Militant Atheism And 'Nonpersons' As Natural Resources

In "Mere Christianity," CS Lewis described how he came to believe in the God of the Bible by virtue of reason. Over a period of years, Lewis examined evidence for God and concluded that it simply made sense to believe in His existence. Thus it was neither emotion nor superstition that led him to God, but reason and logic. In other words, his faith in God was arrived at by virtue of how much sense it all made to him. Christianity answered all of his questions, such as why we're here, our purpose in life, what's wrong with this world, and where we go after we leave this life.

As he looked back upon his former 'unbelief,' he realized that it had been the result of pride, emotions, and imagination, and that it had nothing to do with reason and logic after all. He concluded that: "The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other."

It's precisely these things: virulent hatred of God and Judao-Christianity, pride (towering self-conceit), out-of-control emotions, imagination (wishful thinking), and the seductive allure of a particular 'idea' that are the common denominators running beneath and through America's Left. As a force united, they birthed an unholy army of mankind-hating demoniacs armed with 'will to power' who have unleashed a Hellish maelstrom of madness, hatred, and destruction upon America.

Out of this seething pustule of poison emerged a two-headed hydra: a mankind despising coalition of Mengeles-type 'gods' who call themselves secular human bio-ethicists and animal rights activists.These haters of mankind envision a utopianist 'garden of eden' world that doesn't include most of 'us,' the ones they refer to so disparagingly as 'nonpersons."

These self ordained human 'gods' are adherents to Nietzsche's blood soaked nightmarish philosophy wherein he had declared...(quote)"God (is) dead......How shall we, the murderers of all murderers comfort ourselves? Must not we ourselves become gods to seem worthy of it?....the heroic individualist is no longer bound to a traditional 'slave morality," but is creating his own rules." (end quote)

What was it that led to Nietzsche's triumphant declaration? It was a provocatively seductive 'idea.' That idea was Darwin's theory of evolution, which became the depraved growth medium from which grew a new and militant atheism that devalued all values and degraded mankind to being nothing more than an accidental collision between nonintelligence-bearing matter. Thus mankind became, in the minds of madmen, something lower and baser than beasts. No longer must these 'beasts' be seen as having any intrinsic worth.

Human worth or lack of it, could now be determined by mankind's new slavemaster 'human gods." And because Darwin's "idea" had given them the green light to rid the human species of 'useless eaters' and other 'undesirables,' militant atheists embarked upon a bloodbath unlike anything ever before witnessed in this world. In their power-crazed bloodlust they have thus far exterminated over one hundred million human beings. And they are not done yet.

The ability to possess this aberrant power was what Nietzsche referred to when he jubilantly declared himself to be free from God's 'slave morality, which was his way of saying "sanctity of life," and God's other moral laws. Nietzsche himself predicted the outcome of his atheism on the world: (quote) "I am not a man, I am dynamite.....my truth is fearful; it is in the past we called lies the truth. The concept of politics is completely taken up in a war of the spirits, all the structures of power are blown up...for they are based on the lie. There will be wars of a kind that have never happened on the earth." (end quote)

Nietzsche was proclaiming that with God dead, not only did human life no longer have meaning, purpose, or value but neither did the Christian-Judao principles on which Western civilization had been built Christian-Judao moral principles and God's laws are the things he called 'lies.' Hence his 'devaluation of all values' declaration, which means in context, that all distinctions between right and wrong and justice and injustice are dead. No longer does there exist any objective standards. All that exists is the 'will to power" ruthlessly wielded by selfworshipping megalomaniacs who see themselves as being the world's 'philosopher kings" and 'gods" while simultaneously, the rest of mankind becomes reduced to being putty in the hands of these sadistic monsters.

This brings us to America's secular human bio-ethicists and animal rights activists who believe they are genetically superior to the rest of us. Thus, to their arrogant minds, it's only fitting that they have the power to determine who is a 'person' and who is not. This determination is made according to their own 'moral laws,' which are as changeable as their feelings.

One thing both secular human bio-ethicists and their animal rights cohorts are in agreement on is that simply by being a member of the human species, the human animal is not automatically accorded intrinsic worth. Hence it makes a twisted sort of sense that they are debating the merits of conferring 'personhood' on animals, whom they in their demented minds, refer to as 'nonhuman' persons.

Mankind's new 'gods' have also agreed to reject 'person' status for the unborn, newborns, people with dementia, the severely brain damaged, and any who do not measure up to their 'moral' standards. They believe the human creature must earn its moral and legal rights by displaying certain cognitive capacities.

Yet another proposal being discussed is whether to use cognitively disabled people as a source for organ harvesting. The terminology used in referrence to the mentally impaired was "natural resource." But why stop with organs? If these 'nonpersons" can be viewed as 'natural resources" for the harvesting of organs, then why not for eyes, blood, and skin as well? If they are no longer human and not deserving of life, then why not strip their bodies of parts just as junker cars are stripped of theirs ?

John Harris, the Sir David Alliance professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, England, stated: "it is necessary to establish criteria for personhood so as to identify those sorts of individuals who have the highest moral value......(it should be a) life of such quality as to bring individuals into the same moral categories as ourselves.....exploration of who is a person must include animals.... " Tom L. Beauchamp, co-author of one of the most influential bioethics textbooks, "Principles Of Biomedical Ethics," declared: "it is safe to assume that a creature is a moral person if....(1) it is capable of making moral judgements about rightness and wrongness of actions, (2) it has motives that can be judged morally."

Bear in mind that these conceited 'gods' are speaking of us as 'creatures' and 'its' and that the moral values they refer to are of their own devising. It's obvious that they're speaking of creating a 'superior race.' Those of us not deemed 'moral' will either be humanely starved, used as 'parts' factories, or perhaps we will serve as slaves in their much fantasized about paradise?

From "Roots Of Human Resistance To Animal Rights: Psychological And Conceptual Blocks," Steven J. Bartlett, 2002, we have this exalted 'wisdom:' "Throughout.....history, nonhuman animals have had no rights. Scholars have distinguished two....reasons for this.....both are homocentric. One has a theological basis, the other is a secular expression of species pride." Mankind's 'sin,' according to these insane 'gods' is homocentrism, born out of 'specieism' and of belief in that despotic anthropological God of the Bible who placed the human species above all other species.

The 'sin' of homocentrism is defined as "the exhaltation of the human species by directing attention to uniquely human characteristics." Homocentric 'nonpersons' are guilty of committing "human-level narcissism,' 'genetic selfishness,' and 'conceptual pathology' as well as being 'parasites' in relation to the world's ecosystems. How hateful, unfair, and discriminatory is that, I ask you? We need to repent and atone for our sins by allowing our 'betters' to humanely euthanize us out of existence right away!

Among legal luminaries of the 'nonhuman animal persons' equality movement are civil rights attorney Alan Dershowitz and Constitutional law attorney, Lawrence Tribe, the guy who representeded Gore against Bush in the 2000 election. Tribe believes that there should be no "insistent reference to human interests," at the expense of "plant and animal life and things of beauty." We need "biological modesty on the part of man to acknowledge that his species has no intrinsically superior value..."

Dershowitz, "Animal rights or animal legal courses.....(are) being taught.....in something like 26 US law schools, and more being added every year......we are also seeing chapters of animal rights law in.....(some)state bar associations.....as well as......within the American Bar Association..." (end quote)

Just as with Nietzsche, all of these atheist secular human 'gods' and 'philosopher kings' ground their mankind-hating reasoning in Darwinian theory. To them, the difference between species is not one of distinct categories, but simply one of degree. And there is absolutely nothing in this degree of difference that justifies the human species as having dominion over the other species, or over the earth. In other words: "How dare homocentric 'nonintelligence-bearing matter" expect to have a right to life?!?" Your life is no longer sacred. Your God is "dead" and your 'new gods' do not give you an automatic right to life.

In the Hastings Center Report, 1993, Daniel Callahan, one of the founding fathers of bioethics, made it ominously clear whose purpose bioethicists serve "...the final factor of great importance in bioethics success was the emergence, ideologically, of a form of bioethics that dovetails nicely with the reigning political liberalism of the educated classes in America." (end quote)

Just as the poison of socialism has managed to thoroughly infect America from top-to-bottom, so too have these secular human Mengeles infested America. They've become among society's most influential members. They sit on federal and state public policy commissions; they author health codes; condition the minds of America's next generation of doctors, lawyers, business leaders, and govenment policy makers; they are HMO consultants;they are employed as directors of nursing home and hospital ethics committees where they decide matters such as when to withhold treatment from premature babies, stroke patients, etc. They are called upon to serve as expert witnesses; create the 'do's and don'ts' of organ procurement, and serve as overseers of medical experimentation on human beings.

Pinnelas County, where Terri Shiavo was "humanely starved' has a nest of these vipers.

(quote) "......the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride....it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice; it is the complete anti-God state of mind." (end quote) ~~~~CS Lewis, "Mere Christianity"

Pride is a vice that afflicts everyone to some degree or another. But in some people, pride is of such towering proportions that it manifests itself in diabolical ways. And when someone's overblown conceit of himself and his own ideas leads him to view his fellow man as though he were nothing but, "its, creatures, nonpersons, and natural resources," then pride has demented his mind and become diabolical. Evil has taken total possession of his mind and soul and he has become a danger to us all.

So far they are treading lightly for fear of discovery. Despite their dementia and the state of denial they wrap themselves in, they do know how wicked their intentions towards us are which is why they are doing their utmost to operate under the radar. Therefore, let us use the power of the internet to expose them and their evil schemes to the light of day. Inform everyone in your family and all who are your friends. Spread the word far and wide. Truth and exposure to them is as Black Flag is to filthy roaches.

Aleksandr Solszhenitsyn said of their kind: "They flee from Christ like devils from the sign of the cross."

3..Michigan State Univ. College of Law: Animal Legal and Historical Web Center, "Roots of Human Resistance To Animal Rights: Psychological and Conceptual Blocks"

4..Association of American Medical Colleges Reporter: "Personhood' Redefined: Animal Rights Strategy Gets At The Essence"

Copyright 2005 The Sierra Times Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2003 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted) SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc. http://www.sierratimes.com/05/04/03/209_240_205_63_97396.htm

Wow. You're painting with a very broad brush here, and I have a couple of comments.

First, it seems as though you are offended by a non-Christian's broad depiction of all Christians as being of a certain type. I am uncertain how turning around and demonizing all atheists makes your argument any better.

Second, aside from the rampant hyperbole, all this article does is set up straw-man after straw-man, and then proceeds to knock them down. Seriously, over and over the article attributes atheists with these demonic and evil ambitions with no evidence whatsoever that this is how the average atheis actually feels, and then attempts to defeat the thought process of atheism on those grounds. It's a bad argument that demonizes a large portion of the population for no other reason than that you disagree with their spiritual bent (or lack thereof), and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am a Christian; I have several friends who are avowed athiest, but they are not anti-Christian, in fact, they welcome Christians around them because those led by Christ and God's Holy Spirit appear to atheist as loving, non-threatening people; BTW, most of my friends are against the wholesale slaughter of fellow humans that are not yet born because it is antithetical to the humanist view they hold of the value of being alive! The article is a 'push' style of writing not usually to my liking. Sadly, when the debate turns to exploiting the earliest age of humans, the embryo age of a human's lifetime, many of my atheist friends are at best conflicted (mildly) at using humans for exploitation and at extreme all for the exploitation to extend life and health of older humans.

"Can you point to where anyone was dehumanized in this article?"

Sure. How about the points at which the author called all atheists "mankind-hating demoniacs, seething pustule[s] of poison, madmen, demented, slavemaster 'human gods," secular human Mengeles..." etc., etc.

If you don't see that as an attempt to dehumanize atheists, then perhaps you should reconsider your definitions.

Those are only characterizations of their POV. Unlike the explicit statement that their POV proclaims, that some are worthy of life and others are not, there is no suggestion here that their POV makes them less worthy of life than anyone else. That is what defines 'dehumanization.'

You ask a question that I am not competent to answer. If you are a Catholic, however, you should accept the teachings of the Catholic Church. The protestants (protest-ants, those who protest) were protesting the edicts of the Catholic Church. So obviously their solution was to break off and start their own church. Churches are of men and are therefore fallible. But that does in no way argue against the existence of God.

The term militant was specifically employed in order to differentiate between the two sorts of atheists.

They are also known as benign and malignant atheists.

Benign and Malignant Atheists

Those who systematically dehumanize the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly, the retarded. Want to join their club?... All you need do is dehumanize one group of humans or another and get really p!ssy about it ... 'they' will welcome you.

I don't know where you are getting your mock indignation and unchristian pre-judgement from that I should join them. I have said no such thing.

It seems you have forgotten the point of the article. Are all these people you describe atheists? The article was saying that atheists are at fault. I think in God-fearing America that most abortions etc, would be by people who describe themselves as Christian.

This again is my point. If Atheists have no moral authority, who is to determine who has the moral authority when Christians disagree?

But if good Christians from different faiths believe opposite views, some must be wrong as there can only be one truth. Who is to decide what that truth is? Both believe God is on their side, but if revelation is for all, how can hundreds of millions of Christians live in falsity?

In other words the article implies atheists have no moral authority, but by my very point either Catholics or Protestants must be very wrong, and yet both think they have the moral authority. Why is it not clear what the truth is if there is only one truth?

In what way then is your moral authority superior to an atheist if you cannot be sure?

Yes God is right, but if you are saying you have special access to God, then the hundreds of millions of good Christians who would disagree with your version must be wrong.

In fact there is probably very little, if any, human beings who would EXACTLY believe in your version of God and religion. Are you therefore right on every issue relating to God or is everyone else wrong?

The "you" is best read as a generic reference. Take offense if you wish, but it isn't intended from what I offered. When a generic "you" is used, by taking offense the offended takes the offense without an 'offender' meaning a specific "you". If you're looking for an argument, someone else (there's that generic reference again) can accommodate you (and that 'you' wasn't a generic "you").

snip...I think in God-fearing America that most abortions etc, would be by people who describe themselves as Christian.

Christians who have abortions don't have them because of what God commands (sanctity of life).
They have them Despite what He commands. This speaks to failure on the part of certain church leaders, which is why there is a schism in virtually every mainline denomination.. It also speaks to failure on the part of the Christians who placed personal choices and destructive pop cultural messages before faithfulness to God.

Pride: "me, myself, and I".....self-esteem,self-actualization. self-realization, self, self, self......selfishness is destroying America.

You say the sanctity of life. That may be a beautiful ideal but is it not impossible? Are there not limits to the sanctity of human life?

George W. Bush and Tony Blair rightly bombed Iraq knowing innocent children would suffer and die.

Tom DeLay had his own Fathers life support machine switched off because he was brain-dead.

These are horrible dilemmas, but does it not show that the ideal is wonderful, but reality forces compromises?

If you truly do not think God exists what is the point of worrying about those who do?

I don't think it's worry. It's jealousy.
By their own admission, they believe that this is IT.
When the heart stops, it's lights out, back to the dirt from whence they came.
Eventually the law of entropy wins, the universe burns out like a candle,
end of story. Total meaninglessness. A cosmic joke without a punchline.

We on the other hand KNOW this is not IT.
What's more everything has meaning.
This isn't the end, it's just the beginning.
But there are responsibilities on our end. Rules set down by the Creator.
Salvation and eternal life for the asking, but you have to ask. And you have to believe.
And you have to make your will subservient to God's will.
I've never met a hardcore atheist who was willing to humble himself before God.
Then comes the anger of rebellion.
It's an old emotion, it predates humanity.
And the punishment for it is written in the Word of God.

If you truly do think God exists what is the point of worrying about those who don't?

We don't want to see our loved ones cast into eternal damnation, that's why.

If they don't want to believe in a higher being, fine. But beyond that, why should Atheists push their beliefs on anyone else?

As an Atheist, I don't care whether or not you believe in God. My only concern lies in working to ensure that all religions are balanced equally in the eyes of the law, and for the most part kept out of politics.

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.