The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “atheism”

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.

Atheists Desperately Want Bibles, Use Porn As Fair Trade

Atheists want Christians to trade in their Bibles for pornography.  “Smut for smut” they call it.  Could this actually be some Freudian ploy on their part?  Could it be that atheists are really desperate and crying out for salvation and they are only pretending to use this event as a way to lead Christians astray, when in reality they want help from these same Christians?  After-all, they criticize the Bible all the time over its own “smut”.  If you can lead a Christian and an atheist to porn – can you make the Christian “drink” the porn?  Would you need to make the atheist “drink” the porn?  Watch the video:

Little are these Atheists aware that some porn has already “accidentally” found its way into religious circles.

What is in this book atheists don’t want Christians to read?

 What is in this book atheists read and call “smut”?

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.

The Un”reason”able, Irrational Aspect of Richard Dawkins’ Reason Rally – Says A Secularist

March 24th, in Washington D.C. there will be held a Reason Rally.  The point of the rally, however, has not so much to do with reason, but rather is another vain show of contempt for religion and religious values, and another opportunity for atheists, non-believers and people who otherwise disregard, hate and oppose religion, who find religion to be an obstacle to enlightenment, to further ridicule those who find comfort and value in religion.

Richard Dawkins, noted atheist, author, commentator and agitator of all things “unreasonable”, who will be among the guest speakers at the rally, asks the question, “Who would rally against reason”?  The problem with that question is that Dawkins asks the question from an emotional point of view rather than the rational point of view he is attempting to advocate.  And although his audience is, and will already be, persuaded, the groups of people Dawkins is directing his message towards (they probably will not be at the rally) will undoubtedly be unchanged and disinclined to accept anything he has to say on matters of reason.  There is a “reason” for that.

Dawkins, in everything he has done, and written about, has been to discredit and debunk religion and the supernatural, and man’s need for it.  What Dawkins fails to take into account, what most non-believers fail to understand, is that Christians, and all believers, will not be persuaded to accept his, Dawkins, idea of “reason” if it is only done in a manner, and in the same manner religion employed for centuries, which forces it down their throats.  Whether fact or opinion, anyone who has an idea forced down their throat they don’t accept, or which makes them uncomfortable, will naturally vomit it back up.  Until Dawkins, and all non-believers, understand that, and find other ways to disseminate reason, this back and forth tug-of-war will go on without much loosening of slack in the rope.  In other words – a stale mate.

As the basis for this rally, Dawkins asks:

How have we come to the point where reason needs a rally to defend it?”

The answer?  Because “reason” has been co-opted and commandeered by people who have ulterior motives, sinister and devious, for America and for the world.  The reigns of secular reason have been taken hold of by people, like Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation of Church and State; like American Atheists; like the ACLU; like the American Humanist Association, etc., who want to see America transformed into a society devoid of the kind morality and ethics Christians and other religious believers ascribe to and use as a basis for living their lives, and for which America was founded on.

Well, none of these secular organizations have, or have ever had America’s best intentions, or that of the American people, in their hearts and minds.  And all of these secular organizations have one common thread running deep through their veins – liberalism.  And it is for liberalism, and those values and morals, (not reason or rationality) that Dawkins and other humanists, atheists and secularists are fighting to replace conservative morals and values with.  How is that “reasonable”?

A case in point – one “special” speaker will be Jessica Ahlquist, who is the young woman from Rhode Island who fought, and won, her case to have a religious banner removed from her public school.  A banner which apparently only she was bothered with.  And it begs the question, how much power are we willing to grant to one person, regardless of the opinion and rights of the majority?  There was nothing unconstitutional with having that banner in the school, yet a liberal judge sided with Ahlquist against an entire, or at least a majority, of her own community.  There is an eminent danger in allowing a minority to usurp a majority.

What is going to happen when America – or even when a particular community in America – becomes predominately atheist, and a Christian, now in the minority, sues to have a religious display in the public school they attend because they feel uncomfortable without some form of religious representation included in a sea of secularism and secularist ideas?  How is a court going to decide that?  In other words, if a court has already decided a minority has more rights than a majority, doesn’t it stand to “reason” a court must side again with the minority, in this case a Christian?  Or will there always remain in effect a double standard and bias against religious people, whether they are in the majority or in the minority, and only the non-religious will have the right to be represented?  That appears to be the type of “reason” Dawkins, and other liberal secularists, want in, and for, America.  Is that “reasonable”?

Dawkins justifies his position by writing:

We now know the age of our universe (13-14 billion years), the age of the Earth (4-5 billion years), what we and all other objects are made of (atoms), where we come from (evolved from other species), why all species are so well adapted to their environments (natural selection of their DNA).

In other words, Dawkins takes the position that religious people, those millions of Americans who yet reject evolution, who hold to James Ussher’s version of the world, are the threat to America and to reason itself.  Dawkins would like to say, and does, that the Bible is entirely made up; that it was written long ago by unknown authors, writing in their time, with only the limited understanding of the world in their time, and all that science has accomplished since that time to show, and to prove, some of which these authors have written about, and for which millions of Christians still hold true, is a dangerous impediment to reason.

However, not everything is equally dangerous, or equally a danger.  There are varying levels of danger, in other words.  And that someone believes in creationism, and that the Earth was literally created six thousand years ago, is far less dangerous and far less a threat to America and to “reason” than someone who believes we all ought to reject the real history of America, America’s founding and of America’s greatness and importance in, and to, this world.  Believing in, and teaching our children, that Adam and Eve were literal human beings, and literally created by God as the first man and woman, is far less dangerous than teaching our children the liberal, politically correct version of America which blames and holds America – and more often than not religion, Christianity in particular – accountable,  for every moral “wrong” committed by Americans throughout its history with regards to our treatment of Indians, for slavery, racism, poverty, class warfare, women’s rights, etc.

Well, where is their reason” in falsifying and degrading American history in order to eradicate these moral wrongs?  Where is their reason” in condemning the religious hostility and bigotry of the past by replacing it with the humanist and secularist (liberal) hostility and bigotry of today?  Where is the “reason”  in rejecting many known and established facts in the Bible, because a portion of that Bible is based on supernatural events?  And that some of the Bible is, and based upon, facts, doesn’t stop Dawkins and others from continuing to reject it.  How is that “reason”able?

In the end, the Reason Rally will draw a crowd of however many thousands of people in support of belittling and ridiculing religion and religious values; which will rally support for a more liberal-minded outlook, for liberalism itself, and its own forms of, its own pathways for, that liberal indoctrination.  What the Reason Rally will not do is answer the question – how do we, as “reasonable” and rational, intelligent, thinking human beings, use our sapiens “wise” abilities to the best of our abilities without becoming overwrought in emotions, and without becoming the kind of un”reason”able. irrational people Dawkins, and others, finds to be contemptible?  In other words, the Reason Rally will showcase everything but reason itself.  How is that reasonable, and how does that help the secularist cause?

Atheism Not Unpatriotic – But Minority Rule Is

Atheism as a philosophical point of view is neither unpatriotic nor un-American.  However, when atheists seek to have something of a religious nature removed from the public square without the consent or support of the majority, that is unpatriotic and un-American – and unconstitutional.  There are times when one person ought not be able to make a difference, like this case in Massachusetts, like so many others involving atheists around the country.  Subverting the will of the majority through legal channels misses the mark of rationality, common sense and decency.

In Middlesex Superior Court on Monday, David Niosie, the family’s lawyer asked that the words be taken out of the expression of loyalty to America. According to the attorney, the term “under God” forces the children to engage in an activity that “defines patriotism according to a particular religious belief.”

“Every day these kids go to school and the pledge is recited declaring that the nation is in fact under God,” Niosie went on to tell a FOX25 reporter. “That marginalizes them and suggests that people who don’t believe in God are less patriotic.”

That an atheist would be bothered with the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is understandable, from a secular outlook.  But if one person, or even a small group – a limited minority – of people can legally and constitutionally tread on the rights of the majority, and prevent the majority from having a voice, what is going to happen when/if atheism becomes the majority in a community and one or two religious citizens sue to have some form of religious script, placard, banner, etc. be included because they feel left out and unrepresented?  Would atheists then be swayed, out of remembrance for their own struggles, to succumb to that point of view?  Probably not.

Why should it be any different when the majority is comprised of religious citizens who support religious influences in their communities, be that influence the Ten Commandments, a religious seal on a city emblem, a Christmas tree, religious Christmas carols sung by school students – or including the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance?

The American Constitution was designed, in part, to protect the minority from certain harms which might be committed by an unruly majority (mob rule) and governments influenced by those unruly majorities.  That the minority would even have rights, and rights which were legally protected, was a novel and daring concept in its day.  And one of the top reasons why so many millions of people from around the world, since America’s founding, have risked life and death to come to America and to be Americans.

While the Constitution protects the minority from mob rule, it’s hard to accept that civilized citizens, supporting something, anything of a religious nature be included within their community is consistent with mob rule.  If the majority wanted atheists fined, jailed or even exiled from the community, that would be unconstitutional, and an infringement on the rights of atheists simply for being atheists.   Being an atheist, in other words, is not illegal or unconstitutional.  Neither is being religious, or expressing and affirming one’s religious values.  And having those religious values reflected and incorporated even in public schools – if the majority of citizens in that community support it – is not mob rule.  But it is majority rule.  And so long as it is the citizens, and not the government itself, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

If it was government itself demanding “under God” be included, then there would be a legal case.  However, if it is the citizens within the community, by a majority, that support the inclusion of the phrase “under God”, then that is constitutionally permissible.  Private citizens are not the government.  They are neither being paid to represent the government nor are they voting and passing legislation as members of a government body which, having been sworn in and taking an oath to meet the needs of all citizens, including the minority, they are duty bound not to suppress the rights of the minority.  And yet, private citizens, through referendums, can both pass and overturn laws enacted by their government – as long as there is a majority supporting the passage or overturning of said law, and so long as the laws the majority wants passed or overturned are not unconstitutional.

Religion in the public schools is not unconstitutional, even from a secular outlook.  Separation of church and state is just that.  And even if it was anything more, it’s not a part of the Constitution so must not be included in legal discourse and debate.  That “congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” in no way prevents religion from being represented, or being legally allowed to remain, within public spaces.  When atheists, the ACLU, and other legal and secular entities sue to “prohibit the free exercise thereof”, of religion in public spaces, such as the atheist couple in Massachusetts, and elsewhere around the country, that does prevent religion from being represented in public spaces and as such is unconstitutional and is an infringement on the rights of the majority.

If atheists ever want to be taken seriously, if they ever want to make any real strides and improvements to their positions and points of views, if they ever want their movement to have credibility, if they ever want their numbers to improve and to increase, as a minority forcing its will on the majority through legal insurrection against the majority itself is not the way to do it.  Up until now, atheists have used the law to forcibly remove religion and religious relics and influences from the public domain against the will of the majority.  Atheists must use the law because they have yet to use their brains and their minds, and the power of intellectual influence and persuasion.  The majority, as of now, desires to be religious and to have their religion and their religious values represented and incorporated in their public spaces.  Until that changes, atheists must accept it.

It is unpatriotic, un-American and unconstitutional for a minority of citizens to suppress the rights of a majority of citizens (such as the majority’s right to have the phrase “under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance) because the minority rejects the will of the majority.  And, as Americans, we must reject the minority’s thrust to push itself, and its views, on the majority.

How does minority rule not, by default, automatically instigate mass chaos?  In other words, how can any law ever be passed, and remain intact for very long, if the minority has more power and more rights than the majority and when there is always a minority of citizens which opposes any given law?  Wouldn’t every law on the books then be challenged, and thrown out, if even one person objected to it?  We would soon realize what a waste of time passing laws is.  And a nation without laws cannot long survive.

Are we really going to permit our nation to collapse, and to implode on itself, on the whim, on the weight, of the minority?

Have A Very [Censored] And A Happy New Year!

The Right says there is a systematic, ongoing deliberate “War on Christmas”.  The Left says it ain’t so.  Who’s telling the truth?  You decide.

The left, as with Skye Jethani, scoffs at the idea that there is a “War on Christmas”.

Since 2005, Fox News has deployed its minions to wage their war on the “War on Christmas,” and the American Family Association has pushed for a boycott of stores for not using the words “Merry Christmas” in their seasonal marketing. Like many public institutions, some retailers opt to use the inclusive phrase “Happy Holidays” which these groups interpret as a slam to Jesus Christ- the real “reason for the season.”

On the other hand:

Congress is now banned from using the phrase “Merry Christmas” in their mailings.  The controversy?  These congressional mailings, “franking” they call it, is paid for by you, the tax payer.  You might be offended if congress spends your tax dollars wishing you or anyone else a “Merry Christmas”.  Never mind that congress uses this mailing privilege for virtually all its postal needs, including their own campaigns, elections and reelections, despite the fact they are not supposed to.  Untold millions of dollars you pay for so that congress can reelect itself and remain in power.  What the hell is more offensive, more politically incorrect – politically immoral?  A warm and invigorating two-word phrase, or having congress “frank” us with our own tax dollars?  Is the intentional removal of  Merry Christmas a “war on Christmas” or not?  You decide.

The Left sneers at the right for its concern of a “War on Christmas”.

Christmas only gained acceptance among a majority of Protestant Christians when it gained wide acceptance by the American public in general. And that can be attributed to the rise of Santa Claus in the secular pantheon.

On the other hand:

When Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, had the audacity to revert back to the “old name” for the tree his state brings out every year at this time, atheists and liberals had a fit (and liberal Jews had a conniption).  The tree, which had been called a “Holiday Tree” for the past 25 years, Scott Walker now re-Christianed of all things a “Christmas tree”, which it had been called for decades prior to its bland, sterile, uninviting, “inoffensive” renaming as a “Holiday Tree”.  Is the premeditated replacing of “Holiday” with “Christmas” a win in the right’s corner or not?  or does this move by Walker only escalate the “War on Christmas”, which doesn’t actually exist?  You decide.

The Left derides the right for its fear the left is stealing Christmas.

Sermons about the pagan origins of Christmas or the danger of rampant materialism in Christ’s name are unlikely to be heard today. In recent years the dominant message heard from the Christian community during the holiday season has been precisely the opposite. Today, it seems many Christians are offended when unchecked materialism in December is not explicitly associated with Christ. The irony.

On the other hand:

After a nativity scene in Athens, TX was erected, atheists from the Freedom from Religion Foundation were livid enough to demand it be removed.  Thousands of nativity supporters came out to defend the yearly display.  Although a banner was initially displayed by an unknown atheist which read:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail.’

‘There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds.”

It has since been taken down because the proper claims to display the banner were not made.  Liberal atheists are ones to talk about “hardened hearts” and enslaving minds”.   How much more “harder” does one make their own heart, how much more does one “enslave” their own mind when they close and seal both with such an outward and blatant compulsion, allowing themselves to be thrown into a Scrooge-like frenzy of hysterics over a simple nativity scene?  Is this the best argument atheists can make to “let reason prevail”?  And, will this lead to another battle, another skirmish in the ongoing, nonexistent “War on Christmas” or not?  You decide.

The Left chides the right for its stance on saying “Merry Christmas”, rather than “Happy Holidays”.  And when the Right does use the phrase, “Happy Holidays”, the Left chides the right again.  The Left mocks the right for contending there is a “War On Christmas”, yet try to sing Christmas carols in public schools and see what happens.

Skye Jethani says about the Puritans:

Many of us forget that Christmas itself is a holiday of dubious origin. For example, the Puritans were stridently opposed to the celebration of Christmas. They could find no biblical support for the holiday, and they believed (correctly) that it was originally a pagan festival now masquerading as Christian one.

So atheists and liberals are the “New Puritans”?  Neither atheists or liberals “find support for the holiday”, and they both believe “it was originally a pagan festival”.  Like the Puritans, atheists and liberals would have all mention of Christmas, and celebrating Christmas, banned.  Atheists and liberals despise Puritans and the Puritan way of life; they ridicule and rip to shreds the Puritans for their “backward”, their strict adherence to biblical literalism, religious standards and values – and for killing 19 people wrongly accused for witchcraft in 1692.  But to prop up their anti-Christmas agenda, they would use Puritans to their advantage.  They would invoke the spirit of Puritanism in their political ploy to water down, and drowned out Christmas.  Would the real Puritans have approved of this?

The Left adamantly denies there is a “War on Christmas”.

Sadly, the “War on Christmas” and “Christmas Under Siege” campaigns pushed by some conservative Christians says more about the church’s captivity to consumerism than its commitment to the love of Christ and their neighbors.

On the other hand, every year we hear of one instance after another where Christmas is being attacked, chipped away and banned by those people who are offended, intimidated, or belittled by it.  People who would have Christmas celebrated in private, if at all.  For what and to what end?  To be more like the Puritans?  Is this what atheists and liberals are fighting for?  Is this what the “War on Christmas” is all about for atheists and liberals?  Reclaiming Puritanism?  Or is there something more provocative being conducted by those people who would see “Merry Christmas” replaced by Happy Holidays”?  You decide.

Because right now you have the right to decide whether saying Merry Christmas” is innocent or deeply disturbing, before a small minority of people make that decision for you.

Do you want that?  Or do you want a “war” to retain your rights?

“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.

Book Banning And The Blatant Hypocrisy Of The ACLU (Or ACL-SCREW-U)

Some types of books ought to banned from public libraries.  From public school libraries, without question, some types of books ought to be banned.  Books that are filled with obscenities, drug references and graphic sexual content, about children, meant and written for children – by adults.  Just as when a teacher betrays the relationship between themselves and their pupils by irresponsibly teaching “safe” sex over abstinence only, so too do they, adults/teachers, betray school children (teens and young adults included) when they place on a library shelf books that are unquestionably questionable.

In Missouri, such a book has been banned.  It is called “Hold Still”, and it deals with how a girl copes with the suicide of her best friend.  This in itself is not the reason why the book was removed.  And if this was all the book was about; if “coping” was all that was at issue, then the book would not have outraged the parents of their fourteen year old daughter who read it.  Included are “graphic sex scenes” and what the child’s mother describes as “F-you’s riddled throughout”.

The girl’s father had no problem with the theme of suicide, and how the character dealt with the death of her best friend.  Said the father:

The message is about suicide, and I had no problem with that.  But if you had the best message in the world put in ‘Playboy,’ you would never get to that message.  We felt like it was a questionable book for our daughter.”

Books like “Hold Still” are published every year.  Ans it must be said that the authors of these books have a hidden agenda when it comes to writing them.  They know that what they write, the drug references, the graphic sex scenes, the obscenities sells!  Kids, especially those in the throngs of puberty love to get their hands on such material.  Remember when we were kids?  We hunted for it too.  It is no different with children today.  What is different is that the material is becoming more obscene and more prevalent and widespread within public schools and public libraries.  And it is being protected and guarded by groups that would seek to undermine a parents authority over their own children.  Groups like the ACLU.

Said the ACLU of this controversy:

You clearly can’t remove a book because you disagree with the ideas in them,’ said Doug Bonney, chief counsel and legal director for the local chapter of the ACLU. ‘Clearly, I‘m concerned when a school removes a book that was chosen by the professional library staff for inclusion in the collection and then on the complaint of one family decides to remove the book while it’s being reviewed.’

Indeed.  Here you have, in the ACLU, a legal firm whose only real motivation and desire has always been to remove every vestige of Christianity from every corner of America – by legal force if necessary, if Christians won’t “voluntarily” remove themselves and their religious message.  And the ACLU, in the case of “Hold Still” is concerned that “on the complaint of one family” in Missouri a book is removed.

The ACLU has moved in with great alacrity and feverish alarm.  The audacity that one set of parents would have to want to protect their child from what is essentially garbage, and written by its author to be garbage and nonetheless forced done the throats of children as propaganda.  Why couldn’t this author simply write a story about one friend dealing with the suicide of another friend?  It’s real.  It happens every day in America.  Children ought to have a place to turn to when they need to cope with these issues.  Books can do that.  “Hold Still” could have done that.  But not when it is laced and poisoned with obscenities and graphic sex scenes.

What is provocative about the position of the ACLU is their “concern” that on the behest of but a single family, two parents, a book was removed.  And although it was not banned entirely, still the ACLU is devilishly worried.

Yet – when it is one atheist complaining about a cross on a water tower, then the ACLU says an entire town must respect the wishes of that one, single, solitary individual atheist.  This is where that blatant ACLU hypocrisy enters.  The ACLU says that in cases of religion, where but a lone atheist demands a religious symbol be removed from public view, on public land, the wishes of the lone atheist, in the spirit of “separation of church and state” must be granted.

However, the ACLU says, as it has said in this Missouri incident, that if a single family, two parents (one more person than the lone atheist) deem a book too graphic for their child to read, and ask it be removed from the curriculum, this, so says the ACLU, is an infraction on the first amendment right of freedom of speech.

Says the Missouri Association of School Librarians in a statement defending “Hold Still”:

It’s a well-written story about a young adult finding hope despite trying circumstances.

Again, more adults betraying their relationship with children, advocating, encouraging, promoting books that contain drug references, graphic sex and obscenities as a “well written story”.  Is it any wonder that more and more children give in to the peer pressure of sex and drugs while still in their teens when they read it in the books their own bloody, worthless excuses for teachers are making them read, or making it easy for them to obtain for reading?

What has the author of this garbage said about her work, and the libraries response?

The more time I get to spend in this glorious and frustrating pursuit of writing novels, the more I appreciate the librarians and teachers who care enough for their students to seek out and provide books that will speak to them.

“Libraries and teachers who care enough for their students” to force feed them trash.  To put in their laps books that, for all practical purposes, are propaganda.  What kind of teacher “cares” about their students who is willing to place in the hands of a mind not yet fully developed, where puberty and hormonal changes are causing all kinds of emotions to rage within that child, literature that only damages their psyche?

The author of “Hold Still” ought to spend less of her time “in this glorious and frustrating pursuit of writing novels” and more time examining all the damage she is causing to the minds of those children who are reading her books.  And she ought to be asked to explain what the point was in adding the obscenities, and graphic sex scenes.  What the hell does that have to do with telling a story about coping with the death of a friend who committed suicide?

Just as crosses on water towers ought not be removed, or any religious symbols, because of one lone, pathetic atheist with nothing better to do, complaining it infringes upon his or her non belief, neither ought a book be banned from a public school or public library because it is of a questionable nature to one person or one family.  While they certainly have the right to protect their own children, they cannot protect, or speak on behalf of all the children.  And if the other families accept their own children reading books containing heavy obscenities and graphic sex scenes, then so be it.

However, this is a perfect opportunity for the community in this school district, and in communities all across America, to come together and decide for themselves what books ought to be allowed in their public facilities, which their taxes are supporting.  If a majority of the community wants books such as “Hold Still” to remain in their schools and libraries, that is their right.  But, if a community, by in large, opposes such literature, then that also must be honored.

And it goes without saying that the ACLU, in all its hypocrisy, will be right there to sue the school or the library if such a move by any community to remove a book was pursued and enacted.  Just as when a community, by in large, would show its support for placing the Ten Commandments in its public schools, the ACLU will be there to stop them.  But dare one atheist’s wishes for a cross not be respected – well, the ACLU will be there as well, to sue on their behalf.

If that is not blatant hypocrisy, what is?

How Atheists And Muslims Have Lost Their Minds

What really happens when “children” run the world?

Children learn early on in life whether or not throwing temper tantrums and hissy fits will gain them what it is they want.  Parents will either give in, or stand firm.

What ultimately becomes of the children whose parents give in, when they themselves grow into adulthood?  What ultimately does the future hold for humanity, for society and human beings when irrationality and dangerous minds have gained control over reason and logic and are allowed to run rampant and unchecked and unchallenged?  What happens the more we give in to the temper tantrums and hissy fits, in whatever form, thrown by adults with much more dangerous agendas than wanting something of a more insignificant value such as a cookie or a toy?

We are seeing those results right now.  And while children who do throw temper tantrums and hissy fits, and do get their way time and time again, because their parents have not stood firm when they should have, do not necessarily grow up to be atheists or Muslim –

When atheists resort to throwing feces, real or fake, at a representational image of Jesus Christ, they have lost all credibility in their cause.  (Their cause, in part, being to show how silly Christianity is and how silly, how “dangerous”, Christians are to everybody for believing in it.)  Having denounced reason and logic (a cornerstone of free-thought) atheists rightly deserve to be mocked and excoriated for their own fanatical behavior.  Monkeys throw feces.  When atheists throw feces at religious images for whatever irrational reason or intent, when they feel compelled to immerse or submerge a religious image in a jar of urine, calling it art, they devolve back into the monkeys from whence they came.  They are certainly no better, no smarter, no more intellectually adept than a monkey.

When Muslims resort to offering rewards for the capture of an Israeli soldier, for the purpose of using it as leverage to gain the release of more Palestinian prisoners, they too have shown, and continue to show, a lack of credibility and how worthless their cause is.  (Their cause, in large part, to show that Islam is the one true religion, the religion of “peace”, that Allah is “greatest” and anyone who rejects that are “infidels” and need to be killed.)  Muslims, having themselves denounced reason and logic, (which has not been a cornerstone of their religion for nearly a thousand years) and embraced violence and murder, also deserve to be mocked and excoriated for their own fanatical behavior.

When Christians act in irrational and dangerous ways, atheists lose no time in mocking and excoriating them.  Whether it is Pat Robertson saying something stupid, or the Westboro Baptist Church crashing funerals, and going all the way back to the Inquisition (which is used heavily in the debate against religion, and Christianity in particular) there is no shortage of documentation showing the temper tantrums and hissy fits Christians throw.

The difference being, Christians, by in large, have grown up and become the parents they need to be.  Whether atheist, Muslim or Christian, only a small minority of people within each group is causing problems for the whole.  Of the three, only Christians have the courage and the tenacity to scold, condemn and rebuke the “Pat Robertsons” within their religious fold – and they do it very openly.

Where are the voices in the atheist community to parent those atheists who feel they need to throw temper tantrums?  Where are the voices in the Muslim community to parent those Muslims who feel they need to throw temper tantrums?  (Obviously the “temper tantrums” thrown by atheists are more on par, clownish, with those thrown by the Westboro Baptist Church and not on the level as those thrown by Muslims.  However, their goals are the same.  Both atheists and Muslims want attention and they want to get their way.)

If both atheists and Muslims have a desire to be taken seriously, how does what they are doing justify our respect?  In other words, what does it mean if we actually do take seriously the atheist that throws feces at, or otherwise defaces, a religious image; if we actually do take seriously the Muslim who engages in terrorism, homicide bombings, and offering rewards for the capture of Israeli soldiers for the purpose of negotiating a trade off?  And what happens if we actually gave in to the Westboro Baptist Church?

It means we legitimize unprovoked violence and irrational behavior – temper tantrums.  It means we live in a world devoid of laws and rules, and respect.   If we allow people to do whatever they want and get away with it, unchallenged, because we either fear the retaliation or have no stomach to endure the hissy fits, it means we allow the yellers, the screamers, the whiners and complainers, the ones who flail their arms and legs about, as children do, whether they throw feces or grenades, to be in charge of the world and dictate to the rest of us – who do act with restraint, as parents and adults – how the world will operate.

How long can the world survive when “children” run and “operate” it on feces and grenades?

Why Atheists Give Secularists A Bad Name (And Reputation)

Liberal atheists, at any rate.

In the town of Whiteville, Tennessee there a cross above the local water tower.  It won’t be there for much longer.  It is being taken down after the threat of a lawsuit from The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), the result of one person who had complained about its presence making them uncomfortable.  The cross is not disappearing.  It will have a new spot on a private peace of land where its mayor, James Bellar, claims it will be seen by even more people and thus, have a greater, more spiritual impact.  Still –

The town should have fought like hell to keep it there.

That is, if the majority of residents support its being there.

Why is it that so many towns and villages, and even big cities, are so willing , so quick, to give in and give up to these types of groups like the FFRF, the ACLU and Americans Untied For Separation of Church and State (AU)?  Especially considering there is nothing really unconstitutional about having a cross sitting atop a city water tower.  Yes, the cross is a religious (Christian) symbol.  So what?  Whiteville is a very religious community.  The people who live there like to acknowledge their Christian heritage both as a source of pride among themselves and to visitors.  What’s wrong with that?

In other words, unless the FFRF can prove that it is the town government, directly, which is forcing this cross to remain atop the water tower, and is compelling its citizens to view it, acknowledge it, worship it and accept it; and if it is the town government, directly, which is imposing fines and/or jail sentences, or any type of punishment for not doing so  – there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional going on in the town of Whiteville.

Remember the movie Footlose? (it’s being remade)  It revolved around the small town of Bomont in where a fanatical Christian minister, played by John Lithgow, had a tight grip around the town and had the community in such fear of his authority, which he used to ban dancing and rock music.  Of course the movie had a happy ending, and the fanatical minister had a change of heart.  The point to this is that this is how groups like the FFRF view Christian communities similar to that of Whiteville.  As if to have a cross on a water tower, or as part of a city seal, or even in its public schools, somehow creates an unnecessary, uncomfortable, unconstitutional  religious “authority” and “fear” and “tightens” religion’s grip.

If the cross was atop the water tower because the local church demanded it be there, and they so had the town of Whiteville in fear of its authority, and the church was using that authority and fear to essentially and effectively rule the town of Whiteville, then that would be unconstitutional.  But where is that he case?  Where is that the case anywhere in America?  Religion is being torn down and removed from the public square because anti-religious zealots like the FFRF have a radical agenda to eliminate it everywhere they see it and replace it with atheism – liberal atheism.  Not so much a religion in of itself, but it does seek to dominate and control the masses, just as the FFRF greatly fears religion does.

And this war against religion which atheists have been waging for decades now not only hurts religion (which is its intent) it hurts the very secularism and secularist outlook which these groups purportedly are trying to promote and expand.  There may very well be a fundamental difference between atheism and secularism, perhaps enough of a rift to cause a schism within secularism itself.  (This may also be a good thing to have happen)  Particularly within conservative secularism, because there really is not much difference in moral outlook between a religious conservative and a secular conservative, except that the religious conservative will look to the bible more so for answers and solutions and guidance, whereas a secular conservative will use other means to analyze a problem and derive at a solution.

It is the liberalism within atheism and secularism, and even the liberalism within Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism, which is perverting the landscape and causing people to lose their moral way and sense of moral judgement.

The way to counter the liberal atheistic influence is to fight it.  But only if there is a majority support for that fight.  This is key because there is a difference between government sponsoring, promoting and propagating religion (which is unconstitutional) and a community of civic minded people, but not part of government, which, as a majority, votes to keep a cross on its water tower, as part of its city seal, in its schools, etc.  This is not unconstitutional.

The people, directly, have the right to make and set the laws of their own communities.  They certainly do not need outsiders coming in, threatening lawsuits.  And they certainly do not need meddlesome individuals (as in one person “uncomfortable with a religious symbol) making trouble for the entire town.

This is an area where conservatives, both religious and secular, can come together, if we have that courage.  It is the liberal element within atheism and secularism that is the threat to America and American morals.  Long has it gone unchallenged.  The longer it continues to go unchallenged, the more American society begins to accept, and become accustomed with, the idea that our Constitution really does say freedom from religion, rather than freedom of religion.

And when that happens who, or what, is the real winner?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: