Contradicting government agencies

 

In our public schools the educational powers-that-be decided a long time ago that the foundational premise of the origin of human beings is evolution.  It means the survival of the fittest; only those who adapt and remain the strongest will survive.  By contrast the educational powers-that-be decided morality as presented in the Bible should be eliminated from the public educational process.  Consequently the Bible with its morality teachings were replaced with evolution that maintains only the strong will ultimately survive as they continue to evolve into a super human race.  For this government educational system taxpayers pay multiple billions of dollars each year for mandated public education.

 

In 1964 then President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty.  Those who were the poorest among society were told the government would take care of them and help them to work their way out of poverty and become stronger, more self-reliant people.  We spend a trillion dollars a year helping the poor and trying to eliminate poverty.  It has been almost 50 years since that war on poverty was declared and we are still fighting it.  Politicians tell us today that poverty is still with us, people are not any stronger or more self-reliant.  In fact in the last 50 years since President Johnson declared the war the cost of eliminating poverty in the United States has increased each year and it doesn't appear the war has any end in sight.

 

I have a question:  If every person in the United States is required to adhere to an educational academic curriculum that excludes the morality teachings of the Bible, and be taught instead the humanistic, secular, evolutionary teachings of the survival of the fittest, is it possible the Department of Education is in direct opposition to all governmental departments that focus on welfare and strengthening the human condition?  When the government confiscates money from individuals through taxing and redistributes that money to "the poor" is that government arm not saying in effect, "We do not believe in the message of evolution that is being taught in our public schools, and will do everything in our power to avert the concept of 'the survival of the fittest.'"

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea for government to at least look at the goals and outcomes of their efforts on which money is being spent.  If there are confounding or totally contradicting conclusions coming from different governmental agencies, it seems we are only spinning in place flaming ourselves into destruction.

 

Perhaps there is a more sinister side to this practice.  If each adult is subject to learning the fate of the survival of the fittest as they are required from children to young adult to sit in classrooms and lecture halls hearing the rationale for evolution and at the same time be categorized into a classification of social status that relegates the need for governmental dependency through distribution of minimal subsistence, does that not create a double-edged dependency tool that keeps the less fit in a situation of barely surviving?  From that perspective the "fittest" become those whose task becomes the "distributors" of the goods and the creators of the policies to maintain the educational system to convince every person their evolution to humanness is only a process and their place can only be assured by their continued support of the distribution efforts of the "fittest" among them.

 

Jim Killebrew