Silverman Sacked; Atheist Leader Caught in Pervnado

American Atheists Fires President over Accusations of Sexual Assault

American Atheists, the flagship of organized atheism in the U.S., has sacked its combative president, David Silverman, after two women came forward to accuse him of sexual misconduct.

One of the women, whose name has not been revealed, said Silverman assaulted her in his hotel room after a 2015 convention of the American Atheists in Memphis, Tennessee.

“He physically pressed me to the wall and began to kiss me forcefully, grabbed my breasts, and put his hand into my leggings where there was actual penetration of my vagina,” she stated in a written complaint to American Atheists, which she sent along with photos of bruises allegedly caused by Silverman.

The second woman, Rose St. Clair, claims that Silverman sexually assaulted her in 2012 when she was a college student at the annual convention of the Secular Student Alliance, held in Columbus, Ohio.

Another godless Leftist finds that he is not God after all.

Leftist narrative hurt worst.

American Atheists Are Radicalizing Around Their Cartoon

American Atheist Al Stefanelli creates a Straw Christian to hate, and incite others to hate:

American Atheist leader says fundamentalist Christians 'must be eradicated'

"In a shocking blog post at atheists.org, Al Stefanelli, Georgia State Director of American Atheists, Inc., calls for the eradication of "individuals who abide by fundamentalist Christian and radical Islamic doctrines."

"They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated," he writes.

He goes on to write:

As long as they are allowed to exist, we will continue to be inundated with accounts of buses, buildings, markets and abortion clinics being blown up, rape victims being murdered for adultery, wives being beaten (sometimes to death), airplanes being flown into buildings, people being tortured and sometimes beheaded for blasphemy, people being burned for witchcraft and sorcery and all the other horrific, inhumane and insane practices that are part of fundamental Christianity and Radical Islam.

While it is true that many terror attacks have been carried out by radical Islamists, the same absolutely cannot be said of those who currently follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in the United States. The last judicial execution for witchcraft in the United States, for example, was in 1692, according to bibliotecapleyades.net.

Naturally, Stefanelli did not cite any examples of Christians actually participating in such acts, but he does single out what he calls "idiotic, ignorant and imbicillic politicians and celebrities like Palin, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Pawlenty and Santorum."

But who, exactly, is Stefanelli targeting?

"Most of the GOP, just about all of the Tea Party movement and even some Democrats and Independents," he writes, adding they "should be ashamed of themselves for going out in public wearing the equivalent of an intellectual diaper."

Why?

Because they have the audacity to believe what their religious doctrine teaches.

He smears religious people as lacking "the maturity and intelligence to act in a socially acceptable manner," calling them "sociopaths," "psychopaths," and claims "all of them are clearly delusional."

He claims:

The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along. They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.

They want us to die.

While one could easily make the argument regarding radical Muslims who have, in fact, flown airplanes into buiildings (Google "9/11") and beheaded people for being "infidels," the same cannot be said for modern-day Christians. Again, Stefanelli provides no proof of his assertions.

Billy Hallowell of The Blaze observes:

He encourages “mainstream believers” within both faiths to be “intolerant of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam.” Based on his writings it seems Stefanelli also takes issue with atheists and non-believers who are content accepting the beliefs of those he finds so unintellectual and radical.

Ironically, while calling for the eradication of those who follow their religious beliefs, Stefanelli writes in response to a comment calling him out for his violent rhetoric:

"It is most certainly NOT a call for violence. Not once did I ever suggest that we use weapons, violence or physical contact. Not once. Nor did I say we be “mean” to them," he wrote.

No, he just doesn't think these people have a right to exist, and they "must, must, must be eradicated." No violence or 'meanness' implied there.

"These are not the droids you are looking for.""

Atheist Censorship Marches On

Atheist group wants apology from Troy University chancellor over this emailed video

"MOBILE, Alabama - A national atheist organization is calling for an apology from Troy University Chancellor Jack Hawkins over a video he emailed to students and staff that drew a connection between religion and democracy.

In a letter to Hawkins addressed Dec. 31, American Atheists President David Silverman wrote that a student at Troy was concerned about the chancellor's distribution of the 90-second video, which Silverman said "asserts that religion, particularly Judeo-Christian beliefs, are necessary to be moral, law-abiding citizens, and implies that those who do not attend church will be anti-democracy and anti-social members of society.""

The "Good Without God" crowd wants the video censored. Censorship is a sign of fear of truth. Silverman, like his predecessor, Madelyn Murray O'Hair, is a law unto himself. He uses his organization's appearance of power to threaten people. The use of threats of financially damaging lawsuits is the stock in trade for Atheists who support organizations like AA and FFRF, which use bullying to get their totally Atheist government and public space. They are totally intolerant of dissent and demurrals.

Atheists are NOT good without God; they (for the most part) are totalitarian, Marxist destroyers of democratic functions. Those who support them will ultimately be destroyed, too - a quick look at the Atheist history of governing teaches just that: only the strongest, most willing to accept evil as a modus operani survive and prosper under major Atheist governments.

The War On Christmas: Stunningly Irrational

The annual Atheist War on Christianity, Christmas edition, is underway. This year the issue is "Why won't Christians share Christmas?"

Let that sink in for a moment. That's long enough. Christmas is Christ Mass, a religious holiday. Atheism is both a-religious, and rabidly Anti-Religion. Let that sink in for a moment. That's long enough. Any rational mind would apprehend the internal contradiction of this American Atheist demand immediately. But not Atheists, apparently.

There is no shop, store, mall or on-line market which keeps Atheists from buying presents for each other, putting up trees or cactus or whatever they want to decorate, and eating turkey or crow or whatever they want to eat on December 25. The demand to share is beyond absurd. They are totally free to mimic whatever and whoever they want, whenever they want.

And yet. They apparently think that the accusation of "not sharing" the religious holiday places them firmly into a Victimhood Group of some sort, with a warning that they "feel" abused and possibly afflicted with the gastric distress that Silverman commonly claims.

Bogus. Entirely bogus, transparently bogus, adolescently bogus. They appear to be quite desperate and out of useful material.

Witness this rant from Silverman:

"The hypocrisy is unbelievable,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “Millions of American children are forced to go to church under the threat of being denied meals, losing household privileges, having their college tuition cut off, or being kicked out of their homes. Many atheist adults are forced to go to church under threat of divorce or lose custody of their children. We must ask the question, who are the real bullies? Those who are unafraid to stand up for our views on billboards, or those who destroy families from the inside out?”"

Factually, Silverman is quite challenged; emotionally, he is distraught; intellectually is mad hatter insane. If there has ever been a threat to the family, it is the AtheoLeftist cabal in the federal education program, the federal welfare program, and the AtheoLeftist portion of Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive Branch. Silverman is losing his grip, and it is obvious to even the casual observer.

Court Pushes Back On American Atheists

Headline:

Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive'

The American Atheists under David Silverman filed a suit claiming that the Ground Zero Cross gave them dyspepsia at the sight of it. Yes, they did that. A court kicked them out, so they took it to appeals. This is the appellate court.

"American Atheists filed the suit in 2011, which was thrown out last year by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.

The appeals court ruling Thursday cites an amicus brief filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm that specializes in church-state law and protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.

“We’re thrilled that the court picked up on this issue,” said group lawyer Eric Baxter, whose brief argued that American Atheists had no right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. “Courts should not allow people to sue just because they claim to get ‘dyspepsia’ over a historical artifact displayed in a museum.”

The museum officially opened on May 21.

The judge has now given the plaintiffs until July 14 to file supplemental legal briefs before deciding whether the case will proceed. Among the questions that must be answered in the new filings is how the offensiveness of the cross, which the plaintiffs view as a Christian symbol for all 9-11 victims, becomes a “constitutional injury.”

The other question is -- if the plaintiffs indeed feel displaying the cross “marginalizes them as American citizens” -- then how is that a “particular and concrete injury" compared to just “the abstract stigmatization of atheists generally.”

The judge has also asked the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim the museum and Sept. 11 memorial are getting taxpayer dollars."

Probably the American Athiests thought it kitschy to claim dyspepsia. But apparently they lied about the use of taxpayer dollars for the museum. Even so, that would compare with the use of taxpayer dollars for Planned Parenthood, it seems. And that causes dyspepsia in me, and death in a class humans. Regardless, here the court is excercising rational due process, it appears. How refreshing.

Silverman Booted From CPAC

David Silverman and the American Atheists have been booted from the 2014 CPAC Conference:

"The Conservative Political Action Conference has revoked the booth belonging to the group American Atheists at the right-wing convention beginning later this week.

The group, which advocates on behalf of atheists across the country, was scheduled to do outreach with a station at this year's CPAC conference.

Earlier in the day, CNN quoted American Atheists president David Silverman (pictured above) saying "I am not worried about making the Christian right angry. The Christian right should be angry that we are going in to enlighten conservatives. The Christian right should be threatened by us."

Meghan Snyder, a spokesperson for CPAC organizers, explained why American Atheists would no longer have a booth at the event:

American Atheists misrepresented itself about their willingness to engage in positive dialogue and work together to promote limited government.

We spoke with Mr. Silverman about his divisive and inappropriate language. He pledged that he will attack the very idea that Christianity is an important element of conservatism. People of any faith tradition should not be attacked for their beliefs, especially at our conference. He has left us with no choice but to return his money.

If there is anything in which Atheists do not believe, it is conservatism in government. Silverman is not one to think an actual thought before he speaks, and when he speaks it is in arrogant self-assurance of his own elitist knowledge of Truth. And his Truth is focused on attacking Christians and Christianity, not on small government and personal responsibility and moral character development - the things of political conservatism. There is no question that he would have continued his attack rather than tried to be a positive contributor to the conservative position.

Silverman On Morals

David Silverman is the President of American Atheists, the organization started decades ago by Madelyn Murray O’Hair. Silverman gets a lot of face time in his official capacity, and he has started to appear at Progressive functions, since, as he puts it,

” The progressive community is chock full of atheists. The National Organization of Women, People for the America Way, the ACLU, Americans United, the Creating Change: these are movements, these are organizations chock full of atheists that need to know that we’re here, that need to know that we’re here to help them, and that need to know that we’re here to help them by fighting their fight with them.”

This time Silverman is at Netroots Nation, and is interviewed by Raw Story. The most interesting response by Silverman is this:

” Now, to your question about morality. What needs to be said about morality is that people make their own moral decisions. Everybody makes their own moral decisions. Then a theistic person would go to a church and find a place where the church agrees with him or her and actually say, “Well, okay, now my morality comes from my church. Now my morality is perfect. Now my morality is flawless, unchangeable, and unquestionable.” And atheist will say, “I have this opinion, but of course it can be changed.” A theist will change their opinion, too, then they change churches, and when they change churches, they again reinforce their opinion of morality with the dogma of the church they have chosen because it matches their opinions. So when we’re talking about politicians using religion as a morality, what we have to understand is that it’s not that religion is the source of morality. Humanity is the source of our own morality. And when they use religions to justify it, what they’re really doing is hiding behind their religion so that they don’t have to justify their positions. And I think that’s what has to be exposed. When somebody says, “I believe X because that’s what my god tells me,” that’s a lousy answer, and we have to expose that.”

Silverman makes two claims here.

First, he claims that theists have changeable morals, and that they choose a church based on its dogma. What he assumes is that the moral premise changes radically from church to church, when in fact, it does not because the moral premise is contained in a document which is not edited by the individual church. The Christian theist has a fixed morality which is contained in a document which is not church-specific. And no Christian theist will actually claim to be perfectly moral. The Christian claim is to be struggling with the fallen nature of man. Silverman has outlined his own ignorant and prejudiced view of how Christians think in a false cartoon which he pushes as truth. Silverman has created his own personal “reality” which doesn’t reflect actual facts. It is worse than that: it is purposefully false; a lie. Perhaps Silverman is projecting the moral concept which Atheists themselves have: make up your own morals to match your Atheist proclivities, and find reasons to support it with rationalizations. Whether Silverman knows it or not, that is the reason that a great many Atheists (Atheists are mostly male) are NOT feminists: it's not what they want.

Second, Silverman admits fully that for Atheists, morality is merely opinion. “Of course it can be changed”, he says, referring to the volatility of Atheist morality. As for a lousy answer, the Atheist claim of “morality” certainly qualifies, in spades. A changeable opinion might serve as a temporary ethic, but it is not morality. The volatility of Atheist “morals”, and their self-directed, self-enabled moral authority are precisely why Atheists are not trusted: they can generate no consistent moral responses upon which to depend and trust. They have no consistent moral code, so it is impossible to have a consistent Atheist moral response. No consistency, no trust. And in fact, the Silverman misrepresentation of theist thinking is an example of an opinion which is not trustworthy. Yet Silverman, like most activist Atheists, spends a lot of time making moral judgments. And since he makes those judgments based on cartoons rather than real facts, plus his admission that Atheist morals are merely opinions which can change, Silverman's moral proclamations are completely dismissable.

What Silverman has done, inadvertently to be sure, is to admit to Progressivism being heavily Atheist, and that Atheism is without any common, demonstrable morality, yet Atheists make moral judgments and pronouncements almost daily. He should be given credit for the truth of those statements. Thanks, David.