The Pledge of Allegiance To Democracy

The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy

(and The Antidote to Any Degree of Creeping Totalitarianism)

By William Baptiste SFO, Founder and Director, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!

Draft 2.6m

Note on the Urgent Distribution of Draft 2.6m

Current serious threats to Democracy, religious freedom, and human lives and Human Rights in the West require this important content become known by many immediately so they can immediately be inspired and equipped to start effectively working to preserve Human Rights and Freedoms – distribution of this educational content vital to the long-term maintenance of Free Democracy worldwide cannot wait for the formal publication of a final professionally edited and polished draft given the seriousness – and accelerated pace –  of recent developments of “Creeping Totalitarianism” worldwide.  2015 alone saw four major assaults on Democracy where this author lives, followed by more in 2016 and 2017 – but the accelerated pace of democratic dissolution here just shows more clearly where other jurisdictions are heading more slowly.   The content of this current draft is already a “conceptually complete” and thorough education and complete strategy (in the supplementary New Abolitionist Manifesto of Solidarity) for defending Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms from all current attacks worldwide. Please note YOU can help produce a polished, edited, formally published version of the Pledge (and other key educational documents) and help promote them by becoming a patron of Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! at https://www.patreon.com/humanrightsandfreedomsforever or considering other donation options listed at Donations for Democracy ]

PLEDGE PART I: The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and The Core Principles of Lasting Democracy

  1. I pledge allegiance to Democracy, and to the implicit foundational principles on which Democracy is historically and logically built and which it needs to explicitly restore in order to survive currently escalating 21st Century worldwide trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism” and last long-term (which are The First Principles of Democracy or The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy):

 

  1. Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy #1: That every human life without exception, without discrimination and “without distinction of any kind” is SUPREMELY and EQUALLY valuable and precious, OBLIGATING governments to protect and serve ALL precious humans who have “inherent . . . equal and inalienable [human] rights”[1] (which is the only reason governments stopped exploiting, enslaving and killing humans and eventually started giving every human a say or democratic vote or say in his or her own governance in the first place); and

 

  1. Because of this intrinsic human preciousness each human without exception has Human Rights beginning with the Inherent Human Right to Live, the necessary foundation of all other Human Rights without which “Human Rights” is a meaningless term, and

 

  1. This means killing humans is intrinsically wrong and thus no government has legitimate authority to kill either its own or another government’s human citizens, nor to legally allow human lives wherever they are to be killed for any reason except in extreme cases when necessary in the defense and protection of always-precious human lives from criminals or aggressors (see Article 6). No government has legitimate authority to legally devalue any human lives it exerts power over, which always precedes grave injustice and the compromise or loss of Democracy, as happens whenever some humans are legally denied human personhood or full citizenship so they may be legally enslaved or legally killed or otherwise legally denied the full equal Human Rights which logically must intrinsically inhere in every human life or else they intrinsically inhere in no human life (in which case there would be no inherent superiority of free democracy over oppressive totalitarianism which does not recognize nor respect Human Rights). Thus, I recognize the CORE PRINCIPLE OF LASTING DEMOCRACY #1: Lasting Democracy requires full and uncompromising legal recognition of The Inherent Human Right to Live and the traditional Western belief expressed in the simple maxim killing humans is wrong, because Human Rights are for All Humans or else they are meaningless (if being human is not enough to have them).

 

  1. Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy #2: (Following logically from Principle #1): That because every human life without exception is precious every human life without exception must be FREE from all government coercion in matters of belief so that they may without impediment FREELY seek and find this wonderful Truth foundational to Democracy, that their human lives are supremely and equally valuable and precious (without government interference; without government telling or teaching the humans governed any differently; and without government treating humans any differently, in violation of their Human Rights). These two principles together are the implicit underlying First Principles or logical starting point of both Human Rights and Democracy as we know it (As described in PLEDGE PART II  below, the essence of these here-maturely-articulated principles was adopted by the West in the 4th Century when the Inherent Human Right to Live was first legally protected by the government; these principles slowly but logically developed over the centuries into modern Human Rights and were at least implicitly assumed at the formation of all of our modern democracies).

Further,

 

  1. I recognize that democracy that lasts cannot be about an unqualified or unrestricted immature freedom “to do whatever I want,” but lasting democracy limits individual freedom with just criminal laws which protect the Human Rights and property of other humans and encourage mature respect for all humanity which ensures that humans are always treated as precious persons not as mere tools or objects to be used (or thrown away/killed when they are old and worn out or otherwise unwanted tools/objects). I recognize Human Rights are for all humans or else they are a sham, so killing humans is always wrong, even if occasionally necessary to protect precious humans from criminals and aggressors. I recognize that in this manner police forces occasionally find it necessary to kill dangerous criminals in the course of protecting the public (or themselves) from them, and citizens killing in “self-defense” against a dangerous criminal aggressor is occasionally necessary, but never ideal because the criminal is human, and therefore inherently valuable, too. I recognize that traditionally in the West, when death penalties still commonly existed they were most often to protect the public from criminals who were a direct danger to the public or traitors who were a danger to the government which provides stability, safety and security for the public and thus were considered an indirect danger to the public; and there was traditionally still a great concern to “save the soul” of dangerous condemned criminals because their human lives were recognized as inherently valuable because they were human lives and thus even killing dangerous criminals to protect the public was not ideal (this is why chaplains are still made available for criminals on “death row” where death penalties still exist; they are given opportunity for spiritual counselling to prepare themselves for death in recognition of their human dignity despite their horrific crimes against the human dignity of others).  Regarding treason, I recognize that historically governments since ancient times, since before the West’s 4th Century adoption of the basic Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy (in equal human preciousness governments are obligated to protect) have always up to the 20th Century insisted on the governmental right to execute traitors who threatened the government, whether that government/ruler was benevolent or oppressive.  But the big difference is that before the 4th Century Western adoption of the essential Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, Western governments were typically oppressive and totalitarian, had no necessary interest in protecting any Human Rights of their citizens/subjects (which simply were not recognized), and governments/rulers were primarily judged by their civic accomplishments usually built on the backs of the governed (1/3 of whom were slaves) because no-one expected governments to necessarily protect all the humans they governed.  I recognize that after the 4th Century Western basic adoption of the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, though governments/rulers were still sometimes oppressive and evil, they were no longer judged by their civic accomplishments but by how they treated the humans they governed.  Regarding death penalties, I recognize modern technology has made the long-term incarceration of dangerous criminals without killing them much more effective than in the past, which is why it is most appropriate that most Western governments abandoned the death penalty in modern times, as no longer necessary to protect the public from dangerous criminals.  A soldier’s killing when defending his or her nation against an aggressive military force is similarly “justifiable” but not ideal.  Generally, to be the aggressor who starts an armed conflict or full-scale war that kills precious humans is morally reprehensible, although the complications of politics may make a war a “Just War” if it ultimately serves the good of precious human lives, as in the case when the Allied Nations declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939 to halt the spread of Nazism and its aggressive anti-human, murderous racist ideology and policies which denied Human Rights to all humans.  In review, I recognize the CORE PRINCIPLE OF LASTING DEMOCRACY #2: Lasting Democracy does not grant unqualified freedom to individual  humans, but Lasting Democracy restricts individual freedom with just criminal laws which uphold the Inherent Human Right to Live and the maxim killing humans is wrong; laws which protect the Human Rights and property of other humans and encourage mature respect for all humanity which ensures that humans are always treated as precious persons not as mere tools or objects to be used or thrown away.  For lasting world peace nation-States also need to be guided by just International Laws which similarly uphold the Inherent Human Right to Live, Human Rights for All Humans and the maxim killing humans is wrong.

 

  1. Similarly, I recognize that Democracy that lasts cannot be a brute “whatever the majority asks for, or whatever the majority accepts.” Any democracy which does not hold its citizens and politicians accountable to Democracy’s Foundations can easily be lost to “Creeping Totalitarianism.” In 1930s Germany the majority democratically elected Hitler President of Germany; the majority asked for Nazi government even though Hitler and his Nazi Party manifestly did not believe in the Foundations of Democracy which mean all humans are EQUAL and PRECIOUS.  Afterwards, the majority (even though many were uncomfortable) accepted the German Government’s gradual implementation of many new policies which violated the above First Principles of Democracy and Human Rights, and Hitler was eventually voted emergency powers which formally ended Democracy in Germany (had the uncomfortable Germans not accepted the earlier policies which compromised democratic foundations but stood up in Solidarity for the above traditional Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy in the earlier stages of democratic decay, for example when new laws treating humans unequally prevented Jewish humans from owning bicycles and gramophones, the “Creeping Totalitarianism” could not have advanced as quickly nor as far as it did, in the end rounding up Jewish humans to be murdered en masse).  No structure can stand long without its foundations so any democracy that wants to last for the long-term as a democracy OF COURSE must hold its citizens and its government constitutionally accountable to the above foundational First Principles of Democracy.  For example: by constitutionally enshrining the above Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy; by citizens and politicians taking this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy which is taught in schools to ensure the next generation of citizens knows where its Human Rights and freedoms come from so they do not in ignorance undermine Democracy for future generations (which is precisely what has happened, which has necessitated this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy (Democracy 101) being written in order to correct this ignorance which has resulted in many countries ignorantly encouraging “Creeping Totalitarianism” by ignorantly voting into power political parties which – as in 1930s Germany – manifestly do not believe in the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy that every human life without exception is EQUAL and PRECIOUS); by politicians swearing an Oath of Office to uphold these principles guaranteeing Human Rights which establishes that they are safe politicians for humans to vote for.  If “making” citizens and politicians accountable to adhere to these principles limits their freedom, it only does so in exactly the same way that just criminal laws (against assault, murder, etc.) protecting the Human Rights of every human limits the freedom “to do whatever I want” (e.g. I am not free to assault someone’s person) – limiting unqualified freedoms specifically in order to create a lasting environment that is safe for all humans to exercise legitimate freedoms that do not trample on another human’s Human Rights.  I recognize that as 1930s Germany amply demonstrates, lasting democracy cannot be an unqualified “whatever the majority are ignorant or foolish enough to vote for,” but must actively maintain the foundational principles Human Rights and Democracy are built on, and therefore a surely reasonable “bare minimum” expectation of politicians in democracies is that they actually believe in Democracy from its roots and are accountable to uphold its foundations.  I recognize that an electorate so out of touch with the Foundations of Democracy that voters do not even demand such a minimal commitment to Democracy from their elected politicians, like actually believing in the foundational principles historically and logically undergirding Democracy, is a sign of a democracy in advanced decay which (like in 1930s Germany) cannot last long-term.  I recognize Germany is a reminder that if we as an electorate of voting citizens in a democracy will not even hold our politicians accountable to the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, then perhaps we do not really deserve the privilege of our democracy – and certainly we will not keep it long-term.  In review, I recognize the CORE PRINCIPLE OF LASTING DEMOCRACY #3: Lasting Democracy does not grant an unqualifiedanything the majority asks for or accepts,” but Lasting Democracy MUST hold its citizens and its politicians constitutionally accountable to the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy including the Inherent Human Right to Live and the maxim killing humans is wrong because Human Rights are for All Humans, or else genuine Democracy can easily be lost to “Creeping Totalitarianism” wherein democracies (in name only, as in 1930s Germany) gradually but increasingly take on the characteristics of totalitarian States (all of which deny killing humans is wrong and all of which think the government decides which humans may or may not be legally killed instead of recognizing lasting democratic government’s foundation that governments are obligated to always protect and serve always-precious human lives because Human Rights are for All Humans).

I recognize that Human Rights and Democracy’s vital foundations were laid so long ago (in the 4th Century, as discussed in PLEDGE PART II) that simple ignorance of them accounts for much of the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” (voting citizens and the politicians they vote for literally do not know what their Human Rights and Freedoms were built on) and to correct this ultimately democracy-destroying ignorance with “The Education Necessary to Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack” (which is the title of the longer treatise on which Democracy 101 and The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy is based), I pledge to spread the knowledge of Democracy’s historical and logical foundations described in more detail in PLEDGE PART II and succinctly articulated in the two Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy (and I pledge to spread the three supporting Core Principles of Lasting Democracy) listed in PLEDGE PART I (Articles 1-7) of this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy, so that voters can become “Democracy Pledgers” who make educated votes guided by the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, to ensure democracy lasts in their country.

I recognize that since simple uneducated ignorance of Democracy’s historical and logical (and scientific, biological) foundations likely accounts for most of the “Creeping Totalitarianism” in most countries, likely most voters and politicians actually do want Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms for everyone to last long-term even if they up until now have ignorantly supported (or not strenuously opposed) currently popular anti-traditional policies that undermine Democracy from its traditional, historical, scientific and logical foundations.  Thus, I charitably expect that most voters and even most politicians, for the sake of lasting human safety and lasting free democracy for everyone, once educated by the Pledge (Democracy 101) or the longer treatise it is based on The Education Necessary to Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack, will put aside whatever personal convenience or gain or political power came to them from unwittingly undermining Democracy and driving “Creeping Totalitarianism” by supporting anti-traditional policies against the traditional Western values Human Rights and Freedoms were historically and logically built on and need to last, starting with the Inherent Human Right to Live (other related traditional Western values which are also part of Democracy’s historical foundation and also logically necessary for lasting Human Rights and Democracy are discussed in PLEDGE PART II which details the “three wrong turns” on Western Civilization’s path which have together logically led to the current crisis of “Creeping Totalitarianism”).  I charitably expect that once exposed to the eminently logical and undisputedly historical and scientific Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, most voters and politicians will prove themselves merely ignorant and not actually evil even though they supported (or did not seriously oppose) anti-traditional policies which ravaged the traditional Western values all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms were built on, including the Inherent Human Right to Live and the simple maxim killing humans is wrong – though their response to Democracy 101 &The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy will reveal which of the two they are, so they had better respond carefully and intelligently, or else any continued opposition to the traditional Western values now clearly shown to be implicitly underlying and undergirding all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms will make them look either uneducated/ignorant, unintelligent/illogical, or evil.  Those who are merely ignorant will change their ways and start upholding the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy so Human Rights and Freedoms can last for everyone (even if putting all humanity before their personal convenience or gain or political power requires some adjustment or sacrifice).  Those who insist on supporting the current anti-traditional and ultimately anti-democratic and “Creeping Totalitarian” policies against the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy by doing so will declare themselves culpably ignorant and uneducated at best; or unintelligent/mentally deficient; or selfish/evil and totalitarian at worst.  I recognize that both politicians and voters who wittingly or unwittingly support “Creeping Totalitarianism” in their countries by supporting anti-traditional policies which violate the traditional Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and/or the Core Principles of Lasting Democracy must be challenged by educated voters standing up together in Solidarity to end “Creeping Totalitarianism” (as the Polish “Solidarity” movement well-rooted in Traditional Western values successfully stood up against and was a major player in ending even full-blown totalitarianism in the Soviet Eastern Bloc/Warsaw Pact countries).  I recognize that those politicians and voters who remain staunch in their support of the several current “Creeping Totalitarian” policies and trends undermining the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy as clearly defined in this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy (Democracy 101) using undisputed scientific and historical facts and clear sound logic, can fairly be called uneducated “Totalitarian Creeps” by educated “Democracy Pledgers,” to shame them into getting a solid Human Rights education and doing the right thing for all humanity and stop rejecting the simple democracy-grounding maxim that killing humans is wrong with their current (and increasing) legal human-killing policies.

In fact, emboldened by the recent accelerated advance of “Creeping Totalitarianism” in some Western jurisdictions, directly related to the abandonment of the traditional Western values Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms were historically and logically built on and need to last, and the necessity to combat this accelerated trend boldly if democracy is to last, I declare the following:

I recognize that now that the two Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and three Core Principles of Lasting Democracy have been clearly identified and articulated in Democracy 101 and the Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy, using mostly well-known (at least to scholars), easily verifiable and undisputed scientific and historical facts connected with clear, sound logic, FROM NOW ON ANY GOVERNMENT THAT CLAIMS TO BE A DEMOCRACY, IF IT WANTS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS SUCH (AND IF IT WANTS TO LAST AS SUCH), MUST constitutionally enshrine some articulation of these five principles and hold its politicians and citizens accountable to them (as they did not in 1930s Germany and as they did not in all the democracies now suffering “Creeping Totalitarianism”).

I have great hope that most voters and politicians who up until now due to simple lack of education have been unwittingly promoting “Creeping Totalitarianism” against lasting Democracy and against equal Human Rights for All Humans are more ignorant than evil and will now receive the solid Human Rights education now laid bare in Democracy 101 and change their ways for the long-term safety and freedom of all humanity.  However, I also recognize that from now on, IF INSTEAD any governments (or politicians) continue current policies of denying equal Human Rights to some humans; continue ignoring (or in any degree stifling FREE SPEECH of or silencing or persecuting) the “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live,” Human Rights for All Humans voice rooted in the traditional Western values Human Rights and Freedoms were built on and need to last; or otherwise continue to resist constitutionally enshrining anything like the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, and instead continue the current anti-traditional, anti-democratic and “Creeping Totalitarian” policies described in the Introduction and PLEDGE PART II which motivated the writing of Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy, these governments (or politicians) clearly identify themselves as “Creeping Totalitarian” governments (or “Totalitarian Creep” politicians) and enemies of lasting Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms.

I recognize that a distinct lack of formal, respectful, fully-informed debate about whether or not Human Rights are for all humans has characterized the decades-long gradual advancement and progression of such current (in greater or lesser degree) “Creeping Totalitarian” governments.  So I recognize that if any such governments (or politicians or the uneducated voters who vote for them) want to and think they can avoid being justly labelled “Totalitarian Creeps” for denying traditional and foundational Western values including the Inherent Human Right to Live and equal Human Rights for All Humans,  then the only way they could potentially do so is by no longer ignoring or refusing to debate but by fully engaging in debate all the facts of science, history and logic now laid bare for all to see in Democracy 101 that support the “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” position of equal Human Rights for all Humans (and proper equal treatment of humans as precious throughout the human life-cycle) being absolutely necessary for lasting democracy – and seeing whether or not they in free, respectful, rational and logical debate considering all the pertinent facts now laid bare can demonstrate that they are somehow not “totalitarian creeps” for denying Human Rights to some humans.  I recognize that FROM NOW ON, any governments or politicians or voters who do not support the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and the Core Principles of Lasting Democracy but refuse to even learn and fully engage in debate with the undisputed facts and clear, sound logic of Democracy 101, by their refusal to do so they have already tacitly admitted that their “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” position against equal Human Rights for All Humans CANNOT WIN in any reasonable, intellectual, logical debate and must logically be abandoned – meaning that if instead they continue to deny equal Human Rights for All Humans and continue to support and pursue “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans” policies anyway they show themselves not only uneducated and ignorant (or unintelligent/ illogical), but they show themselves culpably ignorant, associating themselves with the ignorant and evil bigotry of all who (like slave-owners and Nazis) deny Human Rights to some humans; and they invite themselves to be seen as at least unwitting pawns of evil, if not evil themselves and “Totalitarian Creeps.”  If governments refuse to freely and fully debate the whole Human Rights for All Humans question while insisting on keeping the current status quo which denies equal Human Rights to some humans by allowing legal human-killing (as was previously the case with legal slavery which allowed human enslavement), then they can only be reasonably described as “Totalitarian Creep” governments fundamentally oriented towards totalitarianism because they deny the Foundational Principles of Human Rights And Democracy in equal human preciousness (just as much as did the previous governments which allowed the legal slavery of some humans; or the legal killing of some (Jewish and handicapped ) humans).

I thus recognize that the common Western denial of the Inherent Human Right to Live of the last decades of widespread legal human-killing in the West, which has only lasted as long as it has because of the widespread culpably ignorant refusal of many governments to even formally discuss whether or not killing humans is wrong and whether or not Human Rights are for all humans, can no longer be sustained.  Governments FROM NOW ON will HAVE TO fully reconsider current policies allowing legal human-killing by having fully-informed debate on these questions:  Where does our country stand on the current Human Rights for All Humans debate?  Do we believe in equal Human Rights for All Humans, or do we believe Human Rights can and should be denied to some humans (which slave-owners, Nazis, and all totalitarian States do)?  That is, is our country “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live,” supporting the traditional Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, or does our country instead prefer to be “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans,” such that our government is NOT shackled into acknowledging and always protecting an Inherent Human Right to Live, but can legislate human life and death, which human lives must be protected from harm and which human lives can be legally killed, and when (like all totalitarian States do)?  Governments FROM NOW ON will HAVE TO thus finally “soul search” and “wrestle with” and finally fully consider the vast wealth of scientific (biological and medical) and historical facts and clear sound logic (now laid out clearly in Democracy 101’s PLEDGE PART II) which support the “Pro-Human-Right-to-Live” position that killing humans is wrong because equal Human Rights are for All Humans – or else by their continued refusal to fully open the debate in the face of such overwhelming evidence against current anti-human (and thus anti-democratic) policies, they declare themselves to be “Totalitarian Creep” governments and enemies of lasting democracy who deny Democracy’s very foundations.  I recognize that FROM NOW ON if any government refuses to formally revisit and debate current legal human-killing policies in the light of the now clearly identified and articulated Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and Core Principles of Lasting Democracy powerfully backed up by history, science and logic, these governments declare themselves to be totalitarian-oriented governments which cannot reasonably be trusted long-term by humans because (like all totalitarian governments) they decide for themselves which human lives they recognize or grant rights to instead of (like lasting democracy-oriented governments) considering themselves obligated to recognize and protect an Inherent Human Right to Live which is higher than and not originated by any government.

PLEDGE PART 1 FOOTNOTE:

[1] The first quoted phrase is from Article 2 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the second quoted phrase is from the first sentence of the formal Preamble of the Universal Declaration which begins by declaring an essentially similar truth to Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy #1 in the different words: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

 

PLEDGE PART II: The Scientific and Historical Facts Underlying and Logically Undergirding All Western Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms; The Current Worldwide Reality of “Creeping Totalitarianism” Due to Widespread Uneducated Ignorance of These Facts; The “Three Wrong Turns” on Western Civilization’s Path Which Have Brought the West into the Current “Creeping Totalitarianism” Now (in varying degrees) Threatening Human Life, Religious Freedom, and Democracy Itself Worldwide

 

  1. I recognize that the Science of Biology confirms beyond dispute that any human life is the same unique living individual biological human organism with absolutely unique human DNA utterly distinct from his or her parents at every age and stage of his or her human life-cycle from zygote (fertilized egg) to senior adult, and regardless of any disorder or disability (genetic or acquired) they suffer, and thus there is no scientific justification to deny legal human personhood to nor to legally allow the killing of humans who suffer any particular handicap or medical condition or who are at any particular age and stage of their human life-cycle (senior adult; adult; adolescent/ teenager; child; toddler; baby; newborn; fetus (Latin for “little one,” that is, “little human;” embryo; zygote/fertilized egg) and any attempt to do so falls under the above category of legally devaluing human lives (removing the government’s obligation to always protect human lives) which in history always precedes grave injustice and the loss of Democracy/beginning of Totalitarianism because it legally denies the intrinsic human preciousness and the Inherent Human Right to Live which is the implicit historical and logical foundation of Democracy. Lasting Democracy requires that where a human life exists he or she is so precious that the State/government is always obligated to protect and serve his or her precious human life, and every oppressive and totalitarian State denies this principle and finds excuses to legally kill humans or to legally allow humans to be killed. I recognize that all of the excuses and arguments used to justify the legal killing of humans, which violates the above simple maxim that killing humans is wrong, by de-criminalized legal abortion or de-criminalized legal euthanasia, are fantastically short-sighted, grossly ignorant of the history and the logic of Western thought which gave us Human Rights and Freedoms in the first place, and worst of all are fundamentally anti-human and fundamentally anti-democratic because they eradicate the legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live (legally recognized since the 318 AD criminalization of abortion) on which all Human Rights and Democracy historically and logically depend[2] and thus legal abortion and legal euthanasia eradicate any government’s fundamental obligation to protect and serve human lives just as surely as in any Totalitarian State.  Indeed, it is no mere coincidence but by a simple logical progression that the two Totalitarian States responsible for the two biggest genocides of humans in history, the 1932-3 Holodomor (Soviet forced starvation of 7-10 million Ukrainian humans) and the Holocaust (Nazi extermination of 6 million Jewish humans plus handicapped and other humans), before they committed mass-murder of millions of adult humans were the first two modern nations to de-criminalize abortion which had been outlawed by law or custom since 318 AD (Soviet Russia in 1920 and Nazi Germany in 1934).  De-criminalized abortion had already established in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that there was NO LONGER any legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live protected by law, and our current Western democracies have foolishly followed this precedent of Totalitarian States (and introduced Creeping Totalitarianism into Western democracies) by similarly de-criminalizing abortion which similarly removes any government obligation to always protect and serve human lives.

I recognize that generally speaking in the West, since 318 AD human life was protected in the womb by either law or custom because it was generally recognized that killing humans is wrong, until the oppressive Soviet and Nazi regimes first de-criminalized abortion in the 20th Century.  It is true that antiquated science which mistakenly held for centuries that human life began at “the quickening,” which science now knows is only when the new unique human individual living biological organism (like YOU) who began at conception is big enough that his or her mother can feel him or her moving, did however mean that early term abortions might be tolerated or not pursued as crimes.  But in these cases, the principle that killing humans is wrong still applied, and only antique and incorrect science, which for most of history knew nothing of microscopic sperm or ova or of the new, unique living human embryos formed by their joining (with absolutely unique human DNA, like YOU when you were that age), allowed the occasional killing of preborn humans.  The 19th Century formal legal criminalizations of abortion before or after “the quickening,” were based on a more accurate Science of Human Life, and merely affirmed the long custom of protecting human life in the womb on the principle that killing humans is wrong, in or out of the womb, that had been normative since the original 318 AD criminalization of abortion because human life then started to be recognized as precious not cheap thus governments are always obligated to protect precious human lives.

 

  1. I recognize that this “Creeping Totalitarianism” is precisely why those Western democracies which de-criminalized abortion and/or euthanasia (including “assisted suicide”) today are implementing more and more “totalitarian” policies (which motivated this Pledge in response), policies oppressive to the democratic rights and freedoms of citizens such as doctors and other medical professionals and teachers and lawyers and government workers and peaceful abortion protesters and others who believe in the above First Principles of Democracy. It is precisely these Foundational Principles of Democracy that teach that human life is inherently precious and the government is always obligated to without discrimination protect and serve human lives free from government coercion, which make self-identified “Pro-Life” (“Pro-Human-Right-to-Live”) citizens and doctors naturally object to killing preborn and handicapped humans whose human lives (just like Jewish and handicapped humans in Nazi Germany) were legally devalued by the government despite their scientifically indisputable humanity in order to legally kill them (in Nazi Germany by legal abortion or Death Camps, today by legal abortion or euthanasia/“assisted suicide”). I note that in the logical progression of the fundamentally anti-human age-discrimination prejudice of the “Pro-Choice” (“Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans”) abortion mindset which grants NO humans any Inherent Human Right to Live but will discriminate against and kill ANY humans while they are too young to be born, less healthy born humans who are similarly weak and vulnerable and similarly take time and loving effort to care for are the next category of humans to be discriminated against and be “marked for death” by bigots.  I note that the similar prejudice against weaker, vulnerable handicapped human lives as “not worth living” and “not worth caring for” that drove the Nazis to first target preborn humans of handicapped parents for death by legal abortion, followed by the initially voluntary death of born handicapped humans by legal euthanasia, and finally drove the Nazis later to round up born handicapped humans for death in Death Camps as well, is paralleled today in many “Pro-Choice” doctors who repeatedly and aggressively “offer,” pester and pressure pregnant mothers who are (correctly or incorrectly) thought to be carrying handicapped babies to kill them by aborting them, and paralleled in more and more countries de-criminalizing euthanasia so that born handicapped humans (as in Germany) can be legally killed as well (as a burden) instead of cared for (as a gift).  I recognize that as part of the process of “Creeping Totalitarianism,” the “Pro-Choice” abortion mindset (de-valuing preborn human lives) that needy human life is a burden to be removed rather than always a gift to be treasured and protected (and worth doing so) naturally leads to euthanasia-killing of other needy human lives which also take money and loving effort to care for long-term – insidiously introducing government-sanctioned legal killing of adult humans in addition to preborn humans (as in oppressive totalitarian States); and cheapening all human life (as in oppressive totalitarian States) such that money once again is more valuable than humans (as before the 4th century adoption of the above historic “Pro-Life” principles), such that if humans are not materially “productive” for the state/society or take money and effort to care for they can be legally killed by euthanasia.  As in Nazi Germany the handicapped are the first target of prejudice to be killed by euthanasia, first of all in the womb by abortion specifically because they are handicapped, as in Holland and many other countries in which mothers identified as carrying handicapped children are repeatedly “offered,” that is, pestered or otherwise pressured to abort them.  Such powerful prejudice against handicapped humans as “not worth living, not worth taking care of” cannot just stay limited to preborn humans and so in Holland where euthanasia has been legal for some time, now when children are diagnosed handicapped at the time of birth (because they could not be diagnosed and aborted previously), the parents are “offered”/ pestered to euthanize right at birth;  and those parents who choose to actually lovingly raise their own children report that they are repeatedly accosted in the streets by strangers asking them WHY they have not yet euthanized their handicapped child.  I recognize that legal abortion and legal euthanasia poison society’s whole approach to human life in fundamentally anti-democratic (and Nazi-bigotry) fashion. The (Pro-)“Choice” to abort humans because there is no legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live anyway naturally and logically leads to the (Pro-)“Choice” to euthanize humans who are old, sick, or handicapped and thus “unproductive.”  So “Pro-Choice” is a fundamentally inhuman “Choice,” and history teaches us that what begins as a “choice” to euthanize soon becomes pressure to euthanize, and ultimately leads to the obligation to euthanize (as in Nazi Germany), because once handicapped human lives are considered not worth living and not worth the effort of caring for, soon any time and money spent on the handicapped becomes viewed as a “burden” rather than the privilege of serving precious human lives with all their needs.  Already where euthanasia is legal the old and sick and handicapped are often shamed into asking for euthanasia in “assisted suicide” because their human lives are seen as a burden to be removed not a precious gift worth lovingly looking after – the de-valuing of adult human lives too in full congruence with the same “Pro-Choice” abortion mentality that human life is not intrinsically precious and can be killed when deemed inconvenient – as also believed by all oppressive totalitarian States.  I recognize that a future obligation to euthanize “with extreme prejudice” (and save money) as in Nazi Germany is the only logical end to the current trend to de-criminalize euthanasia.  And a leading world euthanasia advocate clearly confirms that legal euthanasia is really all about money not compassion:  Britain’s Lady Warnock has said “Pensioners” (drawing on government money) “unable to look after themselves” have “a duty to die” and not be a “burden” and should be “helped to die” (that is killed) “even if they are not in pain.”  This synthesis of a leading euthanasia advocate’s words are not pulled out of context but simply a logical correlation of the guiding principles she has clearly expressed on multiple occasions.  “The Right to Die” which euthanasia advocates speak of is unheard of in democratic history, though totalitarian States agree their citizens have “a right to die,” and totalitarian States “assist the dying” of citizens whenever citizens are considered “inconvenient” or “a burden.”  But Democracy is instead founded on the Inherent Human Right to Live, not to die.  The underlying anti-human and thus ultimately anti-democratic money and time-saving real reasons behind the push for euthanasia/ “assisted suicide” in so many Western countries explains how out-of-control euthanasia actually gets wherever it has already been legalized.  In any pro-abortion State where there is no longer any legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live, convenience and money are once again worth more than human life and since it is much cheaper to kill the old, sick or handicapped than care for their extra needs long-term (or to provide quality palliative care to the dying), countries that initially justify legal euthanasia as “only” for those terminally ill who would soon die anyway who are enduring “unbearable suffering” and who ask for it (as in Europe) have inevitably degraded into euthanizing/killing patients for more and more conditions (including psychological conditions) whether or not they are in physical pain and with or without the consent of the patients or their families.  I recognize that Humanity itself has been devalued by the Pro-Choice abortion mentality and this naturally compromises Human Rights including any Human Right to Democratic Freedoms: this “Creeping Totalitarianism” that started by denying Human Rights to some humans in legal abortions progresses into the legal killing of born humans too by euthanasia (potentially any of us humans, who any day can become handicapped through injury and then be euthanized or pressured to “ask” for “assisted suicide” because our now-handicapped human lives are now seen (with Nazi-style bigotry) to be “not worth living” and “not worth caring for”); and the democracy-destroying progression continues further and doctors who object to killing humans by either euthanasia or abortion are in more jurisdictions being forced to give up their democratic freedom of conscience and free speech to object to being killers and not dedicated healers, and are becoming obligated to participate in the killing of humans against their will at least by “effective referral” or else lose their jobs and livelihood.  I note that here Democracy suffers directly in service of the “Pro-Choice” (“Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans”) abortion and euthanasia mentality:  it is specifically and directly in order to preserve the current fundamentally anti-human and fundamentally anti-democratic “Pro-Choice-To-Kill-Humans” legal abortion and/or euthanasia “right-to-kill-humans” with abortion and/or euthanasia access completely unhindered by the pesky morals of those who believe in the above First Principles of Democracy that is driving the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” trend in Western democracies to limit and compromise doctors’ and others’ democratic freedoms of conscience, free speech and free action in service of human life in accordance with the First Principles of Democracy.  This means currently the legal abortion and/or legal euthanasia “right-to-kill-humans” trumps both genuine Human Rights and the true Democratic Freedom to stand up for Human Rights, just like in any oppressive totalitarian State.

 

  1. Not surprisingly then, these “Creeping Totalitarianism” current and increasing compromises of the democratic freedoms precisely of those who believe in the First Principles of Democracy follow the same pattern of the very gradual (by many small stages) loss of Democracy in Germany (which similarly had first de-criminalized abortion in 1934, and which similarly specifically targeted the handicapped for death by abortion as well as by euthanasia – similarly using the excuse of “preventing suffering”). Today many doctors and teachers and others (even duly-elected Representatives/ Members of Parliament in some countries) who believe with the First Principles of Democracy that Human Rights are for all humans are currently being bullied into silence with formal or informal threats to their jobs, funding, or freedom if they stand up too vocally for Human Rights for preborn humans threatened by legal abortion and handicapped humans threatened by both legal abortion and legal euthanasiajust as those who believed in Human Rights for Jewish and handicapped humans in Germany were similarly threatened for believing in and acting on the same above foundational principles which undergird all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, against a German government which like our current Western governments had legally devalued some human lives meaning Human Rights were no longer for all humansI recognize that genuine Human Rights technically ended in any country the second it de-criminalized abortion which had been banned by law or custom since 318 AD, meaning logically that there is no longer any legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live in that country.  Thus it is simply a matter of logical progression that such pro-abortion States are now increasingly compromising Democracy that depends on prior Human Rights, with new anti-democratic policies which start by limiting the democratic freedoms precisely of those doctors and others who are Democracy’s Best Defenders because they believe in and speak and teach and act on the above First Principles of Democracy (equal human preciousness without exception) without which Democracy could never have existed and without which Democracy cannot last.  As this “Creeping Totalitarianism” progresses at the expense of Democracy, now more and more jurisdictions are in totalitarian-belief-control-fashion even forcefully indoctrinating children in public schools in anti-traditional values (against the traditional Western values which Western Human Rights and Democracy were historically and logically built on concerning precious human life and the precious process that generates it) against parents’ vocal objections and without any democratically elected mandate to do so – just like Totalitarian States practice belief-control through mandatory public education in values directly or indirectly hostile to Human Rights and Freedoms.  This further undermines Democracy since it is only if the naturally-human-generating sexual process is precious not cheap that the human product of that process is precious not cheap, and the anti-traditional sexual moral values now taught in more and more schools (with less and less democratic parental options to object to or decline such “education”) directly results in many unwanted humans naturally produced by sex unnaturally undertaken without any regard for the natural, biological purpose of sex (human procreation), which creates DEMAND for the legal abortion which kills these “inconvenient” unwanted humans and at the same time logically cancels out the legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live which logically undergirds all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms.  I recognize that anti-traditional sexual morality indirectly causes “Creeping Totalitarianism” by creating demand for the de-criminalized abortion which directly causes “Creeping Totalitarianism” by eradicating any legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live which governments are always obligated to protect.  I recognize that in contrast, the traditional sexual morality of sex for lifetime-committed loving marriage and the family life which naturally follows, when practiced, actually supports lasting Human Rights and Freedoms by ensuring that sex partners are always treated as precious human persons and never as mere tools or objects for sexual pleasure; and by ensuring that the human children naturally and lovingly generated by sex are not treated as inconvenient “burdens” but as precious human persons born into stable loving families which are the building blocks of stable loving societies.  I recognize the traditional sexual values are the most human and actually best serve the actual biological purpose of sex, by generating the next generation of the human species and raising them to physically and psychologically healthy adulthood within stable loving families which are indeed the foundation of stable and loving human societies.   I recognize that traditional societal sexual standards which provide this basis of stable human families and human societies are no inappropriate nor illegitimate imposition of limitations on human freedom; rather, such traditional standards have the same character and serve the same purpose of traditional criminal laws, all of which similarly demand humans learn mature self-control of our immature self-centered urges for the sake of the Human Rights (and property) of other humans, and for the sake of a society that is safe for all humans because immature humans do not have unqualified freedom to act on any self-centered impulse regardless of which other humans it may harm or degrade.  I recognize that Democracy cannot possibly last for the long-term if current worldwide trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism” based in the ignorant abandonment of the above traditional principles including the First Principles of Democracy continue, and thus this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy has been motivated precisely as part of the necessary educational response to preserve Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms from being compromised any further than they already have been since the de-criminalization of abortion legally negated the Inherent Human Right to Live, which by logical progression has now taken Western democracies increasingly into “Creeping Totalitarianism” up to this current critical “tipping point” where Democracy is at serious risk of being ultimately lost as in 1930s Germany.

Like in 1930s Germany already the majority of voters in many countries have been swept along by the trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism” and are so ignorant of and out of touch with Democracy’s foundations that they actually democratically vote into power parties and leaders who manifestly do not even believe in the First Principles of Democracy, NOT holding their leaders accountable to the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy which would establish their leaders are ultimately safe for humans to vote for.  Like in Nazi Germany already huge numbers of citizens in very many countries are currently extremely uncomfortable with many of the smaller and larger changes to traditional values and laws which undermine Human Rights and Freedoms made by governments which (like Nazi Germany) no longer even implicitly recognize and follow the above First Principles of Democracy; like the many uncomfortable Germans in the 1930s these vast numbers of citizens have not been standing up in Solidarity against these cumulatively democracy-destroying changes out of fear of consequences and because of “bullying” tactics (even if not (yet) threats of physical violence by gun-toting thugs as in Nazi Germany, already by formal or informal threats to jobs and funding and even arrest in some cases, or silenced by experience of vandalism when they publicly express their belief in the First Principles of Democracy); and thus like in Nazi Germany, Democracy will be lost eventually unless Democracy’s badly eroded above Foundations are rebuilt, using tools such as this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy (and the above Flag of Democracy which goes with it) which those who believe in the traditional values undergirding Human Rights and Freedoms can get behind in Solidarity to stop the progress of the current anti-human, anti-democratic trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism” which were not stopped in the earlier stages in 1930s Germany which is the reason why “Creeping Totalitarianism” in Germany progressed “all the way” to full-blown totalitarianism and the formal end of democracy.  I recognize some jurisdictions today already stand in a similar situation to 1917 Mexico which then passed laws and policies restrictive of freedom of belief (including traditional belief in the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy above), restrictive policies including State-set education in anti-traditional beliefs and values, but these were not strictly enforced right away and so there was not an uproar, because most people’s day-to-day lives did not change at first (and most people then, like now, put up with their discomfort like in Nazi Germany because they were afraid of negative repercussions if they complained, and like in Nazi Germany they in vain comforted themselves with the unrealistic thought that “surely it cannot get any worse than this”).  But nine years later in 1926, the Mexican government started strictly enforcing the 1917 laws and policies which had been on the books for nearly a decade and soon added new and more oppressive laws taking any semblance of religious freedom away from citizens who were arrested or shot for practicing their traditional beliefs in any public way.  I recognize that the history lesson here is that freedom-lovers already in this situation today in some compromised democracies must not allow themselves to be bullied into silence by the recent uncomfortable policy or law changes which undermine the First Principles of Democracy and which restrict their democratic freedoms to believe, speak, live out or teach their children the First Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, out of fear of negative repercussions and lulled into false comfort by the fact that for now little in their day-to-day lives have changed.  I recognize that recent policies and laws restricting democratic freedoms (such as policies taking away doctors’ freedom to not facilitate human-killing by legal abortion and euthanasia which both violate the First Principles of Human Rights and Freedoms, and policies taking away parents’ freedom to train their children in the traditional Western values Human Rights and Freedoms were built on without having their children indoctrinated against the Foundations of Human Rights and Democracy at school), policies which are not (yet) strictly enforced, cannot be allowed to remain “on the books” while unrealistically hoping “surely it cannot get any worse than this” because sooner or later they will be strictly enforced in the advancement of “Creeping Totalitarianism” which will surely advance if those who believe in the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy (like in Nazi Germany) do not stand up together in Solidarity to support them.

 

  1. I recognize that the medical profession is at the forefront of the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” undermining Western democracies because medical professionals are charged with the important duty of healing and caring for human lives when they suffer some medical problem, as well as helping healthy humans to maintain their good health.  Thus the medical profession’s general approach to the human lives they treat – whether human lives are a precious gift always to be protected, especially when they suffer (medical professionals helping patients to as much as possible overcome the temporary or long-term or permanent limitations of whatever injuries, illnesses, or handicaps they may suffer), or whether human lives are a “burden” to be removed when they suffer – has far-reaching political effects on Human Rights and Democracy which depends historically and logically on human lives always being regarded as so precious they are WORTH protecting from harm, WORTH doing everything possible to save from the tragedy of death and WORTH lovingly caring for their extra needs whenever they suffer injury, illness, or handicap, or when at the end of their lifespan they are actively dying (WORTH providing quality palliative care for to ease their discomforts at the end while still celebrating their human lives as a gift not a burden).  I recognize that the medical profession used to (for thousands of years) guarantee doctor/patient trust in the use of the awesome power of life and death that doctors frequently have over patients through the ancient medical tradition of the Hippocratic Oath, which is usually summarized as an oath of doctors to “do no harm” to their human patients, the oldest form of the oath not only precluding the killing of born human patients but also specifically including protection for preborn humans who are traditionally seen by doctors as their “second patient” whenever a pregnant woman seeks medical care.  Ideally doctors who treat born or preborn humans should be dedicated healers who highly value and do not kill or otherwise harm the human lives they treat, and for 2500 years the great medical tradition guaranteed trust in this high standard of health care through the traditional Hippocratic Oath (traditionally all oaths – of doctors, police officers, political leaders or anyone in a position of power over others which is given of practical necessity but which is capable of being abused – are meant to provide a final layer of trust and accountability, because the person publicly and explicitly acknowledges they are accountable to the higher power by which their solemn oath is sworn to not misuse the power over others given to them, especially not to kill them).  I recognize the insidious fact that since abortion was de-criminalized, to remove the inherent conflict between the high traditional standard of medicine and legal abortion (and legal euthanasia, both of which were precluded by the Traditional Hippocratic Oath), medical schools have become influenced by the political forces of “Creeping Totalitarianism” and have no longer required doctors to take the Hippocratic Oath or else they have had doctors take an eviscerated modern form of it[3] which effectively allows doctors to kill patients and removes the traditional Hippocratic basis of doctor/patient trust for thousands of years.  After decades and whole generations of doctors (and generations of patients) being trained to think it is permissible for doctors to harm or kill some human lives instead of treating all human lives equally precious (as lasting Democracy demands), now in countries where euthanasia is legal, the supposed “safeguards” against abuse of this “medical power of life and death” have proven ineffective and when people go into a hospital they literally can no longer trust that a doctor will not decide to kill them by euthanasia instead of doing everything possible to save them, since doctors now regularly make the big “life and death” decisions with or without the consent of the patient or the patient’s family which the great weight of the Hippocratic medical tradition for thousands of years sensibly prevented doctors from even having the power to make.  During this vast stretch of time the unavoidable death of the patient in cases of extreme bodily damage despite appropriate life-saving medical attention of doctors who are dedicated healers was a human tragedy, rather than the death of patients being perpetrated by doctors who are killers.  I recognize that the current return of doctors who are killers is particularly disturbing given that the 1948 Declaration of Geneva reaffirmed the whole Hippocratic Medical Tradition in the doctor’s promise, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”  This was specifically in response to the fact that German doctors in the Nazi regime had not taken nor kept the Hippocratic Oath and had used their medical knowledge for many unspeakable degradations of humanity, including medical experiments in the Death Camps on pregnant and other prisoners and including the performance of legal abortions the mother requested with Nazi encouragement which German doctors were also condemned for as “an inhumane act” and “a crime against humanity” at the Nuremberg Trials the same year of 1948 – also the same year the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared Human Rights for all humans “without distinction of any kind” (Article 2), specifically to make sure that anything like the Nazi atrocities against humanity (which included legal abortion and legal euthanasia of the handicapped) never happened again (yet here we are, with more and more Western jurisdictions having both condemned Nazi atrocities of legal abortion and legal euthanasia of the handicapped – just as the Nazis would have forcefully imposed on the West if they won World War II).  I recognize that in the decades since abortion was de-criminalized and the Hippocratic Oath was either removed or eviscerated of its traditional obligation to protect all human life, as a group doctors have been just like regular citizens, either:

1) “swept along by the current” of the “Creeping Totalitarianism” represented by these changes in ignorance of the fact these changes compromised the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy (because they were laid so long ago everybody forgot what Democracy was built on and needs to last), adopting themselves the ultimately anti-human and ultimately anti-democratic “Pro-Choice”/ “Creeping Totalitarian” mindset or “way of thinking” about human life that was typical of the brutal ancient world before the historic “Pro-Life” principles first made the West understand killing humans is wrong and thus made Human Rights and Democracy possible, or else,

2) continuing to believe in the great Western tradition of the precious human value of every human life they treat without exception (including the traditional “second patient” in the womb protected explicitly in the original Hippocratic Oath), very uncomfortable with these changes but “putting up with them” for fear of consequences if they stood up against the “Pro-Choice” political trends which are now directing the Medical Colleges, in the vain hopes that “maybe this is as bad as it will get.”  Unfortunately for such good and trustworthy doctors who still practice the great Hippocratic Medical Tradition to not kill and otherwise to “do no harm” to patients, just like the good 1930s Germans who had this vain hope but did not stand up in Solidarity together against the anti-democratic trends in the earlier stages and eventually had all their democratic freedoms taken from them, now in more and more jurisdictions these good doctors are having their democratic freedom of conscience and free speech to object to killing humans taken from them, being forced to facilitate human-killing against their will at least as “accomplices” to killing by “effective referral,” or else they are being pushed out of the medical profession by new policies if they will stand on the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy because they want to be dedicated healers of humans and not killers of humans, in accordance with the great Hippocratic Medical Tradition.

I recognize that the spreading restriction (in more jurisdictions) of doctors’ democratic rights and freedoms to not be killers just so that “Pro-Choice” legal abortion and the logically following legal euthanasia human-killing are not slowed down in any way (the “right to kill” becoming a doctor’s “obligation to kill” or lose their jobs), along with the fact that other medical professionals like nurses have long had to be silent about their belief in the “Pro-Life” First Principles of Democracy in order to not face job discipline (and the fact hospitals have had their government funding threatened if they try to stand on Hippocratic principle and not perform abortions) all highlight the fact that genuinely democratic governments have no business legislating human life and death (nor in re-defining medicine as a killing profession and giving doctors “licence to kill” against the Hippocratic tradition) – but only in legislating how precisely to fulfil the government obligation to protect always-precious human lives, which is the underlying historic ground of democracy that was assumed during the entire historical development of modern Human Rights and Freedoms from the 318 AD criminalization of abortion and infanticide because human life is precious to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights produced the same year the Nazis were condemned for legal abortion as “a crime against humanity” at Nuremberg.  Democracy’s solid foundation is the (“Pro-Life”) equal preciousness of every human life (without exception) who has the Inherent Human Right to Live which the government is always obligated to protect and serve and only totalitarian (or totalitarian-oriented, “Creeping Totalitarian”) governments are in the business of deciding which humans it will protect and which humans it will kill or legally allow to be killed (and which human lives should be shamed into asking for someone to kill them to “assist their suicide” because their old, sick or handicapped human lives are only a “burden” and not the gift so precious that governments are obligated to protect them); only totalitarian or once-democratic “Creeping Totalitarian” governments choose which humans they legally recognize as persons with any rights and which humans they do not;  only  totalitarian or “Creeping Totalitarian” governments which have completely lost touch with the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy could possibly actually re-define medicine to include killing humans and even take away the democratic freedoms of doctors to practice actual traditional healing not killing medicine.  The medical profession with its now-abandoned Hippocratic Tradition (performing or prescribing now-legal abortion and/or euthanasia) has sadly become the unwitting instrument of the State-sanctioned human-killing which only belongs in totalitarian States (and which makes once-democracies gradually take on more and more of the characteristics of totalitarian States via “Creeping Totalitarianism”).

I recognize that every government commands armed forces and police who enforce government laws and policies, whether they be oppressive or benign, and similarly the nature of the medical profession itself makes doctors too in fact wield the power of life and death over humans.  So humans in fact are always at the mercy of the government and the medical profession’s de facto power of life and death unless political leaders and doctors bindingly commit themselves instead to protect human lives as their duty (and only such commitment prevents governmental totalitarianism or “Creeping Totalitarianism;” and only such commitment establishes worthy doctor/patient trust).  The 4th Century AD criminalization of abortion and infanticide in 318 AD because human lives then began to be regarded as precious persons started Western Civilization’s governmental obligation and duty to protect and not kill human lives (only after this time were Western governments judged not by civic accomplishments but by how they treated the governed humans – before this time governments were not expected to necessarily protect human lives and often were the greatest threat to human lives and freedom).  But starting hundreds of years earlier in the 5th Century BC, even though governments were still frequently brutal threats to human life and freedom, at least it was recognized that patients who go to see doctors for help with medical problems needed to be able to TRUST that doctors would not kill or harm them, and the traditional Hippocratic Oath established that trust.  I recognize that today we have governments who are no longer in fact committed to protecting human lives but have legally denied any Inherent Human Right to Live which the government is obligated to protect, by de-criminalizing abortion (and euthanasia), and these “Creeping Totalitarian” governments have used political pressure to degrade the entire medical profession and turn doctors from uniquely dedicated healers into killers, effectively agents of “Creeping Totalitarian” governments with the “licence to kill” by referring, prescribing or performing abortion or euthanasia / “assisted suicide” because there is no legally recognized and protected Inherent Human Right to Live wherever abortion or euthanasia are legal, as in any totalitarian State.  Thus the medical profession is at the forefront of the current worldwide trends of “Creeping Totalitarianism” and a vital element of preserving Human Rights and Democracy itself for future generations is for the medical profession to once again, as for well over 2000 years before abortion was de-criminalized, guide itself according to the great Hippocratic Medical Tradition to not kill or harm any humans including those in the womb (as reaffirmed in the 1948 Declaration of Geneva specifically to prevent recurrence of Nazi-like doctor atrocities including legal abortion).  The Medical Colleges that licence doctors are gravely mistaken if they think it is their duty to reflect the political will of the government regarding the use of medical knowledge and procedures to take human lives.  This is only the case in totalitarian States like Nazi Germany.  The Hippocratic Medical Tradition since the 5th Century BC was humane and protected human life for many centuries while governments were still typically brutally inhumane; and governments only became humane when in the 4th Century AD they came to recognize that governments were obligated to a higher principle than the government to protect human lives.  This is the true medical duty of medical professionals and of all medical colleges that licence doctors: to protect and never kill all the human lives they treat (indeed making the actually dying more comfortable through proper palliative care, but without killing them).  But instead, more and more medical professionals and their colleges have been compromised, abandoning the great Hippocratic Medical Tradition of doctors to not kill, and become instruments of “Creeping Totalitarianism” who are at the vanguard of the current attacks on Democracy right from its Human Rights foundations.  Thus, for the sake of the long continuance of Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms which ultimately depend on every human life without exception being officially recognized as precious and treated as such by the governments and the medical professionals which have the practical power of life and death over humans, I pledge to either support, join, or start in my local area the Doctors for Democracy movement[4] of patients, doctors and nurses and other medical professionals who believe medical professionals must first of all be allowed full democratic conscience rights to without any impediment practice the great Hippocratic Medical Tradition to truly “do no harm” to human patients, and certainly not kill them under any circumstances – not only to re-establish the proper basis of trust between patients and doctors which has been destroyed by legal abortion and euthanasia which makes doctors into killers instead of dedicated healers, but to help preserve Democracy itself which cannot last as long as the equal precious value of every human life and Inherent Human Right to Live which Democracy is built on, which is supported by the great Hippocratic Medical Tradition, is no longer recognized and protected by the medical profession nor by governments.  I further recognize that ultimately, if Democracy is to last long-term, doctors must not only be allowed but be required to re-establish the ancient Hippocratic Medical Tradition that makes doctors once again trustworthy uniquely dedicated healers of humans and not killers of humans.  But in the transition time away from the current “Creeping Totalitarian” trend, doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals must at least be allowed to have the democratic freedom to practice in their medical profession the “Pro-Life” First Principles of Democracy which concord entirely with the great Hippocratic Medical Tradition; if necessary alternate Hippocratic Medical Colleges recognized by the government that licence Traditional Hippocratic doctors must be set up if the existing medical Colleges are now so despoiled by decades of “Creeping Totalitarianism” that they will only allow death-prescribing killer doctors who do not follow 2400 years of high Hippocratic medical standards to be doctors.  In the transition ideally public lists of which doctors are committed (traditional non-killing) Hippocratic doctors and which are not should be made readily available so patients in democracies have the choice of which kind of doctors they want to see:  Patients have the basic human right to demand to be treated by doctors who they can TRUST will have nothing to do with killing patients, a trust established by the traditional Hippocratic Oath for millennia; and any medical college that refuses to licence doctors who on Hippocratic principle will not kill (even by referral to a killing doctor), but instead compromises traditional Hippocratic Medicine by parroting the ultimately anti-human and anti-democratic policies of “Creeping Totalitarian” governments, have lost the proper and traditional basis of patient trust and have earned the label of being called “totalitarian creep” medical colleges, because they have become active agents of “Creeping Totalitarianism.”  I recognize that such “totalitarian creep” medical colleges frequently have so seriously compromised the basis of patient trust and the whole great medical tradition to “do no harm” mainly because of political pressure to reflect their government’s “Pro-Choice” (and ultimately anti-democratic) values of the last decades.  Therefore, the primary responsibility for this breach of traditional high medical standards belongs to the governments which approve the operation of medical colleges.  Hence any government which refuses to allow its approved medical colleges to licence traditional Hippocratic doctors to without impediment practice traditional trustworthy Hippocratic medicine; any government which refuses to acknowledge and approve the operation of a traditional Hippocratic College set up as an alternative so that patients have the CHOICE to see Hippocratic (non-killing) or non-Hippocratic (killing) doctors; any government which thus denies patients their right to be treated by doctors who will not kill, invites itself to be fairly labelled a “Creeping Totalitarian” government because the only possible reasons to deny doctors and nurses and other medical professionals the basic democratic freedom to not kill humans nor assist in killing humans are ultimately totalitarian reasons which directly oppose genuine Democracy which utterly depends upon every human life being recognized and treated as precious and to be always protected – which is the logically necessary prerequisite  to every human deserving a democratic say or vote.

 

  1. I recognize that the ancient Hippocratic medical tradition only applied to doctors who, if they took the Hippocratic Oath, could be trusted by patients to not deliberately kill or harm them, so for around 700 years after the Hippocratic Oath began governments remained a regular threat to human life and freedom because nothing in the philosophical or religious worldview could or did establish any need for governments to regard humans as either equal or precious or as having any rights beyond those which the government happened to decide to give them. Whatever my religious affiliation, I recognize that the above Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy which are the historical and logical Foundations of all modern Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms did not come from nowhere but are precisely Christian, Biblical principles, Christians even inventing the term “person” to describe the immense value of each human life which obligates the government to protect and serve precious human persons, instead of “cheap” human lives serving the greater State, as was normal before Christianity and is still normal in the most markedly non-Christian countries, such as those with atheist governments, which throughout history are notorious Human Rights abusers and typically undemocratic Totalitarian States, and logically so, because there simply is no principle of atheism that can accept the above First Principles of Democracy which guarantee Human Rights as logically necessary.[5] I recognize that atheist governments have always been undemocratic and oppressive because in fact, humans are manifestly not equal in IQ, nor in physical prowess, nor in any other physical nor psychological trait, and many even suffer handicaps or disorders of normal human physical or psychological functioning, so the only reason that humans with their vast and unequal diversity of characteristics are treated equally and equally precious (which are necessary conditions for Human Rights and Democracy where every human – regardless of their particular characteristics – gets a democratic vote) is because historically Christianity taught Western Civilization which adopted Christianity in the 4th Century AD that all humans without exception are EQUALLY PRECIOUS TO GOD who created them in Love, which is the ONLY historical reason why any Western State/government ever felt OBLIGATED to a power HIGHER than itself – the Christian God who “IS Love” (1 John 4:8, 16) – to treat its human citizens as if they were EQUAL and PRECIOUS, which Western CHRISTIAN Civilization context is the ONLY context that ever developed Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, starting logically from these CHRISTIAN First Principles of Democracy.  I recognize the older Jewish religious tradition Christianity grew out of had previously laid the foundations for Christianity’s teaching which historically grounds Human Rights and Democracy with the Jewish Bible/Christian Old Testament’s prior testimony that God is loving and humanity is made “in the Image of God” – and in the Bible human children are only and always portrayed as a blessing, never a burden (Judaism being unusual among the pre-Christian religious traditions surrounding it for never practicing the common infanticide-killing of newborn humans (especially baby girls), who in some non-Biblical religions were even killed as human sacrifices to pagan gods)Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that historically the term and concept of valuable and precious human personhood itself is inextricably bound up with the uniquely Christian doctrine of the One God the Holy Trinity of Three PERSONS who IS Love in its deepest essence (1 John 4:8,16), Who (Christianity teaches) made each human life (poetically “knit” by God in his or her mother’s womb – Psalm 139:13) a PERSON “in God’s Image,” which historically is why each human person (from the womb) is recognized as SUPREMELY and EQUALLY precious (Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy #1 above); a God of Love Who (Christianity teaches) gave humanity Free Will specifically in order to Love (for genuine Love must be Freely given), heavily persecuted Christianity then pioneering religious freedom from government coercion in matters of belief (Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy #2 above) on the understanding that because God gave humanity Free Will humans have a God-given right to be truly free from all government coercion in order to without impediment freely seek and find the wonderfully freeing truths of Christianity (including human equality and preciousness); which Christianity itself cannot properly be forced on anyone but within this environment of true religious freedom Christianity first insisted upon Christianity itself properly must only be accepted freely as a free act of love for God.  Hence very few later Christian rulers in history ever imposed Christian baptism or practice on their subjects, Christianity usually being embraced heartily simply because Christianity displayed an unprecedented love for every human – Christians taking it on themselves to care for sick pagans (of any social class) during plagues and so on – and simply because Christianity so very highly upgraded the value and rights of humans from what they were under previous religious and philosophical systems (with the exception of Biblical Judaism which was the matrix of Biblical Christianity, which had a higher estimation of humanity and a higher moral code for the treatment of humans than other pre-Christian systems.  Still, it was not Judaism, but Christianity, which was embraced by the West (however imperfectly), forever changing Western values and providing the historical and logical foundations for modern Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms – more intensely pro-human Christianity which upgraded Judaism’s “10 Commandments” for avoiding the anti-love of sin against humans to a higher moral obligation of actively looking for opportunities to actively love other humans, whether or not they belonged to one’s family or race or nation or culture or other “group”).  As both of the above First Principles of Human Rights and Democracy (necessitating true religious freedom) are entirely Christian (or Judeo-Christian) in origin, whether I am Christian or not I recognize that for Democracy to last no government must interfere with the freedom to believe in and put into practice these Christian First Principles underlying all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms and underlying the concept of valuable human personhood itself.

