This article is a pitiful display of ignorance. It is most
often the physicists who are the vocal atheistic minority among the scientific
community, for physics is perhaps the branch of the physical sciences with the
most amount of assumptions behind it and the one with the least opportunity for
hard experimentation, because of its great expense. It is also these few
scientists who are the most difficult to give up on an idea, they have built
their careers upon; even though, they are often dead wrong. Of course,
there is no way to do the experiment because of the high cost or impossible
circumstance. The high-energy physics experiment of late is the
best example in the search for the “God” particle. I do not remember the
details, but the outcome was very clear. There were two opposing camps of
high-energy physicists with each theory predicting the energy of the “God”
particle. After much hailed experimentation, cost, and public attention,
the energy of the particle was determined, and low-and-behold, its energy did
not support either of two major theories (or any other theory for that
matter). It was an energy altogether different than predicted. I
remember a Nobel prize-winning scientist speaking to commentators saying his
entire life’s work was for nothing, and that he did not know what to do but
retire and go fishing. No physicists had any idea why they were all
wrong. The point is that atheism is a religion in-and-of-itself,
and those who believe in it try to hide behind a science that cannot be tested
easily with tenacious ignorance, and not accept any other idea but their own.
There are false assumptions throughout the article; the most
obvious is that we live in a secular society. Well, if that is true, then
why do 90% of people in surveys in the U.S. say the believe in a God?
The fact is one does not live in a secular society; unless the culture
has been made that way by atheistic socialist doctrine. Religion is
historically an integral part of all cultures. Only by socialist
governments in modern times has religion been removed, degraded, or presumed to
Another false assumption is that the universe is in chaos.
All evidence today is that the universe is remarkably “fine tuned” in a manner
that could not have possible by random occurrences. This is
indisputable! The author, in his ignorance, holds onto the random-chaos
theory, which has been demonstrated otherwise. Why does he do this?
Because he has no other answer, and it trashes all his theories. Every
atheist has a God; it is himself. He will defend that God at all costs.
The only problem that is “self-evident”, is that the framers of the
Constitution failed to define religion. Since the only thing that existed
in their domain at the time was Judeo-Christian, they thought it was
“self-evident” that any religion to be concerned about in their domain was
simply a difference of interpretation within the framework of the Judeo-Christian
ethic. They had no idea of how the world was going to change in the two
hundred years. The concept of an acceptable “religion” needs to be
defined. It goes without saying, that any theocratic governance that
might “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws” (Amendment XIV, Section 1.) is not a “religion” under
the Constitution; so it is absurd to suggest that such would be protected by
the Constitution as a “religion”.
The other problem is that Amendment XIV precedes the statement
above with “…nor shall any State…”, meaning that States have the right under
the Constitution to enact laws that are not covered by Congress enacting
others, and that the Supreme Court does not have any right
under the Constitution to create new law by review or judgment. It is
only by repeating this false assumption over and over again and manipulating
the court system to act as if the Supreme Court had the authority to make law
by redefining the scope of a statement in the Constitution that liberals say
the Supreme Court has this power, when in fact it does not.
I normally express my opinion in letters to my congressman in the
form of hypothetical Constitutional Amendments, and limiting the power to the
Supreme Court was one of them.
Reminds me about what the left and right don't get about mental illness. The left's passion is to protect the civil rights of the mentally disturbed --- so they can die with their rights intact. The right's passion is to get the mentally disturbed and their families to take responsibility for their actions, question whether mental disturbance is a myth, and put the psychiatrically disturbed in prison, not hospitals. Both the left and right have contributed to the closing of psychiatric hospitals leading to the tragedy of homelessness.