Courtesy of Micah Nelson:

I’ve been outraged over inane comments, and I’ve been generally perturbed by speeches and policies of politicians before…

I have never gotten over Hillary Clinton’s speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in May of 2006, in which she speaks about young people and college, and the sense of entitlement we feel, saying that we think “work is a four-letter word”. It was not a slip, and it was personally offensive. Clinton apologized after her daughter made light of the remark, but only to her daughter. This comment remains, out in the void, as a definitive position of Hillary towards young college educated people today. I was personally offended, and thinking about it still makes me bitter, in a much more profound way than any half-hearted religious spewing I occasionally hear. That she would then only appologize to her daughter and her friends was a coup de grâce. Her entitled daughter, no doubt intelligent, was placed high in the business world upon her own graduation from a school that few would argue against that being the President’s daughter didn’t hurt her admission chances… while many of us work hard to find and keep these elusive “50K jobs” we never feel entitled to them… I personally know many of my friends are very hard up, unable to find jobs after completing their degrees, and work in retail, trying to secure their own slice of the American Dream, without the added bonus of being the “First Daughter”.

I don’t think Obama would say something like this, because Obama thinks differently. His slips don’t represent what he feels, and when they do, like the recent “bittergate” I generally agree with him.

I think Clinton owes American’s youth an apology, not her wealthy and secretive and spoiled sock-puppet of a daughter who treats the press like her own personal secretary, choosing what and when she will chime in…

I had nothing against Chelsea or Hillary, but this was a mockery that has gone uncriticized to the degree it deserves, probably because, although we may not be lazy, my generation does appear rather apathetic. For that, I don’t apologize.

I emerge from another self-imposed public exile with a mind overburdened with the daily privation of intellectual discourse. Every day I read another piece of excrescence from Dinesh D’Souza, or a local opinion column about the collectivism, communism, or statism of non-belief, about how atheism is teaming up with Islam, threatening our kids, or destroying society; everyday I force myself, for some unknown mental sadistic reason, to scroll through another contentious and jejune dictum on the greatness of superstition and mental obedience. I came home last night to another piece of D’Souza’s agitprop, and that shit-eating grin of his, and I lost it emotionally. The unending stream of garbage spouting the same refuted points is exhausting. I don’t have the time or the energy to single handily combat all of it. Most of the time I pass the articles over to AANR, sometimes I feel better commenting myself, but of late it just seems to be gaining momentum. One-liner punditry, worthless, and devoid of any real substance, spewed over and over; I marvel at my passionate contemporaries’ ability to brush off most of it as merely the death throes of a wasting and dying religion.

Let them have their precious beliefs one might say; and I hear you. My issue is not the lay-believer, the weekly participant, or even the piously devout who twist their own revelations towards reason to fit into society. On the contrary, my problem lies with the twisting of reality to fit into the revelations! The revision of history, the systematic theology of apologetics and Christian defense of Theonomy, and the current political Theocratic Dominionism prevailing through our culture and politics.

The abuses of the clergy and their megalithic churches is undeniable. It is a matter of principle and reason, and chiefly a matter of philosophical understanding.

The modern day atheist is the intellectual descendant of Enlightenment monism. This is not a theory, this is fact. It was with even greater courage and greatness that any true non-believers existed prior to 1859, to mollify the mental disposition towards authoritative natural conscience would have required profound intelligence, prevalent in men like Spinoza and Hume.

Today it is easier to obtain the truth, requiring nothing more than selective readings of great minds. I always ask that in the spirit of discourse one reads and understands the best the opposition has to offer, as to realize that their best is wholly insufficient. Scientists do balk at the “atheism” of evolutionary science, but evolution is the final brick in the philosophical destruction of revealed religions. Today it appears as if every major politician and leader must pander to the believers in our time in a way that is more barbaric than the early founding of our country. The deism of Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Allen, Washington, Madison, and Adams was contrary to every utterance of the modern churches. Rights are endowed by the Creator, or Nature’s God, but the the rule of the people is by the people, not a god, and certainly not the god of the revealed religions! A single quote, completely in context, can sum the entire disdain for some of the most important Founding Fathers, if there still remains any uncertainty about the subject. In context, imagine Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Barack Obama saying any of the phrases, and having a chance to remain in Presidential contention. Christianity has changed little since this time period, but it has gained tremendous power, against all expressive attempts to prevent a Theocracy. Imagine, as I have, the response Washington gave to Hancock about chaplains being assigned to the military; “Among many other weighty objections to the Measure, it has been suggested, that it has a tendency to introduce religious disputes into the Army, which above all things should be avoided, and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess.” He would not get away this today!

John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

Thomas Jefferson:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

James Madison:
“The difficulty of reconciling the Xn [Christian] mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a University established by law and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurous to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and without a toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord & animosity; and finally that these opinions are support by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware NJ, &c, has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.”

Benjamin Franklin:
“…Some books against Deism fell into my hands….It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Thomas Paine:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

Ethan Allen:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

—In this, I share only the philosophical belief that the enemy is not the religious, and that other atheists and agnostics ought to take the word Freethinker instead. “Revealed” religion is the enemy of reason, that which accepts revelation as in any way a reliable source of knowledge and information about the world. All religions that profess revelation as this source, are the enemies of reason, and contrary to the Freethinker, contrary to the Founders of this country.

Another organization posing as a legitimate “watchdog” group has emerged and defecated an interesting new study (By study, I mean in the theistic sense, where one has a revelation of a hypothesis and fills in the answer themselves). The organization is called the Culture and Media Institute, and it’s the child of the infamous Media Research Center whose fair and unbiased headline reads “Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias”. I don’t exactly know what neutralize means in this context, but all joking aside, that is rather alarming. So this is how it works. The organization says something, for instance in this case, that atheism is given favorable coverage in the press, and instantly, several major batshit news organizations write Non-Op pieces about the “study” that has effectively exposed an evil atheist conspiracy in the news media. You can find examples of this phenomena here and here.

What is particularly disturbing about this tactic is how these collective bodies of news organizations are attempting to flood the media with certain memes. One parent organization creates a “research” group that then funds a “study” which is then given to the collective news organizations to spread around… Before long the image that the “liberal” media somehow protects atheism (something we personally know is absurdly false, thanks Paula Zahn) is tossed around the in people’s heads as if it were a legitimate or valid claim. The meme flooding is not entirely unique, it exists in less fashionable form by organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Discovery Institute, both of which are infamous for trumping “talking points” that have no basis in reality.

The head of these organizations is a man named Brent Bozell, who looks eerily like a block of stomach cheese and a viking.

I feel like we shouldn’t be condoning vikings to run media research groups. They may try to keep the fact that they raped and pillaged as a bloodsport out of the news.

I couldn’t have said it better.

“Nothing is more difficult and nothing requires more character than to find oneself in open opposition to one’s time (and those one loves) and to say loudly: NO!” -Kurt Tucholsky

Nothing extracts from me greater inner turmoil and frustration than the Christian self-aggrandized claim that their source of morality is the greatest in the world. The bogus axiom is a sort of mantra of the Christian orthodoxy, so much so, that it rears it’s ugly face during every major election. Our favorite Joseph Smith worshiping candidate even added his two cents when questioned by Tim Russert on Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say freedom requires religion, can you be a moral person and be an atheist?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, oh, of course. Oh, of course.

MR. RUSSERT: And participate in freedom?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, of course. Yes, this…

MR. RUSSERT: So freedom doesn’t require religion?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, this–the, the context was talking about the, the founding of the nation and the, the sense in this case of John Adams describing the fact that our constitutional form of government and this American experiment required morality, which in turn required religion. And, and yet, of course, on an individual basis, you have many individuals of great morality and–that, that don’t have any particular faith.

How touching. I’m about as moved by Romney’s sincere tone as a dying country dog on a front porch. I know I’ve touched on the issue many times, but I can’t emphasize it enough; the general assumption, in all forms of media, that somehow, and someway, morality comes from a religion, is, absurdly offensive. I’ve seen debates, much like the one’s Dinesh D’Souza contributes, in which the particular non-believer on the other side seemingly gives a pass to the egregious falsity. I am not unlearned when it comes to the bible, and I am well aware how life lessons and morality can be deprived from the book.

The religious go from declaration of rights from the holy book, to denouncement of rights with the book, and continue to take credit for the morality of this generation, while ignoring the morality of previous generations. If a morality can be deprived with considerable effort from such an ancient text, this same effort should not be exhausted in the effort to exonerate themselves from the evils of their own history.

Morality is an accepted code of conduct. This is not a statement of “merely” but rather an authoritative pronouncement of certainty. One cannot paint a proper picture of the entire origins of the current Moral Zeitgeist, but one can identify the occasional leaps in understanding. Often, these turns come at the cost of human life and dignity, like the 1940’s Holocaust. Our general ability as a society to accept certain behaviors is sharpening the focus constantly away from transient barbarism to ever increasing levels of social ratiocination, humanity marches towards a generally better “accepted code of conduct”.

Christianity deserves credit for the commercialization of the most modern forms of morality. The ability to stamp ownership on the progress of human behavior is unique to the great Monotheism. Where every moral and bit of wisdom could claim origins in some other combined effort of social groups, it is with Christianity that the first real arrogant claims of moral development present themselves. The only thing worthy of this title is in fact, progress. Instead, society is told that the bible contains all the real world morality society needs. I disagree.

The New Testament is a decaying pasture of morality. Even when raked, sowed, and fertilized, often it’s with the carcasses of it’s own making, there is little, if any, practical standard of behavior to gain from it. If at anytime in humanity’s history the doctrine of Justice, Mercy, and Love were at the forefront of Christian past, I am willing to publicize my oversight. I believe that first and foremost principles in the early Christian and modern Christian religion is the doctrine of faith. Faith that God was a man, and a man was a god. Faith that man is born tainted, and must atone for this crime of being born by choosing to believe that this taint, this evil was cleansed by a man, 2,000 years prior. It is this faith that guided the marching armies of believers so many times throughout our history. It is through lack of faith that so many were put to death by so many who announced themselves of the most faithful. The doctrine of belief without reason first, is the doctrine that claims moral superiority over other creeds.

When faith is obtained, enter the doctrine of Jesus sayeths. It is not enough that the man spoke first and foremost to love, which, I am ever convinced, that if the man existed, he was a morally superior, vastly progressive liberal, to which I cannot take this from the author of these teachings. These teachings failed when the first Christian put to death a non-believer. These teachings continue to fail everyday, whenever someone goes out of there way to make another person’s life more uncomfortable, more stringent, more adverse, more dire. These teachings fail the second those feelings of hate emerge when a Christian reads that others don’t agree with them. It is the greed and desire for immortality that pushes the Christians, and it is the doctrine of faith that cements it. It is with this version of morality that continues today. Whoever can speak loudest what they think should be derived from the texts, is the leader. We are superior in morality because we say so, and the morality we speak of, is right here, when I apply this particular utterance to everyday life. The commercialization of this sort of morality takes on this form. Nowhere does the bible forbid abortion, or slavery, or torture, but everywhere the Christians march with tape on their mouths in defense of woman’s reproductive slavery, comparable, but philosophically no different than the coercive enslavement and ownership of other peoples.

But I am not done, because it is with Christianity as well, that the most unimaginable and unmistakable evil is forged. If we are to give credit to Christianity for Western Morality, than we most give it credit for the most disturbing and unequal evil ever conceived by man. The doctrine of hell. Nowhere is there more evil buried, than in the concept of eternal torment. An everlasting pain. Everlasting fire. Everlasting torture. This concept, this unthinkable and mind-numbing revelation, is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, and not within the understanding of the New Testament. The same effort that could be applied to remove the simple and dreamlike sequences of imagery of a hell, are instead implied to demonstrate the prowess of the text to explain the good behaviors of society.
They are to blame for the good, yet, allowed exemption from the evil?

Finally, ask yourself this. If the same effort to deprive morality from the New Testament, the non-literal, metaphoric understandings of Jesus, were equally employed in the understanding of the punishments described in the odd, and obviously metaphorical rantings of Revelations, would Hell be a distinguishable concept at all? And, given that this is an obvious answer, why then, even promote it?

It is my opinion that it is a stretch to claim that morality is sourced with Christianity, but it is not a stretch to see how the modern concepts of Hell are used to lure and keep people believing in the original commercialization on the religion.
Ask yourself, why, as a body and extension of society, has Christianity not rejected the doctrine of hell?

