Category Archives: Religion and Politics

Ugandan Humanist Primary School

Looking to Help A Good Cause?

Photo Credit: www.mysecretatheistblog.com

Photo Credit: www.mysecretatheistblog.com

I was talking with another atheist blogger, Godless Poutine last night.  I learned that he often promotes various fundraisers through his blog.  While I have never done something like that, I thought the idea sounded pretty cool and stated that I would help promote fundraisers for ideas/causes that were aligned with some of my own goals.

As many of my loyal readers and/or Twitter followers will know, education is something that is really important to me.  I am a former educator.  I constantly Tweet on the need to be informed and educated.  I often blog against ignorance.  In short, promoting education is nothing new to me.

When I heard about the fundraiser for a humanist school in Uganda I was immediately intrigued.  You can read much more about it here, on Godless Poutine’s blog.  In fact, I very much recommend that you do just that.

Helping to build a school where one is needed, is in my opinion, a great idea on its own.  However, I could not help but think of all of religious propaganda coming out of Uganda these days.  There is a great deal of anti-homosexual legislation being proposed—and much of the lobbying power for these “laws” comes from American Evangelical Christians, such as Scott Lively.  A humanist school in a place like that?  Yeah, that sounds great to me.

There is little argument that religion thrives where education does not.  There is also little argument that Africa is fertile ground for the spreading of religion.  I would like to do my small part to try and prevent, perhaps just a tiny bit of that spread.  If a few of my dollars can help teach kids some good humanist values, as opposed to the bigotry that evangelical Christians are attempting to spread, then I see it as money well spent.

If you would like to donate you can click the link: Donate Here

Thanks for reading.  I look forward to your comments.

—-John

If you have a blog please feel free to promote it on my “Promote Your Blog” page above.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @logicalbeing

If you would like to share your story of how you became an atheist, please do that on my “Share your Atheism Story” forum.  Our stories may help to encourage others with similar feelings to know that life is more than just okay without god(s).

If you have not yet checked out Alltop.com’s Atheism Blogs….what are you waiting for?

Post Hurricane Sandy: FEMA Not Providing Aid to Churches

Christians Claim FEMA Discrimination

Pic From: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1AyG-dsbxhE/UNjAx2L2wvI/AAAAAAAALLM/_0_nmGL2LZM/s0/

Pic From: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1AyG-dsbxhE/UNjAx2L2wvI/AAAAAAAALLM/_0_nmGL2LZM/s0/

I came across an article by Paul de Vries in the Christian Post.  Before proceeding, it would only be honest if I point out how loathsome I find de Vries.  For those of you who do not recall he wrote a passionate piece in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting that blamed the entire event on the secularization of society—in short, he doubled down on Mike Huckabee’s nonsensical statement.  I wrote a post on that topic at the time with you can read here.

As a member of the Board of the National Association of Evangelicals, de Vries is not interested in promoting anything resembling the truth.  Rather, his goal is the preservation of Christianity—at all costs.  Today, we shall once again see his dishonest nature.

de Vries is upset that in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, FEMA is withholding federal relief aid from Churches.  He is correct in pointing out that this is occurring.  FEMA is not providing federal money to rebuild churches or any other house of worship.  de Vries acknowledges that it is not just Christian churches that are the being excluded.

He goes on to write another very passionate piece about all of the good things that many churches do and did in the aftermath of Sandy type natural disasters.  He describes how, in times like this, churches (Pastors and members) are often among the first responders.  They provide shelter, food, and other sorts of relief that are desperately needed.  In this he is correct.  It is one of the good things that many churches do.  de Vries then lists four reasons why the exclusion of churches from FEMA aid is an “injustice”.

de Vries writes”

“FEMA’s policy is ugly because it treats churches as outsiders individuals, families, retail stores, family businesses, manufacturing companies, government agencies, schools, clubs, restaurants, charities – everyone but churches!”

This is where we see the fundamental mistake that he makes throughout his piece.  de Vries never mentions that churches do not pay taxes.  He never mentions that churches contribute exactly zero dollars to the pool of money from which FEMA is funded.  He fails to notice that, “individuals, families, retail stores, family businesses, manufacturing companies, government agencies, schools, clubs, restaurants, (and some) charities” all pay into the system!  Each of those groups is entitled to federal money in times like this because they pay for the privilege!  FEMA is not a charity.  Receiving federal money is not a right.  It is, in a way, something like insurance.  We all pay in, and when disaster strikes, receive some aid back.  Churches do not do this and therefore should NOT receive one cent of the money that the rest of us worked hard to contribute!

de Vries’ second point is pure rhetoric.  He writes that this exclusion creates a “slippery slope” for excluding Churches from other things such as “fire department aid, police protection, and other long-established government services”.  There are two things to note here.  First, he actually uses the term “slippery slope”.  He is assuming that his reader is unaware that such arguments are, by their nature, logically fallacious.  This is not an argument at all, it is just rhetoric.  However, let’s pretend that it is a legitimate point.  First, he does not describe what “long-established government services” are, so we can ignore that part.  Second, fire department and police aid are emergent services.  We call the fire and police departments in times of imminent danger.  People’s lives may be at stake.  Rebuilding from a disaster does not fit this description.  No one’s life is in danger if a church is not rebuilt.  We see two major logical fallacies in this one point alone: a) slippery slope arguments are fallacious by nature and are not arguments and b) his comparison to police and fire department aid is a red herring argument at best.

By the time he gets around to his third argument, it is clear that de Vries really does not have a solid argument at all, and is just trying to play on the emotions of his reader.  His third point is really just a reiteration of his opening statement.  He writes that by not providing aid to Churches, FEMA (and the federal government) do not value all the “immensely positive roles the churches have already played after Superstorm Sandy”.  Again, this is not even an argument, nor is it true.  One can certainly acknowledge the good work that many Churches did post-Sandy—President Obama was falling all over himself doing just that in his speech in Newtown.  de Vries feels that this exclusion is in effect stating that we do not care if the Churches are up and running prior to the next disaster.

This is an absurd argument.  The only way that de Vries could possibly be seen to be correct is if the only way that we expressed appreciation for “good deeds” was with financial rewards.  No one is denying that many churches played (and play) a positive role post Sandy (and other storms).  This does not entitle them to federal money raised through taxation that they do not participate in.  In fact, and correct me if I am wrong, providing aid in times like this is often a huge part of the mission of many churches.  They were just doing what they were supposed to be doing, according to their own words!  Truthfully, it is hard to argue against this point of de Vries, because his point isn’t really an argument at all.  It is just emotional rhetoric that is easily dismissed.

His fourth point is not much better than his last two.  de Vries writes, “blocking FEMA grants to churches is to pretend to be ignorant of the continuing soul care needed by the many and various victims of Superstorm Sandy.”  There is no plainer way to say this:  Our government is not in the business of “soul care”.  That is the business of religions not governments (at least in this country).  Second, de Vries posits the existence of a “soul” as if it were a real thing.  This is not the time or place for that argument, but prior to any federal money being doled out to “soul care” that conversation must happen.

Once again we find that this point is not really an argument at all.  Once again, we find it to be nothing more than religious rhetoric designed to pull on the heartstrings of his reader.  This will not do.

Tax_The_Churches

In truth, de Vries does not make even one valid point.  His failure to even discuss the tax exemptions of churches makes his article nothing more than religious rhetoric.

The problem that I have with articles like this is the sense of religious privilege.  So many religious leaders, like de Vries, feel that their religions are entitled to a privileged place in society simply because they are religions.  Why in the world should a group (in this case a church) be entitled to federal money—money that we all contribute towards except for them, simply because they are religious?  What gives them that right?  No matter how hard we look for answers to that question, we continuously will find only one.  There is no reason that they should be receiving FEMA money.  It is for this reason, that de Vries cannot levy one serious argument in his entire article.  The notion of Christian privilege must end in this country.  Christianity and its various organizations have every right to exist.  However, it is time that they play on the same field as the rest of us.

Thanks for reading.  I look forward to your comments.

—-John

If you have a blog please feel free to promote it on my “Promote Your Blog” page above.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @logicalbeing

If you would like to share your story of how you became an atheist, please do that on my “Share your Atheism Story” forum.  Our stories may help to encourage others with similar feelings to know that life is more than just okay without god(s).

If you have not yet checked out Alltop.com’s Atheism Blogs….what are you waiting for?

