Chapter 26 - The Humanists
There is a religion in America today that embodies many of the beliefs of the Masons, the New Age Movement, and the Communists.
It is called the Humanist Religion.
This religion even has a dictionary definition:
Humanism: a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, without recourse to supernaturalism.
Some call this religion Secular Humanism, and the word Secular is defined as "of relating to worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and religion." The word is connected to the Latin word saecularis, meaning worldly.
The English word "Secular" is connected to the translation of the Latin phrase found on the back of the dollar bill, "Novus Ordo Seclorum," meaning the New World Order.
Some powerful people have identified themselves with this religion. One of these was former Vice President Walter Mondale, later an unsuccessful candidate for the Presidency in 1984 as a Democrat. He made his support known during a speech to the 5th Congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in August of 1970. Mr. Mondale said: "Although I have never formally joined a humanist society, I think I am a member by inheritance. My preacher father was a humanist... and I grew up on a very rich diet of humanism from him.
All of our family has been deeply influenced by this tradition including my brother Lester..." 514
The former Vice-President has been so moved by his religious views that he has been a contributor to a magazine called The Humanist.
Jimmy Carter, then the President of the United States, sent the American Humanist Association a telegram in April of 1978, in which he praised them for their activities: "Those who participate in the Annual Meeting of the American Humanist Association are furthering a movement that greatly enhances our way of life.
The work of your organization in this area is, therefore, especially gratifying to me, and I welcome this opportunity to applaud your important accomplishments." 515
The Humanists have issued two manifestos in which they have stated what their religion believes in, and any student can determine just what those positions are.
The first one was issued in 1933, and has been called limply THE HUMANIST MANIFESTO I. The introduction to that document reads, in part, as follows: "The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes.
Science [apparently meaning Evolution] and economic change [meaning Communism] have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience.
In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit HUMANISM.
In order that religious Humanism may be better understood, we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.'
There is a great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word RELIGION with doctrines and methods that have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problems of human living in the 20th century.
While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is the responsibility which rests upon this generation." 516
What was just expressed in those paragraphs of the introduction can be summarized in a few short sentences:
1. Science and economic changes have shown the world that religion no longer has the answers to man's problems, 2. Humanism has the new answers.
3. We can thank "religion" for what it has done in the past, but it is time to move on to new beliefs.
4. And humanism is the new religion that can replace the old.
This Humanist Manifesto contains fifteen planks of their beliefs, but only five are pertinent to this study. The First of these states: "First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."
Since the universe has always been, and was not created, there is no reason to believe in a creator. So the humanist religion is an atheist one, believing that there is no god.
"Second: Man has emerged as the result of a continuous process."
The Biblical view is that man and animals were all created within a period of six days. The Humanists believe that evolution is a more satisfactory explanation of the origins of both the universe and of man. And that the process has taken billions of years. The Humanists have stated that evolution is part of their religious view of man.
"Fifth:... the nature of the universe... makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values."
There is no prayer answering god in the universe, and there are no God created moral absolutes.
"Sixth: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism [a belief in one God,] deism [a belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority]..."
Once again, the Humanists profess their belief that God does not exist. Obviously, modern man is too sophisticated to believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven.
"Fourteenth: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls and motives must be instituted.
A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible." 517
It will be remembered that Karl Marx, the so-called "father of Communism", supported the concept of a "socialized and cooperative economic order." He stated that position in his writings. He wrote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
And he added this additional comment, which many consider the very essence of Communism: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend." 518
That is what the Humanists believe!
The Humanists, just like Karl Marx, do not approve of an economic system that encourages the right to own private property. They believe in the economic system known as socialism, just like Karl Marx.
The beliefs of the Humanists can be summarized by stating that the religion stands on a stool with three major legs:
evolution, atheism, and communism. There should be not doubt as to what they believe in. Any student can read it in the two Manifestos.
This 1933 edition of the HUMANIST MANIFESTO was signed by thirty-four men, only two of whom have any bearing on this study. One was Professor John Dewey of Columbia University, the father of so-called "progressive education,"
and the other was Lester Mondale, the brother of the Vice- President.
Professor Dewey's religious views on life have had a dramatic effect on education in America.
In 1974, Saturday Review magazine published their "golden anniversary issue," and as a part of their commemoration of those 50 years, they asked various American leaders to name the "most influential figure" in their respective fields of endeavor. 519
The individual that they named as the "most influential figure in American education" during the period of 1924 to 1974 was:
John Dewey!
One dean of a major university in California was quoted as saying: "It has to be Dewey... I'd allege that he is the only great educator in our history."
Another educator said that Dewey: "towers above everyone else."
And another educator said: "No individual has influenced the thinking of American educators more..."
John Dewey was a Socialist/Communist, an atheist, and believed in the fraud known as evolution. He believed that there were "no moral absolutes," and that man should develop his own set of "moral" values. He believed that Christianity was "powerless to solve" man's problems.
Yet this is the individual who "has influenced the thinking of American educators" the most.
To further illustrate the convoluted thinking of this man, one only needs to examine a quote attributed to him: "There is no God, and there is no soul. There are no needs for the props of traditional religion.
With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried.
There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent moral absolutes."
These opinions are absolutely incredible, and reveal just how shallow and confused Professor Dewey's thoughts were.
He claimed that when religion was removed from the environment, "immutable truth" would be "dead and buried."
This is impossible!
The word "immutable" is defined as being unchangeable.
The professor was admitting that truth was "immutable."
He was saying that "unchangeable truth" could be changed!
That which is unchangeable cannot be changed! By its own definition!
Yet Professor Dewey said it could be!
He also said that there was "no room for... permanent moral absolutes." That which is permanent cannot be done away with. It can only be ignored. But if they are permanent, they will still remain.
Professor Dewey believed that that which is unchangeable can be changed. He believed that that which is permanent can be done away with.
Professor Dewey was out of touch with reality.
Those who are out of touch with reality are defined as being insane. Those who believe that that which is unchangeable can be changed are insane!
Yet Professor Dewey has "influenced the thinking of American educators more than any other educator."
And his religious beliefs are becoming the official religion of America.
In 1973, on the fortieth anniversary of the issuance of the first Manifesto, the Humanists issued the second Manifesto.
This one basically reaffirmed what the first Manifesto said: "As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." 520
Once again, the Humanists stated their belief that God does not exist. Since there is no God, man is on his own.
Since man is on his own, man needs to create his own religion, and the Humanists have done just that.
The Second Principle of the Humanist Manifesto II states: "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forms..."
Here the Humanists restate their conviction that man is nothing more than a highly evolved animal. It is a fact of modern reality that this position is no longer the sole theory of origins being offered to the world by the scientific community. The Theory of Evolution is currently being challenged by what is known as Creation Science. This approach is rapidly proving, using scientific data, that evolution is a fraud and a hoax. Scientists of world renown are deserting their long held evolutionary beliefs after being exposed to this competing theory. The scientist who has the integrity to compare the two theories side by side is discovering that evolution is not scientific. Debates between the evolutionists and the creationists on college campuses all over the world are being won by the creationists. As a result, science is slowly returning to the position held by the scientific world before Charles Darwin revolutionized it with his unprovable and unsound theories known as Evolution.
In spite of this, Evolution is an official part of the Humanist religion.
The Third Principle reads: "Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life."
There is no God, therefore there are no God-given Moral Absolutes. The words of these Absolutes, such as "Thou shalt not," have no relevance to today's societies, and because this is true, man does not have to obey these teachings. He is therefore free to decide these matters for himself. It follows, therefore, that Religion will shortly pass away. All that needs to be done is for it to be officially buried by the Humanists, New Agers, Masons and Communists.
This new "moral" philosophy has an official name, Situational Ethics, and will be examined more in detail in a subsequent chapter of this study.
The Fourth Principle states: "Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself."
Here the Humanists side with the Masons who have deified reason. As was just discussed, this view holds that man's mind is the ultimate savior of mankind. Humanists strive to create an environment where man can utilize his mind to save humanity. That means that religions must be removed from that environment so that man will be free to utilize his mind so that he can solve man's problems without religious interference.
The Sixth Principle reads: "In the areas of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion and divorce should be recognized."
According to this Principle, religions in America have been "unduly repressive" in their teaching about mankind's sexuality.
They have taught the world that abortion is murder (believing that abortion is a violation of the Moral Absolute "Thou shalt not kill.") The Humanists believe that birth control must be available, and abortion on demand permitted.
The Eighth Principle reads: "We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace and voluntary associations."
The Christian and Jewish religions for centuries have taught that the husband is the head of the household. But the humanists would change that, by allowing the entire family to decide the direction that the family is going to take.
If the family is having difficulty in making a decision, such as whether to take a vacation in the mountains or at the seashore, the family is to decide democratically: each person is to have one vote. And if there are three children and their choice is the seashore, and the majority rules, the two parents, and the family, will visit the seashore. The fact that the parents know that they cannot afford the vacation at the ocean is to have no bearing on the decision. The majority rules!
It is almost inconceivable that a "rational" mind could .
conceive of such a program for a family unit, but that is what the new Humanists propose.
And not only must the family experience the joys of participatory democracy, so must the workplace. Imagine the experience of having a work force of 5,000 deciding how much the production will be that day, and at what price they will be offered, and to whom they will be sold.
This is what the Humanists want.
And the Humanists want the students to have a say as to what will be taught that day in school. Allowing five year olds to determine the subjects to be discussed will practically eliminate education as an instructional tool.
The Eleventh Principle reads: "We believe in the right to universal education."
Karl Marx, who declared himself a "humanist," in the Communist Manifesto, wrote this in the Tenth Plank: "Free education for all children in public schools."
The education of the children used to be the direct responsibility of the family. Parents were originally the teachers of this nation's children, and later were thought able to pay for the educational needs of their own children once this nation went to a system of public education. But here the Humanists side with the Communists who believe that education should be the concern of the entire society. In other
words, those couples who have either decided against having children of their own, or elderly parents, who have already raised their children, were to be made to support the educational costs of the parents who produce children.
The concept that parents without children should pay for the education of the parents with children came directly from the writings of Karl Marx, the communist. He wrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Marx taught that parents without children had to pay for those parents with children.
The Twelfth Principle reads: "We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds... the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and move toward the building of a world community...
We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community..."
The world government is coming, and the Humanists are proud to announce their support for it.
The Fourteenth Principle reads: "... excessive population growth must be checked by international concord."
The thought that some held the position that there was a "population explosion" was discussed in my book entitled, THE UNSEEN HAND, and was shown to be a fraud. This is what I wrote: "Oregon, a rather small state by comparison to others in the United States, has a total of 95,607 square miles inside its borders. The world has approximately four billion (4,000,000,000) inhabitants.
If the entire population of the world moved to Oregon, and left the remainder of the world completely devoid of human life, a family of four would have a piece of Oregon approximately 50' by 53'. This is about half the size of a typical residential lot in a subdivision." 522
The idea that the world is exploding because there are simply too many people on the earth is a fraud, but the Humanists believe it. In fact, that belief in a lie is a part of their official belief structure. And, not only do they acknowledge the non-existent "problem," they wish to involve government in solving it. Governments deciding to "control populations" is the thing that makes dictators exceedingly happy.
