Evolutionist Discrimination in Public Education.

[jcrawford]

There are currently five categories which the U.S. legally recognizes in which persons may voluntarily identify and classify themselves as, according to their self-evident, self-recognized and self-identified common ancestral racial traits of national and geographic origins. None of these categories are Homo sapiens.

http://atlas.usafa.af.mil/meo/Discri~1.htm

http://www.withylaw.com/distopic.htm

http://www.wvf.state.wv.us/eeo/NO.htm

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/dcr/Basis.htm

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/oeeo/national.htm

As far as the U.S. legal system is concerned, there does not seem to be any legally protected class of persons called Homo sapiens or any ancestral category of persons named Homo erectus from whom Homo sapiens are believed by neo-Darwinists to have descended.

Since it may reasonably be considered to be a violation of their civil rights to have their human ancestors related to, or called, anything other than what the U.S. Government recognizes as legally protected classes of persons, I respectfully submit that teachers and students in U.S. public school systems who publically volunteer to self-identify and self-classify themselves as members of any of the legally recognized and protected classes of persons established by law, may not be involuntarily labeled and classified as Homo sapiens in public schools without their written consent or the written consent of their parents or legal guardians.

Otherwise, if state governments continue to mandate and impose evolutionary neo-Darwinist beliefs and teachings about the human ancestry of the five legitimate racial catagories in which students and teachers have voluntarily chosen to identify and classify themselves as, then public school students and teachers have every right to sue the state for civil rights violations and a redress of racial and ancestral grievances.

[Cathar1950]

If some one said that someone else was not a Homo Sapien they might have a legal problem, No one whould dare say that some one was not.
If you went in a said you were not a Homo Sapien they would look at you funny. Rob they could always say they are a plant, "see my limbs"

[Scrotum]

Since it may reasonably be considered to be a violation of their civil rights to have their human ancestors related to, or called, anything other than what the U.S. Government recognizes as legally protected classes of persons, I respectfully submit that teachers and students in U.S. public school systems who publically volunteer to self-identify and self-classify themselves as members of any of the legally recognized and protected classes of persons established by law, may not be involuntarily labeled and classified as Homo sapiens in public schools without their written consent or the written consent of their parents or legal guardians.

Then I am very happy that i do not have to follow the American Goverments wishes. I (Thankfully) live in a Society that forces me to accept the Truth, rather then what i want to accept. Simple put, they dont are if i dont want to face up to reality, i will still learn it.



Also, If you would not submit to being a Homo Sapien, then you also have to agree to strip yourself from the obligation of being human. You have no longer any rights, and someone else, must then, take care of you, or hold you responsible, and you would ofcourse have ot obey this new master. If you are no longer a Homo Sapien, you no longer have any more rights then any other Animal. So the State, or your legal guardian, decided what to do with you (cage, termination, and so forth).

Of cours,e SUDDENLY, you feel that being Human is "ok", as facing a consequens for your actions would be terrible, would´nt it ?

[Cathar1950]

Scrotum, I think they might need a legal guardian or meds.
At least I got a good laugh.

[jcrawford]

p1 There are racial categories (the number of categories is irrelevant)
p2 None of these categories are Homo sapiens.
c1 It is a violation of civil rights to classify someone as Homo sapiens.

Clearly, this is a fallacious argument. Premise #2 is false, and therefore the argument does not lead to the conclusion implied.

Since none of the enumerated categories and clearly defined and specified racial identities of classes of persons protected by Civil Rights Law are neither recognizable nor recognized in law as some neo-Darwinist 'species,' for obvious reasons, premise #2 is categorically and patently true.

It is obvious that all known races and or artificial categorizations of ethnic groups applies to humans, and since humans, all humans, are by definition homo sapiens, it is fallacious argument to say their civil rights are violated by calling them homo sapiens.

"Artificial categorizations of ethnic groups?" Might not some members of a recognizable and legitimate ethnic or racial group equally claim superficial artifice on the part of neo-Darwinist minorities superimposing their own biological terms, definitions and categorizations of racial ancestry on them?

What next, claim it is a violation of someone's civil rights because they are called a mammal?

No problem there, since all human beings do share mammalian features with all other mammals, but not all human fossils are labeled Homo sapiens.

[jcrawford]

If some one said that someone else was not a Homo Sapien they might have a legal problem, No one whould dare say that some one was not.

Why would I have a legal problem if I publically said that my wife and children are not Homo sapiens but simply persons of color as all of their human ancestors were? There's no law in America requiring anyone to either accept, or be labeled as, Homo sapiens.

If you went in a said you were not a Homo Sapien they would look at you funny. Rob they could always say they are a plant, "see my limbs"

Since 'Homo sapiens' is just another neo-Darwinist label used in separating fossilized human teeth and skulls into different piles of human 'species' for purposes of further evolutionist dehumanization and primate compartmentalization, and no living human beings may be legitimately judged and classifed solely on the basis of the physical characteristics and appearances of their fossilized ancestors in Africa, Asia or Europe, why would any recognized members of non-African racial or ethnic groups in America be looked at "funny" in an American court of law if they simply declared the obvious claim that they were not of African Homo sapiens ancestry, descent or origins?

[Cathar1950]

Not one fossil has ever complained that they have had their civil rights violated. I know of no one who claims they are no a homo-sapien.
Maybe you wife and kids are not homo-sapien( I believe they are at least I hope) if not then that would be beasteality and they are not your kids.

[jcrawford]

Also, If you would not submit to being a Homo Sapien, then you also have to agree to strip yourself from the obligation of being human. You have no longer any rights, and someone else, must then, take care of you, or hold you responsible, and you would ofcourse have ot obey this new master. If you are no longer a Homo Sapien, you no longer have any more rights then any other Animal. So the State, or your legal guardian, decided what to do with you (cage, termination, and so forth).

I can hardly visualize or otherwise imagine some judge in a civil rights case of racial or ethnic discrimination in America pronouncing that sort of prejudiced judgment upon some poor creationist kid whose creationist parents have retained a good creationist lawyer to sue their local state board of education for falsely labeling, calling and identifying their child as neo-Darwinist species of humans whose racial ancestors came from Africa.

Of cours,e SUDDENLY, you feel that being Human is "ok", as facing a consequens for your actions would be terrible, would´nt it ?

Hardly terrible, since asserting one's racial identity and establishing the racial origins of one's family and ancestors in a court of American law may not only be felt to be an act of human liberation, dignity and self-worth, but financially and racially rewarding also.

[jcrawford]

Not one fossil has ever complained that they have had their civil rights violated. I know of no one who claims they are no a homo-sapien.
Maybe you wife and kids are not homo-sapien( I believe they are at least I hope) if not then that would be beasteality and they are not your kids.

You would make an excellent character witness for the defense if not an expert one.

[Grumpy]

John

Since 'Homo sapiens' is just another neo-Darwinist label used in separating fossilized human teeth and skulls into different piles of human 'species' for purposes of further evolutionist dehumanization and primate compartmentalization, and no living human beings may be legitimately judged and classifed solely on the basis of the physical characteristics and appearances of their fossilized ancestors in Africa, Asia or Europe, why would any recognized members of non-African racial or ethnic groups in America be looked at "funny" in an American court of law if they simply declared the obvious claim that they were not of African Homo sapiens ancestry, descent or origins?

Because it would be a racist lie perpetrated by racist bigots, that's why. Your "I'm superior to you because your ancestors were apes and mine weren't" attitude, besides being on the fringe of delusional, is offensive, especially to those who actually have studied the DNA and DO know what they are talking about.

Why would I have a legal problem if I publically said that my wife and children are not Homo sapiens but simply persons of color as all of their human ancestors were? There's no law in America requiring anyone to either accept, or be labeled as, Homo sapiens.

Fine, don't accept it, while your at it don't accept the sun rising in the east, it won't change the truth in either instance as they are both equally certain.

Since none of the enumerated categories and clearly defined and specified racial identities of classes of persons protected by Civil Rights Law are neither recognizable nor recognized in law as some neo-Darwinist 'species,' for obvious reasons, premise #2 is categorically and patently true.

Ha,ha ,ho ho, haa, that's funny, but offensive. There is but one species of man and no races in evolutionary terms alive today, these are facts and the law can not change that, nor can you.

No problem there, since all human beings do share mammalian features with all other mammals, but not all human fossils are labeled Homo sapiens.

That is because not all human ancestor were Homo Sapiens. We share traits with all other mammals because we shared a common ancestor with all mammals in the past.

Grumpy 8)

[jcrawford]

John

Ha,ha ,ho ho, haa, that's funny, but offensive. There is but one species of man and no races in evolutionary terms alive today, these are facts and the law can not change that, nor can you.

Grumpy 8)

I fail to see the humor or offense in my statement. Your argument for human evolution has become strangely ad hominem and unscientific when you utterly fail to see, recognize or theorize the absolute necessity of racial evolution within a human species in order for any small isolated population within it to further evolve and become physically diversified enough from the rest of the 'species' to eventually emerge and become a qualified candidate for neo-Darwinist consideration as another human species. In neo-Darwinist theory, the whole population of a species doesn't evolve into a new species. Only the few humans which successfully mate and mutate genetically and by 'natural and sexual selection' adapt to their new isolated niche in an environment may be scientifically classified as a sub-set of their species, a subspecies within the species or racial group within the species, until whatever time it, they or their racial descendents further evolve into an entirely new neo-Darwinist species of human beings.

Remember, without a good theory of human evolution to explain all human evolution out of Africa, no human evolution may have occurred at all in Africa.