pst-full-html.html

Mom! Dad! Help me! Am I Gay?

Public school children are in a war zone, and do not know what to do.
Hesitate to rescue them, and they will perish.

A fierce religious war is being waged in public school
classrooms to drive a wedge between God-fearing parents and
their children.

If enemies infiltrate our schools and successfully seduce

our children into atheism and sodomy, they do not have to engage us in a
battle of tanks and canons. Indeed, if our own children accept the ideas of
our enemies, then they become our enemies too! For it is the clash of
irreconcilable ideas that make people enemies. When our children accept
the evil ideas of our enemies the war has already been lost, for do we not go

to war to protect our children from the evil ideas of our enemies?

The most important idea of all is God

. It is upon this idea alone that truth and freedom rest. Yet our

enemies’ idea—that there is no God—is the idea being taught to children in public schools today.
Therefore our fullest attention must be directed to our children’s education until we are absolutely certain
that their minds are being molded by teachers who believe in the same God in which we believe. Without
doubt, the fate of public education will determine the fate of our nation—and of our children.

The enemy is smart.

He knows that he can turn children against their parents and against God by getting

them addicted to vile but physically pleasureable sins such as sodomy. This is why Gay Straight Alliance
(GSA) clubs are being started in public schools all across America. Children have never been in more
danger. The enemy knows also that children grow up to be adults, and adults vote, and he is determined to
shape their minds so that they vote his way, until eventually the enemy wins all the elections and defeats
America without even firing a shot.

Most Americans do not know their enemies.

In fact, most Americans not only willingly submit their

children to their enemies for brainwashing, but also vote to pay their enemies big salaries so that their
enemies can devote themselves without hindrance to the task! Then these parents wonder why their children
grow to despise them.

Who IS the enemy?

What does he believe? Why are his ideas wrong and perilous? Do you know? If not,

both you and your children are in grave danger. That is why you must read this book immediately.

PUBLIC SCHOOL HELL

the Humanist religion established as state church

Published by: Dayspring Publisher LLC

Oklahoma City, OK, USA

http://www.dayspringpublisher.com

All rights reserved. The PDF file of the “non-printable e-book version” of this book may be freely copied and
distributed without written permission from the author, provided it is not altered in any way, and provided it is
distributed free of charge. This means that it must be distributed in its entirety, including this copyright notice,
not in part. This also means that you may not add anything to it, substract anything from it, or change file
permissions without written permission from the author. The non-printable PDF file of this book may be
downloaded free of charge from:

http://www.dayspringpublisher.com

and you are encouraged to post it on your web site.

The printed book and printable e-book formats of this book may not be reproduced in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval
system, without written permission from the author. Printed copies and printable e-book copies can be obtained
from Amazon.com.

Greatly reduced pricing is available for mass distribution of the printed edition before elections. For details see
our publisher’s website:

http://www.dayspringpublisher.com

ISBN, print ed. 0-9779996-8-8
ISBN, PDF ed. 0-9779996-9-6
First Printing 2008

PREFACE

One Humanist preacher boldly stated what they all know: “Every American public school is a
school of Humanism.”

Then he rhetorically asked, “What can the theistic Sunday Schools,

meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem
the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

(Charles Francis Potter in Humanism: a

New Religion). This book gives the answer to that question.

Notice the word “every.” Potter said, “Every American public school is a school of Humanism.”

Can this be so? What about the public schools in the heartland of America? Are they also schools of
Humanism? The sad truth is, Yes, they are. Public schools are founded on a basic atheist idea—an idea so
opposed to the teachings of Christ that public schools have never been, and can never be, truly Christian.
This book will expose that wicked idea for the poverty producing, education destroying lie it is.

Notice also the title of Potter’s book: “Humanism: a New Religion.” On page 3 of his book Potter

wrote, “Humanism is not simply another denomination of Protestant Christianity.…It is a new type of reli-
gion altogether.” Potter spoke the truth. Humanism is the religion that underlies communism. It is
altogether different from theistic religions. Yet it has ministers and religious rituals; and it even enjoys tax
exempt status as a religion recognized by the U.S. government.

Notice also Potter’s question: “What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a

week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic
teaching?” His implied answer is, Nothing! He is totally confident that Humanism will defeat and bury Chris-
tianity. Why is he so confident? Because Humanists are successfully exploiting a common weakness found in
many people, including many Christians. You must be certain that this weakness is not found in you!

Just what is taught in that “five-day program of humanistic teaching” that Potter believes will result

in the eventual triumph of Humanism over Christianity? This book will show you what humanists teach, and
what the end result of that teaching has been and will be.

This book is filled with proof after proof after proof (1) that Humanism is the root problem with

the Public School system of America; (2) that Humanism is the same pagan religion that underlies com-
munism; and (3) that the Humanist religion is established as the state church of the U.S.A. in violation of the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That many parents do not even realize that there is an atheist reli-
gion called Humanism, much less that its doctrines are being taught to their children in public schools,
shows just how deceptively successful Humanists have been. Your children’s religion has already been
chosen for them without you or them knowing it.

However, it is not sufficient to know how evil Humanism is or even to know that it is established as

the state church. Other writers before me have pointed out these things, but to no avail. Public education
has been in crisis since the day of its founding. A constant stream of reforms have been attempted without
success. The proper solution must be given, or else all efforts to correct the problem will be in vain—as
they have been up to now.

All education is inseparable from religion. There is no such thing as non-religious education. Even

secular education is intensely religious. Secular simply means that God is excluded, and that the religion is
therefore deceitful and wicked.

America is presently engaged in a fierce civil war of religious ideas between two camps which are

diametrically opposed to each other and cannot exist together in harmony. One of these camps is eventually
going to overcome the other. It is a war in which no one can take a neutral stand. Atheist Humanists are
presently winning and have great momentum. Act immediately or there is no hope. Our children will be the
spoils of this war.

Read this book now. Many people have already lost their children to humanism. For them it is too

late. Don’t wait until it is also too late for your children.

Louis A. Turk

Oklahoma City

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest thanks to Ben Wattenberg, Charles McCombs, and Lawrence Smith for permission to

quote rather extensively from their writings. Also, thanks to my sons, Samuel, Isaiah, and Caleb for
proofreading the manuscript for this book many times, and for making many suggestions for improvement.
Thanks also to my son, Joshua, for his math expertise in chapter 14. Thanks also to my parents for introduc-
ing me to Christ at an early age, and for teaching me to value the truth.

Table of Contents

Mom! Dad! Am I Gay? ........................................................................................................................................................................................ i
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER 1 WHY THESE KILLING FIELDS? Because Someone Planned It So .................................................................................................... 1

“It’s Not Like That In My Little Town, Is It?” ................................................................................................................................. 2
From Many Murders To Many Mass Murders ............................................................................................................................... 2
Is Your Unmarried Daughter Still a Virgin? .................................................................................................................................. 4
Is Your Child Gay? ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
What Is Done To Solve These Problems? ...................................................................................................................................... 5
It Doesn’t Have To Be This Way ................................................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2 WHO IS RESPONSIBLE? Religious Humanists Planned It and Did It .............................................................................................. 9

Unmasking the Culprits ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
The Spiritual Disease They Spread ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Do These Organizations Actually Exist? ...................................................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 3 WHAT IS HUMANISM? The Pagan Religion Being Taught In Public Schools ................................................................................. 13

Religious Questions Humanism Tries To Answer ........................................................................................................................ 13
The Religious Status of Humanism Matters ................................................................................................................................ 26

CHAPTER 4 IS HUMANISM REALLY A RELIGION? Yes! Humanism Is a Communist-Like Religion .................................................................... 27

Humanists Declare Humanism a Religion .................................................................................................................................. 28
The Supreme Court Declares Humanism a Religion ................................................................................................................... 29
Humanist Manifesto I Declares Humanism a Religion .............................................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 5 IS HUMANISM SCIENTIFIC? No! Humanism Is Science Falsely So Called ...................................................................................... 33

Marvin Zimmerman’s Testimony ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Lucien Maumur’s Testimony ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
The Plain Truth ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER 6 IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION SCIENCE? No! Evolution Is Religious Dogma ............................................................................. 37

The Significance of Evolution ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
The Root Idea of Evolution ........................................................................................................................................................ 37
The Strong Case Against Evolution ............................................................................................................................................. 39
But What About Theistic Evolution? ............................................................................................................................................ 42
The Bitter Fruits of Evolution ..................................................................................................................................................... 45
Important Points Made In This Chapter ..................................................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER 7 WHO MADE GOD? Pondering That Which Existed BEFORE the Beginning ................................................................................... 49

The Significance of the Answer .................................................................................................................................................. 49
Another Vital Question .............................................................................................................................................................. 49
The Simple Answer ................................................................................................................................................................... 49
The Cause of the Amazing Design .............................................................................................................................................. 49
The Trap ................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
The Only Logical Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 50

vii

CHAPTER 8 ARE GOD’S LIGHTS ON? Checking To See If Anyone Is Home ..................................................................................................... 53

The Atheist’s Foundational Argument ......................................................................................................................................... 53
The Idol Named Evolution ......................................................................................................................................................... 54
The Burden of Proof ................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Atheists Have No Proof There Is No God .................................................................................................................................... 55
God’s Lights Are On—He’s Home! ............................................................................................................................................ 55
The Root of Atheism .................................................................................................................................................................. 56
Why Atheists Are Fools .............................................................................................................................................................. 56
How To Know the God That Is ................................................................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 9 HOW IS LIFE WITHOUT GOD? What It Is Like Living With an Atheist ........................................................................................... 61

A Humanist Describes Her Atheist Lifestyle ................................................................................................................................ 61
Her Son Describes Her Atheist Lifestyle ..................................................................................................................................... 61
Atheism Destroys Moral Foundation .......................................................................................................................................... 64
Atheism is Pagan Religion ......................................................................................................................................................... 66
Why an Atheist Turned to God ................................................................................................................................................... 66
The Bitter End of Atheism .......................................................................................................................................................... 67

CHAPTER 10 IS THE BIBLE TRUE? Yes! Hares Do Chew the Cud ..................................................................................................................... 69

The Bible Says Hares Chew the Cud ........................................................................................................................................... 69
Humanists Say Hares Do Not Chew the Cud ................................................................................................................................ 69
What Are the Facts .................................................................................................................................................................... 70
But Do Hares Really “Chew” the Cud? ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................ 71
UPDATE .................................................................................................................................................................................... 73

CHAPTER 11 ARE ALL hUMANISTS Humanists? Not Knowing the Difference Could Be Fatal .............................................................................. 75

Ancient humanists Were Not Like Modern humanists ................................................................................................................. 75
Secular and Religious Humanism the Same .............................................................................................................................. 76
The Difference Between humanists and Humanists .................................................................................................................... 76
humanists contrasted with Humanists ........................................................................................................................................ 77
Humanists contrasted with Communists ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Humanists Contrasted With Patriots ........................................................................................................................................... 79
Humanists Indirectly Advocate the Violent Overthrow of the United States Government ............................................................. 81

CHAPTER 12 Does the ACLU Really Advocate Liberty? Redefining the Word Liberty .......................................................................................... 83

Baldwin’s Religion .................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Baldwin’s Sex Life ..................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Baldwin’s Contempt of Marriage ................................................................................................................................................ 86
Baldwin’s Communism .............................................................................................................................................................. 87
Baldwin’s View of Freedom ....................................................................................................................................................... 88
How the ACLU Helps America’s Enemies .................................................................................................................................... 89
ACLU Lawyers Are Not Loyal To America .................................................................................................................................... 89
Why ACLU Lawyers Win So Many Court Cases ............................................................................................................................. 93
The ACLU’s Radical Pro-Sodomy Agenda .................................................................................................................................... 96

CHAPTER 13 WHO IS THE MOST WICKED WOMAN OF ALL TIME? The Woman Rebel .................................................................................... 101

A Rebel’s Upbringing .............................................................................................................................................................. 101
A Rebel’s Marriage .................................................................................................................................................................. 101
A Rebel’s Newspaper ............................................................................................................................................................... 103

viii

A Rebel’s Exile In Sex .............................................................................................................................................................. 108
A Rebel’s Triumphant Return .................................................................................................................................................. 109
A Rebel’s Occultism ................................................................................................................................................................ 110
A Rebel’s Trial ........................................................................................................................................................................ 110
A Rebel’s Judicial Victory ........................................................................................................................................................ 111
A Rebel’s Anti-USA Activities .................................................................................................................................................... 112
A Rebel’s Friends .................................................................................................................................................................... 112
A Rebel’s Humanism ............................................................................................................................................................... 114
A Rebel’s Murder Machine ...................................................................................................................................................... 115
A Rebel’s Pathetic End ............................................................................................................................................................. 116
The Humanist Neo-Malthusian Agenda ..................................................................................................................................... 120
Proofs There Is No Population Explosion ................................................................................................................................. 121
The Bitter Fruits of Birth Control ............................................................................................................................................. 124
Some Very Personal Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 126
UPDATE: The Threat of Radical Islam ...................................................................................................................................... 127

CHAPTER 14 ARE ETHICS AUTONOMOUS AND SITUATIONAL? Determining Right From Wrong ..................................................................... 129

CHAPTER 15 DO HUMANISTS EVER TELL THE TRUTH? Seldom, Usually They Lie .......................................................................................... 135

The Cooney Example ............................................................................................................................................................... 135
Important Facts About Lies and Liars ....................................................................................................................................... 136

CHAPTER 16 DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? No, But Humanists Think So ............................................................................................ 139

“Cheating and Succeeding” ..................................................................................................................................................... 139
“Let Us Do Evil That Good May Come” ..................................................................................................................................... 140
“Situation Ethics” .................................................................................................................................................................... 140
“The End Sought” ................................................................................................................................................................... 141

CHAPTER 17 WHAT’S WRONG WITH SOCIALISM? Socialism Replaces God With Government ........................................................................ 143

Socialism Defined ................................................................................................................................................................... 143
Government’s Only Legitimate Purposes .................................................................................................................................. 143
Free Enterprise Versus Socialism ............................................................................................................................................. 144
Socialism Stifles Initiative ........................................................................................................................................................ 145
Socialism Is a Humanist Religious Doctrine ............................................................................................................................. 145
Socialism Never Works ............................................................................................................................................................ 146
Socialism Is Not a Christian Practice ........................................................................................................................................ 146
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................. 150

CHAPTER 18 WHAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME OF OBE? An Unpleasant Surprise ............................................................................................. 153

The Teacher of Our Children’s Teachers .................................................................................................................................. 153
The Union of Our Children’s Teachers ..................................................................................................................................... 155
The Lawyers of Our Children’s Teachers .................................................................................................................................. 157

CHAPTER 19 IS SECULAR EDUCATION POSSIBLE? No! All Education Is Religious .......................................................................................... 159

CHAPTER 20 IS SPANKING CHILD ABUSE? Humanist Forms of Discipline Are Child Abuse ............................................................................. 161

Discipline Is Vital To Learning ................................................................................................................................................. 161
Humanist Discipline Is Stupid ................................................................................................................................................. 161
Humanist Discipline Is Child Abuse ......................................................................................................................................... 164
Hooking Children on Drugs Is Child Abuse .............................................................................................................................. 165
Spanking Works ...................................................................................................................................................................... 168

Spanking Is a Religious Method of Discipline .......................................................................................................................... 168
Non-Spanking Discipline Is Also Religious ............................................................................................................................... 168
One More Major Problem ....................................................................................................................................................... 168

CHAPTER 21 WHAT IS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? The Answer Is the Key To Victory! .................................................................. 169

The First Amendment .............................................................................................................................................................. 169
Public Schools Violate the First Amendment ............................................................................................................................ 170
Phony Separation of Church and State ..................................................................................................................................... 171
Is Separation of Church and State a Myth? ................................................................................................................................ 171
Are Prayer and Bible Reading Main Issues? .............................................................................................................................. 173
History of Separation of church and State ................................................................................................................................ 174
Separation of God and State .................................................................................................................................................... 194
Jesus on Separation of Church and State .................................................................................................................................. 198
Applying Separation of Church and State .................................................................................................................................. 199
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................. 199

CHAPTER 22 IS YOUR MINISTER A HUMANIST? Wolves In Sheeps Clothing ................................................................................................... 201

The Bible Definition of God ..................................................................................................................................................... 201
Redefining God Away .............................................................................................................................................................. 203
Why Atheists Say They Believe In God ...................................................................................................................................... 204
Important Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................ 204
The Ultimate Deceivers ........................................................................................................................................................... 205
The Bible Warning .................................................................................................................................................................. 205

CHAPTER 23 IS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HUMANIST? Yes, It Is the Anti-God Party ......................................................................................... 209

The Bill Clinton Administration ............................................................................................................................................... 209
Democrat Immorality .............................................................................................................................................................. 211
Remember Sodom and Gomorrah ........................................................................................................................................... 211

CHAPTER 24 DOES SLANDER MATTER? Yes, It Assassinates Free Speech ...................................................................................................... 213

The Fairness Doctrine ............................................................................................................................................................. 214
Old-Style, Relentless, Vicious, Low-Tech Slander ..................................................................................................................... 216
New-Style, Relentless, Vicious, High-Tech Slander ................................................................................................................... 218
Hate Crimes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 227

CHAPTER 25 IS YOUR CHILD GAY? Be Aware That He or She Is Being Seduced ............................................................................................. 231

Sodom, California ................................................................................................................................................................... 231
Gomorrah, U.S.A. .................................................................................................................................................................... 240
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 241

CHAPTER 26 WHAT CAN WE DO? A Plan of Action ........................................................................................................................................ 255

What Churches Must Do .......................................................................................................................................................... 255
What Individuals Must Do ....................................................................................................................................................... 261

CHAPTER 27 Works

Cited ............................................................................................................................................................................ 269

CHAPTER 28 Index

...................................................................................................................................................................................... 273

Chapter 1

WHY THESE KILLING FIELDS?

Because Someone Planned It So

Are we sending our children to public school hell? Why is mention of God forbidden in public schools

today? Why are our children failing to learn reading, writing and arithmetic? Why the mass-murder shooting
sprees, the unbridled sex, and the drugs? Why are our children coming home so disrespectful and irre-
verent? Why is prayer no longer allowed in the classrooms or at school events? And why is the Bible
banned? Who caused this horrible situation in the public school system? There is, indeed, something
demonic—right out of the pits of Hell—going on in public schools.

For many children the terror in the halls of their public school is far more real and life-threatening than

the Al-Qaeda. And this terror is not new. On the cover of the March 9, 1992 issue of Newsweek magazine
was the following headline: “Kids and Guns: a Report From America’s Classroom Killing Grounds.” Right
after home, school should be a child’s first place of safety. Yet, on page 22 of this magazine, Carol A. Beck,
principal of Thomas Jefferson High School in Brooklyn, New York is reported as saying, “Our last place of
safety is the school. Next to Mother’s arms, that should be the safest place.” Page 24 of this same magazine
reports that “Beck took a survey and found that half her students had puncture wounds of some kind.” In
other words, one out of every two students had been stabbed at some time or another! “These children are
at war,” Beck says “They worry that in the blink of an eye they could be killed—this is a reality—and they
think they have to protect themselves.” [Shouldn’t school personnel be protecting the children? Why school
children think they have to protect themselves will be discussed in a later chapter of this book.] Newsweek
gives the Ronald D. Stephens National School Safety Center as the source for the following information which
Newsweek called “Life on the Front Line”: “An Illinois study showed that one in 12 public high-school stu-
dents reported being the victim of a physical attack in school or on the way to school. One in 12 also said
he’d stayed home from school one or more days out of fear.”1

More recently the National Examiner reported that “A whopping 6,250 teachers are physically

threatened, and 260 are brutally attacked in America—EVERY DAY!”2 In a side bar to this article, titled
“Shocking Lesson In Shame & Terror” (page 7), the National Examiner said:

WARNING: Attending school in America can be dangerous to your health.

In fact, it may be deadly.

The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta says violence is a major threat to our nation’s public health and safety.

“It’s become an epidemic,” says James Mercy of the CDC. “We were stunned when we saw the numbers.”

Here, from the CDC and other agencies, are some of the risks kids face in school every day:

—More than three million violent incidents occurred last year in the nation’s schools.

—Almost 100,000 kids a day show up with handguns, rifles, sawed-off shotguns, knives, razors and clubs. Many carry these weapons for their
own protection. One of five routinely carry weapons.

—Nearly 160,000 youngsters skip school daily out of fear they’ll be gunned down or caught in the crossfire.

—Forty kids a day are either killed or wounded by gunfire at school.

—Twenty-four percent of suburban and 23 percent of urban students say there are gangs in their schools.

———————————

“Kids and Guns: A Report from America’s Classroom Killing Grounds,” Newsweek, March 1992, 29.

“The Blackboard Jungle—America’s Schoolyards Are Tragic Killing Fields Where no Child is Safe,” National Examiner, 1993, 9 November 1993, 7.

—A mind-boggling 52 percent of students know someone their age who has tried to commit suicide—20 percent know someone who suc-
ceeded.3

“It’s Not Like That In My Little Town, Is It?”

Many people think that these problems are confined to the big cities. Not so.

Says Bill Martin, a spokesman for the National Education Association: “It’s not an issue [that is] centered on the large cities anymore.” Texas
A&M’s Kingery, whose research shows an alarming rise in the number of children who carry guns in rural Texas schools agrees. “It’s a myth that
rural schools are safe havens from the problem,” Kingery says, “All the people who are taking their kids out of urban schools and moving to rural
areas are living on false hope.”4

“The threat of violent crime is very real to millions of American schoolchildren. A national survey conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics last year [1991] showed, for instance, that more than 400,000 students between the ages of 12 and 19 say they have been the victims
of violent crime, and that younger children are more likely to report victimization than older teens.”5

Public schools all across America have become armed camps filled with terror. The following statistics are
from a flyer titled “The Guns Have Got to Go!” published by the Oklahoma City Public Schools:

According to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control Survey, 135,000 guns are carried into schools across this country each day.

According to the same survey, 1 in 5 high-school aged youth has carried some type of weapon in the last month, and 1 in 3 boys has carried
some type of weapon to school in the last month.

The survey shows that 2.5 million U.S. teenagers carry guns and other weapons.6

It is difficult for schools to find time to teach reading, writing and arithmetic when they must teach such

courses as “How to Survive a Drive-By Shooting.”

Cities like Oakland and Los Angeles, and even small towns such as Cokeville, Wyo., have started DBS (drive-by shooting) drills and “drop drills,”
teaching kids how to hit the floor when gunfire breaks out. It’s a sad day when DBS replaces the ABCs, but for many kids, the No. 1 lesson is
staying alive.7

And it will keep getting worse and worse as long as we allow the very people that caused the problems to fix
them using the same methods that caused them.

From Many Murders To Many Mass Murders

“In 1996, nearly 93,000 juveniles were charged with violent crimes—a number 60 percent higher than

a decade ago. In 1996 alone, more than 2,000 juveniles were charged with murder.”

Rapidly gaining in popularity have been mass-murder shooting sprees. On October 1, 1997, a seventeen

year old Pearl, Mississippi public school student walked into his own mother's bedroom, and stabbed her to
death with a butcher knife. Then he took a gun to Pearl High School and killed two of his classmates and
wounded seven others.8 “On December 1, 1997, a 14-year-old student was arrested after three students
were killed and five others wounded in a hallway at Heath High School, West Paducah, Kentucky. One of the
injured girls is paralyzed.”9 On February 2, 1998 a ninth grade honor student at Frontier Junior High in the
small town of Moses Lake, Washington shot and killed a teacher and two students, and wounded a third stu-

Why These Killing Fields?

———————————

Ibid.

Ibid., 25.

Ibid., 29.

The Guns Have Got to Go (Oklahoma City: Oklahoma City Public School District, 1992), 1.

Eloise Salholzwith and Barbara Kantrowitz, “How to Keep Kids Safe,” Newsweek, 9 March 1992, 30.

Brian Cabell, “Teen Blames ‘Demons’ in Pearl, Mississippi, Killings,” CNN Interactive, 4 June 1998, Http://cnn.com/US/9806/04/woodham.trial.index.html.

Fiona

Steel, “A Growing Problem,” The Crime Library Web Site (1999)Calm Before the Storm—the Littleton School Massacre,

Http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial4/littleton/6.htm.

dent. “On March 24, 1998, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, two boys, Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13,
opened fire on teachers and students as they left a middle school building during a false fire alarm. Four
girls and a teacher were killed and 10 people were wounded.”10 On April 24, 1998 a 14 year old student of
Parker Middle School in Edinboro, Pennsylvania “opened fire at an eighth-grade dance at a banquet hall late
Friday, killing Gillette [a teacher] and slightly wounding two teen-age boys and a second teacher.”11 A photo
accompanying this article shows him sitting in a police car after being arrested, smiling and obviously very
proud of himself. “On May 19, 1998, an 18-year-old honor student opened fire in a parking lot at a high
school in Fayetteville, Tennessee. A classmate who was dating the student’s ex-girlfriend was killed.”12 “On
May 21, 1998, a 15-year-old boy opened fire at a high school in Springfield, Oregon. Two teenagers were
fatally shot and 20 people were injured. The boy’s parents were found slain in their home.”13 The morning of

Tuesday, April 20, 1999 started much the same as any other day in the middle-class town of Littleton, Colorado. None could know, as they went
about their normal business, that beneath the calm, an anger had been raging in the hearts and minds of two young men, Eric Harris, 18, and
Dylan Klebold, 17. At 11:35 a.m. on that fateful Tuesday, the 110th anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth, the two teenagers began a rampage
through the corridors of Columbine High School that ultimately ended their lives. In their wake they left 13 dead, 25 injured, many seriously,
and a town shaken to its core.14

On May 20, 1999, six students were injured at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia by Thomas
Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend. On November 19, 1999,
Victor Cordova, Jr., 12, shot and killed 13 year old Araceli Tena in the lobby of Deming Middle School,
Deming, New Mexico. On December 6, 1999, Seth Trickey, 13, shot and wounded four students with a 9mm
semi-automatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School in Fort Gibson, Oklahoma. On February 29, 2000, a
six-year-old boy shot and killed six-year-old Kayla Rolland at Buell Elementary School, Mount Morris
Township, Michigan. On March 10, 2000, Darrell Ingram, 19, killed two students as they were leaving a
dance sponsored by Beach High School, Savannah, Georgia. On May 26, 2000, Nate Brazill, 13, shot and
killed a teacher, Barry Grunow, at Lake Worth Middle School, Lake Worth, Florida. On September 26, 2000,
two students were wounded by the same gun during a fight at Woodson Middle School in New Orleans,
Louisiana. On January 17, 2001, a student was shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton Eastern High School in
Baltimore, Maryland. On March 5, 2001, Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana
High School in Santee, California, shot and killed two and wounded 13 others. On March 7, 2001, student
Kimberly Marchese shot and wounded student Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, in the cafeteria of Bishop
Neumann High School, Williamsport, Pennsylvania. On March 22, 2001, Jason Hoffman, 18, shot and
wounded a teacher and three students at Granite Hills High School in Granite Hills, California. On March 30,
2001, Donald R. Burt, Jr., 17, shot and killed another student in Gary, Indiana. On November 12, 2001,
Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at Caro Learning Center, Caro, Michigan, before killing himself.
On January 15, 2002, a teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King, Jr. High School in New York,
New York.15

“Nearly a million U.S. students took guns to school during the last academic year [1997], according to

the Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE)”16 in spite of all the newly installed metal detec-
tors, increased police patrols, etc. So school violence is not a problem that promises to go away any time
soon.

Because Someone Planned It So

———————————

10  Ibid.
11  “Classes Resume Monday After Middle School Shooting,” Associate Press, CNN Interactive, 26 April 1998, Http://cnn.com/US/9804/teacher.killed/index.html.
12  Steel, “A Growing Problem.”
13  Ibid.
14  Fiona

Steel, “Hidden Rage,” The Crime Library Web Site (1999)Calm Before the Storm—the Littleton School Massacre,

Http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial4/littleton/index.htm.

15 “A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings,” Infoplease.Com (2002), Http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html.
16 “Survey: 1 Million Students Took Guns to School in ‘97,” Reuters Limited, CNN Interactive, 19 June 1998,

Http://ccn.com/US/9806/gun.school.survey/index.html.

Is Your Unmarried Daughter Still a Virgin?

Most likely your unmarried daughter is not a virgin if she has been very long in the public school system

of America. And if she still is a virgin, she very likely will not be one for long unless you take immediate
steps to prevent her defilement.

A recent Harris poll of U.S. teenagers indicated that more than half have had intercourse by the time they are 17—primarily because they felt
pressure from their peers. “My friends say, if you haven’t done it, you’re not in with the ‘in’ group,” says Nekell McGrith, a 16-year-old
sophomore at Harry S. Truman High School in the Bronx.17

The statistical portrait of sex and the American teenager will stagger many parents. Each year for the past decade, more than a million teenage
girls have become pregnant. Even though the teenage-pregnancy rate has remained fairly steady for the last few years, it is still very high—
indeed, it is the highest in the Western world. The number of illegitimate births has soared. In 1984, 56 percent of teen births were out of wed-
lock, compared with only 15 percent in 1960. About 500,000 teenagers actually become mothers each year; the rest of the pregnancies end in
miscarriages or abortions. A shocking one-third of all abortions performed annually in this country are done on teenage girls.18

Those statistics were for 1984. A more recent study reported in the March-April 1992 issue of Public Health
Reports revealed that five years later the situation continued to grow alarmingly worse.

Births to unmarried women totaled 1,094,169 in 1989, a 9 percent increase from 1988, accounting for 27 percent of all births. This was the fifth
consecutive year that nonmartial births increased by 5 percent or more; births to unmarried women have risen more than 60 percent in the past
decade.19

In other words, one out of every four babies born in the USA is born of a father who does not love him
enough to marry his mother! This baby will be called hurtful names, and will most likely grow up in poverty.
Illegitimacy is a tragedy beyond comprehension, and its effect on those babies will be awful. Had the teenage
mothers who aborted their babies allowed them to be born instead the number of illegitimate births would
be even more astronomical! But for those babies, their mothers also have no love, and murdered them in
cold blood.

Morality is rapidly going out of style in the USA, with even former President Clinton known as an

unashamed adulterer by the whole world. The news media plays down the importance of fornication and
even adultery. But are these sins really insignificant? Consider this:

Every minute, five people between the ages of 10-24 are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.… at least one-third of the 30 million HIV
carriers are under 24.… Every day, 7000 young people ages 10-24 contact HIV—nearly five a minute and 2.6 million a year. By the year 2020,
there will be more than 40 million orphans under age 15 in the 23 countries most affected by HIV. Most of them will have lost their parents to
AIDS.20

Obviously, sexual immorality is not just wrong—it is extremely dangerous. Sex should be an extremely pri-
vate experience, but it has extremely public consequences, affecting everyone. Therefore, sexual conduct is
everybody’s business, and to punish immoral sexual conduct is necessary and right and just. What children
are being taught by teachers in sex-education classes in public schools today is extremely improper and
wrong and harmful.

Is Your Child Gay?

In the October 2005 issue of Time magazine there was an article titled “The Battle Over Gay Teens” in

which it was stated, “the gay movement is responding to the emergence this decade of hundreds of thou-

Why These Killing Fields?

———————————

17  “Kids and Contraceptives,” Newsweek, 16 November 1987, 56.
18  Ibid., 54–55.
19  “National Center for Health Statistics Data Line,” Public Health Reports 107, no. 2 (March-April 1992): 233.
20  Jill Dougherty and The Associated Press, “U.N. Alarmed by Spread of HIV Among Young People,” CNN Interactive, 22 April 1998,

Http://cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/22/un.aids/index.html.

sands of openly gay youths.”21 Yes, the gay movement is responding with glee to its phenomenal success in
instilling its ideas in our youth! The change in America’s morality has been profound. I am 60. I did not
know what a homosexual was until I was well into my twenties. I knew not even one person that claimed to
have attraction to his or her own sex. I read a few articles about homosexuals, but so far as I know, I never
met a homosexual until I was in my forties. Now every child is being asked to decide if he or she is gay, les-
bian, bi-sexual, transexual, or heterosexual. Obviously, children are very easily confused by such questions,
especially if they are being encouraged to choose something besides heterosexual. As a result hundreds of
thousands of children—most likely including yours—are being seduced into sodomy. Do you realize what
this means? I am in a dilemma—how can I inform you of the great danger homosexuals pose to your chil-
dren in public schools? Ephesians 5:12 says that “…it is a shame even to speak of those things which are
done of them in secret.” But the fact is that it is absolutely vital for you to immediately know
what shameful sins are presently being taught to children in public schools.

Your children

have very likely already been exposed to such immoral teachings, and their very lives are at stake.
MassResitance.org, a pro-family website which opposes the teaching of sodomy to school children, is a good
place to learn more about what is happening. I urge you to spend a few hours examining the photographs
and documents on their website. You will be shocked and deeply disturbed to learn what public school chil-
dren are being taught. An extremely vile pornograpic booklet titled Little Black Book—Queer in the 21st
Century22

…was distributed to hundreds of kids (middle school age and up) at Brookline High School, Brookline, MA, on April 30, 2005. It was written by
the Boston-based AIDS Action Committee, with help with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Boston Public Health Com-
mission.

The event that day was designed for children and their teachers across Massachusetts, organized by the "Gay Lesbian and Straight Education
Network" (GLSEN). This is the group that runs "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs in public schools across the country. You must ask yourself: What
kind of person would write this? What kind of person would give it to kids? Where is this movement headed?

Publications like this Little Black Book are being distributed at public schools all across America. To get the
answer to, “Where is this movement headed?” go to this page of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
website: http://www.aclu.org/getequal/scho/alliance.html

Click on all the links on the left of that web page, and you will see that the ACLU is working together with

GLSEN to coordinate the organization of Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs in public schools all across Amer-
ica. So, there is no way that your school will escape this.

The homosexual behavior encouraged in the Little Black Book mentioned above causes boys to get feces

on their bodies and in their mouths. Not only is such behavior extremely dangerous health wise, but it also
causes guilt, shame, and self loathing. Once a child commits this sin he or she feels like damaged goods that
no one but other homosexuals would want. Thus he or she becomes trapped—enslaved to the sodomite
community. Virtually every family in America has been harmed by this wicked movement to promote
sodomy as a righteous alternative lifestyle. The author has a Christian friend whose son was seduced into the
sodomite lifestyle, became infected with AIDS, and died a horrible death at a very young age. His funeral was
the saddest I have ever attended. God pity us if we don’t take immediate steps to rescue our children from
this Satanic movement. More will be said about this in later chapters.

What Is Done To Solve These Problems?

Public schools are championing three solutions for these problems: (1) freely available condoms, (2)

metal detectors and anti-gun legislation, (3) legislation to punish parents for their children’s misbehavior.

Because Someone Planned It So

———————————

21 John Cloud, “The Battle Over Gay Teens,” Time, 2002 October 2005, Http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1112856,00.html.
22 http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.html

Freely Available Condoms

Children are told to use condoms as a solution to sex problems. But “twenty-three percent of female

students say they’ve been raped or sexually assaulted.”23 Are we to expect that the rapist will put on a
condom before raping his victim? Also, many teenagers refuse to wear condoms because it just doesn’t feel
as good, and our children are being taught that if it feels good do it. Sixteen year old Vantra, a sophomore
baton majorette at L.G. Pinkston High School in Dallas is a case in point. Contraceptives have been available
on her campus since the mid-1970’s. In fact,

she received birth control pills from the clinic as a ninth grader but gave them up because she could not remember to use them. “It’d be a prob-
lem because I get so busy,” she says. She went back on the pills two months ago, supplementing them with a barrier foam as protection against
forgetfulness, but soon yielded to her 16-year-old boyfriend’s request that she not use anything. They have sex “more than” twice a week,
Vantra says.

Vantra’s case underscores a frustrating reality: making contraceptives available to children is not necessarily insurance against pregnancy.24

And it definitely is not insurance against fornication; in fact, it is condoning and encouraging it. As Dr.
Teresa Crenshaw, a member of the U.S. Presidential AIDS Commission and past president of the American
Association of Sex Educators said, “Saying that the use of condoms is ‘safe sex’ is in fact playing Russian
roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game.”25

Human papilloma virus (HPV) is the most common incurable STD in the United States. …When condoms are used properly and con-
sistently, which only occurs between 5 and 40 percent of the time, they still serve as ineffective barriers against STDs. Condoms,
whether used correctly and consistently or not, do not prevent the spread of HPV.

Federally funded sexual health organizations and the Centers for Disease Control, however, continue to promote condoms as effective STD bar-
riers. They briefly mention sexual abstinence as a tool for STD prevention, before campaigning for the "consistent and correct" use of condoms
as sufficient STD deterrents.

Those concerned with public health should strongly encourage the only guaranteed method of conquering this public health epidemic—sexual
abstinence until entering into a lifelong, monogamous marriage with an uninfected partner.26 [Emphasis added.]

According to the Center For Disease Control and Prevention

In the United States, more than 65 million people are currently living with an incurable sexually transmitted disease (STD). An addi-
tional 15 million people become infected with one or more STDs each year, roughly half of whom contract lifelong infections.27 (Emphasis
added.)

Sixty-five million people is approximately 20 percent of the US population—one out of every five people!
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that “in 1994, the direct and indirect costs of the
major STDs and their complications were estimated to total almost $17 billion annually.” As the song

says, “sin will cost you far more than you will want to pay.” The use of condoms obviously

has not prevented the spread of STDs, and the risk of infection with an STD is extremely

high when engaging in any sexual activity outside of marriage to an uninfected person of the

opposite sex.

Why These Killing Fields?

———————————

23  “Shocking Lesson in Shame and Terror,” National Examiner, 9 November 1993, 7.
24  “This is a Good Place—a Clinic in Dallas Copes with Teenage Sexuality,” Newsweek, 16 February 1987, 61.
25  “Condom Warnings -- Beware!!!” Pro-Live America, Http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html.
26  Heather Farish and Yvette Schneider, “The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Epidemic: Condoms Don’t Work,” PhysiansForLife.Org (2005),

Http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=756.

27 “Tracking the Hidden Epidemics: Trends in STDs in the United States 2000,” Center for Disease Control and Prevention,

Http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Stats_Trends/Trends2000.pdf.

Metal Detectors and Gun Legislation

To cope with the violence, “The Guns Have Got to Go” flyer previously quoted also states: “Metal

detectors are in use at Oklahoma City school athletic events, as needed, at high schools and middle schools
during the day.” But metal detectors can not stop truly motivated bullies from perpetrating violence. An
obvious problem with metal detectors is that if their sensitive level is set too high it will detect even the metal
in zippers; and if set too low will miss some knives and guns.

The initial purchase price of a portal metal detector is almost insignificant compared with the ongoing personnel costs to operate the equipment
in a complete weapon detection program.… It should be noted that the only way these schools are able to avoid huge waiting lines, even with
this much equipment and this many officers, and still get everybody to class on time is by a complete restructuring of their class periods. There is
a significant staggering of first period start times so that the students arrive over a 90-minute period. On average, NYC school safety officials
estimate that they fund approximately 100 additional security officer hours a week for each of their schools that screen for weapons.

To make any metal detection program effective, school access during the rest of the school day, during off-hours, and during special activities
needs to be tightly controlled. A motivated student can defeat a lax system. If there is a comprehensive metal detection program at the front
entrance to the school, but the back entrance through the cafeteria is unguarded, the funding and efforts put into a well-meaning program can
be wasted.28

If too many students are stopped because their belt buckles trigger the alarm it slows or stops movement
through the equipment and makes many students late to class. Time and money restraints, therefore,
prevent setting sensitivity levels high enough to prevent all weapons from passing.

“The biggest lessons to learn from this [mass murder at Columbine High School] is we cannot use steel and concrete to make our kids safe,” said
Marc Stine, principal of Rangeview High School in Aurora.… “The sad thing is that, if they'd had metal detectors at Columbine, the first fatality
might well have been the metal detector operator,” Denver Public Schools spokesman Mark Stevens said.29

Just a day before the rough draft of this chapter was written, another student was stabbed at Northwest
Classen High in the Oklahoma City school district, proving once again that metal detectors cannot take the
will to murder out of depraved hearts. And where there is a will there is a way. A gun or knife is not
necessary to kill. A pencil, pen, or rat-tailed comb can be used to stab. Even a chair or bare hand or foot
can also be used as a weapon to kill. At Taft Middle School in Oklahoma City a large girl once attempted to
strangle her principle with his own tie! Perhaps ties should be banned, and tie detectors installed at school
entryways!

Legislation To Punish Parents

“School officials are discussing with lawmakers new legislation that would make parents legally liable

and subject to civil and criminal penalties if their children bring weapons to school”30 [Emphasis
original!]. Public schools refuse to discipline children, thus making them into monsters. They even tell the
children that if their parents spank them they should call the police to report child abuse. Then when the
children do evil, it would seem that the public school officials themselves should be punished. But no, they
make the parents responsible! Always they punish the innocent instead of the wrongdoer—the wrongdoer
must be protected at all costs! All parents are threatened by such stupid legislation, and had better take steps
to prevent such legislation from becoming law. Obviously, punishing parents will not prevent children from
being violent, and this is especially so if the parents are not allowed to discipline their children.

Because Someone Planned It So

———————————

28 Mary W. Green, National Criminal Justice Reference Service Web Site, September 1999The Appropriate and Effective Use of Seurity Technologies in U.S. Schools—

a Guide for Schools and Law Enforcement Agencies (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institite of Justice, 1999),
Http://www.ncjrs.org/school/ch3a_5.html.

29 Tustin Amole, “Security is Under Siege: School Officials Feel Handcuffed Providing Safety for Students” (Denver: Denver Rocky Mountain News, 1999),

Http://osiris.colorado.edu/~glenn/media/rmn/0422sec15.shtml.

30 The Guns Have Got to Go.

A true life example from a small Oklahoma town. A certain girl was repeatedly told (along with all the

other students in her class) that spanking was child abuse, and that she should report her parents to the
police if they spanked her. This severely interfered with her parent's ability to discipline her, as each time
discipline was attempted she warned them that she would phone the police if they spanked her. She rapidly
became a problem at home (even hitting her mother in the face) and at school. Soon a school official
phoned her dad, “Mister, your daughter is totally out of control and causing a lot of trouble at school. We
expect you to get her under control soon.” Her dad answered, “Lady, I can take care of this problem
tonight, so that it will never happen again. But if I do, are you going to report me to the police as a child
abuser for spanking her?” Her answer, “Yes, we will.” His response, “Well in that case, I cannot help you
even if she tears your school building to the ground. You have caused this problem, now you will have to live
with it.” Her dad was right—he was being blamed for the problems caused by the very hypocrites accusing
him of causing them!

Condoms, metal detectors, anti-gun laws, and punishing parents. Obviously, public school officials are

merely treating symptoms, while letting the spiritual disease which is causing these symptoms continue to
destroy our children. It is vital that we determine the spiritual disease which is causing these symptoms.
What spiritual disease is this which compels our children to fornicate and murder?

It Doesn’t Have To Be This Way

Students of our parents’s day certainly had more restraint. Even a casual student of history, or a person

who just listens to his parents and grandparents talk about the way things used to be, knows that the people
of the United States used to be far less violent and far more moral.

In the 1940’s, teachers listed littering, gum chewing and defying the dress code as their main disciplinary problems. Today, teachers’ top con-
cerns are assault, rape and robbery, surveys say.31

The author’s father-in-law and his classmates left their rifles outside on the school porch with full permis-
sion of the school authorities. It never entered anyone’s thoughts that the guns might be stolen or used to
commit murder; and they never were. To a very great degree, students could be trusted in those days. But a
rapidly growing number of today’s students cannot be trusted. They are fundamentally different in their
hearts—different in world-view and culture and values and morals. Why? What evil force compels them to
selfishness, dishonesty, immorality, and even murder or sodomy or other wickedness? If we can just
determine the cause of these sins of the heart—and find an effective cure, or (better yet) prevention—our
schools won’t have to remain prisons.

Why These Killing Fields?

———————————

31 “Blackboard Jungle,” 7.

Chapter 2

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Humanists Planned It and Did It

Violence, immorality, and lack of learning to the extent found in the public schools of America today

does not happen without cause. It is made to happen by the execution of well-thought-out plans.

Unmasking the Culprits

Let us call to the witness stand a leader of the very people responsible for our schools’s problems. Let

him with his own words expose and incriminate both the movement in which he is a leader and the spiritual
disease it spreads. The main reason our children are not learning reading, writing and arithmetic, is
because they are being taught something else instead. Listen to this amazing admission from Morris B.
Storer. one of the foremost spokesmen of the people who are destroying our schools:

Why in the face of this [swelling rate of violent crime, disorder and cynicism, drugs and abandonment in schools], a symposium on humanist
ethics?… Because humanists have an especially heavy responsibility for these things today.… Humanism has to face special responsibility in
this area because a large majority of the educators of America and of the western world are humanist in their outlook. The faculties of American
colleges and universities are predominantly humanist, and a majority of the teachers who go out from their studies in the colleges to
responsibilities in primary and secondary schools are basically humanist, no matter that many maintain a nominal attachment to church or
synagogue for good personal or social or practical reasons. Critics of secular humanism are apt to hold responsible (for the problems in the
schools) not simply the humanist educator, but the educator’s humanism.32 [Emphasis added.]

It behooves parents to study the above quotation carefully and seriously. Nothing their adversaries could
have written would have so exposed the religious/political philosophy called humanism as the cause of the
startling decline in the health of education in America as has those words of their own humanist leader,
Morris B. Storer, found in his “Editor’s Preface” to Humanist Ethics: Dialogue on Basics. That book, pub-
lished by Prometheus Books, is composed of papers submitted to a symposium on humanist ethics by 20 of
the foremost Humanist leaders in the world. Storer most likely did not intend for his words to be read by
critics. He was addressing devout humanists, warning them to prepare their defenses.

Prometheus Books is the publisher which publishes books for the American Humanist Association,

including Humanist Manifesto I & II. Storer is not just a humanist but is also a Humanist (with a capital
H)—that is, he is not just a humanist in philosophy, but is also a member of (and leader in) the highly
influential American Humanist Association. When the subject is humanism, he knows what he is talking
about. As Storer so clearly states, humanist educators teaching and practicing humanist principles in the
classrooms are responsible for the disastrous moral virus which is debilitating America’s public schools.
Humanism is a spiritual and mental AIDS.

Astoundingly, humanists never seem to learn from their failures—humanism is even the “cure”

humanists prescribe to treat the symptoms humanism has caused! They argue that the reason humanist edu-
cation has failed for decades is only because it has not yet been allowed pure implementation. Thus they
work fervently to force the whole bottle of humanism down the throat of their chronically ill patient, and the
condition of education in America gets progressively worse in a rapidly tightening downward spiral. One
would think that humanists would consider how much better things used to be, and would want to return to
sanity. But not so.

———————————

32 Morris B. Storer, ed., Humanist Ethics: Dialogue on Basics (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1980), 1–2.

The rate of juvenile delinquency and violent crime perpetrated by children has increased dramatically since moral absolutes and discipline were
removed from the schools. From 1950 to 1977 the arrest rate for the age group under 18 increased from 200 to 6,500 per 100,000—an increase
of 3,200%!

“Interviews with juvenile justice officials around the country indicate that the age at which youngsters are committing serious crimes

is declining steadily, and that cases that seemed like bizarre anomalies a few years ago are now becoming more common. According to crime
figures compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based on reports from 11,249 agencies in 1985, youths age 15 and younger were
responsible for 381 cases of murder, and non-negligent manslaughter, 18,899 robberies and 2,645 rapes. Further, children age 12 and under
were responsible for 21 of the killings, 436 of the rapes, 3,545 aggravated assaults and 1,753 robberies, the FBI said. Daniel P. Dawson, chief of
the juvenile division for the ninth circuit state attorney’s office in Orlando, Florida, said, ‘Not only is the age dropping at which kids are getting
involved in crime, but the violent crimes are being committed by younger and younger kids. Four or five years ago, even two or three years ago,
it was very unusual to see a child younger than 12 or 13 in the system, particularly with multiple charges. Now you see kids age 7, 8, or 9 come
in with a whole string of burglaries.’” (International Herald Tribune, Feb. 5, 1987)

Almost two decades ago the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary published a report entitled Our Nation’s Schools—A Report Card,

which concluded that the “level of violence and vandalism is reaching crisis proportions which seriously threatens the ability of our educational
system to carry out its primary functions.”

Further, by every standard, learning has declined in this same period. In April 1983 a special government report entitled A Nation At

Risk was published. It stated: “Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological
innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world....The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by
a rising tide of mediocrity that threaten our very future as a Nation and a people.” The report stated that the sharp decline in learning in Amer-
ican schools happened in one generation. The report noted that “The College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) demonstrates a virtually
unbroken decline for 1963 to 1980. Average veral scores fell over 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points. (William
Jasper, “Who Shall Teach?” The New American, Sept. 28, 1987). The McGuffy’s Fourth and Fifth grade readers of the 1800s provide a real chal-
lenge to many college students today.

Is all this mere coincidence? Come now! But what does the liberal humanist say about such things? He continues to pooh pooh the

need for the Bible, prayer, moral absolutes, and discipline and proposes, instead, more sex education, more buildings, more teachers, more
psychology, more moral license, more counselors, more relativism, more entertainment, more months in school—more MONEY!33

The Spiritual Disease They Spread

But what is Humanism? Most people have never heard of either humanism or Humanists. Except in liter-

ature addressed to their own group, Humanists seldom identify themselves as Humanists. They realize they
must hide both their own identity and the identity of their philosophy which is so adversely changing our
schools and our country. You see, humanists have an agenda they know most Americans would fiercely
oppose if they just realized it’s far-reaching significance. Humanists are fighting a spiritual war of sedition
against Christianity and against the USA. They plan to subdue this nation by proselytizing our children to
their Godless religion. Consider carefully the following statement of John Dunphy from The Humanist mag-
azine:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly per-
ceive their role as the proselyters of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in
every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be min-
isters of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the edu-
cational level—preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the
new—the rotting corpse of Christianity together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its prom-
ise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved.

Then, perhaps, we will be able to say with Tom Paine that “the world is my country, all [Hu]mankind are my brethren, and to do good

is my religion.” It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle, replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge
triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.34

The title of Dunphy’s article is “A Religion For the New Age.” Dunphy correctly calls humanism “a new

faith: a religion.” Humanist public school teachers are “proselyters of a new faith.” A proselyter is a person
who works to convert people from one religion to another. Humanist school teachers are working zealously

Who Is Responsible?

———————————

33 David Cloud, “Humanists Are Never Wrong,” O Timothy 10, no. 9 (1993): 6.
34 John J. Dunphy, “A Religion for the New Age,” The Humanist, January/February 1983, 26.

every day in classrooms all across America converting their students from Christianity to the atheistic reli-
gion called humanism.

The American Humanist Association, a very

dangerous and highly organized organization,
virtually identical to the Communist Party in
beliefs and goals, is the leader in promoting
humanism in this country. The American
Humanist Association is an international organi-
zation operating under the umbrella of the
International Humanist and Ethical Union. The
Humanists’ goal is to make humanism the gov-
ernment and religion of the world. That is the
reason you must carefully read (and reread) all
of this book. You must be informed of the facts
about humanism which humanists hide from
you—facts which are vital to both your chil-
dren’s survival and to the survival of the values
and culture and morals which made the United
States the greatest nation in history. It cannot
be emphasized enough that what is
presently happening in public school
classrooms is more important than any-
thing else that is happening in America.

Public (socialist) education is America’s hole in
the dike, through which a flood of philosophical
and pagan doctrinal pollution is drowning out
the Christian culture which made this country
rich in both material and spiritual blessings. If
we do not plug this hole soon, nothing else is

going to matter.

Do These Organizations Actually

Exist?

Unfortunately, yes they actually exist.

Humanism is no conspiracy theory; it is a real
conspiracy.

Here is the URL for the International

Humanist and Ethical Union:

www.iheu.org

And here is the URL for the American

Humanist Association:

www.americanhumanist.org

Humanists Planned It and Did It

“Congressman Pete Stark, Humanist of the Year,

has served in Congress since 1973. A senior member
of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, he is
currently the Chairman of its Health Subcommittee.
Stark previously served as the subcommittee's Ranking
Minority Member from 1995 to 2006 and as its
Chairman from 1985 to 1994....In March, 2007, Stark
made history by becoming the first member of
Congress to ever publicly acknowledge the lack of a
god belief, going on record as identifying as a
nontheist.”(http://www.americanhumanist.org/confer
ence/awardees08.php)

The following letter was recently posted on the American Humanist Association website.4 If you are a

real doubter, and if you are reading this book soon enough, you can try to attend The IHEU 17th World
Humanist Congress and the AHA 67th Annual National Conference. In the following letter, note carefully and
remember the names of the speakers and the organizations they represent. Note especially Peter Stark.

Who Is Responsible?

E Pluribus Unum:
Reclaiming Humanist Values

The IHEU 17th World Humanist Congress and the AHA 67th Annual National Conference

When: June 5-8, 2008

Where: Washington, D.C. at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel

Join the International Humanist and Ethical Union and the American Humanist Association for

the 17th annual World Humanist Congress in Washington DC at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. This
exciting event will be held June 5-8, 2008, with extended activities June 4 and 9.

Plenary sessions include topics on human rights, bioethical issues, religious reform, freedom

of conscience and expression, Humanist approaches to social problems, and many others.

Speakers include IHEU President Sonja Eggerickx, AHA President Mel Lipman, Maryland State

Senator Jamie Raskin, Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal, Rob Boston of
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Lori Lipman Brown of the Secular Coalition
for America, and many others to be announced. Accepting the Humanist of the Year award is U.S.
Representative Pete Stark, the first openly nontheist member in Congress.

The IHEU World Humanist Congress is a triennial event that has been held in France, India,

and the Netherlands. The last Congress held in the United States was 20 years ago. Don't miss this
rare opportunity to participate in this unique conference and meet Humanists from around the
globe.

Keep checking our website for more updates on the conference schedule, speakers, and

Humanist awardees.

———————————

http://www.americanhumanist.org/conference/

Chapter 3

WHAT IS HUMANISM?

A Pagan Religion

Humanism is first and foremost a religion. It is a religion because it attempts to answer the religious

questions all humans ask: Is there a God? What is our origin? What is right, and what is wrong? What is our
purpose in life? Is there life after death? How can I be saved? That humanism is a religion is easily seen by
inspecting the definitions and proclamations of humanism written by Humanist leaders. This chapter will
examine these definitions and proclamations in relation to the fundamental religious questions they attempt
to answer. Also, since the significance of error is easier to see if contrasted with truth, Humanism will be
contrasted with Christianity in each case, giving the Christian position first.

Religious Questions Humanism Tries To Answer

The most fundamental religious question of all, of course, is:

Is There a True and Living Creator God?

God is an undeniably religious topic. A doctrine concerning God is the most fundamental element of any

religion.

True Christians Believe In the True and Living God

God is declared to exist in the very first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning God….” (Gen. 1:1), and the

Bible reveals to us God's attributes and will, using the word “God” 4,110 times.

The reality of God is clearly seen—even by atheists—in the incredibly intricate design of all God’s

creation.

For the invisible things of [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

It does not take much intelligence to realize that random chance could not produce such a creation no
matter how many billions of years one allows for it to do so. How many billions of years would you have to
wait for random chance to produce a personal computer? It would never happen, you rightly answer. Yet
the simplest one-celled animal is far more complicated than the most advanced super-computer—and is
alive! Where there is such amazing design there is an amazing Designer.

However, though nature clearly reveals that God exists and is super-naturally intelligent, nature is unable

to reveal to us the spiritual attributes of God. Science is also unable to reveal to us the spiritual attributes of
God. “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), but science can only deal with matter. God cannot be made the object of
scientific experiments. Because of this, science cannot reveal the complete truth about God—that is why
God revealed Himself to us in the Bible.

The Bible declares that faith in God is essential to finding and pleasing God:

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he
had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and

that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Heb. 11:5-6)

True Christians have believed God’s Word, and have been rewarded with becoming personally acquainted
with him. They no longer just believe God exists, they know He exists.

Humanists Do Not Believe In the True and Living God

Humanists claim to base everything on science. Since there is no scientific evidence to disprove the

existence of God, one would think that Humanists would therefore not have a position concerning God.
Wrong! Very wrong! Humanists have strong, continually preached doctrinal beliefs concerning God—beliefs
they cannot prove, but accept on blind religious FAITH. Statements such as the following are found often in
Humanist writings:

Sigmund Freud said the widespread belief in a father-god arises from psychology. Tiny children are awed by their fathers as seemingly all-
powerful protectors and punishers. As maturity comes, fathers grow less awesome. But the infantile image remains buried in the subconscious,
and attaches to an omnipotent, supernatural father in an invisible heaven.
That makes sense to me. It says the father-god is just a figment of the imagination. But you can't prove it's true.… Is there a personal God
waiting to reward me in a heaven or punish me in a hell? I don't know—but I doubt it.36 (Emphasis added)

So, Humanists do not know that God does not exist, and certainly cannot prove it. Obviously their belief that
God does not exist rests on pure FAITH alone.

Still, Humanists are far from neutral concerning God. Indeed God occupies a major portion of their

thoughts. They hate the true and living God with a burning passion. Though they claim to be atheists or
“non-theists,” they cannot get God out of their minds. Humanist Manifesto II, Section 1, states:

… traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice
to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional
religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be
restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the
survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.37

Of course, such talk is pure deception. Placing God first does not place Him above human needs.

Indeed, the first and most basic needs of man are to be rescued from the wages of sin, to be given eternal
life, to have a relationship and be in fellowship with God, and to have an eternal purpose for living. God
alone can supply those needs.

Also, as will be shown in this book, there is scientific evidence that God exists. On the other hand, there

is zero scientific evidence that God does not exist. Of course, humanists do have a multitude of atheist
doctrines—mere myths—cloaked as scientific evidence.

Humanist editor Morris B. Storer writes:

What is humanism, and who is humanist? For our purposes I will identify as “humanist” all who, in the basic deliberations and action decisions
of their lives, have set aside faith in revelation [the Bible] and dogmatic authority [God] (if they ever had it), and have settled for human experi-
ence and reason as grounds for belief and action, putting human good—the good of self and others in their life on earth—as ultimate criterion
of right and wrong, with due concern for other living creatures. It has been estimated that as many as thirty million Americans—around one
out of every seven—are of this mind, but the number is probably much larger. And the world population of humanists defined in such limited
terms, may be numbered at close to a billion, remembering that 95% of China's 700 million were reared to a mix of humanist Confucianism,
naturalist Taoism, and atheistic Buddhism, and that the Soviet Union's 250 million population have been officially committed to a somewhat
corrupted mode of Marxist humanism by fiat of a dictator State.38

Notice in the above quote that Storer includes Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism—the religions
espoused by the so-called “New-Age Movement”—right along with Communists as fellow humanists. All of

What Is Humanism?

———————————

36 James A. Haught, “Commentary: Is There a God?” in Secular Humanism Online Library (Amherst, New York: Council For Secular Humanism, 1996),

Http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/haught_08_96.html.

37 Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I & II (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1981), Http://www.humanism.net/documents/manifesto1.html and

http://www. humanism.net/documents/manifesto2.http.

38 Storer, Humanist Ethics: Dialogue on Basics, 2.

these philosophical religious systems deny the existence of a true and living creator God, who is separate
from the universe He created. Instead they teach that the universe itself is God—that God is not a living
person, but is just the dead natural forces. This idea is called pantheism. Humanists call these dead natural
forces “Evolution.”

Harvey Lebrun, founder of the Chapter Assembly of the American Humanist Association, refers people

seeking a definition of Humanism to the

Statement of Purpose preamble to the Bylaws of the American Humanist Association, which declares the philosophy of Humanism to be—a
nontheistic world view that rejects all forms of supernaturalism and is in accord with the spirit and discoveries of science.39 (Emphasis original).

That statement is half true, half lie. The lie is that Humanism is in accord with the spirit and discoveries of
science. The so-called “science” Humanism preaches is the “theory” of macro-evolution, which is mere
faith, not science. No scientist has ever seen dead matter birth life. Nor has any scientist ever witnessed an
animal of one kind give birth to an animal of a different kind. Evolution is not science, nor is it reason; it is
superstition. This will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter. Nevertheless, it obviously is true that
Humanism preaches atheism, which also is not science, but is a religious doctrine based on faith.

Lebrun goes on to say that one of the “four basic principles, the raison d'etre of the American Humanist

Association” is

No belief in, reliance upon, or subservience to supposedly supernatural powers or their effluvia, such as a god or gods, a soul separate from the
body, immortality, sin, answered prayer, or divine revelation.40

That is a very strongly stated religious belief. It is interesting to note that no attempt whatsoever is made to
give proof for such a belief. Definitely this is not a statement of science, but of religion. Lebrun and his
humanist friends are not scientists but mere Human-Theory Thumpers. Evolution is their dogma.

Another document from the American Humanist Association web site is titled “What Is Humanism?” and

is written by Fredrick Edwords. According to a biography on the Infidels.Org web site—the name of this
web site shows just how arrogant Humanists are—, Fredrick Edwords is the current executive director of
the American Humanist Association, editor of the Humanist magazine, and is also a Humanist minister.41
He describes Humanism as defiance of God.

The Secular Humanist tradition is a tradition of defiance, a tradition that dates back to ancient Greece.… Prometheus stands out because he
was idolized by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. For this he was punished.
And yet he continued his defiance amid his tortures. This is the root of the Humanist challenge to authority.

The next time we see a truly heroic Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost. But now he is the

Devil. He is evil. Whoever would defy God must be wickedness personified. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the ancient
Greeks didn't agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken.

Imagine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of “God's moral standards.” I said, “If there were such a god, and

these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions!”42

Lucifer—the Devil himself—is a “truly heroic Promethean character” for Humanists to model themselves
after because he defies God?! If, as Humanists insist, God does not exist, then why bother defying Him? What
a waste of time and life.

Edwords continues:

Only a Humanist is inclined to speak this way. Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it. In
Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source of good, or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good

A Pagan Religion

———————————

39 Harvey Lebrun, “Humanism with a Capital H,” reprint, 1973 (Amherst, New York: American Humanist Association, 1994),

Http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/lebrun.html.

40 Ibid.
41 “Brief Biography of Fred Edwords,” in Library: Modern (Amherst, New York: American Humanist Association, 0198),

Http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/fred_edwords/edwords-bio.html.

42 Frederick Edwords, “What is Humanism?” American Humanist Association Home Page (1989) (Amherst, New York: American Humanist Association, 1989),

Http://www.humanism.net/definations/humanism.html.

because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has
permitted such questioning of God's will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is Humanists who claim this tradition.

After all, much of Human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order.… [Humanists] recognize the

Promethean defiance of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the [Humanist] tradition.43

“Such questioning of God's will” is not new. It began in the Garden of Eden. The book of Genesis records
the origin of humanism as follows:

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,
Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the
fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said
unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil. (Gen. 3:1-5)

Satan's appeal to mental pride has not changed. And to believe him is to worship him—and to suffer
horrible loss.

At its November 6, 1996 meeting in Mexico City, “the Board of the International Humanist and Ethical

Union approved the following ‘minimum statement’ of Humanism:”

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape
to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of
reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.”44

Notice once again that this is merely a statement of faith concerning basic religious issues. There is nothing
scientific about this statement at all.

What Is Our Origin?

People of all ages want to know how humans and this universe came into being. Where did we come

from? This is—and will forever be—a religious subject, for it is impossible to reproduce the creation of the
universe in a laboratory. Either we accept God's explanation of how the universe began, or else we must
accept the speculations (human-theory thumping) of some men who were not there when it happened, and
do not know. Everyone at some point in life decides who they will believe. What a person decides to believe
concerning the origin of the universe determines that person's worldview. A “worldview” is the foundational
belief which one uses as a basis for determining all other beliefs. A person's worldview drastically influences
every area of his life.

The Christian Worldview

The Christian worldview is found in Genesis 1:1, the very first verse in the Bible: “In the beginning God

created the heaven and the earth.” Christians believe the revelation of God's Word in this matter of origins,
and base every aspect of their lives upon it. Looking at the world from this view, it is logical to believe that
since God created the heaven and the earth, then God must exist. And since God exists and the Bible is
“given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16), then the teachings of the Bible concerning sin, immortality,
Heaven, Hell, redemption, salvation, and everlasting life are also true.

The Humanist Worldview

The Humanist worldview is just the opposite of the Christian one. Humanists choose NOT to believe the

revelation of God's word concerning creation, and instead base every aspect of their lives upon the “theory”

What Is Humanism?

———————————

43 Ibid.
44 Board of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, “IHEU Defination of Humanism” (Amherst, New York: American Humanist Association, 1996), Http://

www.humanism.net/definitions/iheu-def.html.

of macro-evolution (either Charles Darwin's version or else someone else's modification of Darwin's
theory). Of course, Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution, but only made an old pagan myth look
“scientific.”

According to a document on the American Humanist Association web site, early in 1977 the AHA established

itself as a major force in the creation-evolution controversy by issuing "A Statement Affirming Evolution As a Principle of Science"
and sending copies of it to every major school district in the country.45

Thus Humanists clearly not only believe in evolution, but also intend that every child in America be taught
evolution.

It is important to note that Bible-believing Christians do believe in micro-evolution (change within a

kind of animal or plant). It is macro-evolution (change from one kind into another kind) that Christians
deny. Mate two mongrel dogs and you never know what the babies will look like, except for one certainty—
the babies will all be dogs. Humanists want us to believe that a new kind—a non-dog—might be born.
Furthermore, Humanists believe and teach our children that change within a kind proves that change from
one kind into another kind also happens. Their belief is simply not in line with what is observed day by day
in the laboratory of life. Since it is macro-evolution that Humanists generally mean when they refer to
evolution, macro-evolution is what will be meant in this book also, unless stated otherwise.

Looking at the world from the false macro-evolution worldview, it appears logical to believe that there is

no such thing as a real, living, prayer-hearing-and-answering God, no sin, no immortality, no Heaven, no
Hell, no redemption, no salvation, and no everlasting life.

Humanists are atheists in the sense that they reject the true and living creator God. This does not

mean that Humanists do not believe in a god—for they do believe in a god, though they
deny it.

The “natural force” that they claim created life and all the life forms is their god. They call him (or

her or it) EVOLUTION. Though no one has ever seen him (or her or it) in action, Humanists insist he (or
she or it) exists. Evolution is their “spook in the machinery,” their idol, and they worship him (or her or it)
with a fervent blind faith. Humanists are, in fact, polytheists, for they also worship themselves.

What Is Right, and What Is Wrong?

Like it or not, we have to make decisions concerning right and wrong virtually every day of our lives.

Should I lie about my age? Should I sleep with this person? Should I cheat my neighbor? Should I murder my
unborn baby? These are religious decisions for which scientific experiments cannot provide direction.

Christians Believe There Is Righteousness and Sin

Christians believe that since God created all things, He certainly knows what is good for humans, and

what will cause them harm. His laws are therefore authoritative, and, though in our youth or inexperience
we may not understand them, we are wise to obey them for our own good. Most people go through a time
during their teenage years when they question God's moral laws, but the pain this causes eventually
convinces wise people that God must be right after all. This accepting the truth of God’s law is called
maturing. True Christians believe that God is right when He says that murder, rape, sodomy, adultery,
fornication, stealing, and lying are sins.

A Pagan Religion

———————————

45 Lloyd Morain, “Chapter 9: The American Humanist Association,” in Humanism as the Next Step, reprint, 1954 (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press, 1998),

Http://www.americanhumanist.org/publications/morain/chapter-9.html.

Humanists Deny There Is Righteousness and Sin

Humanists reject the Ten Commandments and the very concept of sin because they reject God Himself.

Boasts Fredrick Edwords,

Religious Humanism is usually without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a
“higher” source of moral values.

Humanism's rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary

sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic psychology.46

Harvey Lebrun declares that two of the basic principles held by Humanists are:

1. No belief in ... sin.
2. Commitment to individual and social ethics that are based on changing human experience, compassion for other human beings, and concern
for the related world of humankind and Earth—rather than on supposedly divine injunctions, church pronouncements, divine rewards and
punishments in this or a future life, and so forth.47

Now it is these ideas—that there is no sin, that nothing is absolutely wrong, and that God is not the final
authority concerning right and wrong—that make humanism so purely wicked and evil. To the Humanist,
morality is whatever he wants it to be. What the Humanists call “new morality” is what the Bible calls “sin.”
The following quotes from Humanist writings demonstrate this fact clearly.

Humanist Morality Rejects/Belittles Marriage

Humanist (im)morality means a total breakdown of the home. Humanist writer Tom Flynn states the

Humanist stand concerning marriage very bluntly:

For my money, matrimony remains a corrupt, misogynistic, and outmoded institution. The need to do away with it is as real today as it was in
the 60s.… Today, it seems foolish to expect that many persons will find the same partner physically, emotionally, and intellectually fulfilling
throughout a long life of profound and often unpredictable personal development. Divorce and remarriage are easier than they were, say, half a
century ago, a reform for which freethinkers and humanists deserve much credit.… Perhaps our battle cry should be “Legitimize bastardy!”48

Misogynistic means hateful of women. According to those who have swallowed humanist dogma, to marry a
woman means you hate her, but to rob her of her virginity, give her a bastard baby, and then desert both her
and the baby is to love her and liberate her. Humanists have confused love with lust and have confused
liberty with licentiousness. Obviously, it is actually the Humanists that are hateful of women.

Humanist Morality Encourages Adultery and Sodomy

Humanists encourage teenagers to have sex before marriage, and encourage husbands and wives to be

unfaithful to their mates, and encourage everyone to have sex with multiple partners of either sex. One of the
most important Humanist documents is “The New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities” which states:

Repressive taboos should be replaced by a more balanced and objective view of sexuality based upon a sensitive awareness of human behavior
and needs. Archaic taboos limit our thinking in many ways. The human person, especially the female, has been held in bondage by restrictions
that prescribed when, where, with whom, and with what parts of the body the sexual impulse could be satisfied. As these taboos are dispelled
and an objective reappraisal ensues, numerous sexual expressions will be seen in a different light. Many that now seem unacceptable will very
likely become valid in certain circumstances. Extramarital sexual relationships with the consent of one's partner is being accepted by some.
Premarital sexual relationships, already accepted in some parts of the world, will become even more widely so. This will very likely also be true
of homosexual and bisexual relationships. The use of genital associations to express feelings of genuine intimacy, rather than as connections for

What Is Humanism?

———————————

46  Frederick Edwords, “What is Humanism?”
47  Lebrun, “Humanism with a Capital H.”
48  Tom Flynn, “Legitimize Bastardy!” Secular Humanist Bulletin 12, no. 2 (Spring 1996) (Amherst, New York: Council for Secular Humanism, 1996),

Http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/shb/flynn_12_1.html.

physical pleasure or procreation alone, may then transcend barriers of age, race, or gender.49

In other words, Humanists believe that for humans to live lower than dogs and pigs is the way it ought to be.

Humanist Morality Advocates Pornography

On every moral issue Humanism takes a stand against the morality of God's Word. If Humanism is

moral, than the Bible is immoral (and, of course, Humanists say it is). Pornography is another example of
Humanist (im)morality. Humanist Wendy McElroy has written several books on the subject of pornography,
including, “XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography ... and Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist
Attack on Women.”50 Writing in the humanist magazine Free Enquiry, McElroy states her humanist moral
position:

As a “pro-sex” feminist, I contend: Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically .… Pornography benefits women politically in
many ways. Historically, pornography and feminism have been fellow travelers and natural allies. Although it is not possible to draw a cause-
and-effect relationship between the rise of pornography and that of feminism, they both demand the same social conditions—namely, sexual
freedom.

Pornography is free speech applied to the sexual realm. Freedom of speech is the ally of those who seek change: it is the enemy of

those who seek to maintain control. Pornography, along with all other forms of sexual heresy, such as homosexuality, should have the same
legal protection as political heresy. This protection is especially important to women, whose sexuality has been controlled by censorship through
the centuries.51

There is a little bit of truth to what McElroy says: pornography and Humanist feminism are fellow

travelers. That is another reason why no true Christian woman can be a part of the misnamed Woman’s
Liberation Movement (it should be called the Woman’s Enslavement Movement).

The rest of what McElroy says is lies. Pornography does not benefit women, either personally or

politically. To the contrary, pornography results in women being degraded, abused, raped, beaten and
murdered. Pornography stirs up vile and selfish lusts in both men and women, thus causing them to break
their marriage vows, to become prostitutes spreading destructive diseases, and to do many shameful,
abominable acts.

Pornography is not free speech anymore than lying is free speech. Pornography is no more protected by

the Bill of Rights than rape. True freedom provides opportunity to do right, not the opportunity to abuse and
degrade fellow human beings.

Humanist Morality Advocates Murdering Children

Humanists love to put the word “children” in the names of their organizations so that people will think

they love children. However, the fact is that Humanists hate children so much that they try to prevent them
from even being born. Failing in that they try to kill them in any manner possible. Specifically, Humanists
advocate murdering children by abortion, infanticide, and assisted suicide.

Murder by Abortion.

Says the American Humanist Association about its own self:

The AHA was the first national membership organization to endorse elective abortion. Further, leading abortion-law reform groups of the time
were top-heavy with humanists, most notably the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (now the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice)
and the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now the National Abortion Rights Action League).52

A Pagan Religion

———————————

49 Lester Kirkendall, “New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities,” The Humanist, January/February 1976 (Buffalo, New York), Http://www.humanism.net/~

documents/sexual-rights.html.

50 Wendy McElroy, “A Feminist Defense of Pornography,” Free Inquiry 17, no. 4 (Fall 1997) (Amherst, New York: Council for Secular Humanism, 1997),

Http://www. SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html.

51 Ibid.
52 “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) About the American Humanist Assocation” (Amherst, New York: American Humansist Association, Yr. on web 1997),

Http://www.humanism. net/information/faqs.html.

McElroy, the same Humanist that advocated pornography in the quote above, reveals the humanist

principle underlying abortion as follows:

The liberal principle “a woman's body, a woman's right” underlay arguments ranging from abortion rights to lifestyle freedoms like
lesbianism.53

This idea, that a woman's body is her own to do with as she pleases, is very popular today, but is simply a
falsehood. The Bible tells us the truth in 1 Cor. 6:18-20:

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with
a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

God owns us in two ways. First, He created us, and therefore we are His—spirit, soul, and body. Second, He
became a human by being born of a virgin so that He could die for our sins. He gave himself to be crucified
in order to purchase us with his own blood (Acts 20:28). By sinning we sold ourselves into the bondage of
sin, but Jesus paid the ultimate price to buy us back.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition
from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. (I Pet. 1:18-19).

Murder by Infanticide.

Many people have already been so influenced by Humanist doctrines taught to

them in public school “life skills” (sin skills) sex classes that they do not believe that abortion is murder.
Humanism does not murder only the unborn, but the partial born are also murdered. The Religious
Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the group the American Humanist Association said is “top-heavy with
humanists” (see quote above), is pro-partial-birth abortion. This is the procedure in which a baby is
delivered feet first, so that when all of the baby has exited but its head, a medical instrument is pierced into
the baby's skull at the base of the neck, and its brains sucked out. If they did this an instant after the head
emerged, they would be arrested for murder. It is, in fact, murder even if it is declared legal by corrupt
judges. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice ended an article which they fittingly titled “Partial
Compassion” (it certainly isn't full compassion, and in fact isn't true compassion) by exhorting readers to
write then President Clinton to ask him to veto the partial-birth abortion ban bill sponsored by the
Republican majority congress:

President Clinton has vowed once again to veto any ban on late-term abortions that does not include both a life and health exception for the
woman. Please call or write the White House, citing bill S6/HR1122, to let him know you support that position.54

The “life and health exception for the woman” is pure hypocrisy—the baby is already born except for its
head; its legs, body and arms are already out. The head would easily follow in a few seconds. The real
danger to the mother is not the birth of the baby's head, but the partial-birth abortion procedure itself,
which requires the doctor to insert his hand or an instrument inside the mother to force an always risky
breech birth. This procedure is nothing less than pure, premeditated, cold-blooded murder of a full-term
baby. In July of 1998 the Republican-majority House voted 296-132 to overturn President Clinton's veto of a
bill banning partial birth abortion, but on Friday, September 18, 1998, the Republican led Senate failed by
three votes to reach the two thirds majority needed to do the same. Fifty-one Republicans and 13 Democrats
voted to overturn the president's veto, while 32 Democrats and 4 liberal (humanist) Republicans voted to
sustain it. So the murder continues.

But Humanists are not content to murder only the pre-born and partially born: they also want to murder

the completely born. The murder of an already born child is called “infanticide,” and has always been
murder in the USA. But Humanists intend to change that law. Infanticide is a logical position for a humanist

What Is Humanism?

———————————

53 McElroy, “A Feminist Defense of Pornography.”
54 Jay Heavner, “Partial Compassion,” Web Site of Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (1996) (Washington, D.C.: RCRC Publications, 1996),

Http://www.rcrc.org/pubs/speakout/lateterm.html.

to take. Humanist leader Joseph Fletcher (the author of the book Situation Ethics), writing in a volume
titled Infanticide and the Value of Life, says truthfully, “It is reasonable, indeed, to describe infanticide as
post natal abortion.”55 It is clear therefore that the Humanists who have really studied this issue realize that
abortion is the same thing as infanticide. If infanticide is murder, then abortion is murder also. Humanists
advocate murdering unwanted babies during the first year of life after birth. In the book just referenced
(Infanticide and the Value of Life) Arval A. Morris submits “Proposed Legislation” which states:

Section 1. Authorization of euthanasia. Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for a qualified physician, or his professional medical
agent, as authorized by a qualified physician's written statement, to administer euthanasia to a qualified child for whom the child's parent or
guardian previously has made a written declaration voluntarily requesting euthanasia for the qualified child and which declaration is lawfully in
force at the time of administering euthanasia.56

Murder by suicide.

Brags the American Humanist Association about itself:

In 1974, long before the activism of Dr. Jack Kevorkian and the Hemlock Society, the National Commission for Beneficent Euthanasia was estab-
lished as an AHA program. It issued through the Humanist magazine the groundbreaking statement, “A Plea for Beneficent Euthanasia.” The
document was signed by medical, legal, and religious leaders and called for “a more enlightened public opinion to transcend traditional taboos
and move in the direction of a compassionate view toward needless suffering in dying.” As a result of this, the ideas it presented are now a regu-
lar part of public discourse.57

Humanists are masters at renaming words with names that sound exactly the opposite of the real meaning of
the word. In this case they have renamed murder as euthanasia. “Euthanasia” means “a painless, happy
death.” It sounds good—better to die happy than to die sad, right? However, it will not have such a happy
ring if it is one of your own loved ones—a mate or parent or child—that is talked into committing suicide
by a humanist doctor such as Dr. (Death) Kevorkian.

Paul Kurtz, the author of Humanist Manifesto II, tells the following interesting story:

Prometheus Books, the leading secular humanist and freethought publisher in the world, is no doubt familiar to most readers of Free Inquiry.
Prometheus was recently subpoenaed to appear at the Oakland County, Michigan, criminal prosecution trial of Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian has
helped twenty-seven people to die—people who were terminally ill and/or suffered great pain and requested the right to commit suicide. He
has thus far been acquitted of all efforts to convict him.

The Oakland County prosecutor's office has scheduled two trials. The first, which began in February 1996, involves the deaths of

Merian Frederick and Dr. Ali Khalili, who died a month apart in 1993 by breathing carbon monoxide gas supplied by Dr. Kevorkian. He is being
tried ex post facto under a now-expired law that banned assisted suicide. A second trial is scheduled to begin in April 1996. Dr. Kevorkian is
being prosecuted for the deaths of Marjorie Wendt and Sherry Miller, which occurred in 1991. Prometheus Books was subpoenaed to appear in
the first trial because it has published Dr. Kevorkian's book, Prescription Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death (hardcover 1991, paperback
1994).58

How fitting that Dr. Death is a Humanist! He really fits in with that group. “Planned Death” is so “good” to
Humanists, that they just can't wait to help someone die. Humanists hate life; they don't even want humans
to be conceived. But if a human is conceived, they plan to see him dead before birth if possible, at birth if
not, during his first year of life otherwise. Else, just as soon as they catch him in pain or depressed, or
weak—zap! Loving, kind people that Humanists are, some how some way they are going to “help” people
die—prematurely. They have such “compassion,” and “love” humanity so! They claim to be pro-choice, but
give the babies they abort no choice. No, they are not pro-choice. They are pro-death.

Again it is important to remember: right and wrong are religious issues, and it is obvious that

Humanism is a religion, for it deals with religious issues only, and not with science as it pretends.

A Pagan Religion

———————————

55  Joseph Fletcher, Religioethical Issues, ed. Marvin Kohl (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1978), 17.
56  Arval A. Morris, “Proposed Legislation,” ed. Marvin Kohl, in Infanticide and the Value of Life (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1978).
57  “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) About the American Humanist Assocation.”
58  Paul Kurtz, “Notes from the Editor: Jack Kevorkian on Trial,” Free Enquiry 16, no. 2 (Spring 1996)Notes from the Editor (Amherst, New York),

Http://www.SecularHumanism.org/ library/fi/kurtz_16_2.html.

What Is Our Purpose In Life?

Why are you alive? What is your purpose in life? What are you doing here on this big ball called earth? Is

there any good news to encourage you in the right direction? Everyone needs a purpose in life lest he be
constantly frustrated and confused. Everyone needs to know why they are here and what they should be
doing. But again, these are religious questions which science cannot answer. Christianity answers these
questions, and so does Humanism—but with irreconcilably opposing answers.

The Christian Purpose of Life

Christianity teaches that humans exist to worship and serve their Creator, who loved them, and gave

Himself for them. Christians are to worship God by loving Him with all their hearts, obeying His commands,
and fulfilling the Great Commission which He gave them in Mat. 28:18-20. Millions of Christians (the author
included) testify to the fact that serving Christ brings not only joy and peace, but also a marvelous sense of
eternal importance and significance to life. The word “eternal” needs to be emphasized in the last sentence,
because eternal importance and significance is something Humanism obviously cannot give. According to
Humanism, once you die life is over. But according to the Bible of Christianity, once you die conscience
existence continues forever.

The Humanist Purpose of Life

Humanism also endeavors to provide people with an answer to the question, What is the purpose of life?

There is a document on the website of the American Humanist Association titled “Friends of Religious
Humanism.” This document, as its name implies, solicits people to become members of a Humanist
organization called Friends of Religious Humanism. According to this document

the Friends of Religious Humanism is an organization founded by Edwin H. Wilson, Lester Mondale, and others in 1962 as the “Fellowship of
Religious Humanists” to advance humanism within the Unitarian-Universalist denomination and to promote religious humanism in general.…
The FRH office is located in Humanist House, which also contains the offices of the American Humanist Association.… Mira Poudrier is the office
manager for FRH and oversees the publication of Religious Humanism, the FRH semi-annual journal.… The friends of Religious Humanism is an
affiliate organization of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Our stated purpose is as follows: “To promote and encourage the religious, ethical
and philosophical thought and life of our members and society. To this end, (we) shall arrange lectures, encourage writing, publish periodicals
and other literature, hold discussion groups, seminars and conferences, endeavoring to provide both inspirational materials and scholarly
studies which apply the scientific spirit and methods to the materials of ethics and religion.”59

In an effort to encourage people to join The Friends of Humanism, this American Humanist Association
document gives the following testimony from a man named Peter Samson:

“YES: Humanism can be religious; indeed, the most meaningful and livable kind of humanism is itself a religious way of understanding and
living life. It offers a view of [people] and [their] place in the universe that is a religious philosophy … overarching and undergirding it all, there
can be a haunting sense of wonder which never leaves one for whom life itself is a mystery and miracle. Where did we come from, why are we
here, where are we going with all the effort, frustration, the grief, the joy? To be caught up in this sense of wider relatedness, to sense our being
connected in live ways with all the world and everyone in it, is the heart dimension of religion, whatever its name.”60

So, the leaders of Humanism also agree that Humanism is a religion. But what is their answer to the
question, “What is the purpose of life?” Their answer may surprise you. Edwords gives the Humanist answer
to our question as follows:

One dances for the sheer joy of the activity. It is the process more than the product that counts. And this is how the Humanist good life is to be
lived.

So, when someone asks a Humanist, “What is the purpose of life?” the Humanist should answer, “Life is not purpose, life is art.” The

meaning is found in the doing.

What Is Humanism?

———————————

59 “Friends of Religious Humanism” (Amherst, New York: American Humanist Association, Yr. on web 1997), Http://www.humanism.net/frh/html.
60 Ibid.

This is a revolutionary and truly unique way of looking at the world. It is a way that finds the question of cosmic purpose irrelevant.61

So, to a Humanist, life has NO purpose! Humanists are here, but they don't have any idea why. Therefore
they devote themselves to trying to create the “Humanist good life,” by ignoring their duties to God, family,
and country, and living for their own selves, indulging in illicit sex, drugs, alcohol, getting rich, buying new
cars and houses, etc., because they think the only heaven they will ever have is the one they create for
themselves here on earth. Not only do humanists have no purpose, they also have no hope for the future. No
hope for seeing again their loved ones that pass into eternity before them. No hope for an improvement over
this life. No hope at all. They are, as the Bible puts it, in the condition of “having no hope, and without God
in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

And what if they are unable to create their “good life?” What if their labors don't make them rich? What if

their immorality causes them to get AIDS? What if their unfaithfulness causes the destruction of all the
relationships in life that really matter? What if their “quality of life” does not match their expectations? Well
they have an answer for that also—suicide! Just as they use contraception and abortion to prevent having to
share wealth with children now, so humanists depend on death to deliver them from the consequences of
their depraved lifestyle later. Christianity offers a much cleaner, and rewarding life in the here and now, plus
eternal life and Heaven. Humanism offers something it can seldom deliver in the here and now, then
everlasting death. Humanist leader Fredrick Edwords puts it like this:

“What is the promise of Humanism?”

Well, we already know what we can't promise. As sober realists and no-nonsense straight-shooters, we're experts in throwing the wet

blanket of rationalism over the fondest hopes of our fellows. We know the “bad news,” but what's our “good news,” what is the gospel of
Humanism?… The promise of Humanism is a good life here and now.… But now we can ask, if this is the promise of Humanism—if this is the
promise of liberal religion—is it a promise limited only to the affluent, the intelligent, the educated? If so, then are we making a promise we
can't always keep? This is the criticism leveled against us by the otherworldly religions. While we say that they can't keep their otherworldly
promises, they explain that they turned to this other world because we Humanists didn't keep our worldly promises.… And when, in those rare
instances, we find that the realization of the promise is futile, as in the case of an agonizing terminal illness, Humanism offers the freedom to
exit this life at will and with dignity. This is voluntary euthanasia, an area of great importance to Humanists, so much so that there will be two
major workshops on this topic at the national conference of the American Humanist Association next weekend.

So, in the end, the promise is not a perfect one. But we admit that. Others may seem to offer more perfect promises, but can they

deliver? I have no evidence that anyone has ever gotten to heaven, realized Nirvana, or merged with God. But I see evidence every day that the
promise of the good life is no mirage.62

So, if Humanism should not work, and instead turns our lives into messes, let us be comforted to know that
the Humanists are conducting workshops to show us the best way to commit suicide! Unfortunately, after
reading stacks and stacks of Humanist books, magazines, and other literature in preparing to write this
book, I have found no evidence whatsoever that there is no God. So I think I'll pass on the suicide. True
Christianity doesn't drive one to suicide, but I can certainly understand how Humanism or Humanist
Christianity (often called liberal—that is, phony—Christianity) might.

Let us be very blunt. Not only is the promise of Humanism not a perfect one; it is a mirage in spite of

what Edwords says. And I see evidence every day that the Humanist promise will never be attained for the
general population by any godless, humanist, socialist economic system. Humanism NEVER fulfills its
promise to the masses. The humanist economic system, socialism, is economic gambling—there are a few
winners at the expense of a huge multitude of losers, with most of the money going into the pockets of the
casino state. The casino state then magnifies the winner, to lure in more sucker voters, totally ignoring the
multitude of suffering losers. Witness the poverty brought upon every country that has tried communist

A Pagan Religion

———————————

61 Fredrick Edwords, “The Promise of Humanism,” in Library: Modern (Amherst, New York: American Humanist Association, 1989), Http://infidels.org/library/

modern/fred_edwords/promise.html.

62 Ibid.

humanism, or Buddhist humanism, or any other brand of socialist economy. In country after country
humanists advocate socialism in spite of the fact that it unfailingly fails. Under socialism the wealth always
ends up in the hands of a few corrupt government officials and their friends, while everyone else lives in
poverty. The closest that humanity has ever come to a good life materially has been attained here in the USA
as a result of our Christian heritage and the free enterprise system based upon it.

Humanism has a gospel, and humanism claims to give people purpose of life. Humanism is therefore a

religion. But the Humanist religion's gospel is false, and its purpose of life leaves one without hope and
without God.

Is There Life After Death?

Since all men know that they will someday die, this is a question of great interest to everyone. Science,

however, has never been able to give an answer to this question one way or the other. This, therefore, is an
immensely religious question.

Christianity Says There Is Life After Death

The Bible very clearly declares that upon dying believers in the Lord Jesus Christ go to Heaven, and

unbelievers go to the Lake of Fire:

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. (1 John 5:4)

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable,
and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brim-
stone: which is the second death. (Rev. 21:7-8)

Humanism Says There Is No Life After Death

What about immortality? Does Humanism take a purely scientific stand by avoiding this purely religious

question? Absolutely not! Declares Humanist Manifesto II:

Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from
self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the “ghost in the machine” and the
“separable soul.” Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total
personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the
death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.63

Where is their proof that modern science discredits the existence of a separable soul? They give none, for
they have no proof to give! Nor can they show us an experiment proving that humans emerged from natural
evolutionary forces—or even that such forces exist. Again, this is purely a religious doctrinal statement. No
proof is given to back up this superstitious faith. Humanists give no credible evidence that there is no soul,
nor that the soul does not survive the death of the body. Clearly the Humanist movement is based on
religious faith, and not on scientific fact. Humanism is a pagan religion pure and simple. There is nothing
scientific about it.

How Can I Be Saved?

The subject of salvation certainly is a religious subject if ever there was one. It implies that there is

something to be saved from. More than anything else humans want to be saved from the horrors and
uncertainties of death and whatever follows death. They want to be saved from the penalty God said would

What Is Humanism?

———————————

63 Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II.

result from sin—specifically eternal torments in Hell and the Lake of Fire and Brimstone. So far science has
not been able to prevent life from leaving a body, nor give life back to a dead body. Nor is there any
indication that science will ever be able to do so. So, Humanists are unable to offer science as a solution to
this problem. They can only offer a religious answer, and they do.

Let us contrast Christian salvation with Humanist salvation.

Christian Salvation

The Bible teaches that we cannot save ourselves; only God can save us. “For by grace are ye saved

through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph.
2:8-9).

God took upon himself a human body by being born of a virgin. “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and

shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”
(Mat. 1:23). As a human, He “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15).
Being sinless, He was able to die for our sins on the cross of Calvary. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 tells us that the
gospel (meaning “good news”) is “how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he
was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” God’s promise to us is

that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.… For whosoever shall call
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Rom. 10:9-13)

The believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is instantly passed from death unto eternal life, and knows it.

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the
Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have
eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.… And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under-
standing, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
(1 John 5:1-20)

Humanist Salvation

Humanism, as is to be expected, teaches just exactly the opposite of what the Bible says. Declares

Humanist Manifesto II, “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”64

Now that is an interesting statement, remembering that Humanists don't believe in sin or Hell—how can

they save themselves from something if it doesn’t exist? Many of the signers of Humanist Manifestos I and
II have already gone on to meet their Maker. Why didn't they save themselves? The above statement from
Humanist Manifesto II shows again just how proud, conceited, and foolish Humanists are.

In conclusion, Humanism is a religion, based not on science, but on faith. Two more quotes from

documents from the American Humanist Association web site will further confirm this point. Says Beverly
Earles in “Friends of Religious Humanism”: “Humanism is religion come of age.”65 And says the executive
director of the American Humanist Association, in his essay “What Is Humanism”: “Religious Humanism is
‘faith in action.’”66 Did you catch that? Humanism is religion. Humanism is not science, but “faith” in
action.

A Pagan Religion

———————————

64  Ibid.
65  “Friends of Religious Humanism.”
66  Frederick Edwords, “What is Humanism?”

The Religious Status of Humanism Matters

If humanism is scientific, then it would surely be wrong, even stupid, to oppose it. However, if

humanism is merely a religion, then for public schools to teach humanist doctrines con-
stitutes the establishment of a state religion, and is therefore illegal according to the
First Amendment to the Constitution.

What Is Humanism?

"UUs Continue to Protest Impending War with Iraq in Large
Numbers—Demonstrations held in New York, San Francisco.
(Boston, Feb. 19, 2003) During January and February, across the
United States and around the globe, demonstrations which oppose
pre-emptive U.S. military action against Iraq have continued, with
Unitarian Universalists participating in large numbers in organized
marches, rallies, and demonstrations. On January 31, UUA President
William Sinkford joined nearly 400 UUs from the greater Los Angeles
area in a candlelight vigil against pre-emptive military action in front
of the Westwood Federal Building. On February 15, an estimated
350,000-500,000 people participated in a demonstration in New York
City. Hundreds of UUs from across the US and Canada
attended"(http://www.uufh.org/newsdetail.html?key=101&back

=). Is this using tax exempt status to influence politics?

Chapter 4

IS HUMANISM REALLY A RELIGION?

Yes! A Communist-Like Religion

Can a Communist-like organization that denies the existence of God and seeks political dominion over

the whole world properly be called a religion? The answer is a resounding “YES!” Remember that Com-
munism itself is a religion. Here is how the late FBI director J. Edgar Hoover described Communism:

Communism is more than an economic, political, social, or philosophical doctrine. It is a
way of life; a false, materialistic “religion.” It would strip man of his belief in God, his
heritage of freedom, his trust in love, justice, and mercy. Under communism, all would
become, as so many already have, twentieth-century slaves.67

That description applies equally to Humanism. Humanists are very
dangerous religious fanatics, and pose an even greater threat to the
USA than do radical Islamists. The Humanist religion is more
dangerous than Islam because Humanists have a much larger fol-
lowing in the USA than does Islam, because it has infiltrated our
government, schools, and communications media, because its
loyalty is not to the USA but to an international headquarters (Inter-
national Humanist and Ethical Union), and because it has suc-
ceeded in hiding itself behind a thin veneer of false science.
Humanists leaders present themselves as scientists instead of as the
ministers of darkness they actually are. Humanism is what the
Apostle Paul described as “science falsely so called”
(1 Timothy 6:20).

Actually, to be very accurate, humanism (with a lower-case h) is

the religious upon which communism is built, and the American
Humanist Association (upper-case H) is an organization almost
identical to communism that is promoting the same materialist reli-
gion here in the USA, and around the world. Humanism is also the
religion of the Unitarian-Universalist Church, which is why you see
Unitarian ministers at so many Left-wing rallys and demonstrations,
along with the ACLU lawyers, NOW women, Act Up sodomites, and,
of course, Michel Communist-Health-Care Moore.

Perhaps the one subject Humanist leaders discuss most fre-

quently among themselves is humanism as a religion. Privately
among themselves, they plot and plan how to proselytize the mem-
bers of other religions. And quietly in courts of law, they demand tax

exempt status as non-profit religious organizations. But this religion status of humanism is the very last sub-
ject they want discussed in public. Why? Because by vigorously promoting separation of theistic
religion and state, they have succeeded in obtaining court orders totally expelling God
and theistic teachings from public schools.

Only humanist atheistic views of such religious doctrines

as the origin of the universe and man, discipline, morals, etc., may now be taught in the tax-funded schools
of America. God has been expelled. Prayer is banned. The Bible is deemed pornography. They have almost

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn,
o n e o f t h e f o u n d i n g
members of the ACLU later
became the head of the

Communist Party USA.

———————————

67 J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit (New York, New York: Affiliated Publishers, 1958), vi.

total control of what our children are taught, and they are using this control to brainwash our children in
their dogma.

But humanists realize that if enough Christians and other theists ever realize that

humanism is a religion also, then Christians might successfully demand that humanist
doctrines too be banned from public education! A near fatal blow would therefore be
stuck to humanism in the USA.

Thus humanists virtually never call humanism a religion when speak-

ing or writing in public forums. Always publicly humanists refer to humanism as “science” and to humanist
doctrines as “scientific facts.” Just how scientific humanism actually is is a topic of major importance. How-
ever, since humanism as science will be discussed in the next two chapters, this chapter will be confined to
discussing humanism as a religion. Is Humanism really a religion?

Humanists Declare Humanism a Religion

As has already been shown, Humanist leaders know that Humanism is not science, but is religion. In this

chapter more Humanist leaders will be quoted to prove this fact beyond any shadow of doubt. The best way
to learn the truth about this issue is to read the books and other publications Humanists wrote for their
own—writings meant to be read only by other Humanists or by people interested in becoming Humanists.
Humanists know that God-fearing people are very unlikely to read such books.

Lucien Saumur has written a book titled The Humanist Evangel to teach Humanists how to spread

Humanist beliefs and gain converts to Humanism. This book was first published in 1982 by Prometheus
Books in Buffalo, New York, a publishing arm of the American Humanist Association, and therefore voiced
the official position of the American Humanist Association. Listen to what Saumur says about humanism
being not science but a religion:

But then if humanism cannot be defined positively as humanitarianism, socialism, or science, must it be defined negatively as anti-
religious? Is humanism just an “anti-religion”? Must it be anti-religious because it opposed to some religions? Was Christianity an anti-religion
because fought so bitterly against the religion of Islam?

What is it that proposes to explain human nature and purpose if not religion? Is humanism not in fact a religion? Why can it not be so

even though it is competing with other religions, with every other religion?

Is it not only as a religion that humanism can have an identity? Is it not only as a religion that humanism can be defined simply and

clearly as something distinct from everything else? That it is not a duplicate of something else? That it is defined as something positive rather
than as what it is not: that it is defined for what it is for, rather than for what it is against?
Evidently, humanism, being a religion, can be classified with other religions. It shares the essential characteristics of a reli-
gion. But it is not those other religions: it is a religion essentially different from every other religion, it is itself; it has an identity. And it is in
describing this essential difference that the identity may be defined.68 [Emphasis added.]

It is clear then that Humanist leaders know what every American needs to know: “Humanism cannot

be defined positively as … science.… it is a religion.” Humanist leaders all know this, but they don’t want
the American people to know it, for that would mean the end of the domination of Humanist influence in
America.

Edward L. Ericson is a humanist minister and the author of The Humanist Way: an Introduction to

Ethical Humanist Religion. In a forward to Ericson’s book, Isaac Asimov, famous writer and past president
of the American Humanist Association, says that Ericson is the Humanist minister that preformed his mar-
riage ceremony.69 After giving an extended history of Ericson’s personal involvement as a leader in the reli-
gious humanist movement (he was president of the American Ethical Union), Ericson makes the following
statement:

With this extended association spanning three continents, imagine my astonishment to read in the press from time to time that Humanist reli-
gion does not exist. It is said to be merely a “myth” invented by extremists of the Fundamentalist right! Some of those who subscribe to this
“explanation” grudgingly concede that a few attempts to organize Humanist congregations have been undertaken but usually with the implica-
tion that such efforts have been unsuccessful or short-lived.

Is Humanism Really a Religion?

———————————

68 Lucien Saumur, The Humanist Evangel (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1982), 16.
69 Edward L. Ericson, The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion, foreword by Isaac Asimov (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company,

1988), vii-ix.

Yet if one counts the total number of Ethical Culture societies and fellowships and then adds the Unitarian Universalist churches and

societies that are explicitly or predominately Humanist in orientation and practice, plus the various congregations of the Society for Humanistic
Judaism—all existing examples of Humanist religious organization in the United States and Canada—the sum of such congregations would be
in the hundreds. To that number must be added the members-at-large of the Fellowship of Religious Humanists and the considerable body of
religious Humanists within the American Humanist Association, an “umbrella” organization that includes both the religious and the non-
religious. (In the case of the Unitarian Universalist churches and fellowships an exact estimate of members is not possible, since there exists a
gradation from societies that are explicitly Humanist in orientation to those in which more traditional theistic views prevail.) So while the reli-
gion of Humanism in North America is small when compared to other religious movements, it can hardly be dismissed as a myth created by its
enemies.70

Mr. Ericson could hardly have stated the facts more clearly—HUMANISM IS A RELIGION.

The Supreme Court Declares Humanism a Religion

As seen above, the statement that humanism is a religion is not just a baseless accusation of the Funda-

mentalist Right as humanist journalists would have us believe. Indeed, in the writings Humanists intend to be
confined to fellow humanists and humanist sympathizers, Humanists freely admit—even brag—that
humanism is a religion. But it is the legal status of humanism in the USA that is of crucial importance. The
fact is that the Supreme Court has ruled Humanism to be an officially recognized religion, and furthermore
has granted Humanist organizations full non-profit-organization, tax-exempt status. Mr. Ericson explains:

Having no God to propitiate, nontheistic religious devotion is directed toward other ethical and spiritual ends. In a footnote to a 1961 Supreme
Court decision that extended the full protection of the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment to a nontheistic Ethical Humanist (a
member of the Washington, D.C., Ethical Society), Justice Hugo Black observed: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would
generally be considered a belief in God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

The decision in this case (Torcaso v. Watkins) held that a nontheist is entitled to the same rights of conscience under the Constitution

as a believer in God. The Court did not “establish” Humanism as the preferred religion of the secular state as some right-wing Catholic and Fun-
damentalist polemicists have since absurdly contended. The Court only assured to Ethical Humanists and other nontheists the same rights that
Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, and other religious citizens have always claimed for themselves. A contrary decision would have reduced
Humanists and all other nontheists to second-class citizens whose full liberty of conscience would be infringed upon. (The government’s refusal
for many years to accept nontheists as conscientious objectors under the military draft resulted in prison terms for many—a grievous example
of religious discrimination on the basis of theology.)

Unfortunately, in the footnote quoted above, Justice Black did not help to clarify matters by referring to Humanist religion as “Secular

Humanism.” The use of this combination of terms in the Supreme Court’s Torcaso decision has since confused the distinction between the
secular, and religious types of Humanism.

The confusion came about in the following manner. Shortly before the Supreme Court heard the Torcaso case, a congregation of reli-

gious Humanists in California had won in state courts their claim to be a church, a decision that was argued in the Torcaso case as a precedent.
Unfortunately, a legal brief that cited the precedent referred to the California congregation as “Secular Humanists,” an ambiguous and prob-
lematic conjunction of terms to use when referring to a religious body. But Justice Black apparently accepted the label as an accurate and usual
designation, and the practice ever since of identifying Humanist religion as “Secular Humanism” has stirred endless misunderstanding and
befuddled public comprehension.71

Mr. Ericson has inadvertently made an extremely important point! All humanism—even “Secular
Humanism”—has been officially recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court of the United States of
America. Secular does not mean “non-religious” as so many people think; rather it simply means “exclud-
ing God.” Not only do most Humanists consider humanism—even that called “secular humanism”—a reli-
gion, so does the United States government. Therefore court rulings declaring legal in public schools the
teaching of only humanist doctrines concerning such religious subjects as the origin of the universe and of
man constitutes the “establishment of a religion” by the United States government.

Ericson’s claim that the Supreme Court did not establish humanism as the “preferred religion” of the

United State in the Torcaso v. Watkins case is true but deceptive. Ericson is implying that even now
humanism has not been established as a preferred religion, and that is not true. In later rulings the Court
protected the teaching in public schools of humanist doctrines (e.g. evolution), while banning the teachings
and practices of other religions (e.g. the Genesis account of creation and prayer). The following is a state-
ment of present law taken directly from the American Humanist Association web site:

Yes! A Communist-like Religion

———————————

70 Ibid., 9–10.
71 Ibid., xiii-xiv.

Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as “creationism”), in comparative religion or social studies
classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but
not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid
giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as
scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including “creationism,” although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation
of life may be taught.72

It is what is taught in the science class as scientific fact—truth provable in a scientific laboratory—that

is important. Evolution, which is merely a dogma—an unprovable religious teaching—of the Humanist reli-
gion, should not be allowed to be taught in science class as a proven scientific fact to the exclusion of all
debate on the matter, as is now the case. Freedom of speech is essential for truth to prevail. But there is no
freedom of speech in the classrooms of public schools today. Instead, public “schools may not refuse to
teach evolutionary theory,” but “public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doc-
trine, including ‘creationism.’” Note that creationism may not even be taught as “scientific theory!” So,
humanist religious dogma must be taught as scientific fact even though it isn’t, but creationism may not even
be taught as scientific theory even though it is the absolute truth.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),

though social studies classes can survey creation-of-the-world beliefs, U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968 and Edwards v.
Aguillard, 1987) have made clear that creationism may not be taught as science in public schools because it is a religious dogma.73

The ACLU is one of the most important of all Humanist organizations, so we see once again that Humanists
leaders know the untruth of their denial that Humanism has been made the state religion of the USA. U.S.
Supreme Court rulings have declared evolution to be science (truth), and have declared creationism be in
opposition to science (error). Court rulings, therefore, have in fact made Humanism the established state
church of the USA in violation of the Bill of Rights. We the people are forced against our wills by taxation to
fund a religion which is opposed to everything we believe to be true and sacred. No religion should be so
funded, even if it is the true religion. It is wrong to force people to fund teachings they cannot with a clear
conscience endorse.

Let us, now call to the witness stand Paul Kurtz, who “in 1973 … took the initiative, as editor of The

Humanist magazine, in drafting the landmark consensus statement, Humanist Manifesto II.”74 We will
have him read to us from his preface of that document that was published together with Humanist
Manifesto I as a small book titled Humanist Manifesto I & II. Wrote Kurtz: “Humanism is a philosophical,
religious

, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself”75 [Emphasis added].

Humanist Manifesto I Declares Humanism a Religion

Perhaps the scariest declaration of Humanism as a religion is found in Humanist Manifest I. In

Humanist Manifest I, not only is Humanism boldly declared to be a religion but is also shown to be one
and the same with Communism in basic ideology and goals. Note that even the word “manifesto” is used in
naming the document. Remember the Communist Manifesto?

Boldface italic emphasis has been added to the words religion, religious, etc. in the following excerpt

from Humanist Manifest I so you can note how often they are used, and how clearly Humanism is declared
to be a new “religion” for this age.

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for
mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the
necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the
vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the
undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.…

Is Humanism Really a Religion?

———————————

72 “RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A Joint Statement Of Current Law,” The American Humanist Association, April 1995,

Http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/Religionpublicschools.html.

73  “Creationism,” in Threats to Civil Liberties (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 1996), 1, Http://www.aclu.org/about/right4.html.
74  Storer, Humanist Ethics: Dialogue on Basics, 3.
75  Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, 2.

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and his deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have cre-

ated a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of fur-
nishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe
a vast debt to traditional religions, it is the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must
be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this
generation. We therefore affirm the following:

First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.
Third: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
Fourth: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of
a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular cul-
ture is largely molded to that culture.
Fifth: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guaran-
tees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibilities of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to
determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relation to human
needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
Sixth: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought.”
Seventh: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the reli-
gious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying
human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.76
Eighth: Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development
and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.
Ninth: In place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense
of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
Tenth: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
Eleventh: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly atti-
tudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and
discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
Twelfth: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to
encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
Thirteenth: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evalua-
tion, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose
and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
Fourteenth: the humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and
that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to
the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people
voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
Fifteenth and last: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it;
and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive moral and intention humanism
will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate77, the quest
for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of
his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.78 [Emphasis added]

The religious doctrines presented in Humanist Manifesto I and II are discussed in other chapters of

this book. The point of importance to be emphasized here is that Humanist Manifesto I professes to be
(and obviously is) the statement of faith and aims of a “religion.” It claims as its purpose “to establish…a
vital, fearless, and frank religion.” Four times it refers to “religious humanism.” Sixteen times it uses the
terms “religion” or “religious.” Note also that all its theses are religious in nature. They discuss issues one
would expect to be discussed in a Sunday School class at church, though they admit that their religious

Yes! A Communist-like Religion

———————————

76 Please reread this important statement number seven, which is true! Everything in life is religious, including philosophy, science, and public education.

Humanists usually lie about this fact, but here they tell the truth. This proves that Humanist leaders know that evolution is a religious teaching. Let this fact
sink deep into your memory.

77 This is an inadvertent admission by Humanists that the USA was founded on Christian principles, and not on humanist principles as Humanists so often claim.
78 Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, 7–11.

beliefs and forms are not the same as the religious beliefs and forms of the founding fathers of this country.
The evidence that humanism is a religion is thus overwhelming.

The chilling truth: the United States of America has combined with the Humanist church in direct viola-

tion of the first amendment to
the Constitution. The citizens of
the USA are now forced by taxa-
tion to support the propagation
of a pagan atheistic religion
which despises everything Chris-
tianity stands for. Oppression of
free speech in public schools
began years ago. Teachers may
no longer teach the Genesis
account of creation, but are
forced to teach the humanist
religious doctrine of evolution.
Freedom of religion is denied to
public school teachers and pub-
lic school students. When we
enter the school yards, we are
no longer a free people. If you
do not believe this important
fact, you definitely need to read
the rest of this book and open
your eyes—especially you
need to wake up to the reli-
gious oppression your chil-
dren are experiencing every
day they attend public
school.

We will close by letting Roy

Wood Sellers, professor of
philosophy at the University of
Michigan, and the man who
wrote the initial draft of

Humanist Manifest I, tell us what Humanism is:

Is Humanism a religion, perhaps, the next great religion? Yes, it must be so characterized, for the word, religion, has become a symbol for ans-
wers to that basic interrogation of human life, the human situation, and the nature of things—which every human being, in some degree and
in some fashion, makes. What can I expect from life? What kind of universe is it? Is there, as some say, a friendly Providence in control of it? And,
if so, what then?79

Is Humanism Really a Religion?

This December 3, 2007 screen shot of the Communist Party USA
web site shows the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)at the very
top of the list of organizations recommended by the Communist Party
USA for protecting civil rights. The ACLU is perhaps the most
important arm of the American Humanist Association. Both groups
have often had the same head. Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a communist
was one of the founding members of the ACLU. She later went on to

become the head of the Communist Party USA.

———————————

79 Bob Green, “Sixty Years Of A Humanist Manifesto,” Humanists of Utah, May 1993, Http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1993/artmay93.html.

Chapter 5

IS HUMANISM SCIENCE?

No! It Is Science Falsely So Called

As shown in the previous chapter, if Humanists are to remain in exclusive control of public education, it

is vital for them to keep the American public ignorant of two facts: (1) that humanism is indeed being taught
in public schools, and (2) that humanism has been officially declared a religion by the United States
Supreme Court. As long as Humanists can keep the American public ignorant of these two facts they will be
able to continue to monopolize public education to brainwash generation after generation of American
youth with their atheistic propaganda, until eventually the majority of Americans will become humanists—
and humanism will reign victorious over theism.

But if enough Christians are alerted soon enough to what the Humanists are doing, there is still a chance

that Humanism could lose its present monopoly of public education, and in fact suffer a tremendous defeat
which would set back its agenda for many decades.

Therefore, in public Humanists almost never identify themselves as Humanists or even as humanists, and

almost never identify their beliefs as humanism. Instead they claim to be “scientists,” and claim that their
beliefs are “proven scientific facts.” Furthermore, Humanists label those who disagree with them
“opponents to science” whose teachings are based on “unproven religious faith.” One specific example of
this is their zealous insistence that the theory of evolution is proven scientific fact (and therefore undeniably
true), while belittling the Genesis account of creation as a mere religious fable (and therefore undeniably
false). So foundational is the theory of evolution to Humanist doctrines that we will devote all of the next
chapter to it.

First, however, we must examine Humanist positions on issues in general to see if Humanists actually do

determine their positions by applying the scientific method to the issues as they claim. To do this we will go
again to the literature that they intended to be read only by other humanists and not by the general public.

Marvin Zimmerman’s Testimony

We call to the witness stand Marvin Zimmerman, professor of Philosophy at the State University of New

York at Buffalo. Humanist editor Morris B. Storer has recognized Mr. Zimmerman as among “the most
careful and realistic thinkers, the lifetime students, the most articulate writers in the field” of humanist
ethics.80 Zimmerman, as a leader in the Humanist movement, knows humanists far better than do most
men. What has been his observation? Are humanists scientific? Mr. Zimmerman answers our question in his
essay titled “How ‘Humanist’ are Humanists?” as follows:

Are humanists scientific? Do humanists practice what they preach? Humanists have claimed their superiority to supernaturalists in their belief in
scientific method and empirical truth.… Unfortunately, in practice, humanists often misuse science or do not even pretend to use it at all, in
taking positions on a variety of issues.81

That is certainly a surprising opinion to be expressed by a Humanist leader. Could Mr. Zimmerman please
give us a concrete example? Yes, he obviously can, for in his essay he proceeds to do so:

In fairness to the humanists, a lack of sophistication and historical insight into the judicial tyranny developing in our country characterizes a
much larger segment of our people. But it does seem more prevalent in liberal, secular, and humanist quarters, and probably because of the
recent thrust of the Supreme Court decisions in their direction. Compounding the error of accepting decisions on a basis of emotion rather than
evidence, humanists have been indifferent to this abuse and growth of judicial power by the Supreme Court, a usurpation of the legislative and
executive functions.

———————————

80 Storer, Humanist Ethics: Dialogue on Basics, 3.
81 Ibid., 262.

Almost anyone can claim to be scientific in ethics, but whether one actually looks to experience and scientific evidence is an entirely

different matter. Thus, whether humans are equal, races are equal, men and women are equal, different cultures are equal, and in what ways
are difficult questions to analyze scientifically. Yet, they seem to be easily answered by humanists (and others) and in anything but a scientific
fashion. Thus, though there is evidence against belief in equality in all these areas, such suggestions are met by cries of racism, sexism,
chauvinism, prejudice, and so on. New absolutes are proclaimed, even as old absolutes are rejected.

There is overwhelming evidence that humans are different in more ways than they are the same, whether physically, mentally, cultur-

ally, or educationally. Most are not qualified to practice medicine, law, engineering, police work, firefighting, teaching, et cetera. Yet the reality
of ability and achievement or merit is being ignored in order to promote the illusion of equality by use of quotas, reverse discrimination, goals,
executive and judicial decrees, charges of discrimination or what have you. In general, many humanists have condoned, if not advocated such
measures.

In the name of equality, innocent individuals are being penalized because of their race or sex, and others rewarded because of their

race or sex, all this under some form of quota system. Humanists who should be in the forefront of the battle against this new form of original
sin, have barely voiced their opposition. Though humanists oppose discrimination against atheists, blacks, and females, they condone, if not
accept, discrimination against theists, whites, and males.82

Being obviously upset by the hypocrisy he sees in humanist circles, Mr. Zimmerman proceeds on to yet
another example of humanist hypocrisy concerning science:

Most humanists oppose capital punishment, not on the basis of scientific evidence that it does not deter crime, but on grounds indistinguishable
from religious faith or dogma, namely emotions. They accept blindly the claim that capital punishment does not deter killing because people
who kill are too emotional to even consider the consequences of their actions. What about the calm premeditative killer and even the emo-
tionally disturbed? What is the effect of capital punishment on recidivists? They accept the argument that innocent people might be executed
and that minority groups make up a disproportionate number on death row. They ignore the fact that most of the victims of crime are also
innocent people and also minority members. The issue is not whether the data supports capital punishment, but whether the humanists have
taken a stand against capital punishment without regard to the data or scientific method.

Even apart from capital punishment, the humanists’ attitude toward crime appears to be based on sentimental emotions rather than

reason. They express sympathy for rehabilition, parole, and prisoners’ rights, whether or not supported by evidence, and a virtual disregard for
victims of crime. In spite of the increasing evidence that the use of parole, rehabilitation, and prisoners’ rights have been ineffective for the most
part and, as a matter of fact, tend to increase crime, the humanists continue to support them.83

Still not content, Mr. Zimmerman continues to give example after example of humanists being unscientific.
Unfortunately, space considerations forbid giving all of them here. One more will have to suffice:

Humanists seem to buy the antinuclear energy hysteria, an area in which science would seem to be most relevant and yet has been mostly
ignored. Though so many activities are far more dangerous to life and limb (e.g., coal mining, automobile driving, flying in airplanes, or merely
crossing a city street), the humanists succumb to the emotions rather than to reason.84

Zimmerman concludes his testimony with this sweeping condemnation of humanist hypocrisy (to which

we can only say, Amen):

Again and again, on issue after issue, it seems clear that the humanists have failed to practice what they preach, and can hardly be distinguished
from the supernaturalists whom they ridicule for being unscientific.85

Lucien Maumur’s Testimony

It is extremely important that it be proven that humanism is not science. This is important because if

humanism is not science then it must be religion. Humanist leaders know that not only is humanism not
science, it is not even scientific. It is pure blind faith. Lucien Maumur in his Humanist Evangel confirms
this:

To achieve a positive role while being anti-religious, humanists are led to pose as the defenders of science against religion. They do so by
proclaiming the rationality of science against the alleged irrationality of religion. Yet in this role they fail to be particularly rational; nor are they
particularly effective defenders of science. While they proclaim their rationality, they fail to do exactly what a rationalist should do, which is to
give a reason. Their opponents, who are accused of being irrational, often display more rationality than they do: their opponents give more rea-
sons than they do! Because of their obsession, these self-proclaimed rationalists firmly believe that they have cornered the market on
rationality. In spite of their boast, they cannot recognize reason when they are face to face with it, and thus they dismiss their opponents
without a trial and with further accusations of irrationality and superstition. Dialogue is always difficult, and as a result the humanists are
usually ignored and thus remain a small and ineffective self-righteous group.

Is Humanism Scientific?

———————————

82  Ibid., 263.
83  Ibid., 264.
84  Ibid., 268.
85  Ibid.

Those who pose as the defenders of science against religion are oblivious of the fact that they convince no one and that, to the con-

trary, they create ill feeling and confirm their opponents in their convictions. But why should these humanists care about the effect of their
actions as long as they are doing their appointed duty, which is to proclaim the True Faith?

They never stop to notice that they are not performing any better than the most fanatical of their opponents. While they claim that

science contradicts religion, their faith in science has the same kind of absolute quality as does the faith that their more fanatical opponents
have in their God. They worship science like others worship gods. They could rightly be accused of having enthroned science as a new supersti-
tion or as a new myth.

Furthermore, the attempt of humanists to link religion to anti-science and to pose as defenders of science, in hope of defining itself

positively, turns against humanism. While it is true that it is no longer defined negatively, it is no longer defined distinctively either. Thus
humanism, in its role as the defender of science, becomes a subordinate part of the scientific establishment. And because it badly overplays its
role, it is often unwanted in this part. Thus, when it is defined as the defender of science, the identity of humanism is no better but worse than
when it is defined as either humanitarianism or socialism.86

Well and truthfully said! Except that humanists do not “worship science like others worship gods.”

Rather, humanists worship an imaginary creator force they call Evolution as their god—a idol they made
with the hands of their mind. They have never seen, heard, smelt, felt, or tasted Evolution, and he, she, nor it
has never answered a prayer. But humanists “got faith.” Evolution is really slow, they say—takes billions of
years to do anything. Evolution is the slowest god in history! If you like to see things happen, worship Jesus.

The Plain Truth

The basic theme of this book is that humanist doctrines being taught in public schools constitutes a

violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Humanists know this is true. A few theists also
know this, and they are trying to make this known to the public. This has so shaken the Humanist leaders
that they are now writing articles and books denying that humanism is a religion. While they used to call
humanism “religious humanism,” the term “secular humanism” is now used. More than ever, humanists
are stressing that humanism is based on science. Next time you read such claims, remember the above
quotes, and don’t be deceived. Humanism is not substantiated by scientific facts at all (as will be shown in
the next chapter). Humanism must be taken on blind faith. It is not science, but is the same pagan religion
which underlies communism.

No! It Is Science Falsely So Called

———————————

86 Saumur, The Humanist Evangel, 13–14.

Chapter 6

IS EVOLUTION SCIENCE?

No! It Is Religious Dogma

The theory of evolution is not science, as many people have been led to believe, but is the core faith

belief held by the atheistic religion called humanism. The doctrine of the origin of the universe and life is
the most basic of all religious doctrines. Humanists call their doctrine of origin “Evolution.” All humanist
teachings revolve around and rest upon the evolution frame and world-view. Rejecting God as the frame
upon which to build a satisfactory idea-system, humanists place their faith in a mysterious dead natural
force, which—say they—causes all things to evolve upward from dead matter into life, and from the simple
to the complex. Upon this unprovable belief humanists base every aspect of their lives. Sir Julian Huxley,
world famous evolutionary biologist, former head of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization), and a signer of Humanist Manifesto II, explained this intimate relationship between
humanism and evolution as follows:

If the situation is not to lead to chaos, despair or escapism, man must reunify his life within the framework of a satisfactory idea-system. To
achieve this, he needs to survey the resources available to him, both in the outer world and within himself, to define his aims and chart his posi-
tion, and to plan the outline of his future course. He needs to use his best efforts of knowledge and imagination to build a system of thought and
belief which will provide both a supporting framework for his present existence, an ultimate or ideal goal for his future development as a
species, and a guide and directive for practical action and planning.

This new idea-system, whose birth we of the mid-twentieth century are witnessing, I shall simply call Humanism, because it can only

be based on our understanding of man and his relations with the rest of his environment. It must be focused on man as an organism, though
one with unique properties. It must be organized round the facts and ideas of evolution, taking account of the discovery that man is part
of a comprehensive evolutionary process, and cannot avoid playing a decisive role in it.87 [Emphasis added.]

The Significance of Evolution

The significance of evolution is this: if evolution is true, then the Bible is not true, and there is no God. It

is amazing how many Christians cannot see this obvious fact. Certainly the humanist leaders of the world are
not so blind. Sir Julian Huxley clearly stated the atheistic implication of evolution as follows:

Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no super-
natural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in
its evolution.… I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process.88

Since the theory of evolution is being taught daily to our children in public schools, and since Humanism

is the religion espoused by the United Nations, it is very important that Americans understand more about
Humanism and its theory of evolution.

The Root Idea of Evolution

The root idea of evolution is that living beings can come into existence out of non-living matter without

parents. In the past, this basic premise of evolution was called spontaneous generation. Humanists boast
that humanism caused the scientific revolution that brought in all the advancements in medicine in the past
100 years. However, that is not true. In fact, scientists’ rejection of the Bible and belief in the humanist doc-
trine of evolution kept the medical world blinded to the true cause of disease for hundreds and hundreds of
years. Unwilling to accept God’s account of creation, and being unable with their naked eyes to see small

———————————

87 Julian Huxley, ed., The Humanist Frame (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 14.
88 Julian Huxley, “At Random: A Television Preview,” in Evolution After Darwin, in Issues In Evolution, ed. Sol Tax, 3 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1960), 45.

creatures reproduce, they reasoned that dead meat just “spontaneously generated” flies, and that germs had
no parents but just evolved from naturally occurring chemical processes.

The story of the theory of spontaneous generation is one of the most fantastic in all biology. Thompson says: “If longevity of a belief were an
index to its truth, the theory of spontaneous generation should rank high among the veracities, for it flourished throughout twenty centuries
and more. We cannot trace the history of the theory in detail, but the story may be recommended to the psychological historian as a labyrinth of
error, with glimpses of truth at every turn.

The belief in spontaneous generation is recorded in literature back as far as Anaximander (611-547 B.C.). He believed that eels and

other aquatic forms are produced directly from lifeless matter. His pupil Anaximenes (588-524 B.C.) “introduced the idea of primordial terrestrial
slime, a mixture of earth and water, from which, under the influence of the sun’s heat, plants, animals and human beings are directly
produced—in the abiogenetic fashion,” says Osborn in “From the Greeks to Darwin.” Diogenes and Xenophanes … also believed in
spontaneous generation. Then came the “father of natural history,” Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who fostered this idea so strongly that it has per-
sisted for more that twenty centuries.89

Louis Pasteur, the father of modern medicine, dared to question the evolution dogma. Under his micro-

scope, Pasteur observed the opposite of evolution, and suspected that spontaneous generation (also called
abiogenesis) of living beings from dead matter was not a reality. Furthermore he believed that species did
not evolve into new species, but rather came from parents of the same kind as themselves. (This is called
biogenesis, and is what the Bible teaches in Genesis chapter one.) Pasteur realized that if he were right, dif-
ferent kinds of germs caused different diseases, and by determining a germ’s kind and learning how to kill
that kind, the disease it caused could be cured. Pasteur declared, “It is in the power of man to make para-
sitic illnesses disappear from the face of the globe, if the doctrine of spontaneous generation is wrong, as I
am sure it is.”90 On April 7, 1864, six years after Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species, and after
Pasteur had endured years of opposition, ridicule and outright hatred from evolutionary pseudo-scientists,
he lectured in a large lecture room of the Sorbonne concerning his famous experiments. He began by allud-
ing to the significance of his experiments to the creation/evolution conflict.

Great problems are now being handled, keeping every thinking man in suspense; the unity or multiplicity of human races; the creation of man
1,000 years or 1,000 centuries ago, the fixity of species, or the slow and progressive transformation of one species into another; the eternity of
matter; the idea of a God unnecessary. Such are some of the questions that humanity discusses nowadays.91

Then he explained his famous experiment, disproving abiogenesis (spontaneous generation). He showed
two flasks. Both contained portions of the same organic broth. Both had necks open to the air. Months
before, the broth in both had been sterilized by heat. But the neck of one pointed upward, while the long
neck of the other curved downward, then upward, like a swans neck. “Why does one decay,” he asked,
“while the second remains pure?”

The only difference between them is this: in the first case the dusts suspended in air and their germs can fall into the neck of the flask and arrive
into contact with the liquid, where they find appropriate food and develop; thence microscopic beings. In the second flask, on the contrary, it is
impossible, or at least extremely difficult … that dusts suspended in air should enter the vase; they fall on its curved neck.… And, therefore,
gentlemen, I could point to that liquid and say to you, I have taken my drop of water from the immensity of creation, and I have taken it full of
the elements appropriated to the development of inferior beings. And I wait, I watch, I question it, begging it to recommence for me the beauti-
ful spectacle of the first creation. But it is dumb, dumb since these experiments were begun several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it
from the only thing man cannot produce, from the germs which float in the air, from Life, for Life is a germ and a germ Life. Never will the doc-
trine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.… No, there is now no circumstance known in which it
can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who affirm it have
been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid.92

Note carefully what Pasteur said: “there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that

microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves.”
Amazingly, in spite of Pasteur’s conclusive evidence against evolution, humanists still insist that evolution is
no longer theory but proven fact! Desperate to believe there is no God, they frantically cling to any straw of
evidence for evolution, no matter how fraudulent. For example, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, gave

Is Evolution Science?

———————————

89 “The Origin of Life,” by Carolina E. Stackpole, in Biology, vol. 6 of The Outline of Knowledge, ed. James A. Richard (New York: J.A. Richards, Inc., 1924), 227–8.
90 Beverley Birch, Louis Pasteur: The Scientist Who Found the Cause of Infectious Disease and Invented Pasteurization (Milwaukee: Gareth Stevens Children’s Books,

1989), 50.

91 Vallery-Radot, The Life of Pasteur, trans. Devonshire (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1923), 107.
92 Ibid., 107–9.

not one proof that has stood the test of time. Yet it is still the humanist bible. Darwin said it, humanists
blindly believe it, and that settles it in their minds—even though all evidence disproves it.

Charles Darwin is said to have been a shy man, who did not like public speaking. Thomas Huxley, grand-

father of Sir Julian Huxley (previously quoted) was a close friend and public defender of Charles Darwin
and his Origin of Species. So fervently did he promote Darwinian evolution that he earned the nickname
“Darwin’s Bulldog.” Yet listen to Huxley’s admission:

To say … in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would
be using words in a wrong sense.

But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given to me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to

the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions which it can no more see again than man
can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living substance from non-living matter.… This is the expectation to
which analogical reasoning leads me; but I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philo-
sophical faith.93

Huxley was one of the rare evolutionists who would admit that his belief in evolution was “an act of

philosophical faith” in a theory for which there is complete “absence of evidence.” Huxley revealed to us the
naked truth: evolution is pagan religion, not science! It is superstition pure and simple. It really takes faith to
believe in something for which there is not one shred of evidence! To this day, no one has ever—even
once—witnessed dead matter give birth to life. If it ever happened, why isn’t it still happening? Evolution is a
monstrous lie! Think of the multitudes of people who died of infectious diseases because of this myth! Think
of the millions now who are rejecting God and dooming themselves to Hell because of faith in this pagan
religious fable!

The Strong Case Against Evolution

Not only is the root idea from which evolution springs wrong, but also all the other theories humanists

submit as proofs of evolution are either obviously wrong or unprovable. Neither evolution nor the theories
given to defend it are provable by the scientific method. In order for a theory to be tested by the scientific
method, it must be repeatable under controlled conditions. Obviously the beginning of matter cannot be
repeated. Nor can the conditions prevailing on earth when life began be duplicated or controlled. In the
Bible God gives us an eye witness account of what happened; but if we reject what God says we are reduced
to merely guessing about what happened.

While it is outside the scope of this book to give a detailed refutation of the theory of evolution, the fol-

lowing major points are easily made.

The Laws of Thermodynamics Disprove Evolution

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics directly contradict the Theory of Evolution. While the

theory of evolution implies a continual creation of new species, the first law of thermodynamics states that
although matter can change forms, it can neither be created or destroyed. The second law of
thermodynamics states that in any real process, in a closed system, the entropy must increase. In other
words, the universal tendency of all things is toward disintegration and decay. Things wear out and die. The
complex reverts to the simple. Order degenerates into randomness. Evolution, however, teaches just the
opposite, that there is a universal tendency for things to become better organized, more complex, more
highly specialized, etc. Clearly, the Theory of Evolution contradicts these two scientific laws. If the first and
second laws of thermodynamics be true, then the Theory of Evolution is not true. Consider that the first and
second laws of thermodynamics have been tested innumerable times in virtually every field of natural
science, and have been proven reliable without exception. Evolution, of course, has never been observed
ever—not even once. The Theory of Evolution goes against all observable facts, and is therefore blind faith
not science.

No! It Is Religious Dogma

———————————

93 “The Origin of Life,” 226–7.

Big Bangs Disprove Evolution

The Second Law of Thermodynamics also proves that the universe had a starting point. It is an

observable fact that the universe is expanding—degenerating into randomness. The sun and stars are
burning up energy at a terrific rate. Calculations indicate that they will some day burn out and die.
Obviously, the universe had a beginning. This proves to be an embarrassment to humanists. How do they
explain this beginning? The most popular explanation is the Big Bang Theory. Humanists speculate that
before the beginning all the matter of the universe was compressed into a dot perhaps the size of this
period: “.” Then for some unknown reason there was an unbelievably huge non-explosion—some
humanists insist it was not an explosion— in which all that matter violently expanded and formed itself into
the planets, stars, etc., and also sparked life into being.

There is one very big problem with this theory. All big bangs that have ever been observed in history are

explosions, and they do not create order and design—rather they destroy order and design. A bundle of
dynamite big-banged under your home would not cause your home to evolve into a bigger and better one.
Rather it would blow your home into thousands of unusable pieces. A nuclear bomb would do an even
better job of disintegrating your home. Also, big bangs tend to kill, not create life. The atomic bombs
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not spark the dead matter in those cities into life. Instead those big
bangs killed a multitude of people and an innumerable number of other living creatures. Every big bang
ever observed tends to disintegrate, kill or maim everything nearby. The bigger the bang the more thorough
the destruction. This is just the opposite of evolution. The so-called Big Bang Theory of the origin of the
universe therefore goes against all observable facts, and is based wholly upon atheistic faith not upon
scientific facts.

The Existence of Distinct Kinds Disproves Evolution

Were evolution true there would be no distinct kinds of living beings. Now we must be careful using the

term “species,” as that is a man-made term, not a Bible term, and therefore can mean whatever men want it
to mean. The Bible uses the term “kind.” Each kind differs in characteristics from other kinds as to make
classification into distinct kinds possible. The distinct kinds can reproduce only after their own kind. That is,
one kind can only produce babies by breeding with its own kind, and the babies produced will be of its
same kind. While there might be what modern humans would call various species within a kind (for
example the many types of dogs), and these species can interbreed with each other producing various
breeds of dogs, their offspring are all obviously dogs. Dogs never give birth to cats or to cat-dogs. Even
within a kind there is some restriction in breeding capabilities. Horses and donkeys are both of the same
kind, and can breed, producing mules (still of the same kind). Mules, however, are sterile. Mules cannot
reproduce, as would be the case if this were an example of evolution taking place.

The theory of evolution states that each modern specie has evolved from a common one-celled life-form

by a painfully slow process of minute changes over a period of billions of years. Were this actually the case
every birth would result in a slight change within a common kind, and all life would be able to interbreed,
rendering division into distinct kinds impossible. The fossil records show that this is not the case. Instead
specimens of every distinct kind found on earth today can also be found in the fossil records. Other distinct
but extinct kinds are also found. But no kinds not found in the fossils can be observed alive today; that is,
there are no new kinds coming into existence. The so-called “missing links” that the evolutionists of
Darwin’s day predicted would be found have not been found, and obviously never will be found. Since the
evolving of one kind into another kind has never been observed happening even once since the beginning
of history, we must conclude that evolution is not science at all, but mere faith in a theory of which there is
no evidence of truthfulness whatsoever.

Is Evolution Science?

Sex Disproves Evolution

The necessity of having a male and female of each kind to make reproduction possible highlights the

folly of life having evolved by random chance. For each of the millions of kinds of animals, a male and a
female would have had to evolve at the same time so as to be able to reproduce themselves. For this to have
happened goes far beyond the realm of chance. Such imaginative dreaming takes faith of the blindest sort!

Demography Disproves Evolution

The growth rate of the human population since the beginning of written history proves that man has only

been here a few thousand years, not the millions required by the Theory of Evolution. The very same
humanists who are preaching the Theory of Evolution as fact also preach that the world is experiencing a
population explosion which threatens the survival of the human species. The birth rates and formulas
humanists use to try to prove this mythical population explosion if applied backwards in time instead of
forward, show the beginning of the human race to be a mere two or three thousand years ago! That is half
the six thousand years or so the Bible indicates, and has the human race beginning after written history did!
Obviously the humanists have inadvertently disproven at least one of their theories. Both of their theories
cannot be true. Therefore at least one —probably both—of them is not scientific. My what faith these
humanists have!

Sedimentary Rock Disproves Evolution

Humanists reason in a circle. If you ask them how they know that certain fossils are so many billions of

years old, they will tell you that those fossils are so dated because they are found in a certain layer of rock. If
you ask them how they know that rock layer is so old, they tell you that that rock layer is so dated because of
the particular fossils found within it! Such circular reasoning flagrantly violates sound logic, and is invalid.
Not only do humanists reason in a circle in this matter of the fossil record, they also ignore the fact that in
reality the rock layers are not consistently found in the chronological order demanded by evolution, nor is a
particular specie found only in a certain layer of rock, but is instead apt to be found in any layer of
sedimentary rock. Furthermore, evolutionists reason that the rock layers must be billions of years old
because at present rates of sediment build-up it would take that long for them to form. But they fail to point
out that fossils are not presently being formed, and the reason is because plants and animals must be
covered suddenly and deeply in order to become fossils—else they decay or are devoured before fossil
formation is possible. Obviously, the fossils could have been—and probably were—formed as a result of
the world being destroyed by the catastrophic flood during the days of Noah, and do not prove evolution.

The Complexity of DNA Disproves Evolution

Recent scientific advances have shown that “simple one-celled animals” are not so simple after all. In

fact they are exceedingly complex and could not possibly have been formed by random chance. Dr. Charles
McCombs, a Ph.D. organic chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has
20 chemical patents, explains the significance of DNA as follows:

Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the
blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While
it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not “create”
life by their presence; they only “maintain” the life that is already present.…Let's take a closer look at proteins and DNA, and the problems of
their synthesis by evolutionary processes. Proteins are long polymers of amino acids linked in a chain. There are thousands of proteins within
the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids on the polymer chain. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid,) is a polymer of
nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically
bonded to one of the following heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. Although there are only four different heterocycles, the
DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. The sequence of the human DNA chain is so
complicated, that even with the sophisticated scientific equipment available today, we still do not know the complete sequence. Proteins and

No! It Is Religious Dogma

DNA contain a unique order of the individual components.…. If the sequence is changed even slightly, the altered polymer is no longer capable
of performing the same function as the natural protein or DNA. If these polymers were formed by evolution in some primordial soup, then we
should be able to explain how natural chemical processes were responsible for forming the sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists would say
that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and the nucleotide molecules combined to form DNA, and from them, life. To someone
not trained in chemistry, this might sound like a reasonable process, but this is not how chemical reactions work.

Chemists are trained to understand the mechanisms of how molecules react and how to activate molecules so they will react predict-

ably and in a controlled fashion. If a chemist wanted to synthesize the polymer chain of proteins or DNA in the laboratory, the starting com-
pounds must be first activated so that they will begin to react. The chemist must then control the reactivity and the selectivity of the reactants
so that the desired product is formed.

The problem with life arising from chemicals is a three-fold problem: chemical stability, chemical reactivity, and chemical selectivity

during the chain building process.…

Chemical stability is a question of whether the components can even react at all. … In order to make amino acids and nucleotides

react to form a polymer, they must be chemically activated to react with other chemicals. But this chemical activation must be done in the
absence of water because the activated compounds will react with water and break down. How could proteins and DNA be formed in a
hypothetical primordial watery soup if the activated compounds required to form them cannot exist in water? …
Chemical reactivity deals with how fast the components react in a given reaction. If life began in a primordial soup by natural chemical reac-
tions, then the laws of chemistry should be able to predict the sequence of these chains. But when amino acids react chemically, they react
according to their reactivity, and not in some specified order necessary for life. …Since all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures,
they all have similar reaction rates; they will all react at about the same rate making the precise sequence by random chemical reactions
unthinkably unlikely. …

Chemical selectivity is a problem of where the components react. Since the chain has two ends, the amino acids can add to either end

of the chain. Even if by some magical process, a single amino acid "B" would react first as desired for the pre-determined life supporting
sequence followed by a single amino acid "A," the product would be a mixture of at least four isomers because there are two ends to the chain.
If there is an equal chance of amino acid "B" reacting in two different locations, then half will react at one end, half at the other end. The result
of adding "B" will form two different products. When the addition of amino acid "A" occurs, it will react at both ends of the chain of both the
products already present. … The result is a mixture of several isomers of which the desired sequence seldom results, and this is the problem
with only two amino acids reacting. As the third amino acid is added, it can react at both ends of four products, and so on, insuring randomness,
not a precise sequence.

Since proteins may contain hundreds or thousands of amino acids in a sequence, imagine the huge number of undesired isomers that

would be present if these large proteins were formed in a random process.… Evolutionists say that nature is blind, has no goal, and no purpose,
and yet precise selection at each step is necessary.…

The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible in a random process. The

synthesis of proteins and DNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity
and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The success-
ful formation of proteins and DNA in some primordial soup would require the same control of the reactivity and selectivity, and that would
require the existence of a chemical controller.… Evolutionists have always been quick to claim that life came from chemicals, but their theory
does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Evolution claims that random chance natural processes formed life as we know it, but they fail to mention
that their theory is anything but random or natural! This is the false logic of evolution. Evolutionists just hope you don't know chemistry!94

We must conclude therefore that to teach children that the Theory of Evolution is scientific fact is to

teach them a lie. The Theory of Evolution is a religious teaching which requires blind faith—and a lot of
it—to be accepted.

But What About Theistic Evolution?

What confuses many people about the Theory of Evolution is the surprisingly strong support it receives

from some religious leaders. These preachers call themselves “theistic” evolutionists, and claim that God
created the earth alright, but using the process of evolution to do so. Some theistic evolutionists are no
doubt sincere, but ignorant. As Professor Donald Symons said in a letter to Free Inquiry magazine:

Gardner’s claim that modern Christianity “involves no dogmas that render any aspect of today’s science impossible to accept” is tenable only if
“dogmas” and “impossible” are defined so restrictively and legalistically as to sap Christianity of its pith, its essence, its very raison d’être. Non-
fundamentalist Christians are able to accept Darwin evolution so easily because they do not fully understand its implications.95

Is Evolution Science?

———————————

94 Charles McCombs, “Evolution Hopes You Don’t Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control,” Impact 374 (August 2004): i-iv, Http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-

374.pdf.

95 Donald Symons, letter to the editor in The New Age---Notes of a Fringe Watcher, collection of columns of Martin Gardner (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus

Books, 1988), 61–4.

The two major implications of evolution, of course, are that (1) the Bible is not true, and that (2) there is
no God. To accept evolution is to accept practical atheism whether a person realizes it or not.

The Gap Theory

Many theistic-evolutionists believe that between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2 there is a gap of billions of years,

before which—or during which—evolution took place. This is called the Gap Theory. Those who believe in
the Gap Theory believe that there were men living before Adam, but that they were destroyed in this assumed
gap. The verse of Scripture they usually give to prove this theory is Jeremiah 4:23. However, a quick check
of the context of this verse shows that it refers to God’s judgment upon Israel, and that it has no connection
to Genesis 1:1-2 whatsoever. Here it is so that you can see this for yourself (note especially verses 4:31 and
5:1):

(4:23) I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. (4:24) I beheld the mountains, and, lo,
they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. (4:25) I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. (4:26) I
beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce
anger. (4:27) For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. (4:28) For this shall the earth mourn,
and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. (4:29) The
whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be for-
saken, and not a man dwell therein. (4:30) And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though
thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will
despise thee, they will seek thy life. (4:31) For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her
first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied
because of murderers. (5:1) Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if
ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.

There are also other problems with this theory that make it obviously wrong. For instance, 1 Cor. 15:45-

47 tells us that Adam was the first man:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is
spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from
heaven.

Note that Jesus Christ is called the last Adam, but not the last man Adam. Adam, however, is called “the first
man Adam.” There were no humans before Adam. We did not originate from aliens or an earlier race of
humans.

Another problem with the Gap Theory is that it implies that there was death before sin. Darwin’s Theory

of Evolution is based upon the survival of the fittest—the weak die, the strong survive. If God had created
animals this way, then God would be a sadistic monster. But the Bible clearly implies that there was neither
sin nor death among men until Adam: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). This verse exposes a really
major flaw in the Gap Theory, for it implies that death is not the result of sin; and if death is not the result of
sin, then Christ’s death on the cross for our sins would have accomplished nothing. No, God did not create
death. God is not death but life. There is only one creation referred to in Genesis, not two creations. Before
Adam’s fall into sin animals and people alike ate vegetation, not meat. There was no survival of the fittest—
all were fit—and there was no death.

Yet another problem with the Gap Theory is that it implies that a mother of one kind can give birth to

babies of a different kind. That this is not so is emphasized nine times in Genesis chapter one by repeatedly
stating that all living things reproduce “after their kind.” They do not give birth to new kinds. See Genesis
1.11, 12, 21, 24, and 25.

Also, Exodus 20:11 says that “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them

is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” It does not say
that in day one the LORD made the earth, then in the next five days recreated it. No gap is even hinted at
here.

No! It Is Religious Dogma

The Day-Age Theory

Other theistic-evolutionists believe that the six days of creation were not actually days but ages of billions

of years each. This is called the Day-Age Theory. Advocates of this theory quote as their proof-text 2 Peter
3.8: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day.”

Immediately we see a problem with this theory. Making each day only a thousand years does not help the

theory of evolution, which evolutionists say took many billions of years. A thousand years is an insignificantly
tiny drop in the bucket compared to billions.

Also, a quick look at the context of this verse shows that it does not refer to creation at all, but to the

coming judgment.

(3) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, (4) And saying, Where is the promise of his
coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (5) For this they willingly are
ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (6) Whereby the world
that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is
with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slack-
ness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (10) But the day of the Lord will
come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the
earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Pet. 3:3-10)

Verse 8 is merely stating that God is not limited by time. The very next verse (verse 9) tells us that because
God is not limited by time we should not interpret His delay in judging the world as slackness. Because God
is not limited by time He can be—and has been—very patient toward us sinners, giving us opportunity to
repent so that we do not perish in the coming judgment.

Anyway, if “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” means what day-agers say it means, then “and

a thousand years is as one day” cancels it out! A verse similar to 2 Pet. 3:8 is Psalms 90:4: “For a thousand
years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” Were we to interpret this
verse in the same manner Day-ager’s interpret 2 Pet. 3:8, we would have the earth being only a few
thousand days old! Actually, in both 2 Pet. 3:8 and Psalms 90:4 the words “day” and “year” have the
ordinary meaning they always have. They are simply contrasted to show that God is not limited by time.
Anyway, how do the day-ager’s make a “thousand years” mean “age”? Obviously, they are trying to make the
Bible conform to their theories, instead of making their theories conform to the Bible. That is simply
unbelief.

Also, the fact that the days mentioned in Genesis chapter one are regular 24 hour days is emphasized 6

times by the use of the phrase “and the evening and the morning was the first [or second, or third, or forth,
or fifth, or sixth] day.”

Another Bible fact that refutes the Day Age Theory is the fact that vegetation was created on day three,

and the sun not until day four. Vegetation can survive a day without the sun. Can vegetation survive a
thousand years (or billions of years) without the sun? No.

Most theistic evolutionists are convinced that the fossil record proves evolution (which it does not, as has

already been shown), but Noah’s flood should make them reconsider. Why? Because the flood destroyed the
earth and would have also destroyed the fossils, if, in fact, the fossils predated the flood. Gen 6:13: “And God
said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them;
and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”

In summary, theistic evolution is really just unbelief—it is disguised atheism. It is believing Darwin’s

guessing more than God’s Word. It is believing someone who was not there in the beginning more than God
who was.

… the “light” of the religious evolutionists has not dawned upon our great educational centers. Our university professors and high school
teachers have not been persuaded to teach evolution as “God’s method of creation;” instead, they increasingly teach it as the proof and pillar of
atheism. And as a result, atheism is rampantly on the increase among students as well as among professors. … Dr. Leuba found that in a large

Is Evolution Science?

and progressive American college, … in 1914, that 80 percent of the new students [freshmen] were believers. But in 1933 only 42 per cent
were believers. Why? Because between 1914 and 1933 the teaching of evolution was WIDELY INTRODUCED INTO THE HIGH SCHOOLS! … over 50
percent of our high school students are being converted into disbelievers before they graduate from secondary school and enter college! The
religious evolutionists tell us that one can make evolutionists without making atheists, that evolution can be taught without destroying or dis-
turbing [theistic] religious belief. But the evidence shows that our high school teachers have not been successful in doing this. The religious
evolutionists should either SHOW THEM HOW or admit that it can’t be done.

Is it not time for a “showdown”? Is it not time to demand of the “compromisers” and the “reconcilers” that they show something in the

way of results for their efforts, their promises, and their boasts? Let them wrest evolution, as an intellectual weapon, from the atheists! Let them
demonstrate their oft-repeated claim that evolution is the friend and not the foe of [theistic] religion! Let them make their widely-heralded
“light” effective and penetrating where it is needed most—in secular educational circles! Let them refute the scholarly arguments of the atheist
professor who use evolution as the foundation stone of their godless gospel! Let them do this—or confess their own futility and falsity. Let
them do this—or STOP OPERATING AS FALSE PROPHETS WHO ARE GIVING AID AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ENEMIES OF [THEISTIC] RELIGION.96
[Emphasis original.]

The Bitter Fruits of Evolution

It is absolutely amazing that most Americans are unaware that the Theory of Evolution is directly

responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans and multiplied millions of other nationalities in World
War II (started by Nazis and Fascists), the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and a multitude of other wars
(started by communists). Nazism, Fascism, and Communism are all based on and spring from Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution. This is not new knowledge. As far back as 1941 Dan Gilbert warned that Darwin’s
Theory of Evolution was subversive of true Americanism.

The [Darwinian] evolutionary philosophy produced the totalitarian ideologies [Nazism, Fascism, and Communism]. The second World War is the
fruitage of Darwinism. … Darwinism is subversive of true Americanism. It is the equivalent of treason that it should be taught in our educa-
tional institutions!97

America could have surrendered to Japan or to Germany or to the Soviet Union. We could have avoided
those bloody wars by simply becoming Nazis or Communists. Instead, we fought all those wars to protect
our children from the evils of those wicked philosophies. How then can we be so stupid as to allow the very
mother of those death philosophies to be taught to our children as true science?!

Who can reasonably defend the evolutionary dogma, even though it be attested by every scientist on earth, if it acts as the tap root from which
has sprung the upas tree of atheist-communism? Who can honorably defend as true on “scientific” grounds a doctrine which proves itself
false—on humanitarian and moral grounds—by poisoning human life and civilization with the lethal gases of communism and free-love?98

Friedrich Nietzsche developed a system of philosophy based upon Darwin’s idea of the “survival of the

fittest” as developed and preached by Darwin’s close friend, Thomas H. Huxley.

Now, the fundamental principle of Nietzsche’s philosophy is that man is an animal, “a beast of prey,” that he has evolved into what he is now,
the “beast of prey,” because of his “superior” cunning and brutality; that if he is to evolve into a superman, a “better beast of prey,” he must
become more brutal and more ruthless. … As he loved and glorified brutality and bestiality, so Nietzsche hated and despised humanity and
humaneness—love, justice, kindness. And as bestiality and brutality have led to success in the evolutionary struggle, so “Christian” moral
virtues lead to failure. That was the teaching of Nietzsche—and that was the lesson of evolution, according to Huxley. … Nietzsche claimed
that the practice of the Christian religion and of Christian morality leads to “decadence,” to “reaction,” to a cultural standstill, and that they
stand in the way of the evolution of the superman. … Nietzsche thought selfishness the highest goal and good and guide: “Blessed be selfish-
ness!” he exulted. “Make thy law the desire of thy flesh.… Live on thy own account, and not for the sake others.” Nietzsche loathed the very
thought of the Golden Rule.99 He thought it “monstrous” for the strong to be considerate of the weak. Huxley, too thought the practice of the
Golden Rule “destructive” of the evolutionary progress of man in society.… The Golden Rule would tie the hands of the strong and prevent
them from trampling under the weak; hence, if “strictly observed” it would bring an end to progress; it would constitute, in Huxley’s words, “the
refusal to continue the struggle for existence.”… Nietzsche counseled potential supermen: “Be hard. … Have no pity. … Be cruel toward
everything that grows old and weak.”100

It is only fitting to let a former American Humanist Association president tell you about one of the evils

that came out of Nietzsche’s Darwinian-evolution-based philosophy. Wrote Corliss Lamont:

No! It Is Religious Dogma

———————————

96  Dan Gilbert, Evolution: The Root of All Isms (San Diego, California: The Danielle Publishers, 1941), 126–28.
97  Ibid., xi.
98  Ibid., 19.
99  The Golden Rule is found in Mat. 7:12: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the

prophets.”

100 Gilbert, Root of Isms, 24–30.

In his most brilliant book, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche wrote, “A good war halloweth any cause.”

This fierce philosophy, paradoxically enough produced by a constitutional invalid, later became a stimulus and inspiration for the Ger-

man Nazis under Adolf Hitler.101

In other words, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution caused World War II. Under the guidance of Nietzsche, Hitler
took Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to its logical conclusion when applied to politics and relations between
nations. The result was the largest war in history.

Important Points Made In This Chapter

The main purpose of this chapter has been to make six important points: (1) the Theory of Evolution is

not based on science, but is a religious teaching that one accepts by faith; (2) the Theory of Evolution is the
most basic doctrine of atheism and of the humanist religion; (3) accepting the Theory of Evolution automat-
ically makes a person a practicing humanist, whither he realizes it or not; (4) Humanism and Christianity
are diametrically opposed to one another, and cannot long peacefully co-exist; (5) the teaching of evolution
as truth in the schools of America is actually treason, for it attempts to make our children enemies of this
country; and (6) the main reason Humanists are so intent that only the Theory of Evolution be taught to our
children in public schools (to the exclusion of the Genesis account of creation) is because they want their
evangelism efforts to convert our children into atheistic humanists to be without competition while funded
by public taxes—they want to force us to pay for our own children’s spiritual, emotional, and mental
destruction!

The following quote from a high school textbook published by a major textbook publisher, and used in

many public schools shows that Louis Pasture did not win his battle against abiogenesis (spontaneous gen-
eration) near as conclusively as he thought: “Today, however, the principle of biogenesis may have to be
modified. When considering the origin of life on Earth, some scientists have hypothesized that the first cells
arose from non-living materials.”102 Such silly statements in textbooks are indeed unbelievable giant-steps
back to the Dark Ages for science—and for our children! Such is the dubious science of wizards and sooth-
sayers. No wonder the Bible warns us to avoid “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science fal-
sely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (I Tim 6.20-21). In no way does
evolution fit the definition of science, but it fits the definition of superstition perfectly. Superstition, accord-
ing to Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, is “any belief or attitude that is inconsistent with the
known laws of science.” The Evolution superstition does not become science by being cloaked in scientific
sounding terms. A lie by any other name stinks the same.

The First Amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids the state from making any laws regulating reli-

gion. The government is clearly violating the law every time it makes a law either for or against the teaching
of either The Theory of Evolution or the Genesis account of creation in public schools. Both are religious
teachings. Which religion’s teachings are (or are not) taught to a child should be determined by that child’s
parents, not by the government. And the government has no right forbidding anyone, be he teacher or stu-
dent or parent, from expressing his or her religious beliefs on any public property either verbally or in print.
When the government banned the Genesis account of creation from the classroom, and ruled that only the
Theory of Evolution may be taught, the government established a state religion—the religion of atheistic
humanism.

Is Evolution Science?

———————————

101 Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, reprint, 1949 (New York: The Wisdom Library, a division of Philosophical Library, 1957), 117.
102 Harvey D. Goodman, Biology (Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989), 32 and 228–30.

Chapter 7

WHO MADE GOD?

Pondering What Existed BEFORE the Beginning

The author of this book once asked a humanist friend, “What are the odds that your car does not have a

maker?” To this question, he answered:

Analogies are fun when someone does not have a model. But I understand your model. My car has a maker. If you think this is a good analogy,
then lets use it. There is a 100% chance my car has a maker. And then there is also a 100% [chance] the maker has a maker (Henry Ford's maker
was your God in your eyes). Hence your maker also has a maker. So who made God? I hope you find that silly. I do too. You can use this model
(analog) your way, and I can use it too. But that is silly, no?

The Significance of the Answer

Who made God? That is a good question, and it is not silly.

Rather it is even more basic than the beginning of the universe.
And like it or not, it is a question that all thinking men have to
answer to their own satisfaction sometime in their lifetime.
Whatever the answer, it will require faith, for there is no way to
test it in a science laboratory. The answer a person accepts may
very well determine that person's eternal destiny, so the wise
man will be very careful in his choice.

Another Vital Question

Actually, there is another question that also must be ans-

wered. What existed before the beginning of the universe? The
reason atheists came up with the Big Bang theory is because
there is overwhelming evidence that this universe did indeed

have a beginning, just like the Bible says. But the Big Bang theory does not solve the atheist’s problem, for
there is no way to avoid having to ultimately decide where all that matter that became the universe came
from. The atheist's answer, of course, is that matter is eternal. Can the atheist prove this? No, he must accept
it by faith—not by science. Science cannot prove that matter always existed. No. It is by faith that the atheist
accepts the eternity of matter.

The Simple Answer

When an atheist asked the question, "Who made God?" He thinks he has asked a question for which

there is no answer but a silly answer. But he is wrong. The answer, of course, is that God is eternal. Deut.
33:27 says, “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.” Why is this not a
silly answer? Because if God is not eternal, then matter has to be. And if it is silly for the Christian to answer
that God is eternal, then it is at least equally as silly for the atheist to answer that matter is eternal.

The Cause of the Amazing Design

So, the atheist is still not free from answering the question of why this universe has such amazing design.

Were there no order in this universe—if we could not tell time by the movement of the sun, moon, stars,
planets, etc., and if we could not see such marvelous design in plant and animal life and in our bodies, and
if all matter were in random chaos—then perhaps it might be reasonable to believe that it just always

Nobody made my car. There was
this big explosion—no, I don't know
the cause—and lo and behold this car
landed in my driveway. And not a
scratch on it!

existed. But there is order and there is design. Were there no beginning of the universe, the atheist might
be able to say that there has always been order in the universe, but the evidence that the universe had a
beginning is so overwhelming that the atheist cannot deny it. What is witnessed now is a deteriorating uni-
verse. The lifespan of man has dropped from up to 900 plus years to approximately 70 years, the sun is
burning up, and the whole universe is returning to randomness. There is no evidence whatsoever that matter
can organize itself without cause.

When you ask an atheist, "What are the odds that your car does not have a maker?" He is forced to ans-

wer, “Zero. The odds are 100% that my car does have a maker.” Why is he forced to make that concession?
Because he knows that the natural laws presently in effect in this universe do not allow matter to organize
itself without an intelligent being making it happen. It would be silly for him to answer otherwise. People
would laugh at him if he did not make this admission. But this concession leaves the atheist in a logical trap
from which he cannot escape.

If under the present laws of nature random matter cannot organize itself, then what is to make us believe

that it could organize itself in the past? Have the laws of nature changed? The atheist cannot admit that
without also admitting the possibility of Noah's flood. So in the end, the atheist can only answer the Chris-
tian's questions with a question. But the Christian can answer that final atheist question with a logical ans-
wer.

The Trap

The law of nature which traps the evolutionist is the one known as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics—

that all natural processes irreversibly increase in entropy (a measure of disorder). There is no known
exception to this law. It is one of the most basic laws known to science. In the Bible, this law is called the
curse (Gen. 3:17-19). We can see today that God put the curse on the earth so that humans can realize that
matter is not eternal, and that therefore God is the only answer to the question, “Where did we come from?”

Whether rank-and-file evolutionists know it or not, this problem they have with entropy is thus “one of the most fundamental unsolved prob-
lems in biology.” It is more than a problem in fact—it is a devastating denial of the evolution model itself. It will continue to be so until
evolutionists can demonstrate that the vast imagined evolutionary continuum in space and time has both a program to guide it and an energy
converter to empower it. Otherwise, the Second Law precludes it.103

The Only Logical Conclusion

The odds then that this universe has a maker are the same as that of my humanist friend’s car having a

maker: 100%.

Who Made God?

———————————

103 Henry M. Morris, “Entropy and Open Systems,” Impact, no. 40 (1976) (Institute In Creation Research), Http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-040.htm.

Chapter 8

ARE GOD’S LIGHTS ON?

Checking To See If Anyone Is Home

Since atheism is so crucial to humanist dogma, humanists constantly ridicule and mock the existence of

the creator God. The following words from Sir Julian Huxley are very typical humanist rhetoric:

In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it
evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.
Religions are organs of psychosocial man concerned with human destiny and with experiences of sacredness and transcendence. In their evolu-
tion, some (but by no means all) have given birth to the concept of gods as supernatural beings endowed with mental and spiritual properties
and capable of intervening in the affairs of man. These theistic religions are organizations of human thought in its interactions with the puz-
zling, complex world with which it has to contend—the outer world of nature and the inner world of man’s own nature. In this, they resemble
other early organizations of human thought confronted with nature, like the doctrine of the Four Elements, earth, air, fire and water, or the
Eastern concept of rebirth and reincarnation. Like these, they are destined to disappear in competition with other, truer, and more embracing
thought-organizations which are handling the same range of raw or processed experience.

Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness by creeping for shelter into the arms of a divinized father-figure whom

he has himself created, nor escape from the responsibility of making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of Divine Authority, nor
absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning his future by relying on the will of an omniscient but
unfortunately inscrutable Providence.104 [Emphasis added]

So, according to the doctrine of humanism, God did not create man; instead man created God! Instead of
God being the origin of the universe, He is just a myth created by imaginative men to explain facts of nature
not yet understood by science. But notice: the above quotation from Huxley is just a statement of his faith.
He offers no proof that what he says is so. The vital question is, Can humanists offer proof that there
is no God?

Prometheus Books (Buffalo, New York), the same publisher that publishes Humanist Manifesto I and

II and numerous other books for the American Humanist Association, has published a little book by B.C.
Johnson titled Atheist Debater’s Handbook designed to “offer a concise set of rejoinders for use by atheists
in their formal (and informal) debates with theists.”105 Since the American Humanist Association is the
umbrella for all the other Humanist groups in the United States, I was very interested in reading this book. I
have long desired to know what possible proofs against the existence of God an atheist could offer; I had
never been able to think of any such proofs at all. So I sat down and read the whole book in one sitting. To
my great amazement the book offered not one proof against the existence of God! I expected at least to find
some phony proof, but Johnson offered no proof whatsoever! I was so surprised at this that I read the book
a second time more slowly and carefully to see if I had missed something. Indeed, in the first chapter I had
missed Johnson’s foundational argument.

The Atheist’s Foundational Argument

In the opening chapter of his book, Johnson sets forth the foundational argument that underlies all the

following chapters. If this one argument can be disproven, the rest of Johnson’s book falls like a house of
cards built upon shifting sand. Here is Johnson’s argument:

It is incumbent upon the theist to provide reasons for his belief that God is the true explanation of the universe and morality. The atheist, for his
part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not accept the theist’s explanation. Therefore, the atheist need only demonstrate
that the theist has failed to justify his position.

Another point to note is that the atheist believes in the existence of the universe and does not believe in anything which is more fun-

damental. The theist believes in the existence of the universe and—in addition—he believes in the existence of God. The theist, therefore,

———————————

104 Julian Huxley, The Humanist Frame, 18–9.
105 B.C. Johnson, Atheist Debater’s Handbook (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1983), 10.

believes in one more thing than the atheist. If all beliefs should be justified, then surely the more one believes, the more justification one must
produce. Clearly, the theist must justify this extra belief to the atheist.106 [Emphasis original]

There are three untruths in this foundation premise of atheism. The first untruth is that theists believe one
thing more than an atheist. The second untruth is that atheists are not obligated to prove their position. The
third untruth is that showing that theists have failed to prove their arguments proves atheism.

The Idol Named Evolution

It is not true that theists believe in one thing more than atheists. While theists worship a creator God who

is separate from His creation, atheists worship an idol (self-made god) called evolution. Since they reject
God as creator of the universe, they have replaced Him with an imaginary dead force, which (say they), is
continuously forming simple things into complex ones.

It is true that God is the theist’s “explanation of the universe and morality.” But it is equally true that

Evolution

is the atheist’s “explanation of the universe and morality.” Therefore, if it is incumbent upon the

theist to prove the existence of the living creator God, it is equally incumbent upon the atheist to prove the
existence of the dead-force god he calls Evolution—an idol humanists have created with their own vain
imaginations. If atheists cannot prove the existence of Evolution, they have lost their case, for the only
alternative to Evolution is special creation, and special creation means that the creator God does exist.

If you do not believe that Evolution is a god, then consider carefully the following words from Julian Hux-

ley:

Religious concepts like God, incarnation, the soul, salvation, original sin, grace, atonement, all have a basis in man’s experiences of phenomenal
reality. It is necessary now to analyze that basis of reality into its component parts, and then to reassemble these elements, together with any
new factors that have come to light, into concepts which correspond more closely to reality and are more relevant to present circumstances.

Thus, if I may over-simplify the matter, God appears to be a semantic symbol denoting what Matthew Arnold called ‘the power not

ourselves,’ or rather the various powers felt to be greater than our narrow selves, whether the forces of external nature or the forces imminent
in our nature, all bound together in the concept of a personal or super-personal sacred being in some way capable of affecting or guiding or
interfering in the course of events. The forces are real enough: what we have done is, quite illegitimately, to project the god concept into them.
And in so doing we have distorted their true significance, and effectively altered the course of history.107

Huxley realized very clearly that evolution was a substitution for the creator God. Of course, he did not want
the title “god” to be given to Evolution, because he wanted Evolution to be considered science. But a god
(idol) by any other name smells the same. Evolution is an idol because it is a dead god and a human-
created god. Evolutionary humanism with its militant pro-abortionism and pro-infanticide, is really just a
new form of the ancient Baal worship with its burnt sacrifices of children. Like Buddhism or Taoism it is
pantheistic, making the creation itself to be God.

The Burden of Proof

Since it is not true that theists believe one thing more than the atheist, it is also not true that atheists are

not obligated to prove their position. To the contrary, they are even more obligated to prove their position
than the theist is to prove his, for the atheist position is worse then just unscientific (as was shown in chap-
ter 5), it also illogical, contradicting all observable natural processes. It is not good enough for the atheist to
show that the theist has failed to demonstrate his position; the atheist must also demonstrate his position.
Show us—even just one time—dead matter giving birth to a living being. This the atheist knows he cannot
show. The reason Humanists do not want creationism to be taught alongside evolution in public schools is
because they know that the theory of evolution cannot survive in the light of truth. Competition exposes and
destroys the deceptions which make up the Evolution dogma. While it is true that even highly intelligent men
often become irrational when they love the pleasures of sin, it is nevertheless also true that no rational,
thinking person will believe the theory of Evolution, once he knows all the facts. Why? Because the theist

Are God’s Lights On?

———————————

106 Ibid., 12.
107 Julian Huxley, The Humanist Frame, 43–44.

position—that life comes only from life of like kind—is demonstrated millions of times every day around
the world.

Atheists Have No Proof There Is No God

Building on the false foundational premise just analyzed, the remaining chapters of Johnson’s Atheist

Debater’s Handbook make no attempt whatsoever to prove that God does not exist. Instead, they use dis-
torted facts, twisted logic, and cleaver double-talk to attempt to define (often misdefine) and then disprove

what Johnson perceives to be the major argu-
ments for the existence of God. The simple fact
is that atheists offer no proof against the exis-
tence of God because they have no proof to
offer! Atheism is based on faith not fact. Henry
M. Morris, in his book The Long War Against
God: the History and Impact of the Crea-
tion/Evolution Conflict, gives an amusing yet
sad example of this:

That humanism is merely a more genteel term for atheism is
confirmed by the current president of the American Humanist
Association, Dr. Isaac Asimov, who is also probably the most
prolific writer in the whole world of science, having authored
approximately three hundred books, covering every scientific
field. He says: “I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long
time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but
somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one
was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t
have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an
agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as
well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don’t have the
evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly
suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.” [“An
Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible,” Free
Inquiry 2 (Spring 1982), page 9]

One very significant admission appears in this state-

ment of atheistic faith by Asimov. Not only does he acknowl-
edge that humanism is essentially the same as atheism, but
also that atheism is nothing but an emotional belief. In spite of
the fact that he is one of the most knowledgeable scientists in
the world, having written books on just about every branch of
science in existence, he recognizes that he has no “evidence to
prove God doesn’t exist.”

If Asimov has no evidence against God, we can be sure nobody does! He believes in humanism/atheism simply because that is what he

wants to believe! The same is true for every other devotee of this man-centered religion. Yet they commonly deride creationism because it
requires faith! One naturally thinks of Psalms 53:12: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”108

God’s Lights Are On—He’s Home!

Johnson ends chapter one of his book with the following illustration of how to apply his premise:

Atheism can be more positively defended in the following way. We can properly claim to know that many things are not so if reasons have not
been offered to support the claim that they are so. For example, I am able to claim that I know my friend Frank is not home precisely because
there is no reason to believe that he is home. There is no noise coming from his house, the lights are out at a time when he is usually awake, his
bed is empty, and so forth. Everything seems to count for my belief and nothing against it. I could discover that I was mistaken, but the pos-
sibility of error exists for virtually any knowledge claim one might make.

Checking to See If Anyone Is Home

God's lights are on! He is home! "The heavens
declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth
his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and
night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no
speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."

(Psalms 19.1-3)

———————————

108 Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 114.

The parallel between the belief that Frank is at home and the belief that God exists is an exact one. If Frank is at home, there will be

evidence indicating this state of affairs. On the other hand, if there is no evidence that he is home, one can claim to know that he is not at home.
Similarly, if God exists, there will be evidence of this; signs will emerge which point to such a conclusion. However, if there is no evidence that
He exists, then one can claim to know that God does not exist.… If I am correct, then the claim that there is no God can be justified on the
grounds that there is no reason to believe that he exists.109

The folly of Johnson’s logic is apparent at once. I invite him and all his atheist friends to step outside and
gaze up at the sun and stars in the heavens. God’s lights are on—He’s home!

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth
knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. (Psalms 19.1-3)

Not only is God home, He is also actively involved in this universe He created, holding it all together.

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col. 1:16-17)

Not only is God “at home,” and involved with the universe, but He is also involved with the people in the

universe. People still feel guilt and anxiety when they do wrong; that is because God is still actively involved
with His creatures, drawing—but not forcing—them back to Himself.

The Root of Atheism

Are there reasons to believe in God’s existence? Of course there are (as was just demonstrated), but

Johnson has already let us know that the atheist has chosen to not accept them even before he hears them.
Writes Johnson, “The atheist, for his part, does not necessarily offer an explanation; he simply does not
accept the theist’s explanation.” So no matter what evidence the theists gives, the atheist does not even give it
serious consideration because he is “willingly ignorant” (2 Pet. 3:5). The important question is, Why does
the atheist so desperately want to reject God as the explanation of the universe and morality?

People become atheists for one reason only: they love of vile sins which they know God says

makes them worthy of receiving the death penalty. Most atheists are homosexuals or have indulged in other
gross immoralities. At the least, there is some sin which they love and do not want to give up. Atheism is
their attempt to free themselves from the awful guilt and fear resulting from such sins. If there is no God,
they reason, then there is also no sin or judgment. The fact that when atheists want their speech to have
great force they interlace their profanity with such Bible words as “God,” “Jesus Christ,” “Hell,” and
“Damn” shows that deep down inside they know God is. Oh, but how they hate Him! How they wish He
would go away and quit bothering their consciences! How they want to drive His promise of eternal judg-
ment from their minds!

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the crea-
tion of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and wor-
shipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense
of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do
those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy,
murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that
they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Rom. 1:19-32)

Why Atheists Are Fools

God says that a person who chooses not to believe in God is a fool: “The fool hath said in his heart,

There is no God” (Psalms 14:1). Webster’s Dictionary defines a fool as “a person with little or no judgment,

Are God’s Lights On?

———————————

109 Johnson, Atheist Debater’s Handbook, 14–16.

common sense, wisdom, etc.; a silly person; a simpleton.” A simpleton is “a person of weak intellect; some-
one who is easily fooled.”

Atheists Reject the Key of Knowledge

Atheists are fools because they have rejected the only basis of knowing anything. They are not atheists

because they are fools; rather, they are fools because they are atheists. When God calls atheists fools, He
does not mean that they have low I.Q.’s or that they cannot learn facts. Why some of them hold doctorates
from leading universities, and their heads are filled with megabytes of data. But their closed-minded refusal
to even consider the possibility of God’s existence, much less anything God has revealed to them in His
Word, makes them incapable of logically and scientifically analyzing data so as to arrive at valid conclusions.
They are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. … so do these also resist the
truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim 3.7-8).

Please stop and consider the implications of this Bible verse: “The fear of the LORD is the

beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1.7). If this verse be true then how can we with good conscience
allow our children to be taught that the Theory of Evolution with its atheistic implications is true? Since
atheists don’t even believe in God, much less fear Him, they have no beginning for knowledge. This fact is
clearly seen in one of the atheist’s basic principles—the contradictory idea that “the only absolute is that
there are no absolutes.” This idea (which is necessary if one is to reject the absolute God) is found over
and over again in atheist writings. For example, “Humanism,” says atheist/Humanist Sir Julian Huxley, “will
have nothing to do with Absolutes, including absolute truth, absolute morality, absolute perfection and
absolute authority.”110 Since the atheist believes nothing to be absolutely true, he has no firm foundation
upon which to base knowledge. Look up the word knowledge in your dictionary and you will find that to
know something is to be sure of it. The atheist believes one can not be absolutely sure of anything; therefore
the atheist can know nothing for sure. Therefore, a humanist education—a know nothing education—is
really no education at all.

Logically, there cannot be an absolute that there are no absolutes. However, even atheism’s absurd

principle that there are no absolutes proves atheism wrong. For if there are no absolute truths, then it must
not be absolutely true that there is no God. Therefore God must be.

In chapter two of the Atheist Debater’s Handbook, Johnson says, “Ignorance [of the natural causes of

puzzling phenomena] is not a good reason to believe that God exists.”111 But Johnson fails to apply this
same logic to himself: ignorance is not a good reason to believe God does not exist. Instead Johnson
declares, “The atheist may claim to know that God does not exist because no good reason has been given to
support the belief that He does” even though neither has good reason been given to support the belief that
God does not exist! With this declaration Johnson has actually inadvertently admitted that the atheist
presupposes that there is no God before examining the facts. He wants to interpret nature as disproving
God, so he refuses to give the evidence its logical conclusion. Johnson’s declaration also proves that atheists
are dishonest, for they claim to “know” something for which they have no evidence whatsoever. An agnostic
can at least be honored for admitting lack of knowledge, but atheists dishonestly claim to know something
they do not know. Their lie is true, they think, simply because they want it to be true.

We should also point out to Johnson that if “Ignorance [of the natural causes of puzzling phenomena] is

not a good reason to believe that God exists,” then it is logically just as true that ignorance of the natural
cause of puzzling phenomena is not a good reason to believe that Evolution exists. And we might also point
out to Johnson that it is not the puzzling phenomena that causes Christians to believe in God, but rather the
fact that all the evidence is in the Christian’s favor.

Checking to See If Anyone Is Home

———————————

110 Julian Huxley, The Humanist Frame, 14.
111 Johnson, Atheist Debater’s Handbook, 23.

Atheists Confuse Faith With Science

Atheists are fools because they refuse to differentiate between faith and science. Specifically, they confuse

the theory of Evolution with science, when it is in reality a faith doctrine of the Satan-designed religion called
Humanism, and is without one shred of scientific proof. No one has ever observed dead matter
spontaneously turn into living beings, yet atheists insist that this has happened. Science demands
observation; so the idea of spontaneous generation is pure faith, not science. No one has ever observed non-
human life birth a human baby, yet atheists insist that this has happened. Science demands observation, so
the idea that humans evolved from non-humans is pure faith, not science. Atheists insist that the universe is
evolving upward from the simple to the complex without the help of a designer of high intellect, yet such
evolution has never been observed. Since the upward evolution claimed by atheists has never been observed
and is just the opposite of what actually is observed, it must be recognized as an unscientific, blind faith of
people who refuse to open their eyes to the plain facts of nature which are screaming at them from every
corner.

Atheists Ignore Evidence of Divine Judgment

Atheists are fools because they willingly are ignorant of the evidences of Divine judgment upon past God-

rejecters. Only a fool would scoff and laugh at He who gives to all creatures life and breath and takes it at
His will. Only a fool mocks his Maker. Only a fool spits in the face of the Almighty God, who drowned every
unbeliever on the face of the earth in the days of Noah, then cast their souls into eternal Hell. Only a fool can
notice fossils inland and high upon mountains, massive layers of sedimentary rock everywhere, and huge
glaciers slowly melting away without at least acknowledging that there might have been a universal flood!

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that
by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against
the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-
ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are
therein shall be burned up. (2 Pet. 3:3-10)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judg-
ment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the
ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those
that after should live ungodly; and delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among
them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly
out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished. (2 Pet. 2:4-9)

How To Know the God That Is

All that atheism offers in the here and now is “the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb. 11:25). It offers

nothing for the hereafter except the prospect of eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire if it should be
wrong—which it is.

Christianity, on the other hand, offers immediate knowledge that it is true. It is not only possible to know

God is, it is also possible to know the God that is. In a prayer to God the Father, Jesus Christ said: “And this
is life eternal, that they [believers] might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent” (John 17:3). True Christianity is not just pie in the sky by and by when you die. True faith in the gospel
of Jesus Christ results in immediate—right now— knowledge that the Bible is true, that God is, and in
knowing God. Yes, faith must precede knowledge, “for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and
that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). But the promise of salvation, for-

Are God’s Lights On?

Chapter 9

HOW IS LIFE WITHOUT GOD?

What It Is Like Living With an Atheist

Perhaps the most famous atheist of modern times is Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the woman responsible for

removing Bible reading and prayer from public schools in 1963. Her eldest child, William J. Murray, was
the plaintiff in that case. In 1977 William severed all connections with atheists and humanists after receiving
Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. In 1982 he wrote a book, My Life Without God, describing
what life was like being raised in an atheist home. This is an important book which every American should
read. Especially, people considering becoming an atheist should read William’s book, so that they can real-
ize what they will be getting into. Since an atheist lifestyle is what humanists are trying to force upon our
children, it will be wise for us to examine a few facts from William’s book.

A Humanist Describes Her Atheist Lifestyle

According to a statement issued in 1960 by Madalyn Murray (she was not yet married to O’Hair):

An atheist loves his fellowman instead of God. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now, here, on earth, for
all men together to enjoy. An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and
the strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and to enjoy it. An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and his fellow
can he find the understanding that will help him in a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know God.
An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed should be done instead of a prayer said. An
atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants man to understand and love man: he wants an ethical way of life. He
believes that we cannot rely on God, channel action into prayer, or hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter, that we are our brother’s keeper,
we are the keepers of our own lives, that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now.112

Now those words are really impressive—all that talk about love for fellow man instead of love for God. But
William commented concerning them: “The ideas expressed sounded so lofty and noble, but from personal
experience, I already knew the words were nothing but deceitful propaganda.”113 As we will see, Madalyn
Murray O’Hair didn’t have much love for anyone—not even for her own family.

Her Son Describes Her Atheist Lifestyle

What is it like in the privacy of an atheist’s home? Just how much love is there, actually, and what lofty

and noble deeds are really done?

Madalyn Murry O’Hair Hated Her Father

William says that when he was a child his mother threatened to kill her father. She threw dishes at him,

cursed him, and once, in 1954, she even tried to stab him with a butcher knife because he voiced
disapproval of her illegitimate pregnancy.114

Madalyn’s cursing of her father grew continually worse. As he grew older and weaker he eventually

reached a point where he could no longer endure it. To get away for it, he swore to never eat at the dinner
table with Madalyn again, and he never did, not even for his own birthdays.115

———————————

112  William J. Murray, My Life Without God (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), 70–71.
113  Ibid., 70.
114  Ibid., 7–8.
115  Ibid., 69.

Through the next few years Madalyn talked openly with William about desiring to murder her father;116

however, in the end this was not necessary. In 1963 Madalyn and her father had another argument which
resulted in Madalyn screaming at him: “You old __________! I hope you drop dead. I’ll dump your
shriveled body in the trash for the niggers to pick up!” To Madalyn’s joy, he died later that same day of a
heart attack.117

Madalyn Murray O’Hair Hated Her Sons

The story of Madalyn’s abusive treatment of William is sad indeed. As we contemplate it we can only

shudder, knowing that this is the kind of lifestyle humanists are going to bring upon us all—if we allow it.

Because of her neglect of him, William did not realize clearly that Madalyn was his mother until he was

in grade school. Learning that she was his mother, he says, was painful.

William felt that his mother subtly blamed

him, and tried to make him feel guilty for, her
not marrying the father of the illegitimate baby
she was carrying. She didn’t marry him, she told
William, because he wanted her to dump
William.118

After Garth was born, Madalyn ignored him

just as she did William. Garth responded by
butting his head against the headboard of his
crib for hours. This continued for days without
Madalyn even seeming to notice, much less ever
picking Garth up to comfort him or to give him
attention and love.119

William said that his mother had a “vicious

and violent temper” which was quite
unpredictable and therefore one of her more
disruptive and troubling characteristics. In a fit
of anger she once threw all his model airplanes
to the floor and smashed them.120 She cursed
him, and called him brainless and stupid.121 She
called him a “stupid fool” and slapped him in
the face.122 Once she grabbed a cup of fruit

cocktail and hurled its contents point blank into his face.123 She once bit him so deeply on the arm that
blood oozed from several puncture wounds, and his grandfather took him to get a tetanus shot.124 William
summed up his relationship with Madalyn by saying, “Although incidents like this were frustrating, I
probably was hurt deepest by her basic lack of interest in me.”125

How Is Life Without God?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair with her sons, William and

Jon Garth.

———————————

116  Ibid., 81.
117  Ibid., 80–81.
118  Ibid., 18.
119  Ibid., 20–21.
120  Ibid., 33.
121  Ibid., 48–49.
122  Ibid., 49.
123  Ibid., 68.
124  Ibid.
125  Ibid., 33.

Madalyn Murray O’Hair Hated Her Employers

Madalyn could never keep a job for long. William believes that her inability to keep a job for more than

six months is what drew her into radical politics in Baltimore. William says that Madalyn had no respect for
her bosses, believed herself to be superior to them, felt that she should be allowed to run things, and since
they would not do so, she would end up quitting.

William believes that while on these jobs Madalyn met other radical socialist discontents. When William

was nine she began to have Socialist Labor Party meetings in the basement of her house and made William
attend to learn how bad capitalism is.126

Madalyn Murray O’Hair Hated Her Country

William wrote of the above mentioned radical socialist meetings:

I remember sitting at the edge of these meetings, fighting off sleep as I heard that the United States was bad because it had rich people. Rich
people were bad because they did not work; instead they exploited the labor of others. Our nation was, in fact, an enormous fascist slave labor
camp. We had been tricked into believing we were free. A dramatic Socialist revolution was needed to divest the rich of their wealth. Then the
workers would control the means of production under the benevolent protection of a leftist dictatorship.… Heated discussions of this type—
always seething with righteous indignation—would continue deep into the night.127

That Madalyn believed this Socialist propaganda is obvious from her actions. So deeply did she come to

detest America that she eventually tried to defect to the Soviet Union.

In 1957, Madalyn became a follower of the communist party of Leon Trotsky. This militant group held

anti war demonstrations, protested against the House Unamerican Activities Committee, and supported
Castro. However, so strongly did Madalyn hate the U.S.A., this anti-America activity did not satisfy her. She
began contemplating moving permanently to the Soviet Union.128

From that time Madalyn began filing papers with the embassy of the Soviet Union in Washington, D.C.,

requesting to be granted citizenship. Despite her repeated efforts over the process of many months, she was
never given an answer. Finally, she grew impatient, and decided she would take her two boys to France to
apply for Russian citizenship at the Soviet embassy in Paris. So certain was she of success that “she wrote to
the U.S. State Department and formally renounced her American citizenship.”129 On August 24, 1960, they
departed for France on the Queen Elizabeth.130 In Paris they were in for bitter disappointment. The Russian
Embassy refused to grant them visas because of Madalyn’s poor work record and because she had two
illegitimate sons. The embassy official told her:

In looking at your work record, it would seem you would be working for the most part at half pay.…Besides, you do not speak the mother
tongue. More than likely your two fatherless boys would become wards of the state. Perhaps you and your children would be better off working
for the revolution in your native land.131

Madalyn was forced to purchase the cheapest tickets available, and return to the United States

immediately. It was while enrolling William back in school after this trip that Madalyn learned of the Bible
reading and prayer that began each class day there. She became incised. Soon she was plotting how to stop
this violation of her atheistic beliefs. This eventually led her to file lawsuits which in 1963 would bring her to
the United State Supreme Court to hear the decision that she had won her case.

While Madalyn was waiting for her lawsuit to work its way to the Supreme Court, she became manager of

a Communist party bookstore—the New Era Book Shop, 101 W. 22nd Street, in Baltimore.132 Shortly after
this, in 1962, an event transpired which illustrates clearly that humanism and communism are essentially

Living With an Atheist

———————————

126  Ibid., 21–22.
127  Ibid., 22.
128  Ibid., 31.
129  Ibid., 43.
130  Ibid., 36.
131  Ibid., 41.
132  Ibid., 80.

the same thing. They differ in name, of course, but in goals they are virtually identical. Communists, in fact,
are humanists, although not all humanists claim to be communists. The publisher of the Free Humanist
magazine asked Madalyn if she would like to take over publication of the magazine at no cost to herself. She
jumped at this opportunity to broadcast her radical views. The magazine came complete with a mailing list
of 600 radical atheists like herself.133

This publication, was renamed the American Atheist, and its circulation grew greatly under Madalyn’s

leadership. The 1992 edition of the Writer’s Market (Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books, 1992) listed the
circulation of the American Atheist at 50,000, and said that William’s daughter, Robin, was the editor, and
William’s half brother, Garth, the managing editor.

William also reports that in 1964 his mother met in Hawaii with Gus Hall, who was chairman of the

Communist Party of the U.S.A.134

Later, Madalyn, broke the law, and to keep from being jailed she tried (unsuccessfully) to defect to

Cuba.135 That after this second attempt to flee this country, she was freed by the court after being arrested
trying to reenter the country, shows just how pro-traitor, pro-criminal, and anti-God some parts of our
superior judicial system have become. Wrote William:

Fred Weisgal, the ACLU attorney who had briefly helped Mother with the prayer and Bible-reading case, filed a motion in criminal court asking
that all charges against Mother be dropped. The reason given was very ironic—even for the American justice system. The Maryland Court of
Appeals had just declared that members of grand juries need not affirm that they believe in God, a statement which the swearing-in oath had
long contained. Furthermore, the appeals court had ruled that actions taken by grand juries sworn in by this oath could be overturned.

Sure enough, the grand jury that had indicted Mother had been sworn in by such an oath. The court resolved that my mother and

others like her had been denied equal protection under the law. The timing of this series of events should have made even Mother believe an
angel was watching over her affairs. On October 26, all charges against her were dropped. And the state’s attorney decided not to try to reindict
Mrs. O’Hair.136

Atheism Destroys Moral Foundation

Atheists/humanists love to talk about ethics. They pride themselves in being “ethical.” But just how ethi-

cal can one be who believes (as atheists/humanists do) that right and wrong are determined from within by
the individual himself rather than from without by God? People who accept such an idea feel immediately
“liberated” from all moral restraints. That is simple fact. As already shown, Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s whole
life demonstrates that fact. Two more examples will now be given.

The Example of William J. Murray

As already discussed at length, William J. Murray is the illegitimate son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair. It was

her atheism that caused her to give birth to two illegitimate sons. Instead of admitting that she had sinned in
sleeping with men with whom she was not married, she called fornication “a beautiful story.”137 She taught
such principles to William. William says virginity had no meaning to him since he had not been given any
foundation of morality at home. Therefore, he went farther than just kissing Jennifer, his first serious
girlfriend.138

William goes on to tell how Jennifer introduced him to Susan with whom he immediately had sex.139

Susan’s father was opposed to her relationship with William. Madalyn, rather than supporting Susan’s dad,
invited Susan into her home to share William’s bed without even discussing it with William first.140 William

How Is Life Without God?

———————————

133  Ibid., 78.
134  Ibid., 118.
135  Ibid., 123.
136  Ibid., 143–44.
137  Ibid., 20.
138  Ibid., 92.
139  Ibid.
140  Ibid., 96.

was only seventeen years old. Susan soon became pregnant out of wedlock.141 This was just the first of many
illicit affairs William experienced up to the point he found Christ.142 During his life without God, William
also stole,143 abused alcohol,144 faked an automobile accident in order to bilk an insurance company,145
used drugs,146 dabbled in the occult,147 battered his girlfriend,148 sold drugs,149 deserted the army,150 took
bribes,151 defrauded men at a cock fight,152 and engaged in a gun battle.153

Life without God really sounds ethical, doesn’t it?!

The Example of Gina Allen

Prometheus Books, publisher of Humanist Manifesto I & II, has published a book titled The Best of

Humanism. This book, edited by Roger E. Greeley, is a compilation of quotations from prominent
Humanists. These quotations supposedly represent the very best of humanism. In this book is a personal
testimony by a woman named Gina Allen, concerning how becoming an atheist instantly removed her inner
desire to refrain from tobacco, alcohol, and premarital sex. Writes Gina on pages 35-36:

I first saw the light one night when I was sixteen years old. It was initially a very small light—the beam from the flashlight that enabled me to
read under the bed covers when I was supposed to be sleeping. That night I was reading a Little Blue Book that had been given me by my
boyfriend. It was Percy Bysshe Shelley’s The Necessity of Atheism.

I usually say that until the moment I opened the book I was a very religious young women, but I suppose I had actually been outgrow-

ing my religion for a while. For one thing, my boyfriend, a freethinker, had been giving me books like this and had been making me defend my
religious beliefs—which I had difficulty doing to his satisfaction, and my own.

So I was prepared for Shelly and his atheism even though I didn’t know it. And, as I read, the light got brighter and brighter. Not from

the flashlight I was reading with but from my mind absorbing what I read. Shelley’s logic shattered, in one memorable night, all the Sunday
school lessons, Bible studies, and sermons I had been exposed to for years.

My first reaction was fury, a fury so strong that I risked confronting my father the next morning at breakfast. “You can’t possibly

believe all that god stuff! Do you?” I demanded. “You’re an intelligent, educated man. God is as much a hoax as Santa Claus and not nearly as
much fun. And only kids believe in Santa.”

His response made me even angrier, This pillar of the religious community, this trustee of the local Presbyterian church, this man who

supported the church financially and attended services every Sunday told me calmly that no, he didn’t believe what the church taught. But he
did believe that without the church there would be no morality in the world. Children learned right and wrong in the church, and adults lived
righteous lives because they believed in God and heaven and hell.

I have since learned that this attitude is not unusual among many who appear to be religious. They are no less concerned with their

own spirituality than with the conduct of others. They see themselves as superior, able to understand their religion as mythology and still con-
duct their lives morally. But they don’t think the ordinary person can do that, so they count on religion to keep the masses under control.
Indeed, throughout history such “superior” men have used religion to regulate their slaves and subjugate women.

In my first heady release from religion I too thought it was the only thing that had kept me “good.” My life would change: I could sin.

As a teenager, for me the three great sins were smoking, drinking, and premarital sex.

I told my boyfriend that I had seen the light. He was glad. He said he thought I was too intelligent to stay caught up in religion forever.

Then I told him that we could sin together. We could drink, and smoke, and have sex. He looked at me as if I were crazy. I could do those things if
I wished, he said, but he was in training. As captain of the high-school football team, a star basketball player, and a Golden Gloves boxer, he was
always in training.

Living With an Atheist

———————————

141  Ibid., 102.
142  Ibid., 126, 152–53.
143  Ibid., 148.
144  Ibid., 218.
145  Ibid., 150.
146  Ibid., 126.
147  Ibid., 119–20.
148  Ibid., 169–70.
149  Ibid., 192.
150  Ibid.
151  Ibid., 194.
152  Ibid., 132–33.
153  Ibid., 133–35.

He wasn’t “good” because he believed in a god but because he wanted to be an athlete. Slowly it dawned upon me that I hadn’t been

“good” because I believed in a god but because I loved my family and friends, enjoyed my studies and my music, and wanted to prepare myself
for all life’s possibilities.

How amazing is Gina’s conclusion that God was not the basis of her morality before she became an atheist!
If belief in God’s existence had not kept Gina good, then why did she—immediately upon becoming an
atheist—tell her boyfriend they “could sin together”?

As Gina very well knows, atheists do not even believe there is such a thing as sin, for sin is a

transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4), and if there is no God, then no law can have issued from Him. So of
course she cannot sin since (in her eyes) there is no such thing! Since according to atheist dogma there is
no such thing as sin or immorality, Gina can feel herself to be good and moral no matter what she does!
That Gina in fact is not “good” (“There is none good, no not one” according to Rom. 3:10), but sins (in
spite of her claim to the contrary) is evident from her statement that theistic religion “spreads guilt instead
of joy.”154 Gina seems to be talking from experience. Only those who do something they consider to be a sin
against God feel guilt. So obviously it is the “joy” of committing what theists call sin to which Gina is
referring. So, her atheism has not kept her good, but rather made her evil. Atheism has destroyed her moral
foundation. She is now adrift upon the churning sea of situation ethics. Her life is without doubt a mess and
she to be pitied.

Atheism is Pagan Religion

After William Murray turned from atheism to God, he went to Washington, D.C. to testify before a senate

committee debating the Supreme Court Jurisdiction Act of 1979. Wrote William of his testimony: “I noted
that by precluding all religions advocating faith in God from public schools, the Federal Government was in
fact establishing a materialistic atheistic religion by default.”155 William made an exceedingly vital point.
Atheism is pagan religion. It is worship of self, and worship of Satan. And it has, in fact, been established as
the state church of the U.S.A.

William reports that Madalyn’s atheism did not prevent her from believing in the forces of darkness, the

spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. While hiding from the law in Hawaii, Madalyn
helped arrange meetings for a psychic from Seattle to conduct seances.156

Why an Atheist Turned to God

Atheists take pride in calling themselves freethinkers. But a person is not really free whose mind is so

chained in the bondage of sin that it cannot come to logical conclusions. The man who has never tasted
alcohol (or drugs, or illicit sex, etc.) is free from its addiction. But the man who takes that first drink (or fix
or fornication) often finds that he is not free to quit. And until his sin makes such a hell out of his life that he
can no longer ignore it, his mind is no longer going to function properly. Even then it will take the grace of
God to bring him to the truth. William Murray testifies that he came to believe in God as a result of seeing
the extreme evil in his mother and in his employer at that time, Tom Evans. Says William, “One day while
driving home from work the truth struck me. I thought, There has to be a God because there certainly is a
devil. I have met him, talked to him, and touched him. He is the personification of evil. He is Tom Evans, my
mother, and others like them I have met.”157 When William became a Christian, Madelyn cut him off with
this vicious remark: “One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate
him entirely and completely for now and all times...He is beyond human forgiveness."158

How Is Life Without God?

———————————

154  Roger E. Greeley, ed., The Best of Humanism (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), 37.
155  Murray, My Life Without God, 250.
156  Ibid., 119.
157  Ibid., 232–33.
158  Lona Manning, “The Murder of Madalyn Murray O’Hair: America’s Most Hated Woman,” Dunamai.Com,

Http://www.dunamai.com/articles/atheist/murder_of_ohair.htm.

The Bitter End of Atheism

Madalyn Murray O’Hair once bragged, saying, “I love a good fight...I guess fighting God and God’s

spokesmen is sort of the ultimate, isn’t it?”159 But such words lose their humor as one approaches death.
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-

ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should
come to repentance” (2 Pet 3.9). Therefore He may let even
atheists live on for some time even while they fight against God
and seemingly win a few battles. But the war they will lose. In
the day of death, God will say unto them,

Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man
regarded; but ye have set at naught all my counsel, and would none of my
reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
when your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a
whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call
upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find
me: for that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: they
would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat
of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. For the turning
away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of
evil. (Prov. 1:24-33)

The famous Voltaire spent his whole life in debauchery and
opposition to theism, but on his death bed drank his own
urine and ate his own excrement, and screamed in horror
before dying in agony. It is folly to fight against God. God
always wins. The wise man joins the winning side while he has
the chance.

In August of 1995, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, William’s

brother, Jon Garth, and his daughter, Robin, disappeared.
Madalyn was 77 years old at that time. For three years the
national atheist organization Madalyn led claimed that she had
left the country with a large amount of money—but that was

not true. In the first half of 1999 evidence came to light that Madalyn, Garth, and Robin had been murdered
on September 29, 1995, about 30 days after their kidnapping and disappearance. The murderers were three
convicts: David Waters, Gary Karr, and Danny Fry. Madalyn had hired convicted murderer David Waters to
be her office manager, William believes, because “she had found that employees who were convicted felons
allowed her to work them harder and many times under pay them,”160 and because “she got a sense of
power out of having men in her employ who had taken human life.”161

The evidence is strong that Madalyn was tortured before her death. Robin was repeatedly raped and tor-

tured. After Madalyn, Robin, and Jon Garth were murdered, their bodies were dismembered, burnt, and
then buried on a 5,000 acre ranch near Camp Wood, Texas.

Wrote William later:

The media asked me if I would hold a funeral and if so would there be prayer. My answer was simple but Biblical and sort of surprised them I am
sure. I said, "They are already either in heaven of hell, praying over them now will not make a difference."

Living With an Atheist

William J. Murray, raised an atheist,
born again into the family of God, now a
Baptist preacher—a trophy to the

manifold mercy and grace of God!

———————————

159 Murray, My Life Without God, 98.
160 William J. Murray, “Update to William J. Murray’s Statement on the Murder of His Mother as of January, 2000” (2000),

Http://www.wjmurray.com/madalyn/update2000.htm.

161 William J. Murray, “May 1999 Statement of Evangelist William J. Murray on the Kidnapping and Murder of Family Members: My Mother, My Brother, and My

Daughter Were Murdered!!” (1999), Http://www.wjmurray.com/madalyn/madayln.htm.

I made that statement knowing the torture they must have gone through the last thirty days of their lives. Did Robin pray to receive Christ as
she was bound and gagged? Perhaps. Did my mother or brother cry out to the Lord just before they were murdered? I don't know.
Christ is there for the vilest offender. The serial killer whose prayer at the hour of his death is genuine is also forgiven. My mother, my brother
and my daughter may well await me in heaven. On the other hand, they may have stood their ground defying God to the end, in which case
they are now spending yet another day of eternity in hell. If that is the case I will never see them again.
The deaths of my mother, brother and daughter should make all too clear the need for Christ to others that proclaim atheism. But those who
would follow my mother continue to fight against God and His authority. "Fools make a mock at sin… " Prov. 14:8162

Humanists mistake wantoness for liberty, and sin for freedom. Sin enslaves; it does not free. "Why do the

heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take
counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and
cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in deri-
sion. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure." (Psalms 2:1-4)

“Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make
you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:34-36) God’s law does not enslave, but rather frees: it is the “law
of liberty” (James 1:25).

How Is Life Without God?

O ’ h a i r d e m o n s t r a t i n g
against God. Her sign shows
that she did not know the

meaning of true freedom.

———————————

162 Ibid.

Chapter 10

IS THE BIBLE TRUE?

Yes! Hares Do Chew the Cud

How could the digestive process of the lowly hare become the object of an important educational,

political and theological discussion? How hares digest their food is more interesting than one would first
assume. The Bible says that the hare chews the cud, but a certain humanist book claims that the Bible is in
error on this point. Furthermore, this humanist book claims that since the Bible contains this error, it is not
the Word of God and cannot be taken seriously on any other points either. These are serious charges. On
the other hand, if the humanists be wrong on this point, perhaps it is they whom we should not take
seriously on any other points either.

So let’s study the hare closely to see if the Bible is indeed wrong, or if it is these atheistic religious

humanists who are wrong.

The Bible Says Hares Chew the Cud

These religious humanists are right about one thing: the Bible does teach that hares chew the cud.

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney:
for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. (Deut. 14:7)

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (Lev. 11:6)

These two passages of Scripture very clearly state that the children of Israel were not to eat the hare because
the hare chews the cud but does not have a divided hoof. (Some people believe that not all hares can be
considered rabbits. However, everyone seems to agree that all rabbits are hares. So, for this article the two
terms will be used interchangeably.) It is correct to say that the Bible does, indeed, teach that rabbits
(hares) chew the cud.

Humanists Say Hares Do Not Chew the Cud

It cannot be said that all humanists teach that hares do not chew the cud, for we would have to question

every humanist in the world to ascertain that. However, it can truthfully be said that some very well known
ones do so say. Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. Berent have written a book titled Fundamentalism: Hazard and
Heartbreaks which has a forward by Steve Allen and an introduction by Isaac Asimov. Allen and Asimov are
big names in the Humanist movement. Asimov was one of the signers of Humanist Manifesto II and has

written many books opposing Christianity and teaching humanism, and was till his death president of the
American Humanist Association, so we can safely conclude that he would not have written the introduction
to this book unless it was in accord with his humanistic views. This book is a collection of many of the
excuses atheists have given over the years for rejecting God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ. Most of these
excuses were proven erroneous years ago shortly after they were given, and only dishonest people would
continue to use them. However, there was one excuse listed in this book that was new (at least to me). On
page 86 of their book, Evans and Berent state:

Evidently the belief in perfect Biblical accuracy is also a misconception. For Leviticus 11:6 states that “the hare…chews the cud…”, which is a
demonstrably false statement.163

Since Evans and Berent make this statement publicly in a book devoted totally to discrediting people

“who believe that the Bible is infallible,”164 it behooves us to see if these two atheistic religious humanists
really base everything on conclusions reached by the scientific method, as they claim. Or are they simply
spouting off some of the “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” we are
warned about in 1 Tim 6.20?

What Are the Facts

Surprisingly little is known about hares. Until relatively recent times, few scientific studies were made of

them. R.M. Lockley, a distinguished British biologist and field naturalist, is among the foremost hare
experts. His book, The Private Life of the Rabbit: An Account of the life and History and Social Behavior
of the Wild Rabbit (New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1964), details his fascinating research and
provides an authoritative answer to our question.

Lockley spent most of his life studying rabbits. As a child he raised rabbits. When he was twenty he

obtained the lease to “240-acre Skokholm island, five miles off the entrance to Milforn Haven.”165 His inten-
tion was to kill off the wild rabbit population on this island so that he could raise a more valuable strain of
rabbit which had fur resembling that of the chinchillas. He preformed many experiments to try to control
the wild rabbit population on this island. Says Lockley,

Indirectly my experience in studying rabbit control methods at Skokholm led to an invitation from the Nature Conservancy to investigate on
their behalf the progress of myxomatosis, when it broke out in England in 1953; and subsequently from 1954 to 1959 I was able to carry out a
life-history study of the rabbit on my small estate of Orielton in Pembrokeshire.166

Lockley and his helpers built a special observatory where they could observe wild rabbits up close, both

above ground and in their burrows, without disturbing the rabbits. From his careful and systematic observa-
tions in this unique observatory, Lockley became one of the foremost authorities on rabbits.

Chapter 10 of Lockley’s book is titled “Reingestion.” He begins this chapter by quoting Leviticus chapter

11, as we did at the beginning of this article. He then reports that rabbits do little underground except rest,
sleep, and preen themselves. However, there is one exception to this relative lack of activity while
underground. Writes Lockley:

So long as we could watch the rabbits underground we had an ideal opportunity to study the phenomena of coprophagy or reingestion.

The fact that rabbits … and hares ‘chew the cud’ was recorded in the Bible. It is mentioned in Leviticus, Chapter 11, …. Also (the

Jewish law of clean and unclean meats) in Deuteronomy XIV.… Later writers, even authorities on both wild and domestic rabbits, have seldom
referred to this phenomenon. In general, textbooks on rabbit physiology and management ignore the subject, not because of its lowly theme
but because the authors apparently were ignorant of it. Since its recent rediscovery it has been called ‘reingestion,’ a suitable term implying that
it is a form of re-eating and redigestion of food.167

Lockley goes on to explain that rabbits chew their cuds differently than cows, goats or sheep, which

Is the Bible True?

———————————

163 Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. Berent, Fundamentalism: Hazard and Heartbreaks, foreword by Steve Allen, introd. by Issac Asimov (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court

Publishing Company, 1988), 86.

164 Ibid., xix.
165 R.M. Lockley, The Private Life of the Rabbit: An Account of the Life and History and Social Behavior of the Wild Rabbit, introd. by Richard Adams (New York: Mac-

millan Publishing Co., Inc., 1964), 14.

166 Ibid., 16.
167 Ibid., 101–02.

regurgitate their food and rechew it. The rabbit, instead, eats its own excrement (faecal pellets), and thus
redigests them. Usually this occurs during the daytime underground as the rabbit is resting. Occasionally
this was observed above ground, but

could easily be overlooked by the casual observer. A swift bending of the head during which the long ears almost touched the ground between
the hind legs, then the rabbit’s head would come up and the jaws work for a few seconds as the pellet was swallowed and the tongue licked
around inside the mouth afterwards. In the rabbit there is a curious infolding of the lower lips over the space between the incisor and molar
teeth which protects and hides the tongue. The observer could not see the faeces because of the masking action and the closed mouth.168

We are forced to conclude that simple faith in God’s Word would have resulted long ago in scientists looking
more specifically, and therefore seeing, rabbits chewing their cud. But unbelief kept them blinded to the
facts.

But Do Hares Really “Chew” the Cud?

Lockley reports that researchers Mervyn Griffiths and David Davies in Australia have

demonstrated that each soft pellet is separate and by the time it reaches the rectum is enveloped in a strong membrane.… These soft pellets
pass down to the rectum in glossy clusters. They are swallowed whole by the rabbit, that is, without breaking the enveloping membranes. This
in itself is a remarkable feat, as, although the rabbit (under observation in the open as well as in our artificial burrow) sometimes appears to
chew this faecal ‘cud’ after collecting it from the anus, with movements of the jaws varying in time from one to over one hundred seconds, Grif-
fiths and Davies assert that the soft pellets are found whole in the stomach and therefore must be swallowed whole. The movement of the jaws
may therefore be solely a swallowing, followed by a cleaning action of the tongue, during which saliva is ingested along with the soft pellets
and must aid in the digestive process.169

So, are the pellets (cud) chewed or not? It is perhaps impossible to ever observe what is actually going on
inside the rabbit’s mouth as it appears to chew the cud. I would suggest that since the Bible was right about
the rabbit having a cud, it is also right about the rabbit chewing the cud. Perhaps the chewing is gentle
enough so as to not break the membrane, but rough enough to crush its contents so as to make redigestion
easier. This certainly seems possible as Lockley says that “the membrane is quite tough”,170 and would
account for the fact that the rabbit spends from “one to over 100 seconds” doing something with its jaws
that certainly appears to be chewing after taking the cud into its mouth. One thing for certain: God’s Word
has certainly proven to be more accurate than the speculation of unbelievers. Is it not significant that
unbelieving “scientists” have not known about a rabbit’s cud for thousands of years even though the fact of it
is recorded in the oldest book on earth? It should be obvious to all that the Bible is no ordinary book to be
set aside lightly.

Conclusion

Having proved humanists wrong on yet another point in which they contest the Bible, how can we trust

anything they say any longer? All my life I have been examining the claims of unbelievers that there are
errors in the Bible. In every case to date, after careful examination the Bible has proven to be correct and
the men that questioned it have proven to be in error. God’s Word has without exception proven itself fully
qualified to correct men, while men have shown themselves to be totally unqualified to correct God’s Word.
The wise man will agree with the Bible: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from this study about hares chewing the cud is this: had

we gone to the library at an earlier point in history we may not have been able to find any books supporting
the Bible position concerning this matter. However, the Bible would still have been true, and the men who
disputed it would have been wrong. Sometimes direct research has to be done to confirm the accuracy of a
questioned Bible verse, but the Bible is always proven to be true in the end.

The cud of a hare is just one example of proof that the so-called “science” of humanism is not actually

science at all, but is mere philosophy—unproven opinions of men—superstition. A true scientist reports
only what he observes. But no one has ever observed life come spontaneously from dead matter, or a non-

Yes! Hares Do Chew the Cud

———————————

168  Ibid., 103.
169  Ibid., 105.
170  Ibid., 106.

human give birth to a human. No one has ever observed an animal of one kind give birth to an animal of a
different kind. These are the presuppositions of the religion of evolution. The fact that humanists claim such
unscientific theories to be scientific shows that they are unable to look at anything without bias. The truth is
that they approach all aspects of life with the fanatical belief that “the only absolute is that there are no
absolutes.” They have espoused such a silly idea because God claims to be absolute authority, and the Bible
claims to be the absolute truth, and so they must reject both God and the Bible to keep from feeling guilty
when they purposely break God’s laws which are recorded in the Bible. Therefore, rejection of absolutes is
inseparable from atheism.

The moment a person rejects absolutes that person declares war on God and Christianity, for if God is

not absolute in holiness as the Bible of Christianity teaches, then there must be a better morality then God’s,
in which case the Christian teaching that Christian morality is perfect would be a great hindrance to progress
and therefore a great evil. As Sir Julius Huxley, one of Humanism’s most famous champions, states in The
Humanist Frame,

Humanism … will have nothing to do with Absolutes, including absolute truth, absolute morality, absolute perfection and absolute author-
ity.… any belief in supernatural creators, rulers, or influencers of natural or human process introduces an irreparable split into the universe, and
prevents us from grasping its real unity. Any belief in Absolutes, whether the absolute validity of moral commandments, of authority of revela-
tion, of inner certitude, or of divine inspiration, erects a formidable barrier against progress and the possibility of improvement, moral, rational,
or religious.171

This rejection of absolutes is why humanists spend so much time, energy, and resources opposing Chris-
tianity.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to reason with most humanists. One cannot have a logical discussion with

a person who believes one cannot be absolutely sure about anything, and that nothing matters except win-
ning the argument. Since humanists ares not absolutely sure that what they themselvesf believe is true, they
possess no solid, unchanging values. Thus it is impossible to find a mutually accepted foundation upon
which to base logic so as to be able to persuade them of anything. The moment they sees that their chal-
lenger’s argument is valid, they change their belief so as to make their challengers efforts to communicate
with them fruitless.

A humanist can justify any evil behavior—even murder of unborn babies, robbery, rape, or sodomy—

with a giddy “nothing is absolutely wrong.” Having no clear concept of right and wrong, such a person con-
stantly changes positions, and lies, sincerely believing that even lying is not absolutely wrong. Such a person
therefore cannot be of high integrity or character, for he can never be trusted to tell the truth or to keep his
promises.

Consider how stupid and illogical this foundational ideological belief of humanism actually is. If there

are no absolutes, then it cannot be absolutely true that there are no absolutes. And if it is not absolutely true
that there are no absolutes, then it must be absolutely false that the there are no absolutes. And if it be
absolutely false that there are no absolutes, then it must be absolutely true that there are absolutes.

Obviously then when a person rejects absolutes he is intentionally closing his eyes to the light. He can’t

see because he won’t see. This is why rejecting God and the Bible makes it impossible for a person to ever
find truth.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphe-
mers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those
that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with
divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Tim. 3:1-7)
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Prov. 1:7)
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Is. 8:20)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:8-9).

One is also reminded of Rom 1:28: “… as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them

Is the Bible True?

———————————

171 Julian Huxley, The Humanist Frame, 14 and 40.

over to a reprobate mind.” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second Edition, defines reprobate as
“depraved, corrupt, unprincipled; rejected by God; excluded from salvation and lost in sin.” Such is the
humanist mind—a high price to pay for closing ones eyes to the plain facts of all true science.

UPDATE

This chapter is an edited version of an article written by the author years ago. Other Christian authors

also pointed out these facts. All these articles showing the truth put the humanists on the defensive, and they
began to publish articles defending what Evan and Berent had written and Allen and Asimov had endorsed.
All of these humanist articles that the author has read can be summed as: The Bible is wrong in Lev. 11:6
and in Deut. 14:7 because what the word “cud” means in that verse is not what modern science says the
word “cud” means. Interpretation of that humanist argument: humanists can win only by redefining words
so that they no longer mean what they originally meant. That is intellectual dishonesty. Lenny Esposito is cor-
rect in saying,

Now, we must also remember that artiodactyls were first defined as a separate order in 1847 by Richard Owen and the behavior of cecotropy
was first recognized in 1882. Deuteronomy, however, was written approximately 1500 BC in an ancient Hebrew. It would be intellectually dis-
honest for someone to claim that a 3500 year old writing is contradictory because it doesn't match with a scientific classification invented only
about a hundred years ago. Further, if the ancient Hebrews defined 'cud-chewing" as that process where half digested vegetation was re-
chewed by an animal for easier re-digestion ( and that is a very specific and scientific definition), I would say the hare fits here fine.172

Yes! Hares Do Chew the Cud

———————————

172 Lenny Esposito, “Does the Hare Really Chew Cud?” ComeReason.Org (2007), Http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con055.asp.

Chapter 11

ARE ALL HUMANISTS HUMANISTS?

Not Knowing the Difference Could Be Fatal

Humanists are masters of deception. One of their favorite techniques is to take words with good con-

notations and use them to name one of their wicked organizations. Even though their organizations may
stand for the exact opposite of what the words means, most people’s initial impression of those organiza-
tions will be favorable because they are unaware that the good words are used to deceive them.

Ancient humanists Were Not Like Modern humanists

The words humanist and humanism are good examples of this deceptive practice. Before modern

Humanists hijacked these words for their own use these words had no atheistic implications.

Ancient humanists

For instance, in the field of literature a humanist was a person that had passion

humanities—the languages, history, art, the social sciences, etc.—, as opposed to
someone whose passion was studying the natural sciences. During the Renaissance
the word humanism referred to the revival of interest in studying the classical letters
written in the Greek language, including the New Testament of the Bible. Erasmas,
who produced the first printed edition of the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament,
was this type of humanist. Humanism in those days was not a religion, and there was,
of course, nothing wicked or dangerous about humanists such as those. Modern day
humanism, however, is a religion, is based squarely on atheism, is organized into
political action groups very similar to the Communist Party, and its leaders are
wicked and dangerous in ideology and goals. Millions of American babies have
already been murdered due to the efforts of these people to kill our soldiers before
they are even born.

Modern humanists

The American Humanist Association describes modern day humanism as follows:

MODERN HUMANISM, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is
defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies
primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and
religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.

SECULAR HUMANISM is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought. Many

secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many
otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.

RELIGIOUS HUMANISM emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian-

Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense.173

Remember, calling something scientific, ethical or Democratic does not make it so. Just saying that an

organization “relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion” does not mean

The official symbol

of Humanism.

———————————

173 Edwords, “What is Humanism?”

that it actually does. We must not be naive, especially when we can see that the very opposite is the truth.
Humanists are masters of deceit.

The one element of truth in the above definition is that modern humanism “rejects all supernaturalism.”

In other words, modern humanists reject—and are at war with—God.

Secular and Religious Humanism the Same

For all practical purposes, there is no difference between secular and religious humanists. As the Amer-

ican Humanist Association explains:

The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advo-
cates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as
philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious
Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when
the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into
existence.

Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview

and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular
and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933
and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. From the standpoint of philosophy alone,
there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion
and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively
disagree.…while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what religious
Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called "religious." This isn't a
mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion
deserving of criticism that the good name of Humanism should not be tainted by con-
nection with it.

Secular Humanists often refer to Unitarian Universalists as "Humanists not

yet out of the church habit." But Unitarian-Universalists sometimes counter

that a secular Humanist is simply an "unchurched Unitarian."174 [Emphasis added.]

Both those who call themselves secular humanists and those who call themselves religious humanists are
members of the same American Humanist Association, and signed the same Humanist Manifesto I which
established Humanism as a “frank religion.” As its leaders all know, humanism is a religion whether some
of its followers want to admit it or not.

Most Christians have been warned about “secular humanism,” but have never heard of “religious

humanism.” That is most unfortunate, as understanding that Humanism is a religion is essential to ending its
dominance of education in the USA.

The Difference Between humanists and Humanists

While there is no practical difference between secular humanists and religious humanists, there is a way

to divide modern day humanists that does make a difference. The American Humanist Association dis-
tinguishes between humanists with a lower case h (people espousing humanist philosophy), and Humanists
with a capital H (members of their association or of one or more of its front groups).175

Are All humanists Humanists?

THE HUMANIST magazine
is the most influencial of the

many Humanist publications.

———————————

174 Ibid.
175 Lebrun, “Humanism with a Capital H.”

humanists with a lower case h

The vast majority of people who live their lives according to the principles of humanism are not

members of any organized humanist movement. Many of them do not even realize that they are humanists.
They are not conscious that humanism is a religion. They simply accepted the Theory of Evolution as
scientific fact because they were taught humanist religious dogma in public school. They were just children
at the time, and never really questioned what they were taught, but simply accepted it in blind faith, and
based their whole idea-system upon it, just as their humanist or Humanist teachers hoped that they would.

Humanists With an Upper Case H

But there is another group of humanists which is highly organized into religious and political action sub-

groups. This group is the most dangerous one, for it has international goals of world conquest—with very
detailed and well-thought-out plans for reaching those goals. Very similar—in fact, almost identical—to the
communist party in philosophy and goals, these Humanists work through many front organizations which
are careful not to include the words “humanism” or “humanist” in their names. The remainder of this book
will expose several of the most important of these front groups. In the United States these Humanists are
united under the umbrella of the American Humanist Association. Worldwide they are united under the
umbrella of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). This book refers to members of these
groups not as “humanists” but as “Humanists” (with a capital H). They deserve this distinction for they are
the ones working fervently toward clearly defined goals which are international in scope.

humanists contrasted with Humanists

Let us consider these two groups (humanists and Humanists) in more detail.

Characteristics of humanists—lower case h

The typical humanist in this group most likely does not know that he is a humanist. He may not even

know what a humanist is. He may be a minister in a Christian church, or a teacher in a mosque. He may be
a school teacher, a college student, or a worker in just about any occupation or profession. He is a
humanist, not because he has joined any organization, but simply because he has accepted the Theory of
Evolution as scientifically proven fact. His faith in the Genesis account of creation (and therefore in the
whole Bible) has been greatly shaken or completely destroyed, and he therefore no longer lives his life in
submission to the dictates of God’s revealed Word. He now considers human reason at least equally
authoritative with the Bible, or may consider the Bible to have no authority whatsoever. After all, if the very
first chapter of the Bible cannot be believed literally, why should other parts of it be taken as literally true?
He may still claim to be a Christian, but Christianity is no longer a vital influence in his life. In fact, deep
inside, he doubts that there is really a God and he feels that Christianity restricts his personal freedom. He
would probably never say this publicly because his parents and many of the people he grew up with still go
to church and consider atheism a vile evil. But he secretly resents having some of his favorite pastimes
called “sin.” He has deep contempt for “Bible-quoting fundamentalists.” Christianity is no longer a living
influence to him, though he may still turn (rather resentfully) to Christianity when a ritual such as a wedding
or funeral is needed. For all practical purposes his Christianity (if he claims any) is already dead—and
beginning to stink.

When religions decay, form generally outlasts substance: rituals continue to be observed, sometimes even intensified, but they
move outside the lives of the people who practice them. In these circumstances, ritual is celebrated but no longer believed; it may
even become embarrassing. Vital religions are different. Although the extent of ritual observance varies from one to another, all
living religions are part of daily life and their central tenets are accepted as truths that need no further verification.

Not Knowing Could Be Fatal

Humanism is one of the vital religions, perhaps no longer growing but very much alive. It is the dominant religion of our

time, a part of the lives of nearly everyone in the “developed” world and of all others who want to participate in a similar develop-
ment. There is very little ritual in humanism, and most of its devout followers do not seem to be aware that they are humanists.
Ask them for the name of their religion and they will deny having one, or, more commonly, name one of the traditional faiths. On
the other hand, people who consider themselves humanists usually are—frequently, however, for reasons other than the ones
they know and admit.

Can a person unknowingly belong to one religion while under the impression that he or she is part of another? If that per-

son believes in the dogma of the former and only celebrates the latter, why not?176

Some public school teachers fall within this group. And because they know about the second group, and are
not a part of them, they deny being humanists. However, they are still teaching humanist doctrine, even if
they do not realize it. And thereby they are helping the Humanist cause. They may not be Humanists, but they
are nevertheless humanists.

The fact is, the vast majority of public school teachers are humanists, and many are active members of

the American Humanist Association or one or more of its front groups, and are purposely and zealously
using the public school system to brainwash our children in Humanist religious dogma.

Characteristics of Humanists—with an upper case H

The distinguishing mark of a Humanist (with a capital H) is that he has joined one or more of the

organizations associated with the International Humanist and Ethical Union177, and is working according to
clearly laid out plans (Humanist Manifesto I & II) to change the culture, values, politics and religion of the
country he lives in. Especially, he wants to destroy people’s faith in the Bible and in God. As the following
words from Humanist leader Edward L. Ericson show, Humanism is an international conspiracy against
God:

Whether individual Humanists, or particular groups of Humanists, prefer to consider Humanism as religious (the position taken
here [in Ericson’s book]), or as solely philosophical, Humanists generally are in agreement that human life is the outcome of an
incalculably dynamic natural universe in its ongoing evolutionary progression. In this conception of reality there is no need to
assume a supernatural intelligence presiding over the origin and destiny of life or the cosmos.

While millions of people in the United States, and millions more around the world, subscribe to the concepts and attitudes

expressed above as a purely personal philosophy, or faith, Ethical Humanism also exists as an organized religious and ethical
movement. Founded more than a century ago in New York City as the Society for Ethical Culture, the movement has grown into a
national federation of local societies known as the American Ethical Union. A European Ethical movement, headquartered in Swit-
zerland, was organized soon after the American development.

Individual societies may be known as Ethical societies, Ethical Culture societies, or Ethical Humanist societies, according to

local preference. But regardless of variations in name, all member groups of the American Ethical Union share the same essential
moral and spiritual faith that has come to be known as Ethical Humanism.

Today Ethical Humanism is part of the global Humanist movement. In 1952 the American Ethical Union collaborated with

the American Humanist Association and other Humanist and Ethical bodies in Britain, Western Europe and India to organize a
worldwide alliance of Ethical Culture and Humanist groups named the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). Although
each member association retains its independence and historic identity, all are linked in a worldwide community for the promo-
tion of Ethical Humanist principles and ideals.178

The Humanists are the most dangerous humanists because they are so organized and influential.

Because American Humanists have succeeded in gaining dominance in the US Supreme Court, in public

Are All humanists Humanists?

———————————

176 David W. Ehrenfeld, The Arrogance of Humanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 4.
177 The International Humanist and Ethical Union is present located at 1 Gower Street, London, WC1E 6HD, United Kingdom. “IHEU shares the premises with the

British Humanist Association and the Rationalist Press Association.” It is ”located just behind the British Museum.” (http://www.iheu.org/address)

178 Ericson, The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion, 4.

education, and in the communications media, they pose a far greater threat to the United States of America
than the communist party of the Soviet Union ever did.

Humanists contrasted with Communists

It must be pointed out again that communism is, in fact, a form of humanism. All communists are

humanists. While not all humanists are communists, they are nevertheless of the same basic beliefs and
goals. Humanist minister Ericson admits that

Communism is at heart intensely humanistic, for it contains the central idea that rational planning can alter any pre-existing
condition of man.179 [Emphasis added.]

And Ehrenfield warns that

the most openly and avowedly humanistic philosophies are the liberal group, which includes all forms of communism,
socialism, and moderate liberalism. Classical communism, with Marx’s dream of a classless society and a minimal govern-
ment achieved by social engineering, is the most committed of these to the humanistic assumptions, and it is the one that has
failed the most dramatically. First in Russia and now in China the humanist dream of a perfectible life has crumbled.… And in
both these humanistic countries the vaunted freedom that the humanists admire has vanished without a trace. Each time a
dream crumbles a new generation of believers is disillusioned, then makes excuses, then starts over again with the same dream in
another country.… their good intentions have been overwhelmed by the falseness of their basic assumptions, and it is time for
the morally just, the humane, and the ecologically sophisticated people of the twentieth century to admit this before any more
damage is done.180 [Emphasis added.]

The main difference between Humanists and Communists is that Communists believe in using guns to

force their humanism upon a population, but Humanists realized that it is wiser to work through the com-
munications media and the public school systems to brainwash people (especially children) so as to
eventually take power through popular vote. As we saw with the election of humanist Bill Clinton to the pres-
idency, and in the Gore versus Bush election, they had already achieved their objective only to lose it due to
President Clinton committing adultery with Monica Lewinsky.

Especially in the USA, Humanists realize that humanism cannot be imposed upon the population by

physical force due to the large segment of the US population which owns guns, and therefore could mount
vigorous resistance. That is why they are working so hard to get gun-control legislation passed. Once guns
have been taken away from the American citizens, we can expect Humanists to begin to use much harsher
methods to force complete implementation of humanist principles. Meanwhile, expect continued lies, dis-
information, and treasonous support of our enemies from the Humanist dominated news media.

Humanists Contrasted With Patriots

As avid internationalists, Humanists are loyal to the United Nations and not to the United States of Amer-

ica. As the American Humanist Association boasts:

The United Nations is a specific example of Humanism at work. The first Director General of UNESCO, the UN organization promot-
ing education, science, and culture, was the 1962 Humanist of the Year Julian Huxley, who practically drafted UNESCO'S charter by
himself. The first Director-General of the World Health Organization was the 1959 Humanist of the Year Brock Chisholm.… And
the first Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Organization was British Humanist John Boyd Orr.181

It is clear from the above quote why the UN opposes the USA on just about every issue. As the only remaining
superpower, the USA stands directly in the way of the Humanist dream of Humanism being the government
of the world. The American Humanist Association therefore has voiced its opposition to President George W.
Bush’s administration, as follows:

Not Knowing Could Be Fatal

———————————

179  Ehrenfeld, The Arrogance of Humanism, 152.
180  Ibid., 249–50.
181  Edwords, “What is Humanism?”

The AHA has supported the work of the United Nations for decades. It has issued many strong resolutions in support of the vision
of a global, inter-related world…. These resolutions include the dedication of the AHA to lobby our domestic government in sup-
port of United Nations and its treaties and conventions….

However, the current climate of aggressive unilateralism pursued by the US has not only brought a cold chill to these

many years of work, but left the United States in a lonely position in the world. While many new and emerging countries have
embedded the International Declaration of Human Rights, a purely Humanist document, in their new constitutions, and made
concerted efforts to apply the standards of the United Nations conventions in the fields of women’s rights, the environment, arms
proliferation and social development, the U.S. has repeatedly repudiated and withdrawn from these agreements. And the US, of
all nations the proponent of democracy, has opted out of the new International Criminal court.

As we continue to promote the cause of Humanism at the United Nations, we call for the renewed dedica-

tion of the AHA and its members, to “think globally and act locally.” And to renew our efforts to inform and urge
Congress to act wisely, logically and heroically to restore the United States to the world stage in a position of leadership instead of
one of belligerence and diplomatic isolation.182 [Emphasis added.]

Why does the US “repudiate” or “withdraw” from these UN agreements? Because those UN agreements com-
promise or completely invalidate US sovereignty. Because they would rob US citizens of basic human rights.

Why has the US “opted out” of the new International Criminal Court? Because it would supersede and

invalidate the US Supreme Court. Because US soldiers could be tried as war criminals before that UN

“court” by foreign judges
from the very countries
w h i c h a re p ro m ot i n g
aggression against the USA
and which our soldiers are
fighting.

The Humanists groups

support the UN in these mat-
ters because their loyalty is
not to the USA but to the
international Humanist
movement. Humanists love
the UN because it is a
Humanist organization with
a phony and “purely
humanist” Declaration of
H u m a n R i g h t s b a s e d
squarely on atheism. No true
Christian can support the
United Nations. It is
designed from its very foun-
dation to be anti-God, anti-

Christian and pro-Communist. It should not be allowed on U.S. soil.This avid loyalty to the United Nations is
also why Humanists speak with such contempt for patriotism. Humanists consider people who put the inter-
ests of the USA above the interests of the United Nations to be their enemies. They hate our stars and strips
flag.183 They take the side of our enemies in every war.

Viet Nam veterans should take note that pro-Communist “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, the woman that went to

Viet Nam during the Viet Nam War to demonstrate against our country, married the 1990 Humanist of the

Are All humanists Humanists?

THE HUXLEYS were very important prophets of the modern Humanist
religion. Thomas Huxley (left) was known as "Darwin's bulldog" because
of his vigorous preaching of humanist theology. He was the first person to
call himself an egnostic. The second picture shows his grandson, Julian
on his lap. The third picture is of Julian as an adult. Julian was one of the
signers of Humanist Manifesto I. He became the first head of UNESCO, and
in that position made Humanism the religion of the United Nations. The
last picture is of Aldus, Julian's younger brother. Aldus became a novelist
and toured the USA visiting college campuses to introduce mind-altering
drugs to students as a replacement for the Holy Spirit.

———————————

182 “AHA UN Office” (New York: American Humanist Association), 1, Http://www.americanhumanist.org/hsfamily/UNOffice.php#location.
183 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a Humanist front organization, is notorious for defending what they call “the right” of people to desecrate the flag,

under the guise of defending freedom of speech.

Year Ted Turner. Ted Turner is the man that donated one billion dollars to the United Nations. In the case of
Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, the marriage between Humanists and Communists was more than just a mar-
riage of common dogma and goals.184

Humanists Indirectly Advocate the Violent Overthrow

of the United States Government

Humanists learned from the mistakes of the Communist Party USA. The Communists made the mistake of

openly advocating the violent overthrow of the US government.

In 1948, for the first time since the 1920’s, the [Communist] Party found itself on the defensive when the Department of Justice
initiated prosecution against its leaders. The twelve members of the Party’s National Board were indicted under the Smith Act
(enacted in 1940), which prohibits any conspiracy that advocates the overthrow of the United States government by force and
violence. Previously, in 1941, the government had instituted prosecutions against members of the Socialist Workers Party
(Trotskyites) under this statute. Other statutes since used by the government in the attack on the Party include the Internal
Security Act of 1950 and the Communist Control Act of 1954.

In a long trial, running through most of 1949, eleven members were convicted, the twelfth, William Z. Foster, having been

severed from the trial because of illness. In June, 1951 the Supreme Court upheld these convictions, and the government sub-
sequently took prosecutive action against additional Party leaders.

This government prosecution was a strong disabling blow against the Party. Many of its top leaders were arrested and

convicted. Others lived in fear of arrest. As a result the Party to a large extent went underground in the first large-scale
underground operation since the early 1920’s. Party officers were closed, top leaders went into hiding, records were destroyed.
Courier systems were instituted and clubs broken up into small units, if not completely disbanded. For about four years, for mid-
1951 to mid-1955, the Party in protecting itself spent energy, time, and money that otherwise would have gone into agitation and
propaganda.185

Humanists determined not to make the same mistake. They are careful not to openly call for the violent
overthrow of the US government. This has proven to be a very wise policy on their part, as it has enabled
them to use the freedoms provided by the Bill of Rights to openly operate in opposition to our government in
the news media, in courts of law, and in public schools.

However, the fact that Humanists are not openly calling for the violent overthrow of our government does

not mean that they are not indirectly advocating it. Examples of Humanist sedition include them declaring
war on President Bush instead of on Al Qaeda after 9/11, saying that President Bush lied about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq; blaming the results of Hurricane Katrina on President Bush; providing lawyers for
terrorists that attacked us; ignoring the abuse of our soldiers and the Iraqi people by terrorists while
publicizing the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghurayb prison world-wide so as to encourage Muslims everywhere
to attack the USA; implying that that abuse was ordered by the Bush administration; sending Cindy Sheehan
to camp in front of President Bush’s ranch and accuse him of murdering her son; insinuating that President
Bush is the behind the scenes cause of the high price of fuel; condemning the efforts of our government to
prevent terrorists and others from illegally crossing the border from Mexico; distributing a petition to stop
the Bush administration from preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons; openly calling for the
impeachment of President Bush. All of this activity encourages our enemies to keep fighting us, and results
in more of our soldiers being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not Knowing Could Be Fatal

———————————

184 They have since divorced. During the stress leading up to this divorce, Fonda reportedly became a Christian. However, time has shown that her profession was

false. She is still actively promoting abortion and other humanist causes.

185 Hoover, Masters of Deceit, 68–69.

Chapter 12

IS THE ACLU TRULY FOR LIBERTY?

No, It Works To Enslave Us

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was organized January 19, 1920 by Roger Baldwin and a

large group of his radical left-wing friends.

It grew out of a predecessor group, The National Civil Liberties Bureau which in turn had grown out of the American Union Against
Militarism, and a soiree that was held in New York City and attended by just about every radical from the thriving New York scene
of the time. The founders numbered over 60 but the bulk of the work was assumed by the following core:

Roger Nash Baldwin—the founding, long time, director of ACLU. Born to wealth, at the time of
the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. As late as 1935, he gave a
speech stating that his political vision was communist. …

Norman Thomas— a Presbyterian minister and radical socialist who advocated the total aboli-
tion of capitalism. He was also a eugenicist who warned against the excessive reproduction of
undesirables. Thomas was a six time Socialist Party presidential candidate. Also a committed
pacifist, he joined Charles Lindbergh's American First Committee to keep us out of World War
II.…

John Haynes Holmes— a Unitarian minister, a pacifist, socialist and also a founder of The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

L. Hollingsworth Wood—a Quaker, pacifist and a co-founder of the Urban League.…

John Nevin Sayre—an ordained Episcopal minister, Sayre was a pacifist and believed that Jesus
Christ was also. …

The following is a random selection of others who were among the founders:

Crystal Eastman— pacifist, socialist and feminist. She had been active as a supporter of the radi-
cal International Workers of the World (I.W.W.), a radical group with very strong ties to com-

munism.

Helen Keller—a communist. …during the early 1920s, she wrote and spoke flatteringly about the two competing and emerging
German variations of socialism, the national socialism of Adolf Hitler and international revolutionary socialism, or communism.

Radicalized at Radcliffe, she addressed others, as she was often addressed, as 'Comrade'. Ironically, under the eugenics of German
National Socialism, Keller would likely have been judged as flawed and exterminated for having been so vulnerable to have been
left damaged by her illness.

Elizabeth Flynn Gurley— a communist, she later became chairman of CPUSA [Communist Party, USA].

Felix Frankfurter—a social reformer, became interested in ACLU when pacifists and socialists were being harassed by the govern-
ment. Frankfurter would later be appointed to the Supreme Court by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. …

John Dewey— radical socialist educator who believed that the function of the educational system was to train future agents for
the goals of the state. His educational theories dominate our system today.

R O G E R B A L D W I N ,
founder and director of
the ACLU until his death.
He said, "Communism is
the goal."

Clarence Darrow—lionized by Hollywood in 'Inherit The Wind' and the Left for defending teacher John Scopes for teaching evolu-
tion.…He was an agnostic.

Jane Addams—social activist, feminist, and pacifist. She was also a founder of the NAACP.

Upton Sinclair—socialist and author of many novels. He began his career by writing ethnic
full novel, was an expose of disgusting conditions in the Chicago meat packing industry. It led
to the Pure Food and Drug Act which established the FDA.…

A. J. Muste— at the time, a communist who was committed to revolutionary politics. He
later became a Christian pacifist after a trip to the Soviet Union and a meeting with Leon
Trotsky. Many associates maintained though that he never completely abandoned his attach-
ment to Marxism.

Harry F. Ward— a lifetime communist, he authored Soviet Democracy and Soviet Spirit, two
pro-Communist books.

Albert DeSilver—radical socialist attorney who had worked with the I.W.W. He willed his
entire fortune to ACLU.186

Roger Baldwin (1884-1981), was one of the
most important leaders in the humanist move-
ment. As founder and director of the ACLU he
organized humanist lawyers into a fantastically
influential legal force dedicated to opposing
Christianity and promoting the Humanist reli-

gion in the USA. The crowning achievement of the ACLU has been its suc-
cess in so manipulating courts of law as to unofficially but very effectively
establish humanism as the established state religion of the USA. It is
because of the ACLU that evolution must be taught in public schools, and
the teaching of creation by God is forbidden. The ACLU achieved this
incredible victory by redefining the meaning of the phrase “separation of
church and state” to mean separation of God and state, and by carefully
hiding from the American public the fact that humanism itself is a religion.
This deceptive redefining (actually misdefining) of phrases and words is
very typical of humanism. Humanists are also very clever at giving their
front organizations names which identify them as advocating the very oppo-
site of what they actually advocate. The name American Civil Liberties Union
is a good example of this; it would be more accurate to call it the Anti-
America Uncivil Enslavem Union, for it has done more to deprive Amer-
icans of liberty than any other organization in history. As will be shown in
this chapter, an even more accurate name would be Anti-America Com-
munist Lawyers Union. After all, several of the founders of the ACLU were
communists, and, as you will see in this chapter, the ACLU has a long his-
tory of aiding and abetting communism. To understand the true nature of
the ACLU we must look past its deceptive name to the beliefs and principles of its founders.

In this chapter we will examine the religious beliefs and ambitions of Roger Baldwin, the main founder

and long time director of the ACLU.

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

FELIX FRANKFURTER was
later appointed to the US
Supreme Court by Franklin
D. Rosevelt.

JOHN DEWEY is called
the Father of Humanist
Philosophy. Through his
te a c he rs s c h oo ls h e
i n f l u e n c e d p u b l i c
education in America more

than any other man.

———————————

186 Roderick T. Beaman, “THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Uncomfortable Truths About the Origins,” Ether Zone, 1916 September 2004,

Http://www.etherzone.com/2004/beam091604.shtml.

In college I pursued these leads and by researching the library discovered a magazine called The Humanist, edited by a

Unitarian minister, Edwin H. Wilson, who also served as the director of the American Humanist Association. I corresponded with
Dr. Wilson and later followed his footsteps into the Unitarian ministry, where I spent eight years in preparation and service. At
about the same time that I encountered The Humanist, I chanced upon a copy of The Standard, then the official journal, now
unfortunately discontinued, of the Ethical Culture movement. An inquiry to the headquarters of the American Ethical Union in New
York brought me information and introductory books. In Ethical Culture I found my religious ideals most fully and satisfyingly
expressed. Even after I had entered the ministry as a Humanist Unitarian, I continued to look toward Ethical Culture as the flag-
ship of religious Humanism. When the unexpected invitation came, I entered the professional leadership in 1959 as leader of the
Ethical society in Washington, D.C.189 [Emphasis added.]

It is important to note that approximately half of the signers of Humanist Manifesto I & II were

Unitarian Ministers.

The point is that by establishing that a person (Roger Baldwin in this case) is a Unitarian, we have estab-

lished that he is a humanist. Humanism, I repeat, is simply the doctrines of the Unitarian-Universalist
Church.

Baldwin’s Sex Life

Peggy Lamson talked with Baldwin a great deal about his friendships with many different older women.

Says Lamson, “I again commented on how many such relationships he had had. Answered Baldwin, ‘Yes, I
had a good many. Very affectionate they were, but sexless.’ He grinned. ‘And you know the Freudian implica-
tions of all that.’” “I nodded knowingly,” writes Lamson, “but did not speculate. To be sure homosexuality
came to mind, but there is no evidence to support that particular Freudian implication.” She obviously was
embarrassed to directly ask him if that is what he meant, but the fact that she included this conversation in
her book indicates that she believed it was.

One thing for sure, Humanist Manifest II teaches that homosexuality and other sexual perversions are

not wrong:

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly
repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploi-
tive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between
consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing
mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compell-
ing them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they
desire.190

That Baldwin was a thoroughly immoral man by Bible standards there is no doubt. Commented Lamson:

I asked him [Baldwin] for his reaction to the morals of today’s young. Did he object to everyone sleeping with everyone else. No,
emphatically, he did not object, his only reservation being that he thought boys and girls living together in the same college
dormitory was a mistake. “You go to college to learn something. You don’t go to college to make love.”191

Baldwin’s Contempt of Marriage

People who know they are humanists and know why they are humanists do not believe in marriage. The

institution of marriage is based on belief that there is a creator God. If there is no creator God, then humans

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

———————————

189  Ericson, The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion, 7–9.
190  Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, 18–19.
191  Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, 289.

were not created in God’s image. And if human’s were not created in God’s image, then they are just animals
like all the other animals. And if humans are just animals, why should they limit themselves to sex with just
one individual? After all, dogs have sex with an unrestricted number of partners. Why, humanists reason,

should humans have less sexual freedom then dogs?192 In his wedding vow to
Madeleine Doty on August 8, 1919, shortly after his release from prison for
refusal to report for the draft, Baldwin made the following statement:

To us who passionately cherish the vision of a free human society, the present institution of
marriage among us is a grim mockery of essential freedom. Here we have the most intimate,
most sacred, the most creative relationship shackled in the deadening grip of private property
and essentially holding the woman subservient to the man….We deny without reservation
the moral right of state or church to bind by force of law a relationship that cannot be
maintained by the power of love alone. We submit to the form of law only because it seems a
matter of too little importance to resist or ignore.193

Madeleine soon learned that a man who can so easily reject God can also easily
reject God’s command that a husband love his wife (Eph. 5:25-33). Baldwin
was openly unfaithful to her and eventually divorced her. Just how little love he
ever had for her (or anyone else) is evident from this quote from a letter he
wrote to her a few years after their wedding: “Much love Maddy—all I’ve got to
spare from loving myself which is my first duty! (how’s that for a husband?)
Roger.”194

Baldwin’s Communism

Repeatedly in the preceding chapters Humanism has been shown to be virtually identical to com-

munism. Each time a quote has been given to prove that this is not being said without reason. In Thirty
Years Later, a publication of the Harvard Class of 1905, Baldwin made the following declaration:

I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek
social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those that produce wealth. Communism is
the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose—the abolition of the system of dog-eat-dog under which we live.195 [Emphasis
added.]

Later, when it became obvious that to publicly espouse communism would be detrimental to his humanist
cause, Baldwin repudiated communism, and even fired a communist from the board of directors of the
ACLU. A Unitarian historian tells it like this:

Baldwin became increasingly disturbed by events in the Soviet Union, where purge trials were being undertaken, and by politically
troublesome accusations leveled at the ACLU by the House Committee on un-American Activities.

No, It Works To Enslave Us

Bald win  shou ld b e
remembered always for
writing this: "I am for
socialism, disarmament
an d  u l ti m a t el y  f o r
abolishing the state
itself…. Communism is
the goal."

———————————

192 That is the twisted kind of reasoning that people have who believe that freedom is to sin instead of from sin. Are people free if criminals are allowed to rob

them on the streets? No. The criminals might call that freedom, but if people must fear to leave their homes they are enslaved. Is a man free if another man is
allowed to commit adultery with his wife—thus destroying his family—and get away with it? No, true freedom is to do right, not to do wrong. True free-
dom is having opportunity to do what God has commanded without someone being allowed to prevent you from doing it. If you are allowed to study God’s
word, and pray, and tell others what God says, then you are free. Otherwise, you are enslaved. If you are allowed to be born and to grow up to serve the Lord,
then you are free. If your mother is allowed to murder you before you are even born, then you are enslaved. You have to be alive to be free.

193  Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, 115.
194  Ibid., 151.
195  Ibid., 192.

Baldwin became less happy with the Popular Front approach and concerned about the very existence of the ACLU after the
announcement of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939. The following spring, in an effort to stave off criticisms of
the organization and the cause he had devoted much of his adulthood to, Baldwin orchestrated a campaign to revise the ACLU
charter. Henceforth, those affiliated with totalitarian organizations would not be allowed to serve on the ACLU board. The immedi-
ate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.196

But time has proven that his philosophy and goals never changed. And why was Flynn on the Board of Direc-
tors of the ACLU anyway? Years before this, in 1916, Flynn responded to the question “Do You Believe in
Patriotism?” by saying,

What an odd question to ask revolutionists! Might it not be better put, "American Socialists, have you the courage of your princi-
ples? Shall it be 'America First' or 'Workers of the World, Unite!'"

Count m for Labor First. This country is not "our" country. Then why should the toilers love it or fight for it? Why sanction the title
deeds of our masters in the blood of our fellow-slaves? Let those who own the country, who are howling for and profiting by
preparedness, fight to defend their property. …I cannot work myself into a frenzy of patriotism wherever a contraband ship is
sunk and we lose a few prominent citizens.

I save my concern for…the innumerable victims of the class war.…The train on which I write rushes by factories where murder
instruments are made for gold. I would be ashamed to be patriotic of such a country. In the black smoke belched from their chim-
neys, I see the ghostly faces of dead workers—our poor, deluded slain brothers. I re-affirm my faith, "It is better to be a traitor to
your country than a traitor to your class!"197

Baldwin no doubt knew about Flynn’s words; Flynn was Baldwin’s kind of girl! She was not fired because
she was communist. They parted for one reason only: the sake of the Communist Party and of the ACLU. She
was about to be arrested and go to prison for advocating the overthrow of the US government, and they both
knew it. Outwardly, Baldwin appeared to have changed, but inwardly communism was still the goal.

It is interesting to note that the Communist Party USA web site (as of April 6, 2006) lists the ACLU at the

top of its list of “groups and resources for deepening and protecting civil rights,”198 which in communist
talk means other radical, left-wing, God haters, working to divide, defeat, and enslave the American people
in whatever way possible. So the Communist Party USA obviously still considers the ACLU its comrade in its
long war against God.

Baldwin’s View of Freedom

Humanists constantly talk about freedom. They portray themselves to the world as champions of liberty.

Yet in every country in which they gain total control freedom vanishes. The reason for this is that humanists
do not desire true freedom (that is, unrestricted opportunity to worship and obey God), but rather
humanists desire licentiousness (disregard of God-given moral laws). Peggy Lamson points out that in the
September 1934 issue of Soviet Russia Today, Baldwin wrote an article entitled “Freedom In the USA and
the USSR” in which he rhetorically stated the question most frequently—and justifiably—asked of phony
civil libertarians (especially humanists): How can you consistently fight to support free speech
and free dissent in capitalist countries and at the same time defend a dictatorship that
permits no dissent at all against its rule?

He then proceeded to answer the question:

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

———————————

196 Robert C. Cattrill, “Roger Baldwin: Founder, American Civil Liberties Union,” Harvard Square Library,

Http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html.

197 Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, “Do You Believe in Patriotism?” The Masses, March 1916,

Http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/flynn/1916/patriotism.htm.

198 http://www.cpusa.org/link/category/22/

Our critics are in error in denying us a class position.…All my associates in the struggle for civil liberties take a class position,
though many don’t know it.…I too take a class position. It is anti-capitalist and pro-revolutionary.…I champion civil liberty as
the best of the nonviolent means of building the power on which worker’s rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free
speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a
more hospitable atmosphere for working-class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are inciden-
tal.

When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any

means whatever.199 [Emphasis original!]

Please consider the implications of the above quotation very carefully, and remember it next time you

see a representative from the ACLU speaking on television. Remember, Humanists will fight for freedoms in
the short run only if those freedoms will help them achieve dictatorship in the long run. Once that dictator-
ship is established it will be maintained by “any means whatever.”

Never forget that the American Civil Liberties Union was established by an anti-

capitalist, pro-revolutionary, pro-Soviet Union, draft-dodging, marriage-hating, God-
defying Humanist activist who lived by the principle that “communism is the goal.”

Humanists have a plan, and that plan is to rule the world. The sedition taking

place in public schools is all being carried out according to well-thought-out plans. It
is on purpose. America must be destroyed in order for the Humanist one-world gov-
ernment to be established.

How the ACLU Helps America’s Enemies

The following rather boring quote from the cover jacket for a book by Corliss

Lamont becomes more interesting once one realizes that it establishes the fact that
Humanists help Communists in their subversion of the United States of America:

Born in Englewood, New Jersey in 1902, Dr. Lamont graduated first from Phillips Exeter Academy in
1920, then magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1924. He did graduate work at Oxford and at
Columbia, where he received his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1932. He was a director of the American Civil
Liberties Union from 1932 to 1954, and is currently chairman of the National Emergency Civil Liberties
Committee. A leading proponent of the individual’s rights under the Constitution, he has won famous
court decisions over Senator Joseph McCarthy, the CIA, and in 1965 a Supreme Court ruling against
censorship of incoming mail by the U.S. Postmaster General. Dr. Lamont has long been associated

with Humanism, and authored the standard text on the subject, The Philosophy of Humanism, in 1949. He taught at Columbia,
Cornell, and Harvard Universities, and at the New School for Social Research. Corliss Lamont is currently honory president of the
American Humanist Association.200

The above about-the-author quote reveals much more information than immediately meets the eye, and
gives us a better understanding of how Humanists work to subvert the USA.

ACLU Lawyers Are Not Loyal To America

The ACLU is not an organization of loyal American lawyers who are fighting for basic human rights as

they claim. They are Humanist internationalists who are working to abolish the sovereignty of the USA in
order to set up a one-world government. As the twelfth theses of Humanist Manifesto II states:

No, It Works To Enslave Us

T h e   U n i t e d
N a t i o n   i s
p r o m o t i n g
Humanism as the
n e w   w o r l d
religion, as a
result of the work
o f   H u m a n i s t
leader Sir Julian
Huxley being the
fir st  hea d o f
UNESCO.

———————————

199 Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, 190–91.
200 Corliss Lamont, The Illusion of Immortality, John Dewey, reprint, 1935, Half-Moon Foundation, Inc. (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company,

1990), Cover jacket.

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best
option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sec-
tors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon
transnational federal government.

The ACLU and the AHA Are Basically the Same People

Note that Lamont was “director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1932 to 1954,” and when the

copy for the above cover jacket was written Lamont was the “honory president of the American Humanist
Association.” These two organizations are led by the same people. Actually, this should not surprise us when

we remember that one of the founders of the ACLU, John Dewey, was also one
of the founders of the American Humanist Association.

The AHA Has Many Front Organizations Just Like Communism

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Emergency Civil

Liberties Committee are just fronts for the American Humanist Association.
They have many fronts like this, many of which were started and led by the
exact same people. By doing this they appear to be many different and
unrelated groups representing a large number of people, when in fact they are
all Humanists and represent a rather small segment of the population.

The AHA Defends America’s Enemies and Villanifies Patriots

Note that Lamont is claimed to be “a leading proponent of the individual’s

rights under the Constitution, he has won famous court decisions over Senator
Joseph McCarthy, the CIA, and in 1965 a Supreme Court ruling against
censorship of incoming mail by the U.S. Postmaster General.” That is a very
deceptive statement. Humanists are working constantly to undermine
individual human rights. They are the people responsible for removing the Ten
Commandments, which is the very foundation of individual human rights, from
court rooms and school rooms. And Humanists do not honor the U.S.
Constitution at all except when they can use it to defend our enemies.

Most people know nothing about Senator Joseph McCarthy, yet they have

heard his name mentioned so often in a negative way by the Humanist-

controlled news media that they think he must have been a exceedingly evil man like Hitler or Osama bin
Laden. They have no idea that Joseph McCarthy was an American hero who exposed Communist spies which
had infiltrated our government—it is very likely that our country would have been taken over by
Communism were it not for Joseph McCarthy. Nor do they realize that the ACLU and other Humanist front
groups and humanist journalists defended the spies and villanified Senator McCarthy by falsely accusing him
of falsely accusing the spies. “Former ACLU President Norman Dorsen….was co-counsel with Joseph Welch
during the U.S. Army-Joseph McCarthy hearings.”201

Ann Coulter has written an excellent book documenting how liberals (humanists) always take the side of

the enemy, and giving the history of how the term “McCarthyism” was invented and is used by liberals.
Liberals are all humanists even though not all liberals are members of the American Humanist Association
or one of its front groups. Sadly, the Democrat Party should now be called the Liberal Humanist Party, for it
is promoting humanism in every aspect of its platform, as are also a few humanists such as Rudy Giuliani
and Mitt Romney which have infiltrated the Republican party. Coulter correctly writes:

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

T h i s g r a p h i c i s
displayed on the web
site of the Tulsa,
Oklahoma branch of the
American Humanist
Association. This would
be considered treason
in just about any other
country in the world.
Humanists are always
against America and for

our enemies.

———————————

201 “Celebrate 50 Years of Defending Freedom at the ICLU,” Indiana Civil Liberties Union (2003, 17 October), Http://www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=71.

Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason....Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they
don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy.…If anyone has the gaucherie to
point out the left’s nearly unblemished record of rooting against America, liberals turn around and scream “McCarthyism!”

Liberals invented the myth of McCarthyism to delegitimize impertinent questions about their own patriotism. They boast

(lyingly) about their superior stance on civil rights. But somehow their loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of
political debate.…Liberals demand that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies.…The ACLU responded to

the 9-11 terrorist attack by threatening to sue schools that hung GOD BLESS AMERICA
signs.…Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue
of it.…Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag,
and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it, they say he’s a kook and a nut.
Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes “McCarthyism”.202

As FBI director J.Edgar Hoover said, in March 1947 there were only about one

million Americans registered to vote with the Communist Party, but that was more
than there were in Russia in 1917 [when the Communists overthrew the Russian gov-
ernment]. What held the Communist left to the madrasahs of the Ivy League was Joe
McCarthy. Sneering at McCarty today because the only people who call themselves
Communists are harmless cranks is like sneering at the Sabin vaccine since, really,
almost no one gets polio anymore. The big argument against McCarthy is that the
whole notion of Communist subversion was a joke. It was not a joke. It was real. And
the Democrats didn't care.

In the twentieth century, nearly million people were murdered in the name

of Communism. Stalin held his monstrous Soviet show trials, committed genocide
against the Kulaks, and created a forced famine for the Ukrainians when they resisted
collectivization. There was Mao's "Great Leap Forward" murdering tens of millions of
people. There was the Khmer Rouge's massacre of one quarter of the entire Cam-
bodian population. Communist mass murder not only predated the Nazi variety but
far surpassed it. Wherever there was Communism, there was repression, torture, and
mass murder.

It is a fact that hundreds of agents of this blood-soaked ideology became top

advisers to Democratic presidents, worked on the Manhattan Project, infiltrated every

segment of the United States government. Stalin's agents held top positions in the White House, the State Department, the Trea-
sury Department, the Army, and the OSS. Because of Democrat incompetence and moral infirmity, all Americans lived under the
threat of nuclear annihilation for half a century. As Soviet spies passed nuclear technology to Stalin, President Roosevelt gave strict
orders that the OSS engage in no espionage against the country ruled by his pal, Uncle Joe.

When it could have been stopped, when, days after the Hitler-Stalin Pact was signed, an ex-Communist came to the

United States government and informed on [Communist spy] Hiss, as well as dozens of other Soviet spies in the government, Pres-
ident Roosevelt had laughed. McCarthy punched back so hard, liberals are still reeling.203

By simply drawing public attention to the mounting evidence that numerous communist spies had

infiltrated the US government, McCarthy set back the Communist-Humanist agenda for years.

However, the Humanists were eventually able to stop McCarthy by mounting an unrelenting ferocious

attack upon his character. The numerous Humanist front groups and humanist journalists and humanist
television anchormen all began attacking him at once and without letup. Over and over and over again, they
falsely accused McCarthy of the very things of which they themselves were guilty: slander, homosexuality,

No, It Works To Enslave Us

Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a great
American hero. By pointing out
evidence that communists spies
had infiltrated our government, he
prevented them from enslaving us
under communism and its godless
humanist religion. For this he was
(and still is) mercilessly slandered
by humanists world wide to
prevent people from believing his
warnings.

———————————

202 Ann Coulter, TREASON: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (New York, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003), 1–3.
203 Ibid., 34.

demogaguery. To draw attention away from the Communist spies McCarthy was exposing in his
investigations, the Humanists along with their liberal friends began screaming that McCarthy himself be
investigated.

In 1954, when liberal loathing of McCarthy had reached a fever pitch, CBS ran a vicious, deceptive hatchet piece on him viewed by
millions of Americans. It was produced by Edward R. Murrow, friend of Soviet spy Laurence Duggan. Other organs of establish-
mentarian followed suit. The Senate voted to hold hearings on a censure resolution against McCarthy.

Among the grounds being considered for censure were McCarthy’s remarks about Senator Ralph Flanders (R-Vt.). In a fire-

breathing diatribe on the Senate floor, Flanders had called McCarthy a homosexual and compared him to Hitler. In response,
McCarthy said, “I think they should get a man with a net and take him to a good quiet place.” For this the Democrats thought
McCarthy should be censured. It is intemperate for Republicans to respond to vicious abuse by the Democrats. In the end, that par-
ticular censure count was rejected, but McCarthy was censured on two similarly absurd counts: statements he made in defiance of
senators investigating him. Senators were free to defame and abuse McCarthy, but it was considered a grave violation of the dig-
nity of the Senate if he criticized them back. McCarthy said Senator Flanders had to be “taken out of mothballs” to pursue the
censure resolution. He called one of his inquisitors, Senator Robert Hendrickson (D-Md.), “a living miracle…the only man in the
world who had lived so long with neither brains nor guts.” For these statements, McCarthy was censured by a body that, fifty years
later, would do nothing about a president who committed felonies to obstruct a sexual harassment lawsuit.204

The wolf pack had caught the scent. The [liberal] news media would not relent. The unending attacks finally wore down McCarthy.
Most painfully for him, the attacks wore down his supporters. The cheering crowds and widespread support he had enjoyed
through so many battles began to evaporate. As Roy Cohn said, “He had taken more punishment than a normal man could be
expected to absorb.…Never have so much vituperation and defamation been directed toward a person in public life.”

At the age of forty-eight McCarthy died broken and defamed. The [liberal-humanist] New York Times did not mention

McCarthy’s death in an editorial out of pure hatred.205

So that is how the term “McCarthyism” originated. By simply telling the same lies about McCarthy

hundreds of times the humanists succeeded in convincing the public that the lies were true.

However, McCarthy was even more right than he realized. The passing of time has proven that McCarthy

knew of only a small part of the Soviet espionage that was actually taking place. There was an abundance of
evidence available at the time (sworn testimony by ex-Communists, confessions of arrested spies, and the
arrest of spy Judith Coplon when caught in the very act of handing a U.S. counterintelligence file to a KGB
officer), so the humanists were without excuse in defending Communist traitors. But on July 11, 1995
decrypted Soviet cables of that era were declassified and made public. These cables prove that

McCarthy was absolutely right in his paramount charge: The U.S. government had a major Communist infestation problem. It is
treated as a mere truism [by liberals] that McCarthy was reckless, made mistakes, and was careless with his facts. It can now be
said that McCarthy’s gravest error was in underestimating the problem of Communist subversion.

The scale of the conspiracy was unprecedented. Hundreds of Soviet spies honeycombed the U.S. government throughout

the forties and fifties. America had been invaded by a civilian army loyal to a hostile power. There was no room for denying it.
Soviet operatives were stealing technical information from atomic, military, radar, aerospace, and rocket programs. The cables
revealed the code names of the spies, the technical espionage, and the secret transmission of highly sensitive diplomatic and
strategic policies.

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

———————————

204 Ibid., 120.
205 Ibid., 122–23.

McCarthy was accused of labeling “anyone with liberal views” a Communist. As we now know, that wouldn’t have been a

half-bad system. Contrary to Caute’s preposterous claim that Communists were innocent idealists, the American Communist Party
was linked to Stalin like an al-Qaeda training camp to Osama bin Laden.206

Since it was the ACLU that defended many of these Communists spies in court, it is about time for loyal

Americans to demand that the ACLU and its lawyers be investigated and its subversive activities be fully

exposed, and that all ACLU lawyers who have engaged in treason be
brought to justice. As Michel Savage points out,

Among all internal enemies…the ACLU has done the greatest damage to our
nation. My heart breaks when I see this dangerous pack of maniacs tearing at
the heart and soul of freedom. Books have been written on their outrageous liti-
gation. As far as I’m concerned, the ACLU is the KKK on the Left. While they don’t
wear hoods or burn crosses, they are more dangerous. They don’t need to wear
hoods because they no longer fear being found out.…While many well-
meaning American citizens support civil liberties groups like the ACLU and the
National Lawyers Guild, they’re doing so not understanding the true agenda and
nature of these organizations. To be redundant, they are using the courts to
advance their internationalist, anti-God, anti-traditional family, and hate-
America ideals.207

Why ACLU Lawyers Win So Many Court Cases

Humanists have gained influence beyond their numbers by

helping each other get into positions which allow them to do the
most damage to the USA. After the presidency, the judicial branch
of government allows Humanists opportunity to do the most
damage to America. A Humanist president can do more damage

than an activist humanist judge only by appointing Humanist judges to the Supreme Court where they remain
for life overriding the will of the citizens of this country by redefining the Constitution. This redefining—
actually, changing—of the Constitution generally takes place under the guise of the Constitution being a
“living Constitution.” A warning flag should go up in our mind when we hear someone preaching a “living
Constitution.” Those are the words of judges who do not like what the Constitution says and want to change
it to suit their own political aims. Those are the words of traitors.

It’s almost impossible to read much commentary about the role of the courts without stumbling across arguments for more judge-
made law, often couched in fancy rhetoric about “a living Constitution” or the alleged need to read the Constitution “in the light of
societal needs and evolving legal policy.” (U.S. liberals aren’t unique: In approving gay marriage, Canada’s Supreme Court said,
“Our Constitution is a living tree, which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of life.”)

In part, relying on judges for political decision is the result of a conscious strategy within the Democratic Party, as political analyst
William Galston of the University of Maryland said last week. Galston, a former aide to President Bill Clinton, says his party “con-
vinced itself that, especially on social issues, the principle vehicle of advance would be the court.” It’s easier to find a judge or two
to rule your way than to go through the drudgery of building a majority for normal democratic decision making, particularly if you
are pushing liberal agenda in a conservative age.

No, It Works To Enslave Us

Ruth Ginsburg is not a just judge. She
does not believe in the U.S. Constitution,
but bases her decisions on United
Nations and foreign nations' law. Our
demands that she be impeached for this
should be relentless.

———————————

206 Ibid., 37.
207 Michel Savage, The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military (Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Current, 2003), 41–

42.

The dependence on judges has been accelerated by the rise of groups that have little interest in majoritarian politics. The gay
movement, the primary example, spends almost all its energy hoping to win from judges what a large majority of American
oppose. …The rise of the lawmaking judge and the conversion of the Supreme Court into a sort of superlegislature make the
political system less democratic . … on major issues of the culture war the courts have heavily favored the left and attempted to
settle controversial issues that should have been left to politics—most obviously abortion and affirmative action. On church and
state, the courts have generally imposed the views of the secular elites, converting the Founding Father’s ban on federal establish-
ment of a church into a broad program for eradication religion from the public square. Even the recent baffling and apparently
contradictory 5-to-4 decisions on the display of the Ten Commandments seem narrowly political. They bar new displays of the
commandments, as in Kentucky, while allowing a token old one in Texas, probably so that the public won’t get too inflamed about
the plain meaning of the Kentucky decision.208

Since there are only nine Supreme Court judges, it takes only five judges voting pro-humanist to do a lot

of damage. It is easy for ACLU lawyers to win cases before unjust ACLU judges. And that is the reason that

the most important thing to do is to take back the judiciary. Why? This assault on the Bible belt by the Libel Belt was energized
when Ruth Ginsburg was put on the Supreme Court in 1993 by Bill Clinton.…Ginsburg is possibly the most radical lawyer in the
history of the United States of America!…When Clinton appointed her to the highest court in the land, she was chief counsel for
the ACLU—that ultra-leftist group which believes, among other things, that virtual child porn is protected speech.…so today we
have a Supreme Court that has slowly but surely come under her control.209

Even before Ginsburg the Supreme Court was dominated by humanists appointed by Democrat presidents.
The decisions to ban Bible reading and prayer in public schools were before Ginsburg. So was the decision
making the murder of unborn children a woman’s right. But with Ginsburg the court has become more anti-
family and anti-country than ever. The survival of our freedom depends on removing her and the other
humanist judges from the bench before the destruction of our country reaches the point of no return.

As of this writing, President Bush has appointed a conservative, John G. Roberts, Jr., to the bench to

replace William H. Rehnquist, who was also a conservative. He then appointed another conservative, Samuel
Anthony Alito, Jr., to replace humanist-leaning justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This already may have tipped
the balance against atheism in the Supreme Court; only time will tell. President Bush may have opportunity
to replace another Supreme Court justice before his term of office expires. If that happens he could possibly
tip the balance of power decisively away from the humanists. Much is at stake!

Naturally, the humanists vowed to do everything in their power to prevent President Bush from appoint-

ing conservative justices—and they did do everything in their power. They searched through the records of
President Bush’s nominees looking for the slightest thing they could use against them. They even stooped so
low as to demand that the papers concerning the adoption of justice Robert’s children be released, so that
perhaps they could find some infraction there.

The ACLU sent the following letter to each senator in the US Senate:

Dear Senator:

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to vote “NO” on cloture on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to
replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. This vote is critical to protecting the Supreme Court as a
guardian of civil liberties and civil rights.

The ACLU does not make the decision to oppose Alito lightly. Only twice in the ACLU’s 86 year history has our Board voted to
oppose Supreme Court nominees – that of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in his initial nomination to the Court, and Judge Robert
Bork. But this is a momentous time in history, and Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court would have significant impact on the
American people. A nominee with Alito's history of deference to executive authority and support for government power would

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

———————————

208 John Leo, “A Judge with no Agenda,” U.S. News and World Report 139, no. 2 (18 July 2005): 66.
209 Savage, The Enemy Within, 169–70.

Baldwin’s Religion

Roger Baldwin was raised a Unitarian, and he was very proud of this fact, as the following statement he

made to his biographer, Peggy Lamson, shows. “We Unitarians,” he said, “knew we were very advanced
people and that the other churches were backward. They believed things we Unitarians knew were not
so.”187 Lamson probed deeply into Baldwin’s Unitarian beliefs concerning Jesus Christ with the following
question: “But you and Mr. Emerson and Mr. Thoreau and most of the people who influenced you when you
were growing up didn’t believe in Jesus as the Son of God sent to redeem you?” Baldwin’s answer: “Oh, no,

of course not, although there was quite a lot more of Jesus in the
Unitarianism of my time than there is today. So I got to revere
Jesus, not as a divine figure but for what he said. And I still think
it’s great stuff.”188

It is important at this point to show that by proving that Roger

Baldwin was a Unitarian we have also proven that he was a
humanist. And it is even more important to understand that
humanism is simply the doctrines of the Unitarian-
Universalist church

. To establish this fact, let us refer once

again to The Humanist Way by Humanist minister Edward L. Eric-
son. After explaining that he had been raised in a conservative
Protestant religion, Ericson says he came to question its teachings,
and therefore began to search for a more suitable religion:

I discovered that the Unitarians and Universalists came even closer to my
spiritual ideal [than the Quakers] with their rejection of orthodox Christian doc-
trine and their emphasis on a religion of character, reason, and practical
philanthropy—beliefs that prefigured Humanism. But I knew that I was not a
unitarian (note the lower case) in the historic dictionary definition: one who
rejects the doctrine of the trinity and, the deity of Christ, but who retains belief
in a unitary (one) God. In truth I no longer believed in any kind of supernatural,
personal deity, whether defined as the Christian trinity or simply as “God the
creator.” But my interest in the Unitarians revived when my dictionary—even
then a well-worn copy as old as I was—gave one the surprising information
that “the [Unitarian] denomination now includes in its ministry and member-
ship a number of nontheistic humanists. See HUMANISM.”

I pursued the reference to Humanism and learned that among other meanings, it was defined as a religion “that sub-

stitutes faith in man for faith in God,” (a definition that despite its scholarly source, I recognized as oversimplified). Still, I was
assured that I was not alone in supposing it possible to have a religion without belief in a deity. The thought passed through my
mind that some day I might become a Humanist minister.

Many questions still required answers. What would a religion without a doctrine of God teach? The answer necessarily

pointed to ethics. So, with no available library books on the subject, I turned back to my large dictionary and carefully studied
every entry on ethics. My attention quickened when I came upon the following:

ethical culture. A religious movement that asserts the “supreme importance of the ethical factor in all relations of life,” and avoids
formal creeds or ritual. See AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION; SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE. —Webster’s New International Dictionary,
Second Edition.

No, It Works To Enslave Us

CLARENCE DARROW, the son of a
Humanist minister, became famous for
making Christianity look unscientific at
the Scoops Monkey Trial. This man was

very good at defending criminals.

———————————

187 Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976), 2.
188 Ibid., 6.

strike a blow to basic freedoms. In this high-stakes climate for civil liberties and civil rights, the Supreme Court must be a bulwark
against incursions on our fundamental freedoms. If confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Alito could
dramatically change the direction of the Supreme Court by tipping the balance from the moderate position of Justice O’Connor,
whom he would be replacing, to a position hostile to civil liberties and civil rights. He could thereby change the country for years
to come.

We are witnesses to an extraordinary time in history when our executive branch is trying to centralize power and bypass other
branches of government. At a time when our President has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on our own people and jail
people indefinitely without trial, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties, staying true to
the balance of powers envisioned by our Founders. But confirming Alito, someone with a proven record of undue deference to
executive powers, could dangerously upset that balance of powers.210

Their letter went on to give the real reason they oppose judge Alito:

Perhaps the best description of Alito’s overall philosophy in these critical areas was provided by Alito himself in 1985, when he
submitted a now well-publicized letter to the Reagan Administration seeking a position with the Justice Department’s Office of
Legal Counsel. “I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are cen-
tral to this Administration,” he wrote. Alito then went on to explain that he had been inspired to attend law school by his dis-
agreement with the decisions of the Warren Court, “particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and
reapportionment.”

Older readers will remember the “Impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren” signs that were posted across Amer-
ica by conservatives during the Warren court era. The Warren court almost always sided with criminals and
enemies of the USA, and with atheists and humanists seeking to kick God out of public schools. The anti-God
rulings of the Warren court are the cause of many of the problems in the USA today.

We can expect to see humanists continue to use nasty tactics to prevent conservatives from being

appointed to the Supreme Court. The humanists will be screaming, slandering, and trying to terrorize people
with scare tactics. Just like the Muslim terrorists, the humanists have learned that if they get emotional
enough, repeat their lies often enough, slander their opponents viciously enough, and terrorize the public
deeply enough, they can often get their way. They will try to destroy every person that stands in their way,
just like they destroyed Senator McCarthy and are now trying to destroy Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and
Sean Hannity. Expect humanist sodomites to hypocritically accuse their conservative opponents of being
homosexuals. Expect minor molehill infractions of obscure laws by conservatives to be blown into major fel-
onies by the humanist news media to try to make conservatives look like criminals. Expect the ACLU to file
lawsuits against conservatives. It will be an extremely nasty and unpleasant test of wills. Atheists against
theists. Humanism against theism. Evil against good. Wrong against right. Darkness against light. Enslave-
ment against freedom. Satan’s ministers will present themselves as angles of light—although in reality they
are demons of darkness. Every time the ACLU lyingly claims to be fighting for civil liberties, remember the
words of their founder:

Communism is the goal.…If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight
against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working-class liberties. The
class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any

means whatever.

No, It Works To Enslave Us

———————————

210 “ACLU Letter to the Senate Urging Opposition to Cloture Motion on Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito,” ACLU Web Site, 1927 January 2006,

Http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/23964leg20060127.html.

Humanists go by many different names: liberal, left-wing, Unitarian, skeptic, socialist, communist, prog-

ressive, do-gooder, Democrat, libertarian, Ethical Union member, secularist. Since they believe lying is ok if
it achieves their goals, some of them may even claim to be conservative, right-wing, Christian, Baptist, Bible-
believer, capitalist, anti-communist, Republican, etc. They especially like to call themselves moderates,
when in reality they are insanely radical, left-wing, atheist nut cases in total rebellion against God. Whatever
they call themselves, their basic beliefs and goals remain the same. You can know them by their fruits.

The ACLU’s Radical Pro-Sodomy Agenda

The most scary thing presently happening in public schools is the promotion of sodomy as an acceptable

alternate lifestyle, and the advocacy of “gay rights.” The ACLU is the leader and pusher of this movement,
and the result has been hundreds of thousands of young people being convinced that they were born gay,
and thereby being seduced into very dangerously unhealthy sodomite practices.

The Sodomites’ Champion

The present Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union is Anthony D. Romero. According to

the ACLU website,

He took the helm of the 87-year-old organization just four days before the September
11, 2001 attacks. Shortly afterward, the ACLU launched its national Safe and Free
campaign to protect basic freedoms during a time of crisis. Under Romero's leadership,
the ACLU gained court victories on the Patriot Act filed landmark litigation on the torture
and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, and filed the first successful legal challenge to
the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program.

Romero, an attorney with a history of public-interest activism, has presided over the
most successful membership growth in the ACLU's history and more than doubled
national staff and tripled the budget of the organization since he began his tenure. This
unprecedented growth has allowed the ACLU to expand its nationwide litigation, lobby-
ing and public education efforts, including new initiatives focused on racial justice, reli-
gious freedom, privacy, reproductive freedom and lesbian and gay rights.

Romero is the ACLU's sixth executive director, and the first Latino and openly gay man to serve in that capacity. In 2005, Romero
was named one of Time Magazine's 25 Most Influential Hispanics in America,211 [Boldface emphasis added.]

Notice that not only is Romeo is an open sodomite—bragging about it to the world on the ACLU website—,
but also that he is leading the ACLU in an aggressive and highly successful campaign to start Gay Straight
Alliance (GSA) clubs in every public school in America to promote “gay rights” and “gay marriage.”
Obviously speaking about these clubs, he said,

The ACLU is working to promote a new generation of committed civil libertarians and civil rights activists who want to devote their
free time and resources to protecting freedoms. We have many energetic and committed student clubs and chapters in high
schools and colleges across America that continually impress us with their creative endeavors to recruit new members. At our first
national membership conference in 2003, 33 percent of attendees were between the ages of 18 and 34.

A large section of the ACLU website is devoted to starting these GSA sodomite clubs.

In his effort to promote sodomy, Romero has stopped at nothing. He has even “hired deposed Georgia

Congressman Bob Barr as a consultant—the same Bob Barr who co-authored the Defense of Marriage
Act.”212 It turns out that many conservatives are actually liberals. In an interview with AlterNet, Romero said,

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

Anthony D. Romeo

———————————

211 “Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director,” ACLU.Org, Http://www.aclu.org/about/staff/13279res20030205.html.
212 Ta-Nehisi Paul Coates, “Anthony Romero,” Time, 1913 August 2005, Http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1093634,00.html.

We're now fighting to secure marriage equality for lesbians and gays, reproductive choice for women, and fair and secure voting
systems that enfranchise minority voters. I'm incredibly proud of the way we have responded to the additional challenges of 9/11
while maintaining our vigilance and effectiveness in areas such as women's rights, racial justice and lesbian and gay rights.

Other interesting facts:

Romero sits on several not-for-profit boards, including serving as the Chairman of the Center of Disability and Advocacy Rights,
and as Vice Chairman of the New World Foundation's Board of Directors. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations,
the New York State Bar Association and Hispanics in Philanthropy. His previous volunteer experiences include serving as Vice
Chairman of the White House Internship Advisory Committee and as Co-Chairman of the Funders' Committee for Citizen Particip-
ation.28 [Underline emphasis added].

Romero is a blogger for The Huffington Post website (www.huffingtonpost.com), which is an ultra-liberal,
humanist website, and he is a very persuasive writer. There is no doubt that he is very smart at using our
legal system to defeat Christians.

According to Time magazine, Romero is the son of illegal immigrants.29 He is also working hard to

defend the “rights” of illegal immigrants. Just think: if his parents hadn’t been allowed to stay in the U.S.A.
illegally, he most likely wouldn’t be here promoting atheism and sodomy in our schools, and defending our
enemies in court.

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and AIDS Project

The Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and AIDS Project is not new. It is now 22 years old, and has

expericence phenomenal success. According to the ACLU website,

Founded in 1986, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & AIDS Project are a combined division in the national headquarters of the
American Civil Liberties Union. The Project staff are experts in constitutional law and civil rights, specializing in sexual orientation,
gender identity, and HIV.

The ACLU's national network of affiliates allows the Project to broadly advocate for fairness and equality in every community and
the federal government. Today, the ACLU brings more sexual orientation cases and advocacy initiatives than any other national
civil rights organization. As part of the broad civil liberties mission of the ACLU, the Project brings together the LGBT and AIDS
communities with other social change movements in order to achieve a just society for all.

What We Do

The Project brings impact lawsuits in state and federal courts throughout the country, cases designed to have a significant effect
on the lives of LGBT people and those with HIV/AIDS. In coalition with other civil rights groups, we also lobby in Congress and sup-
port grassroots advocacy from local school boards to state legislatures. Our legal strategies are built on the idea that fighting for
civil rights means not just persuading judges but ultimately changing society for the better. As we litigate for change, we imple-
ment targeted media, online, and outreach campaigns and provide advocacy tools to help people take action in their community.

Most of the large public school districts in the US are administrated by humanists, and so the establishment
of GSA clubs is actively pushed from the top. However, there are still a few public schools, especially in the
heartland of America, that are resisting the Humanist agenda. But all it takes is one or two humanist students
and the ACLU to break the resistance of most such schools. The ACLU deals with such fights on a daily basis,
and has its battle plan down to a science.

The material below is taken directly from a page on the ACLU website titled “What’s Your Problem?” It is

for gay students, and after listing common problems gay students face in promoting their agenda, gives legal

No, It Works To Enslave Us

———————————

28 “Anthony Romeo,” Pbs.Org, Http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/romero.html.
29 Coates, “Anthony Romero.”

advice on how to overcome those problems. You should note that this material repeatedly encourages gay
students to phone the ACLU for help if they meet any resistance from their school’s administration.

How the Law Looks at Your Problem

These are usually considered Equal Access Act issues:

* My school won't let me start a GSA

* My school won't let our GSA meet on school grounds

* My school lets other clubs do things that it doesn't let our GSA do

* My school says we can't start a GSA unless we have a sponsor and we can't find one

* My school says we have to have a parent's permission to join the GSA

The federal Equal Access Act is a law that was passed in 1984 that protects the right of students to form clubs at public high
schools. The Equal Access Act defines two types of school clubs: curricular and non-curricular clubs. Curricular clubs are clubs that
relate directly to classes taught at a school - for example, math club or Spanish club. Non-curricular clubs are anything else, like
chess club or anime club. GSA's are almost always defined as non-curricular clubs.

The Equal Access Act says that if a public high school allows students to form one non-curricular club, then it can't say no to any
other students who want to form any other type of non-curricular club. So if your school allows ANY non-curricular clubs at all, it's
illegal for the school to deny your application to start a GSA.

The Equal Access Act also says that schools that have non-curricular clubs must treat all of those clubs the same. So if the school
allows some clubs to make announcements about meeting over the P.A. system or post signs in the hallways about their activities,
it can't then say any other clubs can't do those things. Also, schools can't require students to have parental permission to join a
GSA unless they also require that for all other clubs.

The flipside of this is that you have to satisfy any rules your schools set up for clubs - so, for example, if the school requires all clubs
to have a faculty sponsor, you will have to find one for your GSA to be recognized. Find out exactly what the rules are to start a club
at your school and follow them carefully.

Some of these issues may also be overlap with other areas of the law, like equal protection or free speech.

If your school isn't allowing you to start a GSA or is treating your GSA differently from other clubs, we may be able to help. Please
contact us. You can find out more information and resources on the "Library" page.

These are usually considered free speech/free expression issues:

* My school told me I shouldn't talk about being gay at school

* My school told me I couldn't wear my gay pride t-shirt

* My school won't let us publish an article about gay rights in the school newspaper

* My school won't let me wear makeup or a skirt because I'm a guy

* My school is won't let me wear a tux in my senior yearbook photo or to graduation because I'm a girl

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects your right to free speech and expression, and forbids the government from
violating that right. Since public schools are considered part of the government, it is illegal for a public school to tell you what you
can and can't talk about or who you can be out to, as long as you don't do it during class time. So don't climb up on your desk in
the middle of social studies class to tell everyone you're gay, but if you talk to a friend at lunch about being gay that's perfectly
okay.

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

That right to expression usually extends to things like t-shirts, as long as the school treats all students the same. Schools can
enforce dress codes, but they have to enforce the dress code equally for all students. For example, if your school allows other stu-
dents to wear t-shirts that express their political or social beliefs, then the school shouldn't tell you not to wear a gay pride t-shirt.
But if your school doesn't allow t-shirts at all, then it's probably legal for them to tell you not to wear yours.

The right to take a same-sex date to a school dance is usually considered to be a matter of free expression too. We can usually per-
suade schools to let students bring a same-sex date to the prom or homecoming, so if this is happening to you, contact us!

Things like what you wear for pictures or graduation and what you can publish in the school newspaper are a little different. What
you wear for graduation or pictures is an area of the law that isn't entirely clear. And the school newspaper is usually considered
the school's speech, not yours, because the school pays for and publishes it - although there are state laws that give student jour-
nalists more rights in certain states.

If you have questions about your free speech/free expression rights as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender student, or as a stu-
dent who wants to be able to speak out at school on those topics, please contact us. You can find more information and resources
on the "Library" page.

These are usually considered privacy issues:

* My school told my parents that I'm gay without my permission

Some federal courts have ruled that schools shouldn't reveal a minor's sexual orientation to their parents or anyone else without
the student's permission. Your school should not do this to you, even if you're open about your sexual orientation or gender
identity among friends or staff at your school. If your school is threatening to do this to you and you're afraid of the consequences
at home, call us at 212-549-2673 immediately. If you have questions about your privacy rights, please contact us. You can find
more information and resources on the "Library" page.215

In the above quote, the ACLU has made its intentions and goals clear: sodomite clubs are going to be started
in every public school in the USA no matter how many people are against it. They are going to seduce as
many children into sodomy as they can. And “call us at 212-549-2673 immediately” they say to students, if a
teacher or other school official try to inform your parents. The implication is, We won’t let the school get
parents involved to try to prevent the seduction into sodomy. Note the threat implied toward anyone
interfering with their agenda. They even provide a letter that gay students can download to give to their
school administrators. The ACLU website describes this letter as "an open letter to school administrators
about why they must allow students to form GSA's. You can print this out and give a copy to your school
when you turn in your application to start your club."216 The letter is long, and is a threatening letter any
way you look at it. It details lawsuit after lawsuit that the ACLU has filed against school districts and won. The
threat is, Don’t buck us, or we will file a lawsuit against your school district too.

Notice the mention of the “Library” page in the above quotes. There is so much pro-sodomy material on

the ACLU website that the average person would never have enough time to read it all. Nevertheless, on the
Library page there are links to 38 other sodomite organizations—all with information on how to fight for
the legalization of sodomy and the breaking down of morality in every level of society, but especially in
public schools. Sodom and Gomorrah would be amazed at the phenomenal organization and zeal the ACLU
is putting into their Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and AIDS Project.

No, It Works To Enslave Us

———————————

215 “What’s Your Problem?” ACLU, 2007, 3 January 2007, Http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28754res20070301.html#4.
216 http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28943res20070301.html

100

Is the ACLU Truly for Liberty?

This is one of the publications linked to by the ACLU website. This 48
page manual instructs transvestites how to fight for their “right” to
enter bathrooms of the opposite sex. In some states like California
and New York transvestites already have this “right.” In the other
states, they are instructed by this manual how to fight to get the
proper legislation passed so they will have this “right.” So, when
your wife or daughter enter an empty woman’s restroom alone at
night, and a male dressed as a woman follows her in, that means just
the two of them are in there alone. How safe is she? Does she have a
right to privacy? or do only sodomites have rights? Does she have a
right to be safe from being raped? or do only sodomites have rights?
Humanists have been made insane by their unnatural lusts. A thief
can’t have the right to rob, and you have the right to own property. A
transvestite can’t have the right to enter the other sex’s bathroom,
and straight people have the right to privacy and safety. If criminals

prevail good people suffer.

Chapter 13

WHO IS THE MOST EVIL WOMAN OF ALL TIME?

The Woman Rebel

On October the 10th 1991 the author of this book heard that a female teacher held a full-sized plastic

model of a male sex organ in one hand, pointing to it and touching it with the other, as she taught a co-ed
class at N.W. Classen High School in Oklahoma City. Needless to say this was the talk of the school.

The next school day I visited N.W. Classen High to see and hear for myself what teachings my tax dollars

were funding. The school principal said content of this course was determined by central administration for
all Oklahoma City schools. The female teacher I had heard about was not teaching that hour, but I was
nevertheless allowed to sit in on the first hour “life skills” (sex-ed) class, taught by a male teacher who wore
earrings and several bead necklaces. He used very explicit language, which embarrassed most of the co-ed
students so much they could not look up from their desks. A student asked if it was better to have sex before
or after marriage. Teacher: “The best time to have sex is after you have experienced life a little more. But if
you do have sex, use a condom.” Another student asked, “Shouldn’t you wait until after marriage to have
sex?” Teacher: “That is ok if you believe that.” Anal intercourse was discussed at length—how to do it
without getting AIDS; never was it suggested to be wrong. A color film was shown of a young woman’s
unshaved pelvic area as she gave birth. Later a portion of this film flashed on the screen repeatedly, “AIDS is
hard to get, AIDS is hard to get, AIDS is hard to get.” After class the teacher showed me the soft, life-like and
life-size models of male and female sex organs used in teaching the class.

Later I learned that the above mentioned teacher was from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a

Humanist front organization founded by Margaret Sanger—the Woman Rebel.

A Rebel’s Upbringing

To properly understand the true nature of Planned Parenthood Federation of America it is needful to

examine the life and beliefs of its founder, Margaret Sanger. Why is she called—indeed, why did she call
herself—the Woman Rebel?

Margaret Louisa Higgins was born September 14, 1879 in Corning, New York to Michael Higgins and the

former Anne Purcell. Anne was a devout Catholic, but Michael was a socialist and an atheist, who taught
Margaret from an early age to rebel against God and against morality. Ellen Chesler, in her biography of
Sanger titled WOMAN OF VALOR: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, implies
that Margaret had her first sexual experience with her father.217 From her early teenage years Margaret
became obsessed with sex. There is evidence that she had both heterosexual and homosexual sex during her
high school years.218

A Rebel’s Marriage

August 18, 1902 she married a young architect, Bill Sanger, having known him for less than six months.

After several years of a rather ordinary married life, during which three children were born, Bill built
Margaret a new house, but it partially burned only a few days after they moved into it. To restore the house,
Bill overextended himself financially. Margaret never forgave him for this.219 Desperatxe for cash Bill sold

101

———————————

217  Ellen Chesler, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 28.
218  Ibid., 30.
219  Ibid., 54.

the property in 1910, and moved his family to New York. Margaret was forced to take a job as a visiting
nurse and midwife to supplement the income. The Sangers joined Socialist Party Local 5. Being both young

and attractive, the Sangers were very popular with the
leaders among the young rebels and scoffers of that
time such as Bill Haywood, International Worker of the
World organizer, and his lover Jessie Ashley, John
Reed, Walt Lippmann, anarchist Alexander Berkman,
fresh out of 14 years in prison for attempting to mur-
der industrialist Henry Clay Frick, and Emma Goldman,
an anarchist and an outspoken opponent of the institu-
tion of marriage.220 Goldman introduced Margaret to
NeoMalthusian ideology and advocated the use of con-
traceptives as a political tool. Margaret became a radi-
cal activist. “Despairing of conventional political pro-
cesses, Margaret drifted toward the party’s left wing
and radical tactics of direct action in support of
labor.”221 Margaret began to write articles for a
socialist publication named The Call. She became a
close friend of IWW’s favorite female agitator, Elizabeth
Gurley Flynn, the “Rebel Girl”, and her lover Carlo
Tresca who had abandoned his Italian wife and
daughter.222 Margaret began to spend a great deal of
time away from home with Haywood, Tresca, Reed,
and other immoral atheists, causing Bill to become
increasingly jealous.223 In 1913 Bill quit his job to
become an artist. “Margaret never forgave him this
decision—as she never excused the insolvency of his
earlier real estate dealings....The lesson Margaret took
from childhood was that men were worthy only as pro-
viders, and she seems to have quickly punished her
husband’s profligacy with sexual infidelity.”224 Mabel
Dodge’s famous and fashionable salon in the Village
became a popular socialist meeting place. “Here
Margaret encountered a world of new and unconven-
tional ideas. There was discussion of Nietzsche, whose
attack on established religion and morality had just

been translated and was embraced uncritically, while his less tasteful views about racial supremacy and
female inferiority were apparently ignored.”225 Nietzsche, of course, was the German philosopher who
applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to politics. Adolf Hitler later put Nietzsche’s philosophy into action with
his Nazi party. There were also “lectures by the young Will Durant on the pathbreaking research of the Brit-
ish sexual psychologist, Havelock Ellis, into the diversity and range of human sexual expression. In sum,

102

Who's the Most Evil Woman Ever?

Sangers newspaper was the most radical, blasphemously anti-
God publication the USA had ever seen. Sanger was the Madalyn
Murray O'Hair of her day. She lived in rebellion against God all her life.
She said that children are a curse. She taught and practiced sexual
perversions. Through her Planned Parenthood Federation of America
she is the all-time queen of mass murderers—the blood of tens of
millions of victims drip from her hands.

———————————

220  Ibid., 37.
221  Ibid., 75.
222  Ibid., 76.
223  Ibid., 81.
224  Ibid., 89–90.
225  Ibid., 91.

there was an unapologetic celebration of freedom in love.”226 Bill wrote to Margaret, “Madame Pompadeau
Dodge’s—her salon—Oh! Gosh! how nauseating!....a hellhole of free love, promiscuity, and prostitution
masquerading under the mantle of revolution....saturnalia of sexualism, deceit, fraud and Jesuitism let
loose.”227 Mabel Dodge later wrote that Margaret was “the first person I ever knew who was so openly an
ardent propagandist for the joys of the flesh.… [Margaret] told us all about the possibilities in the body for
‘sex expression’; and as she sat there, serene and quiet, and unfolded the mysteries and mightiness of physi-
cal love it seemed to us we had never known it before as a sacred and at same time scientific reality.”228

According to Margaret’s son, Grant, Margaret’s daughter, Peggy, came down with polio during this time,

and Margaret would not admit the severity of Peggy's sickness.229

Bill prevailed upon Margaret to accompany him to Paris, where he hoped to restore their relationship and pursue his painting in an atmosphere
free of the corrosive immorality of New York. But his efforts were futile. In Europe Margaret met other socialists who shared her obsession with
sex and encouraged her in her crusade to separate sexual pleasure from sexual responsibility. After approximately a year in Europe, she and the
children took a steam ship back to New York where she immediately renewed her sexual relationship with a man named Walter Roberts and
demanded of Bill to be released from her wedding vows. “As her own commitment to the new relationship developed, Margaret tried to enlist
Bill’s understanding and encourage his own sexual experimentation in the belief that their marriage might survive, if their infidelities were
mutual. She told him that their future together depended upon the shattering of old habits, but the more consumed she became with issues of
her own autonomy and satisfaction, the more intensely he communicated a paramount sense of emotional obligation to their shared past and
to their children’s future. He literally begged her to consider her children.230

But his pleas were to no avail; their marriage was over.

A Rebel’s Newspaper

While aboard the ship coming back from France, Margaret decided to start a magazine to promote her

views on sex. The purpose of this magazine, which she named The Woman Rebel, would be to purposely
challenge the Comstock Obscenity Law which forbade the dissemination of contraceptive information and
devices. Most people today do not realize that it was once against the law in the United States to use or dis-
tribute birth control information or devices. Birth control was considered immoral because it springs from
atheism’s radical denial of the Bible teachings concerning sex. “She gathered a group of radicals one eve-
ning in the cheap flat she had rented way uptown, and on that historic occasion a young friend by the name
of Otto Bobsein coined the term ‘birth control’ to identify the social and economic objectives of the
campaign Margaret planned to launch.”231

Actually, the complete name of Margaret’s newspaper was The Woman Rebel—No Gods, No Masters. It

was truly a suitable name, as her newspaper was probably the most anti-God, anti-government, anti-family
newspaper ever published.

Before we continue with the story of Margaret’s life, let us examine some of the contents of Margaret’s

newspaper so that we can learn what Margaret believed. The eleven issues of The Woman Rebel have since
been compiled and photographically reprinted in book form, along with a short history of Margaret Sanger.
The quotes of Margaret in the following paragraphs are taken from that book (Alex Baskin, ed., Margaret
Sanger, the Woman Rebel and the Rise of the Birth Control Movement in the United States). While
Sanger did not actually author all of these quotes, she believed their contents and therefore chose to print
them. As Alex Baskin put it, “Though she invited others to contribute articles to the Woman Rebel, she
assumed full responsibility for determining editorial policy and determining the format of the paper.” These
quotes reveal the doctrinal foundation upon which Margaret later built Planned Parenthood Federation of
America. Each quote will be listed under a title describing one of Margaret’s beliefs. Please notice, however,
that several other of her rebellious beliefs will also be revealed in each of these very significant quotations.

The Woman Rebel

103

———————————

226  Ibid.
227  Ibid.
228  Ibid., 96.
229  Ibid., 93.
230  Ibid., 95.
231  Ibid., 97.

Sanger Rebelled Against God

Margaret based her whole life on belief that there is no God. She loathed Jesus Christ. As already

mentioned, the masthead of The Woman Rebel declared, “No Gods No Masters.” The following quotes
reveal her as a militant, anti-Christian atheist:

The Savior. O—I am sick of you [Christ]!...All men are cruel that make us think you real.…But today I have broken the image of Christ, There is
joy in my life, I am free.232

Alas, brethren, that God whom I created was man’s work and man’s madness, like all gods.233

I have been true to my higher self—my only god and master.

Sanger Rebelled Against Church

Margaret despised Christian churches of all kinds. She especially hated churches that claimed authority

over moral behavior, or that believed the Bible has authority over moral behavior, as the following quotes
show:

Compared with the diseased, perverted, hypocritical ghouls of American “civilization,” cannibals strike you as simple, healthy people who live in
an earthly Utopia.…They do not use the charred skulls and skeletons of women and children as the foundation of institutions that will hide the
cries and shrieks of the tortured, or attempt to kill the nauseating stench of their bloody breath by vomiting forth the perfumed hypocrisies of
the Baptist Church—words of peace on earth and goodwill toward men.…Have we workers been inoculated with this foul pollution of the
spirit? Certainly we have if we do not boycott the Baptist Church and its allies.…Certainly we have been if we remain silent or inactive in the
campaign against the poison of the “religion” that is weakening and killing the spirit of the American workers.…They want to inculcate in you
the stupid spirit of submission to their mastery. They want to feed you upon the vapid innocuities of religion. They want to make you keep books
with their God.234

The day a woman becomes a mother at will she will not be far from complete emancipation. Only a ridiculous idea of love and of the act of
reproduction, an idea handed down from the infamous Christian religion, could have led women to forget that she alone has the right to
decide.235

Sanger Rebelled Against Moral Absolutes

Margaret resented being told that anything she wanted to do was wrong. She didn’t want anyone telling

her something was wrong—not even God. However, she did not mind telling others they were wrong—not
even God. As she stated in the first issue of the Woman Rebel:

It will also be the aim of this paper to circulate among those women who work in prostitution; to voice their wrongs; to expose the police per-
secution which hovers over them and to give them free expression to their thoughts, hopes and opinions.236

The Rebel Women claim:
The Right to be lazy.
The Right to be an unmarried mother.
The Right to destroy.237

A Woman’s Duty
To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in her eyes; to have an ideal; to speak and act in defiance of convention.238

104

Who's the Most Evil Woman Ever?

———————————

232 Margaret Sanger, the Woman Rebel and the Rise of the Birth Control Movement in the United States, ed. Alex Baskin (New York: Stony Brook, Archives of Social

History, State University of New York, 1976), 45.

233  Ibid., 40.
234  Ibid., 17.
235  Ibid., 10.
236  Ibid., 1.
237  Ibid., 3.
238  Ibid., 8.

Every girl who works for a master should build a class-conscious militant character within herself, differing from the teachings of the Church and
present day morality.239

Ellen Key’s ideal of erotic love is a monogamic relation “so perfect and consummate” to quote her own words “that it can be given to only one
and only once in a lifetime.” But there are woman souls as great as Ellen Key’s who have an ideal of erotic love so perfect and consummate that
it can be given to as many during a lifetime as circumstances bring within its glorious sunlike range, and even to more than one at a time.240

The Feminist movement is an organized attempt by women of today to extricate themselves from the “moral” standards that originated in the
benighted past.241

Sanger Rebelled Against Marriage

Margaret began the birth control movement to undermine the institution of marriage. She hated

monogamy. She hated the responsibility of marriage. And she hated the pleasures of sex being confined to
the marriage bed:

ET TU? Beatrice Forbes-Robertson Hale said at a debate on feminism that she knew of only two feminists who advocated free love and
unmarried motherhood, and that they were not suffragists, but anarchists. What a limited knowledge of women Mrs. Hale has! Perhaps after all
self respect and morality are confined to the anarchist women!242

Marriage, which is a personal agreement between a man and a woman, should be no concern of the State or of the Church. Never have either of
these institutions interested themselves in the happiness or health of the individual. Never have they concerned themselves that children be
born in healthy and clean surroundings, which might insure their highest development. The Church has been and anxious only if a child be
trained Catholic, Baptist, Methodist and so forth. The state and church are concerned only in maintaining and perpetuating themselves even to
the detriment and sacrifice of the human race. In the willingness to accept without protest or question the indignities imposed through the bar-
barities of the Law, together with the stupid superstitions of the Church, can be traced a great proportion of the world’s misery.…Marriage
laws abrogate the freedom of women by enforcing upon her a continuous sexual slavery and a compulsory motherhood.

Marriage laws have been dictated and dominated by the Church always and ever upon the unquestionable grounds of the wisdom of

the Bible.

A man and woman who under a natural condition avow their love for each other should be immediately qualified by this to give

expression to their love or to perpetuate the race without the necessity of a public declaration.…The marriage institution viewed from the light
of human experience and the demands of the individual has proved a failure.243

Sanger Rebelled Against Civil Government

Margaret believed that the ends justified the means. Therefore she never hesitated to break the law if she

thought that would help her reach her goals. Birth control, she rightly believed, would weaken the
foundations of church, state, and employers, as the following quotes clearly show:

Stupidity and Ignorance and Slavery are the foundations of Church, State and Business.…the Government realizes that once the women of the
United States are awakened to the value of birth control, these institutions—Church, State, Big Business—will be struck such a blow that they
will be able only to beg for mercy from the workers.244

In the July 1914 issue of The Woman Rebel Sanger published an article entitled “A Defense of

Assassination” in which assassination of government officials as a method to achieve social reform was
advocated. One characteristic of humanists is that when their methods fail, they say it is not the method that
is wrong, but the fact that the method has not be applied persistently enough. Thus the following statement is
found in this article: “If assassination has failed to achieve very much in the way of reform, it may be not
because the method is wrong, but because it has not been practiced persistently enough.” From that
statement it should be obvious to anyone that humanists will not stop at just murdering unborn babies to

The Woman Rebel

105

———————————

239  Ibid., 28.
240  Ibid., 18.
241  Ibid., 35.
242  Ibid., 11.
243  Ibid., 16.
244  Ibid., 35.

achieve their goals. Adults also will be targets of assassination if humanists believe that will help them bring
about “reform.”

Sanger Rebelled Against Her Husband

Margaret refused to submit to any authority, whether it be the authority of God, of church, or of state. But

especially she refused to submit to her husband’s authority. Said Sanger:

Woman can give suffrage or the ballot no new quality, nor can she receive anything from it that will enhance her own quality. Her development,
her freedom, her independence, must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality and not as a sex commodity.
Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them; by refusing to be a servant to God,
the State, society, the husband, the family, etc.

Commenting on the Biblical texts of Col. 3:18, 1 Tim. 2:11-15, 1 Tim. 5:11-14 and 1 Cor. 14:34 which
instructs a woman to be in subjection to her husband, Sanger sent forth in printed form the following bitter
sarcasm:

SUBMISSION, SILENCE, and SUBJECTION are the chief tenets of the system of religious ethics that has been imposed upon suffering women for
nearly 2,000 years. “Saint” Paul, officially canonized by “Holy Church,” was that truly great and good man who started out with the ambition of
massacring the bodies of a handful of Christians; became converted and massacred the intellects, their individual liberties and their
opportunities for social, industrial, and spiritual progress instead. Filled with the spirit of God he deprived women of the comparative freedom
and equality which she enjoyed under the patriarchal system, and imposed upon her the infamous serfdom of sexual, intellectual, personal and
spiritual bondage which has deprived the world of the results which should have accrued from the free and proper development of her divine
potentialities, for upwards of twenty centuries.245

Sanger Rebelled Against Motherhood

Sanger hated the responsibility brought upon her by motherhood. She wanted to be able to come and go

as she pleased without regard for some little people to whom she had just happened to give birth. She loved
the pleasures of sex, but despised the consequences of sex. She spent all her life trying to maximize the
pleasure while eliminating the consequences. She believed motherhood to be slavery:

It will also be the aim of the WOMAN REBEL to advocate the prevention of conception and to impart such knowledge in the columns of this
paper.

Other subjects, including the slavery through motherhood; through things, the home, public opinion and so forth, will be dwelt

with.246

Why the Woman Rebel?

Because I believe that deep down in woman’s nature lies slumbering the spirit of revolt.

Because I believe that woman is enslaved by the world machine, by sex conventions, by motherhood and its present necessary child-

rearing, by wage-slavery, by middle-class morality, by customs, laws and superstitions.247

A child is a curse, a curse to them [its poor parents] and to itself.248

It should be obvious to everyone that people who believe like Margaret Sanger do not love children. It is
hypocrisy for a person to talk about loving children when he or she considers a child a “curse,” tries to
prevent its conception, tries to murder it before birth, and if having failed in all that believes it right to
simply kill it after birth. Yes, Margaret Sanger even advocated killing babies after birth!

Sanger Rebelled Against Life

Margaret Sanger not only advocated birth control and abortion, but she also advocated infanticide:

106

Who's the Most Evil Woman Ever?

———————————

245  Ibid., 20.
246  Ibid., 1.
247  Ibid., 8.
248  Ibid., 5.

It is worth while to point out that Christianity and the Church first inaugmented these taboos, not only against the prevention of conception,
but against “criminal” abortion and infanticide.249

Infanticide is a logical position for a humanist to take. Humanist leader Joseph Fletcher says, “It is
reasonable, indeed, to describe infanticide as postnatal abortion.”250 Humanists, then, know that killing a
baby before birth is no different then killing the baby after birth. If infanticide is murder then so is abortion.
In this same book (Infanticide and the Value of Life) Arval A. Morris submits “Proposed Legislation”
which states:

Section 1. Authorization of euthanasia. Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for a qualified physician, or his professional medical
agent, as authorized by a qualified physician’s written statement, to administer euthanasia to a qualified child for whom the child’s parent or
guardian previously has made a written declaration voluntarily requesting euthanasia for the qualified child and which declaration is lawfully in
force at the time of administering euthanasia.251

Only 11 issues of The Woman Rebel were published before Margaret had to flee the USA with a forged

passport to keep from being jailed for violating the Comstock Obscenity Laws. After the very first issue of her
paper, the Post Office warned her that she was violating the law. Finally, on August of 1914, she was arrested
and charged with four criminal acts punishable with a maximum sentence of forty-five years in prison.252
Margaret knew that if she stayed in the United States she was almost certain to be convicted, for she was also
a teacher at the Ferrer Center Association (also known as the Modern School). This socialist humanist
school advocated the radical educational theories of such humanists as John Dewey. “In New York
especially, the Ferrer Center established itself as a local forum for labor and cultural radicalism. In addition
to its program for children, the school featured evening courses for adults with Goldman and Berkman,
Tresca and Flynn, Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and Rose Pastor Stokes speaking on Socialist theory. The
realist painter George Bellows and the young modernist Man Ray gave art lessons. Eugene O’Neill and
Theodore Dreiser taught writing, and Margaret lectured on sexuality and family limitation.”253 The reason
this was a problem for Margaret was that

Sometime in June at the Ferrer Center, a conspiracy was launched by Alexander Berkman and a group of young militants to blow up the Rock-
efeller home.…On July 4, …a bomb accidentally exploded in a Harlem tenement, killing three young men and a woman. The dead were
immediately identified with the Ferrer movement, and the plot on the Rockefellers was uncovered. A dramatic memorial service in Union
Square the following week attracted an estimated crowd of 15,000 to 20,000, many of them wearing red and black revolutionary armbands and
singing the Internationale.254

All of this violence and radicalism was sensationalized by the newspapers, dramatizing the dangerous nature
of the Ferrer Center; and since Margaret was a teacher at the Ferrer Center this cast her in an extremely bad
light. Pondering all this as she awaited trail she realized that if she went to court she would surely also go to
jail, which would keep her from accomplishing her goals. Therefore, she carefully plotted her strategy.

First, she would break the law again. She sat down and wrote a pamphlet entitled Family Limitation

which showed how to use all the birth control methods available at that time. The pamphlet also gave pro-
contraceptive political arguments. Then she arranged for a radical printer, Bill Shatoff of New Jersey, to
print 100,000 copies. These were addressed and bundled for clandestine distribution as soon as Margaret
was out of the country.

Then, without even saying goodbye to her children, she deserted them, and “boarded a mid-night train

for Canada, where contacts in the radical community falsified papers that provided her passage to Europe
under an alias.”255

The Woman Rebel

107

———————————

249  Ibid., 10.
250  Fletcher, Religioethical Issues, 17.
251  Arval A. Morris, “Infanticide and the Value of Life,” in Religioethical Issues, ed. Marvin Kohl (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1978), 17.
252  Chesler, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, 99.
253  Ibid., 101.
254  Ibid., 102.
255  Ibid., 103.

A Rebel’s Exile In Sex

Disembarking in Liverpool, Sanger immediately made her way to the Clarion Café, a gathering place of

activists and radicals, arriving

just in time for an informative Fabian lecture on the war. An enthusiastic rendering of Nietzsche later restored her own rebellious conviction and
purpose. She reveled in the poetry, if not the often elusive meaning of the text, and copied down the aphorism since recited by legions of
kindred rebel spirits: “Men and women must be Gods unto themselves and stop worshipping at the shrine of other egos.”256

She became acquainted with a Spanish socialist radical

named Lorenzo Portet, who always carried a gun. Portet was a
married man but that did not concern Margaret. She immedi-
ately began an extended adulterous affair with him. This ended
the next year, however, when Portet died of tuberculosis.

From the time of her arrival in Europe, Margaret began to be

more careful of her public image. Hoping to be able someday to
return to the U.S.A., Margaret became cautious to hide her
licentious conduct. Most of her shameful sexual deviations were
not known until her journals were made available after her
death.

Margaret lived a profoundly unconventional life, but unlike

the more comfortably flamboyant Emma Goldman, traditional
social sanctions always governed the public image she pro-
jected, if not her actual behavior. Beyond a small group of
intimates that did not include her family, she carefully cultivated
an outward appearance of propriety.257

Margaret did not at all confine her love making to one man.

During her time of fornication with Portet, she also had found
another lover. In December of 1914, Margaret visited the home
of Henry Havelock Ellis, the famous sex psychologist. Margaret
immediate fell in love with this man, accepting his sex theories
with enthusiasm and without question. “Unlike Freud, Ellis did
not demand that his patients change their habits, whatever they
might be, only that they accept them.…Ellis, in fact, celebrated
deviation from conventional coital sexuality as a laudable, inven-

tive and distinctively human phenomenon.”258 Ellis demanded legal and political protection for
homosexuality and even sanctioned fetishism, sadism, and masochism.259 “He endorsed premarital and
extramarital sexuality…on the grounds that most couples would benefit from a diversity of experience”.260
Ellis was married to a lesbian named Edith Lees. She and he both had affairs with other women by mutual
agreement.261 Ellis, though obsessed with sex just like Margaret Sanger, was impotent. Though he was 56 at
the time, and she only 35, within a week he and Margaret were involved in a torrid adulterous relationship.

After the failure of her first marriage, Margaret never again demanded that any one man be all things to her, or she to him. In this regard her
own oedipal disappointments may have cast a shadow, but she used Ellis’ teachings to license her behavior. Often she went to bed with men
like Ellis who enriched her thinking and advanced her work. She perceived herself as fully liberated in her personal and sexual life and never

108

Who's the Most Evil Woman Ever?

HAVELOCK ELLIS, a sexologist who
strongly promoted sexual perversions
of all kinds, became Sanger's mentor

and one of her many illicit lovers.

———————————

256  Ibid., 107.
257  Ibid., 110.
258  Ibid., 114.
259  Ibid., 113–14.
260  Ibid., 116.
261  Ibid., 117.

willingly tolerated control by any man. If she ever again yearned for the integrity of a single enduring relationship with one individual, she did
not admit it.

Margaret’s intimacy with Ellis may never have been entirely satisfactory, but there is no doubt of the profound intellectual impression

he made. She did not always welcome his advances, but she became nonetheless one of his most devoted disciples, and through the essays and
commentaries, he produced with remarkable frequency for the remainder of his life, he continued to shape and educate her mature world-
view.262

Meanwhile, back in the United States, Margaret’s husband, Bill Sanger, was arrested for handing out a

copy of Family Limitation. Nevertheless, Margaret’s radical friends were working relentlessly to sway pub-
lic opinion in her favor. They did this by widely distributing her Family Limitation brochure, by defending
her in their publications, and by persuading other publications to do the same. The New Republic was one
of the first to take up her cause. Then between April and November Harper’s Weekly ran a series of articles
advocating birth control. Bill’s arrest made it all the easier to portray Margaret as a modern heroine. The
New York Times now gave Margaret favorable press coverage. There had been only three articles on birth
control in 1914. There were fourteen in 1915, and in the following two years a total of ninety.263

Margaret’s radical friends were also working behind the scenes to obtain promise of more favorable

treatment for her in the courts.

On September 10, 1915, Bill Sanger was brought to trial and sentenced to $.00 or 30 days in jail. Said

the judge:

Your crime is not only a violation of the laws of man, but of the law of God as well, in your scheme to prevent motherhood. Too many persons
have the idea that it is wrong to have children. Some women are so selfish that they do not want to be bothered with them. If some persons
would go around and urge Christian women to bear children, instead of wasting their time on woman’s suffrage, this city and society would be
better off.264

The hundred or so supporters of Margaret who had crowded into the courtroom, and another hundred or
so outside, broke into raucous protest upon hearing the judges verdict and opinion. In an apparent attempt
to regain Margaret’s heart, Bill Sanger chose to go to jail rather than pay the fine. The judge’s remark about
woman’s suffrage combined with Bill’s decision to jail rather than pay the fine gave Margaret’s radical
friends cause for celebration. They felt they could use these things to make Margaret look even more of a
martyr in the eyes of the public.

Then two weeks after the trial something happened to really cause Margaret to rejoice: Anthony Com-

stock, the author and driving force behind the Comstock Obscenity Law, died of pneumonia at the age of
seventy-six. Probably sensing that events were swinging in her favor, Margaret returned home in October
1915 to stand trial herself.

A Rebel’s Triumphant Return

Arriving in Manhattan, Margaret found that numerous woman’s suffrage groups had rallied around her

cause. Not realizing Margaret’s atheism and hatred of Christianity, and not understanding the implications of
her birth control cause, these groups rallied around her to protest the remark made by Bill Sanger’s judge.
“By martyring herself and creating a dramatic new public controversy, Margaret compelled women who
were already politically mobilized [by the woman’s suffrage movement] to deal frankly and openly with the
issue of sexuality and contraception for the first time. She gave them a new cause.”265 Unfortunately, most of
them had no idea that they were endorsing a cause rooted deeply in atheism and rebellion against God and
against the morality taught in the Bible.

Having very little income, Margaret concealed her radical past, and from this point on devoted herself to

just one radical cause: birth control. By dressing very conservatively, and by carefully choosing her words so
as to make her speeches and articles appear logical and scientific instead of radical, she hoped to appeal to
the masses.

The Woman Rebel

109

———————————

262  Ibid., 121.
263  Ibid., 130.
264  Ibid., 127.
265  Ibid., 130.

Bill's reward for trying to regain Margaret's favor by going to jail for her birth control cause was that

Margaret never even bothered to visit him in jail, or to even let him know that she had returned to New
York. When finally they met again, Bill was bitterly disappointed to find that Margaret no longer had any
affection for him whatsoever. Their estrangement became irreparable on November 6, 1915 when their
daughter, Peggy, died. Peggy, who had been weakened by polio, and had never recovered from a broken
heart at being deserted by her mother, died of pneumonia in Margaret’s arms about one month after
Margaret returned home. For years after this Bill and Margaret's relationship was marked by open mutual
contempt.266

A Rebel’s Occultism

Margaret was never able to rid herself of the guilt she rightly felt because of Peggy’s death. Often she suf-

fered nightmares of Peggy in emotional agony needing her. For months she suffered heighten anxiety “as she
felt herself overcome by the certainty that the dead child’s pattering footsteps continued to follow her
around”.267 Humanism is really Satanism, as the following quote reveals.

Seeking comfort, she embraced a set of mystical beliefs that provided spiritual solace and emotional relief that she had since
rejected.…Desperate to hold on to some dimension of the child, Margaret began to study Rosicrucianism, then a fashionable mystical cult
among British intellectuals to which Havelock Ellis introduced her in London. The Rosicrucians advanced an oriental regimen of private medita-
tion intended to connect the individual to powers within the self that derive from a supreme higher force, a “god within,” as she paraphrased
Nietzsche.…Never troubling herself with intricacies of theological speculation, she simply accepted uncritically the Rosicrucian notion that
every individual possesses “a spark of divinity,” which determines the potential to express oneself in a constructive and meaningful way. This
gave a spiritual dimension to the doctrine of self-reliance she absorbed from such icons of secular American culture as Ralph Waldo Emerson and
her father’s hero, Robert Ingersoll.268

Thus it is demonstrated why the New Age Movement is so readily accepted into Humanist-controlled public
schools, while Christianity is vigorously rejected. From this point on, Margaret’s

dabbling in spiritualism helped strengthen private doubts and misgivings for which neither political ideology, nor the objective world of science
and medicine, provided meaningful solutions. She sometimes “talked” to Peggy and encouraged close friends to do the same with deceased
loved ones of their own.269

Margaret was motivated and guided by an evil spirit, and nothing would now stop her.

Publicly, she identified herself with the increasingly rationalized world of science and medicine, but privately she maintained a fascination with
the spiritual and the occult, frequently stopping between appointments to consult psychics, astrologers, and others who offered specious, but
generally comforting, explanations of events and behavior she could not objectively explain.270

Neglecting her two remaining sons again just as she had before, she plunged herself into her birth control
campaign.

A Rebel’s Trial

Early in 1916 as Margaret’s trial date approached, she prepared her defenses. She refused to plead

guilty. With the help of her radical socialist friends and her new found woman’s suffrage friends, Margaret
“orchestrated a forceful lobbying and publicity campaign. Hundreds of sympathetic letters deluged judges,
legislators, and other prominent political figures.”271

For her publicity campaign a photograph was needed. For this photograph, Margaret planned to wear a

black skirt, with a white shirt and tie—very manish and arrogant for that time. John Reed persuaded her
instead to wear a feminine, delicate, lace-collared dress. Also, she was posed with her young sons. The
resulting photograph portrayed her to be a gentle mother and housewife and lady. Judging from the photog-
raph alone, it was hard to believe that she was actually a hardened atheist, adulterer, fornicator, sex pervert

110

Who's the Most Evil Woman Ever?

———————————

266  Ibid., 133.
267  Ibid., 135.
268  Ibid.
269  Ibid., 136.
270  Ibid., 221`.
271  Ibid., 138–39.

and child deserter. This photograph was printed in newspapers throughout the United States, and did much
to make American woman believe that birth control was not the radical, immoral act that they had been
taught it was. Indeed, so favorable was the response from American women, that Margaret later described
the resulting situation as, a “prosecutor loath to prosecute and a defendant anxious to be tried.”272

Though still identified in newspapers as a “Socialist leader,” Margaret was clearly courting an elite constituency, undoubtedly hoping to avoid
prosecution. Conscious of the broadening of her support she said in her speech at the Brevoort: “I realize that many…cannot sympathize with
or countenance the methods I have followed in my attempt to arouse working women to the fact that bringing a child into the world is the
greatest responsibility. They tell me that The Woman Rebel was badly written; that it was crude; that it was emotional and hysterical; that it
mixed issues; that it was defiant, and too radical. Well, to all of these indictments I plead guilty.” But she quickly defended herself, proclaiming
that, “there is nothing new, nothing radical in birth control. Aristotle advocated it; Plato advocated it; all our modern thinkers have advocated
it!”

Of course, Margaret neglected to mention that Plato also believed children to be property of the state. Nor did she mention that all the

modern thinkers she was referring to were atheists and humanists. She was appealing to ordinary housewives, and all the press coverage
Margaret was receiving substantially strengthened the rationale of her defense on free speech grounds. Who would be willing to punish her for
initiating a debate that had since been discussed with impunity in major newspapers and magazines throughout the country? Uncertain of just
how to proceed, the prosecutor, Harod Content, foolishly arranged to have the trial date postponed twice, allowing each adjournment to
enhanced Sanger’s public profile and add more suspense to the drama of her persecution. She became a celebrity, with newspapers interested
not only in what she said but in what she wore.…Finally, having failed to structure a settlement, Content, on February 14, 1916, dropped all
charges against her. Margaret Sanger, fugitive from the law for more than a year, was once again free.273

Margaret and her supporters were jubilant. In a rally held several nights later she lauded a “victor.” She
immediately took opportunity from all the fame she received from the press to book speaking engagements
all across America, giving her canned speech hundred of times, often to large audiences. Always, she was
careful to advocate no socialist causes except birth control. She would not dilute her effectiveness by
embracing any other cause. And always she hid birth control’s radical implications.

Publicly courting a broad base of public support, Margaret nevertheless continued to receive enthusiastic

support from her radical socialist friends. One of them, a radical lesbian-feminist physician in Portland,
Oregon named Marie Equi, wrote to Margaret, saying,

My Sweet, sweet girl. I love you with an ecstasy and understanding of Spirit that you alone have imparted to me thru the very brightness & flow
of your intellect....My arms are around you. I kiss your sweet mouth in absolute surrender.274

Also, staying true to her radical socialist training, Margaret refused to obey laws she did not believe in,

and refused to confine her activities to legislative reform alone. Rather her mode of action was “agitate, edu-
cate, organize, and legislate.”275

A Rebel’s Judicial Victory

Upon her return to America from exile in Europe, Margaret had allied herself with an organization

organized in her absence, The National Birth Control League. However, she had personal conflict with the
leader of that organization, Mary Ware Dennett. Mary did not share Margaret’s vision of a socialized health
care system patterned after the birth control clinics of the Netherlands, which Margaret had visited while in
Europe. To this end Margaret sought and obtained the support of prominent physicians. Among those who
publicly endorsed Margaret’s plan were Herman Biggs, commissioner of the New York State Board of
Health; S. Adolphus Knopf, M.D., who addressed the American Public Health Association in her behalf in
October of 1916; Abraham Jacobi, who later became president of the American Medical Association; and
Dr. William J. Robinson, who had long advocated birth control. Dr Robinson advised Margaret that the New
York medical society was unlikely to interfere with her plan to open such a clinic, provided she staffed it
with a licensed physician.

Suggesting that she make a direct challenge on First Amendment grounds to the state’s Comstock prohibitions on contraception, he reminded
her of New York’s “venereal disease” clause, the amendment to the state’s original Comstock act that exempted doctor’s from prosecution for

The Woman Rebel

111

———————————

272  Ibid., 139.
273  Ibid., 140.
274  Ibid., 142.
275  Ibid., 145.

prescribing condoms to prevent the spread of disease. This in his view, presented the possibility of a judicial reinterpretation that would sanc-
tion the prescription of contraceptives on broader medical grounds.276

Encouraged by this advice, Margaret rented space for a clinic in Brooklyn. On October 16, 1916, in inten-
tional violation of the law, Margaret opened the first birth control clinic in America. For this Margaret and
her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested, and first Ethel then Margaret were sentenced to one month in jail.

An appeal was filed, even though Margaret was self-evidently guilty and had already served her jail sentence. The saga of the Brownville clinic
continued through January 8, 1918, when a verdict was rendered by Judge Frederick Crane of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Crane upheld Sanger’s conviction under Section 1142 of the state’s obscenity law and thereby affirmed the state’s right to prohibit laymen and
women from distributing contraceptive information. His opinion, however, offered an interpretation of Section 1145 of the law that granted
specific license to physicians to prescribe contraception not just to prevent or cure venereal disease, but on more broadly defined medical
grounds. The decision offered protection from risk of prosecution to doctors and to pharmacists acting on medical orders.

Just as Margaret’s friend Dr. William Robinson had anticipated, the court provided a legal rationale for building a system of contracep-

tive service delivery with doctors in charge, the constraint under which Margaret subsequently built the birth control movement.277

A Rebel’s Anti-USA Activities

In the spring of 1917 America entered World War I. Many of Margaret’s radical friends, including Bill

Haywood, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, were convicted of criminal activity or
outright treason, and were imprisoned or forced to leave the country. Margaret joined the League for
Amnesty of Political Prisoners to protest some of these arrests. She continued to vote for the Socialist Party
presidential candidate until she died.

In a successful attempt to maintain her leadership of the birth control movement, Margaret became

founding editor of a magazine named Birth Control Review. In this magazine she defended pacifism and
mocked the war effort.278 She also continued to violate the law by “using her office as an informal clinic to
instruct from twenty to forty women a week in the use of pessaries.”279 [Pessaries are contraceptive
diaphragms.]

A Rebel’s Friends

Margaret was kept financially afloat during this period by generous donations from wealthy leftist

friends, including Gertrude Pinchot, Dorothy Whitney Straight, publisher of The New Republic, and Juliet
Rublee. Juliet Rublee was wife of George Rublee, who served on the Federal Trade Commission, and her
social clot did much to help Margaret succeed.280

By the early months of 1919, however, Margaret was under pressure to earn money and embarked on an extended lecture through the South.
Not feeling well, she then extended her leave of absence to write her book Woman and the New Race and placed another old friend in charge,
the rebellious journalist and self-styled revolutionary, Agnes Smedley.

Smedley was newly released from jail, where she had been held until the war’s end, charged under the Sedition Act with abetting the

Germans.281

Throughout this time Margaret was very lonely and renewed her adulterous affair with Walter Roberts.

Soon, however, Margaret’s editor, Billy Williams, replaced Roberts as Margaret’s lover. Williams died sud-
denly of kidney disease in 1920.282

Having finished the manuscript for her book, Sanger went to London to visit her socialist friends and to

renew her vision. Immediately she renewed her erotic relationship with Havilock Ellis. Margaret also began
an extended adulterous affair with Hugh de Selincourt. At de Selincourt’s Wantley countryside estate,
Margaret participated in group sex orgies. Margaret experienced a lesbian encounter with de Selincourt’s

112

Who's the Most Evil Woman Ever?

———————————

276  Ibid., 149.
277  Ibid., 159–60.
278  Ibid., 165–66.
279  Ibid., 168.
280  Ibid., 167.
281  Ibid., 168–69.
282  Ibid., 173.

wife, Janet, and in a letter to Juliet Rublee confided that she and Janet had “an embrace beyond any earthly
experience.” Margaret also introduced Juliet Rublee to Hugh de Selincourt, and while Juliet and Hugh de
Selincourt were committing adultery, Margaret fornicated with Harold Child, Janet de Selincourt’s illicit
lover. During this six month visit to London, Margaret also began an extended adulterous affair with the well
known novelist and Fabian socialist H.G. Wells.283

Sometime during this period, Margaret also began work on another

book, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano’s Publishers,
1922). Writing the introduction to this book, H.G. Wells correctly
observed that there can be little doubt that birth control

has become a test issue between two widely different interpretations of the word civilization,
and of what is good in life and conduct. The way in which men and women range themselves in
this controversy is more simply and directly indicative of their general intellectual quality than
any other single indication.…We are living not in a simple and complete civilization, but in a
conflict of at least two civilizations, based on entirely different fundamental ideas, pursuing dif-
ferent methods and with different aims and ends.284

Wells goes on to explain that the two conflicting civilizations are the Tra-
ditional or Authoritative Civilization in which morality is based upon the
dictates of God, and the so-called New or Creative or Progressive Civiliza-
tion in which morality is supposedly based upon the findings of science.
Actually, Wells and other humanists are deceitfully renaming philosophy
as science. The root idea upon which birth control is based is the idea
that morals are not absolute but relative—that right and wrong should
be determined by the elite among men rather than by omniscient God.
There is nothing scientific about that idea at all. Birth control is simply
the result of applying the philosophy of humanism to human reproduc-
tion.

But while Wells is wrong to call humanism science, he is right that

the humanist philosophy and Christianity are in a war in which there can
be no compromise. Wells is totally correct when he writes:

It is a conflict from which it is almost impossible to abstain. Our acts, our way of living, our social
tolerance, our very silences will count in this crucial decision between the old and the
new.…Mrs. Margaret Sanger sets out the case of the new order against the old.285

Through her elite friends, Margaret gained access to many wealthy

contributors. Among the most notable was multi-millionaire Noah Slee, founder of the 3 in 1 Oil Company.
Upon meeting Margaret at a party hosted by Juliet Rublee, Noah deserted his wife of more than 30 years, and
pursued Margaret. Margaret had just recently finally obtained a divorce from Bill Sanger.

Following the death of Billy Williams and the marriage of Jonah Goldstein, she had been without a reli-

able companion in New York. Nevertheless, her calender for 1920 and 1921 notes occasional evenings and
holidays in the company of the still devoted Harold Hersey and others, including [Bill] Sanger himself, with
whom relations seem to have eased somewhat, once her independence from him was made official. Mar-
riage made “not a whit of difference” to her she confided in a letter to Hugh de Selincourt after the divorce
was final. Earlier she had vowed that if she ever married again, it would be for money alone, and then, only
so that she could come and live nearby him in England. She was “no fit person for love or home or children
or friends or anything which needs attention or consideration,” she admitted candidly in still a third letter,
this one mentioning Noah Slee directly, though not by name. She referred to him only as “the
millionaire.”286

The Woman Rebel

113

H.G. WELLS, a novalist
and radical Fabian socialist,
was one of Sanger's many sex
partners. He was a married
man, but had at least four
other lovers in addition to
Sanger. Sexual infidelity is a

characteristic of humanism.

———————————

283  Ibid., 179–91.
284  H.G. Wells, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Brentano, 1922), ix-xvii.
285  Ibid., xvii.
286  Chesler, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, 244.

Slee bought her expensive gifts and accompanied her on a trip to Japan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore,

Ceylon, Egypt, then to Venice, Milan, Paris and London, apparently picking up the tab. In London Margaret
was a speaker at the Fifth International Neo-Malthusian Conference. While there she spent some private time
with both H.G. Wells and Hugh de Selincourt, apparently while Slee was busy obtaining a

French divorce from his American wife on the obviously specious grounds that she had refused to follow him to Paris. Then quite suddenly, on
September 18, 1922, James Henry Noah Slee and Margaret Higgins Sanger were secretly wed by the registrar of marriages for the district of St.
Giles, in Bloomsbury, London.287

This was four days after Margaret’s forty-third birthday. Slee was sixty-three.

According to Margaret, Slee agreed in writing at their wedding that they would maintain separate

residences with separate keys in New York, that she would keep her own name professionally, that, in all
respects, she would maintain her freedom.288

As the deal turned out, Margaret got money and prestige rather permanently, while Noah got sex

sporadically. Margaret was home only enough to keep the money flowing.

Repeated assurances that she desired him, for example, quite clearly pandered to his insecurity in the relationship. This was particularly appar-
ent when they spent the second anniversary apart in 1924. She wrote from London that she missed him deeply and yearned for his embraces,
even as she was carrying on again with Wells and had begun a torrid new love affair with Harold Child.289

A Rebel’s Humanism

It is beyond the scope of this book to give the history of how Margaret Sanger lobbied congress to

change laws in her favor; how she constantly broke laws she disagreed with, then used her ties with radical
left-wing journalists to obtain favorable press coverage so as to get those laws changed; how she used the
newly made loopholes in the law to open birth control clinics, which eventually resulted in the founding of
Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Rather, the purpose of this chapter is threefold: (1) to show the
evilness and wickedness of Margaret Sanger’s character; (2) to show that her character was so evil because
she was a humanist; and (3) to show that Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a Humanist organi-
zation, and is an atheist, anti-US, anti-Christian, anti-children, anti-God organization.

Her Humanism Shown By ACLU Association

Margaret was defended in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.290 At one time, Roger Baldwin

himself, the founder of the ACLU, defended Margaret.

Her Humanism Shown By UNESCO Association

In 1930, when Noah Slee purchased an elegant five-story townhouse in Manhattan to house Margaret’s

Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau, Margaret chose Sir Julian Huxley, head of United Nations
Educational, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), signer of Humanist Manifesto II, and one of the
leading champions of humanism, to give the inaugural speech.291

Her Humanism Shown by AHA Affiliations

Several months after Margaret’s book, My Fight for Birth Control came out, she held a dinner for 500

paying guests at the new Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. Chairman of this dinner was John Dewey, co-
founder of the ACLU, and founder of the American Humanist Association.292

114

Who's the Most Evil Woman Ever?

———————————

287  Ibid., 247.
288  Ibid., 248.
289  Ibid., 251.
290  Ibid., 203.
291  Ibid., 292.
292  Ibid., 315.

According to March/April 1992 issue of The Humanist (page 4), Margaret Sanger, was awarded the

Humanist of the Year award in 1957.

Alan F. Guttmacher, who became president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America several years

after Margaret Sanger, was a signer of Humanist Manifesto II.

Closely associated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America is SIECUS [Sex Information and

Education Council of the United States] another Humanist front organization whose sex education films and
books are used in most public schools. One of the Humanist contributors to Humanist Ethics—Dialogue
on Basics, published by Prometheus Books (the publisher of Humanist Manifesto I & II) is “Lester A.
Kirkendall—Professor Emeritus of Family Life, Oregon State University, Co-founder of SIECUS. Author of
Premarital Intercourse and Interpersonal Relationships; The New Sexual Revolution; The New Bill of
Sexual Rights and Responsibilities; and other books” (p. 302). Mary Caldrone, the other co-founder of
SIECUS, is featured in a “Humanist Profile” inside the front cover of the March/April 1993 issue of The
Humanist magazine. According to that profile, “Her work began in 1953, when she was appointed medical
director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.…she has received over 15 awards, including the
1968 Woman of Conscience Award from the National Council of Women, the 1980 Margaret Sanger Award
from the Planned Parenthood Federation, and the 1974 Humanist of the Year Award from the AHA
[American Humanist Association].”

Faye Wattleton, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation before Pamela Maraldo, was awarded

the Humanist of the Year Award in 1986.293

Planned Parenthood Federation and SIECUS are virtually one and the same in teachings and goals,

relentlessly preaching humanist “situation ethics” to our children.

Humanists who control SIECUS and Planned Parenthood (organizations that frequently provide lecturers for schools) and a large percentage of
the curriculum designers are evolutionists. Many are also atheists. Why is that important? Because an atheistic evolutionist considers man an
animal that does not possess an innate conscience and is not responsible to God for his behavior. He rejects moral absolutes, insisting that each
generation establish his own judgments of right and wrong. In fact, modern education repeatedly affirms that “there are no rights and wrongs.”
Nowhere is that false notion more harmful than in the classroom…Teaching sex education in mixed classes to hot-blooded teenagers without
benefit of moral values is like pouring gasoline on emotional fires. An explosion is inevitable.…Sex education in the schools was promoted to
parents as a means of solving social problems. However, the obsession with sex created by such classes has more than doubled the problems
they promised to solve—which is typical of godless humanism’s solutions to anything. It solves nothing but instead compounds the dilemma.

Children are born with two parents who are responsible to teach them about sex. The parents should never delegate that responsibil-

ity to a stranger, particularly one who teaches in an environment hostile to religion and moral values.294

Planned Parenthood and SIECUS obviously cannot be trusted to teach sex education without doing so

from the Humanist viewpoint. Since Humanists do not believe in marriage, and believe premarital, extra-
marital, and even homosexual sex is ok, we can only guess how much illicit sexual activity these Planned
Parenthood taught sex-ed classes have stimulated.

One thing for sure: the same school year the author of this book attended the sex-ed class mentioned in

the first paragraph of this chapter, one male student at Northwest Classen High School was so stirred up
sexually that he couldn’t even wait to get off the school grounds to rape a female student. By so doing he
robbed this girl of her fundamental human right to keep her own body pure—to remain a virgin until
marriage.

DAYSPRING PUBLISHER LLC