America's Decision: God or Militant Atheism?

Once upon a time, not too awfully long ago, America was known as the 'shining city on the hill.' America, the most radical experiment in the history of the world, was the only nation to which people oppressed and repressed by old world systems of social classes and castes could be free of the stifling bindings engendered by those man created constraints. She was a Judao-Christian nation where God of the bible, and not an elite ruling class, was sovereign over all. America was the land of hope, promise and opportunity, where not only all men were equal before God's eyes, but where all human life from conception to natural death, was gifted by God with intrinsic worth. Because our Founders believed in the existence of a transcendent sovereign Creator, they declared that belief in the Declaration of Independence where it is written that our rights are endowed to us from our Creator and thus are inalienable, which means not from man.

Under the aegis of the Judao-Christian worldview, Americans were able to work towards a civilization of excellence and virtue wherein natural families and their children could grow and thrive in safety and security.

America was also a civilization where individual liberty could be maximized to the fullest in the absence of strangling webs of manmade laws since followers of Judao-Christianity were guided by the Golden Rule and voluntarily exercised self-control over destructive impulses for the common good of all. As Augustine said, "Human law cannot punish or forbid all evil, since while doing away with evils it would do away with many good things which would hinder the advance of the common good."

Alas, America is no longer a shining city on the hill because under the influence of militant atheism and transnational socialism fueled by Darwin's theory of evolution, she has been turning her back on God and the Judao-Christian moral principles upon which she was founded. As a result, our once decent, orderly civilization has regressed to a state of 'almost anything goes' permissiveness and outright barbarianism where the common good has been displaced by the demands and desires of the few. Human life is no longer sacred and is now liberally aborted away even as militant atheist bio-ethicists are busily seducing Americans, to accept the idea of euthanasia, under the guise of quality of life. Where before, our Creator had endowed all human beings with a natural right to life, secular militant atheists have taken away that right and very predictably, replaced it with the "right to die." Dostoevsky predicted this would occur when he said, "If God is dead, then all things are permissible." Nietzsche concurred by saying, "[…] God is dead…the heroic individualist is no longer bound to a traditional slave morality, but is creating his own."

Nietzschean secular humanists, socialists, and militant atheists who call themselves 'free thinkers' are shaping our culture and politics, and what they are determined to create is an atheistic America. By definition, free thinkers are people who reject authority and religion in favor of what they refer to as "rational inquiry and speculation based upon science." But they have elevated science to a philosophy and what they call reason is nothing but the constantly changing fickle whims that arise from unbounded self-idolization, selfish desires, and wishful thinking. In this way, as in so many other ways, free thinkers have not risen one inch above their ancient pagan ancestors. The free thinkers sitting on America's USSC who have made highhanded rulings based on world law rather than on American law provide a good example of capricious decision making sans fixed moral ethics.

Richard Dawkins is one of the free thinkers 'leading lights,' and in an ambiguous way, he alluded to who he believes should be the ultimate source of morality in his book, "When Religion Steps on Science's Turf," He said, 'No civilized person uses Scripture as ultimate authority for moral reasoning." He clarified this just a bit, by saying that there is an alternate source, "That alternate source seems to be some kind of liberal consensus of decency and natural justice that changes over historical time, frequently under the influence of secular reformists. Admittedly, that doesn't sound like bedrock. In practice we more or less ignore Scripture, quoting it when it supports our liberal consensus, quietly forgetting it when it doesn't. And wherever that liberal consensus comes from, it is available to us all."

What Dawkins is saying, in a vaguely worded manner, is that when it behooves people like him to pretend to believe Scripture, they will do so, but that in reality, the real source of moral authority is people like himself: "intellectually superior" human animals.

Dawkins smug claim shines a light on the incoherency and self-contradictory nature of scientific naturalism. By declaring himself and those like him to be the source of moral authority, he exempts himself and his cohorts from the framework they prescribe for everyone else, that human beings are but worthless matter operating without reason or purpose by natural causes. Dawkins is obviously stating that he is a superior being capable of rational thought, of free consideration, of formulating theories, of recognizing objective truth, and of being morally discerning. This places him and his fellow scientists outside and above the mindless material causes which supposedly have the ordering of the rest of us. Furthermore, intelligence and ideas are not the result of mindless, non-directed particles crashing into each other inside our brains. To believe so is irrational.

I found a further example of the incoherent and contradictory reasoning of Dawkins "free thinking," on a secular humanist forum where they had a "frequently asked questions" site. A questioner reverently asked Dawkins if evolution has a purpose. Dawkins responded emphatically, "[it] has nothing to do with survival of the species. If anything it is the passing of genes. Really there is NO purpose...It is simply that those genes that DO survive are the ones we see…There is no higher purpose…The only higher purposes in the universe are to be found in evolved brains such as our own when we have conscious purpose to achieve…our brains are so accustomed to this that they falsely…ascribe purpose where it doesn't exist."

Did you catch that clumsy verbal sleight of hand? Notice the initial absence of purpose. Then, almost immediately there is a higher purpose so long it's for "evolved brains such as our own" that seek to "achieve a purpose." Then to escape from the mess of contradictions he created, he did what all morally defective narcissists do… he created another incoherent contrivance. In effect, he said that when the brain is consciously trying to achieve a purpose, it's actually fooling itself into believing it is achieving a purpose that it knows nothing about, since purpose has never existed in the first place. This web-weaver of incoherency is a leading light of academia?

Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, is yet another secular human leading light. Perhaps because he felt secure in speechifying before some of his fellow cohorts, he decided to be forthcoming with the truth, for he declared that "[…] many scientific theories are no more than unsubstantiated just-so stories…in the struggle between science and the supernatural [we] take the side of science because we have a prior commitment to materialism."

Apparently their hatred towards God and Christian-Judao morality is not premised upon facts but on cobbled together contrivances. Lewontin audaciously attested to this when he made this startling admission, "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanation."

In other words, the science of secular humanism is just quackery. Its' authority is nothing but a web of ideologically contrived deceptions presided over by snake-oil salesmen pretending to be real scientists.

These hateful, narcissistic frauds apparently believe that along with Hitler, Mao, Marx, Stalin, and Lenin that they, instead of mankind's Creator, are capable of being the earthly judge of right and wrong. Two of the wrongs according to Dawkins are religion, which he terms an intellectual virus, and parents having the right to instruct their children into their religious faith. Dawkins declared, "Society, for no reason that I can discern, accepts that parents must have an automatic right to bring their children up with particular religious opinions and can withdraw them from say, biology classes that teach evolution."

It isn't enough that these self-worshipping tyrants have reduced all Americans, excluding themselves, to nothing but worthless matter with no reason or purpose to exist. Nor is it enough for them that by unleashing the destructive effects of their hell-born ideology upon America that they have managed to bring her to the edge of the abyss. No, these devils will not be satisfied until they have managed to leech every last drop of good from out of America and forced every American to become as miserable and hateful as they themselves are.

Two astute statesmen from our past left these words of wisdom for us. The first of these, Thomas Jefferson, warned us that, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the Gift of God?" Also, William Penn, who cautioned, "If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants." Let us choose wisely, and choose God.

BROADBAND USERS: We are conducting a bandwidth test for our new web site under construction. Click here for video (no cost) [This is not an advertisement] 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/05/05/26/63_27_24_94_27113.htm

Very well written! Good arguments and quotes which I will print off and try to incorporate into further discussions. I haev had occasion on this forum and others to try to establish that the fact that I, as an MIT graduate (math, not biology, alas), totally reject the hypothesis of evolutionism. The reaction of the motivated evolutionists is invariably one of ridicule and insult. This suggests purposefulness on their part, yet there is a denial of purpose in the universe.

I do not know why there is not a stronger argument for their religious faith in evolutionism than to tell me that I'm ignorant and to go do some reading of a list of books, none of which prove a thing to me in a scientific sense since they merely use the dense mass of scientific data to support their claim to be the authority figure. And you can not realistically deny that they have put a lot of work into it, as though that automatically produced truth.

So we are faced with ad hominem arguments, appeal to authority, and logical leaps instead of proof.

Good for you, Linda Kimball! I applaud your meditations and your workmanship in crafting this essay. It is full of keen insight defended by rational arguments which cut through the fog of atheistic-matierialist mind-junk, that stuff which passes for thought in academia these days. It rightly concludes with the call to choose, choose ye this day whom you will serve.

May it be widely read and contemplated with reason equal to that with which it is written.

From the article:
"In other words, the science of secular humanism is just quackery."

Indeed. As we have long suspected.

There are no proofs or solid logical conclusions leading to the ontological presuppositions of scientism. Materialism is essentially a mythology prompted by non-rational fears, anxieties, and bigotries. Not infrequently peppered with sexual anxieties or bitter childhood experiences with institutional religion and/or pathological parenting. The desire to impose this secular ideology on everyone else is one of the leading social disorders of the modern era. As we so often see in the hysterical posturing of liberalism.

Excellent read-ThankYou--Just responded to Bill Press on WND
on his silly rant WWJD on stem cell research.He attempted sleight of hand claiming we know Jesus went around healing.
I responded with a handful of Bible citations from old and new testaments and concluded we know Jeus Never destroyed life to heal.

Excellent article Linda!

I am an engineer. My trade is in taking the theories of scientists and using them to make things. In a funny way, science led me away from evolution. In short, the three laws of thermodynamics would have to be violated for Darwin's dark dream to work.

As one who has walked in the halls of the hard sciences, I have trouble believing the "free thinkers" who are so blinded by their own prejudices that they fear saying anything "heretical".

If anything it is the passing of genes.

The genetic survival/selection engine is a fact. Where Dawkins goes wrong is that he assumes that it somehow disproves the existence of God. This engine was created by God and appears to be the way God chose to create our physical bodies. But we are more than superevolved primates.

How could a random genetic survival/selection engine create and sustain - for instance - free will or the religious impulse? Dawkins - and most humanists - seem to assume that free will is a perceptual error made by the complex human brain. However, believing that you don't have free will is on the same level as believing you're made from plastic - its delusional. Dawkins must in effect deny his own humanity and observation of his own free will in order to save his materialist worldview.

We are indeed extraordinarily separate from the animals. There is something supernatural about us. You don't have to have letters after your name to see this. But poor old Richard can't

Yes, I know I'm being picky. However, just in the first paragraph, "Judeo-Christian" is misspelled, "Founders" is capitalized but "the Bible" is not, and "inalienable" is defined as "not from man" instead of "not transferable".

I also reject the hypothesis that the majority of the problems in this country are directly attributable to a belief in evolution. That's a rather hysterical and simplistic explanation, wouldn't you think?

That's a rather hysterical and simplistic explanation, wouldn't you think?

Almost as hysterical as her assertion that America was some kind of Eden before the rise of evolution. Hello! The early years of our country were nasty: full of wars, slavery, genocide, assassinations, etc.

Hardly a "shining city upon the hill..."

...and then there's also her assertion that the peaceful inhabitants of early America...were guided by the Golden Rule and voluntarily exercised self-control over destructive impulses for the common good of all...in the absence of strangling webs of manmade laws. That one is not just hysterical, its hysterically funny.

Now, now, let's not let a little history get in the way of a good myth! ;-)

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.