The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Religion and Spirituality”

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)

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.

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

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

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

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

On the other hand:

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

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

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

On the other hand:

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

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

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

On the other hand:

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

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

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

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

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

Skye Jethani says about the Puritans:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Homosexuality Is Wrong” Is The Newest Swear Word

Texas School Punishes Boy For Opposing Homosexuality | Fox News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACLU/AU – Take A Long Holiday, Let The Children Pray (In School)

For over 170 years of its history, America has always been a nation that understood the premise of personal freedom:  freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom to petition our own government for a redress of grievances, and freedom of religion.  Not only was freedom an important and fundamental concept to our founders, it was a phenomenal statement of indignation and contempt against the Mother Country; a concept so remarkable and original at the time, they were willing to give their lives in support of it, and just so nobody misunderstood their intentions they wrote it down on paper and signed their name to it  – a treasonous act at the time that would have gotten them hung if they were ever caught.  Freedom, to our founders, and to the subsequent generations that followed, was a matter of principle.  It will shock some, but as crazy as it sounds, it’s even now  in the U.S. Constitution somewhere.  Go ahead, look it up!   Freedom (and freedom of religion) has been in there since the beginning.  Some people don’t want you to know that!

For this vast majority of our history virtually all Americans have relished these freedoms, so much so eventually we took them for granted.  Fast forward to the 1960’s.   This was a decade that represented a fundamental shift in our culture and in our way of thinking.  We became tired, lazy and, ultimately, illiterate of our own constitution, thereby letting others like Madalyn Murray O’Hair to reinterpret its original intent and meaning.

And there was the American Civil Liberties Union which came along and sat beside the Constitution, and ever since has done all it could to frighten us away from the original meaning of freedom; in particular, freedom of religion.  With the help of rogue judges the ACLU has been very successful in eradicating all traces of religion (Christianity in particular) from public schools.

Nobody wants government dictating our lives with regards to anything, including religion.  But did you know it is nonetheless the:

Right of local communities to make decisions with regards to school prayer, inclusion of the Ten Commandments, children singing Christmas carols, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, wearing religious jewelry, bringing a bible into their school, placing a religious symbol on a city seal and anything else pertaining to religion deemed acceptable by the community at large?

In other words:

The opinion of any organization, group, or even one person, Rob-Sherman, Michael Newdow or anyone else, is irrelevant if the majority of people oppose the opinion.  No one person has a constitution right to override the majority of private citizens independent of, and with no ties to, government.  Whereas government cannot make and pass laws with regards to the establishment of religion – private citizens can!

And so long as a majority of citizens in a given community are supportive of these inclusions, the ACLU, although it may sound strange, is actually powerless to do anything about it.  The problem is, we the people have ceded power to the ACLU, and other anti religious organizations  like Americans United For Separation of Church and State, American Atheists, and others who feed on our ignorance of law, and expend vast amounts of resources, time, money and energy ensuring we remain ignorant.

Often, almost always, touted is the “wall between church and state” and Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 Danbury Letter that made the phrase famous.  Actually, it was anti-religious groups that made the phrase famous by deliberately taking it out of context and warping its original meaning to suit their own agenda.  Thomas Jefferson never meant, by writing of his support that church and state remain separate, religion ought to be secluded from all public schools or other public venues.  Rather, Jefferson was writing in response to a concern raised by the Danbury Baptists with regards to their constitutional right to practice their religion without government exacting a penalty against them, as had been customary for centuries prior to America’s founding.  Jefferson was merely reassuring the Baptists they in fact had a right to their own religion in America because their was a “wall of separation between church and state” guaranteed under the first amendment; i.e. freedom of religion.  But whereas that specific phrase is nowhere written in the constitution, the ACLU, AU and others have bound it to the freedom of religion clause and given it a new and distinct meaning, converse to its original proposition.  In other words, the ACLU wants you to believe the freedom of religion clause means all public institutions must be free of religion.  That is an out and out fraud!

Groups like the Alliance Defense Fund and the American Center for Law and Justice are fighting back and working tirelessly to combat the misinformation being spread by the ACLU and AU.  Americans are coming out of their decades long slumber, being awakened by conservative news outlets cropping up all over the country, on television, radio and the internet, inspiring Americans to fight back and work vigorously to reverse myriad calamitous court decisions that have rendered them voiceless all these years.

But because of errant judges interpreting law the way they see it, rather then through a strict constitutional view, breaking down this “wall of separation between church and state” that exists nowhere in the constitution has been, and continues to be virtually impregnable, though it is showing signs of wear and tear, and cracks are forming.

But until we the people can take back control of our freedom from anti-religious groups and judges, dispel the misinformation they have been propagating for so long, they will continue to misuse the phrase “separation of church and state”, refortifying it with more lies, and the power of freedom, that is freedom, that we would hope would remain freedom for generations to come – ad infinitum – will remain in the hands of those who hate freedom and seek to kill it.

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: