The Three Fingers Pointing Back At Atheists When Atheists Point A Finger At Christians About Evil And Judgment

You’ve probably heard that expression, “When you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at you.”  Let’s work with that today.

I recently wrote an article with the deliberately provocative title, “Atheist Country Japan Smashed By Tsunami.”

It generated quite a few cross postings to atheist blogs and forums.

One recent example attacked Christians as being “happy” that Japan was stricken by disaster, and, in linking to my blog, said:

Of course, maybe it’s because of all teh gay [sic] in Japan, or because the Japanese are all atheists. Or maybe it’s because they worship demons.

…

What a nasty, horrible God is the one in which they believe. What nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings. What a nasty, cynical thing they do to promote their own religion by using this tragedy and other recent catastrophic events to “win converts” for Jesus.

Naming them charlatans and hypocrites does not do justice to the utter lack of compassion that resides in their hearts.

And the blogger cites my blog as an example of a fundamentalist who argues that God struck Japan “because the Japanese are all atheists.”

Well, first thing, did I actually even say that?  I quote myself from that article:

But is Japan’s unbelief the reason why Japan just got hit with an awful tsunami?

My answer is, “How on earth should I know?”

I cite passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that a disaster does not necessarily mean that God is judging someone, such as Luke 13:1-5.  I could have just as easily also cited passages such as John 9:1-3 about Jesus’ distinction between suffering and sin.  I could have cited 2 Peter 3:9, describing God’s patience with sinners rather than His haste to judge.  These passages aren’t at all out of tune with what I was saying.  And I actually DO single out by name for criticism men like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who have immediately pronounced the wrath of God following some disaster.

I begin my article saying, “That headline is a deliberate provoker.  But please let me explain why I used that headline before you erupt one way or another.”  Then I proceed to state two undisputed facts: that Japan is atheist, and that Japan got hit by a disaster.  I urge someone to actually read the article and reflect on the possibilities.  But Boomantribune is an example of most of the atheists who cross-posted or commented to my article by NOT being someone who wanted to read or reflect; he or she is someone who refused to look beneath atheist ideology and immediately began demonizing the other side to “win converts” for his religion of atheism.  [And let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  “Religion” does not need to depend upon belief in God, or Buddhism would not qualify as a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and it is a simple fact that atheism has every component that any religious system has].

You can’t have a valid argument with someone like Boomantribune, I have learned.  They are either too ignorant, or too dishonest, or both to accurately represent the other side’s position or arguments.  They create straw men and then demolish claims that Christians like me aren’t even making.

Boomantribune viciously attacks me as harboring the “nasty, horrible sentiments they have expressed in the wake of so much suffering by their fellow human beings.”  But I end my article on Japan by saying:

You need that gift of divine grace.  I need that gift of divine grace.  And the people of Japan desperately need it today.

I pray for those who are in Japan.  I pray for their deliverance from both the tsunami and from their unbelief.  And I will join with many other Christians who will send relief to the Japanese people, with prayers that they will look not at me, but at the Jesus who changed my heart and my life, and inspired me to give to others.

It is also a simple fact that religious people are FAR more giving than atheists:

In the US, anyway, they don’t. Here’s just one study, done in 2003: The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions…Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so…The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

And this is “secular” people who aren’t particularly religious.  A lot of people rarely ever go to church, but still believe in God (basically 90% of Americans belive in God).  Since the evidence is rather straightforward that the more religious one is, the more giving one is, it is justified to conclude that atheists who are less religious than the merely “secular” are even LESS giving.

And, guess what?  My church has already taken its first of several offerings for Japan, and I have already given – and plan to give again.

I would also point out a couple of historical facts:

Christians actually began the first hospitals.

More hospitals have been founded by Christians than by followers of every other religion – including atheism – combined.

That said:

Atheist doctors are more than twice as likely to pull the plug on someone than a doctor who believes in God.

So just who is being “horrible” here?

Here’s another example of an atheist attack on me that backfired, followed by the dishonest atheist “cutting and running” from his own attack:

For what it’s worth, I have never withdrawn a single post:

Also, unlike too many blogs – particularly leftwing blogs, in my experience – I don’t delete anything. When the Daily Kos hatefully attacked Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol and claimed that Bristol Palin had been impregnated by her own father with a baby, and that Sarah Palin faked being pregnant – only to have that hateful and vile lie blown away by Bristol giving birth to a child of her own – they scrubbed it like nothing had happened.

I’m not that despicable. Every single article I have ever written remains on my blog. And with all due respect, I think that gives me more credibility, not less: I don’t hit and run and then scrub the evidence of my lies.

If I post something that turns out to be wrong, I don’t destroy the evidence; I stand up and take responsibility for my words.  I apologize and correct the record.  As I did in the case above.

That, by the way, is the first finger, the finger of moral dishonesty pointing back at these atheists. 

That’s not the way the other side plays.  History is replete with atheist regimes (e.g. ANY of the officially state atheist communist regimes) destroying the record and any debate; history is replete with atheist-warped “science” making one claim after another that turned out to be entirely false.  As examples, consider Java Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man and the various other hoaxes that the “scientific community rushed to embrace in their rush to falsify theism.  In some cases “scientists” created an entire community – or even an entire race of people – around totally bogus evidence in “It takes a village” style.  There was the bogus notion of “uniformitarianism” by which the “scientific community” ridiculed creationists for decades until it was proven wrong by Eugene Shoemaker who documented that the theory of “catastrophism” that they had advanced for millennia had been correct all along.  And then all of a sudden the same evolutionary theory that had depended upon uniformitarianism suddenly morphed into a theory that depended upon catastrophism. It morphed so that it was equally true with both polar opposites.

Then there’s this:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

There is the extremely rare admission:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

But those are extremely rare, indeed.  The rest of the atheist-assuming “scientific community” is all about saying, “Move on, folks.  Nothing to see here.  Why don’t you look at our new sleight-of-hand display over in this corner instead?”

Phillip Johnson, in a very good article, points out how the “bait-and-switch” works:

Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception. As Niles Eldredge candidly admitted, “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing it does not.”[ 1] Eldredge explained that this pattern of misrepresentation occurred because of “the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection operates in nature, but that we know precisely how it works.” This certainty produced a degree of dogmatism that Eldredge says resulted in the relegation to the “lunatic fringe” of paleontologists who reported that “they saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other.”[ 2] Under the circumstances, prudent paleontologists understandably swallowed their doubts and supported the ruling ideology. To abandon the paradigm would be to abandon the scientific community; to ignore the paradigm and just gather the facts would be to earn the demeaning label of “stamp collector.”

[…]

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that “evolution is a fact,” and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

I stand behind a tradition that has stood like an anvil while being pounded by one generation of unbelievers after another.  That tradition remains constant because it is founded upon the unchanging Word of God.  My adversaries constantly change and morph their positions, all the while just as constantly claiming that their latest current iteration is correct.

That is the second finger of intellectual dishonesty which so thoroughly characterizes atheism and anything atheism seems to contaminate with its assumptions.

Lastly, there is the finger of ethical dishonesty that is the ocean that the “walking fish” of atheism swims in.  [Btw, when I see that fish riding a bicycle I’ll buy their “walking fish” concept].

Basically, for all the “moral outrage” of atheists who want to denounce Christians for their God’s “evil judgments,” atheism itself has absolutely no moral foundation to do so whatsoever.  And the bottom line is that they are people who attack the five-thousand year tradition of Scripture with their feet firmly planted in midair.

William Lane Craig provides a devastating existential ethical refutation of atheism in an article I posted entitled, “The Absurdity of Life without God.”

To put it simply, William Lane Craig demolishes any shred of a claim that atheism can offer any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value, or any ultimate purpose whatsoever.  And so atheism denounces Christianity and religion from the foundation of an entirely empty and profoundly worthless worldview.  Everyone should read this incredibly powerful article.  I guarantee you will learn something, whatever your perspective on religion.

The thing I would say is that atheists denounce God and Christians from some moral sort of moral posture.  Which comes from what, exactly?  Darwinism, or more precisely, social Darwinism?  The survival of the fittest?  A foundation that comes from the “secure” footing of a random, meaningless, purposeless, valueless and entirely accidental existence?

As atheists tee off on God and at Christians for being “nasty” and “horrible,” what is their foundation from which to judge?

First of all, what precisely would make one a “nasty” or “horrible” atheist? 

Joseph Stalin was an atheist:

“God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just… I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.”

Mao Tse Tung was an atheist:

“Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”  [Mao Tse Tung, Little Red Book, “Self-Reliance and Arduous Struggle chapter 21”].

Hitler was an atheist:

Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

Joseph Goebbels, a top member of Hitler’s inner circle, noted in his personal diary, dated 8 April 1941 that “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.”  Now, one may easily lie to others, but why lie to your own private diary?

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.”

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Albert Speer, another Nazi in Hitler’s intimate inner circle, stated that Hitler said, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion… Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Now, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were terrible, despicable, evil people.  But what made them ” bad atheists,” precisely?

When Mao infamously expressed this attitude –

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

– or when Joseph Stalin was similarly quoted as having said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

– were these men who were responsible for some 100 million deaths of their own people during peacetime expressing anything that violated some principle of Darwinian evolution, or the morality that derives from the ethic of survival of the fittest?

Mao put his disregard for human life and the lives of his own people to terrible work:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Did that somehow disqualify him from being an atheist?  How?  Based on what foundation?

Let me simply point out that the most evil human beings in human history and the most murderous and oppressive political regimes in human history have the strange tendency to be atheist.  It would seem to me that these atheists should frankly do a lot less talking smack and a lot more shutting the hell up.  But two verses from Scripture illustrate why they don’t: 1) The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1) and 2) “A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2).

Let’s talk about “evil” for a few moments.  I have already begun addressing the “third finger” that points back at atheists when they denounce Christians or God.  But the idea of “evil” makes that “finger” the middle one.

Christians talk about evil.  A lot of people do.  Even atheists routinely do.  But what is their foundation for evil?  What is “evil”?  Most give answers such as, “Murder or rape is evil.”  But those would at best only qualify as examples of evil – not a definition that would allow us to make moral judgments.  Christians have an actual answer.  They point out that “evil” is a perversion from the way things ought to be.  But what “oughtness” is there in a random, purposeless, meaningless and valueless universe that was spat out by nothing more than pure chance?

Let’s just say at this point that the atheists are right in what is in reality a straw man attack of God?  So what?  I ask “so what?” because even if what they were saying were somehow true, by what standard would either God or Christians be “nasty” or “horrible”?  What is the objective, transcendent standard that stands above me, that stands above every Christian on the planet, that stands above the entire human race across time and space and holds it accountable, such that if Christians or even God do X or say Y, or believe Z they are “nasty” or “horrible”?

It turns out that they don’t have one.  And in fact, their very worldview goes so far as to literally deny the very possibility of one.  At best – and I would argue at worst – we are trapped in a world in which might makes right, and the most powerful dictator gets to make the rules.  Because there is nothing above man that judges man and says, “This is the way, walk in it.”  There is only other men – and men disagree with one another’s standards – leaving us with pure moral relativism. 

And if moral relativism is true, then the atheists STILL lose.  It would be a tie, given that atheists have no more claim to being “good” than any other human being or group of human beings, no matter how despicable and murderous they might be.  But they would lose because there are a lot fewer atheists (137 million) than there are, say, Christians (2.3 billion).  And it only remains for Christians to disregard their superior moral and ethical system just long enough to rise up and annihilate all the smart-mouthed atheists, and then say afterward, “Boy, we sure feel guilty for having done THAT.  Let’s pray for forgiveness!”  And the only possible defense atheists would have would be to abandon their “survival of the fittest” mentality and embrace superior Christian morality and cry out, “Thou shalt not kill!”

Even if Christians don’t wipe out the atheists physically, most would readily agree that the Christian worldview is still far stronger than the atheist one.  Dinesh D’Souza makes a great argument to illustrate this on pages 15-16 of What’s So Great About Christianity that shows why religion is clearly the best team.  He says to imagine two communities – one filled with your bitter, cynical atheists who believe that morality just happened to evolve and could have evolved very differently; and one filled with Bible-believing Christians who embrace that life and their lives have a purpose in the plan of a righteous God who put His moral standards in our hearts. And he basically asks, “Which community is going to survive and thrive?”

As a Christian, I don’t have all the answers (although I can certainly answer the question immediately above).  I am a human being and my mind cannot contain the infinite plan of an infinitely complex and holy God.  But I have placed my trust in a God who made the world and who has a plan for His creation which He is bringing to fruition.  And that worldview doesn’t just give me explanatory powers that atheism by its very nature entirely lacks, but it gives me a strength that I never had before.  Even when evil and disaster and suffering befall me beyond my ability to comprehend, I can say with Job – the master of suffering:

“But as for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and he will stand upon the earth at last.  And after my body has decayed, yet in my body I will see God!  I will see him for myself. Yes, I will see him with my own eyes. I am overwhelmed at the thought!”  Job 19:25-27 (NLT).

Secular Humanist Left So ‘Tolerant’ They Want To Purge Anyone Who Isn’t Just Like Them

“You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right” — Psalm 52:3

What can one even say except, “Welcome to ‘God damn America,’ Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama style”???

Wounded Marine, 1st Lieutenant Clebe McClary, ‘Too Evangelical’ For Air Force Academy PRAYER Luncheon

On 01.22.11 by Sad Hill

Marine 1st Lt. Clebe McClary

Next, they’ll be trying to snuff out officers who are too straight, or too white…

(Gazette) A religious rights group is calling for the removal of the Air Force Academy’s top officer after a flap over a speaker planned for a February prayer luncheon at the school.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation says the academy’s choice of retired Marine 1st Lt. Clebe McClary shows that superintendent Lt. Gen. Mike Gould remains tilted toward evangelical Christianity and tolerates an environment where proselytizing is accepted.

Lt. Gen. Mike Gould

“We’re done,” said academy graduate Mikey Weinstein, the foundation’s founder and a frequent foe of religious practices at the school. “Gould needs to go.”

An academy spokesman, Lt. Col. John Bryan, defended the choice of McClary and said the planned prayer gathering is optional and inclusive of a broad spectrum of religious views.

“Nobody is being forced or coerced to go to this luncheon,” Bryan said.

McClary is a wounded Vietnam veteran who overcame his disabilities and now says he’s in the “Lord’s Army.”

Bryan said he’s heard McClary speak and came away with inspiration for overcoming obstacles rather than religious philosophy.

“He’s a nationally recognized motivational speaker,” Bryan said.

McLary’s website lists testimonials from celebrities including The Rev. Billy Graham and former Denver Broncos coach Dan Reeves.

The academy first sought retired Army general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell to speak at the luncheon, but when he couldn’t make it due to schedule conflicts, McClary was picked to keynote the annual event. He’ll be paid $2,500 and airfare reimbursement.

Weinstein points to McClary’s website for evidence that the speaker is too evangelical for the academy.

“To him, USMC will always mean a U. S. Marine for Christ,” McClary’s website says.

“Such statements are not only antithetical to the clear mission of the United States Air Force Academy, they are totally anathema to the purportedly globally inclusive purpose of this National Prayer Luncheon,” Weinstein wrote in a letter to Gould and Defense Department officials.

Several groups, including the Colorado branch of the American Civil Liberties Union have written Gould in support of Weinsten’s effort.

Weinstein has battled the academy in recent months over the school’s failure to include him in a conference on the school’s religious tolerance practices and the academy’s initial failure to release results of a survey that showed concerns about prosyletizing there.

Gould hasn’t responded to Weinstein’s latest letter.

PLEASE let the United States Air Force Academy Public Affairs know what’s on your mind. Tell ‘em Sad Hill sent ya…:

Mailing Address
HQ USAFA/PA
2304 Cadet Drive Suite 3100
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840-5016

Phone: 719.333.7731
Fax: 719.333.4094

Community Relations: pa.comrel@usafa.af.mil
Media Relations: media.pam@usafa.af.mil

Team Napolitano labels returning veterans as ‘lone wolf extremists’: HERE

McClary’s Biography: HERE

Rev. Franklin Graham banned from National Day of Prayer: HERE

Week-Kneed Christians: HERE

Hat tip: Dad/Mom

The “Military Religious Freedom Foundation” is for anything but the military, or religion, or freedom.  It is for atheism.  It is for imposing IT’S religious ideology of secular humanism and specifically excluding anything Christian.

Let’s get this straight: atheism IS a religion.  The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, and in point of fact atheism has all the same worldview components that any religion has.  There are many religions on the planet, and some (like most forms of Buddhism) don’t believe in God, while others (like Hinduism) don’t believe in a personal God.  So the fact that atheists don’t believe in God, and the fact that they believe very differently from Christians, hardly disqualifies atheism from being a religion.  It is one religious view among many.  The same thing goes for secular humanism, which basically is the same worldview as atheism, only with a more positive myth about human nature.

So as much as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation might erupt into a frenzy at the very thought of Christian proselytizing, these hypocrites are all too willing to engage in massive proselytizing of their own.  They impose their atheistic worldview in the name of “religious tolerance” or “religious neutrality” all the time.  When in fact it is anything but, being a small extremist minority worldview, and when in fact it has the most gruesome history of ANY worldview in the form of state atheism, i.e. communism.

This was a voluntary and optional prayer gathering.  No one was forced to go.  But the fascist Military Religious Freedom Foundation is frothing at the mouth that men and women who want to pray to Jesus Christ should be able to pray to Jesus Christ.  They want to force people to not be allowed to pray as they will and to whom they will.  These atheists want to force others to be like them.

Want to argue with me?  Try out another story going on at the same time.  A homosexual activist (and homosexual activists are almost universally atheist and are universally liberal) attended a Christian event and specifically sought out a Christian psychologist who specifically told him she only used “a Christian biblical framework.”  The homosexual activist told her that was exactly what he wanted.  Then he proceeded to literally wear a wire so he could record her praying for him.  And now he is spearheading an effort to destroy her and have her credentials revoked.  It wasn’t about a Christian counselor trying to brainwash a poor unsuspecting homosexual with her religious bigotry; it is about an amoral homosexual activism movement trying to shut down and destroy anyone who doesn’t share their particular form of extreme bigotry.

You say, well, that particular example happened in England; it could never happen here.  Think again, because if anything it gets even more Orwellian on this side of the ocean.

People like these, wherever they’re from, love to claim that the American founding fathers – who produced the greatest, most powerful and most enduring democracy in human history – were a bunch of atheists; the only problem is that nothing can be further from the truth.  The fact of the matter is that our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian; and the one or two who weren’t (such as Benjamin Franklin) readily acknowledged that the Christian religion was a good thing rather than a bad one.

Consider this:

The phrase “Founding Fathers” is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith [see John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, 1987, p. 43].

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55–a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

What do you call people who deliberately distort American history in order to advance an agenda that said American history clearly reviles?  I hope you don’t call such a suppression of truth “American.”

This blatant un-American attempt to deny and suppress religious freedom occurred at a place of learning, at a university.  So let us see what the founding fathers thought about the cornerstone of learning in an ordinance that they passed in 1787:

Northwest Ordinance (1787), Article III:

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged…

106 of the first 108 universities established in the United States were explicitly founded for the very purpose of proselytizing the Christian faith.  The intent to proselytize the Christian gospel is literally engraved on the cornerstones of every single one of our greatest universities.  It was not our American founding fathers, but profoundly un-American fascists who tried to sever the historic connection between America and the religious faith that made her great.

What makes the Northwest Ordinance even more interesting and relevant is that it was passed at the very same time the Constitution was being written and ratified.  Which is to say that only a fool would argue that the very same men who passed the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 would turn around and denounce the very same idea in the Constitution at the very same time.

Especially when our founding fathers are all over the historical record making such statements as this:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

Especially when these same determined men had just fought a terrible war over this statement:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

And yet, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (see Psalm 14:1-3).  Fools abound.  And the defining characteristic of fools is that they aren’t particularly interested in reality.

The most dogmatic statement about religion of all came from the mouth of the father of our country and our democracy during his Farewell Address:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

The bottom line is that the greatest of all Americans would have called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation precisely what they are: “traitorous wretches” who are trying to tear down the indispensable supports undergirding the foundation of America and American democracy.

It is time to wake up and fight for your country.  History is replete with examples of majorities who had their country seized from under their feet by small determined minorities of vile usurpers.  As one example, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party never won more than 37% of the vote; yet he and his Party and its loathsome ideology came to dominate Germany.  And yes, Adolf Hitler was a big government socialist atheist.

Get off your butts and FIGHT for your country, Americans.  FIGHT for the vision of America handed down to us by our founders that made this country the greatest in the history of the world.  If you keep sitting on your butts thinking that others will do all the fighting for you, you will wake up one day and wonder what the hell happened.

Katie Couric Demonstrates How Moral Idiot Left Will Surrender America To Sharia

Glenn Beck (and yes, I know I’ve already lost most liberals, who believe that no matter how factually true something is, if it comes from Fox News or a Glenn Beck, it can be demonized and disregarded) had the following to say about renowned profoundly progressive journalist Walter Lippmann from his book Phantom Public:

In fact, the media is engaged in open propaganda for this administration. Not merely bias — what are you, nuts? They’re following a proud heritage of propagandists before them that began, as you might expect, if you’re a regular watcher of the show, around the time of — oh, I don’t know — what is his name? Woodrow Wilson.

One of Wilson’s close advisors was this guy, Walter Lippmann. He is a journalist who considered himself an icon among the liberal media, and the liberal media agrees. His methods and ideas are taught in college to our journalism students to this today.

You should read some of his books. I wonder if the people in his college that love him so much have actually read — oh, I don’t know — this is an original. This one is “Phantom Public.” You should read it. Spooky!

But what they teach in college is public opinion. These are things that these journalists are taught as a good thing. Quote, “News and truth are not the same thing.”

And quote, “The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.”

In other words, you’re just too stupid. You don’t know it’s bad for you so we need a group of guys like this. Who has a big head and he can explain everything so we know it’s all for our own good.

Thank you very much. In fact, he believes that most citizens — and you’re going to love this, quote, “are mentally children.” Did you say that? Or barbarians. I can’t imagine why the journalists don’t just think this is guy is awful.

Things are starting to make sense now, aren’t they, about why you see journalists report the things that they do and treat the American people the way they do. Yes, they needed to be guided by intellectuals such as Walter Lippmann.

And hence the origin of the mainstream media class of journalistic snobbery; they’re better than you, they’re liberal as hell (and hellish as liberals), and whatever they think is right merely because they think it.  And of course they’re better than the 80% of the country who don’t share their values.

Katie Couric And Mo Rocca Show Us Why We’re Going To Lose Our Freedom To Sharia
Posted on January 1, 2011 by John L. Work

With thanks to Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin’s site Hey.  Want to know why we’re headed toward losing this War against the forces of Islam – the same ones that declared eternal war on the World of Infidels way back in the 7^th Century?  Watch this CBS video clip, featuring Katie Couric as the host, with Mo Rocca as a guest, in a discussion on the alleged terrible bigotry and hate that Katie says America has exhibited toward Muslims (I removed their stuttering in my transcription):

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/31/katie-couric-maybe-we-need-a-muslim-version-of-the-cosby-show/

KC:  I also think sort of the chasm between, or the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year.  Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic center – mosque down near the World Trade Center.  But I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful evaluation of where this bigotry toward one point five billion Muslims world-wide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected and so wrong, and so disappointing.

MR:  And you know one thing, I don’t know about you or either of you guys, but I’m pretty smart, and I cannot tell you…

KC:  (interrupts) We’ll be the judge of that, Mo.

MR:  …I mean I went to really fancy schools.  I cannot tell you five things about Islam.  I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us.  And I’m embarrassed.  I mean I know nothing about Islam.

KC:  Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show.

MR:  Interesting.

KC:  I know that sounds crazy, but the Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.  Like you, Mo.  You know, you’re saying you don’t know that much, your not afraid of it, but that you’re sort of, don’t have enough knowledge about it, but maybe if it became more part of the popular (inaudible)…

MR:  (interrupts)  Well, I think that religion should just be taught as an academic subject in public schools…

KC:  (interrupts)  I totally agree with you.

MR:  …much more.  The fear of it, it’s so misguided and the interpretation of separation between church and state…

KC:  Alright.  Let’s change the subject in something a little less heavy.

End of clip

I rest my case.  For years this is what we’ve been force-fed by our media and by our elected officials about Islam.  Mindless apologist pabulum.  Ignorance.  Abject denial of reality.  Obstinate refusal to do a little homework and study.  If these so-called media icons had any real grip on the actual doctrines and practice of Sharia in Muslim states, they’d be damned afraid of it taking over here in the U.S.A.

Better to die free than to submit to Sharia.

It doesn’t really matter what the issue is; the mainstream media is waaaayy to the left of the rest of the nation’s values in its “reporting.”

So, for example, we can take the very issue that Katie Couric is lecturing America on – the Ground Zero mosque – and we can take her own CBS network’s polling.

From CBS:

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – Most Americans are against building a controversial mosque near Ground Zero, a CBS news poll has found.

According to the poll results,  only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.

On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.

But, don’t you see?  “Most Americans” are QUOTE “mentally children,” and  so your beliefs and values can be disregarded.  And if the Katie Courics of the world simply have to flat-out lie to you, well, you’re too freaking stupid to understand the truth anyway.  And, as the great progressive big government bureaucrat Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), anyway?*

And public opinion needs to be managed by that “specialized class” of liberal elites.  Because, after all, liberal progressives have replaced God with themselves and with their superior ideas.  Just ask them.

Fellow progressive elitest “god-complexer” Bill Maher put the mindset well:

MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60…. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.

He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.  Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.

That’s the amazing thing about liberals.  They are totally fascists; but they are such complete moral idiots that they don’t KNOW they’re fascists.

It would actually be funny, if these people weren’t so dangerous, and hadn’t amassed so much power and control which has enabled them to decide who wins and who loses.

And so they constantly lecture the right even as they do the above, and even as they try repeatedly to impose their oxymoronically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” and even as they now impose their again oxymoronically-named “Net Neutrality” to gain control over the internet.

But getting back to Sharia: it’s not that the left hates religion (atheism itself is a religion, you know, and “state atheism” is the religion of communism); it’s that the left despises Judeo-Christianity and everything it stands for.  And the left agrees with radical Islam that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Hence the left is all but openly aligning itself with radical Islam and sheltering the movement by demonizing anyone who would criticize it.  Why?  Because Islam becomes another device by which the left can demonize their more hated enemy, Judeo-Christianity, by depicting it as “intolerant” and “hateful.”   And after Christianity is undermined, liberals believe (naively and stupidly) that they can somehow reason with or appease the Islamists.

Which, again, is something only a true moral idiot would think.

I’m certainly not the only one who has perceived a liberal love affair with radical Islam; and I’m not the only one who has seen a liberal-Muslim axis.  And while liberals are too morally moronic to see themselves in this violent power-worshiping movement, all I have to do is say things like “Weather Underground,” “Black Panthers,” “Students for a Democratic Society,” all I have to do is name liberal icons such as “Che Guevara” or Charles Manson (as I once demonstrated to a particularly rabid liberal jerk once).

The fact of the matter is that liberals love violent revolutionary movements.

It’s funny.  General Eisenhower very prominently used the term “Crusade” – that came right out of Christendom – to describe the Allies’ war with and defeat of the evil forces of socialism (Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party).  The fact of the matter is that Christendom has been the backbone that has allowed the West to stand up and fight its enemies since the first Crusade.

Which is to say that the day “progressivism” supposedly “wins” in its war on Judeo-Christianity, it will lose itself and all the values such as individual liberty that it never deserved in the first place.  And then progressives will get the totalitarian-tyrant they have always truly deserved.

As I’ve pointed out before, the beast is coming.

Atheists Get The MOST Angry At The God They Claim Not To Even Believe Exists

Every day I have my screaming session with this big purple unicorn that keeps harassing me.

Oh, and the leprechauns.  You don’t want to hear me yelling at them, either.

And don’t even get me started about that damn tooth fairy, and the vile Easter Bunny, and that rat bastard Santa Claus.

Obviously, I’m being facetious.  None of these fictitious entities have ever made my blood pressure rise.

Atheists, however, continue to put “the fool” in “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1):

Anger at God common, even among atheists

If you’re angry at your doctor, your boss, your relative or your spouse, you can probably sit down and have a productive conversation about it. God, on the other hand, is probably not available to chat.

And yet people get angry at God all the time, especially about everyday disappointments, finds a new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

It’s not just religious folks, either. People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image – that is, what they imagined God might be like – said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.

In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers. A separate study also found this pattern among bereaved individuals. This phenomenon is something Exline and colleagues will explore more in future research, which is open to more participants.

The CNN article title falsely implies, “Even atheists” get mad at God.”  When the article itself clearly states that the article SHOULD be titled, “Atheists get the MOST mad at God.”

Because that damn nonexistent being who isn’t even real just pisses them off to no end.

You’ve got to love how science and research just keeps demonstrating the truth of Scripture.  Take this one from the book of Romans, for instance:

“For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” – Romans 1:18-19

Deep down, atheists know the same thing the rest of us do.  They’re just too dishonest – even with themselves – and too bitter to admit what they know.  And so they just keep suppressing and suppressing the truth.  They force it down, and try to loudly claim what is true is false.  But this is a reality that just has a way of coming out even in THEIR nasty attitudes.

Here are a few other passages of Scripture that apply to these pathetic, deluded, and, yes – angry and bitter –  souls:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

If you want to believe in elves, or in gnomes, or in unicorns, or in reincarnation, or in little green men, or that Elvis lives, whatever – fine.  I could care less.  Believe whatever you want.

But that isn’t your garden-variety atheist, I can tell you.

Well, of course, what I KNOW is that atheists are fools.

Dinesh D’Souza makes a fantastic point in his book What’s So Great About Christianity:

“It seems that atheists are not content with committing cultural suicide – they want to take your children with them.  The atheist strategy can be described in this way: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents’ beliefs.  So the secularization of the minds of our young people is not, as many think, the inevitable consequence of learning and maturing.  Rather, it is to a large degree orchestrated by teachers and professors to promote anti-religious agendas.

Consider a timely example of how this works.  In recent years some parents and school boards have asked that public schools teach alternatives to Darwinian evolution.  These efforts sparked a powerful outcry from the scientific and non-believing community.  Defenders of evolution accuse the offending parents and school boards of retarding the acquisition of scientific knowledge in the name of religion.  The Economist editorialized that “Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.”

This may be so, but doesn’t Darwinism have friends and supporters mostly for the same reason?  Consider the alternative: the Darwinists are merely standing up for science.  But surveys show the vast majority of young people in America today are scientifically illiterate, widely ignorant of all aspects of science.  How many high school graduates could tell you the meaning of Einstein’s famous equation?  Lost of young people don’t have a clue about photosynthesis or Boyle’s Law.  So why isn’t there a political movement to fight for the teaching of photosynthesis?  Why isn’t the ACLU filing lawsuits on behalf of Boyle’s Law?

The answer is clear.  For the defenders of Darwinism, no less than for its critics, religion is the issue.  Just as some people oppose the theory of evolution because they believe it to be anti-religious, many others support it for the very same reason.  This is why we have Darwinism but not Keplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einstenian.  Darwinism has become an ideology.

The well-organized movement to promote Darwinism and exclude alternatives is part of a larger educational project in today’s public schools.  I’ll let the champions of this project describe it in their own words.  “Faith is one of the world’s greatest evils, comparable to the small pox virus but harder to eradicate,” writes Richard Dawkins.  “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to be to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”  While Dawkins recognizes that many people believe that God is speaking to them or that He answers prayers, he points out that “many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon…but there is no reason for us to believe them.

Columnist Christopher Hitchens, an ardent Darwinist, writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”  Religion, he charges, has “always hoped to practice upon the uninformed and undefended minds of the young.”  He wistfully concludes, “If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.” [Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, pp. 31-32].

This is basically how D’Souza introduces his chapter titled, “Miseducating the Young: Saving Children From Their Parents.”

Two things: 1) Yes, Mr. Hitchens, you’re right: it WOULD be a quite different world; it would be a world of fascist totalitarianism where a Big Brother replaced mom and dad.  It would be a world much like the one Joseph Stalin created for his people.  And 2) boy, are these guys ever angry at God.

I’ve used similar quotes from atheists in both educational and political contexts.  Bottom line, these angry, seething haters of God want to create a fascist totalitarian state and impose their values over and above the values of believing parents who don’t murder their children through abortion.  And they are the kind of self-deluded, vicious liars who would do this in the name of science and in the name of freedom.

As D’Souza brilliantly demonstrates, this movement isn’t about science, or we’d be seeing Boyleists and Keplerists rather than Darwinists.  No, it is a seething movement that is determined to literally seize control of a free society in order to forcibly take crying children away from their parents for the purposes of brainwashing and indoctrination and thought control.

We’ve seen the kinds of places that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and numerous other atheists yearn for: they’re called “re-education camps,” and they come only from officially state atheist societies:

State atheism has been defined as the official “promotion of atheism” by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.^[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Only communist states and socialist states have done so since.

And it is no coincidence that these communist officially state atheist societies have murdered more human beings during peacetime than have been killed in all the wars in history.

Or take the Nazis.  Please, as they say.

For the record, I’m not fighting atheists because of what they want to believe.  I’m fighting atheists because of what they’re trying to do.  There are a disturbing number of prominent atheist thinkers who literally advocate the taking of children from their religious parents.  I challenge any atheist to document as many contemporary, high-profile pro-religionists arguing for the children of atheists to be taken from their parents by force of law as I can cite of the opposite.  Further, I’m fighting atheists because of what they are trying to change; namely, the history and culture of America itself (as this article amply demonstrates).

Yes, atheists are angry.  They are, in fact, the MOST angry.

And if I had their angry, hateful, bitter worldview, I’d be pretty damned angry, too.

I’m not an expert in anger, but I’ll offer my own theory: these people are so mad because deep down they instinctively know that one day they will be abandoned by the God whose very presence they so hate, where they will be able to have a temper tantrum for all eternity.