The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “religion”

Get Over It! Mutilating Girls Is Not Just A Rite – It’s A Right! (Or Do You Beg To Differ?)

"happy" girl undergoing FGM

Accept itmutilating girls, in their teens and barely out of the womb, cutting and slicing their genitals with a precision learned over hundreds of generations, sewing them up tight until their wedding night, and leaving  only a small opening for them to pass urine and blood, is a rite of passage and a right itself that cannot be challenged.

Another "happy" girl undergoing FGM

Live with it – taking a girl to an undisclosed location, against her will or not, to a private room where other woman are “waiting”; undressing her, prepping her for the “doctor” without her fully understanding why; lying her down and utilizing the other women in the room to hold her down, (blind folding her if necessary); and, without any anesthesia or anything to dull the pain, plunging the sharp instrument into her fleshy and sensitive genitalia to remove that part of her anatomy associated with “sin” is a practice that cannot be infringed upon.  It happens in America too

And another "happy" girl undergoing FGM

Ignore itthese girls who undergo female genital mutilation (FMG) are not your children writhing in excruciating pain and unbearable agony, screaming out in terror for their mother, somebody in that room, to stop what they are doing to them.  What goes in that room, to that girl, stays in that room, and is none of your business.  They have a right to privacy without you trying to intervene to stop it or them.  These people have the right to continue this thousands of years old practice unimpeded, unhindered by you, and over your, biased objections.

Who are you to think you can prevent it?

Either the above is absolute fact, or it is not.  If it is absolute fact, then untold millions more girls will be forced to undergo female genital mutilation for generations and generations to come, while untold, undocumented, numbers of those girls will die, either from blood loss, severe trauma, or any number of health related infections.  If it’s not absolute fact, if it’s just that much wrong, if you are just too undecided, wavering between honoring a “sacred, traditional and religious rite” and what more and more people around the world, including those people living within societies that practice FGM, are realizing is a “human right” to not be mutilated for being female, watch this video:

Ladies and gentlemen – we as human beings have but two options in dealing with the issue of female genital mutilation.  One, we can indeed ignore it, live with it and accept it, shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves that this practice is not of our culture, not of our traditions, not of our religious teachings, not a part of our social norms and therefore none of our business.  Two, we can throw all that nonsense to the wayside and make it our business.

If we choose the latter, do we have the courage to take on a very powerful element in this world that will become, not merely insulted, but very violent and attack us should they feel they, and their religious ideals and practices, are being threatened?  Female genital mutilation is not done for one single health related reason.  It is purely religious, and predominately, vastly so, an Islamic practice.  Are we prepared to attack that part of Islam, or any religion, that supports, compels and commands their female populations have their genitals mutilated and sewn up until they are married to ensure they remain chaste and pure and virgin?

Conservatives support males and females abstaining from sex until marriage, but there is not a serious American conservative that supports FGM.  It is an atrocity; an abomination; an inhumane practice.  One in which either needs to be put to a stop from within those societies that practice it, or (if they refuse, or cannot do it without additional aid) from those societies that find FGM so abhorrently unnecessary, so unwarrantably, excruciatingly painful and agonizing an ordeal, and diametrically opposed to all rational, reasonable and medical advice and knowledge.

We have no qualms entering a society to provide food, clothes, medicine, education and other services.  Why on Earth would we be uncomfortable entering a society to protect girls from being tortured by having their vaginas mutilated, cut apart and sewn up because the male population of that society dictates it be done to ensure virginity?

We have no qualms calling into question, and ridiculing, ancient religious practices once performed by the predecessors of Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism, but now scorned and abandoned and outlawed by the vast, vast majority of its modern-day descendants.  Why on Earth would we be squeamish about calling into question, and ridiculing, current religious practices that continue to mutilate, and kill, girls that have no basis in any religious teachings, but which serve solely to keep in tact the concept of a male dominated society?

If female genital mutilation is more a crime against humanity than it is a rite of passage, then we ought not be so overly worried or concerned about insulting those people, societies and cultures that engage in this atrocious practice.  It is they that need the wake up call.  It is us that must sound the alarm.

Either we can get over our apprehensions, our insecurities and fear of retribution, and start pushing for very harsh and unbearable sanctions, restrictions, and other calculated pressure, on those societies which still practice female genital mutilation, or – we can get over the fact that this practice is still extant.

Millions of girls around the world about to have FGM done to them are awaiting our decision.  Scores, and hundreds of millions more girls, not yet born, will want a decisive answer as well.  The wait may have been funny in Caddyshack. 

Is the wait funny in real life?

(This poll is multiple choice)

  Related articles

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

“CCOKCS” Are “CCUNTTS”: Kirk Cameron, Homosexuality And Hollywood Has-beens

A lot of backlash has sprouted up over Kirk Cameron’s comments about homosexuality.  First, here is what Kirk said that has ignited a firestorm of hate and anti-Christian bigotry.  (And remember, from the liberal point of view, bigotry is perfectly acceptable so long as that bigotry is directed at Christianity,Catholicism, Judaism – and now Mormonism.

In response to Cameron’s comments, former, and has-been, child celebrities from sitcoms dating back to the 1980’s have wormed their way back into the public conscience with a new “Funny or Die” video, calling themselves “CCOKCS”, which is an acronym for Child Celebrities Opposing Kirk Cameron. Here is their video: (Warning: vulgar, but mostly childish, language)

This, by the way, is how all but forgotten, and better to have been left behind in our dusty memories of fonder times, now all grown up and still out of control, Hollywood child “stars” behave themselves into their adulthood.  They are, after-all, a product of Hollywood, and the influences of that particular culture.  Kirk Cameron was as well, but he escaped from it.  He grew out of it, grew away from it and – grew up.

Cameron’s remarks about homosexuality should not bother anyone.  In fact, what Cameron says about the gay and lesbian lifestyle is incredibly tame, compared to what Islam says about it.  What about what Louis Farrakhan and The Nation of Islam say about it?

The words of these washed-up, dried-up, shriveled-up, insignificant , tiny “CCOKCS ” are sterile, as are the rants of others who have jumped on the “Let’s mock Kirk Cameron” band-wagon.  These same people who deride and ridicule Cameron would absolutely never, at least openly, use or spread the same venomous words they employ against Cameron on Muslims or black converts to the Nation of Islam.  So, why do they feel comfortable mocking Cameron?

Because if these same Hollywood celebrities were to condemn Islam and the Nation of Islam for how they perceive homosexuality (which is far more vitriolic and forceful, and with a greater hatred, than Cameron) Muslims, as they have a tendency to do would overreact in violent ways, calling for death, for fatwas, for heads to literally roll.  Liberal Hollywood jet-setters know this, and they fear the retribution that would entail.  They also know Cameron would not only not threaten them, he would probably pray for them – which one must accept is worse a fate to them than being beheaded.

Hollywood liberals, safe inside their beltway, and among their kind, will continue to bash, and “Twitter” away against, Kirk Cameron and any Christian or religious person or group (except for Muslims) who speak out against homosexuality.  And once in a while, former television “stars”, who can find no other way to make public appearance respectively will instead make public spectacles of themselves.

We do, naturally, have a curiosity as to what has happened to the children who starred in the sitcoms we watched decades ago.  Just as curiosity killed the cat, so too have these “CCOKCS” killed any curiosity we might have had about what happened to them.  Which is why these “CCOKCS” are really nothing more than dry, saggy, loose, wrinkled, disgusting to look at “CCUNTTS”.

Childish Celebrities, Untalented Nitwits, Talking Trashy

What comes out of these “CCUNTTS”  just made tapioca pudding and cottage cheese so much more appetizing!

Controversial Muslim Photo: Will It Lead To More Muslim Massacres Around The World?

Muslims went ballistic and killed people when a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad was published .  Muslims went ballistic and killed people when Qur’ans were burned.  A new photograph has surfaced which might just incite renewed violence, mayhem and murder.  It was originally removed by a disgruntled Muslim woman who found the photograph to be insulting to her and her religion.  Now that it has been replaced for viewing, will more Muslims use this as a call to arms, and as another reason, another excuse, to continue their bloodshed, their war on terror?

Judge for yourself:

Planned Parenthood Is Praying, Literally, For The Death Of Unborn Children

It’s apparently hard times for Planned Parenthood, and they are hurting, financially, as more women choose life for their unborn children rather than the sought after death that pro-abortion supporters have been fighting decades to increase.  In response to this,  Planned Parenthood has taken a new and unusual approach.  Although one can hardly call Planned Parenthood religious, they hasn’t stopped them from turning to God in prayer – praying for more business. They are literally praying for women to come into abortion clinics and end their pregnancies.  And, as it turns out, they have some help from an unexpected source.  Christians, usually an arch-enemy of abortion advocates, have come to the aid of Planned Parenthood.  And Planned Parenthood, needing all the help it can get, is not turning a blind eye on these “religious” fanatics.  Is there any new low Planned Parenthood is not willing to go?

Religions do not differ on the life issue – all major religions are pro-life and oppose abortion, which is the killing of unborn children.  However, individuals with warped minds, and a false sense of what religion is and what it represents, have managed to infiltrate these religions with pro-abortion, pro-liberal, pro-Leftist propaganda and have begun to warp and twist religion, bend, weaken and tweak it in order to make religion irrelevant.  Because, right now religion, and the conservative elements of Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, even Mormonism, are what is holding together the fabric, the sanctity, the value of human life.

What happens, then, when liberal, pro-abortion organizations find ways to infiltrate what has always been a safe haven for life?  What happens when more “religious” people turn their backs on life and embrace death?  And what exactly is the reason why anyone would embrace death for unborn children, rather than life?  Obviously, there is nothing in the deal for the unborn children that are aborted.  What is in it for the women who have the abortions?  For that matter, what is in it for those “religious Christians” that have sided with Planned Parenthood?  We know full well what Planned Parenthood has to gain from abortion, and more abortions, right?

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”?

Challenge Evolution With Legitimate Questions – Not With Semantics

In Tennessee, a bill dubbed the “monkey bill” is on its way to becoming law – if Tennessee Governor, Bill Haslam (a Republican) signs it when it reaches his desk.  The bill is meant to allow “challenges” and “questions” to current evolutionary teaching.  Its supporters hope it will do more to undermine evolution and persuade people to embrace alternatives like creationism and intelligent design (which for the most part are one in the same).  The bill’s detractors worry that it is nothing more than a backdoor for religion to enter the public schools.

Evolution, and more to the point, biological evolution – which is defined as a change in the allele (genes) frequently over time – is a fact.  (The “theory” part of evolution does more to confuse those who don’t understand it.  For those that do understand evolution, and still deny it – like Answers In Genesis – “theory”, and its meaning, is stretched and warped into something altogether sinister.)  And while there is debate within the scientific community with regards to individual ideas and constructs about evolution – science and scientists are not in disagreement in accepting evolution, the incredible mounds of evidence and documentation that exist, as being fact.

There ought not be any fear or worry when someone questions the reliability of the evidence for evolution.  That ought to be welcomed as an opportunity to explain evolution and why evolution is real.  But when anti-evolutionists pontificate about the “complexity” of organisms, and use that as reason enough to reject evolution and postulate intelligent design, that is nothing more than semantics.  And what is going to happen to those students who do challenge evolution as fact because they have been brought up to reject it for creationism/intelligent design, who are presented with the facts, the evidence, the documentation, and still reject evolution?  How will that be handled?

The assertion by creationists is that evolution cannot be fact because of  the “complexity”, and because of the perceived “design” element within nature.  They also use words such as “accident”, “mistakes”, “randomness”, and ask, “How can evolution be fact if everything is a result of an “accident”, if everything, including humans, is the result of “random” occurrences and “mistakes”?  And then they smile and exclaim, “a-ha!”  Well, none of that disproves evolution, and certainly does not overturn the evidence for evolution.  What it proves as that evolution can in fact assemble chemical reactions into “complexity” and beauty against however many perceived odds.

But – what if there actually were no “mistakes” within evolution?  What if there was not ‘randomness”, or “accidents” or even “complexity” itself within evolution?  Guess what?  There’s not!

Not in the layman’s terminology, anyway.  Without getting too technical, everything is, and everything is a result of, chemical reactions, and chemicals bonding to one another, which in turn transform into other things, and so forth and so on.  As for “complexity”, how we define complexity is not how complexity is defined within the parameters of evolution.  In other words – there is no actual “complexity” within evolution, merely a string of events (chemical reactions) over time which, for myriad reasons, change their allele (genes) frequency.  What is really all that “complex” about any organism?  That we may not understand the “how” part of the inner workings of an organism does not make that organism complex, or complexly constructed.  What we see now in any organism is not how it originally looked, even those that have remained unchanged for tens of millions of years.

Evolution, and teaching evolution, ought not try to replace God or religion.  And while evolution is a fact, that it is in no way disproves God or makes religion obsolete.  And it works to anyone’s disadvantage to attempt using evolution as a means in which to push religion aside and push it into that symbolic “ash-heap of history”.  We know tens of millions of people accept both evolution and God, and accept that God used evolution and worked through evolution.  We can neither prove or disprove that God did, because we cannot test for the supernatural and it is a waste of time attempting to debate what we cannot test for.  In any event, that is irrelevant.  We can test for evolution and what is natural.

When anyone challenges evolution, even in public school, teachers ought to stand up to the challenge and meet it head on.  Yes, some people will attempt to use creationism and intelligent design as a backdoor to get religion back into the public schools.  If they have to be that sneaky about it, then it means their ideas don’t have much, if any, weight, scientific or otherwise, to stand on.  Evolution has plenty of weight, plenty of merit, to stand on, regardless of the challenge.

So – who’s worried?

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?

No Charges, No Outrage, For Two Americans Who Burned The Holy Qur’an; Let Go, Not Arrested, Not Prosecuted

Two Americans who burned a holy book on church property, they said for an art class which instructed them to “do something highly controversial”, and because they don’t agree with the faith or its teaching, have not been charged with doing anything illegal.  The act was photographed, and as police came to question them, while the act was still in progress, both ran.  Even though they did run, and were apprehended, police could find nothing in the law with which to charge them, thus were forced to release them.  Will the MSM pick up on this story, or ignore it like they always do?

You can read the article here.

(Correction, it was not the Holy Qur’an, it was only a Christian Bible)

The Southern Poverty Law Center – A Hate Organization That Needs To Be Abolished


The Southern Poverty Law Center has come out and condemned Louden County Supervisor, Eugene Delgaudio, and his group, Public Advocate of the United States, as a “hate” group and is demanding Delgaudio resign.  Why?  Because he, and his group, opposes homosexuality and gay marriage, but “supports school prayer, anti-abortion legislation” and yikes! – the Boy Scouts.  Is it any wonder this group is on the Law Center’s radar?

Today we learned that the nationally recognized Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Public Advocate of the United States, a right-wing advocacy group run by Loudoun Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, as a Hate Group for its staunch anti-gay advocacy and activities. In the wake of this news, the Loudoun County Democratic Committee is calling for Mr. Delgaudio to resign from the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors.

LCDC Chairman Evan Macbeth issued the following statement:

“The Southern Poverty Law Center has validated what we have known for a long time: Public Advocate of the United States is, in fact, a group dedicated to hatred and bigotry. The time has come for Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio to resign immediately as Sterling District Supervisor.

Loudoun County is no place for hatred and bigotry. The people of Loudoun deserve much better from their elected leaders than Eugene Delgaudio. I look forward to Eugene’s colleagues and the Loudoun County Republican Committee leadership joining me in also calling for his resignation in light of this development. I am certain they understand the implications of the leader of a hate group continuing to serve as a Loudoun County Supervisor.”

The LCDC has created an internet petition calling for Supervisor Delgaudio’s resignation, and encourages all Loudouners to stand up to hate and bigotry by signing. The petition can be found on the Change.Org website.

Nowhere on Delgaudio’s website is there a call to harm or kill homosexuals.  That someone opposes homosexuality does not mean they hate homosexuals, or would promote or support harm coming to gays and lesbians.  And even if there is blatant bigotry, that in itself is not reason enough to label a group of people as a hate group.  But if it is, there are any number of left-wing, liberal groups that, because of their anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-religious nature ought to be included as hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law center is engaging in deceptive and dishonest tactics calling for Delgaudio to be fired from his position.  It is, in fact, them, not Delgaudio, that ought to be thoroughly examined for its own use of hatred and bigotry.  And since the Southern Poverty Law Center, in its own hatred and bigotry, opposes Christians and Christianity, opposes traditional marriage, supports killing unborn children, hates and opposes Conservatives and Republicans, and supports laws to restrict the free exercise of expression and of speech (when it pertain to Christians) we must call for, and demand, the Southern Poverty Law Center to be designated an extreme left-wing hate group, and we must call, and demand, for this organization to be abolished immediately.

How soon will that happen?

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.

Arianna Nation’s (HuffPost) Pathetic And Hypocritical Pseudo-Concern For The Death Of Shaima Alawadi

Shaima Alawadi, an Iraqi woman living in California is dead from a severe beating by the hands of a yet unknown assailant(s).  A note was found at her side which read, “go back to your own country”.  If but for that note Shaima’s death would have gone unnoticed, uncared for by The Arianna Nation, or anyone in the liberal media.  The reason?  By all accounts Shaima’s death was in no way related to an “honor killing”.  Had it been, the liberal media would have ignored it.  The thought of a white racist on the loose somewhere in California is of high interest and journalistic value to the liberal media, like The Arianna Nation.  The thought of using Shaima, her death, as journo-political fodder against conservatives, against the War on Terror, against the so-called, but non-existent, xenophobia the Left accuses the Right of engaging in is just too much for the likes of liberal media outlets to resist salivating over.

Hanif Mohebi, the director of the San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he met with Shaima Alawadi’s family members in the morning and was told that she was taken off life support around 3 p.m.

The family is in shock at the moment. They’re still trying to deal with what happened,” Mohebi said.”

Indeed.  Why is CAIR  never in “shock” when it is an honor killing?  And why does CAIR not do more to protect American Muslims from honor killings?  And if this had been an honor killing, would CAIR have been in “shock”?  Would Shaima’s family be in “shock”?  Would The Arianna Nation be in “shock”?  Absolutely not!

“A hate crime is one of the possibilities, and we will be looking at that,” Lt. Mark Coit said. “We don’t want to focus on only one issue and miss something else.”

Why is it that honor killings are never classified as “hate crimes”?  Isn’t there an extreme level of “hate” involved in honor killings as well?

Shaima’s death is tragic for at least two reasons.  First of all, it is a murder of an innocent woman by the hands of a despicable assailant, who we all hope is soon caught and punished.  Secondly, her death illustrates the blatant hypocrisy and double standard the liberal media have with regards to reporting on the murders of specific individuals.  Very rarely do liberal Media outlets pay any attention to murders that are black on white crimes.  Take the Trayvon Martin murder, for example.  When the liberal media heard the name of the killer, George Zimmerman, they pounced on the story as fast as they could, because they thought it was a white man killing a black boy in an act of racism, and that was just too irresistible for them.  We have since found out that Zimmerman is a white Hispanic, not a white Anglo-Saxon.

A family friend, Sura Alzaidy, told UT San Diego () that the attack apparently occurred after the father took the younger children to school. Alzaidy told the newspaper the family is from Iraq, and that Alawadi is a “respectful modest muhajiba,” meaning she wears the traditional hijab, a head scarf.

It is of particular interest to note that The Arianna Nation has invested a paragraph to let its readers know that Shaima was a “respectful modest muhajiba”.  What does it matter if she was or wasn’t?  Especially considering that liberals have absolutely no respect at all for how conservative Christians, Jews, Mormons, etc. dress, and often ridicule their conservative dress attire, which is still too liberal for most Muslims to accept – and if a Muslim woman were to dress as “conservatively” as conservative women do, they would still be beaten, tortured and/or killed, because American conservative women, while they dress modestly, don’t cover themselves up head to toe or wear a hijab.  In other words, conservative women dress too liberally from the Muslim point of view.

That Shaima was a muhajiba matters intensely to The Arianna Nation because there is a great and growing debate in America about the effects of a growing Muslim population, its cultural and religious influences and the push by some American Muslims who want to replace American law with Sharia law within their own religious circles and for their own judicial benefits.  The Arianna Nation knows the opposition, mainly conservatives, are pushing back to stop this from happening.

CAIR, the anti-American Muslim organization which fights on behalf of Muslims in America, is pushing hard for Sharia law.  CAIR, which is no respecter of Christianity, and The Arianna Nation, along with every other liberal media establishment, none of whom are respecters of conservatives or of conservative Christianity or its values, have joined forces to combat conservatism.  And thus, the reason why The Arianna Nation is so giddy over Shaima’s death, and overjoyed by the prospect that it very well could be a “hate’ crime.  (Keeping in mind that honor killings do not quality as hate crimes by the standards of The Arianna nation, all liberal media outlets, CAIR and all Muslims who support Sharia law.)  And also why it has been emphasized that Shaima was a muhajiba.

Shaima’s death has sparked a bitter outrage.  But is there really “outrage”?  Or is it merely “opportunity”?  That being the opportunity for The Arianna Nation and all MSM outlets to go on the attack against conservatives and of conservatism, which they will blame for Shaima’s death just as they have blamed for Trayvon Martin’s death.  And – what would the liberal media do if it was discovered that Shaima’s death actually was an honor killing?  What will they do, and how will they report it when, the next American Muslim becomes the victim of an honor killing, and not the murder of a white racist?  Will they even report on it?

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?

Who Would Vote For A Mormon For President?

There is still that unnerving sentiment, that irascible fear, that inescapable twitching cradled deep within the conscience of conservative America that will not go away, that will not stop pestering our minds, that will not let us a moment’s peace, and it is driving us madly insane.  Or is it insanely mad?  We know Mitt Romney is virtually a lock as the 2012 Republican nominee to face Barack Obama.  We’ve known it for some time, but because of Rick Santorum’s popularity and charisma within mainstream conservatism, and particularly within Christian conservatism, (still a huge voting block within the Republican Party) we were thus able to deny reality for that much longer and go on believing in all those wonderful fairy tales we invented in our minds to appease our consciences.  Ladies and gentlemen – it is time to face that reality.  Mitt Romney, barring any last-minute gaffes of some monumental size and catastrophe will be the Republican nominee.  Mitt Romney, of the Mormon faith.  So what?

As Republicans, and especially as conservatives, we need to be united as we have never been united before in order to defeat Obama.  The Left is running every anti-Romney, anti-conservative ad it can, as fast as its puppets can put them together.  They know Romney will be the nominee; they accepted that long before most of us did.  The Left is just as deftly afraid of Romney as many conservatives are, but for very different reasons.  The Left fears Romney because the Left knows Romney can beat Obama.  On the other hand, could it be that is why so many on the Right still fear Romney so much as well?

Just as Democrats got over Kennedy being a Catholic, as did the rest of the nation, so too must Republicans and conservatives get over Romney being a Mormon.  He is not going to impose Mormonism on America and force all Americans to give ten percent to the Mormon church.  Nor is he going to grant unconstitutional powers to the Mormon Church, or special privileges to Mormons, or any such nonsense.  Mitt Romney is an American first, then he is a Mormon.  Most Christians are also Americans first, then Christians.  Where is the difference with regards to Romney?

That many Christians have hang-ups about Joseph Smith and the “origins story” of Mormonism is a terrible excuse for such divide within conservatism, and for any divide.  Democrats are solidly behind Obama.  And that includes well over 90% of Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008.  We don’t have a lot of wiggle room on our side to allow for squabbling and bickering over whether or not we feel comfortable voting for a man because he is a Mormon.  Romney is an American, and he is a conservative, and he espouses conservative principles.  Does Barack Obama?  Then why would any of us damn ourselves, our party, our nation by giving Obama a victory when we could elect Mitt Romney?

It is, after-all, Barack Obama we are trying to defeat, not ourselves.  By not getting solidly behind Romney we are giving that much more of an advantage to Obama and Democrats.  In other words, we are playing right into their hands.  There is talk on both the Left and the right of just letting Obama win so we can focus on the 2016 election – four years away.

What good does it do for conservatism, for America, to have such a defeatist attitude?  First of all, there is no guarantee the Democrats won’t find a strong candidate for 2016, perhaps someone we have not yet heard about.   Secondly, isn’t it better, for our side, to let the Democrats and the Left talk about the 2016 election while we keep our eyes on this year’s prize?  Let’s us, conservatives take back the White House, and let the Democrats be the ones scrambling to regroup, recover and regain their political composure.  As luck would have it, it may well take at least four years for Democrats to recover from such a stinging defeat, and imagine all the fun we will have mocking them (politely of course) at their expense.

Romney listed ten important goals he had for when he becomes President.  Among them was abolishing Obama Care, pushing through legislation in support of the Keystone XL pipeline, and cutting taxes 20% across the board on all Americans.  He also supports abolishing the alternative minimum tax and the death tax, and hopefully he doesn’t stop there.  Obama is dead set on raising taxes on everyone.  And raising taxes even on the rich is still a tax on the middle class and poor because the rich will just pass the cost of that tax down onto the rest of us.  Who doesn’t understand this?

Obama, his policies, his agenda, are the obstacle to American recovery.  Not Romney’s faith.  But if we make Romney’s faith an issue, if we make his faith an obstacle, it is perceivable Obama could run away with the election.  And once reelected the only obstacle Obama will face in getting the rest of his destructive agenda pushed through congress, and on to the American people, is the fact that he only has four more years with which to do it.  Knowing time is against him, Obama will naturally push all that much more harder, and be that much more tyrannical.  He’s already disregarded the Constitution by pushing his contraception mandate through.  What is to stop him from doing anything after he is reelected?

Besides that we have the Supreme Court to consider.  In the next four years it is highly conceivable Ruth Bader Ginsburg will leave.  As it is the responsibility of the President to nominate a replacement, do we, as conservatives, really fret over having Romney be that President which must select the best candidate?  When so many court cases are literally resting on but the vote of one Justice – and, yes, that damn well means Roe Vs. Wade – would we then still be so narrow-minded in our own bigoted judgements towards Romney because he is a Mormon?  Romney is pro-life.  Obama is pro-abortion.  Which person makes you more uncomfortable sitting in the White House?

Would we really stay home this November instead of going to the polls if Romney is our nominee?  The Democrats might want a definite answer to that question, by the way, because they will undoubtedly be putting in a lot of overtime working to manufacture phony voters.  But if they know the most of us (conservatives) will skip this year’s election because we just can’t abide having a Mormon in the White House, maybe they can actually win the election for Obama by playing fair and square.

Do you still need to think about for whom, and how, you will be casting your vote this election year?  Or is four more years of Obama style economics and Obama-care a better price to pay for keeping the Mormon out of the White House?

Only The Prophet Mohammad Can Save Youcef Naderkhani’s Life Now – It’s Not Too Late

Death to the “infidel’ they shout in Iran.  Always death to this or that in Islamic strongholds.  Islam is more a respecter of death than it is of life.  They prove that every single day, in their own countries around the world, when they blow themselves up, and as many others as they can, in homicide bombings and other coordinated attacks on civilians and military personnel.  They kills themselves and others for the littlest, the most trivial, the most asinine of reasons.  And they very, very often hide themselves behind women and children when they are being attacked.  We must therefore conclude that reason itself is as foreign to them as their illogical insanity is to us.  Has the religion of “peace” ever actually been at peace with anyone – including themselves?

It isn’t as though reason has never been introduced to them, or a forbidden or prohibited practice in Islam.  If the ability to reason, and understand what reason is and how to appropriately apply it in situations is a human trait – or even if it is a trait of life itself – what does that tell you about Muslims who never listen to reason, never act upon reason, never are themselves reasonable in anything they say or do?

What does it say about Muslims, about the religion of “peace” that is about to execute a man, an Iranian pastor, a Muslim turned Christian whose only “crime” was that he became a Christian after he had been a Muslim?  What does it say about a nation, so entrenched in a religious fundamentalism, which is also devoid of reason?  Is it any wonder why Youcef Naderkhani changed religions?  Is it any wonder why he, and others, have abandoned a religion which rejects reason for a religion that embraces it?  For that, the Islamic controlled nation of Iran wants to kill Youcef, hold him up as an example as to what happens, and what will happen, to others in Iran should they too have any wild thoughts of reason, compassion, rationality, peace.

The U.S. government, the European Union and human rights organizations have repeatedly urged the Iranian leadership to release him.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cannot save Youcef, or he is unwilling, or he is afraid of retribution from the mullahs, the Ayatollah and other Islamic religious fanatics in his country.  Even Barack Obama cannot save Youcef, else he would have already made the call.  Or perhaps he has made the call, but his influence has diminished and waned, or was never really all that great, or as great as we were originally lead to believe it was.  If they cannot save Youcef, if no other governmental agency on Earth can save Youcef, only the Prophet Mohammad can.  Only the Prophet Mohammad, whether through divine intervention, or through a rereading of the Qur’an to find the passage that would condemn unreasonable execution, such as killing a Muslim turned Christian, can save Youcef now,

Either such a passage exists within the Qur’an or it does not.  Either the Prophet Mohammad would support the execution of Youcef, or he would condemn it and call it barbaric and anti-Islam.  But what if such a passage does not exist?  What if the Prophet Mohammad does support the execution of Youcef?  What if Islam, the religion of “peace”, has nothing to say at all about killing someone for changing religions?  What if the religion of “peace” does have something to say about Youcef converting from Islam to Christianity?  What if the religion of “peace” itself condemns anyone, any Muslim, who converts from Islam to another religion?  What if the religion of “peace”, and the Prophet Mohammad, demand Youcef be executed?

Either executing Youcef is an insult and injurious to Islam or it is a compliment and a credit to Islam.  Either executing Youcef exemplifies Islam or it degrades Islam.  Either executing Youcef is a reasonable Islamic response and action or it is Islamic insanity and barbarism.  Either executing Youcef embodies the whole of Islam, and the whole meaning of Islam from its foundation, or someone, somewhere within the history of Islam has corrupted and twisted the true meaning of Islam and turned it into a religion in which would see the Prophet Mohammad spinning in his grave.

Either only the Prophet Mohammad and Allah know, or – there is some vestige of what we in the West call reason engrained within Islam and in the minds of Muslims, and they are smart enough to know what the Qur’an really says about executing a man, like Youcef, for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Whether reason exists within Islam, or not, we all will know for certain one way or another.  The outcome of what ultimately happens to Youcef will provide us with a definite and absolute answer to this most puzzling and perplexing question.

One way or another – what more proof will we need to know what Islam really stands for and what it really means to be a Muslim?

More “Sharia Of The Mouth” From Muslims

If an America Muslim kills an American citizen who happens to, in that Muslim’s view, criticize or offend Islam, under Sharia law that killing would then be justified.  This is what some Muslims are pushing for in America as they attempt to incorporate Sharia law into American law.  When they say, for example, the importance of having Sharia law in America is because:

Sharia law guides Islamic life, from praying five times a day to fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and abstaining from pork, alcohol and sex outside of marriage…

This is merely a cover story, a ploy, a sham and a willful canard meant to sway and detract from the real ambitions of those Muslims who are trying to force the Islamification of America onto American citizens; to prevent, through law, any negative critique of Islam by legally protecting Islam from “insult” and “injury” with fines, imprisonment and possibly death.  The idea of executing an American citizen who offends Islam is not hyperbole.  Under sharia law, anyone who offends Islam can be put to death.

Remember the atheist who donned the zombie Mohammad costume?  He was attacked by a Muslim who had become offended by what he perceived to be an insult against Islam.  And although the Muslim was the aggressor, and the atheist was the victim of a horrendous crime, the liberal activist judge nonetheless threw out the case against the Muslim – and keep in mind that was without the aid of Sharia law.

American Muslims (who have devious and ulterior motives for America) don’t want Sharia law recognized in America, and in America law, as a means to “guide Islamic life”.  Nor does this insane, unconstitutional push by loony Muslims have anything to do with being able to “pray five times a day”, or “fast during the holy month of Ramadan”.  American Muslims can do that now.  They don’t need Sharia law for that.  What they do need Sharia law for is to punish, and severely, anyone who would “offend” Islam.  That is what this irrational and dangerous campaign is really all about.

One group of American Muslims is spending millions of dollars on billboard ads in cities across America to promote Sharia law in America, and to portray Islam as “peaceful” and “innocent”, and Sharia law a necessary part of their freedom of religion.

The campaign is a response to efforts to ban Sharia law over the last two years in state legislatures and on ballot initiatives, said Naeem Baig, vice president of public affairs for Islamic Circle of North America.

If this were Christians doing exactly what Muslims were doing, how far would they get in their campaign before the multitudes of anti-Christian zealots came out of the wood-works and hammered the organizers for trying to force their religion on Americans?  How long would it be before someone would invoke “separation of church and state”.  But when we do that with Islam, and Sharia law, we are somehow “Islamophobes.”

Says Baig:

“It’s a small minority of Islamophobes that are pushing the anti-Sharia bills, but it’s becoming mainstream. Now, even presidential hopefuls like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are talking about Sharia.  We see it not only an issue of Sharia but an issue of broader religious freedom.”

Baig is another one of these dangerous, radical Muslims who uses words like “Islamophobes” to describe a real fear that America is under assault from within by people who wish to undermine our culture and out society, and are trying to use the law in order to do it.  Sharia law consists of very strict, and non-negotiable, (that means no wiggle room) tenets and instructions for how to deal with anyone who commits an act which “harms” or brings “disgrace” to Islam.

Sharia law is the only law Muslims adhere to.  That is why, even in America, honor killings occur, and why American Muslims have no remorse for their actions.  They are merely following Sharia law – and Sharia law allows for, and protects, those Muslims who kill for the “honor” of their family and their faith.  They are, at least, protected from legal retribution in nations and states which are controlled by Islamic religious dictators and where Islam has a firm grip on its people.

Interestingly, those Muslims who demand Sharia law in America, themselves have no respect for American law, and even less for America itself.  Yet, they nonetheless would attempt to force their draconian view of law, and of crime and punishment, on us, demand we accept and respect Sharia law – and damn us for being “Islamophobic if and when we don’t.  There is something altogether disturbing about this.

Sharia law attacks come mostly from those fearing radical Muslims are introducing extreme interpretations of Islamic law, such as those practiced in Afghanistan under the Taliban, into American society.

Since it is not just the Taliban or Al-Qaeda that uses Sharia law to enforce its will on its people, that is a non-sequitor.  Or is the Taliban running Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and every other Islamic run nation and state in the world outside of Afghanistan?

America is governed by its Constitution, a unique document which, for over two hundred years, billions of people around the world have come to admire.  Still, and despite its powerful content, there are, and have been, any number of attempts to circumvent, to water down, to erode and to reinterpret this, one of the great achievements in human history; this bold statement which stands for freedom, liberty, prosperity and protections from governments and religions which, at various points in human history, have subjugated, enslaved, dehumanized and murdered its populations for having the audacity to want to live life with dignity and respect.

Sharia law does not allow anyone to live as, or to even be, a human being.  Not so long as it allows for the killing of human beings who might have an alternate view of Islam, or an opinion on any subject matter, Islam or otherwise.  Sharia law is there, and it exists, solely to enforce Islam on people anywhere Sharia law is the law.  And anywhere Sharia law is the law, radical, fundamental Islam will not be far behind.

And if that is untrue, then why else would those American Muslims who demand Sharia law be accepted in America as a separate law for them, care if Sharia law never does become accepted, and what other interest or need could they have in pushing Sharia law on America?  If Sharia is not merely a backdoor effort by American Muslims to let in radical, fundamental Islamic Jihadists whose motivations are to destroy America – why do those American Muslims feel they are hindered by American law and our Constitution in living their lives?

In other words – where in America can a Muslim not live their life, practice their faith – five times a day if they want – in peace, in freedom, in privacy?  What do we need Sharia law for?  Our Constitution already guarantees them freedom of religion.  Obviously that is not good enough for some devious American Muslims, and is not enough to satisfy them.  Because, ladies and gentleman, some American Muslims really want the legal ability and authority to literally get away with murder.  That is the only thing Sharia law provides for, protects and sanctions.  Well, that and the raping of women and little girls, and selling them to pay off debts or satisfy a dishonorable action one family member may have committed against another family.  “Little” things like that.

We are freer, and safer, in America without Sharia law.  We are freer, and safer, living under our current Constitution, which, among other rights, includes the right to criticize, even “offend” and “insult” other religions and religious values.  Or, do you beg to differ?  Do you dare?  Would you dare under Sharia law?

It’s The Econ, Er, Birth Control, Stupid?

At least Democrats, and Barack Obama, are hoping the 2012 election will be more about birth control and contraception, and less about the economy, taxes, higher and higher gas prices, and all the important issues the majority of Americans, men and women, deal with on a daily bases.  Which is why the Left is focusing in on the Right’s “obsession” with matters of life and death – literally.  Indeed, conservatives are very much concerned with life (as in unborn life), and we are very much concerned at how much in peril that unborn life is at every step of its development.  However, are we really trying to ban birth control, and is that our main, our one and only, political issue going into the 2012 election?

Birth control – and it is that particular birth control which is intended to prevent and block a pregnancy from occurring when used correctly, has absolutely never been an issue within conservatism itself.  Perhaps certain circles of religious conservatives, but never, by any stretch of the imagination, a majority of conservatives.  In other words, nobody – and that includes conservatives – is trying to ban and outlaw birth control.  We would support removing the taxpayer obligation for paying the bill on birth control, and any contraception.  Title X is still in effect and that will still remain in effect with either a President Romney or President Santorum.

The reason why the Left continues its barrage of assaults on conservatives with the birth control issue is to deflect the weakness of Barack Obama’s leadership, to distract from his overall disastrous performance as President and his very low popularity numbers with the American people, including those that voted for him in 2008 – many of whom, including black Americans, are very dismayed and feel betrayed by him.  In other words, Democrats are obfuscating reality in the hopes Obama’s supporters will come back to him and his fantasy agenda.

What Romney and Santorum, the clear front-runners, need to do is come out and dismiss these attacks and convey what the real conservative message is with regards to birth control and contraception – without invoking religion, or making it sound like their religion, and their religious beliefs, are the only reasons why they don’t support Barack Obama or the Left’s demands for more access to birth control and contraception.  Something like:

Putting aside my religious beliefs, for a moment, is it right for the government to force any American to pay for someone’s birth control and contraception?  Take religion, and religious constructs, morals and tenets out of the equation.  Is it right for the government to force any institution, religious or otherwise, to provide services which it finds to be against their own beliefs?  Is that the proper role of government?  Is that a proper use of our tax dollars?  Ladies and gentleman – no serious conservative is for banning birth control, and no serious conservative would even make that an issue.  It is Democrats who want taxpayers – you – to pay for birth control and all forms of contraception, including abortion; and they want to force you and I, and all public and private institutions, to provide these services, at our expense.  Billions of dollars, our money.  The real question is – why can’t regular Americans, who engage in activities that require birth control and contraception, pay for it themselves?  Title X is there to provide family planning help for low-income men and women.  That won’t change when I am President.  What will change is the arrogant attitude of Washington style government with regards to the way it sees you and all American citizens – as an ATM machine for its own private use, to plunder at will any time it wants.  Birth control, any form of contraception that prevents a pregnancy from occurring, will not be infringed upon, tampered with or banned when I am president.  Barack Obama’s, and the Democrat party’s, demand for forcing you, the American citizen, and taxpayer, to pay for it, will be. 

Why can’t they say something like that?  Instead, they invoke their religion and their religious beliefs, (and do so in a muddled and incoherent manner which provides more fuel for liberals and Democrats to use to stoke the flames of hatred and mistrust against conservatives and religious Americans) and use religion as the basis for explaining their views on birth control and contraception.  Nobody likes to have religion, and religious beliefs, especially someone else’s, forced on them.  And there are millions of religious Americans who don’t feel comfortable with politicians using religion, even if it is their religion too, as a reason for shaping policy.

Religion absolutely has a right to be infused with politics, and religious politicians absolutely have a right to invoke and talk about their religion and how it has shaped their lives.  However, using religion to shape policy that affects the American people only antagonizes the American people.  The Left has captured that sentiment, albeit they have gone way overboard with it, and they are doing what they do best – disseminating lies and misinformation about religious conservatives and religious conservative politicians, saying they are trying to ban something, the result of which will hurt and harm women and endanger their “health” and their lives.

The lies the Left spreads about the Right are far more extreme than the actual position on birth control and contraception the Right takes.  The problem is that we, as conservatives, have not done as well a job in countering the Left’s nonsense.  And neither have Romney or Santorum.  If either intends to win the Presidency, and deny Obama a second term, they both need to be much clearer in their message and much stronger in the delivery of their message.

Talking about birth control and contraception, even as part of an election cycle, is worth it, because the lives of unborn children are at stake in this issue – and they are worth fighting for.  However, is it worth losing the election to Obama and the Democrat Party, and putting those unborn lives at even greater risk because we could not properly define what is birth control and contraception, and what the government’s, and taxpayers, role is in providing it?

Rick Santorum’s Theology Trumps Barack Obama’s

President Obama does not miss an opportunity to proclaim his “Christianity” and use that as a basis for why taxes ought to be raised.  And while the Left is comfortable with that, they wither into blithering idiots and truly sick and disgusting sycophants, like Obama, when someone with real values, and real Christian values, like Rick Santorum, dares to use that as a basis for his theology and how he would shape policy and legislation in Washington.

The Arianna Nation calls Santorum’s “religious superiority complex” a “new low”.  Santorum, who is pro-life and who opposes the Obama contraception mandate against Catholic hospitals and institutions, uses his Christianity as the explanation for being pro-life and his conservatism for opposing government intrusion on religion.

Said Santorum:

“He [Obama] is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to.”

Obama forcing Catholic institutions to provide services that go against their moral and religious conviction; Obama using, and abusing, religion, to further his socialist agenda is, to the Arianna Nation, to all liberals and Leftists, somehow a “progressive” position, but Santorum – extolling his Christian values – has reached a “new low”.  How does that make sense?

Said Obama, in a speech at a the National Prayer Breakfast:

“But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”

Phony, counterfeit Christians, like Obama, because he is a liberal and a socialist, always get away with invoking religion and their particular religious values.  And they always get a pass from the MSM.  But when religious frauds, like Obama, invoke religion, it is always done to advance their socialist, and ironically, anti-religious agenda on the American people.  In other words, liberals have no objection with pro-abortion “Christian” politicians – take the Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, for example – using religion to justify why contraception ought to be mandated a right by government.  But when Santorum, and others, profess their religion, and their conservative religious values, openly, as the basis for why religious institutions ought to be exempt and protected from government intrusion, they are roundly mocked, viciously satirized and ridiculed, called “ring-wing aggressors” and anti-women.

Of Santorum’s position, The Arianna Nation quotes Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt:

“This is just the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity – a stark contrast with the President who is focused everyday on creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class.”

Don’t buy into his garbage.  The Left hates, despises and loathes religion with a passion, which is why they ridicule Santorum and anyone with conservative religious values, and why they give a pass to counterfeit Christians, like Obama, who use religion in ways that water it down and make it more salable but less meaningful.

There is nothing Christian, or religious, about being pro-abortion.  There is nothing in the Christian Bible, in any Bible, that supports the killing of unborn life.  Neither is there anything religious, Christian or Biblical based about forcing religious institutions to provide contraception and abortion services to anyone against their moral and religious beliefs – and to do so is also unconstitutional.  Nor is there anything in the Christian Bible that supports taxes, and raising taxes on the rich, at such high levels and percentages as Obama and the “Demon-cratic” Party have fought so hard for.  Other than a 10% tithing, to one’s church, or charity, and certainly no more than that amount to government itself, what Obama is professing is not only a lie, but slander against the Bible and Christianity itself.

Why is it that those liberals who profess themselves to be Christian, who despise anyone else invoking their religious values on the American people – especially in the public square –  routinely forget to follow their own rules and freely talk about their religious values and background?  If the Left is that uncomfortable with religion in the public square, and hearing politicians and their election officials talking about religion, why don’t they do more to dissuade and to persecute Obama, and any of their own ilk, who do freely and openly talk about religion, and their so-called religious values?

Whether the Left supports or rejects religion, Rick Santorum not only has a right to discuss, openly and freely, his Christian values, but to, freely and openly, challenge Obama’s “Christian” values.  If the Left has a problem with that, if Obama himself has a problem with that, they and Obama can meet Santorum head on in open debate where they can both lay out their religious differences and defend their brand of Christianity.

But Santorum has nothing to worry about.  His Christianity does trump Obama’s.  Or – does life, and unborn life, really have no meaning and value?  Is enslaving taxpayers to their government by raising taxes sixty, seventy, eighty percent sound, rational Christian teaching?  Is forcing religious institutions to help in the killing of unborn children, or in aiding and abetting sexual immorality, one of the tenets of Christianity, or any religion?

Is Christianity merely a prop politicians use to sway more religious Americans to elect them?  And even if both Obama and Santorum are using Christianity to further their political careers, regardless of that – whose religious values make more sense?

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?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: