Creation Worldview Ministries
 
  Upcoming Events Latest Articles
October 19 - October 22
First Baptist Church
Nashville, GA
October 26
House of Prayer
Blairsville, GA
Education / History
Is Islam a Scientifically Valid Religion?
Education / History
The Exercise of Religious Freedom
More… More…
   
   
   
An Educational Missionary Organization


English
Russian
Portuguese

Articles

 
NO ONE IS MORE CRUEL THAN A LIBERAL!

  Article Options
Back to ListBack to List
Print ArticlePrint Article

NO ONE IS MORE CRUEL THAN A LIBERAL: COMMUNISM VERSUS CREATION AND CHRISTIANITY

PREFACE

Biblical Principle: You will have the government that you deserve. If you work for and elect righteous representatives, you will have righteous government. If you fail to uphold Biblical Principles, fail to work for and elect righteous representatives, you will have unrighteous government.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” 2 Ti. 4:3-4

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be also false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.” 2 Peter 2:1

The Greek root of the word “heresy” is a verb meaning “to select” or “to take up.” As used by Peter it means to choose or select for personal choice, reason or purpose. Peter tells us that there will be people, teachers, that have their own agendas, therefore, they will teach, [that is “secretly introduce,”] “destructive heresies” [or “destructive choices.”]

This is why Secular Humanists: people who are evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, socialists, communist elitists, progressives, statists and liberals (all those who are anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Bible, anti-Christian) teach that everyone must choose for themselves concerning moral and ethical decisions. These people want to have their “personal heresies,” “their personal choices.”

Secular Humanists want to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to have no consequences for their actions. They want to answer to no higher authority than themselves. They choose to believe by faith that there are no absolutes, no laws, no rules, no roles, no standards of conduct and no purpose. They are content to believe that when they die they will simply cease to exist and will not suffer for their actions during their lives.

What happens when we use an object for a purpose other than the one for which it was intended? It will damage or destroy that object.

How many of us have needed to use a hammer, but there wasn’t one present, so we picked up something else to use as a hammer? Perhaps we picked up a large heavy wrench. We may use the wrench as a hammer, but it will damage the wrench in the process.

This is a perfect example of a destructive heresy. If we choose to use a wrench as a hammer, we have made a choice to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended to be used.

People intrinsically understand that when objects are not used according to their purpose, it is called abuse. Abuse leads to damage, destruction and a loss of value for that object.

If a wrench is broken because it was used as a hammer, will it ever be able to be used again as a wrench? Perhaps it may be repaired, rehabilitated or regenerated; but this will require the input from a greater intelligence using time, effort and resources. The wrench cannot repair itself.

The reason that we see decay and degeneration in human beings and human society is for the same reason. It comes from the abuse of human beings, that is to say, when they are used for purposes for which they were not intended to be used.

If people do not want to be used to fulfill their general purpose, which is to glorify God and have fellowship with Him; if they do not want to be a holy person reflecting the image of their Creator; they are abusing themselves, or they are allowing other persons to abuse them. Either way, they will be damaged or destroyed through that action. They will also hurt their family, their church, their business, their fellow employees, their school, their community and their nation.

Let us look at another example. We may use a large screwdriver as a crowbar. The bigger and stronger the screwdriver, the more successful it may be when used as a crowbar. The screwdriver, however, was not created to be a crowbar, and abusing it by using it as a crowbar will eventually break the screwdriver. The reason that it will break is because a choice was made to use it for a purpose it was not intended to be used for.

When someone uses a large strong screwdriver as a crowbar they will feel the stress as the screwdriver is used for a purpose other than for what it was created. Anyone with normal sensibilities who uses a screwdriver in an abusive way will feel concern and remorse. When the screwdriver breaks they will know that it was a direct consequence of their choice. In the end they may repent for having broken the screwdriver, but it will not change the fact the screwdriver is broken.

As a result of breaking the screwdriver one of three things will happen. You will throw away the broken screwdriver and get a new one to use as a crowbar. You will throw away the broken screwdriver and get a crowbar. You will stop using screwdrivers as crowbars.

All of this is a direct consequence of knowingly violating the purpose for which the screwdriver was created. You will have learned that there is a price to pay when purpose is neglected or ignored. The consequence of neglecting or ignoring purpose is that things get broken.

The exact same thing may be said for human beings when evolutionists teach that human beings are highly evolved apes. People were made for a purpose. They may not know what that purpose is, but that does not change the truth of this statement.

No matter what people are taught, no matter what choices people make, no matter what “destructive heresies” [that is “destructive choices”] they accept, heresies are destructive. The acceptance of heresies makes people break. In 2 Peter 2:2, Peter continues: “And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be maligned; ...”


We could paraphrase what Peter says as, “Even though these people are sneaky crafty liars, they will get many people to follow them.”

Tens of thousands of people have enjoyed the fruitless study of the supposed evolution of human beings from apes. They have then deceived countless millions into neglecting the real purpose people were created.

Eventually these people bring the truth into disrepute and finally people actually become desensitized to the truth.

The truth is not in them!

Consider what is happening in most of our government run school classrooms today. Administrators and teachers are indoctrinating children in an evolutionary worldview and most of those in the classroom are nodding their heads in mental assent. How many people who believe otherwise are standing up and defending their position? There are few, if any, because they have become embarrassed to tell the truth. They have become embarrassed to defend their faith and knowledge.

In our society we have everything at stake. We are living in an age when many people are following the shameful ways of those who have introduced destructive heresies. We have people without knowledge criticizing and condemning those who do try to tell the truth.

A screwdriver that has been extensively used, but not abused, could be said to be “holy.” The word “holy” means: “kept or regarded as inviolate from ordinary use - set aside for a purpose (usually religious), consecrated, sacred.” God is Holy because He was “set aside” for His purpose. He wishes that we would do the same thing with our lives.

A screwdriver that is “holy” is going to last a long time. Its purpose, value and function will be preserved.

“Holy” people are worth more to God, to one another and to themselves. If people would not abuse themselves they would live “holy” lives.

In 2 Peter 2:3, Peter goes on to say: “. . . and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”

False teachers will “exploit” people with stories that they have made up for their own purposes. They are not interested in the welfare of their students. They are interested in their own agendas. There is an incredible sense of power that they feel when they profess to tell people where they came from. People will then look up to these false teachers for the meaning and value in their lives.

If you can tell a person where they came from; why they are here; where they are going; and how they should behave while they are here: then you will have total power over them.

Understanding your origin, where you came from, will ultimately determine where you derive your value and purpose. When someone is trying to exploit you, trying to feed you his story of your purpose; and that story is contrary to what your Creator has said your purpose is, then you lose!

God has a purpose for people and He is jealous for His people. He says in Isaiah 46: 10-11:

”Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure;’ Calling a bird of prey from the East, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass, I have planned it, surely I will do it.” [Emphasis added]

God has an unchanging nature. God set out in creation to make man as an expression of Himself, as a vessel of His glory; His purpose has not changed and will not change.

“He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.” (Ephesians 1:9-12)

One test to know if you are fulfilling His purpose for you is that He is praised because of you!

The parts of us that are durable and lasting, the parts of us that conform to His image, those are the things that will last. The most lasting thing about us is His purpose for us. That will last. It will have no end.

When people complain about God, they are complaining because God is not doing things their way. They have bought into a destructive heresy about whom and what they are. They have not cooperated with God’s purpose for them. They see God as an antagonist. People were not designed for abuse and the glory of men. People were designed for the glory of God.

Christians are not only headed individually for a fulfillment of their purpose, they are headed for a fulfillment of their purpose together. Jesus prayed that the Body of Christ would be one. God’s purpose from the beginning was a unified mankind for the praise of His glory.

“. . . in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 3:10)

Our purpose is not merely for our own satisfaction, nor merely to strengthen our families, our schools, our churches, our communities, our nation; our purpose is to amaze the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms with the wisdom of God for giving us 1) the purpose that He did, 2) the ability to fulfill that purpose and 3) the power to complete that purpose.

The eternal question must come down to this. Are you living your life so as to show the wisdom of God in choosing you? You have a God given purpose. Are you fulfilling it?

In order to fulfill God’s purposes and to bring glory to Him, we must, inasmuch as it is humanly possible, express the same attitudes, attributes, emotions and characteristics as our Creator God. Our baseline must be this: if your opinion does not line up with God’s opinion, then your opinion is wrong!

For this Bible Lab, we are going to concentrate primarily on one specific attribute of God. God is a Capitalist. Throughout the Bible, God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) teaches that the way in which we are to live our lives is as a Capitalist. From establishing the work week as six days to labor in the natural realm and one day of labor in the supernatural realm; to stating that His Word shall not return void; God’s Kingdom is based on the philosophical construct of Capitalism.

The word “profit” is all too often simply thought of as referring to money. The word “profit,” however, is far more reaching. “Profit” actually is better understood as meaning to “derive a benefit from,” to “make a positive or advantageous gain,” a “return on an investment,” an “increase in net value or worth.” Profit is really a beneficial return for an effort made. Profit is a return for effort.

God always expects to receive a return for effort! See Matt. 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27

The words “politics” and “economics” have interesting etymologies. These words go back to the ancient Greek and Roman languages.

Aristotle’s ta politika “affairs of state,” was the name of his book on governing and governments. The word in Latin is politicus meaning “of citizens or the state, civil, civic;” and, in Greek the word is politikos meaning “of citizens or the state,” from polites “citizen,” from polis “city.”

Fisher Ames (1758–1808) wrote: “Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs, and, as those are forever changing, what is wisdom today would be folly and perhaps, ruin tomorrow. Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. It cannot have fixed principles, from which a wise man would never swerve, unless the inconstancy of men’s view of interest and the capriciousness of the tempers could be fixed.” [Emphasis added]

The word “economics” derives from the Latin oeconomia; and, from the Greek oikonomia “household management,” from oikonomos “manager, steward,” from oikos “house.” The sense of “manage the resources of a country” (short for political economy) was first mentioned in 1651. In 1835 “economic” meant “related to the science of economics,” while in 1780 “economical” retained the sense “characterized by thrift.”

Finally, Noah Webster, in his great 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, defined these words as:

“Economic/Economy

1. Primarily, the management, regulation and government of a family or the concerns of a household.

2. The management of pecuniary [money] concerns or the expenditure of money.

3. A frugal and judicious use of money; that management which expends money to advantage, and incurs no waste; frugality in the necessary expenditure of money. ... Economy includes also a prudent management of all the means by which property is saved or accumulated; a judicious application of time, labor, and of the instruments of labor.” [Emphasis added]

“Politics

The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. Politics, as a science or an art, is a subject of vast extent and importance.” [Emphasis added]

The Roman Empire no longer exists because of a combination of many factors:

Public Health: There were many public health and environmental problems including lead poisoning.

Political Corruption: The Senate became extremely corrupt causing political instability.

Unemployment: The use of slave labor undermined the citizen farmer and this filled the cities with unemployed people. Rome created a large welfare system including government run health care.

Inflation: The flow of wealth into the economy decreased, money was devalued and prices rose.

Urban decay: Most Romans lived in small apartment houses covering an entire block.

Inferior Technology: Their scientific achievements were limited almost entirely to engineering and organization of public works.

Military Spending: Frustrated Romans lost their desire to defend the Empire. By A.D. 300 the majority of those in the army were barbarian soldiers. Rome depended on its empire for resources. They took a defensive stance adopting a ‘security’ tactic. It was inevitable that Rome was eventually crushed by foreign invasion.

Decline in Morals and Values: Most important, the morals and values that had kept the Roman culture and legions together were not maintained. Crimes of violence made the streets unsafe. During the Pax Romana there were 32,000 prostitutes in Rome. The most popular amusement was watching the bloody and lethal gladiatorial combats in the Coliseum.

The question that must be addressed is: “Are the United States, and other “Western Civilizations” rooted in Christian beliefs and mores, falling rapidly into the same situation as once mighty Rome; and, if so, why?”

NO ONE IS MORE CRUEL THAN A LIBERAL: COMMUNISM VERSUS CREATION AND CHRISTIANITY

The acceptance of naturalistic, mechanistic, humanistic evolution is the foundational belief and driving force behind Modern Social Liberalism. Modern Social Liberalism is drastically different from the concept of Classical Liberalism.

Classical Liberalism is based on the economic theory of laissez-faire, the free market, the gold standard, the strict constructionist view of the Constitution, the freedom of the governed from government interference, the importance of individual freedom, and, most importantly, established Christian religion. Under these conditions, God’s Laws are the absolute foundation of human activities.

When people exercise Christian internal self-government, they do not need an outside un-Godly government to tell them what the laws are that they are to live by; they do not need an external government to tell them what is the right and wrong thing to do. They will, in general, do what is right because they believe that they answer to a Higher Authority, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the God of the Bible. They understand His laws, rules, roles, standards of conduct and purpose; and, they behave accordingly.

Modern Social Liberalism is a refutation of Classical Liberalism. It rests on the view that unrestrained capitalism is a hindrance to true freedom. It is also referred to as new liberalism, modern liberalism and left-liberalism. It includes the ideas that government should intervene in the economy to provide full employment and that government determines what are and are not “human rights.” Social liberal ideas and political parties tend to be considered centrist or center-left.

In Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power (2001), James L. Richardson stated that there were three main divisions within the general category of liberalism.

The first division is elitism versus democracy.

The second division is economic: looking at whether freedom is best served by free markets or by government regulated markets.

The third division addresses the question of whether liberal principles should be extended to the disadvantaged.

Social Liberalism is based on supposed “human rights” and not upon God-given laws. Social Liberalism is founded upon the acceptance of biological macro-evolution.

Evolution is the taproot of every evil in every culture, in every society and throughout all of human experience since the Garden of Eden.

The original deception of Adam and Eve by Satan occurred when he asked them: “Hath God said?” (Genesis 3:1)

Satan got Adam and Eve to challenge God’s veracity. Satan manipulated them into considering whether or not God really meant what He said? Satan got them to believe that you cannot trust Him; that He is just holding out on you; that He knows that if you knew what He knew, you would be just like Him, equal to Him. Satan deceived Adam and Eve into believing that they could be just like God. (Genesis 3:5)

When Adam and Eve accepted this deception into their minds, they determined that they had a “right” to decide whether or not God was telling them the truth. It was not true; they did not have a “right” to decide whether God was telling the truth or not. The creature has no right to say that their Creator would deal falsely with them in any way. God cannot lie; He told them the truth; and, He told them not to listen to anyone else. (Genesis 3:11)

Once Adam and Eve decided that they had a “right” to decide for themselves what laws to follow, they decided not to follow God’s Laws, and they initiated human autonomy - meaning “law unto self.” Rather than live under God’s Laws, they decided to invent their own laws, rules, roles, standards of conduct and purpose. Philosophically, this is the start of the acceptance of every form of evolutionism.

What are the consequences of accepting any form of evolutionism? The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 1:26-32:

“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

According to Paul’s list, we may summarize that those who accept the various evolutionary theories as the cause for their existence and deny that a Law Giver exists become: homosexual men, lesbian women, utterly unrighteous, evil, murderers (including abortion, euthanasia, children shooting other children in schools), disobedient to parents and teachers, numbed and dumbed down by an inferior education system, and finally end up seeing themselves as nothing more than thinking animals.

The obvious question becomes: “As we teach the various theories of evolution in our schools and universities, generation after generation, what do you see more and more of in our society?”

The obvious answer is: “All of the above.”

Paul’s list in Romans One speaks of the character, attributes and emotions of those who deny the Creator, the Law Giver; however, his list does not include the outcome, the results, that we see in our “Modern Times.” The concepts of Classical Liberalism and Modern Social Liberalism were unknown in the Apostle Paul’s time.

A partial list of the social woes produced by the character, attributes and emotions of those who accept evolutionary theories are:

Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Statism, Fascism, Centralized Government, Nazism, Fabianism, Leninism, Maoism, collectivism, totalitarianism, absolutism, authoritarianism, autocracy, bureaucracy, despotism, one-party system, party government, racism, regimentation, coercion, reign of terror, tyranny and dictatorship.

This partial list, and it is only a partial list, is promulgated by today’s Communist Elitists. Communist Elitists are the cruelest people in the World.

A list of current [2010] Communist Elitists would include Al Gore, Barak Hussein Obama and all his appointed “Czars” (United States), Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev (Russia), “Lula” Luiz Incio da Silva (Brazil), Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Manuel Zelaya (Honduras), Manuel Ortega (Nicaragua), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Jos Mujica (Uruguay), the Castro brothers (Cuba). There are many other minor players in less well known countries around the world.

Some great Communist Elitists of the last century were men like: Mao Zedong (China), Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin (Russia), Ho Chi Minh (Viet Nam), Pol Pot (Cambodia) and Kaysone Phomvihane (Laos).

Communist Elitists believe that only the “government” should determine how resources are used; they believe that individual people cannot be trusted to use resources wisely. Communist Elitists enforce Marxist ideals upon others so that they may control what others do and think. They believe in REALLY BIG government and high taxes. They are egalitarians who pull all others down to the lowest common denominator. For them “equal” means that all others are “equal” in poverty. They destroy individual achievement, incentive, self value and self worth; and, they demoralize, dumb down and enslave. They enforce the mediocre and the bland. They subjugate their countries’ population to living lives of quiet desperation.

Why do Communist Elitists believe what they believe?

In order to understand why Communist Elitists believe what they believe; and, in order to understand why they do what they do; you should read a summary of their founding document, their “constitution,” the Manifesto of the Communist Party, also referred to as The Communist Manifesto. It was first published in Germany on February 21, 1848. It was authored by Karl Heinrich Marx (Moses Mordecai Marx Levi) with some help from Friedrich Engels.

The total document is about 17,000 words, is at times rambling and at other times the wording seems to be in a coded language. This can make it difficult to know what is actually being talked about. It was written in four sections.

In the first section of the Manifesto, Marx outlines his revisionist view of history and his concepts of the struggle between the Bourgeois and Proletarians. Marx used a somewhat incorrect definition of the word Bourgeois and used it to describe anything associated with capitalists, including manufacturers, merchants and small business owners. Marx used the term Proletariat to refer to a class of wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, were reduced to selling their labor power in order to live.

Marx thought that the Bourgeois exploited the Proletariat; and that eventually the Proletariat would overthrow the Bourgeois and establish a classless society.

In the second section, Marx tried to deal with the specifics on the differences between the current Proletariat and true Communists; it is an interesting attempt at a distinction between the two. Basically, Marx wrote that “socialism’ referred to a society ruled by workers, while he thought that “communism” referred to a classless society. Lenin would later state that Communism was simply Socialism in a hurry.

Marx wrote that there were ten conditions that were necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Communism. The Guttenburg Project provides us with a good summary of the ten conditions:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of property inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands; and, the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools; abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form; and, the combination of education with industrial production.

In the third section, Marx defended the Manifesto as the only legitimate expression of true Communism as opposed to various other documents in existence at that time. He dismissed all the others as merely advocating “reformism” and thought that they all failed to recognize the preeminent role of the working class.

Finally, in the fourth section, entitled “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties,” Marx reviews briefly the state of the communist revolutions developing in other countries.

The closing statement of the Manifesto is:

“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Workers of the world, Unite!” [Emphasis added]

But, as the Bible says: “That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.” Ec. 1:9 (NAS95)

Marx plagiarized a distant cousin of Presidents Teddy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Clinton Roosevelt. In 1841, Clinton Roosevelt published a booklet entitled Science Of Government Founded On Natural Law (Dean & Trevett, NY). This booklet contained an almost identical list of ten conditions that were necessary for the transition from Capitalism to Communism as that contained in the Manifesto. Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressivism and “Square Deal,” as well as FDR’s “New Deal” were based on the communist philosophy of their distant relative.

But, the story does not end there. Clinton Roosevelt had plagiarized the earlier work of Johann Adam Weishaupt who was a German philosopher and founder of the Order of Illuminati. A further regression would simply go back in time until we got to the originator of all anti-God ideas – Ha’Satan.

Satan originated the concept of biological macroevolution in the Garden of Eden in order to counter the idea of a Creator and deceive Adam and Eve. The taproot of Communism is the belief in and acceptance of evolutionism. Therefore, one may just as well say that Satan originated the concept of Communism in the Garden of Eden.

Why are Communists/Modern Social Liberals the most cruel people in the world?

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin were militant atheists. Each specialized in a particular field of Bolshevik communism. Marx dealt with social and economic issues. Engels dealt primarily with natural science. Lenin dealt with revolutionary technique. Yet they were totally united in their acceptance of Darwinian evolution.

Engels was absolutely devoted to the “facts” of materialistic evolution. As he wrote in SOCIALISM: UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC, 1880, p. 21.

“... nowadays, in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for either a Creator or a Ruler; and to talk of a Supreme Being shut out from the whole existing world, implies a contradiction in terms, and, as it seems to me, a gratuitous insult to the feelings of religious people.”

He went on to write: “the last vestige of a creator external to the world is obliterated,” and “nothing is final, absolute, sacred.”

Marx assured everyone that “man is the highest being for man,” and that “atheism is humanism mediated by the abolition of religion.”

Lenin declared in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, 1908, p. 298, that: “beyond the ‘physical,’ beyond the external world ... there can be nothing.” “God is primarily a complex of ideas which result from the overwhelming oppression of man through external nature and class slavery.”

Why do Communist Elitists believe what they believe?

Lenin wrote in Ueber die Religion, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1965:

P. 20:

“Marxism is materialism. As such it stands … unsparingly and hostilely opposed to religion. …” Marxism is “unqualifiedly atheistic and decidedly hostile to every religion …”

P. 24:

“We must fight religion, that is the ABC of the whole of materialism, and consequently also of Marxism.”

p. 48:

“… every religious idea, every idea of every god, even every flirtation with a god, is an unspeakable abomination, … is the most dangerous abomination, the most repulsive ‘infection.’” [Emphasis added]

Marx wrote in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844:

“… communism begins where atheism begins …” “… atheism is at the outset still far from being communism … a being … is only his own master when he owes his existence to himself … [and] … socialist man … has the evident and irrefutable proof of his self-creation, of his own origins.” [Emphasis added]

Communists/Modern Social Liberals are the cruelest people in the world because, first and foremost, they eliminate the role of the Creator God of the Bible from the lives of people.

Marx further remarked in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844:

“… society is the accomplished union of man with Nature, the veritable resurrection of Nature, the realized naturalism of man and the realized humanism of Nature … the essence of man and of Nature, man as a natural being and Nature as a human reality. …”

Marxism ultimately degenerates into a glorification and deification of man. In parallelism to Islam, for Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Statists, Fascists, Leninists, Maoists, collectivists and their ilk: “There is no god but Mankind, and Karl Marx is his Prophet.”

Liberals convince a national population that human beings are the highest form of life in the universe; and, therefore, man is the measure of himself. Liberals are convinced in their position that man is capable of making himself better. In their view, the only way to forcibly make man better, to forcibly “evolve” human kind “forward” and “upward,” is to eliminate the weak (the nonconformist) and the defective (physical, mental and genetic).

Marx’s admiration of Darwin was based upon finding in Darwinism the supposed basis in nature for his own economic ideas. Marx saw Darwin’s concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest as the foundation for his own concepts of the struggle between classes of people. Hitler would do the same thing in his book entitled, Mein Kampf, “My Struggle.”

In 1877, Charles Darwin’s ideas would become incorporated into the group of ideologies called “Social Darwinism.” Social Darwinism is a social adaptation of his supposed discoveries about how animals, plants and human beings came into existence through totally naturalistic and mechanistic means.

The general concept predates Darwin as recorded in the writings of Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), An essay on the Principle of Population; or, a view of its past and present effects on human happiness; with an enquiry into our prospects respecting the future removal or mitigation of the evils which it occasions, 1803.

Social Darwinism would find its greatest promoter in the writings of Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton (1822 - 1911). In 1883, Galton formulated the concept of “Eugenics,” the practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In 1921, eugenics was described as, “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.”

Eugenics was widely popular in Europe and America during the late 1800’s through the 1940’s. Hitler was a strong believer in eugenics. The last great defender of eugenics was probably the American historian Richard Hofstadter in 1944.

Other concepts would be developed and justified by Darwin’s evolutionary theories. These would include the total acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, situation ethics; the total acceptance of homosexuality, lesbianism, racism; and, the total crushing of individual liberty, individual self worth, individual self value.

Liberals devalue human beings to nothing more than thinking animals. This teaching appeals to the base, sinful, Adamic nature of all human beings. This teaching is totally contradictory to the Christian Biblical Worldview.

Why are Communists/Modern Social Liberals the most cruel people in the world?

Marxists, and all liberal thinkers, base their concept of the origin of knowledge upon their acceptance of naturalistic evolution. The Liberals start their thinking process with a belief in realism and empiricism. They then move on to rationalism, striving toward idealism, or at least a form of existentialistic pragmatism. Finally, they attempt to wrap this all up in an infinitely elastic dialectic (the Socratic method of discovering truth through questioning and debate, altered and developed by his Greek successors, and still a model of overwhelming importance in philosophy).

In order to achieve their goals, Communist Elitists destroy all individual incentive to work hard, to achieve and to accomplish those things that are self-rewarding to human beings. They destroy the spiritual element of human nature. They destroy the power of God in human experience. They destroy Judeo-Christian capitalism and enforce secular humanistic communism. In doing so, they destroy the human soul and spirit. In order to accomplish their goals, they are fully able to destroy any human body, as well.

Consider the issue of health care in society. In Christian society, any human life has infinite eternal value and worth. Christians take great care to preserve life, even to the point of heroic preservation or extension of it. This is only the logical extension of the Commandment to honor your father and mother and God’s admonition to protect innocent life.

Liberalism, and its foundation of Darwinism, is a religion of death. Liberals delegate the value of a human life to that which is only useful to the State. Liberals support concepts like; abortion, euthanasia, drug abuse and homosexual marriage, because these reduce the burden of health care on the State. Liberals want to determine when and if a person will be born. They want to decide when a human life will end. The deciding factor is economic based upon their secular religion. In their view, a human life is only useful as long as it is productive to the State.

In the Soviet Union (and still true today in Russia) doctors were some of the lowest paid people in the population. Why? Simple! In the communist mind-set the value of income to the worker was based upon the production of usable goods by the worker, by the laborer. According to communist thought processes, doctors, unlike agricultural workers or factory workers, did not produce any tangible goods. Therefore, doctors add little value to the society.

In his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx described a society based upon “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs).” The Soviet Union never claimed to have reached this point of Marxism. In truth, the Soviets claimed only to have achieved: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” In truth, they never achieved the Marxist ideal.

Why are Communists/Modern Social Liberals the most cruel people in the world?

Liberals do not believe that individuals should determine how natural resources are to be used. They believe that only the State can determine how natural resources are to be used. In order to accomplish this goal, Liberals strongly promote frauds like “Global Warming” and “Prevention of Climate Change” in order to convince entire populations into accepting a much lower standard of living, a much lower level of personal economic status.

In order to accomplish this, Liberals promote higher taxes on fuels, sequestering of fuels and false supposedly “environmentally friendly” programs. These tactics are cruel beyond belief. Judeo-Christian Capitalism requires us, as good stewards, to use the natural resources that God has given us. Capitalism requires ample and relatively free access to various sources of fuel. National economies flourish when fuel is abundant and the cost reasonable. Economies are hindered, thwarted and even thrown into chaos when fuel is scarce and prices are arbitrarily high.

Carbon dioxide is not a major “greenhouse gas.” The Liberal attempt to prevent the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is counterproductive to any society. First, it means a reduction in material production, reducing the standard of living for everyone. Second, it reduces the very necessary ingredient that plants use to make food and trees use to make lumber. By reducing carbon dioxide emissions, Liberals demonstrate their hidden agenda, their hatred of people.

You have to hate people, or you would not want to intentionally do things to them that hurt them.

Why are Communists/Modern Social Liberals the most cruel people in the world?

In direct contradiction to what they say, Social Liberals are racists. Social Liberals have always been racists. Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley were adamantly outspoken about their beliefs in human racism. They believed that there were superior and inferior people. They believed that white-colored people were superior to black-colored people. When people are “educated” (indoctrinated to believe) in school that evolution is true; that there are superior and inferior human beings; then they are willing to accept that they are inferior and that someone else must take care of them. This in turn enslaves them and forces them to live in substandard conditions.

Liberals promote Modern Day Slavery. Modern day slavery occurs when Liberals (such as Barack Hussein Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi) legally buy votes from their constituents with promises of more “free” government money in exchange for voting for them. This was a strategy used by the Roman Senate two thousand years ago and its usefulness is not lost on modern Liberals. The Roman Senate started and then expanded a welfare system which eventually helped to destroy the Roman Empire from within.

The money is not “free,” it is confiscated from other tax payers. This is what “income redistribution” is all about. It is a legal way to look like Robin Hood, but in actuality it is done in order to achieve communism. Once communism is achieved, the welfare recipients become slaves of the State.

Communist Elitists (Liberals and Evolutionists) want to have total control of people’s lives.

When does the ultimate control by one human being over another human being occur? It occurs when one human being can tell the other 1) where they came from, 2) why they are here, 3) how should they behave while they are here, and 4) where they are going. These four statements provide the ultimate power of one person or group of people over other people’s lives. Evolutionists tell people that they came from a random chance accumulation of dust; that they only have value to the State; that they are nothing but thinking animals; and, that they will simply cease to exist at their death. Therefore, according to Liberals there are no consequences, no absolutes, no laws, no rules, no roles, no standard of conduct and no purpose to life.

Liberals, with their religion based in evolutionism, hate people.

The Club of Rome is a globalist (One World Government) think tank located in Switzerland. The Club promotes a Far-Left agenda including Environmental Terrorism and a One World Government. Prominent Full Members included the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau; and, current Honorary Members such as the former General Secretary of the USSR, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. In 1991, The Club published the book, The First Global Revolution, written by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. On pages 70 and 75 they wrote:

“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together. In the vacuum such motivations seemed to have ceased to exist - or have yet to be found.…” [Emphasis added]

“The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor … Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…” [Emphasis added]

“Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power by extremists of one brand or the other…” [Emphasis added]

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [Emphasis added]

A representative sample of similar quotes will suffice to prove the point that in truth Communists/Modern Social Liberals/Evolutionists hate people:

Maurice Strong is founder and first Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, and onetime Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Today he lives in the People’s Republic of China, and is President of the Council of the United Nations’ University for Peace, UPEACE.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” [Emphasis added]

Maurice Strong, The Environmentalists’ Little Green Book

“Current life-styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.”

Maurice Strong, 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro

Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, biologist and educator, is the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and President of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology. He is a well-known Far-Left radical environmentalist.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” [Emphasis added]

Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” [Emphasis added]

Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power,” May/June 1978 Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies - often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion if only the symptoms are treated. We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparent brutal and heartless decisions. The pain may be intense. But the disease is so far advanced that only with radical surgery does the patient have a chance to survive.”

Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them.” [Emphasis added]

Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund, The Environmentalists’ Little Green Book, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, April 2000.

David Foreman is cofounder of Earth First! and he served on the Sierra Club’s board of directors From 1995 to 1997.

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” [Emphasis added]

David Foreman, cofounder of Earth First!, as quoted in “This Land is OUR Land”. Tim Findley, Range Magazine, Fall 2003, page 36.

“The optimum [human] population of Earth is zero.” [Emphasis added]

David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!, as quoted in Resource Roundup, November 2003, page 8.

“We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.” [Emphasis added]

David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!, as quoted in Resource Roundup, June 2002, page 13.

“[M]y three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness with its full complement of species returning throughout the world.” [Emphasis added]

David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!, as quoted in Set Up and Sold Out, Holly Swanson, 1995, page 171.

“If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. . . . Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” [Emphasis added]

David Foreman, founder of Earth First! Wild Earth magazine, Summer 1991, page 72.

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”

Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm.” [Emphasis added]

Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet, 1991, p.153.

“Just as the human body uses a fever to fight off an infection, Gaia is raising Her temperature to expel a harmful parasite – humans. Unless humans renounce their destructive ways and rejoin the diverse community of living beings in Gaia’s loving embrace then Gaia will be forced to act in order to secure Her supreme reign;” and, “the human population will be reduced to a few breeding pairs by the end of this century. [Emphasis added]

Sir James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity, 2006.

“By the end of this century [20th Century] climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.” [Emphasis added]

Sir James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity, 2006.

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” [Emphasis added]

Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview, 2002

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” [Emphasis added]

Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” [Emphasis added]

Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

Club of Rome, publication entitled “Goals for Mankind”

“My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” [Emphasis added]

Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” [Emphasis added]

John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”

United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” [Emphasis added]

David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”

Emphasis added]

Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” [Emphasis added]

Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.” [Emphasis added]

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker, in the UNESCO Courier.

“It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” [Emphasis added]

David M. Graber, research biologist for the US National Park Service

“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as quoted in Trashing the Planet, Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, 1990, page 169.

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

“If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.”

Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth - Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22

Liberalism becomes to its own religion.

The following are excerpts from the book Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit by Al Gore. In asserting his pantheistic beliefs Gore stated:

“… we feel increasingly distant from our roots in the earth ... civilization itself has been on a journey we feel increasingly distant from our roots from its foundations in the world of nature to an evermore contrived, controlled and manufactured world of our initiative and sometimes arrogant design. ... At some point during this journey we lost our feeling of connectedness to the rest of nature. ... We dare now to wonder: Are we so unique and powerful as to be essentially separate from the earth?” (p. 1)

Gore clearly identifies himself with pantheism. He replaces the God of Christianity as the source of all life with a “Mother God” (Mother Earth, Mother Nature, the goddess Gaia). He says that she “has been seriously ‘wounded’ by the expansion of human civilization, and now there must come a universal atonement for these many millennia of grief on ‘her’ part …”

To Gore Christianity is the source of every evil. It seems obvious to him that a better understanding of a religious heritage is one that supposedly precedes Christianity.

“The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously through the world has ... spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned.” (pp. 258-259) [Emphasis added]

In Al Gore’s evolutionary view of religion he turns to pagan Eastern religions for his justification that man exists for nature rather than the Christian Biblical Worldview that nature exists for man. In doing so, Gore commended Baha’ism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism. As would be expected, he endorsed the New Age teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the excommunicated Catholic Jesuit priest who said: “The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.”

Gore then wrote, “Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth, identify it as God’s creation, and accept our responsibility to protect and defend it.” (p. 263) He then called for a new spiritual relationship between man and the earth based upon worshipping nature and the goddess Gaia.

“The spiritual sense of our place in nature predates Native American cultures; increasingly it can be traced to the origins of human civilization. A growing number of anthropologists and archaeomythologists, such as Marija Gimbutas and Riane Esler argue that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous through much of the world until the antecedents of today’s religions, most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation ... swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania.” (p. 260) [Emphasis added]

Gore advocates a pure Pantheistic paganism. His view is a direct contradiction of Christian Scripture. The Bible clearly states that the earth was created for man, not man for the earth. The Bible says that man was originally given dominion over the earth. The Bible says man lost his dominion role as a direct result of sin. Jesus won that dominion back through His work on Cross.

Gore clearly makes a distinction between neo-pagan pantheism and a Christian Biblical Worldview in his book:

“We are not used to seeing God in the world because we assume from the scientific and philosophical rules that govern us, that the physical world is made up of inanimate matter whirling in accordance to mathematical laws and bearing no relation to life, much less ourselves. Why does it feel faintly heretical to a Christian to suppose that God is in us as human beings? Why do our children believe that the Kingdom of God is up, somewhere in the ethereal reaches of space, far removed from this planet? By experiencing nature in its fullest ... our own and that of all creation ... with our senses and with our spiritual imagination, we can glimpse, ‘bright shining as the sun,’ an infinite image of God.” (p. 264)

Gore is not talking about the indwelling of the Christian believer by the Holy Spirit, instead he is promoting pantheism. Gore is denying God’s transcendence. In doing so, he called for bigger government, various environmental taxes, a redistribution of wealth between countries, giving massive amounts of money to third world countries. He called for the shutting down of America’s industrial system because he saw it as a threat to the environment. He even wanted the “rescue of the environment” to be “the central organizing principle for civilization.” He continued, “We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.” (p. 269)

Al Gore made it clear that in his religion a Draconian government replaced the God of the Bible: “Adopting a central organizing principle ... means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution ... to halt the destruction of the environment.” (p. 274) His solution for any of the world’s problems is to use a central government in an assault on Western civilization, based in Christianity and Biblically based capitalism.

These are additional quotes to further prove that Liberalism leads to its own religion.

“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution. ... Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature”

Ren Dubos, A God Within: A Positive Approach to Man’s Future as Part of the Natural World, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972), 38, 41.

“More science and more technology are not going to get us out of our present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one...”

Lynn White Jr., The Environmental Handbook, p. 24.

“No new set of basic values has been accepted in our society to displace those of Christianity. Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man” [Emphasis added]

Lynn White Jr., The Environmental Handbook, p. 25.

The official “mission” of the Church of All Worlds, the largest of the pagan movements in the U.S., involves mobilizing the force of Gaia or Gaea. The mission is “to evolve a network of information, mythology and experience that provides a context and stimulus for reawakening Gaea, and reuniting her children through tribal community dedicated to responsible stewardship and evolving consciousness”

Green Egg, Journal of the Church of All Worlds, Vol. 29, No. 119, May/June 1997.

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of DIVINE NATURE.” [Emphasis added]

Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP, opening speech of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit

“Still more important is the implication that the evolution of Homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased Gaia’s range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.”

“Our sensations of wonder and pleasure, our capacity for conscious thought and speculation, our restless curiosity and drive are hers to share. This new interrelationship of Gaia with man is by no means fully established; we are not yet a truly collective species, corralled and tamed as an integral part of the biosphere, as we are as individual creatures. It may be that the destiny of mankind is to become tamed, so that the fierce, destructive, and greedy forces of tribalism and nationalism are fused into a compulsive urge to belong to the commonwealth of all creatures which constitutes Gaia.” [Emphasis added]

Sir James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look At Life

“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . . She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth, she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.” [Emphasis added]

Sir James Lovelock, Ages of Gaia

“Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, Green Cross International:

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward our elected officials, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.”

Chester Pierce, Harvard University, to a 1973 Education Seminar in Denver, as quoted in Dennis L. Cuddy, “A Chronology of Education: With Quotable Quotes,” The Florida Forum, Special ed., May 1993, p. 19.

Liberalism invents its own legal system.

The laws, ordinances and precepts of God make possible a free, healthy and distinctively capitalistic society. God gives us an eternal moral code, a standard by which we may live our lives in a peaceful, prosperous and secure state. Without God’s law we do not have protection against tyranny and anarchy. Without God’s law we will continue to see an increase in every social ill: pornography, racism, abortion, euthanasia and school violence.

The acceptance of Darwinian theories has caused many lawyers, judges and legislators to become legal positivists. Legal positivism declares that laws are to be passed and interpreted to achieve social engineering goals. Legal positivism works in direct opposition to natural law (God’s law) because law becomes separated from ethics, morals and justice. Legal positivism causes even the most basic laws to become flexible, thereby losing their predictability - there is no more right and wrong.

Ultimately, after the acceptance of legal positivism, judges come to believe that written constitutions are to be interpreted as “living documents” and they drop the doctrine of original intent. Such a progressive view of the law leads to the “rule of law under God” being replaced by the “rule of law under Man.”

Modern Social Liberals/Communist Elitists/Fascists/Darwinists of every ilk invent their own legal system. Karl Marx, and all atheists in general, reject the God of Creation. Therefore, they reject the doctrine of sin and Man’s Adamic sinful nature. They are convinced that the evolution of human nature will lead to its absolute perfection.

Marx believed that laws were the product of the will of the ruling class. Therefore, Marx wanted to displace the supposed law of the ruling class with his own ideal of a secular utopia. The result of this idea has been that every communistic government has enforced the equality of wealth by the use of gross power to achieve the equality of poverty.

There are those who criticize Christianity for the flaws of individual Christians in wrongfully murdering people, i.e., during the Crusades. However, the death toll attributable to liberalism is much worse. The by-product of Marxism in the 20thCentury was the murder of over 100 million people. These wholesale murders were a direct result of a naturalistic worldview in which Man and not God set the laws of what is right and wrong; where Man made and enforced his own legal system.

As University of Maryland political scientist Dr. Vladimir Tismaneanu wrote:

“Communism in its Leninist version (and, one must recognize, this has been the only successful application of the original dogma) was from the very outset inimical to the values of individual rights and human freedom. In spite of its overblown rhetoric about emancipation from oppression and necessity, the leap into the kingdom of freedom announced by the founding fathers [of Communism] turned out to be actually an experiment in ideologically driven unbound social engineering. The very idea of an independent judiciary was rejected as ‘rotten liberalism’. The [Communist] party defined what was legal and what was not: as in Hitler’s Germany, where the heinous 1936 Nuremberg trials were a legal fiction dictated by Nazi racial obsessions, Bolshevism from the very outset subordinated justice to party interests. For Lenin, dictatorship of the proletariat was rule by force and unrestricted by any law. The class enemy had to be weeded out, destroyed, smashed without any sign of mercy.” [Emphasis added]

Communism and the human condition: reflections on the Black Book of Communism, Human Rights Review, Jan-Mar 2001, p. 126.

Liberalism affects many other issues of human activity: agriculture, environmental concerns, education, illegal immigration, government run health care, gun control, expansion of the welfare state, limiting access to energy, etc.

Our conclusion, regardless of the discipline involved:

NO ONE IS MORE CRUEL THAN A LIBERAL!


   
   
         
   
   
Trusted Web Site VeriSign Identity Protection