Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Essayist: Why are secularist sins, like Margaret Sanger’s and Alfred Kinsey’s, off-limits?


A longish essay at First Things by Mary Eberstadt addresses a number of issues around secularism, and this one is up our street in particular:

This brings us to another feature of the new secularist faith: its lack of transparency. For decades, scholarship has established Sanger’s moral roots in eugenics, her faith in the inferiority of certain other people, her cynical use of African-American ministers to evangelize the black population about birth control in the hope of bringing their numbers down, and related beliefs out of odor today. Yet in a moment when Confederate statues are targets in the name of scrubbing racism from the public square, Margaret Sanger remains immune from moral revisionism. Why? Because she is the equivalent of a secularist saint of the revolution, off-limits from second thoughts.

Similar status and protection are accorded to pseudo-scientist Alfred C. Kinsey, founder of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, whose fabled “reports” on human sexuality included allowing so-called research “subjects” to inflict what is now called child sexual abuse. According to biographer James H. Jones in Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, the icon also filmed sex acts of employees and subordinates, walked in on students as they showered, had sex with people involved in his “research,” wrote letters of erotica to assistants and others, and otherwise appears to have fallen short of today’s standards concerning sexual harassment and coercion. Even before “Harvey Weinstein” became global shorthand for such depredations, Kinsey’s legacy would have been reviled—were he anything but Kinsey, a founding father of the new secularist faith. Instead, Kinsey and all his works, like Sanger’s, remain untouchable.More.

Darwinian racism is untouchable too. Every so often, a left-wing writer wakes up and wonders, why are we supporting all this?

The answer, one fears, is that it isn’t a “Why?” question. The answer is “You raise suspicion about your loyalty by asking!”

Note: Some of us would say that it is not secularism but naturalism that is driving this trend.

See also: How naturalism morphed into a state religion

Mock at your peril! Naturalism is a jealous fraud

Left-wing mag slams Darwinism


Why you, UD reader, are perchance not a member of the Party of Science… Maybe you doubt UFOs or something. A growing source of unproductive conflict in western culture: “Science” is becoming merely the attitudes, values, beliefs, hopes, fears, allegiances, and prejudices of the people who work there, without any external standard applied and none expected or wanted.

The heroine that revealed the true depravity of Kinsey and the consequences of accepting his teaching is Judith Reisman. Please don't forget her: http://billlawrenceonline.com/sick-became-normal-and-heres-why/ tribune7
I recommend the entire essay. It eloquently lays out a case that we are poised to claim the West back from secularism, because it shouldn't be that hard now to point out its bankruptcy. (The author speaks of those who witnessed the "initial blast" of the sexual revolution. When I was in college in the 1980's, the results of the sexual revolution that I saw around me was one of the forces that turned me away from liberalism.) EDTA
Darwinian racism is untouchable too.
Yes, you never see that talked about. (/sarcasm) goodusername

Leave a Reply