Stephen Foord

Campaign for Fair Literacy in Education

Stephen Foord Books & Music EncodeMyEmail

Fair Science and Fair Theology Launched in New Books

Campaign for Fair Literacy in Education Begins

Introduction to Fair Science and Theology

Fair Science and Fair Theology are defined below. They are the substance to fair education along with a 4th R in fair literacy (Righteousness). The latter builds into a field of proofs to qualify logic. The other 3 Rs serve pedants in denying a fair education.

Schools today teach for a crooked alliance of partial ‘science’ to partial theology. Equality of access to that is not fair education. I hope
‘The Fair Education Alliance’ can understand that. A partial education may cheat their royal patron who has a constitutional interest in fair theology, James 2, 9-10. Fair theology is a public fact, not any priest’s private possession, useful for testing conscience for a fair God in court. Priests who enjoy a charismatic spirituality against fair rights may hardly understand. A fair God hardly prejudices mortal wishes or courts by force or overwhelming spiritually. It is right to test spirits for fair or tyrannical values.

Those who experience death-threats for lack of fair rights may most easily appreciate that fair rights and fair schools and fair health practice are a life and death issue for all. Fair science deduces validity to all healing practices.

Parliament and courts are asked to tighten up on court-accreditation of scientists below. Courts should ensure funds to research to help courts damn partial ‘science’. Modern ‘science’ sells an infinitely unlikely cosmology. Courts know to treat infinitely unlikely alibis for crime as lies. By help of book 1 they may do that for natural history ‘science’. Scientists of charismatic authority against fair science may hardly understand. For the fair error estimate for a theory is a combination of its technicality and criminality. To frame a ‘pure science’ in denial of its criminal dimensions may make modern ‘science’ a technical dreamworld in
high crime. The crumble of the planet impeaches it as does fair science to escape its criminal dimensions. Fair science may be the cloud over partial ‘science’ that offers a silver lining.
To block fair education takes a police state with laws against. Thus, strong opinion may seek an equality of opinion above the law where deeply held beliefs are a reason to block fair truth. That may sentence the public to fight for freedom as in WWII or terrorism. Churchill led against the Nazi fair race of a blue-eyed blond elite. But was that for a race of fair science and theology, or, for a more humane selfish race than the Nazis wanted? After WWII selfish science still feeds propaganda via unfair (false) teachers who tacitly share common aims with the Nazis. They cannot stand a fair education since it presents them in that light.

No posts have been published yet.

What is Fair Science?

Fair science is based on deductive reason free from partiality. It is then the science for people who rather not see the public cheated for a ‘scientific’ cause.

Fair science must test all ‘science’ and religion for fair order. Those who wish to cheat for a selfish ‘science’ do so for a higher species of crook to act as gods of ‘science’ to the public. They groom the public for cult-faith and funds. Those scientists are a form of organised crime using propaganda and exams. They may wow the public with breakthroughs that hide cult political aims of cheating fair groups out of existence, e.g. cheating fair Jews or gays or judges. WWII defended freedom for fair resistance and to research a fair case to stop such ‘science’ in court. Hitler did not lose WWII if the war blinded the allies to work by less brutal methods to realise his master race of clever crooks.

Modern scientists lack fair literacy. The public will not let them openly define ‘science’ as a branch of organised crime for schools to recruit for. Bad scientists must then conceal fair failings as, say, negligence or fraud. The Dover trial may show perjurious witness by professional scientists in court.

It should never be possible to apply ‘the system’ to deny responsibility to recognise and support essential fair progress. It is not fair science to limit ‘research’ to testing just lower life. That imbrutes or unmans science as a false or cult-use of ‘The Origin of Species’. ‘Scientific’ theories begin as issues of faith and continue as faiths until they pass all tests of fair order within full ‘science’ and religion. Even Darwin and Einstein are faith-religion not science until their theories pass full tests of fair order within full ‘science’ and religion. Einstein makes advanced use of mathematics but that is nothing to do with being fair or right. Mathematics can model any reality scientists ask even a spiritual world. The latter may take a truthful spiritual genius different from the genius to model a black-hole though skills needed may be similar. The author obtained a first in physics and PHD.. Obviously the political aims or prejudices to such work may be quite different but fair science tests for those prejudices and crooked practice. A headline of ‘Darwin and Einstein wrong’ may prove appropriate.

Neglecting fair tests allows Darwin and Einstein to be used as propaganda causes outside court. To ignore key tests necessary to prove a theory and spend public funds on falsifying a case for a theory may be massive fraud. No matter how much public money is taken that way it cannot make a theory true. However, it can make it politically impossible to dispute a theory. One way to see how Darwin and Einstein are used as propaganda is to generalise their theories. It makes neglected fair tests more plain. The parent theory to General relativity is in my book ‘The General Theory of Reality’. The theory that should come before ‘The Origin of Species’ is in my other book about ‘The Origin of Beliefs’. The latter enables to see Darwin started a technical cult that may not qualify as true science no matter the propaganda support. That is hard to understand if natural ‘science’ is all you have known in brainwashing schools and media. Darwin’s evolutionary classification of the animal kingdom is not the only one possible. However, for political aims of a pro-Nazi cult it may be the only one they tolerate.

To now seek fair peer review or debate from experts in technical cult dogma may be a disappointing experience. Cults cannot cope with reason that contradicts their dogmas. To save time and protect the public from shysters my books offer courts the case to end ’natural history’ science as cult-fraud. That may bar modern scientists from qualifying as fair witnesses in courts. The founding fathers of science like Newton would probably support such a case as they feared cult practice taking over.

What is Fair Theology?

Fair theology is deductive science based on faith that Justice is impartial and not murderous …. unlike in most religion or what most call ‘science’ today.

Fair theology must take literally scriptures on being fair like Leviticus 19, 15, Matthew 22, 16, James 2, 9-10 but not scriptures that lack fair sense. Wherever a literal reading lacks fair sense, fair theology seeks a legal reading that is derived by respect for the fair scriptures. A legal reading should clear all murderous paradoxes to prove faith in a fair God. That such reading works is fair indication God really exists. It clears Leviticus 20, 13 of suggesting a fair God hates gays. It also translates into simple fair questions in court making lightning progress possible.

Religion often gathers for spiritual comforts that turn to anger or apathy at fair reason. It is not unusual to read scripture for murderous partiality to neighbour and to God, e.g. for terrorism. That is hate-crime of ‘the wicked’ in scripture who cannot understand Justice. They thrill to selfish readings that imply a charismatic murderous unfair deity or devil, Proverbs 8, 36 & 28, 5, Wisdom 1, 12-16 & 2, 21-24. A fair atonement for sin may cover even that grave ignorance of sin. Fair theology is thereby a call to repent as it removes right to use a fair atonement and plead ignorance. Superstitious fears stand in the way of fair theology. They may oppose in the name of selfish ‘science’ which has failings which book 1 suggests courts should see as criminal. In many respects selfish ‘science’ and tyrannical religion are natural allies. Neither is a legitimate fair cause but by fighting each other for power they may hide it even from courts.

Basic to fair faith is a title-contest of good and evil supernatural powers to define ‘the Lord’ on earth. For fair theology only works if a real devil exists for which there is reasonable proof in book 1. Fair theology puts life under jurisdiction laws of a deity it chooses for life-style choices. The deity reinforces behaviour it wants subjects to call natural even if sexual or to deny that deity exists. Its enchantment is the romance of selfish life. Basic to selfish faith is power-struggle to keep life hostage to ‘the Lord’ of evil. He offers wealth and spiritual comforts to farm tyrannical prejudice in religion and ‘science’. It is easier for hostages in the dark to respect or worship the evil one whose anger is a legally defined curse on sinners (life outside God’s jurisdiction to protect) to help guide our evolution in sin to depose God. God guides by Spirit to depart from which which enters jurisdiction or care of gods who guide by darkness and curse. The curse is firstly for being a sinner against God but secondly for sin against the god’s object of deposing God, i.e. for not sinning acutely enough. That jurisdiction law is involved but exactly as in the Lord’s prayer.

A fair Almighty obliges evil gods to leave a loophole for sinners to repent and escape to God’s jurisdiction or heaven. The loophole is to reject murder and lie as cardinal enemies of Justice. That requires the fair reading of God, Isaiah 1, 15-20. Evil gods shape that loophole around general sacrifice laws to any deity whose ‘justice’ mortals ask protection under. A fair God has to open that loophole by a plan of prophesy in scripture where understanding of Justice is prophesied in an end-time outpouring of the Spirit. The title-contest is in fair and tyrannical progress that vie under God’s plan of prophesies to fairly establish Justice culturally, Psalm 98. Selfish ‘science’ in ‘survival of the fit’ offers no protection due to a catalogue of crooked failings. Unless mortals sin to satisfy evil gods, apocalypse may follow in a scorched earth policy. Fair theology and prophesy are testable science for courts. Selfish powers must keep the issue out of court, say, by false use of the first amendment allied to authority of selfish ‘science’. Their hate-crime victims may bring it to court.

Sex is vital to a fair title-contest because it is for children to sacrifice to ‘the future’. There is no higher loyalty to a cause than to offer children to it. Schools show causes or deities people put faith in. Sex is thus for marriages to spiritual causes and hotly contested spiritually. Scriptures place us in custody of tyrannical gods whom we feed with life-forces that they cannot take direct from a fair God they hate. Gods are felt intimately in superstitions and evil enthusiasms. Evil gods are vampiric and farm subjects in jail-kingdoms in the dark to guide their evolution in sin to join them as evil gods in the object to depose Justice, Psalm 82. Justice would be a sham if God loses that tile-contest or refused to stage it fairly at request of, say, angels and morning stars as in Job 38, 4-7. Leaders in selfish faith then enjoy godly spiritual-comforts and gifts to move beyond reason. They are called to be bastions of selfish sexual mores. Sex scandals may shake them and gay-rights in relation to fair theology may be an earth-quake (the earth is metaphor for religion in scripture).

Scriptures suggest heaven is all male like God so why is gay sex not a heavenly cause? The rub is that gay love does not have children to fulfil prophesies to defeat evil. Gays also offer less children to feed vampiric evil gods. The evil Lord then has a fair case to damn gays in ‘God’s name’ for sin against God as wicked. His religion to ‘God’ is to cut gays off from a fair God. But a fair gay would be life that disproves we evolved by passing selfish genes on. That is unequivocal if fair life supports a fair reading of scripture so supports God. Selfish ‘science’ then needs to deny fair gays right to exist. That means to agree with selfish religion that fair theology to relate gays to God does not exist. The world is then a stage for fair gays to prove they exist by finding and using fair theology for God in court. Gay sex comes out as a cup to Justice against respectable yet perverted religion and ‘science’. The latter hides awful vulgarity behind deceitful notions of intellectual refinement.

Hell’s eternal torment fits as an evolutionary regime in sin to depose Justice. Its platform is ‘survival of its fit’. Many feel that is the point to life on earth. The gods of hell may rule gays not fit for a place in hell’s ‘heaven’ inside hell. Scripture allows for more than one ‘heaven’. Hell’s ‘heaven’ can be the true heaven if evil wins its contest. The gods may use that fact legally to finesse God into seeing we have fair-choice of a gay-hating ‘heaven’ by prejudiced readings of the few verses about gays. The proof of fair choice is that established religion tries to deny gays a place in heaven. To now instead show those readings are prejudiced or hate-crime in court attacks their evil Lord for love of Justice or God. If gay-rights brings that about, hell may counter-offer gays a place in hell’s ‘heaven’ by turning to test-tube children in a gay master-race. In God’s eyes gay love may today show more integrity (support for Justice) than genius for selfish ‘science’ and theology that move to pervert justice ‘naturally’. The latter is by a spiritual perversion that inspires to regard gays as physically perverted, 1 Corinthians 1, 27-29. Gays can hardly be physically perverted if God’s design or ‘Nature’ allows for gay love as much as heterosexual love. It should obviously be a priority to verify fair theology exists to prevent hate-crime and terrorism.

Fair theology should be part of sex education. Sex education will pervert children if it asks them to get off on ‘respectable’ selfish ‘science’ or religion that are working to pervert justice. Where can fair children turn if courts will not protect them? To be fair to scripture, the Messiah is cast as our mother from before time and a gender bender. She would do anything legitimate for Father God to save her children, even change gender to a male to lead to heaven, sleep with a prostitute as Hosea was asked, or take an unjust punishment to Death in human form without sinning to destroy evil in court for God, Isaiah 53. She/He might also enjoy gay sex if to leave a spiritual house to help gays fight prejudice for this age? Book 1 shows scripture allows for such a house in fair reading. Only prejudice can be sure it does not exist. How is prejudice faith in fair God? Murderous oppression suggests tyrannical authority sees gays as a threat to it. Fair gays are a threat to selfish ‘science’ and allied religion.

To summarise, a fair gay hardly evolved to pass anyone’s selfish genes on. All fair life stands for a fair view or reading of scripture. If a fair reading proves that fair gays have a missionary role for God against prejudiced ‘science’ and religion that seek to pervert justice (and so to pervert children sexually) then fair gays stand for using the reading to establish a fair God with courts. That will lead fair Jews to the prophesied or promised land of fair theology or Justice. If such a reading exists then fair life may use it to establish or prove a fair God with courts. It disproves the theory of natural selection or of natural history in court. The latter are then prejudiced theories genocidal to fair life, especially to fair Jews and gays. Dark spiritual forces to genocidal theories may explain WWII and terrorism as against all fair life on earth with inner targets of fair Jew or gay. A simple proof is given for a real devil or prince of darkness vying for power against Justice in book 1. God’s prophesies are then on the course of Justice to establish Justice or God on earth, Psalm 98, and the devil only has to break one prophesy to depose God. (WWII was an attempt to break prophesy of Jews returning to God and true Justice.) The whole contest is driven by life’s wishes for death or life. In other words Death and Destruction on earth are by popular demand fulfilled by the devil and mitigated by God’s mercy or the prospect of it. We are looked after by the deity we wish for whether claiming to be religious or not. That picture is directly visible from the first fair map of the world of reason in book 2 which has an overlay of spiritual forces. There may be many gods of prejudice, as mortals may aspire to become, but only one God of fair Justice. That principle underpins religion in general with natural selection or natural history now identified as cult-religion. No one should be confused by use of math to present the latter as rigorous science. Mathematics is a conformable art so false assumptions can produce a vast set of mathematical rules but that supports delusion about reality, e.g. hiding supernatural reality in statistics. Those rules then form cult-religion and leading cult-members want cult rules in school. They rightly see that they face rapid extermination unless they appease the murderous gods of their ‘science’. Those gods will send apocalypse on the planet unless their servants eliminate all support for Justice. It is a diabolical dilemma or protection racket where the foundations of Justice appear constantly under threat. However, the existence of Justice should be apparent to those with basic understanding or faith in it. The wicked do not understand Justice, Proverbs 28, 5, so rely on lies (losing half the knowledge system) and ‘natural’ or human death-threats to belay Justice. They run protection rackets for public support as may use natural history or natural selection for justification.

What does Fair Science imply for Court Accreditation of Scientists?

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is Parliament’s in-house source of scientific advice. POST is to bridge scientific law and the judiciary. POST has prepared this summary on court accreditation of scientists covering the Frye and Daubert tests used in the USA:

This POST note may allow for justice to exist to serve science, or, for science to exist to serve justice. However, if a just God exists then only the latter is true and the former position is criminal. Thus, a test for the existence of God is to test the criminality of ‘science’ by expert help of courts.

Testing the criminality of ‘science’ is a duty of courts to protect the fair public from authoritarian claims on reality by ‘scientists’ of criminal prejudice. ‘Science’ can degenerate into organised crime to run environmental protection or eugenics movements. That test should then be part of court accreditation for scientists. It does not infringe freedom of faith. It allows religion with contempt for justice and fair theology to continue in such ‘faith’. However, fair theology works so well that it may be destined to bankrupt both selfish ‘science’ and tyrannical religions in court.

The theory of a just God implies that a ’science’ with crooked failings teaches a false cause and effect law. A false law is recognised by its support for unfair or selfish life like, say, evolutionary science does. Book 2 offers a fair map of the world of reason for graphic recognition of false or partial theories. Those theories may act as a cheat’s charter for mass delusion. To apply them cheats simply adopt selfish criteria of success for the theories that occult an overall criminal bent. Mathematical skills can be used like that. Cheats overegg value of their expert knowledge for authority over the public to take public funding for a criminal tyranny.

Courts are ideally on a war footing against accreditation of crooked scientists as life in a conspiracy to pervert course of justice. Until scholars can disprove fair justice as the one true foundation for science courts should assume that it is. How else can they uphold justice? A fair error estimate for a theory does then include its criminality or who, apart from fair courts or God, it sets out to cheat to survive.

Book 1 gives a concise argument for God by design to show that scientific and religious tyrannies share a common need to cheat, pervert or kill fair Jews or fair gays and fair judges. The latter are leading groups with a cultural interest in progress in fair reason to confront tyrannies in court. That implies that all tyrannies are associated with spiritual prejudices witnessed to in pertinent hate-crime or events like the holocaust. Tyrannical ‘sciences’ thus act as spiritual cult religions that cause social inequality and hate-crime. By contrast courts that swear in by God may aspire to be a spiritual force for fair justice. This fair theory entitles courts to insist that a fair treatment of spiritual forces is part of accreditation for scientists.

A simple question shows whether spiritual forces are relevant to accreditation of scientists. It is to ask if scientists bother with a fair case to deny spiritual forces exist else rely on cult dogma or political principles to deny it? Cults may be deaf to fair reason but if they seek public funds then the public are entitled to be warned of cult-criminality. That protects them from being deceived into thinking they fund true science when they actually fund technical cult-religion.

POST approach accreditation as for giving the right scientists an inside track with courts to establish a legitimate ‘science’ with society. This work helps courts to see that peer review under criminal law is all that is required of legitimate science same as for other professions. That supports fair rights against a would-be criminal master race as in WWII. Such a master race is tacit to the lawless creed of ‘survival of the fit’ for evolutionary and material genetic ‘science’. Do experts in material genetic law know the meaning of ‘fair’ to be able to select for ‘fair’ genes? If not then life is far more complex and spiritual than ‘science’ today allows for. It is hidden by a superstitious reverence for statistical clinical laws. Faith in those laws is partial and so sends spiritual attack on fair minds. Spiritual attack is felt by children in schools to make selective exams that invoke it unfair. Scientists have a duty to be fair on this issue to avoid being a cult-priesthood for brainwashing children.

Scientists today model for scientific tyrannies that shape ‘the system’ so everyone frames the right or ‘natural’ hypotheses or models. It is the fruit of a specialised selection process for scientific experts that lacks fair checks. The Nuremberg trial defence of obeying ‘the system’ is in practice how every selfish ‘science’ oppresses fair research. ‘The system’ is to defend reputation for good ‘science (propaganda) at expense of fair progress. Scientists who specialise to block fair research practice in their own backyards should not qualify for court accreditation. When work like this to indict tyrannical practice is easily denied a living then the whole establishment may be crooked or evil. For example their research councils may fund only evolutionary material models of origins for life where fair courts are given a back seat. However, scrupulous fair deductive science does yield competitive spiritual models for origins subject to fair courts as book 2 shows.

Fair scientists look to justice as an adversarial system giving voice to fair questions. Modern ‘science’ is in the trap of technical reason removed from fair principle which suits the great tyrannies of the age. If scientists wish to claim to be better than a cult then they should have rigorous definitions to set a line between science and religion that stands cross-examination in court. The author’s books began on technical reason to find there is no such line. The line relates to role of the observer in experimental ‘reality’ which book 2 covers. Without that line natural cause and effect law is cult dogma or delusion not true science.

The case given in book 1 to end natural history in court also ends ‘science’ based on a natural cause and effect law or on material genetic law. The crime-potential to natural cause and effect law is on the level of a black-hole for justice. Scientists for that may like to suggest either that their law is approximate in a benign way to fair science, or, the power that their ‘science’ promises or unleashes sets it above courts on earth. The former may be a perjurious claim and the latter a tyrannical ‘science’ for prosperity at expense of fair rights so of inequality or slavery for some groups.

These books establish fair science for courts to judge ‘science’ set in natural history. Meanwhile, natural ‘science’ is a disastrous not benign approximation to fair science. It is genocidal as WWII shows. A helpful picture deriving from Morris Kline in “Mathematics: the loss of certainty” likens modern scientists to spiders spinning webs in a castle dungeon. Many believe their webs are holding the castle up not holding life in the dungeon to die like flies. Meanwhile ‘scientists’ pose as good by helping social groups strategic to their aims for power. They help courts trap less fit crooks using gene ‘science’ but which may lead to a master race of tacit crooks if unchecked. WWII suggests ‘science’ with a genocidal cause is far more dangerous to civilisation, causing more murders, than mundane criminals. Some mundane criminals may be driven to crime partly as people deprived of a fair education or decent living by crooked scientists and scholars. Are mundane crooks necessarily worse sinners than some authorities of high reputation? The position of Jesus in Luke 23, 39-43 suggests not.

By asking the right fair questions it may be easy to trap as perjurious the scientists who base their research in natural history. If ‘natural’ scientists really support criminal law and fair research practice then why must they frame research in violation of those tenets? and what difference does fair research make to the cause and effect laws they frame? Such questions may follow the court-oath wherever they pose as fair witnesses. If they are not fair witnesses then they make false witnesses as in Exodus 20, 15 or false teachers of Christian prophesy. They must be anti-fair-religion that is based on Judaic-root scriptures or with the antichrist. If that is true for courts on earth then it will be true at the Judgement Day based on fair justice. All religions that support fair justice may fear that.

’God’s word’ is a leading data area for a just God as a testable theory. It claims to set God’s plan as a prophetic science that is legally coded under scrupulous fair Justice. ‘Science’ today is at sea with that as only marginally based on fair justice. It sets its path to the issue via problems to do with a technical foundation far removed from justice as detailed in book 2. Book 1 is a quick path to help courts see that any expert witness for ‘science’ set in natural history may be a few questions from trapped as perjurious in court. It applies for forensic scientists, physicists, doctors, psychiatrists, etc.. Their ‘science’ is delusional by the case to end natural history in book 1. The issue could also be raised in individual cases wherever expert ‘science’ testimony, e.g. fingerprint evidence, is involved. If the forensic expert is a bigger crook than those they finger then courts have a problem.

In summary, research to frame a universe where justice is marginal to ‘science’ should be suspected a conspiracy to pervert justice. It has fruited in scientific tyrannies genocidal to key fair cultures. Such ‘science’ is tacitly ant-Semitic if Judaism is the leading religion that claims Justice exists. The ‘science’ then has to be corrupting or genocidal to Jews to break prophesies of Jews returning to a fair God. That makes WWII evidence that a fair God exists opposed by ‘scientific’ evil. Evil is life that will try any ‘science’ and war to break God’s plan of prophesies on the due course of Justice to establish God’s right to rule openly on earth, Psalm 98. Evil religion can also share that aim by readings of God as an Almighty tyrant friend to ‘the righteous’. A fair universe or God allows life to choose between a tyrannical or fair kingdom.

The scientists fit to stand in a fair court are ones who put a fair foundation for science first. Newton may be such a scientist reluctant to frame hypotheses or falsify cases. His proof for God, rediscovered in book 2, shows modern ‘science’ has gone astray. Book 2 is about paths to uncover the reality to fair science.

Happisburgh Lighthouse pictures

The top pictures are of the Happisburgh (‘Hazebro‘ to locals) lighthouse and its neighbouring St. Mary’s church. They are endangered by coastal erosion as a picture on the following pages illustrates. Both are institutions said to offer a guiding light to society. The sea is a metaphor for the wicked in scriptures. A site-theme may then be those in peril on the material and spiritual seas.