Posted on 12/26/2005 1:48:12 PM PST by SunSetSam
Atheist icon Madalyn Murray O’Hair has, during this Christmas season, something very few of us get the benefit of. She has perspective. In 1995 she was kidnapped and killed by the office manager for “American Atheists”, David Roland Waters. Her body did not turn up until 2001. She had been cut up into a dozen pieces by her fellow Atheist and left in a shallow Texas grave as food for critters who sport an exo-skeleton as well as apathy for the personal politics of the carcass that is providing them sustanence.
Only two people know what Madalyn’s last moments were like; Waters, and Murray O’Hair herself. Death was a certainty, and the best she could hope for (if her personal beliefs were correct) was a quick passage into non-existence, and the return or her earthly remains to the bottom of the food chain.
How depressing a thought is that? If you’re an atheist, your BEST case scenario after a short life is non-existance, and that is only IF you are right. No wonder atheists are so crabby. What is actually worse for these folks is that very few Atheists are actually true Atheists. Many, even possibly Madalyn Murray O’Hair, hold a very deep belief in God, but they hate him. Her actions, as well as the ones of those who follow her, are the acts of people who are trying to prosecute a war against their Creator.
Regardless of our beliefs, we will all taste death, what happens after that seems to be the bone of contention. In the Atheist rhetoric, people get seventy or eighty short years, and then nothingness. If this was something they actually believed, most would not care if there is a cross at the Soledad National War Memorial, prayer in school, or an acknowledgement of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. For all they should care, believers could pray to Jesus, Buddha, or Mr. Bubble. It would simply be irrelevant to them. It is obvious though, they do care very deeply who you pray to.
Atheists seem very quiet when Federal, State, and City funds or facilities are used for religions that are not Christian. There is no outcry of “separation of church and state” when the Dali Lama speaks at a public college or university. Very little is also said by the atheists of Muslim headscarves being worn in public schools. Chanukah decorations or the Muslim crescent on public ground don’t get their ire up, either. They do have a fit if a high school student bows their head before lunch and gives thanks to God. They demand that kids who wear crosses or bring bibles to school either get rid of the offending object or be sent home (in some cases suspended). Atheists are now supporting the banning of private Bible Studies in the private of dorm rooms of students who happen to attend public colleges. In short, atheists point their aggression towards the one religion they seem scared to death of, Christianity.
Last time I checked, Christians were not performing “drive by” baptisms against atheists. There is no persecution of anyone who doesn’t wear a cross. Christianity should not pose any tangible threat to these people. Despite this, they seem determined to spend their very few years of existence bitterly fighting something which does not try to harm them.
Atheists in the Western World live in a civilization where they can fill their lives with every type of pleasure imaginable. In a short life that ultimately results in nothingness, a true atheist would live for their own transient happiness, because that is all they really have. If they were intellectually honest, they would use the energy they expend in a futile fight against Christianity in the west and direct it against the Muslim faith that is practiced in third world countries. This is a sect that would, if given the chance, deny them the sort of pleasure that we take granted, and seriously limit the quality of their short existence. They don’t believe in Allah, though. He is no more real to them than Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. To them, fighting against Allah would be like shadow boxing, but because they believe in the Christian God, and don’t want any reminders of certain uncomfortable inevitable events, they must do their best to wipe society clean of all symbols of Christianity. Christmas, and all its religious imagery tops this list of things that must go.
Christmas is hard on atheists. If they actually believed the “truth” that there is no God, and nothing beyond this life, they would simply shrug the whole thing off, and take advantage of the holiday sales. Even though that mother they pass in the store, holding the hand of her four year old, and humming “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” obviously hasn’t bought into the “truth”, the thought of a Savior born in Bethlehem makes her happy. Her end will be the same as the atheists, so no harm, no foul, right? Once again, this only works if these folks really don’t believe in God.
To the atheist, Christmas is the outward expression and amplification of all the fears and doubts they won’t publicly acknowledge. In those private moments, those solitary moments, those laying in bed and thinking at three in the morning moments, there is that tiny little voice that talks about death and it just won’t shut up. It is the feeling of hopeless doubt and fear that grips the mind and just won’t let go until you drown it out with the television, a stiff drink, or an entire bag of Oreos. Most Christians remember those moments. Christmas is the celebration of the silencing of this voice and the laying impotent of this fear.
There is a joy to Christmas that atheists simply, voluntarily, opt out of. To them the holiday is just something from “Target” wrapped in pretty paper that is soon forgotten. To Christians it is the gift of a child that ensures our best case scenario is better than a shallow grave in Texas and nonexistence (not to mention the nullifying of a worst case scenario that is beyond imagination). Christians celebrate out of gratitude for what our creator has bestowed upon us, but Christmas is actually more for that atheist who is suing school children for bringing a bible to class, than it is for the Christian. Christians enjoy Christmas, atheists need Christmas. The child it celebrates acts as a constant lifeline that is available to them whether they want it or not. Oddly, though, that seems to be the part they resent the most.
We know why atheists try to ruin Christmas for everyone else. It is out of fear and sheer hate of a God they believe in. The last few years have not been kind to their efforts, and reversal of legal fortunes has ensured that the lifeline for the atheist is still visible, especially at this time of year.
We now live in an atmosphere where going out and caroling has become an act of defiance, many Christians are getting war-weary of fighting the annual holiday battle (as well as fighting the other shoppers, the logistics of family, the snow, frustrated hunters who will settle for shooting an arrow into your light-up deer when they have failed to kill a real one, etc), for them I leave these simple words as a reminder of what the whole thing is all about:
“Mild he lays his glory by; born that man no more may die; Born to raise the sons of earth born to give them second birth”
Merry Christmas
Mean-spirited does not necessarily equal evil.
Instead of condemning the "evil" woman who "wields complete control" over your mother-in-law, it might be helpful to ask why your mother-in-law is so easily led.
If she's not of sound mind, your spouse can get a court order to recover "control" of her.
That was my take on her, too.
I heard and interview of her on the radio years ago. She didn't say one thing that would lead me to believe that she was an atheist.
But she did say a lot to lead me to believe that she hated God. And the longer she spoke, the more angry she sounded. She is the closest thing I've ever heard to anyone that I thought could be "demon possessed". It was almost scary listening to her.
She was an ugly, angry woman, inside and out.
I've yet to see anything conservative about most of them. Conservative don't ally themselves with the ACLU to over rule local control and duly elected representatives. Most of them here stay on the darwin threads and kvetch about the "theocracy" - when they aren't referring to Christians as the Taliban. (anyone who thinks we are approaching a theocracy in the US really needs his/her head examined)
I DO. All public monies are to be spent on the SECULAR PUBLIC.
I would probably read her diary, if I stumbled across it. I don't think I'd do a search for it, I'm not that interested.
I agree. When everyone is forced into mandatory prayers and scripture readings and a certain percentage of their income forced to be tithed to a church, we can start talking about living in a theocracy. Until then, I treat such comments the same as I do folks who seriously believe Bush is worse than Hitler.
MY little rant? LOL. Christians are just the most blatant and overwhelming.
Well, if the Pledge of Allegiance said "Under Allah" instead of "Under God", I think those atheists would take a little more interest in suppressing Islam. But that's not what it says.
Obviously, the reason why some atheists in the U.S. have a bone to pick with Christianity is that it is the dominant religion in the U.S., particularly if you count Catholicism and Protestantism as one. And that dominance is reflected in our many traditions.
So while I don't agree with the efforts to strip God out of the public sphere, there is a rather easy explanation as to why the focus seems to be on Christianity. Extensive layman's psychoanalysis is hardly necessary.
I think a good argument could be made for the author being on the right track.
I suppose so, but he hasn't made it. As I said, I'd say I'm probably roughly on the same page as him with regards to his central objections. It is his attempt to explain atheists and their beliefs that I find lacking.
God, Allah, it's all the same BS.
Well, because there'd be no article left once I removed all the superfluous psychoanalysis.
Then we will see how many agree with your point of view.
Let me be clear. There are two ideas we're dealing with here. One is the objection to atheists' attempts to remove religion from the public sphere. On that score, the author and I are likely in considerable agreement.
The other idea is the author's attempt to explain why atheists act as they do, and what they should believe if they really were atheists. It is that idea, which pervades this entire article, that I have a beef with. When non-Christians do the same, and try to tell me what I'm supposed to believe as a Christian, it's frankly off-putting and usually incorrect. When someone tells me I "hate gays" because I happen to believe all extra-marital sexual activity is sin, they're wrong. Well, it cuts the other way, too.
Again, just because we're on the same side doesn't mean that ever argument made on our side is a good one.
I'd be willing to bet there would be at least one person who would say, "what a dumb article".
Fine with me. That's the chance one takes when one puts their writing out in public.
No, that's what they want you to believe. Because Piltdown Man didn't fit in to the storyline of the evolutionist's fairy tale (which even that webpage admits), they had to sweep it under the rug. They came up with this newfangled "fluorine absortion test", and using evolutionary (uniformatarian) presuppositions, declared that the different parts of the skull came from different ages. They also declared that the teeth had been filed down to make it look like they were old, but they failed to mention that Piltdown Man may have simply been in the habit of eating raw vegetables from sandy soil without adequately washing them first.
In short, they constructed a Big Lie to discredit this inconvenient find. Evolution? This fossil says "No!"
Whatever makes you sleep better at night.
rather "fake, but accurate"
Did you even know that there are conservative atheists?Well, except for those conservatives who still believe this is a republic & not a democracy. :-)I've yet to see anything conservative about most of them. Conservative don't ally themselves with the ACLU to over rule local control and duly elected representatives.
Not sure where you are coming from. There have been 25,000 gods from throughout the course of human history. None of them are any more real than any other... That also includes angels, devils, fairies, the easter bunny, santa claus... I am unaware of any hatred (not on my part anyway). It's simply a good idea (fable to be used as allegory) gone out of control.
Interesting. I didn't know she had another son besides the one that was killed with her.
I can't imagine the nightmares this guy must still have!
(To the atheist, Christmas is the outward expression and amplification of all the fears and doubts they won’t publicly acknowledge.)
Time to call them Christophobic. Doesn't the gay lobby call critics homophobic? In this instance Christophobic would actually describe them well, otherwise they wouldn't be so bothered by Christianity.
"A postmodernist could easily have written that."
Yep. But in this case, it was a Christian convert.
He was able to forsee the outcome of full-bore materialism, which gave us
a century of Nazism and Communism.
I've not read all of his books, but I understand that most have at least one
derelict character that ends up being a repentent "prodigal son".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoevsky
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.