The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “anti-Christian”

Atheists Nail Themselves To The Cross, Crucify Themselves – But For What Cause?

If the message of Christianity is salvation from Earthly sin through Christ, and if hundreds of millions of people around the world adhere to that message, is the best, most “reason”able and articulate defense, atheists can come with to counter that message “religion is man-made, therefore it a joke”?  There must be a better, more provocative response, if atheists intend to sway to masses and multitudes of Christians around the world.  Would you be persuaded to be a Christian if one of them came to you and said atheism is man-made, therefore it is a joke?

Or does Richard Dawkins make the most persuasive case for atheism, and for how to deal with Christians?

How about when atheists, like Mike Malloy, rant and make fools of themselves, over and over again…

And over and over again…

If religion is man-made, and man-inspired, there was a compelling reason for why it happened so many thousands of year ago, and why it endures to this day – and why hundreds of millions of people around the world accept religion as valid, whether it is a concoction or not.  And even if it is a concoction, there is still an order, an organization, a unity to it, which brings and binds together Christians in a solidarity that atheism lacks and cannot equal.

Atheists are going to need a better defense than to scrounge through the past and point to historical incidents that have darkened religion and set a black cloud over it. Atheists will need a better defense for atheism than attacking Christianity by ridiculing and mocking it, as Dawkins suggests.

Atheists enjoy referring back to the “Dark Ages”, using that era as a time when Christian theocracy swept through Europe.  For people uneducated in history, that may seem enough to drive a wedge between them and religion, if they allow their own bias to get the better of them without investigating the true nature of the “Dark Ages”.  If they did, they would see that the “Dark Ages” refers not to a time when religion had a firm grip and theocracy over the world, but to a period of time when there was little to no historical record written down.  In other words, from after the fall of the Roman Empire, around 495A.D., and for the next several hundred years, the narrative of that era is very scant; historians of today do not have a detailed history of events, or as detailed as they would like, to be able to make more precise interpretations, more informed assumptions, more rational conclusions, more concrete calculations, etc.  Too much of that era is shrouded in darkness because it was not recorded – not because Christianity dominated the landscape.

By the time Christianity became a theocracy, and held the vast majority of Europe within its control, around 1200A.D., it was the Middle Ages.  And that theocracy only lasted several hundred years, broken up, ironically, by an English King (Henry VIII) who was as arrogant, as beastly, as corrupt, and as much a tyrant as was the Church at that time.  Had it not been for his wanting a divorce, or if the Church had simply granted it to him, Catholicism would have remained the religion of England, and Protestantism would not have taken hold.  That one singular event set in motion a chain reaction which, over the centuries, lessened the theocratic grip the Catholic Church had on Europe.  And, if but for that event, America may never have had a founding, let alone a Constitution that included a freedom of religion clause.  And atheists would neither enjoy the freedoms they enjoy today in America, nor would they be alive to enjoy them, as atheism was a heresy and punishable by death.  Is the Catholic Church of today advocating for the death of atheists, or any of its detractors?  If not, why?  If the reason is because it no longer has that authority, then what are atheists complaining about, why do they still insist it is a theocracy, and why are they still all that worried about a power that no longer exists?

Atheism does not do itself justice by invoking past cruelties committed by the Church, nor does it advance its cause by ridiculing its present membership.  Atheists will need a better defense for atheism than Mike Malloy’s and Richard Dawkin’s disturbed anti-Christian rants.  Liberals and atheists alike ridicule and mock Pat Robertson and other influential Christians for their erratic behavior, but they never seem to scold their own when atheists do it.  Christians see through the double standard and the hypocrisy.

Neither does atheism do itself justice by invoking current scandals, and they will also need to do better than to keep rehashing the pedophile priest/Catholic Church cover-up.  Catholics are just as outraged as anyone else, and Catholics demand justice as well.  And while some Catholics have been moved to abandon their faith because of it, the numbers are insignificant.  Catholics, not atheists, will see that their Church is cleaned up and restored.  But Catholics will not demolish their Church, nor will they abandon their faith in the kinds of droves atheists would hope they would.  If Catholics, on the other hand, wanted to embrace liberal ideology over the scandal, they could very easily excuse the priest’s behavior and even justify it.  After-all, it could be that these priests were themselves abused as children.  If that is the case, we can’t really blame the priests for their actions, can we?  Shouldn’t we try to understand them?  That is the liberal creed, anyway.

But atheists have two separate standards when it comes to crime and punishment.  When it is a poor or “disadvantaged” person committing the crime, we must understand them, pity them, embrace them and let them go unpunished – for they are merely a product of their surroundings, and we cannot fault them for their crimes – that would be inhumane.  But when a Catholic priest commits a crime, when anyone commits a crime either in the name of religion or within the safety and protection of their religion, then there is no room for understanding them, no room for pitying them, no room for embracing them and letting them go unpunished in the same way other criminals must be dealt with.  There is no humanity for Catholic priests who abuse children.  They must be punished severely – more severely than these same liberals and atheists want to punish terrorists and those terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay.  If Catholic priests, to atheists, are worse than any anti-American terrorist, how do we rationally deal with that perspective?  And how do we rally behind the atheist cause if there is no foundation built upon it, or if the mortar used to build the walls are made with ridicule, mockery and vitriol?  How are we supposed to find the value in atheism, and to be enlightened and lifted up and inspired with words not of wisdom but of hate and condescension?

Atheists will need better, more articulate leaders, more persuasive and constructively argumentative, than Richard Dawkins.  Otherwise, atheists will find themselves living in their own “Dark Ages”.

Whether it actually happened or not, hundreds of millions of followers accept Christ, and accept Christ had a reason, a cause for his crucifixion.  What is the atheist cause for theirs?  They had better find one, a legitimate and tangible one, and soon.  Otherwise they are just bleeding themselves to death for nothing.

Profanity, Ad Hominem Attacks, Tim Minchin and Reason

Tim Minchin made a fool of himself and of secularism at the Reason Rally last week, and showed himself to be the real bigot, by interjecting vulgar and coarse profanity aimed at the Pope.  If that statement bothers secularists, atheists and other non-believers – why?

Either secularists are above such emotional and disturbed displays or we are no better than those who spew ad hominem attacks at us for not being religious.  One cannot be a person of “reason” and rationality, and then turn around and become exactly the kind of depraved non-religious fundamentalist we, who are reasonable secularists, decry as being narrow-minded and bigoted.

How are we ever supposed to debate religious people, and win debates based on sound reason and rationality, if all we do is let our own emotions take over our intellectual prowess?  If the reality is that people are drawn to religion more because it is of great comfort to believe in something, rather than nothing, how does what Tim Minchin did, how does what any non-believer does, by mocking, ridiculing, debasing religion with mere ad hominem attacks, as opposed to sound logic and sagacity, bring those people still teetering on the edge of either accepting religion or secularism closer to secularism?  How do we engage with non-believers so as to enlighten them with provocative insight, instead of lighting them up with anger, fury and outrage?  What can we, as secularists, give to those people who want to believe in something, but don’t necessarily want to believe in the supernatural?  Or is there some idea being fostered that ad hominem attacks are a way of breaking the ice, so to speak?

We all agree – secularists and believers alike – that the decades of child abuse at the hands of priests was an abomination, and what the Catholic Church did by covering it up, how they covered it up and that they denied it for so long is also an atrocity.  Well, there are still over one billion Catholics in the world, and tens of millions right here in America.  They did not abandon their faith because of this scandal – what makes anyone think they would abandon their faith when atheists like Tim Minchin sling insults at them?  Or, does anyone really believe insults hold a curious and awesome power – more so than rational and reasonable thought?  If it is true that some religious people lose a portion or all of their faith from catastrophes, religious or otherwise, and from internal schisms – isn’t it true that Catholics, and all religious people, are strengthened in their faith when they witness secularists behaving badly, and in ways that mock their religious faith?

What exactly is “funny” about Minchin’s anti-Pope song, what precisely is the justification for it, how does it benefit us or secularism and how does it move secularism from out the shadows, and us from out of the “closets” which many non-believers still fear we are being trapped in, and portray us in a more positive light and a more attractive alternative to religion?  After-all, wasn’t the Reason Rally intended to be as a “coming out” party?

Will religious people, who listen to Tim’s song, have an “immaculate” inspiration and abandon their faith?  Are you, as secularists, driven to religion, and to be religious, when someone tells you, you are going to Hell for not being a believer?  If you said no, if you said that is ridiculous – why would anyone expect any religious person to drop their faith for secularism over Tim Minchin’s anti-Pope song?

There is a time and a place to vent ones anger, however intense, however obscure, with regards to religion, religious practices and whatever perceived dominance and control, and hold, people may think religion has.  A gathering of “intellectual” minds in a public square in order to showcase secularism, to demonstrate how and why secularism is more advanced and evolved than religion is not that place.  And yes, it is wrong to subject children to such language and such bigotry.  Imagine an anti-Islam rally.  Imagine a Tim Minchin like character singing not an anti-Pope song but an anti-Prophet Mohammad song.  Is there any doubt the MSM, you, perhaps, (those of you who support Tim Minchin’s song) would call that Islamophobia, bigotry, hate speech, etc.?  Somehow, when it is directed at Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism, and anything non-Islamic, such bigotry and hate speech gets a pass.  We know why that is, don’t we?

Tim Minchin hates religion.  Fine.  But – why hate religion in the first place?  In other words, if you think you have a better and stronger position and alternative to religion, rather than focusing in on ad hominem attacks, take a particular religious issue and debate it rationally, challenge it and defend your position through logic and facts, rather than through the same emotional hysteria secularists accuse the religious of engaging in.  But if you still feel ad hominem attacks win debates – with myriad of juvenile attacks coming from the religious, directed at us, over the years and decades, are you willing to admit your own defeat and join a religion?  If not, do you really expect the religious to be, to feel, to act any differently when Tim Minchin insults them?

And, if you are more inspired to be secular through Tim Minchin’s song, his ad hominem attacks, just imagine all the cumulative waste of knowledge, foresight and provocative insight spoken, written and covered by secularists throughout the ages.  Isn’t it sad and pathetic to think about the time and energy of thousands of authors misspent looking for practical answers through reason and rationality, and critical thinking, when all they had to do to win their arguments every time was direct ad hominem attacks at their adversaries and their opponents?

If This Passes For “Reason”, Atheists Are FU***D!

Well, the infamous “Reason Rally” has come and gone.  That was the little event where atheists and non-believers were supposed to gather together and show how much more adults they are than Christians, how much more rational they are than Christians, how much more “reason”able they are than Christians.  Some 10 to 15 thousand people showed up, and in the course of finding more “reasons” to reject rationality, they – and everyone else at the Mall who were there on unrelated matters, and with their children – got an ear-full of that good old Atheist non-religion from one of its participants, Tim Minchin.

Warning – This Video Has Graphic Language, But All Adults Must Watch.

Well, wasn’t that delightful?  How much of that did you actually watch before you turned it off?  All reasonable people of faith, or without it, ought to be offended by this.  This is not how secularists act, nor is it in any way becoming of secularism.  It is, however, how liberals act, whether they be religious or not – but especially if they are not.  Richard Dawkins ought to be made to answer whether he found Minchin’s performance worthy of atheism, if the vulgarity (literally every other word) is a prime example of how real secularists act (it is not), and just how much “reason” went into that little “ditty” about the Pope.

If the “Reason Rally” was meant to showcase reason, and to prove that atheists can be, and are, more rational than Christians, Catholics, Jews  and all religious people, having watched Tim Minchin’s performance, isn’t it any wonder why atheism, why secularism, why non-believers are yet to be taken seriously?

Atheists like to say that Christianity is a farce because of its sordid past.  Atheists like to ridicule religion in general for its belief in the supernatural.  Atheist like to hold themselves up on a pedestal, as the defining example of sound reason and rationality and intellectuality.  Well – when Christians look back at the “Reason Rally” and dismiss it as uneventful, which they will do, one because of its low turnout, and two because they will point to Tim Minchin as reason enough why Atheism has no morality, no rationality – before Atheists complain that Tim Minchin was only one participant in a large gallery of intellectual speakers and performers, think very clearly, very rationally, dear atheists, because when you condemn a whole religion for the actions of a few who have left scars upon that religion, you are doing to that religion what Christians are doing to your “Reason Rally”.

There may indeed be wisdom and “reason” to be found in saturday’s ‘Reason Rally”.  How much “reason” was found in Tim Minchin’s anti-Pope song?  To all atheists, secularist and non-believers, do yourself, do your cause, do secularism itself a favor by throwing Tim Minchin under the bus, or at least underneath his own piano.

Secularism needs Tim Minchin as much as Christianity needs the Westboro Baptist Church or David Koresh.

Would Muhammad Tell Muslims To “Take It Down A Notch”?

The “not ready for prime time” (and haven’t been since the early 1990’s) crew over at Saturday Night Live must have had a “What would Jesus do” moment over the weekend, which culminated in yet another irreverent, contemptible, anti-Christian skit.  SNL, like all liberal outlets, is very comfortable, very relaxed, in ridiculing Christianity.  However, would they ever have put on a skit where Muhammad appeared to Osama Bin Laden and told him to “take it down a notch”?  Would SNL ever do a skit that introduces Muhammad to any radical Muslim terrorist person or group and tell them to “take it down a notch”?

Would SNL, or any liberal media outlet be so bold, so brazen, so courageous?  What do we know Muslims would do, if ever that happened?  Here is your irony liberals, including SNL, either don’t see or just don’t seem to care about!

In a clear effort to belittle both Christianity and Denver Broncos quarterback, Tim Tebow, and his “victory prayer”, a routine he has engaged in numerous times this football season, which has put him in an extremely unfavorable light with liberals, SNL has brought Jesus Christ in to have a talk with Tim about his “religious antics” on the football field, urging him to “take it down a notch”, for the sake of all liberals, and liberal Christians, who are at odds with religion (Christianity) on the football field.

Of course the real motivation in this skit, its “point”, has more to do with the left’s irritation it has with such an open expression of Christian devotion, right there for all the public to see and to bear witness.  Such an act of indignation, of rudeness, so hostile to a liberal’s mind, it becomes inconceivable to them, causes great stress, a profound and throbbing headache, perhaps; chills, numbness, shortness of breath, and the like.  Never mind that the many millions of Christian who watch football are not at all irked by Tim’s display and even find it to be reassuring, a blessing, as it were.  Neither would any rationalist, of any philosophical belief, feel overwhelmed by Tim’s actions.

But – would SNL ever perform a similar skit, with a bit of a tweak, replacing Jesus with Muhammad, and replacing Tim Tebow with, say a Muslim homicide bomber who is just about to blow himself up, along with a group of school children?  Would SNL ever have the gall, the guts, to chide, even briefly, the Islamic faith, that part of it which has corrupted its host as a cancer which invades the body?

Christianity is easy to mock because there are no real Christian terrorists in the world; no Christian homicide bombers; no Christian Taliban; no Christian Hamas; no Christian PLO; no Christian Brotherhood – no Christians out committing murder, violence and mayhem in the name of Christianity.  Certainly not to the fanatical degree and extent Muslims do.  In other words Christians do not overreact when they are made fun of.  There is no retribution, no “hell to pay” when Christians are portrayed negatively.  SNL hides behind its “first amendments rights”.  But this ensemble knows that if it ever did put on a “What would Muhammad do” skit, radical, demonic Muslim terrorists would not shrink away, slink around or shriek effeminately and run away from, our constitutional right to freedom of speech.  SNL knows these Muslims would react.  And they know how they would react.

Liberals, as those who make up the cast of SNL, despise religion, even Islam.  They won’t admit it, but we all know it.  And yet, how dangerous is the world now, and since 9-11, because of Islam, because less than a quarter of its entire body of believers has perverted this religion, bent it, distorted it, twisted and tangled it into something ungodly, unholy, unworldly and unworthy of anyone’s respect?  For too long this minority of Muslim religious fanatics has held hostage a people who fear to rise up and reclaim Islam for their own, in the name of peace rather than in submission.

Liberals fear these Nazi-like radicals as well.  Which is why out of “respect” for Islam they do not mock Muslims in the same viscous, horrible, degrading, judgmental manner they do with regards to Christianity and Christians.  In other words, they are cowards!

What real “danger” does Christianity pose to the world, to the people of the world?  Neither Christianity, nor its followers, is any longer living in the past, or in an age long since passed.  Despite the attempts of some Christians who might want us to return to a time no longer compatible with today’s rationality and sensibility, and knowledge – a world under the influence of a James Ussher or Cotton Mather for example.  This type of strict Christianity is no longer prevalent.  It wasn’t all that prevalent then.  Why does one suppose there are so many different and varied Christian sects in America and around the world?  What other reason for such schism could there have been except fundamental disagreement?  Would Muslims ever do more than think to break away from overbearing and tyrannical leaders within their own faith?  And what would be the results from that?

We have much more to fear from Islam, and from the radically supercharged illusion of Islam its minority of crazy, whacked out followers want the world to submit to by force and upon pain and penalty of death.  For that, liberals, including the cast of SNL, keeps their mouths shout with anything to do with Islam; anything that might offend, insult, disrespect, be misconstrued or taken the wrong way, or be perceived to be a threat to Islam.  It is not for political correctness, or out of respect, but rather from a deep, an abiding sense of sheer terror.

This is exactly how liberals remember Christianity from centuries ago.  This is Islam today!  Will this be Islam tomorrow?  Or will “cooler heads” prevail?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 5 – Her Jewish Love Affair With Islam And Everything Anti-Christian

Cheap feminists like Michelle Goldberg are a dime a dozen.  That aside, here we have a Jewish woman defending a television program, “All American Muslim”, and supporting a religion, Islam, that wants to kill her and all Jews, while at the same time she abhors Christianity, which is an ally of Jews and a defender of Israel.  Her book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, is an attempt at prophecy, a dire “warning” of things yet to come should the grip of Christianity, “dominionism”, tighten its hold on America. 

This is the description of her book as seen on

Goldberg traveled through the heartland of a country in the grips of a fevered religious radicalism: the America of our time. From the classroom to the mega-church to the federal court, she saw how the growing influence of dominionism-the doctrine that Christians have the right to rule nonbelievers-is threatening the foundations of democracy.

Does this description sound more like Christianity, or Islam?  Isn’t it Islam, the religion of submission, that consistently utters “convert the infidel, or kill him/her?  Is it Christianity or Islam that practices “honor killings”?  Is it Christianity or Islam that is pushing hard to bring Sharia Law to America?  Is it Christianity or Islam that imprisons its women for having been raped and forces her to marry the rapist or remain in prison?  Is it Christianity or Islam that shames women for having been raped?  Is it Christianity or Islam that flogs, stones and murders women who will not cover themselves from head to toe, if they drive a car, if they try to vote, if they talk to a man who is of no relation, if they will not submit to their husband, and even when they are raped?  Is it Christianity or Islam that faults the woman for being raped, and releases the rapist?  Is it Christianity, or Islam, that treats women, in general, in practice, and in reality, like crap?

Is it Christianity, or is it Islam, that wants “dominion” over all the world, and the “right to rule nonbelievers”?

Michelle Goldberg is Jewish by birth, but that is about as far as it goes.  As a feminist, and a socialist, her defense of Islam is not necessarily genuine, because as a feminist, and a socialist – as are all feminists and socialists – she is anti-religion.  Which means she is also anti-Islam.  However, Islam is anti-Christian, and that being the case, she sees an opportunity to weaken Christianity by defending a religion that would otherwise sooner cut off her head than shake her hand in anti-Christian solidarity.

She is playing a very dangerous game all in an effort to weaken the influence of Christianity in America.  She is willing to betray America and her Jewish Heritage, disregarding the violence, the hatred, the obsession radical Muslims have in destroying Israel and killing all the Jews – all to push Christianity’s reach further away from the people who would seek its embrace.

Which is why Michelle writes, in her pro-Muslim article, that:

The boycott against All-American Muslim surely marks the first time that right-wingers have objected to a television program for being too bland and wholesome.

We ought not deny the fact that there are peaceful Muslims.  Indeed, many of them immigrated to America to escape the violence of the Middle East, desiring the freedom only America can offer them.  We ought not lose sight of the fact that many American Muslims are patriots.  But we ought not be blind-sighted either.

The protest against “All American Muslim”, and the reason why advertisers are pulling their sponsorship from this program as stated by The Florida Family Association:

‘All-American Muslim’ is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law,” the Florida group asserts in a letter it asks members to send to TLC advertisers.

In other words it had to do with the fact that right now we are at war with a very radical and sadistic, and evil, part of Islam, and have been since 9/11.  The entire concept of this program is engineered to deflect that issue, to push it under the rug, to deny it by casting all American Muslims as peace-loving, pro family, pro Americans.

There is a hidden agenda to “All American Muslim”.  Its creators are hoping to portray Muslims, and Islam, in a positive light while at the same time undermining and mocking our efforts to win the War On Terror.  With this program, the creators are attempting to show how ridiculous it has been, and a waste of time, money and lives fighting against something – Islam – that is clearly, as portrayed on “All American Muslim”, quite peaceful.  It is the creators way of “throwing their shoes” at all Christians, Republicans, conservatives, George W. Bush, and all “right-wingers”, “tea-baggers”, “capitalist pigs”, “pro-lifers”, etc., that are fighting to keep America out of the hands of socialists.

While Michelle Goldberg looks to excoriate and rake over the coals Americans, “right-wingers”, who worry such programming has a deeper, more diabolic intent, what would her reaction be to a program called “All American Christian”?  Isn’t it obvious Michelle would write a scathing critique against it, outlining the “hypocrisy” of such a program.  She has already written many articles condemning Christianity and Christians.  And let’s not forget her book, Kingdom Coming.

Michelle Goldberg hates Christianity, as do all feminists and socialists.  Christianity is in their way of realizing socialism’s dominion, its “dominionism” over America.  If Islam can help Michelle Goldberg accomplish this agenda, she is perfecting willing to bed down with Muslims until that agenda is realized.

But – what happens to America if socialism wins?  And – what happens to Michelle Goldberg’s love affair with Islam after she, and all socialists, succeed in permanently removing Christian influence from America?  What happens to Michelle Goldberg’s pro-Muslim, pro-Islam attitude then?  What happens to all American Muslims?

Discrimination Is Both American And Constitutional (And We Ought To Appreciate It)

So a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

This is not a joke.  There is no punchline and nobody is laughing.  Not the lesbian couple who wanted the cake made, nor the owner of the Des Moines, Iowa bakery who declined to make the cake and is now threatened with a possible lawsuit.

The two lesbians, Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers claim they were shocked when owner, Victoria Childress, told them she could not, in good faith, and because of her Christian faith, prepare such a wedding cake as was being asked of her.  Said Childress:

I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner.  It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them.  It’s not so much to do with them, as it’s to do with me, and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for.”

What is most troubling about this is not what you might expect.  It isn’t the fact that a lesbian couple was denied service by a Christian business owner.  Nor is it the fact that this lesbian couple would contemplate filing a lawsuit for discrimination.  That is to be expected, in this day and age in our country.  What is most troubling about this is if this lesbian couple does file a lawsuit, it is tremendously probable, virtually 100% likely, they will win.  In other words, a win for this lesbian couple would compel and force, by law, every single business owner – at least in Iowa (for the time being) – to check their own personal beliefs and convictions at the door of their own business.  This is extremely unsettling.  It is un-American and it is unconstitutional.

Business owners in America have, and must retain, a right to discriminate, to refuse service to whomever they choose.  Whether we agree with that premise or not, as private business owners, it must be their right to make whatever moral decisions for their business as they see fit, rather than the right of government to make legal decisions in substitution of those moral and private decisions.  And whatever decisions a private business owner ultimately makes will, and ought to reflect, and to take into consideration, the community around them.  In other words, how will the community – the people they would hope to do business with, and make a profit from, react?  If the community itself rejects a business owner’s moral decision to not do business with a lesbian couple because that business owner opposes homosexuality on religious grounds, then let the community be the deciding factor, not government, not the law – and not by adding another dubious law to the books.

The lesbian couple added a statement to a lesbian web site stating:

Awareness of equality was our only goal in bringing this to light, it is not about cake or someone’s right to refuse service to a customer.”

“Equality”.  Sounds grand, doesn’t it?  But in that quest for “equality” someone always loses, don’t they?  In other words, the lesbian couple, in their pursuit of “equality” might win.  Should this happen, the business owner, Victoria Childress loses, doesn’t she?  And what does she lose?  She loses her right as a private business owner to make her own decisions about her own business.

Put aside, for a moment, America’s long history of discrimination against blacks, Jews, the Chinese, the Irish, the Italians, the Japanese and just about every group and class of people that ever existed.  This is a separate issue.  This is a case of whether or not a private business owner has the right to refuse business to someone, anyone, for any reason, in their own business.  And it is a case of just how much (more) power we are willing to grant government, and how much (more) freedom we the people are willing to relinquish in our endless endeavor for “equality”.  But as we ought to know, by now, the more we push for “equality” the more we push, and squeeze out, personal freedom.

It has never been the role of government to interfere with private business or with whom private business conducts its business.  One hundred years of segregation against blacks changed that.  The government stepped in and ended Jim Crow and segregation.  In doing so, our government unwittingly, perhaps, opened up a legal Pandora’s box.  It paved the way for legally forcing an end to any type of discrimination, both in the public square and private, thus forcing private businesses owners, upon penalty of a hefty fine, losing their business license and their right to own and operate a business to acquiesce to their clientele, whomever that clientele might be.

So – a woman walks into a local bakery, turns to the owner and casually says, “Can you bake a cake for my wedding?  Oh by the way, it’s a lesbian wedding.  I’m gay.”  The owner takes a deep breath and she replies, “I’m sorry, I can’t make that kind of cake.  I’m Christian.”

Was this an innocent encounter, or was there something more going on?  In other words, why did these lesbians go into this particular bakery?  Did they know ahead of time the owner was a Christian who would ultimately turn their request down because of her religious convictions?  Was this a set up?  And why can’t these lesbians simply accept the fact that this particular business owner is a Christian and go find another bakery to make their cake?  If these lesbians want to be accepted for who they are, why can’t they accept this Christian business owner for who she is?

Whatever this was, an innocent mistake or a devious trap, it has become something deeper and more provocative.  With a potential lawsuit, win or lose, either scenario will be challenged, ultimately winding up in the Supreme court; nine justices who will have to decide whether or not all business owners in America have the right to choose to do business with whom they want, and decline to do business with those they don’t.  The Supreme court will have to decide if in the name of “equality”, in our plight to end discrimination everywhere in America it exists, it is right, it is legal, it is Constitutional to hold business owners as “unequal” and thus lawful to discriminate against them.  All in the name of “equality”.

Is that the kind of  “equality” we ought to accept and to appreciate?

“American Atheists” Ad Campaign Good For Local Economy, Bad For American Atheists Everywhere

“American Atheists” is out with a new ad and billboards campaign promoting the idea that God is a myth by comparing God and Jesus with Santa Claus and old Greek and Roman Gods and Satan.  The moral?  That we know Santa is a myth, and that we know the Greek and Roman Gods are a myth (and if they are real they have been very patiently, very mysteriously silent for over two thousand years) we therefore must know that God and Jesus are myths.  Not necessarily so.

The only “effective” result this campaign will attain is to provide extra revenue to the local economies where these ads and billboards will be placed.  Campaigns this irrational, this impractical, never capture the minds of anyone, certainly not the devout, and not even those in doubt.  In other words, what American Atheists is doing is akin to and no different from what the religious have done in their campaigns to promote and persuade nonbelievers.  Campaigns like “When in doubt be devout” and campaigns that invoke and espouse Pascal’s wager.  Campaigns that inspire no one and inspire nothing.  Atheists sneer them.  Why wouldn’t Christians sneer these?

Rationality is the heart of secularism and free-thought.  When atheists act irrationality they break that heart of secularism and of free-thought.  Reason is our defense.  When atheists act unreasonably, their actions are indefensible.  Responsibility is key to promoting rationality and reason from a secular point of view.  When atheists act irresponsibly to promote their point of view they discard that key, lock out reason and rationality and throw away our opportunities for promoting and debating with believers in a rational, reasonable and responsible manner.

Debating the existence of God has always been a complete and absolute waste of time.  We have nothing in science, or in nature, that demonstrates a clear existence of the supernatural; nothing with which to test for.  We don’t no where to even begin to look for clues to the existence of the supernatural – from a scientific approach.  Humans have searched for proof for thousands of years and while we have filled our minds with all sorts of possibilities and “answers”, we have thus far come up empty handed.  The same holds true with attempting to disprove the existence of God and of the supernatural.

No one can either prove or disprove the existence of God or the supernatural.  What is proof, and historical fact, is what the power that the belief in God has been able to do for humanity in the past two thousand years.  A power unmatched and unequaled with regards to other beliefs in other Gods and Goddesses, such as American Atheists uses to demonstrate as “myth”.  It is the power of this belief that holds strong over the world’s believers, and why it won’t be weakened any time soon.  Certainly it will not be weakened by childish and nonsensical billboards.

So – a tug of war yet exists.  When believers act irrationally, they loom ever closer to falling into the proverbial pit.  Likewise, when atheists act irrationally, they lose hold of the rope and loom closer to falling into that pit themselves.  Who ultimately “wins” will be determined by which side has the stamina, courage and strength to be and remain rational.  right now, despite the weight of science behind it, believers are holding on to more of the rope.  Atheists behaving badly, such as American Atheists, only strengthens the other side.

The real debate lies not in the “what if” aspect but the “why” aspect.  In other words, can we be just as rational, just as moral without believing? And if so, if rationality and morality comes from the mind itself, and not supernatural belief, why do we need the belief in the supernatural to be the cornerstone of rationality, reason, morality, logic, etc.?  And what happens when we use the rationality and the power of our minds more than we use the rationality and power of belief?  If secularists can prove they can be just as rational and moral as believers, then we will gain the upper hand, we will control more of the “rope”.

American Atheists, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the ACLU and all the other groups out there campaigning against religion – Christianity in particular – are hurting themselves, all of us that are passionate about reason and logic, rationality and morality.  Forcing religion to be removed from the public square because it is “offensive” to some, or violates a non existent clause in the Constitution, mocking religion as myth, treating religion, and believers, as childish and as children is doing nothing to promote secularism.  Rather it is causing more of us who are secular and rational to be pushed ever closer to falling into that pit.

And if American Atheists and the others keep on acting irrationally and being unreasonable; if they continue to assault believers, mock them pointlessly, treat them with the same childish scorn and derision they so long ago belittled us with, those of us that are rational secularists will use our skills of reason and logic and let go of the rope  – and watch you fall into the pit.

Muslims: “Demonic” Or Demented? (Or Both?)

It’s very dangerous and uncertain times for Muslims in America, or at least in Detroit, (Muslim Country) Michigan, where the sirens have already blasted the call and sounded the alarm of imminent threat.  If you are Muslim – get out of Detroit now!  Get out before it is too late.  Leave your wealth behind; your possessions, sacrifice your children, if you have to – but save yourselves!  They are coming.  They bring with them unspeakable, unimaginable and frightening truths and revelations the likes of which are not for Muslim ears to listen to.  Do cover your ears should they speak in your presence.  Their message will be as poison to you, any Muslim.  And yet, for all their cunning, they bring with them not one stick of dynamite, not one exploding apparatus, not one detonating device.  What possible wizardry could they be up to?  What foolishness is bringing them to Detroit, Michigan, armed not with guns, grenades and other such weaponry?  For those Muslims left behind, trapped inside the walls of Detroit, Michigan with them, suicide might be the best and only option.  (Muslims, by their law, each have a homemade suicide kit in their household, don’t they?)

The distress signal, which was prompted by the quick thinking action of one Dawud Walid, Executive Director for CAIR’s Michigan chapter, which stands for The Council on American-Islamic Relations, (although the AI in reality, as well as CAIR itself, stands for Anti Israel) was as dire a warning as CAIR has ever transmitted.  It took real courage and heroics.  There must be some type of Islamic medal of honor that Walid could receive for his bravery.  

They are planning a prayer event this Friday at Ford Field, where the Detroit Lions play football.  Such a gathering, where many thousands are expected to attend, is clearly cause for panic and trampling over one another.  Prayer?  What is that code for?  At least when a Muslim goes in to a marketplace or school strapped with explosives, shouting “Allahu Akbar” we don’t have to second guess their motives.

Said Walid:

Given the theology of the participants and that they view Muslims as demonic, we should be prepared that some participants may come to the mosques to harass or provoke worshipers.”

“Harass”?  “Provoke”?  Halloween is over.  Who is this Muslim looney toon trying to kid?  Afraid they might overhear some plot to blow up another piece of America?  Fearful they might get wind of another deal to provide funds for another terrorist attack somewhere in the world?  Does Walid really believe they would go to a mosque to “harass” and “provoke” the “good” Muslim worshipers who only want peace and harmony, and Islamic world domination, into doing something their brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria, and the rest of the Muslim occupied world are doing right now?

Walid went even further, indeed above and beyond the call of Islamic duty, delving deeper into the mystery, the substance, the minds of them, the real motivations of they that would dare invade Muslim controlled Detroit, when he:

Advised area mosques and schools to make sure all entrances are secure during the time of the event, and said they should call police if they see “suspicious persons congregate on mosque property.”

“Suspicious”.  Well, to a Muslim, anyone not wired to the hilt with explosives and shouting “Allahu Akbar” must be “suspicious”.  Anyone not wearing explosives, shouting “Allahu Akbar” is obviously not a Muslim to begin with.  And what would anyone not wearing explosives and shouting “Allahu Akbar” be doing near a mosque or school anyway?

But Walid was not finished being “concerned”.  With a kind of trepidation and trembling in his speech, and a shaking all over his body, said he:

Some of the event participants could try to provoke mosque attendees in some way.”

Very spooky indeed.  “In some way”.  That certainly leaves open the myriad of endless possibilities.  But why such a heightened response?

In these types of circumstances we have to be more security-minded,” Walid said.

It’s just not like in the wonderful, sane and rational and happy Muslim world where you are either a Muslim or they hang you or cut off your head.  Time will tell.  Muslims want Sharia law here in America, and our liberal courts are only too happy to oblige.

Dawud Walid deserves a hearty round of applause for bringing this event, and them, to our attention.  When no one else in Detroit, Michigan dared lift a finger or raise a voice; when no one else in Detroit, Michigan thought enough to be concerned; when no one else in Detroit, Michigan saw with their own eyes the oncoming storm headed their way; when no one else in Detroit, Michigan cared that they were coming to Detroit – only one man, one Muslim man, in all of Michigan – a Super Man – used his courage, his strength, his speed, his position as Executive Director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, and not to mention his hatred of them, to let all of Detroit, Michigan know they are indeed coming.

What would America do, what would America be, without more men, more Muslim Supermen, like Dawud Walid to protect us from them?

Calling The Pope A Nazi Is Heroic? Calling Obama A Failed President Is Racist?

When Susan Sarandon called Pope Benedict XVI a Nazi what exactly was she hoping to gain by the remark?  Does she really believe the Pope is a Nazi or was she just having a bad a day and needed to vent?  Does Susan even know what a Nazi is?  That is a fair question to ask of a liberal, any liberal, such as Susan who, on the one hand supports abortion on demand, but on the other hand, opposes the death penalty as much as the Pope she called a Nazi.  (She starred in “Dead Man Walking”, in 1995, a movie with anti-death penalty themes.)  And liberals have a strong tendency to simply throw around words to see where they stick.  The problem here, of course, is that there is nowhere for “Nazi” to stick when referring to Pope Benedict XVI.

Perhaps she was referring to the Pope’s earlier, albeit brief, ties to Nazism when, in his youth, and when he was known by his German name Joseph Ratzinger, he was forced to join Hitler’s Youth, as were all young Germans at the time.  But the war ended, Nazism failed, and Joseph, who never embraced Nazism to begin with, grew up to be a strong Catholic and eventually Pope, after the death of Pope John Paul II.

One is hard pressed to find a liberal who has the courage to openly show respect for such a man as Pope Benedict XVI.  Why did Susan Sarandon really call the Pope a Nazi?  More than likely it is because she is a deeply convicted liberal and he is a deeply religious conservative who opposes abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage, socialism and the socialist agenda which seeks to uproot and overthrow religion and religious institutions.  When do you ever see, or hear of, a conservative calling a liberal a Nazi?  (Maybe Rush Limbaugh when he refers to feminists as femi-Nazis.  And it might do well to examine the term more in-depth and find out how much truth there is to it.)

Liberals, hypocrites as they are, have no problem with throwing around such words as ‘Nazi” when it comes to conservatives, and in particular religious conservatives; and left wing extremist pro abortion groups like NOW, have no problem calling pro-life activists terrorists.  But when conservatives use words like “I hope Obama fails”, Obama is a failure, Obama, the first black U.S. President, is the worst President in U.S. history – we are labeled racists, despite the fact that when we use words, we can usually back them up; and despite the fact that liberals called George W. Bush, his father and former President George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan much, much worse during their Presidencies.

And yet, Obama has failed to produce the millions of jobs he promised he would.  Obama has failed to turn our economy around as he promised he would.  Obama has failed to cut taxes on the middle class as he promised he would.  And Obama has failed to end partisanship in politics and in America with regards to race as he promised he would.  Race relations in America are worse now than they were before Obama took office – and that is the direct fault of black liberals in congress and all over America.  The racism we are seeing now in America is coming most directly from liberal blacks, not conservative whites.

Barack Obama is a failed President.  (And this is mostly a good thing for America and all Americans.)


Because the way in which Obama wanted jobs to be created in America would have cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and would only have created government, public sector jobs and expanded government itself.  In other words, the only jobs Obama is concerned with creating are those that grow the size and scope of government, but which do not expand the size and scope of the economy.  The more we grow government, the more government jobs we create, the more it costs all taxpayers.  However, creating jobs in the private sector not only costs taxpayers nothing, it not only aides the economy and economic growth, it also generates new tax revenue.  To create a government, public sector job, you must pay someone with the money collected through taxes.  To create a private sector job, a business owner must pay someone out of their own pocket.

Certainly we, as conservatives, hope Obama fails to achieve his ultimate goal of bigger government, higher taxes and less freedom and liberty for all Americans.  Certainly we, as conservatives, know how much better off America, Americanism and all freedom loving Americans will be should Obama fail to achieve these goals.  Certainly we, as conservatives, know that by hoping Obama fails in his goals, we are not applying racism behind our motives.  If Obama were white, and he, as a white President, had the same agenda, we would hope for his failure just as aggressively.

So no, Pope Benedict XVI is no more a Nazi than conservatives are racists.  And liberals, like Susan Sarandon and Barack Obama, are no more saints, heroes or anybody to look up to and admire than was Hitler.

“Homosexuality Is Wrong” Is The Newest Swear Word

Texas School Punishes Boy For Opposing Homosexuality | Fox News.

Ever since the brutal and despicable murder of Matthew Sheppard in1998, a gay college student from the University of Wyoming, there has been a push in America to ban any speech that might offend, be offensive, or might be construed as anti-gay, in the work place, in the public square and in public schools.

Young Dakota Ary learned this lesson the hardest way possible one day when he uttered that phrase at school in his German class.  His teacher happened to overhear the statement.  For Dakota’s lack of understanding and compassion toward what has essentially come to be a government protected, and coddled, class of people, he was sent to the principal’s office where justice was done upon him, much to the horror and disbelief of his mother, in the form of a one day in school suspension, plus two days of full suspension.  (That was later dropped after an attorney with Liberty Counsel intervened on Dakota’s behalf.)

Dakota is not alone.  Many other students have endured such a fate as he, and this type of over reactionary measure awaits anyone, nowadays, who would dare to have an opinion that seeks to upend the liberally controlled public school system.  Even within the work place and the public square itself – the epitome of free speech, hate crimes advocates and lawyers are closing in and narrowing the definition of free speech.

Naturally it is one thing entirely for a public school, and a teacher in that public school, to want to enforce rules and standards, and to be actively monitoring what children are saying in his/her classroom, looking out for inappropriate speech or speech that might lead to the physical injury of another person.

But let’s be realistic.  If Dakota had been learning about Christianity, say that of the 16th or 17th century, how religious dissension in that era had plunged Europe into many wars and struggles, and after hearing about all the blood shed and death of so many people, had he formed an opinion from that lecture, turned to his class mate and said, “Christianity is wrong”,  does anyone really believe that, in today’s public school, Dakota would be punished with school suspension, or punished at all, for his lack of sensitivity toward Christianity?

Check out the “Bong hits for Jesus” t-shirt controversy.  Denigrating Christianity in public schools is far more protected, far more commonplace (and more common coming from teachers themselves rather than the students) and upheld by judges as free speech, than a simple, albeit, perhaps unintentionally hurtful remark, as “I think homosexuality is wrong”.  It was a private thought Dakota made to a classmate not in any way meant to be hurtful or to promote an agenda.  Rather, it was an aside that his teacher overheard and took way out of context.

In this same article it is stated how this very teacher of Dakota’s had once put up a picture of two men kissing on his classroom wall.  Very clearly, then, it is Dakota’s teacher, not Dakota himself, who is pushing an agenda.  But if it is a pro homosexual agenda then that is protected.

We have seen the vitriol, controversy and the double standard every time a proposal is brought forth to put up the Ten Commandments in a public school.  The people who cry bigotry for what they perceive to be anti-gay rhetoric are the same people who are quick to oppose the Ten Commandments in any public school out of a manufactured fear of insensitivity to the other students who might not be Christian and therefore offended or belittled by having to walk past such a religious placard.

But this is just more of the same anti-religious runaround that has wedged itself into the public school system for the passed fifty years.

Public schools should not be places where children are made to feel ashamed of who they are, whether they are gay or Christian.  Nor should they be places where children are indoctrinated by their teachers who have ulterior agendas and motives counter to the purpose of public education and to that of their community at large.

Rather, school should be a place where children are properly instructed in facts; historical, scientific, mathematical, grammar, etc.  They should also be a place where students are free to form opinions and ideas on their own, even if they might be uncomfortable to others, including homosexuality and religion, so long as these opinions and ideas are of a constructive, not a destructive, nature.

Just as a public school would never demand a student check their homosexuality at the door before they enter, neither should they demand a student check his or her religion at the door.

Right now, in America, as is evidenced in this latest anti-religious fervor involving Dakota Ary, we have a long way yet to go in ensuring that all students have the same rights, not just a select few.  And until local communities are better able to take back their own public schools from errant school boards and rogue teachers, gain more control and secure more of a say in these institutions which their property taxes are funding, it will continue to remain an uphill battle.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: