Christians at a Texas College Campus find themselves in a battle between good and evil as atheists once again “peacefully” express their opposition to the Bible and religious teachings. Atheists at the University of Texas have instituted a program in which Bibles and religious paraphernalia are exchanged for pornographic materials.  Their defense is that porn is no worse than the “smut” present in religious texts.

The campaign is called “smut for smut”, and despite the overwhelming majority of students that are offended by this recent circus, a university spokesman explains that it is legal and cannot be punished. The atheistic group maintains that they will only provide the pornographic material to students 18 years or older. The group plans to continue this activity through the middle of the week. 

It is doubtful that mere coincidence has aligned this campaign with the recent erection of atheistic billboards by the United Coalition of Reason at the cost of $100,000.  The coalition claims it is their goal to bring nonbelievers together and increase their visibility in local communities, and attempts to defend their actions by remarking on the peaceful message advocated in the billboards: that one does not need God to be good and virtuous. However, the behavior of the atheists at the University of Texas has removed any possibility of cloaking themselves in this defense. 

This campaign is part of a systematic attempt on the part of atheists to destroy Christianity, and has unfortunately been successful in a variety of ways. 

For one, while Christians continue to make up the majority in the United States, 75 percent to be exact, less Americans are identifying themselves as Christians then ever before. In 1990, 86 percent of Americans were self-proclaimed Christians. Mark Silk of Trinity College has argued that, “In the 1990s, it really sunk in on the American public generally that there was a long-lasting ‘religious right’ connected to a political party, and that turned a lot of people the other way.”

It certainly makes sense that religious groups have often aligned themselves with a party that has been largely pro-life in its message and has proclaimed a belief in preserving a moralistic society. Silk’s explanation implies a connection between atheists and liberalism, and rightfully so. 

Additionally, columnist Michael Caputo outlines how atheists have exhausted the legal system to do the following: Won the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of faith-based agencies, overturned a state Good Friday holiday, won a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools, removed the Ten Commandments monuments from public lands (though our legal system is modeled from these laws), ended Bible instruction in public schools after 51 years, halted prayer at public institutions, stopped direct subsidy to religious schools, ended commencement prayers at Top Ten University after 122 years of practice, ended distribution of Gideon Bibles in public schools, brought nearly 30 First Amendment lawsuits since 1977, and keeps several Establishment-law changes in the courts at all times. 

Blogster Ben Witherington addresses the surge of atheistic sentiment that gained momentum in the last part of the decade. For him, and many others, much of it seems to be nonsensical.  “I mean when is the last time you found people ranting and raving for so long about something or someone who, according to them, doesn’t even exist?  I don’t see people writing angry diatribes shouting ‘Unicorns aren’t real-get over it!’ In fact I don’t even see many Grinches writing best sellers entitled ‘Santa Claus is a myth’.”   

Witherington employs a tongue-in-cheek approach to raise a rather significant question. What is the purpose of the atheistic agenda? The answer is rather alarming. Karl Marx recognized organized religion as a threat to the socialization of the worker because it preached lessons of love and loyalty. Marx believed that loyalty focused on a supreme being would inhibit the formation of a communist state. Stalin learned from this and took steps to limit religion in the USSR, closing churches or converting them into schools or theaters. Religious icons were destroyed and religious meetings were banned. Those who violated these rules lived in fear of being discovered by Stalin’s police. In 2009, the Freedom from Religion Foundation boldly advertised “Imagine no Religion” in Portland, Oregon, obviously alluding to John Lennon’s communist manifesto “Imagine”, which proposes a world of godless communism. 

In Emmet F. Field’s Atheism: An Affirmative View, published in 1980, Fields goes to painstaking lengths to repute any anti-atheistic jargon that Christians have used.  However, the one claim made by Christians with which Fields agrees is the role that atheism has played in the success of communism. “There can be no doubt but that Atheism is the reason for the success of communism … Atheism is, has been, and will continue to be, the force for progress throughout the Communist world,” he writes.

Of course, not all atheists should be indicted for supporting or advocating communism, in the same way Christians should not be punished for the behavior of a select few. However, many members of atheistic groups fail to realize that they are sheep being manipulated to fight a cause far beyond that which they have accepted as their own. A prime example would be the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a group with socialist and communist ties that has made it a point to eliminate and combat religion. In the book The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values, Alan Sears explains, “From the very beginning, the ACLU had strong socialist and communist ties. As early as 1931, the U.S. Congress was alarmed by the ACLU’s devotion to communism.”  The ACLU is the same group that has radically defended partial-birth abortion and abortion rights in general, polygamy and polyamory, and same-sex "marriages." 

Atheists have morphed into a militant minority group that has managed to attain by law a louder voice than the majority. The agenda of this group is made quite clear by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., which states in their bylaws that it is their intention to separate church and state and educate the public on matters relating to nontheism. When that is accomplished, what will be left?

Indeed, that is the question.

Photo of Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner (13) and other players in prayer after an NFL football game against the St. Louis Rams: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (51)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Holly said:

... Christians really do not get it. “I mean when is the last time you found people ranting and raving for so long about something or someone who, according to them, doesn’t even exist? I don’t see people writing angry diatribes shouting ‘Unicorns aren’t real-get over it!’ In fact I don’t even see many Grinches writing best sellers entitled ‘Santa Claus is a myth’.” It is not nonsensical to rant and rave about belief in a deity because the belief causes great harm. Remind me the last time you heard that unicorn believers were shooting abortion doctors in a church or that Santa believers were anti-gay. We don't gripe about that because it does not systematically halt social progress. If you could please let me know of any dogmatic doctrine attached to a belief in Santa or unicorns, the atheist community would fight against that as well. Since there is none, you have your answer as to why we do not bemoan that belief and I find it rather silly that that was not realized in the first place.

March 02, 2010

Simon Gardner said:

The god thing OK. The usual Christian whinge about being "oppressed". But you do know the whole god thing is the most absurd, unadulterated claptrap - right?

March 02, 2010

reply to Holly, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Fool, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Great Article, the atheist will be led to slaughter by the NWO, Lowly rated comment [Show]

Dave said:

You are so wrong on so many levels We don't care what you believe in. The point is to show the inaccuracies and fallacies in a book that you use as a moral guide. Question: My religious text is the infallible pinnacle of moral decency. Where could you possibly find fault in it? Answer: The Bible and the Koran endorse slavery (Lev. 25:44-46; Col. 3:22; Koran 24:5, misogyny (Lev. 15:19-30,33; 27:3-7; Deut. 22: 23-24; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:9; Koran 2:282; 24:31), violence (just search for any combination of the words “fire,” “blood,” “pain” and “doom”), and genocide (Ex. 12:29-30; Num. 31:1-54; Koran 17:16-17). God kills or commands the death of at least 2,270,365 people in the Bible, many of whom were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

March 02, 2010

Matt said:

... 'Our conviction that it is one nation UNDER God,' But it's only been "under god" since June 14, 1954. The author is a perfect example of why many atheists are anti-religion. Believing is one thing. Trying to infuse the government and laws we all share with your own religious ideas is enough to get anybody upset. Unless of course you're the one making the changes. The ACLU fights to keep the government secular. Secular does not mean anti-god or anti-religion. It just means that they're separate. As the founders intended.

March 02, 2010

Shaun said:

Dramatic, ego-laden, drivel. Raven - Way to "rally the base" on this one! Good blogs usually show some signs of actual research and conscientiousness; yours utterly lacks both. I guess you figure you can just throw around NWO conspiracies and Stalin and hope something sticks to atheists. Low blow. I could mention the Catholic Church's role in the holocaust, but maybe you can actually do some research find out for yourself. Oh, and to end your post with: "Indeed, that is the question." Dramatic, ego-laden, drivel.

March 02, 2010

Nell said:

... God must be bad at math because the bible claims pii = 3!

March 02, 2010

drbob said:

... This article attempts to criticize the prejudice of others, but only serves to expose the author's own bigotry. The author criticizes atheists for seeking to promote atheism, when they are only doing the same as most religious organization. The author complains that atheists are buying billboard space, when one can drive along highways in most American cities and see billboards advocating Christianity. The author is outraged that atheists dare exercise their rights to equal representation under the law, when the rights of religious organizations have been consistently upheld by the courts. If you seek to compare law abiding fellow citizens, with whom you disagree, to Stalin then you are the bigot not them.

March 02, 2010

Jake said:

Re: fool "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Ps. 14:1 See when you say that, all I hear is "everyone who disagree's with me is stupid"- pretty lame position to try to win an argument with, right? ranks right up there with "nuh-uh" and "lalala I cant hear you".

March 02, 2010

Hittman said:

Make Up Your Mind First you say the campaign to destroy Christianity has been largely successful, but in the very next sentence you contradict yourself. Make up your mind. I think these folks are doing a public service. They're trading something hate-filled and useless with something that can serve a useful purpose - for ten minutes or so.

March 02, 2010 | url

Noah said:

Our laws? Our laws are dictated by the ten commandments? You've got to be kidding me. Many of our moral laws are not addressed in the bible. The Israelites routinely raped and pillaged in the Old Testament. They killed all the men in cities and sometimes took the women for themselves; if not, they'd just kill them. This was all commanded by 'god'. Also, instead of speaking against slavery, the Bible actually gives us a list of rules on owning slaves. Not once does it speak against it. Hell, very religious people in the 19th century used the Bible to justify American slavery. Religious people today use the Bible to justify mistreatment of homosexuals. And you'd have us believe that's where we derive our morality? A book that calls for the murder of homosexuals and people of other faiths? A book that calls for the murder of children who rebel against their parents? Somehow, you turn your blind eye to these laws because Jesus taught contradicting philosophies, yet that doesn't mean you never use the Old Testament laws. You just choose the ones you're comfortable with. And if you were a true Biblical scholar, you'd know that the "10 commandments" were not god's true commandments. Go read the book of Exodus for once and you'll see what I'm talking about. The Bible is the LAST book we should consult when looking for moral guidance. If we're to use bronze age teachings as the basis of our laws, I vote that we use Buddha's teachings instead. He covered morality much more thoroughly than Jesus ever did.

March 02, 2010

Hiram said:

... > A prime example would be the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a group with socialist and communist ties Just what ties are you referring to? Making statements like that without anything to back them up sounds like a whole new round of McCarthyism, smearing people by calling them "identified communists", when McCarthy was the one identifying them as such because it furthered his ends. The one overarching goal of the ACLU is the protection of the civil liberties guaranteed to the citizens of this country by our constitution, which frequently involves defending unpopular but perfectly legal practices and ideas - they would be right there on the front line protecting you if someone were attempting to deny you your right to practice your chosen religion in your own home or place of worship. Hardly the kind of behavior that anyone can call communist. Since the establishment clause IS part of our constitution, I applaud them for helping stop state-sponsored endorsement of crazy religions in public institutions such as schools, and universities. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that you very much enjoy the government not being able to distribute the tracts of Sikhism to your children in school, nor make them recite Islamic prayers at the start of school assemblies - what the state is allowed to do for the benefit of one religion it is also able to do for the benefit of any other.

March 02, 2010

John Trobone said:

There is no evidence of God. There is no evidence of god. The burden of proof rests with you. If you accuse someone of murder, you must PROVE that they did. If you want to claim a god exists, you must PROVE that he exists. Irrational people are ruining America. Kudos to these students.

March 02, 2010

Hi said:

... This is actually at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), not the University of Texas at Austin (which is otherwise known just as 'university of texas' or UT).

March 02, 2010

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Noah said:

Joanne If 'god' created the universe, how do you know you're worshipping the right one? What if you're wrong? And if everything must have a first cause, who created god? No one you say? Well then, much like you believe that no one created god, we believe no one created the universe. See the parallel?