Atheists: It is Time to Speak Up

Why Religion is “Fair Game” for Criticism

Pic From: http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/03/criticism-dishing-it-out-and-taking-it.html

Pic From: http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/03/criticism-dishing-it-out-and-taking-it.html

I have recently seen many theists and atheists rail against “vocal atheists”.  I can’t help but wonder if the so called “New Atheism” really is morphing into something else–though that is a topic for a different day.  I often see statements along the lines of “live and let live”, “why do you care what I believe?”, “respect other’s beliefs”, etc.  This I expect from theists.  I find that it bothers me more when I hear it coming from other atheists.  I want to briefly discuss why it is important to care what other people think, why it is sometimes important to criticize those beliefs, and why it is important to speak about your beliefs. I have written some angry style rant post on this topic before, which you can read here and here.  I aso want to highlight a post by Cephus from the blog Bitchspot that is well worth a read on this topic.  Today, there will be no ranting.

Let me begin by stating that I fully support your right to believe whatever you choose.  If you want to believe the universe is run by little green men living in your closet—feel free.  Problems arise when two things happen: a) when one’s beliefs start affecting other people and b) when people feel their beliefs are beyond criticism.

Theists, as I am sure you are fully aware, your religious beliefs help to form your worldview.  They, at least in part, play a large role in how you think.  They play a large role in how you view our society should be shaped.  They play a large role in how you vote.  They play a large role in how you think others should live their lives.  All of these things extend beyond you.  They affect your co-workers, neighbors, friends, and they affect me.  When we find ourselves in situations like this, we are usually discussing politics.  “Should the school board raise taxes?”  “I like Candidate Smith for Governor!”  “I support gun control!” etc.  However, sometimes we find that this situation extends to religion.

The three most glaring examples of this, that should be plain for all to see, are same-sex marriage, abortion, and the fact that atheists cannot hold public office in seven states (PA, MD, AR, TX, MS, SC, TN).  Each of these are propped up solely by the religious views of Christians.  If we were to magically remove all religious language from these debates, these things would not be issues.  Homosexuals would be able to marry, women would have control over their reproductive systems, and I could run for office should I choose to live in one of those states.  That is not our reality.

Theists, like it or not, your religious beliefs have the very real potential to affect all of us in society—and those beliefs often do.  Like it or not, although you have the right to believe whatever you wish, once it starts to affect my life, I now have the right to criticize that belief.

It is also important to note that beliefs are not entitled to respect.  There is a huge difference between respecting a person and respecting a belief.   There are many people that I respect who hold some beliefs that I do not.  There are also some beliefs that are just not respectable, like racist beliefs, for example.  No belief is entitled to respect.

This brings us to point “b” from above.  When it comes to the marketplace of ideas, no idea is sacred.  When your ideas/beliefs can affect my life, I have the right to comment on that idea/belief.  Religion is not exempt from this.  A small example:  I have two great friends who happen to be a gay couple.  They would love to marry, but living in MN, they cannot.  When they walk through downtown and see a protester holding a sign that stays “homosexuality is a sin” or some other religiously based anti-homosexual rhetoric, they have the right to comment on that, just as the person holding the sign has the right to hold the sign.

The problem that I see is that many theists do not recognize this fact.  They are quite willing to criticize the beliefs or practices of others, but often, do not wish to receive criticism in return.  In fact, I find that they often claim persecution or violations of “religious freedom” when faced with criticisms of this nature.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact is, if you think I should not be able to run for office because I am an atheist, be prepared to have a discussion about it.  Be prepared for that conversation to turn towards your religion, even if that makes you uncomfortable.  It is not persecution to have a discussion.  Nor is it persecution to point out errors in your belief system.  Nor is your belief system exempt from discussions of this nature.

Religion has, for far too long, received a “free pass” from criticism in the public sphere.  The problem with this scenario is that religion is a dominant actor in the public arena.  There can be no more “free pass” so long as your religion has the potential to affect my life.

There are a few final things that I would like to note.  First, many theists reading this will point out that my beliefs are also then on the table for critique.  Correct.  Feel free to criticize away.

The second thing I wanted to call attention to are other atheists who get upset when some of us criticize religion.  To them, I want to say, “Get in the game!”  I find it very frustrating to see things like, “I’m an atheist, but I have no problem with Christianity”.   Please realize that Christianity has a huge problem with you!  Look, I’m not saying start a blog, write a book, stand on a street corner, be offensive or anything like that.  There are many ways you can get “in the game”.  What I am saying is this: please open your eyes and realize what is happening around you.  To be honest, it is for these people that I chose to include the seven states that they cannot run for office as an example in this post.  By railing against atheists who speak out against the many disagreeable ideas of religion, you are enabling that religion to discriminate against you!  In fact, I encourage you to speak up against those who wish to discriminate against you or against those who are trying to enact policy that goes against your interests.  If speaking up isn’t your thing, fine.  But stop trying to silence those of us who are.  Like it or not, we have at least some of your interests at heart.

Thanks for reading.  I look forward to your comments.

—-John

If you have a blog please feel free to promote it on my “Promote Your Blog” page above.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @logicalbeing

If you would like to share your story of how you became an atheist, please do that on my “Share your Atheism Story” forum.  Our stories may help to encourage others with similar feelings to know that life is more than just okay without god(s).

If you have not yet checked out Alltop.com’s Atheism Blogs….what are you waiting for?

 

Catholic Health Initiatives Fetus Hypocrisy

Catholic Hypocrisy (again)

Wonka FetusSome of you may be familiar with the string of lawsuits against the billion dollar hospital empire Catholic Health Initiatives that has been occurring in the Denver, CO area.  It made the news again yesterday.  For those of you not familiar with the story, I will provide a brief summary.  For the full story click here.  Here is what happened.  A woman who was seven months pregnant with twins went to a Catholic Health Initiatives run hospital.  She was short of breath and vomiting.  In the end, she died of a heart attack, so too did both of the fetuses.  Her husband has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the hospital.  His reason for doing so is that her obstetrician was on call, but did not answer his page.  There has been testimony that, had he done so, he could/should have ordered/performed an emergency C-section, which likely would have saved the twins.  The wrongful death lawsuit is being brought on behalf of the twins, as they could have been saved.

I do not want to discuss medical malpractice lawsuits or who is at fault here.  In fact, and this may surprise you, that seems to be irrelevant to this case.  The Catholic Health Initiatives lawyers did not argue the doctor was not at fault or anything along those lines.  Their argument was that “unborn fetuses” are not people and under Colorado do not have the same rights as people, therefore, a lawsuit cannot be brought forward on their behalf.  Read that again.  Great.  Now put aside your own opinion on the matter and read it a third time.  Super.

Catholic Health Initiatives has just flipped the entire position of the Catholic Church on its head regarding fetuses, when human life starts, and the rights of said fetus.  If you read the article above you will learn that Catholic Health Initiatives designs its policies after the teachings of the Catholic Church and the orders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  They do not perform abortions or prescribe birth control for example.  Let me also remind you that they run numerous hospitals and have reported assets of over $15 billion.  This group is not some small regional health care company, they run over 170 health care facilities in 17 States.

This story infuriates me.  My anger has nothing to do with the outcome of the court case (so far the Catholic Health Initiatives has won twice, it is now going up to Colorado Supreme Court).  No, my anger has to do with the blatant hypocrisy of the Catholic Church.  It would seem that when a pregnancy inconveniences a woman then the fetus is suddenly a person whose life started at conception and is entitled to the full smorgashboard of human rights.  However, when a fetus (or in this case two of them)could potentially cost a (very wealthy) Catholic organization millions of dollars—suddenly a fetus is NOT a person and has NO legal standing or rights.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I hold a special place of contempt for the Catholic Church.  They will also further note that the hypocrisy that comes from that corner rarely shocks me.  I must admit that this one surprised me.  For forty years the Catholic Church has led the fight against abortion.  No group has been more vocal on a) when life starts b) that fetuses are full human beings and c) fetuses are entitled to legal rights.  Heck, they refer to doctors who perform abortions as murderers.  Yet, when money is on the line they completely abandon that fight?  That surprised me.

Here is what will not surprise me.  This story will not get a great deal of attention.  I could not find it mentioned on any of the Catholic news sites.  I did not see in/on the major networks of the mainstream media other than Huffington Post.  If I were the U.S. government I would be quite excited to see this.  There is little doubt that this will hurt all of those anti-HHS mandate lawsuits.  One cannot argue that contraception violates the Catholic conscience while at the same time arguing that fetuses are not people and have no rights.  Yet that is exactly what will happen.  The hypocrisy will not end with this story…it will continue as if nothing has ever happened in Denver.

The behavior that I will witness from many Catholics will bother me.  I shared my views on the moderately religious the other day, so don’t want to spend too much time on that today.  There is only one thing that would allow the Catholic Church to save face at this point.  Disown Catholic Health Initiatives.  The only way to save this is a proclamation from Rome denouncing the lawsuit defense that Catholic Health Initiatives is making.  However, let’s be honest, that is unlikely to happen, largely because this case is up for its third appeal and it hasn’t happened yet.

I must point out that the moderately devout Catholics who will still attend Church in light of this blatant hypocrisy should be embarrassed.  They have certainly lost my respect as “free and clear thinking people”.  Oh sure, they might be great people and neighbors, but their brain is turned off.  Sure, they might be otherwise intelligent people, but on this point, they might as well be “pet rocks”.  The only way to reconcile this gross hypocrisy is to live in cognitive dissonance.  However, this time, if one is aware of this story, that dissonance is a choice.  This story is like a punch to face level of hypocrisy.  You can’t fail to notice it.  If you fail to modify your behavior, that is a choice—and one not worthy of respect.

I also would like to point out that it matters not what side of the issue you take on the rights of fetus.  From either side of the issue, the Catholic Health Initiatives is hypocritical.  Please bear in mind, their policies are those of the Catholic Church—except for the defense of this lawsuit.  Catholics who are aware of this story who still support a Church that does not denounce this lawsuit defense are enabling this hypocrisy to continue.  There is no other way to look at it.  They can’t even argue that they are “working to change the church from within”—the Catholic Church is a monarchy, not a democracy.  Rome doesn’t care at all what you think.  However, it appears as though large Catholic organizations very much care about their money—even at the expense of their dogma/doctrine, so think carefully when you place your money in the collection basket.  The only way you are going to “reach” your organization is with empty pews.

To my atheist and other non-Catholic readers, please spread the word of this story as far and as wide as you can.  People need to see the hypocrisy that is the Catholic Church.  People need to know what kind of loathsome organization is seeking to affect legislation in this country.  People need to see Rome and its tentacles for what is really is: a bloated and hypocritical disease on this planet.

Thanks for reading.  I look forward to your comments.

—-John

If you have a blog please feel free to promote it on my “Promote Your Blog” page above.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @logicalbeing

If you would like to share your story of how you became an atheist, please do that on my “Share your Atheism Story” forum.  Our stories may help to encourage others with similar feelings to know that life is more than just okay without god(s).

If you have not yet checked out Alltop.com’s Atheism Blogs….what are you waiting for?

 

 

Blaming Secularism and Atheism for Newtown

God in Schools Is NOT The Answer, Secularism Is NOT to Blame

Most of you are probably familiar with Mike Huckabee’s nonsensical comment last week.  Sadly, he is not the only person spreading such messages. I came across a story that is a monstrosity of stupidity by Paul de Vries in Today’s Christian Post.  His post is titled, “Godlessness Fails, Again” .  He basically doubles down on Huckabee’s idiotic comment.   De Vries, who is the President of New York Divinity School, illustrates that he is certainly not a historian or political philosopher, either that, or he demonstrates tremendous dishonesty.  The entire first half of column details the evils of the former Soviet Union.  Naturally all of the blame for its failures, according to de Vries, were due to “godlessness”.

This is the most asinine argument against atheism that anyone can make.  Yet, we see it all the time.  Any student of history or political science will inform you that the Soviet Union’s failures and mass killings were largely the result of two things, a) Stalin’s insanity and b) economic failure.  Atheism has nothing to do with it.  History is chock-full of madmen taking control of governments and slaughtering people.  Here is a key point…we all acknowledge that they were madmen.  What allowed Stalin to massacre more people than say Nero?  Better weaponry.  Period.  Further, how many people did Stalin kill in the name of atheism?  The answer is zero.  Stalin killed in the name of power.  Oh, and de Vries slides Hitler into the mix briefly as well.  This of course is asinine as Hitler wasn’t an atheist.  People like de Vries make two errors.  They mix up or omit facts (like Hitler’s being Catholic and not atheist), so either they are ignorant or liars.  Second, they have no understanding of causality and correlation.  While communist ideology has an atheist component, that is not the cause of the mass murders.  No serious scholarship would ever conclude that it was.

De Vries makes his fundamental mistake in the first paragraph.  He assumes and writes that atheism has an ideology and mentions something called “official atheism”.  These are grievous errors, which are propagated by Christian groups all of the time.  Let me clear this up.  Atheism has no ideology.  Atheism is nothing more than a “no” answer to the question, “Do you believe a god exists?”  That is ALL it is.  Nothing more.  From that starting point, the ideologies of atheists are all over the map.  There are liberal atheists and conservative atheists.  There are equal rights atheists and racist, sexist, homophobic atheists.  There are capitalist atheists and there are socialist atheists.  To try to fit atheism into an ideology that they disagree with, theists such as de Vries only succeed in creating straw men.

The second error can be found in the notion of “official atheism”.  I have no comment to make on that other than there is no such thing.  Perhaps de Vries can define us atheists what that would be.

Communism had an atheist component to it, to be sure.  Yet, that is not why it failed.  Let us assume that a madman never took control of the Soviet Union.  That there were no mass killings.  Would communism have worked then?  The answer is no, it fails economically.  Look at China for a modern example.  (Yes I know China had mass killings, but they are not relevant to this point).  China has been forced to slowly abandon a communist economic system to remain viable in the world today.  If it had not done so, it would not be where it is today.  Communism fails for many reasons—not one of which is atheism.

After blaming atheists for the slaughter of millions of people in the 20th Century, de Vries has no problem making the leap to Newtown.   This is an easy leap for him to make after writing several paragraphs detailing, completely incorrectly, why and how atheism leads to mass murder.  He apes Huckabee’s comments that these types of tragedies occur because we do not have enough god in our societies and in our schools.  This is pure rubbish—a pile of “hot garbage”.  There are naturally many reasons why events like this occur.  We could blame any one of or all of the following: guns, gun laws, mental health, poor school security, and violence in our culture, etc—none of these things has anything to do with not believing in deities.  Much like de Vries failure with communism, he fails here, as none of those reasons have anything to do with atheism.  Not one.  He has created and torn down a straw man.

De Vries complete lack of historical knowledge becomes evident to anyone who spends a few moment contemplating the behaviors of society that have A LOT of “god” as part of their cultures.  Let’s think on this a bit….in the modern world we can look at Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Uganda—just for a short list.  How are things working out for the majority of citizens in those countries?  Looking good?  Most certainly not, I am sure you all agree.  Why?  Unlike de Vries failures with communism, we can point to directly to religion and Yahweh for things like honor killings, war, lack of plurality, lack of freedom, and lack of equality for all citizens in those countries.  None of this has anything to do with their specific leaders.  These things are proclaimed from pulpits and holy books.

Let us go back a bit and look at Christian history…we find the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts (which still happen in large parts of the word by the way), and countless European wars.  I am sure that de Vries would argue… “that isn’t Christianity, it was politics or political leaders”.  He would only be partially correct.  Those leaders used his precious Christianity induce the slaughter of an untold number of people.  Many people were motivated to support those events because of their belief a particular sect of Christianity.  Further, a tremendous amount of support from the pulpit was present in each case.  Were the individual leaders perhaps motivated by politics and power and not religion?  Perhaps, yes (though not in all cases).  However, this does not remove all responsibility from Christianity.  The fact remains, and I will paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens here, “we know what societies look like when Christianity is strong”.  Mr. de Vries….I’ll pass thanks.

De Vries is doing nothing more than spreading anti-atheist propaganda.  He is either not qualified to write such a piece or is being dishonest.  Either way, nonsense like this must be called out.  It cannot be tolerated.  Ah, yes there is that word… “tolerated”…no doubt some will now accuse me of an being of those “intolerant atheists”.  To that I say, “thank you”.  You are correct.   I will not tolerate the slander of an entire group of people (atheists).  I will not tolerate the absurd notion that things like Newton occur because of “atheist ideologies” whatever the heck those are.  I will not sit here at my desk and tolerate people like de Vries blame people like me for that shooting.  Would you?  Will you?

Thanks for reading.  I look forward to your comments.

—-John

If you have a blog please feel free to promote it on my “Promote Your Blog” page above.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @logicalbeing

If you would like to share your story of how you became an atheist, please do that on my “Share your Atheism Story” forum.  Our stories may help to encourage others with similar feelings to know that life is more than just okay without god(s).

If you have not yet checked out Alltop.com’s Atheism Blogs….what are you waiting for?