From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 12:02:35 EDT
I would not say that there is a "sinister strategy" involved. However, there is
an open and clear strategy in the Humanist movement to replace religion with
science. The Humanists have no church but they do have influence in whatever
organizations they join or control. That is not sinister, it just what we humans
do. Humanists clearly think of Christians as misguided people who teach evil
fairy tales to people.
Rather than being naive about the intent of Humanists, one can read there
beliefs, starting at Human Manifesto I at
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
Is it a war between good and evil? Should we treat Humanists as natural enemies
of religion as they seem to claim to be? One pastor in my church felt that a
dialogue was possible. I went to a public library and picked up the latest
copies of "The Humanist". It was clear to both of us that co-existence was
absolutely NOT part of their agenda.
But I am afield of the original subject as to why they might be so influential
in prominent secular organizations. I tend to agree with Dr. Nelson that is a
natural result of having no alternative. (Not a sinister conspiracy.)
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> >From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
>
> > Walter Hicks wrote:
> >
> >>In the past, I have noted from the Humanist web
> >>site the names of their prominent members. Quite
> >>often they are the leaders in the organizations
> >>cited. Such a high correlation implied to me that
> >>they are using these media to expose their
> >>atheistic viewpoints. (e.g. Sagan, Asimov, etc.)
> >>It's just a suggestion -- I offer no proof.
> >
> > The fact that they are in these positions is not
> > so much the question I think. The question is,
> > "how did things end up this way".
>
> Wayne,
>
> That's my question also. It is clear that the university (representing
> institutional education) and the cathedral (representing institutional
> religion) have had a parting of the ways. How did things end up this way? Is
> it all the fault of one of the parties (those atheists, perhaps)? Is the
> blame to be shared more equally? Or, is it, as some on this list seem to
> believe, a sinister and racially specific evolutionary strategy that needs
> to be exposed?
>
> Howard Van Till
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 18 2003 - 12:05:26 EDT