March 02, 2010

Raven42 said:

... > And why must those who believe in God PROVE His existence? Because the notion of a sentient being that created and rules over the cosmos has astonishing implications for how we conduct human affairs. Moreover, if such an omnipotent being exists, there should be no difficulty whatsoever producing some form of evidence. While you are welcome to believe anything you want, if your belief has no proof behind it, I see no reason to treat any policies you might want to promote solely on the basis of those beliefs as valid. Also, science does not claim that the universe "created itself." Creationists frequently use such distortions of science in order to present a straw man in a flailing attempt to discredit science in favor of religious beliefs. The elegance of science is in that, unlike most forms of religion, it admits that it can be improved by new information. Just because current science has not yet discovered a firm explanation for the origins of the universe (the Big Bang is one of the more possible hypotheses, but it is not scientific gospel--because there's no such thing!) doesn't mean it won't some day. That some atheists did something in questionable taste on one college campus says nothing about the character of atheists in general. Tempting as it might be, I don't judge all Christians by the likes of Fred Phelps and his vile clan. Of course, it's possible that more atheists are mature enough about their sexuality to deal with pornography in the manner of responsible adults.

March 02, 2010

Matthew Graybosch said:

American Christians have it too easy. Christians in America have it entirely too easy. They still constitute a majority of the population, politicians running for office bend over backwards to appease them, media self-censors itself to avoid offending Christians' overly tender sensibilities, and there isn't a single Christian in America who would recognize real persecution if it threw him to the lions. Yet it's atheists like me who are considered "militant" because we refuse to let Christians abuse their majority status by hijacking the machinery of government in order to turn what was intended to be a constitutional republic into a Puritan theocracy. We're "militant" because we mock Christianity. If Christians think atheists are being militant, then they don't realize that thus far we have exhibited patience that would humble Job. But wait! Christians in America don't think. They're too busy worshiping Satan by living in terror of temptation. If Christians had real faith in their savior, they would not be so desperate to avoid temptation. They would remember that Jesus said that it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out of him. But that's too much to ask of Christians in America. They're not even Christians at all. They're Pharisees who eat bacon. If Christ were to walk among them today, they'd break out the hammers and nails. Then again, if Christ were to appear before an American Christian, he'd d**ned well bring a whip.

March 02, 2010

Daniel T. said:

Turn About's Fair Play During the cold war, atheists were the bad guys. Now that the enemy are religious fundamentalists, Christianity is feeling the back-lash. It's nice having the shoe on the other foot for a change.

March 02, 2010

Kevin said:

... I personally do not allow Bibles in my house, not with young children around. Ezekiel 23 "(19)Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt (20)and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." If that's not smut then I don't know what is.

March 02, 2010

Jeff said:

I worship at the Church of Jessica! I don't need Christianity, smutty or otherwise, because I worship at the Church of Jessica: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl7_6X9V1Oc

March 02, 2010 | url

Joanne said:

... Hi, Noah: A supreme being wouldn't have needed a creator outside itself b/c such a being doesn't exist in time and space the way our physical universe does. So, no - I don't see the parallel there. I don't *know* that there is a God - that's where faith comes in. I do know though that I find it easier to have faith in the implausible (there is a Creator) than what science tells me is impossible (our world created itself). And you're right...I could be wrong. And? I've still become a better person and lived an infinitely better life by adhering to religious practice than I ever did before or ever would have otherwise. Raven42: The notion that there is no God also has major implications for how we conduct human affairs. Since you mentioned it, you might look to the 20th century for many examples of atheistic regimes that committed atrocities and genocide. And you're right - I don't have proof of what I believe. But then you go on to say that you don't either...So why would your beliefs on anything be any more valid than anyone else's? And btw, I am not a creationist and have never attempted to "discredit" science - just the opposite in fact. My belief system is actually in keeping with the laws of science as we know them - you on the other hand are evidently waiting for a scientific discovery that will contradict what we know. It also doesn't follow btw that because there is no proof of God, God does not exist.