The answer is because it has no real monopoly on morality. It is in fact, a source of regression and decay. The anti-love. A reasonable and loving and just person rejects the concept of hell out of common sense. Yet, people still preach about it and attempt to scare others with the inconceivable evil, and at the same time, exonerate themselves from it’s fabrication and endless promotion. The most hateful and virulent forms of behavior done in modern times, are people who believe in a heaven and hell; themselves always the recipient of the eternal paradise.

“Religion! but for thee, prolific fiend,
Who peoplest earth with demons, hell with men,
And heaven with slaves!”

If I were to assume the tactics of my theist peers, who oft clarify arguments in the nature of emotional appeals, I would declare, like Shelley, that “it is among men of genius and science that atheism alone is found.” Any relatively objective definition of genius will reflect this as truth. It is also among atheists that we find the most tolerant and less likely to abuse the indefatigably dim-witted. This isn’t an observation born of questionable experience, this is measurable fact. I once offered an essay declaring that the very definition of genius should entail a skeptical examination of origins and divinity, to which, the Christian hypothesis ought fail magnanimously. Perhaps this is going too far, and therefore reserve my right to extend an open invitation to be refuted soundly on this point.

Declarations of the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism, itself a pillaged phrase of freethought’s past,  are rampant. Let us look at a selection from a randomly chosen article from my news feed today.

From Here,

“Whether atheists believe it or not they are a “religion.” You have to have a lot of faith to believe there is no God. I have a hard time figuring out why, if they don’t believe there is a God, are they so obsessed with Him? When I don’t believe something I just drop it and go on with my life. I would assume they may fear there really is a God. I ask them why take that chance? that when you die you will meet your Creator and He will have to condemn you to an eternal hell. What do you think your children would say to you once you are all condemned. A simple act of admitting you are a sinner and can’t make it to heaven on your own. Second, believing Jesus Christ died and rose again on the third day and lastly calling on Jesus to come into your heart and take over your life. Such a simple act and many people besides atheists refuse to do this.

I will not force my beliefs on anyone. I just ask that you think it over and ask yourself, “Do I really want to take a chance if there is eternal life.” If you choose Jesus Christ I can guarantee you according to His word that there will be great things in the next life for those who trust in Christ.”

I can’t make this stuff up. So absurd is the content of these “news” reports, that many atheists, myself included, don’t even bother to respond. There is a reason we reject certain arguments in passing. We have exhausted Pascal’s Wager, “faith to believe there is no god”, and “Atheism is a religion” to pointless ends. These arguments are just outright rejected and ignored by all but the most fledgling freethinkers among us (and I am eternally thankful for their dedication). I have to point this out. We don’t even acknowledge this trash, yet it is common still. This line of thinking is not just common, it is expanding. Granted, this man, Tom Kubera of Dunkirk, wouldn’t survive four seconds in a general conversation with myself or any of battle forged members of the Secular Student Alliance, Rational Response Squad, and AANR.

I believe that theist leaders don’t believe what they are saying. They can’t be… Yes, this is a form of argument from incredulity, but I simply can’t believe that intelligent theists, for which there are some, believe that using these arguments is even valid anymore. Rationally think about this… it really seems to be a true tactic to keep simple people in check. Declaring that evolution is evil, atheists are immoral or even devils, Hitler was an atheist, or that atheism requires faith, is just ignorant. Yet it is used, because it works. Atheists don’t tend to go straight for the simple arguments, the cultural verbal jingles and tired absurdities, we just answer.

Let’s face it. I once opined that reality is critical of religion. It is. Reality is also that rational, moral, intelligent and good people comprise the ranks of the atheists. Nothing should be more troubling that the statistics that atheists perform better on IQ tests, in schools, in relationships, stay out of prison, and make up some of the most abundant contributors to society overall, despite disparately minimal population numbers.

This seems to fly over the head of our dear friend Tom Kubera of Dunkirk. So, I’ll take some time out of my day, again, and go back to my roots. I’ll answer him.

“You have to have a lot of faith to believe there is no God.”
No Tom. Faith is trust or belief without reason. If you said that, because of your very devout belief that you are correct, that your god is the only god, that I, as a sovereign individual, must have “a lot of” trust without reason that you are correct, I would merely point out the number of people who followed that path before you. We call them cultists. Don’t assume that because you happen to have a verbal string of nonsense to invoke comparisons to other people who share your faith, that you even believe the same things. Taken apart, you are all cultists of the same mold. Each with a different interpretation, each with a different revelation, and some, who outright claim to converse with their fantastical deity. This argument is negating the fact that I even allowed you to get away with throwing a capitalized “God” out there as if I should know what you are talking about… I don’t actually. I mean it. I don’t know what you mean by “God”. Are you talking about Jesus? Are you talking about Jesus’ Father? Are they the same thing? Are you talking about the holy spirit? Yahweh? Elohim? Or am I going too far by invoking the American versions.. are you actually Muslim? Are you talking about Allah?  If not,  why not? Your god, no doubt, is not unique. I’m sure someone believes in the same version, with minor differences…  And I’m sure a collective band of you folks could come together, and come up with a religion. See, Tom, we are pretty simply people, we atheists. We don’t believe any of it. You must seem like you are making sense to yourself, all this talk about heaven and hell, and your great capitalized “God”. I honestly don’t. Sure, I understand from an American cultural perspective, I was raised Catholic, converted to Protestant, I think I know what you think you are talking about, but I’m not sure. I’d like to hear some of your theories. You seem passionate enough. We can start with a simple one, like, where is Hell located? Or my favorite, what if I don’t want to be immortal?

Do you want a simple answer Tom? No, I don’t have faith of any kind.

I am dependent “on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses” or rationally and reasonably sound proof.  Can you provide these things to me?

Our position is simple. We don’t have faith that there is a god.

A simple test to prove the desires of Christians to be the persecuted bunch, and their general utter lack of knowledge about their religion’s history, ask them this:

In the 4th Century, which religion in Empire of Rome was ultimately outlawed?
Of course, the answer is Paganism. By 391, Theodosius I had extinguished the eternal flame in the Temple of Vesta, Practices of auspices and practicing “witchcraft” became punishable offenses. The Vestal Virgins were disbanded and temples were considered abandoned. The last games of the Olympiads were played (I always wondered why the Christians don’t call for a ban of the Olympics). The subsidies ended for all non-Christian religions, and the whole of the Roman Empire was declared a Christian state.

A  funny thing happens when you ask this question to a Christian. You may think I’m joking, but try it. The responses are wild. I have not met a Christian in the past few days who has answered correctly. Only one had the sense to offer that he didn’t know, but thought that he was sure that the Christians were already strong enough to fight off any laws against them. All others have definitively pronounced that of course it was the Christians who were persecuted, because Christianity has always been persecuted.

The truth is, the early Christianity that was persecuted was a version that would be completely unrecognizable today. This version included a Messiah, not a god, and the concept of an everlasting blissful life was fallacious. By the 4th Century Christianity was a powerhouse, and it was a matter of time before that power stretched it’s tendrils across the landscapes of the former Roman Empire and ushered in an era of darkness, blood, and savagery. The arguments over the divinity of Christ had been going strong by then, and it was the Nicene Creed that served as the ultimate unifying body of unreason. The effects of which, besides unifying Rome under the Christian banner, ultimately lead to the outlawing of paganism, the worship of Christ as a deity, and the gentle ushering in of the Fall of Rome leading to the darkest period of human civilization.

Christians are not persecuted in this country. Go back to my home state, Georgia, and wear an “I don’t believe in Jesus” shirt. Walk down to the Big Shanty in Kennesaw, Georgia. Have breakfast. Seriously. I dare you. I may get away with an Atheist shirt here in Newport, RI, although rarely without a comment from someone, but a lovely Cross on a shirt is hardly a great risk of defiance towards anything.

Note: You probably shouldn’t. It is required by ordinance in my former city that each household carry a gun. WorldNetDaily once wrote about this fact, although their data on “No victims” of gun shootings is just simply false. I remember specifically a kid going into his dad’s closest and blowing his head into Elysium, while I was in High School. Not to mention the number of shootings right down the street in Marietta. My textbook in my honors biology class had a special yellow sticker around it, warning me that the school board was intoxicated. Seriously, Cobb County was one of the first anti-evolution counties. Look it up.

I am opening up this blog to the public. That includes joining several blogrolls, and engaging in the fiery discourse of relevant events apparent in my commentaries from The Second Enlightenment.

So, the comment sections are open, and the googlebots will soon be eating my insides. I have also joined Mojoey’s Atheist Blogroll. To the general public, welcome to my insight. My name is Dane, and I don’t believe in a god.

“We began with freedom.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Every day I read the latest articles railing and whining against the secular movements. Every day I read the same re-hashed arguments, the same tones, the same expressions of absolute faith and truth. I read that secularists are ruining America, I read that the Atheists are militant, dogmatic, and fundamentalists in their own right. I read that this country is a Christian nation, and be damned if you don’t agree.

Every article about atheism starts the same exact way:

“Atheism is getting a good press these days, but under false pretenses.”
“Fundamentalist Atheists are on the rise…”
“The only people more hard-headed than religious fundamentalists might just be
secularists.”
“A rash of atheist bestsellers…”
“Atheism has nearly always been with us in one form or another, but the atheists we’ve been hearing the most from lately—chiefly Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris—are a new breed.”
“A trio of atheist book sellers…”
“Militant atheists are on the march…”
“Although not yet organized into a marching army, we can identify a posse forming around malcontents such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.”
“Atheist tracts are everywhere these days…”

This is it? There is nothing more truthful so far in this battle then the simple fact that a good rebuttal has not been made. Period. Nothing. Theists have offered nothing except attempts to keep their flock intact by simplifying the positions to pre-19th century levels. Of course an atheist is wrong, no matter what he says, because God is real. The articles take on the same kind of rhetoric and senseless repetitive phrases that mid 20th century propagandists excelled. The arguments that are formed with any coherency are usually detailed with the express assumption that one must first be delusional to understand it, one must first believe wholeheartedly, then whatever I say will make sense. This kind of sensationalism scare tactic works, for now. Keeping the general public scared and thinking that atheism has been defeated since the dawn of time, with the words, let there be light.

Well my belligerent theist friends, you are wrong. Allow me to make some things very clear to you…

Let there be light indeed. We are here. We do not believe in your god, or any gods, and we must certainly do not believe this country is a Christian Nation. We don’t think it is an atheist nation either. We think it is a fair nation, a compromising and promising experiment in man made governance. There is no divine right, and there is no state religion. Every person is allowed to worship or not worship as he sees fit. I’m sorry this upsets you. I’m sorry that we have to come out of the woodwork to stop the encroaching insanity. I’m sorry the idea of us marching on Washington is enough to get you all up in arms, heaven forbid you can’t live and let live. No. You aren’t happy until other parents children are learning the nonsense you think makes the world work. You aren’t happy until your version of right and wrong is imposed on the country. You aren’t happy until your neighbors have converted, their children attending Jesus Camp, and the morning classroom opens up with the some protestant declaration and statement of evangelical faith. You aren’t happy until life is defined as cytoplasm, and a person’s dignity is shred from them as they lay dying, with their shit shoveled from their ass every morning in a vegetative state. You aren’t happy until other countries are subdued, converted, and speaking the name of Jesus, your man god. You aren’t happy unless every leader in the public sphere believes how you do. You aren’t happy unless your marriage is justified by blocking of marriages that don’t match your Christian formula. You aren’t happy until science declares only that god exists, and that anything scholarly that denies it is wrong.

…and here my dearest Christian friends is the kicker. You still won’t be happy. As the tide of melting freedoms starts to pit denomination versus denomination, congregation versus congregation, church against church, some of you might actually rebel openly against the destruction of the wisdom of our sacred secularity. As other countries start to grow stronger economically and technologically, your staunch Christian defined patriotism might not be enough to hold this country as a superpower for long.

What then? Slip back into the origins of what made this country so beautiful? Hardly. That isn’t how divine leadership works. Slowly but surely, every family will feel the pressure, the fall in the global pecking order, and the pressure to return to greatness will thrust us further into a theocracy.

“Why am I angry” you might ask… “why am I a “militant” atheist?”

I’ll tell you. It is Because I am fighting for your rights as well, and you hate me for it.