May 12, 2010

Fear of State Religion

I want to leave these things alone, but I keep getting involved — and having a perverse joy with it.

Why aren't the few thoughtful atheists and agnostics embarrassed by the actions of the vast majority of arrogant atheists? I have to talk to and about that bigger group, and the more civil "live and let live" atheists think I'm going after them as well. But the majority of the time, the atheists are rude weasels begging for a good slapping down. If you're a "good" atheist, then

Funny how there are atheists on Twitter, Facebook, forums, "boards" and such that put "atheist" in their names. It puzzles me that someone would want to have their entire online identity (or possibly every aspect of their personhood as well) wrapped up in something so hostile, negative and antagonistic. But anyway, it helps me identify my opponents. (One actually goes by the name "gaytheist". Wow. Provoke much, Bubbles?) If you read their postings, you can see that their entire purpose in life seems to be to cause problems. Nice to have a purpose in life, innit?

So anyway. In 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars placed a huge cross in the Mojave Desert as a memorial to those who lost their lives in the First World War. Eventually, the slimeballs at the ACLU screamed, "That violates the separation of church and state!" A federal court ordered it covered up in 2002. The US Supreme Court refused to order that the cross should be torn down. Instead, they did the cowardly thing and referred it back down to a lower court for more review. That means, it's still in a box. Or was.

Roger Hedgecock posted a link in Twitter to an article about thieves stealing the cross, and asked why anyone would do that? I reposted his link and added that they're full of hate.

An antagonistic, arrogant atheist replied back to me that they're afraid of a state-sponsored religion. (I gave him the Twitter version of a "drive-by": A snotty remark followed by blocking him.) What, are you nuts? Things are going your way in this country. Besides that, do you have so little faith in the Constitution? After all, people can believe or disbelieve however they want, no federally established religion is allowed, for over two hundred years! More than that, Pinhead, you're essentially saying that "the end justifies the means" as an excuse for crime. And you people dare to refer to Christians as Nazis?

By the way, call an ambulance before you go reading the constitutions of individual states. All that God and stuff they talk about, it'll put you into shock.

Oh, wait, there is reason to be afraid. After all, your kind is "progressive". And Progressivism is the greatest threat to the Constitution that exists. Essentially, it means to "progress" away from what the Constitution originally meant, and towards statism. Atheists and "Progressives" have this in common: No anchor, no standard for ethics and morals. The Constitution should change with the times, according to Progressives. Morals are up to each person according to the atheist. That leads to Chaos, according to people with sense. Hey, atheist, you have a conflict because you won't be able to choose your own morals, they will be controlled by the state. Hahahaha!

The bottom line is that whoever stole that war memorial is a hateful piece of slime, and I hope they get put in jail for the longest possible prison term. Maybe we can hook them up with a couple of very lonely inmates, too.


Michael said...

It was me who tweeted about "State Sponsored Religion". You can see the tweet in question here.

You can also see my tweet condemning the action.

You can do a search on my tweets for his claim that I referred to Christians as Nazis and you fill find this statement was never made by me.

I am doubtful that a person who would post this blog which is so visibly untrue would have the courage to allow this comment to stay but I am hopeful that reason debate will win out over vitriol and name calling.

Stormbringer said...


Note that I kept your identity out of this.

"Reasoned debate"? I never accused you of calling someone a Nazi, personally, but I've run across plenty of your kind who act that way.

"Vitriol and name calling"? OK, whatever.

And I know full well that you're baiting me with your childish "I am doubtful that a person who would post this blog which is so visibly untrue would have the courage to allow this comment to stay" whine, but I'll let it go because I want people to comment. By the way, tune in tomorrow at 8 AM Eastern Time for more.

No excuses for catching you on justifying criminal activity?

Liam said...

I will disagree that atheists believe that morals are up to each individual. Many atheists, myself included, believe that morals are reasoned and mutually agreed up on in a society - we agree murder is bad, for instance.

I believe we can see an evolutionary mandate for social cooperation and moral codes (witnessing even rudimentary morality among various animal societies - who defend children, punish wrong doers and betrayers, etc.). Obviously we have progressed beyond that level, but the core was there to build upon.

Just my $.02.

I also hope those who stole the memorial are caught and punished. Not cool.


T said...

According to this post, you indicate that nonbelievers (troublemakers) should not challenge the government with questions regarding the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. So I take it your position is that we should just trust the government to do the right thing with regard to this issue?

Interesting position you take. I assume it is consistent across the board to respect the constitutionality of a proposal without question.

Michael said...

So you wrote an article complaining I was justifying the actions after I tweeted you saying it was wrong.

After I posted the link to the tweet you again repeated the accusation.

Then you lie again about playing the Nazi card.

To quote you in the above article.

"Pinhead, you're essentially saying that "the end justifies the means" as an excuse for crime. And you people dare to refer to Christians as Nazis"

Do I think the Government should provide space for Religious monuments? No

Do I think people should break the law in their protest of them? No.

If you have right on your side there is no need to lie. If you have right on your side you can debate the arguments rather than attacking the person.

Good luck with your little website.

Stormbringer said...

Hey Mikey, Learn to read what you quote. Wow, what a pinhead.

Stormbringer said...

Liam, after all I've experienced in the past couple of days, your civility is startling. The overwhelming majority of atheists on the Internet are vindictive and manipulative.

You know that I disagree on an "evolutionary mandate" for morals. I see your point on the agreement of society. My problem with it is that societies change, and there is no mooring point. How many thousands were murdered in the French Revolution? Thank God those days are gone. I had a post about cell phone etiquette the other day. Although inconsequential, those "morals" will change over time.

At the risk of embarrassing you, I hope and pray that you will get serious in your investigations about Jesus. We are more than meat and mind. Listen to your heart. Ask God to reveal himself to you. And listen...

Stormbringer said...

T, I've had enough of putting up with atheists twisting my words, baiting me, setting traps, doing public humiliation and all that for one day. So I won't waste my time with your obviously insincere question.

T said...

OK, Stormbringer. It's your dime. I just think that it is worth noting that if a group you disagree with (ACLU) challenges the government they are "slimeballs" who should just shut up. I'm willing to bet that your contempt does not extend to those with whom you agree challenging the government.

Liam said...

Bob - I do strive to be civil. :)

You said: "My problem with it is that societies change, and there is no mooring point. How many thousands were murdered in the French Revolution? Thank God those days are gone."

First - agreed. Glad those days are gone, and societies do change. But so do the morals as proposed in the various holy books. Slavery was once upheld on biblical ground. Likewise the killing of apostates, and other such fun. Religions can be wrong, just like societies. Neither is immutable. And religious revelation and text are subject to interpretation (within a given social structure).

The goal for both should be to continue to question, debate, and evolve. Mistakes will be made along the way - both for secular reasons and religious ones. But I think we'll end up in a good place... despite our own follies.

Either way, I don't think we can point to a fixed absolute morality - since even the best sources we can find of divinely given morals are subject to interpretation and social consequence.

Note that I am not saying there are no morals. Just that they only work when we agree on them as a group... and they will change over time. So I believe there are objective morals (not individual subjectivity), just not necessarily absolute morality - which even if it exists, we clearly are unable to understand it, leaving us with social interpretation again.

Hopefully I didn't just confuse things further. My thoughts are a jumble today.


Stormbringer said...

Or how about this: The Detroit suburb of Dearborn has Arab festivals. Christians are harassed, even with cameras rolling. It's OK for Arabs to have their "religion of peace", physically and verbally attack people and have the police look the other way. In 2010, the Christians were arrested even though they committed no crimes.

And some idiots think that we have no right to be concerned??? Agonizing.

Subscribe in a reader