The false claims of leftist humanism 23

We seldom argue with atheists of the Left. We seldom argue with the Left. We find the attempt to be, almost always, a nugatory exercise. Leftism is a religion, and religions are not to be argued with. Faith and Reason exclude each other.

A religion need not have a god in it. Atheists on the Left can and do reason against the existence of a deity, but not against the doctrines of collectivist ideology such as: the community must be organized; the economy must be planned; the purpose of government is to control and direct the lives of the people to serve the general interest.

This time we make an exception. We raise arguments with certain statements that seem reasonable, but are not, because – we want to demonstrate – they are premised on dogma.

We quote an article from Patheos Friendly Atheist, a Humanist website. As far as we can discover, all self-named humanists and all Humanist organizations are on the Left (although there is nothing about Humanism as such that makes Leftism logically necessary to it). Patheos is no exception.

Patheos Friendly Atheist’s most frequent columnist, Hemant Mehtawrites:

Here’s a really important development in the world of organized atheist activism.

On Thursday [July 19, 2018], the American Humanist Association launched what they’re calling the Humanist Legal Society.

I’d call it the atheist equivalent of the conservative Federalist Society: A way to identify, bring together, and support those in the legal professional who are dedicated to maintaining church/state separation, science-based evidence, civil rights (especially for marginalized people), and ethics in government.

You know… all the things conservatives no longer give a damn about.

The statements we have stressed in bold provide us with an opportunity to make clear how the issues we are concerned about, the values we hold, and the judgments we make according to the information we acquire, are opposed to the issues, values, and judgment of Hermant Mehta, the Humanist Legal Society, and the Left in general.

1.”The atheist equivalent of the conservative Federalist Society

To start with, he does not, or they do not, really mean “the atheist equivalent”. The Federalist Society is not a god-concerned institution. What is meant is a “leftist-humanist equivalent”.

So what is the Federalist Society?

This is what the members of the Federalist Society say about themselves under the heading,

Our Purpose

Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.  The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.  It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors.  In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.

The first paragraph makes it perfectly clear that the Federalist Society opposes “a centralized and uniform society”.

The second and third paragraphs provide a summary of certain core conservative principles: “that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be”; that individual liberty is a prime value, along with “traditional values, and the rule of law”. The Federalist Society works to restore “the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors.” To this end it has “created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network” in the world of the legal profession.

Plainly, this new association is intent on reinforcing the very “orthodox liberal ideology” that the Federal Society exists to overcome.

The Humanist Legal Society’s purpose is to defend “a centralized and uniform society” that does not believe in the state’s prime duty to preserve individual freedom, traditional values and the rule of law. It would hold that the duty of the judiciary is to say what the law should be, not what it is. It would exist to preserve all that the Federalist Society finds wrong with “the current state of the legal order”. There is no equivalence between the cause of individual freedom protected by the rule of law and the cause of collectivist state-dictatorship. The Humanist Legal Society might be called the “counterpart” of the Federalist Society, but not its “equivalent”.

2. “All the things conservatives no longer give a damn about”

2.1″Church-state separation”

Conservatives want the Constitution to be preserved intact. They want no variation of the First Amendment, the separation of church and state clause. So to say that “conservatives no longer  give a damn about church-state separation” is a lie.

2.2 “Science-based evidence”

Mehta may be referring here to the belief among Christians, many of whom are also conservatives, in Bible literalism, and their rejection of evolution. But Bible literalism, or any variety of Creationism, is not a core principle of conservatism.

What is also probably being referred to here is the widespread skepticism among conservatives that climate change is caused – dangerously – in our time by human activity. We are unwilling to go over the arguments as to why we conservatives are skeptical about it, but they can be found easily. One of our own posts revealing the vicious motivation behind the Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) movement, The real enemy is humanity itself, may be found here.

The Left maintains that the science of AGW is “settled”. That in itself is an unscientific statement. It is a dogmatic statement.

All real science is ardently encouraged by most conservatives. American conservatives are delighted that NASA is returning to the exploration of space under President Trump’s leadership, after Obama had told the space agency to concentrate on outreach to Muslims!

Furthermore, as gathered by the Heritage Foundation …

Conventional wisdom holds that it’s conservatives who are anti-scientific morons, and liberals who are devotees of reason, science, and evidence. But as the The Chapman University Survey on American Fears reveals, that accusation is based on nothing but prejudice.

As The Washington Post summarizes it, “Democrats were slightly, and in some cases significantly more likely than Republicans to believe in paranormal phenomena.” From fortune telling to astrology, liberals live in a world of spirits. At least belief in Bigfoot is bipartisan. 

The Chapman study shouldn’t surprise anyone. A 2011 Pew Research Center study similarly found that liberals were more likely than conservatives to believe in the evil eye, spiritual energy, reincarnation, communication with the dead, and of course fortune tellers and ghosts.

2.3 “Civil rights”

Since President Trump was elected, the civil rights of his supporters have been violently interfered with by  militant organizations of the Left. Instance are numerous, but one of the most egregious was the violent action of masked ANTIFA thugs at Berkeley on February 1, 2017. There are no such violent militant organizations on the conservative Right interfering with anyone’s civil rights.

Towards the end of the article “letting the government dictate what a woman can do with her body”  – meaning her “right” to abort a child she has conceived – is raised, probably  to be understood as a civil rights issue. The Left consistently refuses to allow that when there is another body inside a woman, the law has to extend its protection to that other, helpless, human being.

2.4″Marginalized people”

The Left is obsessed with race and sex. What matters about you, according to Leftist ideology – propounded continually by ever-more-lefty Democrats – is your race, your descent, your ethnicity, your sex and sexual proclivity. Not your individual worth, your talents, your achievements. And they like to pretend that women, non-whites, and those classed as  “LGBT”, are “marginalized” in the United States.

American women are the most privileged class of person that has ever existed in the history of humankind.

And in fact, far from it being “LGBT” persons, it is white men and the sexually normal who are marginalized wherever the Politically Correct and the Social Justice Warriors have power – notably in the academies.

As for blacks – it is ironic and outrageous that Democrats should virtue-signal themselves as the champions of blacks. Democrats whose party defended slavery and segregation; Democrats who  launched and exclusively manned the KKK; who passed the Jim Crow laws; who consistently opposed every effort the Republicans made to give equal rights to blacks! A black woman professor, Carol Swain, explains in this video how that was really the case. And now it is the Democratic Party that insists on the humiliating policy of affirmative action, based on the notion that blacks cannot compete unless whites (and Asians) are handicapped!

2.5 “Ethics in government”

The Left makes wild unsubstantiated accusations against President Trump of every kind of moral offense from his being given two scoops of ice-cream when everyone else was only given one, to his being a “racist” and a “sexist”, and even a “traitor” for meeting with Vladimir Putin and not throwing the Russian leader’s crimes in his face. Meanwhile, in a manifestation of deliberate amnesia, the Left ignores the indisputable fact that the Obama administration was deeply morally disgraceful, guilty over and over again of scandalous turpitude. Its inaction over the appalling events in Benghazi on 9/11/12, to recall just one of the scandals, marks Obama’s terms in office as a period of ethical baseness hard to outmatch in the history of the United States. And how ethical was it to give permission to the hostile regime of Iran to build a nuclear arsenal in a few years’ time?

Mehta quotes:

“Many lawyers approach the world and the law from a humanist standpoint, but there is a need for them to have a way of organizing professionally as a group,” said the Society’s president, David Codell, a nationally recognized constitutional litigator who has served as counsel in many major cases involving LGBT rights. “The Humanist Legal Society will give humanist lawyers solidarity and resources that will make a difference.”

No. It is against the iniquitous Left, with its religious intolerance, its betrayal of science, its denial of civil rights to everyone it disagrees with, its marginalization of whites, and its lack of moral responsibility, that lawyers, judges, law students and professors need to band together. And fortunately they have done so, in the Federalist Society.

  • Athrin

    most if not all christians who call themselves conservatives are actually no different than the left, they want a theocratic government imposing christianity on everyone, they do not believe in state/church separation.

    Most if not all christians in the USA are as conservative as Obama is.

    • Jeanne

      I disagree. I believe the trend for the majority of Christians is more toward less restrictive government when it comes to social issues, with the one exception being abortion, which is not really a social issue at all. I believe that they view separation of church and state as benefitting religion and do support it. Small and non-invasive government at the federal level is what Christian Conservatives support.

      • Athrin

        you would be totally wrong, they do not believe in a small or limited gov, they do not mind if the gov is big as long as it imposes their religion on everyone.

        I can guarantee you that if they turn the gov into a theocracy they will go totalitarian on all the social issue you think they are becoming more libertarian on.

    • Tikaro

      Prove it. Give some concrete examples.

  • I wrote in the comments section under the Mehta article that The Atheist Conservative had commented on it and I provided the link. Within two minutes my message was deleted.

    • liz

      Wow. So “inclusive” of them!

    • I just came here because of that link. Not sure what you’re talking about.

      • Hi, Hemant. When I revisited your site two minutes after leaving my message, it was gone. If it is back, thank you. If you care to reply to my criticisms of your article, please do. We would be interested to hear your defense. But we would understand if you chose not to argue. As we said above, attempts at argument between the conservative Right and the Left are usually pointless. We suspect that we know in advance what you would say. Of course, you could surprise us.

      • Jeanne

        Hi Hemant. There were several very good, intelligent and informative comments missing that expressed a different viewpoint. I “liked” all of them from the one member who posted them. Where did they go?

      • Yes, it looks like it is there, now. Not sure but these momentary glitches and syncs happen on the ‘net.

  • Yes, we have to speak up and remind the leftist atheists that there are secular grounds for individual liberty. Unfortunately most conservatives argue that only Christianity can support a free society.

    When I was in high school and heard that conservatives based their politics on religion, I immediately concluded their politics had no basis. At first I turned to the left expecting reason but it became obvious that they had no basis for their politics as well. Their rejection of classical economic science was probably the biggest cause of misery in the 20th century. It was clear that they were dogmatic utopians unwilling to embrace a true empirical approach. By the time I entered college I rejected progressivism as well.

    I still don’t use the label “conservative” because I associate it with a religious justification of liberty.

    • liz

      Yes, it’s so unfortunate, and frustrating, that Christians, while otherwise rational, insist that the only basis for morality or conservatism is religion. This undermines the entire argument, and concedes to leftist atheists ground that could be easily defended rationally.
      I envy your ability, at such a young age, to think so rationally, and to see so clearly the fallacies in reasoning on both the right and left.

      • Jeanne

        I have to speak up for a few of my Christian friends, who do not believe that ethical behavior can only be found via deity belief. Still, there is that notion that God moves in all of us, whether we accept it or not…but they are not dogmatic about Christianity being the only way to instill morality in people. I doubt that such believers tend to make waves amongst their fellow Christians, however…at least not in the US.

        • If those friends of yours, Jeanne, are untypical of Christians in the US, their views don’t count as representative of Christians’ views in the US. Exceptions are irrelevant to generalization.

          • Jeanne

            I try not to generalize, having been lumped in with a noisier bunch of atheists, who dominate our society.

            • There are accurate and useful generalizations. Example: Muslim immigrants are a threat to European culture. That remains true even if you know a nice Muslim who lives peacefully in Berlin, gets on well with his neighbors, attends pop concerts with some of them, and has learnt to speak German almost like a native.

            • Jeanne

              I agree.

    • Zerothruster

      Jason, thank you for this excellent comment. It’s consistent with a point I often try to make that the religious orientation of most conservatives, especially as it’s perceived by young people (but often as a caricatured generalization) is what drives those young people into the camp of the left.

      Your — “When I was in high school and heard that conservatives based their politics on religion, I immediately concluded their politics had no basis” — hits the bulls eye.

      The problem with that kind of reaction is that although it may be fairly intuitive to a thoughtful, conscientious young person that religious belief is intellectually irresponsible, yet certain conclusions supposedly based upon false religious premises, and drawn through faulty reasoning, may yet be firmly supportable by other arguments and evidence. Throwing out the social and political economy views held by religious conservatives without examining those propositions on their own merits is where those young pilgrims go wrong.

  • Cogito

    This piece is so typically Jillian. It is breathtaking in its incisive analysis, its limpid prose, and unbending devotion to principle!

  • liz

    Great post and excellent points! Interesting that the study found that belief in supernatural and paranormal type stuff was more prevalent among liberals.
    Proof that they are as rationally challenged as the religious, and in fact they are religious themselves, uncritically accepting the irrational dogmas of the left.

  • Jeanne

    Excellent, Jullian! I get a newsletter from Patheos, from which I have lately considered unsubscribing. I don’t even want to get started tonight on how pissed I keep getting over the idiocy of Leftist Atheists and their religion of Socialist Humanism…or whatever they call it. I thought atheists were supposed to be “bright” or something. I am ashamed to admit that when I was young and foolish, I signed up as a Bright, even though I didn’t truly go along with the label. Everybody was doing it…

    • Zerothruster

      I also followed “The Brights” briefly in the early days of that organization, though I realized that it would be dominated by the left. I never liked that name, either, agreeing with Hitchens that it was “cringe-making”. The rational for that naming was that it was sort of like “Gay”, a ‘positive’ and presumably optimistic label for an eccentric inclination. But it was really just poor and stupid marketing.

      Dialogue with leftist atheists is a waste of effort, as Jillian noted.