What s Wrong With a Cross at the WTC?

FoxNews ^ | July 19 2002 | Hannity & Colmes

[yendu bwam]

From that, the following flow... ethics = rational self-interest politics = capatalism Bill Clinton routinely mentioned God. He must be better than us atheist Repubicans in your eyes. In my freeper carreer, I've never heard him criticized as a Christian charlitan. From that, I've concluded that there is nothing incompatible with being a Christian who advocates national health care.

OK. A morality based on rational self-interest (which, of course, is yours or anyone's prerogative) is diametrically opposed to Christian morality. Obviously, I think much more of the latter than the former (and that is my prerogative!). But your follow-up statements are incredibly presumptuous. As a Christian, I do not think that a man who commits evil acts and is unrepentant (not truly sorry) about them, but nevertheless talks frequently about God, is worthy of emulation. I do not know the inner workings of Clinton's mind, but to me he appears unrepentant. But I do not honestly know. I do not know what inner demons may trouble this man. That is why Christians are taught not to judge people (but to judge acts as being good or bad - and clearly many of his acts have been abominable). And the same for you - I could not possibly judge you, or see you as 'better' or 'worse' than Bill Clinton - just because your an atheist. But the primary difference between you and Christians is that Christians, rather than being OK with being motivated by self-interest, are called to be as self-less as possible - to give up one's desires and to work for the good of others. It is not a choice that true Christians may make - it is a requirement.

[yendu bwam]

The primary characteristic of an atheist, other than he doesn't believe in God, is that he has the freedom to choose whatever morality he wishes. As such, there is nothing that unites atheists on a moral plane.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I don't see why it's morally inconsistant for a True Believer to perform medical experience on atheists as they themselves proclaim that they are no different from apes and chimps. You game?

Boy, you really read what you want to read, don't you. True Believers would never perform experiments on atheists because of what an atheist believes, because a True Believer believes that an atheist believes wrong. It would be akin to a father giving a son a bowl of dog food because the son believes he is a dog. The father knows better and would use his judgement, not the son's. Now if the situation were reverse and it was an atheist performing experiments on a person of faith... I guess I don't need to bring up the name Dr. Mengele or Dr. Singer, do I? The atheist believes that humans are no different from chimps or apes, so they would have no problem with it. True Believers believe that humans are created after God's image and would obviously be appalled at the idea of doing experiments on any person, regardless of what that person believes.

[yendu bwam]

If the ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations succeed in stripping God from this country, they will be removing the only reason America is a haven for people of the World. Then the tyranny will really begin.

The Constitution prohibits the federal government from making a law regarding the establishment of a religion. It does not mean that a government cannot mention religion, or show some support for the religious celebrations and symbols of the citizens in its community. If a state government can fly a gay pride flag from its capitol building, it can certainly allow a Christmas tree in the lobby. That tree is just a mark of thoughtfulness for the many Christians who are citizens. Further, like it or not, our government was formed predominantly by religious people who believed in God. It IS part of our heritage - and we all owe (including atheists) much to that heritage. Again, atheist activists are extremely insecure, and seem to feel incredibly threatened by the devotion shown by those who believe in God. But nobody is persecuting them. Nobody is saying they don't have a right not to believe in God if they don't want. Nobody is harming atheists on the street. Come on, atheist activists, lighten up! Maybe they need to have atheist pride parades, like homosexual parades. I would even support an Atheist Pride day and their own flag, if that would make them feel better.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

If you are referring to my emotional reaction to the notion that in the end my life is meaningless, then I can tell you that my emotional reaction is irrelevant.

Do you reject intuition? Even most scientists will admit to the existence of intuition even if they dismiss it as a subconscience gestalt of barely perceptive clues that becomes evident through the emotions if not through active thought. Or what about instict? We instinctively know how to breathe, how to swallow, how to blink, could we not also instictively know there is something else beyond what we can perceive and when we make a statement to the opposite, we have an instictive, emotional "jump" that tries to tell us it's not true? If not, how did I know you had that response when you wrote it?

[Marysecretary]

What really ticks me off about all this PC crap is they don't want anyone to be offended by religious items or beliefs, playground games that may hurt one's self esteem, etc., ad nauseum. So we grow up not ever having our feelings hurt, or offended or or or and are as weak as kittens when adversity comes our way? We cannot be protected from hurt. That's what helps our character to grow, not everything being nicey nicey and going our way. What's with these liberals anyway? Life is hard. Deal with it.

[yendu bwam]

I agree. Atheists don't scream because they are oppressed in some way. They scream because they feel they aren't 'respected.' The Boy Scouts, as an example, doesn't admit atheists. Why? Because it's a private organization for those who happen to believe in God - which happens to be the vast majority of our country. Still, the Scouts has been attacked relentlessly by atheists, has spent millions in defending itself in frivolous lawsuits waged by atheists, and has been labeled intolerant by atheists. The scouts tolerate atheists just fine. It doesn't incite anyone against atheists, and respects their right to believe (or not believe) as they wish. It's just that some atheist groups can't bear the idea that to some, belief in God really means something.

[yendu bwam]

What are you going to do for the Jews, Hindus, Wiccans or Last Thursdayists?

The point is, it was a CROSS that was found in the rubble. If a Star of David had been found, I wouldn't have the least problem with it being prominently displayed. And I wouldn't be so insecure as to think that the government were suddenly turning Judaism into the state religion. If fact, I would feel happy for my Jewish brethren.

[Marysecretary]

Great reply, Anitius!

[yendu bwam]

But, that does not change the fact that a significant portion of the atheism "cause" or "movement" (I know how much they resist being identified as a group) has been coopted by the political left, who aren't FOR anything (the deconstructionist mindset).

Right. It's much easier to be for promiscuous homosexual activity, and having homosexual men who engage in such being your teenage son's scoutmaster on overnight camping trips, or partial birth abortion (murdering a perfectly formed baby 2 seconds before it's born), or kissing terrorist Yasser Arafat on the cheek, or having your kids exposed to pornography in the town library, or finding ways to excuse 9/11 when you get to choose your own morality.

[stanz]

I appreciate your comments.

[Dimensio]

We instinctively know how to breathe, how to swallow, how to blink, could we not also instictively know there is something else beyond what we can perceive and when we make a statement to the opposite, we have an instictive, emotional "jump" that tries to tell us it's not true? If not, how did I know you had that response when you wrote it?

Without an "instinctive" knowledge of breathing, swallowing or breathing then we probably wouldn't be alive. It's a survival mechanism.

I don't have an instinctive emotional response telling me that it isn't true that there is something "beyond", such as an afterlife. I can understand where such a response would originate out of a fear of death, but I personally cannot bring myself to believe in such a phenomenon -- especially without evidence.

[Dimensio]

Earlier you said it was meaningless.

Meaningless != silly. If that were the case then people would think that Pauley Shore's movies were funny. It's meaningless because there is no reason to distinguish a doorknob, a pumpkin or a coffee mug as an "atheist" because there's very little if any chance that any one of those said objects will have the property theism.

"Atheism is a descriptor for a lack of a property"

Can you demonstrate that you lack the requisite property?

I could tell you that I have no belief in any gods, but I could be lying -- much like someone claiming to be a theist could be lying when they claim to have a belief in a god or gods. You'll have to wait for medical technology to advance to the point where you can determine exactly how someone thinks before you can get a good answer.