As the Left whines about President Bush leading the country toward a theocracy and considers Christians in mocking tones as knuckle-dragging, intolerant, anti-intellectual, toothless boobs, I find it necessary to exercise some knuckle-dragging, intolerant boobery. This will allow me to speak at the level of the scoffers.
Atheism: The Religion of Peace
For many years now we have been being forced toward an atheocracy, not by the will of the citizens through their duly elected officials, but by rulings of the puppets of the atheofascists; the courts. Some may claim that the Constitution requires this in its demand for the separation of church and state. In addition to the use of laughable revisionist history and irrational 'logic', this faith has resulted in the favored status of the minority atheist religious faith over that of the majority.
Many may think that atheism is not a faith, but simply the result of rational philosophy. By definition, however, this cannot be the case. Rational philosophers know that proving a negative such as 'there is no God' is impossible. The basis for atheism, therefore, starts with an act of blind faith. From this jello-esque foundation, they unabashedly snicker like children at others of a different faith and often refuse to even hear, let alone consider, the rhetoric and opinions given by them. Third graders often show more maturity.
Many atheists are fond of saying that wars and other 'evils' are caused by religious beliefs. With this I tend to agree. The Nazi's many Crusades, the Soviet Witch Trials, and the Chinese Inquisitions are some of but a few examples of the religious faithful. Of course the Christian cultures also suffer their similar black eyes, but in comparison the Christians are made to look like pikers. This is probably because Christians don't hold their faith with an equivalent depth of jealousy and religious fervor.
Although atheism is at least as old as other forms of prostitution, in more modern times it has been given an hallusinogenic erection by the disciples of Charles Darwin and his scientifically proven fact of evolution. Atheism's Old Testament of materialism soon proved to be incomplete in the incarnation of the savior so a New Testament edition of postmodernism was acquired by revelation. The Christian assertion of 'God's Word says it, I believe it, and that settles it' has been replaced with 'I believe it and that settles it'. The Law of Parsimony proscribed by Occam's razor has been fulfilled. It has to be true.
Absolutes are dead. Truth is also dead. To each his own. Whatever floats your boat. If someone asks an atheist why it is wrong to rape, kill, butcher, and eat babies he cannot (or should not be allowed to) appeal to a dead absolute. Has he found it in our genes, molecules, or atoms? Other aspects of evolution? Human tradition? Self interest? Whatever the answer, he should be required to examine that faith statement with the same rigor with that by which he rejects God's existence.
In reality, such proof is not required. Without an external absolute, 'truth' becomes the result of judges, guns, and money. Atheism is a power religion that must be evangelized by brainwashing and force. The aforementioned Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese examples list only a few of the more colorful atheofascist pastorates. They are creative and fervent, however, and will continue their apostolic ministries with vigor.
(I don't want to give the impression that all atheists fall into the atheofascist sect. In fact, there are hundreds of atheists who would be content to live, work, and play alongside others who live and talk their faith outside of Sunday morning.)
At present in the United States shoving the atheistic faith down our throats has not yet come at the end of a gun barrel. Mockery is one basic weapon. Since that strains the imagination to view that as intellectual superiority, it really is kind of funny. A response matching the depth of thought would be something like, "D'uh", or "Nanny-nanny boo-boo", or "Pfffffttt". More serious, however, is the favoritism to the atheistic faith forced by the courts and bureaucracy into the schools and laws. The atheocracy has made many strides toward a monopoly in these areas.
An atheocracy has nothing to offer a culture other than 'freedom' to pursue prurient interests. That will succeed for awhile and will produce several cultures, both medically and balkanly, but will fail to impel Culture forward.
If one considers medieval times to be the Dark Ages, one should consider in depth the darkness that would be created by men seeking power to wield their own salvific visions without a classical United States to stop or contain them by force.
*Now here's a post by Todd, the semi-negligent proprietor of Mr. Pterodactyl that demonstrates what I would consider a profound intellect of a non-Christian. It was written on June 11th, 2004, and I have been mulling it since.
"Well, it happened again. Somebody asked me about my religion.
I suppose it doesn't really happen that often. It seems like it does though. Somebody asks me, so I say I'm an atheist.
[By the way, I don't really think 'atheist,' but having no belief in supernatural entities that are responsible for the creation of the universe and expect me to behave in certain ways, it's the only word people understand. Agnostic, maybe, but that’s for another post.]
Often, the person then comments, "what made you choose that?" Or something similar. I never could answer that to my own satisfaction until the other day.
One does not choose beliefs. One comes to them. I don't remember ever deciding to become atheist; that is a result of experience and reflection. Likewise, I didn't choose my political views.
I do choose what books I read, what movies I watch, what foods I eat, based on what I like or prefer, but I never consciously chose what books, movies, foods to like.
So where do these things come from? I cited ‘experience and reflection,’ but that’s not completely satisfactory either. What experiences can I credit with having formed my religious/political views? Or my food preferences, for that matter? I can’t turn to the influence of others; I was raised in a (more or less) Christian atmosphere, the people around me have had widely varying political opinions, I just can’t get enough kimchi (most Americans can’t stand the stuff). I can’t assert superior intelligence, much as I’d like to; there are many perfectly intelligent people who I disagree with on any issue you care to name. I can’t claim some special knowledge that others lack; how would I even know I had it?"
If John Calvin were an agnostic, that's probably how he would have stated it. (Except the part about kimchi!)