From: "Divided Under God" - the Tolerance Argument, Somewhat Butchered

The Fight for Faith or The Attack on Atheists?

At this site Kevin Davis analyzes the Atheism-Religion war thus:

"Atheists are portrayed as iconoclasts, out to destroy all that is holy–sinners who want to crush the American way–menaces fighting faith. However, the reality of the situation is quite the contrary and secularism is at the heart of the situation:.

There is no actual difference between secularism and Atheism; secularism is a wholly subsidiary subset of Atheism: it is a lack of god(s), but applied to the public arena. So it is clearly Atheism forced into the public arena. To argue that this is not the case is false, logically and morally.

Davis is upset about plaques in Southern schools which are blatantly Christian; the Wisconsin-based FFRF is attacking the school, of course, because it is what they do: bully small fry with huge lawsuits based on no legal grounding or Constitutional grounding whatsoever. They have no other reason for existing. And in this particular article, South hatred plays a part, as will be seen at the end. Let's enter his argument where it seems to start:

" Although it may be true that there are over six million attendees every weekend at megachurches (according to a recent MSNBC article), the religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others should be respected according to the First Amendment to the Constitution. To assume that every Texan, or every Southerner—or even every American—is a Christian is not only moot, but ridiculous as well. How an individual identifies with religion need not matter to the public, including in our public schools. I argue that religion itself has no business in matters of government, unless the rituals and practices cause emotional or physical harm to others. When interpreted properly, the First Amendment protects religious freedoms, which include Satanists, Muslims, and Atheists, whether opponents like it or not."

Since this author commented on the syntax of an opponent it seems fair to return the effort. Let's take this line by line:

"Although it may be true that there are over six million attendees every weekend at megachurches (according to a recent MSNBC article), the religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others should be respected according to the First Amendment to the Constitution."

This sentence has a premise which is unrelated to the conclusion. And just watch the conclusion be driven toward Atheism-only as we move along.

"To assume that every Texan, or every Southerner—or even every American—is a Christian is not only moot, but ridiculous as well."

The author wants Atheism-only under the guise of secularism; so assuming that every American is an Atheist is also ridiculous - logically self-defeating. This sentence also is a tolerance ruse; theists must tolerate Atheism-secularism-only, but Atheists cannot tolerate religion in any form in public venues.

"How an individual identifies with religion need not matter to the public, including in our public schools."

This is a lie; Atheism is the only possible relationship which Atheists want to be allowed; all others are not to be tolerated.

"I argue that religion itself has no business in matters of government, unless the rituals and practices cause emotional or physical harm to others."

Try as I might, I could make no sense of this statement when taken as a whole.

"When interpreted properly, the First Amendment protects religious freedoms, which include Satanists, Muslims, and Atheists, whether opponents like it or not."

Two things to notice here: first, he is the one who knows the proper interpretation of the First Amendment; lucky for us, he tells us what that interpretation is. Second, he demonstrates the incredible self-unawareness that infests the Atheist movement, in this case for demanding tolerance of their war on religions (all of them, but foremost: Christianity). The First Amendment says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;

Only a liar would interpret the suppression of religious speech to be supported by the First Amendment. Atheists are NOT FOR the inclusion of all religions in public places; they ARE FOR the suppression of all religions, which results in public Atheism.

Atheists should be allowed, maybe required, to post in public places (a) their empirical, objective, experimental material evidence showing that abiogenesis actually happened and how in terms of cause/effect; (b)their empirical, objective, experimental material evidence that there is no creating agent for the universe; (c) their disciplined, valid, grounded deductive arguments demonstrating that the arguments for theism which they reject are false. And (d) to post their document, "Atheist Principles of Objective Morality, Character Definition and Development", in detail, showing how their moral principles pass the logic tests required for rational concepts... and how their principles differ from totalitarianism and elitist tribalism, (if at all). This would give Atheists and Atheism the public venue they deserve.

Finally, we shall be treated to the author's view of the South:

"All I can say is that when I think of past cultural practices and the South, three examples come to mind, albeit very shameful, dark ones: slavery, paternalism, and the inhumane raping of female African Americans by white males on plantations—in lieu of anti-miscegenation laws. Just because a symbol, song, or slogan once had cultural significance and was popular or accepted among the majority of a culture doesn’t mean that it’s right. And history has provided us with an overabundance of examples proving just that."

And here again, there a several things to observe. First, the South is full of the Oppressor Class: (1)slave owners; (2)male supremacists; (3)interracial rapists.

And that justifies the Northern Atheist assault on the South. Northern Atheists are the Messiah Class.

Second, he now claims the Right To Define What is RIGHT and not RIGHT. But only in theory, not in detail; it is his moral authority do so which is in play. Further, he claims history is on his side, presumably because the North is moral, being the Messiah Class and all, and the South is all slave owners, male supremacists and interracial rapists.

This author has demonstrated that he is a bigot; a classist; a North-supremicist; and a liar. All in the defense of Atheism.