March 02, 2010

Pat said:

check your sources "Karl Marx recognized organized religion as a threat to the socialization of the worker because it preached lessons of love and loyalty." No he didn't. Karl Marx thought organized religion was a threat to social progress because he believed faith and dogma prevented people from recognizing how s**tty their real life actually was, and thus prevented them from revolting and demanding social justice. Hence, opiate of the masses.

March 02, 2010

Donald Eric Kesler said:

Responding to Joanne Joanne, “And? I've still become a better person and lived an infinitely better life by adhering to religious practice than I ever did before or ever would have otherwise.” I don’t think this is true. I don’t know you, but I suspect you are a good person. I think you are a good person in spite of your dedication to an early Iron Age moral code. The Bible supports misogyny. The Bible supports racism. The Bible supports slavery. The Bible supports homophobia. You don’t need any of this garbage from the Bible to be a good person. Regards and Best Wishes, Donald Eric Kesler

March 03, 2010

Donald Eric Kesler said:

Responding to Joanne Joanne, You wrote, “I don't *know* that there is a God - that's where faith comes in. I do know though that I find it easier to have faith in the implausible (there is a Creator) than what science tells me is impossible (our world created itself). And you're right...I could be wrong.” No reputable scientist makes the claim that the world created itself. Science has confirmed some things. For example; all matter and energy in the universe was compressed tightly into a single mass, and that this mass expanded violently outward in all directions, creating the universe. These are facts. How this event transpired is still being studied and explored. Scientists are working right now, proposing hypotheses and conducting tests to either confirm or refute these hypotheses. That is the difference between science and faith. Science does not claim to have the answers. Even the answers that they do have can be swept aside with the results of a single experiment. Faith, in contrast, begins with the claim that it has all the answers. Any facts that contradict faith must be discarded outright or twisted into a shape that is more palatable. Regards and Best Wishes, Donald Eric Kesler

March 03, 2010

Donald Eric Kesler said:

Responding to Joanne Joanne, You wrote, “A supreme being wouldn't have needed a creator outside itself b/c such a being doesn't exist in time and space the way our physical universe does. So, no - I don't see the parallel there.” Basically, you are saying that the rules don’t apply to God. Why don’t they apply? How do you know that God does not exist in time and space? This is not even supported by that repeatedly discredited source, the Bible. In the Bible God makes plans and operates in a linear manner. He even changes his mind from time to time. He hardly acts as one who is aware of future events. According to all of the facts that we humans have gathered, only matter and energy appear to be eternal. Regards and Best Wishes, Donald Eric Kesler

March 03, 2010

Jack said:

A better world When that is accomplished, what will be left? a better world... But i am sorry that you will be out of a job

March 03, 2010

Pluto Animus said:

Huh? "What is the purpose of the atheistic agenda? The answer is rather alarming. Karl Marx recognized organized religion as a threat to the socialization of the worker because it preached lessons of love and loyalty." How magnificently stupid. Marx had just observed over three centuries of Christian-sanctioned slavery of black people. I guess slavery equals love to right-wing Christians. What moral trash.

March 03, 2010

Mnementh2230 said:

Joanne is scientifically illiterate Joanne said: ...Why don't you instead explain to us how all the energy in the universe created itself - something the laws of science tell us is impossible... Perhaps you're just a fool, talking about something you clearly don't understand, or perhaps you're intentionally dishonest, but in either case, your baseline assumption is idiotic, that the energy "created itself". Nothing needs to have been created - it can just always have been, eternal. Just like you claim your god is. You're trying to make a "first cause" argument, which is just about the stupidest thing you can possibly do, because in your situation it logically boils down to infinite regression... I'm talking over your head, aren't I?

March 03, 2010

MD said:

picture books dont count Shaun, put down the ganja and read a history book! Majority of history’s past and present “dictators” have similar atheistic traits. Rally the majority low-economical class with hopes and dreams, blame the countries problems on a scapegoat, outlaw religion, murder and imprison all who impose, and overtake the government. You do the research. * Picture books don’t count* List of atheist dictators Joseph Stalin! Saddam Hussein Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Lenin! Ho Chi Min! Felix Dzerzensky!

