Skip to comments.Charlotte Allen: Why I can't stand atheists
Posted on 05/23/2009 12:15:01 PM PDT by rhema
click here to read article
That would seem to be true. As I said before, Jefferson seems to have revered the teachings of Jesus, but rejected many of the attributes that have been ascribed to him by his followers. That is why he wrote the Jefferson Bible which removed the miracles, the trinity, the resurrection, etc.
The notion that Jefferson would have denied rights to a person based on their being an atheist is preposterous. How would such a standard be applied? Who is going to be the determiner of who is a believer and who is not? I am sure there are even a few on this thread who would decide that my own views would disqualify me from even running for political office. Do you want someone else determining whether you are entitled to your rights based upon what you purport to, or are believed to, believe or not believe?
Finally, I would like to see the proof that atheists, as a whole, are actually less moral than the rest of us. True, the atheists has Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. On the other hand, those who believe in a god have (probably) most members of the mafia and most of the people confined to US prisons for violent crimes not to mention a legion of other unsavory individuals.
My point is not to elevate or denigrate one group or the other. I merely believe, like the founding fathers, that their must be no religious test applied to determining a citizen's rights
> The notion that Jefferson would have denied rights to a
> person based on their being an atheist is preposterous.
You have always needed to meet certain criteria to run for public office. It is only your right if you meet those criteria. Consider the dangers when we toss those criteria overboard. Now we have a Marxist Kenyan imposter acting as our president.
When Jefferson was president, you had to be a male property owner of at least 21 years of age just to vote, and US Senators were elected by the state legislatures.
More than a few times I have wished these things had not been amended out of the Constitution.
Requiring as a criterion that those aspiring to leadership owe obeisance to the Source of external, objective, transcendent, eternal Truth is no more a “religious test” than requiring that the POTUS be born on American soil is a “humanity test”.
Whether or not they are liars who profess that they submit to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” will be revealed by the One who is honored by including Him in the process. By explicitly excluding Him, he has no hand in our doings, and, as Ben Franklin said in so many words, no kingdom can rise without the Hand of Providence to raise it.
But thank you for the polite, rational, and reasoned conversation. My compliments for your ability to remain focussed and personable while presenting an impassioned case. I very much admire that.
You look at internet blogs and you would think they are most of the population. They are desperate to become relevant. For example, I posted a question in the Yahoo answers religion/spirituality section and 9 out of 10 responses were from virulent atheists.
Yes, to many atheists if not most, their views are religious otherwise why would they be trying to proselytize?
Their insecurity breeds a need in them for company. Whistling past the graveyard alone is not very appealing to them and they would like the illusion of strength in numbers. Of course strength of numbers against death is meaningless. Everyone eventually loses to death no matter how much company you have.
The nagging doubt in them that there may really be something beyond the grave makes them strike out at anyone who would remind them of that insecurity.