|
Humani The Humanist Association of Northern Ireland |
|
 |
Current Topics : Should children of
Humanists participate in RE at school?
ContributionsInterested in Humanism with reservations Evolution debated Officially leaving the Roman Catholic Church Hi all from Ontario Canada Offended by website : 12 myths of Christmas Hello from Saskatoon We invite letters and comments on Humanist issues. If you are have something you want to say, e-mail us and we will publish your letter. Feel free to disagree with us, we invite rational debate, but please keep it polite! Should children of Humanists participate in RE at school? Hi, I'm writing to you having done a lot of research into schools for my daughter who is due to start next year. As atheists, we wish to have her opted out of RE but are encountering a lot of opposition from schools, which all tell us it is virtually impossible given the curriculum in Northern Ireland. As somebody who grew up in America, this is particularly frustrating! I know that schools have their hands tied due to the law, but was wondering if you know of any schools in the Belfast area who are a bit more flexible in their approach and willing to work with parents. I'm beginning to feel as if I'm being forced into Home Education, which would not be my preferred option. Any help or guidance you could give me would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Teresa Reply 1 Hi all, The situation is quite simple: a parent has the right to withdraw their child from RE and from morning assembly and the school has to find an alternative for the child at these times. There are no ifs and buts and the school cannot deny this right or make excuses about problems with alternatives. This is the law! Brian Reply 2 Teresa, The best bet for atheist parents would be an Integrated School, see http://www.nicie.org/schools/ for a list of schools in Northern Ireland. Integrated Schools by law have to offer religion classes, but may also offer 'Social and Moral Issues' classes as an alternative, and are understanding of an atheist perspective. If a place is not available in an Intergrated School, one option is to approach your local school and explain you want the child excused from religion classes. A second option is that the child attends RE but their lack of religious belief is respected. By law they have to accommodate you. If you really want to stick to your guns you can insist that supervision for the child be provided out of the classroom. If however you are prepared to let the child sit quietly in the back of the religion class getting on with homework, the school often welcomes this as it means they do not have to find a spare member of staff to separately supervise the child. This was the solution I went for and found the school very accommodating. The weekly assembly can sometimes involve paryers and hymns. My child attended assembly to avoid the risk of missing important announcements and sense of school spirit. Good luck with your quest to find a school! Best wishes, Nuala Reply 3
Uhhmm... I have full respect for Teresa's position, but I
just wonder if this is the right road to go down. Given the culture we
find ourselves in; and what is likely to be in the ultimate best
interests for her daughter. a) Even in USA children are surely
mostly going to be exposed to religious ideas & themes @ school,
despite the laudable secularity which the Constitution supposedly
bestows & advocates; b) children (ie, all of us) are
rebellious, & one envisages perhaps years being wasted by the child
in a reactive embracing of religion, the very thing from which their
?wise & well-meaning parents sought to woo them; c)
religion, & those who might seek to evangelise &
promulgate it, is a fixed & inevitable part of our society &
culture, so why seek to shield children from it? Like microbes, to
which a resistance might be built, but only if initial (the sooner the
better) exposure is allowed, even encouraged. What a distorted
awareness, that no knowledge & experience of religion &
religious ideas in culture might create. d) Surely any 'correction', as
to more open-minded attitudes, & gentle critique of religion, can
be relied-upon to be provided from the parental home, as required?
Just a few thoughts. grateful for comments/critique
best regards, Noel Scott
Interested in Humanism with reservationsReply 4 Must say, I tend to agree with your sentiments on this one Noel. I don’t think it does children much harm to be exposed to religion and religious teaching in schools provided they also get to hear about a variety of cultural/religious norms present throughout the world - and lack of faith. I think the problem is that religious teaching still has a tendency here towards one of the monotheistic traditions (here Prod/Catholic) or, in GB, Christianity or Islam. I’m not sure that, as Humanists, we should try to deny Children all religious teaching although we should lobby for the teaching of religious awareness rather than doctrinal/liturgical preparation posing as religious teaching – which is my problem with the so-called integrated school movement and, of course, faith schools. Jeffrey Peel Reply 5 Having studied, not too long ago, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism in a module entitled World Religions I can certainly endorse that children do learn about beliefs that have shaped the world we live in. However, I feel that what happens here and probably most of the UK is that religion is taught as being relevant to the modern day and which I of course would disagree entirely for the authenticity and veracity of its' texts have long been called into question. Religion ignores this and will evade any criticism of it even if this leads to persecution and violence whilst at the same time declaring that it is the custodian of morality. It is my belief that religion should be taught but in a different way to which it is at present, for example, it could be studied within Philosophy or perhaps Biology as part of an evolutionary heritage. As an aside the RE Review that the Association responded to along with the BHG is still awaiting publication. Apparently the Review is ready for publication as dictated by the representatives of the 4 main denominations (even though those claiming No Religion in the latest Statistics are the 3rd largest 'grouping), the Review will of course ignore all those petitions made by opponents of the Review, and there were many, and will ultimately fall in behind the Bishops wishes. My own daughter was the only child in her class to get an A* in RE and delighted in telling her friends that that wasn't bad for an Atheist. Chris Copsey Reply 6 Hi folks – a fascinating subject! My own experience initially was similar to Teresa’s – Bertie and I are atheists, which was no problem at all at the beginning but when we found ourselves in the position of parents we had to think seriously about RE – which is why we joined the Humanist Association. In the end we decided to let our daughter go for the standard school experience and just deal with her questions as they arose. 12 years later I have no regrets at all about letting matters take their natural course. Kendra never opted out, stating that she did not want to be ‘different’. In fact she is now studying ‘A’ level RS, having also achieved A* and top of class at GCSE. Her intended career course may involve psychology and she feels that studying religious matters gives her an insight into people’s behavior and needs. Logical! Today we attended a Parent-Teacher Consultation, and were told that she is well ahead of her fellow pupils. Maybe atheist kids have an advantage! Dee McCullough Reply 7 Interesting discussion As a parent of two well-balanced boys (yr 8 and yr 10) I just love discussing this issue. They both attend Slemish Integrated School in Ballymena which has a strong religious, even christian ethos (eg the induction form asks for "christian names" ! ). The teachers reflect a broad cross section of views - from the fundamentalist to the couldn't-care-less. Probably the same for the parents. Only one family in yr 10 has "opted out" of RE and this is generally accepted (though their new yr 10 RE teacher "forced" him to participate the first week as she wasnt aware of the "opt out" right - the headmaster quietly put her straight. The rest of the kids just laughed at the teacher. Humour is the best antidote to hubris. My kids have always treated the Bible in the same way as the Greek Myths ie allegorical, vivid images (or silly stories, depending on their mood). I haven't been concerned when they are asked by the school to read in Church or lead prayer in assembly. I see that as good experience for public speaking. My eldest son now wants to opt out - basically because he feels the subject is useless. There is certainly none of the comparative religion I was taught - they stick ridgidly to the Nat Curriculum ie Yr 8 and 9 Start with Abraham, work through Moses etc , Yr 10 Jesus and Acts of the Apostles etc. One of the teachers did admit she was an atheist and he told her about Humanism and she was quite interested, but it didn't change what he was taught. His view of the uselessness of RE has challenged me to think more about it. I have never been anti-RE, seeing it , like Earth in HGTTG, as Mostly Harmless. However, I would prefer that he keeps it up to the end of this compulsory year as I do believe that for a rounded western cultural education you need to have read thoroughly, Shakespeare, Homer and The Bible. How else would you make sense of 'Ulysses' ? Am I too laid back about this? Iain Reply 8 Just thought that a link to the Campaign for Secular Education might be useful in the debate on Education. Chris I have been interested in Humanism for some time. However, I see that there is a number of stumbling blocks for me in getting further involved in it. These are as follows 1. I am totally against abortion. I read the article on abortion in your site and see that it is full of contradictions. Is there room for people like me in Humanism. 2. Your life mentions "quality of life". What does that mean? Does it mean having a sort of happy, carefree life all the "nice things" like, garden, good food, happy holidays and not having to battle with the rush hour. These things are important to many of us, but there are other things which are more important, such as honesty, justice and fairness. People are willing to stand up for these principles and sacrifice a lot for them and "qualtity of life" would come very low down in the agenda in that case. 3. I am very sceptical of a religion or philosphy which puts down another religion or philosphy, like in the 12 myths of Christmas article in this site. It is like one tradesman or professional puting down another tradesman or professional. It is seen as being nasty and small-minded behaviour no matter if you are a plumber or doctor. Despite these queries or critism, I am very interested in Humanism. Best wishes, John Reply 1 Hello John, You raise some interesting points. A. Abortion Being a humanist certainly does not mean you have to be in favour of abortion. I would imagine that a broad range of opinions is held on the matter by our members. Humanism does not involve a set of doctrines you have to 'sign-up' for. The one belief we have in common is that we do not believe in a God. After that we each find our way through the major life issues as best we can, making up our own minds as dictated by conscience and concern for the world we live in. The views of other humanists always provide interesting perspectives and sounding boards, but we certainly don't always agree about about everything (as witnessed by our lively debates). B.12 Myths of Christmas Some members are interested in pointing out the inconsistencies and shortcomings of world religions. Personally this holds no interest for me and I never read these articles. (Though I accept that such articles may be of help to folk who are wavering about religion.) I decided at school that Christianity was a load of nonsense and have had no interest in religion since. The way I see it, too much attention has already been given to what Jesus or Mohammed said a long time ago. It is time to move on. If you live in the region why not come along to one of our meetings and share your views. The Carlingford summer school is good fun and would give a good idea of the spectrum of opinion in the group. Best wishes, Nuala Evolution debated Greetings, There is a common misconception concerning evolution which continues to be perpetuated. For example, recently ( in November of '04 ) articles had appeared in major U.S. newspapers in which journalists interpreted and claimed that according to research running may have contributed to the evolution of man. The simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise. Any exercises that are performed do not affect the genes. Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment simply cannot be passed on to offspring ( i.e. a woman who loses her finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger; changing the color or texture of your hair will not affect the hair color or texture of your descendants, and etc. ). Thus, even if an ape ever did learn to walk and run upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes which occur in the genes of reproductive cells ( i.e. sperm and egg ) can be passed on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology. Furthermore, there are genetic limits to biological change and variation in nature. All biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless nature can perform genetic engineering so as to increase the genetic information potential in species. It is true that natural selection occurs in nature, but natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only select from biological variations which are possible. The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will provide the new and progressive biological variations for natural selection to act upon. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering. However, the nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidents in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation. Mutations have been found to be almost always harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for the species. Most biological variations occur as a result of new combinations of previously existing genes - not because of mutations which are rare in nature. Furthermore, mutations simply produce new variations of already existing traits. They do not produce entirely new traits or characteristics. It is not rational to believe that the gradual accumulation of random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce more complex species anymore than it is rational to believe that the random changes caused by earthquakes will produce increasingly more complex buildings. Furthermore, a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed via random mutations would be a biological hindrance, obstruction, and liability - not exactly a suitable candidate for natural selection assuming, of course, that random mutations could ever get an organ to the half-evolved stage.How could species have survived over supposedly millions of years while their vital organs were still evolving? Given that nature has no true ability to perform genetic engineering, it is more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than a common evolutionary ancestry.Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or evolution. The issue is which faith, evolution or creation, has better scientific support.The simple fact is that nature can only work with the already given genetic potential in species and no more. Before any tissue, organ, or biological structure can ever develop there must first exist the prerequisite genetic information and potential. Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair. Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendents with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes. All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring. There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject and I cover various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, mutations, the origin of life, embryology, comparative anatomy/physiology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater depth in my essay The Natural Limits of Evolution on my website: www.religionscience.com; I explain why the scientific evidence better supports creation than evolution. In my essay, I even discuss the possibility of any life on Mars having originated from Earth due to the great geological disturbances in the Earth's past which could have easily spewed rocks and dirt containing microbes into space.It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue. As a religion and science writer I have had the privilege of being recognized in Marquis Who's Who In The East. I have also given lectures and seminars before science faculty and students at various secular college and university campuses on the creation/evolution issue. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Babu G. Ranganathan ( B.A. Theology/Biology) www.religionscience.com Reply 1 Dear Babu, Thank you for your email which you entitled "common misconceptions about evolution continues to be taught". I do agree that journalist sometimes misinterpret science. This is probably due to one of two things. Either the scientists are not good at presenting their theories to a wider audience or the journalists have not received a good enough education in the sciences. Most of the rest of your article however I found to be misleading and unscientific. A scientist would never used the word fact when talking about a theory as you have. You would appear to be claiming that evolution only works within species and that the first parents of these species possessed genes which contained all the variety we see today. This is a ridiculous thing to say. Your claim of a common Designer is no explanation at all as we are given no idea as to how this designer came into being. Explaining the complexity of life on Earth by claiming a designer (god) only increases the complexity and answers nothing at all. For an insight as to how organs like the eye may have evolved slowly over time try reading "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Professor Richard Dawkins. As he puts it half an eye is twice as good as a quarter of an eye. The function of such part eyes of course were not the same as the modern eye but even a simple light detector may have been an advantage to its possessor. It would appear to me that you are looking of what Daniel Dennet called Sky Hooks instead of finding the small cranes which build from the bottom up. The theory of evolution by natural selection is indeed a complex and mind boggling idea but the idea of a designer is unbelievable without what the religious call faith. The word faith literally means " belief without reason" and I for one am not prepared to abandon reason. Your form of trying to mix science and religion is of no benefit to either and should not be taught in our education system here in Europe or anywhere else. Yours sincerely, Kevin Kerr. Reply 2 Babu I think misunderstands natural selection. Running contributed to the evolution of man in the sense that at certain times and places man's forbears found themselves sharing the same food sources as predators who could overwhelm them, & from whom they then had to run away. So those who could run fast enough survived, and lived to feed, fight, and breed another day. The slow guys got eaten, thus 'slow' genes were not passed-on, only 'fast' ones. Note that the slow guys might have been wiser & better in a whole range of ways. They might have been in a large majority, the leaders, etc. The fast ones might have been regarded as freakish, eccentric, maybe to be demonised. The point is that nobody knew what lay ahead, ie that utopian 'slow' existence would one day be devastated by the unexpected appearance of the fast predators. But, hey, in a generation or 2 only the fast guys exist. And they have time to work out a way to overcome the fast predators; scare them off, kill them, or domesticate them, whatever. This kind of thing probably occurred on such a regular basis over time and place that 'fast' genes proliferated, and 'slow' ones died-out. So man became a natural runner. Hey folks, that's evolution! ie, natural selection. Noel Scott Reply 3 He should read Richard Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker” which wonderfully disproves these types of ridiculous creationist notions (and the super-weird creationist/evolution hybrid arguments). Dawkins new book, The Ancestor’s Tale, probably does it even better but I have only just bought it and haven’t read it yet but the chap should read it anyway. It’ll be good for him. Jeffrey Peel Officially leaving the Roman Catholic Church Dear Kevin, I came across your association's website today, and I was wondering if you or anyone in your association may have a similar experience to me, and would be able to help me. I was brought up a Catholic in the Republic of Ireland. I do not identify with the organisation or its teachings and am quite desperate to leave the Church officially (I have been baptised and confirmed). Obviously, the Church does not have an 'unsubscribe' web page! I am having great trouble in finding out how to go about having myself excommunicated (if that is the correct term). If you have any relevant information, I would very much appreciate your assistance. Many thanks and best wishes, Sorcha Ní Chonnachtaigh Reply 1 That's an interesting one.
Personally I would proclaim it in my local paper however I am aware of
a website for those who have left Islam so one for Catholics may
not be a bad idea. Perhaps we should create one for all religions and
have a public launching of it. I'm one of Nuala's 'proddies' who
had a Bishop lay his hands on me (does that constitute assault?) anyhow
the notion that I should actually ask permission or be granted a
'divorce' from the Church never crossed my mind. It would appear that
Sorcha still has some issues that need resolving or she does indeed
wish to make a public statement. Perhaps it would be better if she
spoke to Humanists such as Nuala or Anne from Newry who have also been
through the same or similar experience. As an aside the Mormons have of
course been adopting us all, by computer (dead or alive), into
their faith for years.
Chris
Reply 2 Excellent. I think legally, however, that the act of confirmation happens to most Catholics when they are minors. Therefore she has not entered into a contractual arrangement with the church (logic dictates that she was also a minor when baptized). Therefore, de facto, no Catholics or C of I proddies (who have been confirmed) for that matter are really members of their churches so they don't need to resign from them. Also she presumably hasn't signed anything. However, perhaps the Association should offer a web page to people who wish to publicly proclaim their resignations from various churches. Solidarity et al. Jeff Peel Reply 3 Sorcha, I have looked this up and the good news is that as far as I can make out, you, and all disbelieving ex-catholics, have already incurred an automatic (Latae Sententiae) ex-communication under RC Cannon Law. Ther are 9 specific offenses which bring automatic ex-communiation, including 3 of relevance: Apostasy- Willfully rejecting the truth, e.g. becoming an atheist. Heresy- Holding beliefs contrary to Church Teaching, e.g. Arians. Schism- Separating from the Church, e.g. the Latin Mass SSPX So Sorcha, I reckon that you and I have both incurred automatic ex-communication on grounds of apostasy, heresy and possibly schism. I doubt whether you will ever get the RC church to officially recognise your disaffection. There has never been a case where John Paul II has excommunicated anyone directly, by tribunal or Ferendae Sentiatiae, but he has issued or approved notices that certain individuals, including rebel clerics such as Lefebvre, have themselves incurred Latae Sententiae excommunication by their actions. But, all these interesting technicalities of cannon law aside, what I am really interested in is WHY you feel the need for the RC church to officially recognise your leaving. Are they really worth that much attention? Are the mechanisms of ex-communication really relevant to your personal decision not to be a Catholic? Would any bitterness you feel be relieved by them saying 'you are not fit to be in our church anyway', which is what ex-communication amounts to. Ex-communication is leaving under their rules and on their say-so. Personally I feel they have already had more than enough influence on my upbringing already without allowing them the opportunity to exercise this further power. I think that leading a good, fulfilled, unselfish life as a proclaimed Humanist is the best way of showing the Roman Catholic Church that their dogmas and doctrines are irrelevant and unnecessary to our lives. Best Humanist wishes,Nuala Reply 4 Dear Nuala, Thanks for all your help. When I first contacted your organisation I used the word excommunication somewhat inappropriately. This is largely due to the fact that I could not find the right word! Basically, it's like this for me: I want to be taken off any register they have because I feel that the Church often invokes the idea that its values are representive of the majority of the population in order to wield power politically (on issues such as abortion etc), if every person that had been baptised but no longer affiliated themselves with the Church were to be statistically removed from the books (as it were), then this cultural power would be largely weakened. I feel very strongly that the Church has dominated cultural / social life in the island of Ireland for far too long. For example, I work in the area of bioethics - in Ireland (unlike most other countries) this is often perceived as synonymous with religious faith. Many public fora concerning bioethical issues are between scientists and bishops/priests!! It is still very much the case that the Church has a monopoly on morality in the public sphere. I guess, because I come up against this everyday in my research it is frustrating me. I agree with you that it is best to live your life the way you see fit and 'to hell' with the RC Church (if you'll pardon the pun), and for the most part that is indeed what I do. However, I am still dealing with my family's reaction to my atheism. This can be difficult. My grandmother continues to pray for me - I don't have a problem with this (although I do feel it is a waste of her time, she can spend her time any way she chooses), but I find it to be a form of emotional bullying that she tells me that she's praying for me every time she sees me!! She is wearing a full length black dress to my wedding in April (honestly). Practically speaking it can be very difficult for me to live my life as an atheist. So it is not that I want the Church to 'allow' me to leave (I have made my decision and they have no control over it) but that I no longer want them to count me amongst their number - something which they are still doing. Even though the Church hasn't the power it once had, I feel it still has too much and I don't want to be a part of it. Perhaps it isn't as big a deal as I think it is... Sometimes I can be a little too serious about it! Many thanks again, you have been very generous with your time. Sorcha Reply 5 Ah I see. I agree the RC church has still too much influence, though nothing compared to what it was in the 1960's when I was at school. I don't think the RC church keeps a register of members as such, though they do monitor attendance at Mass which continues to decline. I am glad to hear there is someone putting our point of view across in the bioethical field. Good luck with the wedding and turn a blind ear to all the emotional blackmail, I have been there with that as well. Best wishes, Nuala Hi all from Ontario Canada: I don't have a problem with anyone believing what they wish; I'm just not impressed with those that think that their belief somehow gives then the right to physically impose their values on someone else. I guess my biggest problem is what people are basing their belief on. If someone worships a tree because of its amazing qualities, then I could see something like that. The tree is life giving, it provides building materials and nutrients to the soil while it decays etc, etc. But when someone believes something because he/she "just believes" kills me. If some fella walked down the street talking about the amazing healing powers of his French poodle, we'd probably thing this fella was a quack. When someone walks down the street talking about being saved by jesus or mohammed, or that the end is near - we've benn brainwashed listen to this nonsense for some reason. I realize that the universe is a very complicated system and that man is talking its baby steps toward understanding it, just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we need to replace the void with some omnipotent force (god) idea or intelligent design (gag) "theory". I turned away from the notion of the god myth long ago - based on the "lack of evidence" to support his existence. I found religion so repressive and nonsensical, I felt intellectually insulted. Anyhow, I study religion (for academic purposes) and enjoy my existence with my wonderful wife without the belief in a "higher power". P.S. Your site is sorely needed Fernando Falcao (Mill Worker) Reply 1 Reply 2 You
comment of the USA is quite right. Many of us here are afraid of
this neo-con administration with their high ideals freedom, democracy
and liberty. Poppycock, as the English say. John
Adams (the second President of the United States), Adams signed the
Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states: "The government of the United States is
not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Yeah,
whatever. Pretty
funny and sad at the same time. Thanks
for the reply. In the name of reason, Fernando M. Falcao Offended
by website : 12 myths of Christmas
Yours, G Eales (Rev'd)I believe everyone has a right to there own beliefs, but why does it have to be so damning, scornful, and downright unpleasant? Your website is only my second encounter with anything to do with humanism and both have been unpleasant. Reply 1 Dear Mr. Eales,
Thank you for your response after having visited our web site. I'm
sorry if you found some of material unpleasant. I wonder if you read
all the material on the site or only those which were obviously going
to conflict with your own beliefs e.g. The 12 myths of Christmas.
Some other articles show the
more positive side to Humanism, regarding respect for life and nature,
helping the weak and needy, respect for values and supporting worthy
causes etc.
It is my opinion that
some of the values and moral codes held by Humanists are shared by
those of the religious, however we do feel the need to respond to the
claims of miracles and the superstitions held by religions.
I hope some day that
theists and non thiests can find a way to work together for the
betterment of mankind and the planet we live on before it's to late to
save either.
Hello
from Saskatoon |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
