Tag: Atheism

Karen Klein Tormented by Middle School Students on Bus


John R. Houk

© June 23, 2012

 

Has anyone seen the video or the news broadcast of the 68 year old bus monitor being harassed with verbal ruthlessness by some Middle School Students? (Details of the story that includes a bit of explicit language because of the outrage)

 

VIDEO: Making The Bus Monitor Cry

 

 

This merciless disrespect needs to be handled in such a way that students and their parents are held accountable! I am not sure quite what the punishment should be because I am unaware of the criminal, civil or school policies pertaining to the powerlessness this Bus Monitor actually experienced.

 

Why did the Bus Driver not get involved? Why did the Bus Monitor demand these kids be removed from the bus?

 

Could or should these kids face juvenal criminal charges? What should the school do? Is detention or expulsion appropriate? Certainly the school or the parents of the punks should be sued, right?

 

When I was in Middle School such disrespect warranted a visit to the school boiler room in which corporal punishment would be issued to the punks’ hind quarters. That is definitely not politically correct in the namby-pansy society in which parents don’t discipline their children because of political correct brainwashing, they don’t care or because the State has removed the parental power of not sparing the appropriate use of the rod because psychologist/psychiatrists have set the trauma bar too high.

 

At least someone has set up a fund for the Bus Monitor to have a great vacation which I understand has accrued a tidy sum of money. If you feel the rage (and the fund donation is still proceeding), HERE is the link to donate.

 

A friend of mine asked for some input about this situation after he expressed his displeasure. I wrote my thoughts. Perhaps you can write yours in the comment section. Below are my friends very relevant thoughts.

 

JRH 6/23/12

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 – Donations are not tax deductible but are appreciated to help with the bills.

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

Mixed Martial Arts Analogy

 

By NoGuff

Sent: 6/21/12

 

Hi. Ever hear of “MMA” fights? Mixed Martial Arts fights are shown on the Spike channel, maybe USA, used to be on Syfy Channel, maybe others. They’re fight matches where two thugs beat and kick each other until a Referee says they’re done.

The gloves they wear are minimal, they’re barefoot, bleeding on the face does not stop the fight, and they beat on each other even when they’re down. Not only down, but a guy can knock the other guy down, then get on top of him and beat him senseless.

So today I’m sitting in my fav pizza place having a sub and watching the TV. There’s a Black couple sitting in the next row of tables. The guy went out for a smoke. An MMA commercial was on and the girl was like “wow!” and “oh!” and I commented “those guys are crazy.” She asked me if I watch MMA and I said I’ve seen it before. She said she watches often.

I said I’m more of a boxing fan, and that I didn’t like the idea that they beat on the guy even when he’s down. She looked at me and started laughing. Not laughing as though I said something funny, but rather that I said something ridiculous. It’s as if I said I like to fly around my neighborhood on my tricycle in my underwear with my teddybear. I said “beating on a guy when he’s down, that isn’t right, I don’t think it’s the honorable thing to do.” She had a good laugh at that.

Now, put that into perspective with the video of the old woman chaperoning a schoolbus in a New York suburb.

This is the state of our society today. There is no shame, no sense of actual justice, no mercy, no respect for authority, no self-control, and violence is acceptable for entertainment and even everyday disagreements (how many videos have you seen of people getting beaten for making a mistake on a McDonald’s order?).

Honestly, it all comes back to two things; parents and their inability to raise decent kids, and the significant drop in the role of religion in our lives. Atheists believe there is no God, and they are their own god, and so whatever decisions they make are judged according to a moral code of their own design.

I don’t know, that’s just my humble opinion. I’d love to know what yours is.

Thanks a lot,

-NG

 

_____________________

NoGuff links to this video on how atheism destroys Christian culture:

 

VIDEO: Atheism – A License to Kill

 

 

Posted by 1001Phoenix

Jun 9, 2009

 

Atheism per se creates a moral vacuum where everyone can behave like Satan himself.
Video courtesy of:

http://www.youtube.com/theskepticantidote

 

The most oppressive and human-killing regime’s have been when Atheists have taken over governments. Nevertheless, atheists claim that people of faith are to blame for mass amounts of people’s lives being taken. This is not based on facts. In the past century, Atheism forced its beliefs on people of faith or simply slaughtered hundreds of millions of them.

Persecution of Christians in Atheist Soviet Union:

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools.

Actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals. Christians were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.

Many Christian believers in the Soviet Union were imprisoned for no other reason than believing in God. Many have recently been … READ THE REST below video

The Assault on Christian Values in the American Public School System


Roman Christian Martyr

John R. Houk

© May 21, 2012

 

I am on the WND email list. And really, I enjoy being on the WND mailing list. One of the draw backs though are I am bombarded with ads from the WND store. I actually read those ads with interest because I am tempted to buy stuff. Fear of the budget minded wife keeps me inline and away from buying on a weekly basis.

 

In saying all that WND sent an interesting ad with a theme I am very interested in. The theme is the effect of Secular Humanist/Marxist thinking invading America’s Public School system to mold young minds away from traditional Christian Moral thought.

 

The email ad is informative even if you don’t buy anything and because of this I am posting the email almost in its entirety. Here is quick summary list of the sale offer and the topics inherent in the title:

 

§  ‘Marxism led Madalyn Murray O’Hair to atheism’

 

§  INDOCTRINATION: PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE DECLINE OF CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA

 

§  My War: The Testimony of Bradlee Dean (DVD)

 

§  Fish Out of Water (Paperback)

 

It is hardly surprising that many young Christians find their faith tested upon entering a university. Secular institutions today are rife with professors who are not only unbelievers, but who actively mock religion, all under the guise of “academic freedom.”

 

§  INDOCTRINATE U: OUR EDUCATION, THEIR POLITICS  

 

Below is the email promo (Read at SlantRight 2.0) with the theme of assault on Christian Values in the American Public School System.

 

JRH 5/21/12

Please Support NCCR

Annoying Atheists


Atheists- No Christians in Hell

 

John R. Houk

© February 4, 2012

 

I received a comment from a defender of atheism identifying himself as Michael yesterday. There are atheists that have no belief in God and that is fine, we live in America. Then there are atheists that may be described as Militant Atheists that go the next level of an atheist belief system. That next level involves insulting believers in God topping off the insult with some kind of self-aggrandized intellectual superiority complex that all believers in God are stupid and uneducated. Such intellectual supremacism is fraudulent because a truly intellectual person – whether religious or atheistic – would comprehend denigrating someone is a sign of arrogance. An arrogant person is a contemptuous person; i.e. when the arrogance is a defining essence of one’s character. Everyone will have moments of arrogance; however wisdom usually tempers arrogance with time. That is not the case when arrogance is a constant of one’s personality toward individuals because one is more intellectual than another or worse only perceives they are more intellectual than another based on a belief system.

 

Admittedly there is a tone of arrogance in those devoted to a religion because the devotion means the competing religion is an error; hence when one tells another they must join one’s religion because it is the true religion the essence of arrogance is involved. Nonetheless, when one begins to denigrate another’s intelligence or intellect on a personal level for refusing the perceived truth then the character scale begins to tip a character flaw toward ingrained arrogance.

 

Honestly I have been guilty of that tipping scale especially when I have been angered by another’s intransigent haughty arrogance. Is temporary arrogance a character flaw? It is my opinion it is not a character flaw unless the temporary transforms into the permanent.

 

Who judges when temporary arrogance becomes a permanent character flaw? On an individual basis this may be difficult. The judgment call should be by the council of friends and peers. The only problem with friends and peers is the potential for a group affinity of intellectual or religious superiority that desires to break down or harm another for one’s perceived inferiority.

 

Group Superiority Complexes can only be tempered by the group’s ideology; i.e. whether or not the ideology or the theology has ingrained permanent arrogance that demands the belief that the “other” is an inferiority that must be suppressed or eliminated.

 

Let’s look at some examples.

 

Islamic Supremacism demands that the unbeliever (kafir) must convert to Islam or risk living a life of inferiority or face death for insults or outright refusal to accept any form of submission to Islam. This rashness is embedded in Islamic holy writings.

 

Christian Superiority emanates from two sources. One source can be as brutal as Islamic Supremacism. The other source comes from Biblical Scriptures especially the New Testament as revealed to humans by the Holy Spirit.

 

The brutal source demands the spreading of Christianity by conquest and force much in the same path as Islam. Hence, Christian history is full of military campaigns of either internecine wars to attempt one single dogmatic opinion or wars of conquest with the primary purpose of exploiting conquered lands and the indigenous people. The subset of conquest by Christian armies was the implementation of forced conversions (although not on the scale of Islam in which millions of non-Muslims died for rejecting the Quran). The best examples of exploitive conquest and conversions are the Spanish conquest of the Americas (Portugal in present day Brazil). The best example internecine Christian wars can be seen between Arians and Catholics and latter between Protestant and Catholics. Subsets of these Christian wars were the persecution of Jews and Muslims especially in present day Spain (the Reconquista and the Inquisition).

 

The Biblical source for Christian Supremacism focuses on the New Testament. First of all the New Testament proclaims Jesus’ Redemption of humanity has paid the price of the penalties of the Law. Hence the curse of the Law that enabled physical penalties for homosexuality, adultery and other Old Testament capital crimes are paid for by the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus was all about sharing this Good News of Deliverance from the curse of the Law without force. If a Christian is mistreated for sharing the Gospel, the Christian is to shake the dust off of his/her feet move and on. Hopefully the sharing is a spiritual seed for someone to plant a seed that takes root through the hard ground (human spirit) to grow vines leading the life of Christ as a new creation.

 

Christian Supremacism in the latter is about doing no harm and hence points to an absence of the character flaw of iniquitous arrogance.

 

As you can tell it is the arrogance of Michael more than the disagreement with my thoughts on atheism that irked me. I believe the concept of atheism is evil because it is ungodly. An atheist will quite normally tell me that Christianity is evil perhaps because of the thought that humanity is held back by antiquated thoughts that are myths rather than reality.

 

The problem of arrogance occurs when Michael implies I am stupid and uneducated because of my beliefs or I respond in kind because I am insulted (do not render evil for evil).

 

Michael concludes his really thought out objections to Christianity (although I highly disagree with statements as facts, for it is the mere revisionism applied by Leftists and atheists) this way:

 

… The only thing about Christians that drives me nuts is the general lack of education and logic they use when applying it to anything including their own beliefs. I am not worried about the bible, or the schizophrenic whisperings of a “god” telling me what to do. I am sane and free of any delusion of where I will go when I die. If anything I feel sad for you and other Christians. It must be really sad to be under the thrall of such a petty deity, and a book filled with so many contradictions and falsehoods. If you should at any time need counseling or a helpful answer to any question that might lead you out of the Dark Ages, feel free to email me.

 

I have to admit Michael’s mistaken warping of facts and his beliefs on Church and State irked me. It was when the very end of Michael’s disagreement with me that tipped over being irked to anger for the apparent insult toward me as being a part of the Christian faith. I am guessing I could list more intellectuals with an affinity for religion in global history than Michael can. That alone is a slap in the face of atheism. And I do realize he might come up with a larger list of atheistic intellectuals for one modern year than I, but I bet would be close.

 

At this point I will simply contradict Michael’s assertions in the same manner of his disagreement with me.

 

Michael says: Atheism is not a belief system, religion, world-view, or even philosophy. It is merely the opposite of theism. That being said there are ANTI-theists, Pearlists, and agnostics who have a world view you could attack. Either way, to say an atheist believes that humanity is supreme is a fallacy. Evolution proves quite the opposite. Humans, if anything, are just another primate who has developed skills and language.

 

Response: Atheism is a belief system that acts like a religion and has a philosophy to defend anti-god beliefs. Check this out: I know what an atheist is and I know what a theist is. So it would seem that an “ANTI-theist” would be the same as an atheist. After doing a little Googling the separation between atheism and anti-theism is a very slim divide. The best description of the slim divide that I found is an About.com answer.

 

On Rational Atheism

 

When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods, atheism covers territory that isn’t quite compatible with anti-theism. People who are indifferent to the existence of alleged gods are atheists because they don’t believe in the existence of any gods, but at the same time this indifference prevents them from being anti-theists as well. To a degree, this describes many if not most atheists because there are plenty of alleged gods they simply don’t care about and, therefore, also don’t care enough to attack belief in such gods. Atheistic indifference towards not only theism but also religion is relatively common and would probably be standard if religious theists weren’t so active in proselytizing and expecting privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their institutions.

 

…

 

Rational atheism may be based on many things: lack of evidence from theists, arguments which prove that god-concepts are self contradictory, the existence of evil in the world, etc. Rational atheism cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is harmful because even something that’s harmful may be true. Not everything that’s true about the universe is good for us, though.

 

On Rational Anti-Theism

 

Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it.

 

…

 

… Rational anti-theism may be based on a belief in one of many possible harms which theism could do; it cannot, however, be based solely on the idea that theism is false. Not all false beliefs are necessarily harmful and even those that are aren’t necessarily worth fighting.

 

The above atheism/anti-theism fine line is sculpted from: “Atheism & Anti-Theism: What’s the Difference? What is Anti-Theism?” by Austin Cline.

 

So basically an atheist could care less about religion and an anti-theist militantly works against religion. This kind of sounds like the apologists trying to establish the fine line between Moderate Islam and Radical Islam in which both believe the exact same thing, but the radicals act on their beliefs, right?

 

In Michael’s original comment of Pearlists, I did not understand the word so I thought it might be “Pear Lists.” After Googling the original I discovered the thought being conveyed is like Pearl-ist. Sorry about that Michael.

 

Here is the Urban Dictionary definition for Pearlist:

 

1. Pearlist

 

1. A person who believes in Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic, (P.E.A.R.L) the essence of the scientific method.

2. One who uses the scientific method.

 

2. Pearlist

 

A person who believes in the use of

Physical
Evidence
And
Reasoned
Logic

As opposed to a FLAWSist.

 

Sir, Do you believe in god?
Good grief no, I am a pearlist.

 

So a Pearlist is a specific kind of atheist.

 

An agnostic is an easy one. That is a person who is uncertain of the existence of God rather than an outright denier of God’s existence.

 

After reading Michael’s short list of who I should aim my pro-Christian toward, it seems to me that Michael falls into all the categories except agnostic.

 

Michael stipulates that “…to say an atheist believes that humanity is supreme is a fallacy.” Hmm … If one does not believe in the existence of God he must believe in something. To deny the belief in something is to say an atheist is brain dead. Michael thinks of himself as an informed rational educated intellectual; ergo Michael is not brain dead and I have to assume at least some atheists are as intellectual as Michael. In denying the existence in God an atheist must believe in some form of humanist ideology that elevates itself above religious faith. The conclusion then is that atheists believe humanity in its physical essence is supreme because only humanity has the sentience to measure and draw conclusions from that which is observable. Atheistic Humanistic Supremacism is a concept that is not a fallacy but an unfortunate reality.

 

Michael says: Science is not a deity so it cannot be worshipped. Science is merely the method by which we can prove things not unlike mathematics. It has a self-examining/reviewing factor to it and its success rate is very high. I am not saying I am a god, as this would be a delusion. Just as belief in an outer presence who controls and watches everything from beyond is a delusion.

 

Response: Well duh … science is not a deity. Nonetheless, it is on such a high pedestal in which objectivity is nearly deified (rather admitted or not) that science is a religion to godless atheists. Yes it would be a delusion to say you are a god, it would be delusional; however when one sets themselves as the arbiter of truth one makes oneself a god (wittingly or unwittingly). The denial of this self-aggrandizement is a delusion.

 

Michael says: I would consider myself a center left voter. In this you are right. I am educated. I help my community. I donate to charity. I don’t look down on other people for being gay or of another race. I don’t think women are worth less than a man, and I think they have the right to say what happens to their own bodies.

 

Response: I will pray for God’s mercy for being a center-left voter. Just teasing. I am certain there are many poor religious souls that vote on the left side of the political spectrum.

 

Michael you donate to charity. What kind of charities do you donate to? Perhaps Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger)? Or the SPLC? Or perhaps some LGBT organization (Good Preaching) that is a 501(3)c organization? I don’t know what your fancy is. I won’t look down on you for supporting baby murderers, Biblical Christian haters or morally ungodly people that have deluded themselves they have been born a homosexual or are confused about their sexuality even the equipment package born with pretty much deciphers the mystery. Perhaps you do not donate to any of these organizations above; nonetheless it is a fair educated guess that an atheist donates to like minded organizations. For an atheist that is fine. For a Biblical Christian it is reprehensible.

 

Michael says: I just don’t believe in an arcane Middle Eastern desert tribal god from the Bronze Age. I DO want however to keep the religious aspects out of schools. There is no place for this silly superstition in an advanced society. That being said if someone chooses to put on the shackles of faith on their own time and in their own space then they should feel free. It is their right.

 

Response: Ah, arcane. My God is only mysterious and obscure to hardened hearts that refuse to listen to the Good News to discover Deliverance from this dark age via the Redemptive act of Jesus Christ the Son of God (here’s a mystery: Father, Son and Holy Spirit – three persons are One God and Jesus is fully human and fully God and a Believer is a new creation in Christ Jesus while God is in the Believer). This is only arcane if one’s reason fails to comprehend there is more to existence than the material seen cosmos.

 

As an atheist you believe God Almighty is a mythical non-entity worshipped occasionally by a bunch of Hebrews that ousted polytheistic Canaanites. As a Christian God Almighty is the entirety of existence that began to reveal Himself through a bloodline that flowed through the Hebrews and then specifically through the Hebrew tribe of Judah and narrower through the bloodline of King David the son of Jesse of which the human part of the incarnated God Jesus came to Redeem humanity from Adam’s folly.

 

There are no shackles in Christ Jesus. There is life abundantly in Christ Jesus.

 

Michael says: It is also the right of the rest of the country NOT to be forced to deal with such things on a governmental and educational level.

 

Response: I completely agree! Religion should never be forced via government or education; however it is the right of individuals to exercise their faith in government and in education on a voluntary basis.

 

Michael says: As far as the founding fathers are concerned, you are completely mistaken. They did not in fact want Christianity to be the basis of our country. This is a myth propagated by the right and religious. Educated people know that the founding fathers believed that religion [was] not the way to go as the basis of a free and democratic society.

 

Response: Actually Michael you have been completely propagandized by Leftist revisionism. In case you failed to read the Founding Father quotes on Religion and Christianity here is a review:

 

George Washington

“I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.” June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.

Thomas Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” 1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.

“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…” April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus….I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

James Madison (Known as the Father of the Constitution)

“Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.” June 20, 1785

“It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian.” In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.

“We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations.” March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

There are more quotes – Check it out!

 

The sources are cited! You can follow the link and can read some more quotes. Educated people can read the original sources and comprehend just how much the Founding Fathers (even as Deists) valued Christian principles, Christian values and Christian morality.

 

Michael says: Even looking at European history this makes sense. Why would any group wanting to be free of a king and/or rule of a church want to restart a society with another at the help? That’s the stuff of pure fantasy.

 

Response: Michael you are demonstrating your religious blinders. Many Christians came to America for Religious Freedom to escape an established Church and the rule of law that forced taxes to support the established Church and to disqualify any non-State Churches from worshipping freely and openly. By the time of the Founding Fathers America had several Christian Denominations and some of these were indeed State Churches representative of each Colony that after victory would be a State within the federation of the USA. The First Amendment guarantees that all the Christian Denomination have Religious Freedom without fear of the Federal government establishing a State Church. As far as faith is concerned the Founding Fathers were concerned a Denomination would exercise more authority over a handful of Denominations and do with this with the sanction of the Federal government. The thinking was to keep government out of Christianity yet with Christianity being an influence on government. The writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers makes this quite clear! To believe otherwise is Leftist/atheist fantasy.

 

Michael says: The fact is most of the founding fathers were either, agnostic, atheist, members of the Hellfire Club, Free Masons, or any number of other non-Christian church believing groups. One rewrote the bible excluding all supernatural events. One mentioned we needed more lighthouses than churches because they at least served a purpose.

 

Response: Actually that which you call a fact is a presumption. A minority of the Founding Fathers might fit the Hellfire Club (Benjamin Franklin), agnostic or atheist description. AND it is evident the majority of Founding Fathers that were within the Freemasons believed in Christian Principles, Christian Values and Christian Values. Leftists, Church-State Separatists and atheists love it that a scholar Chris Rodda has refuted the scholarship of David Barton that promotes the history that America has Christian foundations. I find it typical of a Church-State Separatist to forget that the majority of the first colonists to the Americas came as Christians to establish some form of Christian utopia separate from the persecution of State Churches from Europe. Rodda goes right into the controversy of the level of Christianity practiced by the Founding Fathers which led thirteen American colonies to become the United States of America.

 

Certainly Barton skews his scholarship toward a pro-Christian point of view on the Founding Fathers. Criticizing of this and not realizing that scholars like Chris Rodda are also skewing scholarship to the Leftist point of view is a bit hypocritical. Let’s look at one Rodda’s confident writings skewering Barton on the issue of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (Tripoli) signed in 1797 by President John Adams.

 

Article XI of the treaty provides language that at first sight justifies Leftists’ and atheists’ view of absolute secularism in America’s founding:

 

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, … (Bold Emphasis SlantRight)

 

This is the part that is quoted by the Leftist view of history. Now let’s look at the entire article:

 

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Bold Emphasis SlantRight)

 

The Constitution of the United States of America in the First Amendment forbids Congress to establish a State Church; ergo America is a Secular Nation with a Christian cultural heritage. The treaty was signed with a State that had an established religion in Islam; however note the wording implies the secular USA has no beef with any Muslim (Musselmen) or Mehomitan (Muslim) nation. Article XI merely states that this treaty is not between religious faiths but rather between a non-established Church secular State of the USA and those of the Muslim faith or nations embracing the Muslim faith.

 

Rodda comes after Barton because he erroneously cited President Washington as the signer of the treaty. So what? It still doesn’t change the fact that the treaty is between the USA where there is no established Christian religion (i.e. Denomination) and a nation (specifically Morocco) or nations wholly devoted to Islam. Adam’s is not repudiating Christianity!

 

Rodda does not address the obvious of the context of Article XI, rather she diverts attention to scholarly misquotes and to an obscure document found by David Barton. The only Rodda proves is that his scholarly acumen in citing who said what was slipshod, she does not prove the actual quotes in context are wrong. It is amazing that someone said the things quoted by Barton  but not to who Barton attributed the quote. Rodda ignores the fact the data is still there. It only means Rodda has a better grasp of what pleases academia than Barton. Rodda shows that Barton would not have gotten his PhD in history because of sloppy mechanics not because of sloppy conclusions.

 

Michael says: Thomas Paine, the man Tea Partiers tout because of the pamphlet “Common Sense”, also wrote one of the most important books on religion in the last few centuries. This book was called “The Age of Reason”. I urge you to read this.

 

Response: Thomas Paine was an awesome Pamphleteer and nothing else. He only lived in America one year before his pen inspired Americans to support the Revolution and to break away from Britain. He was a radical even among American Deists. Check this out from The History Guide:

 

…

 

Paine settled in Philadelphia where he soon began a new career as a journalist. He contributed articles to the Pennsylvania Magazine on a wide range of topics. Thus on January 10, 1776, he published a short pamphlet, Common Sense, which immediately established his reputation as a revolutionary propagandist. Although he had only been in America less than a year, Paine committed himself to the cause of American independence. He attacked monarchical government and the alleged virtues of the British constitution, opposing any reconciliation with Great Britain. He also urged an immediate declaration of independence and the establishment of a republican constitution.

 

Paine was convinced that the American Revolution  was a crusade for a superior political system and that America was ultimately unconquerable. He did as much as any writer could to encourage resistance and to inspire faith in the Continental Army. I essays published in the Pennsylvania Journal under the heading “Crisis,” Paine attacked the faint-hearted, campaigned for a more efficient federal and state tax system to meet the costs of war, and encouraged the belief that Britain would eventually recognize American independence.

 

Often tactless, Paine provoked considerable controversy. He was invariable hard-pressed for money and had to depend upon the generosity of his American friends and the occasional reward from the French envoy in America. When the War came to an end, his financial position was so precarious that he had to campaign to obtain recompense from the government. Congress eventually rewarded him $3000. Pennsylvania granted him ?00 in cash, while New York proved more generous and gave him a confiscated Loyalist farm at New Rochelle.

 

After American independence had been won, Paine played no part in the establishment of the new republic. Instead, he busied himself trying to invent a smokeless candle and devising an iron bridge.

 

…

 

… Burke’s resistance to the French Revolution inspired Paine to write his most influential work, the Rights of Man (Part I in 1791, Part II in 1792). In Part I, Paine urged political rights for all men because of their natural equality in the sight of God. All forms of hereditary government, including the British constitution, were condemned because they were based on farce or force. Only a democratic republic could be trusted to protect the equal political rights of all men. Part II was even more radical for Paine argued for a whole program of social legislation to deal with the shocking condition of the poor. His popularity sounded the alarm and he was forced to leave Britain in September 1792. He was condemned in his absence and declared an outlaw.

 

Paine immediately immersed himself in French affairs for the next ten years although he still hoped to see a revolution in Britain. In his Letter Addressed to the Addressers of the Late Proclamation (London, 1792), he rejected the policy of appealing to parliament for reform and instead urged British radicals to call a national convention to establish a republican form of government.

 

In August 1792, Paine was made a French citizen and a month later was elected to the National Convention. Since he did not speak French, and had to have his speeches read for him, Paine did not make much of an impact on the Convention. His association with the moderate republicans (Girondins) made him suspect in the Jacobin camp. In January 1793, he alienated many extremists by opposing the execution of Louis XVI. When military defeat fanned Jacobinism into hysteria, he fell victim to the Terror. From December 28, 1793, until November 4, 1794, he was incarcerated in Luxembourg prison until the intercession of the new American minister, James Monroe, secured his release.

 

During his imprisonment, Paine embarked on his third influential work, The Age of Reason (London and Boston, 1794-95). A deist manifesto to the core, Paine acknowledged his debt to Newton and declared that nature was the only form of divine revelation, for God had clearly established a uniform, immutable and eternal order throughout creation. Paine rejected Christianity, denied that the Bible was the revealed word of God, condemned many of the Old Testament stories as immoral and claimed that the Gospels were marred by discrepancies. There was nothing really that new in Paine’s argument, but the bitterness of his attack on the Christian churches and his attempt to preach deism to the masses made him more enemies than before.

 

After wearing out his welcome in Paris, Paine finally returned to America in October 1802 and was well-received by Thomas Jefferson. Increasingly neglected and ostracized, Paine’s last years were marked by poverty, poor health and alcoholism. When he died in New York on June 8, 1809, he was virtually an outcast. Since he could not be buried in consecrated ground, he was laid to rest n a corner of his small farm in New Rochelle.

 

Paine never established a political society or organization and was not responsible for a single reforming measure. His achievements were all with his pen so it is difficult to accurately assess his influence. Although he spent more than ten years in France, he had very little influence on the course of the French Revolution. He did not really understand the Revolution and therefore had little impact on its intellectual foundations. Indeed, to the Jacobins on the far left, Paine appeared as too moderate and faint-hearted.

 

Paine’s political influence was greatest in England. In intellectual terms, his Rights of Man was his greatest political work and was certainly the best-selling radical political tract in late 18th century England. Before Paine, British radicals sought a reform of Parliament which would grant to all men the vote for members of the House of Commons. In his Rights of Man, Paine abandoned this approach and, rejecting the lessons of history, maintained that each age had the right to establish a political system which satisfied its needs. He rested his case on the moral basis of the natural equality of men in the sight of God. Since government is a necessary evil that men accepted as a means of protecting their natural rights (cf. John Locke), the only legitimate government was that established by a contract between all members of society and one in which all men preserved all their natural rights, except the individual right to use force. Paine argued rationally that all men had an equal claim to political rights and that government must rest on the ultimate sovereignty of the people.

 

Thomas Paine was not so universally liked by the Founding Fathers. Paine was a hero propagandist for the Revolutionary War but his radicalism so intense that he was lucky he had a nation to go to die. There are several links on this The History Guide page of Thomas Paine’s works. If you read The Age of Reason that Michael suggests to read you will discover that Paine had no affinity for organized Christianity; however even Paine’s Deism points to Christianity for principles, values and morals of a nation.

 

Michael Says: The motto you refer to was made in the 50’s when white Christians were the majority. I don’t believe this motto is very constitutional. It should be struck down and the secularist motto the founders originally created should be reinstated.

 

Response: I admit “One Nation Under God” is a 1950s act of Congress. I find it interesting that Michael uses the race card as the reason for the passage of the motto. This is fascinated because Black Americans in the 1950s attending religious services were overwhelmingly Christian. I sincerely doubt Black Christians would have condemned the National Motto even during the last days of American segregation. Reverend Martin Luther King was in the nascent days of his ministry. I am convinced King would have supported the National Motto.

 

At any rate One Nation Under God is not so much the National motto as it is a phrase inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s. The Pledge history is fascinating and evolving. The Pledge was written by a Socialist (aka Leftist) Christian Minister by the name of Francis Bellamy in 1892. The original Pledge looked like this:

 

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

 

In 1923 The Pledge was amended to this:

 

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

 

In 1954 WWII hero President Eisenhower was confronted with godless Soviet Communism at the beginnings of the Cold War. Over the objection of Bellamy’s daughter the phrase “Under God” was added to one nation. Leftist activist Judges had not began whittling away the true meaning of the First Amendment yet and Americans as a whole perceived themselves as citizens of a nation of Christians in the 1950s. Radical Left Wing politics of Socialism, Marxism and Communism were and should still be perceived as belief systems that erode American culture rather than enhancing American culture.

 

Then there is the history of the actual National Motto: In God we Trust.

 

America declared its independence from Britain in 1776. After the victory of the Revolutionary War the Founding Fathers realized that the liberated Thirteen Colonies needed a bit more cohesion to survive independence from future threats to American Liberty. Hence the Constitutional Convention ratified a constitution in 1787 for the Thirteen former Colonies to say yea or nay. New Hampshire became the ninth State (6-21-1788) to ratify the Constitution thus establishing a Federal Union in which the four last States would eventually join. By 1790 the last hold-out Rhode Island joined the Union.

 

The time is important because the motto In God we Trust is derived from the National Anthem written at the end of the War of 1812 in the year 1814 a mere 26 years after the Constitution. Francis Scott Key was the author of the National Anthem and the part of the lyrics that became the National Motto are these:

 

“…And this be our motto: In God is our trust. And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” (Bold emphasis SlantRight)

 

The Star Spangled Banner became the National Anthem in 1931 by an act of Congress:

 

“The Star-Spangled Banner” was officially made the national anthem by Congress in 1931, although it already had been adopted as such by the army and the navy.

 

Even though Congress did not officially institutionalize the National Anthem and the National Motto until the 20th century, both had an unofficial use by taxpayer supported government entities from the early days of the Republic.

 

In a letter dated 11-20-1861 by Secretary of Treasury Salmon P. Chase to Director of the Mint James Pollock to incorporate a godly motto on American coinage:

 

“Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States.” (Bold emphasis SlantRight)

The point is the Federal government within all Branches of Executive, Legislative and even the Judiciary did not challenge the constitutionality of Christian terminology on Federal coins and currency in the earliest days of the American Republic.

 

Michael writes about what he calls the original National Motto: E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, one. This is one side of the Great Seal of the United States. I am a bit surprised that Michael did not mention the flip side of the Great Seal: Novus Ordo Seclorum – New Order of the Ages. Conspiracy Theorists like New World Order better.

 

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were assigned the task of developing a design for the Great Seal. Check out the process that ended up being one of the mottos of the Great Seal:

 

…

 

In July 1776, almost immediately after signing the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were tasked with designing a seal and motto for the new nation.  In August John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, that he had proposed the “Choice of Hercules” as the image for the seal.  Adams believed that individuals should choose to lead moral personal lives and to devote themselves to civic duty, and he preferred a secular allegory for that moral lesson.

 

The other two committee members proposed images that drew on Old Testament teachings, but neither shared the beliefs of those today who assert the role of God in our national government.  Benjamin Franklin, a deist who did not believe in the divinity of Christ, proposed “Moses lifting up his Wand, and dividing the Red Sea, and Pharaoh, in his Chariot overwhelmed with the Waters.”  This motto he believed, captured the principle that “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

 

Thomas Jefferson, … envisioned “The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.” …

 

The three men worked in consultation with an artist, Eugène Pierre Du Simitière, who rejected all of the ideas of the three committee members.  His own first attempt was also rejected by Congress.  It would take years and several more committees before Congress would approve the final design, still in use today, of an American bald eagle clutching thirteen arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other.

 

Only the motto “E Pluribus Unum” (“from many, one”) survived from the committee on which Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin had served.  All had agreed on that motto from the beginning. (“In God We Trust” or “E Pluribus Unum”? The Founding Fathers Preferred the Latter Motto,” By Thomas A. Foster; HNN 11-8-11)

 

Note that the Deist concept of Christianity appears to be the emphasis; nonetheless it is Christian symbolism involved in the thought process leading to E Pluribus Unum.

 

The last part of Michael’s comment is something already addressed in this response which Michael starts utilizing pejorative language toward the intelligence of Christian.

 

JRH 2/4/12

Wilheru Criticizes Standing Up to Militant Atheists


Botticelli. 9 Circles of an Atheist

 

John R. Houk

© February 1, 2012

 

I blog at more place than my primary blog here at SlantRight.com. I was checking for comment at my Word Press blog known as the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR). Below is the comment to the post “Stand Up to Militant Atheists in Public Society” (SlantRight.com version). You can read the comment which is followed by my response.

_________________________

Wilheru Comment

January 31, 2012 at 10:10 AM

 

This doesn’t make atheists angry, it makes us laugh. It makes us laugh because, frankly, you are misrepresenting atheism. How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.

Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system. It does not forbid religion to influence the government, nor should it. What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.

You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.

I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wilheru says, “How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.”

 

That is the same ploy ignorant polytheistic Romans propagandized against Christianity until Jesus won the hearts and minds of Roman leadership. The bread as the body of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ is a spiritual transformation of the inner man aka the human spirit from darkness to a new creation in Christ Jesus. The only argument within Christianity is if this spiritual transformation in the Communion/Eucharist is an actual outer manifestation or if it is an outer symbolic manifestation of a spiritual reality. But atheists cannot comprehend the spiritual because their spiritual eyes have been dulled and blinded to spiritual realities. Go figure.

 

Wilheru says, “Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system.”

 

WHERE does the Constitution FORBID the use of government funds – e.g. taxpayers’ money – to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system? Perhaps you are thinking of the First Amendment.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

I read absolutely NOTHING that forbids the use of government funds in promoting a religious belief system. Also keep in mind the word “religion” is a reference to Christianity in particular to the Founding Fathers. The big irony here is that the astute Leftist and atheist apology to the Founding Fathers were Christians is they were in fact Deists.

 

The apologists fail to tell the uninformed Deism greatly differed in America than the Deism in Europe. So what is a common definition for Deism?

 

Noun

 

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

 

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. (Dictionary.com)

 

Deism does NOT deny the existence of God! Below is one of the best explanations I have read on the differences between American Deism and European Deism:

 

1. The Age of Reason was an English affair and should be severed from The Enlightenment, which was a later French affair, occurring at a different time with very differing results. The Age of Reason sought to reform religion, the secular Enlightenment sought to destroy it in total. That is what clearly differentiated the American Revolution from the blood-letting and violent French Revolution.

 

2. That preferred “deism” as defined today was that of the atheistic French Revolution, which set the stage for Humanism, Marxisn (sic), and endless ‘isms.’ The American was based on a Calvinist’ Protestant culture/ethics tempered and moderated by the philosophy of John Locke, a Unitarian. It was based on Freemasonry, which operated as an enlightened form of general monotheism uniting the many diverse religious sects of the American Colonies.

 

3. The idea was never to strip religion from the public sphere, but to preserve individual liberty. See On Separation of Religion and State. To further quote Jefferson to put this in context, I consider religion a supplement of law in the government of man. Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Foley 1900 (#7242).

 

4. That the Founders of America were not “deists” as defined Voltaire, Rousseau, and the French Revolution and the French Enlightenment. The Deism of the French Revolution would be the ‘Watchmaker” god of Voltaire that went away after creation and had no further interaction with the world. This was part of the French humanist/atheist effort to de-Christianize French society and substitute Eastern mysticism and Greek/pagan philosophy. See the Cult of Reason and Robespierre.

 

5. That the American Founders never called themselves “Deists” and Jefferson and Adams considered themselves Unitarians and said so. They are better defined as Unitarians because they believed God was active in the world, divine punishment for evil, and an afterlife. See Existence of Deity/God by Thomas Jefferson (Exploring Deism Its Origins and History; by Lewis Loflin; Sullivan-County.com)

 

In context of these thoughts American Deists considered themselves Christians and European Deists were anti-Christian believers of limited religion as defined by a secularist and humanist thought. I would argue that more of our Founding Fathers were more Christian than Deist because of the expectation of a supernatural act of God in their prayers in winning the Revolutionary War; however that is not really the point. The point is the Founding Fathers had a Christian world view which included the practice of Christian Morality and Christian Values. The Founding Fathers’ writings in private and public demonstrate that Christianity and Reason are the foundation of their thoughts on the rule of law, i.e. the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Ergo it does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend that Christianity is the thought behind the First Amendment’s usage of the word “religion”. Since Christianity is meant by the word “religion” it should shed some light of the actual Founding Father meaning of the First Amendment religious clause:

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

 

Congress cannot make a law to establish a Christian Church Denomination as the State Church AND Congress cannot interfere with the free exercise of Christianity. Government had NO PROBLEM with this until some Leftist found an ally in the Supreme Court to interpret the religious clause in the First Amendment differently than originally intended. The result was a 20th/21st century reevaluation of the term Separation of Church and State which is NO WHERE found in the U.S. Constitution. Hence the Judicial Branch embarked on lawmaking that Congress was expressly prohibited to exercise. AND the Judicial Branch usurped the Constitutional purpose of Congress to enact law by creating law extra-constitutionally.

 

In saying all this I thereby refute you Wilheru that the Constitution prohibits the use of taxpayer money in the promotion of religion; however I agree the First Amendment says the government cannot use taxpayer money to discriminate against religion and Christianity in particular.

 

Wilheru says, “What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.”

 

I half-way agree with you on this Wilheru. Government does not have the right to forbid abortion based on the New Testament (Hint: the Old and New Testament both forbid infanticide and some Christian Books considered pseudepigrapha [Barnabas 19:5; Apocalypse of Peter 25]  now but as part of the New Testament by the Early Church Fathers also wrote against baby killing which is what happens when one murders an unborn baby). However, since the Founding Fathers visualized Christian Morality and Christian values as important to the rule of law (yes along with the Greek and Roman classics), I believe it is a good guess they felt a human life was a Christian life. That human life would be entitled legal protection.

 

Wilheru says, “You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.”

 

Actually the Founding Fathers’ consideration of Christian religion had more to do with religious freedom among the traditions of Christian Denominations. Enforced religious freedom did mean taking religious violence off the table; however European wars of religion had more to do with suzerainty of Princes than religious freedom. Protestant Princes that supported Lutheranism and/or Zwingli were Princes that opened themselves up to be invaded with the sanction of the Catholic Church by Catholic Princes to acquire territory. Europeans that fled Europe for religious freedom to the American colonies did so to escape persecution from nation State Churches and not because of foreign invasion.

 

Wilheru says, “I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.” (Bold Emphasis Mine)

 

George Washington

 

“I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.”  June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.

 

Thomas Jefferson

 

“God who gave us life gave us liberty.  And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?  Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”  1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.

 

“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;  sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…”  April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.

 

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

 

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus….I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

 

James Madison (Known as the Father of the Constitution)

 

“Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.” June 20, 1785

 

“It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian.”  In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.

 

“We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations.” March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

 

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

 

There are more quotes – Check it out!

 

Yes Wilheru, it must be a faulty memory!

 

JRH 2/1/12

Stand Up to Militant Atheists in Public Society


In Atheists We Distrust

John R. Houk

© January 2012

 

Here is an irony about atheism: Atheists are self-deluded polytheists. Say what? That is probably the question of the religious person and atheist alike. Here is my reasoning of which I am totally aware will rile the atheists.

 

Dogmatic or militant atheists have a belief system. The human species is supreme. Science is the supreme foundation for asking the questions of life. Thus the deities of atheism are the human-self and science.

 

In denying the existence of God, the atheist is saying wittingly or unwittingly that he is his own god. Since the atheist is his own god only those that have authority over him have nominal control of their life (e.g. employer/management; an executive of local, State or Federal government – i.e. in the USA; the police or whatever socio-political allegiance that is chosen). Science is a deity because science is the knowledge fount for human understanding. That which science cannot measure brings into question the existence of whatever is unmeasurable. Questioning the existence of the unmeasurable is somewhat ludicrous because science utilizes mathematical theory to theorize the unmeasurable all the time and/or to develop some brilliant instrumentation the measure something that is discovered to exist.

 

My point is dogmatic/militant atheism has a stringent belief system that can easily be quantified as a set of religious values that denies the existence of a supernatural existence which for Christians would be God Almighty that is all and in all.

 

Most atheists tend to be Leftists (although remarkably I am aware of the existence of Conservative atheists). Hence Leftists are really big on the belief that Separation of Church and State is embedded in the U.S. Constitution in the sense of religious Liberty for all as well as religion cannot have influence or contact with local, State and Federal government. Frankly this interpretation of the Constitution is nowhere within the Document. Indeed, the First Amendment excludes government from establishing a State Church on the Federal level but DOES NOT exclude religion from being active in government. Because of religious Freedom all manner of “religion” then would be permitted to be active in the government apparatus such as prayer, worship on public land and influence in government.

 

Although I don’t have a problem personally with all manner of religions influencing government, the reality is the Founding Fathers had Christianity in mind when the word “religion” was used in the First Amendment. It is obvious from the writings of the Founding Fathers – whether they were Deists or not – that they considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.

 

It was not until the mid-1900s did the concept of keeping religion out of government began to be considered a Constitutional issue when Original Intent began to be ignored bowing to the Left Wing/atheist demand to keep Christianity out of anything to do with taxpayer money. You have to know that national mottos such as “In God we Trust” or “One nation under God” must drive Leftists and atheists nuts even the terminology is congruent to the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers, right?

 

This Leftist/atheist rage can be seen because some of them took their level of hatred for Christianity over a Billy Grahame Evangelistic Association meeting held at the Ft Bragg Army Base in North Carolina, The Evangelistic Meeting was not even held on the Base. YET atheists came out of the woodwork like cockroaches yearning to defile culture to protest the Gospel Message being made available to the Army soldiers if they so chose to attend. Note the key word “chose”. There was no coercion by the Army for the soldiers to show up. Atheists are claiming that soldiers were indeed forced to attend because of an Army Survey entitled Global Assessment Tool / Soldier Fitness Tracker. Atheists are up in arms of the portion of the survey called the Spiritual Fitness section. Somehow the existence of this mandatory survey meant that soldiers had to attend the Graham event at for Fort Bragg. Frankly that is pure propaganda. Attendance was voluntary and open to civilians. If the “Spiritual” section was a pass/fail survey, then I have to agree with the atheists. The First Amendment makes a pass/fail survey appear a bit dubious. On the other hand if the “Spiritual” section was a data collection tool, then I see nothing wrong with it.

 

The angry atheists decided to respond to a Gospel event by organizing an atheist-secular event. I don’t have a problem with that. No really I don’t! This is America and atheists wish equal time with Christians, I believe the First Amendment guarantees the equal representation. Much to the annoyance of atheists that freedom is as much religious Freedom as it is Free Speech. As I have said already, atheism is a religion without a god or supernatural theology.

 

I do have a problem that the planned atheist protest at Fort Bragg called Rock Beyond Belief is not there to proselytize atheism. The Rock Beyond Belief event’s purpose is turning out to be a bash Christianity event more than to evoke the praises of living an atheistic life. The atheist event’s about page states this:

 

Rock Beyond Belief is an ambitious project that will be putting on a free festival consisting of secular speakers and musicians, both big name and small. We are a small grass-roots outfit, but we have the backing of many major secular and military foundations. Currently we are focusing on a large-scale event that will be on the main post parade field on Fort Bragg. Eventually Rock Beyond Belief wants to spread the message to many other military installations.

 

We are not interested in just being a counter-event to the offensive Rock the Fort concert. We are also not interested in putting on an anti-christian, anti-religious, or anti-anything event. Rock Beyond Belief is A Day of Fun and Entertainment for the Rest of Us. (There is more pro-atheist information on the page)

 

The so-called entertainment includes a secular group that utilizes vulgar language in their lyrics aimed at crapping on the Christian faith. The group is called Aiden. Here is an example of Aiden lyrics aimed at Christianity I found at God and Country:

 

Christ died for sh–, and was a f—ing c–t
…
F— your God
F— your faith in the end
There’s no religion

 

…

 

Love how they burn your synagogues
Love how they torch your holy books

…

Faith whether Christian, Muslim, Jew
Still you all distort the truth
The death of fiction will save us all

 

Compare these lyrics to atheist event’s about page above: “We are also not interested in putting on an anti-christian, anti-religious, or anti-anything event.” You can watch the offensive anti-Christian Hysteria performed by Aiden HERE. God have mercy on the group’s soul and may God forgive them and transform them into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son.

 

 

Rock Beyond Belief is an example of what militant atheism is all about today. It is time to confront militant atheism with Militant Christianity. Militant Christianity is showing no fear in public or work about your faith. Militant Christianity is a willingness to share the Good News of Christianity even if atheists ridicule you. Militant Christianity is praying for those who despitefully use you and persecute you – like atheists. Militant Christianity is using the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God effectively – so read it and know it.

 

Many atheists think they know God’s Word from the Bible; however their understanding is dulled by disbelief. An atheist’s dull understanding is somewhat like the devil telling Adam and Eve that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil will make you God, when the truth was obey God and continue in the Blessings and the Glory of God. So don’t be disheartened by crafty atheist. Stick to your faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God being fully God and fully Human and ONE with the Father and Holy Spirit in entity. This drives atheists nuts.

 

JRH 1/31/12

Don’t Listen to Atheists – God is Love


John R. Houk

© June 6, 2011

 

Some atheists go to great lengths to find snippets of the Bible or physical science to disprove the existence of God Almighty. I am one that believes that if the Old and New Testament are taken as a whole there is a harmonious explanation to be found. If one chooses to set to find disharmony they will find it easily. Believers seeking harmony will find harmony. Unbelievers seeking disharmony will find disharmony. Seek and you shall is the principle.

 

Here is a video that atheists like to show with the belief that the God of the Bible is not a God of love or perhaps does not exist at all:

 

 

LOL I don’t even have to watch the entire video to answer this. God is love because of the promise in Genesis 3: 14-15.

 

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“ Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

 

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

 

Adam fell and turned man into a fallen nature and the earth into a twisted nature because Adam’s stewardship was transferred to the prince of deception that old serpent Satan – aka the adversary.

 

What is the reason for suffering, natural disasters, and all matters of evil that God is wrongly accused of causing? It is the Fall of Adam.

 

What is the solution? The Redemptive act of Jesus Christ who emptied Himself of his Divine attributes to become a man not stained with the Adam’s Fall because a part of His DNA was God. Divine DNA trumps human DNA. The LOVE is in that God did not start all over by destroying the rebellious creation and starting over. Furthermore as the centuries passed on, man became more and more corrupt and the earth more and more twisted and awaiting for the promise of Genesis 3:15.

 

That promise is partially fulfilled in the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ paying the penalty of Adam’s rebellious Fall. That which is Redeemed is the human spirit. The human mind, body and the Earth await Full Redemption that begins with Christ’s Parousia (i.e. 2nd Coming). The end of the BOOK tells us that Full Redemption does not arrive until Satan has been secured after his last deception upon humanity after the 1,000 year reign of Christ on Earth. Then the ravaged old Earth is changed into the New Earth and the old Heaven is changed into the New Heaven and man and Earth discover FULL Redemption.

 

The suffering of the Old Testament is the result of Adam’s Fall and a Fallen nature. The promise of Genesis 3: 15 is the demarcation line that divides fallen humanity that results in the blood line that the last child of Promise would be born to begin the Redemption of Christ bruising the Old Serpents head with the Lord’s feet. That bruising began with the unseen battle between Jesus and Satan between the Lord’s death and the Lord’s Resurrection.

 

17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1: 17 – 23 NKJV)

 

1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

 

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2: 1 – 7; 19 – 22 NKJV)

 

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. (Colossians 2: 11 – 15 NKJV)

 

1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:

“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

 

9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

 

17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4: 1 – 9; 17 – 24 NKJV)

 

These verses catch up with the reason evil things happen with a loving God. God is Love and that Love is evidenced of Him emptying the Divine attributes to suffer the same as a man by becoming man and then redeeming to be back on the path to union with God. All that is left is the future of Full Redemption.

 

1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. (Revelation 21: 1 – 7 NKJV)

 

I know the next criticism from unbelievers is that the Bible is a collection of old myths; However at this point that argument is irrelevant because the whole basis of this response is because of the YouTube video that enjoys utilizing Scriptures out of the context of the Plan of Redemption to prove the premise that God is not a loving God. Ergo, according to the video, God is either non-existent or a lying higher been that is actually evil. This short version of the Plan of Redemption shows the person behind the dialogue to be a deceiver or a deluded individual according the Scriptures chosen.

 

JRH 6/6/11  

 

Father Abraham has Many Sons, Many Sons have Father Abraham


John R. Houk

© May 2, 2011

 

A friend on my AC2C social network found a couple of YouTube videos as a response to my post entitled, “Discourse on the Reality of God”.

 

In the YouTube videos is part 1 and 2 of a sermon by Frank Turek of a five part break down on YouTube. It is entitled, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist Show”.

 

Part 1 and 2 Turek discusses Abraham and faith. Part 1 Abraham’s time life is told when God Almighty instructed Abraham to take the only son by his legitimate wife Sarah to be sacrificed to God. Thus Abraham embarks on a journey to Mt Moriah with Isaac and a couple of servants.

 

Just as a side-note Mohammed words recorded in the Quran plagiarizes this moment and has Ishmael on this journey of faith. You can tell it’s plagiarized by the fact that Isaac was a young teenager by this time and Ishmael had long been banished from Abraham’s tribal family along with Ishmael’s mother the Egyptian handmaid to Sarah which was Hagar.

 

In case you have not read your Bible in awhile, just as Abraham was to kill Isaac in sacrifice, God Almighty spoke up audibly telling Abraham to hold up. Abraham had proven his undying faith and because of this all the nations of the world would be blessed in Abraham through the son of promise Isaac’s descendants. Christians know those descendants as those that led to Jesus’ birth. By faith in Jesus’ death on the Cross and the Lord’s bodily Resurrection to life and re-glorification of His entire Godly attributes all who believe will have life in Christ in this walk on earth and in the future; the full redemption of spirit, soul (mind attributes) and body (which is clothed in glory rather than man-made clothing). The blessing of Redemption to those who Believe transcends the blessings promised only to the Hebrew Tribes of Israel thus by extension to all humanity who believe.

 

This transcending beyond the 12 Tribes of Israel is not a replacement. Rather the transcending of blessings is an engrafted adoption into the Tribe of Judah by the Blood of Jesus that mystically joins Believers to the Body of Christ. For clarity’s sake there is no Christian Gentile replacement but rather a joining of Christian Believers to Judah enabling all that Believe to be sons of Abraham and also inheritors of the blessings of Abraham.

 

JRH 5/2/11

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

 

I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist Show Part 1

 

I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist Show Part 2

Discourse on the Reality of God


 

Between My Son and John R. Houk

April 28, 2011

 

There has been an ongoing dialogue between my son My Son and I. Below is latest that I have responded. The discussion has been ongoing on my Facebook page that was highlighting the SlantRight post of “Go See ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the Movie”.

 

On Facebook others have been involved in the conversation. Some of those conversant on the Facebook discussion have had insight that I agree with and disagree with. Since My Son is my son I will focus on him.

 

I should note that My Son is very adamant in his atheism and has a difficult time letting loose of a dialogue which I sense is due to a desire to be right and everyone else wrong. When things get repetitive I will simply and unilaterally quit responding.

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

 

MY SON SAYS: “You’re saying that god transcends evidence, science, reason, critical thinking, etc. The list goes on. I can understand that you have faith that god exists but let’s not put god in a conversation involving the things I just mentioned.”

 

JOHN SAYS: Why? God is existence.

 

MY SON SAYS: “The only reason you aren’t locked up in a mad house for your beliefs is that a lot of people are delusional.”

 

JOHN SAYS: LOL My Son you are dipping a little into the old ad hominem well are you not? God says the delusion is on the part of those who can see the marvel of creation and yet deny God’s involvement. Romans 1: 18-25 NKJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:%2018-25&version=NKJV)

 

MY SON SAYS: “God is not involved in this reality at all.”

 

JOHN SAYS: Reality is more than the five senses of … READ THE REST at SlantRight.com.

Go See ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the Movie


John R. Houk

© April 22, 2011

 

The book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was one of my favorite novel reads of all time. I first read the book in the 1980s; however the book was written in 1957 nearly one year after my birth (just in case you were interested). Here we are in 2011 and someone finally made the classic Ayn Rand novel into a movie.

 

Atlas Shrugged opened to audiences last weekend on a limited showing basis. It opened up to a mere 299 screens. The movie did so well that this weekend the total screens is moving up to “423+” screens according to a Tea Party Expressemail I received recently. The Atlas Shrugged movie site has a movie locator as to where the movie is playing. At the movie locator you type which State you live in then shows which cities a theatre can be located. I am pleased that Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is being showed in the State I reside! If you reside in the Tulsa area that theatre is the AMC located roughly on 41st and Yale area.

 

If you have ever read the book or are an Ayn Rand fan you will want to catch this movie. The book is loaded with Ayn Rand political philosophy which has been termed Objectivism. Objectivist philosophy is the creed for life for a huge amount of Libertarians.

 

Ayn Rand Objectivism

 

A full system of philosophy advocating reason and egoism has been defined in our time by Ayn Rand. It is the philosophy of Objectivism, presented in detail in Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and The Virtue of Selfishness. It is the antidote to the present state of the world. (All further quotations, unless otherwise identified, are from the works of Ayn Rand.)

 

Most philosophers have left their starting points to unnamed implication. The base of Objectivism is explicit: “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.”

 

Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance.

 

The third axiom at the base of knowledge—an axiom true, in Aristotle’s words, of … (READ THE REST at Ayn Rand Institute)

 

My old Libertarian days are what led me to Ayn Rand and two of my favorite novels in “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”. These are also the days in which I found the life renewing power of Salvation in Christ Jesus. As much as I began to love Objectivist Libertarianism I came across a concept that I could not reconcile to my new faith. Ayn Rand and here philosophy were atheistic. As much as Rand hated Communism and its precursor of Socialism, she also felt that religion was an illusion that stifled creativity and a productive existence. In my view subject faith in God is the foundation for all that exists. It is Christ Jesus and His Redemptive act that has reconciled the fallen nature of man to at-one-ment (atonement) with God Almighty, i.e. Right Standing with God or in Biblical terms I possess the Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. There is no observable objectivity that can measure subjective faith and thus there is no objective way to disprove the existence of the Creator of all that exists. The best objectivity can do is to measure what can be observed and utilize logical assumptions that evolves into a conclusion based on the conjecture of those logical assumptions.

 

There are natural laws that are observable and codified as they are discovered. The Objectivist Philosopher, Scientist or Mathematician cannot comprehend supernatural laws because even when seen the occurrence cannot be measured as to the “why” or the “how” of the occurrence and so is classified under unknown or known by the conjecture of probabilities to attempt to explain the occurrence seen in the natural but has a supernatural law reason.

 

In natural law lift explains how an object maintains a stable trajectory without gravity forcing the object to the ground. Thus lift overrules gravity. In a similar way supernatural law overrules natural law as far as I can conjecture. That drives any person wholly dedicated to some form of Objectivist thinking entirely nuts.

 

Anyway, my line of thinking is what led me away from Objectivist Libertarianism. As cool as the freedom of free will is in Objectivist Libertarianism it is a godless philosophy. I simply cannot embrace the atheistic nature of this kind of Libertarianism which essentially leads to Moral Relativity which goes on to validate certain social acts and social lifestyles as good relative to the times and yet denying the foundation of Biblical Morality which exists because the Creator is the base line for morality that humanity should walk in.

 

And yet Ayn Rand’s philosophy incorporated with a foundation of faith has amazing possibilities for leading a productive and creative life before Christ returns in which an eternal existence would override the need to overcome the urges of a fallen human nature.

 

As such the movie Atlas Shrugged Part 1 should be a movie everyone should to drawn to view. If the movie is true to Ayn Rand’s book it will show how a Socialistic Collective society stifles innovation which also stifles Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I pray President Barack Hussein Obama watches this movie to get an understanding of what his concept of “Change” will lead America toward.

 

Here is a good summary of Atlas Shrugged the novel that should not give away the mystery of the movie.

 

Atlas Shrugged was Ayn Rand’s greatest achievement and last work of fiction. In this novel she dramatizes her unique philosophy of Objectivism in an intellectual mystery story that integrates ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, economics and sex.

Atlas Shrugged is a mystery story, Ayn Rand once commented, “not about the murder of man’s body, but about the murder—and rebirth—of man’s spirit.” It is the story of a man—the novel’s hero—who says that he will stop the motor of the world, and does. The deterioration of the U.S. accelerates as the story progresses. Factories, farms, and shops shut down or go bankrupt in ever larger numbers. Riots break out as food supplies become scarce. Is he, then, a destroyer or the greatest of liberators? Why does he have to fight his battle, not against his enemies but against those who need him most, including the woman, Dagny Taggart, a top railroad executive, whom he passionately loves? What is the world’s motor—and the motive power of every man?

Peopled by larger-than-life heroes and villains, and charged with awesome questions of good and evil, Atlas Shrugged is a novel of tremendous scope. It presents an astounding panorama of human life—from the productive genius who becomes a worthless playboy (Francisco d’Anconia)—to the great steel industrialist who does not know that he is working for his own destruction (Hank Rearden)—to the philosopher who becomes a pirate (Ragnar Danneskjold)—to the composer who gives up his career on the night of his triumph (Richard Halley). Dramatizing Ayn Rand’s complete philosophy, Atlas Shrugged is an intellectual revolution told in the form of an action thriller of violent events—and with a ruthlessly brilliant plot and irresistible suspense.

We do not want to spoil the plot by giving away its secret or its deeper meaning, so as a hint only we will quote here one brief exchange from the novel:

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders–what would you tell him to do?”

“I … don’t know. What … could he do? What would you tell him?”

“To shrug.”

 

The Objectivism Reference Center has a fascinating page that has loads of reference links to book summaries, critiques and essays about Atlas Shrugged.

 

For those of you who have not read the book as yet but are considering to view Part One of the movie before you tackle the rather large Ayn Rand novel I leave you this teaser.

 

Who is John Galt?

 

See a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM&feature=player_profilepage

 

JRH 4/22/11

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

Atlas Shrugged Movie Gains Momentum!

 

Sent by Tea Party Express

Sent: 4/22/2011 7:09 AM

 

Normally we’re not too focused on what movies are playing in local cinemas, but the release of Atlas Shrugged The Movie (based on Ayn Rand’s monumental book) has become a seminal event in the tea party movement.

 

And we’ve got some good news to report to you on the success of this movie that has liberal film critics up in arms.

 

In its debut weekend, Atlas Shrugged surprised everyone, grossing more in ticket sales per movie screen than any other movie save the hit family movie, “Rio.”

 

And this week, Atlas Shrugged expands – from 299 screens last weekend to 423+ screens this weekend.  You can find the closest movie theater showing the film near you – FIND MOVIE THEATER HERE

 

The movie, like the book, serves as a wake up call to the dangers posed when governments take on too much power and subvert the will and freedom of the individual.  Specifically, it showcases what happens when entrepreneurship and free market principles are deemed to be unseemly and unacceptable to Big Government.

 

When you watch the movie you’ll feel like you could be watching the real-live events of today, not a fictionalized account written by Ayn Rand some 60+ years ago.

 

And the fact that this movie touches on many of the problems we face today, and that we in the tea party movement are fighting, explains why so many liberal movie critics have slammed this movie and urged people not to see it.   They don’t want you to see this movie, because they don’t want you to see the truth about what is happening in America today.

 

  • ·       Michael Phillips, writing in the Los Angeles Times, complained about the film’s “tea-stained politics.”

 

  • ·       Peter Travers in RollingStones vented, “Who’s the idiot responsible for this fiasco?”

 

  • ·       Roger Ebert gave the film just 1-star and whined:  “And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault.”

 

  • ·       Peter Debruge incorporated a swipe at Fox News Channel in his review for Variety, writing that: “…Atlas Shrugged” becomes a series of polite policy conversations interrupted by Fox News-style updates whenever exposition is called for…”

 

Yes, we get it, liberal film critics.  You all can’t stand free markets, and you can’t stand that there is a film out there that echoes many of the same evils that the tea party movement here in America is fighting against.

 

You can see the movie for yourself this weekend, and in the process angry a Big Government, autocratic, liberal.  Watch it again, even if you’ve already seen it once.  Oh, and  be sure to take a friend with you too.

 

To find the nearest cinema showing “Atlas Shrugged” – JUST CLICK HERE.

______________________________

 

Go See ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the Movie

John R. Houk

© April 22, 2011

___________________________

Atlas Shrugged Movie Gains Momentum!

 

Paid for and authorized by the Our Country Deserves Better PAC/TeaPartyExpress.org, a federal political action committee, which is responsible for the content of this message. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Contributions are not tax detectable for tax purposes. 

Theodicy on Facebook


John R. Houk

© April 7, 2011

 

Below is a Facebook discussion based on the Quran burning issue of Pastor Terry Jones at SlantRight.com (But was actually linked to the SlantRight 2.0 site). Actually the discussion began between me and my son Steven which you will see if you click the Facebook link. Steven and I discussed evil in Islam in which Steven proceeded to equate all organized religions are evil; however knowing that I am a Christian I steered the discussion between Islam and Christianity. I then went to say atheism is evil and that atheism was a system of beliefs which in essence I believe is just as much a religion as any other religion.

 

Then a like-minded soul similar to Steven has rather successfully drawn me into a discussion related theism and atheism. I actually tried to avoid this discussion because my experience is that people who blame religion, especially Christianity for all the evils perpetrated by the Western World among Westerners and outside the Christian West, to objectify the blame of individuals (ruling elites) on the whole of Christianity. No matter how much I defend Christianity according to Biblical thought, this kind of religious attacker will point to this event, that person or that leader on the whole of Christianity.

 

So goes the conversation that will probably continue on Facebook but again will attempt to discontinue as the discussion moves the way I suspect it will which always ends in someone insulting my intelligence and me trying not to respond in kind but sometimes allowing my temperament to get the best of me.

 

JRH 4/7/11

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

John Houk

Nicholas when you ask me what I believe you are asking, Why not debate? The one with the longest wiz – err – I mean the best Socratic syllogism is correct. Frankly there is intellectual syllogism that will define the essence of atheism and/or monotheism. The effort is not worth my time.

 

John Houk

Actually Steven did not say “that which is evil should be apparent”. Steven was quoting me then impugning my intelligence as my son is only capable of doing. As to the Pope, what specific evil has done other than being the head of a Church confession in which the clergy has partaken in pedophilia in the 20th and 21st century? Bad management is not evil; the purposeful sinful acts are sinful and thus evil. Has the Pope stood up and made it a public doctrine of pedophilia should be accepted? No. Has Pope approved of pedophile? No. The worst he has done is not confronting ecclesiastical bureaucracy in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

 John Houk

Really? You wish to consider the throwing away of a cracker and the disappointment of the few committed Catholics over the act? You are equating the imbecilic death threats from Catholics who do not know their own Scriptures about not returning evil for evil in the same way that a Muslim that follows Quranic suras (scriptures) that demand death to anyone who insults Allah, Mohammed or Islam.

____________________

Nicholas Negelein

 

‎“I mean the best Socratic syllogism is correct.”

I think you are using this as a passive-aggressive cop out to avoid having to ever actually discuss your beliefs because you don’t want to have them questioned. You say the effort is not worth your time, but what is worth your time is rabble rousing against your fellow Abrahamic faiths. An interesting position to occupy.

“Actually Steven did not say ‘that which is evil should be apparent’.”

Correct. I stated “I agree with Steven about “that which is evil should be apparent” not being apparent to everyone.” We both think your statement is invalid.

“As to the Pope, what specific evil has done other than being the head of a Church confession in which the clergy has partaken in pedophilia in the 20th and 21st century?“

Such as being the one who directly signed the orders to hide and shuffle them so they don’t get prosecuted by local authorities under the guise of it being “in the best interests of the church”? Or lying and saying “condoms increase the spread of aids”? Or maligning secularism as being the cause of all societal ills, despite said ills existing even in wholly religious societies? Stuff like that.

“The worst he has done is not confronting ecclesiastical bureaucracy in the Roman Catholic Church.”

Saying this is inane, though I have to wonder if you are simply unknowing of the issue. He was the head bishop who passed down the orders to hide the priests and send them to new hunting grounds rather than turning them over to the authorities. He directly and knowingly aided and abetted rapists and criminals.

________________________

John Houk

Thus Nicholas I do think that it was criminal of the Pope to hide pedophiles. I believe pedophiles should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; however did the Pope hide the pedophiles according to Biblical Scripture? No. The Pope acted according to a man-made ecclesiastical bureaucracy. In other words the Pope acted contrary to his boss.

 

Am I “unknowing” of the issue? I have to admit it is not a focus of study in my journey as seeker of God in this life. The Pope is not in my Church. His acts of immoral rectitude only affect me because of the high profile as a significant leader of a huge amount of Christians of the Roman Catholic Confession. I have only cursory knowledge of the meme of the Pope, the Catholic Clergy and pedophilia. I still the actual committers of the atrocity need to be dealt with and the evil is in the individual that needs Justice in this life but still has the opportunity for forgiveness in the next life. That is Christianity: Love, Forgiveness and Restoration.

 

In my original thoughts that Islam is evil, Quranic suras maintain the exoneration of acts of evil executed upon non-Muslims. This is their Scripture. Thus if pedophilia, rape or even death occurs because it happens to a kafir it is moral. That is instituted evil.

 

Contrast that with evil that has been done in the name of Christianity or Christ. That evil occurred outside the institution of Scriptures. They were done either out of a misguided agenda of protecting the faith or were just downright evil of a person or a group of like-minded people.

 

When I say atheism is real it is not necessarily the person is evil. It is in the denial of God the Creator’s existence. That is not an evil that deserves prison or prosecution as it was in Christian history by those who did not follow the Scriptures of Christ that leads to Love of sinner and saint, the Forgiveness of sin that leads to Right Standing with God and Restoration which is the practice of learning not to be a sinner (which is not necessarily an overnight transformation in this world even the inner-person has been created anew by the Blood Sacrifice of Jesus Christ).

_______________________

Nicholas Negelein

‎

“You wish to consider the throwing away of a cracker and the disappointment of the few committed Catholics over the act?”

Yes.

“You are equating the imbecilic death threats from Catholics who do not know their own Scriptures about not returning… evil for evil in the same way that a Muslim that follows Quranic suras (scriptures) that demand death to anyone who insults Allah, Mohammed or Islam.”

I am not equating, they are the same. The suras, just like the bible, have contradicting statements. You say the Catholics are ignorant of scripture, but you don’t accord the Muslims the same courtesy. The truth is that both are, on average, equally accurate about their own relative scriptures.

____________________________

John Houk

 

“I am not equating, they are the same.”

 

You are absolutely incorrect! Not even a Muslim considers the Quran as the same as the Bible. To a Muslim the Old and New Testament are the adulterated inaccurate written words accomplished by deceived Jews and Christians. And yet the last writing by date (whether by modern scholarship or by devotional scholarship) was written 600 years before a collection of Mohammed’s companions who had memorized the old prophet’s word were put into print. And then it was another decade or so before one of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs destroyed all other Quran versions written to proclaim his affirmed version is the absolute words of Mohammed that was received from Allah. And yet the Quran is a complete bastardized version of the Old and New Testament in which Patriarchs and Prophets beginning with Adam were always Muslims and any other contradiction is a Jewish and Christian lie.

 

Although modern scholarship finds contradictions in the Bible by looking at singularities rather than the whole scarlet thread of the plan of God or slight variations of the same theme in various New Testament writings as a contradiction, that is not the case of a Believing Biblical scholar who seeks to find harmony rather than distinctive differences.

 

On the other hand the Quran is dualistic in its theological approach. Two different suras that overtly contradict each other are dualistically both true. The truth is measured by the situation and/or the time frame in which Mohammed is said to have pronounced an Allah-word. This is the process of Abrogation in Islam. Thus in earlier suras attributed to Mohammed that says “there is no compulsion of religion in Islam” or that Jews and Christians “should be respected as People of the Book” (i.e. the Bible denied by Islam as truth) as abrogated by the later words of Mohammed (specifically after Mohammed’s Hegira from Mecca to Medina). The suras written later are typified by “kill them wherever you find them” or “Jew where are you? Look behind the rock and slay them” or “kill the apostate of Islam” (Hadith) or “kill any person that insults Islam” or “women taken in war even if married are lawful for sex if they are not Muslims (i.e. rape)” and so on and so on.

_______________________________

In full disclosure I ran a spell check on this post in which most of the corrections were my own rather than Nicholas.