The Religion of Secular Humanism

“The United States Supreme court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” (Edwards v Aguillard U.S. Supreme Court 1987. Justice Antonin Scalia.)
This quote is used in the blog series Secular Humanism Is A Religion, our book Antidisestablishmentarianism and frequent comments. Since I have covered the basic facts over and over again, Secularists have resorted to attacking the quote.
Most of these attacks demonstrate that the attackers do not understand how the courts work. So I will explain this quote for those who are uninformed.
First Justice Scalia really did write this. This is simply a cut and paste from the opinion Edwards v Aguillard, June 19, 1987. I did not include the references to other court cases Justice Scalia inserted into these two sentences.
Second, this is a dissenting opinion. As soon as Secularists notice this, they jump to the erroneous conclusion that this means the entire statement is meaningless.
The third point is the critical point, the point Secular Humanist either miss or simply do not understand. ” The United States Supreme court has held that secular humanism is a religion.” (emphasis mine) This means that SCOTUS in the past “held that secular humanism is a religion.” Scalia did not make the ruling “secular humanism is a religion” in Edwards v Aguillard, 1987. Justice Scalia is simply pointing out that the ruling “secular humanism is a religion” was already made by SCOTUS.
The first man attempting to have Secular Humanism recognized as religion in the USA was Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was not a founding father and died a French citizen, not a US citizen. He supported the French Revolution.
For over one hundred fifty years, Secular Humanist filed lawsuit after lawsuit to force recognition as a religion. They won that position in a series of cases in the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion Part Six: Secular Humanism Is A Religion

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” Edward v. Aguillard, 1987 SCOTUS Antonin Scalia

It seems impossible to deny that Secular Humanism is a religion, yet millions do just that. Their shallow thinking is “we do not worship a deity, therefore we cannot be a religion.” They have a system of beliefs stronger than most who worship a deity and dedicate their lives to forcing others to follow their belief system. And they strongly believe in self-indulgence. Most, though not all, secularists put self-indulgence on a plane no different from any worship service. For these Secularists, they elevate themselves to the position of a deity.

They use the power of government to both take from unbelievers and to force unbelievers to follow their beliefs. At this point in time, one of the most obvious ways they practice this is mandatory financing of contraceptives. Secularists not only want to practice unrestricted sex outside of marriage, they force unbelievers to pay for the consequences.

Under secularist control, public education becomes public indoctrination. One common example that happens over and over is teachers who dare to read the Bible in private on their own time. Though these teachers often continue these private readings for years, whenever a dedicated Secularist finds out, the teacher is fired. Yet condoms are handed out free as bogus “public health.” Truancy officers, “family” courts and welfare caseworkers constantly assail parents who object and make the tremendous sacrifice of pulling their students out of the public indoctrinations. These same “officers of the court” who file charges against parents who use corporal punishment because it is taught in the Scriptures and it works never seem to have enough time to prosecute parent who kill their children because the parents are drunk or high on drugs.

A flood of regulations make driving to work increasingly expensive while wages are depressed through public spending and business regulations. Amish and other religious businesses are singled out for “resisting the state.” That is the same state controlled by the religion of secularism.

Modern government officials act more and more like the guardians of Plato’s Republic. Secularists cry that Plato was not a Secularist because he worshipped “the goddess,” a vague unnamed (in the Republic) deity that is never worshipped directly. We classify Plato as a secularist because Secular Humanism is a belief system and the Republic describes those beliefs in great detail.

Plato’s guardians were thugs whose sole job was to keep the elite in power and the lower classes in their places. How is that different from secularists today? Every day I hear or read comments like “It’s a good thing you’re not allowed to (spew, corrupt, some expletive) your beliefs anywhere except on facebook.” Yet these same censors turn right around and demand to know “What censorship?”

I am far from perfect. I have many sins which I have yet to overcome. Yet, in my personal opinion, the overriding characteristic of the religion of Secular Humanism is hypocrisy. And these are the same people who call others hypocrites.

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion Part Five: A List of the Beliefs of Secular Humanism

.

1.Secular Humanism is a religion based on feelings and emotion, not reason.

2.Secular Humanism denies anything non-material. Anything spiritual is redefined as “energy.” Various humanists use terms such as “Life Energy,” “Life-Force,” “Interdimensional Energy,” etc. The source of the energy is always material or natural, not supernatural.

3.Secular Humanism denies the existence of a supreme being including Intelligent Design.

4.While acknowledging the existence of evil it denies the concept of original sin. It believes in the perfectibility of man.

5.Though Secular Humanism is open to things not yet discovered, at this time there is no scientific evidence for life after death.

6.Man’s existence on the Earth, like everything else in the universe, is a result of chance and not a plan. The most likely explanation for this chance is evolution, which is based on uniformitarianism.

7.Secular Humanism demands that science include only what is within the scope of “natural law” but does not allow for any explanation for the origin of natural law, and therefore the origins of matter or energy; nor is there any reliable information on a possible end to the universe.

8.Only secular humanist beliefs are reasonable; all other religions raise false hopes, restrict personal fulfillment, or both.

9.The purpose of life is to make you a better person. This is accomplished by service to others and seeking

fulfillment in this life. Though each person might have a different concept of fulfillment, no one has the right to tell another person that what he is doing is wrong, unless it harms someone else. This is especially true with sexual gratification.

10. The accumulated improvements of many individuals will drive the evolution of the human race.

11. The best way for society to survive and thrive is to allow enlightened leaders complete freedom to guide all institutions and organizations that serve all people from the beginning to the end of life.

12. Man exists only as a member of the world community. The world community is responsible to provide for the protection and guidance of the enlightened society from the earliest age. Children must not be separated from the world community. Any persons of majority age who oppose the ideals of the world community must be forced into conformity through employment sanctions or reeducation. Opposition must be suppressed by any necessary means.

13. Improvement of society is the essential duty of the enlightened guardians and includes guidance to prevent nonproductive, undesirable or inferior types.

14. Enlightened leaders guide others to fulfillment in this life. The community chooses the values of these enlightened leaders. The enlightened leaders help to guide the community in developing their values system.

15. Compulsory education indoctrinates the citizen of the world community. It is the catechism of the new society.

16. Personal property is evil. This includes any type of marriage since marriage is a property arrangement. Since Secular Humanists recognize evil, it is the responsibility of the guardians to supervise the distribution of material possessions, including social contracts. Individuals corrupt material possessions by unnecessarily hoarding them.

17. National sovereignty is the cause of war, poverty, overpopulation, and waste or destruction of resources. A unified world government is essential to stable economics and freedom in the areas of communication, travel, arts, sciences and education.

18. Unity means eradication of opposition. Secular Humanists characterize anyone who differs from them on these fundamentals as opponents. Opponents are characterized as being oppressive, divisive, fearful of change, bigoted or guilty of hatred.

While Secular Humanism or Secularism has many beliefs, these are some core beliefs. These Fundamentals are written down in their Authoritative documents such as the Humanist Manifestos I, II and III and A Secular Humanist Declaration by CODESH (Council for Democratic Secular Humanism) co-authored by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, both editors of The Humanist magazine.

Like any religion, no two secularists believe exactly the same thing. Secularism is also divided into denominations. Some are strong atheists, others are agnostic; still others resemble Confucianism or Taoism.

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion Part Four: More Beliefs of Secular Humanism?

While Secular Humanism or Secularism has many beliefs, there are some core beliefs. These Fundamentals are written down in their Authoritative documents such as the Humanist Manifestos I, II and III and A Secular Humanist Declaration by CODESH (Council for Democratic Secular Humanism) co-authored by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, both editors of The Humanist magazine.

Secularists believe that written documents are more reliable, trustworthy and accurate than oral traditions. This secularist belief is less foundational and widespread than the belief in deep time. However, it is still a dangerous error.

There is no question that most “small talk” is just passing on errors or unimportant information. Much oral communication is actually downright dangerous. The problem is with the belief that all oral communication is so filled with errors that it should be rejected out of hand.

Here is one simple example. You buy the latest techno gadget. It comes with several lengthy manuals. The average person will know someone who already owns the gadget and gets a quick verbal course on how to use the new gadget. In this case, the oral communication is more important than the written communication.

The important point: truth and facts are the issue. It is easier to pass on written information to many people than oral communication, but we should judge the information on its own merits, not on how it was communicated.

More discussion on oral versus written tradition is in Chapter Six of Antidisestablishmentarianism, which can be read here:
http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/secular-humanism-americas-establishment-of-religion/

 

 

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion Part Three: What Are the Beliefs of Secular Humanism?

While Secular Humanism or Secularism has many beliefs, there are some core beliefs. These Fundamentals are written down in their Authoritative documents such as the Humanist Manifestos I, II and III and A Secular Humanist Declaration by CODESH (Council for Democratic Secular Humanism) co-authored by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, both editors of The Humanist magazine.

I believe, that is I have examined the evidence and concluded this to be true, that the foundational belief of secularism is a belief in deep time. Both Wikipedia and the USGS (United States Geological Survey)  websites, articles on planet Earth open with statements saying the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old. Since there are no signs anywhere on earth proclaiming any particular age, other methods must be used to determine the age of the earth. The USGS opens with “So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth’s oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth’s primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming (emphasis mine) that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.

The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.” USGS website

Dogmatic statements of fact in such articles are mixed with words like assumed, presumed, considering and nearly.

“The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to decay of the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively.” USGS website

Similar statements can be found on hundreds, perhaps tens of thousands, of websites. However. “Facts are stubborn things;” said John Adams, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”3

All radiometric methods give us a ratio of one element to another; the ratio of C14 to C12, the ratio of uranium to lead, the ratio of potassium to argon, etc. This ratio does not give us a date, an age or any way of determining a date or an age unless the element was a 100% “charged”, composed of nothing but the pure radioactive isotope. The USGS website describes a radioactive isotope as, “the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.” This is a description of the original condition of the samples. It is necessary to make an assumption of that 100% condition for the formula to work.