March 03, 2010

Pluto Animus said:

... "Fields goes to painstaking lengths to repute any anti-atheistic jargon that Christians have used." Apparently God abhors proofreading as much as homosexuality.

March 03, 2010

Joanne said:

... Hi, Donald: Thanks for your posts. I don't dispute that as you note, "all matter and energy in the universe was compressed tightly into a single mass, and that this mass expanded violently outward in all directions, creating the universe." But matter and energy exist within the physical world, do they not, and are bound by the laws that govern the physical world...therefore, all the energy in that tightly compressed mass could not have created itself (unless, as raven42 is expecting evidently, some future scientific discovery will show us that that particular energy, in contravention to the laws of science, DID create itself). So, it seems from my perspective, we are back to square one, ie, we disagree evidently as to the origin of what was in that tightly compressed mass. I didn't realize before reading the post by menentne's or whatever his name is, that the notion that the physical world had no beginning was seriously entertained in science. Is this so?

March 03, 2010

Ben said:

... I am so sick and tired of everyone who thinks that religion can get you to do whatever you want. Religion is allowed to get away with anything they want with there "GOD CARD". This country is only free to religion only people and no one else. Addicted to God is a problem as shown here with those who would want to shut everyone else up and do WHATEVER IT TAKES to do it. Go to war like in the pass and not porn say many think, hate on gays with lies and made up stories, put 9-11 as a sign from God to stop sex and cuss words, use fear to FORCE GOD on to people. You all are evil and not good as you all think you all are. You all should join Osama Bin Laden's army as you all want to so much want to "CLEAN THE WORLD OF EVIL" as they do. You all want to live in a prefect world with one religion but sadly that didn't happen as God said it was worng to do that and the one who said that was the devil himself; I've asked the question about what if God had the world perfected and many from Christian churches to Catholic churches and so on. All said that would be wrong and God didn't want that to happen. But when I asked about having only one religion in the prefect world and would that be good for all and God? All run away from the question. Well you all think it's good to have one god to make you be good to others, be respectful to others, and be helppful to others for you all think we can't do that without it; well it was a good idea to have a one religion world. How evil gets a good name for itself under God. You all force on and hate on; just don't do it around me because I'll be going to war with you in words to and if you don't like that well ANTI AMERICAN to You.

March 03, 2010

Melanie Bacca said:

What is Christianity I would like to begin by saying that Christianity began with the NEW TESTAMENT & Jesus. God sent Jesus here to introduce a LOVING God & not the feared tyrant of the OLD TESTAMENT. The Old Testament belonged to the Jews, The New Testament belongs to the Christians. The foundation of Christianity is love & forgiveness. Unfortunately, like any race or religion there are members out there giving the rest of us a bad name. As a Christian, I strive to be a good person who loves & forgives others & I give help wherever I can. I do not condone bombing abortion clinics or slavery. I will not impose my faith on anyone by trying to turn them into Christians. Your faith is your own business. But what's so wrong about love, forgiveness, & kindness toward your fellow man?

March 03, 2010

Tom Vilot said:

It's all magic Mr. Deity can explain how it's all magic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSLRjDR4aQ and why there is evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI

March 03, 2010

Frank said:

Would Rather my Adult Child Have Porno Sorry .. but most Christians have no idea what oppressive and violent filth is in the bible. I would much rather find a porno mag in my adult child's possession than a bible. Human sexuality is not offensive.

March 03, 2010

Thomas Paine said:

Conspiracy is alive and well It is clear the 33rd degree Freemasons called each other to bash this article. You Mason's are all suckers to the hierarchy. You follow their atheist mumbo jumbo until your minds are so messed up, they dismiss you as schizophrenic. Then when you are so twisted mentally with all the symbolism, they offer salvation in illumination. Lucifer, the god of light. Only they forgot to tell you, he is the devil. Good luck you innocent suckers. Your doomed unless you break free and return to the only true God of light, the Lord.

March 03, 2010

Joanne said:

... "Human sexuality is not offensive." Agreed, although porn isn't about healthy sexuality; it's about doing violence to people. Or would you be okay with your own daughter being in porn?

March 03, 2010

Matthew Graybosch said:

... Joanne, what kind of porn have you been watching? I haven't seen any porn involving violence.

March 03, 2010

Aspentroll said:

... To Thomas Paine: It's nut cases like you that cause people to drop religion like a hot potato. You display complete stupidity with your depraved beliefs. I'll bet if you were the Prez of the USA you'd have us killed in no time by starting your own imaginary Armageddon. It is absolutely necessary for the health of mankind to rid ourselves of people who think like you.

March 04, 2010

Joanne said:

... Hi, Matthew: To do violence to someone doesn't necessarily involve some type of physical battery. Doing violence to someone can be contributing to that person being in an unnecessary situation that has the potential to cause physical, emotional, psychological, etc damage to that person. (I say "unnecessary" situation in order to differentiate women in porn from, for example, police officers, military, fire fighters, etc, who are also put into potentially harmful situations - the difference is that their jobs are quite necessary for a society and contribute to the common good, however fraught with dangers they might be.) You might also respond that women in porn are choosing to be there...On the face of it that seems true, but from knowing many women who have come out of the sex industry, what I have seen is that their "choices" were based more on rather dire circumstances of some kind or on a history of having violence done to them, most specifically sexual abuse or assault as a younger person. The decision to enter the sex industry, as far as I can tell, is not the choice of women making healthy, life-enhancing decisions for themselves and their children. So...imo, even though it may seem a woman is choosing to take her clothes off for money, it doesn't release me from MY obligation to honor her humanity and not contribute to it. All that aside, though...you could answer your own question by thinking honestly about why it is that you wouldn't want your own daughter (or sister, niece, or any young woman you care about) being in porn, stripping, or prostitution. Thanks for posting - take care - Joanne

March 04, 2010

Bonnie said:

So, who is the most dangerous and intolerant? The troll from Aspen said: I'll bet if you were the Prez of the USA you'd have us killed in no time by starting your own imaginary Armageddon. It is absolutely necessary for the health of mankind to rid ourselves of people who think like you. The first sentence is a supposition. The second sentence is a statement.

March 05, 2010

Vicki said:

... I'd like to ask atheists: Are you happy?Do you feel fulfilled?

March 05, 2010

lynne said:

... For 18 months we had to run the chapel services in a local hospital once a fortnight; a ten pound stomach tumour deflated like a balloon and disappeared when prayed for, ( necessitating the Royal Abdominal Surgeon being called in to advise on the discharge statement). Mentioning healing and prayer may have closed a few minds here, on impact. But I don't think you'd want to miss reading the rest. Over the 18 months we saw Crohn's disease stop instantly, hands crippled with arthritis open out and go normal, chronically ulcerated legs dry up, paralysis after stroke disappear - every session someone was healed because a few people asked the Lord to do it. ( The man praying for the tumour didn't really believe in healing and one of the teens assisting had recently come out of drug-dealing and burglary - no holy-minded fanatics there, and these were English folks, not the image of the US variety you may have in mind. ) If I said no more than this it would be sufficient to put at least a hurdle in the forward charge of the thinking of most of the above writers. It won't do that. I wholeheartedly wish it would, but it won't. It wouldn't have, for me. Only dealing in it for real, takes it out of the realm of the mind and where the rubber hits the road. All else is speculation.

March 06, 2010

lynne said:

... Though what I've repeatedly seen and handled makes a far step toward answering 'proof of God' and hence all that rests on whether He's real or not, ( what if your stomach had a tumour in it the size of a soccerball? I don't think you'd call on your local atheist as a last resort. ), it rarely even makes for a hesitation in people with stands against Christianity, and that hesitation likely would only be to try to reason the way around, over top of, underneath, or past the simple facts. I sympathize because I was once the same. Convictions about existential matters are like a person's spine to them, and I recognize to my shame some of the delectation in disliking Christians, especially as a platform for showcasing the excellence or reach of my mind, with maybe a bit of righteous indignation and defiance of the status quo thrown in. If the Lord Himself hadn't crossed our path sideways I would likely have added my own diatribe and lofty thoughts to the rest of the comments here. But He did. I can no more bow to the salespitch of other ideas about him, than I could return to my old one - it would be like denying Australia exists if I in fact now came from there. And not to do anything about how things stand on this side of the discovery would be like keeping penicillin to myself when all around me have plague. ( And I don't mean all others are somehow ugly and emotionally diseased. One has to be so careful in saying anything these days. )

March 06, 2010

Apparently One of the Last Americans said:

Bite the Hand that Feeds I can't believe this is what our country has come down to. It is so disappointing to see this many people unknowledgeable trash Christianity. I have atheist friends that do not try to dismantle my beliefs or completely disrespect them by trading something I hold sacred and most personal for the whorish, destructive trash this group is condoning. Just as there are atheists who are kind-hearted and respectful, there are also Christians that do not conform to your misconception of "hate, slavery, and killing." Before you begin to comment on how horrible the contents of the Bible are, you should continue reading to the part where these are recognized as sins, and that God's love has been shown by forgiving us of these sins. These students, who are most likely so proud of what they're doing, do not realize what level of disrespect this is. And if they do, then I pray that their supposedly "actually correct morals" don't bring about the destruction of us all. I am a Christian, but you don't see me burning Kurans or shooting Buddhist monks. And on the matter of attacking the Bible's content- this country WAS FOUNDED by Christians. Yes, that means that their "hate" and "twisted morals" are built into our Constitution. I find it ironic and horrifying that the rights these students are exercising to desecrate the Bible were in fact given to them by "Bible-thumping" and "moral-less" Christians who used this book as a basis to begin our country. Go ahead, students. Bite the hand that feeds.

March 09, 2010

Wow... just wow. said:

... A scrap... just give us one scrap of evidence for God's existence. (And by evidence I mean evidence, not faith or 'well my friend had an illness and she prayed everyday and then you know what happened? A miracle happened!')

March 17, 2010

Stu Chisholm said:

Where's the balance? Isn't it amazing how the motives and agenda of the atheist movement can be critically analyzed in detail without the input of ONE SINGLE ATHEIST? A few cherry-picked sentences from books and articles does not constitute "balance." The author also misses the point... The "smut for smut" campaign is not bashing; it's pointing out that some of the material in Christian scripture is every bit as bad as anything ever pushed by Hugh Heffner! "Deep Throat" had nothing on David & Bathsheba! Christians seem to have huge blind spots where their religion is concerned, and few have ever read their entire bible cover to cover. If they did, they might be stunned by what they see. Christians also incorrectly accept the oft-repeated mantra that our country was somehow founded on Christian principles, yet fail to explain, then, why Jesus is never even once mentioned in the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution. They also have not explained the reasoning behind the First Amendment's prohibition against government intermingling with religion. We only need to look to the middle east to see how well that works out; it never promotes the best of religion, but brings out the worst. So, if anyone has questions about the "atheist agenda," I strongly suggest they ASK AN ATHEIST, rather than depending on a religionist's guesses and assumptions. If you have questions about the Constitution, then consult Constitutional scholars! Use Google, or better yet, simply read the document. It's not very long. I keep it handy on my desktop.

March 28, 2010

MD said:

To Stu Despite supposedly having a copy of the US Constitution on your desk, you obviously are unfamiliar with the language. The First Amendment simply says that the government cannot declare a national religion or fund religions. That's it. So saying "Merry Christmas" in a department store, or praying at a public service is allowable. You and your atheist cohorts have chosen to attack Christianity (WHICH BY THE WAY IS GROUNDED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, SO STOP QUOTING THE OLD TESTAMENT TO US IDIOTS!) You are threatened by the power of religion which manages to unite people together, and its most likely to push your socialist and communist agendas. If you don't like the way things work here, then leave the country.

March 28, 2010