 

  1. I further recognize the historical realities that before Western Civilization adopted Christianity in the 4th Century Human Rights did not exist, parents had the “Pro-Choice” right to choose to raise or kill their children before birth by abortion or after birth by infanticide (or sell them into slavery) and governments similarly had the right to choose to enslave or kill their citizens and other human subjects when it suited them all because human life was cheap not precious. Entertainment was murderous bloodsports (as in the Roman arenas) and 1/3 of the human population were slaves who, children or adult, could be legally used and abused by their masters however they wished, including sexually (both human lives and the sexual process which generates them were cheap not precious, so there were essentially no societal restrictions on sexual practice, and no Human Rights for the humans naturally produced by unrestricted sexual practice). The ancient Greek democracy experiments (and the ancient Roman Republic) had no sense of human equality and were highly prejudiced and very few could vote.  I recognize the historical reality that all this began to change with Western Civilization’s adoption of Christianity starting in 313 AD which began to establish Human Rights first of all by banning abortion and infanticide in 318 AD; murderous bloodsports were also banned and the worst excesses of slavery were curbed.  Christian Bishop Saint Ambrose in 390 AD excommunicated Roman Emperor Theodosius after his bloody suppression of rebelling pagans (because the new Christian Human Rights were for non-Christians as well as Christians), until the Roman Emperor (who had never in history been so challenged) agreed to change the law to make a 30-day lag between death sentences and their being carried out, effectively eliminating the rash killing of citizens and subjects by the government which previously had unrestricted power of life and death over the governed, because Christianity and its above First Principles underlying Human Rights and Democracy were slowly changing the whole way humans were governed.  The various aspects of Christianity have taken many centuries to only gradually “sink in” to Western Civilization, and many pre-Christian norms sadly continued well into the Christian era even to today, pre-Christian norms like wars fought over territory and wars fought over ambitious politicians trying to expand their political control; pre-Christian norms including social class systems, racial prejudice and slavery and gender inequity; but still the Christian New Testament from the beginning of Christianity testified that all humans without exception, regardless of ethnicity/culture, social class/position or gender were equally and immensely precious to God and slaves were equal to their masters before God, and these Christian, Biblical principles gradually transformed Western Christian Civilization until it developed modern Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms logically proceeding from these Christian First Principles which all the greatest social reformers (like Evangelical Christian William Wilberforce ending British slavery or the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. championing equal civil rights regardless of race) simply called Western nations to better put into practice precisely because they were supposed to be Christian nations.  I recognize that the model development of Modern Democracy in Britain happened entirely in Christian cultural context where it was always at least implicitly understood that before God a King was equal to a peasant and this underlying understanding drove the slow but constant progression whereby, starting with the King’s power being shared by the Barons with the 1215 Magna Carta, eventually the Parliament in London gradually gave more and more say in government to gradually more and more of the government’s human subjects, all in practical development of the Christian belief in the immense and equal value of all human persons: that regardless of social strata, race or gender a king and a peasant were EQUAL before God, and equally (immensely) loved by God.  I recognize that the “Father of International Law” Friar Francisco de Vitoria and all the other later “Founders of International Law” like Father Francisco Suárez, Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius were dedicated Christians working logically from the Biblical, Christian, and “Pro-Life” foundations of Christian Europe to help ensure Human Rights were respected wherever humans were (even outside of Christian nations).  Thus the various colonizations from Christian Europe, for all their sad failures to best live the extremely high Christian standards of Love and their lack of respect for some indigenous cultures considered “primitive” and “inferior” (failures which Friar Francisco de Vitoria had “fathered” International Law specifically to counteract), still also imported these Christian values of Human Rights and Freedoms worldwide, these taking root to greater or lesser degree in the colonies.  Thus, whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that Biblical and Christian “Pro-Life” (“Pro-Human-Right-to-Live”) religious values are not simply “private personal religious beliefs” which “have no place in the public sphere” but in fact they are the historical and logical foundation of all International Law, including all Human Rights – and modern Democracy as we know it.  Therefore, these particular Christian and “Pro-Life” values which ground our Human Rights and our whole free and democratic way of life most certainly and properly have a (privileged) place in the public sphere, and should be constitutionally enshrined in any democracy which wants to last as a democracy – because “Creeping Totalitarianism” is growing precisely from wherever these traditional Western, Christian and “Pro-Life”/”Pro-Human-Rights” values concerning precious human life and the precious process which generates it have been abandoned as the “guiding principles” of Western societies and governments.  No government can remain value-neutral and stable governments need consistently applied values, preferably explicitly identified and embraced so they can be best maintained.  The current controversies come from the fact we now have inconsistent, unstable “Jekyll and Hyde” governments which sometimes act as if all human lives are precious, as expected in a democracy, out of the “force of habit” of many centuries of Western “Pro-Life” habits of thinking (as when governments pay for delicate fetal surgeries to save the precious human lives of preborn human babies who have health problems), and sometimes act as if human lives are not precious and can be killed when deemed inconvenient, as expected in totalitarian States (as when governments pay for abortions to kill the valueless human lives of preborn human babies the same age who are perfectly healthy).[6]  Why should humans trust governments which are so confused and inconsistent about the value of human lives?   I recognize that governments need to explicitly choose what their “guiding principles” are, especially concerning human lives, and consistently apply these principles, because currently, democracies are of course descending into “Creeping Totalitarianism” because they unwittingly replaced the above traditional, Christian, “Pro-Life” (“Pro-Human-Right-to-Live”) guiding principles which implicitly undergirded the formation of all modern democracies because of long “Pro-Life” habits of Western thought since the 4th Century Christianization of the brutal Roman Empire, with the “Pro-Choice” philosophy’s “parental right to kill” which was normal in the brutal ancient times before Christianity taught the West that every human life is precious.  It is not remotely necessary nor even proper to impose Christianity in individuals, in order for governments (which to be stable have to have some consistent “guiding principles”) to adopt the historic “Pro-Life”/”Pro-Human-Rights” Christian principles as their guiding principles; in fact, it is precisely the Christian tradition that Christianity must be freely accepted by individuals as a free act of love for God.  But it is these Christian principles which in history guided Western governments logically into gradually developing modern Human Rights and Freedoms on the Foundational Principle that every human life without exception is supremely and equally precious and governments are always obligated to protect (and ultimately serve) precious humans, so we already know that these are the best principles for governments to choose as their “guiding principles,” whether or not the politicians who constitutionally enshrine these principles as the government’s “guiding principles” so that democracy can last are even Christians, and whether or not the majority of citizens in that country are Christians.  Any democracy which wants to remain a genuine democracy long-term needs to officially respect (and maintain) Democracy’s Christian foundation whatever percentage of their population are practicing Christians.

 

  1. Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that despite the past (and present) particular failings of individual Christians, Christian rulers/leaders, or Christian societies to live up to the extremely high standards of Love of the Christian Gospel (which literally means “Good News” for humanity)[7] just trying (however imperfectly) to aim for or implement the high Christian standards of love and respect for the supreme and equal dignity of every human life precious to God (despite many failures) is what drove the whole gradual but logical development through history of the Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms which developed nowhere else in the world but in Western Christian Civilization, proceeding logically from the above Christian First Principles of Human Rights and Democracy. I recognize that historically these same Christian principles of the supreme and equal human dignity of every human person motivated Christian missionaries and religious orders to invent hospitals and to as much as possible provide free health care and education for everybody (Christian or not) as a matter of Human Rights, just because lovingly serving human medical and educational needs was most appropriate to the supreme dignity of humans created “in God’s Image” and loved by God; even today, in non-Christian Palestine, though Christians are only 1% of the population, Christians provide almost 45% of the social services for education and health available to all residents – so it is to the disadvantage of everyone there that current violent persecution of Christians in the Middle East is causing so many Christians to flee for their lives and safety – because Christian influence always raises the standards of human living for all humans.  I recognize that like hospitals, “Charity” too was unheard of before Christianity: the word comes from the Latin caritas, translating the Christian New Testament’s Greek word agape, one of four Greek words usually translated as “love,” agape specifically interpreted by Christians as the Divine, self-giving and unconditional LOVE of God, the Divine LOVE which the New Testament says God IS (“God is Love” – 1 John 4:8, 16).  Christians, specifically doing their best to imitate the self-giving unconditional love of God for every human, the Divine Love they understand that God is, were (and are) motivated to give of their time and material means to found, implement and support charities serving human basic needs like food, clothing and shelter for the poor and needy, and including health and educational needs, all these charities as an expression of God’s love for humanity ministered through God’s human, Christian messengers, since charity (from Latin caritas, Greek agape) means love[8]; Christian charities which typically always were (and are) open to all, pagan and Christian alike, because of the vast and equal preciousness of every human (Christian or not) taught by Christianity.  Governments of Western Christian Civilization gradually eventually took on the funding and running of hospitals and health care systems and schools and social assistance for the poor and needy, out of very many centuries of Christian habits of thinking about human value and dignity – because they were used to being guided by Christian principles – while Christian missionaries, religious orders, and average laypeople still found and run charities to try to “fill in the gaps” of human basic, medical or educational needs still unmet by current government programs.  Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that non-Christians in the West today are motivated to found charities and fund free access to health care etc. only because this essential feature of Christianity still permeates Western culture after over 16 centuries of Western Christian Civilization (but unfortunately, I also recognize that non-Christian expressions of charity not rooted in Christian principles are sometimes prone to disastrous results, as when free-access health-care is absurdly redefined to include killing humans by legal abortion and legal euthanasia, which logically cancels out the Inherent Human Right to Live and introduces “Creeping Totalitarianism” into democracies because they deny the Christian Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy).

Hence, whether I am Christian or not, in consideration of both history and logic I recognize that anything that threatens the free practice of Christianity necessarily threatens Democracy and Human Rights (including Human Rights to health care and education) which depend historically, logically, and absolutely upon Christian principles.  Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that individually and collectively Christians (as all humans) are always products of their culture and era (including the prevailing weaknesses of their era, like racism, gender inequity, and prejudice against those suffering various misunderstood disorders, which all compromise the democracy-grounding Christian ideal of treating humans equally precious) as well as products of their religious faith; and they suffer the same human weaknesses in choosing to actually do the best, most loving thing even when one knows clearly what that is, which all humans suffer (Christianity explains this common human weakness with the “Fall of Humankind from Grace” and the doctrine of “Original Sin”).  Thus Christians have been and are frequently terrible at living themselves the extremely high Christian standards.  Thus only a handful of Christians who are better at it have been “canonized” as “Saints” so they can be looked to as good “Christian Family role models” in God’s “adopted human Family the Church,” and even these Saints humbly admitted they were still “great sinners” who fell far short of the Christian ideal of self-sacrificing love for others set and modelled by Jesus Christ.  Nevertheless, just by having such high standards to aim for, Western Christian Civilization over the last 1700 years (since the 313 AD Western legalization and adoption of Christianity), for all its weaknesses and failures, gradually left ancient oppressive totalitarianism behind, invented hospitals and Human Rights (and words/concepts like person and charity which, as we understand them, are rooted in Christian theology) and produced the most caring and compassionate societies of history.  Even Gandhi (inspired in non-violence by reading Eastern Orthodox Christian Leo Tolstoy) said he would be a Christian (based on Christianity’s teaching), if it were not for the bad examples of the Christians he happened to know; unfortunately, Gandhi never met Mother Teresa who the year of Gandhi’s death had just started her famous ministry which poured genuinely Christian love (practically living the high Christian ideals) upon the poorest of the poor in his beloved India.  Hence I recognize it is not Christians acting in accordance with the very high standards of love for every human life in the Christian Gospel (“Good News” for humanity) which has been cause for criticism and complaint against Christians, but Christians failing to meet their own high standards.  Christians acting according to the high Christian ideals drove the social reforms which gradually gave us modern Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms (in recognition of the immense value and dignity Christianity teaches every human without exception has); Christians acting according to the high Christian ideals which the West adopted in the 4th Century as its highest aspirations typically makes the world a better and more loving place.  Essentially all of the complaints that can be levelled against Christianity are of Christians in their own selfish immaturity in love in some way (or several ways) not living up to the high Christian standards (sometimes being hypocrites who do not even try); or else they are complaints of non-Christians who are so very immature and self-centered they prefer to mock and not even try to meet such high standards of mature loving behavior towards others.

[First Draft Section] For example, those who prefer to use other humans as “sex objects” and tools for their own immature selfish pleasure, instead of even trying to follow the traditional Judeo-Christian ideal of sex only for lifetime-committed mature, mutually self-giving loving marriage and the family life which naturally follows (which Christianity elevated to a Sacrament symbolizing the unconditional self-sacrificing love of Christ for His “Bride” the Church); the high Christian ideal which when followed guarantees sex partners are always treated as precious human persons and never as mere tools or objects for another’s pleasure; the high Christian ideal which when followed guarantees the new human children naturally produced by sex are also always treated as precious human persons lovingly raised to a mature and loving healthy adulthood and never thrown away/abortion-killed as “unwanted” tools or objects (which devalues every human life by negating the Inherent Human Right to Live when abortion is legal); the high Christian sexual ideal which when followed is the foundation of stable loving families which are the building block of stable loving societies.  I recognize that many religious and cultural traditions uphold some form of the standard of lifetime marital faithfulness grounding stable families (even if not the exalted Christian ideal of the Sacrament of Marriage as a grace-filled symbol of the unconditional and self-sacrificing love of Jesus Christ for every human, whom He wants to become part of His “Bride” the Church), and so the Sexual Revolution abandoned more than just the very high traditional Christian societal standards, but actually undermined the whole fundamentally human institution of marriage as the ground of stable families and societies, with the disastrous results we have seen both for individual human happiness and for societal Human Rights and Democracy.

 

  1. [First Draft Article] Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that if the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is difficult for some to live, it is still vital both to individual human happiness and to societal Human Rights and Freedoms to keep this high societal standard to aim for (whatever the weaknesses and failings of some), because lowering the standards just breeds individual human brokenness (evidenced by unprecedented extremely high divorce rates and unprecedented numbers of broken and single-parent families since the Sexual Revolution abandoned the high Judeo-Christian sexual standards) and ultimately breeds societal totalitarianism (as evidenced by the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” directly related to the Inherent Human Right to Live being legally cancelled by the legal abortion which is DEMANDED by the low standards of “sex for pleasure not for marriage,” in order to deal with the unwanted human results of irresponsibly and unnaturally using nature’s human-generating sex with no intention nor even openness to the natural possibility of human parenthood. Who would dare argue that sex reserved for mature mutually self-giving lifetime-committed marriage is not much more conducive to long-term human happiness in faithful loving marriage and stable loving family life than is immature and uncommitted sexual pleasure-seeking which uses other humans as sex objects for pleasure instead of treating them as precious persons (as rampant pornography which degrades women trains sex-addicted men to do), throws away their human children in abortions, and which leaves such immature and self-centered humans completely inexperienced in disciplining their urges into a virtuous habit of marital faithfulness, the lack of which sabotages their marriages in which one in two end in divorce (while only 1 in 2000 marriages where the couple prays together end in divorce)?

Yet amazingly, in Canada’s largest province of Ontario, the government’s new “Sexual Education” curriculum actually sets children up for this unhappy human brokenness by teaching in school that sex is for “recreation and pleasure” (exposing them to graphic sexuality) and not even mentioning love or marriage as part of human sexuality (teaching children by 8th Grade to “make a sexual activity plan and stick to it”) – and this government is enforcing this “education” indoctrination totalitarian-belief-control-style, without any democratic mandate, ignoring wide and strong parental objections.  Among many other radically anti-traditional aspects of sexual morality this government “sexual education” even exposes 1st Grade students to graphic sexuality and teaches them about “sexual consent” – effectively priming young children for pedophile sexual advances – and there is in fact a movement in many countries to lower the legal age of sexual consent so pedophiles can legally practice their “sexual orientation” of being “Minor-Attracted-Persons.”  This movement is thus far unpopular worldwide, but the Ontario government curriculum (which was designed by now-convicted pedophile sexual abuser and child pornographer Benjamin Levin, which fact the Ontario Premier somehow claims is “irrelevant”) gives this “legalize pedophilia” movement a big boost, and, whether I am Christian or not, I recognize it is just another sign of Western Civilization, since abandoning Christianity as the source of its “guiding principles,” gradually descending back into the character of both completely unrestrained sexuality (including legal sexual abuse of children) and totalitarian government which Western Civilization had before it adopted the Human-Rights-and-Democracy grounding Christian principles as its “guiding principles.”  The Ontario Government even encouraged and supported a court decision against a parent’s right to have his children exempted from this radical new government propaganda, and recently introduced a bill that if passed, will effectively make Children’s Aid Societies into totalitarian-style agents of the State enforcing the State’s new and radically anti-traditional ideology, with sweeping powers to take children away from their parents if they are not raising their children according to the government’s tremendously anti-traditional new “standards,” instead of just taking children away from physically and/or sexually abusive parents.  And the bill provides for the government to replace top Children’ Aid Society personnel if they do not perform their new role as government agents enforcing the government’s radical new way of child-rearing.  All this is a grossly totalitarian way of the State no longer serving humans (in a government “of the people, by the people, for the people” in the American formulation of traditional democracy), but returning to the pre-Christian norm of the State being served by the people, and forcing those ruled to conform to the totalitarian State’s requirements.  This is the State as “social engineer” declaring it owns its citizens and is primary educator of all children instead of their parents, as in all totalitarian States training children to the government’s specifications while ignoring any parental objections, even though there is no precedent in the culture for the radical and unhealthy standard the State is imposing without any mandate from the voters who elected them.  If this bill passes, it can only mean parents in a supposed democracy will live in fear of someone reporting them to the State authorities for holding traditional values no longer held by the government – as people lived in fear of being so reported in Nazi Germany.

The pedophile elements exposing very young prepubescent children to graphic sexuality and notions of sexual consent (implying or essentially telling 5-and-6-year-olds that they can consent to sex), and the totalitarian implementation of the new Ontario Sexual Education Curriculum against parents’ rights, not only in schools already but now potentially soon invading homes through Children’s-Aid-Societies-turned-totalitarian-government-agencies, should be a warning to the whole world about how the abandonment of traditional Western (Christian) sexual morality is naturally and logically if gradually taking us back to BOTH the completely unrestricted sexuality (including pedophilia without taboo) AND the totalitarian government of the ancient West BEFORE Christianity gave us the “Pro-Life” foundations of modern Human Rights and Freedoms which are integrally connected with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic which has been abandoned as a guiding societal principle.  Although it is surprising just “how much how fast” the Ontario Sexual “Education” Curriculum (and new children and families bill) is attempting to change Canadian societal standards in Canada’s largest province according to a radically anti-traditional “social engineering” agenda which is the opposite of genuine Democracy, the simple fact is that very many Western jurisdictions have already implemented very many of the same elements of these anti-traditional (and ultimately anti-human-rights and anti-democratic)  sexual values into “public education,” but just by more small steps over more time, and (like in Nazi Germany) people have just put up with their great discomfort at all the “Creeping Totalitarian” small changes in the vain hope that “surely it cannot get any worse than this” (but it can and it will if, as in Germany, this “Creeping Totalitarianism” is not opposed by traditional freedom-lovers in Solidarity). Ontario’s radical totalitarian “education” example (which the government is now trying to back up with power to take children away from uncooperative parents) cannot be looked at as an “extreme but isolated case;” rather the Ontario example just shows us more clearly where all these smaller societal changes to the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic have been cumulatively taking Western societies all along – creeping towards totalitarianism and the eventual end of all pretense of democracy.

 

  1. [First Draft Article] Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize the historical reality that Western Civilization had unbridled so-called “sexual freedom” before Christianity, including complete “Pro-Choice freedom” to choose to raise or kill the human children naturally produced by sexuality. But it did not have Human Rights, nor safety and security nor freedom from government oppression, nor Democratic Freedoms, nor religious freedom nor freedom to seek and find truth, nor health care nor education as Human Rights, because none of these wonderful things have any logical connection with unbridled sexual “freedom” nor with “Pro-Choice” philosophy.  But all of these wonderful things do (and did in history) flow naturally and logically from Christianity and its historic “Pro-Life” principles of supreme and equal human preciousness, which flow naturally and logically from the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic of sex for lifetime-committed loving marriage and the naturally following loving family life.  Unrestricted sexual licentiousness and “Pro-Choice” abortion (to kill the unwanted human product of undisciplined sexual pleasure-seeking) have nothing to do with true freedom; rather, they are what Western Civilization had BEFORE the 4th century, back when Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms were undreamed of and their Christian and “Pro-Life” foundations had not yet been laid; thus I recognize that Human Rights and Freedoms ultimately depend upon both the traditional Christian “Pro-Life” view of equally precious humanity and the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic governing human sexuality which generates precious humans, since it is impossible (and inhuman) to separate the two and only if the sexual process is precious not cheap is the human product of that process precious not cheap.

I recognize that historically and logically, unrestricted sexual lust (mistakenly called “sexual freedom”), Pro-Choice abortion, and totalitarian-style government naturally and logically go together as a “package deal,” and they stand or fall together (just as the “Pro-Life” principles, personhood, and Human Rights have always gone together as a “package deal,” and they stand or fall together).  The so-called “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s which abandoned traditional Christian sexual morality (returning to pre-Christian sexual excess) naturally and logically led to the de-criminalization of abortion and the return of Pro-Choice philosophy to deal with all the unwanted humans conceived by unrestricted sexual practice no longer limited by society promoting the Christian ideal of unconditionally-loving lifetime marital commitments naturally producing stable loving families, and the de-criminalization of abortion naturally and logically has resulted in the undermining of our Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms (descending back towards totalitarianism) which have first been taken away from the aborted human babies who are denied their basic Human Right to Live and next taken away from the medical professionals and others who would protect these human lives (and those now threatened by euthanasia) or at least refuse to kill them, human defenders who (for “Pro-Choice” philosophy to work) logically must be bullied and threatened into silent compliance or arrested for protesting the taking of human lives near abortion clinics (effectively ending true democracy and Human Rights) just so that legal abortion can continue unimpeded by anyone complaining about humans being killed, just like no-one complained before Christianity, back when unrestricted sexual lust, “Pro-Choice” philosophy, and totalitarian government without Human Rights was NORMAL.

I recognize that sex which generates human beings is so powerful that any human society’s guiding attitude towards sex determines our human destiny as either valuable persons to be protected or as tools to be used and thrown away; if sex is primarily for recreational pleasure (as the Ontario Sexual Education curriculum teaches young children) then other humans are sex objects or tools to be used for our pleasure, the humans produced by sex can be killed by abortion as unwanted tools, and when human tools no longer serve the State/society the State sanctions their killing by euthanasia (and shames them into asking for it in “assisted suicide”) as worn-out tools to be thrown away; but if sex is primarily for lifelong-committed loving marriages naturally generating new precious humans in stable loving families (the building blocks of stable loving societies), then humans are always valuable persons who must never be mere tools for others’ sexual pleasure nor mere tools serving a greater State/society, but rather the State is always obligated to protect and serve precious human persons, which is the necessary foundation for the Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms which only ever developed in Western Christian Civilization which lived by this traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

So ironically, what the “Sexual Revolution” called the “sexual repression” of the traditional, Christian sexual ethic is what brought real freedom to unrestrictedly sexual but totalitarian Western Society starting in the 4th Century, and what the “Sexual Revolution” called “sexual freedom” is what is bringing back the real repression of the ultimately totalitarian or “Creeping Totalitarian” Pro-Choice philosophy which contradicts the primary human right to live upon which all Human Rights and Democracy depends.  So-called Christian “sexual repression” directing sexuality into mature committed loving marriage and family life brought actual freedom into Western Civilization, and so-called “sexual freedom” for immature sexual pleasure-seeking is bringing back actual repression with the compromise of Human Rights and Freedoms for the sake of being able to legally kill the unwanted humans produced by sexual pleasure-seeking and restricting the democratic freedoms of those medical professionals and others who would defend human lives because human lives are always precious.

In summary:  I recognize that a low, cheap view of sex as merely for recreation and pleasure logically cheapens the human lives which are naturally generated or produced only by sex.  This cheap view of sex primarily for pleasure means other humans are tools “for what they can do for me,” not precious persons always to be supremely respected and protected. And it logically follows, as our current Western society with its increasingly unrestricted sexuality proves, that unwanted human tools produced by “sex for pleasure” can be legally thrown away (killed) by abortion, and old and worn out human out tools can be legally thrown away (killed) by euthanasia/”assisted suicide,” since they can no longer be USED by the State/society, and a tool is only valuable if it can be used.  It further logically follows eventually that there is no reason to give every human life, being so cheap, a vote or democratic say in his or her own governance, which is why democratic freedoms are already currently being restricted precisely to ensure access to abortion without medical professionals and others effectively objecting to killing humans (who no longer have guaranteed Human Rights), and ultimately this ensures the immature “sex for pleasure not mature, loving family life” low, cheap view of sex continues, at the expense of genuine Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms.

In contrast, a high, exalted view of sex as for lifelong committed loving marriage naturally producing through sex the next generation of humans and providing for them a loving family environment in which to grow to maturity in love themselves, exalts the human lives which are naturally produced only by sex into precious human persons who must never be viewed as mere tools to be used, either by their partners, their families or the State/society, and who must always be protected because of their immense human value.  This high view of “sex for committed loving marriage and family life” gives the human products of sex an exalted human personhood which gives them not only guaranteed Human Rights but the great human dignity of it being appropriate to give each human a democratic say in his or her own governance.

 

  1. [First Draft Article] I recognize that it took a long time of Western maturation as a civilization to develop modern democracy, solidly built on the Human Rights which first started to be legally recognized with the 4th Century criminalization of abortion and infanticide because governments in the Christian era were now obligated to protect precious human lives (at about the same time as the West was learning, from the same Christian Church, to abandon immature pleasure-seeking and pursue mature stable loving marriage and family life, which reduces the demand for the abortion-killing of unwanted humans and ensures humans are always viewed as precious). So it should be no surprise that lasting democracy also requires maturity from its citizens. Lasting democracy requires that citizens grow up and no longer be immature “hormone-bags” pursuing self-centered pleasure irresponsibly, as was common before the 4th Century, when Human Rights were non-existent because their Christian foundation had not yet been adopted.  Immature people need to grow up and take mature adult responsibility for all humanity because lasting democracy requires that citizens grow up and learn to maturely and responsibly manage the great and powerful precious-human-generating gift of their human sexuality in accordance with the best interests of both human biology and human society.  Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that the Traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality of sex reserved for mature (self-giving), lifetime-committed unconditional loving marriage and the naturally following family life, when followed (at least when aimed for as the societal ideal which is impossible to live perfectly), best serves human biology by doing the most possible to ensure that every individual specimen of each new generation of the human species is raised from birth to adulthood in a physically, emotionally, and psychologically safe and stable, loving family environment, which models for them what to seek in a mate so the next generation can likewise grow up safe and healthy psychologically as well as physically, knowing they are loved and knowing how to practice mature self-giving love for others.  This in turn best serves human society because human children grow up being respected and loved in their families and gain practical knowledge and experience how to respect and love other humans, and this mature self-giving and loving approach to others informs their interactions in human society, which has the cumulative effect of forming stable and loving societies built from stable and loving families.  Governments since the Sexual Revolution, by no longer encouraging the traditional (Judeo-Christian) ideal mature and responsible use of human sexuality among their citizens (as the foundation of stable loving families as the foundation of stable loving societies), have introduced rampant broken families on a massive scale completely unheard of before the Sexual Revolution (even though human families were never perfect before then because of human weakness and failures to live the ideal, at least having the genuinely mature human sexual ideal to strive for kept most families stable and together and prevented much of the current heart-rending heartache of broken families.  Lowering the standard to aim for because it is difficult to do perfectly has just meant that far more people do not even come close and both individuals and society pay the price).  As the family unit human society is built on degrades, so society itself degrades, and worse, abandoning the traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethic as the guiding societal standard has doomed democracy itself which cannot last wherever the human life produced only by sex is regarded so cheaply that the government is no longer obligated to protect and serve always-precious humans, but legally licences and openly promotes and defends human-killing starting with abortion-killing directly as a result of sex-for-pleasure-only producing many unwanted humans (followed by euthanasia-killing of humans with no Inherent Human Right to Live because abortion is legal; and other signs of “Creeping Totalitarianism”).  [I recognize that, while mature loving marriage and family life is the standard biological and Christian norm for human life, and the best means of happiness for the vast majority of humans, it is not strictly necessary to get married and have children to have a fulfilling human life; some married couples remain childless but they can still display love for each other that helps them give more love to others who are not their own children; Jesus Christ was unmarried, and the New Testament noted that marriage was an excellent thing that could be given up as a sacrifice for the sake of undistracted full-time devotion to spreading the Christian Gospel of God’s immense Love for all humanity, if someone was so “called by God” to do this (marriage still being the norm for most), and this drove the formation of Christian religious orders and disciplines of celibacy for some (not all) ordained Christian priests and pastors, as well as many missionaries.  I recognize that other forms of celibate life, lovingly serving precious humanity in one way or another through one’s job or volunteer work, whether permanently or until one finds a spouse, can also be very fulfilling.  Taking The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy as a “Democracy Pledger” (and perhaps going the next step and becoming a dedicated Volunteer Democracy Leader”) spreading the Pledge so that Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms can last forever is one possibility for aiding a meaningful and satisfying life for the unmarried or the married!]

 

  1. Hence I recognize that both of the above kinds of complaints against Christianity – that Christians themselves often fail to live up to Christian standards; and that the Christian standards are so high that many do not want to even try to meet them – are NOT good reasons to abandon the societal striving for the very high Christian standards that make us humans more mature and loving just for TRYING, no matter how much we fail. Whether I am Christian or not I recognize that in the West it is these Christian high standards that have best built stable loving families as the building blocks of stable loving societies; it is these Christian high standards that have gradually given the West our Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms specifically because just trying to better treat each human as the supremely and equally precious person Christianity first said each human was naturally drove the gradual development of Human Rights and Freedoms as we know them, largely through the greatest social reformers for the last 1700 years being Christians calling the very imperfect but ostensibly Christian society around them to better practice the supremely high Christian principles (like Saint Ambrose limiting the government’s previously (pre-Christian) unrestricted power of life and death over citizens; de Vitoria’s founding International Law; Wilberforce ending slavery; King championing equal civil rights).  Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that the uniquely Christian religious insight that God is Love means that humans best serve God and best reach their human potential and purpose by overcoming selfish self-interest and loving every human who was lovingly created by God equally precious (in God’s Image, as Judaism had previously established), who desires to adopt every human into God’s loving Family (on Earth, the Church).  Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that the logically following particularly Christian view of always-precious human life and personhood (a Christian-invented theological term which always applied to humans still in the womb, protected there since 318 AD); always-precious human lives which governments are always obligated to a power higher than the government to protect; when practiced, guarantees Human Rights and Freedoms in a way nothing else can.  I further recognize that it is specifically and directly since Western governments and societies stopped respecting Christianity and stopped using Christian principles as guiding Western principles that the above-described “Creeping Totalitarianism” gradually destroying genuine Human Rights set in, and logically so:  Historically it was specifically the 4th Century Western adoption of Christianity and the adoption of Christianity’s  Judeo-Christian sexual ethic and its integrally-related above Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy which brought Western Civilization out of the previous, pre-Christian norm of unrestricted sexuality where sex was cheap and so were the humans produced by it and the previous, pre-Christian norm of governmental totalitarianism wherein the government was in charge of what citizens may or may not believe (enforcing State-set beliefs), and the government decided which rights it granted or denied to the governed humans, including the government deciding which humans it would protect from death and which humans could be legally killed, and when.  Thus it is only natural and logical that since the West rejected Christianity as the source of its guiding principles both regarding precious human life and the precious process which generates it, we are seeing the gradual return of the ancient pre-Christian conditions of governmental totalitarianism, with the government once again starting to control what citizens may or may not believe, as in those jurisdictions which are now enforcing “public education” (directly counter to parents’ wishes and ignoring their objections) in anti-traditional, anti-Christian values which can only hasten “Creeping Totalitarianism” to its ultimate anti-democratic conclusion; and the government once again, as all totalitarian governments, deciding which humans it will protect from death and which humans can be legally killed, and just when (starting with “Pro-Choice” legal abortion and legal euthanasia and “assisted suicide;” but it was only when governments started to recognize they were obligated to Christian “Pro-Life” (“Pro-Human-Right-to-Live”) principles higher than the government to protect ALL human lives as precious, that basic Human Rights irrespective of the government came to exist, and Modern Democracy became even possible).

 

  1. [Rough First Draft Article] So whether I am Christian or not, I recognize the disturbing fact that since Western governments stopped using Christianity as the source of their “guiding principles,” already we are back to the government defining human value and legislating human life and death (which humans can be killed and when) just like the ancient pre-Christian totalitarian States and just like every modern totalitarian State (starting with legal abortion and euthanasia). I recognize the disturbing fact that historically whenever the government is the highest authority, in charge of human life and death, instead of the government being ultimately accountable to the higher Christian God who “IS” Love and who loves each human as equally precious, then Human Rights and Freedoms as we know them either do not exist or are at serious risk.  In brutal pre-Christian times, governments often used to make themselves the highest authority over the governed, often by making the political ruler some kind of official agent of the gods or some kind of god himself, just to make it clear there was no authority higher than the government.  For example, the Roman Emperor was understood to have a “divine spark” which Roman citizens and subjects had to publicly worship by offering a pinch of incense to (Christians could be identified and arrested by their refusal to offer incense to this false god).  In medieval times but in the New World (as yet unaffected by Christianity), the mothers of the Inca rulers would actually tie wood slats to the head of the son in line for the throne when they were babies, so their head would grow “cone-shaped,” to create the physical illusion that the new ruler was not merely human but a god.  The modern twist on this feature of totalitarian States is atheism:  rather than exalting the status of the political ruler to that of a god, any notion of God or gods is rejected, leaving the State as the highest existing authority – and all officially atheist governments have been major Human Rights abusers and oppressive totalitarian States, such as every atheist Communist State and the Mexican government of atheist Plutarco Elias Calles.  There simply are no examples of officially atheist governments which are not oppressive and totalitarian, and logically so, because nothing in atheism can accept the above (Christian) Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy as necessary.  I recognize that even the ostensibly “nice” atheists such as Secular Humanists have no solid basis on which to ground either lasting Human Rights or lasting Democracy, because “nice” atheists cannot win arguments with oppressive and totalitarian atheists based on any principle of their common atheism to justify their treating humans either as equal or precious, because in doing so Secular Humanists are only borrowing Christian principles which atheists simply do not “own” like Christians do because human equality and preciousness follow logically NOT from atheism but from Christian doctrine about the Love of God who created each human in love, specifically intending to adopt each human into His Divine Trinitarian Family of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Thus even “nice” atheists, because their “nice” values are not grounded in anything solid that they could convince fellow atheists in atheist States (where atheists are in the majority) to agree with, are thus prone to easily seriously compromise the First Principles of Democracy, for example by typically supporting “Pro-Choice” (“Pro-Choice-To-Kill-Humans”) abortion and euthanasia which logically eliminates the Inherent Human Right to Live on which Human Rights and Democracy depends.  High-profile atheists like Richard Dawkins have publicly advocated aborting handicapped children – just like the totalitarian Nazi regime did – because apparently handicapped human lives are not worth living and not worth caring for their extra needs – as the Nazi Regime agreed (and it also advocated euthanasia of the born handicapped using “compassion for suffering” as an excuse, like supposedly “nice” atheists are similarly prone to do, because only Christianity introduced the Democracy-grounding notion that all humans are equally precious even though we are manifestly not equal in IQ nor physical prowess nor any other measurable trait, and even though many of us have handicaps or disorders of healthy human physical or psychological norms).  I recognize the insidious fact that even “nice” atheists like Secular Humanists used to be honest about the fact that Secular Humanism is an ultimately religious philosophy based on faith, not proof, that there is no God, the original 1933 Humanist Manifesto clearly and honestly describing Secular Humanism as “an atheistic religion.”  This had simply followed the previous atheist tradition of honestly recognizing atheists had ultimately religious faith in the non-existence of God; the bloody French Revolution had even turned Christian churches into atheist “Temples to Reason” (after executing many Christian clergy).  But since then Secular Humanists (in the Humanist Manifesto II) dishonestly removed their previous honest self-description as “an atheistic religion” because they realized that they could get a lot more influence in democratic Western society (which was built on Christian principles) than their very small numbers deserved, if they pretended that Secular Humanism was not an (atheistic) religion and if they pretended that (traditional theistic or super-natural) religion had no place in the public sphere (even though in fact theistic, Christian principles are the above Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy).  This atheist dishonesty has been very effective, and the once-honestly-self-described “atheistic religion” of Secular Humanism has effectively become something like the “unofficial official religion” of most modern democracies, such that even though only a tiny minority of citizens in any country are actually committed (religious) atheists (whether or not they use the term “[Secular] Humanist”), for decades atheistic religious values (like moral relativism) can and have been imposed through State-set education on large majorities of Christian citizens.  Why should prayer ever have been taken out of schools and government offices in democratic countries with large majorities of Christians and a long Christian cultural tradition unless (in an example of “Creeping Totalitarianism”) the “unofficial official religion” and the new anti-Christian “guiding principles” of the State government had effectively become religious atheism/Secular Humanism?  After decades of this effectively religious indoctrination in religious atheism, of course practicing (and knowledgeable) Christians are fewer in number and self-described atheists are higher, though still very few are actually committed atheists simply because atheism ignores the whole spiritual dimension which is an integral part of human life, thus atheism is not ultimately very spiritually satisfying for most.  Yet atheist values still exert inordinate influence as the “guiding principles” of Western democracies.  I recognize that moral relativism is specifically a religiously-held belief of religious atheists who believe in religious faith that there are no moral absolutes because they believe in religious faith not proof that there is no God to set any moral absolutes (of inherent human preciousness or anything else).  Indeed we can be thankful that Secular Humanism at least borrows many “nice” traditional Western, Christian values and thus the once-self-described “atheistic religion” of Secular Humanism effectively functioning for decades as the “unofficial official religion” of many Western States has not right away eroded all traditional Western values, many of which we still at least pay “lip service” to.  But the problem is that atheism, with its “moral relativism” which is now a “guiding principle” of our Western governments instead of the Christian Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, simply cannot maintain these traditional values undergirding Human Rights and Democracy long-term, and that is precisely why we are currently undergoing so much Democracy-destroying “Creeping Totalitarianism.”  The atheist value of moral relativism teaches there are no moral absolutes and one must not impose one’s traditional theistic religious beliefs on others, which is why Christianity is no longer the source of the government’s “guiding principles.”  BUT HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS DEPEND HISTORICALLY AND LOGICALLY ON THE CHRISTIAN MORAL ABSOLUTE THAT EVERY HUMAN LIFE WITHOUT EXCEPTION IS SUPREMELY AND EQUALLY PRECIOUS AND GOVERNMENTS ARE THUS OBLIGATED TO PROTECT (AND ULTIMATELY SERVE) HUMAN LIVES.  Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms only ever developed in Western Christian Civilization, where Western governments understood themselves as accountable to the human-loving God of Christianity for how they treated the humans they governed.  Thus, without this foundation of all Human Rights and Freedoms as an absolute, formal “guiding principle” of government, more and more exceptions to which humans are protected are happening and we are slowly losing our democracies to “Creeping Totalitarianism.”  With Secular Humanism effectively functioning as our “unofficial official religion,” the atheistic religious value of moral relativism (which cannot accept the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy as absolutes) is specifically and directly driving “Creeping Totalitarianism,” and this is no surprise, since all officially atheistic governments in history have always been oppressive totalitarian States!  Atheism instead of Christianity as the source of any government’s “guiding principles” (even when not “officially atheist” as in Communist States) can only take governments ultimately away from Democracy which is built on Christian principles and towards totalitarianism which has always been normal wherever the government is the highest authority, as is always the case in atheism which denies any higher God.

I recognize that prophetically, Dostoevsky, the 19th Century Russian Christian novelist and philosopher, before his country formally abandoned its Christian heritage and formed the atheist Soviet Union, wrote “without God, everything is permissible” –  and indeed, without God, Russia committed the biggest genocide of history, under Stalin in 1932-33 starving to death 7-10 million Ukrainian humans in what Ukrainians call the Holodomor.  If there is no God, morality is indeed relative as atheists (including “nice” Secular Humanists) claim, and the government really is the highest authority, so governments can legislate human life and death with things like legal abortion and euthanasia / “assisted suicide” and Death Camps and genocides, and there are no moral absolutes by which to judge any government absolutely wrong in doing so.  Since atheistic moral relativism is effectively now the source of the West’s “guiding principles,” what possible logically consistent basis do Western countries now have to complain about how totalitarian governments past and present treat the humans they govern, since it is only the (abandoned) traditional Christian moral standard which says every human without exception is equal and precious and must always be treated so?  If there are no moral absolutes, then there are no inherent Human Rights which governments absolutely have to recognize, which is why Western countries no longer recognize the Inherent Human Right to Live since abandoning Christian absolutes and de-criminalizing abortion, and we have lost the logically consistent basis by which we can claim the past totalitarian Soviet and Nazi governments were absolutely wrong to commit genocides, or claim the still-existing atheist totalitarian governments like China’s (or North Korea’s) were and are wrong for Human Rights abuses like the Tiananmen Square Massacre and human organ harvesting and trafficking.  The Nazis were condemned at Nuremberg for atrocities (including legal abortion) against the traditional Western Christian standard for the moral treatment of humans; a standard that was articulated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which (see Article 23 below) is not a standard on its own but is a mature articulation of the previous 1630 years of Western Christian Civilization’s consistently logical development of Human Rights from the logical starting point of the 318 AD criminalization of abortion because Christianity then taught the West that human lives were equally precious so the State was obligated to protect human lives which must be FREE from government coercion in matters of belief (the two Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy), rather than (as before Christianity) human lives being cheap, and serving the greater (totalitarian) State which is in charge of human life and death and in charge of what humans may or may not believe.  Indeed, whether I am Christian or not, I recognize it is only because of the human freedom necessitated by historic Christian principles that Western States were free to take their Christian heritage for granted, having forgotten what the (totalitarian) West was like before, and free to leave behind the traditional Western, Christian “guiding principles” including the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, resulting in the current multifaceted gradual loss of democracy without its Christian foundations.

 

  1. [Rough First Draft Article] I recognize that the “atheistic religion” of Secular Humanism (as it honestly described itself in the original 1933 Humanist Manifesto) has been able to in greater or lesser degree in different Western countries effectively become the “unofficial official religion” of the State and the source of the government’s “guiding principles” (in replacement of Christianity as that source) primarily because it depends on the 200-year-old Enlightenment Era Myth of the Opposition of Christian Faith and Scientific Reason which completely ignores the actual Judeo-Christian origins of Science and the whole Judeo-Christian historical development of Western thought which ultimately gave us modern Science and Technology. Just like the Biblical, Christian foundations of Human Rights and Democracy were laid so long ago that no-one remembers what Democracy is actually built on and modern governments have foolishly rejected Modern Democracy’s ancient Christian foundations or First Principles, likewise the Biblical, Judeo-Christian foundations of Science were laid so long ago that no-one remembers the ancient Judeo-Christian First Principles which Science is actually built on and modern governments have foolishly listened to the atheists with their merely two-century old myth of the opposition of faith and reason and on this insubstantial mythical basis have foolishly taken the important role of “source of the government’s guiding principles” from Christianity and given it to the religious atheism which now dishonestly pretends not to be fundamentally religious.  But (whether I am Christian or not), I recognize that in fact Christians have excellent reasons (below) to confidently assert that their Biblical, Judeo-Christian principles historically and logically undergirded and ultimately gave the world both Modern Science and Technology AND Modern Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, since both Modern Science and Modern Democracy developed nowhere else in the world but in Christian Europe, developing historically and logically specifically from principles humanity first learned from the Judeo-Christian Bible.  I recognize the historical facts that the Jewish faith which Christianity grew out of already had a reputation for scholarship, which is why Alexander the Great put the Jews in charge of the great Library of the city of Alexandria which he named after himself; thus it was no surprise that the Early Christian Church founded two great ancient schools of Antioch and Alexandria as institutes of higher learning; and the modern university system itself literally grew out of this long Judeo-Christian tradition of scholarship.  I recognize the whole modern university system historically grew out of Christian Europe’s medieval cathedral schools[9] first dedicated to scholarly Bible study which then branched out into all the other fields of knowledge and scholarship (Theology – The Study of God and All Things in Relation to God – was historically “the Queen of the Sciences” and Christian “religious colleges” are still at the core of all the oldest and most established universities today).  In contrast, all atheists have is “atheistic flatulence,” “passing gas” in the form of insubstantial “hot air” and bluster, an unfounded arrogant condescension that perpetrates the 200-year old Enlightenment era myth that faith and reason, religion and science are somehow opposed, and ignores the world’s greatest thinkers from Aristotle to Einstein who recognized the difference between “silly superstition” (which the Enlightenment legitimately discredited) and the “genuine religion” without which Einstein said “science is lame.”[10]  Science, which looks for patterns of order in the natural universe from which it makes predictions and tests them by orderly experiments, is “lame” and cannot even get on its feet without acknowledging, as the Greek philosophers recognized as the first scientists did (after their deep exposure to the older Jewish Bible, the Christian Old Testament which first revealed this to humanity) that the universe is an ordered cosmos – with an intelligent orderer (God) – and the universe is NOT a random, undirected chaosWhether I am Christian or not, I recognize that this Biblical foundation is precisely why the pure (as distinguished from the applied) sciences, and the modern scientific method, historically developed only in Western Christian Civilization, developed gradually by many centuries of Christian scientists working logically from the Biblical, Judeo-Christian worldview and Biblically-revealed First Principles, as did the modern university system, growing organically and naturally out of the medieval cathedral schools.

[Draft 2.5 Note: Atheism thrives, and atheist values like moral relativism dominate Western policy-making to the detriment of Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, largely on the strength of wide ignorance of the actual facts and the actual logic of the development of Western thought which ultimately gave us modern Science and Technology.  The rest of Article 20, to introduce the reader to some of the important facts which unmask how ungrounded is atheism whose insidious and inherently totalitarian and anti-democratic character has already been shown above, is made of excerpts from the longer below supplement On the Judeo-Christian Origins of Science and the Incapability of Atheism to Ground Either Science or Human Rights or Democracy; this supplement is made of excerpts from the longer yet first draft Chapter 6 of the treatise The Education Necessary to Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack, which is still under development in consultation with other scholars.]

I recognize that it is important to realize that THERE WERE NO ATHEISTS INVOLVED IN THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PURE SCIENCES AND THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC METHOD; only many centuries of (mostly) Christians operating from a Christian worldview (shared by all the Abrahamic faiths) gradually developing the natural sciences and an ever better scientific method as we know now, working logically from First Principles revealed in the Bible – that the Universe is an ordered, structured cosmos, with an intelligent orderer, and NOT an ultimately random and undirected chaosAtheists when they do science are not thinking from First Principles.  They are only thinking from a method they inherited from the scientists of Christian Europe, a method steeped in the Judeo-Christian worldview and proceeding logically from Judeo-Christian First Principles.  Atheist scientists frequently get science degrees knowing nothing of the history and logic underlying the method they were taught to use and having never taken a single philosophy course, never mind one which gives them the philosophical foundations Science is built on, meaning that atheist scientists may be competent scientific technicians but only by using a scientific method the foundations of which they do not even understand.  Atheists (too often with much condescending bluster or insubstantial “atheistic flatulence”) have to hide (even from themselves) the fact they use a Christian scientific method built mostly by Christians upon Judeo-Christian foundations (and hide the fact that atheist governments have consistently been among the most oppressive and totalitarian governments known to humankind – precisely because it ultimately does not matter how one ultimately random sack of bio-chemicals we call a human being treats another – there is no principle of atheism that can ground democracy nor the human equality democracy depends on).

Hence I recognize that the (traditional) religious believer (as opposed to “religious atheists”), especially the Christian, can be confident that in his or her philosophical position for the existence of an Intelligent Creator God who ordered the Universe, he or she is standing not only with the majority of human beings, but with the great majority of the world’s greatest and most accomplished thinkers and scientists throughout history to modern times (Aristotle to Einstein!).  I recognize several of the greatest and most accomplished scientists of all history (including some of those most directly involved in the development of the modern scientific method) were not only “cultural” Christians (still operating from a basic Judeo-Christian worldview) but particularly devout practicing Christians, including Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Nicolas Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal (inventor of the first proto-computer!) and Gregor Mendel.

I recognize Einstein himself noted that “there is no conflict between science and genuine religion” and in fact that “science without religion is lame” – science cannot even get on its feet without recognizing the universe as an ordered cosmos, which implies an intelligent orderer (God) who designed the ordered patterns which science discovers.  Thus Einstein said “the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” – the mere fact we can in great degree comprehend the universe means that it is ordered, order implies intelligence (there is no truly random process we know of that produces consistent order), and thus the supremely intricate and elegant order science has discovered in the natural universe points to the existence of a super-natural orderer-God beyond nature. This is hardly surprising since science in fact from its philosophical foundation and First Principles assumed there was such an intelligent orderer God who intelligently designed the ordered cosmos (NOT random chaos) which is why scientists bothered looking for order in the universe in the first place!  This is why Einstein said in doing science he “wanted to know God’s thoughts.”  Since the Judeo-Christian religious tradition Einstein (a Jew) was raised in is the religion which understands God and the universe this way, Einstein, widely recognized as the most intelligent person and the greatest scientist of all time, despite his not being a traditional Jewish believer, even said that “the highest principles for our aspirations and judgements are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition.[11]  And Einstein is far from alone among the secularized founders of modern physics (Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) in still having this basically Judeo-Christian mystical, religious side which is not separate from but integral to his brilliant scientific enquiry of the intricately ordered cosmos:   I recognize the documented fact that virtually ALL of the fathers of modern physics like Werner Heisenberg, Prince Louis De Broglie, Sir James Jeans, Max Planck, Wolfgang Pauli, Sir Arthur Eddington and Erwin Schroedinger were not atheists but in addition to their brilliant scientific work had mystical writings mostly in the Western or Judeo-Christian tradition (at least the Deism which is a basically Judeo-Christian Theism but truncated, depersonalized into a “watchmaker God” who ordered the universe and then left it alone – the loving personal interaction with humanity taken out but otherwise a Biblical conception of God).[12]  I recognize that this is not at all surprising to anyone who understands the history and logic that undergirds ALL SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY in Western (Christian) Civilization.  The Judeo-Christian religion is not at all a merely “personal” or “cultural” conviction of history’s greatest scientists independent of their scientific work, as today’s atheists would have us believe.  Rather, it is specifically BECAUSE of their Judeo-Christian religious belief in a Creator God who intelligently ordered the universe that history’s greatest scientists were MOTIVATED to EXAMINE the natural universe, EXPECTING to find patterns of order (the sign of an ordering intelligence because no truly random process produces consistent and intricate and elegant order).  I recognize it is only the far less accomplished atheist scientists since the Enlightenment era, who foolishly stuffed together the “superstitious” type of religion which the Enlightenment legitimately discredited with the “genuine religion” “without which science is lame” (as Einstein said), because they were apparently not keen enough intellects to see the difference between the two which the very greatest intellects from Aristotle to Einstein have always been able to see; dimmer atheistic intellects who are silly enough to claim that Christian faith and scientific reason are somehow opposed.  And they make this ridiculous claim all the while “standing on the shoulders” of the many Christian giants (including Newton and Galileo) who developed the modern scientific method for them, in a consistent development of Science’s First Principles which begin with the ordered cosmos (not random chaos) intelligently designed by an intelligent orderer (critics of so-called “Intelligent Design Theory” are correct that IDT is not a proper scientific theory; but they have forgotten that instead, “intelligent design” is an integral part of the philosophical foundation for all scientific endeavor; “intelligent design” is part of the grounding logical First Principles and starting point of why Science is done at all).

I recognize that Galileo has been seriously misused as the “poster boy” example most used by atheists to support the atheist myth of the opposition of faith and science.  This is a very superficial and inaccurate portrayal of the historical “Galileo Affair.”  Close reading of the historical documents reveals that Galileo’s conflict with some religious authorities was absolutely NOT a case of any inherent opposition between Christian faith and scientific reason, but Galileo (a devout Christian) was specifically disciplined (if unwisely) only for disobeying directions to teach Sun-centered Copernican astronomy as hypothetical rather than as absolutely true when it had not in fact yet been scientifically proven to be absolutely true.  Copernican Astronomy had in fact already been taught in Jesuit universities for a century as an alternative theory to the still-prevailing Ptolemaic Astronomy, and Galileo was freely allowed to continue to teach it as such; unfortunately, in his enthusiasm for Copernican Astronomy he tended to get carried away and teach it as absolutely true even though by his own standards of scientific truth it had not (yet) been so (physically) proven (only mathematically theorized), and would not be for centuries.  And we today, told from childhood that the Earth moves around the Sun even though we daily observe the Sun moving across the sky, too easily forget how back then, still long before the Copernican model would be necessarily and physically proven, how compelling is the millennia-old daily observed evidence of the sun moving across the sky from sunrise to sunset which is why still the majority of scientists at the time did not support Copernicus and Galileo.  But Galileo and all his detractors completely agreed about the complementarity of science and (Christian) religion.  I further recognize it is significant that in 1623 Galileo dedicated his new book The Assayer, which is recognized as one of the pioneering works of the modern scientific method, to his friend Maffeo Barberini who had just been elected Pope Urban VIII (in 1620, well after Galileo started publicly promoting Copernican theory in 1610, Barberini had written the poem Adulatio Perniciosa in Galileo’s honor).  By all accounts the Pope was delighted with Galileo’s book which did so much to develop the modern scientific method, which the Pope read (or had read to him) at the dinner table.  I recognize the historical facts that Galileo lived and died a dedicated Christian and scientist who like Einstein knew “there is no conflict between science and genuine religion” because (in Galileo’s own words) “the Holy Scripture and Nature derive equally from the Godhead, the former as the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the obedient executrix of God’s orders.”

I recognize that the “Galileo Affair” must be placed in its proper context, wherein the entire higher learning of the natural sciences as well as the human sciences and the modern University System itself literally grew out of the Christian medieval Cathedral Schools, all flowing logically from the Biblical First Principles of the ordered cosmos intelligently ordered by God which made the orderly study of nature (and of humanity) both worthwhile and fruitful.   Only as recently as the 19th Century did the MYTH of a supposed long history of warfare between science and religion come to the fore.   Atheists have falsely reinterpreted history as if science was born when men including Galileo pioneered the modern scientific method, ignoring the whole long history of science building slowly but logically from the starting point of the at root Biblical foundations adopted by the Socratic Greeks – and ignoring the fact that Galileo, such a great pioneer of the modern scientific method, himself stood firmly within that long Judeo-Christian tradition of Science starting from the recognition of the universe as an ordered cosmos not a random chaos, which deliberately acknowledged the Judeo-Christian God whom Galileo was personally devoted to as the intelligent designer of all the intricate order which science explores and discovers.  It is only because by the 19th Century Galileo had been proven absolutely right with numerous physical demonstrations lacking in Galileo’s day, and people had long been taught since they were children that the earth moves around the sun even though every day (from our earthbound position) we observe the opposite that atheists could go back to the Galileo Affair and falsely reinterpret it as the now-common but insubstantial LEGEND of religion against science and progress.

I recognize that it is important to remember, that if the natural universe is ultimately random, why would anyone bother looking at nature to find patterns of order?  The answer is NO ONE DID as long as the universe was understood as fundamentally random or chaotic.  Not until the universe was recognized as ordered by an intelligent orderer (which only happened after the ancient Greek consultation with the Jewish Bible/Christian Old Testament which testified to this) did deep examinations of nature begin, expecting to find order, the sign of an ordering intelligence, which science then proceeded to indeed discover.  Everyone know the Greeks (credited as the first scientists) loved wisdom; the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish culture was much older than the Greek and Biblical King Solomon’s wisdom was legendary, so the Greeks made sure they knew the Jewish Bible.  There is an ancient rumour that Socrates, who studied with the Jew Ahitophel, actually converted to Judaism in his old age.  Whether or not that rumour is true, for certain Socrates “star pupil” Plato was so well-versed in the Jewish Bible, the Christian Old Testament, that Plato’s critics actually called him “Moses speaking Attic [a Greek dialect].”  And it was Plato’s “star pupil” Aristotle who, extrapolating from the borrowed Biblical insight of the ordered cosmos articulated the “First Principles of Being” or “First Principles of Existence” (such as the Principle of Non-Contradiction; principles which further describe the orderliness of the universe) which underlie the whole of Western logic and science.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary confirms that the cosmos is “the universe regarded as a complex and orderly system; the opposite of chaos.”  And the Bible first testified to the universe as an ordered cosmos designed by an intelligent orderer God, rather than a random chaos, much earlier than the ancient Greeks who had been well exposed to the Bible adopted this same insight as the philosophical foundation for starting the field of Natural Science.  Thus, whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that specifically Judeo-Christian religious faith has far better and more reasonable scientific credentials than atheism: It historically and logically provides the First Principles and basic worldview, basic conception of the ordered universe, that science depends uponSo who is “backwards”?  I recognize that atheists typically paint religious believers as “backwards” (using insubstantial condescending “atheistic flatulence”) when in fact it is atheists who are by far the most “backwards,” being almost 2500 years “behind the times” by not believing in the historical and logical foundations of Science in an intelligently ordered cosmos with an intelligent orderer as did all the brilliant scientific minds who founded Science and who from that foundation gradually developed the pure sciences and the modern scientific method only in Christian Europe; atheists rather being so backwards-thinking they believe rather that the universe is ultimately undirected and random as did so many cultures which never developed the pure sciences nor the scientific method (and never could) simply because there is no reason to expect or look for order in an ultimately random universe!

 

  1. [Rough First Draft Article] I recognize that although very few are actually committed atheists, since atheism is so spiritually unsatisfying, still very many citizens and politicians are unduly influenced by atheistic thinking such as moral relativism, primarily because atheism currently has an undeserved respect which is based not on the facts and logic of the historical development of Science and Technology but only on the insubstantial Myth of the Opposition of Faith and Reason/Religion and Science, and the dishonest claim that formal atheism (Secular Humanist or otherwise) is not fundamentally a religious creed, though an atheistic one, as formerly had been honestly admitted in the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. Still, I respect that many may be honestly convinced in their atheistic values just as many are honestly convinced in their “Pro-Choice” values, even though their conviction in these things (which are actively undermining Human Rights and Freedoms) is usually based in ignorance of vital facts of the historical development of Western thought logically proceeding from the Biblical, Judeo-Christian First Principles underlying both Science and Technology and Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms.  But the challenge of this Pledge (and the Treatise it is based on) to formal atheists (scientists and laypeople) is this: can you respond to this Pledge (and the longer Treatise) with intellectual honesty and in respectful dialogue to help make the world a better place (and help end the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” so Human Rights and Freedoms can last) without resorting either to the typical condescending “atheistic flatulence” belittling religious believers,[13] and without resorting to confusing and avoiding the issues by using big words and citing less relevant facts without actually grappling with the substance of the challenge of the facts of the history of science and of the consistently logical historical development of science from specifically Judeo-Christian principles within a specifically Christian cultural context and worldview by mostly Christian scientist-developers (and the challenge of the facts of consistently oppressive and totalitarian atheist governments specifically because atheism cannot accept as necessary any of the (Christian) principles Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms historically and logically depend upon (such as human equality), showing atheism by its very nature is no friend of Human Rights or Freedoms)?  Despite certain historical failures of always-imperfect Christian societies to live up to Christianity’s extremely high ideals, Christianity, which introduced religious freedom into the West in the first place, granted atheists (and typically Jews and others) the religious freedom to not believe in Christianity (Western Christian Civilization was truly FREE to become secularized); but atheists, wherever they control the government, typically do not allow the governed the freedom to not be atheist, but rather indoctrinate in atheist values from school and (often violently) persecute those who resist the State-set “atheistic religion.”  Sadly, not only in formally atheist States, but increasingly (by small stages) in our Western democracies too, which have been unduly influenced by atheistic thinking and values like moral relativism without being formally atheist, these typically totalitarian atheist policies are surfacing in more democracies, with the decades-old formal or informal indoctrination in the atheist belief of moral relativism in schools now followed by more aggressive formal State-set indoctrination of children in radically anti-traditional (and ultimately anti-democratic) values against parents’ wishes; and the persecution of threats to funding, jobs and livelihood of doctors and others, which motivated this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy being written to protect Democracy.  Yet atheism, which believes in no super-natural orderer of the Natural Universe, literally has nothing to offer to the West, nothing to commend it at all, once the insubstantial Myth of the Opposition of Faith and Reason has been unmasked; that Science and Technology do not in any way (neither by history nor by logic) belong to atheists after all.  Thus I recognize that the bottom line is that with Science and Technology just like with Human Rights and Democracy, the (Judeo-Christian) underlying foundations for them were laid so long ago and became such an automatic and unconscious part of Western Civilization’s mindset or habits and thinking that people consciously forgot their foundations and started compromising them: by foolishly associating Science with atheism (when Science from its historical and logical First Principles depends on the universe being intelligently ordered); and by ignorantly de-criminalizing abortion (when all modern Human Rights and Freedoms developed through history from the starting point of the criminalization of abortion in 318 AD because all human lives were then understood – from Christianity – to be supremely and EQUALLY valuable and precious).
  2. [Rough First Draft Article] Thus, whether I am Christian or not, I recognize “Three Wrong Turns” on Western Civilization’s path which have taken us currently to this critical “tipping point” where we are in serious danger of losing what remains of our Western democracies: atheism which shook Western Civilization’s previous confidence in the value of Christianity as the source of its “guiding principles,” foolishly not realizing that in fact Christian principles were the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy; the Sexual Revolution in which Western societies and governments actually abandoned Christian principles as their “guiding principles” concerning human life and the process which generates it; and the de-criminalization of abortion in response to the demand created by the Sexual Revolution to kill the inconvenient unwanted humans naturally produced by “sex for pleasure” instead of traditional (Christian) “sex for marriage and loving family life” – which effectively eradicated the Inherent Human Right to Live which had been legally recognized since the 318 AD criminalization of abortion began the process that gave us our Human Rights and Freedoms. MISTAKE 1: ATHEISM removed any (secularized) government’s obligation to any power higher than the government to protect and serve human lives which are precious to God (specifically the God who “is Love” in Christian understanding), which is the only historical and logical context which ever developed modern Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, and which is why every officially atheist government which denies this or any other God the government is ultimately accountable to has been oppressive and totalitarian.  Atheist values like moral relativism now guiding governments which are not (yet) officially atheist similarly return Western Civilization to the conditions before Christianity where the government is not obligated to protect and serve human lives.  The atheist value of moral relativism because “there is no God” to hold anyone accountable to any high standard for the moral treatment of humans (like the “traditional” Western high Christian standard) simply cannot sustain Human Rights and Democracy for the long-term.  Democracy that lasts requires a government not remain “morally relative” but it must decide to be guided by the same (Christian and “Pro-Life”/”Pro-Human-Rights”) implicit underlying principles which birthed Democracy in the first place.  MISTAKE 2: THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION returned Western Society to the undisciplined and uncommitted sexual pleasure-seeking of the pagan world before Christianity, making the sexual process once again cheap and therefore making the human beings produced by sex once again cheap, and easily discarded, that is, killedMISTAKE 3: DE-CRIMINALIZING ABORTION was the end result both of atheist ideals removing the government’s obligation to God to protect human lives loved by God (note atheist Soviet Russia was the first to de-criminalize abortion in 1920), and also the end result of the Sexual Revolution which meant sex was (unnaturally) pursued for mere pleasure and not even open to the gift of human life naturally produced by sex, motivating the desire to kill these unwanted and “inconvenient” humans, de-criminalized abortion officially ending any legal recognition of any human’s Inherent Human Right to Live.  This logically cancels out any other Human Rights which cannot exist if there is not even an Inherent Human Right to Live – including logically cancelling out the Human Right to Democratic Freedoms described in Article 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is why democratic freedoms (especially of medical professionals) are currently being taken away specifically to ensure the Pro-Choice legal abortion killing of humans can continue unimpeded.
  3. Thus whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that Christianity provides the historical and logical, rock solid foundation of human equality and all Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms (including the religious freedom to explore alternatives to Christianity which by its own principles cannot be coerced), and so Christianity is only a threat to Totalitarian governments (or to totalitarian-oriented, “Creeping Totalitarian” governments) which are not committed to the above Christian and “Pro-Life” (“Pro-Human-Right-to-Live”) Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy as the government’s “guiding principles.”  Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that there are no legitimate nor democratic reasons to restrict freedom of Christian belief or practice in any way, but only totalitarian or “Creeping Totalitarian” reasons; in fact, any lasting democracy must at least officially respect Christianity as the historical and logical source of the above Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy even though Christian belief in individual citizens cannot properly be mandated nor coerced, according to Christianity’s own principles.  Thus I recognize that wherever the free practice of Christianity is restricted, limited, persecuted or allowed to be persecuted in any way by a government’s laws or policies (both the violent “hard” persecution of manifestly oppressive totalitarian States like the Soviet and all atheist / Communist States and atheist President Calles’ Mexico; and including the current “soft” persecution in different jurisdictions of medical professionals, teachers, lawyers, government workers and elected representatives and others being bullied into silence about their democracy-grounding traditional Western, Christian principles by threats to jobs and funding and accreditation), that government identifies itself clearly as a “Creeping Totalitarian” government, ultimately oriented towards totalitarianism if not already thereWhether I am Christian or not, I recognize that the history and the logic of the development of Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms justifies Christians reminding Western societies of their Christian origins which must be respected if they are to last, perhaps using slogans on bumper stickers, with text such as:Enjoy your Human RightsThank a Christian.Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!

    http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch

    © 2015 William Baptiste SFO, Founder and Director, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!.

    Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that when you “spit on” or disrespect Western Civilization’s Christian heritage, you “spit on” and undermine Human Rights and Democracy which (historically and logically) depend on it.  I recognize that although secularized people may want to believe that Christianity is no longer needed, the fact is that if it were at all possible to maintain Human Rights and democracy long-term without respecting Christianity as the source of the fundamentally Christian Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy our rights and freedoms were built on, then we would not be suffering the current “Creeping Totalitarianism” undermining democracy worldwide right now.  I recognize that anyone foolish enough to argue that the West can maintain either Human Rights or democracy long-term without their Christian and Pro-Life roots has already been proven wrong – because if that were so, there would be no “Creeping Totalitarianism” necessitating the writing of Democracy 101 & The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy and you would not be reading this right now.

    I recognize that in human weakness, from the beginning humans have been frequently warlike and misogynistic and prejudiced against those humans different than themselves in some way, whom they sometimes enslaved or conquered; and they typically made distinctions between the value of different humans, separating humans into unequal classes or castes; human political leaders were frequently ambitious and power-hungry; and so on.  I recognize that these sad pre-Christian norms for weak and selfish humans continued well after the formal Christianization of the West which started in the 4th Century (taking several centuries to result in “Christendom” or “Christian Europe” – the collection of officially Christian nation-States where the State/Ruler set the “official religion” of the State according to pre-Christian norms, but set it for Christianity, a non-ideal situation which had both advantages and disadvantages for the practice of genuine Christianity, as discussed in more detail in the treatise The Education Necessary to Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack).  But I also recognize that wherever Christianity was the dominant religious viewpoint calling humans to be better than they were and to love every human equally and immensely in imitation of God’s love for all humanity “made in God’s Image,” many human individuals gradually recovered from these traits, called the society around them to do the same (becoming history’s greatest social reformers), and human societies gradually improved in these areas.  I recognize that only an imperfect but gradually maturing Christian West ever developed modern Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms, logically proceeding over the centuries from Biblical, Christian principles of human equality and preciousness, often guided by Christian social reformers (like Saint Vincent de Paul improving the lot of the poor or William Wilberforce ending slavery) specifically attempting, however imperfectly, to better put into practice the traditional, extremely high Christian standards of trying to imitate God’s equal and immense LOVE for every human without exception, which was a many-centuries long process of Western Christian Civilization culminating in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights produced by the still-dominantly Christian nations which won the Second World War (before the dramatic drops in Christian church attendance with the advance of secularized Western culture).

    Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that today’s so-called “post-Christian” (and neo-pagan?) West cannot possibly sustain these rights and freedoms long-term, and I say this not as a prediction, but as an already-proven fact, extremely evident for those with a broad enough education, and for those with any understanding of genuine democracy, who can easily see that many current anti-traditional, anti-Christian government policies are being implemented with the opposite of a democratic government style “of the people, by the people, for the people” but with an increasingly obvious totalitarian style of government being in charge of what citizens may or may not believe, and even once again being in charge of human life and deathas was typical of Western governments before Christianity.  I recognize that Human Rights have been a farce since abortion was de-criminalized, literally legally eradicating the Inherent Human Right to Live.  And since humans without even an Inherent Right to Live cannot possibly have an inherent right to a democratic say, many increasingly “Creeping Totalitarian” Western governments are (in greater or lesser degree, some much greater) teaching schoolchildren anti-traditional values which subvert the values Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms were historically and logically built on, directly against parental protests (and at least one government seeking the ability to take children away from parents who would still raise their children in traditional values the “Creeping Totalitarian” government no longer considers “in the best interests of the child”) – because these governments no longer understand that democratic governments are supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people” who are “created equal;” and no longer understand that only totalitarian governments legislate which “less equal” humans can be legally killed; and only totalitarian governments forcefully indoctrinate children against the wishes of parents with traditional (democracy-grounding “Pro-Life” and Christian) values.  I recognize that if I was not correct in saying that the “post-Christian” West cannot possibly sustain Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms long-term, then there would not be any “Creeping Totalitarianism” which is in fact right now making so many afraid even to speak freely at work the traditional (Judeo-Christian) values Democracy was built on and needs to last.  This charge is not something that needs to be proven; it is only something that needs to be pointed out and it is evident.

    I recognize that today, secularized people have this strange misconception that Christianity is something the West “already tried” and somehow found wanting, so the West has moved on.  Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize nothing could be further from the truth.  It is only in the areas and to the degree that Christianity was actually tried out or seriously attempted to be put into practice that humans eventually – over much time – overcame the above pre-Christian human weaknesses (which deny the Christian principles of human equality and preciousness) like prejudice and gender inequity and class segregation and so on.  I recognize that only in as much as Christianity was seriously tried and gradually implemented did Human Rights and freedoms develop at all; for example, that slavery ended in accordance with the Christian Bible’s teaching that rulers, masters and slaves (and men and women) were equal before God (and equally loved).  I recognize that everything that people point to as evidence that Christianity “didn’t work” is only evidence of where it “hadn’t worked yet”, because the whole development of Human Rights and freedoms was a continual gradual process of the extremely high and difficult Christian principles slowly sinking in to Western culture (and only very slowly sinking more and more into the hearts and minds of more Western individuals, who never could be forced into acting like better Christians because Christianity invented religious freedom!).  For certain in “moving on” from Christianity the West has only moved away from all that progress from ancient brutal (and sexually selfish and immature, sex-addicted) totalitarian times with no Human Rights back towards a new brutal (and sexually selfish and immature, sex-addicted) and “Creeping Totalitarian” Western culture that is losing its Human Rights and genuine democratic freedoms since the Sexual Revolution demanded abortion be de-criminalized (to kill all the unwanted humans produced by the selfish and immature, sex-addicted practice of human sexuality), making human life once again cheap not precious (with no Inherent Human Right to Live, and therefore no inherent right to a democratic say either, so Western governments have slowly regressed back into pre-Christian totalitarian habits.)

    Whether I am Christian or not, I recognize that our whole free and democratic way of life with governments obligated to protect (precious) humans instead of (cheap) humans serving the greater (totalitarian) State is grounded, rooted, and built upon the fact that in the 4th Century the West learned (from Christianity) to treat every human life – and the human sexual process which generates human life – as precious, and as a mature responsibility of love.  I recognize that all the gains for Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms (which were gradually made over 1700 years of Western Christian Civilization since the 4th Century Christianization of the West in a logical progression of gradually better implementation of Christian principles like the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy) have been unravelling since the “3 wrong turns” on the West’s path:  since MISTAKE 1: ATHEISM, which, without actually replacing Christianity in most countries still shook the West’s confidence in Christianity as the best source for its “guiding values,” and removed secularized governments’ obligation to any power higher than the government to protect and serve ALL human lives which are precious to God; since MISTAKE 2: THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION returned Western Society to the undisciplined and uncommitted sexual pleasure-seeking of the pagan world before Christianity, making the sexual process once again cheap and therefore making the human beings produced by sex once again cheap, and easily discarded, that is, killed, by pre-Christian-style governments who once again consider themselves the highest power, which can therefore once again legislate which humans it will protect and which humans it will kill or legally allow to be killed; and since MISTAKE 3: DE-CRIMINALIZING ABORTION in a “practical” (but brutally anti-human) way of dealing with all the unwanted cheap-not-precious devalued humans produced by cheap-not-precious devalued human sexuality, de-criminalized abortion officially ending any legal recognition of any human’s Inherent Human Right to Live, which logically cancels out any other genuine Human Rights which cannot exist if there is not even a legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live.

 

  1. I recognize that the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is specifically the mature flowering of 1630 years of the logical development of the above Christian and “Pro-Life” First Principles of Democracy within Western Christian Civilization, starting from the 318 AD criminalization of abortion shortly after Christianity was adopted by the West, and culminating in the 1948 Declaration produced by the still-Christian Western nations which won the Second World War (In 1948 no-one spoke about a “post-Christian” Western culture but the majority were still baptized Christian and Church attendance was still high, despite the inroads of atheism already undermining Western democracies – atheism whose mature flowering is already seen in every State where atheists control the government, which are always oppressive totalitarian States just because the First Principles of Democracy are utterly Christian and foreign to atheism). Despite the unfortunate wording in its Article 1 which reads “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its 1948 historical context cannot be reasonably (mis)interpreted (as it has been by the current UN) to mean it intends to exclude preborn humans from having any Human Rights (logically eliminating any Inherent Human Right to Live), because in the very same year of 1948 the Nuremberg Trials condemned Nazi Germany specifically for legal abortion which was at the time described as “an inhumane act,” “an act of extermination,” and “a crime against humanity,”[14] and in the very same year of 1948 the Declaration of Geneva (in response to the Nazi practice of legal abortion) reaffirmed the whole Hippocratic Medical Tradition for doctors to protect preborn human life in the womb, in the oath “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” So the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not more explicitly include preborn humans only because in 1948 preborn humans had been protected by law or custom since 318 AD and only anti-human oppressive Totalitarian States like Nazi Germany which had that year been condemned for it would even think of de-criminalizing abortion!  In fact, the Declaration’s Article 2 powerfully expresses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ intention to be all-inclusive: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.”  To exclude preborn humans (including each one of us before we were born), who had been protected by law or custom since 318 AD, would most certainly be age-discrimination, denying Human Rights to some humans on the basis of age, developmental stage in the human life-cycle or location (in the womb), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly and explicitly intends to exclude no human.  The formal Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights starts by explicitly confirming that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” – which in different words expresses the essence of this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy’s above Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy #1,that every human life without exception, without discrimination and ‘without distinction of any kind’ (quoting the Declaration’s Article 2) is SUPREMELY and EQUALLY valuable and precious, OBLIGATING governments to protect and serve ALL precious human lives” who have “inherent . . . equal and inalienable [human] rights” (quoting the Declaration’s Preamble).  Legal abortion was one of the “barbarous acts” born of “disregard and contempt for Human Rights”[15] which the Declaration intended to prevent in the future, because legal abortion alienates preborn humans from the “inalienable rights” that belong to “all members of the human family,” “without distinction of any kind,” as Article 2 declares.  The Declaration cannot possibly intend to exclude preborn humans (whose living biological humanity is indisputable) from being part of the “ALL members of the human family” which the Declaration states has “inherent dignity” and “equal and inalienable rights.”  For this would mean none of us began our actual human lives (in the womb) as members of the human family who have inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights; it would mean being human is not enough to be a member of the human family, making the whole concept of a human family meaningless and making human dignity not inherent in anyone after all.  To exclude some members of the human family – those who are not yet born, a condition that EVERY born human once shared – would logically mean that human dignity is NOT “inherent” after all, if it does not inhere in some members of the human family who have no rights (the preborn); and would logically mean that Human Rights are not “inalienable” after all, if they can be alienated from preborn members of the human family so that they can be legally killed by abortion; and would logically mean that all members of the human family do not have “equal” Human Rights after all, if preborn humans do not have an equal human right to live with born humans (who themselves must then have NEVER had any “inherent human right to live,” since they could have been legally killed by abortion when they were preborn age).  Legal abortion literally makes a mockery of the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights and makes all of its wonderful phrases about “inherent,” “equal” and “inalienable” human dignity and rights effectively meaningless.  If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not apply to or protect preborn humans (and therefore does not apply to ALL humans who were once preborn), then it protects no-one from totalitarianism – and this is exactly why all states which de-criminalized abortion are now suffering from “Creeping Totalitarianism” gradually eroding away everybody’s Human Rights.  Legal abortion is precisely the kind of “disregard and contempt for Human Rights” which the Declaration intended to combat.  The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly intended to expand Human Rights to be All-Inclusive of every human “without distinction of any kind,” not to take Human Rights away from preborn humans (like each one of us when we were their age) who had been protected since 318 AD except in oppressive Totalitarian States like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union which had the only governments with so much “disregard and contempt for Human Rights” that they de-criminalized abortion.  Rather, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because of the unprecedented atrocities of the Second World War (which it described as “barbarous acts”), and recognizing that several categories of humans even before Nazism and the war had at times been denied some of their Human Rights, specifically intended to (and did) declare that Human Rights are for ALL humans “without distinction of any kind” (Article 2), whoever and wherever they are, intending to ensure that the massive-scale unjust denial of Human Rights to some humans as in the Nazi Regime (which included legal abortion of preborn humans) never happened again.  The current United Nations, simply because their key member nations[16] ignorantly and foolishly de-criminalized abortion, now allows and actually encourages abortion.  But there is no reasonable and no logical way to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even without its original 1948 historical context, that justifies de-criminalized abortion.  Rather, legal abortion, which negates any legally recognized Inherent Human Right to Live which is the necessary foundation of all the other Human Rights described in the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is a betrayal of everything the Free West fought the Second World War to protect from totalitarianism, and a betrayal of the underlying principles the United Nations was originally formed to protect nations from losing as they lost in Nazi Germany.

 

  1. I recognize that the norm before Christianity and even today outside of the historically Christian nations and their former colonies and outside of other nations which respect Christian-based International Law is for the government to be in charge of what citizens may or may not believe and to enforce religious (or atheistic) belief and policy, and that Christianity with its doctrine of Free Will introduced religious freedom into Western Civilization because Christianity by its own principles cannot properly be forced or coerced but must be accepted FREELY as a free act of love for God. Hence very few Christian rulers in history ever forced Christian baptisms or practice and Western Christian Civilization was FREE to take for granted the Christian principles undergirding Human Rights and Freedoms and FREE to become secularized and FREE to reject Christian principles and thus FREE to (in the current political climate) seriously compromise the Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms Christianity gave to Western Civilization. Thus this freedom which Christianity gave is a huge responsibility which must be used wisely if it is to last.

 

  1. Thus whether I am Christian or not, because I appreciate and do not take for granted the religious freedom which Christianity introduced into Western Civilization and because I recognize the awesome responsibility this ultimately Christian freedom gives me if I want to keep this freedom, I pledge to at least respect (if not embrace) the Christian Faith as the origin and source of these above principles foundational to Human Rights and Freedoms, and as the best guarantee of the long continuance of Human Rights and Freedoms. I recognize that some kind of totalitarianism where the government tells citizens what they may or may not believe was the worldwide norm before Christianity and still the norm in those nations least influenced by Christianity or Christian-based International Law, such that the freedom to explore other religious and philosophical alternatives to Christianity is itself a gift flowing historically and logically from the Christian doctrine of God’s Gift of Free Will to humanity, and thus although Christianity by its own principles which introduced this religious freedom cannot properly be coerced in individuals, Christianity must at least be officially respected by State governments which wish to avoid “Creeping Totalitarianism” and wish to maintain religious freedom, Human Rights, and Democracy for the long-term, simply because Christianity is the origin and source of the above First Principles of Democracy which make religious freedom, Human Rights, and Democracy even possible.

 

  1. I recognize that civilizations are built on foundations: So if you take for granted, forget, and fail to maintain the foundations, you undermine the whole civilization and way of life built on them. We cannot keep long-term the fruits of Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms without their Christian and “Pro-Life” roots, and thus if we want to keep our Human Rights and Freedoms long-term necessity obligates us to officially respect (if not embrace) their Christian source, and we are obligated to repair and actively maintain these now badly eroded vital “Pro-Life” (“Pro-Human-Right-to-Live”) foundations of Democracy by ensuring citizens (and especially politicians) know the above Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy and live (and govern) by them.  I recognize that this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy effectively upgrades the Pro-Life movement to “Pro-Life 2.0” – “Pro-Life” is no longer only about saving preborn human babies threatened by legal abortion; from now on “Pro-Life” is about saving Democracy itself which is also threatened by “Pro-Choice” legal abortion because Democracy cannot last without its “Pro-Life” foundation of the immense and EQUAL value of every human life without exception which is directly contradicted by “Pro-Choice” (that is, “Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans”) philosophy which has directly eradicated the Inherent Human Right to Live that is the logical ground of Democracy.  The “Pro-Life” movement is the vanguard of Democracy.

 

  1. So whether I am Christian or not, recognizing that my own human life and Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms for the long-term and those of my children and grandchildren and all those I care about depend upon the above Christian and “Pro-Life” principles historically and logically and implicitly underlying Human Rights and Freedoms being explicitly recognized and respected and defended and practiced:

 

  1. I hereby pledge to learn well the above Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, making use of educational resources such as those produced by Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! (http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch) and the treatise The Education Necessary to Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack (on which this Pledge is based), which help citizens to think about Human Rights and Freedoms from their foundational First Principles so that they can last long on their solid foundation; because I recognize a “critical mass” of citizens must not only believe in but also stand up together in Solidarity for these principles if democracy is to last, I hereby pledge to stand up for these principles when they are ignored or challenged, and I pledge to speak and spread the explicit knowledge of these principles implicitly underlying the formation of every modern democracy; and I pledge to work in Solidarity with others towards having my country explicitly constitutionally enshrine these foundational First Principles of Democracy so that Human Rights for all humans and the Democratic Freedoms that logically follow them can last in my country.

 

Draft 2.6m The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy © 2016 William Baptiste SFO, Founder and Director, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!

To Help “Spread The Pledge” officially Go To VOLUNTEERS

YOU Can Help Develop, Publish and Distribute The Pledge and the treatise The Education Necessary to Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack and help develop further promotional and educational materials by becoming a Patron of Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! at https://www.patreon.com/humanrightsandfreedomsforever

Or by Exploring Other Donation Options at DONATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY

To Purchase Materials to use in “spreading the Pledge” Go To the Democracy Store

To Find Out Exactly How YOU can USE the Education in Human Rights you just received by reading the Pledge, click to GO TO

The New Abolitionist Manifesto of Solidarity :

A Supplement to The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy for Ending All Bigotry That Denies Equal Human Value and Equal Human Rights to Some Humans; including “The Winning Long-Term Strategy for ‘The Culture of Life’ to Win the ‘Cultural War’ with ‘The Culture of Death,’ to Save Humanity Forever from ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’ ”

 

[To Get the Flag of Democracy, Bumper Stickers and Posters and Pamphlets and Booklets and lawn signs etc. to spread and support the worldwide grassroots movement of The Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy  and The New Abolitionist Manifesto of Solidarity in order to protect Human Life, Religious Freedom and Democracy itself from current attacks, GO TO THE DEMOCRACY STORE.  Those who wish to produce and print and distribute such materials in their country should contact democracystore@yahoo.com for copyright permission and the latest draft, and your authorized products will be advertised worldwide at the Democracy Store]

Footnotes to the Pledge

[1] The first quoted phrase is from Article 2 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the second quoted phrase is from the first sentence of the formal Preamble of the Universal Declaration which begins by declaring an essentially similar truth to Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy #1 in the different words: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

[2] [This rough Draft 2.6 footnote is a very rough attempt to briefly and generally address some of the “Pro-Choice” approaches]  Most of the arguments used to justify legal abortion or legal euthanasia / “assisted suicide” (which typically degenerates into killing humans for very many reasons including psychological not physical distress wherever euthanasia / “assisted suicide” has been de-criminalized) can be boiled down to an ultimately self-centered and anti-human approach of “killing not caring” which absolves people of the human responsibility to actually care for other humans in their complex neediness by simply killing them instead and then never having to actually care for them again, a very short-sighted abdication of human responsibility which in its wake legally devalues EVERYBODY’S human lives by legally denying any Inherent Human Right to Live which the government must protect (which is the foundation of Democracy).  The “Pro-Choice abortion (and logically following euthanasia)” mindset’s single uncreative solution to many complex human problems of poverty and suffering and crime is to kill humans instead of finding human life-affirming creative solutions which involve the human effort of lovingly engaging and being with precious human persons and treating them as valuable and WORTH the effort of (as individuals and as a society) trying to find better solutions to their human problems and difficulties (solutions which maintain the First Principles of Democracy which killing humans denies).  The “Pro-Choice” mindset twists compassion for poverty and suffering into killing humans who might be poor or who might suffer so we do not have to use genuine compassion to actually engage ourselves in their human persons or their human problems.  What a grossly anti-human irony to fund “doctor-assisted suicide” for people who for the moment feel their “lives are not worth living” (without disputing them and helping them re-find meaning) instead of funding suicide prevention hotlines and services to actually assist precious human persons in overcoming the difficulties or limitations which temporarily made them feel they wanted to die.  Legal euthanasia and “assisted suicide” are so anti-human that the government no longer even protects us from ourselves in those normal difficult moments in everyone’s human life when we temporarily lose sight of our meaning and purpose in life, especially normal when we face some new challenge or handicap, which always seem overwhelming at first, which we have not YET figured out how to overcome to live a meaningful life whatever our new temporary (or even permanent) limitations are.  “Assisted suicide” is a permanent and irrevocable and inhuman “solution” to typically temporary problems and certainly temporary feelings about them which do not last.  If suddenly having a handicap means your human life is not worth living, and not worth caring for, should we round up and kill all the handicapped?  This was in fact precisely the attitude and practice of the Nazi regime which denied the equal precious value of every human life which is the foundation of Democracy.  And the “Pro-Choice” mindset has brought it back with the aggressive targeting of handicapped babies for abortion just like the Nazis encouraged handicapped parents to abort their likely-handicapped babies.  The precious-human-life- affirming foundations of Democracy regard it as always a tragedy when the medical profession is unable to save a human life despite its best efforts, because human life is always precious.  Investing in proper palliative care to ease the suffering of those at the end of their lives, in the actual active stages of dying due to natural causes (instead of euthanasia / “assisted suicide” killing by doctors), respects the equal precious value of every human life without exception which is still celebrated as a gift worth taking care of until the end and not a burden to be removed (and maintains the foundations of Democracy; and keeps doctors as healers not killers according to the 2500 year Hippocratic Medical Tradition).  All of the “Pro-Choice” mentality’s arguments ultimately fail against the standard of the Inherent Human Right to Live on which all Human Rights and Democracy historically and logically depend:  If you would not kill a toddler-age human whose father was a rapist, there is no more reason to kill a fetal-age human whose father was a rapist, and if you do you deny the Inherent Human Right to Live (the author has met now-adult babies conceived in rape, and challenges anyone to look them in the eye and tell them they deserved the death penalty for their father’s rape.  The social problem of the crime of rape is not made any better by the crime of killing innocent young humans and thus denying the Inherent Human Right to Live as surely as does any totalitarian State).  Further, many “Pro-Life” doctors affirm that there is no such thing as a “medically necessary” abortion to save the mother’s life, simply because any medical procedure undertaken for the purpose of saving the mother’s life which the baby is not likely to or cannot survive does not need to specifically target the human baby for death the way an abortion does.  The so-called “difficult medical cases” used to justify abortion are not that difficult as long as the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy are kept in mind.  It is always a human tragedy when the medical profession is unable to save the life of either the human mother or the human baby both of whom are always precious in any genuine and lasting democracy, which is built on the Foundational Principle of Human Rights and Democracy that every human life without exception and without discrimination (including the age-discrimination of abortion) is supremely and equally precious.  Whenever either mother or baby die in pregnancy complications (whichever one the doctors are unable to save), that loss of human life is properly seen as a tragedy to be mourned.  But if the baby does not have an Inherent Human Right to Live and is automatically targeted for abortion-killing without even any agonizing over the terrible decision of “which precious human life to  try to save,” then logically neither does the mother have an Inherent Human Right to Live, and neither does anyone else, if the Right to Live does not inhere just in being human:  but Democracy assumes as First Principles that every human life is so inherently precious that he or she deserves not only protection from death, but a vote.

[3] There are some modern “updated” versions of the ancient Traditional Hippocratic Oath which do keep intact its fundamental character that ensures that doctors do not kill, such as the 1995 and 2009 updates of the Oath listed at the Hippocratic Registry of Physicians (www.hippocraticregistry.com).

[4] A movement of patients and the medical professionals who treat them started by the author of this Pledge of Allegiance to Democracy, intended to support the overall grassroots movement of educated citizens standing up together in solidarity for the Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy – see http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch/doctors-for-democracy or email doctors4democracy@yahoo.com.

[5] Thus “nice” atheists like Secular Humanists cannot win arguments with oppressive and totalitarian atheists based on any principle of their common atheism to justify their treating humans either as equal or precious, because in doing so Secular Humanists are only borrowing Christian principles which atheists simply do not “own” like Christians do because human equality and preciousness follow logically NOT from atheism but from Christian doctrine about the Love of God who created each human in love, specifically intending to adopt each human into His Divine Trinitarian Family of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Even “nice” atheists, whose “nice” values are not grounded in anything solid that they could get fellow atheists in atheist States to agree with, are thus prone to easily seriously compromise the First Principles of Democracy, for example by being “Pro-Choice” (“Pro-Choice-To-Kill-Humans”) which logically eliminates the Inherent Human Right to Live on which Human Rights and Democracy depends.

[6] How can we abide governmental inconsistency in such a vital matter as whether or not human life is precious and whether or not the government is obligated to protect and serve human lives?  Government-produced posters commonly warn pregnant mothers of the potential harm of smoking and alcohol to their baby who is not yet born.  I note here that for governments to be clear and consistent in their policies, they should have warning posters at abortion clinics warning mothers of the certain harm of abortions to their baby.  It would be best for all to see an end to the “Jekyll and Hyde” style of government we currently have.  Right now our government as “Dr. Jekyll” recognizes fetal age preborn humans as human babies that should be protected from being harmed by their mother’s CHOICE to drink alcohol or smoke, and the government takes steps to EDUCATE and inform mothers of how drinking and smoking can harm their preborn baby.  And as “Mr. Hyde” the same government takes NO steps to EDUCATE and inform mothers about the facts of abortion so as to protect identical preborn human babies from being harmed by their mother’s CHOICE to have an abortion, and instead allows fetal age preborn human babies exactly like those it warns mothers not to harm with alcohol, to be ripped apart in vacuum suction abortions or “burned” to death in chemical saline abortions or otherwise killed – and the government may even pay for the execution of the human baby with taxpayer’s money!  It is truly bizarre, a kind of governmental “multiple personality disorder” (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) that our government allows the same hospital to on one floor perform delicate fetal surgeries to save the lives of preborn human babies of fetal age who have some kind of health problem threatening their lives and necessitating the surgery, and on another floor of the same hospital allows perfectly healthy fetal age human babies to be torn apart or otherwise killed in legal abortions which threaten their lives.  And government health care plans may even pay for both the surgery that saves a fetal age human life and for the surgery that kills a fetal age human life.  This is sloppy and inconsistent thinking and policy-making and is nothing less than “Jekyll and Hyde” government.  Why should we humans trust such governments which are so confused about the value of human lives?

[7] The Christian Gospel or “Good News” for humanity is that every human life without exception (from the very lowest to the very highest in the eyes of human society) was created in Love and is supremely and equally valuable and precious to the One God in Three Persons who “IS Love” in its deepest essence, the One God who in the ultimate Mystery (beyond merely human comprehension) of His Divine Being is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, such that parenthood, childhood, and the bond of Love which bind them are IN God, who created (ideally loving) human families “in the Image” of the supremely loving Divine Trinitarian Family, specifically intending to adopt each and every human who accepts God’s desire for them into God’s Eternal Heavenly Family of mutually self-giving Love.  The anti-love called sin naturally separates humans from God who IS Love.  How to be most loving and how to avoid the relationship-breaking anti-love of sin is defined in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount and other passages of the Bible, but unfortunately human weakness from the primordial “Fall of Humankind” makes practically living this extremely high standard of Love impossible.  But God the Father loved humanity so much He sent God the Son incarnate (enfleshed), Jesus Christ (fully God and fully human), to die on the Cross for all of history’s self-seeking human sins against the self-giving Love that God is in its deepest essence, so that with the relationship-breaking power of sin (anti-love) defeated by Jesus’ both Divine and human self-sacrificing Love, God could give each human who wants to be part of His Family the Gift of the indwelling Presence of God the Holy Spirit, Who in the ultimate Mystery of the Holy Trinity Is the substantial Love uniting the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit Who God created humanity not to be COMPLETE without (Who fills the “God-shaped hole” longing to be filled in every human life), and Who is “the Spirit of adoption” by whom Christians can call God “Abba [Aramaic for Daddy], Father” (Romans 8:15).  When humans “repent” or “turn away” from the self-seeking anti-love of sin and “believe and are baptized” (Mark 16:16), they are adopted by God and saved from being outside of God’s Eternal Family of Love and thus saved from missing out on the wonderful Eternal Destiny every human was created by God in Love to have, receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit of God humanity was designed to be indwelt by, Who does not immediately make Christians perfect but who gives Christians access to the Divine Power necessary to gradually overcome immature human weakness and gradually mature and become better and better at loving like God loves.  The challenge of the Christian Gospel is to, in our many human weaknesses and limitations, rely on the loving power and wisdom of the God of Love to figure out ways to better love every human and treat each human with the dignity they have just because they were created by God who wanted each one to return His Love and choose to belong to His Family. The reason that abortion is the supremely anti-human and anti-loving act is because in abortion the parents (not just the mother) effectively say to their child, “I would rather kill you than love you and give of myself to raise you,” rejecting the supremely human parental gift of life and self-sacrificing love for their child, and at the same time rejecting the Image of God the self-giving Trinitarian Family of Love which in loving human families they were created to reflect.

  • [8] Even an online dictionary gives the origin of the word or the “archaic” meaning of “charity” as “love of humankind, typically in a Christian context.”

[9] Such as the University of Paris, also known as the Sorbonne, which grew out of the Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral School.  The central College of Sorbonne was one of its colleges of Theology, then “Queen of the Sciences.”  Doctoral degrees were first introduced here.

[10]  The ancient Greeks of the Socratic School, who are recognized as the first scientists, rejected the traditional Greek pantheon of gods as “silly superstition;” yet they worshipped the “Absolute Being” who ordered the cosmos so that it was not a random chaos.  Similarly, Einstein identified the kind of superstitious religion without science as “blind,” while distinguishing “genuine religion” as the foundation without which science is “lame.”  From Aristotle to Einstein, the world’s greatest intellects could always tell the difference between harmful superstitious religion and the vital genuine religion which grounds the scientific worldview of an ordered cosmos.

[11] From Einstein’s book (collecting earlier works) Ideas and Opinions (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954); cited in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the Worlds’ Great Physicists, a 1984 collection edited by Ken Wilbur.

[12] A collection of primary sources of some of these “beyond science” or “mystical” works of these Fathers of Modern Physics can be found in Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the Worlds’ Great Physicists.

[13] I apologize if any atheist reader finds the term “atheistic flatulence” in its turn belittling or demeaning to them; this term is not intended to be directed to honest and pleasant atheists, but only to the all-too-common type of atheist who regularly demeans and belittles those of religious faith.  Turnabout is fair play; and this term is intended to shock such arrogant and condescending atheists into realizing that their insulting bluster is inappropriate and unsubstantiated, and from now on, to be respected by educated people, they will have to be mature and play fair and try to defend their atheist position with something less “airy” and unpleasantly “flatulent” than insults; they will have to engage in honest and respectful debate that does not ignore the strengths of the other side, as would be expected from any genuine seeker of Truth.  If they cannot do this, then they deserve to be discounted for the illegitimacy of their “atheistic flatulence.”

[14] Records of the United States Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, United States of America v. Ulrich Greifelt Et Al (Case VIII), October 10, 1947 March 10, 1948; The National Archives, Washington, D.C.: Microfilm Publication 894, Roll 6 (Trial Vols. 10 & 11), pp. 3952-53, 4024, also M894 R 31, pp. 27-28, 4866. This is the complete record of the trial.  Cited in the paper The Abortion and Eugenics Policies of Nazi Germany by Professor John Hunt, Ph.D.

[15] These quotations are also from the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[16] It is worth remembering that the totalitarian Soviet Union which first de-criminalized abortion in 1920 was a founding member of the UN because it was one of the victorious Allies against Hitler’s Third Reich.  Yet in 1948 abortion was criminal once again even in Soviet Russia because Stalin re-criminalized abortion in 1936 after realizing abortion was not good for Mother Russia (he was aborting his workforce and his army).  The totalitarian Soviet Union de-criminalized abortion once again in the 1950s, and it is inexplicable that the free democracies in the 1960s and 1970s totally forgot what they well knew in 1948, that de-criminalizing abortion is something only oppressive totalitarian States which have no respect for Human Rights do.

© 2016 William Baptiste SFO

For an In-depth Education in Preserving Democracy Now Under Attack Go To The Treatise .  To participate in spreading the Pledge in your country Go to Volunteers and/or Donations for Democracy and/or the Democracy Store

Become a Patron of Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! at https://www.patreon.com/humanrightsandfreedomsforever

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *