Atheists build monument to their own pettiness

Wealthy atheist organizations have long dedicated themselves to prowling about the nation, searching every tiny county and small city, looking for any religious symbology that they can throw millions of dollars into having removed for no reason. Often they pick on one-horse towns in the South, in communities that are almost entirely Christian, and then they attempt to impose their secular atheist religion on the faithful folks who live there. These communities have a character that reflects the values of multiple generations of its inhabitants, and this very much bothers these atheist groups. Funny, usually liberal secularists are the ones who justify all manner of things — including infanticide — by saying ‘hey, this doesn’t concern you and it doesn’t personally affect you, so you should mind your own damn business.’ Apparently that logic applies to baby murder, but not to a small granite cross outside town hall in Podunk, Alabama.

Usually they get their way because they have more money and a lot of time on their hands. While Christian groups actually help the poor and serve humanity, atheist organizations dedicate millions to tearing down Ten Commandment slabs from courthouses in the Bible Belt. (Of course edicts like “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” are highly offensive and have no business anywhere near a courtroom!) Sometimes, however, they pivot strategies. Take the case of Bradford County, Florida. For years, atheist groups from out of state have tried to force local officials to remove the Ten Commandments from the court house lawn. For years, they’ve failed. Finally they decided to give up, and apparently abandon their entire legal argument against the display, instead opting to build their own atheist monument “in response to” the Biblical monument. The project was of course funded with money from far outside Bradford County. Their Atheistic Tribute went up last week to much fanfare. Some Christians opposed the display on the grounds that, unlike the Ten Commandments, it doesn’t reflect the wishes of the local community, but the cynical agenda of monied powers from up north. Of course they’re correct in this assessment, but I think they’re looking at this the wrong way.

Personally, I embrace the atheist monument. I hope they build one just like it in every town in America. I’ve always felt that the best way to make an atheist or liberal look silly is to simply let them speak. They’ll typically do most of the work for you. This monument in Florida perfectly encapsulates everything that’s wrong with atheist philosophy and atheist morality. Specifically, that it has no philosophy or morality. Sure, when pressed, an atheist might offer up some stripped-down secularist plagiarized version of the beatitudes, but normally atheism defines itself only by its opposition to Christianity, not by what it uniquely offers to humanity. The text engraved on the monument attacks Christianity rather than positively promoting something of its own. The most prominent feature is a pillar that offers an incorrect theological interpretation of what the Bible supposedly promotes as “punishments” for breaking the Ten Commandments. The usual quotes from Leviticus and Deuteronomy are trotted out.

image

It’s always hilarious to watch an atheist try to build a case against Christianity by solely quoting the Old Testament — not realizing that, if anything, they’re actually attacking Judaism. Christianity is defined by the New Testament, Christ fulfilled the Old Law and completed the sacrifice made necessary by original sin. This is Christian Theology 101, and you might want to try to understand it if you wish to discredit it. You can’t understand Christianity by pulling random quotes from ancient texts written thousands of years before the Gospels. But this is all academic. The better question is this: Why, instead of offering something of your own, are you wasting space on your monument building some half baked case against a different belief system? Christian monuments tend to give answers and truths, not criticisms. Many Christian statues and tributes depict the Crucifixion, which is a symbol of love and sacrifice (I can see why that would seem offensive in today’s culture). Or else it might be a display of the nativity scene, or just as commonly, a re-creation of the Ten Commandments. The former represents family, life, and commitment, while the latter is a set of moral edicts which speak to the Natural Law — the foundation of our Western conception of justice and morality. Agree with them or not, believe in them or not, they are nonetheless steeped in history and meaning. As opposed to this atheist monument, which is a petty assortment of meaningless nitpicks and dishonest slanders.

Next, the monument displays quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Shhhh nobody tell them that Jefferson and Franklin were Deists, not Atheists. Deists, far from secular, actually contend that God is a reality that can be attained through science and reason, rather than faith and scripture. You know what that means? It means they don’t see God as a product of religion or a matter solely for the Church. You know what that means? It means when Jefferson spoke of separation of Church and State, he certainly wasn’t advocating removing God from State because he believed God to be an Absolute Reality, rather than a belief resting on faith. Deists know that you can’t remove God from anything, anymore than you can remove the wetness from water.

Most foolishly, front and center on this Memento to anti-Christianity, is this quote from Madalyn Murray O’Hair:

“An atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.
An atheist believes that deed must
be done instead of prayer said.
An atheist strives for involvement in life
and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered,
poverty vanished, war eliminated.”

image

Again, they’ve decided to immortalized their defensiveness and dishonesty. Interesting strategy. First of all, where, precisely, are the atheists building hospitals and conquering disease and poverty? Where are their magnanimous deeds? If I go to the gutters of Guatemala, Ethiopia, or Calcutta will I find hundreds of atheists serving the hungry and clothing the naked? If I am a poor Muslim villager in Albania, can I ride my pack mule to the atheist organization down the road to get free antibiotics for my sick daughter? No. They aren’t there. They are nowhere to be found. I’ll tell you who I will find: Christians. No group does more acts of charities or serves more people afflicted by war and poverty than Christianity. You can not find a decaying, hellish, forsaken corner of this planet that isn’t being cared for by Christians. The monks and nuns in the monasteries in Middle East offer food and free health care to their Muslim neighbors. What do they get for it? Persecution, beheadings, stonings. But they stay and they serve, just as they have for two thousand years. Search through Central Africa and East Asia, through the crime stricken, disease riddled pockets of Central and South America, and you will find Christians. You will find them serving, feeding, loving, living, dying. What sort of a pitiful, disgraceful human being could sit in the comfort of our little western fauxtopia and dismiss and deny the sacrifices of millions of Christians, all in order to win an argument? Atheists might WANT hospitals built and poverty vanquished. Christians, on the other hand, actually dive right into the thankless work of doing it. Again: No organization on planet Earth does more for the poor than the Church. You can cover your eyes all you want, but the truth is the truth is the truth. By the way, hospitals aren’t just built by Christians, and it’s not just that most hospitals are Christian institutions, but it can be said that Christianity INVENTED hospitals. Good Lord, read a book or something, people. Also read into what Christians did for the university system, science, art, medicine, technology, international law, and philosophy. It’s not the anti-Christianity that bothers me, it’s the anti-intellectual, history denying idiocy that really grates on me.

So build your monument, with all the ignorance and lunacy you can muster. Immortalize it. Memorialize it. Put it on display. Let everyone see it. I couldn’t be happier. Thank you, Atheists.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Atheists build monument to their own pettiness

  1. Sharon B says:

    Insightful, thought-provoking, and best of all, true.

  2. kris says:

    So on point…I kind of hope it stands for a hundred years.

  3. bill wise says:

    Yes matt good points all and the whole historical distortion of Jefferson and the other founders goes right along with it…our entire legal system has its archetype straight from the old testament mosaic law. Honest use of it would have been able to allay the severity of the slave trade and if we followed it properly certainly life would be better. Its always simple to poke and prod accuse and condemn but when you carve your edict in granite to forever be compared indeed you make your point.

  4. twopoxghost says:

    Wow, and they call us crazy?

    • SimpleDon says:

      Albert Einstein stated that mankind knows less than one percent of all knowledge. That would be like a person staying in an unimaginably huge mansion with 100 rooms. Each room is mind-bogglingly large, complex, intricate, beautifully balanced, filled with such a wondrous variety of life and data and technologies that is far FAR AWAY to grandiose for 1000 men to completely absorb… and that is just one room. There are 99 more rooms, almost all the same size, each completely different from all the others, with one room that is slightly larger than the room that you are presently staying in.

      People who say that there is no God-Being, are doing so without even taking a peek into any of the other 99 completely, uniquely different rooms. THAT is crazy. A person can certainly be furious with others trying to force their beliefs upon them. That is natural. But for a person to say with conviction that they know for certain what is contained in those other 99 rooms is to utterly damage their credibility and destroy any weight to their testimonies past, present and those of the future.

      To look at it another way: If you lived in a huge home that had 100 rooms (including bathrooms), and you called 911 because you had found evidence of a break-in, items were out of place, and you heard movement in an area of the house that should be vacant, indicating to you that an intruder was inside your home. You and a friend position yourselves at the northwest and southeast corners of the property so nobody escaping will do so unseen, and you wait for the police. When they arrive, they check-out the entrance foyer only, and then declare with authority that the house is clear, and leave. That would be insufficient investigation for any intelligent entity… and no police officer, atheist or not, would remotely permit himself to make such a ludicrous statement after looking through just one room.

      But that is exactly the behavior that an atheist engages in.

      When the Soviet Union’s economy was going into the tank, and their grip over commercial travel relaxed, a group of university professors flew to California to visit colleges and universities there. All of them were stunned at the openly antagonistic remarks that all of the American professors were spouting upon the students who voiced a belief in God. They were shocked at the berating those students had to take if they hoped to pass that course. When they were asked what their impression was of U.S. colleges, they said ‘At the height of the U.S.S.R., we had more religious freedom in Russia than what we have witnessed in your universities.’

      Atheists have used the argument that if a person was born in this or that country over there, or that or this country over here, that the person in question would be embracing the strongest religious beliefs common to that region that were presented to young impressionable minds. In relatively VERY few cases, that is certainly a true statement as it has proven itself out millions and billions of times.

      It is also a true statement that most atheists are merely embracing the strongest religious beliefs that were presented to them when their minds were young and impressionable… (and here in the states) entirely swallowing and immediately assimilating whatever their idolized atheist professors regurgitated their direction, without there existing a hint of a question in their young minds whether or not their idol was correct.

      Atheists have no tangible platform from which to point fingers, for they have neither honestly questioned or examined the other side of the equation and are therefore completely guilty of what they accuse others of being.

      • zack says:

        @SimpleDon

        I’m not really sure what argument you are making as your argument isn’t very cohesive, but let me try to show you the other side of the coin using the same argument you alluded to in your first paragraph.

        You stated that man knows less than 1 percent of all knowledge. A non-believer will likely look at that statement and agree, but will come to a different conclusion. They will likely think that given all of the unknown information out there, that it would be illogical to presume that a god-being exists as the answer is yet to be found in one of the other “99 unexplored rooms”.

        I don’t like to call myself an atheist (even though by definition I am one) because I would not associate myself with people of this ilk and also because as a person who doesn’t believe in a god, having the title ‘atheist’ is about as useful as carrying around the title of ‘aunicorn’ and ‘aboogeyman’.

        I am not illogical for not believing in god. I have evaluated the possibilities that are known to me and based on them and my experience, I found that it’s highly unlikely that a god exists. If the evidence were to change, my mind and beliefs would change along with it.

      • SimpleDon says:

        @ Zack
        May I ask what gives you pause? Is it scripture? (if so, any particular areas?) Is it the hypocrisy of “Christians”? Both? What possibilities have you evaluated… if you don’t mind listing those?

      • Zack says:

        Nothing gives me pause in my disbelief in a god. I haven’t seen evidence that should compel me to believe that god exists. As I said before, if I saw evidence that god existed then my beliefs would change.

        It’s neither the bible nor actual followers of a religion that don’t allow me to believe in a particular religion, it’s that the evidence for the existence of a divine power seems not to exist to my knowledge.

        I was a Christian for the majority of my life and honestly I am more comfortable in the presence in the company of Christian people than I am in the company of Atheists. On the whole, I find most Christians to be some of the most warm-hearted people I know, but even given that, without evidence I cannot bring myself to believe the basic tenets of Christianity or about any other religion that I know of.

        As far as your question about what possibilities I have evaluated, well I guess there are the major ones that most consider like Big Bang Theory and Intelligent Design. Honestly though, I don’t really devote much time to trying to figure out the origins of the universe. Sure, it’s interesting to contemplate, but I doubt that I will find the answer. I just don’t really have the time to research a vast and never ending topic to come to an educated conclusion. So I do what most people do when they don’t have the time to be come expert in a field, they refer to people they consider a trusted source on the topic. I don’t know if Big Bang Theory is the answer to the origins to the universe, however I have a certain level of trust in the scientific community and most physicists and astronomers believe Big Bang Theory to be viable given the evidence that is presented to them. Therefore, I tend to lean toward believing that Big Bang Theory offers the most complete insight as to how we got here.

      • SimpleDon says:

        to Zack
        Can I then correctly assume that someone has convinced you that the Bible teaches contrary to the Big Bang?

        • Zack says:

          No. You can assume that I came to that conclusion on my own. If you are able to justify I’d find it interesting though.

      • SimpleDon says:

        You could not have arrived at that conclusion by reading scripture, because it is not there. If you listen to preachers, they will tell you, ‘The Bible says the earth is 6000 years old.’… and that is a lie. The scriptures do not state that anywhere. You can chronologically go back to Adam, which is around 6000 years ago, but even God told mankind to go and replenish the earth (Gen.1:26-28). Plenish means to populate. Replenish means to repopulate. There was at least one civilization here prior to mankind arriving on the scene, and Adam came much later than the original humanoids (note the difference between Gen.1:26 to Gen.2:7).

        Jesus said that until heaven and earth have passed away, not one dot of an “i” or accent mark over a syllable shall in any wise pass from the law. Preachers will tell you that the commandments are not longer to be kept. The preachers are lying.

        Jesus said, ‘think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets…’ Preachers will tell you that all of that is done away. The preachers are lying.

        Jesus said that He is Lord of the Sabbath day. He did not say that He was Lord of any other day. Jesus observed the Sabbath as did all of the apostles, including Paul. Paul taught the gentiles to keep the weekly Sabbath. Preachers will tell you that you are supposed to go to “church” on Sunday. “Sunday” is not mentioned anywhere in any authorized version of scripture.

        Jesus said, do not go door to door. Preachers tell you to go door to door.

        Jesus said do not take money in your purse, nor a change of clothes or shoes. Have you ever seen a preacher who did not fare exceptionally well? Is there such a thing as an impoverished tele-evangelist?

        Jesus said to go to one house in a city and stay there, and people will be drawn to you there. Preachers build massive structures and call them “churches”. A “church” is a body of believers (people things)… not buildings.

        Jesus, all of the apostles and all of the disciples of the first century kept all of the feasts that are listed in Leviticus 23. (the weekly Sabbath, Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles and the Last Great DAy.) Not a one of them observed christmas, halloween, easter, valentines day or new years. (the original word in scripture that was translated “Easter” is Pasca… Greek for Passover).

        Preachers tell you that Jesus was born on December 25th. …NOT

        Jesus said that He would return to the earth and set up His Father everlasting Kingdom and that God would move His Throne to this earth and be here forever. Preachers tell you that if you are a good little boy and you say the magic words (I accept …. as my personal savior) then you will go to heaven, sit on a cloud, sing songs, and basically not do one damn thing that is productive for all eternity.

        Preachers that tell you that the earth is 6000 years old, those guys worship a god that is deeply into deception. When I have asked them to explain the fossil record, paleontology, geology, plate tectonics… they have told me that god put those there to make the earth look older than it is. Therefore, their god is a liar.

        Preachers tell you that you have an immortal soul that either goes to heaven or hell when you die. The Bible states that the soul that sins will “die”…. that the wages of sin is “death”. It does not say that the wages of sin is eternal life in unimaginable, pointless, endless, mindless torture.

        Preachers tell you that god is love… and in almost the same breath tell you that if you go to hell, then you will spit, pop, blister, burn, boil, broil, bake, fry… but never burn up, for all eternity. How stupid is that? How moronic to actually believe that a Being Who is so completely brilliant and powerful as to be able to produce an immense universe with such an amazing diversity of life on just this one planet… and that a Being like that would have anything to do with pointless, unending torture.

        Preachers tell you that all the good people who have died are in heaven. The Bible states that only one individual (Jesus) has ascended unto heaven.

        Preachers will tell you that if you say the magic words, and you live long enough, you will be raptured away before the great tribulation comes… even though the word “rapture” does not occur in scripture… and even though the last trumpet (when the dead in Christ rise), that last trumpet sounds after the great tribulation, not before.

        … and if all the good people who died are already in heaven (as the preachers tell you), what is the bloody point of resurrecting the dead in Christ?

        So if you are basing your opinion of scripture upon what preachers have been spouting, then you do not have much of a clue of what is actually contained in that book.

        Do you want me to continue?

  5. Shelly says:

    “I’ve always felt that the best way to make an atheist or liberal look silly is to simply let them speak.”

    So true! I’ve had similar thoughts about all the fanfare over the monument. I especially appreciate your rebuttal of Madalyn Murray O’hair’s quote. Isn’t it something to think that at the end of our lives, Christians will look back and say “I did my best to be like Christ, help the hurting, and bring hope to the hopeless.” Atheists will look back and say, “I spent my life trying to stop Christians.” Suppose Christ isn’t real … still, which legacy would you want?

  6. Radical Momma says:

    I grew up in Starke, Fl. Also, my Great Aunt lives there, she’s 89, and she owned a very successful business in town. When she was 82, someone moved in from out of state and wanted to take the cross off the water tower, she wrote a letter to the paper kindly inviting that person to, and I quote, “go to Hell”. Anyways, if she didn’t have Alzheimers, she would be down there tearing that thing down with her bare hands. Thanks for writing about it AND pointing out that these people are from out of town, that seems to keep getting pushed aside.

  7. Prick says:

    Ok Atheist’s, I challenge you to go to any city in the land with an Arabic Muslim population and tell them that Allah does not exist. Start with Dearborn Michigan.

    If by chance the Muslim’s take over the United State’s, I’d run for the hill’s and hide your Atheist asses because you, above the Christian’s and Jew’s, will be hunted down and “put to death” as you have written on your stone so eloquently. It’s one thing to disrespect their entity. It’s a another to tell them that He doesn’t exist.

    • jared says:

      My goodness, what’s with all the apostrophes? “Atheist’s”? “Muslim’s”? “State’s”?? “Hill’s”?? “Christian’s”? “Jew’s”?

  8. Brent Hayes says:

    Seems that a lot of the contributions to the university system, science, art, medicine, technology, international law, and philosophy were by the Muslim nations. But still more then Atheist who seem to spend all their energy telling those of faith how wrong they are.

    Well written!

  9. davey says:

    Well said, but the folks who put this up don’t represent every non-believer any more than the Westboro folks represent every Christian. I’m not an atheist, but I know folks who are, and most of them just want to believe what they want in peace. And I’m sure that if they were the majority, and Christians an extreme minority, then the Christians would be irritated at having to deal with atheist symbolism and what-have-you everywhere. Personally, I know many folks of every belief system who are decent, intelligent, compassionate people (as well as jerks and idiots of every stripe as well).

  10. This is incredible. Thank you for sharing!

  11. john collins says:

    Only someone who believes in an Invisible Sky Wizard could possibly think this is anything other than a series of logical fallacies. You are everything that is wrong with your religion. None of you ever foam at the mouth when people ignore the sermon on the mount or the beatitudes, but ignore Leviticus at your peril. I can certainly see your gentle Jesus thrilled at your living example of love thy neighbor and turning the other cheek. Instead we are fed your usual menu of huffy defensiveness, half truths and subtle insults. You suck at your religion, so thanks, and enjoy your last few years of having any real power or authority. Atheism is the largest growing sect of people in the world, so enjoy your last few years of being taking seriosly before we relegate your bronze age beliefs to histories dustbin where it belongs

    • Calvin Davis Chimes says:

      Gee John I hope you didn’t salivate all over your Dockers spewing all the hatred! Calm down homeboy you aren’t running anything here. Christianity will prevail for eternity rather you believe or not. So suck it up and rock with it or get out of the way.

      • Ryan says:

        The one thing I can offer here is… when I have seen atheists offering food… they do it with no expectation of anything in return. “Search through Central Africa and East Asia, through the crime stricken, disease riddled pockets of Central and South America, and you will find Christians.” Christians… the same group of people who will only give you food or clothing if you show up for church, attend prayer sessions, or come to sunday school. It is literally saying to a poor starving child “You dont get to eat anything unless you accept our brainwashing.”

      • Russell Allison says:

        Let me help-God will prevail for eternity. Christianity may help you understand that god. Keep in mind: Neither God nor Jesus are Christians. Each transcends the human convention of religion.

  12. The One says:

    Thanks for proving yet again the intolerance of religious people.

    Atheism 1000000000

    Religion -1000000000

    • Jane says:

      So wait…any sort of criticism is “intolerance”? Which means…you are being intolerant of the intolerant here with your comment…right?

  13. Stephanie says:

    Thank you. I can’t say anything more or less…than, thank you.

  14. Chips says:

    Going on an insulting rant about atheists is pretty petty. Just sayin’.

    Also, you might want to “read a book” about your history before you worry about people denying history. In ancient Greece (you know, before Jesus was born), temples dedicated to Asclepius, the healer god, were centers of healing, prognosis, and medical advice. Or, you know, hospitals. And in early India (you know, before Jesus was born), there are examples of the earliest versions of civic hospitals. The Carakasamhita, a Sanskrit encyclopedia of medicine, contains a description of how a clinic should be equipped, suggesting that India may have been the first part of the world to have evolved an organized cosmopolitan system of institutionally-based medical provision. Or, you know, hospitals.

    So really, it can not be said that Christianity invented hospitals, considering that the early versions of hospitals existed before the birth of Christianity.

    • Jane says:

      Yeah, but those “hospitals” in India were most assuredly not created by atheists either, but by Hindus and yogis, you know, people who pray and meditate and believe in a greater reality, God (manifesting in the form of many deities), life after death, and reincarnation.

  15. George says:

    You are a fucking idiot. Yes I know that is an Ad Hominem attack I just cant see a more intelligent way to speak to someone so base.

  16. Clark Kent says:

    Reading this I noticed a few remarks you made that I wish to correct you for next time. When you said «It means when Jefferson spoke of separation of Church and State, he certainly wasn’t advocating removing God from State», that was completely wrong. First off, in the colonial days, the state of Rhode Island was founded as a «Religious Safe Haven» so that no one would be murdered for not believing in another god than yours and that religion would be a private matter. Furthermore, the founding fathers along with John Locke and Montesquieu (both great ideological inspirations for the Declaration and Constitution) believed that Church and state should be separate. Whether they saw the troubles from England, being King George the 3rd was part of a religion founded by Henry the 8th to divorce his wife and and behead a few while still be part of a religion (which he controlled) and later which his two daughters Mary Tudor would convert the country back to Catholicism and kill followers of Anglicanism (Henry’s religion) and Elizabeth the 1rst would do the opposite or from France who have a «King Chosen by God», which is impossible to prove. All of the founding fathers saw the trouble caused by religion and state together, which is why it is the FIRST Amendment……
    Link to John Locke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Theories_of_religious_tolerance
    in case you forgot about that 1rst amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    The other part that bothered me was «It’s always hilarious to watch an atheist try to build a case against Christianity by solely quoting the Old Testament — not realizing that, if anything, they’re actually attacking Judaism.». Now let’s examine this shall we. While both the Old Testament and New Testament follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, the face of Catholicism and his 12 disciples, both are actually worshiped by many Catholics who consider them both «Holy texts». If the Old Testament was considered a part of Judaism, why is the Old Testament part of the 2 for 1 bible special at the book store (which includes your Catholic New Testament and Judaism Old Testament) here is a link for that btw http://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html ….. More importantly to me, referring to yourself as a «Christian» doesn’t make sense. If you look up the start of Protestantism, Martin Luther followed Catholicism but noticed that they might have interpreted things wrong (he studied Latin and ancient languages and translated something different than the Pope) and was excommunicated (while still considered a Christian religion) here is a quick, accurate wiki on his life, check the 95 theses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther ….. And even Judaism is still considered a Christian religion. So referring to yourself as a christian is historically vague still today.

    So write you blog entry with ignorance, it was funny reading the historical inaccuracies and lack of knowledge.

    • Stephanie says:

      You’re misunderstanding this whole church and state separation, I think. Yes, the US was intentionally set up so that people would be free from religious persecution, but that didn’t mean that faith had no place in government. For those who have faith, it informs every aspect of their lives. The morals they gain from a religious life help them to make decisions that will best lead the people of this country. This is what our founding fathers wanted. What they didn’t want was the government forcing a religion on you. Or a lack of religion… *ahem* Atheists groups forcing out every representation of faith is actually far more intolerant than a historical representation of a faith that is still followed by millions around the world.

      As for inaccuracies – saying that the Old Testament follows the teaching of Jesus Christ might fall into that category considering he wasn’t born until the New Testament. The Old Testament IS Judaism, which was the faith that Jesus was born into before his death and resurrection, upon which he was conferred the title CHRIST from which we gain the word CHRISTianity. All Christians consider the Old Testament a Holy Book because it’s the history of our entire faith. The fact that Christ came to complete the law so that we don’t have to be afraid that we’ll die every time we break the most minute of laws is something that you wouldn’t understand since you get your religious information from google and wikipedia.

      As for Martin Luther – he never intended to start Protestantism, he was just trying to fix a corrupt system. His translation wasn’t different, he just did it into a language everyone could read it and know for themselves rather than being fed half-truths by an evil system.

      Judaism is not considered a Christian religion. You’ll notice the reference is often “Judeo-Christian” since Judaism is a forerunner to Christianity. Which means it came BEFORE. The thing that separates us is that Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah while Jews do not, making them definitely NOT CHRISTIANS.

      Also – Christianity is not historically vague. It’s entirely accurate. I follow Jesus Christ, therefore, I am a Christian. Whatever church I attend or different theology I may follow, that is my title. And I believe most Christians feel the same.

      • Lisa says:

        Our founding fathers were a diverse group of men who didn’t all think the same. Some wanted religion to be mixed with state, some did not. They were just as diverse as we are today, they didn’t agree on many things and it took them time to all come together and create our Constitution. When they did, they added the Bill of Rights where it clearly states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Now, if you want to have the 10 commandments in front of your courthouse that’s fine by me. If you want to use crosses to memorialize fallen officers I support that completely.

        However, per our Constitution, the Supreme Court has the right to clarify the laws of this land and it has been made abundantly clear that our government is not to make laws based on the religious belief of the majority. This is the system our founding fathers agreed upon and this is how the court has ruled. If you don’t like it, well… that’s too bad.

        Believe whatever you want, but please respect that as a diverse nation with people of numerous beliefs (or lack of belief) we have the right to lead our life the way we choose without having to follow your beliefs.

        • Stephanie says:

          Actually, I completely agree with you. The whole purpose of the separation of church and state is so that no one can force you to worship anything or in any way that you don’t want to. But that doesn’t take faith out of government because people are the government, and many of them are people of faith. Those people are going to make decisions that are informed by the morals of their particular belief system. This is true not only with Christians, but with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc… and yes, atheists.

      • Clark Kent says:

        If the first amendment says No laws shall favor religion, doesn’t that basically mean that religion is out of government? Yes I understand people follow different religions, I can’t stop that. Most importantly though, morals aren’t only religious. Sure Catholics do have morals and so do the Jewish and Buddhists and Mormon and Muslims, but a Catholic in North America and a Catholic in China are very different (Since the Chinese government basically controls the church). Morals come from your culture, you surroundings, experiences (religious or not), and what you are told as a baby what is right and wrong. Obviously a religion can reinforce those but you don’t learn morals strictly from religion. If we did however, more child sex abuse would be present (I see more and more about church scandals everyday, like the in the Vatican, where Benedict 16th resigned over). But you also kinda proved my point by saying that «Christians» consider it a holy text «because it’s the history of our entire faith». If it is the history of your faith, then obviously it is very important right?

        Sadly, you are mistaken, Martin Luther did translate it himself, ergo the 95 theses he wrote to show them. Obviously he probably did make it so everyone can read it themselves but he noticed himself that what he read was different from what the Church told the people.

        I don’t think you took that last comment as I wanted it. The way I’ve seen from history (which I took 4 different history classes through High school, US, Canadian, North American and European from the 15th till present) Is that the sole «Christian» religion was Roman Catholic, ergo why the pope is in the Vatican (or use to be in Rome in that time) in Italy. When Martin Luther Came along, he still believed in Jesus but argued over how the Church interpreted the Bible, creating the Protestant religion (because he was excommunicated if I am not mistaken) what I meant was that Christians have different «houses» if you will. Since Judaism and Catholics have very much in common and in turn the Protestants, they were all Christian but identified as either Jewish or Catholic. I obviously understand the Judaism isn’t the same, but that it is part of the came category. I can’t seem to find the right words to say it so sorry if it seems vague.

        • Stephanie says:

          The first amendment says that the government shall make no law concerning religion meaning that they have no say in who or what people worship. The government, however, is made up of people who believe in different religions, and they make decisions based on what those religions teach them (if they are devout). And yes, those morals vary from one religion to another, and from one culture to another, but the basic morals of a Christian in America and a Catholic in China are going to be very similar. They may worship differently, but they still believe that murder and adultery are wrong, and that you should love your neighbor as yourself.

          I think that people who are not religious don’t understand how much faith is a part of one’s life when they are, and that is why you relegate morals to all the random happenstance in your life and what your parents told you as a child. Also – the jab at child molesters in the Catholic Church is a sad testament to how evil men corrupt things. Learning morals from religion would not make one a child molester. If that were so, there would be MILLIONS of child molesters right now.

          The point I was trying to make about the Old Testament is that Matt was correct when he said it was Judaism. I wasn’t trying to discount it’s importance, I agree that Christians consider it a Holy Text, but the majority of our faith is based in the New Testament.

          Also – I never said Martin Luther didn’t translate the Bible. He did. You’re right. What I was saying was that his translation wasn’t different, he didn’t find new things in it, it was just done in a different language. The Catholic Church knew exactly what the Bible said, but they kept people ignorant of the truth so that they could manipulate them. The 95 these were actually his attempt to bring this corruption to the attention of the church. And then, when the church refused to fix it, they excommunicated him because he wouldn’t be quiet about it. Once again, this is not a failing of Christianity, but of men.

          Yes, in the early centuries of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church was pretty much the only church. Catholicism is Christianity (arguably). Martin Luther was a Christian, he never intended to change religions. He just wanted to fix what was wrong with Catholicism. Judaism, however, is not. No Protestants ever identified as Jewish.

      • Clark Kent says:

        Well while we mostly agree there, I never said Protestants identified as Jewish but merely that in that category of Christians you can be Catholic, Jewish or Protestant, at least that what my teachers and religious people have told me. Even though you say that the OT is Judaism, if it wasn’t a great part of Catholicism, would it not be another book? I see it in the way that Catholics do not see the Qua ran as a an important Holy Text since they are not Muslim. Therefore, if Catholics view the OT as important, while it may not define the ENTIRE religion it is certainly very important and is meant to teach something.

        But sadly, I think many people attribute morals to religion, in my opinion at least. «John 3:36: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.» So don’t kill and be nice to everyone but if you sin, whether it’s stealing to survive, not following the words of Jesus, maybe because you are in a strong Muslim country or even just having sex for the fun of it once makes you burn in eternal flames forever. Seems kinda harsh in some cases right? That’s where morals kick in. Did religion teach you that the poor stealing to survive because of the corruption of others is wrong and is the same as the greedy wealthy tycoon that steals from his employees? Did religion tell you that hitting a child as discipline is wrong (not like slap him across the room to make his head rip off but you know what I mean)? did religion tell you that you should give people a second chance all the time? Chances are that you don’t or won’t hit your child because either you lived that and your morals don’t want to inflict that on your child or because you believe that is sometimes necessary, in more extreme cases. Chances are that you might not have forgiven someone for hurting you or judging you, chances are someone hasn’t forgiven you for being mean to them or ignoring them. But just because you decide something wrong doesn’t automatically mean religion is the sole origin. Take the 50’s to 70’s compared to today. Catholic belief hasn’t changed much since then, but yet divorce was incredibly taboo and forbidden but hitting your child was very common. Today, the divorce rate is nearly (or maybe over?) 50% and a natural part of any religious or non religious person and hitting your child is now considered an evil thing to do (and you can go to prison I think). To top it all off, racism, a natural part of 50’s life, colored bars, black people at the back of the bus, black people walking closer to the street, colored only schools, yet today everyone’s morals has taught us that being racist is wrong, divorce is okay and that hitting a child for discipline is wrong. What changed? Certainly not religion, who has been saying love everyone and till death do you part for 2000 years, but the people, who have always been just as religious as before.

  17. Excellent and thought provoking. I appreciate the perspective.

  18. Lisa says:

    Ok, I just want to make sure I get this. You’re upset because atheists are bashing Christians and going after them. So in turn… you write a scathing blog bashing atheists, doing the very thing you claim you have a problem with.

    I’m an atheist, I’ve never tried to convince anyone that I’m right and they’re wrong. I’m married, I have a child. She chooses to identify as Christian and I *gasp* actually take her to church. She has the right to make her own spiritual choices.

    I work with local charities and the vast majority of my friends are Christian conservatives. Not one of them have been nearly as nasty or mean as you have been. I help people, I have a sense of right and wrong. I don’t at any point try and force them to do things that should supposedly offend me. If we are having a big meal together and they want to pray prior to it, I don’t complain. I sit quietly and respectfully.

    Apparently, as an atheist, I shouldn’t behaving this way according to you. My bad.

    • SporkBot says:

      Congratulations: You are in the vast minority of atheists that can actually behave in civil manner when discussing God and/or religion. I disagree with your assessment that this blog “bashes” atheists, rather it criticizes the nature of the monument (I believe a very good point was made that this structure seems more devoted to knocking Christianity rather than promote a genuine, all-encompassing message of love or peace or what-have-you).

      In my own experience, the majority of atheists are out looking for a fight. They want to cause trouble. They enjoy mocking and bullying people, mostly through the safe quasi-anonymity of the Internet. They don’t like that people believe something different from them, so as is human instinct, they must attack it. They revel in hypocrisy, championing logic and reason, but abandoning it to help “prove” their point. They ignore certain aspects of atheism or science that may not show them in the greatest light, while omitting all the good religious people have done to drone on and on about the unsavory actions of the few (that somehow become the majority).

      I’m a logical person. This hasn’t changed just because I believe in God. I don’t believe blindly (although some atheists would have me believe them without question). I accept that He is largely imperceptible (y’know…like air) and not entirely knowable in certain respects (point of fact: all the knowledge on Earth, of which we do not possess in totality, as a species, is I believe less than 1% of the knowledge contained in the universe).

      I’m not capable of proving God’s existence. However, I can say from personal experience that He is, to anyone willing to give an honestly open mind. You don’t want to, fine. Stay a good person, and He’ll probably give you a fair shake.

      • jack condy says:

        im sorry that most atheists you have meet with have been rude and unable to behave in a civil matter we hope you wont look at us for the vocal minority as opposed to the silent majority.

  19. Iagree with Lisa says:

    I cannot wait until religion in it’s entirety, dies. God is a lie, and so is your reality. Hail Satan

  20. Pwal says:

    The 10 commandments are also part of the old testament. Those quotes that are “trotted out” are perfectly relevant. If one can be dismissed with a bit of hand-waving, so can the other.

  21. sifu says:

    I’ve never met anyone as dishonest, petty, self-serving and as blatantly ignorant to facts as christians.

    pick up a book.

  22. SporkBot says:

    Alright, Matt, c’mere. Time for an uncomfortable Internet man-hug.

    In the comments section of the article you linked to, someone quotes Richard Dawkins, an educator at Oxford. Funny story about that place…it was established (among universities) by Catholics monks that had saved books from being destroyed in the Middle Ages (http://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html). Furthermore, there’s a video I saw on YouTube some time ago, that included Mr. Dawkins berating an old man that had said he was a follower of Jesus Christ. Dawkins tells him that if he’d lived in X time, in Y civilization, he’d believe in Z deity; thus, he told the old man that he was “hallucinating”. Without actually performing any kind of test or citing credible example, Dawkins believes (and infers it is so) that the old man was suffering from a neurological malady. Think about that…

  23. jack condy says:

    isn’t Christianity meant to be built on love kindness and forgiveness aren’t those the teachings of Jesus so what if they don’t believe the same things do religious people attack other religions like Judaism or is it because it has something to do with the old testament of Christianity that its ok i couldn’t care less about what you think of me but have fun. have a nice life and i hope i could help you just have another perceptive on what your saying continue believing what ever you want to believe because it won’t affect me and i can’t do anything top change your views

  24. Nitro says:

    Funny you call yourself a Christian and yet you Judge others for their actions.. Doesn’t your holy book ask you to not Judge others? lmao .. oh and if an Atheist monument provokes your belief, perhaps the atheists have to feel insulted for all the churches that are around the world because it provokes their belief? Dumbass!

    • SporkBot says:

      I didn’t read judgment in this blog. Criticisms, surely. Is that what you truly find objectionable?

  25. Nitro says:

    oh and NATO does more help towards humanity than your little number of “religious A-holes” who only try to promote or shove their beliefs down the poor people’s throat. IF you want to do charity do it without promoting your religion or your belief. Oh and stop converting people for them not having the same belief as you. I’ve seen what Christian missionaries are doing in Africa where the poor and helpless get converted to Christianity to get any of the food, water they carry around in the name of charity!

    • SporkBot says:

      First, if you have hard numbers to support that NATO does more than Christian-based charities, post the sources, by all means. As long as they’re helping the less fortunate, that’s what matters. However, Mr. Walsh wasn’t talking about NATO, he pointed out that atheists were patting themselves on the back and getting excited about this monument, but it seems targeted at bashing Christians rather than seeking a goal everyone can agree, on regardless of ideology. The ten commandments, at least, say things like “don’t kill”, “don’t steal”, which I figured would be something everyone with life and property would want as rules. If you can think of an atheist organization that gives food and supplies to those in need without the mention of one idea of God or another, toss a link our way. NATO isn’t atheist, it’s simply not religiously based (there is a difference).

      Second, would you agree to someone else’s command that atheists stop trying to force people to stop believing in God? For the likes of Dawkins to stop writing books with his narrow-minded theories about how God should be, “if He existed”? Or for atheist entertainers like Bill Maher, Seth MacFarlane, and Patton Oswalt to stop inserting their atheist views into what they try to pass off as entertainment? If so, fine. If not, that’s hypocrisy, regardless of how you try to excuse it.

      Third, the last sentence infers that Christian organizations don’t offer help unless people are willing to convert. If this were true (again, cite facts for these libelous statements, please), then A) they are the exception, not the rule, and B) they are clearly not being properly charitable. However, you’ve yet to cite your sources, so I’m taking your statements with a rather large grain of salt.

  26. Jane says:

    What is so pathetic and sad about the atheist monument is that they needed to use a portion of their monument to attempt to “mock” Christianity with their “Punishments for Breaking the 10 Commandments,” which actually are not valid due to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, as you wrote. Militant atheists in America generally seem to exist due to their hatred of Christianity and thus define themselves through their anti-Christian sentiments, rather than having a more positive definition of what they are about. If they were truly at peace with themselves, their monument would not need to reference Christianity or religion whatsoever. It would simply be positive and uplifting. But it’s hard to be truly positive and uplifting when deep down inside you are a nihilist, which is what atheism is ultimately about – nihilism.

    • Desserrae says:

      So Jane, you are basically saying that God created the 10 commandments and the punishments for breaking them. He then changed his mind and sent down Jesus to die, to get rid of Origional sin and to scrap the punishments for breaking them and leaving only the threat of hell if they don’t repent. Or, are you saying that since Jesus died and that the punishments no longer apply, then neither do the 10 commandments?

    • SimpleDon says:

      Jane, (not speaking of any women here) I have intimately known MANY religionists and atheists in my 60 years and growing up with the various facets of those ideals. What you see as “pathetic and sad” is actually what defines the atheists I know well. Something that is missing in your account is that without exception, every one of the guys are cowardly, suffering with severe inferiority complexes and low self-esteem issues. They were the 4.0 grade average students who did not participate in sports, nor did they do well in P.E. classes… always being picked last. They were bullied and humiliated by the jocks, and they never, ever fought back. They sucked up to the atheistic teachers and professors and readily assimilated everything they proposed without the hint of questioning as that was the only way that they could accumulate any momentary self-esteem… laughing with the teacher or professor at anyone who believed in God.

      Every moment of their existence is ruled by their feelings of being inferior, scared that others will find out that they are afraid, and (other than being surrounded by like-minded men) their only respite comes from hearing others laugh at their intellectually insulting someone else’s actions, words or beliefs. Those who have been published and their writings widely read and accepted by the mob, have a greater reservoir of respite. But without exception, they will gravitate back to taking center stage in whatever group (where the religionists are a small minority) and never miss an opportunity to cleverly insult Christianity in the hope of gleaning the laughter of acceptance from those who are listening. Their behavior is reminiscent of a school-yard bully who has found someone he can pick on and not only get away with it, but get others to laugh at his victim as well. Any videos of their past behaviors will show their glee at the audience laughing while they quickly glance across those listening… demonstrating to the universe that they are frightened intellectual bullies seeking validation, craving acceptance by the mob. The more people that they can get to agree with them, the greater the smoke screen to avoid their own burning questions that give them monumental doubts about what they speak.

      Actually, their uncertain egos would feel a strong tinge of pride in wearing the label “intellectual bully”… for that is what their (mentors) professors were and are.

      Insulting Christianity also plays into their cowardess, for Christians are admonished to turn the other cheek where Muslims are admonished to slice off both cheeks along with the remainder of the head. Along with those atheists I know well and those I grew up with, I have never seen nor heard an atheist pointedly, publicly insult Islam. They shamelessly rag on Islam privately, poking fun at almost every single aspect of that belief accompanying their insults with loud, rather uneasy, forced laughter… but they will not do so in a public forum. At the very most, publicly, there MAY be a hint of comparing The Koran to their disdain for The Bible… but it will be a hint made in passing.

      Another facet of their cowardess is their quasi-reading of The Bible… which they never would have done had someone not publicly embarrassed them or one of their colleagues for making comments about the scriptures, where they had never actually read any. They then will read The Bible with the very same demeanor as a 5-year old little brat will initially display when having to stand in a corner until he is ready to behave properly. With diligent and non-marginal contempt, they will search The Bible for ANYTHING negative that they can take out of context, twist and falsely accuse instead of reading it with honesty and with a scientific mind, searching to understand why certain things were done a certain way and to see if there is anything in there that is mildly enlightening or worth remembering and applying to their own lives. If they read all other information with the same mindset as they do The Bible, none of them would achieve any greater understanding than what that little 5-year old brat possesses, standing in the corner.

      Their cowardess also prevents them from permitting anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and God to finish a statement regarding a concept that they themselves disagree with. But they will treat someone who believes in Allah with respect, publicly and privately, permitting him to finish his spoken thoughts and never interrupting him. If he should interrupt them, they will yield the floor and listen… all out of fear.

      As adults, they live with differing degrees of continuous anxiety that they might be perceived by anyone as being un-intellectual… not “with” the avant-garde. They make claims to be scientific, but there is nothing scientific about their minds. They may be “theorists” (if the theory is popular amoung the intelligencia), but they can never be a scientist.

      No masculine mind can honestly question, truthfully examine nor see clearly, through fear… nor can it mature spiritually.

  27. Hammel says:

    Exactly, Jane. The point isn’t that Matt is bashing atheists, it’s their ridiculous anti Christian monument that he’s criticizing!

  28. Tom says:

    I thought Islam invented the modern hospital?

    • Glen says:

      It did but for “Christs” sake don’t remind Christians of that fact.

      • Russell Allison says:

        Anncient Egypt might have a thing or two to say about that hospital inventing. The medical writings of Imhotep (2700 BC) (may have spelled that wrong, its late) were referenced by Hippocrates and they did have “temples” that were dedicated to healing.

  29. Joel Sassone says:

    Wow. The ignorance on display in this blog post and in most of the comments is truly impressive. Kudos, fairy tale bigots.

    • SporkBot says:

      So you think a bigot is someone who criticizes an ideology to which you attach yourself? Well, just to clear up the confusion, here’s what the word *actually* means…

      From Dictionary.com:
      Bigot, (noun): a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

      You’re comment reeks far more of bigotry than anything in Mr. Walsh’s blog post. But if you can cite examples and provide evidence to prove your point, I look forward to it.

  30. CL says:

    For the Lord is our judge, our lawgiver, and our king. He will care for us and save us.

    Where did those wicked smart and religiously diverse founding fathers get that whole judicial-legislative- executive branch idea from? Isaiah 33:22. James Madison borrowed it from that scary Old Testament.

    America has a Judeo-Christian foundation that is undeniable. It is your right to like it or not like it (you’re welcome for that) but don’t pretend it isn’t there.

    • Clark Kent says:

      No it actually comes from Montesquieu that saw the King of France proclaim himself «Ruler chosen by God» and combined all three powers in himself. Montesquieu chose to express the need for 3 separate powers, which is why Montesquieu is known for having great ideological input. So while you say it is religious, in reality it is actually against religion

      • catherinelammert says:

        You’re completely correct that Montesquieu also championed the separation of powers, but this is not a discussion about French government. Your argument also has an obvious timeline issue. For Montesquieu to have written with authority on Christianity, be his viewpoint positive or negative, you can see how he would need to have read Biblical texts- texts that were written long before he could have possibly influence them. In The Spirit of Laws, Book 24, he explains the interaction between Christianity and law by saying, “The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would, without doubt, have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive.” There is the likelihood Montesquieu might have derived the separation of powers from Isaiah, but it is historically impossible for the reverse to be true. A different but related idea is the system of checks and balances between the separate powers, which does not appear in the Old Testament and can fairly be credited to Enlightenment Thinkers. If anything, Montesquieu expanded on the ideas presented in the Old Testament.

      • Clark Kent says:

        I meant he influenced the constitution not biblical texts. If I remember the bible line of Isaiah, «For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king;». Montesquieu didn’t need the bible to see that the King made the laws, enforced them and controlled the justice system. Sure a religious man controlled all three, but the nature of his thoughts, at it’s best was an opposition to that, seeing the corruption it caused, whether he was religious or not. The way I see it, if Catholics takes claim for giving Montesquieu the idea of separation of power, they are pretty much going against their religion, in the sense that they are proud of the separation of power when the bible says «the Lord is all three» .

        Sorry for posting twice, I messed up 😦

  31. Clark Kent says:

    I meant he influenced the constitution not biblical texts. If I remember the bible line of Isaiah, «For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king;». Montesquieu didn’t need the bible to see that the King made the laws, enforced them and controlled the justice system. Sure a religious man controlled all three, but the nature of his thoughts, at it’s best was an opposition to that, seeing the corruption it caused, whether he was religious or not. The way I see it, if Catholics takes claim for giving Montesquieu the idea of separation of power, they are pretty much going against their religion, in the sense that they are proud of the separation of power when the bible says «the Lord is all three» .

  32. dougindeap says:

    1. Why you would direct your ire at those who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it is not apparent. It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class and principals hanging banners in schools), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people who are easily offended or petty. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives–small government conservatives–should appreciate from a political standpoint as well. While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution. And that you suppose that those asking courts to uphold the Constitution are thus “petty” says more about you than them.

    2. It should not be supposed that those merely asking courts to uphold the Constitution are thereby attempting “to impose their secular atheist religion on the faithful folks.”

    3. Nor should it be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion in keeping with the Constitution, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.

    4. “Wealthy atheist organizations” “[u]sually get their way” over poor Christians who are just trying to help people “because they [the atheists] have more money and a lot of time on their hands.” Seriously? Trappings of the Christian religion adorn so many events and aspects of our daily lives. And on one of the few occasions when another religion gets a chance to share the stage, you see it as a slight to Christians. You. Must. Be. Kidding.

    Christians have always been and today remain the dominant religious influence in society and politics in the United States. While I have no doubt that Christians can be counted among those who have been the victims of ill treatment now and then, complaints of widespread discrimination against Christians bring to mind the image of a privileged child accustomed to getting his way who, faced with the prospect of treatment akin to that experienced by others, howls in pained anguish at the injustice of it all and pines for the good old days.

    As an atheist, I know how it feels to hold views not shared and even reviled by many in the dominant religion of our society. You may understand then how alarming it is to hear members of that dominant group speak of their sense of persecution. History often reveals dominant groups working themselves into a lather about perceived wrongs against them before they lash out to “restore” matters as they see fit. If anything, that is the more real threat America faces.

  33. CMO says:

    Oh I just want to hug you right now! Such wise, wise words!!!! God bless you…but, really he already has with discernment, truth, and wisdom…thank you for sharing it with us

  34. Zack Johnson says:

    “looking for any religious symbology”

    Matt, I believe the word you are looking for is SSSSSSSSYMBOLISM
    Source: Boondock Saints

  35. Glen says:

    Bwahahaha!

    I’m sorry, I’m sorry…..hehe!…in the words of principal Skinner from the Simpsons “have mercy!”

    I found it hard to get past “wealthy Atheist organisations” from a man who is a member of the Catholic church! One of the wealthiest organisations on the planet which is also as corrupt as the Mafia and facilitates child abuse on a global scale! Hoorah!

    And notice in the photos of the Atheist “monuments” everyone is happy and laughing that’s how serious they take that crap!

    Unlike Catholics who cannibalistically eat the blood and body of a Jewish zombie every sunday like “normal people”!

    Bwahahaha!

    • SimpleDon says:

      You make “some” excellent points Glen. Refreshing actually.

      And I am aware that in most cases, the people who are conscious and mobile and in great need are pressured to attend a churchy service as a prerequisite to receiving assistance (which they gladly acquiesce to due to the scope of the need).

      And there are some who are unconscious and successfully nursed back to health, who may feel obligated to placate those who saved their lives and attend a service. Others, experiencing a major change in their overall thinking, seeing that it was this group of religionists who came to their aid when their own government and people would not… they honestly want to be a part of a group that beings life and hope to those who need it most.

      Would you please list the atheist out-reach groups in this country and those who are scattered abroad in foreign lands, working 18-20 hour days rendering aid to those who are very close to death? I know there must be a long line of atheists wanting to volunteer for similar projects, and make positive changes to dire situations. I know none of you are going to permit a group of corrupt, zombie-eating child-molesters outshine any of your faith.

      That would be the absolute height of humiliations

  36. Glen says:

    And the Catholic church have huge cathedrals all over the planet big gothic looking “fear gawd you insignificant ant” buildings everywhere you look.

    The Atheists put up a couple of little pissant signs? “How dare you! Its an outrage! Who do you think you are?”

    Remind me again who is the insecure one now? Hundreds of big ass cathedrals? Atheists reaction? “Meh!” Christians reaction to two tiny Atheist signs? Panic! Afraid the truth might get out insecure Christian? Sound like it to me!

    Now remind how I can be saved by eating the body and blood of a Jewish zombie like a cannibal in the Congo.

  37. wow nice content blog writing.I felt happy while reading this blog.lot of information about granites.thanks for sharing

Comments are closed.