By no means do I want or expect free thought and/or opinion to be restricted because it offends me. But, IMHO there is an anti Christian, anti American vibe here that keeps me from posting. To be frank, it makes me sick.

Share International Foundation is a member of the NGO (non-governmental organization) community at the United Nations

SI has a long list of prominent, well respected international diplomats, religious leaders and political figures who have had articles published in this magazine. They include articles written by former UN leader Boutros Boutros-Ghali; present leader Kofi Annan; former President of Ireland Mary Robinson; Gro Harlem Brundtland who is director-general of the World Health Organization and former Prime Minister of Norway; the Dalai Lama; and recently even Britain's Crown Prince Charles.(7) Even though the average man on the street would most likely dissolve into hysterical laughter upon being presented with the beliefs of Creme and Share International, it is easily shown that this magazine is well-respected and taken seriously by many influential members of the Global Elite. In fact, Share International Foundation is accredited as an official non-governmental organization (NGO) by the United Nations,(8) and the magazine, as stated on the inside cover of each issue, is published by SI "...in association with the Department of Public Information at the United Nations."

Now The Lucis Trust, formerly known as the Lucifer Publishing Company was formed by Alice A. Bailey a Theophsist and disciple of Madame Blavatsky (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky). Blavatsky was the founder of Theosophy and is considered the "mother" of the New Age movement and modern occultism. She taught in her Secret Doctrine that Lucifer was "higher and older than Jehovah. She further expressed in her "great work" that Satan, under different god-names, is really an allegory of "Good, and Sacrifice, a God of Wisdom." Blavatsky believed that Satan was the only god of earth, "is one with the Logos," and is the "cosmic reflection of God.". Blavatsky also equated Lucifer with Jesus Christ.

The Lucis Trust (or Lucifer Publishing Company) is a United Nations Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and is represented at weekly sessions at the United Nations in New York and Geneva and a member of the UN Economic and Social Council.

The Lucis Trust promotes IoNs as one of the "New Group of World Servers". The Lucis Trust are pushing for the establishment of a permanent "Age of Aquarius" ruled by one "christ" figure, "Lord of the Word" or Maitreya (the new age messiah) and a One World Religion.

Lets take a step away from IoNS for a minute and take a look at the intenet movie Zeitgeist which appears to have taken in millions of people across the world:

Zeitgeist Part I used the controversial author Archarya S as the consultant for the movie. Part I of the movie is based on her book "The Christ Conspiracy", she also penned the companion guide for Zeitgeist.

Archarya S plagiarised her book from a book written in the 1800's by a Quaker who claimed without any evidence that there were 16 previous crucified saviours. This book was heavily cited by the Theosphical Society (founded by Madam Blavatsky - see above).

Archarya S expanded on the themes of the original book by drawing on material from Madam Blavatsky; revered 33rd degree Freemason Alber Pike who stated "Yes, Lucifer is God"; controversial researcher "Jordan Maxwell" (a pseudonym: derived from one of Maxwell's mentors, Madame Blavatsky's, works-- i.e., Jordanus Maximus); Gerlad Massey (High Chief Druid and contributor to Blavatsky's Lucifer Magazine); Albert Churchward (Freemason); James Churchward (Freemason); Michael Baigent (Freemason); Godfrey Higgins (Freemason / Cheif Druid) and others. To this day there are unclaimed financial rewards for anyone who can actually back up any of the claims made by Archarya S or Zeitgeist Part I.

Nevertheless, some of the brightest minds in the English-speaking world right now argue that religion is the problem. And we know they’re the brightest minds because they keep telling us they are. The New Atheists are positively evangelical. They want to make a convert out of you, although if you’re a “dyed-in-the-wool faith-head” they’ll settle for peppering you with insults and sarcasm instead.

What is most worrying is that the New Atheists seem to gain the most followers precisely among the most ambitious and intelligent young people—the people who will be actively shaping government policy in the years to come. Attracted by the intellectual rebelliousness of the movement, young people fall for its insidious message: join us and you can be one of the smart people.

In the 1800s, Karl Marx and other thinkers systematized this anti-religious hostility. When the followers of Marx gained power in Russia, they were even more ruthless than the French revolutionaries in their suppression of religion. Similar horrors followed dogmatic Communism wherever it came to power.

But most of the English-speaking world was spared this excessive institutional atheism. The United States, in particular, has always zealously guarded the freedom of anyone to practice any religion that does not seriously interfere with public order.

That’s why we’re so surprised and baffled by what we call the New Atheism. For the first time in our relatively tranquil history, we’re facing a determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress religion completely.

What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power. The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy.

And you wouldn’t like the government if the New Atheists molded its policy. Richard Dawkins has asserted that teaching your religion to your child is a form of child abuse and should be criminalized. Other New Atheists have argued that churches should have to post a sign reading “for entertainment purposes only,” since after all they’re no less a fraud than telephone psychics.

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion. The evangelical atheists assume that religion must inevitably breed mindless fanaticism. Countering that image means not just answering the atheists’ arguments against God, but also correcting their false impressions of religion.