Posted on 05/13/2007 10:48:35 PM PDT by goldstategop
This past week an ABC News debate aired on "Nightline," which pitted popular theists against Internet atheists. While I'll have more to say about that battle of wits in my next article, it testifies to the growing number (30 million Americans) of those who profess there is no God. Add to that what I believe is possibly three times the number of functional atheists, those who believe in a God but practically don't show it, and America is facing a new religious horizon in which atheism is becoming a formidable foe.
Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president, 55 percent would support a homosexual candidate and 72 percent would support a Mormon candidate.
Such a survey is a clear indication that most Americans are simply confused about what it means to be Christian. It also shows that the secularization of society is alive and well, especially when almost half would endorse an atheist president.
The opponents of God
Once upon a time, years ago, it seemed that the only major fire for atheism burned from the anti-Christian work of Madelyn Murray O'Hair and the American Atheist organization, whose claim to fame was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963.
Today many more antagonist groups and individuals to theism abound, and they are using every means possible for global proliferation – from local government to the World Wide Web. Such secular progressives include the Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition of America, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Internet Infidels, the Atheist Alliance International, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, etc. Of course no list of atheistic advocates would be complete without mentioning the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as the anti-God militancy of men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
Though the U.S. Constitution outlaws religious discrimination, these organizations and individuals would love nothing more than to help society look with disdain upon Christianity and, ultimately, make its components illegal. In fact, right now, they are coalescing and rallying at least 5 million of their troops to mount counter offensives to Christianity.
For that reason I believe theistic patriots need to be wise to atheists' overt and covert schemes, exposing their agenda and fighting to lay waste to their plans.
Step 1: Initiate restrictions and legislation against theism and Christianity
In God we bust
For these liberal groups to win the war of ideological dominance, they know they must minimize the effects of Christianity, which many are doing (unbeknownst to others) behind the scenes through lobbying and legislation. In fact, two significant actions occurred on the National Day of Prayer just two weeks ago!
The London Telegraph noted that, while American Christians were praying across the land on the National Day of Prayer, atheists were petitioning the Texas Legislature against the civic display of the words, "In God We Trust."
Eroding and erasing theistic language in culture is a growing trend. Earlier this year George Washington dollar coins were not only inscribed with the words "In God We Trust" on their edges, but many excluded them entirely! Such minting modifications are a flagrant defiance against theism and a public reflection of the place God is now relegated – to the fringes of society.
Secularists of course have made repeated attempts to rid "under God" from "The Pledge of Allegiance." Thank God the Legislature of Texas is moving along a bill to include the words in our state pledge: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible." I was also grateful to read in the Dallas Morning News May 1 that the House also embraced legislation "that seeks to clarify the rights of Texas public school students to offer public prayers at football games or graduation, hand out religious messages or hold religious meetings during the school day if they want."
Another example of atheistic advocacy can be found in the 10,000-member Freedom from Religion Foundation initiation of a Supreme Court case, which asserts that President Bush's faith-based initiatives pose a violation of the wall of separation between church and state.
Atheists also received a proverbial shot in the arm by locating a representative and advocate of sorts in Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who "is the first member of Congress – and the highest-ranking elected official in the country – to make known that he is a nontheist."
His election stands in stark contrast to the wishes of our Founding Fathers, who encouraged American citizens to vote Christians into public office. As John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
The tyranny of the state over the church
The other legal disgrace that occurred on the National Day of Prayer was that Congress passed what might become one of the most religiously restrictive pieces of legislation in history: H.R. 1592, "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act." With Senate approval, this bill will expand the law against such hate crimes, allowing federal funds and other resources to assist local law enforcement to deter and punish acts of violence committed against an individual because of the victim's race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.
While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, it could very easily end up (even inadvertently) restricting First Amendment rights of Christians to speak freely against such anti-biblical practices as homosexuality and transvestitism. As Janet Folger, the author of "Criminalizing Christianity," has pointed out, "H.R. 1592 isn't about hate. It isn't about crime. It's about silencing our speech."
As with other laws of this type, once enacted, local justices could easily expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. Once enforced, what would stop a clergy from being accused as an accessory to a hate crime, after he preached to his church on Sunday about the woes of same-sex marriage and discovered on Monday one of his congregants got in a fight with a homosexual co-worker as a result of a moral altercation? The fact is, if the hate-crime bill passes, pastors could easily become pulpit partners in crime.
I agree with Rev. Henry Jackson, who said the law would "mandate unequal protection under the law and will pave the way for criminalization of thoughts and religious beliefs contrary to politically correct ideas."
Hate-crime laws are not only a violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, but a violation of the 10th Amendment's limitations on the power of federal government.
Hang together or hang separately?
Thank God our President's senior advisers have gone on record that they will advise him to veto the bill if it reaches the doors of the White House. We, too, must follow his lead by speaking up and taking a stand against this unnecessary and unconstitutional bill – and any others like it. Just as atheists are gathering to combat God, we patriots must come together to sustain the godly heritage we've been handed. As Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately."
I urge you to write the President and your representatives today to encourage the overturning of this ungodly, religiously restricting and unconstitutional piece of legislation, erroneously titled by the misnomer, "Hate Crimes Prevention Act."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
bookmark to reread in the a.m. Thanks for posting this.
btt
Chuck Norris BUMP!
As usual, Chuck is not afraid to stand up tall and tell it like it is.
Of course, those of us who do pay attention understand quite well that the athiest Democrats of the ACLU have been battling Christianity and attempting to eradicate Christianity from public view for decades.
You said — “I see alot of dead militant atheists in the future.”
—
Well, not according to the Bible, you won’t. The movement will apparentlly be a growing movement, running all the way into the Tribulation time...
—
Well, not according to the Bible, you won’t. The movement will apparently be a growing movement, running all the way into the Tribulation time..."
You are both right. There will be a lot of dead militant atheists in the future Tribulation period. We can also say that after the Tribulation there will be no more "atheists."
“Just as atheists are gathering to combat God, we patriots must come together to sustain the godly heritage we’ve been handed. As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”
Norris ignores his own injunction of hanging together when he takes a gratuitous swipe at Mormons. There are six million Mormons in the U.S. and they vote Conservative and at a higher rate than most other population groups. Mormons are Christians, they just aren’t Niceans.
not dismissing diligence, but one must never underestimate Our Lady.
oh, wait, I should have know — wnd.
Such a survey is a clear indication that most Americans are simply confused about what it means to be Christian.
Being a Christian means not voting for a Mormon, I suppose.
So, if it's Hillary vs. Romney, old Chuck is going to vote for the Hillary the Christian?
Is atheism now a cause or movement of some kind?
Sorry to appear dumb here but I always thought that an atheist is just someone who doesn't beleive in any god so how can you rail against god if you don't even believe in a god, just don't make sense??
Personally, I can't think of anything more boring than being an atheist, there's nothing to look forward to is there??
That seems like a loaded argument and a fallacious argument. You could have just as easily asked how you would be able to argue against the existence of a god if you believed in that god. The answer to your question (which you probably intended to be rhetorical, but it is not) is that the only way to argue against the existence of all possible gods is to not believe in any god. This is no more confusing a statement than a person arguing against the existence of unicorns while not believing in unicorns.
I would expect that if you don't like this response you would phrase an argument along the lines of the ontological argument.
Only if you have a dispensationalist viewpoint. I am not a dispensationalist...
The author failed to mention the largest anti-Christian movement - socialism. Once the concept of separation of church and state is applied to a socialist society, religion has to disappear. Once everything is run by the government, religion has no place to operate. That’s why the God haters are mostly socialists.
Or states with only one recognized religion. I think you would have an easier time being a Christian in China or Cuba than in Saudi Arabia.
I think you have tryed to over-emphasise the point I put forward, I was making the point in general to the article concerned which seems to convey a kind of aetheistic movement occurring which is in itself a contradiction of aethism itself, i.e. aethism is the abstention from organised religion.
Anyway, if you want me to put an ontological argument forward then I think a good analagous example is found in the bible itself when Jesus explained his miracles, i.e he said, anything is possible for the one who believes.
This indicates that if the belief and faith are strong enough you could easily levitate a coffee cup with your mind, however as your not likely to have that belief you will fail, but what if you did???
I was more referring to Descartes’ version of the ontological argument where it is irrelevant whether or not you believe in the existence of God in your argument since (he argues) an imperfect being being able to just conceive of a perfect being means that the idea was implanted by the perfect being. Therefore the perfect being exists.
I’m not a big fan of his ontological argument, but it does perform a helpful resolution of whether or not it is important to believe in the existence of God to argue for or against that existence.
With the exception of the Orthodox, who don’t accept the filioque (”who proceeds from the Father and the Son”) referring to the Holy Spirit, if you are not Nicean, you are not Christian. The Nicean creed is the fundamental statement of the Christian faith. It includes all of the basic beliefs of classic Christianity. If you don’t confess the creed, you are not a Christian. Flame away, if you like.
You said — “Only if you have a dispensationalist viewpoint. I am not a dispensationalist...”
—
It’s not a “viewpont” that causes history to happen. It’s basically what God says will happen, because He controls it all, regardless of a named viewpoint or the people who hold to it. The key is that God controls these things, and they will happen as the Bible says it will...
The Tribulation time will happen as He says, the Antichrist will come on the scene as He says, and Jesus Christ will return at the end of that 7-year Tribulation and set up the Kingdom of God, on this earth, ruling and reigning for His 1,000 year Kingdom. And it’s during that 1,000 year Millennial reign of Christ that we’ll see the fulfillment of all the promises of God to national Israel, plus the many other promises written in the Bible for that time of world-wide peace and prosperity.
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.