Competing RICOH type conspiracies

People are accustomed to hearing about lone terrorists demanding that some rambling Manifesto be read to the public. In this case, I want to bring to light a Manifesto that is not rambling at all, but rather maintained by an active group of people worldwide. It concerns me because we see fewer and fewer people in positions of authority who would claim to be anything but a Humanist, philosophically, but may not be fully appraised of what exactly it is with which they associate themselves. I believe that the Humanist Manifesto is actually important, as was that of Karl Marx. Not only so, but all our elected leaders are backed by a degree certified by a Humanist institution. With the exception of some religious schools (and certainly not all of them,) every University in the United States is considered a Humanist institution, and it is from these that our leaders receive their academic accolades. I do not think that there is a President in the country, of an academic institution, that does not claim personally to be a humanist of some description. Those academic institutions that do not espouse Humanism are not taken seriously. This is important because it changes the dynamics of the competition in government between the Christians and Atheists. The Atheist looks at the Executive and the Legislative Branches and throws up his hands at the "total injustice" that none of these are atheist. Few members of the Judicial Branch are atheist either. Since atheism is so slightly represented, atheists feel genuinely oppressed, and seek their Governmental solutions in the courts. What is not understood is that none of these "oppressors" is a Fundamentalist Christian at all, but rather each sees each himself as secularly a Humanist, and religiously a Christian which Christian beliefs it would abhor him to force on any other. As a Christian, I look at a Government monopolized by Humanists, and ask who represents ME? Commonly the response is that a Christian Humanist represents me. I believe that the term Christian Humanist corrupts the definition of both Christian and Humanist. Humanist is one who worships and serves the creature more than the creator OR a non-theist who espouses the Humanist Manifestos. The Christian is one who believes in God and separation of church and state. Humanism claims in manifesto 2000 to be from India and China in its bid for historicity. As such, it cannot bid to be totally humanitarian - the Chinese and the Indians are not known for their human rights. A Humanitarian who believes in God hardly can be expected to espouse the Humanist Manifestos as written. Up to this point it sounds like a matter of semantics. Despite that appearance, I can show that Humanism has an advancing atheist agenda that has been marching forward without reverse since the Scopes Monkey Trial. It used to be illegal to teach Evolution in the classroom. Now it is illegal to teach Creation in the classroom. We have learned over the years that this is a matter of the Separation of Church and State, and must be upheld because of the Catholic Church's centuries old precedent of taking over government. It is hypocritical then to lift the following phrase from the Humanist Manifesto I, Article 7: The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained. This is taken not from some religious credo, or a Church Mission Statement. It is lifted straight from the pages of a "Non-theist" manifesto. This 1933 statement is disturbingly soon after the 1925 Scopes Trial. The Manifestos are published by the American Humanist Association, where I learned the word "non-theist." Their web address is: http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.htmlHowever, this is not the only victory that Humanism can claim. In their 1973 Manifesto, written by Paul Kurtz, they advocate The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. Although this did not represent 1973 popular culture, thanks to diligent effort in Hollywood they are now in the Humanist success column. I should acknowledge here that there is actually one legislator who has "come out" as a non-theist. The Congressman Pete Stark represents California's 13th district, and was for a time linked to the AHA web site. This represents proof by exception that an Atheist CAN get elected. President Bush, for example is championed as a Christian legislator. As such, I expect I will endure continued prejudice from my Atheist friends about the untrammeled power of Church over State. I do not know what a single person can do, but if "Many independent countries have sought to implement these provisions within their own national borders" it may be important that we acknowledge any Humanist connection overseas. The only concrete solution that I in my person know how to suggest is to make a movie about the 1933 birth of this Society. Hollywood perennially makes movies about secret societies. Examples include Pirates of Silicon Valley (Microsoft,) National Treasure (The Masons,) The Good Shepherd (Skull and Bones; CIA,) The Art of War; The Interpreter (the U.N.) The Book of John, The Passion, The Da Vinci Code (The Catholic Church,) to name but a few. RICOH defines Conspiracy as "Acting in Furtherance." As such, the theist sees Atheism "acting in furtherance" of goals he does not espouse, while the Atheist see Christianity "acting in furtherance" of goals he does not espouse. What is unfortunate is that it is the HUMANIST who in his zeal to say that the sacred does not exist, has jammed Church and Sate together with then statement "We can no longer maintain a differnece between the sacred and the secular." To them sacred applies mainly to cows. In conclusion I would like to observe what you will know too, after you read the relevant Manifestos: The Democrats have the Ethics Agenda of the Humanists (Homosexual marriage, right to die, euthanasia,) and the Republicans their Foreign Policy Agenda (Manifesto 2000, Article 9.) Humanism cannot lose an election at this time.