Another Episode of Atheists Gone Wild

The University of Wisconsin-Extension in Madison has removed close to 140 Gideon Bibles from all of its guest rooms thanks to an offended guest, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the cowardice of management (Bill Mann, director) at The Lowell Center Conference & Lodging.

 

Rather than tell the guest to act like an adult and put the Bible out of sight, the Lowell Center decided to act- in response and in favor to the offended guest and FFRF intimidation.

 

But, Bill Mann said, “We reviewed the concern raised about the placement of Bibles in our guest rooms and decided to remove them. We want to make sure all guests are comfortable in our lodging.”

 

All guests?  No, just the one atheist who complained.

 

Ray Cross, chancellor of UW Colleges and UW-Extension NS UW System president, said that after reviewing the complaint, all Bibles would be removed by December 1, 2013.

 

Get it? One offended guest can now dictate to a business or organization, who can and can’t read the Bible, and who shouldn’t have to see a Bible.

 

Doubt we’ll hear any mention regarding the potential guests of The Lowell Center Conference & Lodging who’re Christian being offended by the irrationality of removing Bibles.

 

Annie Laurie Gaylor, president of the FFRF said, “Society has changed… there are more non-believers and more non-Christians to be offended.”

 

This is rubbish. Pure, unadulterated rubbish. Who cares if there are more non-believers and more non-Christians today to be offended?  They’re still the minority when compared to “believers” and Christians.

 

Attorney Patrick Elliot, who represents the FFRF, said in a statement, “While private hotels may choose to put any type of literature they want in their guest rooms, state-run colleges have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion.”

 

Ah, yes- the “constitutional obligation” appeal which they think means- freedom from religion.  Funny how these snakes- these acrimonious atheists and their legal co-conspirators- especially the ACLU, never, ever mention the free exercise clause.  They simply distort the original meaning and intent of the amendment with help from various and erroneous judicial interpretations.  In their twisted and irreligious minds- for nefarious reasons- the First Amendment, commonly and inaccurately known as “separation of church and state” (not found in the Constitution, by the way), has come to mean any public institution who accepts public funds, represents or is seen as an extension- however arbitrarily- of some form of government, can’t be involved in religious activities, however oblique.

 

Bullocks.

 

Again, slimy lawyers like this are the reason(s) why the legal community can’t shake its well-deserved, sullied reputation. And as for these atheists, they do themselves and their belief system absolutely no favors being this belligerent and obnoxious.

 

The First Amendment states, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  In the truest meaning and understanding of the amendment, until Congress legislates the adherence and reverence of one religion above- and to the exclusion of all others, the Constitution hasn’t been violated, period.  Congress as a body, or congressional members on their own, can even promote a religion of their choice so long as they don’t attempt to legalize and nationalize a specific religion.

 

So public schools that allow prayers during lunch or at sporting events haven’t violated the Constitution nor are public properties that have Nativity scenes in violation either; the cross in the Mojave Desert- a memorial constructed to recognize the soldiers of our country lost in war- is legal, as is the cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego.  Again, promotion of religion- which even the Founders and Framers did, does not amount to a de facto, legalized or nationalized religion.

 

FFRF Co-President Dan Barker says, “We atheists and agnostics do not appreciate paying high prices for lodging, only to find Gideon bibles in our hotel rooms, sometimes prominently displayed, knowing they contain instructions, for instance, to kill ‘infidels’ and ‘blasphemers,’ among other primitive and dangerous teachings,” he asserted.”

 

Then go somewhere else. No one is preventing any atheist from finding lodging, regardless of cost, that doesn’t place Bibles in their rooms.  There are plenty of them.

But kill the infidels? Kill the Blasphemers?  This is embarrassing both of Baker and the spineless management of the Lowell Center.

 

First, kill the infidel? Please; nice try.

 

Kill the blasphemers… aside from referring to this outside of its historical and theological context- yes it’s in the Bible, but what example of a Christian or Jew (specifically Jews, since the punishment for blasphemy is in the Levitical code in the Old Testament) who is actively internalizing these passages and killing infidels or blasphemers today? Or adulterers, for that matter?

 

There is only one prominent religion today who is actively engaging in infidel killing, the killing of apostates and of blasphemers and they’re ironically referred to as “the religion of peace.”

 

So this comes down to two things.  The first is that a single guest, along with the increasingly powerful atheist lobby, was “offended” that Bibles were available in public rooms and they didn’t like it.

 

The second is that as usual, the atheist lobby is perfecting the art of public intimidation- bullying- of those with whom they religiously disagree, specifically Christians, their religion and their Bible. (Yes, I said religiously because atheism is a religion, they just simply lack a common deity.)  And Bill Mann, the director of Extension conference centers, cowardly and quickly acquiesced to their threats, rewarding negative and corrupting behavior which serves to embolden the atheist mafia.

 

It’s ironic that a group of people who- with absolute certainty, claim that God doesn’t exist, spends such an inordinate amount of time publicly arguing, intimidating, and inconveniencing those who do. If God truly doesn’t exist, then shut up; go live your lives in peace.  Don’t go away mad, just go away.

 

But the FFRF, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et.al make the continual and emotional fuss of trying to remove every single public display, mention or acknowledgment of a deity that “isn’t provable” and who “doesn’t exist.”

 

I don’t believe aliens exist, so I spend absolutely zero time in trying to prove it. Nor do I attempt to prevent those who do believe in them from… believing.

 

The idea that atheists are “free thinkers” is an unfunny joke.

 

Based on numerous past and current examples, this won’t be the last time a person, business, group or organization cowers to emotional atheists (who’re a minority) at the expense of common sense and decency.

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Another Episode of Atheists Gone Wild

  1. dougindeap January 18, 2014 / 5:24 pm

    Curious that some direct their ire at those who seek to uphold the Constitution, rather than those flouting it. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

    It is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school administrators presenting books to overnight guests), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

    A word should be added about the common canard that this is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that–REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended.

    While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with “standing” (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government’s failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.

    Like

    • derryckg January 18, 2014 / 6:01 pm

      Ok. A secular government doesn’t preclude that government from not only allowing religious expression, but openly having religious convocations where government presides, but allowing groups, organizations, etc., whether they’re extensions of governments, or they accept gov’t funds. It also doesn’t prohibit that secular, governing body from acknowledging a deity openly. Having a secular government doesn’t equate religion being excluded from the public square.

      “Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution…” Depends. First separation of church isn’t in the Constitution. It was in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Dansbury Baptist Association of Connecticut trying to assure them that their freedom of religious liberty wouldn’t be infringed upon. Second, the FA was never meant to be interpreted to mean what it’s commonly but erroneously understood. We can thank Justice Hugo Black for that (1947 case Everson v. Board of Education). But I’m sure you’re aware of both of these facts.

      Again, the FA doesn’t constrain government from promoting religion, It can promote, encourage, acknowledge, suggest, support religion, religious values and even God. But, based on the law, it cannot nationalize a religion or outlaw religious expression (again, provided that this expression doesn’t violate any other established and recognized laws). It’s really that simple.

      So it goes back, in this case, to an “offended” atheist who is so fragile that he cannot sleep in a room that contains a Bible. That says multitudes about how unserious and insecure atheists are. It also shows how they attempt to intimidate religious expression from the public square. It’s precisely why adherents to this new atheism should be called out on their BS and, frankly, openly ridiculed. No one is harmed by seeing a free Gideon Bible in a hotel room, a Nativity scene in a public park, or public prayer at a high school football game. It’s actually a sad testament to our culture that religious expression and religious people are bullied into silence by a bitter, resentful few. But it’s equally sad that all atheists will be colored as bitter, resentful people whose emotional and psychological selves suffer from arrested development- especially when most atheists are mature enough to deal with reality.

      Like

      • dougindeap January 18, 2014 / 7:05 pm

        While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church. It is telling that no court in the history of our nation has held that the First Amendment means as little as you suppose.

        So, yes, the First Amendment does (with some exceptions justified largely by resort to historical custom) preclude government from promoting (or opposing) religion. Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

        Like

Comments are closed.