Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe

Friday, October 07, 2011

The Positions of the ACLU Must Change

The American Civil Liberties Union takes positions that have become out-dated as a result of my recent finding of the true active God.  According to the  Wikipedia free encyclopedia (click),  the ACLU supports the following three positions of interest to this blog: (1) religious liberty, (2) separation of Church and State, and (3) opposes prayers, religious ceremonies, and some kinds of 'moments of silence' in public schools or schools funded with public money.

In the Preamble, the Constitution says that the  USA is a nation that forms continually a more perfect Union. The perfection of the Union, by the People and its government, is accelerating after the true active God was found.  Because of this finding about God, the Union can become known as  'a nation under one true and active God.'  So, just as the true God was found, the People and its government can now focus on finding the 'one religion' that expresses the one true God.

Since the true God was found only in 2006, the ACLU position on the 'separation of Church and State' has become out-dated and is now an unlawful position. But the true God also affects the position of ACLU's religious liberty because the true God is both absolute maximum and absolute minimum.  Thus, religious liberties must be limited by laws.  Some of these laws must be found in God's Intelligent Design and in the real experiences in the lives of humans.

Since the true God is active, some form of communications must exist between God and man. However, we still have no knowledge of this  communication.  So, the opposition of 'prayers' and 'moments of silence' cannot be a position supported by the ACLU, the People, and the government of the People.

Interest: (click)


  • At 2:01 PM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    A person has to find God themselves, it is a very personal, emotional and spiritual discovery. People are not going to take your word for it and change their belief system because George Shollenberger said so.
    Also Jefferson's letter was to a minister saying the wall needed to be there to protact the churches from the government not the other way around. Jefferson understood this tenuous arrangement with the still developing governmental structures the founders set in place.
    I admire your work but sometimes it seems that your ego knows no bounds

  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David S. Wilkinson,

    The only real system of truth is known as science. When people turn away from science, or challenge it, they always fail. So, I must reject your words in the first paragraph.

    In the second paragraph, lt me say first that I have no respect for Jefferson. Many of the founders did not trust Jefferson because he wanted the colonists to stay with England.

    But Jefferson had linguistic problems because of his British mind, which is controlled by Aristotle's logic. This is why he built a wall between Church and State. Nations must work with all religion so that the best religion serves the God.

    The purpose of Jefferson's wall was not to protect religions. His wall only divided the Union.


  • At 10:33 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    Sorry George but science only progresses when it is challenged so your utter refusal to consider challenges to your theory is not only sloppy science but also hypocritical.
    As for not respecting Jefferson I just hang my head and weep for your ignorance of one of the greatest men and greatest thinkers this world has ever known.

  • At 1:23 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David S. Wilkinson,

    My thoughts are being considered every day in my website.This is why the number of readers are incresing.
    My theory of God has been accepted by the Scientific God Journal. My book at was also challenged and reviewed. What do you mean that my science is sloppy?

    You cannot say that a a science is sloppy without presenting the slop. You are acting like the atheists. They talk about slop and never prsents it. Are you a scientist?

    If Jefferson was so great, why did Ben Franklin and John Adams modify Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence? And Why did Hamilton et al refuse Jefferson to join the masonic group in Hamilton County Ohio?? The answer is that these masons did not not trust him. How can you like Jefferson when he had slaves?


  • At 12:54 PM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    I like Jefferson's mind and his ability to make difficult concepts easy to understand. Visit Monticello and you'll get a good taste of his accomplishments.
    The founders were not a trusting lot as there were many that were still very devoted to their mother country and the idea of separation was a difficult one.
    Franklin and Adams knew they had to bring all parties together and that is why the Declaration was changed from Jefferson's original but please remember he was the one entrusted to write the original draft.
    The sloppiness comes from the way you react to anyone offering and contradictory evidence to your theory. Anytime I mention a scripture that doesn't fit your theory you say scriptures are flawed but then you will use scripture that fits your theory. That's not science that's a procrustean construct and conclusion selective.
    Any thinkers that don't fit your theory you label atheist but those that do fit your theory are "great thinkers"
    In studying Jefferson it is noted that he made a personal Bible by taking out all references to Christ's divinity but kept all of Christ's teaching and words, will you now move him into your "great thinkers" column because he, like you, questioned Christ's divinity.
    I look at history in the context of the times, while I certainly don't agree with the practice of owning slaves it was an accepted practice at that time and Jefferson battled this personal demon and worked to construct ways to eliminate slavery by putting provisions in the Constituion that he saw could one day end the practice.
    I suggest you read the writings of Chesterton, he was a very adept thinker and was also able to look at deep ponderables and make them understandable and was able to do it in a humourous way.

  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David S. Wilkinson,

    I want to comment on your comment but you didn't tell me whether you are a scientit. You do not seem to know how all theories are developed.

    What college or universe did you go to? And what science did you learn?


  • At 10:53 AM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    I am a "soft" scientist according to you George. I am a Therapeutic Consultant (psychologist) with a BA from Shepherd College (now university) and an MA from VPI.
    I am currently getting back to my first love of history and am earning a Masters in American History

  • At 1:42 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    Response to David S. Wilkinson,

    Thanks for your informtion. I am a hard scientist from Johns Hopkins. But when I became a member of the research staff of the National Institute of Justice in 1971. I stayed there for 25 years and worked with many different 'soft scintists.'

    When I retired, the soft scientists were still searching for a science that works beyond statistical data.

    I am working on unifying science and theology.


  • At 2:48 PM, Anonymous David S. Wilkinson said…

    I think I have an advantage over most scientists in that I have have spent the last twenty years working with individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities and I believe they have a much better understanding of who and what God is than most "learned" people do. They have not been jaded by this world and have not gotten caught up in wordly things. I believe that's why Jesus said you must come to God as a child.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home