You Want to See a "Professional Victim"?

Here's a person who is truly a professional victim. He makes money by pretending that he and his kind are persecuted. He raises that money off the backs of the ignorant who blindly believe his lies. He conflates the loss of white, Christian, male privilege with discrimination and abuse.

Ladies and gentlemen, here's Bryan!

Evidence please. How are white Christians being persecuted or prosecuted? Who discriminates against them? Who demonizes them?

I suspect that Bryan is smart enough to know that white Christians still have a lot of power in American society. I suspect he knows that he's exaggerating and lying. I suspect that any trace of conscience he might have is erased when he gets his big, fat paycheck.

He's a professional victim and, unfortunately, a damn good one.

Kirk Cameron Persecuted under U.S. Blasphemy Laws

Blasphemy is illegal
This I know
For Kirk Cameron
Tells me so.

Um, not really. Although Cameron claims that he fell victim to our blasphemy laws, he fails to  deliver any kind of evidence. Being disagreed with or even mocked is not the equivalent to being arrested and sentenced to jail.

And even if you buy into his claim that he blasphemed the "god of political correctness," that still doesn't really have anything to do with the law. If he wants to lash out against our growing godless culture, fine - but leave the law out of it. Kirk wouldn't know the law if he fell over it.

Fox's Larry Allen Taunton Needs a Reality Check

Either Larry Allen Taunton is the worst prophet of all times or else he's a dishonest shill for those who hate the fact that atheists exist. His article, "The Rally For Nothing In Particular" is so full of falsehoods and stupidity that he ought to be feeling really ashamed of himself and issuing apologies right now. But he won't, I'm almost sure, because his job is to blow smoke up people's asses for Fox News - not talk about truth.

So as people prepare to gather on the National Mall to celebrate their belief in nothingness, we might reasonably wonder what they want.

If he had waited to attend  the rally rather than writing the article ahead of time, he would have known what we wanted. We had flags flying high promoting our values - reason, diversity, compassion, etc. Our speakers articulated clearly what we want - a better world for everybody that is guided by reason instead of superstition. We want religion to be held accountable for the harm it does and to be treated like every other institute instead of given special accommodation.

Finding abuses of religion is low hanging fruit—the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, self-detonating Muslim extremists, snake-handlers, etc.—and Dawkins and his ilk have made a fortune peddling it. 

If religious abuse is low-hanging fruit, then let me ask an important and very telling question: why is it still hanging there for us to pick it? Why hasn't religion, that wannabe bastion of morality, cleaned up its own act already? The answer is obvious - they don't care about the abuses until someone exposes them and puts their feet to the fire. Sometimes the faithful (who I believe are more moral than their leaders and their gods) do this but often it is us atheists who must dare to shine that light in the darkness. 

Also, we aren't the ones profiting from religious abuse. The religious institutions, the megapastors, and the televangelists are the ones who profit while the followers suffer. So don't you dare accuse us of profiting off the misery of others, Taunton, you horrible little man.

Paradoxically, it has become a kind of religion, a Church of Unbelief complete with a saint (Christopher Hitchens), a high priest (Richard Dawkins), and holy writ (anything Dawkins writes). And now, with the political nature of this rally, Dawkins is set to become the Pat Robertson of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion and it's a shame I even have to repeat that. Hitchens is not our saint. He was anti-choice (according to some - I have not read it for myself) and pro-war in Iraq. I do not agree with either of those positions. Hitchens was an important voice but he is not a saint, a preacher, or a martyr for any cause. Likewise, Dawkins is not a high priest. Many of us were appalled by his out-of-place response to Rebecca Watson during Elevatorgate. I've read some of Dawkins' books but not all of them. They are interesting but they are not "holy writ." I'm pretty sure if Dawkins thought he was going to be the next Pat Robertson, he'd slit his own throat and bleed out all over the floor. 

But there is something not quite right about all of this. Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life.

It has given rise to the West as we know it. Our laws, arts, governments, and the very framework of our thought find their meaning in Christianity. Take for example the central premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.”

Christianity, like Islam, has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Enlightenment era. And to suggest that the Declaration of Independence means nothing without the light of Christianity is to be so obtuse and so stupid as to not warrant serious thought. The idea that we are equal is the antithesis of the Bible until you get to that one passage allegedly written by Paul and then promptly dismissed as nonsense by later church fathers. Jews were better than Gentiles. Men were better than women. Straights were better than gays. Masters were better than slaves. To deny this is to deny the very words of the Bible.

That not withstanding, atheism does have a history—a bad history. By conservative estimates, the twentieth century, an experiment in secular governance, witnessed the deaths of more than 100 million people. That is more than all the religious wars in all previous centuries combined.

And here we go with more of this nonsense: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. For the love of all that's true, has Taunton not yet figured out that Hitler used Christianity (in particular Catholicism) to perpetuate his garbage? Stalin and other dictators held up their philosophies of communism as the state-enforced religion to perpetuate their garbage. Those of us at the Reason Rally (with few or no exceptions) do not want a state-enforced religion. THAT'S THE WHOLE GODDAMNED POINT. We don't want to force people to believe like us;  we just want the freedom and the equal opportunity that religious people have in this world. Communist values are not the same as humanist values and Taunton would do well to figure that out before he shows his stupidity even more.

If, for instance, you do not believe in God, you are likely to conclude that man is a temporal being meant to serve the state, an eternal institution. This is the view of the communist world. Sacrificing a few million people for the sake of building socialist paradise was always deemed an acceptable price to pay.

If, on the other hand, you believe in a just, benevolent God who made man in his own image, you will likely draw a very different conclusion: man is an eternal being that the state, a temporal institution, is meant to serve.

Bullshit. Humanists and many atheists believe that since there is probably no god and just this one life, we need to spend it making the world a better place. We champion freedom and justice in this life, not some imaginary paradise after death. Life is important to us and, unlike too many religions, no holy book can justify the taking of it.

On the other hand, if you believe in the Bible god, you might get the idea that you have some special place in creation that gives you superiority or dominance. You might think it's ok to destroy unbelievers, suppress believers who don't believe exactly as you do, or else purge from your ranks those who don't measure up to your standards. That's the fruit of "my way or the highway" religion.

Proponents of a society free from religious influence can point to no nation or civilization that was founded upon atheism that we might call even remotely good. The story of those regimes is well documented and may be summarized in a word—murderous.

What they can point to are secular societies that are still running off of their accumulated Christian capital. But beware. When the fumes in that tank are spent, tyranny cannot be far away.

Nice try, Taunton, but the truth is that religion has ruled this world for millenia and its fruits have been tyranny and evil. Good religious people have chosen to be good in spite of the evil doctrines spread across the pages of their holy books. They are better than their evil "do as I say, not as I do" gods. America once had this brilliant notion that people could be more free and more prosperous if the government minded its own business about religion. That foolish men like Taunton try to turn this doctrine on its head and demand that we bow to Christianity shows their true goal - to tell whatever lies it takes to force us to submit once more to their rule. If there is one thing he should have learned from the Reason Rally, it's that we will not submit!

So as the rally for nothingness meets to celebrate, well, nothing in particular, reflect for a moment on the world they would give us. One need not imagine it. It has been done.

You wouldn't need to imagine it if you had just shown up at the Reason Rally and listened to what we had to say instead of making up shit and flinging it at us to see what would stick. You're a disgrace and a liar in my opinion, Mr. Taunton, and you owe every atheist who was at that rally an apology. We won't hold our breath though because we know all too well how people like you act. 

This video was cut from the show.

Please leave your thoughts about the video below.

Thank you.

A Growing Intolerance Toward Intolerance

I have long known Zip Ribar as a letter-writer guaranteed to make my eyes roll up in the back of my head with disbelief. His latest letter to the Sun Herald entitled "A growing intolerance toward Christians"  does not disappoint. I wish to address some of his claims and then one of the comments left on the site.

So many terms don’t mean what they say. “Social Justice” now refers to the redistribution of wealth and power to those who didn’t earn it. “Affirmative action” requires preferential treatment based on race. “Liberty” means the license to do my own thing regardless of the people around me.

Words actually mean whatever the majority decides they mean. That's how language evolves over time.  You can make up your own special meanings but that doesn't mean that anyone else will accept your definition, much less use it. 

So when you decry the current usage of "social justice," I think you need to know that most people who advocate for social justice do not mean robbing the rich and giving to the poor. They mean putting policies in place to prevent corruption and giving everyone real equal opportunity to achieve rather than just the illusion of it. They are not advocating for equal outcomes, just equal opportunity. The difference between those concepts is crucial.

"Affirmative action" does indeed mean giving some preferential treatment based on race. If we as Americans lived up to our ideals, such programs would be unnecessary. The only reason we need Affirmative Action programs is because many Americans still discriminate based on race, gender, ethnicity, and other factors. You can say that's untrue but both the facts and experience prove you wrong. I have worked in quite a few places that did not want to hire a black candidate or a woman who might be pregnant. Perhaps when Americans start obeying the law, we can get rid of programs like this.

And as for liberty, it does mean that I can do my own thing. What it does not mean is that I can do anything with callous disregard for anyone else. I can't drink and drive regardless of what you think. I can't run my car into your living room just for fun. But I can do what I want with other consenting adults in the privacy of my own home and whatever you might think about that isn't really worth a damn.

However, in American, the characteristic intolerance nowadays is not by religious people, but against them, especially where they are in the majority.

That's a big charge. Mind backing it up with some examples or evidence?

Public prayers are being banned from public schools.

Yeah, how dare we hold you to our social contract (the Constitution) which guarantees that the government will stay neutral on the subject of religion. How intolerant of us to ask that the government not tell us how and when to pray. Tell me, has anyone stopped children from praying in schools? I think not!

Creches and crosses are being banned from public sites.

How dare we hold you to our social contract (the Constitution) by demanding that the government either stay neutral or give us all equal time. That's the law. If the government lets you put up your nativity, then we all get to put something up. And if we can't put up our signs and stuff on government property, then you have to take yours down. We're not banning religion - we're demanding the government play fair. What do you have against fairness?

The legal sanctification of infanticide, homosexuality and hedonism proceeds unhindered by Christian scruples.

First, please show me where infanticide has been legalized in the U.S. Oh right, you can't. Next, explain to me how homosexuality has been "legally sanctified" when most states still do not allow same-sex marriage. Again, you can't. As for hedonism, what else is it but the liberty to pursue happiness? Do you hate the Declaration of Independence too now?

The same Sun Herald also reported that the “Department of Justice probes discrimination claims” against the city of Lomita, Calif., for not permitting a local Islamic Center to expand in a crowded part of town. Liberty of Muslims means they have an absolute right to ignore that will of the majority.

News flash for you, Zip. Religious rights aren't up for a majority vote. If this city denied Muslims a permit because it didn't like Islam, then it is breaking the law - just like if they denied Christians a permit because they didn't like Christianity. The First Amendment trumps your petty majority vote. This is not a pure democracy - it is a republic. Learn the difference.

Some may think of this as politically correct. Others, like myself, however, may regard it as a form of federal discrimination against Christians.

You're welcome to think that but your position is wrong and stupid. It's wrong because the federal government is moving toward a more neutral stance which is both ethically and legally sound. It's stupid because Christianity is still by far the largest religious group in the country and, if they really cared about any of this, they could outshine and outspend any other group. But these people aren't really interested in doing the work of Christ - they are interested in sitting back and making the government do it for them. It's lazy religion at its worst.

*******************************************************************************

And now I wish to take on one of the comments by bederest:

This country was founded on the principal that the 'majority rules.'

Not when it comes to Constitutional Rights. Don't go there.

In my 64-years, I have never seen (in your false words) Christianity "forced" down anybody's thoat.

Then you haven't been looking very closely. That's part of your Christian privilege that you need to get over. Every time I see In God We Trust on my money, or hear "one nation under God," or see a Christian cross on government property standing alone, I'm forced to pay for and participate in your religion.

To the contrary, we all have seen the Muslim faith being shoved down our school children's throats, in the name of "Multural Culturalism." No protests form the nihilistic liberals there, though !

No, I've not seen this. I've seen people being encouraged to live together peacefully and respect each other's rights. I have not seen any of us forced to learn Islamic law, recite the Quran, or dress like a Muslim. 

I attended a football game at Milner stadium a few years ago. My neighbor, a Muslim (born in the USA) sitting next to me, refused to stand up for the prayer. I'm OK with that, but when he refused to stand up for the National Anthem, I gave him my opinion of his nhilistic attitude toward the country that feeds him. He refuses to speak to me to this day. Fine with me. I know he hates it when I fly the American flag on the appropriate holiday.

One of the most meaningful patriotic moments in my life was during an event where everyone stood up while the national anthem was played. They took off hats and put their hands over their hearts. I just sat there as I have done since I was in my early twenties when I decided that freedom had nothing to do with going along with the crowd. As I sat contemplating my forefathers who had fought on this land and in foreign countries, I became aware of eyes on me. I realized I was the only one sitting and it had not gone unnoticed. I closed my eyes (probably looked like I was praying) and sank deeper into my meditation. I considered that the freedom that flag and song represented was the freedom to sit quietly and thank my forefathers without having someone take me to jail. That was the freedom so many bled and died for. By the time the song was over, I was in tears - tears filled with gratitude and joy. Everyone else sang a song and had their moment of blind patriotism. I had a moment of sincere reverence for this country's values and the sacrifices many have made to preserve them.

My point is: you don't know shit about what someone is thinking or what they believe just because they didn't stand for the anthem. And if you scorn them for dissent or for exercising their right to sit, then you don't get the point of freedom at all.

The majority of American' s are Christian -- they should prevail, because they are THE MAJORITY! Once again, that's why we hold elections. The MAJORITY wins! Liberals usually find a way to cheat on that though, (dead voters and unregisterd winos) so in the same ilk, they demonize Christianity -- through false information, such as your lying attempt here !

You did go there again. Let me try to spell this out so you can get it. Constitutional rights are not subject to majority whim. You can't just vote out my religious freedom with a 51% majority. If you love this country, then you ought to learn how it works! There is a process for amending the Constitution that requires a hell of a lot more than 51% so if you want to take away my religious freedom, you're going to have to work harder.

Also, there have been several investigations over the past few years into voter fraud and it's quite well known among thinking people now that this whole thing is a myth. For all the mud you're slinging out here, none of it sticks.

This is nothing more than liberal - invented, and directed political correctness. I want my country back!

As someone who grew up in the '50s, the rest of you young liberals have no idea how much damage you've done to the nation, culture and spirit that we once had -- because you just don't have enough knowledge of history or life experience.

You can't have your country back because those days are gone. Things don't stay the same no matter how fondly we may remember the "good ole days." Those who cannot or will not change will ultimately fall.

I get that you don't really understand the world you're living in and I do have some sympathy for you. Things have changed very fast and life looks very different through the eyes of a child than it does through the eyes of an adult. But I fear this sort of attitude is indicative of a desire to keep that precious 50s childhood experience at all costs. It's a delusion fostered and maintained by those who don't want to grow up.

I fear life doesn't give us that option. It moves along as it will.

I must say that if anyone doesn't have any knowledge of history or life experience, it's these two men. They don't know how anything works or why it should work that way. All they see is their Christian privilege eroding and they are crying out like kids having their sweets taken away. 

I'm growing intolerant of all this intolerance. Why can't we just all play fair and get along?

Cling to the Constitution Because We Fought to Have It

Another letter to the editor entitled, "Cling to prayer because we fought to save it."
Another rage.
Another petulant but, hopefully, poignant response.

The Supreme Court, Congress and federal judges are oppressing one religion, Christianity.

Sir, please exit the mothership and return to Earth. Can you please give me one, just ONE, example where a court, a police officer, or a politician has prevented you from going to church or praying privately? Can you show me just one time in the past century when American Christians (except for Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses - who you probably don't consider "real Christians") have been rounded up by their government and imprisoned for their beliefs?

Of course you can't because you're dead wrong.

Christians do not force others to be a Christian, neither do they kill one who decides to leave their ranks, as many religions do.

Sir, have you not heard of ecclesiastical imprisonment and the Inquisitions? Do you not know that the Catholic Church has spent most of existence torturing pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Protestant Christians until they converted, died, or agreed to stop observing their religious rites? Do you not know that Protestants and Catholics have been killing each other for ages in Europe? Do you not know that the Puritans ruthlessly persecuted the Quakers?

It may be that Christians are not supposed to coerce or kill non-Christians but the sad fact is that they have done so for many centuries and some still do.

Other religions can express their religion anywhere in the U.S., but Christians are deprived of free speech.

Sir, again, can you please show me one instance where a Christian was deprived of free speech and another religion was not. Please give me evidence of any single case where Christianity was mistreated in America. You can't because the persecution you describe simply does not exist.

My school teachers taught me about the Founding Fathers of this great nation. These were brave, God-fearing men.

Some of them were but not in the way you think. Do you know that George Washington was an Anglican and usually left before communion without participating? Do you know that Dr. Ben Franklin was born to Puritan parents but became a deist and then later blended his deist and Christian beliefs together, rejecting many of the Bible's claims including Jesus's divinity? Do you not know that Thomas Jefferson was an Episcopalian but his beliefs were far more deistic? Do you know that he accepted the morality of Jesus but not the divine attributions? Do you know that Jefferson made his own Bible by cutting out all the parts he thought were ridiculously untrue or harmful? Do you know that he couldn't stand priests and advocated for a full separation of church and state? Do you know that John Adams and his son John Q. Adams were both Unitarians and did not accept the divinity of Jesus? 

By today's mainstream Christian standards, that means that Franklin, Jefferson, and the Adamses are all in hell.

My teachers taught me about Christianity. The main reason people came to America was religious freedom.

If that's the case, your teachers taught you wrong. Just one more reason why public school teachers should NOT teach religion. There were some people who came to America for religious freedom but most people who came here did so for another reason: wealth. People fled debts and poverty in Europe by coming over here and claiming land. Some groups (like the Puritans) came over here to set up their own little theocracies so they could be free to persecute anyone they didn't like. Greed was the biggest motivator for coming to the New World - not religion.

For my country's freedom, I served almost three years in the U.S. Navy, about half of that in the Pacific on the USS Manila Bay. Then it took another three years to get my health back enough so I could hold a public job. That all was minor compared to what thousands of others serving our country have gone through.

And this is where it gets difficult for me. It would be incorrect for me to say that I'm not grateful for the sacrifices of those who did serve to protect our values and way of life. So many of my family made those sacrifices for the freedom I have that I cannot be ungrateful. But I must be honest here: if you went to war and fought so that you could set up a Christian theocracy here and take away my right to dissent, then I cannot be grateful for that. And while you have not said that you wish to take away my religious freedom, I have to wonder what your intent is when you repeat lies designed to make people like me look like persecutors of the faith.

When the tornado destroyed Smithville, almost everyone heard talking was saying, "I was praying to God and He saved my life."

Again, this is difficult because I had friends in Smithville but I must be honest. Nobody survived because of prayer. If you believe that your god saved those people then you must believe that those who died either did not pray or their prayers were not heard, or they just didn't deserve mercy. Do you have the balls to say that about those people?

A few months later we were ordered not to pray at ballgames. So we tucked our tail between our legs and lay down.

No, the government-operated school was ordered not to pray. It's that "freedom" thing you fought for - the First Amendment. Read it and please get a clue what you were fighting for. And I seriously doubt there was any tail-tucking going on. I expect you were all madder than ole wet hens and probably screamed the Lord's Prayer as loudly as you could. After all, Jesus didn't mean any of that stuff he said in Matthew 6 about not praying in public like a bunch of hypocrites, right?

We are in the process of building our churches back in Smithville. Are we building them back so we can hide in them or are we building them back so we can worship God in them and prepare ourselves so we can carry His message outside the building?

That's very much your business, sir, but I've got to tell you: if you don't offer us a message any better than the lies you've repeated here, we aren't going to listen to you.

The commentary in the Daily Journal on Nov. 13 was sad. Since a prayer by a person that was not an elegant speaker embarrassed Sonny Scott, he should not write about prayer, because he doesn't even know what prayer is about.

No, what's really sad and pathetic, what's really downright embarrassing here, is that you just said that Sonny Scott doesn't know what prayer is about when the very model for prayer he quoted is JESUS CHRIST.  My stars, man, do you not even know which god you, as a Christian, are supposed to pay attention to? Or do you think that maybe Jesus just didn't know what he was talking about when he gave out those instructions? Maybe Jesus was wrong about praying privately to the Father. Maybe he should have been holding up some gaudy sign and screaming like a banshee at the local arena during the gladiator games.

I don't know what you went to war and fought for but I hope you'll review our history and our law and understand that the thing that binds us Americans together is supposed to be freedom. And I've got to tell you, sir, I can't find any sign in your letter that you understand freedom or support it. I hope you'll take the time reflect on this; otherwise, everything you went through was in vain.