Schlussel: Fear the proto-jihadist atheist menace within

posted at 9:16 am on February 8, 2007 by Allahpundit

Odds that I’ll eventually be appearing in as-Sahab training videos next to Adam “Chuckles” Gadahn? Apparently, good to high.

I don’t mind receiving the atheist hate mail, since I know that in a few years, many of these same people will either be Muslim extremists (redundant) or helping the country fall further in its fight against the creep of Islamic imposition on America . . . or both.

Look at famous atheists and what happened to them.Adam Gadahn a/k/a Azzam Al-Amriki–now a top Al-Qaeda video “personality”–was raised by his hippie Jewish father and equally bizarre gentile mother as an atheist. And look how he turned out. Ditto for hippie-spawn John Walker Lindh.

Those two people are enemies of America, and many of those who think like them are of equally weak mind. If you don’t believe in anything, you’ll easily fall for virtual nothings. That’s why Europe is so quickly turning Islamist–because atheism dominates and Christianity is rapidly dying there. Over there, the number one cause for which atheists are suddenly finding “god” is Islam.

Over here, as I pointed out on CNN, atheists are on the attack against religion and G-d only when Christians and Jews are involved, not when Muslims and Islam are. A Christian prayer at a public school graduation or football game? Send in the ACLU lawyers. A Muslim prayer at a high school football game in Dearbornistan? Suddenly, when the “Religion of Peace” is involved, atheists boast extreme tolerance and display ultimate deference. No lawsuits. Ever. And the Muslim prayers continue.

So to you hate-filled atheists a/k/a future Muslim extremists (redundant), your e-mails have no effect on me. Ditto for your creative obscenities which don’t impress upon me the civility of the atheo-fascisti set.

Here’s the clip from Paula Zahn’s show a few days ago. How did Stephen “Screamin’” A. Smith become the voice of (relative) reason?

Update: Richard Dawkins is going to be on the show tonight after atheists complained that the roundtable shown above didn’t include any actual, um, atheists on it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hey, I have an atheist at IMAO. If he turns jihadi, that could be trouble… or more traffic!

frankj on February 8, 2007 at 9:24 AM

I’m really enjoying these anti- atheist post! I never realized how weak minded and hate-filled I was.

If you don’t believe in anything, you’ll easily fall for virtual nothings.

Who says we don’t believe in anything – I think we believe in ourselves and that’s a very powerful motivator. Some believe that God is a supreme being that makes us good. I personally believe that God is whatever is inside of us that makes us good.

As far as being a future Muslim extremist, I assure you that I would die by my own hand before that.

Thanks Allah and keep up the good work!

Ann on February 8, 2007 at 9:35 AM

How did Stephen “Screamin’” A. Smith become the voice of (relative) reason?

Really? I thought he sounded more like the voice of (relative) ACLU.

The tyranny of the minority.

IrishEi on February 8, 2007 at 9:41 AM

“Maybe they need their own cards” I love it!

dalewalt on February 8, 2007 at 9:42 AM

I’ve always liked Steven Smith; not sure on his political views, but he seems to be a pretty common sense guy most of the times I’ve ever seen him – sports or otherwise.

lorien1973 on February 8, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Atheism wasn’t the disease, it is a symptom of left-coast hippie free range parenting. Ask a 5-year old if he either wants to get dressed up and go to church on Sunday morning or stay at home and play, what do you think he will choose? If you don’t set boundaries for your kids at a young age, they will not understand them when they grow up. Then they will not be able to see the difference between rebelling against your parents by wearing black and listening to Emo and rebelling against your country by wearing a mask and listening to Osama.

BohicaTwentyTwo on February 8, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Atheist = one who is absolutely certain there are no absolutes.

mbredmond on February 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Ah, Debbie’s always good for a nice laugh.

I can only hope some Republican candidate hires her to blog and us liberals get to dig through her archives for some juicy bigot-speech. I always love a good treasure hunt, although she would make it just to easy.

It’ll never happen, I know, but one can dream…

JaHerer22 on February 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM

As an atheist, should I consider this hate speech?

harrison on February 8, 2007 at 9:51 AM

I am a dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac so I stay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.

IrishEi on February 8, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion?

That’s a pretty novel interpretation. Or said another way, a wrong interpretation.

JackStraw on February 8, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Thought 2) And with the ACLU bunch, isn’t she talking about anti-theists, not atheists?

harrison on February 8, 2007 at 9:56 AM

You’re right.

Stephen A. Smith (unknowingly) made a very good case for my favorite subject:

VOTE SCHOOL VOUCHERS – VOTE SCHOOL CHOICE.

http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/index.html

locomotivebreath1901 on February 8, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion?

That’s a pretty novel interpretation. Or said another way, a wrong interpretation.

I couldn’t disagree more.

Matticus Finch on February 8, 2007 at 9:56 AM

Atheist = one who is absolutely certain there are no absolutes.

(chuckle)

I don’t believe in atheists. Yeah. That’s irony.

Professor Blather on February 8, 2007 at 9:57 AM

I’ve had many discussions with atheists, most of whom were rational, intelligent, and moral.

The issue is way too deep to cover well here, but I would offer one suggestion to thoughtful atheists: The intellect is a great tool for certain tasks, but may not be the best tool for understanding or experiencing the larger issues. I’ve gone from being rather atheistic myself to a strong belief in spiritual reality by just keeping an open mind and sort of “tuning in” to other ways of perceiving reality.

mikeyboss on February 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM

JackStraw:

Not novel at all…it’s been around for decades. Where have you been?

And what’s so wrong about it. I take it then, you would you agree with these statements:

Freedom of expression means freedom FROM expression.
Freedom of speech means freedom FROM speech.
Freedom of the press means freedom FROM the press.

Still think that interpretation’s wrong?

IrishEi on February 8, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Most atheists I meet could not care less about Christmas, or the Pledge of Allegiance. The whole prayer in school thing always has amused me, after all, who is stopping little Tommy from praying 24 hours a day if he wants to.

But, if people want to fight for organized prayer in school, be prepared to see more Imams leading them.

doufree on February 8, 2007 at 10:06 AM

“I can only hope some Republican candidate hires her to blog and us liberals get to dig through her archives for some juicy bigot-speech.”

I see. So anything that doesn’t coincide with your viewpoint is “bigot-speech”?

darwin on February 8, 2007 at 10:07 AM

I do not accept the adage of “if you stand for nothing, you’ll believe anything” applying to athiests. I find most of them respectful, usually think of themselves as intellects because they go against the grain (similiar to intellectual liberals), very few ever walk through the streets with signs proclaiming their non-belief (they know it is a waste of time), they tolerate religious people, but do not understand the depths of our committment to our fellow man (both believers and non-believers). They move through and use the resources built by religious people, but do not accept that as a gift to all of humanity. And I would bet the one of the lowest % of people in prison or who commit crimes are atheists. An interesting group of people, some very conservative, some extremely liberal. Most live as an athiest, and die a believer.

right2bright on February 8, 2007 at 10:09 AM

I’ve been right here. For decades.

There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that compels me to practice a certain religion or any religion. Ergo, I have the right to no religion at all.

You are free to have no expression. You are free not to speak. You are free not to participate in the press.

These rights were enumerated to allow people the freedom to NOT be infringed upon by the gov’t, not the other way around.

JackStraw on February 8, 2007 at 10:09 AM

What does it mean when you aren’t sure whether or not you are agnostic?

Watcher on February 8, 2007 at 10:11 AM

An actual atheist, not an Adam Gadahnish aimless goofball, is as likely to become religious as Debbie Schussel is to avoid getting spittle on her computer screen.

albo on February 8, 2007 at 10:13 AM

I am a dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac so I stay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.

IrishEi on February 8, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Now, I don’t care who you are, but that’s funny!

Not to drive into the big discussion of is atheism rational, but I think Debbie made a good point about the current state of the major atheistic advocacy groups (ala the ACLU and People for the American Way, etc) namely that they are extremely selective in what they want to protest and challenge in court. I have yet to see a case brought against the public display of Islam.

Originally I’m from Michigan and the majority of my family is still there and so far she is correct. There are Muslim prayers at that Dearborn H.S. but I haven’t seen the ACLU or PFAW make nary a sound against that. Why is that? Well, if this existence is all there is in the atheist’s view then provoking ones who would directly threaten that existence doesn’t make much sense. I understand that but, it does demonstrate hypocrisy in the least and perhaps cowardliness at worse. Because if it were Christian or Jewish prayers said before football games you know there would already be a suit filed and the media would have been alerted to the dastardly deeds of those intolerent oppressive Christians or Jews.

Mich_93 on February 8, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Ouch IrishEi, and thank you!! Seriously, I have never seen anyone shoot down the freedom of = freedom from argument so clearly.
I’ll be using that for years to come.
Well said.
JackStraw, I trust you’ll be ammending your considerations henceforth.

y2church on February 8, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Think again.

JackStraw on February 8, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Great post. It is a conundrum as to why some atheists (especially left-wing atheists) seem to support Religion of Peace. Is it because Islamo-terorists purport to take out other religions by force? I have a hard time believing all atheists are as callous as Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

Valiant on February 8, 2007 at 10:21 AM

“You are free to have no expression. You are free not to speak. You are free not to participate in the press.”

You’re free to do or not do what you want. However, you’re not free to prevent others from practicing religion, even in the dreaded public arena. You’re also not free to prevent others from expressing, speaking or printing things you don’t like … even religious things.

darwin on February 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM

It is a conundrum as to why some atheists (especially left-wing atheists) seem to support Religion of Peace. Is it because Islamo-terorists purport to take out other religions by force?

I think at least partially, yes. I think a lot of left-wing atheists see Christianity as having a stranglehold on American politics and will support anything they see as having a chance to break that stranglehold. I’m not sure what they thing the Muslims might do after the stranglehold is broken, but, you know, religion of peace and all that.

Farmer_Joe on February 8, 2007 at 10:31 AM

How can that be Jack, in all seriousness? I’m truly dumbfounded that you would exercise an expectation of “freedom from religion” in a land where ALL are guaranteed the freedom OF religion.

If I want to witness to you of the goodness of Christ, it is within my rights. Consequently, it’s within your rights to swear at me and tell me to never speak to you again. But you do NOT have the right to be free from religion.

You have the right to turn off or tune out any religion that may stream your way, but the “streamers” rights cannot be infringed.

So, please address Irish. How can you expect to be free from the press? May they not report about your arrest, or your community service award without your permission?

Freedom from expression? Doesn’t the very mention stiffle someone else’s freedom of speech. Surely that’s guaranteed, isn’t it?

y2church on February 8, 2007 at 10:33 AM

It is a conundrum as to why some atheists (especially left-wing atheists) seem to support Religion of Peace.

Actually – its not.

Atheists are self-aware enough, at some level, to understand that their beliefs are a faith no different than any other. Like every other religion, they believe they hold a monopoly on the grand truths of the universe. (Or in the case of agnostics and “soft” atheists, they have absolute faith in the lack of proof for faith, if you can follow that sort of reasoning).

Since atheism is just another faith – and since it’s become increasingly popular for atheists to wallow in self-perceived oppression – they sympathize with other faiths they view as being “oppressed.”

Thus, while no atheist (certainly not a liberal one) would embrace Judeo-Christian conduct – because they’re the oppressors, you see – they see Islam as suffering the same oppression they do, at the hands of those mean ‘ol Christians and Jews.

Hence, you end up with an imam delivering a sectarian prayer of conversion at a Democratic Party function (see today’s Vent, for example). They’d howl if a Christian did it – but Muslims, you see, are just like atheists. They’re misunderstood oppressed people.

Of course, it really, really helps to be a dingy moonbat or someone who embraces absolute certainty in the existence of nothingness to actually follow this line of reasoning. For most people, thinking like that just gives you a headache.

As for what atheists will do about Islam once we’re all wearing burkas and praying to Mecca, your guess is as good as mine. At that point, they’ll probably find Christianity one helluva lot less offensive.

Professor Blather on February 8, 2007 at 10:36 AM

it really amuses me that smith says that he knows that we’re a Christian nation, but still supports removing the Christian things from … our nation while claiming to … be a Christian.

wow. just… wow.

One Angry Christian on February 8, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Freedom of choice mean freedom FROM choice?

this is fun

mikeyboss on February 8, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Jack Straw-

I see what you mean in arguing the “Freedom of doesn’t mean freedom from” topic.

However, I think we’re talking about a semantic difference. When I agree with “Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion”, I’m agreeing with the premise that just because you have the freedom to practice your religion/no religion doesn’t mean you have the right not to be exposed to other religions. Especially since the proper exercise of my religion requires me to proselytize, and I have the freedom to practice that aspect, which includes exposing Atheists/Agnostics/Muslims/etc to Jesus Christ.

I think you’re talking about you have the freedom to not practice any religion at all. So to you “Freedom of religion can mean freedom from religion”.

In other words, I guess it was an interpretive thing. But I think her meaning of that phrase was more in line with what I was thinking.

Matticus Finch on February 8, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Its all about Moral clarity.

Hang with me here, because there are two points to this.

People only do “good”, or follow the rules and don’t do “bad” (break laws) out of reward and fear. You are TAUGHT to be good by your parents, and the society around you. We get caught and get punished… and we are also told that Good children go to heaven… bad children BURN IN THE FIERY PITS and GOD sees everything… even when your parents don’t…. eventual justice.

Now, fast forward to being an adult. We are constantly inundated with TV shows, and information where the bad guy gets away with it. Where the murder goes unsolved, where OJ is found not guilty… so the LAW is not a reliable method to enforce “right and wrong”. We constantly see the liars and cheaters get ahead (Survivor anyone?)… we see the Good pummeled (Bush… good man IMO, not smart though), and the Evil rewarded (Clinton?? come on… he wagged his finger and lied to my face… and now may get back to the white house?)….

Take away Divine Justice… or erode that belief, and you no longer have ANY means of rewarding society for “Good” behaviour.

Hang in there… almost there… so now enter a group who can GUARENTEE both divine and earthly justice… Heaven for those that believe… and back it up with Billions in Petro Bucks to show Power on Earth as well… They give you a clear path, carefully documented and explained, and then ENFORCED… it takes all the decision making away from the person, and gives you… Moral Clarity.

This is why we are seeing people like this “convert”.

Romeo13 on February 8, 2007 at 10:46 AM

I think this whole “debate” is silly. When did atheists get designated the most derided “minority group?” Come on. It is hard for me to believe.

I like atheists. I really like AllahPundit. I have every respect for someone who chooses not to believe that there is a God. I disagree, but, hey, isn’t that (part of)what the world is about…individual differences of opinion.

The only problem I have is with goofs like Dawkins who want to exterminate all belief in God, and are militant about doing so. I hope I get a chance to see the segment tonight. Eh, if not, I’m sure AP will post it here.

nailinmyeye on February 8, 2007 at 10:46 AM

You’re free to do or not do what you want. However, you’re not free to prevent others from practicing religion, even in the dreaded public arena. You’re also not free to prevent others from expressing, speaking or printing things you don’t like … even religious things.

Never have I said I did.

“The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and… if any act shall be… passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.” –Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546 aka Stuff Jefferson said Vol III

I’m merely agreeing with Jefferson in that my, and your, religious choices are between you and your conscience and have no business being influenced by the Gov’t. Having no religious affiliation is one of those options.

Church-

I think you and I have a different understanding of the Constitution. My understanding is the Constitution was not addressing my freedom from the press, it was addressing the freedom of the press from undue gov’t intervention. Same with speech, same with expression. These were fundamentally liberating rights not constricting ones.

The press is free from the gov’t but there is no constitutional requirement for a press. Likewise, there is a freedom of religion but there is no requirement for a religion. Whatever my religious affiliation, it is mine to choose. And that includes no religion at all.

At no point did I say you do not have the same rights.

JackStraw on February 8, 2007 at 10:48 AM

People only do “good”, or follow the rules and don’t do “bad” (break laws) out of reward and fear. You are TAUGHT to be good by your parents, and the society around you. We get caught and get punished… and we are also told that Good children go to heaven… bad children BURN IN THE FIERY PITS and GOD sees everything… even when your parents don’t…. eventual justice.

That’s a plausible theory, Romeo, but may not be the whole story. I believe there is such a thing as a spirit of goodwill not tied to one’s own reward or punishment. Don’t think there’s any way to prove or disprove either, but as I mentioned above, I think a person can experience it if open-minded enough.

mikeyboss on February 8, 2007 at 10:51 AM

y2church on February 8, 2007 at 10:33 AM

I think you are failing to understand the Constitution. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech, etc mean freedom from government intervention. The government can’t arrest you for what you say or pass laws preventing you from practicing your religion, or tell the press what they can and cannot publish. That is a far as those freedoms extend; they do not apply to interactions between citizens.

JaHerer22 on February 8, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Well, of course any atheist is one step away from adopting an ideology of religious supremacy. First you stop believing in God, and next thing you know you think God wants you to suicide bomb people. It’s like a natural progression.

FYI, any atheist that doesn’t condemn Islam for being an empirically more dangerous religion than Christianity is a fool. Christianity is domesticated in the West, and other than in extremely rare cases, it poses no real threat to atheists. Sure, there’s that weird segment of Christianity that wants to teach Intelligent Design and has this bizarre fixation on the definition of the word “marriage,” but sensible atheists don’t consider them threatening – we’re just sort of embarassed by you.

And we assume that feeling’s mutual. But hey, no harm no foul. :)

Insh’allah.

Enrique on February 8, 2007 at 10:56 AM

it really amuses me that smith says that he knows that we’re a Christian nation, but still supports removing the Christian things from … our nation while claiming to … be a Christian.

wow. just… wow.

One Angry Christian on February 8, 2007 at 10:40 AM

We are a Christian nation in that the majority of our citizens are Christians.

We are not however a Christian Government; we are a government under our Constitution and the rule of law. This is what separates us from countries whose governments are ruled by Shar’ia or other types of religious law.

JaHerer22 on February 8, 2007 at 11:04 AM

JaHerer: the law is an authority from God, beneath him. This is the essence of Romans 13. We shall establish no state religion. Forcing people to remove religious symbols from public places destroys history and culture, those which built the nation that we have which is so great. The problem is not that we have people who want them removed, but that people (judges, etc) will tolerate the decisions and not challenge them. It is also a shame that certain Christians (A minority) are extreme enough about control to want a state religion– but then, they do not have a religion per se but a political ideology that includes only one religion.

With Atheism, it is as important to know WHY someone believes something as it is to know what they believe. Dawkins may disbelieve because he holds bitterness (which is invisible to him) against a number of Christian people he has met. Allahpundit may be atheistic because of the environs he grew up in and lives in. The connection between the two is what very much determines what the person will do with their atheism.

Atheism based on bitterness can easily turn into some other form of extremism. Atheism based on circumstance or intellectual doubt will not; or rather probably won’t. One kind of atheism is a kind of extremism, the other a form of skepticism.

There’s something deeper at work.

RiverCocytus on February 8, 2007 at 11:13 AM

She is right, it’s ALL about “Freedom FROM religion“. That’s not Constitutional, and until it is, so called atheists don’t have a leg to stand on.

NRA4Freedom on February 8, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion?

… a wrong interpretation.

Jack – I’m a math teacher. Your above statement is logically equivalent to “I’m JackStraw and I believe that freedom of religion means freedom from religion.”

You said she was wrong about freedom of religion NOT being the same as freedom from religion which naturally implies that you believe they are the same.

How can a freedom FROM religion possibly exist? There is only one way for that to occur – by government decree. Try China or old school USSR for example. There are lots of people there who are/used to be free FROM religion. I’ll skip the hackneyed (yet true) discussion about “no religion” being a religion in and of itself.

I’m well aware that the Constitution limits the federal government as to its powers and that its scope ends there. By the way, there is no separation of church and state. If my local school district wants to teach Hinduism, so be it (I’ll be moving, but hey.) The US Constitution does not limit them. That right is reserved to the several states and local principalities to decide upon (the X is your friend.)

I’m not arguing semantics here. You said (logically) that “of” = “from.” You can’t then run and say that applies to one part of ammendment 1 but not to other parts in the same sentence.

JaH -

They do not apply to interactions between citizens.

Huh?

Ammendment 1 guarantees you the right to repulsively offend my by swearing every word you can think of in front of my small children. The courts (no friends of mine) have held repeatedly that you have that right. That’s what I call personal interaction – and it’s guaranteed.

And I’m equally guaranteed the right to reply with “Jesus loves you.”

Constitutional law applies to interactions between all the inhabitants (citizens or otherwise) of this great nation.

y2church on February 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM

JaHerer22-

The government can’t arrest you for what you say or pass laws preventing you from practicing your religion

Please see Action Alert ‘various links’ topic that was recently posted (about the Gideons). It directly refutes this statement.

Matticus Finch on February 8, 2007 at 11:29 AM

I am an atheist. I don’t care what anybody believes about anything. And, I understand that there are many belief systems on the planet not open to “rational, provable” interpretation. No matter. People should be free to believe whatever they wish with one strong caveat: DO NO HARM to anyone or anything. That of course is a very simplistic statement and all should be able to see that the sentiment can be torn apart by everyday events in our lives because of some ideology we each have.

Don’t worry about what anyone believes, or thinks or wishes to practice, instead focus upon yourself and how you are following whatever you believe every day in your faith. Are each of us being true to what we believe or do we just use whatever portion of our “faith” that suits the moment. I have a horrible time understanding the left’s mentality; Islamism; gangsters; pedophiles and on and and on. What I see is that everyone gets their panties in a bunch about religion and politics and doesn’t focus on the really bad, bad stuff.

And, please don’t make the assumption (thereby proving yourself and myself an ass) that just because I have a different belief system from yours that I am the enemy. There are people from every belief system that are the enemy and that is what we all need to focus on.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Could not get on to comment for more than an hour…does that happen to anyone else?

Mich_93:

I am a dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac so I stay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog.

IrishEi on February 8, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Now, I don’t care who you are, but that’s funny!

Thanks! It was a bit of graffitti scribbled on a subway car that I read many years ago. A couple of other favorites: 1) There is no gravity–the earth sucks; and 2) Eat s**t, 10 million flies can’t be wrong.

y2church:

Ouch IrishEi, and thank you!! Seriously, I have never seen anyone shoot down the freedom of = freedom from argument so clearly.

I thought it was a logical sequence of deductions, but apparently some people would rather stick their fingers in their ears and squeal “Nah nah nah nah nah I can’t hear you…”

mikeyboss:

Freedom of choice mean freedom FROM choice?

I love that one!

I’m just happy I fall into the quadrant with the best odds in Pascal’s Wager!

IrishEi on February 8, 2007 at 11:40 AM

But hey, no harm no foul. :)

Enrique on February 8, 2007 at 10:56 AM

So. I am waiting…
Is AllahPundit going to “weigh-in” on this topic, or not?
It’s his post. Is he going to let Enrique have the last word (representing the atheist viewpoint)? Do you suppose that he is counting on Dawkins slated television appearance to represent his views?

C’mon AP, let’s hear from you. Or are you REALLY the sniveling, splineless, weakling that Zahn’s panelists say that you are? Where’s that atheistic TIGER that you were telling all of us about in Ted Haggard post a day or two ago? Are you just gonna’ sit there in silence? I am breathless with anticipation.

CyberCipher on February 8, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Great post. It is a conundrum as to why some atheists (especially left-wing atheists) seem to support Religion of Peace.

I believe its because Islam is not a religion, its a form of government.
What is wrong in all of this is that 2-3% of the nation are telling 97% what to do. VOTE on the right to pray in schools, vote on “in God we trust” on our money, on or buildings. We are a democracy and we vote. The tiny minority can not tell the vast majority what to do and what not to do.

shooter on February 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM

church-

I’m not running and saying anything. Nor am I trying to conflate multiple Constitutional rights and saying they all say the same thing.

I’m simply saying that freedom of religion includes the belief in no belief at all. It is as valid a choice for the individual as Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. etc. Jefferson, who was the key framer of this argument, was more than clear that the combination of gov’t and ANY religion led to tyranny. I agree. You can be a Christian in America but being an American does not require you to be a Christian or a member of any other religion.

If you’re a math teacher then you know null set is often a valid choice.

JackStraw on February 8, 2007 at 12:01 PM

C’mon AP, let’s hear from you. Or are you REALLY the sniveling, splineless, weakling that Zahn’s panelists say that you are? Where’s that atheistic TIGER that you were telling all of us about in Ted Haggard post a day or two ago? Are you just gonna’ sit there in silence? I am breathless with anticipation.

Actually, Allah is not an atheist… he is agnostic.

Watcher on February 8, 2007 at 12:05 PM

One Angry Christian on February 8, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Somehow, I think I get it. Smith is a leftist, who happens to be a Christian (maybe not philosophically, but socially?), so he is congenitally hard-wired to look for the way to stick it to the establishment, which he rightly views as the Right.

So, he says “I’m a Christian, but I’m down with the struggle of the anti-Christians and atheists. This version of self-hating Christian is virulent in the Protestant churches, especially the Community Church movement, which is repelled by denominational values, but also the Methodist, Episcopal and Presbyterian churches.

They don’t want to be viewed as judgemental Christians, so they judge other Christians, which is perfect for the Church of Liberalism. And Smith nails it.

Jaibones on February 8, 2007 at 12:09 PM

I can only hope some Republican candidate hires her to blog and us liberals get to dig through her archives for some juicy bigot-speech. I always love a good treasure hunt, although she would make it just to easy.

It’ll never happen, I know, but one can dream…

JaHerer22 on February 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Typical liberal ad-hominem. “Bigot speech?” You have the right to say whatever you want as long as you’re not yelling fire in a crowded theater. Really, Schlussel just doesn’t agree with you so you just assign her a label because you can’t come up with an intelligent rebuttal. Liberal’s have a reasoning capability about an inch deep.

PRCalDude on February 8, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Sure, there’s that weird segment of Christianity that wants to teach Intelligent Design and has this bizarre fixation on the definition of the word “marriage,” but sensible atheists don’t consider them threatening – we’re just sort of embarassed by you.

I would suggest that it is the other way around. People are insistent on redefining the word marriage. It is more than just change in terminology. It has to do with normalizing homosexuality and granting rights based on one’s sexuality.

I personally don’t even think having certain rights should be an issue. If you are hospitalized, you should have whoever you want look after you. If you die, you should be able to pass on your own inheritance to whoever you choose, etc.

The gray area is when those rights force others to endorse something they do not believe in. Should an employer who does not support homosexuality be forced to pay benefits to a partner? Should a church (or mosque)be forced to hire a homosexual because they can not legally discriminate against them?

I don’t think this will be resolved anytime soon, especially when one is labeled a bigot for disagreeing

jman on February 8, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Debbie’s arguing from meagre examples to a ridiculous conclusion: someone who “believes” in no God can simply flip to someone who believes in the most Intolerant Deity since Moloch (or the Yaweh of the Book of Job). There are so few atheists- and fewer among them ready to reverse course absolutley- that this issue seems like a “problem” about as vital as being concerned about the number of stage magicians who will use their sleight-of-hand skills to aid the jihad..

Theists and atheists both presume that the frail and limited human mind can know more than the human mind possibly may ever know (when it barely has begun to know itself).

Depending on the belief system, this can lead to tyrannical theocratic depotism (giving weak humans the excuse to exercise Absolute “Godly” Power), as the bloody book of human “religious” history grimly demonstrates, from the Muslim Crescades (their earlier-than-the-Crusades) imperialistic expansionism) to the Inquisition, with Moloch and the Thugees in the mix.

When you give a weak intellect too much juice and its tends toward a short-circuit, as seen with all dictatorial regimes, “theocratic” or not (VIZ- the nominally-”Christian” medieval Church to the “pagan” Nazis).

As an agnostic nature mystic (a homegrown parallel of what I later found resonances in with Taoism) myself, I have little belief in the proclamations of neighboring uber-primates who insist that their limited cortex can – or does- know the Mind of God.

Know yourself, first. The rest will follow.

Humility, essentially.

profitsbeard on February 8, 2007 at 12:18 PM

On all those points you will get no argument from me.

The problem is that those conflated “mulitple rights” do all say the same thing.

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.

If it can respect or prohibit any/no religion, then there’s freedom OF religion, but no freedom FROM it is guaranteed.

If it cant abridge the freedom of speech, then in fact, much to my dismay at times, I and my children cannot escape FROM Mr. Vulgar’s opining. There is freedom OF speech only.

Hey, unless you’re an abortion clinic, you can’t even be free FROM the people’s right to peaceably to assemble – in front of you house in protest (see Crawford, Cindy….er, please note differences in Crawford, Cindy and Cindy Crawford.) There is freedom of assembly, but not FROM it no matter how moonbatty the assemblers are.

I disagree only with your comment that she’s wrong about freedom from religion.

It’s one ammendment, all the pieces are due the same consideration. There’s no freedom from speech, nor from religion.

Other than that, thank you Jack for the demeanor in which you have debated this with me.

y2church on February 8, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Actually, Allah is not an atheist… he is agnostic.

Watcher on February 8, 2007 at 12:05 PM

No matter. IMHO, AP is being coy here. He obviously felt that there was an issue here worthy of this post, or this thread wouldn’t be here, and we wouldn’t be discussing it. As an atheist/agnostic, does he feel threatened by the participants here on HotAir? (He has already expressed his desire for a new political party that more closely represents his views on the issues.) He keeps tossing out red meat like this that provokes heated discussion in the readership, but I am disappointed by his lackluster, tepid participation in those discussions. He sorta’ reminds me of some teenagers that I’ve run across. Figuratively speaking, first he defaces a public place (aka HotAir — seen by all) with spray-painted graffiti (which provokes a response), but then he seems to disappear so that he is not around for the clean-up/aftermath. I am just trying to call him on it. (Why do we let him do this to us?)

CyberCipher on February 8, 2007 at 12:24 PM

And, please don’t make the assumption (thereby proving yourself and myself an ass) that just because I have a different belief system from yours that I am the enemy. There are people from every belief system that are the enemy and that is what we all need to focus on.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Sorry, I have to call you on this one. This is blatant leftist moral relativism. All groups, no matter what they believe are equal??? HUH??? All belief systems are OK, its just the people??? WHAT???

So a belief system that states that Women are half a man legaly… that those who disbelieve are evil, wrong, and can be killed… that wants to Kill gays, or anyone who likes sex outside of their pluralistic marriages… that teaches children to HATE certain other groups… and a group thats stated intention is to take over the world… is OK??? it just has a couple of “bad” people in it???

WHOOOPPP WHOOOOPPPP WHOOOOOPPPP… Moonbat alert….

Romeo13 on February 8, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Figuratively speaking, first he defaces a public place (aka HotAir — seen by all) with spray-painted graffiti (which provokes a response), but then he seems to disappear so that he is not around for the clean-up/aftermath. I am just trying to call him on it. (Why do we let him do this to us?)

I don’t want to put words in his mouth… but I thought he explained the reason for such posts as being that they provoke a genuine discussion, rather than everyone parroting the same political talking points. And I don’t understand how you can describe his posts as graffiti… you almost make it sound like he is trespassing on your domain and defiling your personal property somehow.

Watcher on February 8, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I think you are failing to understand the Constitution.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech, etc mean freedom from government intervention. The government can’t arrest you for what you say or pass laws preventing you from practicing your religion, or tell the press what they can and cannot publish. That is a far as those freedoms extend; they do not apply to interactions between citizens.

JaHerer22 on February 8, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Very true. With that being said, since you are a liberal, explain how the Fairness Doctrine fits into all of this.

Also, in your previous post you compared Debbie to Amanda – to quote Amanda you are way “f#*king” off.

Rick on February 8, 2007 at 12:35 PM

(Why do we let him do this to us?)

He works here. He can do that if he wants.

harrison on February 8, 2007 at 12:36 PM

How sad if I want to see Debbie Schlussel I have to watch CNN? Of course Sean Hannity enjoys stealing her work (Ali Husainy she’s been writing about since June 2005) but to much of a coward to acknowledge her!! john.finley@foxnews.com write to him about it, I did!!

mimi on February 8, 2007 at 12:59 PM

It seems to me that Schlussel was bashing militant atheists, not people like AP or some of the other commenters here. There are certain people, Richard Dawkins included, that are hysterical about the need for a change in “zeitgeist” in the world as a whole. They feel the need to force everyone else into this change as well. Unfortunately, as Schlussel pointed out, they apply this unequally. Muslims are left off the hook. In reality, the change in zeitgeist will be away from Christianity and towards Islam. The atheists in this country should really be up in arms about CAIR and other Islamist groups.

Man instinctively knows that his moral sense is derived from being God’s image bearer. He may not acknowledge this, as atheists do not, but it’s true nonetheless. Morals and logic are creations from a creator God and we can follow them only because we are allowed to do so by God. Atheism hasn’t yet provided answers as to what is good and bad, though many in Western civilization have tried.

I really recommend Francis Schaeffer’s How should we then live? to understand how Westerners have failed to become autonomous from God by failing to derive an independent system of morals and purpose.

PRCalDude on February 8, 2007 at 1:06 PM

And I don’t understand how you can describe his posts as graffiti… you almost make it sound like he is trespassing on your domain and defiling your personal property somehow.

Watcher on February 8, 2007 at 12:33 PM

I said “figuratively.” When someone defaces a public place with graffiti, the intention of the vandal is usually to provoke an emotional response in the people that read it. I am NOT trying to compare the CONTENT of the posts to graffiti. I am sorry if it was a lousy analogy. I apologize, in that case. And no, I don’t think anyone was trespassing. It’s just that my radar hints that there might be some mischieviousness on the part of our hosts (not always, but from time-to-time).

He works here. He can do that if he wants.

harrison on February 8, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Exactly. And I never meant to imply otherwise. He has an unfair advantage, don’t you think? Of course, ANYONE controlling the site WOULD, wouldn’t they? In some ways, it is not unlike the problem with the MSM. A few “chosen” or key individuals decide what appears in front of the readership, but those same individuals (for the most part) do not have to answer to that readership for what appears or why it appears at the exclusion of other things. Don’t get me wrong — I am NOT complaining. I think AP, and Ian, and Bryan et. al. do a superb job. I just become a bit uneasy, at times, if I suspect that I (and others) are being manipulated (for the purposes of amusement). Is it wrong for me to draw attention to this? Or am I just supposed to just shut-up and be a good little boy?

CyberCipher on February 8, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Who the heck does Ms. Schlussel sound like? Her voice is so familiar.

Kevin M on February 8, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Who the heck does Ms. Schlussel sound like? Her voice is so familiar.

Kevin M on February 8, 2007 at 1:50 PM

A voice of intelligence!

mimi on February 8, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Romeo:

I never said anything about “being equal”…what I said was: there are people from all belief systems that are the enemy.”
There are the nuts hounding funerals of soldiers, there are those that kill poultry for their religion practices, there are religions that won’t allow for medical care…The point is, there are as many different beliefs systems that believe every other system is wrong and that there are people in all of them that are the enemy of good, decent, honest, reasonable people.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 2:32 PM

I had no idea that the ACLU spoke for me, as I am an Atheist. As far as I can tell, Atheism literally translates to “without god(s)”, and nothing more.

It’s a fun game, though. This means I get to judge lesbians based on Rosie O’Donnell and Christians based on Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell. I can judge all Muslims on Osama Bin Laden. Heck, I’ll just assume NOW represents all women when I’m at it and the NRA is the voice of all manly men.

Speaking for myself, and only myself, it’s unlikely I’ll strap on a bomb belt for a belief system. The catch is, and some have touched upon it, that a good may atheists simply found some other dogmatic idea to follow.

Krydor on February 8, 2007 at 2:44 PM

I never said anything about “being equal”…what I said was: there are people from all belief systems that are the enemy.”
There are the nuts hounding funerals of soldiers, there are those that kill poultry for their religion practices, there are religions that won’t allow for medical care…The point is, there are as many different beliefs systems that believe every other system is wrong and that there are people in all of them that are the enemy of good, decent, honest, reasonable people.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 2:32 PM

No, actualy, you are.

You are morally equating Christianity, because of a VERY few nutjobs, with a religion with 1.2 Billion adhearents whose founding documents STATE that it is their DUTY and Holy mandate to bring the entire world under their dominion, and is currently involved in violence in over 40 countries.

Sorry… if you can’t see the difference, I sure can’t help you.

Romeo13 on February 8, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Schlussel did well. Let’s hope to see more of her on the telly in the future.

sbvft contributor on February 8, 2007 at 3:15 PM

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Sorry, I have to call you on this one. This is blatant leftist moral relativism. All groups, no matter what they believe are equal??? HUH??? All belief systems are OK, its just the people??? WHAT???
WHOOOPPP WHOOOOPPPP WHOOOOOPPPP… Moonbat alert….

Romeo13 on February 8, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Romeo13, you misinterpreted sharinlite’s comment IMO. I read nothing about equality of groups in the comment! Rather, it was laser-focused on individual responsibility.

Bravo, sharinlite. {{{Do No Harm}}}. Brilliant.

RushBaby on February 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM

botched my quote
PIMF PIMF PIMF PIMF PIMF PIMF PIMF PIMF PIMF

RushBaby on February 8, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Atheism based on bitterness can easily turn into some other form of extremism. Atheism based on circumstance or intellectual doubt will not; or rather probably won’t. One kind of atheism is a kind of extremism, the other a form of skepticism.

RiverCocytus on February 8, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Very, very well put. Outstanding.

Professor Blather on February 8, 2007 at 3:20 PM

You are morally equating Christianity, because of a VERY few nutjobs, with a religion with 1.2 Billion adhearents whose founding documents STATE that it is their DUTY and Holy mandate to bring the entire world under their dominion, and is currently involved in violence in over 40 countries.

Sorry… if you can’t see the difference, I sure can’t help you.

Romeo13 on February 8, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Another outstanding point. One that is going to need a lot more consideration.

Question for liberal lurkers: would you under ANY circumstances concede that there just might be something fundamentally wrong with Islam?

That it *is* different from other religions?

Is there a threshold – a certain percentage of Muslims supporting the destruction of the West, a certain number of terrorist attacks – that if crossed would make the question valid?

Just curious.

And if your answer is “no” to all of the above – can ANY organization, ever, be labeled as “bad?” Not to violate Godwin’s law, but I’m sure there were millions of decent Nazis … can we agree that Nazism was, itself, a problem?

Or not?

Is there ANY group or religion or culture, ever in history, that can fairly be questioned as maybe not being so great?

(I mean, other than the Republican Party. Because obviously all Republicans are the same and all equally evil.)

Professor Blather on February 8, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Mimi said: “A voice of intelligence!”

Hah! Indeed :)

Kevin M on February 8, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Anyone want to bet Dawkins won’t be asked how he feels about the fact that Darwinists are being reluctantly force (by the evidence) to abandon Darwin’s “Tree of Life”, or whether he thinks it’s “science” for his colleagues to essentially say “well, it helped us trick more people in to believing in evolution, so it’s okay that we taught another lie as fact all these years”, when they say that the TOL may have to be tossed out because of the real science, but it was just a “ladder” to bring more people over to their side. Yeah, I’m guessing that latest bit (among all the other evidence) isn’t going to come up.

RightWinged on February 8, 2007 at 3:51 PM

RW,

The great thing about science is that nothing is carved in stone. All theories are open to revision and outright dismissal. It sure will be fascinating to see what supplants it or what revisions take place.

Not sure where the trickery was involved. The idea that evolution is more of a shrub than a tree has been around for quite some time.

Krydor on February 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM

The great thing about science is that nothing is carved in stone. All theories are open to revision and outright dismissal.

For some reason the does not seem to apply to evolution. In schools, it often can’t be questioned. Real scientific to squash debate.

jman on February 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Romeo:

I am not equating anything to anything. You sound like a deeply committed Christian and I am happy for you. I see the difference between Islam and other religions. In fact, it is a subject I have studied in my small way for several years and posted about on many sites. My first introduction was in Newsweek magazine over 20 years ago when they outlined Buddism, Christianity and Islam. History later taught me that of these three, Islam is the only one founded by a military man to achieve money, land and power by conquest. And, that is the basic difference: Christianity is based on Jesus’ love for humanity, Islam is based on complete subservience. My very best to you Romeo.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Romeo:

I am not equating anything to anything. You sound like a deeply committed Christian and I am happy for you. I see the difference between Islam and other religions. In fact, it is a subject I have studied in my small way for several years and posted about on many sites. My first introduction was in Newsweek magazine over 20 years ago when they outlined Buddism, Christianity and Islam. History later taught me that of these three, Islam is the only one founded by a military man to achieve money, land and power by conquest. And, that is the basic difference: Christianity is based on Jesus’ love for humanity, Islam is based on complete subservience. My very best to you Romeo.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Wow… Interesting… seeing as how I’m at BEST Agnostic, and hope to die with a Sword in my Hand and go to Valhalla (really pisses my girlfreind off, all the dang swords around the house… but at least I’ve taught my kids to fence).

My point is about moral relativism. Your spot on about the WEST’s belief in personal responsibility, problem is that we are dealing with belief systems that have no personal responsibility…

Peoples belifs do NOT spring up out of a vacuum. They are taught by the family and society around you. There is no inherent “goodness” in people… its learned behaviour.

Create a society where ALL belief systems are “equal” no matter how repugnant, and you have the problems we have now.

As I posted above… if the law does not bring you to justice… and you don’t believe in divine consequence either through being forgiven (Christianity) or dieing in Jihad (Islam)… or just plain not believing in a higher power… then there is no reason NOT to behave badly.

And, please don’t make the assumption (thereby proving yourself and myself an ass) that just because I have a different belief system from yours that I am the enemy. There are people from every belief system that are the enemy and that is what we all need to focus on.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Lets see… just because I believe differently from you and believe that I can prostelyze by the sword, and believe you are less than I because you still don’t worry about whether you are crapping towards Mecca or not… it does not make me your enemy??? and we should not look at the belief systems of the people we are talking about???

Thats my problem with your whole arguement.

Romeo13 on February 8, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Those two people are enemies of America, and many of those who think like them are of equally weak mind. If you don’t believe in anything, you’ll easily fall for virtual nothings. That’s why Europe is so quickly turning Islamist–because atheism dominates and Christianity is rapidly dying there. Over there, the number one cause for which atheists are suddenly finding “god” is Islam.

What utter nonsense. Atheism has nothing to do with the assimilation going on in Europe. An atheist that “finds God” is not and was never an atheist. I especially resent the sentiment that atheists will fall for anything because they don’t believe in anything. That’s the worst kind of projection because that’s what many religious people do, fall for “virtual nothings”, although in their view it isn’t.

Being an atheist requires a strong mind because you have to reject the conventional wisdom that dominates the majority of those around you, and you have to live in a “cold” world where you don’t have an easy answer for everything around you. There is no God to go to when you have problems, you are on your own. That requires a strong person, and a strong mind.

Realizing that you are in fact on your own, and only you can help yourself, is for those who are strong.

Seixon on February 8, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Romeo: I disagree, I believe that out of the 100% of the population of the earth, 98% are in all probability as you said “not inherently good”. 2% are inherently good. Whatever you and I believe, this country has indeed, since the 60′s changed the USA into a country that is geared towards “equality” instead of “equality of opportunity”. In my case, there is every reason to behave well and good. It is not always easy, but that is the point of most religions, is it not? I too, learned at my mom and dad’s knee about being moral and doing right. I have seen that this philosophy works in my children.

I don’t believe I have said that we cannot look into the belief systems of others. And I believe I said that there are many bad people in all religions or atheism, and although I do definitely believe that Islamism is bad,
and we need to hold the Muslim population to account, I look at the appeasers, the apologists, the weasels who either will not or cannot see or hear the truth if it slapped them with a 2×4 against their heads. These are also the people we need to work against and that includes the politicians of all stripes.

Let me be very clear: I have my own belief system and it
does not depend on something or someone outside of me to do
the right thing and live a decent life. Just because I am
an atheist does not give anyone the right to label me with any of their difinitions!!

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Jman,

For some reason the does not seem to apply to evolution. In schools, it often can’t be questioned. Real scientific to squash debate.

I sense we’re heading for some touchy ground. Of course Evolution can be questioned within the realm of science. All scientific theories, all of them, are up for debate, changes, revisions and possibly retractions. The thing is, as Piltdown Man, Pluto and Brontosaurus will attest to, it takes years for the changes to happen.

When someone says the theory is wrong or partially incorrect they kind of have to, you know, prove it. This is why the process is so drawn out.

If that were the case with Evolution, then specific ideas would not have changed since Darwin published the “Origin of Species”. It has, most recently with the growing acceptance of proto human speciation (on more than one occasion, with the Neanderthals being in that group).

Science is not holy writ, and scientists aren’t the high priests of knowledge. The catch is that whatever one wishes to take the place of Evolution had better be a superior theory.

Krydor on February 8, 2007 at 9:26 PM

Realizing that you are in fact on your own, and only you can help yourself, is for those who are strong.

Well said.

Allahpundit on February 8, 2007 at 9:28 PM

The concept of individual rights and self-dignity comes from the Bible. Atheists should know what the society that produced them is based on and not undermine it.

VinceP1974 on February 8, 2007 at 9:48 PM

VinceP1979…No, it starts with the Greeks as far as written history is concerned.

We’ve been percolating for over 6 million years and only in the last l/2 blink of the eye has “modern” man come on the scene. So, we do not “know” exactly when these concepts began only that they have taken tens of thousands of years to get to the point where the Western world is in serious danger of losing its identity.

sharinlite on February 8, 2007 at 10:06 PM

The concept of individual rights and self-dignity comes from the Bible. Atheists should know what the society that produced them is based on and not undermine it.

VinceP1974 on February 8, 2007 at 9:48 PM

So does genocide, what’s your point ?

elgeneralisimo on February 8, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Krydor on February 8, 2007 at 9:26 PM

We’ve gone ’round and ’round on this, but if you’re a mainstream scientists you’re simply not allowed to go against the Church of Charlie. (See the “global warming” situation to see how this works. How bogus science is turned in to “consensus”, and in turn public opinion). The FACT is that the evidence consistently contradicts the prewritten evolution story, and whenever a study is done an “suprisingly” or “shockingly” reveals that some layer was laid down much faster, or some feature could not possibly have evolved the way they had previously thought and taught, the “science” community doesn’t just report the finding… their dogma requires that they make ridiculous statements along the lines of “must have evolved in some unknown and/or much faster way”, even though the ONLY thing they discovered was that something couldn’t have gone the way their evolutionary assumption needed it to. The evidence doesn’t actually show anything about how something evolved. But because the evolutionary assumpt isn’t allowed to be challenged, and all science must fit in to it, and no contradiction will ever be allowed to be viewed with an open mind, somehow they managed to stick the E word back in their writings. Again, this isn’t science. This is finding information that doesn’t fit their story. But honest writing about that isn’t allowed. They can’t help themselves, and feel the need to mention their story, and just say that it didn’t go exactly as they had thought. But again, no evidence said anything about their story. Just that it couldn’t have gone the way they had assumed and taught.

As for atheism

There is no God to go to when you have problems, you are on your own. That requires a strong person, and a strong mind.

Realizing that you are in fact on your own, and only you can help yourself, is for those who are strong.

Seixon on February 8, 2007 at 8:15 PM

To which Allah said:

Well said.

Allahpundit on February 8, 2007 at 9:28 PM

How about how freeing it must be, to be a true atheist who believes (“knows” in your minds) that there is no God, therefore you aren’t accountable for your actions in the long run? You could do drugs, drink, steal, kill, rape and then jump off a building and it doesn’t matter right? And we’re just animals right? So what is all this talk about “remorse”, etc.? Once you guys realize that there is no God, and that we’re just insigificant nothings in infinite time and space, it must be pretty freeing to know that these are all made up artificial feelings imposed on you by organized religion.

Not mocking you guys honestly, but please tell me what I’m missing about the atheist mindset. (Obviously I don’t think you guys commit crimes with impunity, I guess I’m just wondering if you are opposed to it, and why?)

RightWinged on February 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Two points:
1) The problem with Islam is that it has never had a Reformation, hence, the intolerance towards other religions.

2) With almost all religions, God is seen as all knowing as to all events (past, present, and future). This invariably leads to the debate of free will versus predestination. Yes, I know that some will argue that man was given free will. But, if the free will leads to an action that God has not foreseen then does this not make God fallible and therefore imperfect?

dawgyear on February 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Man instinctively knows that his moral sense is derived from being God’s image bearer. He may not acknowledge this, as atheists do not, but it’s true nonetheless. Morals and logic are creations from a creator God and we can follow them only because we are allowed to do so by God.

Lord, what fools these mortals be.

JackStraw on February 8, 2007 at 11:45 PM

How about how freeing it must be, to be a true atheist who believes (”knows” in your minds) that there is no God, therefore you aren’t accountable for your actions in the long run? You could do drugs, drink, steal, kill, rape and then jump off a building and it doesn’t matter right? And we’re just animals right? So what is all this talk about “remorse”, etc.? Once you guys realize that there is no God, and that we’re just insigificant nothings in infinite time and space, it must be pretty freeing to know that these are all made up artificial feelings imposed on you by organized religion.

RightWinged on February 8, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Google the word empathy…

elgeneralisimo on February 9, 2007 at 12:01 AM

I know it looks like I caught this thread a little late, but I thought I should quickly point out a few things in defense of Atheism/Agnosticism.

1). Atheism does NOT equal socialism/communism or moral relativism. It merely means that someone believes in one less god than Christians, Muslims, etc. do. Christians are just as atheistic when it comes to Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, Ares, Apollo, Dionysus, Mithras, etc., which people centuries before us believed in just as fervently as most “religious” people today.

2). Morals do not derive from “God” or religion, even though the major religions of the world have tried to monopolize that concept for centuries. Morals derive out of reality/nature and whether or not a human individual or any living organism chooses; life/existence or death/non-existence. The belief that man is naturally evil is one of the quickest ways to invoke oppression and tyranny than almost any other.

3). Absolutely Islam is a greater threat to our enlightened society as it teaches hate/bigotry/sexism and one must morally be able to judge the obvious differences between Islam and Christianity. However, let’s not forget that the exact reason that Christianity is more peaceful and congruent with civilized society is because it DID go through reformation which incorporated more REASON and less MYSTICISM than what was accepted in its previous history. Islam has never recovered from their militant turn from reason in the 11th century and will continue to cause serious trouble for the West until it does reform.

4). Evolutionary biological scientific theory has been proved, tested, and falsified for over a century and is the basis of our modern medical system and has demonstrated its tremendous value to mankind through multiple real world applications that make our lives longer, healthier, and more qualitative. Creationist “science” has no such value or claim.

5). Creationism/Intelligent Design is NOT scientific and does not belong in the science classroom. Comparative religion class, philosophy class, anthropology class, a church, a family’s home etc., fine, no problem.

6). As mentioned earlier, science is an extremely efficient method in which to obtain knowledge, because it is a self-correcting, testable, falsifiable process and not dogmatic. Religion can make no such claim.

7). Finally. America was founded as a SECULAR country with the distinct intent to separate Church and State. Most of the founding fathers were Agnostic/Atheist or the believers in not a literal God, but of “Spinoza’s” God of Nature. They would be shocked at how religious of a country the U.S. has become over our short history. Jefferson fully thought that religion would be phased out of the American culture after the first 50 years, because of the tremendous impact the Enlightenment and the embrace of reason had on the foundation of our great country.

So I could go on… but at least a few things have been said in defense of all the mischaracterizations being so easily strewn about around here.

Roark on February 9, 2007 at 10:32 AM

RW,

I’m absolutely certain that the two of us haven’t gone ’round and ’round regarding Evolution. Such debates are, in the end, futile.

I will leave you with this: an error in a part of a theory does not automatically negate that entire theory, nor does it suddenly validate some other theory.

For instance: Global Warming is a real phenomenon, it has happened before and will happen again. What is completely unknown is the impact of man. The evidence used to say that man is to blame is riddled with errors, but that does not mean we aren’t getting warmer.

Krydor on February 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM

4). Evolutionary biological scientific theory has been proved, tested, and falsified for over a century and is the basis of our modern medical system and has demonstrated its tremendous value to mankind through multiple real world applications that make our lives longer, healthier, and more qualitative. Creationist “science” has no such value or claim.

5). Creationism/Intelligent Design is NOT scientific and does not belong in the science classroom. Comparative religion class, philosophy class, anthropology class, a church, a family’s home etc., fine, no problem.

6). As mentioned earlier, science is an extremely efficient method in which to obtain knowledge, because it is a self-correcting, testable, falsifiable process and not dogmatic. Religion can make no such claim.

Roark on February 9, 2007 at 10:32 AM

For someone insisting their beliefs aren’t dogmatic, you sure lay out a lot of dogma. Not going to get in to all of it.. but number 4 is completely ridiculous. You’re arguing with no one on number 5… but we want science taught, not story telling. We want the actual science taught, not a prewritten story of origins that has to constantly be revised to fit evidence that contradicts it.

RW,

I’m absolutely certain that the two of us haven’t gone ’round and ’round regarding Evolution. Such debates are, in the end, futile.

I will leave you with this: an error in a part of a theory does not automatically negate that entire theory, nor does it suddenly validate some other theory.

For instance: Global Warming is a real phenomenon, it has happened before and will happen again. What is completely unknown is the impact of man. The evidence used to say that man is to blame is riddled with errors, but that does not mean we aren’t getting warmer.

Krydor on February 9, 2007 at 10:48 AM

I should have been more clear, the “we” I was talking about was the HotAir community. Honestly, I wasn’t talking about you specifically at all. And indeed it is futile, which is actually why I mentioned going “’round and ’round”.

That said, in repeating the evolutionist line “error in a part of a theory does not automatically negate that entire theory”, you’re completely ignoring the point, so I’ll repeat:

We’ve gone ’round and ’round on this, but if you’re a mainstream scientists you’re simply not allowed to go against the Church of Charlie. (See the “global warming” situation to see how this works. How bogus science is turned in to “consensus”, and in turn public opinion). The FACT is that the evidence consistently contradicts the prewritten evolution story, and whenever a study is done an “suprisingly” or “shockingly” reveals that some layer was laid down much faster, or some feature could not possibly have evolved the way they had previously thought and taught, the “science” community doesn’t just report the finding… their dogma requires that they make ridiculous statements along the lines of “must have evolved in some unknown and/or much faster way”, even though the ONLY thing they discovered was that something couldn’t have gone the way their evolutionary assumption needed it to. The evidence doesn’t actually show anything about how something evolved. But because the evolutionary assumpt isn’t allowed to be challenged, and all science must fit in to it, and no contradiction will ever be allowed to be viewed with an open mind, somehow they managed to stick the E word back in their writings. Again, this isn’t science. This is finding information that doesn’t fit their story. But honest writing about that isn’t allowed. They can’t help themselves, and feel the need to mention their story, and just say that it didn’t go exactly as they had thought. But again, no evidence said anything about their story. Just that it couldn’t have gone the way they had assumed and taught.

Next is where you say “when a more valid theory presents it self, evolution can be replaced”. The problem with both of these comments is that as long as evolution is assumed, and contradictory evidence doesn’t force “scientists” to drop assumptons, but instead gives them the opportunity to weave their stories around the new evidence, challenges to evolution will not be allowed. Imagine (because this is what is happening) one day, evolutionary assumptions are shot down by real study, the story is rewritten to allow for the new evidence to fit the story. The next day, another piece of evidence, and another, and another. When does it end? When do we actually consider evolution to be a fatally flawed idea? Never. Because as long as “evolution” can be changed to fit the evidence, no matter what it says, evolution will remain. I’m having trouble with putting that in to words (just got up), but do you get what I’m saying? There is simply no way to invalidate evolution, as evolutionists constantly find a way (non-scientific way mind you, and that’s not my opinion, I can give you examples of how it goes down if you need) to rewrite the story to fit evolution, because evolution is assumed. No matter how ridiculous their attempt to make the evidence fit is, we’re supposed to bow to these holy men and accept their word.

As for global warming, when I say “global warming”, I’m talking about the whole “human cause” modern movement, which is the “consensus” view, though ridiculous. A slight increase in temperature, when there have been thousands of increases and decreases in the past, Greenland’s glacier have been naturally shrinking for 100 years (not to mention, why was it once called Greenland?), in the 1970s this same alarmist crowd shouted “global cooling” was the end of the world, etc. etc. etc. It’s not worth getting in to that whole argument here. The point is “consensus” views, especially ones that are media and UN generated isn’t “science”… the same way “the Earth is flat” consensus wasn’t “science”, or any of the other overturned consensuses from the past.

RightWinged on February 9, 2007 at 1:55 PM

No wonder my parents taught me not to discuss religion or politics. Discussions into these topics is like a mobius strip!

Thanks, all.

sharinlite on February 9, 2007 at 2:21 PM

(From the video)

I think they need to shut up.

Well said, ditto that and I support their right to say it.

IndependentConserv on February 10, 2007 at 1:34 PM

I can only hope some Republican candidate hires her to blog and us liberals get to dig through her archives for some juicy bigot-speech. I always love a good treasure hunt, although she would make it just to easy.

JaHerer22 on February 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Whats stopping you? Why does she have to be hired by a conservative in order for you to dig up dirt on her?

csdeven on February 13, 2007 at 11:44 AM