May 16, 2012

You are here: Home / Freethought / Atheism, Agnosticism, Non-Theism / Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution Because 'It Promotes the Religion of Atheism'

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution Because 'It Promotes the Religion of Atheism'

January 28, 2011 By 63 Comments

evolution of manA high school physics and chemistry teacher has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the The Blue Mountain School District in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for teaching evolution.

[UPDATE:  Read the complaint.]

Tom Ritter claims that he isn't necessarily endorsing creationism or intelligent design, but says evolution is flawed because it promotes atheism … which he says is a religion (see the clever video at the end of this article about the Atheist Religion). And religion, according to Ritter, cannot be taught in the public schools.

In Ritter's words, here's his argument:

Evolution is Unscientific.

"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity." — Richard Dawkins, famous Atheist

Biology studies organisms. It can also explain how organisms got that way, but studying organisms does not require explaining how they got that way, and the theory of evolution is bad science.

Evolutionists cannot demonstrate that three critical points are even possible, let alone that they actually happened:

(1) No one has demonstrated that life can be created from non-life. (Reports of artificial DNA do not alter this fact. Life is still required.)

(2) No one has demonstrated that a new "sexual species" can be created. (Since the definition of species is contested, for these purposes it is defined as an organism that can breed with its own kind and produce fertile offspring, but cannot breed with its ancestors.)

(3) Evolutionists theorize the human brain evolved from lower forms. Over 50 years into the age of computers, machines can crunch numbers far better and faster than humans, recognize and use language and tools, and beat us in chess. Yet science has yet to build even a rudimentary computer that can contemplate its own existence, the hallmark of the human brain. (Contemplating your existence is best understood as imagining what will remain after your death.) And no animal, no matter how "intelligent," can do this either.

Ask anyone who espouses evolution if these three points are not true.

If evolution is unscientific, why teach it? Because no Creator means no God. In other words, evolution taught without a possible alternative is Atheism.

Now Atheism rests on an article of faith (A strong belief that cannot be proven but is nonetheless believed).

Therefore Atheism is a religion.

And it is illegal to teach religion in the public schools.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Religion of Atheism.

Buffer

God Discussion Reporter

Deborah is the owner and administrator of the site, starting it in February 2009. She received her business education at the University of Texas and operates a number of websites and small businesses. She hosts the God Discussion show and handles the site's technical work and editing.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

Auto-Generated Related Posts (Use the Search for Better Results)

Filed Under: Atheism, Agnosticism, Non-Theism, News Tagged With: , , ,
  • http://john-shuey.blogspot.com John E Shuey

    If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby and bald is a hair color. From its Greek roots, Atheism simply means "without gods". The interesting thing is that every Christian on earth is an Atheist when it comes to every god ever invented in the history of Homo sapiens, save one. The folks that Christians refer to as Atheists merely go one god further.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      Excellent analogies! :)

  • RDMaxwell

    **ARGH** Your CAPTCHA ate my comment

  • RDMaxwell

    The principle of Occam's Razor, which many believe to mean that the simplist explanations are true, actually means that science tends toward simple explanations that do not require the creation of new entities.

    Because evolution is the only origin explanation that follows the principle of Occam's Razor, the lawsuit implies that this principle, which underlies a large part of the scientific method, is a part of the Atheist "religion."

    Evolution is a scientific theory. Gravity is a scientific theory. Relativity is a scientific theory.

    Since Atheists believe in science, science must be part of the Atheist "religion," and therefore teaching science is promoting a religious agenda and the religion of science should not be taught at our schools.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      So sorry the CAPTCHA lost your original post, but thank you so much for taking the time to post again, R.D.

      I am going to have to do some digging, but I think that there were some religious opinions somewhere that science is a religion. Hopefully, I'll have some time to find those links soon …

      Part of what they tend to emphasize is the 'THEORY' of evolution as an effort to discredit science, so I am glad that you brought up the points about the 'THEORY' of gravity an the 'THEORY' of relativity.

      Deborah

      • http://vegan.fm Adam

        Agreed, this is just good journalism. The author does not him/herself state that atheism is a religion. In fact, the author does not posit an opinion at all.

        Also, download Google Chrome, it saves your text entries.

    • Klaus Magnus

      ….wut?

  • Hoover

    The level of retardation in this article is amazing.

    There is no connection between evolution and atheism.

    Atheism is the LACK of belief in any god or gods; hence, atheism is not a religion.

    Atheists make not claim as to the existence of any god, so there's no onus on them to provide evidence.

    Please correct your article with this information.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      Oh, please. We are reporting on someone else's ignorance. You'd think most people would understand that after actually reading the article, seeing the quote, and watching the video. In no way, shape, form do we agree with this teacher.

      Deborah

      • http://vegan.fm Adam

        Ack, the above comment was in reply to this one.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com Dakota O'Leary

      Amazing what happens when you actually read the article. We don't agree with this person. We're REPORTING on them.

  • Shobhit Acharya

    Lets ban science too since it is anti-christian and pro the atheist religion. Lets revert back to shunning all technology in schools as it is a direct result of a scientific application.

  • Mriana

    ZOMGItCriss! I like her. She's great and sounds a lot like me when I go on a rant or whatever. She does well in proving a point and this video (which I've seen before) was a great way of doing it. I really do get sick of the statement that atheism is a religion and tie science into it and all. That sort of thinking makes about as much sense as religious ideology and dogma do.

  • Captain Awesome

    I see why he is a failed high school science teacher and not a successful scientist. People that think atheism is a religion are frustratingly ignorant it's like calling an empty plate lunch.

  • mark c martin

    quote: Contemplating your existence is best understood as imagining what will remain after your death.

    really? says who?

    quote: And no animal, no matter how "intelligent," can do this either.

    really? i’m an animal and i can do it quite well

    and why is the ability to contemplate one's existence, and hence non-existence, deemed as beneficial? i conjecture that this ability is actually a flaw, and is the precursor to all religions. if one cannot cognate one's existence, from conception to death, one has identity issues, and those with identity issues will seek identity from sources external to themselves – and 'god/s' fit that bill nicely. because 'god/s' are unprovable in empirical terms, and hard physical evidence, they become the scapegoat/s for the individual’s lack of self cognisance

    the notions of the 'self' attributed to the literary character jesus support this reasoning. by providing a child safe, non-existent, universal, paradoxical 'god' – essentially a literary construct – those with identity issues will be drawn to 'seek god until they fall', and when they do fall – where ‘fall’ = collapse of cognisance – they will naturally and spontaneously cognate their existence, unencumbered by the fabrications and protective mechanisms hitherto employed to hide their non-identity issues. jesus ‘saves’ by no other action than providing a paradoxical void for the ‘lost’ to collapse into and ‘find themselves’ at their nadir

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      "why is the ability to contemplate one's existence, and hence non-existence, deemed as beneficial? i conjecture that this ability is actually a flaw, and is the precursor to all religions"

      I never thought of it as a flaw before, but this is an interesting point. You're absolutely right that this leads to religion.

      Deborah

  • Red Blooded

    That's it! I'm giving up my faith and becoming an atheist. Because there's NOBODY at our church that looks like HER! Smart women are hot. But smart, hot women are worth a complete change of worldview.

  • Owen Atkins

    Good grief. I really do feel sorry for you folks in the USA. Creationists and their ilk are driving you backwards and into a new & wonderful Dark Age in science.
    Hopefully this clown will get eaten up & spat out in court. His false dichotomy of evolution = atheism irks. I'm a believer and really can't see the point of creationism.
    His linking abiogenesis to evolution is also stupid. This man teaches physics? I can only hope that he brings in folks like Gish, Hovind, Ham & Safarti into the court. A few real scientists and real theologians should smear the courtroom floor with their "arguments". Ken Miller & Francis Collins should be a good start.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      Not only that, but we get "imports" like Ken Ham.

      Deborah

      • Owen Atkins

        Yeah Deborah, dreadfully sorry about "the Ham". He is my least favourite Ozzie export. There are a few clowns like him here in Australia. We had one of his ilk come to my church – he was awful. Thing is, he and his organisation would be nobodies if he hadn't set up shop in the USA. Now I suspect he is a very rich man indeed and his organisation thrives on the back of his "work" in the USA.
        Creationism relies on its followers having either a poor education in matters scientific or being so thoroughly rigidly literal in their interpretation of Scripture that cognitive dissonance kicks in and all their thinking is used to "prove" their particular exegesis and not into even challenging the fundamentals of how they believe. Fundamentalists simply aren't fundamental enough!

  • Peter

    Someone better inform the Pope that he is an Atheist. The argument that Evolution == Atheism is flawed when you consider the fact that many Christians accept evolution due to the overwhelming evidence. They may believe that evolution was somehow controlled and guided by God, but they believe that Evolution as a mechanism is true.

    If Atheism were taught in schools perhaps there would be an issue. There are certainly philosophical systems like Humanism and Rationalism which exist and could be taught formally in schools, but are not. Evolution itself does not address the issue of whether there is a God or not. It might weaken the credibility of a creation myth of a certain religious sect, but that's like the murderer blaming the knife.

    Evolution is a fact just like Gravity. We know how life propagates through DNA, we know there are multiple generations, we know that animals die if they are poorly adapted. Once these conditions exist we know that evolution is inevitable. To suggest evolution doesn't occur would require some active process to stop it.

    So this argument fails on at least seven levels.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      So glad you brought this point up, Peter. I have been waiting for someone to do so, because it's a big deal in religious circles. If I remember right, Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention raised a stink about this, saying that religious people who say that the theory of evolution has merit are not 'real' Christians (paraphrasing).

      Deborah

      • Andrew

        That's the very definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

        Not only do we need to teach our youth how to think critically, we also need to teach them about the pitfalls of different types of faulty logic.

    • Mriana

      How would one teach atheism? I don't think there is anyway to teach it in part because there are no texts, doctrines, or creeds for atheism. It would be much easier to teach Taoism or Buddhism, both non-theistic for the most part, then it would be atheism because they do have texts and doctrines. As a matter of fact, this would be a good starting pointing, for Fundies who spew such ignorance, from the Tao Te Ching, saying 56 "He who knows does not say, He who says does not know." Of course, many would not know a thing about this because, like their own book, they've not read it and know nothing about it. Of course, they don't know a damn thing about Evolution.

  • BuzzKill

    Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      Choking on my beer laughing on this!!!!!

    • Bill

      Or like bald is a hair color.

    • Comfortably Numb

      I always liked " Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color."

    • Euprax

      And in the same vein: If atheism is a religion then baldness is a hairstyle.

  • April Evans

    Okay, guys. First thing, Atheism isn't a religion. The woman in the video isn't claiming that it is a religion. In fact, she's saying "Let's make it a religion." Atheism is the belief in no religion, so how can it be one?

    As for his argument that it somehow is a religion because "Now Atheism rests on an article of faith (A strong belief that cannot be proven but is nonetheless believed)." A belief does not make a religion. I mean, if you believe that it will rain today, because the weather man said it will, does that mean that you think the weather man is some god or prophet?

    Students deserve to know the theory of evolution, education is their right. As for it making them "atheist," I don't think it will. Evolution gives them a different view.

    If you banned all the ideas and books of another idea or belief, what does that gain you? People won't know anything else but the belief in god….but is that real belief? No, it's not. Trying to rid the world of anything that you feel takes away from your religion will only hurt people. And if you do take it away, we have a Fahrenheit
    451 situation. Do we want that? Or do we want the ability to be free in our decisions and beliefs? By taking away the knowledge, you take away our freedom, and I don't know about you guys, but I'm not happy with that idea.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      Yes, the video is spoof — she shows how ridiculous a notion it is to say that atheism a religion. I think it's a clever and fun video…one of my favorites on YouTube, actually.

  • Mark

    I wholeheartedly agree that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. We have to keep in mind though, that some religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) aren't contradicted by evolution. Instead, we must say that teaching evolution harms Christianity, which is illegal.
    On that note, we must also abolish anatomy and physiology because they state that virgins can't give birth and men can't come back to life after three days dead. We must abolish physics because it asserts that light has been traveling from the stars for longer than the universe has existed. We must abolish paleontology because it repeatedly comes up with "dinosaurs" and other such nonsense, while failing to come up with any evidence of the Flood.

  • http://nosacredc0w.wordpress.com nosacredcow

    I'm appalled that Tom Ritter claims himself as a pyhsics and chemistry teacher. Evolution has been proven again and again using the scientific method of which Mr Ritter should be aware.

    I guess biology isn't his strong suit.

    Suing and saying that atheism is a religion promoting evolution is just a backdoor way of trying to infiltrate creationism/intelligent design into the school curriculum.

    I wonder if Mr. Ritter has tried applying the Null Hypothesis to "god"?

    And fnally atheism (note the small "a") is not a religion. It simply means without "god" from the Greek "atheos". Trying to get a roomful of atheists to agree on any one thing, let alone trying to assemble a dogmatic text or set of rituals, is like herding cats.

  • Woogie

    Atheism is the result. The conclusion. The end epiphany after thinking critically about religion.
    Evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist. It might help you get there in the first place, but it doesn't make rules about how not to believe in the supernatural.

    The first point is off entirely as well. Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. Evolution only starts after life has started. They are two separate topics.

    The second point is directly falsified by Richard Lenski's experiment with bacteria. There are to many other examples of this. They just don't seem to want to look them up.

    And finally, on point three. Just because we haven't done it yet doesn't mean its either not possible or that we can't. This is somewhat equivalent to the "God of the Gaps" argument.

    This lawsuit will go nowhere and it will go there quickly.

  • http://larianlequella.com LarianLeQuella

    The willful stupidity (and yes, I use the term intentionally) of people why deny evolution just boggles my mind. While not normally someone who wishes ill on people, in this case I sincerely would prefer that every time someone who wishes to deny evolution would go to a church instead of a hospital. I mean, isn't it rather hypocritical to take advantage of all the advances in medicine that we have learned as a direct result of our understanding of evolution?

    And I also try to educate people by maintaining this page: http://factsnotfantasy.com/evolution.php

    And the atheism is a religion argument… more blatant stupidity… I guess not collecting stamps is a hobby and bald is a hair colour…

  • Kivahut

    Perhaps the concept of Without god (and therefore faith) is too difficult for Tom Ritter et al. It will be fascinating to see how the court responds to his petition.

  • http://www.macrofluff.com/ Orang

    This would set a dangerous precedent. As our world changes, the knowledge needed by people in various roles changes — but not under the control of individual people! We don't decide what knowledge becomes important and which does not. To a large extent, our education systems don't teach by choosing which doctrines to they wish to promote (the way religions do). The dynamics and history and technology create demand for fields of knowledge. Legally blocking off entire areas of knowledge just because they contradict one or another ancient superstition creates an increasingly divided and unstable society.

  • http://www.macrofluff.com/ Orang

    If it gets far enough, this lawsuit will easily collapse under the weight of easy-to-find testimony from a few professional biologists who consider themselves Christians and believe in God and the divinity of Jesus, etc. Those same Christian biologists will also easily annihilate you in a debate on the evidence for evolution….. For example, the author of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Prentice-Biology-Student-Kenneth-Miller/dp/013050730X

  • Yarman

    Good post, but the illustration used above does NOT represent Human Evolution. We share a common ancestor with apes– we are not descended from them. Such silly errors make everyone look kind of stupid rather than help the discussion.

  • Yarman

    Oh, and based on his argument, Mr. Ritter is not very intelligent. As they say, anyone in the US can file a lawsuit.

  • Jersey McJones

    The fundamental underpinning of natural evolution is the theory that somehow lifeless mixtures of various chemicals under certain circumstances became life.

    Let's set aside one 800lb Gorilla of a subjective notion…

    What is life? That's a complicated question. Is a virus a "life?"

    Set that aside…

    Incidental evolution is the only theory we have now. For the sake of our current technologies, it works very well. Prayer is all well and fine, but it doesn't perform brain surgery.

    Here, I think is the way of looking at the "important" question… It doesn't really matter if there is a God, or Creator, or not. In the real world, we have to behave in a positive and productive way or we will suffer, and often we will suffer either way, but if we all lived by the Golden Rule, no one would suffer from another. It is the philsophies of modern religions we should regard, not the mythologies.

    In the scientific world, we should simply assume there is no God. It would be stupid to do otherwise, unless proof of God came to the fore. That seems unlikely.

    JMJ

  • physical reality

    Fire his ass.
    He's no scientist.
    Pathetic.

  • Nick Landis

    If Evolution is true… Let's just say that a billion years ago, the water on this earth created single cell organisms. (If this were true) and these evolved into multi-organisms. At what point in time did 5% of those creatures said "My descendants are going to be a Dinosaurs" another said "Mine are going to be Human" another said "Mine will be dogs" another said "Mine will stay in the water and be fish" another said "Mine will Stay small organisms" another said "Mine will go backwards and become single cell organisms". also if survival of the fittest is true the only living thing would be humans. because we are the top of the food chain. It's Insane.

    • Mriana

      The single cell organism never said that. It's not at all insane and technically humans are not really at the top of the food chain. There are animals that actually hunt humans. A good example of Evolution is a virus. It mutates and changes adapting to its environment and threats against it. That is one reason why we have to change and adapt our vaccines, such as the H1N1. Another example is the giraffe. It's ancestors had shorter necks and in order to reach the food their necks had to grow longer.

      This is not an insult to your intellectual ability, but there is a book call The Complete Idiot's Guide to Evolution. It makes it easy to understand. I have a copy as well as the book that is called Why Evolution is True. I would also suggest checking out websites such as http://ncse.com/evolution

      Here is a couple video series that can also help you:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY&playnext=1&list=PL019F146277A3EDFD

      and

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&

      These are a series of videos about Evolution.

      • Nick Landis

        I never said. They actually said that, and none of those videos really explain why there are so many different species? If Apes and and Humans have the same ancestor, at what time did it split and have two different families. Humans are really still the only species that have conscious understanding of our own existence.

      • Mriana

        Humans are really still the only species that have conscious understanding of our own existence.

        First of all, that simply is not true. Bonobos and other apes are capable of doing that.

        Chimps are 98% genetically like us. The difference is on a specific chromosome and this gene coding is what makes us different from other species. Actually, you have similar genes to fish also, but again, it all boils down to how the cards are shuffled as to what species you will be.

        May I present to you PZ Meyers, who I have now met twice at Skepticon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ch1XFqmGeM& Last years speech is on YouTube also and he has a website that helps to explain this. Also, the NCSE site could also be very helpful too you.

    • Kivahut

      Nick, Single cell and simple multi-cell organisms don't "talk" or think. They don't "decide" how their descendants are going to behave, the environment does. Which ever one of their millions of descendants has genetic mutations that convey the most advantageous adaptations for their environment will live long enough to reproduce, and therefore pass those mutations on to their descendants. That's why we no longer look like single cell organisms.

  • Tom

    Science is challenged for attacking religion. The truth is that science has had on kid gloves since the time of Galileo. Show us where to look for "God" and observe is manipulation of the universe. What telescope or microscope to we use? What force could "God" manipulate to influence the entire universe just 7000 years ago. "God" is impossible and we know it. The religious do not understand that you do not need to be religious. Science has nothing to do about religion. Atheism has nothing to do with religion since it is rationale. There are no scientific observations that can be made that support the existence of "God". In addition, you can not justify the belief in "God" based on morality. If morality comes from voices speaking to you in your mind, you are insane.

    • Nick Landis

      The idea of God is a big strange idea that someone so powerful could be out there, and that we wouldn't be able to find them. could only be possible by someone that powerful

      • Mriana

        What? I'm sorry, but that absolutely made no sense.

      • Tom

        I don't know about "big", it actually appears pretty small when you compare all the ideas that contribute to the science of evolution. I do agree with strange, in fact it is actually irrationale. Sorry, I will go with rationale and atheism is that. There is no diety in a-theism consequently it can not be a religion.

    • http://www.UniversalScientist.com Bill McCormick

      Tom every good thing you know about science, things we could both agree on as being quality scientific observations and points. Were discovered by men of God. Their scientific work, again and again praised the omniscience of God, within their work.

      Because the combined lot of excellent scientists on earth could only agree upon a fraction of a fraction of any scientific subject brought to the table for discussion. These men were totally sure that they were not God. Because they were excellent scientists. Not people looking for titles grants and seven figure salaries and awards. These men were doing it for God.

      Today in industry most of what we do is unscientific, by the guidelines originally laid out by science. So when you look down, at those with just religion, you may have to ponder whether or not their faith in God, is more accurate then your science.

      Sincerely,

      William McCormick

      • Mriana

        I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but they totally make no sense when faced with reality.

      • http://www.UniversalScientist.com Bill McCormick

        Mriana, I don't know what country you live in.
        If you go back in history American history, you will see that while Benjamin Franklin was building working lightning rods. Because he realized that lightning and static electricity are of equal voltage, and made of the same particles of electricity. As he flew a kite in a lightning storm and let sparks jump to his and his sons hand from a metal key on the kite string. England's top scientists were still laughing at him. Claiming he was wrong.
        They ended up giving him the highest scientific award England had, years later.
        Benjamin Franklin had a working motorized Turkey spit before the revolutionary war. While all this was still impossible over in England.
        Unless you knew Ben, you thought what most of the retarded world scientists thought. Much like Global warming is believed to be real today by those with no time or knowledge of the reality. Or the changes in sensing equipment that are fooling "top" scientists. So reality is what it is. I am willing to wait for others to see it.

        Sincerely,

        William McCormick

      • Mriana

        First off, I live in the U.S. and secondly, it is not Global Warming, but rather Climate Change. There is a big difference. The earth isn't getting warmer, but rather various climates are changing. To say Global Warming is a completely scientific misunderstanding of the situation that we face. Third, as for Ben Franklin, I would like to see your resources on that information.

      • http://www.UniversalScientist.com Bill McCormick

        Here are a few links. One is from an institution that he started in the United States. The United States Postal Authority.

        http://www.rockwelder.com/History/BenjaminFranklin/Ben/Bensex.html

        Here is a link to older encyclopedias.
        http://www.universalscientist.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22

        The other links are I believe available in England. I know I read some very interesting old works online from a well know English online book museum of sorts.

        I also have the similar hard copies. However in those days colonists were not allowed to have metal, so even type sets were limited in the number of "S"s that they came with.

        Anyone that has ever setup a manual typeset print press knows you never have enough "S"s. So when Benjamin Franklin published his experiments to friends and fellow experimenters. He substituted other letters for the letter "S". It makes it a bit hard to read.

        Sincerely,

        William McCormick

      • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

        Well, William, I bet some Christian dominionist churches would love to jump in and take on that responsibility.

        Deborah

      • http://www.UniversalScientist.com Bill McCormick

        It might not be such a bad idea. The problem is that if you were seriously going to take responsibility for something. You would not just create chaos without an open honest plan to restore more order then you would be removing.
        Good order, something most have never seen comes from within each individual. It is a very cool thing.
        The problem with a Tea Party is that, it thrust great men, that were working on more sane means, into a war or slavery situation.
        If the English had continued to bring more and more soldiers to the continental United States to keep uprisings down. They would have been in total control forever.

        If you remember Ghandi wanted to throw off his English masters and negotiate peace with Japan, after Pearl Harbor. For that he was put in jail by the English, as an Indian Senator, in his own country. That is how bad England is. They had forced India to build England's war machine, with slavery.

        Sincerely,

        William McCormick

  • Kivahut

    Good point. We also wouldn't see the inconsistencies in the background microwave radiation at the edge of the universe. We probably wouldn't have an asteroid belt either.

  • http://www.UniversalScientist.com Bill McCormick

    God is the only law maker in the universe. Mans petty rules crumble in the light of logic. Man's failing science, is due to man leaving the study of God's laws.

    I believe it is a mistake to attack the governments, obvious attacks against truth, with the use of a tainted, and make believe system of "mans laws".

    We would just be drawn down to their sick level.

    Sincerely,

    William McCormick

    • Mriana

      How is it a mistake to attack governments when it is humans who put the men and women in office? Governments are ran by humans, not by some divine being.

      • http://www.UniversalScientist.com Bill McCormick

        Politicians use laws like some citizens use tax loop holes.

        So you cannot beat the law makers at their own insanity, and criminality. If wish to do that, consider, an announced frontal assault on the capital first.

        Most would be surprised how much law makers would like someone responsible to come to Washington DC and take over, in a good and righteous way. They would be relieved.

        Sincerely,

        William McCormick

  • Barry Day

    Your both wrong.

    The truth which can stand on its own
    Gods are an extraterrestrial race of beings.

    Genius of the Few by Barbara Joy O'Brien
    Barbara Joy O'Brien – Co-author of 'Genius of the Few'
    http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/videoBJOB.php
    ————————-

    http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups
    UFO Quotes from Presidents, Astronauts, Senior Military and more. UFO Cover Up? These people say YES.
    ————————-

    People need to get out of species adolescence and become eager and ready for alien society because it's plain to see they( Jesus,Enki,EA plan to keep their promise of return to be our savior from the comming destruction.

    Once you understand Gods are an extraterrestrial race of beings and get past the primitive concept of "God" and understand why the Gods left all those carvings in stone was for those of us who are enlightened enough to read and understand them, as they cannot be altered, unlike the Bible.

    Yet there are those who still swear by the Bible, in any of its myriad versions, as the revealed word of their "God" have to ignore or deny the clear fact that the Old Testament was a skewed and forged theo-political rewrite of a far more ancient document, the Enuma Elish, dating from at least Sumeria, which was not theological at all.

    —————————–
    China, Belgium, Spain, Chile, Uruguay and and now Mexico have officially acknowledged the alien presence
    —————————–
    ENUMA ELISH
    http://www.mindspring.com/~mysticgryphon/enuma.htm
    ——————————

    What else other than a space craft can the "fiery chariot" is,which is described so vividly in the "Book of Ezekiel"were?

    "Third Book of Enoch" that the Lord kept his "Shekinah" at the entrance of the Garden of Eden until the days of Enoch when he abruptly left for his heavenly
    abode,

    The Anunnaki-Sumerian (gods?) are the same as the Greek/Roman and Egyptian, and some also in other cultures… just with different names. ie. Enki/Ea/Ptah, Ningishzidda/Thoth/Quetzalcoatl, Enlil/Yahweh.

    Once you read a bit on the subject you will soon come to realise that the Anunnaki were/are real flesh and blood individuals capable of prolonging their life-span indefinately.

    "The Truth About Enki"
    http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=5247

    THE TURTH ABOUT ENKI by John F. Winston
    http://www.subgenius.com/bigfist/bulldada/X0011_JWHIST.html

    Messages From Enki: Humanity's Father
    http://www.enkispeaks.com/Essays/11Enki&NinmahMakeGirlsTillSheCurses_2.html

    http://www.neilfreer.com/SRINDEXPAGE.html

    WHITE PAPERS
    Sapiens Rising: Beyond The Babel Factor
    Exponential Evolution: A Manual For Futants
    The Alien Question: An Expanded Perspective
    Zen In The Art Of Spiritual Machine Maintenance
    Genetic Exploration: An Expanded Perspective
    ————————
    Those who from heaven came down and made the Garden of Eden at Eridu
    http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/videoBJOB.php

    —————————————————
    Eridu photos from british museum
    http://tinyurl.com/24z44u2

    http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/museum_in_the_world/middle_east_programme/iraq_project/eridu_photos/page_1.aspx

    ————————-
    Everything you Know is Wrong
    Lloyd Pye – Everything You Know Is Wrong 1.6
    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/45266/Lloyd_Pye___Everything_You_Know_is_Wrong_1_6/