"Alfred C. Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States. Depending upon a 'Mr. X', a man who had molested hundreds of boys ranging from infants to adolescents, Kinsey attempted to prove that "children are sexual beings who should be understood to have and to deserve sexual experiences."
In the preface to his book Desire and Deceit, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. writes that "the Christian worldview reveals that sex, gender, and sexuality are ultimately all about the creature's purpose to glorify the Creator. " He contrasts this with the postmodern secular world's view that "sexuality is the means of liberating the self from cultural oppression." In a day and age where we are constantly bombarded with sexual images, and sexual license and perversion have become normative, we ask the question, "What has the self truly been liberated from?"
Have the sexual promiscuity, the cultural acceptance of homosexuality, the
demanding of "rights" rather than the observance of "right and wrong", the
obsession with self-gratification brought us more happiness, more stability,
more true freedom than when biblical morals and standards were
the norm rather than the exception?
Although the promoters of "sexual liberation" try to push their agenda of sexual promiscuity as beneficial for all, bringing us another notch higher on the evolutionary ladder, who speaks for the victims of this blatant selfishness: the children whose homes are destroyed by wayward parents, the men (and women) whose bodies are ravaged by the promiscuous including many homosexuals on the prowl for yet another partner, the heartache caused by unfaithfulness, and yes, the selfish themselves who become their own victims as their lives become entwined and addicted to pornography and other insatiable lusts.
"Sex has lost its public shamefulness; moral boundaries have been pulled down in the name of moral 'progress'; and overt sexuality now drives much of our entertainment, advertising, and cultural conversation" (pg. 14). Lust ("to want what you don't have and weren't meant to have") has become acceptable and even propagandized as "natural", something even to be celebrated.. Joshua Harris in his book, Not Even a Hint: Guarding Your Heart Against Lust, writes "Lust goes beyond attraction, and appreciation of beauty, or even a healthy desire for sex – it makes these desires more important than God. Lust wants to go outside God's guidelines to find satisfaction". Truly, "previous generations faced the moral challenges of war, poverty, and pestilence, but this generation is absorbed in a continual cycle of lust and sexual gratification" (pg. 20).
What shaky foundation has this new morality been built upon? In chapter 12
Dr. Mohler writes about Alfred Kinsey, "the man as he really was", quite
different than the "angel of light who brought America out of repression and darkness" (pg. 103). According to James H. Jones (Alfred C. Kinsey, A Public/Private Life), "Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States". Depending upon a "Mr. X", a man who had molested hundreds of boys ranging from infants to adolescents, Kinsey attempted to prove that "children are sexual beings who should be understood to have and to deserve sexual experiences" (pg. 109). In his personal life, Kinsey was involved with promiscuous sex with his staff, pornography and repeated acts of sodomy. In a letter to his associate, Clarence A. Tripp, Kinsey conceded, "The whole army of religion is our central enemy." Kinsey knew what he was up against, and his ambition was not merely to collect data but to overthrow the entire structure of Christian morality in the realm of human sexuality. "Instead of being rightly classified as a criminal along with the likes of Dr. Joseph Mengele and other Nazi scientists, Alfred C. Kinsey is now lionized and celebrated in a movie starring Liam Neeson as the supposedly heroic figure. What does this say about Liam Neeson? What does this say about us?" (pg. 112).
Another influential figure in American public life is Andrew Sullivan, editor of the New Republic from 1991 to 1996. Sullivan asserted that "The HIV plague "established homosexuality as a legitimate topic more swiftly than any political manifesto could possibly have done" (pg. 117). Sadly, in 2001 it was revealed that Sullivan had contracted HIV. When a high school friend asked him how he had contracted the virus, Sullivan admitted that he had no idea. When asked "How many people did you sleep with, for God's sake?" Sullivan answered carefully: "Too many, God knows. Too many for meaning and dignity to be given to every one; too many for love to be present at each; too many for sex to be very often more than a temporary but powerful release from debilitating fear and loneliness." Sullivan expresses poignantly the tragic end of so many who embrace the promiscuous homosexual life style.
The hero of American public school educators since the early part of the twentieth century has been John Dewey. He was the one who first argued that "society ought to act decisively to free children from the repressive prejudices of their parents " (pg. 148). His philosophy largely won the day, and now our "elementary schools have essentially become laboratories of social engineering. In fact, groups like the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network have mobilized to influence the curricula of the schools with the goal of changing young minds…..intending to infect the next generation with the ideology of polymorphous perversity" (pg. 148).
"Polymorphous perversity" is the term used by Sigmund Freud, to "identify the leading characteristic of infantile sexuality" (pg. 134). He postulated that infants are ready to demonstrate any kind of sexual behavior without any kind of restraint
(Sigmund Freud, Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex). He then explained how 'civilization' emerges only after this innate, polymorphous perversity is restrained by psychological repression, social form, and custom' (pg. 135).
Herbert Marcuse went a step further, arguing that "the whole problem was the very restraint that Freud believed was inevitable and necessary, the repression that Freud saw leading to civilization itself. According to Marcuse, the only way to achieve liberation is to undo that repression, reverse that restraint, and thus unleash in society itself that infantile stage of pure sexuality – of " polymorphous perversity" (pg. 136).
These men and others (Margaret Mead, Michel Foucault, etc.) have had their effect, as they have assaulted the very foundations of civilization itself. As Dr. Mohler points out, "Now it has become obvious that this ideology of 'polymorphous perversity' is inch by inch – if not yard by yard-gaining ground. Read the daily newspaper, or just review the events of a typical week. Even something as basic as the heterosexual nature of marriage is now very much under assault. The very idea of normality, or of fixed institutions, is being subverted by the culture and marginalized by cultural elites. What we now face is the subversion of humanity's most basic categories and institutions – gender, marriage, and family. In the eyes of all too many in our culture, gender is merely a plastic social construct. Indeed, in the postmodern world, all realities are plastic and all principles are liquid. Everything can be changed. Nothing is fixed. All truth is relative, all truth is socially constructed, and anything that is constructed can also be deconstructed in order to 'liberate' (pgs. 136-7).
The above are only a few of the thoughts presented in Dr. Mohler's
excellent and powerful treatise. He ends his book with a "call to arms", urging those who understand that the assault on morality is an assault on civilization itself to not give in to the culture of "polymorphous perversity". He quotes secular historians, Will and Ariel Durant (pg. 156) who argued "that one of the first achievements necessary for the establishment of civilization is the restraint of sexuality. As they put it, sexuality is like a hot river that must be banked on both sides. Sadly , what we see in the latter half of the
twentieth century is the unbanking of that river" (The Lessons of History).
Pitirim A. Sorokin, founder of the department of sociology at Harvard University, argued that "heterosexual marriage is the foundation of civilization itself. …Unless heterosexual marriage is protected by law, custom, and habit to the exclusion of every other arrangement, civilization is impossible" (pg. 156).
In conclusion, Dr. Mohler writes that "today, we face a cultural crisis that actually threatens to reverse civilization and to embrace barbarism. Can civilization survive under these circumstances? I would have to argue that it cannot. There is no example in the history of humankind of a civilization enduring for long when an age of 'polymorphous perversity' is set loose" (pg. 157).
"What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born" (W.B. Yeats – The Second Coming)? What 'rough beast' is attempting to usurp the place of the innocent, pure babe in a manger whom we used to adore at Christmas? When we deny God, and His Son, Jesus, and worship the creature rather than the Creator, we end up also denying the beauty and purpose of man made in God's image, and bring him/her down to the level of mere beast or barbarian.
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
It should be noted that Dr. Mohler, though forthright in expressing truth as he understands it, has no personal condemnation of those of whom he writes. He has faced Andrew Sullivan in public debate and considers him to be "among the most gifted, thoughtful, and unpredictable intellectuals on the current scene". Dr. Mohler says that , "Andrew Sullivan has been a focus of my prayer since I first learned of his HIV-positive status. I do pray that God will give him strengthened health and the gift of time. After all, our Christian concern should be focused, not only on the challenge of homosexuality in the culture, but the challenge of reaching homosexuals with the love of Christ and the truth of the gospel" (pg. 122-123).
using this model, shouldn’t we assume that the Middle East would be better off financially? also, where is the bottom that we will sink to if we don’t return to our values. china and russia seem to have ok economies today and yet they are amoral. will we fall back to their levels?
don’t get me wrong, i agree that we need to fix our societies ills and return to a higher moral ground both ethically and sexually.
MS
Where do you get this Russia is amoral thing? I don’t know about China, but you are wrong about Russia! Read Dostoyevsky and Turgenev before you answer. As to the financial success of the USA, I would say that we are living off the hard work of those that come before 1960. If we don’t return to morality and hard work, yes, we will fall back. America can’t survive with this “Obama is gonna buy me a new car” attitude.
tossing out pre-soviet moralist as a defense for the damage done by the communist isn’t a proper defense. care to compare HIV infections in China and Russia compared to the US? This book and book review are about sexual morality and so is my comment.
MS
NO! I don’t care to talk about AIDS. Neither Ms. Alexander nor Dr. Mohler mentioned Russia or China, so why do you bring it into this discussion? The only reference to Russia was Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin and he defended heterosexual marriage. Your prejudice is showing in more ways than one.
Although I find much in Dewey to criticize, I think it is stretching things to suppose he would or could endorse many of the things done in his name or extrapolated from his philosophy; including the subject of this essay – the degeneracy of moral-culture. 50-years from now, might not people be accusing us of things we never intended (things totally repugnant and unrecognizable to us), loosely based on things we have said in these very pages? Certainly, few of us will be here to challenge these attributions and must, therefore, depend on some few among our descendents to see us as we were.
A careful study of Dewey reveals his ‘freeing’ of “children from the repressive prejudices of their parents” had, mainly, to do with racism; and that Dewey thought it proper to correct racism in the schoolroom over the objections (and threats) of parents. Dewey’s fault, then, was not so much the philosophy he espoused as the means he advocated; now used to promote a more degenerate philosophy than his own. While true some of this modern philosophy is directly traceable to Dewey, some also is not and is only attributable by placing him among more radical elements that pushed his ideas far beyond their original and natural intents. His failure is two-fold; first that he took no note of the corruption to which his ideas would be subjected, second, that overriding parents is ever justified. It’s obvious he believed the prejudices of teachers (a group which, in his time, represented a moral high water mark – mostly liberal-Christians) inherently superior to those of parents in all times and sufficient to the task he set for them; and that he believed a flaw like bigotry in some justifies a violation of that most fundamentally incorruptible of institutions for the protection and nurturing of children – the family.
Like many reformers, Dewey thought he saw a shortcut. Such shortcuts, however, have a nasty habit of unraveling proven, workable systems taking generations to create and not easily restored. Dewey, then, was guilty of monumental hubris thinking he could create a new system devoid of all prejudice, only to substitute one system of prejudice with another; one prone to every corruption.
Educators have built on Dewey more because of the power his program gives them than for his rules and doctrine; which most barely comprehend.
Bob
I would tend to agree with you. Born in 1859 in Vermont, Dewey had ideas based on that time and place. To condemn him or his ideas seems an over-simplification. Many thinkers and authors of that time had ideas that seem out of place now. B. F. Skinner was another one. Education schools still teach the theories of such people, but they try to put it in perspective. Having known some people born around 1900, I would have to agree that we have made progress in many social areas and the school systems are responsible for much of it. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far, but we can deal with that.
I’m reading Thomas Paine now and his ideas on the French Revolution, especially with regard to democracy eliminating war, seem silly based on what we know about Napoleon and the Third Reich.
Thanks you, Mr. Stapler and Mr. Ivanovich, for your comments on John Dewey. Based upon my research, Mr. Dewey was not the “idealistic” education reformer we hav been encouraged to admire by his disciples in the education establishment. Dewey was part of the leftist elite who visited Russia under Stalin and came away determined to “reform” the American education system into the “Russian”
model. Dewey was a socialist, he was a major author of and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I. We know that Dewey did not believe in absolute values or truth. In 1927 he said that it was wrong to believe in something that could not change and he ridiculed those who put their trust in the traditional understanding of the Constitution and the laws (The Public and Its Problems, John Dewey, 1927). He was also determined to replace Christianity (through the education system) with his “new” religion in which the Supreme Being is found in nature as it is know through science. Part of his method of indoctrination in this new religion was to re-educate the children surreptitiously, apart from the influence and values of their parents. One of his goals (perhaps his primary goal) was to establish the new world order and he knew this would only be possible when the bonds of patriotism, family, and religion were destroyed.
Sadly, Mr. Dewey has been very influential. My own father attended the U. of Vermont in the 1930′s and did his Master’s thesis on John Dewey. Dad entered UVM a Christian, and left a humanist. Consequently, my own upbringing did not lead me to faith in the God of the Bible, although I certainly had a wonderful childhood. It wasn’t until later that I realized that something was missing and that I couldn’t solve all of life’s problems without understanding that there is a God Who alone can bring meaning and prupose to life, a God Who would help me and guide me and show me the moral boundaries necessary not only for my own good, but for the good of all humanity.
Shutting God out of the public schools, as Mr. Dewey envisioned, has now become a reality in America. Ironicly,
after the fall of the Iron Curtain, God was once again allowed into the formerly atheistic Russian schools, and many Americans have subsequently been allowed to speak and share their faith in classrooms in that once closed country, something they wouldn’t be allowed to do here in
America. Submitted by Sandra Alexander
Sandra writes: “God was once again allowed into the formerly atheistic Russian schools”
I don’t know about the schools, but I experienced God first hand in Moscow 18 months ago. Our guide was showing us The Church of Jesus Christ Our Savior, not St. Basil’s with the colorful domes, but also near Red Square. After explaining that the church was blown up by Stalin before WWII and rebuilt after 91 we were asked if we would like to go inside. I reluctantly agreed and when we entered, the Holy Ghost instructed me to light a candle in my father’s memory. Having been brought up a Baptist, I was not familiar with candles, but I went to the shrine of his namesake, placed the candle and said a prayer for him. The experience was surprising and multi-dimensional, but one thing it told me was that God is back in Russia.
May he bless you.
Sandra,
You argue Dewey was:
“…a socialist” – absolutely, no argument
“…did not believe in absolute values or truth” – most likely true, at least that is what he preached. However, Dewey also contradicts himself often enough we cannot make this judgment of him ‘absolutely’. For example, Dewey imposed his own absolutist judgment of racism (i.e., in Dewey’s mind there are no ‘shades of truth’ as regards racism).
“…he ridiculed those who put their trust in the traditional understanding of the Constitution and the laws…” – Here, again, inconsistent as he also approved rule-of-law, constitutionalism, and “democratic institutions” (i.e., criticisms appear to be more what we’ve done with them than premise).
“…determined to replace Christianity (through the education system) with his “new” religion…” – Hard to say as Dewey never really comes out strongly against the teaching of religion or Christianity. His position seems to be more a distain for religion while recognizing this is a question teachers are in no position to impose.
“…method of indoctrination … was to re-educate the children surreptitiously, apart from the influence and values of their parents…” – Precisely. Dewey makes no bones he intended to teach anti-racism over the objections of parents. He had some other ‘absolute’ opinions of a moral and/or social nature (e.g., voter rights for women, welfare, &c) that were in vogue but not yet the standard of opinion.
“…part of the leftist elite who visited Russia under Stalin and came away determined to “reform” the American education system into the “Russian” model…” – Yes, but he also, later, condemned Stalin for his treatment of Trotsky and of dissidents. He also, condemned the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Therefore, we must distinguish between Dewey the early idealist and Dewey the later pragmatist and apologist for socialism. Dewey’s trip to Russia is used so frequently as absolute proof of his socialist extremism we lose sight this was but one stop on his world tour. He also visited Japan, China, Turkey, Mexico and South Africa. Following the same logic, would that not make him sympathetic toward Afrikaner racists despite all we know of his opposition to racism at home? We know Dewey admired much he found in Russia, but not all. He liked what he saw as ‘progressive’, but then procrastinated that it was okay for Russia (because of its’ backward state) but would not be okay in America.
“…major author of and signer of the [First] Humanist Manifesto…” – True, but what was the political climate at the time of his participation, and was this in or out of sync with mainstream thought? We have to remember that socialism, in the 1920s and 1930s, was all the rage and did not yet bear the stigma it would have later on (once the brutalities and horrors became well known). In 1938, when Dewey endorsed the Manifesto, being a socialist was perfectly respectable and ‘conservatism’ (as we know it) hardly existed other than as a sort of vague bucking of the socialist trend.
“One of his goals … was to establish the new world order … only … possible when the bonds of patriotism, family, and religion were destroyed…” – I must disagree with this because Dewey later contradicts himself by promoting civics education (including mild patriotism) for socialization/integration and a uniform culture. I do agree he sought a weakening of these traditional influences as interfering with the greater influence he wanted for educators and internationalism, but disagree he ever meant it to go so far as to destroy them outright. Here, it would be good to establish a timeline for when he was more for and more against each of these, and benchmark these as against changing attitudes within the culture.
“…not the “idealistic” education reformer we have been encouraged to admire by his disciples…” Au contraire, despite his reputation as a pragmatist, Dewey was extremely idealistic. How else explain his rigid adherence to socialism, even after the horrors became known. Rather than abandon this dangerous ideology, Dewey simply (and disingenuously) differentiated between good and bad socialisms (which is what most socialists idealists did and still do). His lifetime dedication to education when he could have easily made his mark in clinical psychology (or made a fortune listening to ditzy rich people pour out life stories) or as an efficiency-expert tells me this is not just someone with a huge ego, but an ego satisfied by nothing less than a ‘altruistic calling’. I have had a lot of contact with idealists, and I am certain being a cynic and an idealists are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, I suspect you may be judging Dewey’s idealism based on your own standards of idealism. Conservatives often have difficulty accepting the idealism of socialists because we know of so many at the top of the socialist heirarchy who are cynical parasites. Likewise, to liberals, conservatives are unprincipled moneygrubbing facists without ideals. Neither seems to get the other’s political rivals are mostly uncompromising idealists (at least this is true of the rank-&-file of each).
The reason I disagree with your inclusion of Dewey in those who deliberately contribute to moral degeneracy is that Dewey was very much concerned with moral teaching. This was important to Dewey both as an objective of teaching inherent in producing ‘socially-adjusted’ beings, but also from the perspective of teacher-morality (i.e., suitable role models). In “Democracy and Education”, Dewey uses variants on the word ‘moral’ (moral, morality, morally, &c) no less than 150 times and in “Moral Principles in Education”, Dewey uses variants on the word ‘moral’ about 90 times. We can be pretty sure a word count in his other tracts would give similar results. In both, he discusses religion, Christianity, and traditions in the context of moral teaching and a social-moral framework. The fact Dewey was seriously wrong in his conclusions and ideology, and his program resulted in the debasement of society, in no way changes he was a crusading reformer to whom morals matter.
I am no Dewey supporter (not by a long shot), but I also believe it is important we judge Dewey on his actual rather than imputed merits. Imputing to him intentions based on results and later day interpretations leaves us open to the charge of ‘false witness’. Dewey wrote so profusely, you would think it easy to get a handle on him. However, this same profuseness works against pinning him down. For every oft repeated assertion he makes, there is a weasely disclaimer buried somewhere in the text. Thus, I commend caution in asserting the ‘real Dewey agenda’.
Dear Mr. Stapler,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. You have obviously
read more of John Dewey than I have. I do want to point out,however,that it was the author of Desire and Deceit who
included Dewey in his list of those who attempted to change the moral culture in America by using the public education
system as his vehicle for change.
..For sure, Mr. Dewey was a man who disagreed strongly
with much of what America stood for and by contrast, along with many other academics, admired Russia.
..
Mr. Dewey also was a proponent for a “new world order”,
and in order to see that come about knew that loyalty
to country, family and faith would have to be eroded.
Mr. Dewey thought that faith, belief in a prayer-answering God, was old-fashioned, out-moded, and simply not proveable; therefore he, as did many others, rejected
the Christian faith and promoted it’s exclusion from
public education. According to Mr. Dewey, “man” was the
only one who could solve man’s problems, and thus began
the religion of “secular humanism”, with man, not God,
in charge. As you probably agree, having man in charge
can be pretty risky, because man can become proud and
arrogant, dispising those they rule over, as Stalin, Hitler,and many, many others have proven.
Sincerely, Sandra Alexander
Very good article Sandra.
Is is not a fight in favor of sexuality but against religion.
Apostle Paul already said in his letter to the Corinthians “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again”. So here you have it. Sexual activity itself is no sin. But sexual activity outside of God is, for that matter any activity outside God is.
And homosexuality itself is not a sin, fornication is, also for heterosexuals. And what did Jesus do when fornicators were brought to Him for justice? remember the words: “He who is without sin may cast the first stone?” He condemned them not but forgave them, saying: “Go and sin no more”.
God blew the breath of life into the nostrils of Adam. He separated man from beast. He knew natural man would come and prosecute his creature. But His Kingdom will come consisting of men who freely choose to partake in it. Until then the world will be a mess.