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
Here is a great read written by a former devout atheist:
http://www.zondervan.com/jpeg/0310209307.jpg
No, it makes a reasonable inference from the FACT that atheists target their ire only against CHRISTIANITY. That suggests to the author - and to me - that atheists have a nagging sensation that Christianity is TRUE,and they don't like that one damn bit.
Hmm... water balloons filled with holy water. I'm going to have run this by my preacher. :-)
No, but a government that's limited by a constitution is. Now, you can argue whether or not the 14th Amendment wrote the Bill of Rights into each state constitution, but that's a different matter.
What kinds of arguments does he make?
As an ex-atheist, I can say that I tend to agree with this.
Atheism is more a hatred and rejection of God than it is simple disbelief.
Give me a specific example.
For that matter, there is a school in PA that the ACLU is attempting to sue because the parents were "hoping" a prayer would happen at commencements.
What is the name of the school?
In Wisconsin a college RA is having the private bible studies he was holding in his private dorm room banned by the college, despite the fact that all involved are consenting adults.
Well you just happened to omit the fact in your previous post that he is an RA. IMHO it is reasonable for a public college to insist that RA's not use their position to proselytize to the students under their care. These students do not really count as "consenting adults" since there might be implied pressure to stay on the good side of their RA, and furthermore the RA is often in a position to exert an undue influence on the students under his care. In his position as RA this student is also an official representative of the college and being an RA is basically a 24-hour-a-day job. I have no problem with an RA attending someone else's private Bible study.
BTW my older son, who is a Christian, attended some large public universities before transferring to a private Lutheran college. At the first public university he attended there was an off-campus evangelical group who saw it as their mission to convert students. They pressured students to stay in certain dorms and to allow use of their rooms for Bible studies which were led by people who were not even students. Once my son decided to miss one Bible study session to attend a folk music concert. The non-student leader, not connected with the university, but on university property, spent the better part of an hour in the next meeting laying a guilt trip on my son about his priorities.
As far as mothers and religion, do some research and look up the graduation rate of private Christian schools, the number of students those schools send to college, as well as substance abuse and pregnancy rates in those institutions.
The article was talking about a four year-old. I know some examples of mothers who were extremely religious, but were nevertheless treating their kids very badly. I believe that a mother's duty to her children is more important than her allegiance to any church. Some Christian schools are probably very good, although my limited exposure to Catholic schools indicates that they rely too much on fear and guilt.
Termie22: Up to 70% of people found sitting in Christian churches week after week don't even believe in God.
Skateman: Care to back up your claim?
Termie22: Yes. It's a frequently reprinted factoid. I first saw it on Compuserve News and more recently on other news services as well.
Which is the dominant religion in this country, and the one from which the vast, vast majority of our public traditions and practices are based.
That suggests to the author - and to me - that atheists have a nagging sensation that Christianity is TRUE,and they don't like that one damn bit.
Homosexuals use the same logic to suggest that virulent homophobes are in fact repressed gays themselves. We can do better than to adopt their style of argument, particularly when there are far simpler and more plausible explanations.
At best, you have your numbers EXACTLY backwards. The most recent Harris poll, for example, says that 82% of Americans believe in God.
http://www.newswatch50.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=B58FDEE0-4ECB-43CD-81B9-72E515D5CF84
I didn't say that being an RA was a "position of authority". I did point out that that an RA is an officially appointed position and the RA is in a position to influence the students under his care. There is nothing nonsensical about this.
For your statement to make even a lick of sense, you would have to agree that homosexual RA's are not allowed to engage in sex with their partners as well.
I don't think that homosexual RA's should be engaging in gay relationships if there is any possibility that this will be observed by the students under their care. So my positions on both issues are consistent.
By the way, at at least one of the colleges my son attended, I observed that gay students and even administrators seemed to gravitate toward positions connected with advising incoming freshman. I didn't feel that this was right, just as I don't think the actions of the evangelical group I mentioned in my prior post (which you didn't bother to comment on) were proper.
James Dobson was stopped from speaking at the University of Michigan because of "Church and State" issues.
After searching extensively I could not find anything about this on the Internet including on Dobson's website or on freerepublic. Maybe you could point out some dates, links to articles, etc.
In the Keystone School District in Clarion County, Pennsylvania, even after the school board caved-in to the demands of the Pittsburgh ACLU, the ACLU is still suing the district because it felt that some in the community still “hoped” that there would be a prayer offered at the high school graduation.
Actually the ACLU sued because the School Board president and others announced in the media that they were looking for a way to get around the agreement the School Board had already made with the ACLU.
No, my answer is that I don't agree to having my time wasted by people who can't even follow a logical argument and expect me to do all the work for them to locate artciles to back up their points.
I spent the better part of an hour searching for anything related to James Dobson being "stopped from speaking" at the University of Michigan. If this is such a well known incident, why can't you provide a link to it or even give the date? Because it never happened? So far you have provided zero evidence that Christians are selectively prevented from speaking at public colleges. By the way, Dr. Dobson does not even represent a church, so it's not clear why "church and state" issues should prevent his speaking.
Similarly, if you find an official document or press release or a quote from a named person representing the ACLU that they sued the school district only because of what people were "hoping", then I will take the time to post the news article about the graduation that describes what really happened as well as finding the quotes from the School Board President.
Yes, I think that when an RA is dealing with the students under their care, their right to privacy is limited. I don't want an RA telling my kid what to think about anything.. If you were consistent, I'm sure you would back the right of a Muslim RA to invite his students to study the Koran in his room.
BTW, have you ever actually been in a college dormitory and seen where RA's live and what they do?
Instead, he offers evidence with no substantiation, and then when you disagree, he reads far more into your disagreement than is there, and accuses you of believing in things you don't. In other words, he decides---incorrectly---he knows exactly what kind of person you are and exactly what you are thinking.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the author of this silly article.
zttttttt. Wrong. Try again.
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.
