Martin Luther King's Dream defered again. At least another 25 years before the courts say they will allow certain folks to be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
People can define things inside their own heads any way they want to. It is only when they pretend to be talking about things outside their heads, in the real world, that they spread intellectual confusion and social chaos. Many a foolish policy is based on trying to make the real world match the picture inside someone's head.
Since all people and all cultures are equal -- inside the heads of the one-uppers -- any disparities in the real world are seen as injustices to be corrected. Therefore, if a high school punishes more black males than Asian females for misconduct, then apparently that school must be racist and should be sued.
Differences in income, mortality rates, unemployment, and innumerable other things are all automatically suspect as evils of society, because different groups cannot possibly be behaving differently, since they are equal inside the heads of the one-uppers. Countries that are poor cannot possibly be less productive, but must have been "exploited" somehow.
And this is the same system that American liberals want to bring to America. I can only speak for myself but I sure doubt many Americans want to wait an average of 4 months to get treatment after first seeing a general practitioner.
It should be noted that the more rural areas of Canada, though lower in population, had much longer waits for treatment than the average population.
Maybe Canadians are a little relieved from their misery knowing that their long waits for Cardiac Health Care is still a shorter wait on average than the National Health Care Systems of Britain and New Zealand.
An interesting quote from Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1993 Transaction Publishers edition, pp.255-6.)
There can be no greater stretch of arbitrary power than is required to seize children from their parents, teach them whatever the authorities decree they shall be taught, and expropriate from the parents the funds to pay for the procedure. If this principle really is not understood, let any parent holding a positive religious faith consider how it would seem to him if his child were taken by force and taught an opposite creed. Would he not recognize tyranny naked?
I read the above and think of those with positive religious faiths being forced to place their children into the public school system to be taught an opposite creed, and to pay for it themselves through taxation.
NOW is the time for the government to issue VOUCHERS to all families of school age children.
Learn how to expose Evolution as a religion and rhetorically/logically disarm those who say it is not.
Those who call Evolution a science and not religion engage in the use of a logical fallacy called the “red herring"
For the benefit of those not familiar with what a “red herring” fallacy is, I will explain very briefly before demonstrating how most evolution backers illogically deny that evolution is a religion.
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Now take a look at this real world example:
1. Topic A (the Theory of Evolution) is under discussion. Talk is of macro-evolution and how there is no proof, with most agreeing the theory has not been proven. Most would agree that pure FAITH would be required to believe that evolution, either godless or with god’s help, is a fact. It is pointed out that a belief system (in this case evolution) held to with ardor and faith is defined in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as a religion.
2. Topic B (Scientific Study or Science) is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
Merely changing the topic of discussion to ‘scientific study method or science’ hardly counts as an argument against FAITH being required to believe that evolution, either godless or with god’s help, is a fact, or as an argument that contradicts the definition of religion as defined by Merriam-Websters Dictionary.
Reference my commentary from 09-20-02 for much more material on the subject of evolution being a religious belief.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The "Establishment of Religion" is not the same as abolishing all religion from government institutions or schools. The way I interpret that is to mean the Government is not to endorse any one religion over another.
Note carefully what the Amendment says here, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Why do liberals want to prohibit people from exercising their First Amendment Rights to pray or meditate at school? Answer: The Godless left wishes to establish their own religion of 'life spontaneously originating from mud, and nothing after death', in supremacy to all other religions. They view prayer as contrary to their religion and wish to denigrate any religion that has the political power to challenge their own power in the public school system. They will not admit this publicly, they dare not. They wish to hide behind the facade that since they lack religious rituals, which is in contrast to other religions, they are not a religion, and thus are free to teach their beliefs (actually religious beliefs) without restraint, disguised as scientific theory. I say to you, 'Religion Lite', or rather what is currently taught in the public schools, is a Religion, no matter how 'less filling' it is.
Only one religion has the political potential to challenge 'Religion Lite' at this time, and that religion is Christianity. That's why Christianity gets the most intolerant visceral reaction from the 'spontaneous life from mud' believers in control of and teaching their religious beliefs in the public school system. Liberals like to 'appear' tolerant of non-Christian religions, only because they have no large base of political power in this country. If the muslims or religious jews had a large political power base anywhere near the size of Christians in this country, and used it to influence moral issues, the superficial liberal tolerance for these religions would quickly disappear.
EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF to those who fervently believe in it as fact...
A good starting point for exploring this statement is from what the BBC has to say.
A definition of religion is difficult. The variety of religions is so great that definitions become convoluted.
Now after being up front with their difficulty in defining religion, the BBC then moves on to deny that humanism is a religion, all the while including a full page discussion of humanism in their online lesson about World Religions.
Does anybody else find something amiss here?
