Posted on 09/30/2005 9:05:22 AM PDT by Coleus
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — For sixteen years atheist, Phillip Paulson, claiming he wants to maintain neutrality between government and religion, has been waging an unrelenting war against the Mt. Soledad Cross that is the centerpiece of the historic Veterans Memorial in San Diego. However, Paulson’s comments on the website of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego reveals his true motivation is hatred for Christianity.
Paulson goes so far as to state; “We need to attack Jesus…” Those comments, followed by vulgar remarks about Christ, God and the Virgin Mary are so crude and offensive that the Thomas More Law Center will not repeat them. However, Richard Thompson, President of the Law Center commented, “These remarks show the plaintiff to be nothing more than a foul-mouthed anti-Christian whose agenda is not to defend the Constitution, but to attack Christianity.”
In the past two weeks, Paulson’s attorney James McElroy has joined his client in making offensive remarks. He recently compared San Diego City Attorney, Michael Aguirre's, retention of Charles LiMandri, a Christian lawyer from the Thomas More Law Center, to represent the City to hiring the Ku Klux Klan to represent the City in a desegregation case.
McElroy has used this highly offensive analogy in his public comments at least three times over a ten-day period. McElroy, who is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Southern Poverty Law Center based in Alabama, knows very well just how prejudicial that analogy is to most people. In fact, it was McElroy who previously brought suit in San Diego against Tom Metzger, a convicted white supremacist.
McElroy offended African Americans who attended a September 16, 2005 meeting of the Catfish Club in San Diego when he again likened Aguirre's recent retention of LiMandri, West Coast Regional Director of the Thomas More Law Center, to the hiring of Metzger to represent the City. In fact, LiMandri began his career years ago by working for the San Diego City Attorney's Office and is a Board certified civil trial advocate who has been involved with the case for over a year.
Paulson and McElroy's offensive comments reveal that their motivation has nothing whatsoever to do with their claimed purpose, which is allegedly to maintain "neutrality" between government and religion. Rather, their hate-speech manifests their overt hostility toward religion and their desire to intimidate the opposition into submission. It is now all too clear that Paulson and McElroy are seeking to use the courts to advance their anti-religion agenda, which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
There is a culture war going on in America.
The minority of Americans who don't believe in God or Judaeo-Christian values wnat to impose their will on the majority of Americans who do.
They are winning.
We are losing.
People like this jerk have got to be stopped and the Courts must be made to think more rationally.
If the Courts DON'T, then our legislators hetter earn their money by figuring a way out of the mess they have permitted the legal "profession" to get America into.
If they don't we should vote them out of office - rgardless of party - and let them know why.
And as such, their activities should be prosecuted as hate crimes. At lease abuse of process.
Blame it on the Supreme Court, which has totally muddled interpretation of the First Amendment.
No, the problem is Hugo Black's definition of an Establishement of Religon, which the Court has made its own. never mind that his authority is Jefferson, who had absolutely nothing to do with the crafting of the First Amendment and who, in any case, put a Baptist spin on the ter, "wall of separation." Want to know ehat Jefferson meant? See what the Baptists say, which is that the wall or hedge is meant to keep government out of the Church.
Anyone who tries to violate the Constitution by mixing church and state.
I called the Thomas More Law Center, and they sent me a .pdf file that contains print-outs of Mr. Paulson's (aka hasd1973, "Humanist Phil Osophy") postings. I found them on their Yahoo Group (the URL is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Atheist_Coalition/message/2626). This is the main excerpt:
Why should such ideas be protected from ridicule? I say, Atheists should rebut the anti-Science religious right with their own claims about talking snakes, plankton eating whales swollowing up one of their biblical characters and spitting him out on land, ad nauseum. Then, we need to make a full attack on Jesus. Jesus wrote nothing of himself or his life, not a line of the New Testament in his own hand. All the books of the New Testament were written after his death, not only of Jesus, but also only by the men to whom they are attibuted. Well, Jesus believed that the earth was flat when he went up to the pentacle and saw the four corners of the earth. When Jesus was carried to the top of the highest mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the world, how is it America was not included? Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the temple. And the religious right republicans put the name of God on the currency. The Bush Bible reads, "And Supply-Side Jesus wept "verily I say unto you, blessed are the wealthy for they shall receive tax cuts and corporate welfare." But then of course there is Deuteronomy 23:2 KJV - "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord..." Well according to the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ was a bastard and a rape baby. After all, the christian god the father raped the Virgin Mary when she was only 13 years of age, and then the all-knowing and all-powerful god became a dead-beat dad who later set up his own bastard son's execution.
He later sums up this last sentence in message 2629 when he said, "America was not around when Jesus, the bastard son of the dead beat father, was living."
Be that as it may, Black was interpreting the First Amendment and it was this that has caused all the mischief. To this day, the Court has devised no settled doctrine, so that as each case that comes up, we are are only sure that the result will be queer. To me the reduction ad adsurdum was the case prohibiting prayers at high school football games.
> Then, we need to make a full attack on Jesus.
Ah, context at last. Somewhat different from the spin that the original article put on it. And given that it's a posting on a news forum and not an editted and proofread article or editorial, some poor phraseology is to be expected. I mean, look at FR. If one were to judge Conservatives by a few cherry-picked postings here...
He's got some loopy anti-Republican ranting going on there, but the message is basically not what was promised.
"Why should such ideas be protected from ridicule?" Why indeed.
So, in principle, you think all religions are subject to ridicule, or just Christianity?
Paulson HAS to know that's going to be a losing proposition. Geeesh, talk about carrying a knife to a gun fight. People need to give this prick a wide berth. Lightning is a b*&ch to endure.
is Paulson a freeper?
> you think all religions are subject to ridicule, or just Christianity?
All *everything* is subject to ridicule. This includes all religions ("One mans theology is another mans belly laugh," RAH) science, politics, medicine, sex, rocks, plants. Some ridicule makes more sense than others, of course.
Do not make the childish mistake of believing that those who do not believe as you do, or who ridicule your beliefs, are specifically targetting you or your specific beliefs. I personally ridicule all Creationists, whether they believe that the Judeo-Christian God created mankind in 4004 BC, or that humans are the result of little space friends or believe that the universe was sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arklseizure, or the Universe cracked out of a literal egg, or Illuvatar sang it into existence or it was dreamed up by Brahma. But point out the silly nature of certain Christian dogmas, and all of a sudden you're "anti-Christian."
Why do "militant" atheists in the West seem to go after Christian beliefs and symbols? Because... those are the ones that exist. However, anyone who actually pays attention to such things knows that skeptics - agnostics and atheists and others - also go after non-Christian silliness. Just watch Penn & Teller's "Bulls--t!" on Showtime (or buy/rent the DVDs).
bttt
> Tell me of another religion, outside of those considered to be Judeao-Christian in nature, that have given the world societies as free as ones we see today
The pagan religion of the pre-Christian Icelandic republic. Then they Christianized, and the republic collapsed.
> include respect of human rights and equality among those of different races and of a different sex
You might have a point... had it not taken 1800+ years for Christianity to develop those ideals itself.
> I'm sure that the world today would just as free if Christianity was never founded as a major religion...../sarcasm off
Quite possibly. Had the Dark Ages not been driven by the Christian Church wiping out the light of learnign from Europe for nearly a thousand years, we'd be having this arguement near Alpha Centauri.
I asked my husband the other night...these atheist coalitions...what happens if the head honcho decides to accept Christ? Would sort of upset the apple cart, wouldnt it?
You can't convert the Devil. These people have a Satanic hatred for Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.
They are evil personified. I wouldn't hold me breath. As a matter of fact I wouldn't waste my time.
The way to deal with a scorpion is to crush it, not converse with it.
Not until he asks for forgiveness. Until then, he's SOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.