life, a rejection of Christian values would occur.
In 1973, educational theorist Chester Pierce of Harvard made it clear that parental rights
were not even a consideration, declaring,
Every child in America entering school at the age of 5 is insane because he comes to
school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward
our elected officials, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty
of this nation as a separate entity.
It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well.
A decade later, humanist John Dunphy proclaimed,
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.
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, daycare, 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 finally be achieved.
As these quotations demonstrate, humanist educators have long recognized that the primary
obstacle to implementing behavioral modification techniques are Christian values.
Bloom and Spady wrote that the view needing to be overcome is that one's beliefs, attitudes,
values, and personal characteristics are private matters.
Attitudes toward God, home, and family are private concerns.
The authors continue.
Closely linked is the distinction frequently made between education and indoctrination
in a democratic society.
Education opens up possibilities for free choice and individual decision.
Indoctrination, on the other hand, is viewed as reducing the possibilities of free choice
and decision.
It is regarded as an attempt to persuade and coerce the individual to accept a particular
viewpoint or belief.
Perhaps a reopening of the entire question would help us to see more clearly the boundaries
between education and indoctrination, and the simple dichotomy would no longer seem
as real as the rather glib separation of the two suggests.
As the humanist agenda was more aggressively pursued, use was made of experiments showing
indoctrination techniques to be most effective when involving group discussions that are
directed by facilitators toward a certain outcome.
It was also evident that Christian values could be most easily changed when immoral
practices were presented as normal and acceptable in settings involving peer pressure.
This can be worked into nearly any subject, but is most easily done as part of so-called
sex education.
The humanist intent is to create an internal conflict with a child's conscience, to create
cognitive dissonance, in the hope that students will resolve the conflict by rejecting their
Christian faith.
Such techniques were already known in the 1920s, and were promoted at the eugenic and
humanistic-based Congress of the World League for Sexual Reform, held in London in 1929.
This prompted Pope Pius XI to protest in Divini Ilius Magistri.
Another very grave danger is that naturalism, which nowadays invades the field of education
in that most delicate manner of purity of morals.
Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term
propagate a so-called sex education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against
the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and
precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public, and worse still, by exposing
them at an early age to the occasions in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and
as it were to harden them against such dangers.
Increasingly, during the 1970s, sex education classes were used to portray the immoral as
normal.
And not coincidentally, this strategy coincided with the publication of A New Bill of Sexual
Rights and Responsibilities, published in the January-February 1976 issue of The Humanist.
The nine-point list called for the expansion of sexual boundaries and an end to taboos.
It demanded the right to contraception, voluntary sterilization, and abortion.
It declared that sexual morality cannot be legislated.
It stated that physical pleasure divorced from divine precepts is itself morally valuable,
and that all sexual encounters should occur in accordance with humane and humanistic values.
Two years later, the landmark book, Values Clarification, a handbook of practical strategies
for teachers and students, was published and explained to teachers in the opening.
So often what goes on in the classroom is irrelevant and remote from the real things
that are going on in students' lives.
Young people are being asked and are asking themselves important personal and theoretical
questions that will lead them to important decisions and action.
Should Bill and I live together before marriage?
Shouldn't we know if we're really compatible?
Does religion have some meaning in my life, or is it nothing more than a series of outmoded
traditions and customs?
The book discounts parental rights as an illegitimate means of instilling values.
Young people brought up by moralizing adults are not prepared to make their own responsible
choices.
Most young people do not need adults running their lives for them, but they do want and
need help.
Ascribing its methodology to the earlier work of John Dewey and others, Values Clarification
directs teachers to use approaches which help students become aware of the beliefs
and behaviors they prize and would be willing to stand up for in and out of the classroom.
The book then introduces 79 specific lessons in which probing, leading questions are directed
at students.
Students are led to discuss these value-based questions and examine their individual responses
to them.
Teachers, meanwhile, are encouraged to permanently post the following seven questions on a classroom
bulletin board.
Number 1.
Are you proud of?
Do you prize or cherish your position?
Number 2.
Have you publicly affirmed your position?
Number 3.
Have you chosen your position from alternatives?
Number 4.
Have you chosen your position after thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons and consequences?
Number 5.
Have you chosen your position freely?
Number 6.
Have you acted on or done anything about your beliefs?
And Number 7.
Have you acted with repetition, pattern, or consistency on this issue?
To describe just one of the 79 lessons that followed, Strategy 3 involves students voting
on which values they strongly support.
The exercise begins by asking, how many here?
And then follows with a range of issues.
How many here think we ought to legalize pot marijuana?
Approve of abortion.
Approve of premarital sex for boys.
Approve of premarital sex for girls.
Think sex education instruction in the school should include techniques for lovemaking,
contraception.
Think today's kids are more courageous, adventurous, wise, involved, and concerned
with life than the previous generations.
Would approve of a marriage between homosexuals being sanctioned by priest, minister, or rabbi.
Would approve of a young couple trying out marriage by living together for six months
before actually getting married.
Would encourage abortion for an unwed daughter.
Have spoken with homosexuals about their lifestyle.
Would approve of contract marriages in which the marriage would come up for renewal every
few years.
Would be upset if organized religion disappeared.
Think there is nothing morally wrong with using the pill for birth control.
Think we should legalize mercy killings.
Many of the remaining strategies were equally as manipulative and morally offensive.
With such an aggressive attack on Christian values and parental rights, values clarification
curricula gradually generated opposition, only to be replaced by outcome-based education
techniques that aimed to achieve the same end.
Most recently has been common core, the exact contents of which have been closely guarded.
Be aware that what this curriculum and all that may follow have in common is the use
of modern computer technology that makes it increasingly difficult for parents to monitor
what is being taught.
As educational expert BK Eichmann explains.
Now with the computer it is possible to cut the parent completely out of the picture and
in effect input the same ideas and concepts over and over in different formats until the
learner responds appropriately to the stimulus.
A simulated situation can be presented to a student via his personal classroom computer
and the computer can simulate the consequences of the child's actions, which the learner
selects from a variety of options.
The curriculum developer builds reward and punishment into the learning program.
For example, incrementally increasing the frustration level and the teacher, school
psychologist, clinician can monitor the pupil's reaction.
Eichmann also explains that such methods can involve mandatory assessment testing to
measure and track attitudes even at the individual level and the retraining and retesting of
students who did not accept the initial conditioning.
The evil of such techniques goes beyond the rejection of Christian values and parental
rights.
The techniques encourage sexually permissive behavior and downplay or ignore the harmful
consequences.
Such methods place the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of children at risk and
can correctly be described as preying on children and a form of child abuse.
Currently, many high school and grade school children are commonly taught the following
involving sexual behavior and its consequences.
1.
That sex outside of marriage is normal and safe if used in contraception.
2.
That there are only minor abortion aftereffects.
3.
That abortion does not kill an innocent human being.
4.
That abortion and contraception are needed to avert overpopulation.
5.
That there is a genetic cause of homosexuality, and if it is in the genes, it must be acceptable.
Confirmation of this agenda is seen in books endorsed by the NEA and by reviewing the NEA
Handbook, which sets forth the NEA's ideology and agenda.
Resolutions in the 2017 NEA Handbook call for
1.
NEA activity in sex education, with teachers being exempted from censorship and lawsuits,
and with programs providing information about birth control and family planning, diversity
of sexual orientation and gender identification, homophobia, age-appropriate medically accurate
information including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning LGBTQ issues,
and affirmative consent, being defined as sexual activity, through which both parties
clearly declare their willingness to participate through a voluntary, conscious, and affirmative
agreement.
2.
In-school family planning counseling and access to birth control methods with instruction
in their use, if deemed appropriate by local choice.
3.
Counseling services and programs, staffed by trained personnel, that deal with high
suicide and dropout rates and the high incidence of teen prostitution, while holding that therapies
designed to alter a student's orientation or identity are harmful to the emotional development
of LGBTQ students.
The right to reproductive freedom, with the government to give high priority to making
available all methods of family planning, and school-based family planning clinics that
will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel.
4.
Programs that increase acceptance of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons.
5.
Inclusive educational programs that address the unique needs and concerns of lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning LGBTQ students, including acknowledgement
of the significant contributions of diverse LGBTQ persons in American history and culture,
involvement of educators knowledgeable in LGBTQ issues, and the development of educational
materials.
6.
Opposition to homeschooling as it denies the students a comprehensive education.
And 7.
Condemnation of the philosophy and practices of movements that are inimical to the ideals
of the association, which it refers to as extremist groups.
There are a number of organizations that instill humanist views of sexuality in the public
schools, including the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, SEACUS,
which was launched in 1964 at the Kinsey Institute of Indiana University by former Medical Director
for Planned Parenthood Federation Mary Calderon, among others.
The Kinsey Institute was named after Alfred Kinsey, a pioneer of human sexuality studies.
Kinsey obtained a zoology degree in 1916 and was heavily influenced by the new biology
of Darwin at Harvard's Bussey Institution.
He viewed human sexual behavior as a closed Darwinian system of simple mammalian behavior.
To study this behavior, Kinsey and his team filmed sexual acts between each other and
between outsiders and themselves, and Kinsey's experiments also include those performed on
children.
In 1948, he published Sexual Behavior and the Human Male, and this was followed by Sexual
Behavior and the Human Female in 1953.
According to researcher Dr. Judith Reisman, Kinsey's conclusions included,
All sexual experimentation before marriage will increase the likelihood of a successful
long-term marriage, and venereal disease and other socio-sexual maladies will be reduced
dramatically.
Human beings are naturally bisexual.
Religious bigotry and prejudice forces people into chastity, heterosexuality, and monogamy.
Children are sexual from birth, they are unharmed by incest and adult-child sex, and often benefit
thereby.
There is no medical or other reason for adult-child sex or incest to be forbidden.
Homosexuals represent 10 to 37 percent of the population.
The basic findings of Kinsey continue to be promoted by Secus, and behind it all is the
Darwinian and humanist view of mankind.
The book, Boys and Sex, written by a former Kinsey assistant, states,
In sexual terms, children act very much like other mammals.
Massive scientific evidence shows many similarities in sexual behavior among people and animals.
All species of mammals have homosexual relations.
Since we're all mammals, it's reasonable to wonder why all boys don't engage in homosexual
behavior.
Secus has published multiple curricula, including its Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality
Education, Kindergarten through 12th grade, which Secus states have been distributed to
more than 100,000 people and are downloaded at a rate of 1,000 per month.
The guidelines explain.
Secus believes that sexuality education is most effective when young people not only
receive information but are also given the opportunity to explore their own attitudes
and values and to develop or strengthen social skills.
A wide variety of teaching methods and activities can foster learning, such as interactive discussions,
role plays, demonstration, individual and group research, group exercises, and homework
assignments.
The guidelines are consistent with the following Secus positions.
Secus believes that, because many adolescents are or will be sexually active, they should
receive support and assistance in developing the skills to evaluate their readiness for
mature, romantic, and sexual relationships.
Secus believes that every woman, regardless of age or income, should have the right to
obtain an abortion.
Secus believes that abortion counseling and services should be provided by professionals
specially trained in this field.
Secus believes that sexually explicit visual, printed, or online materials can be valuable
educational or personal aids.
Such materials can help reduce ignorance and confusion and contribute to a positive
concept of sexuality while supporting the sexual rights of all.
Secus has been tracking abstinence-only until marriage programs, advocating for an end to
federal funding for these programs, and helping educators and parents keep these harmful programs
out of their schools.
Since its founding, Secus has served as a link between public schools and Planned Parenthood,
the nation's leading abortion provider.
Of course, Secus, Planned Parenthood, and the NAA explain that all instruction should
be age-appropriate.
But the hollowness of this statement is clear in the following account, from grand delusions
of a 15-year-old girl whose school allowed Planned Parenthood into the sex education
classroom.
The woman from Planned Parenthood was so sleek and sophisticated, the whole class just fell
under her spell.
At first, I couldn't tell where all this was leading, but then it became really obvious.
She started asking us personal questions, very personal questions, like about our feelings,
about sex, and even about, well, about masturbation.
She then put a short film on the school's wheezing, rattling projector.
I've never seen pornography before, but this film was worse than what I could have
ever imagined hardcore pornography to be.
I wanted to look away or cover my eyes, but I couldn't.
I just stared at the screen in horror.
When the lights came back on, the entire class was visibly shaken.
With eyes as wide as saucers, the youngsters sat speechless and amazed.
She began to tell us that everything that we'd just seen was totally normal and totally
good.
She said that the couple obviously had a caring, loving, and responsible relationship because
they took proper precautions against conception and disease.
At that, the speaker passed several packages of condoms around the room, one for each of
the girls.
She instructed the boys to hold up a finger so that the girls could practice contraceptive
application.
Already shell-shocked, the students did as they were told.
Afterwards, several of the girls began quietly sobbing.
Another ran out of the room and threw up.
Still another fainted.
I have never been more humiliated in all my life.
I felt dirty and defiled after seeing the film.
But then, when I had to put that thing on Billy's finger, well, that was just awful.
It was horrible.
It was like I'd been raped.
Raped in my mind.
Raped by my school.
Raped by Planned Parenthood.
I think I was, that we all have been, betrayed.
What are the consequences of such tactics, according to Dr. Melvin Ankel, an expert in
the field of human sexuality?
The truth is that typical sex education courses are almost perfect recipes for producing personality
problems and even perversions later in life.
Contemporary sex education courses not only disregard the need for intimacy, they explicitly
violate it.
Sex education, whether purposefully or not, desensitizes students to the spiritual quality
of human sexuality.
In addition, sex courses break down the students' mental barriers of shame, which are dams that
control base sexual urges.
A vast amount of psychoanalytic experience suggests that the majority of adult perverts
are products of premature sexual seduction in early childhood.
Sex education is not limited to actual molestation.
A child can be seduced by overexposure to sexual activities, including sex education
courses in the classroom.
Other organizations also complement the NEA and SECAS strategies.
The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, or GOLSEN, was founded in 1990.
The basic intent of this organization is to affirm and promote the homosexual lifestyle.
The organization has been extremely successful due to the strategy employed, as explained
by Kevin Jennings of GOLSEN.
If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose.
We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term pro-life
allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage.
In Massachusetts, the effective reframing of this issue was the key.
We immediately seized upon the opponent's calming card, safety, and explained how homophobia
represents a threat to student safety.
Titling our report, Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth, we automatically threw
our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack.
Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory.
It must be linked to universal values.
While the call for student safety does indeed provide a link to universal values, including
those held by Catholics, there is an agenda here that goes far beyond concerns for student
safety.
For the truth is that homosexual activity is extremely risky from a health standpoint.
According to the authors of Male and Female, He Made Them, health issues include advanced
rates of cancer, HIV, and sexually transmitted diseases.
Male homosexuals are prone to cancer, especially anal cancer, which is quite rare among male
heterosexuals, and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis,
prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, lymphogranuloma
venereum, and genital warts caused by human papillomavirus, which is also a cause of genital
cancers.
Hepatitis B and C are also more prevalent in active homosexuals.
Author Jeffrey Satanova concludes that,
The gay male lifespan, even apart from AIDS and with a long-term partner, is significantly
shorter than that of married men in general by more than three decades.
AIDS further shortens the lifespan of homosexual men by more than 7%.
In the current political atmosphere, the whole notion that homosexuality is dangerous must
appear inflammatory.
But consider for a moment, if these findings are true, how could anyone with a heart for
the sufferings of others stand by in silence?
Catholics agree that every human, born and unborn, has inherent dignity, and that all
students should be able to learn in a safe environment.
And while no one should be surprised that same-sex attraction has become more prevalent
with the breakdown of the family, to promote this lifestyle and to ignore the health and
moral implications of acting on such impulses is to ignore the reality that any sexual activity
outside of the marital bond between one man and one woman violates God's moral law and
poses tremendous health risks.
The humanist agenda that is being played out in schools across America and in the Western
world is a true spiritual war, and it has had real victims that number in the tens of
millions.
May God have mercy on those who are knowingly part of this evolution-based deception.
And if any viewer still cannot see the link between denying the true nature of God as
Creator and the denial of man's own nature, please read chapter 1 of Romans, where St.
Paul describes the destiny of societies in which the truth about the Creator is hindered.
Summarizing the agenda and approach of the humanistic educational establishment, Samuel
L. Blumenfeld writes,
Day in and day out, the entire humanist, hedonist culture wages a relentless campaign to sexualize
Americans, to produce sexual addiction to the point that Americans will reject the self-restraining
standards of Orthodox Christianity.
This is done by creating cognitive dissonance, a conflict between the children's prematurely
aroused sexual desires and their family religion.
In short, the purpose of creating cognitive dissonance is to enable the child to get rid
of his Christian conscience.
Meanwhile, Christians ignorant of the linkage between Darwinism, humanistic philosophy,
education, and the loss of faith are played for fools as they are led to believe that
educational problems can be solved if only a few more billion tax dollars are injected
into the school system.
Unfortunately, those students who survive the bombardment of humanistic and Darwinian
education in grade school and high school will be subjected to these same views when
they go off to college and are no longer under the parental protective umbrella.
In fact, evolution has long been treated as a unifying theme across most disciplines at
the collegiate level.
In addition to the natural sciences and jurisprudence, which have been previously discussed, we will
briefly explain that other subjects dominated by the logical extension of Darwinism include
ethics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology.
In the area of moral philosophy or ethics, Ernst Mayr, one of the leading evolutionists
of the 20th century explained.
After Darwin, philosophers had the formidable task of replacing a supernatural explanation
of human morality with a naturalistic one.
Much of the literature on the relation between ethics and evolution of the last 130 years
has been devoted to a search for a naturalistic ethics, and several volumes on the subject
appear annually, 125 years after Darwin first posed the problem in 1871.
And after all this time, what have the Darwinian humanistic moral philosophers concluded about
moral behavior and human dignity?
In Created from Animals, The Moral Implications of Darwinism, Professor James Rachels explains.
Any adequate defense of human dignity would require some conception of human beings as
radically different from other animals.
But that is precisely what evolutionary theory calls into question.
This being so, a Darwinian may conclude that a successful defense of human dignity is most unlikely.
Consequently, an infant with severe brain damage, even if it survives for many years,
may never learn to speak and its mental powers may never rise above a primitive level.
In fact, its psychological capacities may be markedly inferior to those of a typical
rhesus monkey.
In that case, moral individualism would see no reason to prefer its life over the monkey's.
The discipline of sociology, which is the study of human society, behavior, and social
problems, also widely adopted the Darwinian and humanist view by the early 1900s.
A college textbook published in four editions between 1910 and 1924, titled Sociology and
Modern Social Problems, taught that ethics is the science which deals with the right
or wrong of human conduct and is dependent upon sociology for its criteria of rightness
or wrongness.
And what was the basis of sociology?
The college text explains.
Since Darwin wrote his Origin of Species, all the sciences in any way connected with
biology have been profoundly influenced.
It is important that the student of sociology, therefore, should understand at the outset
something of the bearing of the theory of evolution upon social problems.
It is evident that if we assume Darwin's theory of descent in sociology, we must look
for the beginnings of many peculiarly human things in the animal world below man.
To look for the origin of the family, we should have to turn first of all to the habits of
animals nearest man.
This is only one of the many bearings which Darwin's theory has upon the study of social
problems.
But it is evident even from this that it revolutionizes sociology.
But someone may ask, why should the sociologist accept Darwin's theory?
The reply is that biologists, generally, during the last fifty years, after a careful study
of Darwin's arguments and after a careful examination of all other evidence, have come
universally to accept the doctrine of descent.
Having argued for a biological basis for the social sciences, the book explains that after
the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859, the evolution theory of the family
came to be accepted.
This theory holds that the family arose from confused if not promiscuous sex relations
and the survival benefit that arose when related members acted as a cohesive unit.
True, the text discusses, there are many things peculiar to the human family life that
are found in no other animal species below man, including chastity in women and a feeling
of modesty or shame as regards matters of sex among the human beings.
However, these peculiarities of human family life are to be explained through the fact
that man has passed through many more stages of evolution.
All can be explained through natural selection and man's higher intellectual development.
The text then goes on to discuss divorce and other sociological problems as well as possible
solutions, all from an evolutionary and non-theistic perspective.
The field of psychology was, as previously mentioned, heavily influenced by Darwin through
William Wundt and others in the late 1800s.
In the historical introduction to modern psychology, Garner Murphy writes,
The influence of Darwinism upon psychology during the last quarter of the 19th century
probably did as much as any single factor to shape the science as it exists today.
Of course, when any discipline is based upon a falsehood, that discipline cannot help but
produce errant conclusions that can lead individuals away from the truth and even into
harmful behaviors.
The fall of psychology into deep error due to a false underlying worldview is perhaps
best illustrated by the most influential psychologist of the 20th century, Sigmund Freud.
Writing about the worldview underlying his theories, Freud wrote near the end of his
life,
There is no other source of knowledge of the universe but verified observations.
No knowledge can be obtained from revelation or inspiration.
Of the forces which can dispute the position of science, religion alone is a really serious
enemy.
But psychoanalysis has traced the origin of religion to the helplessness of childhood
and, in our view, the truth of religion may be altogether disregarded.
Religion is an attempt to get control over the sensory world, but it cannot achieve its
end.
Its doctrines carry with them the stamp of the time in which they originated, the ignorant
childhood days of the human race.
If one attempts to assign to religion its place in man's evolution, it seems not so
much to be a lasting acquisition, but a parallel to the neurosis which the civilized individual
must pass through on his way from childhood to maturity.
Confident of his worldview and rejection of Christianity, Freud arranged for a lethal
injection of morphine to relieve him of his suffering from cancer in 1939.
It was written in 1940 that Freud had produced a whole climate of opinion under which we
conduct our lives.
But his theories have since fallen into disrepute.
The book Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire concludes that Freud set back the study
of psychology and psychiatry by fifty years or more.
The real tragedy, however, is known only by God and concerns the thousands or millions
who confidently rejected the Christian faith and reoriented their behaviors due to the
false views of Freud and other psychologists who based their theories and therapies on
the lies of Darwinism and humanism.
The impact of Darwinism on theology and philosophy are so significant that they will be discussed
in the next episode.
But even at this point it should be abundantly clear that our educational system has become
a soul-killing enterprise and an untold number of errors in nearly all subject areas have
sprouted from the poisoned soil of Darwinism.
As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, that a small error in the beginning grows enormous in the
end.
Given that generations of Catholic children have now been exposed to twelve or sixteen
years of such indoctrination and hear little or nothing but silence from most Catholic
educators and clergy, should it really surprise us that the Catholic Church and all of Christendom
is in the midst of an unprecedented crisis of faith?
Tragically, Catholics must also share in the responsibility for this crisis.
While we have explained that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII strongly rebuked humanistic
education and the approach to sex education, beginning in the 1960s, many Catholics pushing
for reform openly promoted the exposure of students in Catholic schools to explicit and
immoral sex education techniques.
Leading the way was Fr. James T. McHugh, later to become Bishop McHugh.
Starting in 1962, Fr. McHugh held several positions in which he rose to a place of great
influence on sex education in the U.S.
This is almost inconceivable as Fr. McHugh was on a first-name basis with leading eugenicists
and humanists, including Dr. Alan Guttmacher and Dr. Mary Calderone, both former presidents
of Planned Parenthood.
He also closely coordinated with many Catholic dissenters regarding the use of birth control
that was confirmed as immoral in Humanae Vitae.
To give just one example of Fr. McHugh's influence, in 1969, under the urging of Fr.
McHugh and other Catholics, the Family Life Bureau, in cooperation with the National Catholic
Education Association, published Sex Education, a Guide for Teachers.
The contents include the following.
Within the past few years, a number of national organizations have done pioneering work in
this field, including Sex Information and Education Council of the United States, SECIS.
The philosophy set up by these modern sex educators bears repeating, sex is not a problem
to be controlled, but a great force to be utilized.
The publication promotes the same sort of sex education promoted by SECIS, even though
it admits that the philosophy behind the approach is a realistic and humanistic philosophy that
is built upon situation ethics or the new morality.
The booklet calls for the evolution of ever more enlightened attitudes towards sex and
society.
Through this booklet and a host of additional efforts, Fr. McHugh did, indeed, lead the
evolution of the Catholic approach towards sex education.
At this point in our series, viewers should realize that when seeking to understand why
a Catholic would depart from authoritative magisterial teaching on any subject, it is
essential to look at the underlying worldview.
When we do this, it is apparent that Fr. McHugh had a very strong bond with the worldview
of Calderon, Guttmacher, and those in SECIS.
It was this bond that caused Fr. McHugh to depart from church teaching on sex education.
This strong bond, this common foundation, was belief in evolution.
In 1969, even when many Catholics were revolting against the teaching on birth control contained
in Humanae Vitae, Fr. McHugh stated,
There is no reason why God's power to summon man into existence must be limited to the
reproductive process as we know it now.
Indeed, there is no reason to presume that the divine plan does not go far beyond our
present scientific speculation and encompass evolutionary breakthroughs that are even beyond
our imagination.
Industrial engineers explain that every system is perfectly designed for the result it is
producing.
Western education systems have, for more than a century, been designed to produce the rejection
of Christian truth through the humanistic and evolutionary worldview.
While Christians aware of the agenda rightly label the humanistic aims and approach to
education as evil, I can assure you that humanistic educators view the efficiency of their apparatus
with as much pride as any communist or Nazi propagandist ever did.
I can also assure you that, because the Darwinian and materialistic view of mankind is behind
it all, humanist educators are both amused and relieved when Catholics resolve that no
harm comes from evolutionary theory as long as it is attributed to God.
This position does nothing but put caring Christian parents on the sidelines as humanistic
educators advance their atheistic, evolution-based agenda in all subject areas.
Christians cannot allow millions of students to be indoctrinated into humanistic beliefs
and expect to see the faith preserved.
Catholics cannot, decade after decade, be ignorant about the tactics of educational
indoctrination, fail to inform their youth about the onslaught, and somehow expect the
Catholic youth to emerge unscathed.
A 15-minute sermon on Sunday will seldom be sufficient to overcome five days of indoctrination
in the public school, which is constantly reinforced through peer pressure and the entertainment
media.
Eventually there will come a tipping point when indoctrinated youth no longer believe
that Christianity is true, or they will reject the faith because the path of purity appears
too demanding.
When the indoctrination occurs on a massive scale, generation after generation, it is
inevitable that the multitude who have abandoned the Christian faith will rise to power in
academia, the media, and government.
Once in positions of influence, they will join with other non-believers and seek to
have the law of the land reflect their corrupted morality.
Areas especially targeted will be those related to the Epicurean search for pleasure and the
silencing of opposition.
This means that laws will be pursued to allow or promote abortion, cloning, euthanasia,
cohabitation, the redefinition of marriage, and the suppression of opposing religious
expression.
And underpinning it all are the Darwinian and humanist views that children are evolved
animals to be conditioned by the educators.
May God forgive us for allowing the corruption of education to continue with so little opposition.
May all Catholics find the courage to accept responsibility for teaching their children
the truth and to help stop the indoctrination in public schools.
In Catholic schools, I also pray that the Holy Spirit allows each of us to see that
the continued teaching of false evolutionary claims does great harm as it sets the stage
for indoctrination as our youth go on to college.
Saint Maximilian Kolbe, pray for us.
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you,
God bless you, God bless you, God bless you.