Excuse me BBC, but if as you say humanism is not a religion, don’t you think it would be consistent to not bring up the subject of humanism in your extended lesson about World Religions? Why include it? Why bother to spell out in detail the 'system of belief' for humanists? Please note that the BBC does not say why humanism is not a religion, they just make their statement as a fact to be accepted as too 'obvious' to warrant further examination. More on this later, but first...
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Is evolution not "institutionalized" in the public school system now? Do not those who push evolution demand "scrupulous conformity" with evolution to the exclusion of all other theories? Do they not try to imprint evolution into the "conscientiousness" of today’s kids? Is evolution not a "system of belief held to with ardor and faith"?
From my perspective it is a faith which has become a fervent cause for evolution's believers to fight for, a fight to keep their monopoly of religious belief established in the public school system.
1 : relating to OR manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
2 : of, relating to, OR devoted to religious beliefs or observances.
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS.
Is not evolution the "ultimate reality" for believers in evolution? Is it not their ultimate belief as to how things are now, how they were, and how they will continue to be in the future? Are ardent evolution believers not "devoted" to teaching their belief in evolution as an unquestionable fact? Are they not "fervent" and "zealous" over the issue of evolution to the point that their belief has become a faith?
The only thing scientific about evolution is that it attempts to use scientific observation to validate the theory. Evolution can not scientifically be demonstrated and has not been proven.
Think about the following, and bear with me because this paragraph of analogy makes a crucial point. If somebody walked up to you and told you they believed the first ‘thousand’ humans spontaneously and simultaneously formed from the elements of the earth to give rise to what we now know call modern humans.... and that when we die we come back as salamanders. Would you not think of their 'belief system' as either their religion, or part of their religious beliefs?
Now stay with me here, I’m about to make my point with an analogy. How is the following is not a religion? A person fervently believes that life spontaneously created itself from mud, and over time evolved into what we call mankind. Upon death, nothing happens, no rebirth as a salamander, nothing that’s it. Has this not met all the previous requisites that allowed you to bestow religion status upon the first example I gave you? Both supply a version of how we came to be and what happens when we die. All of the world's religions, no matter how diverse, have at least one commonality, they offer an unproven version of how life originated.
Notice how in the first example I gave you there were no religious ‘ceremonies’ which needed to be described or observed from the "salamander" guy for most reasonable people to accept his described beliefs as 'his' version of a weird religion. Note also there was no mention of a "diety" for his 'system of belief' to be accepted as a religion. Just because people have traditionally thought of religion as involving a "diety" or even multiple gods, does not make such a definition reality in real life. Basically the salamander guy's religion is a stripped down version of religion, yet it is still is a religion no matter how bare bones it gets.
Likewise humanism is a stripped down form of religion, without ceremony, and found most common in combination with the belief in evolution, a belief that explains in such "believers" minds how we came to be and what will happen when we die. Just because many people have traditionally thought of religion as involving a "diety" or even multiple gods, does not make such a definition of religion reality. Indeed, such a definition is poorly thought out and far to narrow to be accurate enough to include all the great variety of religons in the world today.
It is time for people to wake up to what the definition of religion really is. Most folks have an old dictionary lying about the house and most of these are badly out of date. If you don't trust the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as being up to date, I suggest going to your nearest large bookstore and find the biggest thickest dictionary there you get your hands on to look up the definition of religion and religious. Old or small dictionaries cannot be counted upon as being authoritative.
My local trip to the closest Barnes & Noble Bookstore yielded the following definition of religion from the biggest dictionary I could find than was not sealed in plastic, the dictionary being called the "Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Edition, copyright 2001" with over 315,000 entries:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscious: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
9. get religion (informal) - to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
Hmm.... humanism and evolution fit hand in glove with the above definition of religion. Evolution contains a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, while humanism provides a moral code for governing the conduct of human affairs as defined in #1 above.
A person could certainly say that those who believe in evolution make a religion out of fighting all alternative theories (reference #6 above).
Lastly as defined by #9, those who believe in evolution have a deep conviction of the validity of their religious beliefs, though like the BBC, they are confused as to what religion exactly is and deny that their own FAITH is a religion. I say FAITH because it requires faith to believe something that has not been proven a fact, and evolution is indeed unproven, something that can not be scientifically demonstrated no matter how much they repeat the lie that evolution is science.
A definition of religion is difficult. The variety of religions is so great that definitions become convoluted.
Here the liberal and humanist religion pushing BBC has basically admitted that old definitions of religion have become hopelessly OUTDATED in light of today's great variety of religions.
In summation here I would say to you that evolution is religious dogma to those who fervently believe in it, that this religious dogma has not been proven as fact, and has no place in the public school system where it has currently ESTABLISHED itself in direct contradiction to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.