So the population explosion was not an explosion at all, but was being offered for other purposes. Those who were frightening the population of the world into believing that government had to intercede to control a non-existent problem had a hidden agenda. The operative word is the word "control," and would have gladdened the heart of any dictator.
The type of government necessary to coerce people into controlling the non-existent "population explosion" is one that should frighten any thinking person.
But this thought has apparently not occurred to those who ascribe to the Humanist religion.
The last paragraph of their Manifesto contains a summation of their basic beliefs: "We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want..."
So the Humanists have linked themselves with the others who look to man's reason as the solution to all of the problems caused, in their way of thinking, by the religions of the world.
This second Manifesto was signed by 102 individuals including some very familiar names:
Isaac Asimov, author, Alan F. Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Federation, Lester Mondale, brother of the former Vice-President, Andre Sakharov, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, USSR, and Joseph Fletcher, Visiting Prof., School of Medicine, University of Virginia.
Each year, the Humanists honor the "Humanist of the Year" with an award and those honored in the past have been some of the most influential people in the world:
1969: Dr. Benjamin Spock
1972: B.F. Skinner
1975: Betty Friedan
1980: Andre Sakharov
1981: Carl Sagan, the noted astronomer
1984: Isaac Asimov
1985: John Kenneth Galbraith, economist
1986: Faye Wattleton, president of Planned Parenthood
But one of the most well known Humanists is Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the woman who in 1963 was successful in her attempts to eliminate prayer and Bible reading in America's public schools.
Mrs. O'Hair has had an interest in the religious views of Humanism for many years. She was once the editor of the magazine entitled THE FREE HUMANIST, and was elected to the Board of the American Humanist Association in 1965, and was elected in 1973 for a second four year term.
In public statements she has been quoted as saying that "there's absolutely no conclusive evidence" that Jesus ever lived and that Christianity has never "contributed anything to anybody, anyplace, at any time." She has called religion "the mental excrement of primitive man," and has said that: "religion is the wildest form of insanity. I would turn every church into a home for the aged or outpatient clinic, etc. Christianity, which is anti-science, anti-life, anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-freedom, anti-peace, is detrimental to the United States."
She has not confined her activity to just the prayer-in-school issue, either. Her attack on Christianity has gotten her involved in other issues.
In December of 1974, she supported the Lansman-Milam petition (RM 2493) to the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC.) This petition asked them to impose an immediate freeze on all: "applications for reserved educational FM and TV channels... by any and all 'Christian,' Bible, 'Religious,' and other sectarian colleges and institutions." 523
In September of 1977, she filed suit in the federal court to remove the motto "In God We Trust," from all U.S. currency.
She asked the court to declare the motto unconstitutional, and then order the Secretary of the Treasury to no longer place it on any American money. 524
In November of 1977, she involved herself in a demand that the Governor of Texas prohibit the display of a nativity scene in the State Capitol during the Christmas holidays. She also objected to a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on Capitol grounds. However, she went on to say that she found no objection to the Christmas tree placed inside the Capitol building, because that was "a pagan thing which has nothing to do with religion."
Earlier that month she was arrested and charged with disrupting a public meeting for loudly protesting the opening of a city council meeting with a prayer. The article that reported her activity quoted her as saying: "I'm going to try to have the mayor and the minister who leads the prayers arrested. They're interjecting religious activity into a governmental meeting." 525
Two years later, in 1979, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected her suit about the removal of the "In God We Trust"
motto from all American currency. The judge who ruled against her in the District Court was quoted as saying that the motto: "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a
patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.
Moreover, it would be ludicrous to argue that the use of the national motto fosters any excessive governmental entanglement with religion." 526
One of her more recent cases involved a group that she was the founder and the President Emeritus of, called the Society of Separationists. They sued the state of Texas, claiming that they had been systematically excluded from jury duty because of their refusal to swear an oath to God.
They claimed that the oath that all prospective jurors must take before they are sworn in as members of a panel that requires them to be sworn in "so help me God," was a violation of "the constitutional separation of church an state. 527
That was an interesting, but not persuasive, argument because the Constititution of the United States contains no such statement in its wording. There is no required "separation of church and state." Those are the words of Thomas Jefferson and not of the Constitution.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [the remainder of the Amendment protects other rights and does not concern itself with the right to religious freedom.]
Notice that Congress is prohibited from establishing a national religion. Notice furthermore that the states may do so if they so choose. That is because of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, Congress has no authority to require anyone to believe in any particular religion. There is no reason why the national government may not print a motto such as "In God We Trust" on its currency.
Mrs. O'Hair's string of failures has affected her family as well. All of her activity for the cause of atheism has failed to induce one of her two sons to believe in the theory.
Her son, William Murray, the child she filed the suit to restrict prayer in public schools for, later became a Christian.
He said in a letter in May, 1980, that he was publicly apologizing to the American people because: "the part I played as a teenager in removing prayer from public schools was criminal. I removed from our future generations that short time each day which should rightly be reserved for God. Inasmuch as the suit to destroy the tradition of prayer in school was brought in my name, I feel gravely responsible for the resulting destruction of the moral fiber of our youth that it has caused." 528 In June of 1988, he told us a little about what his mother believed in. He told the world in an interview that: "My mother was always a Marxist. She was the manager of the New Era Bookstore in Baltimore, which was and is today an official Communist Party bookstore."
Mr. Murray further amplified his thoughts about his mother in a book he wrote about Nicaragua. He said: "Many people identify me as being the son of atheist leader Madlyn Murray O'Hair. Granted, she is my mother, but her identification as an atheist 'leader'
is not quite true. It was never her intent to be an atheist leader, but a Marxist leader."
He reminisced about his childhood with his mother when he added these thoughts: "... I'm able to reflect upon the change in my own life [Mr. Murray, as mentioned previously, has since become a Christian] from being raised in a home where there was hatred toward freedom; hatred toward free enterprise; and hatred toward God."
It wasn't until 1988, however, when some of the truth about Mrs. O'Hair's lawsuit came out. The Houston Chronicle told the world in its June 18, 1988 newspaper, that: "Madalyn Murray O'Hair... said she invented a non-existent public interest group so it would not appear that she was fighting the battle alone.
'I lied like **** [expletive deleted] during the whole thing. The public wasn't willing to listen to just one single woman alone with two kids tugging at her... so what I did was invent the Maryland Committee for the Separation of Church and State, which really didn't exist."
Others of national and international renown have embraced the Humanist religion as well.
Another who publicly did was Karl Marx, the Communist.
He also claimed Humanism as his own. He wrote: "Communism as a fully developed naturalism is humanism..." 529
And in 1970, the New Program of the Communist Party, U.S.A., stated: "Marxism is not only rational; it is humanist in the best and most profound meaning of the term." 530
But Humanism is not just a word in a dictionary. It is becoming the official religion of the United States. The proof that Humanism has received official sanction as the religion of the United States starts with a Supreme Court decision in a 1961 case called Torcaso versus Watkins. The Court ruled that Humanism was to be officially sanctioned as a religion when they declared: "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." 531
The Court ruled that the First Amendment to the Constitution granted the same protection and imposed the same limitations on the "religion of Secular Humanism" as are applicable to other religions.
And in 1965, the Supreme Court in another case wrote that: "... a humanistic belief that is sincerely professed as a religion shall be entitled to recognition as religious under the Selective Service Law. 532 The result of this decision is to exempt anyone from the draft who professes that his religion is called Humanism.
So the Supreme Court has correctly identified Humanism as a "religion." And even the Humanists declare that their religion is a religion. The President of the American Humanist Association wrote this: "Humanism is a religion without a God, divine revelation or sacred scriptures." 533
And Sir Julian Huxley, a signer of the Humanist Manifest II, wrote this in a Humanist Association promotional brochure: "I use the word 'humanist' to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but were products of evolution." 524
And to show that the government of the United States has officially recognized the Humanists as a religion, the American Humanist Association has been granted a religious tax exemption.
So, as has been illustrated, Humanism is based upon a belief in three major philosophies:
Communism, evolution and atheism.
And it is being taught in the schools of America (this will be explored in a later chapter of this study.)
In 1987, some parents with young children in the Alabama public school system found the teaching of this religion in their tax-supported schools to be objectionable. They filed suit to prevent their children from being taught a religious view in violation of their own personal religious views. An article that appeared in the Arizona Daily Star reported what happened: "A federal judge ordered Alabama officials yesterday to remove 36 textbooks from public schools, saying they furthered a belief in humanism and denied the role of religion in American society.
The sweeping ruling, a victory for 624 conservative Christians who pressed the lawsuit, found for the first time that secular humanism is a religion that is unconstitutionally advanced in the nation's public schools.
[U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand] found that five home economics textbooks, published by such giants as McGraw Hill Book Co., advance religious tenets in violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of a religion.
In addition, Hand found that 31 history and social studies textbooks, also published by major houses, were 'not merely bad history, but lack so many facts as to equal ideological promotion.'" 535 The Alabama Civil Liberties Union was not pleased with the decision. The article quoted their executive director Mary Weidler as saying: "This decision confirms our worst fears of federal censorship over local public school matters. It severely threatens non-sectarian public education in Alabama and around the nation."
This concern about "federal censorship" by the Alabama Civil Liberties Union is very puzzling. Their position that the removal of textbooks from the public schools by the federal government constituted "censorship" revealed a blatant hypocrisy.
Because in the "Creationism Science versus Evolution Science" court case also in Alabama a few years later, the American Civil Liberties Union, presumably the parent of the Alabama organization, took the opposite position. In that case, they argued that Creationism science textbooks should be removed from the students in Alabama's science classrooms.
It was their position that the Creationism Science could not be taught side by side with the theory of Evolution in science classes in the state. They argued that only Evolution could be taught.
In other words, they argued in favor of the censorship of Creationism textbooks from the classroom.
Their objection in that case was basically that the Creationism textbooks taught a religious view of science in opposition to the traditional Evolutionist view. In other words, those who claim to protect America's "Civil Liberties" wanted the books removed in one case, but not in the other.
They claimed that the Creationists wanted to teach a religious view in the science classes, and they urged that the court to remove the textbooks. The Christians claimed that the Humanists were teaching a religious view in other classrooms in the school districts, and the Civil Liberties Union objected when the judge removed the books.
This doesn't make sense, unless those claiming to protect America's "civil liberties" wanted only the Humanist religion taught in the public schools. That conclusion fits the facts.
If they were concerned about "federal censorship of school matters," they should have been consistent. They should have allowed the state to utilize Creationism science textbooks because they "feared federal censorship."
But they didn't. The "civil libertarians" are not consistent.
Censorship is not called censorship if your side does the censoring.
And the American Civil Liberties Union wants to be the censor.
There is a religion in America today that embodies many of the beliefs of the Masons, the New Age Movement, and the Communists.
It is called the Humanist Religion.
This religion even has a dictionary definition:
Humanism: a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, without recourse to supernaturalism.
Some call this religion Secular Humanism, and the word Secular is defined as "of relating to worldly things as distinguished from things relating to church and religion." The word is connected to the Latin word saecularis, meaning worldly.
The English word "Secular" is connected to the translation of the Latin phrase found on the back of the dollar bill, "Novus Ordo Seclorum," meaning the New World Order.
Some powerful people have identified themselves with this religion. One of these was former Vice President Walter Mondale, later an unsuccessful candidate for the Presidency in 1984 as a Democrat. He made his support known during a speech to the 5th Congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in August of 1970. Mr. Mondale said: "Although I have never formally joined a humanist society, I think I am a member by inheritance. My preacher father was a humanist... and I grew up on a very rich diet of humanism from him.
All of our family has been deeply influenced by this tradition including my brother Lester..." 514
The former Vice-President has been so moved by his religious views that he has been a contributor to a magazine called The Humanist.
Jimmy Carter, then the President of the United States, sent the American Humanist Association a telegram in April of 1978, in which he praised them for their activities: "Those who participate in the Annual Meeting of the American Humanist Association are furthering a movement that greatly enhances our way of life.
The work of your organization in this area is, therefore, especially gratifying to me, and I welcome this opportunity to applaud your important accomplishments." 515
The Humanists have issued two manifestos in which they have stated what their religion believes in, and any student can determine just what those positions are.
The first one was issued in 1933, and has been called limply THE HUMANIST MANIFESTO I. The introduction to that document reads, in part, as follows: "The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes.
Science [apparently meaning Evolution] and economic change [meaning Communism] have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience.
In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit HUMANISM.
In order that religious Humanism may be better understood, we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.'
113
There is a great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word RELIGION with doctrines and methods that have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problems of human living in the 20th century.
While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is the responsibility which rests upon this generation." 516
What was just expressed in those paragraphs of the introduction can be summarized in a few short sentences:
1. Science and economic changes have shown the world that religion no longer has the answers to man's problems, 2. Humanism has the new answers.
3. We can thank "religion" for what it has done in the past, but it is time to move on to new beliefs.
4. And humanism is the new religion that can replace the old.
This Humanist Manifesto contains fifteen planks of their beliefs, but only five are pertinent to this study. The First of these states: "First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."
Since the universe has always been, and was not created, there is no reason to believe in a creator. So the humanist religion is an atheist one, believing that there is no god.
"Second: Man has emerged as the result of a continuous process."
The Biblical view is that man and animals were all created within a period of six days. The Humanists believe that evolution is a more satisfactory explanation of the origins of both the universe and of man. And that the process has taken billions of years. The Humanists have stated that evolution is part of their religious view of man.
"Fifth:... the nature of the universe... makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values."
There is no prayer answering god in the universe, and there are no God created moral absolutes.
"Sixth: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism [a belief in one God,] deism [a belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority]..."
Once again, the Humanists profess their belief that God does not exist. Obviously, modern man is too sophisticated to believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven.
"Fourteenth: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls and motives must be instituted.
A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible." 517
It will be remembered that Karl Marx, the so-called "father of Communism", supported the concept of a "socialized and cooperative economic order." He stated that position in his writings. He wrote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
And he added this additional comment, which many consider the very essence of Communism: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend." 518
That is what the Humanists believe!
114
The Humanists, just like Karl Marx, do not approve of an economic system that encourages the right to own private property. They believe in the economic system known as socialism, just like Karl Marx.
The beliefs of the Humanists can be summarized by stating that the religion stands on a stool with three major legs:
evolution, atheism, and communism. There should be not doubt as to what they believe in. Any student can read it in the two Manifestos.
This 1933 edition of the HUMANIST MANIFESTO was signed by thirty-four men, only two of whom have any bearing on this study. One was Professor John Dewey of Columbia University, the father of so-called "progressive education,"
and the other was Lester Mondale, the brother of the Vice- President.
Professor Dewey's religious views on life have had a dramatic effect on education in America.
In 1974, Saturday Review magazine published their "golden anniversary issue," and as a part of their commemoration of those 50 years, they asked various American leaders to name the "most influential figure" in their respective fields of endeavor. 519
The individual that they named as the "most influential figure in American education" during the period of 1924 to 1974 was:
John Dewey!
One dean of a major university in California was quoted as saying: "It has to be Dewey... I'd allege that he is the only great educator in our history."
Another educator said that Dewey: "towers above everyone else."
And another educator said: "No individual has influenced the thinking of American educators more..."
John Dewey was a Socialist/Communist, an atheist, and believed in the fraud known as evolution. He believed that there were "no moral absolutes," and that man should develop his own set of "moral" values. He believed that Christianity was "powerless to solve" man's problems.
Yet this is the individual who "has influenced the thinking of American educators" the most.
To further illustrate the convoluted thinking of this man, one only needs to examine a quote attributed to him: "There is no God, and there is no soul. There are no needs for the props of traditional religion.
With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried.
There is no room for fixed, natural law or permanent moral absolutes."
These opinions are absolutely incredible, and reveal just how shallow and confused Professor Dewey's thoughts were.
He claimed that when religion was removed from the environment, "immutable truth" would be "dead and buried."
This is impossible!
The word "immutable" is defined as being unchangeable.
The professor was admitting that truth was "immutable."
He was saying that "unchangeable truth" could be changed!
115
That which is unchangeable cannot be changed! By its own definition!
Yet Professor Dewey said it could be!
He also said that there was "no room for... permanent moral absolutes." That which is permanent cannot be done away with. It can only be ignored. But if they are permanent, they will still remain.
Professor Dewey believed that that which is unchangeable can be changed. He believed that that which is permanent can be done away with.
Professor Dewey was out of touch with reality.
Those who are out of touch with reality are defined as being insane. Those who believe that that which is unchangeable can be changed are insane!
Yet Professor Dewey has "influenced the thinking of American educators more than any other educator."
And his religious beliefs are becoming the official religion of America.
In 1973, on the fortieth anniversary of the issuance of the first Manifesto, the Humanists issued the second Manifesto.
This one basically reaffirmed what the first Manifesto said: "As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." 520
Once again, the Humanists stated their belief that God does not exist. Since there is no God, man is on his own.
Since man is on his own, man needs to create his own religion, and the Humanists have done just that.
The Second Principle of the Humanist Manifesto II states: "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forms..."
Here the Humanists restate their conviction that man is nothing more than a highly evolved animal. It is a fact of modern reality that this position is no longer the sole theory of origins being offered to the world by the scientific community. The Theory of Evolution is currently being challenged by what is known as Creation Science. This approach is rapidly proving, using scientific data, that evolution is a fraud and a hoax. Scientists of world renown are deserting their long held evolutionary beliefs after being exposed to this competing theory. The scientist who has the integrity to compare the two theories side by side is discovering that evolution is not scientific. Debates between the evolutionists and the creationists on college campuses all over the world are being won by the creationists. As a result, science is slowly returning to the position held by the scientific world before Charles Darwin revolutionized it with his unprovable and unsound theories known as Evolution.
In spite of this, Evolution is an official part of the Humanist religion.
The Third Principle reads: "Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life."
There is no God, therefore there are no God-given Moral Absolutes. The words of these Absolutes, such as "Thou shalt not," have no relevance to today's societies, and because this is true, man does not have to obey these teachings. He is therefore free to decide these matters for himself. It follows, therefore, that Religion will shortly pass away. All that needs to be done is for it to be officially buried by the Humanists, New Agers, Masons and Communists.
116
This new "moral" philosophy has an official name, Situational Ethics, and will be examined more in detail in a subsequent chapter of this study.
The Fourth Principle states: "Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself."
Here the Humanists side with the Masons who have deified reason. As was just discussed, this view holds that man's mind is the ultimate savior of mankind. Humanists strive to create an environment where man can utilize his mind to save humanity. That means that religions must be removed from that environment so that man will be free to utilize his mind so that he can solve man's problems without religious interference.
The Sixth Principle reads: "In the areas of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion and divorce should be recognized."
According to this Principle, religions in America have been "unduly repressive" in their teaching about mankind's sexuality.
They have taught the world that abortion is murder (believing that abortion is a violation of the Moral Absolute "Thou shalt not kill.") The Humanists believe that birth control must be available, and abortion on demand permitted.
The Eighth Principle reads: "We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace and voluntary associations."
The Christian and Jewish religions for centuries have taught that the husband is the head of the household. But the humanists would change that, by allowing the entire family to decide the direction that the family is going to take.
If the family is having difficulty in making a decision, such as whether to take a vacation in the mountains or at the seashore, the family is to decide democratically: each person is to have one vote. And if there are three children and their choice is the seashore, and the majority rules, the two parents, and the family, will visit the seashore. The fact that the parents know that they cannot afford the vacation at the ocean is to have no bearing on the decision. The majority rules!
It is almost inconceivable that a "rational" mind could .
conceive of such a program for a family unit, but that is what the new Humanists propose.
And not only must the family experience the joys of participatory democracy, so must the workplace. Imagine the experience of having a work force of 5,000 deciding how much the production will be that day, and at what price they will be offered, and to whom they will be sold.
This is what the Humanists want.
And the Humanists want the students to have a say as to what will be taught that day in school. Allowing five year olds to determine the subjects to be discussed will practically eliminate education as an instructional tool.
The Eleventh Principle reads: "We believe in the right to universal education."
Karl Marx, who declared himself a "humanist," in the Communist Manifesto, wrote this in the Tenth Plank: "Free education for all children in public schools."
The education of the children used to be the direct responsibility of the family. Parents were originally the teachers of this nation's children, and later were thought able to pay for the educational needs of their own children once this nation went to a system of public education. But here the Humanists side with the Communists who believe that education should be the concern of the entire society. In other
117
words, those couples who have either decided against having children of their own, or elderly parents, who have already raised their children, were to be made to support the educational costs of the parents who produce children.
The concept that parents without children should pay for the education of the parents with children came directly from the writings of Karl Marx, the communist. He wrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Marx taught that parents without children had to pay for those parents with children.
The Twelfth Principle reads: "We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds... the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and move toward the building of a world community...
We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community..."
The world government is coming, and the Humanists are proud to announce their support for it.
The Fourteenth Principle reads: "... excessive population growth must be checked by international concord."
The thought that some held the position that there was a "population explosion" was discussed in my book entitled, THE UNSEEN HAND, and was shown to be a fraud. This is what I wrote: "Oregon, a rather small state by comparison to others in the United States, has a total of 95,607 square miles inside its borders. The world has approximately four billion (4,000,000,000) inhabitants.
If the entire population of the world moved to Oregon, and left the remainder of the world completely devoid of human life, a family of four would have a piece of Oregon approximately 50' by 53'. This is about half the size of a typical residential lot in a subdivision." 522
The idea that the world is exploding because there are simply too many people on the earth is a fraud, but the Humanists believe it. In fact, that belief in a lie is a part of their official belief structure. And, not only do they acknowledge the non-existent "problem," they wish to involve government in solving it. Governments deciding to "control populations" is the thing that makes dictators exceedingly happy.
So the population explosion was not an explosion at all, but was being offered for other purposes. Those who were frightening the population of the world into believing that government had to intercede to control a non-existent problem had a hidden agenda. The operative word is the word "control," and would have gladdened the heart of any dictator.
The type of government necessary to coerce people into controlling the non-existent "population explosion" is one that should frighten any thinking person.
But this thought has apparently not occurred to those who ascribe to the Humanist religion.
The last paragraph of their Manifesto contains a summation of their basic beliefs: "We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want..."
So the Humanists have linked themselves with the others who look to man's reason as the solution to all of the problems caused, in their way of thinking, by the religions of the world.
This second Manifesto was signed by 102 individuals including some very familiar names:
Isaac Asimov, author, Alan F. Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Federation, Lester Mondale, brother of the former Vice-President, Andre Sakharov, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, USSR, and Joseph Fletcher, Visiting Prof., School of Medicine, University of Virginia.
Each year, the Humanists honor the "Humanist of the Year" with an award and those honored in the past have been some of the most influential people in the world:
118
1969: Dr. Benjamin Spock
1972: B.F. Skinner
1975: Betty Friedan
1980: Andre Sakharov
1981: Carl Sagan, the noted astronomer
1984: Isaac Asimov
1985: John Kenneth Galbraith, economist
1986: Faye Wattleton, president of Planned Parenthood
But one of the most well known Humanists is Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the woman who in 1963 was successful in her attempts to eliminate prayer and Bible reading in America's public schools.
Mrs. O'Hair has had an interest in the religious views of Humanism for many years. She was once the editor of the magazine entitled THE FREE HUMANIST, and was elected to the Board of the American Humanist Association in 1965, and was elected in 1973 for a second four year term.
In public statements she has been quoted as saying that "there's absolutely no conclusive evidence" that Jesus ever lived and that Christianity has never "contributed anything to anybody, anyplace, at any time." She has called religion "the mental excrement of primitive man," and has said that: "religion is the wildest form of insanity. I would turn every church into a home for the aged or outpatient clinic, etc. Christianity, which is anti-science, anti-life, anti-sex, anti-woman, anti-freedom, anti-peace, is detrimental to the United States."
She has not confined her activity to just the prayer-in-school issue, either. Her attack on Christianity has gotten her involved in other issues.
In December of 1974, she supported the Lansman-Milam petition (RM 2493) to the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC.) This petition asked them to impose an immediate freeze on all: "applications for reserved educational FM and TV channels... by any and all 'Christian,' Bible, 'Religious,' and other sectarian colleges and institutions." 523
In September of 1977, she filed suit in the federal court to remove the motto "In God We Trust," from all U.S. currency.
She asked the court to declare the motto unconstitutional, and then order the Secretary of the Treasury to no longer place it on any American money. 524
In November of 1977, she involved herself in a demand that the Governor of Texas prohibit the display of a nativity scene in the State Capitol during the Christmas holidays. She also objected to a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on Capitol grounds. However, she went on to say that she found no objection to the Christmas tree placed inside the Capitol building, because that was "a pagan thing which has nothing to do with religion."
Earlier that month she was arrested and charged with disrupting a public meeting for loudly protesting the opening of a city council meeting with a prayer. The article that reported her activity quoted her as saying: "I'm going to try to have the mayor and the minister who leads the prayers arrested. They're interjecting religious activity into a governmental meeting." 525
Two years later, in 1979, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected her suit about the removal of the "In God We Trust"
motto from all American currency. The judge who ruled against her in the District Court was quoted as saying that the motto: "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a
119
patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.
Moreover, it would be ludicrous to argue that the use of the national motto fosters any excessive governmental entanglement with religion." 526
One of her more recent cases involved a group that she was the founder and the President Emeritus of, called the Society of Separationists. They sued the state of Texas, claiming that they had been systematically excluded from jury duty because of their refusal to swear an oath to God.
They claimed that the oath that all prospective jurors must take before they are sworn in as members of a panel that requires them to be sworn in "so help me God," was a violation of "the constitutional separation of church an state. 527
That was an interesting, but not persuasive, argument because the Constititution of the United States contains no such statement in its wording. There is no required "separation of church and state." Those are the words of Thomas Jefferson and not of the Constitution.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [the remainder of the Amendment protects other rights and does not concern itself with the right to religious freedom.]
Notice that Congress is prohibited from establishing a national religion. Notice furthermore that the states may do so if they so choose. That is because of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, Congress has no authority to require anyone to believe in any particular religion. There is no reason why the national government may not print a motto such as "In God We Trust" on its currency.
Mrs. O'Hair's string of failures has affected her family as well. All of her activity for the cause of atheism has failed to induce one of her two sons to believe in the theory.
Her son, William Murray, the child she filed the suit to restrict prayer in public schools for, later became a Christian.
He said in a letter in May, 1980, that he was publicly apologizing to the American people because: "the part I played as a teenager in removing prayer from public schools was criminal. I removed from our future generations that short time each day which should rightly be reserved for God. Inasmuch as the suit to destroy the tradition of prayer in school was brought in my name, I feel gravely responsible for the resulting destruction of the moral fiber of our youth that it has caused." 528 In June of 1988, he told us a little about what his mother believed in. He told the world in an interview that: "My mother was always a Marxist. She was the manager of the New Era Bookstore in Baltimore, which was and is today an official Communist Party bookstore."
Mr. Murray further amplified his thoughts about his mother in a book he wrote about Nicaragua. He said: "Many people identify me as being the son of atheist leader Madlyn Murray O'Hair. Granted, she is my mother, but her identification as an atheist 'leader'
is not quite true. It was never her intent to be an atheist leader, but a Marxist leader."
He reminisced about his childhood with his mother when he added these thoughts: "... I'm able to reflect upon the change in my own life [Mr. Murray, as mentioned previously, has since become a Christian] from being raised in a home where there was hatred toward freedom; hatred toward free enterprise; and hatred toward God."
It wasn't until 1988, however, when some of the truth about Mrs. O'Hair's lawsuit came out. The Houston Chronicle told the world in its June 18, 1988 newspaper, that: "Madalyn Murray O'Hair... said she invented a non-existent public interest group so it would not appear that she was fighting the battle alone.
120
'I lied like **** [expletive deleted] during the whole thing. The public wasn't willing to listen to just one single woman alone with two kids tugging at her... so what I did was invent the Maryland Committee for the Separation of Church and State, which really didn't exist."
Others of national and international renown have embraced the Humanist religion as well.
Another who publicly did was Karl Marx, the Communist.
He also claimed Humanism as his own. He wrote: "Communism as a fully developed naturalism is humanism..." 529
And in 1970, the New Program of the Communist Party, U.S.A., stated: "Marxism is not only rational; it is humanist in the best and most profound meaning of the term." 530
But Humanism is not just a word in a dictionary. It is becoming the official religion of the United States. The proof that Humanism has received official sanction as the religion of the United States starts with a Supreme Court decision in a 1961 case called Torcaso versus Watkins. The Court ruled that Humanism was to be officially sanctioned as a religion when they declared: "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." 531
The Court ruled that the First Amendment to the Constitution granted the same protection and imposed the same limitations on the "religion of Secular Humanism" as are applicable to other religions.
And in 1965, the Supreme Court in another case wrote that: "... a humanistic belief that is sincerely professed as a religion shall be entitled to recognition as religious under the Selective Service Law. 532 The result of this decision is to exempt anyone from the draft who professes that his religion is called Humanism.
So the Supreme Court has correctly identified Humanism as a "religion." And even the Humanists declare that their religion is a religion. The President of the American Humanist Association wrote this: "Humanism is a religion without a God, divine revelation or sacred scriptures." 533
And Sir Julian Huxley, a signer of the Humanist Manifest II, wrote this in a Humanist Association promotional brochure: "I use the word 'humanist' to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but were products of evolution." 524
And to show that the government of the United States has officially recognized the Humanists as a religion, the American Humanist Association has been granted a religious tax exemption.
So, as has been illustrated, Humanism is based upon a belief in three major philosophies:
Communism, evolution and atheism.
And it is being taught in the schools of America (this will be explored in a later chapter of this study.)
In 1987, some parents with young children in the Alabama public school system found the teaching of this religion in their tax-supported schools to be objectionable. They filed suit to prevent their children from being taught a religious view in violation of their own personal religious views. An article that appeared in the Arizona Daily Star reported what happened: "A federal judge ordered Alabama officials yesterday to remove 36 textbooks from public schools, saying they furthered a belief in humanism and denied the role of religion in American society.
The sweeping ruling, a victory for 624 conservative Christians who pressed the lawsuit, found for the first time that secular humanism is a religion that is unconstitutionally advanced in the nation's public schools.
121
[U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand] found that five home economics textbooks, published by such giants as McGraw Hill Book Co., advance religious tenets in violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of a religion.
In addition, Hand found that 31 history and social studies textbooks, also published by major houses, were 'not merely bad history, but lack so many facts as to equal ideological promotion.'" 535 The Alabama Civil Liberties Union was not pleased with the decision. The article quoted their executive director Mary Weidler as saying: "This decision confirms our worst fears of federal censorship over local public school matters. It severely threatens non-sectarian public education in Alabama and around the nation."
This concern about "federal censorship" by the Alabama Civil Liberties Union is very puzzling. Their position that the removal of textbooks from the public schools by the federal government constituted "censorship" revealed a blatant hypocrisy.
Because in the "Creationism Science versus Evolution Science" court case also in Alabama a few years later, the American Civil Liberties Union, presumably the parent of the Alabama organization, took the opposite position. In that case, they argued that Creationism science textbooks should be removed from the students in Alabama's science classrooms.
It was their position that the Creationism Science could not be taught side by side with the theory of Evolution in science classes in the state. They argued that only Evolution could be taught.
In other words, they argued in favor of the censorship of Creationism textbooks from the classroom.
Their objection in that case was basically that the Creationism textbooks taught a religious view of science in opposition to the traditional Evolutionist view. In other words, those who claim to protect America's "Civil Liberties" wanted the books removed in one case, but not in the other.
They claimed that the Creationists wanted to teach a religious view in the science classes, and they urged that the court to remove the textbooks. The Christians claimed that the Humanists were teaching a religious view in other classrooms in the school districts, and the Civil Liberties Union objected when the judge removed the books.
This doesn't make sense, unless those claiming to protect America's "civil liberties" wanted only the Humanist religion taught in the public schools. That conclusion fits the facts.
If they were concerned about "federal censorship of school matters," they should have been consistent. They should have allowed the state to utilize Creationism science textbooks because they "feared federal censorship."
But they didn't. The "civil libertarians" are not consistent.
Censorship is not called censorship if your side does the censoring.
And the American Civil Liberties Union wants to be the censor.
122
0 comments: