Franklin Graham didn't even write it or say it, some racist whack job just posted it on the internet.
What a Country! Our history is littered with ridiculous overstatements and absurdities, like the above, utter garbage, attributed, possibly incorrectly, to Franklin Graham. Here's another fine example of ridiculous overstatement and reactionary, trash spewing by James Tabor, said in the debate over Social Security in the 1930s: ...never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and to prevent any possibility of employers providing work for people." -- James Tabor, U.S. House, Republican Representative from NY. Nowadays, of course, Social Security is widely recognized as the single most important contributor to lower poverty rates among the elderly, at the same time having none of the dire consequences ascribed to it by Tabor.
Secular Humanism is a religion. And the left works overtime every day to maintain that as the state religion.
I think he laments that white christian immigrants are no longer treated as Gods but now as normal human beings who have to share the earth with not only the people they killed and enslaved to settle the land but all those who came right after them in the same manner.
This is my favorite part haha: The second term ofBarack Obama has been the final nail in the coffin for the legacy ofthe white Christian males who discovered, explored, pioneered, settledand developed the greatest republic in the history of mankind. Discovered - land was already there and inhabited. The motiviation was all about $$$$ Explored - ok Pioneered - moved off indigineous people and farmed and fished with assistance from the Natives Settled - occupied Developed - for the most part but most of those white Chrsitians never farmed or worked the land for the money crops or thought that anyone but White Christian Males were entitled to prosperity. As though White Christian were responsible for gunpowder, navigation and writing haha
It is not. It lacks an essential component of all religions, i.e., a belief in, or the reliance on, the transcendent. If you define religion so broadly as to include secular humanism, then the definition becomes useless. No doubt you will claim, as others have, that Courts have ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion. If so, it is certainly not in Davis v. Beason. My guess is that such a ruling does not exist, and the closest you will come to it is in a court finding similarities between secular humanism and religion. Why not quote a court case where it has been decided that secular humanism is a religion. We know you want to.
You can argue whether secular humanism or atheism are religions but clearly they are religious views even if not organized religions. If it helps if I say that the progressives and lefty governments are supporting a particular religious view rather than a religion then that is fine. You cite Davis v. Beason to make your point? Please, we know that your kneejerk response to everthing is to google up something. Might want to try again, or even cite Canadian law as you often do.