Beware the church militant redux! 28

A writer by the name of Enza Ferreri has written an article against Reason. She probably doesn’t see that that is what she’s done. But that is what she’s done. She writes:

It’s all very simple. We can’t fight Islam in the West without fighting the enablers of Islam in the West, namely the Leftists.

So far, so good.

And, since the Left has many different and separate aspects, we have to fight against each one of them. Secularism, environmentalism, global warming alarmism, homosexualism, militant feminism, sexual relativism, multiculturalism, anti-Christianity, Islamophilia, post-nationalism, internationalism are just as important targets to attack as Marxist economics, the expropriation of the capitalist class (or, in its modern reincarnation, redistribution of wealth), and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The words we have put in bold mark the issues we dispute with Enza Ferreri.

We don’t know what “homosexualism” is, or “sexual relativism”.

We consider sexual choices to be private matters (unless they involve children). They are certainly not dangerous threats to the survival of the West.

But while we agree with the author on her other “targets”, we emphatically disagree with her when it comes to secularism and anti-Christianity.

First, secularism:

Secularism is not the same as Leftism. Between the founding of the United States of America and the dawning in the 1960s of this Leftist age, there was a very long stretch of secularism, liberty, and prosperity.

But in those times and those countries where a church (in the widest sense) has been the ruling power, there has always been tyranny. What greater tyranny can there be than the imposition of an orthodoxy on every mind?

Communism and Nazism also impose orthodoxy, and punish dissent as cruelly as a theocracy. That is one of the reasons why we class these ideologies as religions. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China were not secular states; they were orthodoxies, as tyrannous as the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, or the newly declared Islamic State now.  

The secular state, and only the secular state, is a free state.  Secularism is freedom. Freedom is only possible in the secular state. 

Next, anti-Christianity:

In a free, secular society, people are free to be Christians. But people are equally free to criticize Christianity.

Neglecting any of these fronts is like fighting a war leaving a battleground to the enemy, like fighting on the Western front and leaving totally undefended the Eastern one.

Secularism and atheism are certainly the first lines of important wars.

So she contends that the prime enemy in her war is freedom. That being so, she has no case to make against Islam or Marxism.

For all that she seems to be speaking for tolerance (being against Islamophilia) and reason (being against environmentalism, global warming alarmism, “militant feminism”); and against Islam (aka multiculturalism) and Marxism (redistribution etc.), she is actually speaking for her own choice of intolerant, irrational, orthodox tyranny.

A secularist West will always lose to Islam, because it will have enough compassion, tolerance and self-restraint from violence that are the remnants of its Christian heritage, but it will have lost the ideals, the passion and certainty of fighting for a just cause that were once part of Christianity and have disappeared with its erosion.

Her assumptions are arrogant to an extreme. Compassion, tolerance and self-restraint from violence are not the legacies of “a Christian heritage” but of enlightened reason.

It is pointless to try and fight one irrational belief, such as Islam or Marxism, by setting up another irrational belief, such as Christianity, in opposition to it. There is no better reason to believe in the Trinity than in Allah or the inevitability of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Two quotes here serve as epigrams. Robert Spencer wrote in his great work Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t: “People who are ashamed of their own culture will not defend it.” And Dennis Prager said during one of his radio broadcasts, “Only good religion can counter bad religion.”

We admire much that Robert Spencer and Denis Prager write. And we think Spencer makes a point here worth thinking about. But to Prager’s assertion we say, nonsense!

Some people claim that there won’t be a religious revival in Europe because we are past believing in God. That this is not true can be seen by the high – and increasing – number of Westerners who convert to Islam. Many of them give as a reason for their conversion the need for absolutes, boundaries and well-defined status. A journalist writing for The Spectator on this subject explained why she is Catholic:

But above all, I like the moral certainties. I don’t mind the dogma one bit. I would rather dogma and impossible ideals than confusion and compromise. In that sense, I do identify with those who choose Islam over the way of no faith, or a seemingly uncertain faith, like the woolly old C of E.

Confusion and compromise is inescapable. How can dogma – which is to say being incurably wrong –  and “impossible ideals” be better than admitting the truth of scio nescio: I know that I do not know? It is as if the culture on which such persons as the quoted Catholic and the author of the article have been raised was never affected by Socratean doubt, the Enlightenment, the assumption of ignorance upon which all true science proceeds.

William Kilpatrick, in Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West – a book I thoroughly recommend reading -, writes: Brian Young’s friends said he was troubled by the decadence of Western society. David Courtrailler’s lawyer said, “For David, Islam ordered his life.” These are the sorts of reasons ordinary converts to Islam give. A common refrain from converts is that Islam provides a complete plan for life in contrast to the ruleless and clueless life offered by secular society. As Mary Fallot, a young French convert, explains, “Islam demands a closeness to God. Islam is simpler, more rigorous, and it’s easier because it is explicit. I was looking for a framework; man needs rules and behavior to follow. Christianity did not give me the same reference points.” If you look at the convert testimonials on Muslim websites, they echo this refrain: Islam brings “peace”, “order”, “discipline”, and a way of life that Christianity and other religions fail to offer.

Islam brings peace!  He – and she – can say that with a straight face? While IS (ISIS, ISIL) is rampaging through Syria and Iraq mass-slaughtering, impaling, crucifying, decapitating, raping, enslaving; while Hamas is firing thousands of rockets into Israel; while civil war rages in Syria; while Yezidis, Kurds, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, other Muslims are being daily killed and constantly persecuted by Muslims?

Astonishing that some women crave the “order” and “discipline” of subjugation; when the “discipline” is exerted by enslavement, beatings, whippings, stonings, legal discrimination.

Human beings will never be past the need for believing in something bigger than themselves, because that need is part of the human mind.

Where are there human beings who do not know that natural forces are “bigger than themselves”? Who among us does not know that we are mortal?

She continues in the same vein. We’ll not irritate our readers with all of it. She is a true believer. And what she believes is that Christianity is good and true.

We will skip to what she quotes as wisdom from a Catholic primate:

A clear direction was given by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, Archbishop of Bologna, Italy. As early as 30 September 2000, before 9/11, when very few in the West even thought of worrying about Islam, he delivered a very forward-looking speech, which included this premonition:

… Either Europe will become Christian again or it will become Muslim. What I see without future is the “culture of nothing”, of freedom without limits and without content, of skepticism boasted as intellectual achievement, which seems to be the attitude largely dominant among European peoples, all more or less rich of means and poor of truths. This “culture of nothingness” (sustained by hedonism and libertarian insatiability) will not be able to withstand the ideological onslaught of Islam, which will not be missing: only the rediscovery of the Christian event as the only salvation for man – and therefore only a strong resurrection of the ancient soul of Europe – will offer a different outcome to this inevitable confrontation.

The culture of reason is not a “culture of nothing”. It is a culture of rational humility; of admitting ignorance and trying to find the truth, even if one can never be certain one has found it. Skepticism is the only engine of discovery.

“Freedom without limits”? Freedom of action always has a limit. In a free society, everyone’s freedom is limited by everyone else’s under the rule of law. But indeed the freedom of the mind has no limits, nor should it have any.

Notice the snide swipe at riches and “hedonism”. Do you think that he, as a cardinal, pigs it in some hovel?

By “truths” he means the  patent absurdities of Christian theological belief.

“Libertarian insatiability”. What the heck does that mean?

If the Western culture of reason, secularism, liberty, skepticism, science, cannot withstand the onslaught of Islam, it will be because that culture has been abandoned by people like Enza Ferreri.

She goes on to blame shrinking birthrates on secularism.  Then she ends with this:

Militant atheists à la Richard Dawkins have not really given enough thought to the long-term consequences of their ideas, which we are beginning to see.

And of which we are reminded whenever, for example, we read in the news of doctors and missionaries who die of Ebola while assisting affected patients for Christian charities. Not many atheist charities are involved in that work.

How many cures for diseases have been found by scientists among whom atheists are in a huge majority? The medical researchers who eliminated smallpox; those who found how to detect the beginnings of cancer and treat it before it becomes lethal, and how to restore wholeness to lepers and replace a faulty heart or kidney …. the list could run on for hours … cure more people than all the martyrdom-seeking self-righteous preachy Christians out to save their imaginary souls by “assisting affected patients” have ever done or could do in a thousand years.

As a reminder to readers who have a strong stomach of what happened when the Christian Churches provided “order” and “discipline” to Europe and wherever else they could reach, we recommend The Grand Inquisitor’s Manual by Jonathan Kirsch, and our own post Calvin: a chapter in the terrible history of Christianity by Jillian Becker, April 25, 2010. (Put the title in our search slot.)

Nothing IS (ISIS, ISIL) is doing now in the name of Islam is worse in type or degree than what those Christians did in the name of Christianity.

The world needs saving from religion.

  • I’d encourage both sides here to take a deep breath or 2, and ask a slightly different question: can we hope to escape religion in public life, even in “secular” societies?

    There’s a very strong argument that the Left is, in all meaningful respects, a theocratic religion. Calls itself secular, campaigns on secular. But walks like duck, quacks like duck, swims like duck. Is actually about as secular as ISIS. Hence the slang term The Cathedral to denote all of its official and unofficial components.

    The reason for this is that adopting all the components of a religion is very advantageous as a system of control, in cultural-evolutionary terms. Unfortunately, the completeness of the Leftist edifice suggests that any society will eventually confront internal threats organized along similar lines.

    Thus far, secularism appears to be an extremely inadequate defense, as it becomes a facade very quickly without putting up meaningful resistance.

    Is there are modified or wholly different defense that could resist such invasive ideologies? What would that look like? That isn’t a rhetorical question. Indeed, I think it may be THE question, and we will need a very good answer.

    • Don L

      Joe…End The FED and the financing of all the invasive crap comes to a screeching halt…take away the financing of corruption. Then mandate term limits, repeal the 17th Amendment. De-career and Un-party government. “Ruling Class” is not in the Constitution!

      Long-to-VERY-short: Discover Austrian economics. If you don’t know what Free-Market Capitalism actually is, you can be made to believe it is the source of all manner of economic adversity and social ills when it isn’t … it isn’t. Over 100 years ago, the invasive ideas began with this lie: The economy is so large and complex, that only experts can manage it. It is an absurd impossibility…taught everywhere…and unquestioned. If you don’t know about economics, not the mainstream central planning garbage foisted by the bank/politician cabal, then you can be lulled and gulled to believe Lincoln’s war to crush State’s Rights was about slavery.

      If you don’t know about freedom you can be made to anti-constitutionally pledge to the socialist mentality of indivisible central government (who wrote the pledge of allegiance? With what motive?). There is no exercise of rights, unalienable or otherwise, without economic freedom. Control schooling and never ever teach free market capitalism and you have invasive ideologies…all funded by an otherwise fraudulent banking system.

      Get government out of schooling…End the FED!!!

    • Joes Katzman: I too think that your question is a very important one.

      I had a friendly argument a few years ago with a British conservative professor of Politics over whether the liberal democratic state can withstand a fanatical, organized onslaught by an internal enemy such as Islam. He argued that liberal democracy was so tolerant, the open society so open, liberty under the law so capacious, that there is room for any amount of fanatical opposition in it: that ideological challenges will simply be heard, assimilated, and defused. I told him I was not so sure; that ideological/religious passion is a strong engine; that broad-minded tolerance can only survive if it is backed by military might and the political will to use it. It’s looking more and more as if I was right.

      Which in itself gives me no satisfaction!

  • Let me enlighten you a bit. You wrote:

    1) We don’t know what “homosexualism” is, or “sexual relativism”.
    Both are a part of the Agenda

    “Homosexualism” is a militant propaganda of sodomy as though it were the norm (or even better) by sexually obsessed perverts, which just recently were allowed out of their closets, but now they wish to push the rest of us into the closets.

    Only in California there are 9 laws on the book mandating (!) defiling of the kids from kindergartens to universities by exposing the kids to homosexual propaganda. That is homosexualism.

    “Sexual relativism” is a denial of any religious and traditional commandments regulating sexual intercourse – not a big deal for “atheists” indeed.

    2) “Secularism” means only that religious institutions are not directly in any branch of government. It does NOT mean as though God and religion is irrelevant in law making and life arrangements! (Our Constitution is made only for moral and religious people – John Adams). Indeed, there is no other possible source for laws of morality, and for setting the goals of life, but the ultimate God’s authority. Adherence to a particular religious absolutes is a defining factor the national identity. It is not a tyranny to realize that the moral axioms can follow only from the ultimate authority. But this is too far fetched for a sophisticated atheistic mind.

    3) “Anti-Christianity” in a Judeo-Christian America is wrong because it undermines, well, the national identity! I do not ask you, atheists, in what you believe or do not believe. Keep it to yourself. I do ask you however to SHUT UP about it. I came from the former USSR into America because I wished to live in WASP Judeo-Christian nation: Not in an atheistic nation. If some of you atheists are so unhappy to hear any reference to God, find another place.

    4) Skepticism is the only engine of discovery, and of the science. Yes indeed! However science deliberately limited its field to the physical world only.
    Science does not deal with issues like the goal of life or the moral absolutes. Science STRICTLY isolates its field from things like the Free will and human factor (the non-physical components of the reality).

    And guess what: Science has discovered that the laws of Universe are incredibly fine tuned. That the Universe emerged in the Big Bang (akin to an act of creation). And … that the only reasonable way to explain emergence of even one-cell living organism requires to include an Intelligent Designer into the process. There is no other choice given the enormous structural complexity and ingenuity of a living cell – never mind multi-cell life, never mind an intelligent life.

    You, enlightened atheists, are very embarrassed by some clear signs of God’s design in Science, but the geniuses like Isaac Newton and similar great minds were not. They viewed the Science as a revelation of God.

    • Don L

      #1 – I’ll come back to this as it requires some consideration as to your fears

      #2 – You haven’t read the part of the Constitution that states there are no tests for religion. You don’t find the word god or christ in our founding docs; god is used once, Dcl Of Ind, within the context of the god of nature – further study would reveal that was respective of our founders belief in reason and rationality before mysticism. Anything you hear about this being a christian nation,is pure recent history propaganda. And, of course our most important founder, Thomas Jefferson, rewrote the bible to eliminate all the BS make believe magic associated with your brand of lunacy…with all theism to be blunt. Ah, almost forgot…what a piece of arrogant crap you are. To think that some ghost in the sky is the only means to morality. Eat yourself. Obviously you are incapable of thought on your own so the idea of people, in and by themselves, figuring what is and isn’t moral, principled and/or of value is beyond you…you have to be told what to think…say, Islam sounds better for you! Then again, a USSR background suggests failure to think…merely regurgitate dogma and the rules you’ve been indoctrinated with.

      #3 – SHUT THE F’UP YOURSELF. There’s some more of that totalitarian collectivism married to religious collectivism. Freedom only as you see it. Go back to Russia…you’d like there now. What’s scary for us who can think…is Sh_ts like you don’t see the ISIS/Taliban attitude you exhibit. Incidently:

      The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.. – Thomas Jefferson.

      Seems to bother the piss outta you. Jerk! In fact, Jefferson, given your distorted view of god and religion, would have considered you the ant-christ. His god and perspective of christ was of reason and rationality…not mystical omniscience and omnipresence.

      Here’s another From Jefferson: May [the Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.

      Not the rights of a king or of a church or religion…of individual men. You have it all backwards.

      #4 – Here it is the old “I don’t know so there must be god”. You do know, ought to know this is absurd logic. Our founders knew nothing about electricity. We have found out much. Billions upon billions upon billions of galaxies with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of planets…so, there’s some magic guy that did all this and then worries about your prayer for the score to go in your favor? The doctor who survived the god given ebola who says god saved him…no mention of the infection…no mention of the docs and medications and what men created. Nope, in your world…make believe substitutes for reality, fact or the truth which is often…dunno.

      Back to #1 – More from Jefferson: The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.

      Commies and theists are to blame for the idiocy of laws and cklassroom courses for bedroom, lifestyle and religion which are forced on children against parents will. It stems from central planning which is the tool of religion and socialists…government by ‘should’: they should do this, they ought not do that, they must be this way, etceteras. Free choice, free markets, free will…you want to impose religion dogma (yours not the other guys…huh?)on everybody, your old buddies the lefties what to impose the economic absurdity of social justice…career politicians funded by cronies and central banks are the means. So, don’t like the laws…get everyones’ “shoulds” out of government, de-career government, end the fed and shut down the compulsory schooling system and promote free enterprise schooling. Then sensibility, not personal proclivities, rules the day.

      Enough…final comment to you –

      Also from Jefferson, “It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead.”. Predicated on these wise words…I will not respond to you anymore. It is a useless endeavor to attempt a rational discussion with someone steeped in irrationality.

      • On item 4. The conclusion about the Intelligent Designer of the Universe and the life on Earth follows from our knowledge: Not from the old “I don’t know”. If some future aliens find the machinery on the Moon left by the American astronauts, the only feasible scientific conclusion for them will be that these objects needed participation of an Intelligent Designer. A competeing conclusion as though such objects could emerge during billions years of unaided dust turbulence and fluctuations will NOT be scientifically feasible. Much less so for the life on Earth.

        As to our national identity as a Judeo-Christian nation, here are some quotes of the Founders:

        You are entitled to your believes as long as you do not disturb the great majority of this nation, and do not attempt to change our national identity.

        • Don L

          You know nothing of America. The very idea that you keep telling us to shut up and follow the majority is as UN-AMERICAN as one can get. You should have never been allowed in!

          • So far it is atheists (anarchists, progressives, Marxists) which COMPLETELY shut up any religious thought (strangely, except islam!) in the entire school/university systems and in the government! Expelled are even teachers which dare to utter something about an “Intelligent Design” – a purely scientific concept (without any mentioning of God). That is extremely UN-AMERICAN and anti-Constitutional.

            What I am telling you is not “Follow the majority”, but DON’T INFRINGE THE RIGHTS of the majority: The rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people (John Adams). This video is very good indeed. In terms of this video, militant atheists belong to the category of Anarchists, which exploit their freedoms of speech formulated in the Constitution for undermining this very Constitution.

    • I am appalled by the teaching of anything about sex to very young children. It is the corruption of innocence. Although I do not object to anything consenting adults do in private (why should I?), I don’t want to hear about what they do, let alone hear it constantly and obsessively discussed. I hate the shrill hectoring voice of political correctness. Homosexuality is abnormal sex, whether homosexuals and the politically correct agree or not. If “homosexualism” is the political exploitation of homosexuality in order to advance a leftist agenda (which your link suggests), then I am against it.

      Nothing else you say makes any sense to me at all. No god ever spoke to any man. Everything written in the scriptures of any religion was written by men.

      The United States of America does not require people who are not religious to “find another place”. If you think it does, it is you who have come to the wrong place, sir!

      • Agree completely with your 1st paragraph.
        The 2nd is an issue of an axiomatic of an individual.
        However in your 3rd paragraph you have distorted my statement. I spoke about MILITANT atheists, i.e. about people who attempt to shut up the great Christian majority (and the Jewish minority) of this nation from uttering a word of God in public. Worse: They brought the Bolshevik thesis of “separation of God and State” as though it were in the US Constitution. They keep filing law suits against every mentioning of God. The US Army’s yesmen rush to expel Christianity from the ranks, and so on. I had not seen such a brazen attack on Christianity even back in the USSR. Therefore those who cannot tolerate the religiosity of the great majority of this nation, and of its Founders should better leave for a greener atheistic pastures.

        • Andrew M

          Attacks on Christianity are morally wholesome because Christianity is a repugnant ideology, especially in light of it being a majority belief. Oh, what great oppression it must be to be presented with lawsuits against unconstitutional activity!

          The Constitution places many walls of separation between church and state without needing to mention the exact phrase. Permit taxpayer-funded Christian prayer in schools or the military, and you also permit taxpayer-funded Islamic prayer sessions, taxpayer-funded pagan witchcraft rituals, and other forms of nonsense. I’m sure you’d be perfectly happy with all of this just to let Christianity have its say, though!

          The values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution stem from the Enlightenment, which was a direct reaction against the destructive influence of the Catholic Church in Europe. When did the Church ever permit genuine free speech, the kind that would expose the Church to embarrassment? Such behavior all but guaranteed the loose mouth to imprisonment, torture, or execution. America is the greener atheistic pasture where anyone is free to worship whatever they want as loudly as they please, no thanks to god — just not on the taxpayer’s dime.

          • You 1st paragraph (and the entire post) is in acute contradiction with the opinions of the Founding Fathers and the reality:

            If you are so disgusted with Christianity, who obligates you to stay in America – a Judeo-Christian nation? What do you want to do with American Christian majority? To send them elsewhere instead of yourself?

            You do not realize that the first line of defence against islam in America and in the West is exactly our national identity, which tells us that islam DOES NOT BELONG HERE, that we have to rid of islam if we are to survive as a nation preserving our national identity, culture, and ideals.

            Your remarks about the dark and ugly medieval history of Christian Europe are true. However if Europe were Pagan or atheistic, the atrocities perhaps would be even worse. The human history (including in the Europe) is ugly. And yet the best achievement of the humanity is exemplified by the Judeo-Christian civilization. (Or “was exemplified”, if we are bound to disappear in the emerging chaos).

            • liz

              Mr. Gofen- I can imagine how the experiences you’ve had in the past may have prejudiced you against any non-Christian ideas or beliefs.
              But you’re missing the understanding of what living in a free country really means. Freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, free speech, etc., are only free if everyone has a right to believe – or disbelieve – whatever they want, and to express it, as long as it doesn’t harm others.
              Islam of course is an exception because harming others is part of their beliefs – the intolerant should not be tolerated.
              The first defence against Islam is to recognize their religion as totalitarian, supremacist, and completely antithetical to the American principles of the freedom and rights of individuals.
              It is not a valid defense to counter it with another religion that is just as intolerant as theirs, as you seem to be advocating.

            • Dear Liz,

              In some instances you sound as a reasonable person, yet how can a reasonable person write this:

              “It is not a valid defense to counter it [islam] with another religion [Christianity] that is just as intolerant as theirs”.

              A person must be completely blind or dishonest to utter a lie like this. On the contrary: The great Christian majority of America became suicidally tolerant and spineless allowing anti-Christianity to infect the Army, the entire school/university systems, and the government! In their own nation!

              Yes, everyone has a right to believe – or disbelieve – whatever they want. However the nation has an obligation to preserve its national identity: The faith, the culture, and the language of the majority of the nation, with all measures necessary.

              If you are anti-Christian, you were born in a wrong place. Unlike the dissidents (or religious minorities) of the former USSR, you have all the freedoms to leave for a better for you place. That was all that many of the Soviet dissidents wanted!

            • Don L

              You are one delusional sick puppy! You’ve already got the “Leave and/or Convert” down…you, and your sick great majority of theists, already have a history of it so “or DIE” isn’t far behind. I really want to reach out and touch you!

            • liz

              I concluded that you advocate intolerance because you demanded that we atheists SHUT UP about our atheism. That is suppressing freedom of speech, which is exactly what Islamists do.
              You repeatedly confuse atheists with Marxists and anarchists, and seem to assume that all atheists are “anti-christian” and seek to oppress all Christians.
              That is a completely false assumption. As you may notice from the name of this site, there ARE atheist conservatives. We have no desire to infringe on anyone’s right to believe or practice whatever religion they want – but we object to having anyone else’s beliefs imposed on us. And we have as much right to live in this country as anyone else who abides by the rule of law as it is set forth in our Constitution.

            • 1) As I have explained here several times, it is the atheists which took over this entire nation from schools to universities to even the US Army. And it is atheists who shut up every teacher which dares to utter anything about God, or even about “Intelligent design”. It is atheists which whine at any occasion where Christians utter a word God, and it is atheists who drag peoples to courts because atheists are offended by this word, and so on… Who is therefore intolerant, and who must shut up a bit?

              2) It is what you do that is abusing of the freedom of speech of the great majority of this nation.

              3) The atheists “conservatives” is an oxymoron. Conservativism presumes adherence to the foundations of the respective culture, tradition, and Constitution, while atheism is in direct contradiction with all that in America:

              4) Yes, you have as much right to live in this country as anyone else, but it is you which whine for any mentioning of God in public place, and it is atheism that was imposed upon almost the entire nation (see item 1).

              And let’s conclude with that. I will never ever visit your site again because I respect the right of your readership to be not bothered by the opposite views. I happened to visit this place only because one comment at (which I regularly read) referred me here to follow the criticism of an article in

            • liz

              Bye. No point continuing here, as you obviously have your mind made up to remain in your own little world.

            • Don L

              Discussion with irrational people? C’mon. You know the rule. Although I try too…Einstein…different outcome…they drive us crazy! LOL

            • Andrew M

              I see a noted absence of quotes on your page from Thomas Paine, who helped galvanize the colonists towards revolution and was no fan of Christianity. Jefferson himself was a Deist who originally penned the words “wall of separation between church and state” when the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut were feeling threatened by the Congregationalists there. Maryland established and maintained legal supremacy of Catholics over other Christian faiths.

              To say that these Christian values are somehow more central to the American nation than the values of Bacon and Locke is a gross miscalculation, even if uttered by the Founding Fathers. Christianity is, at best, an outdated relic of the cultural developments which generated the United States. At worst, it is a grave threat to everyone’s liberty: it shackles unfettered free inquiry in the minds it possesses, who then create a social environment hostile to scientific, moral, and (dare I say) spiritual progress.

              Christianity created scientific, moral, and spiritual poverty in Europe. The Roman Republic maintained a pagan cultural tradition and had more in common with American civil society than the Christian religious empire which followed. The pagan Greek schools of philosophy found no room to have lively debates in the light of dogmatic Christianity. Socrates might have had to drink poison hemlock for his ideas, but this was nothing compared to the widespread Inquisitions launched under the Christian reign of Europe. There is a reason it’s called the “Dark Ages”.

              Granting Christianity special government favors is a great way to pave the road for Islam to do the same, and I don’t like that. You’d be hard-pressed to find any fans of Islam here — we are all pretty much in agreement that it is a virulent ideology hellbent on world domination, hoping to poison all free societies from Greenland to New Zealand with the implementation of Sharia. Ironically, I perhaps come the closest to being a “fan” with my love of Middle Eastern cuisine, music, architecture, poetry and iconography, and I’m happy to see any of these elements expressed in American culture — just not the religion. (I could certainly tolerate a “cultural” Islam much like how non-observant Jews still celebrate Hannukah, but how genuine this non-observance is for Muslims is something on which I still need convincing.)

              The First Amendment’s guarantee of free worship makes this a thorny issue worth re-examination, since Islam is threatening to American freedom in a way unlike Scientology or Rastafarianism. As it is now, though, Islam can and does exploit this privilege. Freedom of religion means nothing without freedom from all other religions.

            • You are a very confused individual.

              1) If you (as Liz) are anti-Christian, you were born in a wrong place (follow on my reply to her).

              2) Your understanding of evils of islam and of necessity to confront it is correct. However your idea to confront islam by remaking America into an atheist nation is grotesquely unthinkable! The greatest Christian majority of this nation (which made it sometimes the bright city on the hill) will not appreciate it. Not to say, that devoid of Christianity and God’s guidelines, the nation will quickly sink into barbarity worst than in the Middle Ages…

            • Andrew M

              The point I make is that America is (and always was) a secular nation without a state religion, regardless of its historical tradition. The United States is a scientific experiment in the possibility of human freedom, and it requires a population willing to challenge and overwrite its assumptions. Christianity does not permit that.

              I question the faithfulness of this Christian majority. Do you believe that it is permissible to take Canadians or Mexicans as slaves as Leviticus says you can? Are you currently wearing something made of two different types of fabric? (It’s a sin to do so.) Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 that no part of the old law shall be abridged until heaven and earth disappear. These are Christian values, and I do not think they animate America.

              America’s secular nature stands in stark contrast to places like England or China: the Anglican Church has official government recognition in the former, while the latter features a cult of personality around Mao Zedong and the Communist Party. Speaking just for myself, I would certainly feel less welcome in either place than in America.

            • In your 1st paragraph what is true is that America has a secular Government (meaning that the government did not include any religious authorities). Yet America has never been secular (atheistic) nation, as it follows from multiple quotations of the Founders and of our actual history (before the Marxist take over of the 1960s).

              The 1st amendment stated that Federal Government cannot impose a particular branch of Christianity onto the entire Federation. The States however can impose a particular branch of religion (according to their interest). That’s the 1st Amendment.

              Yes, “the US is a scientific experiment in the possibility of human freedom”. “It requires a population willing to challenge and overwrite the assumptions” of what? Of human freedom? The Founders clearly derived the inalienable right for freedom from their Christian faith.

              Then, “Christianity does not permit to challenge” what? Of all faiths, it was only Christianity (and Judaism by inclusion) that culminated with the Enlightenment and the unprecedented achievements in human freedom and science. And on and on…

              Summarizing it, you have your right to be an atheist. You have no rights however to infringe the rights of the greatest majority of the nation attempting to change the national identity.

            • Don L

              You sick soviet S–t. How dare you. The words are plain and simple…where in the first amandment is the word christanity or the word god. As we have all said to you…you are a lying delusional useless human.

              I’m near motivated to come find your soviet butt and kick it around…quite a bit. I wouldn’t do it to change your mind…merely for the fun of it!

              Mathematician, professor…probably not hard to find. Listen for footfalls coming up behind you tovarish.

            • liz

              Good points. Sadly, we have here a classic example of a religious brick wall. Sound reasoning is lost on it.

  • Don L

    How dare you attack us for exercising our rights to force you to watch, participate or observe our religious practices…at anytime and anywhere we want!

    Freedom From Religion vs. Freedom of Religion Myth
    By Austin Cline


    You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.


    This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

    As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

    Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

    Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

    What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

    Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

    Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

    That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion.

    • liz

      Yes, sadly, many Christians simply aren’t concerned with what religious minorities experience. They see no harm in making “unbelievers” a little uncomfortable in their unbelief- it might just nudge them towards conversion, and that would be for their own good! Just like leftists feel justified in coercing everyone else into political correctness – same mentality.

  • liz

    Excellent rebuttal! I had read this article and wanted to post a comment, but there was just so much faulty reasoning there to address, I passed on it.
    (Didn’t really want to get into a snit war with the many self-appointed “defenders of the faith” who post there anyway.)
    But you’ve said it all very well here. Thanks!