America Betrayed

144 ; 26836.
M264a Maddoux.
America betrayed!!_ &
DATE DUE
144 M264a oa
America betrayed / Ss
mw |
J.E. Cobb Library
AMERICA BETRAYED!
Marlin Maddoux
DMB
J.E. COBB LIBRARY
CENTRAL BAPTIST COLLEGE
HUNTINGTON (ii) HOUSE INC.

Copyright © 1984 by Marlin Maddoux
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN Number 0-910311-18-8
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without permission from
the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review; nor may
any part of this book be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or copied by
mechanical, photocopying, recording or other means, without permission from the
publisher.
AMERICA BETRAYED! formerly was published under the title HUMANISM

EXPOSED.
TO MARY
cia) ce
-
Teed
elo
¢?
‘et
ae
ot a
-
}
ane
=
eo wet
men
rer Reid
A:
ge
a
erie ;
ie
-
° itr Ma coevevge | th pee‘
a Se tepiioend. se
: " jepetaenen anaoerFey eveehe
i
oe ana
nn,
‘—, ace
(its a mee
ene rrtgn ne
a én een f
FOREWORD
America Betrayed is atimely book written by a well-informed

man of God. It truly exposes the subtle inroads of humanism,
but does so in a spirit of love and understanding.
Marlin Maddoux is not on a soapbox. He is not trying to

establish himself as an authority on humanism. He is simply
sharing a burden of his heart. No one can read this book and éver
again be silent about the dangers of creeping humanism.
It is the very best on the subject I’ve ever read. It should make
the devil really mad.
DAVID WILKERSON
Author, The Cross and the Switchblade
e*«
re;
oe
a
wr
:
—
sy) , | aa
beanotai-th yw med woth; resents isenit.c cia
yj Ana lasiur lo abso side odd CEO Y | “i a
Fy, wom
a iz tehaus bas avol iosiniqeoo ne
b sue
oO sais jonai oH nodanoe 8 no lowai wobbeM n a val

7 22) 9H aminamud do ehorwe ne asHeernid |
$bits doodaiity| bast nao Ofte oA umd acdte mabun i
_-aeninanealt pies 10 regan seitmode,Jaelig od ode A
slamblvd 11bas rw04 v1Posidune

ontno teed ee ot“
a ae. ai _ Path de:
rf
ee ce -- woesnsmuiw aivaa /
sal Seere rs
oa
ee
ad
ne oa,
a
dtl
a
Prin
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Shocked Into Reality .............+.00:

Takeover Of The Public Schools ........
Media Manipulation...................
ERAT EXPIDIPatION ote ee ere a eee 106
NY
WwW
Fb
nA
= Time For Hard Thinking.............. 132
a rAITUOD 10 GAT
: weais -¥pllasdt otal

6 tease ee
0... Ali 2 sildusoT 10rovoodeT ae
Semen
ae ini-+ soianlugingM ibe ie i a
a Deere: rae syeens «Moltshighgn’llauxe®
See
teSorat a) * « gcidaidt oa iT ,
‘ai aaa a Zi Tphe a :
‘ie as ;
_
a ol, —
ABs : noe, Mee
ae a |
has
oe van
SHOCKED INTO REALITY
A strikingly attractive lady sat across a table from

me in the interview room of a Dallas, Texas radio
station where I host a daily talk show called “Point of
View.”
A few weeks earlier her name had been mentioned
to me as a possible guest to discuss what seemed to be
a personal crusade she was conducting. She sounded
just controversial enough to be a good guest, and I
knew that controversy always generates a large lis-
tening audience with lively questions and comments
on the phones. The subject would make a good
show.
So I said, “‘Let’s go with it.”
I had launched “‘Point of View” because I had kept
asking, ““Why doesn’t someone in the communications
business give the people who do not agree with a
particular viewpoint a forum to speak out?”
9
10 America Betrayed!
After watching the news reports on television for

years, I felt that the whole truth was not being given to
the American people. And I had listened to various
radio “‘talk shows” and found that the host would
usually make people feel foolish if they even sug-
gested that the moral Christian viewpoint was any-
thing but an item from ancient history.
After waiting for someone to give an opportunity
for an alternative voice on the issues, I decided that if
no one else would do it, I would have to do it myself.
And so — “‘Point of View” radio talk show was born.
We adopted the slogan ‘“‘The talk show that’s dif
ferent!”
The program features interviews with a variety of
notable personalities from across the nation and from
many different professions. Politicians, entertainers,
_ ministers, crusaders, the famous and the not-so-fa-
mous have been guests on the show. Sometimes a
guest will simply share a testimony or debate a con-
troversial subject. At other times people will appear
on the show who have a “cause” or an issue they want
to discuss.
And my guest that day had what she considered to
be an “‘issue” of importance that should be brought to
the attention of the people.
I had seen several newspaper articles about her and
her work and frankly thought to myself, ‘““Why doesn’t
she stay at home and mind her own business? Why is
she so upset at something as trivial as a few bad words
in some of the public school textbooks? After all,” I
reasoned, “‘the kids have probably seen worse words
on the walls of the school restrooms.” I thought she
was criticizing a system about which she knew very
little.
Shocked Into Reality Il
When she arrived at the station about half an hour

before air time, I escorted her to the interview room
and helped her unload a large bag full of papers,
magazines, notebooks and school textbooks, and
wondered how she expected us to wade through so
much material in only a couple of hours.
After we were seated at the interview table, we
chatted about the format of the show. I told her that we
would talk together twenty to thirty minutes, and then
I would invite the listeners to call in and ask questions.
She was quite nervous, she told me, because she had
never been on a radio talk show before. I told her just
to relax and talk to me and not worry about the people
who were listening on radio.
I noticed that she had relaxed as I put on my ear-
phones just in time to hear the familiar downbeat of
the theme music and the voice of the announcer say-
ing, ‘““This is ‘Point of View’ — the talk show that’s
different! And, now here’s your host, Marlin Mad-
doux.”’
As the theme music faded, the engineer in the con-
trol room looked through the glass window and gave
me the “‘cue’’ that our microphones were “hot.”
We were on the air!

I spoke into the microphone. “Hello, everybody.
Thank you for joining us today. We’re going to be
discussing a subject that should be of interest to every-
one — school textbooks! Our guest today has some
misgivings about the directions that public education
is taking and has mounted a campaign to do some-
thing about it. She is speaking out locally, as well as
on the state level. I think you will find her a very
interesting guest.”’
With that brief introduction I removed my head-
phones, laid them down on the table, looked at my

guest and said, “‘Tell me why you are so concerned
about what is being taught in the public schools.”’
By this time my guest had completely relaxed, and
when she began to talk she sounded as if she had been
doing radio talk shows all her life. She was bright,
articulate, sensitive, and had all her facts straight.
She said, “Mr. Maddoux, when my son was in the
fifth grade I was serving as program chairman for our
school’s Parent-Teacher Association. I had read an
article in the newspaper that described a history book
that purportedly devoted three lines to George Wash-
ington and six pages to Marilyn Monroe. Now I ama
history buff and ‘minored’ in history in college, and
that information disturbed me. If this was true, I
started to wonder if that kind of emphasis might be in
other textbooks as well.”
She continued, ‘“‘I had heard of a woman who was
speaking out on the school textbook issue, so I invited
her to speak to our PTA group. To my surprise, a large
number of parents came to hear her. Our speaker
convinced me that something, indeed, was wrong in
the way we were educating our children; and I became
very distressed over this new information and spent
the next three months crying and reading. Finally, I
stopped crying and continued my research, deter-
mined to share what I had learned with other par-
ents.”
Her story unfolded as she said, “‘It became quite
apparent to me, as well as to many others, that our
children’s ‘values’ were being changed from our tra-
ditional values of home, family, and church to some
educator’s view of what the child’s values should be.
Our country was founded on the Judeo-Christian
system of morality, and we had assumed that was
Shocked Into Reality : 13
what was being taught. I was also shocked that our

children were not being taught the principles. of the
‘free enterprise’ system. I found that some of the
textbooks speak favorably of the Marxist-Leninist
concept of society and economics and severely crit-
icize the free enterprise system, saying that it is re-
sponsible for the plight of the poor.”
By this time I knew that she had not only my at-
tention but the attention of thousands of other people
as well. This lady was accusing our public school
system of the worst of crimes — willfully tampering
with the loyalties and the religious and moral beliefs
of our children — without the parents’ knowledge or
consent!
My mind could not accept it. It was too “‘far out’’ to
be taken seriously. It couldn’t be! She must be one of a
large number of “‘reactionaries’”” who don’t under-
stand the progressive mood of the country.
My guest continued by saying that further inves-
tigation confirmed her worst fears. She concluded,
after months of research, that the American public
school system was being used to systematically alter
the moral values of our children, undermine patrio-
tism and love of country, denigrate the free enterprise
system, foster dependence upon the federal govern-
ment, and create a new society based on what she
called secular humanism!
After having gone nearly an hour into the interview,
investigating the textbooks and other materials, I was
clearly surprised at the information I was seeing and
hearing. And as ifto add insult to injury to the shocked
talk show host, my guest, Mrs. Jo Ann McAuley,
shoved one of her many books in front of me and said,
**Mr. Maddoux, would you please read a few pages
from this book? This is a book that is available in
14 America Betrayed
public school libraries all across the nation.”

Without a moment’s hesitation I said, ““Of course,
Mrs. McAuley, I would be happy to.”
And I began to read. Out loud! Over the air!
As I was reading into the microphone, my eyes
were traveling several words ahead of what I was
actually saying over the air — fortunately! And whatI
saw stunned me. I stopped in mid-sentence and look-
ed up at my guest. She was looking back at me.
Smiling!
I said, ““Jo Ann, I can’t read this. There are laws
that prohibit using that kind of filthy language over the
air. Why, the Federal Communications Commission
could take our license away from us if I read these
words into this microphone. We have decency laws.”
With the smugness that comes from seeing a well-
laid plan work out right, she just continued to smile.
Then it dawned on me. That’s the way she had plan-
ned it! To shock me! I had been set up! She knew I
couldn’t read that over the air. She knew I would have
to stop. She had a point to make and she made it — at
my expense! And I played my part well.
She said, “‘Isn’t it interesting, Mr. Maddoux, that
the law will not allow you to read these words over the
air, but our children can check this book out of the
libraries in our public schools and read it any time
they please?”
I would have dismissed what she had to say, but she
had the facts in front of her, and I read paragraph after
paragraph from the public school textbooks she had
brought that backed up everything she was saying.
The simple fact was that I was being “educated,”
along with thousands of others who were listening on
radio. The mail we received after that show confirmed
that people were shocked, outraged, frightened, an-
Shocked Into Reality 1S
gered, and that théy wanted to hear more on the

subject.
AFTERSHOCK
The information to which I had been exposed that

day started me on an intense investigation that was to
reveal some shocking facts. I approached the subject
cautiously because I didn’t want to become a “‘con-
spiracy’’ buff, seeing a sinister plot in every event that
took place. But there was something happening in our
country, and I was determined to find out what it
was.
For the next several weeks after the interview with
Mrs. McAuley, I spent every spare moment gathering
and reading material on the history and development
of the modern humanist movement. As the months
passed, things began to fall into place in my mind.
What was unfolding was not pleasant. I was repulsed
by its implications. It was threatening and not a little
frightening. But I felt that my search was helping me to
“set a handle’ on the reasons why our society was
going through such turmoil, with old values being torn
down and a new system of morality being erected on
its ruins.
I was beginning to see why I had begun to feel like a
stranger in my own country.
During the next several weeks I haunted book stores
and libraries trying to find something that would give
me the “key” to this whole story. I found that hu-
manism is very elusive, for it kept changing its name
while retaining its enmity to God and moral absolutes. I
ran across such names penaturalistic humanism, sci-
J.E. COBB LIBRA!
Qe Sb CENTRAL BAPTIST COLLEGE
entific, ethical, democratic, religious and Marxist

humanism. Other philosophies that seem to crowd
under the same umbrella are such things as skepti-
cism, deism, rationalism, liberal religion, agnostic-
ism, and free thought. They all claimed to have de-
scended from classical Greece and Rome, the Renais-
sance, and the so-called “‘enlightenment,”’ right down
to our modern “‘scientific’’ world.
One afternoon I returned to my office after having
been on the air for two hours, laid my briefcase down,
dropped in my chair, put my feet up, and leaned back
to “catch my breath.” After a few minutes, my wife,
Mary, came in, handed me a small book and said, “A
listener brought this by. He thought you might find it
interesting.”
When she handed it to me the name on the cover
caught my eye. It read Humanist Manifestos I and II.
I knew what a “manifesto” was. And I was beginning
to understand what a humanist was. So, I thought this
might hold some answers for me.
Iturned the book over and read the comments of the
publisher, Prometheus Books: “‘Publication of the
Manifesto has provoked worldwide debate over hu-
manist recommendations for the future of mankind in
the areas of religion and ethics and over humanist
views on the meaning of life, civil liberties and de-
mocracy, the right to suicide, abortion and divorce,
euthanasia, sexual freedom, worldwide ecological
and economic planning, and the building of world
community.”
What I was about to read was going to jar me into
reality. These documents proved that what had been a
loosely knit movement operating under a variety of
names was now becoming more defined. This was a
call for those who rejected the concept of an eternal
God who created the universe to unite and rid man-

kind of such philosophical baggage. They had the
“new religion of man,”’ and their manifestos outlined
how it would be implemented throughout the world.
Humanism became an organized “secular religion’’
with clearly defined doctrines and goals when a group
of humanists thrust upon the world these two doc-
uments — which articulated their beliefs about man-
kind, the universe, religion, and moral values as well
as serving as their battle plan and guide for bringing
about a worldwide society based upon the religion of
humanism.
I was holding those documents in my hands.
THE HUMANIST MANIFESTOS
I later did some background reading on the birth of

these two documents and discovered that in 1933,
thirty-four people drafted the first of these documents,
which in their minds was concerned with the “‘estab-
lishment of a religion worthy of the day’s scientific
and social advances.”’ This was Humanist Manifesto
I and it contained fifteen theses, all to the effect that
there was no God and nothing higher than man exist-
ed in the universe. This document affirmed that all is
“secular” and “relative.” .
Humanist Manifesto I was signed by an interesting
blend of prominent people, including some Ameri-
cans, many of whom appeared in-““Who’s Who in
America.” The list includes such people as John
Dewey, an educator and father of the American “‘pro-
gressive’ education movement; R. Lester Mondale,
brother of former Vice President Walter Mondale;
Albert Eustace Haydon; and Charles Frances Potter,
along with some pastors and influential writers.

Forty years later a second document appeared that
restated and updated the original doctrines and goals
of the first one. This second document was signed by
such people as Paul Blanchard, author; Joseph L.
Blau, professor of religion at Columbia University;
Bette Chambers, president of the American Human-
ist Association; Edd Doerr, Americans United for
Separation of Church and State; Alan F. Guttmacher,
president of Planned Parenthood Federation of Amer-
ica; Mordecai M. Kaplan, rabbi and founder of the
Jewish Reconstruction Movement; Corliss Lamont,
' chairman of the National Emergency Civil Liberties
Commission; B.F. Skinner, professor of psychology
at Harvard University; Betty Friedan, founder of the
National Organization For Women; and many others.
Humanist Manifesto II was heralded on the front
pages of major newspapers and publications through-
out the world when it was published.
These documents were followed by the 1980 Hu-
manist Declaration. This document decried ‘“‘reap-
pearance of dogmatic authoritarian religions,” as
evidenced by “‘fundamentalist, literalist and doctrin-
aire Christianity.’’ This restatement of the humanist
doctrine was signed by sixty-one scholars and writers,
mostly American and British, including B.F. Skinner,
Isaac Asimov, Sidney Hook, A.J. Ayer, and many ~
others.
After glancing over the long list of important people
who had signed these documents, I was eager to see
what they had to say. As I read I was totally dumb-
founded at the arrogance displayed. It was hard for
me to believe. I had the distinct feeling that these
people believed that they have the answers for the
future of the human race.
Here are a few brief excerpts from Humanist Mani-

festos I and II:
The next century can be and should be the Au-

manist century. Dramatic, scientific, technolog-
ical and ever-accelerating social and political
changes crown our awareness. We have con-
quered the planet and explored the moon, over-
come the natural limits of travel and communi-
cation; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready
to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit
other planets. Using technology, we can control
our environment, conquer poverty, markedly re-
duce disease, extend our life-span, significantly
modify our behavior, alter the course of human
evolution and cultural development, unlock vast
new powers, and provide humankind with unpar-
alleled opportunity for achieving an abundant
and meaningful life. Humanism is an ethical pro-
cess through which we all can move, above and
beyond the divisive particulars, heroic person-
alities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of
past religions or their mere negation. We affirma
set of common principles that can serve as a base
for united action. They are a design for the se-
cular society on a planetary scale.
As I read further I could sense the obvious hostility

of the authors to the very concept of God and Chris-
tianity. Their disdain is clearly spelled out, leaving no
room for doubt. They consider Christianity to be a
roadblock to their design for the secular society on a
planetary scale.”’ They say:
Today man’s larger understanding of the uni-

verse, his scientific achievements, and his deeper

appreciation of brotherhood, have created asit-
uation which requires a new statement of the
means and purposes of religion. While this age
does owe a vast debt to traditional religions, it is
none the less obvious that any religion that can
hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for
today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To
establish such a religion is a major necessity of
the present.
Though we consider the religious forms and ideas

of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for
the good life is still the central task of man-
kind.
As in 1933, humanists still believe that tradi-

tional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing
God, assumed to love and care for persons, to
hear and understand their prayers, and to be able
to do something about them, is an unproved and
outmoded faith.
It is our conviction that humanism offers an

alternative that can serve present-day needs and
guide mankind toward the future. Traditional
moral codes. . . fail to meet the pressing needs of
today and tomorrow. False “‘theologies of hope”’
and messianic ideologies ... cannot cope with
existing world realities.
We believe. . . that traditional dogmatic or au-

thoritarian religions that place revelation, God,
ritual, or creed above human needs and exper-
Shocked Into Reality , 21
ience do a disservice to the human species.
We find insufficient evidence for the belief in the

existence of a supernatural; it is either meaning-
less or irrelevant to the question of the survival of
and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists,
we begin with humans, not God; nature, not
deity.
Too often traditional faiths encourage depen-

dence rather than independence, obedience rather
than affirmation, fear rather than courage. But
we can discover no divine purpose ... for the
human species. While there is much that we do
not know, humans are responsible for what we
are or will become. No deity will save us; we
must save ourselves.
Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal

damnation are both illusory and harmful. Mod-
ern science discredits such historic concepts as
the “‘ghost in the machine”’ and the “‘separable
soul’ (emphasis added).
Not only did they denigrate the Christian faith; they

also stated that the Christian moral value system was
outdated and would be replaced with their own “‘hu-
manistic’’ morality. They even give us an insight to
what that new morality will be. They state:
Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring

measures. We need to extend the uses of scien-
tific method, not renounce them to fuse reason
with compassion in order to build constructive
social and moral values.
22. America Betrayed!
We affirm that moral values derive their source

from human experience. Ethics is autonomous
and situational, needing no theological or ideo-
logical sanction. Ethics stems from human need
and interest... We strive for the good life here
and now.
In the area of sexuality, we believe that intol-

erant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox
religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress
sexual conduct. While we do not approve of
exploitative, denigrating forms of sexual expres-
sion, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or
social sanction, sexual behavior between con-
senting adults. The many varieties of sexual ex-
ploration should not in themselves be considered
“evil.” Short of harming others or compelling
them to do likewise, individuals should be per-
mitted to express their sexual proclivities and
pursue their life-styles as they desire. Moral
education for children and adults is an important
way of developing awareness and sexual matur-
ity (emphasis added).
Whenever I have attempted to use the statements

found in these documents to pin down the basic beliefs
of humanism, I have found that humanists tend to
downplay their significance. They say there is no
single person or organization that speaks for all
humanists and that these documents are only the
private thoughts of a small group of “‘free thinkers.”
However, when you take a closer look at the people
who signed these documents, you cannot discount
their importance. Some of the most influential opin-
ion-molders in the history of this nation were either
Shocked Into Reality 23
signers or affirmed supporters of the doctrines con-

tained in these three documents. And many of these
people are presently occupying some of the loftiest
positions in academia, business, finance, government,
the arts and communications industry.
The Humanist Manifestos essentially established
the name “humanist.” It is their term. They defined it
for us. So the person who ascribes to the doctrines
articulated in Humanist Manifestos I and II has been
defined by them as a “humanist.” I think we can
therefore safely say that humanism is rightly arti-
culated for us in Humanist Manifestos I and II and the
Humanist Declaration of 1980.
The foregoing statements should remove any doubt

as to the designs of the humanist movement. Plainly
stated, they intend to transform society into a hu-
manistic one, with the religion of that new society
being humanism. In fact, one of my guests said that
when he interviewed some of the leaders in the hu-
manist movement, they made no apologies about
their ultimate intentions of bringing about their world-
wide goals. To the contrary, they were quite open and
outspoken about their aims and purposes, perceiving
their plans as the only sane and workable approach to
the survival of mankind in this atomic age.
The humanist movement’s goals are clearly spelled
out in their documents, Humanist Manifestos I and II.
They are there for everyone to read. It is their “‘declar-
ation,”’ their “‘intention,”’ their battle plan, their grand
design for every human being upon the face of the
earth. And we would be wise to take them very
seriously.
24 America Betrayed
WHAT IS HUMANISM?
When Ifirst started using the term ““humanism”’ on

the radio and during my talks at churches and confer-
ences, a lot of people responded — sometimes quite
angrily — saying, ‘“But aren’t we all humanists — in
that we are all human canes and are interested in the
human race?”
Naturally, the meaning of specific words may vary
with different societies and may even change with the
passing of time. So I think it is important to define our
terms.
- First, humanism is not to be confused with “‘hu-
manitarianism” or ““humane.”’ A “humanitarian” is a
person who promotes human well-being. All Chris-
tians are ““‘humanitarians’”’ in that they have aconcern
for the good of all mankind. And “humane” is simply
a quality marked by compassion, sympathy or con-
sideration for others.
Second, a humanist is not to be confused with those
who are engaged in the study of the humanities, such
as philosophy, literature and the fine arts.
Third, humanism is not a buzzword that is used as a
‘catch-all’ for describing the people who are not
sympathetic to the Church, Christianity, or the Bible.
It is, in fact, a legitimate term that describes a definite
philosophical viewpoint concerning the world and
moral values.
Well, then, just what is it? I have found that it has so
many faces that it is difficult to define without going
through several college courses in philosophy. But
here are some definitions that are accepted by many
knowledgeable educators with whom I have talked:
“Humanisn’”is defined by Webster's New Col-

legiate Dictionary as ‘“‘a doctrine, attitude, or way of
life centered
on human interests or values; esp: a phi-
losophy that asserts the dignity and worth of man and
his capacity for self-realization through reason and
that often rejects supernaturalism’ (emphasis
added).
The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘““humanism? (fourth
definition) thus: ‘“‘Humanists are a class of thinkers
which arose in Germany toward the end of the 18th
century, originating chiefly from the writings of Rous-
seau. Their system, usually called humanism, sought
to level all family distinctions, all differences of rank,
all nationality, all positive moral obligations, all pos-
itive religion and to train all mankind to be men of the
highest accomplishment.”
Further, I discovered that humanism is a philo-
sophy and system of thought and action that teaches
that man has the capacity for self-fulfillment and
correct ethical conduct without God. Its doctrine
makes man the center and rests solely on human
interests and values. It denies the existence of God —
and teaches that man has no soul, there is no eternity,
no heaven and no hell. Humanism, in fact, worships
the creature rather than the Creator.
The word “humanist” was first brought into popu-
lar use during the Renaissance and originally con-
veyed the idea of concern for humanity. Many pro-
minent philosophers, teachers, and theologians of the
19th century gave impetus to the humanist movement
by adding their support, making it popular to be a
humanist. Darwin’s theory of evolution seemed to
add the final blow to theology’s credibility by pro-
viding a so-called “‘scientific’’ basis for the philo-
sophy of the development of man and the universe,
26 ; America Betrayed
thus doing away with the concept of divine creation.
EVOLUTION AND HUMANISM
The doctrine of humanism rests on the foundation

of the theory
Astronomer Carl Sagan, creator, chief writer, and
host-director of the public television series ““Cos-
mos,” appeared on the cover of the October 1980
issue of Time magazine. Mr. Sagan espouses the
humanistic view and has an incredible propaganda
vehicle — his television program — for influencing
millions of people with his beliefs. The article in Time
says of him, “Sagan also issues some open challenges.
To creationists, who argue for a biblical interpret-
ation of life’s beginnings, he states that evolution is
not theory; it is fact.”
To the contrary, Mr. Sagan, evolution is not fact; it
is not even scientific. It is a philosophy, a theory, a
metaphysical conclusion, as any knowledgeable sci-
entist will admit. But evolution is crucial to the re-
ligion of humanism. If it can be proven that man was
not created by God, but simply evolved from lower
forms of life, then man is left to create his own system
of morality. But if, in fact, man was created by God,
then the theories of humanism are destroyed, and man
is accountable for his life on earth.
The theory of evolution is probably the biggest
hoax ever foisted on intelligent people. Even though it
is a widely accepted theory, it is held mostly by those
who have already rejected a belief in God. Thomas
Huxley, an avowed atheist, admitted that evolution
was only a hypothesis. Other scientists have had to
Shocked Into Reality an
acknowledge that there are no “‘missing links” and no

substantial evidence for the theory of evolution.
Therefore, we must conclude, that the theory of evo-
lution is based on faith and not upon fact. And since
science is the study of fact, evolution is therefore
unscientific.
Dr. Duane T. Gish, director of the Institute for
Creation Research in San Diego, California, says
that evolutionists base their belief on an act of faith,
just as creationists do, stating, ““No scientist has ever
observed the origin of life or the evolution of anything.
Actually, the fossil record supports creation, not evo-
lution. When they talk about their evolutionary theo-
ries on the origin of life, they are operating outside the
limits of empirical science. They are in the realm of
metaphysics, not science. The fact is that among all
those fossils not one intermediate or transitional
form demanded by the theory of evolution has been
found.”’
MAN’S NATURE
In any study of humanism, the name of Jean

Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) will always be pro-
minent. He was a French skeptic whose influence on
the thinking of college professors and students alike
has accounted for much of the continuing spread of
humanism from one generation to the next.
As stated earlier, the Oxford Dictionary defines
humanism as having “originated chiefly from the
writings of Rousseau. Their system, usually called
humanism, sought to level all family distinctions, all
differences of rank, all positive moral obligations, all
positive religion. . . ’ (emphasis added).
Rousseau did not believe that man’s problems stem-

med from a corrupt nature. Rather, he reasoned that
his problems were the result of his environment and
forces outside himself. Rousseau put it like this: “If
man is good by nature, as I believe to have shown him
to be, it follows that he stays like that as long as
nothing foreign to him corrupts him.”’
Historians agree that Rousseau’s philosophy was a
major factor in bringing about the French Revolution
with its atrocities against thousands of innocent
people.
Corliss Lamont, an outspoken humanist, reflected
Rousseau’s rejection of God’s revelation of the fallen
nature of man when he wrote in his book The Phi-
losophy of Humanism: “What the scientific study of
human motive shows is that human nature is neither
essentially bad nor essentially good, neither essenti-
ally selfish nor essentially unselfish, neither essenti-
ally warlike nor essentially pacific. There is neither
original sin nor original virtue. But human nature is
essentially flexible and educable. And the molding or
remolding of human motives is something that takes
place not only in childhood and youth, but also
through adult life.”’
The great tragedy is that this basic belief (in the
essential goodness of human nature) as set forth in the
humanist philosophies has influenced to a large ex-
tent many of the public institutions in our nation.
Even many church denominations have denied the
biblical interpretation of the essential fallen, sinful
nature of man, espousing instead a “social” gospel
that says the problem is not man’s nature that must be
changed, but man’s environment. Thus they cease to
preach and proclaim the regenerating power of the
gospel and attempt to “regenerate” man through cul-
tural, economic and social programs.

Even though the Bible is quite plain in describing
the unregenerate nature of man, many traditional
denominations reject it and opt to define their own
theology of man. They have a ““humanistic’”’ view of
man and the world, rather than a Christian view. So-
called Christian humanism rejects the traditional con-
cepts of God, prayer, the sacrificial death of Christ,
the church, and worship as anachronistic. They teach
that ultimate reality is to be found with man and that
Christianity is simply a Christ-like dedication to the
total well-being of mankind. It is homanism couched in
theological terms.
Moreover, the doctrine of humanism is anti-theistic;
that is, it denies the existence of God, the inspiration
of the Scriptures, the divinity of Christ, the existence
of the soul, life after death, and the biblical account of
creation. Humanist Manifesto I clearly articulates
this:
Religious humanists regard the universe as self-

existent and not created.
Humanism believes that man is a part of nature

and that he has emerged as the result of a con-
tinuous process.
Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe

depicted by modern science makes unacceptable
any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human
values.
Unlike Christianity, which restores man’s dignity,

humanism robs man of his divine origin and reduces
him to being the product of a meaningless accident of

nature. Man’s dignity is found only in the biblical
account which reveals that he was lovingly created by
God, not by himself (Psalm 100:3). Man’s highest
purpose is found in living with and for God, not for
himself alone. Man reaches his highest potential in
realizing that he was made in God’s image (Genesis
1:26), is the finest of God's creations (Genesis 1:31)
and views himself as a wondrous and marvelous pro-
duct of the mind and intent of God (Psalm 139:14).
From this perspective man sees that the universe does
not revolve around himself, but around God. And
God’s will and purposes, not man’s, are supreme.
Contrast the dignity of being created by a caring
and loving God with the doctrine of humanism as
expressed in Humanist Manifesto II, under Affir-
mation Two: “‘As far as we know, the total personality
is a function of the biological organism transacting in
a social and cultural context. There is no credible
evidence that life survives the death of the body...”
A LESSON FROM COMMUNISM
Both communism and humanism have as their

foundational doctrine the same rejection of God and
the belief that man is the product of evolution. Evo-
lution is vital to both these ideologies. If evolution is
disproved, their entire doctrine falls under its own
weight.
A study of the advance of communism reveals that
after a country has been conquered militarily, it is
then subjected to an intense national “indoctrination”
in the elements of communism. The communist lead-
ers learned very early that in order to enslave a per-

son, he must be taught to think of himself as an animal
with no spiritual purpose and no eternal soul. Once he
has been “programmed” to reject God, he is ready to
embrace the State as his god and master. The com-
munists know that a person who holds to his belief in
God cannot be enslaved. You may imprison his body,
but you will never enslave his mind and spirit. Thus
the concept of God must be erased from the minds of
the people in order for them to be the slaves of the
State.
A chilling account of this process of ‘‘conditioning”’
a once-free people is given by Bishop O’Gara in The
Surrender To Secularism. He was bishop of Yuan-
ling Province in China when the communists took
over. He described the mental and moral rape of his
people by saying, “... when the communist troops
overran my diocese they were followed in very short
order by the propaganda corps — the civilian branch
of the Red forces. The entire population, city and
countryside, was immediately organized into distinc-
tive categories — grade school and high school pupils
and teachers. . . merchants, artisans, members of the
professions, yes, and even the lowly coolies. Every-
one, for a week or more, was forced to attend the
seminar specified for his or her proper category and
there willy-nilly in servile submission listen to the
official Communist line.
*“Now what, I ask, was the first lesson given to the
indoctrinees? One might have supposed that this would
have been some pearl of wisdom let drop by Marx,
Lenin or Stalin. Such however was not the case. Their
first, the fundamental lesson given was man’s de-
scent from the ape — Darwinism! ...
**Are you surprised that the Chinese communists
chose Darwinism as the cornerstone upon which to

build their new political structure? At first this maneu-
ver amazed me. I had’ taken for granted that they
would begin by expounding the economic principles
of Marx. Later on when in a Red jail, the reason for
this unanticipated tactic became very obvious to me.
Religion must be destroyed. Darwinism negates God,
the human soul and the after-life. Into this vacuum
Communism enters as the be-all and end-all of the intel-
lectual slavery it has created.”
We are aware of the gigantic push by communism
to completely take over the countries of Central
America. Alittle item — overlooked by the press — is
that when the Marxists assassinated President Somoza
of Nicaragua and seized control of that tiny republic,
Cuba helped by sending them one thousand school-
teachers!
- Not soldiers or farmers, but teachers! Why? To
teach the children the principles of Marxism. And the
first lesson is that man is the product of evolution —
not creation.
The Bible teaches, however, that God is the Crea-
tor of all life, including man and the universe. This
does not deny the biological necessity of human in-
volvement, but affirms that life is more than the result
of a biological act. The Bible goes beyond the biolo-
gical and tells us that God is ultimately responsible
for each one of us. We are all stamped with the image
and likeness of God, making each one of us of great
value.
NEW WORLD RELIGION
Secular humanism is a religion!

Shocked Into Reality f 33
Naturally, when we think of religion we assume

that it requires a belief in God. This is not necessarily
so, for religion is any belief a person may have con-
cerning the relationship between himself and the uni-
verse. Even if you believe that you are a product of
evolution and not created by God, and your conduct
reflects that belief, the Supreme Court of the United
States has held that is your religion.
In the Torcaso vs. Watkins case in 1969, the Su-
preme Court declared that neither the federal govern-
ment nor any state can “aid those religions based ona
belief in the existence of God as against religions
founded on different beliefs.’’ The court further speci-
fied that ‘among religions in this country which do not
teach what would generally be considered a belief in
the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical
Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”
The famous case that prohibited Bible reading in
the public schools was Abington vs. Schempp in
1963, in which the Supreme Court also held that the
“‘state may not establish a ‘religion’ of secularism.”
It seems logical that since the Supreme Court has
declared that secular humanism isa religion, it should
be illegal to teach the secular humanistic value system
in our public schools. Moreover, any argument that
declares that secular humanism is not a religion has
been nullified by these Supreme Court decisions.
A COLLISION COURSE
Secular humanism and Christianity are on a colli-

sion course. Any system that teaches anything con-
trary to moral relativism — such as the Christian
doctrine of absolute truth and biblical moral standards
— isa threat to the entire humanistic position. And in

order for humanism to bring about its desired goals,
man must be stripped of his belief in God and moral
absolutes. Humanism cannot prevail as long as man
believes in God. .
The strand of humanism runs through the fabric of
many social and political movements bent on estab-
lishing a new world order. The most notable of these
on the world stage today are Communism and Social-
ism. Their basic beliefs contain the same enmity to-
ward God and moral absolutes as reflected in hu-
manism.
Nesta Webster stated in Secret Societies and Sub-
versive Movements: “‘The final goal of world-revolu-
tion is not socialism or even communism, it is not the
destruction of civilization in a material sense: the
revolution desired by the leaders is a moral and
spiritual revolution, an anarchy of ideas by which all
standards set up through nineteen centuries shall be
reversed, honored traditions trampled and above all,
the Christian ideal obliterated” (2mphasis added).
THE MOSCOW CONNECTION
The stark reality of the human suffering that can be -

caused by the persecution of a government and society
that is hostile to Christianity was brought forcefully to
the awareness of thousands of people when Mrs.
Freida Lindsay, president of Christ for the Nations
Institute, was a guest of ‘Point of View.”’ She shared
the chilling accounts of the plight of two Russian
Pentecostal families who were living in a small room
in the basement of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow —
Shocked Into Reality , IS
afraid to leave, yet unable to emigrate to the United

States.
She told us that on June 27, 1978, the Peter and
Augustina Vashchenko family, along with Maria and
Timothy Chmykholov, pushed past the Russian guards
_into the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. There were seven
of them. They have come to be known as the “Si-
berian Seven.”
Mrs. Lindsay informed us that they had suffered
persecution at the hands of the communist govern-
ment for years. The government had been trying to
stamp out the Christian group since the days of the
Stalin repression. Members of these two families, as
well as others of their group, have suffered reprisals in
the form of beatings, loss of their jobs, mysterious
deaths, their children taken from them and placed in
state orphanages for “‘re-education,”’ and internment
in labor camps; some of them were held in psychiatric
hospitals for communist “modification.”
She told us further that these families had been
trying, since 1963, to emigrate to the United States,
but had been unsuccessful. For their “‘crime”’ of visit-
ing the U.S. Embassy for visas in the past, they had
been sentenced to Soviet labor camps. But in spite of
all the persecution, they were determined to try
again.
On that fateful day in 1978 when they rushed past
the guards to the embassy, they all made it except
their 17-year-old son, John. From inside the embassy
courtyard they watched as he was caught and thrown
to the ground by the Russian guards. Once inside,
they knew they could not come out or they would
simply ‘“‘disappear’’ and would never be heard from
again.
They learned later that their son had, in fact, been
beaten nearly to death and had been sent back to their

home town.
When we were about an hour into the program,
Eldred Thomas, the president of radio station KVTT,
suggested that we call the U.S. Embassy in Moscow
and ask about the Seven. It was abold plan, and I liked
it.
While “‘live’’ on the air, we called the overseas
operator and placed a person-to-person call to the
U.S. ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.
We continued the program as the operator worked to
get us a line to Russia. After about forty minutes I got
a Signal that the call was going through. I punched the
button on the phone in front of me so that the tele-
phone conversation could be heard over the air. We
heard the clicking and whirring and then the ringing of
the phone somewhere on the other side of the world.
A man answered, “‘United States Embassy.”
When the operator asked for the ambassador, we
were informed that he was unavailable to come to the
phone. But I knew the Russian KGB probably had the
phone lines “‘tapped,”’ and I had something to say that
I wanted them to hear. So I said to the man who
answered, “‘This is Marlin Maddoux, and we are
‘live’ on the air from Dallas, Texas. We have just
heard the story of the seven Christians who are living
in a basement room in the embassy there in Moscow. .
Thousands of people are listening to us right now and
they want to know about their condition and why the
Russian government will not allow them to leave
Russia. Can you tell us anything about them?”
The man from the embassy was cordial, but an-
swered that there was nothing he could tell us.
But I firmly believe that someone in the Russian
government heard that conversation and knows that
Shocked Into Reality 5 37
there are thousands of Christians in the United States

who are aware of the plight of these and other fellow
believers in their country.
After the program was over, I caught the elevator
down to the fourth floor parking garage where my car
was parked, got in, and drove away. I was lost in my
thoughts, trying to understand the rationale of a gov-
ernment that so feared and hated the Christian mes-
sage. And I could not understand how Russia, and
other communist governments, can do these things to
millions of their citizens without an outcry from the
civilized world; and why those from whom the voice
of moral rage should be coming remain strangely
silent.
A few days later while driving to my office, I re-
called a newspaper article that talked about the men-
tality of those who feel justified in stripping millions of
their fellow human beings of their fundamental hu-
man rights. I hoped I could find it. When I reached my
office I searched through several stacks of files of
newsletters, articles, magazine clippings, and other
printed matter that I had kept just in case I might need
them for a future program or for an article in our own
“Point of View” monthly newsletter.
Then I found it and stood beside my filing cabinet to
read it. It had appeared on the editorial page of the
Dallas Morning News and was written by Mr. William
Murchison, a member of the editorial staff.
Here in a few simple lines was an explanation of the
warped reasoning that can lead a person or govern-
ment to feel justified in oppressing so many of the
human race. Mr. Murchison wrote: “It seems to me
that religious people mistake themselves in supposing
(to the extent they suppose it) that secular humanists
are wicked men. Most are exceptionally well-inten-
tioned. Humanists begin — namely, with the eradica-

tion of God — communists and fascists end in blood-
shed and tyranny. Why not? Each party has reasoned
out its own code — a code as good as anyone else’s.
No— better; so that to enforce it by means of the slave
camp is no more than just.”’ :
THE NEW WORLD ORDER
When Edith Schaeffer was my guest on “‘Point of

View,” I expressed my appreciation for the work she
and her husband, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, were doing
in educating the American public to the threat of
humanism.
A few weeks later my wife Mary and I attended the
National Religious Broadcasters convention in
Washington, D.C. On the closing night Dr. Francis
Schaeffer delivered an address entitled ““The Chris-
tian Manifesto,” in which he pointed out that there
has been a fundamental change in the overall way
people view the world and life as a whole; that this
shift has been away from a world view that was at least
vaguely Christian, toward a world view based upon
the idea that final reality is “impersonal matter or
energy shaped into its present form by impersonal
chance.”
One of his most enlightening thoughts was his dis-
tinction between the “humanist world view” and the
“humanist society.” He said that the ““humanist so-
ciety” is a group that produced Humanist Manifestos
I and II and is made up of a relatively small group of
very influential people, including such people as John
Dewey, Sir Julian Huxley, Jacques Monod and B. F.
Skinner. On the other hand, the “humanist world
view,’ which has thousands of adherents, is the belief
in the material-energy, chance concept of reality.

Over four thousand religious broadcasters, repre-
senting some of the most influential people in our
nation, sat in reflective silence, weighing the implica-
tions of Dr. Schaeffer's words. He spoke with the
intensity of aman who could be giving his last warning
— speaking to people who could help change the
course of anation. And they were being challenged by
his words.
We listened as he revealed that those who embrace
the “humanist world view”’ virtually control the gen-
eral or popular consensus in our society, much of the
media, much of what is taught in our public schools,
and much of the arbitrary law being produced by
various departments of government. He told us the
humanists love to use the word “‘freedom’’ but that
their push for “freedom” — having no Christian con-
sensus to contain it — is the ““freedom’’ that leads to
chaos or slavery under the state or under an “‘elite.”’
Additionally, he said that humanism, with its lack of
any final base for values or law, always lead to chaos;
and consequently it then leads to some form of author-
itarianism to control the chaos that it created in the
first place.
He pointed out that even though humanism speaks
glowingly of its “concern” for mankind, it, in fact, has
no intrinsic reason to be interested in the individual,
the human being, and that its natural interest is the
two collectives: the State and Society.
My clear impression, received from Dr. Schaeffer’s
revelations, is that our nation is being systematically
conditioned to accept a totalitarian, humanistic, elite
ruling class. The rationale used for the concept of a
one-world, all-powerful ruling class is that it is the
only way to save the world from collapsing economi-
cally and socially.

This is the reasoning of the self-anointed social
‘‘elite’’ who feel they are the only ones who have the
intelligence and power to prevent mankind from de-
stroying itself. And, if in the process of saving the
world they have to destroy the Constitution of the
United States and the personal freedom and dignity of
the American people, then so be it!
The threat to the Constitution is nofairy tale. It is
very real.
INTERdependence
A word that is being used to promote the concept of

a one-world government is INTERdependence. It is
now being used extensively in the media and in school
textbooks.
Congressman John M. Ashbrook (R-Ohio) is
quoted in the December 1979 The Fact Finder as
stating that one of the goals of the World Affairs
Council, the National Education Association, and
the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies is to
impose upon the United States a Declaration of IN-
TERdependence. This would supersede our own
Declaration of Independence and the United States
Constitution.
In fact, a “Declaration of Interdependence” was
signed by 104 congressmen, in 1976, in Independ-
ence Hall in Philadelphia. Though it has been vir-
tually ignored by the American people, it is a decided
threat to our own U.S. Constitution.
When I readalist of the things for which this new
‘Declaration of Interdependence”’ is calling, I had
the strange feeling that I had read this rhetoric before.
So I got out my copy of Humanist Manifesto I and re-
read Affirmation Twelve. The similarity is not coin-

cidental.
What does this new “‘Declaration”’ call for? It calls
for the increase of authority of the United Nations, the
surrendering of our national resources to all nations of
the world, the creation of a new economic order under
the regulation of an international supervision, and a
world court and world security force.
Incidentally, at the same time that a ‘“‘Declaration
of Interdependence”’ was called for, a proposal was
made for a “‘ World Constitution” in 1987 (the 200th
anniversary of our nation’s Constitution). This
‘““World Constitution’ would eliminate our national
identity and reduce the United States to a “‘region”’
within a new global order.
Again, the public schools will be the propaganda
outlet for those advocating the One World doctrine.
The schools are being inundated with propaganda
promoting the concept of INTERdependence —
which emphasizes “‘global perspectives’ and “global
citizenship” rather than national pride and United
States citizenship.
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies pub-
lished a report entitled ““Coping With Interdepend-
ence: A Commission Report.”’ This report says, “‘In
education, it is hardly surprising that school children
are not learning to bypass the distinction between the
‘domestic’ and ‘international’ when most of their par-
ents are still carrying that too-clear distinction around
as intellectual luggage. In looking-for a peg on which
to hang education for global perspectives, our school
systems across the country might do well to use the
Declaration of INTERdependence concept which
has been creatively put forward as a contribution to
the Bicentennial celebration by the World Affairs
Council of Philadelphia.”
PROGRAMMING WORLD LEADERS
The Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies seemed

to regularly appear in the material that I was reading
for my research on the humanist movement. From
what I could read, it seemed to be a highly elitist
organization that was greatly responsible for enlist-
ing, persuading, and indoctrinating some of the world’s
most influential people into becoming part of fulfilling
the humanist dream of a one-world government and
society. I was intrigued at the discovery that this
organization attracts people from the top echelons of
the governments of the world, the multi-national cor-
porations, the leading colleges and universities, the
historic church denominations, the major television
and radio networks, the major newspapers and mag-
azines, and powerful financial institutions.
The January 1979 issue of the Freemen Digest
states: “‘Many people have asked the question:
Where do the leading officials of the Trilateral Com-
mission, the White House, the Ford Foundation, the
Rockefeller Foundation, the Exxon Corporation, the
Brookings Institute, the New York Times, the Ob-
server International, Die Zeit, the IBM Corporation
... the Xerox Corporation, the Citibank, the U.S.
University, the World Bank, the Council on Foreign
Relations. . . the Chase Manhattan Bank, etc., go for
advanced seminars in global ideology and humanistic
studies? The not-so-obvious answer is Aspen, Col-
orado. To those who travel in high circles, Aspen is
not just a mountain retreat... it is a place where the
world’s elite gather to consider the problems of gov-
ernance and to set forth possible plans for the future of
humanity. This organization, which has been one of
the world’s best-kept secrets, is the Aspen Institute
for Humanistic Studies.”
Well, after reading this kind of information I de-
cided I should diga little deeper into the subject. And
the best place to go is to the top. So I interviewed the
president of the A.spen Institute for Humanistic Stud-
ies, Mr. Joseph Slater, by telephone from his office in
New York City. Our interview lasted about 45 min-
utes, and I ran it on “Point of View.”’
When I asked Mr. Slater to tell me about the Insti-
tute, he explained, “‘Its purposes are to provide sem-
inars for business leaders so that they will be more
reflective on questions of values, justice, liberty,
freedom, the Judeo-Christian heritage, spiritual and
religious issues, issues of the law and the U.S. Con-
stitution. These are people who are in the decision-
making capacities in our society.”
I asked, “‘Are you aiming your efforts toward the
world leaders?”’
“Yes, particularly business leaders,” he replied.
**But we also have participants from other sectors of
society; namely, academic and educational leaders,
the media, government and religious leaders, people
from the arts and sciences, and all parts of society. In
these meetings, leaders exchange ideas on the various
issues of the contemporary world — reaching back
into history. We’re concerned with the deeper issues
that have their roots in terms of ‘values’; religious and
ethical thought; the Judeo-Christian thought.”
I then told Mr. Slater that my research had revealed
that a large number of the world’s leaders were closely
allied with the Aspen Institute; because of this, I felt
that it was of concern to many as to what was actually
discussed at their seminars because their discussions
would eventually affect national thought and could

even influence political ‘‘happenings”’ in the United
States and the world.
I said, ‘Mr. Slater, I know of no other organization
that has been associated with so many influential
people in high places. Can you explain why world
leaders find it so attractive?”
Mr. Slater replied, ‘““They need a chance to pause
and reflect on the enduring values — what directions
and priorities individuals and institutions should set
for themselves. And here is a place, because of its
independence, where they have a chance to think and
communicate with other people who share their con-
cerns. The Institute attempts to reach people who are
affecting people’s lives. We have found that it has
changed a number of people’s lives. We have found
that it has changed a number of people’s lives and
viewpoints.”
Further investigation revealed that the Aspen Insti-
tute for Humanistic Studies has a strange interlocking
of board members, trustees, associates, and financial
contributors with the same foundations, multi-nation-
al corporations, national radio and television net-
works, government officials, colleges and universities,
church denominations, and other various organiza-
tions that are active in promoting the humanist dogma.
It doesn’t seem coincidental to me that these organ-
izations that represent so much wealth and power find
themselves financially and philosophically intertwined
with the Aspen Institute.
It is frightening to view the scenario that unfolds.
Here you have the humanist philosophy of bringing
the entire world under one humanistic world govern-
ment, and an organization dedicated to bringing to-
gether the “movers and shakers” of the world com-
munity — those people who influence the opinions,

