Humanists, The Humanists Manifestos, and Their Worldview War on America
There are various types of humanists. First, there are secular humanists that believe man has no soul and that there is no life beyond the grave. Secondly there are cosmic humanists that are most often called New Agers that follow the New Age Movement. A cosmic humanist believes that the soul repeatedly passes from one body to another at the point of death until the person has outweighed their good deeds (good karma) against their bad deeds (bad karma). Once a New Ager has lived enough lives to acquire enough good karma they are can become an ascended master within the spiritual real. A secular humanist believes there is no spiritual world and no God. A Cosmic humanist believes the spiritual world is really all that exists and that the natural world is really an illusion. A cosmic humanist believes that all is god (pantheism) and that god is in all (panentheism) and that every person can become as god.
So the bottom line is there are two types of humanists and both deny the god of the Bible.
If for nothing else, the humanist movement can be admired for its thoroughgoing, tireless, disciplined, and stalwart battle against American values on many strategic fronts. To give you a rapid-fire sense of the sweeping battle lines of attack they follow, I’ve categorized below each “front” and outlined a few key examples of how the battle unfolds.
God and Freedom of Religion
Humanist Manifesto II: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives.
Humanist Manifesto II: “We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural.”
National Education Association
In a 1997 resolution, the NEA declared, “The Association opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence.” And Resolution 26, in 2003, reads, “The Association also opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence.”
American Civil Liberties Union
In 1960, “the ACLU launched several legal initiatives to prohibit Christmas decorations or the singing of carols in public schools or on public property.”40 In the Regent’s Prayer Case of 1962, “one of several anti-prayers suits that the ACLU was involved in—lawyers argued that a prayer recited each day in the New York public schools constituted an unlawful ‘establishment of religion.’” In 1976, the ACLU “brought suit in New Jersey in an effort to prohibit Christmas pageants in the public schools.” (Footnote 41)
In 1981, the ACLU took a case hoping “to prohibit the Gideons from distributing Bibles to students in the public schools on the grounds that such programs constitute a violation of the ‘separation of church and state.’” (Footnote 42)
In 1986, “the ACLU was able to forbid religious invocations before high school football games. For the first time, the lawyers successfully used ‘endorsement’ languages instead of the traditional ‘establishment’ language—the implication being that the government is not only forbidden to establish or institutionalize religion, it is even forbidden to endorse or condone it.” (Footnote 43)
In 2004, the ACLU sued the City of San Diego for renting property to the Boy Scouts (the ACLU objects to the Boy Scouts’ commitment not to allow homosexual Scout leaders or to admit atheists).
Censorship of Creationism
Humanist Manifesto I: “Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.”
National Education Association
The NEA newsletter In Brief stated, “Radical right extremists are also attempting to impose a curriculum that mirrors their values and inculcates fundamentalist Christianity. . . . In communities all over the country, members of the religious right have attempted to impose censorship and the teaching of creationism on the public schools.” (Footnote 44)
“The Association . . . believes that legislation and regulations that mandate the teaching of religious doctrines, such as so-called ‘creation science,’ violate both student and teacher rights. The Association urges its affiliates to seek repeal of such mandates where they exist.” (Footnote 45)
American Civil Liberties Union
The main argument of the ACLU in the Scopes Trail in 1925 was that “it is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins (creation). The ACLU launched its ‘manipulated test case’ strategy against the state of Tennessee’s education standards, locating a small town biology teacher to act as a plaintiff and a showcase lawyer to focus national attention on the issue. Despite the fact the ACLU and its high profile defender, Clarence Darrow, lost to the state’s attorney William Jennings Bryan, the publicity proved to be invaluable.” (Footnote 46)
In August of 2003, the ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking to force the Cobb County School (Georgia) board to remove disclaimers about evolution from high school textbooks. The stickers state that evolution is a theory not a fact and should be critically considered. (Footnote 47)
In the Arkansas Creation Case of 1982, “fifty-six years after it had argued against educational exclusionism in the Scopes Trial, the ACLU reversed itself, fighting against the right to teach various views of origins in public school classrooms.” (Footnote 48)
Commitment to Situational Ethics and Moral Relativism
Humanist Manifesto II: “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational. Ethics stem from human need and interest.”
American Civil Liberties Union
“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal prohibition of drugs. Not only is prohibition a proven failure as a drug control strategy, but it subjects otherwise law-abiding citizens to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for what they do in private.” (Footnote 49)
Euthanasia, Suicide, and Abortion
Humanist Manifesto II: “It also includes recognition of an individual’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.”
Humanist Manifesto II: “The right to birth control,
abortion . . .”
National Education Association
NEA Resolution 12 in 2003 stated that the NEA supports family planning, including the right to “reproductive freedom” (a common euphemism for allowing abortion).
The Democratic National Committee Platform 2000
“The Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe vs. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay. We believe it is a fundamental constitutional liberty that individual Americans—not government—can best take responsibility for making the most difficult and intensely personal decisions regarding reproduction.”
American Civil Liberties Union
“The ACLU was the first national organization to argue for abortion rights before the Supreme Court, and has been the principal defender of those rights since 1973, when the Court recognized the right to choose in Roe vs. Wade.” (Footnote 50)
In the Doe vs. Bolton case of 1973 “the ACLU led the legal fight in a case that—with the companion Roe vs. Wade ruling—eventually overturned the restrictive abortion laws in all fifty states.” (Footnote 51)
In the Akron case of 1983 “the ACLU successfully fought to overturn the right of localities to regulate the medical safety and the proper disclosure of abortion-related businesses.” (Footnote 52)
In 2004, the ACLU fought to have the courts force the sheriff of Phoenix, Arizona, to use taxpayer funds to transport female prisoners to and from abortion clinics.
War on Parental Authority
Humanist Manifesto 2000: Although parental moral guidance is vital, parents should not simply impose their own religious outlook or moral values on their children or indoctrinate them. Children, adolescents, and young adults should have exposure to different viewpoints and enjoy encouragement to think for themselves. The view of even young children should be respected.
American Civil Liberties Union
“ACLU applauds Appeals Court decision upholding minors’ right to confidential abortions.” (Footnote 53) (In other words, the ACLU wants minor children to be able to have an abortion without their parents’ knowledge.)
National Education Association
The NEA, in Today’s Education 1983–84, stated its belief that communications between certified personnel and students must be legally privileged. It urged its affiliates to aid in seeking legislation that provides this privilege and protects both educators and students.
Commitment to Hedonism and Sex Education for Children
Humanist Manifesto I: “The quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind.”
Humanist Manifesto II: “We strive for the good life, here and now.” “Neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil.’”
Humanist Manifesto 2000: “The opportunity for appropriate sexual education should be made available from an early age. This should include responsible behavior, family planning, and contraceptive techniques.”
National Education Association
“The Association urges its affiliates and members to support appropriately established sex education programs, including information on . . . birth control and family planning . . . diversity of sexual orientation.”
American Civil Liberties Union
In 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging a Virginia state law that bans nude summer camps for teenagers. A nude camp was being sponsored in Virginia for students ages eleven to eighteen, and the ACLU opposed the legislation that said the students had to have a parent or guardian present.
Commitment to Redistribution of Wealth (Socialism)
Humanist Manifesto I: “A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”
Humanist Manifesto II: “We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.”
Humanist Manifesto 2000: “We should strive to provide economic security and adequate income for everyone.”
In the Sacco and Vanzetti case of 1927, the ACLU defended two notorious anarchists who had been charged with first-degree murder following a payroll robbery. With a long list of ties to the subversive socialists underground, Sacco and Vanzetti sealed the ACLU’s reputation as a radical instrument of the Left for some time to come. (Footnote 54)
Hatred of a Traditional America, American Sovereignty, and Commitment to the United Nations
Humanist Manifesto II: “We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. We look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.”
Humanist Manifesto 2000: “We must develop an effective World Court and an International Judiciary with sufficient power to enforce its rulings.” And, “The global community needs to develop a system of international law that transcends the laws of the separate nations. . . . Enhance the effectiveness of the UN by converting it from an assembly of sovereign states to an assembly of people as well. . . . If we are to solve our global problems, nation-states must transfer some of their sovereignty to a system of transnational authority. . . . Nor should any nation or group of nations be allowed to police the world or unilaterally bomb others without the concurrence of the Security Council. The world needs an effective police force to protect regions of the world from conflict and to negotiate peaceful settlements.”
National Education Association
In their 2003 Resolution I-2, the NEA called for an International Court of Justice: “The Association urges participation by the United States in deliberations before the court.”
In the October 1947 issue of the NEA Journal, NEA official William Carr published an article titled “On the Waging of Peace,” in which he wrote:
As you teach about the United Nations, lay the ground for a stronger United Nations by developing in your students a sense of world community. The United Nations should be transformed into a limited world government. The psychological foundations for wider loyalties must be laid. . . . Teach about the various proposals that have been made for strengthening the United Nations and the establishment of world law. Teach those attitudes which will result ultimately in the creation of a world citizenship and world government. . . . We cannot directly teach loyalty to a society that does not yet exist, but we can and should teach those skills and attitudes which will help to create a society in which world citizenship is possible. (Footnote 55)
American Civil Liberties Union
In the Gastonia case of 1929, “the ACLU defended seven striking workers who had been convicted of murdering a North Carolina police chief during a particularly violent confrontation. After declaring their anti-Christian and communist beliefs, the seven defendants jumped bail and fled to the Soviet Union.” (Footnote 56)
In the Smith Act Reversal of 1957, “the ACLU supported the defense of fourteen men convicted of conspiracy to violently overthrow the government of the United States. Lawyers argued on First Amendment free-speech grounds.” (Footnote 57)
Support of Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Humanist Manifesto 2000: “Same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.”
National Education Association
A 1997 NEA resolution stated, “[P]rograms must increase acceptance of and sensitivity to gays and lesbians.” In 1991, the NEA “received damaging national publicity when word leaked out that the convention was going to adopt an in-your-face resolution demanding that the gay rights agenda be incorporated into everything from school curricula to teacher hiring. Revolt in the ranks caused it to be withdrawn. But that was all smoke and mirrors; that convention quietly adopted at least ten separate resolutions that added up to the same objectives and this year’s [1993] convention re-adopted the same resolutions.” (Footnote 58)
And, the NEA also is fully supportive of what are called the “multicultural” and “diversity” agendas. In two resolutions issuing from its 1999 convention it affirmed its commitment not only to “diversity”-based curricula, but urged that it be introduced in early childhood (from birth through age eight) education programs. One of the resolutions stated “that a diverse society enriches all individuals.” Part of this enriching diversity, it said, is people with differences in “sexual orientation.” (Footnote 59)
Democratic National Committee Platform 2000
“We continue to lead the fight to end discrimination on the basis of . . . sexual orientation. . . . We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians. We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation. This would include an equitable alignment of benefits.”
American Civil Liberties Union
In 1993, on the issue of gays in the military, “the ACLU took the lead in the fight to lift the historic ban on aberrant sexual proclivities in the American armed forces as well as the implementation of a liberal and preferential recruitment and promotion policy.” (Footnote 60)
In 2003, the ACLU celebrated its legalization of sodomy:
We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the countless lawyers, academics and activists who helped bring this decision about. The ACLU is very proud of its work in helping to get rid of sodomy laws. The ACLU brought its first challenge to a sodomy law in 1963. We helped to strike down or repeal sodomy laws in California, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, Tennessee . . . you get the picture. Along with Lambda Legal we’ve worked for eight years to get a same-sex intimacy case to the Supreme Court. (And forgive us if we can’t help but mention that the ACLU’s friend-of-the-Court brief was referred to by the Supreme Court in Lawrence once at the oral argument and twice in the decision—a single mention of any brief is unusual enough—but three times is a hat trick!) (Footnote 61)
The Massachusetts ACLU is defending the North American Man/Boy Love Association in a lawsuit by a murdered boy’s parents who claim NAMBLA’s Web site encourages rape and violence against children (New York Times, September 1, 2000). To the ACLU, NAMBLA is engaged in political advocacy. Advocacy, the ACLU preaches, however distasteful and immoral, is protected by the first amendment. (Footnote 62)
Radical Environmentalism and Hatred for Private Property Rights
Humanist Manifesto 2000:
• “We need to recognize that current lifestyles in the industrialized North are unsustainable.”
• “Runaway consumption is already putting unprecedented pressure on the environment.”
• “. . . limiting fishing on the high seas that threatens the extinction of entire fish populations.”
• “If present demographic trends continue, another 3 billion people will be added in the next half century. If population continues to grow as projected, it will lead to a drastic decrease in the available tillable grain lands.”
• “Global warming is probably on the increase, in part as consequences of deforestation in poor countries and atmosphere carbon-dioxide emissions, especially in the affluent nations, which continue to waste natural resources.”
• “The populations of others species have steadily declined, and many forms of plant and animal life are becoming extinct—perhaps the greatest extinction since the disappearance of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.”
• “We recommend the strengthening of existing UN agencies and programs most directly concerned with the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme, for example, should be given the power to enforce measures against serious ecological pollution.”
Hatred of the U.S. Military and Military Funding
Humanist Manifesto II: “War is obsolete. It is an imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.”
On June 14, 2005, Democrat U.S. senator Dick Durbin, of Illinois, showed his lack of respect for the U.S. military when on the floor of the Senate he compared the American military’s treatment of terror detainees at Guantanamo Naval Base to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags, and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot. This comment was not made by just any U.S. senator because Durbin said this while also serving as the Democratic whip, which is the second-highest position for the minority party.
The third annual conference of the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) brought together multicultural educators from all fifty states. Keynote speaker Lily Wong Fillmore, a professor of language at the University of California at Berkeley, asserted that the radical curriculum reform they propose will provoke “definite clashes with the practices, beliefs and attitudes that are taught in many homes . . . . No matter what students’ parents and families think about others or the environment . . . we are going to have to inculcate in our children the rules that form a credo that will work for a multicultural 21st century.” (Footnote 63)
The Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement
The Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ are based upon moral absolutes and thus many individuals and organizations, as we’ve seen, go to great lengths to suppress the truth for which they have such hatred. But liberal influence is not confined to purely American organizations. Many take their cues from the world’s greatest purveyor of liberal-think, the United Nations.
In 1995, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) prepared the International Declaration of Principles on Tolerance that stated, “Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures. . . . It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement.”
According to the UN, if you were charged with being intolerant, you could be punished by law. The UN document goes on to declare:
• Intolerance is a global threat.
• Tolerance involves the rejection of dogmatism, and absolutism.
• Tolerance means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.
Note the very word impose is used by the United Nations. If the UN ever accomplished its goal, sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ could become illegal—a policy that many nations have already adopted.
By the way, if you think a Christian who espouses strong convictions based on moral absolutes is not treated with intolerance by liberals waving the tolerance banner, then consider this story of Tom DeLay.
In April 2002, then U.S. Majority Whip (now U.S. Senate majority leader) Tom DeLay of Texas spoke at the Worldview Weekend in Houston. I had invited Congressman DeLay to deliver a keynote address about his passion for a Christian worldview and in the process to share about his faith in Jesus Christ. (As background: Worldview Weekend is a private, for-profit corporation, and we do not allow people to videotape or record our conferences without written permission. Worldview Weekend records the keynote talks of the speakers and makes them available for sale at a later date. A private corporation, Worldview Weekend has the right to protect and profit from the intellectual property of its conferences.)
Little did I know that, when Rep. DeLay spoke, Barry Lynn’s AU had a spy present who recorded our conference with a hand-held tape recorder. After delivering a remarkable speech, Mr. DeLay said he would to take questions from the audience. One gentleman stood and asked, “Here in Texas—even at Baylor—they can’t even teach creationism without being kicked out. . . . Is there anything we can do, besides praying?”
Mr. DeLay responded forthrightly:
You call your state representative, your state senator and say, “I want that to change. I don’t like what I see. . . . And I want you to do something about it.” They can. Texas A&M is a state university. The University of Texas is a state university. It’s all run by the coordinating board, or whatever they call it, and they can change things. They can throw the P.C. out and bring God in. . . . but the immediate [solution] is, don’t send your kids to Baylor. And don’t send your kids to A&M. There are still some Christian schools out there—good, solid schools. Now they may be little, they may not be as prestigious as Stanford, but your kids will get a good solid, godly education.
After recording the Worldview Weekend without permission, AU shopped the story to various news outlets. The Houston Chronicle (which has a long history of attacking Mr. DeLay) lost no time in reporting this non-story, story. Within twenty-four hours the account was printed on countless Web sites, major state and national newspapers, and hundreds of local and national television news programs. Liberals were not only angry that Mr. DeLay suggested parents call their elected officials about what concerns them at taxpayer-
supported colleges but that he would encourage parents to exercise the power of the free market system (which they hate) by sending their students—and money—to private colleges that operate in a manner with which they agree.
Mr. DeLay also made several other comments at our conference that outraged the liberals: “Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of ‘Where did I come from? Where am I going? Does life have any meaningful purpose?’ Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation. Only Christianity offers a way to live in response to the realities that we find in this world, only Christianity.”
Within days of Mr. DeLay sharing his Christian testimony and convictions he was, shall we say, smacked around. On April 24, the Houston-area Fort Bend Star ran a column in which the writer referred to Mr. DeLay as “our Congressvarmint, Tom, the Talibaptist.” (Footnote 64)
This unskilled writer could not argue with the truth spoken by Mr. DeLay, so she resorted to a further irreverent attack on Mr. DeLay: “Bless his heart, Tom just gets all carried away with that holy ghost spirit and starts handling snakes and washing feet and speaking gibberish and laying hands on folks, and stuff you just don’t even want to know about.”65 The grossly unfair attacks on Mr. DeLay bothered me especially because I had invited Mr. DeLay to speak at the conference. I believed he was being persecuted for our shared faith in Jesus Christ and that I should voice my profound sadness over his treatment. To that end, I submitted an editorial to the Houston Chronicle, which, to the newspaper’s credit, it printed. This, in part, is what I pointed out:
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, or AU, is a national group in Washington, D.C.—a group notorious on the Hill for its anti-religious bigotry, intolerance, and demagoguery.
So Americans United sent someone surreptitiously to register as a participant at the church event for the purpose of finding a statement that could be publicized and attacked. So they attended our ten-hour conference, found one statement they could remove from its context, and then began to market that statement to media across the country hoping to create a firestorm. This group actively sought assurances that their liberal organization would receive a positive plug in return for the “story” they were providing. Talk about a shameless public relations stunt?
Unfortunately, the Houston Chronicle was the paper that swallowed the bait; most others refused. Now Mr. DeLay is a “fanatic” because a politically motivated Democrat-affiliate group disingenuously attended a church conference to find a statement that it could distort into a smear campaign against Mr. DeLay.
And what was the essence of Mr. DeLay’s “fanaticism”? In a question and answer period, he was asked what could be done with schools that teach things objectionable to the beliefs of both parents and students; the questioner specifically noted Baylor having demoted Dr. William Dembski because of his belief in intelligent design. Mr. DeLay broadened his response by citing examples of other large colleges that recently have begun practices to which many parents object. He indicated that the simplest solution was for parents and students to spend their hard-earned tens of thousands of dollars on a university education that does not attack their own personal values. For this you declare him to be a fanatic? Do you not believe in the free-enterprise system, free-market competition, and parents and students having a choice in their own education?
Those attending the conference never expected that while practicing their freedom of religion and freedom of speech inside a church, they would find their beliefs, and that of their guest speaker, being attacked and labeled as fanatical. The people that asked these questions now feel violated and used by a fringe, democratic group that apparently snuck into a church and distorted their questions, and the answers to those questions, in an attempt to bemoan and ridicule their deeply held religious convictions. . . .
It is unfortunate when a news source that should be the strongest advocate of free speech so objects when exercised by others holding a different view. So much for intellectual freedom and the open marketplace of ideas!
For the next few days, my e-mail box was filled with feedback from those who had read my editorial. The overwhelming majority thanked me for writing the editorial and shared their respect for Mr. DeLay. But liberals are intolerant of Christians no matter where they speak truth—whether inside or outside of the church walls. Mr. DeLay was speaking inside the auditorium of a Baptist church we had rented for our Worldview Weekend, and yet the liberals did not want to extend religious tolerance, freedom of religion, or freedom of conscious to Mr. DeLay!
So: Don’t Be Fooled and Don’t Apologize
I trust by now you realize what few people will admit: The modern-day liberal is a person with a truly anti-American and anti-God worldview. Their goals and intentions are rooted in a humanist worldview that desires to rob you of what countless men and women have died to preserve—a constitutional republic committed to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and its affirmation of being one nation under God.
Don’t be fooled and don’t let down your guard. Despite their rhetoric about compassion, tolerance, and human unity, modern-day liberals are largely hateful, mean-spirited individuals who loathe everything based on absolute truth. They are offended by the truth, they hate it, and as a result, their thinking is twisted and confused.
The modern-day liberal will use intimidation and threats to terrorize anyone who gets in the way of their agenda, whether it be defeating a conservative political candidate, implementation of a radical education program, the legalization of same-sex marriage, or simply interference with your everyday life. The modern-day liberal will encourage your minor daughter to have sex, and when she gets pregnant, they will go behind your back and drag her to an abortionist. Liberals will be on the lookout for any display of religion such as a student praying or mentioning God or a public official wearing a cross or a city seal bearing a Christian symbol. Then they will rush to the phone to call the ACLU hotline. A liberal will claim to be tolerant but treat Christians like they are the reincarnation of Hitler. In short, there is little modern-day liberals will not do to achieve what is for them the only thing life is about: power.
To the modern-day secular humanist, “when you’re dead, you’re dead.” So, power now is everything. Liberals wag their heads, amazed that you actually believe in God and that He reveals Himself to you through general and special revelation. To them, your belief is more an evidence of mental illness than a healthy worldview.
So, the battle lines are drawn. Unless Americans wake up and realize that the liberal humanists hate truth, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Christianity, we will soon be enslaved by their worldview. It’s already happening.
Footnotes:
41 George Grant, The Family under Siege, 140.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid., 141.
44 Education Report, Eagle Forum, July 1988, no. 150.
45 Samuel L. Blumenfeld, NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, NEA Resolution.
46 Grant, The Family under Siege, 139.
47 ACLU sues over disclaimers, the Associated Press, vol. 91, no. 3, August 23, 2002.
48 Grant, The Family under Siege, 141.
49 ACLU Web site, about the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project.
50 ACLU Web site, Reproductive Rights.
51 Grant, The Family under Siege, 140.
52 Ibid., 141.
53 ACLU Web site, Women’s Rights.
54 Grant, The Family under Siege, 139.
55 Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., The Grab for Power (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1993), 7.
56 Grant, The Family under Siege, 139.
57 Ibid., 140.
58 Schlafly, “Who Controls Education Policies?”
59 Limbaugh, “NEA: Politicizing ‘Education.’”
60 Grant, The Family under Siege, 141.
61 ACLU Web site, “Why the Supreme Court Decision Striking Down Sodomy Laws Is So Important.”
62 Howi Beigelman, “What Kind of First Amendment Is This Anyway?” Jewish Law Commentary.
63 Cuddy, 102; quoting Lily Wong Fillmore, keynote speaker, third annual conference, National Association for Multicultural Education, Los Angeles, February 11–14, 1993.
64 Susan Duquesnay, “Tom without Pity,” Fort Bend Star, April 24, 2002.
