Atheist’s Comments Reveal Battle Over Mt. Soledad Cross is an Attack On Christianity

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.

The pagan religion of the pre-Christian Icelandic republic. Then they Christianized, and the republic collapsed.

Does not quite measure up to the the number we see today. Again, I argue that it is not a mere coincidence that the free nations we see today were heavily influenced by those embracing Judeao-Christian values.

You might have a point... had it not taken 1800+ years for Christianity to develop those ideals itself.

Yes, it took time for them to come to the forefront but they are grounded in the Christian doctrine. Pick-up up a Bible and read the new testament, it is full of teachings espousing compassion, love, charity, and the respecting of others....including ones enemy.

Had the Dark Ages not been driven by the Christian Church wiping out the light of learning from Europe for nearly a thousand years, we'd be having this argument near Alpha Centauri.

That gave rise to the reformation and the Renaissance of Europe. The Church during that time did not practice the teachings of Christ found in the Bible.

Question for you, and I it is meant with true sincerity. Moral, values and ethics are greatly influenced by ones belief system. I think we can both agree that our laws and forms of governments are greatly influenced by these beliefs. These beliefs assist in molding the social structure we live by.

It is very obvious I believe in God, I perceive that you are probably an atheist, or possibly agnostic. I believe that there are fundamental tenants of right and wrong based on God's law. I believe those who founded this nation also believed such; the Declaration of Independence alludes to such beliefs.

What interests me is what a person bases his beliefs upon if he does does not have a fundamental belief in God?

If there is no God, than we are truly animals without souls. In that scenario Darwinism wins out, it truly is the survival of the fittest. In addition, without God man makes the moral rules to guide humanity. In turn, those who are able to rest most power from others will dictate the moral code of the day. So, if that is the case, who is to say that Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and all other forms of man-made political belief systems are wrong. Who is to say that the Communist slaughters, the killing of millions of Jews by the Nazi's, and the Fascism seen in the Arab world is/was wrong?

Without a core set of beliefs founded on something that is unchangeable (IE God), that perception of right and wrong is ever changing.

Getting back to the original discussion, that is why I believe groups, such as the ACLU, are attempting to eradicate God from our public square. To me, there aim is to undermine the perception of what is believed to be Right and wrong. There are only two fronts they can use to do this: Attack the Church using the courts to remove all vestiges of God (and natural law) from our laws. Secondly, attack Christianity directly(mostly the Catholic faith due to its influence) by trying to change its doctrine. Special interest groups are the ones leading this charge.

Again, I ask you, without morality based in God (which is unchangeable), how would one know what is moral behavior if it can change repeatably?

No, I would not be a psychopath...but if I lived in a Facist regime where I was taught from the earliest of ages that killing those different from me was acceptable, I would probably find no problem with it (as we see today and in the past). Why would you be any different, what would guide you in determining it was wrong if morality is man made and the majority believed it was proper?

Yes, the question has much merit although you ridicule it.

Again, if man determines morality it will be ever changing depending on who has the power to determine such. What is illogical regarding this statement?

So please be so kind as to answer my question:

If there is no God, than we are truly animals without souls. In that scenario Darwinism wins out, it truly is the survival of the fittest.

In addition, without God man makes the moral rules to guide humanity. In turn, those who are able to rest most power from others will dictate the moral code of the day.

So, if that is the case, who is to say that Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and all other forms of man-made political belief systems are wrong. Who is to say that the Communist slaughters, the killing of millions of Jews by the Nazi's, and the Fascism seen in the Arab world is/was wrong?

After all, if the Nazi's had won WWII their version of moral truth would be far different than the west today's. How else would they have justified the murdering of millions to forward their cause. Isn't this true Darwinism....to the victor go the spoils....and who is to say they were wrong if they convinced enough people to beleive they were correct?

> if I lived in a Facist regime where I was taught from the earliest of ages that killing those different from me was acceptable, I would probably find no problem with it

Note that "Fascist" can be replaced with "theocratic" real easy. Would you have joined in in slaughtering the Caananites?

> if man determines morality it will be ever changing depending on who has the power to determine such. What is illogical regarding this statement?

Actually nothing. However, you make the mistake of assuming that religious moralitry is somehow unchanging. The history of religious views on morality in this very country defeats that view. For the simple fact that morality *is* man-made and man-interpretted, even when it's claimed to come straight from god.

> If there is no God, than we are truly animals without souls.

1) How do you know that we have no souls apart from your God
2) What makes you think that "soulless" equals "valueless?"

> In that scenario Darwinism wins out, it truly is the survival of the fittest.

Even with God and souls, Darwinism wins out. "Survival of the fittest" always works. It's jsut a matter of defining what "fittest" is. In some cases, it's the biggest, meanest human. In some cases it's the physically helpless human with the law on his side.

> who is to say that Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and all other forms of man-made political belief systems are wrong.

You are, for a start. Why do we see Communism as wrong? Certainly not because the Bible speaks against it. It doesn't. In fact whole societies have set themselves up as Christian Communes. For instance, Plymouth Plantation. They converted from communism not because of religious belief... but because experience showed them that it just didn't work. *THAT* is how you define the best forms of ethics and morality: look at history. What has worked, what hasn't.

Does murder work? Does theft? Rape? Not suffering a witch to live? Enslaving people? Do these concepts make life better or worse for the society?

> if the Nazi's had won WWII their version of moral truth would be far different than the west today's. How else would they have justified the murdering of millions to forward their cause.

Caanan. They used the same morality. They both thought that God wanted them to inhabit certain lands and to wipe out the peoples already there.

> Isn't this true Darwinism....to the victor go the spoils....

No. Darwinism does not deal with issues such as who "deserves" something or has been "chosen." The Nazis *did.* They were convinced that the Aryan race was the chosen race of Providence (note: weird mishmash of CHristian, pagan and spiritualist/theosophist belief, forming a kludge of nonsense), created perfect and deserving beings. Rather the antithesis of Darwinism.

> who is to say they were wrong if they convinced enough people to beleive they were correct?

History. Me. You. Everyone.

The thing is, the Nazis did not do their dastardliest deeds with just regular schmoes. They used the SS... their True Believers. They believed that what was right and wrong was not what reason told them it was... but what their "unassailable morality" authorities told them it was. Caanan, all over again.

You confuse man-made morality with morality instilled by God. I guess as an atheist one would see all morality as man made, I don't. Morality defined by God is unchanging and unwavering...what is wrong in Gods eyes in the beginning is wrong now. It does not matter how one interprets it or attempts to use it for his own selfish doings.

However, that is simply not the case with morality based on man's thought and want. That is ever changing based on whomever has the power to dictate.

As a Christian, Darwinism does not win out. Christianity dictates to serve others before oneself, to give one's life up to save another; to be humble and and be in servitude to your fellow man. In may ways Christianity, fly's in the face of Darwinian thinking. In many ways is puts the practitioner at risk in their daily life. Christian living is not meant to gain prestige and merit in this world, rather it is for us to sacrifice now for our eternal well being. This is not Darwinism. Again, read the New Testament to see what a Christian believes, not what is told to you from others.

Why do I see failed political systems as wrong, that's quite simple, because my religious education has shown me this. Communism is a Godless society; without God evil will conquer. The Nazi's were fascists and fanatics who believed in the master race....my religious education has taught me that we are all children of God and that murder is wrong....As for the Arab Fascists I see today, again my religious education has based in me a morality where I don't see others who don't believe like me as being deserving of bigotry or death. My values, based in my morality, make me wish to help others in need irregardless of who they are. That is in complete contrast to their belief system. In fact I see Fascism and Communism as evil in may ways.

Given your argument, the only reason they are not worthy is because they failed over time. What if one of these political ideologies arises and takes over a large percentage of the earth's population. What if it lasts for a 1000's of years by raping and murdering its population to benefit the advancement of society as a whole....is it now consider right rather than wrong? To me its obviously yes, taking God out of the decision makes that answer much more convoluted. What is morality in that case, whose morality is right, those that suffered or those that benefited from the suffering?

As for history determining whether something is right or wrong, without God that is purely subjective. To the victor go the spoils...the winners, whether they be moral or evil in my eyes, will dictate and justify the morality used to succeed. As a person living under such conditions you may stand little chance in attempting to understand that morality you've embraced is wrong, because you will have embraced it with no alternative given and nothing to compare it to. It becomes acceptable and warranted. Murder, rape, slavery, and other horrific practices can be made acceptable if an unchanging moral code is not followed and practiced.

As for a soul, what use is there for a soul if there is no God? What purpose would/does it serve in the natural world outlined by Darwin?

If there is no God, humanity, by chance evolved as the dominant species. We live only to serve ourselves, to perpetuate our own lineage. Murder, rape, and all other forms of practices we find barbaric are of the natural world in the animal kingdom. Thus, why should we be precluded from such actions if all we are in the end is just another animal on this planet?

> Morality defined by God is unchanging and unwavering...what is wrong in Gods eyes in the beginning is wrong now.

Uh-huh. So, genocide is ok today? Beating your woman and children? Owning slaves? Killing homosexuals? Killing those who follow other gods? Banning representative art? Do we stone disobedient children to *death*? Is it ok to kill fig trees that aren't in season? Do you today find the idea of intentionally confusing unbelievers so that they won't convert and thus be damned for eternity to be a really spiffy notion? Is this your notion of how to deal morally with those who do not believe as you do: "their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up?"

> Again, read the New Testament to see what a Christian believes, not what is told to you from others.

"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Yeppers! That's morality!

> What if one of these political ideologies arises and takes over a large percentage of the earth's population. What if it lasts for a 1000's of years by raping and murdering its population to benefit the advancement of society as a whole....is it now consider right rather than wrong?

Ah. The Church.

> As for a soul, what use is there for a soul if there is no God?

Define "soul." Be precise and specific. Use measurements from known and reckognized sources.

> If there is no God, humanity, by chance evolved as the dominant species.

And even if there is a God, the evidence points to just that anyway.

> We live only to serve ourselves, to perpetuate our own lineage. Murder, rape, and all other forms of practices we find barbaric are of the natural world in the animal kingdom.

Errr.... no. Murder and rape are relatively unknown in the animal kingdom. They become more common the smarter the critter... witness chimps and dolphins.

But in the natural world, where mankind spent the bulk of it's existence, murder and rape would not help continue the lineage. Murderers and rapists tend to wind up dead, and their babies often aborted or left for the wolves.

> Thus, why should we be precluded from such actions if all we are in the end is just another animal on this planet?

Because many of us are *more* than just animals. We have transcended pure instinct and base emotions. We can project our thoughts into the future, and plan based on probable results for hypothetical situations. We have recorded our past so that it can be recalled and used. Granted, there are many who need the constant fear of some invisible and all-seeing tormentor in order for them to obey some pretty basic rules, but the rest of us have evolved beyond such base instincts.

Beyond your faith... do you honestly think you'd be fine with rape and murder? Is your faith the only thing holding you back? Or do you have at least some shred of built-in decency?

Your lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine, and the new testament in general, is quite telling.

Christ's comments are meant to communicate to his followers that they will be despised, harassed, spit upon and disowned by those they believe that love them. He was telling us that there is only one truth, and it is in complete contradiction to man's morality and laws. He was telling them that following God's wishes will be very difficult in the world we live in.

Again, you confuse the Church corrupted by man, with the pureness as dictated by God. Yes the Church has it failings, but the dictates, as stated in the Bible, are unwavering. Those that attempt to use it, or abuse it for their own selfish desires, are not following Christian doctrine. Where in the new testament does it condone murder, genocide, the beating of women and children? Again, please don't confuse other religions and church dark ages as examples of Christian doctrine.

As to what is to come of those who do not wish to believe in God, that is not up to me to decide. It is up to you make the decision on what you do and don't believe. I will only tell you what is written, you will have to settle that with God. We as Christians are not to force or coerce others to believe, it must be voluntary and heartfelt. We are also not to hate others based on non-belief. It is not up to us to decide the fate of non-believers during our time in this world. That is not what we are here for.

Soul, define it to what extent, so science can measure it? What is the difference, I cannot prove that God exists, how can I prove that a soul exists. My beliefs are a matter of faith, based partly on how I have seen God transform lives for the better. Can you prove God does not exist? As to our soul, at least to me, is a representation of our immortal being blessed upon man by God. Where in science is a soul defined in the animal world, again, what purpose would it serve?

Irregardless of how I believe man came to be the dominant species, if there is no God we are just animals. Albeit we have greater intelligence that allows us to transcend animal behavior, in the end we are just animals sharing this planet with other less intelligent creatures. Without God we are not special, unless you count us being special using our own contrived sense of value.

And you are wrong with regard to the animal kingdom....Murder, rape, and other forms of heinous actions are also found in the lower intelligent animals. It is consider a natural part of their being. Again, why not in man....just because man says it is wrong now doesn't mean that it will be in the future.

Finally you asked "honestly do you think you'd be fine with rape and murder? Is your faith the only thing holding you back". Knowing what I know today, no. Again, I still must tell you that I don't know given other circumstances. Ultimately, it would depend on the society I was raised in, the number of alternative belief systems I was exposed to, and how acceptable it was to the society I was living under. That is being honest. You are deceiving yourself if you believe, without any other defined sense of values being made available to you, you would be able to discern it as being wrong. We see today, many of these same crimes are acceptable in other societies and cultures. The same can be said of the past as well. To say it could not happen in the future is just basing one's belief in folly.

If morality is to based on man's thinking, it will be ever changing...not necessarily evolving into something acceptable today. God's way does not change, what is wrong today, will be wrong until the end of time.

I do not base my belief in God on fear of retribution. I base on what I see around me. I believe we are special and there is a reason we have transcended the other creatures on this earth. I see a complex and beautiful world, I see what man has done to it when left to his own devices. I have studied many faiths, and have voluntarily chosen to follow Christ. I believe we are here on this earth to serve each other; because if we are not stewards in this world, we will eventually destroy it and all that lives upon it.

> Your lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine, and the new testament in general, is quite telling.

Silly me, for actually quoting the thing.

> you confuse the Church corrupted by man, with the pureness as dictated by God.

Considering that you yourself just got done interpretting the Bible for me, it's clear that the Bible itself is muddled. And thus who are you to ever say the Church is wrong? Woudl you have told the Israelites not to slaughter the Canaanites?

> Where in the new testament does it condone murder, genocide, the beating of women and children?

Huh. So, suddenly the Old Testament is to be ignored. I guess all evidence of morality changing gets covered up...

> We as Christians are not to force or coerce others to believe, it must be voluntary and heartfelt.

Or else our women will be ripped asunder and our babies smashed into rocks. Nice.

> What is the difference, I cannot prove that God exists, how can I prove that a soul exists.

Fair enough. Now, continue that line of thought: if you cannot even defien these concepts, how do you know that a soul is impossible without a god?

> Where in science is a soul defined in the animal world, again, what purpose would it serve?

A soul is not defiend, because there's no proof of one. As to what value a soul would have in the animal world... what value would it have for *you*? If you had a soul or didn't have one, how would you know? How would you prove it to someone else? How would you demonstrate that someone else did or didn't have a soul?

> Without God we are not special, unless you count us being special using our own contrived sense of value.

BINGO! It is we ourselves who give ourselves value and worth and purpose. If you need to go to some external source for that validation, oh well, too bad for you.

> Murder, rape, and other forms of heinous actions are also found in the lower intelligent animals.

Evidence, please. Remember, there's a difference between killing and murder.

> Ultimately, it would depend on the society I was raised in, the number of alternative belief systems I was exposed to, and how acceptable it was to the society I was living under.

Curious thing, that. The societies we remember as being particularly nasty are the exceptions. Humans have proven quite capable of determining right from wrong without benefit of your Bible. And yet, even with the Bible, we find particularly nasty societies. Our own, for instance. The Bible was used by both sides of the slavery debate.

>We see today, many of these same crimes are acceptable in other societies and cultures.

And are these societies successful? Will they last?

> God's way does not change, what is wrong today, will be wrong until the end of time.

So you are comfortable with genocide in the name of religion. Check.

> I do not base my belief in God on fear of retribution. I base on what I see around me.

Others look aroung and find evidence of Allah, Zeus, Brahma, nothing at all.

Silly me, for actually quoting the thing.....

You pretend to know what you have no knowledge of...it would serve you to take a class on Christian studies.

Because something has no proof does not mean it does not exist. Being a man of science you should understand that.

BINGO! It is we ourselves who give ourselves value and worth and purpose.

Using your own words as to why we consider ourselves special as a species, it than becomes clear that we ourselves have defined ourselves in that way. So in the end, we are only animals of higher a higher order if there is no God. Thus, you have answered your own question...man's morality is what we believe it to be at any given time...what is right and wrong can and will change. Those who define that morality are those who have the power to do so. In the end what is acceptable is contingent upon an ever changing perspective. The perspective in which that decision is made can, and will, lead to a determination that is in contrast to what we think today.

You assume it will always elevate itself to a higher standard of enlightenment. You believe societies choosing wrong are the exception; I guess you have not studied the last 1,000 years of history. Actually, the last 100 years have produced a multitude of evil, most based on atheistic beliefs. Communism and fascism over the last 100 years has killed more people than all of recorded time before hand. I believe the days we live in today are the exception rather than the rule; history dictates I am right in that assumption.

as for some of the other nonsense you posted about Christian Theology supporting genocide and such...again, take a class in Christian studies....it would help you with your arguments.

BTW, for such an enlightened person of science you seem to carry around a great deal of anger for those ideas that don't agree with yours....I believe we all have the right to our beliefs, whether derived from religion or another non-religious ideology....

> in the end, we are only animals of higher a higher order if there is no God.

Much higher, yes. Why does this prospect frighten you?

> man's morality is what we believe it to be at any given time

Well, if you are a bit dim, and refuse to look at history, sure.

> Those who define that morality are those who have the power to do so.

That would be... *you*. Oh, wait, I forget... *you* have to have it defiend for you.

> the last 100 years have produced a multitude of evil, most based on atheistic beliefs.

Incorrect. The two greatest evils, Nazism and Communism, were neither based on atheism. Both were, however, based on weird religions.

>as for some of the other nonsense you posted about Christian Theology supporting genocide and such...

So would you, or would you not, join in wipign out the Canaanites? You've been asked this before. Why the fear in answering?

> you seem to carry around a great deal of anger for those ideas that don't agree with yours

You mistake hilarity for anger. A common flaw amongst those with overwhelmign pride.

in the end, we are only animals of higher a higher order if there is no God. Much higher, yes. Why does this prospect frighten you?

Frighten me...no, I believe we are much, much, more than animals...this appears to frighten you, because you constantly attempt to state that man is somehow special. But if there is no God, we are not, we are merely only animals with a higher order of intelligence....

man's morality is what we believe it to be at any given time.... Well, if you are a bit dim, and refuse to look at history, sure.

Again, you fall all over yourself....history easily points out that morality is ever changing when left in the hands of man to decide. Hence, there is no fundamental moral truth if you look to the history of man for guidance. What is acceptable today, may not be acceptable tomorrow, as it was different in the past as well.

Those who define that morality are those who have the power to do so...... That would be... *you*. Oh, wait, I forget... *you* have to have it defined for you.

No, not me....I believe in looking to God, through scripture and prayer, for moral truth, you look to man.

Incorrect. The two greatest evils, Nazism and Communism, were neither based on atheism. Both were, however, based on weird religions.

Wow, what is left to say....I have lots of experience with these matters, you truly have lost your way here.

So would you, or would you not, join in wiping out the Canaanites? You've been asked this before. Why the fear in answering?

This has been answered many time before.....humble yourself and you may see the answer...

Honestly, your intolerance to ideas outside of what you believe to be true is quite disturbing. You are far more than rude; you reflect traits of those on the far left.

When faced with with the rational that your arguments support the very same conclusions that you hope to defeat; you resort to character assignation personal attacks. Sad, I originally thought we could have had a spirited discussion. Unfortunately, that no longer is the case.

So, out of respect for a fellow Freeper and the boards rules and regulations, please cease and desist in corresponding with me.

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.