Keith Olbermann’s Humanism

It has become quite a popular video, the one with Keith Olbermann giving his “special comment” on the Prop. 8 in California.  Keith basically asks those who voted for the measure a series of questions.  However, Keiths opinion is not just that, it is indicative of a spreading, media supported worldview. 
 
Secular Humanism
 
Wikipedia defines secular humanism as “a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making“.  This partial definition begs the question of where they get their values of reason, ethics and justice in the first place, and what makes those words “valuable” absent of God.  Wikipedia continues, “Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.”  This the entire basis for Keith’s opinion on the matter of same-sex marriage. 
This is verified by the Council for Secular Humanism’s affirmations,
“We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.”
I honestly wonder how they are defining “salvation” here.  Are they attempting to assert that salvation exists inside of nature, and if so, is death “salvation”?  Or, are they just showing that, according to them, there is no such thing as salvation and the entirety of humanity shares the same fate of eventual meaningless annihilation.  This forces me to ask how reason, ethics and justice are meaningful when there is no difference between my fate and Hitlers’?
 
But I digress.
 
The point is that, in this video, Keith is a self-righteous preacher of the religion of secular humanism and the television camera is his pulpit.  As you will see, Keith attacks any notion of truth in regards to God’s Word.  That there can be no greater calling than his humanist calling, no greater cause than the happiness of human beings, regardless and in spite of what any religous text says.  In fact, Keith is willing to use Biblical quotes to further his humanist agenda while ignoring the Biblical ideals that deny humanism.  This will become apparent as you watch the video.  I really recommend watching it instead of just reading my responses.  It’s quick, and a great example of the battle of the worldviews that we find ourselves in.
 
 
 
 
(I apologize ahead of time for the snark in some of my replies.  Mr. Olbermann is so condescending that I just can’t help it)
 
“What does this matter to you?”
 
I have a question as an answer.  Who is Keith to suggest that it shouldn’t?  Who is he to tell me that human history, my conscious, my religion and my God are wrong in telling me the traditional definition of marriage?  Who is he to suggest that I am wrong in sticking up for this?
 
Keith also says that homosexual couples, “want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option . . .”
 
Putting away the ridiculous assertion that a marriage license is synonymous with permanence (especially in California), I have another question as an answer.  Their relationships aren’t already permanent and happy?  The marriage license will make them MORE happy, MORE permanent?  Aren’t they committed to each other because they’re committed to each other, not because some license tells them they are?  A marriage license instantly makes you more happy, therefore we are denying homosexual couples happiness?  Talk about a strawman of epic proportions.  In fact, most of married America, and the divorce rate, will tell you that being married leads to a DECREASE in happiness!
 
Keith goes on, ” . . . they don’t want to deny you yours.”
 
The point that he ignores is:  Yes they do.  They want to deny me my right to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  They literally want to force me to define marriage as they define it.  This is exactly what the issue is about. 
 
Keith continues, “. . . they want what you want, a chance to be a little bit less alone in the world.”
 
This is sensationalism that I didn’t think Keith was capable of; I guess I didn’t know him enough.  Keith is suggesting that Prop. 8 breaks apart same-sex couples.  Are you kidding me?  How can he take himself seriously, much less expect anyone else to, if he makes these kind of comparisons?  He is equating the people of California standing up for the traditional definition of marriage with us FORCING couples apart, making them more alone.  The ridiculousness of the suggestion speaks for itself.
 
“…just as you are taking away the legal right that they already had.”
 
How did they acquire this ability?  By a court ignoring the will of the people and overturning Prop. 22, essentially creating legislation, which courts aren’t supposed to be allowed to do.  Remember that system of checks and balances that our government is based upon?  The In re Marriage Cases decision violated that system, and yet, nobody is talking about this part of it.
 
“What if someone passed a law saying that you couldn’t marry”
 
If I didn’t meet the requirements for acquiring a driver’s license, I wouldn’t expect the government to give me one.  Same-sex couples just don’t meet the requirements for acquiring a marriage license.  It’s that simple, and it’s nothing personal, nor are any rights being violated.  As Keith just admitted (and passed over as quickly as he could), same-sex couples right now have the exact same rights under the law. 
 
However, if Keith wanted to argue that since “marriage” is a religious distinction and a religious issue, therefore “marriage” should not be legislated by the state, that the state should call everything a “civil union” and leave the definition of marriage, and wether couples get married or not, to the individuals.  I would stand next to him, in support of such legislation.  Let’s take the principle of “separation of church and state” to it’s logical conclusion and keep the word “marriage” out of government.  We can all agree on this, right?
 
“If this country hadn’t redefined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people…”
 
Justifying an incorrect redefining of marriage (same-sex marriage) with ANOTHER incorrect redefinition of marriage (racial restrictions) doesn’t make his argument valid.  In fact, it shows that Keith has no argument because he must pull on the heart strings of Americans who are still hurting from the racial strife of our past.  This issue isn’t about race, it’s about redefining a word and forcing that definition upon everyone else.  In fact, Keith, you should be ashamed of yourself for bringing up race.  This country now has an African American president-elect, and you want to shove us back fifty years.  You should be ashamed for pulling the race card.
 
Marriages were not legally recognized to be married if the people were slaves.”
 
Now Keith is comparing same-sex couples to slaves.  Again I must wonder how he expect us to take him seriously.  Also, no one is comparing the “correct definition of marriage” to America fifty years ago.  I haven’t heard that once.  We are comparing the definition of marriage to that which the Bible lays down from the book of Genesis on, what has been the definition of marriage since the beginning of recorded history.
 
This next part is hard to quote, but basically Keith is saying that it is a travesty that homosexuals used to have to hide in fake marriages with members of the opposite sex, therefore we should allow same-sex couples to marry.
 
I must be mistaken here, but I was under the impression that American government is not in the business of legislating happiness.  That we aren’t trying to fix the personal problems of those who felt and feel they must hide their chosen lifestyles. 
 
Keith then says that those sham marriages violated the term “the sanctity of marriage”, so much so that the term has no meaning.
 
It’s inconsistent to use the Biblical idea of the sanctity of the marriage bed to try and violate the Biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
 
Again, Keith says, “What is this to you, no one is asking you to embrace their expression of love.”
 
By legislating it, yes they are.  But now Keith has switched from making this issue about race, to making it about “love”.  Do we really agree on a definition for that word “love”?  What kind of love are we talking about?  But more on this a bit later. . .
 
“But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace that love?”
 
Yes I do Keith, I really do.  People are people and I have compassion and love for all human beings.  But love is not license.  Love does not force me to enable what I see as a destructive lifestyle, to approve of what God tells me is an issue of morality.  Love does not force me to allow the redefinition of marriage and the redefinition of basic human rights.
 
“With so much hate in the world, and so much needless division . . . this is what your religion tells you to do?”
 
Keith has just degraded the Word of God to mere religion.  He is assuming that there is no truth in religion, only meaningless tradition, pomp and circumstance.  Who is Keith to degrade the beliefs of others?  Who is he to trivialize the Word of God, to assume that such a notion as objective truth doesn’t exist?  He is asking those who believe there is truth in God’s Word to violate their beliefs.  Does his public pulpit really afford him the right to do this?
 
“You want to honor your god, and the universal love you believe he represents?  Then spread happiness.”  
 
Just after degrading my religion to mere tradition, Keith appeals to my religion?  Well done.  Just as God is Love, He is also Righteousness, Truth, Justice and Wrath.  To attempt to separate one aspect of God from the rest is to create your own version of god.  This is something that I suspect Keith did a LONG time ago.  Not once, in all of Scripture, did God say He was concerned with our happiness.  But you know what He does say He’s concerned with?  Our righteousness.  Let me give an illustration.  If running into the street makes your child happy, will you allow him/her to do so?  Of course not.  Your child doing the right thing, being safe, is more important than what makes them happy.  This is similar to God’s love for us.
 
And then, Keith takes the cake with this one…
 
“You can quote me whatever you want from your religious leader or your book of choice, telling you to stand against this.  And then tell me how you can believe both that statement, and another statement, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.”
 
I wonder if he sees the inherent contradiction in quoting one verse of the Bible, while ignoring the Bible on how it defines marriage? 
 
“You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight . . .You are asked to stand on a question of love.”
 
This is where Keith’s secular humanistic belief system rears it’s ugly head.  Keith assumes that human love is the ultimate love.  That how humans define love is the ultimate definition.  He defines love as allowing people to do whatever makes them happy.  And that “happiness” is the ultimate good.  If we believe that God exists, then our definitions of love and happiness should necessarily be defined as God sees it.   In fact, this definition of love assumes that Scripture is not God’s Word and that no God exists.  If we don’t find the ultimacy of the human mind to be convincing, then the question becomes, how DOES God define love?
 
God’s Definition of Love, Not Keith’s, is the One that Matters
 
I’ll give you God’s definition of love, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).  The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is God’s definition of love.  It doesn’t find much searching to discover why Christ died on the cross; He died to save us from our sins.  Homosexuality is one of those sins.  It’s no more or no less a sin than lying, no different than heterosexual adultery, there is no greater or lesser sin with God, but it’s still a sin.  So those who are refusing to support a redefining of marriage ARE doing it out of love.  Love for their God and God’s love for their fellow man. 
Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Apologetics, Current Events

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

26 Comments on “Keith Olbermann’s Humanism”

  1. Russ Says:

    The thing that is scary about this issue is not so much that we must fight for the truth that is in the Bible. The thing that is scary is that I find myself arguing and trying to convince the church not the unbelievers that the bible says that homosexuality is sin. For some reason the church thinks that it can preach against sin on Sunday and then vote for homosexual marriage on Tuesday. The church is buying into this lie in the name of “love” faster than any deception I have ever seen go through the church.

  2. Eric Kemp Says:

    Russ

    I know, isn’t it amazing? The church is buying into the fear and guilt mongering. They think they are being politically correct but what they’re really doing is compromising the Word of God.

    Thanks for the comment.

    Eric Kemp


  3. […] Same-sex marriage: 2 sides November 13, 2008 Posted by Deidre in Life, Politics, religion. Tags: california, gay, gay marriage, Homosexuality, Law, lesbian, love, marriage, Marriage Cases, Olbermann, Prop 8, protest, Same-sex marriage, Same-sex marriage in California trackback This is a response to a fellow blogger.  To read his entire blog, CLICK HERE!! […]

  4. Deidre Says:

    I knew I was gonna write too much, so I did my own blog. If you wanna check it out and respond I would appreciate it. I love a good debate! 😀

  5. Eric Kemp Says:

    Deirdre

    I will surely respond to what you have to say. Debates are some of my favorite things!
    However, I’m not sure I’ll have time tonight, but I’ll get back to you tomorrow.

    Eric


  6. I enjoyed reading this article. I am an apologist from India. Will visit you again.

  7. Eric Kemp Says:

    Johnson

    Thank you for the kind words.

    Eric


  8. Dear Eric

    thanks for the reply. The moment I saw your website, I bookmarked it and have come again to read your earlier posts.

    God bless you !

    Johnson

  9. Saxxon Says:

    “Homosexuality is one of those sins.”

    Just like:
    Wearing clothes made of more than one kind of fabric.
    Eating shrimp.
    Cutting your hair, or shaving.

  10. Eric Kemp Says:

    Troll

    Yup, same thing.

    Eric Kemp

  11. Deidre Says:

    Actually I KNOW my morality is greater then yours and the Bible. Anything that says people aren’t as good as other people and don’t deserve the same thing is WRONG. 😛

    Also, your are a lot more naive then you think. Do a little research on civil unions vs. civil marriage. You will see that they are NOT allowed all the same rights. Not even close actually.

    I’m not going to respond to anything else because, A. you’re an idiot and 2. you keep talking and talking and NOT saying ANYTHING!

    Thanks for the last word 😀

  12. Eric Kemp Says:

    For anyone wondering, Deirdre is responding to our conversation over at her blog, here (http://deidrepannu.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/same-sex-marriage-2-sides/).

    Deirdre

    Your words make my argument more than anything I could say. You’ve just admitted that you are trying to force your “better” morality upon Christians, so thanks for making my point. The next time you accuse a Christian of being self-righteous, condescending, or Bible thumping, I hope you refer yourself to the comment you just made.

    Eric

  13. Eric Kemp Says:

    Oh, and to clear the record. I checked, and since 2005, a civil union in the state of California gives couples the exact same rights and priviledges as a marriage license.

  14. Deidre Says:

    No, no, no… I just said mine was better, not that I am forcing it on anyone! 🙂
    And you need to go check again, they only grant the same STATE rights. You expect no one ever wants to move? And there are FEDERAL rights still denied.

    http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/nyregion/20union.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=gay&st=nyt&oref=slogin

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar4.htm

    Also, I wont be back again, so you can have the last word over here! 🙂 It is obvious that you think I am wrong and I feel the same way about you. Agree to disagree or agree to think each other are psychos… you’ll know the REAL truth one day.

    D-E-I-D-R-E

  15. Eric Kemp Says:

    Deidre

    Yea, I kept putting an “R” in it didn’t I? Sorry about that.

    That’s why I said, “in California” in my last comment. And since we’re in California…

    And for the record Deidre, I never think I’m going to convince anyone of anything, that’s never my purpose. My purpose is, like my tagline says, to simply defend the Christian worldview and have discussions with others who are attacking it. It’s kinda hard to have a discussion with someone once they start name-calling though (and here I thought you loved debate), and THAT’S why our conversation is over.

    Eric Kemp

  16. cindyinsd Says:

    Hi, Eric

    It’s amazing, the condescension and inanity of this “reporter.” How unprofessional. How frankly silly. What is he thinking? Is this the unbiased reporting of the news? Honestly, he’d be more effective for his cause if he went a bit more incognito. He could slip in the innuendo and the average person, supposing him to be a “typical” unbiased newsman, would swallow it whole.

    BTW, I don’t see homosexuality as THE sin that God hates the most. I don’t know what that would be–there are so many to choose from, but if homosexuality were merely a private union between two people based in their own sad definition of love, it really couldn’t rank up there with more harmful sins like gossip and self-righteousness. Unfortunately, homosexuality is not that benign entity it is presented to be.

    That said, I still don’t think it is the prince of all sins. It is sin, however–on that point the Bible, Old and New Testament, is undeniably clear. So, if you accept the Bible as the Word of God, then you can hardly get away from this fact. It’s ridiculous, the “spiritualization” and “contextualization” people get into just to try and justify this one sin.

    I believe that the homosexuals will get their desires sooner rather than later–it is a pity, for them as well as for society. But then, this decline in morality and the rise of paganism is pretty predictable considering that we are living in the last, really last, days. We can do all we can; we can shine the light and love people as much as they will allow; we can defend the truth, and we must; but we will be seeing more and more of the words of Daniel and John and others coming to pass in the near future.

    God Bless,

    Cindy

  17. ThatsGod? Says:

    “Homosexuality is one of those sins.”
    Just like:
    Wearing clothes made of more than one kind of fabric.
    Eating shrimp.
    Cutting your hair, or shaving.

    Eric Kemp Says:
    Yup, same thing.”

    Just checking to see if it IS as dopey as it sounded.

  18. Eric Kemp Says:

    Troll

    It’s called sarcasm. You actually expect me to take you seriously after you turn tail and run from every call for honest discussion?

    Eric

  19. B Says:

    When a person runs away with their tail between their legs….http://deidrepannu.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/i-need-a-break/

  20. Deidre Says:

    What B… no reply to me?
    Eric… I just saw your comment, give me a second to read (while making dinner and changing diapers and all that fun stuff) and then I’ll give you a reply.

  21. Awesome Says:

    “It’s called sarcasm.”

    Poe’s Law!

  22. Eric Kemp Says:

    Troll

    There is a difference between Poe’s Law, returning your sarcasm in kind and purposeful misunderstanding.

  23. Awesomex2 Says:

    “There is a difference between Poe’s Law, returning your sarcasm in kind and purposeful misunderstanding.”

    Bonus Points!

  24. Mike Says:

    Another atheist simply not content to merrily get on with his inevitable non-existence, which he apparently holds so dearly that he must try to bring us all with him. Thanks for saving our souls, Keith! (I never cared for him when he was doing sports either!)

  25. krissmith777 Says:

    Hey Eric, I see you found my other blog 🙂

    http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/the-myth-of-jesus-an-extended-review-introduction/

    For the record, I’m now doing a review on a film on the “Jesus Myth.” I plan on refuting the myth that Jesus is a Copycat of pagan gods.

    PS the post you comment on is being redone. So soory for not publishing it 😦

    I’ll publish them in future posts if you comment.

  26. Eric Kemp Says:

    Kris

    No worries, I look forward to reading your articles.

    Eric


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: