This morning I posted a lengthy post on the Jaffe Memo, a document provided by a vice-president of Planned Parenthood in 1969. This memo has been making its rounds because it advocates for the encouragement of homosexuality, forced abortions, adding sterilants to the water supply, and so on and so forth. All this, from an organization that we are told advocates for “women’s health” and “freedom.”
Of course, anyone who has studied Planned Parenthood knows that this is a crock. It was always about population control and enriching elitists. In the Jaffe Memo, they are uncharacteristically honest about it. Read it yourself: Jaffe Memo (9.2 KiB, 1,355 hits)
Oct 9, 2019. Update: Since this time, I have done extensive research on the Jaffe Memo, its sources, its context, etc. Visit www.jaffememo.com to access primary source material, etc.
In my previous article, I implored people to carefully consider whether or not the positions they hold dear to their hearts might not actually be the very same positions that the Nazis, eugenicists, and communists wanted them to adopt. We weren’t aware that the positions had such vile roots, but does that matter? If it has the same effects, does it matter? You get the point.
I ended the previous post with the assertion that it was absolutely necessary for religion and politics to mix. I wish to now expound on that statement.
There are a number of issues in play. First of all, there is the simple moral matter: ought not our attitudes and behaviors in political society be driven by our views about the world? If not one’s own views, then whose? In the second place, there is the legal matter: to what extent does the ‘law of the land’ in the United States allow for religious expression in the political arena? In the third place, how does the law differ from what we currently observe?
Working backwards, it is evident that the general trend is to understand ‘separation of church and state’ as meaning that the state is not to be subject to any kind of religious influence whatsoever. This is a far cry from the original intent of the founders who meant it clean the other way around- they wanted the church free from influence by the state, not the state free from the influence by the church.
The current state of affairs on this question is as sorry as they come. The Constitution says clearly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Apparently, no one knows what the word ‘Congress’ means, or what constitutes ‘law making’; through some contorted process of implementation of the 14th amendment, this narrowly construed phrase now refers to state parks, highways, libraries, and city halls. Through some truly mystifying ‘reasoning,’ Dan Barker’s “Freedom from Religion Foundation” believes that if a local town (Congress?) puts up a Christmas tree up constitutes a a ‘law’ that ‘establishes’ a religion.
But this abject lunacy does not compare to the way that this has continued to manifest in the popular mind. I cannot count the number of times I’ve heard some kind of nonsense like, “You cannot advocate for X because that is imposing your views on someone else.” Usually this person has no problem imposing his views on you, and believes he is justified in doing so.
We must give credit to those who have worked so hard to create such pronounced cognitive dissonance. It was a remarkable victory for them. The argument is self-evidently asinine, but they’ve managed to create a culture that embraces it. Though the process of foisting that argument on the masses was surely complex, the ‘reasoning’ is pretty straight-forward.
Here is how it works.
Firstly, they regard your views as religious, and their views as non-religious.
Then, the actual wording of the first amendment was supplanted in the popular mind with the insistence that the Constitution calls for a ‘separation of church and state.’ You can easily find people who believe the latter are words actually found in the Constitution, and not the former.
Finally, these two items are combined into the attitude that the only views that can be advocated and pursued in the public sphere are those held by them, where ‘them’ often refers to liberal secular humanists, but can also be the Man on the Street, which is a big part of the problem.
You can surmise from this that the net effect will be that the secularists feel that they have the right to push forward any agenda that they please because they are not ‘religious,’ but you are not allowed to oppose their agenda, because your opposition is on ‘religious grounds.’
Now, there are obviously some important questions and assumptions involved here.
For example, what makes something religious? Or, if one side of an argument is ‘secular’, and therefore admissible in the public sphere, how is it that the other side of the argument is ‘religious,’ and therefore not admissible? If one side of the coin is ‘heads’ and the other side of the coin is ‘tails,’ the coin is still a penny.
A great example is gay marriage. If you are for gay marriage, that’s ok, and you can push it all you like, because it is the product of a secular world view, but if you are against it, you must refrain from opposing gay marriage, because your opposition is ‘religious.’ But you can’t really have it both ways. Either both groups are allowed to advocate for their positions on this issue in the public sphere, or neither are.
The fallacy here is in their thinking that their views aren’t ‘religious.’ This important question must be settled.
‘Religious’ views are simply a particular classification of one’s views about the world. But everyone has views about the world; therefore, everyone is religious. The Christian has views about origins, the nature of humanity, and ethics and morality, and these views inform how they believe and act. But atheists also has views about origins, the nature of humanity, and morality, and these also inform how they believe and act. Enter cognitive dissonance: the Christian’s views are ‘religious’, and therefore are not allowed to inform their views on policies, but the atheists views are not ‘religious,’ and therefore they can inform their views on policies until the cows come home.
But we’re back to the penny. If the issue in question has just a ‘heads’ and ‘tails’ then it must be regarded by all as a penny, and be given public currency- or no currency at all.
This next point is very important: If the above situation not be admitted as sheer lunacy, totalitarianism is inevitable.
And in Part 3, I will explain why.