Ken Ham states "Webster defines religion as '... a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.'" and proves this applies to evolution in a two-fold argument:
1. He states 'Evolution is a Religion' thirteen times on his web page.
2. After the 7th time, he provides the above definition, and states 'Surely this is an apt description of evolution!'

This is absolutely amazing. Not just the stark brevity of his super-efficient logic chain, but the amazing thing is that he only stated the definition once! This observation can only mean the end of the modern, humanist secular government, with the establishment of a religious theocracy!

But I am getting ahead of myself.

In trying to define 'religion' an hour's search on the Internet reveals a large number of definitions. Fully 93% of those definitions hold God, in some form, to be implicit or explicit in the definition of a religion. They may refer to God, to gods, to a supernatural being, or to any other form of invisible entity. 60% of the definitions concern the use of ritual, a condition of obedience, a source of liturgy, and moral conduct with respect to 'fellow men.'

One definition repeatedly found is that religion is a belief about (the nature or existence of) God. This could make Atheism a religion. 'I believe there is no God.' is obviously a belief about God's nature. This definition does not include Agnosticism (I do not know about God's nature.), Apatheism (I do not CARE about God's nature.) but sweeps the AMA and several asylum residents (I AM God.). Modern evolution is carefully structured to maintain that it is separate from the question of God's nature. ("God may or may not have separated the waters, but that fish walked out of the water and discovered Fire.")

These do not apply to Evolution, though, in so far as well known creationist, Duane Gish, has said, in II. MEANING OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION "But the theory of evolution is a non -theistic theory {3}. By definition, God is excluded from this process. He had nothing to do with it. It was a process of self-transformation."

But Ken Ham, another creationist, uses a definition that does not include any deity, ritual, worship or hierarchy of devotion. But, before we go any further, we need to research the definition used. Creationists and lawyers are very careful with quotations, as they only want to show you what helps their argument (lawyers because they are paid to win the argument, whatever is right, and Creationists because they already know they are right). So, we need to show that his definition is not taken out of context. Resorting to online dictionaries until we find an exact match, we see:

Merriam-Webster OnLine:
Religion: Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

So, see? It is not taken out of context of a definition that requires a belief in The Lord Thy God, it is a completely separate bullet statement!

Are you willing to bet your SOUL on what I have in mind?

You may disagree.

You may point out that not EVERYONE is religiously attached to a football team. There are people that can turn off a game in progress, no matter how exciting anyone else finds it. This is true. But, there are people capable of walking out of a church service, and it doesn't make that creed any less of a religion.

So, as long as SOMEONE takes SPORTS as a religion, a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, then it IS a religion. So are any number of causes espoused on daytime talk shows. One need only see the number and size of Jerry Springer's bouncers to realize how much ardor is held by those who believe 'My Man Slept With My Sister...The Tramp.' Examine the hue and cry after any court decision, for or against, on the topics of Creation Science, Abortion, Big Business, Campaign Reform, Child Abuse Protection, Gun Control, The First Amendment, The Second Amendment, Mifepristone, Religion in the School, Wicca in the Mall, the 10 Commandments in the Courthouse and anything else any single group sees as an infringement. Additionally, note the media circus around celebrity trials, Harry Potter, celebrity divorces, the Oscars, celebrity appearances, television nudity and the question, which is better: Star Trek or Star Wars.

Everyone, everywhere, is passionate about SOMETHING. One need not even defend it, one need only believe. If an atheist believes his wife is faithful, and has faith in that, he has a religion. The Supreme Court has even said: Neither a "religion" nor a "personal belief system" needs to be proven as "true" to be valid. "Men may believe what they cannot prove..." {U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148 (1944)}

In fact, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced in July, 2000, that an employee fired for his obsessive belief in the validity of "cold fusion" can sue the employer for "religious" discrimination. As long as an employee has a seriously held conviction that in his own value system he regards as "religious," he is protected under federal law, even though the vast majority of physicists believe "cold fusion" is bogus. The petitioner, Paul A. LaViolette, worked at the U.S. Patent Office, but there was no evidence that he was assisting in the patenting of bogus technologies.
Now here's the best part:

If everyone that feels that way registers with an online church, they can incorporate, and found a religion.

And our government does not tax religions.....


Dr Dino, K. Hovind, has completed pioneering work in this direction.

Soon, there will be only a few sources of tax funds available for monies to operate our secular humanist liberal government of Satan-worshipping atheists. And those few are certain to announce their belief that a system that taxes them alone is wrong. I expect them to be quite ardent about it. Then the last few will have THEIR religion, and the only ones with any money to run a government will be churches.

Bush's 'faith based initiative' will succeed beyond his WILDEST dreams.

There is a cliff in Britain that had a high incidence of suicides, along with a few accidental falls. It's a famous cliff, and not to far from major population centers. One year the responsible administration hired a new coroner. His policy was that anyone that didn't leave a note was not certainly a suicide, and was not to be counted as such. If alchohol was involved, the state of mind of the 'faller' was uncertain, and also not proven a suicide. This resulted in a drastic reduction of suicides, which was the number most noted in the media. They never paid much attention to the 'death by misadventure' statistics, and didn't notice a MARKED rise. This improvement was quite pleasing to the local Chamber of Commerce. Nothing was done to change the numbers, except how they were reported.