The original condition of each of these samples, whether earth rock, meteorite or moon rock, is both unknown and unknowable. For the earth to be 4.54 billion years old, two very important assumptions must be true. We must know as an absolute fact the original condition of the sample being tested and we must know that the environmental conditions since the test was made until now did not alter the decay rate of the sample. Our current knowledge of radiometric dating tells us that the only way the decay rate can be altered is through a worldwide thermonuclear bombardment. One possible way this could take place would be an explosion of an outer layer of the sun.

If the original condition of a sample is, according to the USGS website, “the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements”, was not 100%, then that sample would test to be older, perhaps much older than the data would indicate. What if, just to use one radiometric dating method as an example, when the uranium was originally rehomogenized, it was 90% lead?

This article is assuming that the people taking the sample are honest, that the technicians running the test are honest and that the radiometric tables the published dates are based on are accurate. That is, if the assumptions are correct for the date of the earth, then the date of 4.54 billion years is correct.

But what if the assumptions are in error?

“Facts are stubborn things;” said John Adams, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

 

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion Part Two: What Is Secular Humanism?

The quick, simple answer is that it is the religion of self-indulgence with no possible consequences for the way we live in any kind of life after death. Beginning somewhere around the Kennedy administration, Secular Humanists learned that if they lied and claimed that they weren’t a religion, they could get federal funds. They also got political power to force everyone to practice their religion.

“The United States Supreme court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion. (Edwards v Aguillard U.S. Supreme Court 1987. Justice Antonin Scalia.)

Secular Humanists today like to call themselves either atheists or agnostics. These are poor terms because they have changed in meaning so much throughout time. Christians were executed by the Roman Empire for the crime of atheism. Agnostic means to not know. They believe that it is not possible to know God. This is a relatively new concept, just over two hundred years old. It is, in its modern form, a child of the French Revolution.

While Atheism or Agnosticism sound good in theory, complete denial of anything supernatural contradicts the experiences of too many people.

Almost every American colony had some form of establishment of religion. This was because their religion consisted of proven and necessary facts of existence. Religion was reliable, logical and rational to them. The modern established religion of Secular Humanism teaches that it is the only scientifically-based belief system in existence. It claims that all other religions are not scientifically-based, but the opposite is true. The Bible, upon which true religion is based, is a book of Science, and Secular Humanism is a religion of mythology.

“… Scientific history … is that the method that we use is something akin to the scientific method. It is based on at least three characteristics …. The first is to establish that the evidence is reliable. The second is making certain that the analysis being made is logical. And third, the analysis must lead to a generalisation that is based on rational argument.” ¹

Since time began man has only been able to take one of three positions toward a scientific fact. The first is belief, which means to accept the fact as it is and interpret its significance correctly. The second is unbelief, which means to reject a fact or give it the wrong interpretation. The third position is some degree of compromise between the other two, such as accepting a fact but wrongly interpreting its significance. It is also possible to misinterpret the true nature of the fact and misapply it to come to other wrong conclusions.

Belief does not mean mere opinion, as modern culture has degraded the word. The legal term belief means to accept something as true based on the facts available. Facts are true whether or not you choose to believe them. The Scriptures are the basis of scientific facts. This is the standard the founding fathers began with and also the colonials before them. All scientific facts are based on the Scriptures. “Facts are stubborn things;” said John Adams, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

1 Professor Romila Thapar, Frontline magazine Volume 18 – Issue 19, Sep. 15 – 28, 2001 India’s National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU.

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion Part One: What is an Establishment of Religion?

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind. Proverbs 18:2 NASB

When I discuss this topic on Facebook with secularists, it is almost impossible to get them to actually read what I post. They rapid-fire back a response based on the first few lines. Not only is their comment usually factually inaccurate, they are so far off-topic that a reasoned response is impossible.

I published a detailed, documented definition several years back, but it is impossible to get them to read it. Comments they have posted include, “It’s too long,” “It’s too detailed,” “It’s just a cut-and-paste article. What do you believe?” (Ignoring the fact that I am the author.) And I thought this one was the best: “You’re plagiarizing someone else’s work.”

I understand that the documentation in our book Antidisestablishmentarianism makes it lengthy and difficult to read. But I will link to just one readable, though long, chapter.
http://elkjerkyforthesoul.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/secular-humanism-americas-establishment-of-religion/

For the purposes of this blog, I am breaking the topic “America’s Establishment of Religion” down into smaller segments, each part dealing with only one issue. This first segment, “What Is an Establishment of Religion?” is the entire first section, consisting of five chapters, of our book. This blog post is just a brief, undocumented overview.

The term, Establishment of Religion, comes from the first Amendment to the Constitution.

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.

 This comes from a long history of tradition in England and Europe, especially Germany. It is based on the Magna Carta, the treaties of Augsburg and Westphalia. An establishment of religion according to the 1st amendment is the federal government passing laws and collecting taxes for welfare and education, and to a lesser extent for public worship. At the time the US constitution was written, the Church of England not only controlled Oxford and Cambridge, but local parish, schools, and orphanages. The Church of England ran the poorhouses and buried paupers. Though wealthier Englishmen could buy alternate education, the poorest were born into orphanages, fed, clothed, educated and eventually buried by the Church of England. This was forbidden by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

All aspects of education are inherently religious and there is no separation of church and state possible. There is no “Separation principle” in the constitution. The intent was that government would not influence religion, but religion would influence government. The attempt to separate church and state makes secularism in some form the state religion.

The preamble to the constitution makes the federal government responsible for promoting public welfare, not providing public welfare.

Public worship was a part of the Continental Congress, Congress for the first hundred years, part of the public activities of each president, and that of the Supreme Court. A National Cathedral was built with public funds.

AntiScience

Illustration From A TOM CORBETT Space Cadet Adventure THE SPACE PIONEERS By CAREY ROCKWELL, 1953, illustrations by LOUIS GLANZMAN. Project Gutenberg Transcriber”s note: Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that the copyright on this publication was renewed.

“So what evidence would you accept to prove that the Earth is millions of years old?” an atheist asked me on Christmas day. It is not possible to have a reasoned, intelligent discussion with someone whose opinions (beliefs) are not based on evidence and facts. The question changes facts and evidence into a matter of opinion. That is the very foundation of AntiScience. That question ended my participation in that discussion.

The simple statement, “That is a green fence,” is a statement of fact. It may or may not be true. It can be tested and either proven or disproven. Between friends, the statement “That is a green fence” should be enough.

But scientifically, the statement has three parts which need to be defined. 1) What is “that?” Down the street? Are you sitting on it? 2) What is green? Saturation value of 255 while red and blue each have a saturation value of 0? 3) What is a fence? Are you referring to a wall, a pile of stone, a traditional wooden fence?

Seldom, if ever, do we need to be so precise in everyday discussions. Even highly technical scientific discussions are filled with assumptions, such as that the person reading this knows that H is hydrogen and He is helium.

But to replace evidence with opinion is AntiScience. In everyday life we express opinions and that is part of life. “I like that green fence.” “I believe that green is an ugly color.” Both of these are opinions which might start lengthy discussions, but they are not science. Neither are they my opinions. I just used them as examples of opinions.

In the discussion group, I brought up the fact of lunar recession, which is detailed in another blog post as proof for a young Earth. The moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 1.5-2 inches per year (the measurements have been taken repeatedly and there is a very slight disagreement as to the exact amount of recession).

Instead of dealing with evidence, I was attacked and mocked for not believing as they do. Links to articles “debunking” what I “believe” were quickly posted that had nothing to do with my article or my position.

The self-righteous hypocrites who instantly jump to condemn as “ignorant” and “uninformed” anyone who dares to publish evidence and facts which disprove their establishment of religion are AntiScience. Over twenty years ago I saw a St. Louis, MO news piece, carried on both the electronic and print medias. A man was arrested in a park in St. Louis in a drug case. The picture and videos showed a slovenly, haggard man with long, unkempt hair and needle marks. He was a graduate student at Arizona State University. He agreed with the established religion so he could be repeatedly referred to as a “scientist.”

At the same time, well dressed, articulate men with earned PhDs and no criminal records who present evidence against the established religion in this country are vilified by the same media.

Believers in the establishment of religion in this country, Secular Humanism, are intolerant of anyone who presents evidence which contradicts their deeply-held, emotional beliefs.

 

 

Going to the Dogs: Where Are We Headed if We Ignore the Conflict?

If you look up the phrase “Going to the Dogs” at http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings you will find this interesting entry:

Of course, what originally went to the dogs was … anything decayed and worthless that wasn’t fit for humans, particularly food. This usage was well enough established by the late 18th century for it to have become a metaphorical expression. For example, The London Review of Literature, 1775, included a play called Germanicus, A Tragedy:
“Sirrah, they are prostitutes, and are civil to delude and destroy you; they are painted Jezabels, and they who hearken to ‘em, like Jezebel of old will go to the dogs; if you dare to look at ‘em, you will be tainted, and if you speak to ‘em you are undone.”
Interesting that the phrase has a biblical origin. Jezebel literally went to the dogs for her sins, including an Establishment of Religion in the 400 prophets of Baal she fed at King Ahab’s expense in the days of Elijah the prophet. The question is, are we going to end up on the Elijah side of the Establishment of Religion argument, or on the Ahab/Jezebel side?

Was Thomas Paine the Founding Father of Secular Humanism in America?

This is an excerpt from Chapter Five of Antidisestablishmentarianism.

Benjamin Franklin might have remained his friend, yet he said concerning the publication of works like The Age of Reason,

“I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundation of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that … the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium [hate] drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? … Think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue. … I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person. … If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it? I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship.”

Thomas Paine was a bitter, caustic critic of Christianity and organized religion of any kind. He clearly saw the corruption of the Established Religion but he rejected truth and the Scriptures as coming from God himself. He saw the Bible as concocted by the organized church. He denounced many state constitutions for claiming to be tolerant but being tolerant only of Christianity, and attacked the authority of Scriptures repeatedly. Although his ideas have existed for centuries, Thomas Paine was the founding father to whom Secular Humanists look back to justify most of their beliefs and ideas. Secularists today loudly echo Thomas Paine’s views on Christianity.

“No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith.”

“Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us into eternity.”

“What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”

“The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.”

“The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.”

“It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are calculated for mutual support.”
“Priests and conjurors are of the same trade.”

“Jesus Christ, … at once both God and man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing … had eaten an apple.”

“The Church was resolved to have a New Testament, and as, after the lapse of more than three hundred years, no handwriting could be proved or disproved, the Church, which like former impostors had then gotten possession of the State, had everything its own way. It invented creeds… and out of the loads of rubbish that were presented it voted four to be Gospels, and others to be Epistles, as we now find them arranged.”

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”

“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professed to believe in man rather than in God. It is as near to atheism as twilight to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or irreligious eclipse of the light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.”

“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

“Yet this is the trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!”

“The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else.”

“The fable of Christ and his twelve apostles, which is a parody on the Sun and the twelve signs of the Zodiac, copied from the ancient religions of the Eastern world, is the least hurtful part.”

So, Who Is She?

Some time ago I was told the best way to handle people who call themselves Atheists is to simply ask, “so who is she?” He means that Atheists are Atheists because they want to commit fornication with someone. I have learned that that the desire is not always for a woman, it isn’t even always for sex. But it is always a desire for something God condemns as sin. The comeback is always some form of “who are you to condemn (judge, tell Me how to live) Me. You are just a hypocrite.” Evidence has never worked with any atheist I have talked to. Their minds are made up.

All humans are sinners. It is easy to point to our sins. But believers accept the payment of the blood of Jesus Christ for our sins. Because we are blood washed and redeemed, we face the Judgment seat of Christ. This is like a judge in the Olympics. It is rewards or lack of rewards for our activities in this life.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Unbelievers do not accept the fact of judgment. They face the Great White Throne Judgment. They will be judged on two things, what they did with the information God gave them concerning His Son, Jesus Christ and how they lived their lives. As the judgment seat of Christ is rewards or lack of rewards for believers, so the Great White Throne Judgment is degree of punishment for unbelievers.

Revelation 20:11-15  Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Foundational Facts

Our book Antidisestablishmentarianism expands the following points in detail. Antidisestablishmentarianism has thousands of footnotes and over thirty pages of Bibliography references. These brief explanations will help those indoctrinated in the religion of Secular Humanism to begin to understand what America’s founding fathers knew when they wrote the Constitution.

The words belief, trust and faith are legal terms which form the foundation of true science. Belief means examination of the evidence and deciding by an act of the will to choose what is true. Belief is similar to the word credible. Belief can be misplaced. Faith is the active part of belief. Trust is the passive part of belief. Belief is the foundation of true science. The Wright brothers believed men could fly. With that faith they built an airplane in Ohio and shipped it by rail to North Carolina. They trusted in their beliefs by riding in the airborne airplane. This is the foundation of true science and the historic use of the words belief, trust and faith found in the Bible and used by America’s founding fathers. No basic law of physics contradicts anything in the Bible.

Secular Humanism is a leap of faith devoid of scientific facts. Like all religions, no two believers believe exactly the same way. In Chapter Six of Antidisestablishmentarianism we list 18 dogmas of Secular Humanism. Some of the most important points held by the vast majority of Secular Humanists are: Secular Humanism is a religion based on feeling and emotion, not reason. Secular Humanists do not believe in anything non-material. Secular Humanists deny God, angels, sin, Satan and demons. They believe that the goal of mankind is personal fulfillment, (as they define it) and collective evolution. Like everything else, children are the property of the state. Unity means the eradication of opposition. In 1957 Secular Humanists sued and won tax exemption as a religion. Secular Humanism is recognized by the United States Supreme Court as religion, with evolution as a central tenant of that religion. The core of evolution is the concept of “deep time” on earth.

Chapter 14 of Antidisestablishmentarianism is a twenty-seven-point list of scientific facts which scientifically prove that the belief in deep time on earth is a myth. A modified version of Chapter 14 is on the website. These four points sum up the major arguments. First, the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of approximately 1.5 inches per year. The moon’s orbit is unstable. Since an orbiting satellite must increase speed the closer the satellite is to the object it is orbiting, at some point closer to the earth the moon’s orbit would have been stable. A catastrophic event more powerful than all the nuclear weapons on earth was needed to change the moon’s orbit.

Second, near the top of the Himalayan mountain is a “yellow band,” a layer of intact fossilized ammonites, ancient marine creatures similar to a modern nautilus. Because they are mostly intact, they had to be put in place while their surroundings were in a plastic state (mud). Either there was tens of thousands of times more water on earth than there is now, or far more likely, the entire Himalayan mountain chain, including Mount Everest, was catastrophically upthrust. That is, with approximately the same amount of water that the earth has now, the Himalayan mountain chain went from layers under the ocean to its present location in a matter of minutes.

Third, Lake Titicaca is 12,500 feet high on the border of Bolivia and Peru. It is classified as brackish, which means that it has a salt content, though it is not salty enough to be classified as seawater. Only fresh water feeds the lake now. It has living sea horses, which indicate that Lake Titicaca was once connected to the ocean. There is an ancient shoreline which is much higher at one end of the lake than the other. At some point in the past Lake Titicaca was severely slanted compared to the modern lake. There is a large (660 feet long) building underwater with a road leading to it and steps leading down to unexplored depths.

Tiahuanaco is a city twelve miles south and 800 feet higher than the current lake. Tiahuanaco was a port city with a harbor for ships much larger than the current lake ships. They were probably ocean-going vessels. Though corn will not germinate above 11,500 feet, there are terraced cornfields on the shores of Lake Titicaca going up to 17,500 feet. The reasonable, scientific conclusion is that the moon’s orbit, the Himalayan yellow band and Lake Titicaca were all a result of a massive catastrophe which happened since civilized men were building cities.

Fourth, the according to Secular Humanists the only really reliable dating method is radiometric dating. For radiometric dating to be accurate, the earth could never have passed through a thermonuclear event. It is also impossible to know the original condition of the radiometric samples being tested. All the radiometric sample tells us is the ratio of radioactive isotope to stable isotope. The usual published date is nothing more than the oldest possible date of a range of dates. Zircons are the standard Secular Humanists use for establishing a 4 billion plus age for the earth, using the uranium to lead dating method. The exact same zircon sample, however, using the helium diffusion rate gives a date of only 6,000 years ± 2,000 years.

Only Secular Humanists can even conceive of the idea that the phrase “establishment of religion” in the first amendment of the US Constitution is vague and without meaning. The opening to the Magna Carta clearly states “that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely.” The Magna Carta opens with this clear statement that the English Church was to be completely free of the English Crown. For hundreds of years the Magna Carta was signed over and over again by various monarchs, always with same words in the first point. The English Church was the center of worship, the dispenser of alms to the poor with preaching friars and monasteries and the overseer of education with the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Henry VIII decided to change the meaning of the Magna Carta to mean free of foreign control, meaning the Church of Rome. This seizure of doctrinal teaching from the pulpit, almsgiving (remember John Bunyan’s imprisonment) and education by the crown was the sharpest goad to force Englishmen to leave England for the New World. At the same time on the European Continent, the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1648) clearly spelled out what an Establishment of Religion was and what was and what was not allowed. As in England, taxes supported the established churches which were responsible for providing for the poor, education and public preaching. Since the heresy trials of Charles Augustus Briggs in the 1890s, American schools, poorhouses and other types of welfare have only had to claim that they were not religious (secular) to receive tax money and favorable laws. These welfare and educational payments have been given with strict secular humanist strings attached. Through these judicial rulings, federal laws and federal funds, Secular Humanism is now an establishment of religion in every sense America’s founding fathers meant by the phrase “establishment of religion.”

While the first Humanist Manifesto openly used the term “religion” to describe their beliefs, modern Secular Humanists have discovered that lying about their religious beliefs gives them enormous political power. By falsely claiming that they are not a religion, they can appoint bureaucrats, collect taxes, and pass laws against, fine and even imprison those who oppose them. Any other form of religion is their enemy and must be quashed. The second and especially the third installments of the Humanist Manifestos are filled with newspeak straight out of Brave New World.

To a Secular Humanist, Science is “deep time.” The exact amount of time is unimportant. Secular Humanists are dogmatic that “science” allows for evolution. Their religion requires vast amounts of time uninterrupted by global catastrophes to account for evolutionary development. Overwhelming evidence forces them to admit to some catastrophes. These must be shoved far enough back in time to not interfere with evolution. Secular Humanists do not mean the scientific method, unbiased experimentation and observation when they use the word “science.” These are acceptable parts of science only when they are connected with “deep time.”

When Secular Humanists are not in power, they demand unity, “sharing” and that everyone “come together” to achieve goals. When they are in power, they ignore, attack, or overwhelm any opposition and go ahead with their own plans. Anyone who refuses to put their faith and trust in “science, falsely so called” is blocked from employment, fired if they do get a job and blacklisted once they are fired. Common forms of blacklisting include failure to cooperate with others (they cannot be pushed into believing in “science”) and refusal to abide by customary standards (refusal to put their faith and trust in “science”).

Since Secular Humanists believe that children are the property of the state under the brotherhood of man, they actively support the kidnapping of children for indoctrination. Secular Humanists believe in property confiscation to force people to believe. In Communist countries, Secular Humanists put unbelievers in re-education camps and work them to death.

“Free” sex, immorality, self-indulgence, profanity (free expression) and violence against all who disagree with Secular Humanism are not only tolerated, but encouraged. Disagreement is not tolerated.

Tools used to coerce unbelievers are social (isolation, crimes committed against them are ignored), political (laws are passed and regulations written to enforce secular humanism) and economic (loss of job and confiscation of property). Widespread abuse of prescription drugs allows behavior control and masks consequences and responsibility for sin.

(from our website, http://findleyfamilyvideopublications.com)

Two Mommies?

All across the Internet articles are appearing with the titles are “Two Mommies” or “Three Parents.” Of course these emotionally charged titles are not quite telling the whole story. Human testing has been requested on a procedure that is successful in eradicating some genetic diseases in mice, rats and larger animals.

I would normally link to the original story, but these accounts are so full of highly charged Secular Humanist bias that it is difficult to read the account objectively.

When a woman’s egg is fertilized, there is DNA in the nucleus which is a combination of the DNA of the mother and father. DNA outside of the nucleus, known as mitochondrial DNA is only the mother’s DNA. The new baby comes from the DNA in the nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA controls how the cell works. When this Mitochondrial DNA is defective, genetic deficits are transmitted to the child.

A new technique has proved effective in mice, rats and primates in eradicating some genetic defects. It assumes that the Doctor knows which genetic diseases are contained entirely in the Mitochondrial DNA. It also assumes this is a moral procedure.

A fertilized human egg from a woman with diseased mitochondrial DNA has the fertilized nucleus removed. An unfertilized human egg from a woman with nondiseased Mitochondrial DNA has the nucleus removed and discarded. The fertilized human nucleus is then implanted in the nondiseased egg and reimplanted in the original woman with diseased Mitochondrial DNA. A normal healthy child is born. Without this procedure, the child is likely to have a genetic defect, such as Downs Syndrome.

Is it ethical? Is it moral? Is it adultery?

Secular Humanism: America’s Establishment of Religion

“Secular Humanism: Religious Mythology” is lettered on my computer bag. So “What is Secular Humanism?” The quick, simple answer is that it is the religion of self-indulgence with no possible consequences for the way we live in any kind of life after death. Beginning somewhere around the Kennedy administration, Secular Humanists learned that if they lied and claimed that they weren’t a religion, they could get federal funds. They also got political power to force everyone to practice their religion. The following more complete definition is from our book Antidisestablishmentarianism.

6. What Is Secular Humanism?

“The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion.” Edwards v Aguillard, U. S. Supreme Court, 1987. ¹ 

Almost every American colony had some form of establishment of religion. This was because their religion consisted of proven and necessary facts of existence. Religion was reliable, logical and rational to them. The modern established religion of Secular Humanism teaches that it is the only scientifically-based belief system in existence. It claims that all other religions are not scientifically-based, but the opposite is true. The Bible, upon which true religion is based, is a book of Science, and Secular Humanism is a religion of mythology.

“… Scientific history … is that the method that we use is something akin to the scientific method. It is based on at least three characteristics …. The first is to establish that the evidence is reliable. The second is making certain that the analysis being made is logical. And third, the analysis must lead to a generalisation that is based on rational argument.”²

Since time began man has only been able to take one of three positions toward a scientific fact. The first is belief, which means to accept the fact as it is and interpret its significance correctly. The second is unbelief, which means to reject a fact or give it the wrong interpretation. The third position is some degree of compromise between the other two, such as accepting a fact but wrongly interpreting its significance. It is also possible to misinterpret the true nature of the fact and misapply it to come to other wrong conclusions.

Belief does not mean mere opinion, as modern culture has degraded the word. The legal term belief means to accept something as true based on the facts available. Facts are true whether or not you choose to believe them. The Scriptures are the basis of scientific facts. This is the standard the founding fathers began with and also the colonials before them. All scientific facts are based on the Scriptures. “Facts are stubborn things;” said John Adams, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”³

Since the opposite is drilled into everyone through western culture and western education, we need to think the following example through slowly and carefully. The Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt is told in the Bible as a straightforward, factual, historic event. Charlton Heston, in his narration of the picturesque Bible video series, presents the Bible as part of the “oral tradition in storytelling” as if teachings passed on orally were understood to be less accurate or reliable and therefore merely legends and myths. Socrates, in Plato’s Dialogue “Phaedrus,” addresses the subject of oral versus written history.

“Theuth [Thoth] … was the inventor of many arts, … but his great discovery was the use of letters. … Thammus [the god Ammon] was the king of … Egypt; …To him came Theuth … desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of [his inventions]; … when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; … Thamus replied: … you … attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this … will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, … they will trust to the external written characters … This is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, … not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”⁴

Plutarch, in his discourse on the life of Lycurgus and his rule in ancient Greece, expresses the belief that oral tradition is a way of making the law more firmly fixed in the mind.

“None of his laws were put into writing by Lycurgus, indeed, one of the so-called “rhetras” forbids it. For he thought that if the most important and binding principles which conduce to the prosperity and virtue of a city were implanted in the habits and training of its citizens, they would remain unchanged and secure, having a stronger bond than compulsion in the fixed purposes imparted to the young by education, which performs the office of a law-giver for every one of them.”⁵

There is considerable disagreement about whether the Scriptures were in some part orally communicated before being written down. The point is that even if they were it does not make them less authoritative or reliable. Socrates may not be entirely justified in discounting the value of written records but he reinforces the point that oral communication of history does not make it unreliable or inaccurate. Memorizing and passing on history demands great discipline and does not result in a form of the child’s game “gossip.”

Gossip, sometimes called Telephone or other names, consists of a group made to stand in a line. The first person in line is given a piece of paper on which is written a phrase to whisper into the ear of the second person. Frequently there is only one opportunity to whisper the message. The second person whispers what he heard to the third, and so on down the line. The last person is to write down or speak aloud what he heard the person before him say. When the final form of the “gossip” message is made public, frequently it bears little resemblance to the original phrase. The distortion of the oral message in the game gossip is simply due to the indifference of the people playing the game. In fact, one simple change in the rules of the game of gossip produces correct transmission of the message even by children. Simply offer everyone who is playing a large enough reward, or punishment, if the final message is correct.

Modern prisoners of war, inmates in prison, gang members, spies and others today pass on important information without writing it down and without changing the message. Most American Indian tribes had no written language and saw no need for one, until Europeans demonstrated the ability to talk to people far away. In the popular TV series Mission: Impossible, the leader of the team received his orders on a recording that self-destructed after he had heard it one time. He was forced to memorize the mission immediately or he would be unable to complete it.

In the Scriptures, the Exodus is not recorded as a “story” which only “contains” truth. The Exodus is recorded as an historic event like WWII, Benjamin Franklin hearing George Whitfield preach or the invention of the steam engine.

The established religion of secular humanism would single out the invention of the steam engine as the only scientific fact included in these historic events. The word science, however, means something has been correctly observed and accurately recorded under controlled circumstances. For an event or experiment to be a scientific fact it must normally be reproducible. There are exceptions to this, however. The explosion of a supernova is a scientific fact, though no one on earth knows of any way to reproduce that explosion. And even though some of the information recorded about WWII is incorrect information, the historic fact of WWII is also a scientific fact. In fact, WWII is probably the most well recorded fact of history. The abundance of evidence allows modern observers to cross reference records to make a true scientific picture of WWII. Benjamin Franklin’s observations are just as scientific.

“He [Whitefield] … preach’d one evening from the top of the Court-house steps, which are in the middle of Market-street, … I had the curiosity to learn how far he could be heard, … I found his voice distinct till I came near Front-street… Imagining then a semi-circle, … fill’d with auditors, to each of whom I allow’d two square feet, I computed that he might well be heard by more than thirty thousand. This reconcil’d me to the newspaper accounts of his having preach’d to twenty-five thousand people … and to the antient histories of generals haranguing whole armies, of which I had sometimes doubted.”⁶

On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin’s observations of George Whitfield’s preaching were the scientific measurements of a single observer. Though a single observer, even a careful one like Benjamin Franklin, might be more prone to error than a large number of observers, Franklin’s measurements were still scientific. Franklin used a step-by-step process of investigation. He physically walked off the distance to determine the range of Whitfield’s voice. Next he compared his observation with previous witnesses of Whitfield’s audiences and range. Finally he adds similar established historic accounts of commanders addressing troops (adding that he previously doubted their truth).

In the following paragraph the Bible presents step-by step scientific proofs of the accuracy of the historical event of the Exodus. Three hundred years after the event Jephthah confirms its occurrence (Judges 11:26). At the time of the beginning of Solomon’s temple construction the official historical record of the event (I Kings 6:1) confirms that 480 years have passed. If someone falsely claims that the Biblical record of the Exodus is not scientific, that is an issue of his unbelief, not an issue of science.

In the book of Judges, part of Jephthah’s speech to the Ammonites includes an approximate date for the Exodus. …Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? (Judges 11:26, KJV) By the time of Solomon, the date of the Exodus was the foundational date for the kingdom. And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. (I Kings 6:1, KJV) Though the comparison of modern calendars with ancient calendars is very difficult and it is easy to be a few years off, I Kings 6:1 gives a precise date to the Exodus. Anyone who understands that Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in 966 BC of our Gregorian calendar knows that the Exodus took place in 1446 BC according to our Gregorian calendar. If you are interested in understanding these discrepancies, please see the Section Two Appendix on Calendars. Anyone who uses a slightly different date, such as 1444 BC or 1447 BC is not disagreeing about the date of the Exodus. He is simply disagreeing about the proper method of scientifically reconciling ancient calendars to our modern Gregorian calendar. Clearly this documentation of the Exodus is scientific history, actual events recorded and verified by scientific methods.

The believer understands that the Exodus took place in 1446 BC. In this case the word believer does not mean someone who has put his faith and trust in Jesus Christ. It simply means that he has examined the evidence and chosen to accept the facts. For example, Immanuel Velikovsky, author of numerous works on errors in the currently accepted dating methods of mainstream archaeology, believes the Exodus took place at the time recorded in the Bible, even though he rejects everything supernatural.

The unbeliever, however, does not understand that an Exodus ever took place. He simply rejects anything like the Biblical record. In other aspects of his life he may be a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist or almost anything else. He looks at the work of Egyptologists since James Breasted’s Ancient Records of Egypt and concludes that nothing like the Exodus recorded in the Bible ever happened. Mainstream history has no room for anything like the Exodus. A belief in the Exodus will keep doctoral candidates from receiving their doctorates, PhDs from getting a job, prevent professors from achieving tenure and will blacklist tenured professors. A brief look at a few people who have experienced some of this prejudice is documented in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled.⁷

The compromiser examines the Exodus recorded in the Bible and the massive works of mainstream historians and attempts to reconcile them. Though it is possible for as many reconciled dates as there are individuals doing the reconciling, the most common date compromisers arrive at is 1295 BC. The 1295 BC date often makes Rameses II the pharaoh of the Exodus, as in the Stephen Spielberg movie, Prince of Egypt and the 1956 classic Cecil DeMille’s The Ten Commandments. The 1295 BC date is a poor fit and is often ridiculed by mainstream historians who completely reject anything like an Exodus. Though it is the best fit these men can come up with, it is still wrong. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon said:

“A chasm is opening between the men who believe their Bibles and the men who are prepared for an advance upon Scripture. Inspiration and speculation cannot long abide in peace. Compromise there can be none. We cannot hold the inspiration of the Word, and yet reject it; we cannot believe in the atonement and deny it; we cannot hold the doctrine of the fall and yet talk of the evolution of spiritual life from human nature; we cannot recognize the punishment of the impenitent and yet indulge the “larger hope.” One way or the other we must go. Decision is the virtue of the hour.”⁸

Compromisers want to “get along,” to make allowances for other views, to be tolerant. They won’t stand up for the truth because it doesn’t matter enough to them. These are people who believe that “getting along” is more important than honesty. Dorothy Sayer said, “In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”⁹

Though massive tomes have been written on date of the Exodus, that is not the purpose of this work. The Exodus is but one example of the three possible positions of belief, unbelief and compromise. A juror for an automobile accident can be a believer, an unbeliever or a compromiser. A juror who makes a decision based on the evidence of the case alone is a believer. A juror who rejects the evidence and draws conclusions based on some other preconception is an unbeliever. A juror who combines evidence with preconceptions and jumbles it all together into a mess is a compromiser. We are all compromisers on issues where we fail to stand firmly on principle. Compromise is the most destructive thing we can do to our character. Yet as destructive as compromise is, it is an area in each of our lives that we have difficulty seeing clearly.

Throughout history, unbelief has taken many forms. In the Roman Empire the main form of unbelief was polytheism and Christians were viewed as atheists because they believed in only one God. Christianity was dangerous as a “foreign superstition,” and its followers “notoriously depraved,” said Tacitus, first and second century Roman historian.¹⁰Suetonius, a second century Roman historian, called Christianity a “new and mischievous religious belief,”¹¹in his work The Twelve Caesars. In Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations Christians are called a “gang… of ignorant men and credulous women.” He believed they were guilty of lawlessness, or “mere contumacy.”¹² Athenagoras, an Athenian who wrote to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, said that Romans accused Christians of “atheism, Thyestean feasts [cannibalism], [and] Oedipodean intercourse [incest].”¹³

Justin Martyr, a second century Christian apologist, acknowledged the Roman perspective but made the Christian position clear to those who ignorantly or willfully misinterpreted it. “Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort [the Roman pantheon] are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God…”¹⁴ Athenagoras pleaded with Marcus Aurelius to recall that every nation under Roman control was allowed to worship its own gods. Romans believed their vassal states were made better by religious practice, but Athenagoras said that Christians were “harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone.”¹³

The Romans founded this empire-wide persecution of Christians upon the charge of Atheism, since Christians were not pantheists like the Romans. But beneath the mask of the worship of many gods, the Romans held the same beliefs Secular Humanists hold today.

Unbelief can take different forms in different cultures. In Japan it was emperor worship; other cultures have even degenerated into cannibalism. But the predominant form of unbelief in the world today is Secular Humanism. We use the term “Secular Humanist” or “Secular Humanism” because that is what they called themselves. The Humanist Manifesto I is a religious document, written by a Unitarian Minister, Raymond B. Bragg, in 1933. Thirty men who believed themselves to be representative of a vast multitude “forging a new philosophy” signed it. “… there is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV)

The Humanist Manifesto I,II and III can be viewed on the website americanhumanist.org. It cannot be reprinted here because of the following notice on the site:

Copyright renewed 1973 by the American Humanist Association. Permission to reproduce this material, complete and unmodified, in electronic or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the copyright holder to nonprofit humanist and freethought publications. All other uses, and uses by all others, requires that requests for permission be made through the American Humanist Association.¹⁵

These men quickly learned that using the word “religion” actually hampered their cause. If they could deceive people into believing that secular humanism was not a religion and that religion was bad, then they could get state funding (follow the money trail) and political power while putting ungodly restrictions on those who actually dared to call themselves religious. Humanist Manifestos II and III call traditional religions “traditional theism” and describe them as “obstacles to human progress.” Many have also dropped the word “secular” and simply call themselves “humanists.”This is an effective propaganda technique, since they are now denying that they are a religion.

The 1973 Humanist Manifesto II is lengthy and filled with doublespeak. It is exactly what George Orwell in 1984 and Aldous Huxley in Brave New World warned us about. It is important because it was signed by more than one hundred influential people, including doctors, university professors, and others like Isaac Asimov, scientist and writer, B. F. Skinner, Prof. of Psychology, Harvard University, Betty Friedan, Founder of N.O.W, and Sir Julian Huxley, former head, UNESCO, Great Britain. All the manifesto texts can be viewed online. Humanist Manifesto III is the most seductive. True intentions are cleverly obscured and it sounds very good. As commentator Bill O’Reilly points out, the term Secular Humanist is not very accurate. It is, however, the oldest and most accurate of the labels they have chosen for themselves.

It is also the term used in court documents, including the US Supreme Court, so we will continue to use it. “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”¹⁶ Justice Black based his comments on the 1957 case of Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda. In this case an organization of humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property “solely and exclusively for religious worship.” The court ruled that the activities of Fellowship of Humanity entitled it to an exemption. These activities included weekly Sunday meetings. The Fellowship of Humanity case used the word humanism, not secular humanism.¹⁶

Secular Humanism also made a separate manifesto, first published in 1980 as A Secular Humanist Declaration by CODESH (Council for Democratic Secular Humanism) co-authored by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, both editors of The Humanist magazine. Its principle purpose was to declare its compatibility with democracy and how enlightened man should view traditional religions as inferior to secular humanism.

Still, …there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV). Plato praised many of these same follies in his dialogue The Republic. Since Plato is so verbose, few study him in detail today, which is good. Where Aldous Huxley in Brave New World and George Orwell in 1984 viewed the following principles as deplorable, Plato praised them as necessary. His philosopher king would use thugs he called guardians to enforce the will of the legislators on a hapless society divided into classes. Plato’s philosopher/king together with legislators and guardians would determine what the classes would be and who would belong to which class. The class you belonged to would determine every aspect of your life.

But Secular Humanism is older than Plato. It is older than anything written which is still in existence. “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, NIV). Contrary to scientific facts, the modern version of the religion of Secular Humanism believes that a simple, chaotic universe evolved into

a complex, ordered universe. To oversimplify, everything came from nothing. Secular Humanists deny that they are a religion for the express purpose of attacking all other religions, collecting tax money and obtaining political power. They also deny that same political power to anyone who disagrees with them. As no two Christians, Jews, Taoists, etc. believe exactly the same way, so no two Secular Humanists believe the same thing. Despite their differences, Secular Humanists hold many beliefs in common.

People who hold beliefs in common can be labeled by those common beliefs. For example, the Niagara Bible Conference is where the term Fundamentalism first began to be used. The term was also used to describe “The Fundamentals,” a collection of twelve books funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart. These men collected as many addresses of Christian teachers, preachers and other leaders as they could find. They published the books and sent them to these addresses over a period of time ending around 1910. This group of beliefs became known as Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists defined their beliefs so clearly that anyone willing to be called a Fundamentalist told others something about what they believe.¹⁷The term Fundamentalist, however, applies to every aspect of life. A football coach who emphasizes the basics of blocking and tackling as opposed to trick plays or a wide open offence like the West Coast offence is known as a Fundamentalist. An architect who designs simple, inexpensive buildings using the basics of engineering is a Fundamentalist. And a believer in the following list of fundamentals for Secular Humanism makes a person a Fundamentalist in Secular Humanism.

The Fundamentals of Secular Humanism

1.Secular Humanism is a religion based on feelings and emotion, not reason.

2.Secular Humanism denies anything non-material. Anything spiritual is redefined as “energy.” Various humanists use terms such as “Life Energy,” “Life-Force,” “Interdimensional Energy,” etc. The source of the energy is always material or natural, not supernatural.

3.Secular Humanism denies the existence of a supreme being including Intelligent Design.

4.While acknowledging the existence of evil it denies the concept of original sin. It believes in the perfectibility of man.

5.Though Secular Humanism is open to things not yet discovered, at this time there is no scientific evidence for life after death.

6.Man’s existence on the Earth, like everything else in the universe, is a result of chance and not a plan. The most likely explanation for this chance is evolution, which is based on uniformitarianism.

7.Secular Humanism demands that science include only what is within the scope of “natural law” but does not allow for any explanation for the origin of natural law, and therefore the origins of matter or energy; nor is there any reliable information on a possible end to the universe.

8.Only secular humanist beliefs are reasonable; all other religions raise false hopes, restrict personal fulfillment, or both.

9.The purpose of life is to make you a better person. This is accomplished by service to others and seeking

fulfillment in this life. Though each person might have a different concept of fulfillment, no one has the right to tell another person that what he is doing is wrong, unless it harms someone else. This is especially true with sexual gratification.

10. The accumulated improvements of many individuals will drive the evolution of the human race.

11. The best way for society to survive and thrive is to allow enlightened leaders complete freedom to guide all institutions and organizations that serve all people from the beginning to the end of life.

12. Man exists only as a member of the world community. The world community is responsible to provide for the protection and guidance of the enlightened society from the earliest age. Children must not be separated from the world community. Any persons of majority age who oppose the ideals of the world community must be forced into conformity through employment sanctions or reeducation. Opposition must be suppressed by any necessary means.

13. Improvement of society is the essential duty of the enlightened guardians and includes guidance to prevent nonproductive, undesirable or inferior types.

14. Enlightened leaders guide others to fulfillment in this life. The community chooses the values of these enlightened leaders. The enlightened leaders help to guide the community in developing their values system.

15. Compulsory education indoctrinates the citizen of the world community. It is the catechism of the new society.

16. Personal property is evil. This includes any type of marriage since marriage is a property arrangement. Since Secular Humanists recognize evil, it is the responsibility of the guardians to supervise the distribution of material possessions, including social contracts. Individuals corrupt material possessions by unnecessarily hoarding them.

17. National sovereignty is the cause of war, poverty, overpopulation, and waste or destruction of resources. A unified world government is essential to stable economics and freedom in the areas of communication, travel, arts, sciences and education.

18. Unity means eradication of opposition. Secular Humanists characterize anyone who differs from them on these fundamentals as opponents. Opponents are characterized as being oppressive, divisive, fearful of change, bigoted or guilty of hatred.

Some of these items may seem extreme, even to those who claim to be humanists. Some will protest, “I don’t believe that!” As was said before, not all humanists believe all these points exactly in these words. The position of the Secular Humanists has been evolving over millennia, not just centuries, and in the next chapters some surprising adherents will come to light. Prepare to hear from people who lived in times when they could see and touch the gods the state demanded they worship, yet their words produced the echoes secularists proclaim today as “new ideas for new times.” Look for parallels of these “modern” beliefs in the words of ancient writers who were required by law to believe in the gods of Sumeria, Babylonia, Egypt, India, Meso-America, Greece and Rome. They still spoke clearly about how they had already forged their own beliefs with man as his own prophet, priest and object of worship. Moving closer to modern times, hundreds of well-known humanists will make it clear that those who are influencing every aspect of our culture have believed these concepts for centuries and do, in fact, believe them and work for their realization today.

1 Edwards v Aguillard, U. S. Supreme Court, 1987. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurring with Scalia.

2 Professor Romila Thapar, Frontline magazine Volume 18 – Issue 19, Sep. 15 – 28, 2001 India’s National Magazine from the publishers of THE HINDU.

3 John Adams, “Argument in defence of the soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial,” December 1770.

4 From Plato’s Dialogue “Phaedrus,” Translated by Benjamin Jowett, 1871.

5 Plutarch, from his Life of Lycurgus, translated by John Dryden and others, 1683.

6 Franklin, Benjamin. Autobiography. First English version published London, 1793. (The Appendix of the Great Awakening includes the publication history of this work.)

7 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Prod. Logan Craft, Walt Ruloff and John Sullivan. Dir. Nathan Frankowski. Writ. Kevin Miller and Ben Stein. Assoc. Prod. Mark Mathis. Ed. Simon Tondeur. © 2008 Premise Media Corporation, Rampart Films Production.

8 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Our Reply to Sundry Critics and Enquirers,” The Sword and Trowel, Metropolitan Tabernacle, Elephant and Castle, London, Sept. 1887.

9 Dorothy L. Sayers, “The Other Six Deadly Sins,” Creed or Chaos, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York: NY, 1994, p. 81.

10 Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, 109 AD, XIII. 32, Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, 1876.

11 Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars, written c. 117 138 AD, translation J. C. Rolfe, 1913-1914.

12 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, XI.3, 167 AD, translated by George Long, 1862.

13 Athenagoras of Athens, Legatio pro Christianis [translated “Supplication for the Christians”], a letter to Marcus Aurelius written in 177 A.D. Translated by B. P. Pratten in “Athenagoras.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: Michigan, 1954.

14 Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 6, “The Charge of Atheism Refuted,” Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Translators, 1867.

15 Humanist Manifestos I, II, III, http://www.americanhumanist .org/ Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I (II or III).

16 Torcaso v. Watkins,United States Supreme Court, 1961, Justice Hugo Black in a footnote. Justice Black based his comments on the 1957 case of Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda. Where an organization of humanists sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property “solely and exclusively for religious worship.”

17 More detailed information on the Niagara Bible Conference and the Fundamentals can be found in the following sources: Ahlstrom.Sydney F. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972; Beale, David O. In Pursuit of Purity. Bob Jones University Press: Greenville, SC, 1986; Dollar, George W. A History of Fundamentalism in America. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1973.

The Religion of Physics III: Hawking Rewrites History

There are two ways to rewrite history. The common lie is ineffective. The amazingly effective method is far more difficult. Simply eliminate any information which contradicts what you are attempting to promote. Never tell any outright lie, simply be very selective in what you allow your audience to hear.

Secular Humanists always start from the simple and “progress” to the complex. Cave paintings are presented as the simplest, therefore earliest, of man’s art expressions. Then man’s art “evolved” to flat painting, to one-dimensional perspective, to two-dimensional perspective, and finally to realistic painting. This is a means of expressing man’s supposed “evolution” in culture and of course took thousands of years. The Parthenon, the Acropolis, Luxor, Angor Wat, the Great Wall of China and thousands of other ancient works of art, created during the same time periods as cave paintings and flat paintings are either ignored or added at the end as an appendix. In music the same “evolution” is foundational. Simple percussion, simple harps, animal horns, these ancient instruments develop over millennia. The complex orchestras of Babylon, ancient India and China are once again either ignored or added as an appendix.

“Our present ideas about the motion of bodies date back to Galileo and Newton. Before them people believed Aristotle, who said that the natural state of a body was to be at rest and that it moved only if driven by a force or impulse.” These are the opening words of Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2, Space and Time. The writings of Galileo and Newton, their ideas of gravity, inertia and motion laid the foundation for modern Physics. It is not true that nobody before them “bothered to see” if Aristotle was correct by experiment. Herodotus opens his Histories with “Those of the Persians who have knowledge of history declare…” He views the Persians as more knowledgeable than the Greeks but less knowledgeable than the Babylonians or the Egyptians.¹ Francis Bacon declared in 1620 that “printing, gunpowder and the compass” were the greatest inventions of all time. Each of these inventions go back to the early Chinese.²

Printing, cannons, navigation, massive stone structures, 2,000-year-old roads and bridges which are still in use all require advanced use of physics. Where are their records? Alexander the Great burned the massive Persian archives. Julius Caesar, later Eusebius and later still Islamic Arabs burned the majority of the library of Alexandria. Throughout history wars have destroyed much of the information of earlier cultures.

In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking uses the same tactics: destroy or ignore all facts of history which disagree with uniformitarianism/evolution. Even Albert Einstein’s much smaller work, The Evolution of Physics goes back to the mathematics of the Greeks. Many Greeks contributed to the system of geometry known today as Euclidian or two-dimensional geometry, which includes trigonometry. It is foundational to both Newton and Galileo. It is also contrary to Aristotle and Stephen Hawking’s ideas, therefore ignored.

After the book’s conclusion, Stephen Hawking takes the three men he credits with the founding of modern physics, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, and devotes 2 pages to each one. Perhaps these pages were intended to be tributes. The fact that each of these men believed that the universe was designed and created with a moral purpose is ignored. When it is mentioned, it is ridiculed.

Albert Einstein said hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, “God does not play dice with the Universe.” Stephen Hawking said, “All the evidence show that God was actually quite a gambler, and the universe is a great casino, where dice are thrown, and roulette wheels spin on every occasion.” He also said, “Not only does God play dice, but … he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”

Steven Hawking points out that Albert Einstein publicly protested against Germany’s involvement in WWI, became a pacifist, supported Zionism, was offered the Presidency of Israel, which he declined, supported the US in WWII helping to build the first atomic bomb.

“Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy…” Stephen Hawking’s high praise shows the crux, the lynchpin of modern science: principled resistance of the established religion when it stands for error and unwavering devotion to truth. Stephen Hawking then twists this praise to advance his own religion at Galileo’s expense. He falsely claims that “Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.” What about Job? What about the 10,000 Arabic documents on astronomy, their widespread use of the Greek astrolabes? Scholarly Arabs rejected the Ptolemaic system in 1070 AD. What about the Mayans, Egyptians, Babylonians, the Indus Valley, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Incas??

Galileo took the same position as John Calvin, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, the Anabaptists, Augustine of Hippo and all other Reformers. The Holy Spirit guides the conscience of the individual believer to correctly understand both special revelation (the Bible) and general revelation (the material world). “It seems to me that it was well said by Madama Serenissima and insisted on by your reverence, that the Holy Scripture cannot err, and that the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. But I should have in your place added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways, and one error in particular would be most grave and most frequent, if we always stopped short at the literal signification of the words.”³

Galileo did not believe, as Stephen Hawking so boldly lies, “that the Bible was not intended to tell us anything about scientific theories, and that it was usual to assume that, where the Bible conflicted with common sense, it was being allegorical.” Instead, Galileo, like Martin Luther, took the position of Augustine; “I have insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”⁴

Galileo believed that the Established Religion of the day, the Roman Catholic Church was suppressing the truth of the Bible. Savanarola was burned at the stake in 1498 AD for the very same belief. Galileo explained this in detail in his 1610 publication Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Stephen Hawking even admits this. Galileo “wrote about Copernicus’s theory in Italian (not the usual academic Latin) and soon his views became widely supported outside the universities.” At that time, the universities represented the thinking of Aristotle. Stephen Hawking fails to understand that the modern University system took the place of the Roman Catholic Church in suppressing scientific truth.

Stephen Hawking is retired from the position Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, a position once held by Sir Isaac Newton. Yet Stephen Hawking opens his comments on Isaac Newton with: “Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in heated disputes.” Another view might say that Sir Isaac Newton was a very principled man who spent the later part of his life defending himself against baseless personal attacks. Neither statement is entirely true, but when Hawking spends less than two pages on Newton, such a charge is entirely unwarranted. Rather he should have expanded on Sir Isaac Newton’s considerable contributions to physics, such as his works in the field of optics, the prism and the invention of the reflecting telescope, none of which are mentioned with more than an offhand comment in A Brief History of Time. Instead of attacking Isaac Newton’s character, Stephen Hawking should either be complimentary or stick to Newton’s scientific accomplishments. This comes across as an attack because Newton was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Except for the personal attacks on Einstein, Galileo and Newton, A Brief History of Time is an extremely seductive and interesting collection of important facts. It is completely religious, carefully selecting the facts which support Stephen Hawking’s conclusions.

“We find ourselves in a bewildering world.” This is the simple position of those who believe in the “new” or “progressive” physics, represented by Stephen Hawking. Though this thinking is now so dominant they simply refer to their beliefs as physics, this is the opposite of classical or traditional physics represented by Albert Einstein. Einstein believed “One may say the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”⁶

Stephen Hawking uses the label scientific determinist for his belief in this “bewildering world.” “The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” “…Why is it that we and the universe exist? If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God.”

Compare this with the attitude of Galileo. “Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of unknown truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts, not their diminution or destruction.”⁵

All quotes of Stephen Hawking are from the book A Brief History of Time.

¹ The History of Herodotus by Herodotus of Halicarnassus, 440 BC, Translated by George Rawlinson 1858 AD.
² Novum Organum, Liber I, CXXIX 1863 translation
³ Letter to Benedetto Castelli (1613) fro Galileo
⁴ Augustine of Hippo The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 408 AD.
⁵ Essay published in 1615, in response to enquireies of Christina of Tuscany, as quoted in Aspects of Western Civilization: Problems an dSources in History (1988) by Perry McAdow Rogers, p. 53.
⁶ Albert Einstein, article “Physics and Reality” in Journal of the Franklin Institute (March 1936).

 

Right and Left

One of the saddest lessons I learned about modern culture is the fact that many people jump to conclusions without reading more than one or two lines. The facebook post “A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s heart at his left,” Ecclesiastes 10:2, created a firestorm. Solomon wrote this 3000 years ago, but modern parallels seem obvious. It seems that people who think of themselves as modern “progressives” or the Left, do not know the history of these terms and become infuriated when they are used properly.

The most important meaning of left hand and right hand is the final judgment. “And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 25:32-34

The modern use of the “right” and “left” come from the French Revolution. In 1789 AD, the National Assembly in France divided between supporters of King Loius XVI who sat on the President’s right and supporters of the revolution who sat on the President’s left. The local French press called these political positions the right and the left. When the Legislative Assembly replaced the National Assembly with all new members in 1791, the self proclaimed “Innovators” or “Progressives” sat where the left sat in the National Assembly. Next to them, in the middle, sat the self proclaimed “moderates” or “centrists.” The remaining seats were called the “right” though these men represented many different views.

One hundred years later came the rise of Communism. Various groups, such as trade unions, civil rights movements and Utopians allied themselves with Communism and called themselves “the Left.” The phrases “Left” and “Progressive” were the labels these people chose for themselves and promoted in thousands of books, pamphlets and speeches. From Russia to the United States journalists began using these terms. The Left was the name of those who supported Communism in some way. People who partially supported some form of Communism were called “moderates” by the Communists and the Press. Whoever opposed Communism was called “the Right.” The terms left or progressive, center or moderate and “right wing” are neither insults nor precise. They have been used this way for over 200 years

The terms “right wing” or “the right” are Communist terms used by Communists. All that a Communist means by the term “right-wing” is “opposed to communism.” Joseph Stalin called Adolph Hitler “right wing” because Hitler’s Germany attacked Communism. Lenin called the supporters of the British crown “right wing.” In the United States, the term “right wing” means a supporter of the United States Constitution and private property.

Not every “progressive” today is a Communist. Today the terms “left wing” and “right wing” are so common that the meanings are blurred. But all “progressives” are some sect or denomination of Secular Humanism. Secular Humanism is known throughout the world, but in America it is now our Establishment of Religion. The main purpose of America’s government-funded school system exists to indoctrinate into this belief system. We explain the religion of Secular Humanism in more detail in our book Antidisestablishmentarianism. Our blog has both the preface and the introduction as well as links to purchase.

Introduction to Antidisestablishmentarianism

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.¹
John Adams

Sometime in the early twentieth century, Secular Humanist indoctrination convinced almost everyone in the United States that “an establishment of religion” in the first phrase of the first amendment of the United States Constitution is vague and can mean just about anything. “The state of the facts and evidence,” as John Adams so eloquently put it, is the exact opposite.

Section One of this work documents what the founders meant by the phrase “an establishment of religion. ” The Founding Fathers made as clear a statement as the English language permitted. The Constitution of the United States is founded on English law and to a lesser extent, various European laws, especially German and Dutch. In each of these countries, an Establishment of Religion was the collection of taxes to support education, welfare and public worship. The various governments appointed the teachers, welfare workers and pastors and expected these people to support the government in turn.

The original state constitutions not only permitted, but openly encouraged establishments of religion, especially in the areas of welfare and education. The foundation of the US Constitution is the fact that federal government was to have no control whatsoever in these areas. Their concept of a separation of Church and State was the exact opposite of what the courts have rammed down our throats for the past hundred years. The church should have the right to pray and teach without any federal intervention whatsoever. Judges should have the right to post any Scriptures they want. The courts should have no authority whatsoever to comment. Removing a state judge from office for posting the Ten Commandments is not merely an Establishment of Religion. It is the Inquisition.

Section Two documents the foundations of Secular Humanism and how it grew to become America’s Establishment of Religion. The words “Secular Humanism ” come from various groups in the 1950′s. The phrase “Secular Humanist ” is found in court documents to describe this set of beliefs. Secular Humanism is as old as civilization, but the primary foundation of twenty first century Secular Humanism is Plato’s Republic. In America, Secular Humanism can be said to have originated with Thomas Paine. Secular Humanism has specific beliefs which are written down in various manifestos. Like Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Secular Humanism has many variations. Though Secular Humanists do not like the term, the most accurate words to describe these variants are “sects ” or “denominations. ” Like Christians, Muslims and Jews, many Secular Humanist denominations do not get along with one another. Therefore, we have attempted to point out the beliefs which have the greatest agreement.

Section Three defines science, since Secular Humanists claim that science separates them from all other religions. Since true science is founded in the belief, faith and trust of the Bible, all of these words are defined carefully and in detail. In the Bible, belief, faith and trust are legal terms. Believe means to examine the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. Action taken on that belief is faith. Trust is the passive version of faith.

The Scientific Method is the biblical version of belief, faith and trust applied to the material world which God created for us. In the Bible, the Scientific Method recognizes that God is the creator, that we are required to be responsible managers of the material world God has given us and that there is a final judgment after death which will include how well we managed the gifts God allowed us to use.

Our book concludes with Section Four, the results of having Secular Humanism as an Establishment of Religion. With the exception of America’s founding documents and the ancient documents such as Plato, Plutarch and Genesis, hundreds of other quotes could easily be substituted for the quotes that appear here. There is nothing new or unique in this book. It is a combination of what used to be common knowledge in America before Secular Humanism took over and destroyed the education system and current events. If we were to start over today, we would pull different stories from the daily news. Though the individual stories would be different, the points would be the same. “There is nothing new under the sun ” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Or to state the same thing another way, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

America’s Established Religion is Secular Humanism. This work is dedicated to exposing, defining and disestablishing it.

____________________

1 John Adams, “Argument in defence of the [English] soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial,” December 1770.

2 “Alabama’s Judicial Ethics Panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a Federal judge’s order to move a ten commandments monument from the State Supreme Court building. ” Friday, November 14, 2003. Posted 6:56 AM Eastern time. CNN.com

Who Do You Serve?

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:23-25

An oft-stated goal of Secular Humanism is to put every citizen in slavery by debt. They conceal this purpose by such phrases as “loyalty to the federal family.” On facebook some people said they could be both Secular Humanists and good Christians. Either these people are Christians, but ignorant that Secular Humanism is a religion seeking Christianity’s destruction, or they are wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to destroy Christianity from within.

And Elijah came unto all the people and said, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: if Baal, then follow him.” And the people answered him not a word.
1 Kings 18:20-22

“Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’s side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.”
Exodus 32:25-27

We are not advocating killing anyone. But this is a serious matter. Any time we bring up this matter, Christians ignore it or become angry. We are not trying to make enemies, but “friendship with the world” really does make you God’s enemy.

Preface to Antidisestablishmentarianism

The most religious people on earth are those who claim not to have any religion. Dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted, they refuse to allow anyone to so much as speak their opposition. Yet these same people demand political power and tax support. The mildest opposition, such as the mere mention of Intelligent Design (not God), has blacklisted tenured professors. Just two parents in a middle school in Texas made the national news by objecting to Gideon Bibles placed, without comment, on a table outside the school office.¹ Such people dishonestly claim that they are not religious and “religion” is a group of mythologies. The truth is that they are the ones promoting mythology. In every aspect of life they promote this mythology with unproven dogmatic assertions under the guise of “Science” vocabulary. After hijacking the word “Science,” they use the courts to elevate their misuse of the term to an established religion.

Science is the study of the world around us, the use of the experimental method and the improvement of our lives through the application of technology. It is divided into various academic disciplines such as Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Biology. However, what the federal courts, the academic community and the mainstream Western media mean by science is uniformitarianism. It is the cosmological foundation of the religion of Secular Humanism. “Since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (II Peter 3:4). This concise description of Uniformitarianism clearly shows that it is completely and entirely a religious belief in antiscientific myths.

Secular Humanists use words which have been in the English language for hundreds of years but give them “new” meanings. However, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV). The words believe, faith and trust are all historic judicial terms and they also form the foundation of the true scientific method. What Secular Humanists promote as their version of the scientific method consists of preconceptions, presuppositions and assumptions. It is the opposite of an open mind.

A true open mind is founded in belief, faith and trust. The historic meaning of believe is to perceive or understand with the mind and then make an informed decision.² The most basic use of the word believe which the average American would understand is that of a juror in court. Which witness do you believe? Which piece of evidence is believable? A synonym would be the word credible. When we believe something or someone and then act on that belief, that is faith. The active part of belief is faith. The passive part of belief is trust. Suppose your brother says that he will drive you to the doctor. If you believe him, then you understand what he says and you make a decision to get ready. If you get in the vehicle with him, that is faith. You act on your belief. When you sit in the vehicle as he drives, that is trust, a passive reliance on what you have proven true. You trust in his driving skills. You trust in the vehicle. You trust the roads, etc. Everything we do is a combination of belief, faith or trust. By restoring their historic definitions, belief, faith and trust re-emerge as the clear language of true experimental science. These terms were deliberately segregated from science to deceive people into believing Secular Humanism.

Liberals, Secular Humanists and materialists, however, use the word “belief” as a synonym for a philosophical position, just an opinion. Faith and trust to them are metaphysical words which mean different things to different people. And this is just the tip of an enormous iceberg. Secular Humanists have redefined hundreds of words to support their religion, such as sin, judgment and anthropology. A conversation with them can be very difficult since they use historical English words but mean something entirely different.

The traditional role of religion is to place priesthood as intermediary between God and man. The traditional role of an establishment of religion places the government in that intermediary role between God and man. In the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church put itself between man and God, as other religions have in the past. Johann Tetzel, a “professional pardoner,” sold indulgences representing forgiveness for sins in Germany. Indulgences were based on the “storehouse” of good works believed to exist because of the sacrifice of Christ and the good deeds and prayers of past saints. Tetzel was said to promise that, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.”³

Selling indulgences was the final act of many which brought on the Reformation. People wouldn’t have bought them if they hadn’t believed the Catholic Church alone could placate God on their behalf. Martin Luther convinced the princes of Germany that they did not need to send their money to Rome because they could go to God directly. Rome sent armies to collect the money. Even Modern Roman Catholics who do not believe that their church today claims to stand between them and God have to admit that the medieval Roman Catholic Church did.

The combined power of Church and State restricted personal worship, scientific study and access to historical truth. Today Secular Humanism has done the same by removing foundational truths from education. It excludes study and discovery that contradicts uniformitarianism. It rewrites history to undermine morality and freedom of expression.

The union between the medieval Romanist church and the state came to an end in two ways. In Southern Europe during the Renaissance, art, architecture, literature, and learning opened up to all men, not just those who were part of the church and state system. The Renaissance left the power intact, however. In Northern Europe, the Reformation abolished the need for a church like Rome through the great affirmations of the Reformation: The Scriptures are the absolute authority; Justification is by faith alone apart from works; and every believer is his own priest with direct access to God. The Reformation made a special priesthood class unnecessary because men could pray directly to God and read His Word on their own.

The medieval Roman Catholic Church kept the Scriptures almost exclusively in Latin to prevent ordinary people from studying them, forcing people to come to the priest. The priest would not only tell them what the Scriptures said, but he also mingled that with the church’s interpretation. In order for ordinary people who did not know Latin to read the Bible for themselves, the Scriptures had to be translated into the language of the ordinary people. Translation work by Reformers was essential to enable ordinary men to read the Scriptures for themselves, even though it was punishable by death under the Church-State system. The Renaissance and the Reformation worked together in the development of moveable type to make printing and distribution of translations of the Scriptures easier. Renaissance scholars revived interest in studying forgotten manuscripts and making translations into the vernacular. Erasmus’s Greek New Testament provided a basis for more accurate translations of the Scriptures.

The Medieval Romanist Church-State system took away freedom by forcing man to rely on and accept its teachings. The Renaissance and the Reformation restored freedom by returning art, science, and all forms of learning to ordinary people. In particular the people were able to worship God as the Scriptures taught, without Church-State control. Modern western culture, and American culture in particular, was founded on this religious freedom. American culture is more Christian than European cultures, but neither of these cultures can survive if the foundation of religious freedom is destroyed.

It is this Christian foundation of religious freedom which is the real target of Secular Humanists. These Secular Humanists have taken outrageous liberties in their unrelenting quest to replace religious freedom with their established religion of Secular Humanism, which they incorrectly call science or Natural Law. Their major tool is the US court system. Sympathetic US courts have consistently supported Secular Humanism by using every possible opportunity to replace the word religion with the ancient concept of Natural Law. However, since Natural Law has been used so many different ways, the courts had to standardize the term Natural Law. Their version of Natural Law goes back to Plato’s Republic. Though Plato never used the phrase “natural law” in his Republic, translator Benjamin Jowett’s notes state that, “Plato among the Greeks, like Bacon among the moderns, was the first who conceived a method of knowledge…”⁴ Plato’s Republic is at least the foundation of modern Natural Law, if not the detailed finished product. Together with Aristotle, Plato is supposed by secularists to have laid the foundation for learning and development of the Sciences. This is really is essence of Natural Law.

Jowett goes on to say that Plato provided for a means to spread his method of acquiring knowledge. “In the ideal State which is constructed by Socrates, the first care of the rulers is to be education.”⁴ Jowett makes it clear that Socrates meant to impart much more than mere academic knowledge, just as Natural Law means to teach more than mere Science. Socrates promoted “the conception of a higher State, in which ‘no man calls anything his own,’ and in which there is neither ‘marrying nor giving in marriage,’ and ‘kings are philosophers’ and ‘philosophers are kings;’ and there is another and higher education, intellectual as well as moral and religious, of science as well as of art, and not of youth only but of the whole of life.”⁴

Many know that Plato in his Republic based his state on a philosopher/king. Few, however, are aware that he believed in communism and free love and that these two “natural” principles were to be foundational principles of the state. Though the preceding condensation by Benjamin Jowett is an excellent job, as you can read for yourself, the actual words of Socrates, as quoted by Plato, are much longer and more difficult to understand. “None of them will have anything specially his or her own.” “… Their legislator, having selected the men, will now select the women and give them to them [the legislator gives selected women to selected men]… they must live in common houses and meet at common meals … they will be together … And so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each other…” “… Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes … have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one … cities will never have rest from their evils.”⁵

The philosopher/king, according to Socrates, was to lay these foundational ideas through education. Though he did not use the phrase “establishment of religion,” Plato clearly advocated an established religion. It was to be put in place by a philosopher/king through education based on a state where “no man calls anything his own” and where there is neither “marrying nor giving in marriage.” Though this education would begin with children, it would continue throughout a person’s entire life. This is the Natural Law which the US Court system has imposed.

The US needs to disestablish its Establishment of Religion and reestablish religious freedom. In the 1800′s churches which tried to break away from the Church of England were called disestablishmentarians. The people who fought against the disestablishment of those churches within the Church of England in the 1800s were called Antidisestablishmentarians. Today, the mainstream media, liberal politicians, the academic community, the liberal courts and all others who file lawsuits, blacklist, fire, refuse to hire, tax, legislate against, libel, slander and do whatever is necessary to maintain their positions of privilege and power are modern Antidisestablishmentarians.

1 (No author) “Parents Fuming as Texas Schools Let Gideons Provide Bibles to Students,” Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Fox News.com. “A spokeswoman for the school district said that a number of materials are made available to students this way, including newspapers, camp brochures and tutoring pamphlets. College and military recruitment information is available all year long. The Gideon Bibles were made available for just one day. ‘We have to handle this request in the same manner as other requests to distribute non-school literature — in a view-point neutral manner,’ Shana Wortham, director of communications for the district, wrote in an e-mail to FoxNews.com.

2 Alexander Hamilton, in an 1802 letter to James Bayard. “I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would un-hesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.”

3 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 7, “The Reformation,” Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

4 Plato, The Republic (c. 360 B.C.), translated by Benjamin Jowett over a period of 30 years until his death in 1893, completed posthumously by Lewis Campbell. (Introductory material (in double quotes) and paraphrases of Plato’s ideas (in single quotes) were written by Jowett.)

5 Plato, The Republic, Book Five Dialogue excerpts among Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon and Thrasymachus have been placed in parentheses within Jowett’s introductory material.

We Pay for Blogs

If you have a piece you think would fit our “tough, but you need it” guidelines, submit it to us at ffvp57@yahoo.com. Guidelines are as follows:

1. We will consider biblically accurate material which does not contain expressly Christian content. We may also accept material that is accurate historically and scientifically, but that is not expressly Bible teaching. We will not accept material that is in opposition to biblical truth and accuracy or that teaches false doctrine. This determination lies solely with us and is not negotiable.

2. Must be “meat,” not “milk.” We are not looking for “Bible stories,” a simple presentation of the Gospel or a “basics for believers” piece. These are excellent topics for a blog that deals with these subjects. Our focus is on edification leading to maturity.

3. Preference will be given to pieces that expose and oppose Secular Humanism in Science, History, Culture and churches, especially where people may not realize it exists.

4. We will consider movie and book reviews if the writer shows discernment in exposing the real philosophy of the work, not just a shallow list of objectionable elements or “positive themes.” The review must demonstrate biblical standards for marriage, personal relationships, true ethics and morality, good versus evil, and clearly show what is wrong and what is right in the work being reviewed.

5. Length is less important than excellent content, but shorter pieces will likely receive preference over longer ones. Blogs we have posted here vary considerably in length, but strive for the “two page gem,” edited down to the bare essentials of good writing and good content.

6. Accepted works may edited for length and then accepted if the author agrees to the edits. Promising works may be returned for one rewrite if spelling, grammar and/or punctuation do not meet the standards for basic educated English. We will not edit or point out errors for you, but we will look seriously at one good rewrite. If it fails the second time, it will be rejected.

Blog writers whose entries are accepted for publication here will receive a payment of $25 for a one-time, non-exclusive publication on Elk Jerky for the Soul. The author retains all rights to the work. Elk Jerky for the Soul asks only to be allowed to quote from the blog for informational or promotional purposes as long as the blog remains on this site.

<a href=”http://www.hypersmash.com/hostgator/&#8221; id=”TL576″>hostgator promotional code</a>