Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Where’s the God Part

Did NBC do this purposely? You decide.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , ,

Previous Article
Next Article

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. doctorhugo says:

    Jim. A religion, any religion, is a dedication to the perception of an ideal life. Look it up. Atheism is NOT a religion. It is a denial of the existence of God…any God, nothing more complex than that. In a word it is godlessness and is definitively (as I have just proven) not “a faith in the almighty SELF”.

    Your dissertation upon what atheism is can be completely negated as conjecture, merely your unsubstantiated opinion, and not based upon dictionary definition or practical reality or any theocratic doctrine. In actual matter of fact it goes against what atheism is. Try doing some research upon that very subject. A belief that man is in the here and now and has only a mortal existence and that there is no God, no afterlife, no redemption. It then follows that an atheist believes that man, himself…, is the ultimate arbiter of that which is right and wrong. Atheists are not concerned with whether there is or is not an inherent evil in the nature of man that must be guarded against. An atheist sees all organized religion as a controlling factor and rejects it outright. It could be fairly observed that an atheist is the ultimate libertarian come full-circle to confront the image of his own destruction…HIMSELF. I say that because in your perception you’ve forgotten something. MORALITY. A sense of morality, or goodness, is what sets man apart as the higher life form and allows him to establish a Rule of Law to live by. Without anything imposing a sense of morality, such as faith enveloped within a religous dogma (religion) and a belief in a form of Almighty Presence or Higher Power or God, there is no motivation to establish any law for behavior. You do what you want to do as the ultimate libertarian free of all restraints upon behavior.

    This final line by you Jim is a complete mischaracterization:
    “[It is the religion started started in the garden when the serpent said, “You will be like God.”]”
    Aside from the typo error with the word “started” used twice, your observation to be accurate should read thusly:
    ‘It is the temptation started in the garden when the serpent said, “You will be like God.”
    Did you mischaracterize the meaning with intent to try to support your contention that atheism is a religion?
    I fear so and you are all too obvious in the attempt.

    • Anonymous says:

      doctor hugo.

      My reply was to Louis, not meant to get into a debate with you. But since you seem to have been offended by my correction to Louis and seem to wish to argue for the sake of arguing, I will respond. But only this once, for I have far too much to do than debate for the sake of debate. I much rather prefer a discussion in which the parties may disagree, but show mutual respect and willingness to learn to see from from the other’s perspective. I don’t see that happening here.

      I stand by every word I have written. I am not surprised by your objection. However, using your definition, “A religion, any religion, is a dedication to the perception of an ideal life,” atheism can be considered a religion. All atheists that I know are dedicated to the belief that life would be ideal if all reference to any and all gods would simply disappear. They believe that the ideal society looks to humanity alone, that all answers can be found within the human mind and experience. We don’t need any gods mucking things up! They are leftovers of primitive superstition! Man can solve the problems of man! But if this is the perception of the ideal life of atheism – looking to humanity alone to set the rules for living rightly and for solving the worlds problems – then we have by your definition a religion.

      I know that no ardent atheist would ever ADMIT that atheism is a religion, but for all practical purposes it is.
      You say, “Look it up. Atheism is NOT a religion. It is a denial of the existence of God…any God, nothing more complex than that. In a word it is godlessness and is definitively (as I have just proven) not “a faith in the almighty SELF”.” But your wrong. It is a denial of any god, true, but it then says, “so I can make the rules for my life, all by myself!” A god, by definition, is the supreme authority. By denying the existence of a god, an atheist elevates himself to the position of supreme authority over his life, making himself his own god. I know you don’t see it that way, but practically speaking that is what it is. But hey, we can just agree to disagree if you want. I’m not going to argue about it.

      Now with this next statement, you surprised me, “I say that because in your perception you’ve forgotten something. MORALITY. A sense of morality, or goodness, is what sets man apart as the higher life form and allows him to establish a Rule of Law to live by. Without anything imposing a sense of morality, such as faith enveloped within a religous dogma (religion) and a belief in a form of Almighty Presence or Higher Power or God, there is no motivation to establish any law for behavior. You do what you want to do as the ultimate libertarian free of all restraints upon behavior.”

      I can’t tell from that statement if you are arguing for or against “religous dogma” (your spelling, not mine ;^) ) You may want to reread that line and edit it. But I think I know what you were trying to say. I think you are trying to make a case that man has a sense of morality or goodness that sets him apart from the animals, allows him to establish the rule of law, and without any need for religious dogma or a belief in God. This is patently absurd. If there is no God, no Supreme Lawgiver, if man is simply a product of natural processes over an enormous amount of time and that happen by random chance, then on what basis are you setting a standard of morality? On what basis do you say what is right and what is wrong? There IS no right or wrong in matter and energy. There IS no morality in random chance. Who then sets the standard? You? Ah, then you ARE God, after all! But what if I don’t like your standard of morality? Then I guess I can make my own. I’d like to be God too!

      Perhaps you will answer, “Society will establish the basis for morality.” But what if society decides that you belong to an ethnic group that it doesn’t like, and starts rounding up people who look like you, and puts them in concentration camps, and then into gas chambers. You can’t tell them, “This is wrong!” If society decides what is right and wrong, who are you to question?

      The truth is, most (if not all) lawful societies founded their laws on some type of religious dogma. In Muslim countries, it’s Islam. In India, it’s Hindi. In the Europe, it was Christianity, as it was here in the USA. And the reason for that is simple: without a Supreme Lawgiver, there is no such thing as morality. Otherwise you are stuck with the ridiculous position that morality can be derived from lifeless matter and energy that combined randomly over large amounts of time. I do not have that much faith. It is much more rational to believe in God.

      As for your objection to my use of the last line in my post, what (you never had a typo?), I stand by it. True, Satan used the line to tempt Eve, but the result was for man to exert his will over the will of God, in essence elevating self to the position of God. It is the same thing that Satan was thrown out of heaven for. He said,
      ‘I will ascend into heaven,
      I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
      I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
      I will be like the Most High.’

      Man was thrown out of the garden for the same thing. Either a person worships God, or he worships someone or something else, whether or not he admits it or calls it that. It’s the simply truth.

      • doctorhugo says:

        I knew to whom your reply was addressed, but this is an open forum and anyone can comment upon any post.

        As to your responses I’ll address those worthy of a response, because in most places you simply repeat YOUR perception and ignore the factual corrections I earlier made. I will make an observation upon this ridiculous comment of yours in reply to me though:

        “I have far too much to do than debate for the sake of debate”

        Why then do you bother posting? When someone posts their opinion they must stand ready to defend it. Arguing is posting unsubstantiated opinion without the courage to accept challenge to it. Debate is taking argument to a higher intellectual plane and requires validation of one’s opinion to elevate to a status greater than mere conjecture. I did that by a logical sequence of criticism and explanation to diminish your stated positions. If challenged by you I would have posted source citations to validate my positions. You failed to adequately deal with my criticisms in a like manner and chose to make a cowardly backing-away exit.

        The most interesting part of your post was this and I fully excerpted it unaltered in any way The entirety of the excerpt is eclosed in quotation marked bracketing:
        “[Now with this next statement, you surprised me, “I say that because in your perception you’ve forgotten something. MORALITY. A sense of morality, or goodness, is what sets man apart as the higher life form and allows him to establish a Rule of Law to live by. Without anything imposing a sense of morality, such as faith enveloped within a religous dogma (religion) and a belief in a form of Almighty Presence or Higher Power or God, there is no motivation to establish any law for behavior. You do what you want to do as the ultimate libertarian free of all restraints upon behavior.”

        I can’t tell from that statement if you are arguing for or against “religous dogma” (your spelling, not mine ;^) ) You may want to reread that line and edit it. But I think I know what you were trying to say. I think you are trying to make a case that man has a sense of morality or goodness that sets him apart from the animals, allows him to establish the rule of law, and without any need for religious dogma or a belief in God]”

        How anyone could read my comment, spelling oversight included, and conclude the exact reverse of my point concluding that which you ended this excerpt with is beyond reason. So, here again, you’ve tried to use your misinterpretation to justify a ridiculous criticism of my posted comment. Why? When my suggestion was easy to understand that man needs a religious dogma, a faith in something beyond himself, to establish a relevancy for morality.

        As to this> “Perhaps you will answer, “Society will establish the basis for morality.”” I would if I had posted that. I see you enclosed it in double quotation marks, but I fail to see where I said that in any of my posts on this thread page.

        Lastly. Despite your contorted machinations to turn about the meaning of my criticism to justify your point the simply criticism I made is accurate. You substituted the word religion for the word more accurate descriptive temptation, to use that as a building block to validate your position. I’ll show you. You stated this:
        “Satan used the line to tempt Eve, but the result was for man to exert his will over the will of God, in essence elevating self to the position of God…” Remember my criticism of your “cutesy” manner? Here it is again as you take a HUGE leap by inserting “in essence”. In essence he did no such thing. You try to use that “in essence” as a connective to make it appear that the former behavior translates to the latter conclusion. Man simply allowed himself to be seduced by temptation…, HARDLY A GODLIKE TRAIT. MORE LIKE A HUMAN WEAKNESS. The entire quote from Genesis 3 is “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So by your standards this serpentine quote officially sanctioned and started atheism as a religion.

        Get real! You’ve over-imbibed on the Kool-Aid at the atheists’ refreshment stand and are really reaching to justify a ludicrous point..

        It doesn’t work. God and religion are two separate things.

        • Jim Blackwell says:

          Ok , I’m bored. But this is my last post on this. We aren’t getting anywhere.

          “As to your responses I’ll address those worthy of a response…”
          Well thank you for finding at least SOMETHING worthy in my post. I was really concerned about that! ;^)

          “…because in most places you simply repeat YOUR perception and ignore the factual corrections I earlier made.”

          Actually, you haven’t made any factual corrections. You simply posted YOUR opinions. You can try to pass them off as facts if you want, but they are really YOUR opinions.

          “Why then do you bother posting?”

          Hmmm. I thought that was clear on that. I was correcting what I perceived as a flaw in Louis’ post, and he agreed by the way, and thanked me. Hope that cleared that up.

          “When someone posts their opinion they must stand ready to defend it.”

          Uh…did that or this last post of yours wouldn’t have happened.

          ” Arguing is posting unsubstantiated opinion without the courage to accept challenge to it. Debate is taking argument to a higher intellectual plane and requires validation of one’s opinion to elevate to a status greater than mere conjecture.”

          I’ll almost agree with that point. Arguing is also pushing your opinion while attacking and belittling others in an attempt to silence them.

          ” I did that by a logical sequence of criticism and explanation to diminish your stated positions. If challenged by you I would have posted source citations to validate my positions. You failed to adequately deal with my criticisms in a like manner and chose to make a cowardly backing-away exit.”

          That is your opinion. I found your criticism and explanation NOT logical at all. Quite frankly, neither did others that I know who read it. However, they found MY criticisms and explanations very logical and well presented.

          I also believe that a person who debates an issue should deal with the issue. If he feels that his argument is sound, he does not need to try to belittle his adversary with insults. You have just insulted me by saying that I “chose to make a cowardly backing-away exit.” To me that means your realize that your criticism and explanation is weak, so you feel the need to resort to try to intimidate me with an insult. Sorry, didn’t work. By the way, see the above explanation of “arguing.”

          “How anyone could read my comment, spelling oversight included, and conclude the exact reverse of my point concluding that which you ended this excerpt with is beyond reason. So, here again, you’ve tried to use your misinterpretation to justify a ridiculous criticism of my posted comment. Why? When my suggestion was easy to understand that man needs a religious dogma, a faith in something beyond himself, to establish a relevancy for morality. ”

          I wouldn’t have commented on your spelling mistake if you hadn’t mentioned my typo. Guess we all get butter-fingers at times…

          Ok, here I admit I made a mistake. I thought you were in fact an atheist when you responded to my post to Louis. I had not read your other posts, just Louis’. When I read this last reply, I skimmed through your other posts and found where you said, “I want to make the point that I’m rebutting you as one who has a deep belief in an Almighty Presence, but who does not have the faith required to declare Jesus Christ as My Lord and Saviour.” So you are a deist, not an atheist. My bad. Now your post makes more sense. “…man needs a religious dogma, a faith in something beyond himself, to establish a relevancy for morality. ” Sort of what I said. Hey, we agree!

          “As to this> “Perhaps you will answer, “Society will establish the basis for morality.”” I would if I had posted that. I see you enclosed it in double quotation marks, but I fail to see where I said that in any of my posts on this thread page.”

          I didn’t say that you said that. Quite plainly I said, “Perhaps you will answer…” I was anticipating a common atheistic answer to the question of the origin of morality. But, you are not an atheist, so never mind.

          “You stated this:
          “Satan used the line to tempt Eve, but the result was for man to exert his will over the will of God, in essence elevating self to the position of God…” Remember my criticism of your “cutesy” manner? Here it is again as you take a HUGE leap by inserting “in essence”. In essence he did no such thing. ”

          Awww, do you really think my manner is cutesy? I think I’m blushing….

          You have to realize that I am writing from a Christian perspective. According to the Bible, to rebel against God is a form of idolatry. There are many passages I could point to, but I’ll only use one, Romans chapter 1:

          18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

          Man knew God, but instead of giving Him the glory, he rebelled and now he worships other things, including himself. We are all guilty of this – all except Jesus Christ.

          Now, from your deist perspective, you may not agree, but to the Christian, this is the heart of sin. Ultimately sin is putting self before God. From the Biblical perspective, that is idolatry.

          “So by your standards this serpentine quote officially sanctioned and started atheism as a religion.”

          I do not believe that atheism really exists. Atheists SAY they believe in no God. But in reality, they put themselves are the supreme authority, so in essence (yes, there’s that word again!) they worship themselves. That is my point, and partial Paul’s point in the Romans 1 quote.

          “Get real! You’ve over-imbibed on the Kool-Aid at the atheists’ refreshment stand and are really reaching to justify a ludicrous point..”

          Uh…now I think your confused. I am not an atheist, I’m a Christian, so I don’t drink anything from their refreshment stand. And it is not my point to make. I simply state what I believe the Bible teaches, and I don’t believe the Bible is ludicrous. As a deist, you may…that’s your prerogative.

          • doctorhugo says:

            I won’t be redundant and rehash the same old things again and again with you save to say that your last comment is the most interesting one as it frames you and your erroneous “in essence” assumption you stubbornly hold to believing that the temptation in the Garde was the ordination of a religion. Stop beating the dead horse. You said that “I simply state what I believe the Bible teaches, and I don’t believe the Bible is ludicrous.” Did I say the Bible was ludicrous? NO! Yet you selfindulge yourself with such a gratuitous suggestion. You know what I said was ludicrous. Your presumption that an atheist is a god, because he is his own supreme ruler and thus by your logical extension atheism would be a religion. You’ve beaten all the hide off that dead horse. Now what!

            I remind you that this subject topic used the word “God” (capitalized) in the title. You have with great consistency used the lowercase version in posting and I wondered why a Christian would do so. Then I realized you were merely being ‘disingenuous’ and using this subject to champion that single solitary point of presumption. Contentiousness and personal umbrage aside, our entire debate/argument has centered about this. You need to check out some source references I’ve provided for you.

            Definition of disingenous
            : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating
            Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

            Definition of God and god
            1. capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
            a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
            2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
            3: a person or thing of supreme value
            4: a powerful ruler
            Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

            Definition of ATHEISM
            1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
            2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
            Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&t=1308873823

            You might also take note that when you post a comment enclosed in double quotation marks you should EXPECT people to challenge you as to the source. Double quotation marks are for direct quotes made. You’ve been casually using double quotation marks, which invites contentious retorts from others who feel they are being misquoted, such as I reacted at one point. At times, when I’m posting in a limited options template such as this, I use single quotation marks to highlight a word or phrase (as bold or italiczed or alternate color is not available). It is NOT strictly grammatically correct, but serves a purpose as does THIS.

            Just in case you think that definition number 3: under God makes your case for you… it doesn’t. If you’re interested I’ll be glad to show you why.

    • Jim Blackwell says:

      Oops!! Obviously on my previous reply I forgot to give my name.

  2. Louis Blackwell says:

    Jim (no relation), on that singular point , I have to admit my error. I believe I allowed the terms “faith” and “religion” to become convoluted, thus allowing that erroneous phrasing. A weakness in my own rebuttal preparation! The remainder stands up to scrutiny very well. Thanks for the clarification. –LB

  3. Jack says:

    Jayson: if referencing God divides you from the rest of us, then you don’t belong in America to start with.

    • Jayson Quilantan says:

      Luke 12:51 KJV
      “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division!” – Jesus

      • doctorhugo says:

        When atheists quote scripture thinking to use such to diminish people of faith they stumble into the quicksand pit of ignorance. And here you have left for all of us a glowing example:
        “[Luke 12:51 KJV
        “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division!” – Jesus]”

        I want to make the point that I’m rebutting you as one who has a deep belief in an Almighty Presence, but who does not have the faith required to declare Jesus Christ as My Lord and Saviour.

        Christians know that God did not come to “give peace on earth”. God came to test man, whom he created, by “division”. What do you think that The Temptation was all about? By dividing man into different persons in every way he tested them and challenged these higher beings to make a world where differing peoples could exist in peace. The failure to do so is not a failure of God, it is a failure of man.

        YOU, of course, have no perception of what FAITH truly is so all this is alien to your thinking. You have no conception of the root origin of that which we know as The Golden Rule until you look it up!

        Dropping convenient scripture excerpts as a manner of ‘cutesy’ debate style paints one as a fraud lacking in the totality of knowledge surrounding such. Rest assured that if not I, someone else will step forward to embarass you with THE TRUTH.

  4. Jayson Quilantan says:

    Let’s see… the Pledge was conceived by a Christian socialist without the “under god” mucking it up!!! It wasn’t until 1954, during the Red Scare of McCarthyism that it was decided we needed to be “holier than thou” and added the DIVISIVE phrase to a SECULAR pledge!!!

    • doctorhugo says:

      Let’s see now. The pledge, as originally conceived by Francis Bellamy, the “Christian socialist you referenced, went like this:
      “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

      The “mucking it up” as you so sarcastically describe it was the result of pressure by the Knights of Columbus back in 1953. The next year the then President Eisenhower listened to a sermon by a Rev. Docherty in which this cogent observation was made:
      “Apart from the mention of the phrase ‘the United States of America,’ it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow.”

      That rung true for Ike and for many others as many resolutions has been proposed in congress to make the change in some form. It could be legitimately observed that Ike and many politicians then thought it a good idea to make note of our Judeo- Christian heritage and roots to set us apart from the Communists who were commonly referred to as Commie atheists. And since many government documents, buildings etecetera acknowledged such linkage and did so in general and without trying to sanctify any official religion it came to be.

      I don’ know if you made your comment as an atheist, a progressive liberal, a commie or whatever, but you need to know that this nation was conceived in reponse to religious persecution by the Crown. It should be no surprise to you then that in the First Amendment of The Bill of Rights, we are guaranteed religious freedom to practice as we choose. The precise wording for your edification is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..”. So you see it is the freedom to worship as we please that was acknowledged. It is not the freedom from the practice of religion, which you appear to believe in or else you wouldn’t have opined about “mucking it up”.

      • Jayson Quilantan says:

        Did Jesus not say it was hypocritical to pray in public?

        As a patriotic American atheist, it was refreshing to hear a SECULAR pledge of allegiance, one that all faiths can get behind… including “under god” only seeds division, just as Jesus said he came to Earth to do!

        • doctorhugo says:

          Believe what you will, but this is a country with an origin root of a belief in God as part of it’s culture and heritage. And all your SECULAR wishes can’t erase real history. It is the alien, the atheistic belief that seeks to impose it’s minortity will on the American majority. We call that the ‘tyranny of the minority’ and people like Michael Newdow are all too representative of them.

          I don’t even follow any major faith, but I respect and stand firmly alongside those who practice a devotion to what they belief in, not those who practice a devotion to what they don’t believe in.

          • Jayson Quilantan says:

            Where did I say I wanted to erase history? It would sound as though the Knights of Columbus imposed their will on every other faith…

        • Louis Blackwell says:

          Jayson, as a self professed atheist, your fixation on Jesus, whom is not mentioned in the pledge you are so adamant in rejecting, is extant and pointless. Much as your blundering comment, on how removing “under God” would allow all faiths to embrace the pledge. The inference being that atheism is a “faith”, as you put it. Atheism is the antithesis of faith … A Godless denial of any and all holiness. Complete faithlessness. Must it be explained to you? You , as an atheist should know that! By your own words you prove your argument empty, and without merit. You are incapable of verbalizing the reasoning behind your position, let alone defend the position you espouse. You do realize your ignorant, misapplied, smugness towards public prayer would also infringe on the religious freedoms of non christians! I can only deduce, from your amateurish babbling, that you would allow for religious freedoms … as long as they aren’t christian, or aren’t non christian, agree with your atheistic restrictions, and recognize atheism as a religious faith. Well aren’t you special! @doctorhugo was well reasoned and factually substantiated . While you may be sincere, you will have to better prepare, and research the subject matter ,to be effective in your debate.

          • doctorhugo says:

            Well Jayson, the’ net effect’ of your stated belief is to do just that, to deny our historical origins I made note of. Don’t suggest that I’m putting words in your mouth, your own opinions do that just fine.

            You then cannot wait to indict the Knights of Columbus for taking a freedom of speech and expression position. Sounds like ‘sour grapes’ to me. Especially in light of the fact that the courts have ruled that political contributions by groups and individuals is ALSO a freedom of speech. You don’t even get to that stage, you deny them that basic free speech right OUTRIGHT.

            Need I remind you they, like everyone else, have that right of advocacy and that “under God” was not added to the Pledge in the dark of night, but done legally? The observation ‘He doth protest too much’ would appear to accurately describe and apply to your atheistic fervor. There is a time to just sit down and shut up when your position has been diminished to the point of irrelevancy. Remember it’s Freedom OF Religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. If you don’t like the majority view and cannot tolerate the democratic way maybe ‘taking a hike’ would be a viable option for you. In this system you have the right to your opinion, but incessant whining is never constructive to one’s position and always marks one who cannot live by society’s rules. This society has set up it’s rules to reflect the will of the majority whilst still giving full legal voice to the opinion of the minority. At the end of the day, the majority always rules. Not so in the various forms of atheistic communism. This society is so magnanimous that it even gives it’d most basic habeas corpus rights to those who want to destroy us, Not so in your Communist alternative!

            You may wish to reconsider how fortunate you are to live here, if indeed you do live here, in America.

          • Jim Blackwell says:

            Louis,
            I agree with much of what you have stated here. The one thing I disagree with is the statement, “Atheism is the antithesis of faith … A Godless denial of any and all holiness. Complete faithlessness.” While it is a denial of any and all holiness, it IS actually a faith – a faith in the almighty SELF. It elevates the individual to godhood, to be the final arbiter of right and wrong, to demand the sovereign right to “do what is right in his own eyes.” And it works, until another with more power comes along and says, “I think I’ll impose my will – my right to do what I want, even if it conflicts with you.” Atheism is the faith that ultimately leads to the philosophy of “might makes right,” or “survival of the fittest.” It is the faith of fascists, communists, and tyrants of all kinds (Hitler and Stalin, to name two). Make no mistake, atheism is a faith, a religion. It is the religion started started in the garden when the serpent said, “You will be like God.”