This new campaign features a young man who has since become known as “Pajama Boy” by its critics. What is probably the worst campaign ever devised by the national government, “Pajama Boy” is featured wearing a pajama jumpsuit, much like a toddler wears (I bet it also has footies), and drinking a cup of hot chocolate with the subtle suggestion to discuss their healthcare options with their parents. When I was first made aware of this particular public service announcement, I could not believe the effeminate appearance of this young man. I have been told by others at the community college where I work that this version of “modern masculinity” serves to make the male gender less aggressive, less violent, and less competitive than previous generations of men. In fact, since this advertisement brought my awareness to this, I have discovered that companies such as Gillette and Bic are now marketing men’s body razors designed to soften the skin and soothe razor burn as body hair is shaved off. Yes, male body hair – one of the primary characteristics that has traditionally defined the difference between a prepubescent boy and a fully sexually mature man is now “out of style.”
It has been believed by Progressives and Feminists that the American male is far too violent, far too competitive and those are responsible for much of the nation’s crime. In the past, boys were encouraged to play sports, either organized or neighborhood games, which was an outlet for the aggressiveness and competitiveness that comes natural to young men; now this competitiveness is seen as a negative trait. Since the early 1990s, American mainstream society we have seen an attack on masculinity and the creation of a new identity – the “metro sexual” male. Instead of letting men be men (and boys be boys), our society has striven to domesticate the male, rendering manhood into something that resembles a house-broken Irish Setter.
The march towards a God-less society – long live humanism!
Although the trend did start in the mid to late 1950s, it has accelerated under the Obama administration. Recent decisions by federal courts in Utah, Nevada, and Colorado all point to a disturbing trend – if you believe in God, better leave Him at the church or at home. Within the past two years there have been articles on the Internet where students have been suspended from public school because they were caught reading a Bible in study hall. Students have been suspended or given in-school suspension for praying (publicly) for sick classmates or teachers. I read one article in December where a teacher was placed on probation because she had a Bible in her desk drawer, which was discovered by a substitute teacher who reported her for violating the “separation of church and state” mantra. We have witnessed society making it illegal to pray before a high school football game, for a valedictorian to praise God for their accomplishments, and for students to reflect on their faith during projects and homework assignments. In an era when drugs, violence, teenage pregnancy, and bullying are at an all time high, our nation’s school administrators see it acceptable to consider the practicing Christian as the most serious threat to school security.
Christian business owners are now being forced to provide goods and services to people engaging in a lifestyle that is considered an abomination to their faith. I know that there are those that will claim that it is identical to Southern business owners refusing service to blacks; it is not. Rarely do I discuss religious issues on this site; however, I will do so to demonstrate a point. No where in the Bible does it justify withholding goods or services to someone because of their race. For those of you who will try to claim that God encourages racism because of the prohibitions regarding marrying non-Jews, it is not a racial issue but a religious issue. Moses wife, whom he married while in the Sinai was an Ethiopian woman – she was black. When Miriam, Moses’ sister began to question the validity of the marriage, God responded by giving her leprosy. God defended the marriage of Moses even though it was an interracial marriage. Consider the Song of Solomon, often regarded as the most erotic of the Biblical canon, it too, mentions a woman who was a wife of Solomon who wondered if he found her attractive since she was black. There has never been any Biblical source of condemnation of interracial marriages. There is no defense of gay marriage within either the Old or New Testaments; there cannot be because both Testaments declare homosexuality to be an abomination. And there lies the difference between the religious views of marriage versus the humanist view of marriage.
There is also a militant effort to extinguish any appearances of Christianity from Main Street, U.S.A. Over the last ten years, there has been an increase in lawsuits against municipalities daring to display the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes, and crosses to honor fallen firefighters and police on city property. No longer are school bands or choirs allowed to perform Christ-centered Christmas carols out of fear of violating the ever-shifting principle of “separation of church and state.” A news article I read on the Internet that a municipal worker in Great Britain was told she was no longer permitted to wear a cross on her necklace, lest she offend non-Christians. In Glenn Campbell, Pennsylvania, a teacher’s aide, Brenda Nichol was fired in 2003 from her job because she was wearing a cross on a necklace. The Indiana County (Pennsylvania) School Board justified the firing because the school board had a policy that prohibited all employees of the school district to “wear religious garb” while serving in their official capacity. It is interesting to note that other Internet sites do cite a provision within the contracts of Pennsylvania educators that state that they represent their affiliation with the school board and the state even when not on campus (this was added to contracts in 2009). It doesn’t take much imagination to see how far that provision could be carried in the increasingly anti-Christian environment that is developing.
What is the appeal of humanism? Humanism teaches there is no God or supreme being and that we are all an act of randomness. There is no eternal accountability, no concrete set of moral guiding principles. Humanism teaches the universal good in mankind yet in itself and at the core of its teachings and philosophies, anti-liberty and anti-individual. I wonder what the United States will look like in fifty years if these trends continue.