…so please use the Grabar when entering and exiting the car.
In response to the recent assault by “tolerant” atheists, I am going to explain why it is necessary to maintain our Christian heritage in order to sustain our democracy. This is for the benefit of the “scientists” who presume themselves the authorities on everything
Including the “proper” use of ”scare quotes.”
and who have penned tomes with such ostentatious titles as The God Delusion, Letter to a Christian Nation, God: The Failed Hypothesis, and other works that rehash the arguments from ages past.
I hear ya, lady. I am so tired of these MIT types continuing to insist that Uranus didn’t really lose to the Titans on the battlefield, but was “stabbed in the sack,” when they ought to be home, looking for evidence of high temperature superfluidity in a fermionic condensate.
Judging by the comments in reply to my column “Letter to a Stupid Atheist,” I have to conclude that this is one of the most miserable groups of people on earth.
And touchy, too! Jeez.
And as my adjective for them implies, they are not very smart, for there is no analogy between a female dog and a columnist, a claim they make through the name they call me in their blogs and letters.
Mary, no offense, but I find it hard to believe that any of these people really called you a columnist.
But more importantly, whenever they assault Christianity, we need to remind them of the foundations of their freedoms. First, the fact that they live in a country founded upon a belief in “inalienable rights” imparted by their Creator should give them a hint.
Well, that phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution, and it was written by a guy who wasn’t exactly a Christian, and I’m pretty sure he didn’t think Jesus was his creator. But more to the point:
“Inalienable” (or “unalienable”) is a term borrowed from English common law. Some property rights were alienable (they could be sold or granted) and some were inalienable (they could only be inherited according to fixed rule). The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Frances Hutcheson (philosopher) in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755) based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is “unalienable.”
Hm. “[P]rivate judgment,” “liberty of conscience.” Sounds like the kind of crap they’d talk at a “free-thinkers meeting.”
The very notion of democracy is based on Christian principles—a historical fact, though one not really emphasized in our public school system.
Awfully prescient of Solon and his cronies to anticipate the teachings of Jesus by 600 years. That’s nearly as clairvoyant as those Baptist cavemen in “B.C.”
But I noticed as I was reading an article in 1999 in The Atlantic Monthly by Francis Fukuyama: “In the West, Christianity first established the universality of human dignity. . .” Yes, the Greeks had a democracy, but it was not a democracy for women and slaves. It was the radical Christian notion of equality–that there was neither “Jew nor Gentile,” and that even prostitutes could repent–that forms the basis of our democratic values.
As opposed to all those women and slaves who flocked to the polling place in 1789. Although I’m not entirely clear on how someone renouncing prostitution affects the availability of the franchise, except insofar as it presumably removes Karl Rove from the equation.
This of course presupposes the notion of sin
Of course. Wait–what?
or if you don’t like that old-fashioned word, imperfection. Christianity acknowledges the universality of human sin in addition to the universality of dignity. Therefore the Christian recognizes the limits of government because of the limitations of the (fallen) people who make up the government.
Or at least the present Administration.
The ultimate arbiter is God, not man the Scientist. Who is the ultimate arbiter for the atheist?
Simon Cowell?
Sam Harris? Richard Dawkins? Adolf Hitler? To whom will they appeal when they cannot decide their infernal debates?
For attractive female atheists, I recommend bikini Jello wrestling, two falls out of three. For Sam and Richard, I would advise they settle their differences through some form of binding arbitration, and for Adolf, I would suggest consulting a Magic 8-Ball, since he was into that occult stuff.
The atheist, nonetheless, against all evidence, believes in the “progress” of science.
Whereas the clear-eyed observer can tell that science is actually moving backwards! Look at the cover of the October, 1939 Popular Mechanics! We used to have flying cars! Robot butlers! And elevators were replaced with personal pneumatic tubes!
He believes it can replace religion.
I think what you mean is, he “believes” it can “replace” religion.
And he believes that we are marching towards perfection.
After the last six years, I think it’s more likely that he’s stumbling towards the bar.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that. But what do we do before we reach perfection? Which scientist do we turn to to save us? How do we make decisions now?
Judging by the rest of your column, I’m guessing that “using the brain” isn’t an option.
Or if we mistakenly believe we have arrived at The Answer Through Science do we form our culture to that formula? But how do we know it’s perfect? Doesn’t each generation believe itself the most advanced? Didn’t the flappers? Didn’t the hippies? What do we do about the past generations that made mistakes?
Remember when the flappers tried to take over the world with their fleet of death ray-equipped autogyros and massive war zepplins, only to be foiled at the eleventh hour by the even more technologically advanced hippies, with their patchouli-powered personal jetpacks and Wham-O Air Blasters?
The atheistic world view, since it does not allow for sin, does not allow for forgiveness.
Well, it doesn’t allow for forgiveness by a god. But I suspect that even the most committed atheist would probably accept an apology for returning your Garden Weasel a week late, if it was really sincere.
Instead, each successive generation smugly thinks of itself as more “advanced” than their predecessors.
For instance, the way Glenn Reynolds sneers at his parents’ analog, nanite-free bodies has made the last few Thanksgivings a little tense.
Grievances build up and with them a desire for retribution. Think about the demand for reparations, the young flocking to the despot Louis Farrakhan, the incessant “reminders” of “injustice” through music, art, and literature.
If there’s one thing I hate worse than injustice, it’s someone “reminding” me of it. I don’t mind someone jogging my memory, I just wish they didn’t have to be so ironic about it.
The ruse has to be kept up. Revenge is called for, revenge even for the great-great granddaughters and sons.
Wait, wait. How did we get from smug flappers who think they’re the pinnacle of evolution to angry Black Muslims slaughtering whitey for his failure to deliver 40 acres and a mule?
And thus we have groups who claim superiority—the opposite of the idea of equality.
Like, oh, I don’t know…certain Christians who think they hold the national pink slip?
The aggrieved form the privileged, and superior, group, and thus we have the ridiculous notion that a black person or a Native American “cannot be a racist.”
Hey, this is America – in this great land of opportunity, anybody can grow up to be a racist. And often the host of a show on CNN Headline News, too.
Under the atheistic, secular view, only certain groups can be guilty of sin, and only certain groups deserve dignity.
Okay, you lost me again. I thought the atheists didn’t believe in sin.
Such race-based favoritism is opposed to the Christian notion of fairness.
But as certain Christian theologians have pointed out, what do you expect from the Sons of Ham?
But atheists believe in the Power of Their Own Minds and reforming society to bring about a utopia.
Actually, I think you’re confusing atheists with Scientologists, but by all means, go on…
Their Own Minds have come up with affirmative action, as well as forced euthanasia to “alleviate suffering,” concentration camps, and communism.
Whereas Christians in the Bush White House have used Their Own Colons to come up with tax cuts for the top 1%. (On the other hand, who knew that euthanasia could alleviate communism?)
Thus the state replaces God and those with the physical or economic power dominate. They all presume that this is the “general will.”
Um, I don’t mean to carp, but don’t those with the physical and economic power dominate now? I mean, especially now? Just how big an atheist do you think Bush is, anyway?
Nonetheless, even as the systems presumably march on toward perfection, anarchists, who believe that they have the answer stir and fume.
Meanwhile, the Fabians, who believe that they have the answer, wash and wipe.
So in spite of the fact that virtually all conservative faculty members and texts have been eliminated in English departments, “resist and refuse” posters grace the doors of securely entrenched tenured radical English professors who make up hiring and curriculum committees. Somehow injustices still remain!
And I thought we were perfect by now! Except for all the racist Native Americans, and revenge-seeking Blacks, and “advanced” hippies, and fuming anarchists.
And these radicals call for even more drastic changes, and finally anarchy. The fact that English professors cannot just stick to their jobs of teaching about the great literary traditions is evidence of the overweening hubris of the atheistic mind.
The Canterbury Tales is a gateway drug that leads straight to an anarcho-syndicalist collective.
As the youth, taught by these radical atheists, search and search and look into the void, they find that they—in spite of the arguments of the atheists—have a spiritual need. Schooled in relativism and multiculturalism, they turn wildly to such things as paganism or radical Islam to fill a vacuum. I’ve had a student tell me about pagan rituals involving the drinking of human blood. Indeed, stupid atheists are responsible for taking away the spiritual bulwarks against internal jihad in our schools.
“Yeah! Why do they always have to ruin everything, with their stupid blood-drinking, and their vacuums and their internal jihads? Dumb, stupid atheists…”
The atheist prides himself on his feelings of fairness and empathy but refuses to acknowledge the culture from which he has inherited these attributes. Such notions are as prevalent as the air we breath (thanks to Christians)
The Lord may have created the Earth, but he subcontracted the atmosphere to Jesus.
At one time, women could be stoned to death and babies and the elderly left exposed to die. To what will the atheist appeal when we dispense with such notions?
Well, thanks to our invasion of Iraq, religious- and sectarian-inspired stonings and honor killings of women are up in Iraq, so I guess that’ll show those atheists!
But as I stated in my previous column, atheists are stupid. As George Santayana said, “Wisdom is the first philosophy, both in time and in authority, and to collect facts or to chop logic would be idle and would add no dignity to the mind, unless that mind possessed a clear humanity and could discern what facts and logic are good for and what not.”
Dr. Santayana then nodded his head toward Dr. Grabar and discreetly coughed several times.
Well, the atheists are smart in a limited way. They can function at their technical jobs. But they cannot see or think outside of that box. They cannot do philosophy.
Okay, there was Nietzsche, but he only got a C+ in Philosophy. His best grades were in Social Studies and Gym.
They are incapable of seeing that their empirical method is really just a limited function, for limited tasks. And that its limitation comes ironically (for them) from the notion that man’s knowledge is limited. Philosophy is the larger investigation.
Man, I’m telling you, that empricism jazz is for squares! It’s a rocket to nowheresville! Philosophy is where the action is!
But because of his limited vision the atheist is incapable of seeing beyond the material world; he sees society as a giant organism.
I see it as a large hat, or maybe an oversized bucket of grenadine.
He sees it in a Darwinian manner, sees the part for the whole and does not even know that Darwin himself recognized the limits of his investigation. To atheists the world is a big organism and they fancy that they know everything because they see the world as a big organism.
I can’t stress that big organism thing enough.
They do not know where this organism came from or what its ultimate purpose may be. Whether it’s the Big Bang theory or the reproductive habits of the amoeba, the atheist fancies that he has found the answer to EVERYTHING.
Except for why birds suddenly appear every time you draw near.
Someone needs to clear the atheists of their confusion.
And someone needs to clear the gutters before the next storm instead of sitting around all day obsessing about big organisms!
Wingnuts | 38 Comments »