philosophies and politics of entire nations.
As I researched this organization and read the list
of the people associated with it, I realized that these
are the very people who “‘control’’ the media and the
money in the United States. I cannot believe that
these “‘executive seminars” are as objective and
harmless as Mr. Slater would have us believe. Do
they want us to believe that international bankers,
royalty, leading political figures, billionaire indus-
trialists, prominent scientists, high ranking military
men, leading academicians, corporate magnates, news-
paper barons and other “‘elitists”’ find it profitable to
leave their other pursuits to enjoy a simple two week
“retreat’’ where they discuss only the world’s great
philosophies? Hardly!
ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT
The Bible teaches that in the end-time there will be

a one-world government headed up by one powerful
ruler — the Antichrist. This worldwide anti-God move-
ment is propelling the nations toward this end as
foretold by the ancient prophets generations ago. If
anything would convince me that there must be a
God, it would be the present-day fulfillment of Bible
prophecy.
The cry for a one-world government is not the raving
of afew maniac alarmists. It is the ultimate goal of many
throughout the world, including a vast number of
people here in America. The plan for a one-world
government is clearly spelled out in Humanist Man-
ifesto II, under Affirmation Twelve:
We deplore the division of humankind on na-

tionalistic grounds. We have reached a turning

point in human history where the best option is to
transcend the limits of national sovereignty and
to move toward the building of a world com-
munity in which all sectors of the human family
can participate. Thus we look to the develop-
ment of a system of world law and world order
based upon transnational federal government
.. Wethus reaffirm a commitment to the building
of a world community, at the same time re-
cognizing that this commits us to some hard
choices (emphasis added).
We are told that our “best option” is to “transcend

the limits of national sovereignty.” Many of us do not
agree that this is our ““best option.”
Please read carefully the plans for a “‘transnational
federal government.” This “‘transnational federal go-
vernment’ would supersede our own Constitution
and Bill of Rights, making us subjects of a “‘one-
world” government and therefore subject to “‘inter-
national” laws. Many of our nation’s politicians,
educators, writers, newsmen, teachers, clergy, and
others espouse this “‘world community” view. This
philosophy can be seen in decisions in Congress, the
State Department, and the courts, and is vigorously
promoted through the news media and academia.
In 1966, the Humanist magazine (July/August)
admitted that their purpose was to supersede nation-
alistic boundaries by a world-wide organization that
would possess international sovereignty over the
nations of the world. Many in our nation are com-
mitted to this aim, even at the expense of the welfare
of their own country.
They propose to move America “‘beyond nation-
alism” toward this “transnational federal govern-

ment”’ in an attempt to merge Western democracies,
Eastern communism, and the Third World dictator-
ships into a single socialist state, bringing about the
dream of the philosophers who envisioned three
classes of people: the elite ruling class, the ever-
present military, and the masses, with no distinction
between the sexes. Men and women would work side-
by-side and the children would be wards of the State.
ONE-WORLD ECONOMY
In order to bring about one international govern-

ment, there would have to be a one-world monetary
system. This, of course, corresponds to what the Bible
predicts in Revelation 13:16-18:
He required everyone — great and small, rich

and poor, slave and free — to be tattooed with a
certain mark on the right hand or on the forehead.
And no one could get a job or even buy in any
store without the permit of that mark, which was
either the name of the creature or the code
number of his name. Here is a puzzle that calls
for careful thought to solve it. Let those who are
able, interpret this code: the numerical values of
the letters in his name add to 666. (Living
Bible)
Unwittingly, I’m sure, the humanists have laid out

the plans that, when completed, will serve as the
- fulfillment of that ancient prophecy. Their plan for
this world monetary system is spelled out in Human-
ist Manifesto II, under Affirmation Fifteen:
The problems of economic growth and develop-

ment can no longer be resolved by one nation
alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the
moral obligation of the developed nations to pro-
vide — through an international authority that
safeguards human rights — massive technical,
agricultural, medical, and economic assistance,
including birth control techniques, to the de-
veloping portions of the globe. World poverty
must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in
wealth, income, and economic growth should be
reduced on a worldwide basis.
Even a cursory reading of this statement reveals

that it calls for universal control of all economies.
This is a system based upon the philosophy of Karl
Marx, not our American free enterprise system. The
humanists are calling for a socialistic, worldwide
economic system with an all-powerful government
(ruling class) that would control all aspects of the
economy. God foretold it generations ago, and man,
in his rebellion, is rushing headlong toward Arma-
geddon.
It is evil for men to plan to destroy the sovereignty
of the nations of the world and merge them into a
totalitarian, humanistic one-world governmental sys- |
tem, for it involves the abolition of all other govern-
ments, of private property rights, of inheritance rights,
and of the right to worship God as your heart dictates,
as well as the destruction of national pride and pa-
triotism and of the family as we know it today.
Unless there is a dramatic turn around in this na-
tion, it would not be surprising to see someone appear |
on early morning television on all three networks to
make the following announcement: “‘My fellow Amer-
icans, in light of the imminent danger to this nation and

to the world — of economic collapse, the starvation of
millions, and nuclear holocaust — the office of pre-
sident of the United States and the members of Con-
gress have been replaced by a central committee of
political and military experts who are better prepared
to guide this nation through this crisis. We also want
to inform you that the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights have been ‘temporarily’ suspended, and all
radio and television stations, all newspapers and the
telephone systems have been ‘nationalized’ for the
‘protection’ of the public. As soon as the crisis is over
we will return to our democratic system of govern-
ment.
‘*But until then, please cooperate with your central
committee. And, now, here is a member of the com-
mittee with instructions for you to follow during this
crisis time in our nation.”
It could happen in America.

y
TAKEOVER OF THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Unpleasant realities are difficult to accept gra-

ciously. And when I immerse myself in a study that
traced the philosophical change that has been im-
posed on our public school system, I reacted with
disbelief and then anger. A series of guests appeared
on “‘Point of View,” each bringing enlightenment on
yet another aspect to the pervasive influence of se-
cular humanism on our schools and universities.
I had to admit that the humanists’ most ingenious
move was the systematic takeover of the public school
system in America. It showed a special insight, mark-
ed by originality, cleverness, and clearness of pur-
pose, and was the most important step toward turning
an entire nation away from its original goals to the
new goals set forth by organized humanism as articu-
lated in Humanist Manifestos I and II.
As I thought about it, I could see the genius in the
50
Takeover Of The Public Schools oi
takeover of the system that educates the children. The

humanists knew that if they wanted to take over a
nation it would have to be through the very young, for
when a person has been taught that he is a free citizen
in a free country, with the power to make his own
decisions, it is impossible to make him adopt the
“collectivist’” mentality. So they knew they would
have to reach for the young, and the place to do that
was the public schools. They would begin with the
training of the teachers themselves.
While most parents view the public school as the
place for our children to receive the education and
skills necessary to enable them to lead a useful and
productive life, the humanist sees it as something
quite different. The humanist educator considers the
public school to be an institution of indoctrination.
An article entitled “A Religion for a New Age,”
published in The Humanist (January/February,
1983, p. 26) states:
**... the battle for humankind’s future must be waged
and won in the public school classroom by teachers
who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers
of a new faith; a religion of humanity that recognizes
and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity
in every human being. These teachers must embody
the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fun-
damentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of
another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit
to convey humanist values in whatever subject they
teach, regardless of the educational level ... The
classroom must and will become an arena of conflict
between the old and the new — the rotting corpse of
Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and
misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent
in its promise of a world in which the never-realized
Christian ideal ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be

achieved’ (emphasis added).
Charles Frances Potter wrote, “‘Education is thus a
most powerful ally of humanism, and every American
school is a school of humanism. What can atheistic
Sunday school’s meeting, for an hour once a week and
teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the
tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
(Humanism: A Religion, 1930).
Mr. Potter would be pleased to know that the teach-
ing of humanism has been systematically integrated
into the courses being taught in the public schools of
this nation, including everything from history to the
life sciences.
JOHN DEWEY
John Dewey was the driving force for humanism in

public education in the 20th century. Dewey’s in-
fluence on public education was enormous. He was
the leader of the “progressive education movement”
in America, and his theories became their bible.
John Dewey was an avowed atheist and a board
member of the American Humanist Association when
it created Humanist Manifesto I, and was one of its
signers. He rejected all fixed moral laws and eternal
truths and principles. He insisted that truth was
relative, that absolutes were not admissible, that the
evolutionary theory was valid and affirmed, and that
there was no God and man did not have a soul.
According to Dewey, man is a biological organism
completely molded by his environment; and that en-
vironment is constantly changing, as is man. The
logical conclusion to the whole matter was that it was
useless to teach children any of the moral absolutes,
Takeover Of The Public Schools No
as found in the Scriptures, and the teaching of ethics

was a “waste of time.”
When Mel and Norma Gabler appeared on “Point
of View,” they gave me a copy of their book Text-
_ books on Trial. On pages 201 and 202, they say:
“Dewey assigned to the schools a revolutionary
mission to reform society, including its economic
system. The chief instrument to accomplish this re-
form of our country was the use of social studies
instead of the separate disciplines of history, geo-
graphy, economics, etc. Having changed the aim of
the schools .. . new textbooks were written and old
ones revised to present the collectivist aim... There
was emphasis on life-adjustment of the student, learn-
ing by doing called the discovery method... It was a
permissive approach...”
The book then charges that the child subjected to
the new social studies was being “‘sensitized.”’ This
involves three steps: (1)‘‘unfreezing his values and
standards”; (2)“changing the child by giving him
different standards and a different conception of who
he is’; and (3) “‘refreezing, to lock the child into the
self.’” The new social studies ““has the express pur-
pose of unfreezing the child’s home-taught values at
an early age.”
Mrs. Jo Ann McAuley, who has been a frequent
guest on “‘Point of View,” is president of National
Congress on Excellence in Education, and is a former
member of an eight-member review group convened
by the Science and Technology Committee of the
U.S. House of Representatives to evaluate the con-
troversial behavioral social science program, ‘‘Man:
_ A Course of Study” (MACOS). Her minority report
is contained in “‘Report Prepared for the Committee
on Science and Technology, U. S. House of Repre-
sentatives, Ninety Fourth Congress.”

She was asked by the General Accounting Office,
the investigative arm of Congress, to participate in a
study to assess the use of values-changing curricula in
American schools, and by the National’ Institute of
Education, a division of HEW, to assist in a study to
determine the problems, issues, and solutions to edu-
cation in America.
I am indebted to her for sending me the following
information under the title ““Values-Clarifying or
Values-Changing.”’ She states: ““Any credible ap-
praisal of the educational dilemma in this country
must deal with the obvious failure of the schools to
teach our children those academic skills which are
needed by them to lead useful lives in our competitive
society. Every study of academic performance con-
ducted during the last fifteen years has arrived at the
same conclusion — the reading and math skills of our
nation’s students are steadily declining. For twenty
years schools have abandoned vital basic skills train-
ing to become simply one more institution engaged in
social problem-solving.”
The paper gave me further insight into the reasons
for the deplorable state of our public education system.
Under the heading *‘ Progressive Education vs. Tradi-
tional (Basic) Education,” she writes: “‘Prior history
of schools will show that education dealt with two
‘domains.’ (1) The cognitive domain dealt with the
intellect (the act of knowing; perception; awareness);
(2) the psychomotor domain addressed the need for
vocational skills (of or designating muscular activity
directly related to mental processes). During this time
period, parents were not beating down the school
doors.
“In the °20s, John Dewey introduced his ‘progres-
Takeover Of The Public Schools SD
sive’ theory that children cannot be taught by instill-

ing facts in their brain, but rather, they must ‘experi-
ence’ or ‘feel’ all things. This practice of dealing with
the feelings, attitudes, values, and beliefs of school
children is known as the affective domain, and it is
here, in this sensitive area, that the schools find them-
selves in conflict with parents for the first time in their
history.”
She then laid out some very simple comparisons
between these two opposing approaches to education
that helped me to understand the sharp disagreement
between educators and parents concerning the rea-
sons for the mounting problems in education today.
She clearly pointed out the contrasting differences
between the “‘progressive education” of John Dewey,
which gained its impetus in the ’60s, and “‘traditional
(basic) education” which prevailed up until that time.
Here is how she listed the comparisons:
PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION TRADITIONAL (BASIC)

EDUCATION
Reduces role of individual and Stresses individualism as the end

stresses “‘collectivism”’ or product of education.
oegroups. °°
Believes that memorization is Stresses facts relative to history, the

boring and a waste of time. Only arts, etc., as a necessary part of
“relevant”? matters of today are learning.
important and nothing in the history
of our country, etc., is of
consequence. ,
Holds that the pupil should Believes that competition is good

progress at his own speed and and necessary for the very survival
_ compete only with his own best of our country and that success of
efforts. the individual in later life depends
on his ability to hold his own in a
highly competitive world.
Feels that curriculum must adjust Feels that the pupil should attempt
to interest and needs of the to adjust to a curriculum which will
“group.” »
provide the individual with the
skills and ability to cope in a
cultured, productive manner in a
democratic sqciety.
Stresses no absolutes (i.e. students Teaches that there are absolute

make pertinent decisions without standards and values, and that the
authority or standards; responses to purpose of education is to identify
questions are acceptable as long as these lasting values and to explore
the students can justify or them to benefit the individual and
rationalize their replies). our nation.
Stresses stimulation of the senses Stresses education of intellect and

and emotions — neglects intellect believes that emotions and senses
(i.e., attempts to alter behavior or develop with the intellectual and
control emotions). physical growth of the individual.
In an article entitled ‘‘ Three Cheers for our Secular

State,’ Paul Blanchard (a signer of the Humanist
Manifesto), wrote, “‘I think that the most important
factor moving us toward a secular society has been the
educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny
how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in
school until he is 16 tends to lead toward the elimina-
tion of religious superstition. The average American
child now acquires a high school education, and this
militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of
alleged history” (Humanist Magazine, March/ April,
1976).
In researching the various means used to gain con-
trol of the educational system in the United States, I
discovered that long ago the humanists infiltrated and
gained control of the National Education Associa-
tion.
The book The Siecus Circle says of the NEA:
“Recognizing this organization’s potential for exert-
ing tremendous pressure and influence on American
Takeover Of The Public Schools ; 57
education, the Humanist-Socialist complex wasted

no time in seizing control of the NEA; this is accom-
plished as far back as the early 1900s. Early NEA
leaders who strove for a one-world Humanistic order
included such Humanist-Communist fronters as John
Dewey and William Heard Kilpatrick. Harold Rugg
and Marxist professor George S. Counts (who now
serves on the National Advisory Council of the
American Civil Liberties Union) were among the
NEA teacher-leaders whose writings helped steer the
leftward course of this organization in the early
1930s.
“These and other Humanist-Socialist oriented ed-
ucators spear-headed a master plan to socialize
America under the leadership of John Dewey, then
honorary president of NEA. Humanist Dewey con-
sidered NEA to be a potential channel for the dis-
semination of his educational philosophy, which was
based on a wholly materialistic view of life. Through
its official organs and recommended texts, NEA soon
was affecting the methods and thinking of thousands
of professional educators.”
BRAINWASH TECHNIQUES
Changing the moral consensus of an entire nation is

a formidable task. As I read about the various meth-
ods and techniques employed to alter the moral con-
sciousness of the schoolchildren, I could see why I
and millions of other parents had not recognized them.
The mind-manipulators had couched their techniques
in lofty-sounding academic jargon, devised to bypass
all but those who were privy to their private language.
One of the most important aspects of any method
designed to change the moral value system of the child
would have to appear to be improving the child’s

ability to “‘think for himself.”’ If your child’s teacher
sent home amemorandum which stated in bold letters,
“We are going to rob your child of his Christian
values and instill a humanist value system in him,”
you would have protested.
The fact of the matter is that they are doing it. They
just do not tell you about it.
The Russian scientist Pavlov developed a tech-
nique in which he could condition dogs to respond to
him on cue. Human behavioral psychologists have
borrowed his methods, using them to condition the
human mind. By skillfully employing these techni-
ques, an educator can gradually alter your child’s
values, behavior, conscience and personality.
These techniques are being used today, beginning
in kindergarten and continuing through higher edu-
cation. They fall under such headings as values clari-
fication, behavior modification, psychotherapy,
group therapy, role playing and inquiry.
VALUES CLARIFICATION
The method known as “values clarification” pur-

portedly helps the student answer such questions as
‘““Who are you? Where are you going? What do you
really believe in?” The educators claim not to instill a
particular set of “‘values” into the mind of the child,
but only to help him to “clarify” his own values.
However, the program is clearly based upon the as-
sumption that there are no absolute values and that all
values are “relative, personal, and situational.”
One teacher’s guide tells the teacher that the child
comes to school with his mind in a state of “‘confu-
sion’ as to values; and since the parents and the
Takeover Of The Public Schools , 59
church have contributed to that confusion, the school

must help the student “‘clarify’’ his own values. How-
ever, upon examining the values actually encouraged,
you find them to be godless, immoral, humanistic,
without absolutes and entirely unrelated to those of
his parents.
“Values clarification’ is a method used extensive-
ly in our public schools. This method is designed to
convince the child that he has the “‘right’’ to develop
his own personal values and morality — free from
authority of any kind, including that of his parents and
church. It is designed to instill within the child the
belief that there is nothing particularly right or wrong,
but that everything is “situational.”
Here is the seven-step valuing process which forms
the basis of the book Values Clarification by Simon,
Howe, and Kirschenbaum:
(1) Choose the Value Freely

[This means free from church-dictated concepts
of morality and parental influences. ]
(2) Choose from Alternatives

[The Judeo-Christian ethic is an ABSOLUTE.
Itcannot be changed. It was given by God. Here,
however, the child is taught to break away from
these “restrictive” moral codes and choose his
own. ]
(3) Choose after Considering the Consequences

[If there is no accountability to God, then you
can “do your own thing” with impunity.]
(4) Prize and Cherish the Value

[The child has now become a “law unto him-
self,” so the value is his — not God’s or his

parents.]
(5) Publicly Confess or Affirm the Value

[The Christian knows the power of “confession”
of his belief. It reinforces it. Affirming some-
thing sinks the value further into the child’s
subconscious mind. ]
(6) Act on the Value

[Ifyou have decided that premarital sex or homo-
sexuality, for example, is allright, thenactupon
that decision. ]
(7) Act upon the Value Regularly

[The child has now chosen a new “life-style.”
His values are no longer the same as those of his
parents, and he intends to live by his own new
value system — not by that of his parents or
church.]
(Note: The comments are mine.)
Sidney Simon’s method of “values clarification’”’ is

widely used in elementary and secondary schools
throughout the nation. He calls traditional religious
and moral training “useless” and says that it is irrele-.
vant today because the modern world is uniquely
difficult and complex and that young people are con-
fused. He asserts that the belief that there are “‘right”’
and “‘wrong”’ ways of acting and thinking is harmful to
a child’s development and a new approach must be
adopted. And, of course, he has the answer — values
clarification. |
Simon’s values clarification method suggests that
Takeover Of The Public Schools 61
teachers should indoctrinate the children by asking

such ‘“‘open-ended’’ questions as: Would you favor a
law that would limit the size of families to two
children? Would you choose to die and go to heaven if
it meant sitting around on a cloud and playing a harp
all day? Do you think parents should teach their chil-
dren to masturbate? What would you rather do on
Sunday morning — sleep late, play with a friend or
watch TV? Do you approve of premarital sex for
boys? For girls? Do you think sex education should
include techniques for lovemaking and contraception?
Would you like to have different parents? Should we
legalize abortion? Do you think we should legalize
marijuana? Should homosexuals be allowed to teach
in public schools? Do you approve of a couple trying
out marriage for six months before getting married?
Should we legalize mercy killings?
His values clarification “strategies,” he claims,
enable the child to achieve knowledge about values
free from the inhibitory inculcation of adults.
The values clarification principle is based on moral
relativism and is designed to change the moral con-
cepts of the student. When this is skillfully presented
to a student, it has a profound effect upon his con-
scious and subconscious mind as well as his moral
character and personality.
The humanists want the children to have maximum
self-choice in choosing their own values; and to ac-
complish this they must first break the value system
the children bring to kindergarten and first grade
which was put there by their parents, church, and
society.
After the student has his values “‘clarified,”’ he
will then govern his life-style by a set of moral values
at odds with those of his Christian parents. The moral
revolution in this nation is clear evidence to the effect-

iveness of values clarification in our schools.
*
ROLE PLAYING
Another method used to bring about behavioral

change is called “‘role playing.” Through this method
the child is placed in the situation of having to make
very deep moral judgements. In one such game se-
veral children are in a boat at sea. The boat cannot
hold all of the people in it, so the judgement must be
made to put someone overboard to die. Then various
occupations are listed, and the child must decide
which one is the least important to society and must be
put overboard so that the others may live. The value of
life and death is based purely on the “‘situation”’ at the
moment and not upon any absolute laws of God. I
have talked personally to parents whose children were
subjected to role playing games, and they say that
their children suffered much mental anguish as the
result.
The National Education Association defined “‘role
playing” as sensitivity training (Today’s Education,
Jan. 1969, pp. 67-68). When role playing, the student
is assuming the role of behavior normally different
from his own and is taught to identify with that par-
ticular type of behavior being enacted.
Dr. J.L. Moreno developed role playing for use on
catatonic patients in psychiatric wards. It is a med-
ical tool for the mentally ill. The patient must
assume the role wholly and totally and is then sub-
jected to psychological probing in his new identity.
This technique was designed to be used by trained
therapists; but it is being used by teachers in the
Takeover Of The Public Schools ° 63
classroom, and the potential for disaster is enormous.

Though the teacher may be sincere and unaware of
the dangers, she should be warned that there is the
possibility that the child may assume acertain role
and be unable to come out of the role upon leaving the
classroom.
Through these brutal scientific behavioral modi-
fication games, the child is coerced into revealing his
very heart, mind, soul, and subconscious feelings
before his teachers and classmates. His values are
questioned, forcing the child to defend his value sys-
tem and show how he arrived at it. Most adults cannot
do this effectively. Can we expect a child to do it?
Naturally, any value that is derived from parents or
church influence is not accepted as having been the
freely chosen value of the child himself. So he must
replace the “‘old’”’ values with those he has arrived at
himself, free from the influence of anyone else. He has
now had his “‘values clarified.”
INQUIRY METHOD
The “inquiry method” is also aimed at “‘values

clarification.”’ Dr. Collin Cooper asked how this
method can help anyone find truth and principle,
when, as he says, ‘“‘The principle underlying the tech-
nique denies the person any standard by which to
judge truth or falsehood.” The answer, of course, is
that the child is to be convinced that there are no
standards other than those he “chooses” freely to
follow.
This method is also part of the mind-manipulative
and values-changing methods which teach the stu-
dents to question everything. He is taught “value
change” — change in himself, in his community, and

in his family. He is also to submit to group consensus,
which is pure peer pressure to conform. The child is
taught to question authority, reject morality, reform
society by external change, and accept man as just
another animal.
A teacher is sometimes referred to as a “change
agent’’; and if she is skilled in her craft she can manip-
ulate the child away from his Christian teaching and
create another “‘convert’’ to humanism, bringing their
dream of a humanistic utopia a step closer to reality.
These brainwashing techniques are devastating the
minds of children. If it is not stopped in time, your
child will be “‘reconstituted”’ so that he will recognize
no ultimate authority for morality except himself and
his peers. These techniques cause the child to view his
parents as ignorant, unloving relics of the past and a
threat to his future happiness. Profound alienation
between the child and his parents will result.
Most of us would be shocked at the plans some of
our “‘social planners’ have in store for future pro-
grams for our schools and our children. The book The
Siecus Circle states: ‘‘Hawaii is also the first state to
have adopted the revolutionary ‘master plan’ for ed-
ucation, titled “Forecast for the 70s,’ which appeared
in the NEA journal, Today’s Education, in January
1969. Several major points in this forecast were: (1)
Educators will assume responsibility for children when
they reach the age of two. Enforced or mandatory
foster homes are to be available for children whose
homes are felt to have a malignant influence. (2)Chil-
dren will be given drugs on an experimental basis, to
‘improve in the learner such qualities as personality,
concentration, and memory.’ (3) There will be wide-
spread busing of children to achieve various goals. (4)
Teachers will become ‘learning clinicians.’ This title

is intended to convey the idea that schools are be-
coming clinics whose purpose is to provide individu-
alized psychosocial treatment for the student...”
TEXTBOOK PROPAGANDA
As I dug further into what's happening in educa-

tion, I discovered that if anyone spoke out and even
‘suggested’ that there might possibly be some school
textbooks that shouldn't be used in the public schools,
they were immediately branded as rank fanatics who
were against boys and girls gaining" knowledge. The
word used to discredit these “*toublemakers”’ is“ cen-
sorship.”’ Many journalist and educators made it sound
like these concerned parents were violating the First
Amendment rights of every school child in America.
It’s simple. If you have material that you want to get
to the students and you know the parents — with their
traditional moral hang-ups — will object, then you
intimidate or shame them into remaining silent. And
when some parents do speak up, you ridicule them as
being archaic fanatics who fear knowledge. It is just
such tactics that have kept parents silent for years.
But, when someone does speak up after having
spent the time and effort to plow through hundreds of
school textbooks and lay out concisely and intelli-
gently the actual instances where the child is being
taught a humanistic value system, then’even the press
and the publishers have to take them seriously.
That’s exactly how Mel and Norma Gabler have
become so well known in the executive offices of
America’s leading publishers of school textbooks.
They do their homework.
During one of their appearances on “Point of

View,” they told me, “‘For a number of years the
educational establisHment has been molding the minds
of students toward their philosophy but doing it so
subtly that the general public has not realized what is
happening. Yes censorship is involved — deeply in-
volved. What was done suddenly through govern-
ment force by Hitler has been done gradually in the
United States. Government force, through schools,
has gradually eliminated (banned, censored) practi-
cally all books that uphold, promote, or teach the
basic values upon which our nation was founded. The
‘censors’ should be asked why there is such a dearth of
textbooks and public school library books that sup-
port the following: Monogamous families, anti-homo-
sexuality, anti-abortion, American patriotism, moral-
ity, conservative views, teaching of honesty, obeying
laws, changing bad laws through a legal process, etc.
Librarians and curriculum directors call their cen-
sorship or book banning the right of selection.”
They also gave example after example of the type
of material to which they and thousands of other
Christian parents object. Among the materials they
gave to me was an article they had written entitled
‘“Humanism in Textbooks: Secular Religion in the
Classroom,” which contains enough material to per-
suade any intellectually honest person that an attempt
to inculcate a new value system into the students is an
on-going process. Here are some excerpts from the
article, under various categories, that should help you
decide for yourself.
EVOLUTION (As found in public school text-

books):
‘*., infants can grasp an object such asafinger,
so strongly that they can be lifted into the air. We

suspect this reflex is left over from an earlier state
in human evolution, when babies had to cling to
their ape-like mothers’ coats while mothers were
climbing or searching for food”’ (Understanding
Psychology, Random House, 1980).
*“Many scientists believe that the apparent rela-

tionships are because simple organisms grad-
ually developed into more complex organisms”
(Exploring Living Things, Laidlaw, 1977,
Grade 7, Life Science).
SITUATION ETHICS (As found in public

school textbooks):
“In a society where values are constantly shift-
ing, the young adult may often be confused by
which set of values he or she is to follow...”
(Toward Sexual Maturity, TRM, Steck-Vaughn,
1980, Grades 9-10 Health).
“‘Stress that whether specific action is right or

wrong depends on the meaning that a given group
attaches to the action” (Around Our World, TE,
Houghton-Mifflin, 1980).
‘““Some years ago the rules for right and wrong

seemed clear-cut and easier to understand. ‘Do
this, but don’t do that.’ Today there is a trend to
relax such strict standards ... ”(ME; Under-
standing Myself and Others, Bennett, 1982,
Grades 6-8 Homemaking).
“‘There are exceptions in almost all moral laws,

depending on the situation. What is wrong in one
instance may be right in another. Most children

learn that it’s wrong to lie. But later they may
learn that it’s tactless, if not actually wrong, not
to lie under certain circumstances” (Inquiries in
Sociology, Allyn, 1972, HS Psychology).
ANTIL-CHRISTIAN (As found in public

school textbooks):
‘“‘Among all the hundreds of Middle Eastern
gods, a very different kind of god emerged. This
was the God of the Hebrews. Here is a Hebrew
children’s story that tries to explain how people
began believing in this new kind of God... ”
(People and Culture, Economy Co., 1982,
Grade 6 Social Studies).
One writer has said: “the early Hebrews created

the Bible out of their lives; their descendants
created their lives out of the Bible” (Exploring
our World — Eastern Hemisphere, Pollert,
1982, Grade 6 Social Studies).
‘Anthropologists studying human customs, re-

ligious practices, ritualism, and the priest-craft
came to the conclusion that men created their
own religious beliefs so that the beliefs answered.
their special needs ... The God of the Judeo-
Christian tradition was a god worshipped by a
desert folk ... and heaven was high above the
desert, cool and pleasant. The Eskimos... re-
versed the concept” (Perspectives in U.S. History, .
Field Educational Publications, 1972, High
School U.S. History).
SEXUAL PERMISSIVENESS (As found in

public school textbooks):

**Adolescent petting is an important opportunity
to learn about sexual responses and to gratify
sexual and emotional desires without a more
serious commitment” (Life and Health, Ran-
dom House, 1980, Grades 9-10 Health).
*‘Delbert and Sally are living together while they

are in college. They do not expect to marry...
they feel that living together provides each with
love, affection, and support’’ (Person to Person,
Benact, 1981, Grades 6-8 Homemaking).
‘Contrary to past belief, masturbation is com-

pletely harmless, and in fact can be quite useful
in training oneself to respond sexually...” (Life
and Health, Random House, 1960, Grades 9-
10 Health).
COLLECTIVISM (As found in public school

textbooks):
““Some people believe that the federal govern-
ment should act as the parent of the family — the
nation. All problems are to be solved by the
national government” (Exploring American
Citizenship, Glove, 1983, Grade 8 Civics).
““One of the corner stones of most socialist phi-

losophies is. . . the freeing of human beings from
the burdens of unnecessary and onerous labor in
service of profit-makers” (Sociology: Study of
Human Interaction. Random House, 1976, High
School Sociology).
«¢ -. TO DISCUSS: Some people feel that the

government should pay every family in the United

States a minimum amount every year if they do
not earn that amount by working. Would you
support such an idea? If so, how much should this
amount be? If no, why not?” (Government and
Citizenship, Allyn, 1983).
“The Communist governments provide many

benefits for their workers ... The governments
also provide for health care, long vacations, and
old-age incomes. Personal incomes tend to be
low ... but expenses are also low. Most older
people in eastern Europe can meet their daily
needs without much difficulty’ (World Geo-
graphy, Follett, 1980, High School Geography).
WORLD GOVERNMENT (As found in pub-

lic school textbooks):
“To make international cooperation really work,
some people think that the countries of the world
must come together under a world government.
They feel that only with a world government is
there a chance of saving the earth for human-
kind” (American Citizenship: the Way We
Govern, Addison-Wesley, 1979, High School
Civics and Government).
“We now live in an age in which we must re-

cognize that our interdependence extends be-
yond national boundaries, from the local to the
global community” (Introduction, United States
Government: The People Decide, Science Re-
search Association 1979, High School Civics).
“Many people think a stronger U.N. or a new

Takeover Of The Public Schools ° 71
international organization is needed if we and the

other peoples of the world are to move safely into
the 21st century. Only a stronger world body,
they argue, can meet tomorrow’s challenges”
(American Citizenship Program, Scholastic
1977, High School Civics).
“THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL POLITICAL

SYSTEMS — You have seen how politics, econ-
omies, and the search for justice are all woven
together in the fabric of global political systems.
Because of increased interdependency, some
people predict one increasingly integrated sys-
tem for global politics” (American Government:
Comparing Political Experiences, Prentice-
Hall, 1979, High School Civics).
As a parent, grandparent or concerned citizen, you

must not allow the school to remold your child’s mind
with secular humanism. You should examine your
child’s textbooks for any mention of values clarifi-
cation or any bias against the family and Christian
morality. You should have the responsibility (and
right) to teach your child to recognize the doctrine of
humanism and to watch for the various techniques of
“‘values clarification’ being used. Your child should
also be advised that he has the right to refuse to
participate in any role-playing games involving
mercy-killing or suicide or in discussing his innermost
beliefs. ‘
One of the most important pieces of legislation to
come out of Washington is the Hatch Amendment
(Public Law 95-561). It became law on November 1,
1978 and is one of the greatest victories ever won to
protect the rights of parents and students in relation to
public school policies. The requirements of this amend-

ment have been incorporated into the Education
Division General Adminstration Regulations (ED-
GAR). These regulations govern state and local
agencies that receive funds from the Education De-
partment.
This amendment is so important that we print it in
its entirety.
PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS
“Sec. 1250. Section 439 of the General Education

Provisions Act (relating to protection of pupil rights)
is amended by inserting a new subsection as follows:
*“‘(b) No student shall be required, as part of any
applicable program, to submit to psychological exam-
ination, testing, or treatment, in which the primary
purpose is to reveal information concerning:
(1) political affiliations;
(2) mental and psychological problems potent-
ially embarrassing to the student or his family;
**(3) sex behavior and attitudes;
**(4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and de-
meaning behavior;
"*(5) critical appraisals of other individuals with
whom respondents have close family relationships;
‘*(6) legally recognized privileged and analogous
relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians,
and ministers; or
(7) income (other than that required by law to
determine eligibility for participation in a program or
for receiving financial assistance under such pro-
gram), without the prior consent of the student (if the
student is an adult or emancipated minor), or in case
Takeover Of The Public Schools’ 73
of unemancipated minor, without the prior written

consent of the parent.”’
For years parents have been intimidated by those in
public education whose attitude has been “‘ We are the
educators, and you, as a parent, are not competent to
pass judgement upon our subject matter or methods of
teaching your children.”” However, this attitude is
changing, and parents are slowly regaining control
over their own children.
3
MEDIA MANIPULATION
A lady told me that her four-year old daughter was

sitting in front of the television when the announcer
said, ‘“This is the CBS Evening News with Walter
Cronkite.”’ The camera zoomed in on the stately,
gray-haired Mr. Cronkite, who with a serious ex-
pression on his face and a somber tone to his voice
said, ‘Good evening,” and then proceeded to report
the news.
The little girl, who had grown up accustomed to
seeing the familiar face of the grandfatherly news-
caster on her television in her home at the same time
each evening, turned to her mother and asked,
“Mommy, is that God?”
When I heard the story I shuddered to think of the
power of television — and other media — on the
minds of people, especially the young. Though Mr.
Cronkite, ’'m sure, would agree that the little girl’s
74
Media Manipulation TS
mistaken identity of him was an exaggeration, I’m

afraid millions of Americans accept the newscasts
and the critical analysis of the news by the network
reporters with much the same awe and respect that the
nation of Israel afforded the thunderous pronounce-
ments coming down from Mount Sinai.
The accusation has been made that some in the
medical profession — as well as some of the clergy —
develop a “godlike” opinion of themselves as the
result of their influence over other people. But the
arrogance sometimes displayed by members of these
professions cannot compare to that which had de-
veloped among the “chosen few”’ who write, edit, and
broadcast the news on the three major television net-
works. The power that is exerted by these people is far
out of proportion to their qualifications or objectivity
and has become areal threat to free and diversified
thinking in this nation.
So powerful have the three major television net-
works become that they can bring down administra-
tions, affect the stock market, fan the emotions of the
people for or against an issue, or promote a system of
morality they favor. The riots, marches, flag-burnings,
destruction, disruption and rebellion of the ‘60s and
‘70s were prolonged — if not actually created — by
the ever-present television cameras and network per-
sonnel who were all to willing to be used to promote
any radical group that would shout obscenities against
the policies of the United States. The very fact that the
media was there to cover a story gave it significance
far out of proportion to its own intrinsic worth.
The Jane Fondas, the Eldridge Cleavers, the Huey
Newtons, the Joan Baezes, the Tom Clarks, and the
Abbie Hoffmans could never have gotten their twist-
ed versions of political morality before the American
public without the servitude of the cameras and crews

of ABC, NBC, and CBS. One radical could draw
three network camera crews ready to film his every
pronouncement. Month after month after month we
saw an endless parade of draft card burnings, sit-ins,
fiery speeches from political left-wing radicals — all
denouncing the United States and praising Russia,
North Vietnam, and Marxism-Leninism.
If the cameras and crews of the networks had with-
drawn from these radicals, the movement would have
died within weeks. But the protesters had learned to
choreograph their demonstrations, giving ample notice
to the networks where the action would be, so that
they could go to their assignment editors in plenty of
time to secure a sizable crew to cover the event. The
protesters had learned to “play to the cameras,” and
the press was all to willing to comply.
No, Susie, the newscaster is not God.
And his report and analysis of the news is not Holy
Writ.
THE POWER OF THE PRESS
I am a bonafide, registered, card-carrying member

of the working press. The term “‘press’’ originally
referred to those people who were involved in the print
media, paricularly the newspapers. But as other forms
of communication developed, the name came to cover
all those in any of the various media — i.e., radio and
television, as well as the print media.
The press is a person’s link to a national audience.
Even the president of the United States must depend
upon the press to get his message to his constituents.
He can speak to only a few thousand people face to
Media Manipulation : 77
face at one time, making it impossible to reach the

millions in the nation without having his words trans-
mitted to them via radio, television, or the printed
page. So he is at the mercy of the press when it comes
to communicating his ideas to the people. This is why
wise administrations bring in experts to advise and
direct them in their dealings with the national press.
The people of the press know that they are the
“link”’ to the people. It gives them a sense of power.
Power to make or break. Power to promote or destroy.
Power to persuade. Power to intimidate.
I have covered many major events for my radio talk
show all across the nation, and I have found that a
“press pass” is a magic key that opens almost any
door. The sponsors of these events have a “‘message”’
they want to get across, and they know the only way to
reach a wide audience is through the media. There-
fore, the press people are given carte blanche to al-
most any place or person at the event. Guards step
back and allow you through when they see your press
pass. Usually a special room is set up for you furn-
ished with telephones, typewriters, sandwiches, snacks
and drinks, and several people to cater to your slight-
est desire.
I have “‘rubbed elbows’”’ at these events with people
from NBC, CBS, ABC, Newsweek, The New York
Times, major religious periodicals, independent radio
and television people and a host of other media per-
sonalities. It is a heady business. You are recognized
by the public, awarded celebrity status, and given
special privileges. Famous and powerful people are
happy to visit you — usually at your convenience.
You are courted, cajoled and pampered, all with the
hope that you will give them print space or air time to
help them promote themselves, their product, or
their cause.
CENSORSHIP IN DALLAS
Let me give you an example of how the news can be
censored by a newsperson before it ever reaches your
home. In 1980 I was hosting “‘live’ coverage of the
National Affairs Briefing for radio station KVTT in
Dallas; Texas, where more than twenty thousand
people had come to Dallas to hear some of America’s
most enlightened people discuss the social and moral
issues confronting our nation. Our radio equipment
was Set up on a table not more than fifty feet from the
speaker’s podium in the Reunion Arena. Immediately
behind our table was a platform that supported the
television crews and their equipment for the three
national networks, and several religious networks,
as well as many local television stations.
The man in charge of one of the national network
crews Sat at our table and visited with us during the
breaks. I found that he was totally unfamiliar with the
evangelical movement and viewed it with a somewhat
suspicious attitude.
When one of the principal speakers at the con-
vention, Mr. Paul Weyrich, referred to the fact that he
had at one time been a newspaper reporter, the net-
work man uttered an expletive and muttered, “‘I can’t .
believe that this guy, who used to be a member of the
press, is saying these things.”
He then instantly turned around and signaled to his
cameraman to “‘cut” and blurted out, ‘‘We don’t want
that kind of stuff going over our network’’ (only he
used stronger language).
I was shocked — to say the least. I tried to think of —
what the speaker had said that evoked such an emo-
Media Manipualtion 79
tional response from our network friend. As I re-

viewed Mr. Weyrich’s talk, Iremembered that he was
simply telling the people how the humanists had
gained the upper hand in public education, the news
media, and the government, and how the people should
and could regain control of these institutions. He was
simply exercising his freedom of speech. But it was
not the kind of speech that the network man wanted
the public to hear — so he refused to let it be seen and
heard by the American public.
I have found that it is this kind of “‘spoon-feeding,”’
in flavors and amounts prescribed by those who con-
trol the media, that is the rule rather than the ex-
ception.
The stated purpose of the humanist movement is to
bring about a one-world, socialistic, anti-God society.
And they are moving ahead, for even now arelatively
small number of committed humanists profoundly
affect the lives, institutions and destinies of over 200
million Americans.
They are able to influence national and world
events because they occupy some of the highest posi-
tions in the businesses and institutions that influence
the information gathering and disseminating agencies.
They virtually control what we read, see and
hear.
The influence of secular humanism on the Amer-
ican press is enormous. Most of the nation’s leading
journalists were educated in the large, liberal ‘‘East-
ern establishment’ colleges and universities and were
thoroughly schooled in the religion of humanism. And
they bring that mind-set with them when they write
_ the stories that are daily consumed by the American
public.
Ask yourself the next time you read the newspaper,
*‘Who does the editing for this paper? What wire

service furnished it? Who were the editors in New
York? Who hired the editors and reporters? What are
their beliefs? What point of view are they trying to get
across?” Any event or story, in the hands of a skilled
writer, can be slanted to fit the bias of the reporter by
simply applying a slightly negative or positive em-
phasis to what should be a purely objective item.
It is axiomatic that to control a country you must
first control its sources of communication. The tele-
vision and radio stations and newspapers are among
the first targets of any revolutionary movement which
attempt to overthrow a government.
When Solidarity became a threat to the communist
government in Poland, the government arrested hun-
dreds of the union’s leaders, declared martial law, and
took over all the communications media — in-
cluding television, radio, newspapers, and telephones
— knowing that one of the requirements for keeping a
nation free is the free exchange of ideas and thoughts
among the people. When the people are unable to
communicate, the government can intimidate them
into submission.
It would be folly at this point for any group to
attempt to seize the communications media in the
United States by force. However, though mental and
philosophical seduction of a nation may be slower, it —
is just as effective and just as deadly.
SAME WORDS — NEW MEANINGS
The dictionary defines “‘semantics”’ as ‘‘the branch

of language study that deals with the meaning of
words and their effect on people.’’ Some words have
Media Manipulation ; 81
the power to create positive, pleasant feelings while

others can induce a negative, unpleasant feeling. A
skillful writer can manipulate the emotions of his
readers any way he chooses by the use of certain
words.
Before I invited Mel and Norma Gabler to appear
on “‘Point of View,” I had read an article about them
in the November 25, 1979 issue of Parade Magazine
entitled “Public School Book Censors Try Again.”’ I
thought about the article while I was interviewing
them, for it was a fascinating study in semantics. I
remembered that the article featured a picture of a
bonfire, giving rise to memories of Nazi Germany and
the massive book burnings ordered by Hitler and his
henchmen.
I smiled as I recalled the article, for I knew quite
well what the author had in mind when he chose that
particular picture. In addition to the skillful use of
words, the press can employ pictures to manipulate
the mind, inflame the unthinking emotions, distort
facts and create the response from the reader that they
wish. At first glance I knew that this was not journalism;
it was nothing more than a propaganda piece.
Even the headline employed that dread word ‘‘cen-
sor.’ Nobody likes a censor. Why, we have a Con-
stitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech
and of the press, and we dare anyone to violate it. So
with the words and pictures the mood was set. You
knew you were about to read the story of some people
who were trying to bring back the intellectual sup-
pression the people had felt under Nazi rule.
But I wanted to get the whole story. After such
blatant slander, these people should at least have the
opportunity to tell their side. I wanted to go beyond
the prejudiced writings of the bigoted reporter and get
the real facts, because most readers didn’t bother to

investigate the story any further. They did not stop to
ask, “Who are the Gablers? Are they trying to censor
what America reads? Do they burn books? Are they
trying to do away with our freedom of choice?”’
What I discovered was that they do not burn books,
nor do they try to censor what America reads. But the
writer of the article wanted us to think they did. It was
an inflammatory, prejudicial article that reflected the
humanistic bias of the writer and served only to distort
the real facts. It was not journalism. It was propa-
ganda — pure and simple.
As I began the interview with the Gablers, I tried to
visualize these two gracious people tossing little chil-
dren’s school textbooks onto a giant bonfire — and it
just didn’t fit. As their story unfolded, we learned the
truth. They review ‘proposed’ school textbooks and
submit written critiques, in the manner prescribed by
the laws of the State of Texas for the Texas School
Textbook Committee to read. They are simply exer-
cising one of their rights as citizens of this great
nation.
But the humanists are unhappy with the Gablers,
for these two individuals are quite effective in pointing
out the instances where the public school textbooks
undermine the family, the free enterprise system, and
the Judeo-Christian moral code. In the process they
expose the glut of humanistic indoctrination found in
them. And they are being heard! The publishers hold
them in high regard. Many don’t like them; but they
know better than to try to slip a blatant humanist
textbook into Texas, for they will meet them head-on.
The interview on “Point of View’’ showed that the
true facts about the Gablers were quite different from
what the writer of the article wanted us to believe. Our
Media Manipulation 83
only conclusion is that he was writing out of his own

ideological bias when he labeled their work as “censor-
ship.”
MEDIA MONOPOLY
According to the A.C. Neilsen Company, television

has a 97 percent saturation in the United States; and
in the average TV household the set is in use more
than 45 hours per week!
Scientists tell us that we remember 60 percent of
what we see and only 10 percent of what we hear.
Television and movies combine both sight and sound,
hearing and seeing, thereby greatly enhancing their
power to persuade. That innocuous “‘box”’ that sits in
your home may not be as “harmless” as you once
thought. You may be getting a lot more than you think
when you sit down to watch it.
There are only three major television networks in
the whole of America, thereby concentrating this
awesome power in the hands of a small circle of “‘elit-
ists.’’ Others are trying to break this monopoly, but as
of this date, ABC, NBC, and CBS remain the prin-
cipal sources for news and entertainment for the vast
majority of Americans.
As bad as television “‘entertainment”’ is, it is the
news reporting departments of the three major net-
works that are the most effective in molding public
opinion — making them also the most potentially
dangerous to afree society. There is no question that
these networks have the attention and respect of the
American people. Statistics show that we get more of
our current events information each day from them
than from any other source.
And most of it is slanted toward liberalism!
We have witnessed in this nation the development

of a closed “‘media-society’’ which advocates a sys-
tem of values contrary to the traditional Judeo-Chris-
tian moral values. The networks are vi:tually con-
trolled by people who espouse the liberal, humanistic
philosophy. ,
I tried to present this thought to the nation when I
was a guest on ABC’s “Nightline” in October 1981.1
knew beforehand that I would probably not get my
questions answered, but I was determined to at least
address the issues before a national audience.
I, along with several others, was invited by ABC to
ask questions of a panel of ABC news people about
the quality of their network’s news coverage. The
ABC panel consisted of Frank Reynolds, Barbara
Walters, Sam Donaldson, and the host Ted Koppel.
During the national telecast I said to Ted Koppel,
**T will address my question to you because this sub-
ject was alluded to at the beginning of the show. lama
radio talk show host in Dallas and I get feedback from
the listening audience that has revealed some very inter-
esting things. Number one, generally speaking, there
is a mistrust of the national media. Number two, the
press is viewed as a ‘controlled’ press not controlled
by a sinister few, but by what is commonly called the
Eastern establishment mentality. And number three,
there is a belief that the media have an inbred bias
against the traditional moral value system. Could you
comment?”
Mr. Koppel answered, ‘“‘First of all, that we are
controlled by anyone, I think, is just wrong. That our
bias tends to be Northeastern ‘liberal,’ I alluded to
that, as you quite correctly pointed out. That’s one
reason why we’re here. If that is true, we are trying to
make amends for it. To the degree to which we have
Media Manipulation , 85
succeeded, you and all the folks out there who are
watching will have to judge.”
Mr. Koppel didn’t fully recall the third part of my
question, so I restated it by saying‘“‘. . . there seems to
be an inbred bias (in the national press) against the
traditional moral value system. . . the Judeo-Christian
ethic.”
He then replied, “‘Well, I simply again do not agree
with you and I don’t know how one goes about proving
that with a simple answer. So you will have to accept,
for the moment, that I don’t think it is true.”’
THE PROOF EXISTS
To be fair to Mr. Koppel and other sincere jour-

nalists, probably very few in the media are consciously
aware of their part in carrying out the goals of the
humanist dream. They are themselves products of a
humanistic educational system, and write and report
the news with that inbred bias. They would like for us
to believe that there are no hard facts to back up the
accusations that I made against the national press on
“Nightline.”’ But those facts do exist.
Two scholars, S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Roth-
man, conducted hour-long interviews with 240 jour-
nalists and broadcasters at the most influential media
outlets in the country. These included reporters,
editors, bureau chiefs and executives responsible for
news content. They sought to find out how these
journalists felt about controversial issues.
Their findings, published in Public Opinion (Oct.-
Nov. 1981), revealed that these media elite had voted
- for the presidential candidate of the Democratic
Party by margins ranging from over four-to-one in
1972 and 1976 to fifteen-to-one in the Goldwater-

Johnson race in 1964.
While only 54 percent described themselves as
“‘liberal’”’ politically, their votes and their attitudes on
a variety of issues suggest that they are overwhelm-
ingly liberal.
This was especially obvious on social questions.
Eighty-five percent disagree with the statement that
homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in public
schools, and 76 percent disagree with the view that
homosexuality is wrong. Ninety percent were pro-
abortion; 97 percent thought that governments should
not pass laws regulating sexual activities. Nearly half,
47 percent, saw nothing wrong with adultery. Eighty-
six percent of the media elite said they seldom, if ever,
attended religious services, and only half claimed any
religious affiliation.
The article continued with some very enlightening
information on the philosophy of those who write,
edit, and dispense the news in this nation. It clearly
reveals that our so-called “free press” is in fact phil-
osophically controlled by secular humanists.
The influence of leftist propaganda on our media
elite is evident in the high percentage who indicated
that they agreed with such well-known Soviet pro-
paganda lines as the charge that the United States
exploits developing countries of the world. Fifty-seven —
percent took the view that our use of the world’s
resources is immoral. One out of eight believed that
big corporations should be owned by the government.
Apparently a significant minority of the media elite
subscribes to basic Marxist principles.
Mr. Koppel and others may not recognize it, but the
views of the media elite are far more liberal, far more
favorable to socialist ideas, than are those of the
Media Manipulation : 87
general public. However, the fact that they are out of

step with the people does not faze them in the least.
Asked what group ought to exercise the greatest in-
fluence in society, they nominated themselves!
YOU’RE GETTING MORE

THAN ENTERTAINMENT
Most of us think of television as entertainment.

Would it surprise you if I told you that it is not? And
even though advertisers consider it the greatest selling
tool ever to be invented, its primary function is not
selling goods? No, television is first and foremost an
educational medium. It is an instrument of persua-
sion, indoctrination, seduction, propaganda and
mind manipulation — all done in an entertaining
way.
The most effective methods of persuasion and in-
doctrination are those that the subject least suspects
of being used for that purpose.
Humor, for example, is one of the best ways to get
past a person’s conscious defenses. Then, when these
defenses are down, the ““messages”’ can be sent straight
to the subconscious mind where it will be stored to
eventually affect the thinking and life-style of the
subject.
Picture yourself, along with your wife and children,
having a quiet evening at home. You have worked
hard. You came home, had dinner, got the dishes out
of the way, sat down in your favorite easy chair,
glanced over the evening paper, checked the TV guide,
and flipped on the set. With a drink in your hand anda
- bowl of popcorn at your side, you settled in for a
couple of hours of entertainment.
8&8 America Betrayed!
You are now in exactly the frame of mind that the

programmer or advertiser had hoped for. When you
flipped the ‘‘on’’ buttdn, you welcomed them into
your home. They are now your invited guests. But
whether you know it or not, your entertainment comes
laden with an enormous amount of propaganda, usu-
ally reflecting the humanistic value system.
SATIRE AND RIDICULE

The use of satire and ridicule is an extremely ef-
fective psychological weapon when skillfully used to
avoid any honest discussion of facts.
An example of satire and ridicule being used in
television was demonstrated during an episode of
‘‘All in the Family.” The writer/producer brain trust
of the show was able to denigrate marriage, children,
motherhood, the family, the Christian minister, the
Christian marriage ceremony, and the Christian
moral value system, while advocating situational
ethics, sex before marriage, non-religious marriage
vows, sexual equality and the humanistic value sys-
tem in marriage — all within a twenty-nine minute
span of time!
The story line was about a young couple who
“Gloria and Mike”’ had invited to be married in their -
home. One of the first revelations was that the bride
had gotten pregnant while the couple had been living
together. The ceremony was principally for the “‘sake
of the bride’s mother and father.” They had just
“slipped up.”
When the minister arrived, it was revealed that they
had found his name in the Yellow Pages. (No self-
respecting humanist would be caught dead knowing a
Christian minister). The Yellow Pages minister, who

rode a motorcycle to the wedding, was portrayed as a
complete ‘‘jerk.”” His ceremony consisted of a total
perversion of the standard Christian marriage cere-
mony — which has united millions of couples and laid
the foundation for a lifetime of love and commitment
to each other. The desecration of the words and spirit
of the ceremony was an insult to every husband and
wife who have ever pledged their love to each other
while repeating its vows.
The only sacred or serious moment in the ludicrous
display of blasphemy was when “Mike” read an asi-
nine poem about two trees growing side-by-side with-
out overshadowing each other. It was a touching scene
when everyone got emotional over the poem.
Funny! Everybody is broadminded and has a good
laugh. But — the laugh is on morality, marriage, sex,
motherhood and all those ‘‘unenlightened’’ people
who are still sexually stilted by outmoded religious
beliefs.
This is situation ethics being promoted through the
situation comedy — over a national TV network!
So much was sent home to the viewer that it is
difficult to point out all the areas of anti-Christian,
humanistic brainwash. So much was said — without
saying it.
A humanistic, secularistic value system was taken
for granted as being the modern, enlightened way.
Christian principles and ceremony were scoffed at
and ridiculed. The clergyman was portrayed as mo-
ronic, insincere, dull, and totally unnecessary.
Talk about the propagandistic use of satire and
ridicule — television writers are masters of it.
90 : America Betrayed!
MESSAGE, MEDIUM, METHOD
Whenthe writers, programmers, actors, producers,

or special money interests have a message they want
to send to the American people, they know they have
three basic things to consider: the message, the me-
dium, and the method.
The message can be whatever the principals choose
to send. The medium may be television, the printed
page, radio, the movies, record albums, or any other
means of communication. The method may be in
humor, situation comedy, drama, etc.
The mind manipulators often choose the method of
the situation comedy to deliver their intended mes-
sage. The sitcom is loosely based on everyday life and
shows the problems that we human beings face and
how the characters respond to them and solve them.
Some of these shows have been rightly used and have
served as role models for the decent trends in tele-
vision programming.
A myriad of situation comedies and made-for-tele-
vision movies, along with a glut of day-time soap
operas, have been used to preach the doctrine and
promote the life-style of the amoral permissiveness
espoused by secular humanism. The life-style por-
trayed on the programs and the characters played
have become role models for millions of people. Even
one night’s viewing will show you that morality is
often ridiculed, home and family denigrated — while
adultery, homosexuality, dishonesty, incest, child
sex, prostitution, pornography, and lust are pictured
as normal and desirable.
Or the method may be humor in the form of the
“stand-up comic.”’ Take, for example, the remarks by
Johnny Carson on NBC’s “Tonight Show” when he
told a joke about Anita Bryant.

I don’t know if there is any direct connection or not,
but I saw Rod McKuen, the poet, tell an interviewer
on a television program that he was going to contact
every comedy writer he knew and ask them to write
jokes about Anita Bryant in an effort to ridicule her for
her stand against homosexuality.
When you use humor, you don’t have to rely on
reason or intelligence or fairness to make your point.
You bypass the intelligence of the listener and simply
appeal to his predilection for prejudice toward all
those who disagree with you. It has much the same
appeal that the ethnic joke has. You seek to picture the
person who disagrees with your views as being so
ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious consider-
ation.
Mr. Carson’s “‘joke’’ made Anita Bryant appear as
an object worthy of ridicule. She became laughable.
And while the audience responded to his inane re-
marks with uproarious laughter, the writers of the
material must have smiled and congratulated them-
selves, for they had sent their message over the entire
NBC television network — straight into the minds of
millions of Americans. The damage was done!
Johnny Carson has prejudiced his viewers against a
gallant lady who stood up for decency in the face of a
disgusted moral blight in her community. She spoke
out against the homosexuals having free access to the
minds of her children. And for this she was rewarded
with the brand of being ‘‘intolerant,” “bigoted,”
‘“‘narrow-minded,” and wanting to “force her moral
values on everyone else.”’
The tragedy was — many believed him.
The joke carried a much weightier message — a
warning — and it sank into the subconscious minds of
millions. The message to the rest of us was to beware

about what we say or do, or we too will fall victim to
the art of propaganda by comedy.
Consider the impact also of the dramatic pro-
gram in presenting ideas to the minds of the audience.
We all know the experience of sitting in front of our
television sets, totally engrossed in the dramatic un-
folding of a story. We. become enmeshed in it, un-
aware even of our surroundings, loving and hating the
characters, making irrational judgements as to right or
wrong, mesmerized by the genius of manipulation.
We become emotionally involved, excited, and enter-
tained.
You are now at your highest point of vulnerability,
and the authors and directors can now send you the
““message’’ they want you to receive. You will receive
it, and it will influence your thinking. While you sit
there in a passive, uncritical attitude, watching and
listening, you have opened the door to almost total
access to your subconscious mind. The media people
know it — and they exploit it.
Before you toss this information aside and say there
is no proof that we are being consciously and delib-
erately manipulated by the people who control what
the American people see on television, consider the
facts revealed in a recent report published in Public
Opinion, a magazine of The American Institute for
Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
The report was written by the research team of
Robert Lichter, political scientist at George Wash-
ington University; Stanley Rothman, professor at
Smith College; and Linda Lichter, research associate
at George Washington University. The findings are
the result of detailed interviews with 104 of the tele-
vision elite. In fact, they bothered to interview only
people who were associated with two or more suc-

cessful prime time series, including “‘. . . some of the
most experienced and respected members of the craft.
Many have been honored with Emmy Awards, and a
few are household names.”
As I read through the report, a very clear profile of
these people began to emerge, and I didn’t like what I
was seeing. The information showed that the people
who create and control the entertainment seen nightly
on television are “overwhelmingly secular in outlook,
politicaly liberal, and avoid religion,” and that their
position on religion and moral values is out of step
with the beliefs and attitudes of the vast majority of
Americans. Unfortunately, the study also reveals that
“this group has had a major role in shaping the shows
whose themes and stars have become staples in our
popular culture.”
Just what do these people believe and what is their
values system? Well, the survey gives us definite
answers, leaving no room for speculation.
Here are some of the things uncovered: (1) While
nearly all of them came out of religious backgrounds,
45 percent now say they have no religion; (2) only 7
percent of them attend a religious service as much as
once a month; (3) 80 percent of them do not regard
homosexual relations as wrong; (4) 86 percent sup-
port the rights of homosexuals to teach in public
schools; (5) 51 percent refuse to condemn adultery as
wrong; (6) almost all of them — 97 percent— are pro-
abortion; (7) 67 percent think that the government
should redistribute the income in America, even
though 25 percent of them earn more than $500,000
per year, while only 4 percent earn less than $75,000
per year.
It’s plain and simple; these people who control
enormous powers over the thought processes of mil-

lions of Americans are enemies to the Christian faith.
If you doubt that they are enemies to Jesus Christ,
consider the statement in the survey which says, “It
would be difficult to overestimate the clash of values
when television’s creative community confronts fun-
damentalist Christian critics. Their value orientation
is fundamentally different from that of the general
public . . . they reflect the criticism that television is
too critical of traditional values by an eight-to-one
margin.”
The results of this study do not surprise me, but
there was one conclusion that disturbed me a great
deal and should sound an alarm for all Americans.
The fact that these “entertainment” elitists’ positions
on religion and moral values is at odds with the over-
whelming majority of Americans does not stop them
from imposing their moral value system upon us all.
Tothe contrary! The survey revealed that“...

according to television’s creators, they are not in
it just for the money — they seek to move their
audience toward their vision of the good
society.”
Their version of the ‘good society” can be summed

up in two words — secular humanism. And it is being
preached daily to millions through drama, situation
comedies, science programs, documentaries, talk
shows, and all other forms of ‘‘entertainment.”’
THE KINGS OF TV
The questions that kept coming back to me again

and again were ‘Who decides what will be sent over
television into the homes? Who determines what the

American viewing public will see?”’
One day I read an article that settled the question.
Ben Stein, lawyer, novelist and TV columnist, said in
‘“‘The View From Sunset Boulevard,” “In television,
the producers and writers are creative kings. What
they say is law, and that law is transmitted on the
airwaves into millions of homes. Television is not
necessarily a mirror of anything besides what those
few people think.”’
He then stated that fewer than four hundred people
determine what is seen in the sitcoms and adventure
shows, which constitute the major part and most influ-
ential aspect of TV programming. He further asserted
that these same powerful writers are people who are
deliberately using our most powerful communications
medium to promote their own social and political
views.
Tragically, every night of the week millions of en-
tertained or amused viewers surrender their thought
processes to this medium. Unknowingly, they are
receiving the unfiltered messages of the show’s brain-
trust. The programs are telling you what is right and
wrong, knowing that you will eventually accept it and
integrate it into your own value system. You are being
“controlled” under the guise of being entertained.
Please understand that not all shows are designed
to indoctrinate, and not all people in show business
are trying to seduce you — but many are!
You should be asking, ‘‘ What will be the long-term
effect on our society of this pervasive, humanistic,
national electronic brainwash?”’
I am fascinated by the modern developments in
communications. I believe that all these technological
advances should be used to spread the gospel of Christ
96 America Betraved!
and do good for mankind. But considering the as-

tounding developments, in the fields of communica-
tion and information, and considering the impact of
these changes on every part of our human existence, it
should be clear to everyone that the potential for good
or evil is almost unlimited. The communications revo-
lution has given the purveyors of ideas the means to
‘‘force-feed” a nation a daily ration of information
that almost saturates their thoughts and senses.
Further evidence of the power of the media to affect
the minds of people was given in the book Subliminal
Seduction, when the author said, ““The TV machine
regulates time, channelizes or unifies perceptual ex-
perience and establishes (all subliminally) an entire
range of human expectations, value systems, identi-
ties, relationships, and perspectives toward the entire
world. There exists no single or multiple mechanism
available to modern man which holds such a devasta-
ting potential for brainwashing, mass programming,
and the destruction of individualism — with, of course,
reinforcement from the other mass media. This threat
is every bit as disastrous for the future of mankind as is
pollution, overpopulations, or atomic and biological
warfare ... experiments have established most em-
phatically that as a... brainwashing or conditioning
device, television has an enormous potential.”’
Can you imagine the number of “‘imprints”” made
upon your brain in an average day from newspaper
ads, billboards, radio and television commercials,
and a profusion of other messages that vie for your
attention? With such a rash of information, is it any
wonder that many people find it difficult to cope in our
modern society? This “overload” of information plays
a major role in the breakdown of the resistance of the
mind, causing it to become passive — no longer able
to resist. The person is then “‘told”’ what he is to do.

He is no longer able, nor does he wish, to resist the
pressure to conform.
It is sobering to realize that the media have become
so pervasive that to a great extent they determine
what we talk about, how we pattern our lives, how we
dress, what we buy, how we think. And they shape our
political, religious and moral views of life. The simple
fact is that if we hope to maintain even a modicum of
mental health, spiritual balance, and moral purity, we
must become more critical of the media.
THERE’S MORE THAN MEETS THE EAR
It was acool, brisk day as I drove east on Northwest

Highway in Dallas toward the KVTT studios for my
broadcast. The twenty minute drive always gives me
an opportunity to focus my attention on the upcoming
interview. As usual, I didn’t know quite what to ex-
pect. My guest was going to discuss rock music, so I
thought I would doalittle “‘research’”’ while driving. I
dialed in one of Dallas’ rock stations, and after having
my senses assaulted for about six minutes I turned it
off and muttered, ‘“‘That stuff will loosen the fillings in
your teeth.”” So much for the research.
But — I would learn that day that rock music was
another powerful psychological weapon in Satan’s
war for the mind. It was part of the vast program of
media manipulation.
Until recently, the messages being preached through
the words and music of the rock groups had gone
unnoticed by everyone but a few. Even now the aver-
age American parent has little or no knowledge of
what these groups are saying, or of their devastating
effect upon impressionable young minds. Most par-

ents have never bothered to check out the record
albums their children are bringing home. Their stan-
dard reaction is to shout over the loud, thunderous
beat blasting through the walls of the house, ““Turn
that noise down!”’
Like most parents, I had heard some of this music
and found it to be too loud, irritating and offensive, but
I had simply reasoned that this was part of the genera-
tion gap. After all, I had been young once, and I
enjoyed turning up the music to close out the world
and create my own little environment right in my own
room. So — I didn’t particularly approve of it. Big
deal! But why should I mind? And though I didn’t
completely approve of it, I didn’t see why I should get
uptight over it.
After all — it was harmless. Or was it?
As had happened so often before, I was to receive
an ‘education’ on my own broadcast — on the air —
along with thousands of others. I was to be shocked
into facing the facts.
I had heard of a young man, Mike Johnson, who
himself had been into rock music, but was now speak-
ing out against it in churches and schools. He sounded
like a young man who knew what he was talking
about, so I invited him to appear on “Point of View.”
What I was to see and hear was going to open my
eyes to yet another method that was being used to
pervert the thinking of the American young people.
The information he brought was so astonishing that it
was almost unbelievable. But he had his facts to-
gether. The proof was in front of me. It was printed on
the albums themselves for me to read.
When we were on the air, I introduced Mike and
asked him why he objected to much of the contem-
porary rock music. He told us that many of the rock

groups’ personal life-styles and philosophies included
such things as satanism, sado-masochism, the drug
culture, hedonism, homosexuality, bestiality, rebel-
lion, anarchy — anda few lesser evils!
He had my attention!
Mike told us that before he saw the dangers in rock
music, he was “‘hooked”’ on the Beatles and was quite
surprised to learn they had admitted they frequently
used drugs and that their songs were replete with
references to drug use.
He said that his research had uncovered some other
revealing things:
Derek Taylor (the Beatles’ press officer) said,

“They re completely anti-Christ. I mean, I am
anti-Christ as well, but they’re so anti-Christ,
they shock me, which isn’t an easy thing” (Sat-
urday Evening Post, August 1964).
Paul McCartney said, ‘‘We probably seem to be

anti-religious because of the fact that none of us
believe in God” (Playboy, February 1965). The
late John Lennon said, ‘“‘Christianity will go.
We're more popular than Jesus now” (News-
week, 1966).
George Harrison was a follower of the Maharishi

Mahesh Yogi and a practicing Hindu as early as
1967. His popular song ‘‘My Sweet Lord” was
dedicated to Lord Krishna (Rock, Bob Larson).
Mike continued to give us documented proof of the

perverse nature of these groups:
The group The Village People was formed by

Jacques Morali, who said, “I formed this group
as a personal protest against Anita Bryant and to
make gays (homosexuals) more acceptable in
our society’ (Newsweek, April 2, 1979).
Queen is another group with sexual overtones.

‘The name Queen is the “drag’”’ overtone of the
word ‘‘homosexual.’’ Lead singer Freddy Mer-
cury said, ‘‘We want to shock and outrage” (Cir-
cus, 1975). He appears on stage with his own
brand of purple fingernail polish, mascara and
tight leotards to flaunt his bisexuality and sings,
‘““We are the Champions” which has been widely
interpreted as the national anthem for the Gay
Liberation Movement. Mercury said, “On stage,
I'm adevil. I think I may go mad in several years’
time’ (Circus, 1977).
I must admit that what had seemed relatively harm-

less to me in the past was now beginning to take on an
ominous new meaning. Here were very popular groups
promoting, among other things, sexual perversions. I
thought, ““Could there be any doubt in anyone’s mind
that thousands of young people are being recruited to
enter this life-style by these groups and their songs?”’.
OCCULTIC ROCK
I was interested in a statement Mike had made

earlier in the show about the influence of the occult on
these groups, and asked him to comment. He shuffled
through the rock albums lying on the table and showed
me one by the group Blue Oyster Cult. On their
‘Agents of Fortune’ album was a man holding tarot

cards (fortune telling), which when decoded read
‘The one who comes against the power faces death.”
Mike pointed out to me that the man’s other hand
points at the satanic cross to show what that power
is.
He continued, “Their album ‘Fire of the Unknown
Origin’ flaunts people with different occultic symbols
on their foreheads and garments. The album is ad-
vertised in rock journals by saying ‘Following the O-
eult:’,”?
He continued: “Another group, The Eagles, got
their name from the major spirit in the Indian cosmos
and is based on the teaching of the occultic writer
Carlos Casteneda. Their song ‘One of These Nights’
says, ‘You’ve got your demons, you’ve got desires,
and I’ve got a few of my own.’ Other occultic songs
include ‘Take the Devil,’ ‘Journey of the Sorcerer,’
‘Witchy Woman,’ ‘Good Day in Hell,’ and ‘Hotel
California.’ ”
As Isat there dumbfounded, Mike continued to call
the names of the various rock groups and give brief
descriptions of their philosophies and how those
beliefs are integrated into their songs and music,
making them an enormously effective brainwash mec-
hanism. I remember when some eighty thousand
people were jammed into the Cotton Bowl in Dallas,
Texas to hear the Rolling Stones. It was dramatic
testimony to the power these groups exert over the
minds of millions in this nation.
Mike continued his expose by saying, “Black
Sabbath has a member, Bill Ward, who said, ‘Satan
could be God’ (Circus, December 1971). Their bass
player, Geezer, said, ‘I can see the devil and Im
Lucifer; it’s a Satanic world’( Rolling Stone, October
1971).
‘*Former drummer Peter Criss, of Kiss, said, “I find
myself evil. I believe in the devil as much as God. You
can use either one to get things done’ (Rolling Stone,
April 1977).
“Parts of the Rolling Stone’s album Goats Head
Soup were recorded live at a Haitian voodoo ritual.
One album has the group posed as warlocks on the
album cover and is entitled ‘Your Satanic Majesty’s
Request.’ The song ‘Sympathy For The Devil’ is the
unofficial national anthem for the satanic groups in
America. And in a live concert, Mick is seen wearing
a shirt that has Christ hanging upside down on the
cross, overshadowed by a Nazi swastika. Earth,
Wind and Fire usually join hands before each concert
to enter into the proper transcendent state (Circus,
January 1977). The leader, Maurice White, is a
practicing Buddhist (Rolling Stone, January 1978),
and their song ‘Serpentine Fire’ is based on the Spinal
Life Energy System found in the Shah Kriza Yogi
meditation cult. Their album ‘All n’ All’ portrays a
cross on the same level as other occultic, religious,
and demonic symbols on the inside cover.”
After presenting all this information, Mike said,
“So you see, Marlin, the occultic doctrine comes
through loud and clear in many of these rock songs.
And when kids listen to them they are being brain-
washed and indoctrinated with its message. Many
have tumed to the occult through listening to these
groups.”
Our minds had already been “‘blown,”’ but the in-
formation that was to come was even more fright-
ening. My guest introduced us to a recording tech-
nique known as backward masking. He explained
that this is a technique used by some of the rock
groups to “‘implant”’ messages into their songs. It is a

technique of so arranging the words in the songs that
playing the records backward would reveal imbedded
messages.
Mike had devised a way to play the records back-
ward so that the message could be heard. He demon-
strated this by playing several brief excerpts from
several of the albums — backwards — revealing some
very astounding things. Some of the phrases and sen-
tences were quite distinguishable when played in this
manner. (Mike warned the listeners that this is very
rarely used and for people not to let their imaginations
run wild).
One of the songs he demonstrated was by Queen,
entitled “‘ Another One Bites The Dust.’’ When it was
played backward we could hear the phrase “ We de-
cided to smoke marijuana.”
Mike said ““The group Black Oak Arkansas has
disbanded, with every veteran of the group now con-
fessing Jesus as Lord, except for the lead singer, Jim
Dandy. Their live album Raunch n’ Roll, which was
produced several years ago, has one song entitled
‘The Day Electricity Came To Arkansas.’ Halfway
through the song, Dandy has the band quiet down and
then proceeds to say a meaningless phrase, which
when played backwards announces, ‘Satan, Satan.
He is God. He is God.’ It is followed bya sickly,
demonic laugh.”
When I asked him about the effectiveness of back-
wards masking, he said that he knew kids who had
actually picked up the backwards messages when
they were “‘high’’ on drugs, even though they could
- not hear them when they were sober.
The effectiveness of this method of subliminal sug-
gestion (backwards masking) is not fully understood,
but some psychologists believe that even though the

conscious mind may not pick up the words that are
being heard backwards, there is the distinct possi-
bility that the subconscious mind may be able to re-
ceive them and translate them into meaning.
MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
When we opened the telephone lines for people to

callin and ask questions, a young man asked about the
influence of the movies and asked if my guest saw any
danger in them. Mike replied, “In my study of the
trend of the movies, I believe they are being used to
indoctrinate the kids toward an anti-Christ attitude,
especially the science fiction movies. The most pop-
ular movies among young people are movies such as
Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek,
The Black Hole, etc. These are all science fiction,
futuristic-type shows.”
Mike pointed out that George Lucas, producer of
Star Wars, said, ““The Force is not a malevolent or
benevolent thing. It has a good side to it which includes
love, charity, fairness and hope. If you use it well you
can see the future and the past. You can sort of read
minds and you can levitate and use that whole nether- .
world of psychic energy” (Time, 1980).
My guest continued, *“The newer movie, Raiders of
the Lost Ark, was produced by Lucas and Spielberg.
When asked if a ‘Force’ would underlie the Indiana
Jones (Raiders) movies, Lucas responded in Rolling
Stone: ‘Raiders will be the most action-oriented of the
Indiana Jones movies — the others should deal more
with the occult.’ ”
I think thousands of people were beginning to under-
stand that when they went to the movies they were

getting more than “‘entertainment.’’ They were get-
ting indoctrinated with heavy doses of Eastern mysti-
cism and the occult — and making multi-millionaires
of the producers in the process. Long gone were the
days when you could distinguish the ‘‘good”’ guys
from the “‘bad;” now the theaters are halls of indoc-
trination!
By this time the telephone lines at the radio station
were jammed with people who wanted more infor-
mation. Young people were upset, disturbed, “‘vic-
timized.”’ They had been subjected to indoctrination
through rock music and movies, and they didn't like it!
As the result of that interview, hundreds of young.
people burned and destroyed thousands of dollars
worth of rock albums. People began writing for copies
of the interview on cassette tapes to share with others
or to mail across the country. Our office has mailed
thousands of cassette tapes of the interview to par-
ents, teenagers, youth groups, pastors, schools, and
churches all across the nation. The effect of this ex-
pose of the sinister and satanic influence on rock
music and movies has had a dramatic impact on the
lives of thousands.
4
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
It should be apparent to everyone that America is in

the throes of a sexual revolution. The “gospel” of the
new “‘sexual freedom” is preached daily through the
mass media. The “‘message”’ is that men and women
have been “‘liberated’’ from the restraints of the anti-
quated Christian moral codes. And, ever-increasing
pressure taunts us all to adopt a new national attitude
toward sex. Movie stars, rock stars, television per-
sonalities, and others flaunt and promote their deviant .
secular life-styles for the young to adopt and mimic.
Sexually explicit television programs and movies paint
a picture of sex as being a recreational sport with no
responsibilities and no enduring consequences.
Because the American people have failed to train
their children in even the rudimentary moral guide-
lines to their sexuality, and have failed to teach them
that sexual abstinence before marriage is right and
106
Sexual Exploitation 107
best for their own benefit, health, and well-being, we’re

now suffering the consequences with an epidemic of
unwanted pregnancies, venereal disease, and tragic-
ally ruined lives.
It is into this moral vacuum that the government has
entered to train our children to approach sex with the
humanistic value system.
Most parents assume that when the school deter-
mines to include sex education in its curriculum, the
teachers will simply acquaint the students with facts
about reproduction and the physical differences be-
tween boys and girls. However, humanistic behavioral
psychologists, who advocate total sexual freedom,
have written most of the textbooks, and these text-
books reflect their own humanistic moral values.
When I was interviewing Jo Ann McAuley, she
shoved a book in front of me and told me that it was a
teacher’s guide for a sex education class. She told me
to read a few of the lines. What I read so shocked me
that I determined — then and there — that I would
pursue an investigation of the sex education move-
ment, the organizations pushing it, and the publishing
companies publishing the sex education material being
used in the classrooms of America.
When the radio listening audience learned that I
was investigating sex education, they mailed me enor-
mous amounts of literature, textbooks, slides, teacher
training material, etc. As I waded through this ma-
terial I received a genuine “‘education.’’ What I dis-
covered appalled me.
The material that came into my hands, plus the
interviews I had with educators and concerned par-
ents, uncovered an ideological web of people, politi-
cians, foundations, businesses, the media, and govern-
ment agencies that were part of an intense movement
to erase the Christian principles of sexual morality

from this nation and install in their place the “‘free,
liberated sex’’ immorality of secular humanism.
One of the saddest parts of my investigation, how-
ever, was that many Christian ministers, educators,
and parents simply refused to face the facts. They
cannot bring themselves to believe that the public
schools’ innocuous sex education program could pos-
sibly be designed to undermine the Christian morality
of their children. On the other hand, I have talked to
many parents who finally “woke up” after their chil-
dren had already adopted the humanistic sexual life-
style.
The humanists know that the American public must
be ‘“‘re-educated’”’ before they can erase Christian mo-
rality regarding sex. In order to do this, they must be
employed in such a manner as to mean something
different from what the American public has always
believed. Nowhere do the humanist propagandists do
a more masterful job at interjecting reverse meaning
into words than when they discuss sexual morality.
For example, the humanists accuse the Christian of
being “‘sexually immature” and “unsophisticated” in
matters relating to sex because he accepts the biblical
moral guidelines. However, nothing could be further
from the truth. The Christian attitude toward sex is
one of a mature, disciplined nature. The enlightened
Christian knows that God gave mankind the gift of sex
not only for procreation but that two people may, in
truth, become one. The Scriptures teach that a man
and a woman, in holy matrimony, “become one flesh.”’
Two people become one in heart, in mind, in spirit.
Any mature, happily married person will verify that
true sexual intimacy and sexual pleasure come when
this oneness is achieved.
Sexual Exploitation | 109
Contrary to humanist propaganda, the Bible does

not.teach — nor does the Christian believe — that sex
is wrong, dirty or sinful. The Bible plainly teaches
that sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is
a gift from God and is right and beautiful. The prob-
lem comes when sex is misused, perverted, or mis-
understood.
Tragically, Christian parents and the church have
abdicated their place of authority and responsibility
in factually instructing young people in the biblical
use and morality of sex.
And it is in this moral void that the humanists
find fertile soil for their indoctrination.
ATTACK ON YOUNG MINDS
In order for the humanists to instill their morality,

they must first erase any remaining respect for Chris-
tian moral absolutes. They do this by denigrating the
Christian in a clear choice of derogatory words de-
signed to convey to their subject’s mind that the Chris-
tian is not “aware” and is “‘sexually immature’’ when
he objects to the humanist’s interpretation of sexual
morality.
There is little hope of changing the sense of right
and wrong concerning sex in the minds of the older
generation of Americans. So ifthe humanists are to be
successful they must look elsewhere — to the boys
and girls!
The battleground will be the public schools.
The strategy — sex education!
With this in mind, you can readily see why the
_ humanist movement is pressing so hard to get sex edu-
cation into the public schools. You can be assured that
sex education will be taught from the amoral stand-
point of the Humanist Manifestos — not from the

Bible.
Wardel B. Pomeroy has authored several books
now being used in many school districts in their sex
education classes. In his book Girls And Sex, he
expressed the opinion that there is no such thing as
‘normal sex.” He states, ‘“‘All mammals, of which
human beings are a species, engage in practically
every kind of sex, including petting, masturbation and
homosexuality, so there is essentially nothing humans
do sexually that is abnormal.” He further suggests
that ‘‘our society makes altogether too much out of the
problem of premaritial intercourse.”
In Mr. Pomeroy’s book Your Child And Sex: A
Guide ForParents, he declares, “‘Modesty is a learned
behavior, drummed into the skulls of children, dic-
tated in the Western world by the Judeo-Christian
culture and its code of behavior... ”’
I was not altogether surprised to read that Mr.
Pomeroy condemned Christian morality and then
praised the “enlightened parents” whose son “‘thought-
fully’’ explained that on a weekend boat trip with his
parents he wanted to bring a friend who was homo-
sexual. He then explained that he was a homosexual
too, and they expected to sleep together on the trip. So
the “‘enlightened”’ parents consented to let him come
as long as he was “‘congenial”’ on the trip.
This approach to sex is nothing short of mental and
moral “‘rape”’ of the child’s mind. It conveys a dis-
torted, perverted view of sex, confusing his values and
presenting information he is not mature enough to
handle. And it has the power and prestige of the
classroom, school system, and teacher reinforcing it.
The child is overwhelmed.
But, of course, if you are a parent and you speak up
Sexual Exploitation
111
against this ‘‘enlightened” kind of sex education, you

will be immediately branded as a ““reactionary’’ and
will suffer hostility from the more “mature” human-
ists.
Another little “‘gem’’ of a textbook approved in a
number of states is Person To Person. Chapter 12
discusses “Changing Life Styles’ and devotes an
entire illustrated page to discussion of renewable or
contract marriages, which “allow a couple the option
of renewing their marriage every five years.” To make
the idea palatable to young minds, an illustration is
given for just how it would work: ‘‘The renewable
marriage contract is one effort to remove some of the
trauma and trouble caused by reaching a decision to
divorce... Lester and Naomi decided to enter into a
contract marriage. They felt that their feelings for
each other were solid enough to form a good marriage.
On the other hand, they felt they would be cheating
themselves if they assumed their feelings would last a
lifetime. Therefore, they agreed to marriage renew-
able every five years. They renewed their private
marriage contract twice, but decided not to renew it
after they had been married fifteen years.”
It sounds to me like a case of “‘lease-a-wife’’ instead
of a lifetime commitment. Is there any question that
““values”’ are being taught? These are the values not of
the Christian but of secular humanism.
Sol Gordon, professor of Child and Family Studies
at Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y., is author of
much of the material being used in the sex education
Classes across America. One of the guests on ‘‘Point
of View” showed me some of his material, including
his “sex comic book.” It was offensive to anyone who
had even a modicum of morality; yet it is being used to
teach children about sex.
In aspeech at the New York City Health Education

Conferences, Gordon suggested that those who oppose
his ideas of sex education in the classroom demon-
strate that they believe knowledge is harmful. He
stated, ‘‘It is not enough to teach biological realities.
You must also have values. Our values must be moral
... our values must not be religious, but rather those
of the universal aspirations of the society we live in.
We must insist on democratic values! And that’s what
we must teach our children, so that they carry on the
fight against fascism and communism and religious
intolerance! And whenever we find values opposed
to our own, the truly transcendent ones, we must root
them out, so that freedom will reign.”
Sex education should be called sexual seduction of
the minds of the children by the humanists.
Each parent should do his own research into the
philosophy of those writers and publishers who are
furnishing the textbooks and teachers’ guides for the
sex education classes to be taught in the public schools.
Once you understand the system of teaching known
as “values clarification” and what its purpose is, you
will be able to spot many incidents of its use in various
school curricula, including sex education. My research
has revealed that practically all the material — the
textbooks, workbooks, movies, slides — used in sex
education classes reflect the amoral, humanistic at-
titude toward sex.
And your child will reflect this attitude in his life-
style if he is subjected to it.
STECUS: FOUNTAIN OF PERVERSION
An overwhelming preponderance of the nation’s

sex education material comes from Sex Information
and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

Incidentally, its president, Dr. Mary Calderone, was
named “Humanist of the Year’ for 1974. Her state-
ment on “sexual experimentation” reflects her amoral,
humanistic attitude: ““The adolescent years are, among
other things, for learning how to integrate sex usefully
and creatively into daily living. Therefore, we must
accept that adolescent sexual experimentation is not
just inevitable, but actually necessary for normal de-
velopment.”
Her views on premarital sex also reflect this same
value system. She states: “I advocate discussion of it,
so that young people know they have choices begin-
ning with masturbation, of course, and petting to
climax and mutual orgasm before moving on to inter-
course.”
I had once heard a wise minister say, ““We are
always just one generation away from the jungle.”
And secular humanism is laboring hard to lower us to
the morality of jungle life. They have zeroed in on the
children and young people of our nation, hoping to
subvert that one generation that will bring about their
goals. They are turning them away from God to the
worship of self, reducing them to the common denom-
inator of their “sexual parts,’’ encouraging them to
cast aside all moral restraints, and indulge themselves
in a life-long search for “pleasure” through drugs,
animalistic sex and any other form of pleasure that
may promise a physical, spiritual or mental
“orgasm.” ;
Some of the material that I uncovered included
descriptions and instructions on how to use contra-
ceptives, and even seventh-grade-level curriculum
used such terms as vagina, nocturnal emission, ejac-
ulation, and erection, along with graphic pictures of
persons in various sexual poses. It should be evident

to any intellectually honest adult that this is pretty
heavy stuff, and that such open discussion — in a
mixed-class setting — desensitizes the students to the
private and personal nature of their own sexual organs
and feelings. Teenagers have told me that they have
felt peer pressure to experiment with sexual inter-
course as the result of having been in the sex edu-
cation class with those of the opposite sex.
Most of the authors of this material are active,
militant humanists, and many of them traverse this
nation, appearing on talk shows and college campuses,
preaching the good news of humanistic “‘sexual lib-
eration.’’ And even though they loudly proclaim that
sex will be taught on anon-moral basis, the truth of the
matter is that the curriculum substitutes the human-
istic ethic for traditional values.
I was asked to appear, along with several others, at
a Dallas television show to discuss the subject of sex
education in the public schools. There were several
who spoke for each point of view. The program was
lively, with each side taking its best shots. I was rather
amused at a gentlemen who identified himself as a
teacher who was teaching a sex education class in a
Dallas public school. He wanted to “set us straight’’
as to what was being taught in the classroom. He had
no doubt that his explanation would clear the air and ~
resolve this silly controversy once and for all.
Methodically, he outlined his subject material and
then pronounced that he taught on a “‘non-moral”
basis and encouraged his students to ““make up their
own minds” about whether or not to engage in sexual
intercourse before marriage. He said that he felt this
was the “‘open-minded”’ approach to the subject.
What the teacher didn’t realize — and we were kind
enough to “‘enlighten’’ him — was that he was giving

the students a good dose of situational ethics and was
instilling within them the conclusion that there were
no “moral absolutes” to guide them. He was indoc-
trinating them with humanism — and he honestly did
not know he was doing it!
Itis such brainwashing, in hundreds of cases across
America, that entices young people to approach sex
from a non-moral standpoint, leading to adolescent
experimentation and shattered lives.
HUMANISM’S SEXUAL GOALS

This sexual revolution did not come about accident-
ally. It is part of the plan to secularize this nation.
Humanist Manifesto II is very explicit about the
goals to change the sexual moral concepts in Amer-
ica. Affirmation Six states:
In the area of sexuality, we believe that intol-
erant attitudes often culivated by orthodox re-
ligions and puritanical cultures unduly repress
sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abor-
tion, and divorce should be recognized. While
we do not approve of exploitative denigrating
forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to
prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual be-
havior between consenting adults. The many
varieties of sexual exploration should not in them-
selves be considered evil. Short of harming
others or compelling them to do likewise, in-
dividuals should be permitted to express their
sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as
they desire. Moral education for children and
adults is an important way of developing aware-
ness and sexual maturity.
The humanist creates his own system of moral

values, and then accuses those who disagree with him
of having ‘‘intolerant attitudes”’ or of being “‘puritan-
ical,’ while describing his own attitudes as being
“open-minded” and “tolerant.” Further, this doc-
ument reveals their intention of propagandizing our
nation with this moral doctrine, for they plainly state,
“Moral education for children and adults is an im-
portant way of developing awareness and sexual ma-
turity.”” When humanists speak of “moral education,”
they are speaking of the immorality of humanism not
of the morals of the Bible. In their view, any person
who subscribes to the morality of the Bible is “‘sex-
ually immature” and in need of “‘having his awareness
and sexual maturity developed’’; and they fully intend
to furnish you with that “education.”
The belief that sex should be confined to marriage
is ludicrous to the humanist mind. Consequently, we
have marriages of convenience, with a large part of
our populace unable to have real relationships. In-
stead, they are lost and lonely. Christianity, on the
other hand, is based on lasting and enduring relation-
ships — first to God; then to family; and then to those
around us. While the human heart longs for a close
relationship with another human being, casual and
free sex destroys any possibility of this developing.
We are all sexual beings. God made us that way.
Sex within the confines of marriage is honorable.
When we try to understand a person’s craving for
sexual experience, we must not separate it from the
essential need for intimacy. When intimacy is not
achieved in a normal, healthy way people often turn
to pornography, homosexuality, bestiality, and other
forms of sexual perversion.
NEW SEX LAWS

This nation has seen within the last few years a
plethora of proposed legislation promoted by hu-
manist front organizations, intended to bring the laws
of the land into line with their doctrines. Laws that
do not agree with their position are termed “‘intolerant
attitudes often cultivated by orthodox religions” and
“puritanical cultures.”’ Furthermore, they say that
these antiquated laws “unduly repress sexual con-
duct.” The humanist movement is constantly pushing
for legislation that would make their concept of right
and wrong, including laws that concern sexual be-
havior, become the laws of the land.
Their Manifesto reveals the depravity of their minds,
and they wish to impose their moral sickness on us all
through the force of the law. If they are successful in
their efforts, social and moral restraints would be
lifted, and practically anything that a degenerate mind
could conceive would be considered socially accept-
able. All the laws of the land that are based on the
Judeo-Christian moral code would be struck down,
and we would experience a sexual degeneration that
would cause Sodom and Gomorrah to look like a
weekend at Disneyland.
Dr. Corliss Lamont, a humanist and devout atheist,
summed up the humanist concept of sex and morality
when he said, ““Morally speaking, the sex life of an
individual is no more important than his political
or economic life.”
Can the American public continue to be so naive as
to believe that there is no concerted, humanist effort
to bring about a sexual revolution in this nation? Can
we continue to close our eyes to the encroachment of
homosexuality on our school textbooks? These people
are adept at disguising their true intentions behind a

facade of secularistic do-goodism, but they will rob
your child of his sexual identity and tell him they are
helping him to “‘clarify’’ his own values.
Your child is not immune to this insidious brain-
wash. And the cutting edge of this sexual propaganda
blitz is the sex education of our public schools.
Thousands of children are being subjected to homo-
sexual propaganda under the guise of sex education.
For example, many schools are showing a film that
deals with lesbianism. The film is entitled Lavender.
It is intended to “‘de-sensitize”’ children to the subject
of lesbianism.
The “Suggested Uses and Discussion Topics” sec-
tion of its promotional pamphlet explains that La-
vender is a very useful film in “gently, yet openly,
introducing high school students to this delicate area
of sexuality.” It can also “be very helpful in relieving
the many misunderstandings and fears that accompany
new-found adolescent emotions.” Here are questions
which can be raised: (1) How can the student better
understand and deal with the natural and yet frighten-
ing feelings they have for their peers? (2) What sort of
attitude did they have toward homosexuality and
lesbianism before? (3) Has the film opened up any
new areas of thought?
In case there were any lingering doubts about the
full intentions of the film, the pamphlet includes a
little insight into the motives of the film’s producer by
saying, ’ She strongly believes that the film can be
used to re-educate and responsibly influence social
patterns...” (emphasis added).
At this point, I don’t think there can be any doubt
that the purpose of the film is to recruit young people
into the homosexual life-style. And it’s being done at
Sexual Exploitation ‘ 119
your schools — with your tax dollars.
ATTACK ON THE FAMILY
When Dee Jepsen, wife of Senator Roger Jepsen

(R-Iowa), appeared as my guest on “Point of View,”
she expressed both her and her husband’s concern
over the frontal attack on the family. She placed in my
hand a news release from her husband’s office in
Washington, D.C., which explained that Senators
Jepsen and Paul Laxalt (R-Nev.) and Rep. Albert
Lee Smith (R-Ala.) had introduced the Family Pro-
tection Act of 1981 to tackle the problems that sur-
round government intervention in the lives of individ-
uals and their families.
At a news conference, Senator Jepsen said, “‘The
family unit is so basic, so fundamental and so neces-
sary to society that it is hard to believe that it is under
attack — but it is. The family has become a favorite
target for some organizations and people bent on
transforming the existing social order. With the ac-
celerated erosion of the basic family values due to
government intrusion and growing secular humanism,
the time for ‘family protection’ legislation has ar-
rived.”
It seems ludicrous to thinking individuals that a
government designed to protect the most sacred of
institutions — the family — would have to enact
special legislation to restrain that same government
from seeking to destroy it. But, the fact of the matter is
— the family is indeed threatened!
The humanists, seeking to bring about a secular
society, have been extremely effective in infiltrating
— and gaining control of — many organizations and
influencing them to fall into step with their plans to
bring about their dreamed-of ‘“‘sexless society.”

A case in point is the 1970 White House Con-
ference on Children and Youth, which spawned the
Forum 14 Report that “‘redefined’’ the family as a
“sroup of individuals in interaction.” The Amer-
ican Home Economics Associations, in an attempt to
mollify public sentiment against such changes, couched
their new definition of the family in the words “‘(the
family is) a unit of two or more persons who share
values and have acommitment to one another over
time.”
These definitions, if enacted into law in the United
States, could bring about unthinkable changes in A-
merican society. The “family”? would include group
marriages, homosexual and lesbian marriages, or any
other conglomerate of individuals who choose to
“‘interact’’ over a period of time with some modicum
of commitment.
What is wrong with the classical definition of the
family that has been traditionally defined thus: ““The
family is two or more persons related by blood, hetero-
sexual marriage (one man, one woman), or adoption?”’
It has worked for centuries. Why try to redefine it
now? Unless, of course, you want to erase all sexual
distinctions in society!
DEATH BY ANY OTHER NAME
When the Supreme Court of the United States

ruled on Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973, legal-
izing abortion-on-demand, it put America into the
“abortion business.” The ruling held that whether or
not the unborn child is a human being, he is not a
person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. Since the right to life is guaranteed only to
“persons,” the ruling means that the unborn child,

as a non-person, has no constitutional right to
life.
Overnight, the most dangerous place for a child
became his mother’s womb.
One organization representing this new burgeoning
abortion business is the Abortion Federation of
America, a national association that represents 190
abortion clinics scattered throughout the United
States.
Through many years of investigative reporting, I
have learned that if you want to get the facts straight,
you must go to the person or organization and get
them to tell you what they do and what they believe.
Get them to talk. Get it first-hand. Then present the
facts to the people. I work on the assumption that the
people who listen to my broadcast or read what I write
are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.
So when the Abortion Federation of America came
to Dallas for a conference, I tucked my notebook and
portable tape recorder under my arm, went to the
conference, and told them I wanted to talk to the
person who was in charge of the organization.
They introduced me to Dr. Uta Landy, an attrac-
tive lady in her 30s, who is executive director of the
organization. When she learned that I was with a
radio station, she was delighted to have the oppor-
tunity to talk to me and express her views.
In the interview Dr. Landy told me that since the
Supreme Court decision in 1973, there is an average
of one and one-half million abortions performed each
year in this nation. About one million of these are
performed by clinics that are members of their organ-
ization.
As she was talking, I realized that these are the
people who are the very heart and soul of the abortion
business! .
The interview lasted about forty-five minutes,
during which time I was trying to uncover the moral
concepts of those who were in the business of ter-
minating human lives. I wanted to hear an explan-
ation of their controlling principles — their value
system. I wanted to cut away the facade of respecta-
bility and reveal to the public the underlying reasons
for their business.
And the answer came through loud and clear —
money! The abortion business is extremely profit-
able, grossing over three billion dollars each year!
When I got back to my office, I went into our
recording studio to review the program. I was stunned
at what I was hearing. The full impact of Dr. Landy’s
interview had not completely penetrated my thinking
until I listened to the playback of our conversation.
The interview was an incredible expose of the “‘mind-
set’ of the people in the abortion business. Her usage
of certain words and phrases revealed that she had
been well schooled in how to use them.
Within the past decade I have noticed the infusion
of a completely new language into our society. I call
this new language, used by the secular humanists in
their attempt to hoodwink the American people, the:
new secularistic language! It is a whole new lang-
uage that is devised to distort facts, confuse issues and
persuade people to believe lies. It is a language de-
signed to deceive.
As I listened to Dr. Landy’s careful choice of
words, I had to admit that she was an expert at em-
ploying the new secularistic language. She had re-
ceived proper education in the words to use, as well as
the words to avoid. I jotted down a few of her secu-
laristic double-talk phrases.

The words “unborn child” were never said; the
unborn child was always referred to as a “‘fetus.”’ The
word for “‘life’’ became ‘“‘moment of viability.” For-
nication and adultery became “sexually active.’ Preg-
nancy was referred to as a “biological accident.”
“Abortion” was called a“‘medical procedure’; “‘abor-
tion-on-demand” was simply “pro-choice.’’ And,
*“pro-choice”’ was rationalized by the question “Why
should any woman have to ‘suffer’ because of a “bio-
logical accident’ when a simple ‘medical procedure’
can eliminate the ‘problem’?”’
THE NAZI MENTALITY
I kept the interview with Dr. Landy filed away in

my office for several months, waiting for the proper
time to release it on the air. I chose to broadcast the
taped interview on January 22, 1982, on the ninth
anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision legal-
izing abortion-on-demand. The decision to broadcast
it on that particular day was prompted by the an-
nouncement that some of the abortion clinics in
Dallas were giving free abortions in celebration of the
anniversary.
Following the playing of the pre-recorded inter-
view with Dr. Landy, I interviewed Dr. William Bren-
nan, who was in the studio with me. Dr. Brennan
wrote a book entitled Medical Holocausts: Exter-
minative Medicine in Nazi Germany and Contem-
porary America. The parallels he drew between Nazi
Germany (and the Nazi-mentality that brought the
“holocaust” with its inhuman, systematic extermin-
ation of millions of Jews and other people) and the
present abortion-mentality here in the U.S. were
124 American Betrayed!
startling.
Dr. Brennan said, “‘What is happening today in this
country has historical precedence. If you want to
destroy large numbers of individuals, first, you must
have the technology capable of destroying individuals
on a mass level. Nazi Germany pioneered mass as-
sembly-line destruction by killing millions of Jews,
Gypsies, Poles, asocials and others. Today, we have
the same kind of assembly-line technology being di-
rected at the unwanted unborn. Since the Supreme
Court decision, upwards of 13 million human lives,
before birth, have been destroyed by physicians on an
assembly-line basis. This is what makes today a ho-
locaust. You see, if you have the ‘technology’ whichis
capable of doing it, and it is perpetrated by cre-
dentialed, licensed, ‘executioners,’ then you can get
away with it.”
He then paused, leanedalittle closer to the micro-
phone, and spoke slowly and deliberately: “‘ You see,
Mr. Maddoux, if you are going to destroy millions of
individuals, you have to first of all demean them and
reduce them to a level less than human and use
derogatory terminology against them — just like
the Nazis did!”
He continued, “‘Marlin, when I was doing the re-
search I found that the most striking parallel was the .
‘language’ used.”’
He then handed me an article and said, ‘‘This
article shows that the California Medical Association
in 1970 focused on getting abortion acceptable to the
public. They indicated that what they would have to
do was to change the Judeo-Christian ethic to a re-
lative-value-on-human-life ethic. Their strategy was
to call abortion something other that ‘killing’ and call
the unborn child something other than ‘human.’ Then
with the involvement of the medical professional, it

would be conducted under socially impeccable
auspices and abortion woud have respectability.”
I responded by saying, ““Then when abortion moved
from the back alleys — and the coat hanger — into the
sterile operating rooms, surrounded by trained nurses
and trusted doctors in white, it became respectable to
take human life.”’
He agreed.
THE NEW MEDICAL ETHIC
After the interview I drove back to my office, where

Isat at my desk wondering if the American people had
the slightest understanding of the issues before us.
The mere possibility of our nation adopting such a
moral position was almost beyond consideration. My
mind could not grasp such madness.
While sitting there, I picked up the article that Dr.
Brennan had given me. Halfway through the article it
began to dawn on me that such a system of morality
was not as repugnant to others as it was to me. (AfterI
read the article, I had trouble sleeping for several
nights, for what I had read came from a prestigious,
trusted and respected profession. And if the medical
doctors adopted this morality, then millions in our
society would say that it must be the right way).
Here are some excerpts from the article that ap-
peared in California Medicine in September 1970,
entitled “« A New Ethic For Medicine And Society.”
It says: “The traditional Western ethic has always
placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and
equal value of every human life regardless of its stage
or condition. This ethic has had the blessings of the
Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for
most of our laws and much of our social policy ...

This traditional ethic is still clearly dominant, but
there is much to suggest that it is being eroded at its
core and may eventually be abandoned. It will be-
come necessary and acceptable to pldce relative
rather than absolute values on such things as human
lives. In defiance of the long-held Western ethic of
intrinsic and equal value for every human life regard-
less of its stage, condition or status, abortion is be-
coming accepted by society as moral, right and even
necessary. . . Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea
of abortion from the idea of killing, which con-
tinues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a
curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which every-
one really knows, that human life begins at concep-
tion and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine,
until death. The very considerable semantic gym-
nastics which are required to rationalize abortion as
anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous
if they were not often put forth under socially accepta-
ble auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic
sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new
ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been
rejected . . . One may anticipate further develop-
ments of these roles as the problems of birth control
and birth selection are extended to death selection
and death control . . 2’ (emphasis added).
I laid the article down on my desk and spoke out
loud. “‘This is unbelievable! Humanism has tried to
make man into a ‘god’; now he is trying to play the part
of God — deciding who will live and who will be put to
death.”’
While considering the somber implications of this
new information and wondering how the human race
could have sunk so low, I opened the Bible in front of

me; and almost as if God wanted to explain to me
why, I read through tear-filled eyes the words of
Romans Chapter Three:
Their feet are swift to shed blood!

Ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
I closed the Bible and whispered, “‘God, please

have mercy on the human race.”
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
Ann Landers writes a popular advice column that

appears in many newspapers across the nation. One
letter she printed said, ‘“‘... at age 16 I found Mr.
Right. I was sure we would spend the rest of our lives
together. After a few months of heavy petting, we
drifted into having sex. Birth control was the last thing
on my mind. Withdrawal had worked fine for my
girlfriends, and if it worked for them, it would work for
me. Well, it worked fine until I missed two periods.
There was a free abortion clinic in our town. No one
knew except my older sister. It would have killed my
parents. As for ‘Mr. Right,’ he dropped me fast —
didn’t want to get mixed up in anything like that. He
thought he was too young for so much responsibility
— not too young to have sex every night, just too
young to get ‘involved.’
“The message I want to get across to all teenagers is
this: Don’t wait until something like this happens to
you before you start to use birth control. An abortion
is much more painful and humiliating than going to
your mother and telling her you need some advice on

how to keep from getting pregnant. And you guys are
idiots if you think it’s more embarrassing to buy a
condom than to take your girl to a dbetonsto find out if
she is pregnant.
‘Having an abortion is horrible. I still feel guilty
and wonder what the baby would have looked like.
Please, kids, listen to me: It can and will happen to
you if you keep messing around without protection.”
Ann Landers’ answer to the young girl was “Some
teenagers can’t go to their parents for information
because they don’t have that kind of relationship”
(The Dallas Morning News, Dce. 21, 1981). She
then recommended that they write to Planned Parent-
hood Federation.
The young girl’s letter reflects the heartache and
agony brought on by the so-called “‘sexual revolution”
in our country. Her letter said nothing about moral
values in regard to sex outside of marriage, or of the
morality of abortion. She was simply doing what all
her girl friends were doing, and her advice to other
young girls was to “‘get protection.”
The columnist’s advice to her reflected the human-
istic value system. She didn’t even suggest that young
people should wait until marriage to have sex. Hor-
rors! That would be “‘judgemental”’ and forcing your
values on someone else. But she did advise her to
contact Planned Parenthood, an organization in the
forefront of the humanistic sex education movement
in our nation.
Even a cursory investigation of Planned Parent-
hood will reveal its connection to the overall humanist
philosophy. For example, Dr. Alan Guttmacher served
as Planned Parenthood’s president from 1962 until
his death in 1974. Is it coincidental that he was a
signer of Humanist Manifesto II?

It is obvious that Planned Parenthood is largely
humanist-controlled. The link between them and the
American Humanist Association shows that it is a
tool in helping to bring about the humanist goal. This
is clearly revealed in an article in The Humanist
entitled ‘Intergroup Relations of the American Hu-
manist Associations,’ showing that various organ-
izations are philosophically intertwined. It says.
‘“‘Our humanist convictions should lead us into active
participation in specialized organizations devoted to
kindred causes. Without neglecting their primary loy-
alty, humanists and humanist groups should relate to
and strengthen such organizations as, for example,
the American Civil Liberties Union. . . the Planned
Parenthood Federation ... and Americans United
for Separation of Church and State” (The Humanist,
Jan.-Feb., 1963).
An intriguing picture begins to unfold as you in-
vestigate the organizations that are instruments in
fulfilling the goals of Humanist Manifestos I and II.
As Icrosschecked the people and financial backers of
these various humanist organizations, I found an in-
credible overlapping. The same names, the same uni-
versities, the same governmental agencies, the same
private companies and tax-exempt foundations are
linked together in what can only be described as a
humanist conspiracy to brainwash the American
people. .
Anexpose of the marriage of certain financial insti-
tutions and the humanist movement is found in the
book The Siecus Circle (p. 331), revealing that fi-
nancial support of Planned Parenthood itselfhas been
largely provided by such tax-exempt institutions as
the Ford Foundation, which also supports Siecus; the
Commonwealth Fund, another Siecus supporter; and

the Victor-Bostrum Fund, which is heavily involved
in the population control movement.
They further state: ‘‘ Various federal agencies are in
league with the above foundations. In 1970, grants
made by the U.S. Government to Planned Parent-
hood soared to $1,023,000.00. In fact, the relation-
ship: between Planned Parenthood and our govern-
ment is so close that, of 139 local agency projects
initiated by Planned Parenthood’s Center For Family
Planning Program Development between 1967-1970,
ninety-three were funded by federal grants. Planned
Parenthood operates the largest abortion clinics in the
nation, as well as carrying on extensive education
programs which extend into the public schools, of-
fering free contraceptives, abortions and advice on
‘problem pregnancies’. And — a large portion of their
funding comes from your tax money!”
While talking to Senator Roger Jepsen’s wife, Dee,
on “Point of View,” I suggested to her that I would
like to see a full-scale congressional investigation of
Planned Parenthood, with special scrutiny of its close
ties to other known humanist organizations and of
their blatant humanist approach to teaching sex to the
students of our public schools. I was delighted to learn
that Senators Jeremiah Denton, Don Nickles, and:
Orin Hatch are leading in the campaign to expose
Planned Parenthood’s pier ats and thus eliminate
their funding.
According to an Associated Press release (March
29, 1981), Sen. Denton, in an attempt to enlighten the
members of Congress, arranged for a showing of the
Planned Parenthood film entitled About Sex to the
Senate Labor Committee.
The press release stated, “‘Senator Jeremiah Den-
Sexual Exploitation | 131
ton said he would conduct an R-rated hearing on

family planning ... No one under 18 was to be al-
lowed without parents or guardians. The reason, the
Alabama republican said, is ‘a particular film that will
be shown at the hearing used nudity, profanity and
explicit sexual language.’ Denton was to chair the full
Senate Labor Committee hearing on films and other
material used in family planning clinics.”
Isn’t it incredible that the film About Sex, by Dr.
Sol Gordon, is being shown in many classrooms in
schools across the nation to your children, and yet it
was closed to those under 18 at the committee hear-
ing. The report is that the senators were shocked at
what they saw. And yet many of our elected officials
continue to pour millions of dollars into Planned
Parenthood and other humanist organizations that
are part of the conspiracy to bring a total secular state
here in America.
5
TIME FOR
HARD THINKING
When I first began researching the humanist move-

ment in America, I would not believe that there were
people in powerful positions who could possibly be
involved in a“‘moral overthrow” of this nation. But as
I began to admit to myself that it indeed was true, I
also wondered if I were just becoming a “‘conspiracy
nut’ who sawa Sinister plot in everything that took
place. I had heard radicals who screamed about these
things but didn’t have any facts. However, I now had -
those “‘facts”’ in front of me.
Over the past few years I have interviewed some of
the most knowledgeable and informed people in this
nation and have read mountains of material published
by people with impeccable credentials; and I have had
to admit to myself that we are, indeed, fighting for our
very survival.
As the enormity of the influence of humanism on
132
Time For Hard Thinking ; 133
the American culture began tosink into my thinking, I

responded with a variety of emotions. There was
regret — because I had not recognized the root of the
problem before; intimidation — for I feared there was
no hope of turning this country around; frustration —
for the task of alerting the nation and turning the tide
seemed overwhelming; denial — because it just
couldn’t be as bad as some would have us believe;
resignation — because there was nothing we could do
anyway.
These thoughts and emotions pounded my brain
night and day for months. I had buried myself in study
and research, and it had taken its toll on me spirit-
ually, mentally, and emotionally.
One day I found myself driving toward Addison
_ Airport in the north part of Dallas — out near where I
live — just to simply “‘get away” for a brief time. I had
taken up flying many years ago and use it in my
ministry as well as a method of relaxation. My chil-
dren, Mark, David, Tim, and Marla, had flown with
me many times when they were younger. My wife,
Mary, also enjoys flying, but today I was alone, lost in
my thoughts.
Sometimes when I have been struggling with com-
plex issues and making hard decisions, I will escape
momentarily by recalling times when life was slower
and simpler. While driving, I was remembering the
times when my daughter, Marla, was a little girl, and
we would sometimes leave the house on a bright,
sunshiny day, telling her mother that we were going to
‘Mickey Mouse” around. It simply meant that we
were going to spend time together. Doing nothing
- special. Going nowhere in particular. With no set
time to be home. Just father and daughter — getting
acquainted — having fun — talking things over —
building a relationship that would last a lifetime. And

when we pulled the car out of the driveway, we would
go where we wanted to go and come back when we
pleased.
And often we would go to the airport. To watch the
airplanes .. . or talk to the pilots.
Or go flying!
But on that day I needed to do some thinking and
hold a deep conversation with God. The issues in
which I was getting involved were heavy, and I could
feel their weight. I needed God’s direction and His
strength, and the cockpit of my single-engine Cessna
172 often became my private sanctuary.
Before I knew it I was pulling up to the hangar
where the orange and white plane is kept. I got out of
the car, gave the plane a “pre-flight”? check, climbed
into the cockpit, shut and locked the door, called out
the window “‘clear the prop,” and fired the engine.
After the engine was running smoothly and all the
gauges registered “in the green,” I picked up the
microphone and spoke into it. “‘Addison Ground
Control, this is Cessna Seven-Three-Four-Lima-
Kilo, request permission to taxi to active runway.”
A disembodied voice crackled over the speaker
“Roger, Seven-Three-Four-Lima-Kilo, taxi to run-
way one-five.”’
I acknowledged his instructions and with just a
touch of power the plane began to roll. I thought to
myself that planes are made to fly, not to roll on the
ground. On the ground they seem awkward. Within a
couple of minutes I was sitting at the run-up area going
through my pre-takeoff check list.
Instruments — check! Flight controls — check!
Engine run-up — check! Everything was ready to go,
so I switched my radio to the tower frequency and
Time For Hard Thinking 135
said, ‘““Cessan 734LK, ready to go on one-five, north-

east departure.”
The tower replied, “*Lima-Kilo, taxi into position
and hold.”
I responded by taxiing onto the runway and align-
ing the plane with the white centerline, and then I
heard the tower say, “Seven-Three-Four-Lima-Kilo,
cleared for immediate take-off.”
After acknowledging his clearance, I eased the
throttle forward, and the little four-place plane started
down the runway. Full power. Gaining speed. Glance
at the airspeed indicator. Thirty knots. . . forty knots
... fifty knots. At fifty-five knots I gently pulled back
on the control wheel and felt the airplane leave the
runway.
The sensation still amazed me after more than
fifteen hundred hours of flying time. We were leaving
the earth. Reaching for the sky. Hold her on the run-
way heading, then a gentle turn to the left to a heading
of zero-two-zero degrees.
Still climbing. . . no hurry. Listen to the engine...
and the wind. Watch for other planes. Level off at
twenty-eight hundred feet until out of the terminal
control area, then climb to fifty-five hundred feet. The
houses, cars, highways, lakes — all seem miniature
from this altitude. Maybe that is whyI love to fly. For
a brief time I can rise above the world and its prob-
lems.
The air is clean. . . there’s time to think, to breathe.
Time to brush away the cobwebs from my mind. No
phones no appointments.
Just me. And my plane... and God!
My solitude was broken as I looked down to see
Lake Texoma and realized that I had been flying
longer than I thought. In the distance was Lake
Texoma Lodge and its small landing strip. I might as

well, I thought. So I banked the plane, lost altitude,
entered the traffic pattern, and “‘greased it on’’ to the
runway, thinking “Why couldn’t someone be with me
when I make a ‘good’ landing?”
I parked the little plane. It’s quiet here.
I didn’t bother to go to the lodge. Maybe some other
time. I just walked around the golf course and over
into the woods. Listening to the birds. Watching a
hawk soar near the clouds. Smelling the grass. Feeling
the wind in my face.
Questions were hanging in my brain. Unanswered.
The thoughts that kept coming back to my mind like a
broken record were ““How could I have lived so long
and not have seen what was going on? Why hadn’t I
made the connection before? And what about me?
Could my thinking have been influenced by secular
humanism? If so, how can I recognize it and how
should I go about undoing the damage?
After months of research, investigations, interviews
and discussing the issues on radio, television, in
public meetings, and privately, I had become con-
vinced that our nation was being subjected to the most
intense form of indoctrination, persuasion and na-
tional brainwashing ever attempted ona “‘free”’ so-
ciety.
I could not escape the conclusion that there is an
on-going, concerted attempt to re-direct an entire
nation of people away from the noble and lofty pur-
poses of its founding fathers; away from a spirit of
freedom, independence, individuality and national
pride; and toward an attitude of distrust of patriotism
and of acceptance of a “‘socialistic’’ and “‘collecti-
vistic”’ mentality; and further, that we are being pro-
pagandized to reject the basic Judeo-Christian moral
value system — and to accept the “humanistic” value

system as our foundation for laws and social mor-
ality.
I strolled over to a grove of trees, sat down, leaned
back against a tree, picked up a blade of grass and put
it between my teeth. It had a sweet, fresh taste. The
sun was bright and warm.
Media!” flashed into my mind.
Radio, television, movies, newspapers, magazines
— they all seemed to play a part in this national
propaganda “‘blitz.””» Even many major colleges and
universities, much of the entertainment industry, “‘lib-
eral” theologians, seminaries, churches and denom-
inations, much of our judicial system, and large seg-
ments of the United States government seemed to be
our enemies in this life-and-death struggle for moral
sanity. The odds against us seemed overwhelming.
I had a lot on my mind, so I decided that I would
present Him with the question, then be quiet and let
Him answer.
I simply said, ‘““What do You want me to do?”
He told me. And I heard Him — in the deep, quiet
recesses of my spirit. It became clear. I received
direction. Knowing that now I can no longer sit on the
sidelines and cheer for those who are in the conflict. I
will have to speak out — on radio, on television, in
print. I must try to alert, inform, educate, even agitate,
if necessary. But the people must be awakened. They
must bind themselves together as one body, in har-
mony, and speak with one voice against the growing
influence of evil in this nation.
As I climbed back into the plane and strapped
myself in for the flight back to Addison, I felt the calm
assurance that God has everything under control.
And I felt my spirit rising to accept the challenge as
God reminded me that the conflict is spiritual and

that we are to use the powerful weapons of truth,
intercessory prayer, andthe incredible power of the
Holy Spirit.
THIS MEANS YOU
The humanist world view has greatly influenced the

thinking, moral values, and life-styles of millions of
people who have never even heard of the Humanist
Manifestos. They are living their daily lives totally
unaware of the impact that this atheistic, materialistic
doctrine has had on them. Sadly, many professed
Christians are among that number.
When Tim and Beverly LaHaye were guests on
**Point of View,” we discussed the influence of hu-
manism on the school, the church, the media, and
especially, the home and family. They pointed out
that not all people who are influenced by and pattern
their lives, to a greater or lesser degree, after the moral
code of humanism, are committed humanists.
In reading Tim’s book Battle for the Family in
preparation for the interview, I was impressed by his
explanation that “‘... humanism is a philosophical
religious movement that has as many differences or
degrees as one finds among Christians.”
He then gave an enlightening explanation of the
levels of influence of, or commitment to, the doctrine
of humanism. First, there is the committed humanist,
who is an indoctrinaire, hardcore, who aggressively
pursues humanistic goals, and probably signed Hu-
manist Manifestos I and II. This person may or may
not be a Marxist, but he works for liberal causes and
opposes moral absolutes. Second, there is the liberal
humanist, who is a family-oriented, patriotic person
who has been exposed to humanism throughout his

schooling. This person likes a moral climate in so-
ciety but does not realize the social consequences of
humanism. Third, there is the humanist victim, who
believes and often lives like a committed humanist, is
probably nota Marxist, but does not realize they think
alike. He opposes traditional morals as too restric-
tive. Fourth, there is the Christianized humanist,
who may not be religious although he admires moral
values but does not realize these values came from
Christianity or Judaism. Fifth, there is the human-
ized Christian, who is a person who is family-ori-
ented, patriotic, and was exposed to humanism through-
out his schooling. He has thought very little about
religion or moral values, but he likes for his family to
be in a moral environment, not knowing that humanist
policies will destroy his family.
And then, Dr. LaHaye pointed out there is the
committed Christian, who is dedicated. with strong
moral values, is concerned about the moral break-
down around him, usually votes for those who share
his moral values, and opposes practices that violate
biblical standards.
Dr. LaHaye clearly drew the lines of battle when he
concluded, **The battle for the future of America will
be fought between committed humanists on the one
hand and committed Christians on the other.”
By now you may be asking, ** ‘What do I do?’
‘Should I get involved in the issues?’ ‘Should I speak
out?’ ‘Is it too late to save our nation?’ ‘Do I have the
‘right’ to be heard?’ ”’
The answers are: There is much that you can do.
_ Yes, you should — and must — get personally involved
in the fight. Yes, speak up and let your voice be heard.
No, it is not too late to save our nation. Yes, you have
140 America Betraved!
the “‘right”” to be heard — your opinion is valuable.

The first step is to evaluate your own beliefs and
your personal relationship to God. Perhaps you have
accepted the philosophy of humanism and believe
there is no God and that you alone can save yourself.
If so, before your relationship to God can be cor-
rected, you must admit that you have sinned and stand
in need of the Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Or you may be a Christian but have had your mind
influenced by the doctrines of secular humanism,
making it difficult for you to accept God’s absolute
moral laws as your guide to daily conduct. The
question of sin is not to be treated lightly. Dr. Men-
ninger, author of Whatever Became of Sin? described
sin as ‘‘... a transgression of the law of God; dis-
obedience of the divine will; moral failure.”
He further described sin as man’s “humanistic”
attitude toward God. “‘Sin has a willful, defiant, or
disloyal quality; someone is defied or offended or
hurt.”
You need not despair, however; your sins can be
forgiven because Jesus Christ, God’s Son, came to
earth, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins,
was buried, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven
and now sits at the right hand of God.
The Bible teaches us that when we trust in Christ as
our Saviour we receive eternal life and are “born |
again” by the power of God. I urge you to accept
Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour at this very
moment, and then begin to pattern your daily life after
that of Jesus Christ and live by God’s absolute moral
laws.
BECOME INFORMED
If you expect to be effective in your community,
you must be informed on the issues. Your facts must
be straight. My suggestion is that you read some
books that cover the basics. These can be purchased
at the bookstore or borrowed from your public li-
brary.
Be informed on political issues so that you can
communicate the proper facts and information to
your friends. (A starting point would be to pass this
book on to a friend when you have finished reading
it).
You will find that you are only one of a growing
number of informed citizens who are no longer sitting
on the sidelines but are “getting into the fight.”
THE FUTURE IS BRIGHT
No, America is not a godless nation without moral

values. The overwhelming majority of people in America
are, at the least, moralists. The Gallup Poll revealed that
94 percent of our population is theistic in their beliefs
and only 4 percent explicity deny the existence of a Su-
preme Being. George Gallup further revealed in 1976
that ther are 50-million Americans who claim to have
born-again experience, and over 100-million people in
America are church members. This includes Jews, Ca-
tholics, Protestants and others who take the Bible as the
base for morality. There are another 30 to 50 million
who were raised in a Christian environment and look to
_ the Bible as the foundation for public and private
morality. They may not be professing Christians, or
even attend church, but they believe in biblical mor-
ality.
With such an overwhelming number who subscribe
to the Judeo-Christian moral system, why, then, are
we seeing our nation move toward secularism? It is
evident that the Christian community has been so
busy with its own affairs that we have allowed a
dedicated minority of humanists to infiltrate the insti-
tutions that are most effective in molding the minds of
the citizenry: the educational system, the media, enter-
tainment, music, the arts, and the government. While
we sit idly by, approximately 50 million school-age
children are being systematically “programmed”
with the doctrine of humanism —right now!
But we can no longer refuse to get involved. We
have the overwhelming numbers on our side. It is time
for the sleeping giant to arise. There is power in num-
bers. Where one voice may be dim, a thousand — ora
million or 20 million — will be heard. There are many
pro-moral organizations across the nation. Find one.
Join it and contribute your time and your money toit.
And start with your church!
GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS
Webster defines politics as ‘‘the art or science of

government, of guiding or influencing governmental
policy, or of winning and holding control over govern-
ment... competition between groups or individuals
for power and leadership.”’
Three-fourths of the people in the world live under
some form of totalitarianism, with their government
being controlled by a very few people. The uniqueness
of the American form of government rests in the fact
that every citizen may exercise political power at the
Time For Hard Thinking / 143
polls. Our guarantee of freedom of speech allows and

encourages free and open debate of political issues.
Any group that feels its cause or belief will be
affected by the enactment of certain laws may attempt
to persuade the political machinery to move in its
direction. Or if a group of citizens feels that the
government is interfering in their lives where it should
not, they have the right to take their cause to the
American public to enlist as many people as they can
in an effort to change the governmental involvement.
Christians and morally-minded citizens should not
buy the myth that you must separate politics and
religion. You cannot separate them. While we believe
in separation of church and state, we still have the
responsibility to influence our political system toward
the traditional Judeo-Christian code of ethics. Each
one of us has a certain amount of influence over
others, and it is our responsibility to use that in-
fluence.
Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard told the New
York Times. “The tradition of the intermixture of
religion and politics is too ingrained in our national
life to be eliminated. It is extremely important to the
principle of freedom of speech that this process not
stop, just because some are distressed by the contents
of the speech or the speaker.”
In the September 15, 1981 issue of Newsweek,
George F. Will said in an editorial, ‘Don’t blame
evangelicals for inflating abortion asa political issue.
The Supreme Court did that by striking down fifty
state laws which expressed community judgements
about the issue. Those who oppose those judgments
got them overturned by fiat, not democratic persua-
_ sion. There were 1.4 million abortions last year; and
the forces that made that possible want subsidies for
144 America. Betrayed!
abortions, knowing that when you subsidize some-

thing you get more out of it. Yet we are told that itis the
evangelicals who are aggressive about abortion. Evan-
gelicals did not set out to alter social teaching through
many measures that homosexual and heterosexual
relations represent only different ‘preferences,’ or, as
some call it, ‘orientation among lifestyles.’ Militant
homosexuals are responsible for this and for making a
hot political issue of government attempts to incula-
cate new attitudes.”
MAINTAIN ACCESS
TO THE AIRWAYS
Freedom to preach the Gospel is a guarantee given

by the Constitution of the United States and there
must be no encroachment of government on this basic
right.
Some say that the Gospel advances best in times of
severe persecution and restriction, but the facts do not
back this up. Admittedly, Christ's church will always
survive even under the worst of conditions, as we have
witnessed in Russia, China and other places. But even
though the church survived, how many millions of
souls in these countries were born, lived and died
without once hearing the Name of Jesus Christ be-
cause of the suppression of the Gospel? The truth of
the matter is that the Gospel flourishes best in a
climate of free speech and movement. The millions of
believers in the United States are the direct result of
the freedom to preach the Gospel.
You don’t have to be an expert in political science
to predict what will happen when an anti-God govern-
ment takes power in a country. The church is im-
mediately refused access to the public airways. As a

policy of the government, as evidenced by Russia,
China, Cuba, Nicaragua and East Europe, the people
are denied the freedom of preaching the gospel via the
airways. Central America, as a whole, is on the
verge of communist takeover; and when it happens the
Gospel will be suppressed.
The countries that have succumbed to communism
are clear evidence that a totalitarian government
creates an anti-Christian ideological climate. The
various means of communication and persuasion are
used to indoctrinate people in the basics of the official
ideology, while Christianity is attacked in both its
doctrine and its practical application and is denied the
means of defending itself. In such a climate, ideo-
logical barriers are established in the minds of the
people, and they become closed to the Gospel.
SEPARATING THE STATE FROM GOD
In order to bring about a complete secularistic

society, the voices of the opposition must be silenced
or rendered ineffective. Of course the most powerful
voice against secularism is the Church — more par-
ticularly, the evangelical churches.
The humanists face a dilemma: They cannot silence
the voice of the church by law or force, for it is pro-
tected by the Constitution of the United States. But,
they reason, there are other ways to attain the same
net result. If you cannot silence the outcry of the
church members by law, then you trick — or intimi-
date — them into “‘believing”’ that they do not have the
“right” to speak out and be heard, and that “freedom
of religion” is strictly confined to the practice of your
own religion — within the four walls of the
church building!
Have these tactics worked?
You had better believe*they have!
Through various humanist organizations such as
the American Civil Liberties Union and others, hu-
manists have virtually paralyzed the American Chris-
tians in their attempt to speak out. This has been done
through a calculated, studied, intentional, misinter-
pretation of the concept of separation of church and
state. And they sit back and laugh at the stupid Chris-
tians for being so gullible.
The true intention of “‘separation of church and
state” is, in fact, vital to our survival as a free people.
Christians champion its true meaning. However, the
Christian people have fallen into the trap of accepting
the humanist interpretation to mean “‘separation of
state and religion.”’ The humanists have convinced
the Christian community that they are not to interject
morality into politics or social issues.
The simple truth is that it is the duty and respon-
sibility of the church to “speak out”’ on the morality of
social and political issues. This is why the founding
fathers formed our government in such a way that the
church would be unhindered in its righteous influence
on law, government, politics and society as a whole.
They knew that the tendency of men was toward
selfishness and evil, so the church was to be the great
influence of righteousness on all areas of national life.
This is why they placed the practice of religion on an
equal basis with government. The church was not to
be subservient to the state, so that it could — without
fear — influence all of society with righteousness
and morality. So, if the church fails to speak out on
the issues of the day, it is failing in its duty to our
society.
Separation of church and state is very simple. It

becomes complicated only when you try to make the
founding fathers say something that they didn’t Say.
Let’s let them speak for themselves. We don’t need
the humanist-twist to it for us to understand what they
said.
Robert L. Cord, a professor of political science at
Northeastern University in Boston, has said, “Cer-
tainly the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights believed in the principle of Church-State separ-
ation and quickly added it to the organic law of the
infant United States of America in 1791. However,
those who authored and ratified that constitutional
principle were not thereby mandating a complete
legal secularization of the American Republic; far
from it. In matters of faith, the founding fathers, and
the American public they represented, are best described
by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas’s
characterization of 1952: ‘We are a religius people
whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being
“When the words and actions of the early Con-

gresses and presidents of the United States are viewed
in their proper historic context, it becomes clear that
the First Amendment’s Establishment clause was
designed by its framers to prevent the establishment
of a national religion or the placing of any one re-
ligious sect, denomination, or tradition into a pre-
ferred legal status which characterized religious estab-
lishments” (National Review, January, 1982) (em-
phasis added).
It is amazing how words can be twisted, taken out of
context, or given a different meaning than the original
intent, and then be used through the tactics of con-
fusion and intimidation to paralyze those who dis-
agree. Unfortunately, the Christian community has

not taken the time to examine the truth in this matter
and has simply accepted the humanist’s fraudulent
interpretation.
BECOME AN INTERCESSOR
In his. book War in the Spiritual Realm, the Ulti-
mate Field of Battle, Wyatt Lipscomb states, ““There
are sixteen officials directly over each of us in our
form of government. The Key Sixteen over you are:
The United States president (1), The Supreme Court
justices (9), Your United States senators (2), Your
congressman (1), Your governor (1), Your state
senator (1), Your state representative (1).
“Each one of us has a responsibility to bring each
one of these persons under the power of prayer. These
are the people directly over each individual. When
you pray for your own elected official, it influences
the entire body. Each one of us has the responsibility
to pray for those in authority over us (1 Tim. 2:1-
2)?
In obedience to God’s command to pray for those
in authority over us, we should begin by knowing who
they are and how they affect our daily lives. When you
break your prayer-responsibility down to these “‘key
sixteen,” the task becomes manageable and you feel
that you can be effective. The fact is, you pay their
salaries, and what they do affects you and your family.
So you have a personal interest in them and their
actions.
THE BATTLE AHEAD: A WARNING
Here is a word of warning! In the near future there

will be brutal attacks on the churches and radio and

television ministries, brought on by the ACLU and
other humanist organizations. These attacks will’be
taken to the highest courts in the land. In fact, we are
already witnessing the first blasts of a heavy barrage
of propaganda against the conservative Christian
leadership. The effectiveness of the Christian voices
is Causing great consternation in the humanist move-
ment. It has been dealt a severe blow and is just now
regrouping for a counter-offensive.
To the surprise of many, this attack is coming from
both inside and outside the organized church, with
large numbers of “‘liberal’’ clergymen as outspoken
opponents of the pro-morality movement. However,
we should remember that “‘liberal’’ theology is hu-
manism in theological terms.
It sounds incredible, but pastors have been pro-
secuted and jailed, and — for the first time in America
— at least one church has been padlocked for refusing
to submit to government licensing and control. Pres-
sure from governmental agencies has forced religious
bodies to form interdenominational groups to study
the situation and to devise plans to legally resist the
government agencies’ attempt to register, approve,
disapprove, license, or control them. We must learn
from the experience of other countries who are now
living under a totalitarian system. The government of
Rumania, for example, has a new “‘regulation’”’ that
says that any church buildings erected without govern-
ment “‘approval”’ will be confiscated or demolished.
In Czechoslovakia, a 65-year-old priest has been
found guilty of “obstructing state supervision of the
church.” His “‘crimes’’ were holding unauthorized
services and producing religious literature.
I have discussed these issues with many of the
Christian leaders in our nation today, and they be-

lieve, as I do, that if the trend is not reversed we will see
the day — here in America — when the only “legal”
church will be the one “‘registered’’ with the federal
government. The government can then impose its
‘‘suidelines”’ on these churches, as is now being done
in Russia and other communist countries. Pastors and
church leaders should never submit to church “‘reg-
istration’’ with the government. To “‘register’’ is to
submit to a higher authority.
Many in our society interpret “religious freedom”
to mean that the government has granted religious
freedom to the people as a “‘privilege.”’
It is not a privilege! It is a RIGHT!
Religious freedom is a right granted by the con-

stitution of the United States. And the Christian com-
munity must steadily resist any abrogation of this
right.
Well-known personalities are beginning to take to

the airways to discredit the pro-morality movement in
America. One of the notables is Norman Lear, a man
who has made a fortune producing some of television’ s
most immoral and offensive programs. He has vowed
to fight the efforts of the people trying to bring decency
back to television. He has organized a group called
‘People for the American Way.” He states: ‘‘People
for the American Way will head into the ‘80s seeking
to help Americans maintain their belief in self; to
reaffirm that in this society the individual still matters;
that there is more reason to continue to believe in the
future than to dispair of it; that to improve the quality
of life we must strengthen the common cords that
Time For Hard Thinking , ow
connect us as human beings and as citizens.”

It is superfluous to say that Mr. Lear’s interpre-
tation of “belief in the future’’ sounds much like the
humanist rhetoric we have heard so often before.
Could he possibly be so deluded that he believes that
the inane television fare he has piped into the Amer-
ican home helps to “improve the quality of life?”
Or, could it be that the pressure on sponsors and the
networks to clean up television has made some of his
productions unmarketable and is causing him to lose a
fortune in profits?
A NEW DIRECTION
Be encouraged! There is a fresh breeze in the air!

Our prayers and labors are beginning to affect this
nation. There is no question that America is moving
toward the greatest spiritual awakening in its history.
All indications point in that direction. It is cause for
rejoicing!
This was verified by the results of a recent survey
conducted by Dr. John Pollock, a former professor at
Rutgers University, on “American Values in the
Eighties.” Dr. Pollock said, “‘The increasing impact
of religion on our social and political institutions may
be only the beginning of a trend that could change the
face of America. I never expect again as a social
scientist to see anything as powerful in explaining so
much of what Americans do. People are judging things
in moral terms... they are using religion privately
and in the public sphere.”
Those who believe in the moral principles upon
which our nation was founded are speaking out and
' getting involved in the full spectrum of our nation’s
political life and thought. The informed, aware Chris-
SZ, America Betrayed!
tian citizen is saying that he will no longer stand in

silence and watch the disintegration of the family, the
brainwashing of our children in the public schools, the
spread of pornography, approval of deviant life-styles,
growing crime in the streets, rebellion in the schools,
corruption in government, and the deterioration of
America as a strong, powerful nation.
Gradually, those in politics, academia, the media,
and the decision-making positions are taking this
moral movement seriously.
I firmly believe that God’s hand is still on Amer-
ica because of the millions of born-again believers
here. Without them this nation would have been de-
stroyed long ago. I do not believe that God will for-
sake America, because it is His principal instrument
in getting the Gospel out to the other nations of the
world. As long as America has this righteous, pray-
ing, giving, army of believers, He will continue to
bless and protect it.
I believe that America is on the verge of a great
awakening among His people to the real threat — the
lie — secular humanism. The Christians are begin-
ning to understand the strategy of Satan and how
humanism has affected the thinking and life-styles
even of the believers. Understanding this “world
system,” they will cast it off and turn to God in re-
pentance, bringing about the greatest spiritual awak-
ening this nation has ever witnessed.
I also foresee extremely rough times ahead, even to
the point of some of God’s ministers being arrested,
prosecuted, and jailed for their refusal to submit to
anti-God federal regulations designed to hinder the
work of the church. Also, I believe the full weight of
humanistic pressure will come against the thriving
Christian school movement. The proliferation of Chris-
Time For Hard Thinking , 153
tian schools is a threat to the humanistic dream of

ridding the world of the concept of God, and they will
not stand idly by and allow it to continue to grow.
They will attack it — unmercifully!
Even with the threat of reprisals, we must continue
to speak out on the vital issues of the day — to inform,
challenge, enlighten, educate, encourage, expose
and minister His Word with love and compassion.
I am convinced that the decade of the eighties could
well be the “‘decade of the Church.”’ We have a great
mission and responsibility to our generation of
people.
I believe there will arise in this nation a large number
of talented, moralistically sound, lucid, and cour-
ageous men and women who will enter the political
arena — with all its heat and controversy — to take
the leadership of this nation and guide it back into the
mainstream of moral, financial, and political sanity.
The most important people in bringing about a
spiritual renewal in this nation could very well be
those elected officials who will fill the offices in our
state capitols, the House of Representatives, and the
Senate of the United States.
While our ministers and spiritual leaders.can “call

for action,” those elected officials can act!
We can turn a nation back to God.
An opportunity like this may never come again!

MORE FAITH-BUILDING BOOKS
BY HUNTINGTON HOUSE
GLOBALISM: AMERICA’S DEMISE, By William Bowen,

Jr., $8.95 (hard back). The Globalists — some of the most
powerful people on earth — have plans to totally eliminate God,
the family and the United States as we know it today.
Globalism is the vehicle the humanists are using to imple-
ment their secular humanistic philosophy to bring about their
one-world government.
This book clearly alerts Christians to what the Globalists
have planned for them.
MURDERED HEIRESS... LIVING WITNESS, by Dr.
Petti Wagner, $5.95. This is the book of the year about Dr. Petti
Wagner — heiress to a large fortune — who was kidnapped and
murdered for her wealth, yet through a miracle of God lives
today.
Dr. Wagner did indeed endure a horrible death experience,
but through God’s mercy, she had her life given back to her to
serve Jesus and help suffering humanity.
Some of the events recorded in the book are terrifying. But the
purpose is not to detail a violent murder conspiracy but to
magnify the glorious intervention of God.
THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW: The New
Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism, by Con-
stance Cumbey, $5.95. A national best-seller, this book ex-
poses the New Age Movement which is made up of tens of
thousands of organizations throughout the world. The move-
ment’s goal is to set up a one-world order under the leadership of
a false christ.
Mrs. Cumbey is a trial lawyer from Detroit, Mich., and has
spent years exposing the New Age Movement and the false
christ.
TRAINING FOR TRIUMPH: A Handbook for Mothers
and Fathers, by Dr. W. George Selig and Deborah D. Cole, |
$4.95. Being a good mother and father is one of life’s great chal-
lenges. However, most parents undertake that challenge with
little or no preparation, according to Dr. Selig, a professor at
CBN University. He says that often, after a child’s early years
are past, parents sigh: “Where did we go wrong?”
Dr. Selig, who has 20 years of experience in the field of
education, carefully explains how to be good mothers and fathers
and how to apply good principles and teachings while children
are still young.
Feel Better and Live Longer Through: THE DIVINE CON-
NECTION, by Dr. Donald Whitaker, $4.95. This is a Chris-
tian’s guide to life extension. Dr. Whitaker of Longview, Texas,
says you really can feel better and live longer by following
biblical principles set forth in the Word of God.
THE DIVINE CONNECTION shows you how to experi-
ence divine health, 4 happier life, relief from stress, a better ap-
pearance, a healthier outlook, a zest for living and a sound
emotional life. And much, much more.
THE AGONY OF DECEPTION by Ron Rigsbee with
Dorothy Bakker, $6.95. Ron Rigsbee was a man who through
surgery became a woman and now through the grace of God is a
man again. This book — written very tastefully — is the story of
God’s wonderful grace and His miraculous deliverance of a dis-
oriented young man. It offers hope for millions of others trapped
in the agony of deception.
THE DAY THEY PADLOCKED THE CHURCH, by E.

Edward Roe, $3.50. The warm yet heartbreaking story of
Pastor Everett Sileven, a Nebraska Baptist pastor, who was
jailed and his church padlocked because he refused to bow to
Caesar. It is also the story of 1,000 Christians who stood with
Pastor Sileven, in defying Nebraska tyranny in America’s crisis
of freedom.
BACKWARD MASKING UNMASKED Backward Sa-
tanic Messages of Rock and Roll Exposed, by Jacob Aranza,
$4.95.
Are rock and roll stars using the technique of backward
masking to implant their own religious and moral values into the
minds of young people? Are these messages satanic, drug-
related and filled with sexual immorality? Jacob Aranza an-
swers these and other questions. "
SCOPES II/THE GREAT DEBATE, by Louisiana State

Senator Bill Keith, $4.95.
Senator Keith’s book strikes 4 mortal blow at evolution which
is the cornerstone of the religion of secular humanism. He
explains what parents and others can do to assure that creation
science receives equal time in the school classrooms, where
Christian children’s faith is being destroyed.
WHY J.R.? A Psychiatrist Discusses the Villain of Dallas,
by Dr. Lew Ryder, $4.95.
An eminent psychiatrist explains how the anti-Christian re-
ligion of Secular Humanism has taken over television program-
ming and what Christians can do to fight back.
‘SAX pussOW 9} SUIMOT[OJ
SYOOd
————
Adoo (sat1doo)
Jo :UIsITeEqoyy S,BdILIaWIY
astWi9g
© 66'8$
————
Adoo (soidoo)
Jo pdtapanylSsamtaF]
* * * SUIATT ssauztAA
OD 66'S$
—————
Adoo (soidoo)
Jo ey], ueppipy{ s1asueqg
Jo ay} MOquiIvy
@ 66'S$
——_Adoo (sardos)
Jo IY, IUTAIG UorsauUOD
® 66'¢v$
————
Adoo (sotdos)
Jo ay], Auosy
jo uondasag
® 66'9$
————
Adoo (satdos)
Jo Sururery,
103 yduintay,
© 66'-v$
———_Adoo (soidoo)
Jo ey, Aeq Ay, payorpeg
eYL YOunyD
® EF OS
————
Kdoo (sotdoo)
jo paemyoeg Ssurysey, poyseuuy
M v$ 66
Adoo (satdoo)
jo Sedordg
/T] sy jeaI4y ajyeqag
® 66'v$
Adoo (satdos)
Jo AUM swt© S6'r$
Adoo (soldos)
jo YW s[qeuoseay
UOseay
OL, WEAD C6'r$ =
pesopouyq
‘SI ¢ _ Surpnjoutra3e}sod asvo[d) apnjout
[¢ Jod YooJoy (a3e}sod
Joy
“syooq
owen
SSoIppY
nies nee ae neeoeca Oe pSa, eae agy a ee 7
prep,
0} uo}ZunUN_,
‘esnoy“OUT‘d ‘O XOg ‘SQZ8L Sodaaclys BueistnoTy
LETIL
UI10
ouoyd
(STE)
TIOL
“¢17B
BuURIS
OSEI-
:s19pi
(AAA
oD
ie
=e tu] {Tare lia thieiscigsiaot mw neckward

mz alr poms us and ora ehlues intotas
Ot wage +t
joeatemnoen satanic, drug:
2} at hd Gilet Bits vewuat oe Jacob Arana en.
ewes: By
ith &ioe
Amd
amt
bt 3#y GORE sfbe
nM oa 4 WE
dr KhSialy'sik «hedobade hich
a stersot1g aprepigay Ho
i paresis and others can ¢ - oy ansure tetseentiog
: Satu) times ici. ao 4 naib pwhere
p
rex ag B.S
1-200-235-8317"
“RMEE)
a.
#16"
32502"
BOF
BO"
7
.nh
2M
= eee!
eta
: Marlin Maddoux enon away‘the ayersofrespectabilitytthe:
i humanist movement haswworn.
: JAMES ROBISO .
Evangelist —

America Betrayed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

America Betrayed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

America Betrayed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

144 ; 26836.

America betrayed!!_ &

HUNTINGTON (ii) HOUSE INC.

ISBN Number 0-910311-18-8

AMERICA BETRAYED! formerly was published under the title HUMANISM

America Betrayed is atimely book written by a well-informed

Marlin Maddoux is not on a soapbox. He is not trying to

oO sais jonai oH nodanoe 8 no lowai wobbeM n a val

slamblvd 11bas rw04 v1Posidune

Shocked Into Reality .............+.00:

: weais -¥pllasdt otal

a Deere: rae syeens «Moltshighgn’llauxe®

‘ai aaa a Zi Tphe a :

A strikingly attractive lady sat across a table from

After watching the news reports on television for

When she arrived at the station about half an hour

We were on the air!

phones, laid them down on the table, looked at my

what was being taught. I was also shocked that our

public school libraries all across the nation.”

gered, and that théy wanted to hear more on the

The information to which I had been exposed that

entific, ethical, democratic, religious and Marxist

God who created the universe to unite and rid man-

THE HUMANIST MANIFESTOS

I later did some background reading on the birth of

along with some pastors and influential writers.

Here are a few brief excerpts from Humanist Mani-

The next century can be and should be the Au-

As I read further I could sense the obvious hostility

Today man’s larger understanding of the uni-

verse, his scientific achievements, and his deeper

Though we consider the religious forms and ideas

As in 1933, humanists still believe that tradi-

It is our conviction that humanism offers an

We believe. . . that traditional dogmatic or au-

ience do a disservice to the human species.

We find insufficient evidence for the belief in the

Too often traditional faiths encourage depen-

Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal

Not only did they denigrate the Christian faith; they

Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring

We affirm that moral values derive their source

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intol-

Whenever I have attempted to use the statements

signers or affirmed supporters of the doctrines con-

The foregoing statements should remove any doubt

When Ifirst started using the term ““humanism”’ on

“Humanisn’”is defined by Webster's New Col-

thus doing away with the concept of divine creation.

EVOLUTION AND HUMANISM

The doctrine of humanism rests on the foundation

acknowledge that there are no “‘missing links” and no

In any study of humanism, the name of Jean

Rousseau did not believe that man’s problems stem-

tural, economic and social programs.

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-

Humanism believes that man is a part of nature

Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe

Unlike Christianity, which restores man’s dignity,