Posted on 12/07/2008 9:38:18 PM PST by Daniel T. Zanoza
SNSC leaders discuss propriety of anti-Judeo-Christian message on the nationally syndicated Laurie Roth radio show
Thomas Brejcha, President of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society and Daniel Zanoza, Executive Director of RFFM.org and Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) will guest on the nationally syndicated Laurie Roth Show [www.therothshow.com] on Monday, December 8th, from 5 - 6 P.M. Central Time. Brejcha, legal counsel for the SNSC and Zanoza will discuss the Springfield, Illinois Nativity scene which is now standing in the center of the Illinois state Capitol Rotunda.
Brejcha and Zanoza will also be responding to an atheist group's inflammatory sign which may eventually stand in close proximity to the Nativity scene and a Menorah which, at this time, is planned to ...
(Excerpt) Read more at rffm.typepad.com ...
The modern atheist is not atheist at all but anti-theist.
The FFRF is going straight for the jugular.
They aren't the Let's All Live Together atheists.
From their site:
There has been a national debate over whether the atheist sign in Washington is political dialogue or hate speech.
Hate Speech? Oh, man, you don't want to open that door.
Bill O'Reilly and the FFRF can have fun making money off of this annual War on Christmas. I'll be fattening myself up and stimulating the economy.
As an atheist, who has met a lot of atheists, I wouldn't want to live in a nation of atheists.
This is a very astute observation. Having lived around the State Capitol in Trenton, New Jersey for some time it's interesting to see what they did with the Nativity Scene which has been in front of the State House since I was a little boy. It was placed directly in front of the State House steps along with a Menorah for many years. As time went on it was moved to the State House grounds away from the front of the building. Last year it was moved to the far end of the grounds with a disclaimer placed below the Nativity Scene stating that the display was not provided by the State nor did they have any opinion about the display. Oh, and by the way, as this has been taking place over the years the Menorah has remained directly in front of the State House steps. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they're joined by a religion of peace display here in the near future with a wicken display to put all of the tree huggers in a good mood as well.
Multiculturalism will be the death of us all.
At the risk of setting you up for a tendentious and unfair mugging, I'd like to express my interest in hearing more.
Clearly as a flaming Papist (Papist flambe' -- it's an Inquisition thing!) I disagree with atheism. But what I note is that some atheists have a strong commitment to reason and to truth, and atheism is what seems to them to be a the soundest conclusion. Others seem to be more anti- the concept of God or even of truth. Their atheism is more an expression of a kind of negativism.
I remember a 60 Minutes segment on Madeline Murray O’Hare. She was saying how her movement was not an anti-Christian one. And there on the table is a stack of bumper stickers that say “Jesus is Lard”. Very bleeping funny Madeline. Go for a nice long drive.
Somehow it makes me think of OEdipus blinding himself. I think after Christmas I'll have to read some Sophocles. His Oedipus becomes a holy figure through the harrowing of grief and horror. So I wonder if Sophocles is just way off base or if, once you kill your father and impregnate your mother the only possible "living in the truth" is to destroy your vision, to bring to a head the infection and to let it burst.
O'Hare could see with outward vision, but evidently had rejected insight. She prompts greater horror than does Oedipus, as the plague bacillus is more dreadful than the lion.
Hmm. What's IN this coffee?
You don't need to hear more, because you've expressed it all right thewre. While I do know some (what I call) GENUINE atheists--folks who, like me, simply believe there is no God, but who also see religious followers as having done good as well as not-so-good--the MAJORITY are haters. These folks have a very peculiar tone when discussing their positions, self-righteousness fuelled by an intense hatred for a specific religious group, especially Catholics. When I ask such folks about this, and why they have such venom for Catholics and mock, say, Mormons, yet have nothing to say about Muslims, it's like their mind misses a sprocket. They mutter, mumble, and always, always go to "Right-Wing Christians who want to make this a theocracy" and of course they know nothing at all about militant Islam, dhimmitude, etc.
In a way I consider myself an undercover agent. I work in the education field and the mental health field, and have previously worked with the homeless. Liberals and atheists populate these fields, and it's been a real education for me. In the homeless shelter, the staff was made up of atheists and/or liberals, and while they meant well, some of them were out and out hostile and angry most of the time. The volunteers we got were usually from schools but most non-collegiate volunteers were Christians from area churches, and they were often surprised at how well I worked with them because they were used to hostility from the staffers.
In my current job, the hostility towards Christianity is palpable, and I'm put in the weird position of defending Christianity to some Christians who loathe the Catholic church.
Not sure if this is what you wanted to know, but just some thoughts on the raging hatred for religion (as opposed to a more objective non-religious view) I see among the atheists I've encountered.
Well, I woke up this morning WANTING to know a good (or at least plausible) reason to go back to bed. But your post makes an excellent second best. ;-)
The following is not meant to persuade or to lay any more of a trip on you than the trip inherent in self-disclosure: In our superstition, one of the things Jesus, aka "God, the Son of God", says about himself is, "I am ... the Truth, ... ." From the early days of the order "Veritas" has been a Dominican motto, long before Harvard got a hold of it, I might add. That motto and the "value-system" implicit in it are a big part of why I'm what's called a "lay Dominican."
So I cannot fail to respect and honor your commitment not only to the Truth but also to the courtesy you show to others who seek and/or think they have found or been found by the Truth.
As for these others: From over here in Christian Theism land, I would say that Truth requires service or a kind of humility. Neitsche wittily begins one of his diatribes with, "Supposing Truth is a woman, what then?" He proceeds to mock what he considers to be the plodding "scientific method" of folks like Kant because such pedantry seems hardly the way to court a woman.
Maybe so, but I think that the Truth cannot be ravished, cannot be forced to conform to our desires. Rather it calls for the courtesy of a suitor, of a would-be lover. Suitors must be willing to be frustrated, must face frustration with patience and persistence. Loving the Truth requires that, sooner or later, the suitor says, "I seek you not as I wish you to be but as you are, and I long to conform myself to you, not to mold you to my liking." For some even the possibility of this humility, as I think of it, is offensive.
Thank you for pursuing your quest with honor. And pardon my expression of my hope that one day the Truth will sneak up on you and will surprise you with himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.