Free Speech Update: Atheists Double Standard Challenged

The goal of the left is to destroy the moral underpinning and education of America so that there will be no resistance to their agenda.  As they dumb down America and confuse the understanding of the difference between REAL rights (given by God), and merely privileges, they also work to incrementally take away our RIGHT to free speech and religion.

Contrary to what the left will have you believe ATHEISM IS A RELIGION.  A religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  Christians and followers of religions which believe in a higher power believe we were created, while atheists believe we are simply an accident or coincidence.  I happen to believe that we were created by God, and I have the right to say that in public.  You have the right not to listen.  Atheists believe that God doesn’t exist and that they evolved from amoeba and monkeys.  They also have the right to express that belief in public, and I have just as much right not to listen.

Notice that there is NOT a right NOT TO BE OFFENDED mentioned ANYWHERE in the constitution.  The simple sight of you might offend me, but there is little I can do about that unless the reason your appearance offends me is because you are breaking decency laws by running around naked in public, or you are appearing in my home which I can ask you to leave at any time.  The simple fact is that free expression of all ideas WILL put something out there that WILL offend some.  As long as the expression is in a form or venue where people have  a CHOICE of whether or not to listen, that expression SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  If it’s on TV, I can change the channel.  If it is at City Hall, I can choose not to attend on that occasion.  When it is in a public location where people must see it every day, and people work in that environment, then there better be equal time given to opposing view points.  But if the atheists, homosexuals, muslims, and followers of whatever belief system are going to cast dispersions on the other religions, they better be prepared to have a few insults thrown their way as well.  As it stands now, they can say anything they want about Christianity or Judaism and get away with it, but if a Christian preacher INSIDE HIS OWN CHURCH expresses the belief that homosexuality is a sin, or that atheists will go to hell, then that is HATE SPEECH.  If you don’t like what the preacher is saying, get up and leave.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123565

FAITH UNDER FIRE

Atheists’ ‘hate’ sign blasted in lawsuit

Illinois candidate claims state ‘hostile’ to beliefs

Posted: January 30, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A political candidate in this week’s primary election for the office of comptroller in Illinois has filed a lawsuit against the state charging it officially expressed “hate” and “hostility” toward Christianity and other religions that include a belief in God by allowing atheists to post a sign in a state building at Christmas.

That sign, posted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, said,:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

It was placed in the Illinois Capitol Building, through which GOP comptroller candidate William J. Kelly, a cable television executive, was required to travel for his responsibilities as a candidate.

(Read complete article HERE)


Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. I actually made the same argument in another web blog regarding atheism and agnosticism. You are spot on in your assessment of free speech infringement as well. I recently wrote on the subject of separation of church and state. Many did not like what I had to say, but liberal court judgements aside, it is pretty clear even to a simple lay person that what we have today is not what our founders intended.

    Keep up the good work.

  2. “Contrary to what the left will have you believe ATHEISM IS A RELIGION.”

    Remember, boys and girls. If you put something in all caps, it must be true. Never mind evidence, logic, or reasoned argument. Even if you’re completely wrong, using all capital letters is the way to make sure people believe you.

  3. I detect a note of sarcasm in your writing. So, since you are so smart and obviously more correct than you think I am, please inform all of us where my argument is incorrect. Is or is not “religion” defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Atheism is defined as a belief that there is no God. Therefore, if you do not believe in a supreme being, then you do not believe that the universe was created by a supreme being. If the universe was not created, the only other alternative would be that “it just happened.” This is the atheistic “set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,” or by definition, your RELIGION. Have I lost you yet?

    Oh, sorry. Gotta watch the CAPS. I might put an eye out with that.

  4. “Is or is not “religion” defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe?”

    Certainly it is.

    And atheism is a single position on the existence of a deity or deities.

    Note that…a single position. Therefore, not a set. Therefore, not a religion.

    Atheism is only that. Anything additionally added to it makes it that thing, plus atheism. Humanism, for example, could reasonably be called a religion.

    “If the universe was not created, the only other alternative would be that “it just happened.” ”

    This is called a ‘false dichotomy’. Google it if you don’t know what that is.

  5. Your definition is correct as far as it goes. However, a set can as easily be a set of one, as one hundred. Admittedly, it’s not often used that way, but that does not make it any less valid. Further religion is also defined as: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” (Merriam-Webster) THAT definition unquestionably fits the atheists I know or have met.

    You claim the statement “If the universe was not created, the only other alternative would be that “it just happened.”” to be a false dichotomy. By definition then, you must believe that there is at least one other alternative. I sure would be interested in knowing what that alternative might be as I have studied both quantum physics /mechanics as a hobby and have never seen any alternative. Either it just happened as the result of an of yet unexplainable singularity, or it was created by a superior being — or God. Either alternative takes faith to believe for neither can be positively proved through any kind of empirical measurement. Nor is it likely that either will be proven or disproved by any scientific measurement.

    I am currently reading a book called “Subtle is the Lord” it is a biography of Einstein, and discusses the events leading to his theories and the theories themselves. Einstein himself said that his study of how the universe worked (relativistic physics) was driven by his desire to “understand the mind of God”. (The quote may not be exact, but it’s close.) The fact is, physics has yet to prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. In fact, some evidence could be construed to point TO a higher being. That however is the matter of a post of it’s own, one that would take more time than I have at the moment, so I’ll leave it at that.

  6. “THAT definition unquestionably fits the atheists I know or have met.”

    It fits the atheists, certainly. But not atheism. I don’t deny that atheists have sets of beliefs and worldviews. I only deny that atheism, by itself, is a set of beliefs by itself, as you claimed.

    “By definition then, you must believe that there is at least one other alternative.”

    Certainly. The universe, in one form or another, always existed.

    Now, to be clear, I do not claim that is what happened. I only present it as the third alternative you seemed to think didn’t exist.

  7. HF,
    Good stuff. I do so enjoy discussions with people who actually THINK. I’m no genius, but I get by, and I know the only way to get smarter is to learn. One of the best ways to do that is to have your ideas challenged by someone who thinks and is knowledgeable, forcing you to do your homework.

    I can’t prove the existence of God. All I can do is tell you why He is real in my life. As someone who thinks, I see too much evidence around me to believe that we are here accidentally. I have seen many events that non-believers call coincidence which demonstrate to me the hand of God. Is it proof of God’s existence? That depends on faith, and that’s what a religion is all about.

    V/R,
    Gadget

  8. Regardless, of how you may try to slice it, or parse my exact words, according to Merriam-Webster, atheism meets the definition of a religion.

    Certainly. The universe, in one form or another, always existed.

    Now, to be clear, I do not claim that is what happened. I only present it as the third alternative you seemed to think didn’t exist.

    No, just a alternative that has been basically eliminated. You could argue the point, but that opens a whole other can of worms quantum, philosophical and otherwise.

  9. Morse,
    As an individual atheist (a set of one according to HF), you have a very cut and dried opinion of what you believe atheism to be. Other atheists may not share your narrow, black and white definition of what atheism encompasses. Your view of atheism is also exemplifying the ‘false dichotomy’ of which you pointed to in my example of ‘created or just happened.’

    I will be the first to admit that I am very much a black and white thinker. I believe that there is sin, and consequences for it. I believe that the Bible spells out pretty clearly what things are sin, and what are not. Most who follow any type of moral code will think that way to some degree. Every religion (that follows a creator or higher being) defines pretty much everything as good or bad. It is those who want to ‘cherry pick’ good and bad that introduce the ‘gray’ area, or moral relativism to the discussion. If you believe in God, and the more you believe and follow His commands, the less likely you are to see ‘gray’ in various issues. If you don’t believe in God, or other higher power that gives you moral guidance, the more likely you are to have a broad range of ‘gray’ in your moral rainbow. It is that gray area that leaves it up to the individual to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad. And it is that lack of definition and guidance that leads to anarchy as the number of personal definitions concerning an issue increase.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: