Archive for the secularism Category

Aurora, Colorado. Testing my long term plan for America.

Posted in abortion, atheism, christians, evolution, liberals, political correctness, progressives, public schools, secular humanism, secularism, Sexual revolution, toleration, worldview with tags , on July 24, 2012 by devilbloggger

Senseless?

Surely by now, my friends, you have had time to reflect on what, but for God’s (blechhh!) grace to the graceless left (in both senses of the word) in America, would be normal: the killing of innocent big people.  Yes, those twelve (or thirteen, or fourteen) big people were in the wrong place at the wrong time; and, yes, they did not deserve to die; and, yes, their killer acted with the full intention of killing as many as he could.  And yes, my servants, I am ultimately to blame.

Some of you fret–even my Temptress dared to question my judgment on this.  But fear much, my servants, I may not be the smartest being in the universe, but I do have a plan.  At the risk of divulging kingdom secrets, I’ll tell you what it is.

You must promise to keep this confidential.  Look around.  Is anyone we can’t trust in the room?  If so, casually switch back to email or something until they leave.

Gone?

OK.  My faithful readers know that I have particular designs on America.  America was truly the land of the free and the home of the brave for generations.

America was founded on a Biblical ethos that produced the most solid, grounded, morally upright people on the planet.  Even the millions who claimed to not believe in God grew up in a cultural sea of moral right and wrong.  Traditional, cultural institutions of the land continually reinforced inner moral compasses by instilling Biblically grounded values.

Of course, we cannot have that, can we, Temptress and friends?

No.

So what was I to do?

I had to systematically remove the collective conscience of a moral people.  I had to slowly transform a generally moral society into a society that values “toleration” and hates “judgment.”  I had to remove from America what made America great: its underlying sense of a transcendent right and wrong based in a person to whom somehow and in some way everyone was ultimately responsible.

And this is just what I did.

Consider: do you think James Holmes ever prayed in a public school?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of God in public except to be ridiculed or treated as a throw back believed only by the morally weak and naive?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever in a Christmas play?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of Jesus Christ in public except to be used as in vain?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever taught anything in public school except that he was an accidental product of blind nature?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a TV show or a movie where the subject of religion and/or God was treated with reverence?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a court of law uphold God’s law in the area of sexual expression?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you get it, my servants?

James Holmes is the natural, predictable product of a post-modern, post-Christian, and post-Constitutional America!

The only wonder (and I do wonder) is why there are not innumerably more James Holmses!

James Holmes kills twelve big people and it’s treated as a tragedyTwelve big people in the wrong place at the wrong time; twelve big people who did not deserve to die; killed by a killer acting with the full intention of killing as many as he could.

Hmmm . . . sounds a lot like abortion when I put it that way.

But in that theater it was only big people.

But twelve is considered a big number because it’s still considered wrong to kill big people.

I’ll fix that soon, my friends.  But let me illustrate my genius.

I use killings like those in Aurora, Colorado to test my system, to check if my plan is working out.

And it is.

In all the hand wringing and soul-searching in the media, did you hear one person suggest that America needs to get back on the right moral track?

Did you hear one person suggest that we, as a society, need to get back to moral basics so that we can grow better men?

Grow better men???

Fundamentally different men, with a proper understanding of God’s moral law?

A generation of men who are taught that they are created equal and live under a God who sees all and holds all men responsible?

A land of men who know right from wrong, with toleration and judgment excercised in proper balance?

Such notions sound foreign, don’t they?

That’s my genius, my friends.  Give me credit.

Instead of considering the true reasons for the James Holmses of the land, the Americans started immediately crying about “gun control.”

My friends, let the Americans focus on gun control.  What they are blind to is that guns are merely a tool in the hands of a man raised to do my will on earth because he knows no better.

What Americans should be focusing on is growing better men.

But that’s impossible without God.

So I win, my friends.

I win.

Don’t I?

Advertisements

Welcome to Post-Constitutional America

Posted in common sense, congress, democracy, Ethics, Government, politics, secularism, Uncategorized, worldview with tags , on July 2, 2012 by devilbloggger

Sovereignty.

What a great week I’m having, my good friends.  I know you all heard that the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the US’s “ObamaCare” is constitutional.  Right?  Did you celebrate?  So did I, my friends, so did I.  This was one time that I really thought my Supreme Reliables would let me down.  After a long history of finalegalitification of my kingdom goals, I knew (as did most others) this law to be so blatantly unconstitutional as to cause a losing setback.  But, by moi, if those trisksterific tricksters didn’t come through after all!

All is progressing well in my earthly kingdom, my servants.

I thought I would use the afterglow of this great victory to briefly let you in on how I got the Americans to a place where they let “limited government” become just “government.”  It is an exciting story, not only because it stars moi, but also because it was so easily preventable.  And this is not primarily about the wisdom, prudence, or tragedy (take your pick) of ObamaCare.  It is ultimately a story about sovereignty squandered.

Squandered.

Do you know what it means to be “sovereign” my friends?  Yes, you probably have a good idea.  It means the ultimate “who sez” in any sphere of human involvement and interaction.  Everyone obeys an ultimate “who sez;” humans will always be subject to (and subjected to) a “who” whether they like it or not.  Families, for example, were created with a definite “who” as the ultimate “sezer.”  The sphere of employment, the military, the church, and every other social structure functions properly only when there is a definite and proper “who” behind any “sezes.”

And what about government, my friends?  Well, let me key you in on some kingdom truths that have worked for me, my servants.

Listen up.

Remember, my friends, I started out that very first social structure by putting into that little pretty’s head one simple question: “who sez?”

And ever since my initial success under that fruit tree I have tried to ensure that every family, every church, every government, indeed, even every individual becomes divided over the issue of “who sez?”

Somebody will always rule over man’s life.

The question of government presents a particularly tricky problem for God and me (mostly God), because, of course, God and I both want to rule over man.

Yes, government (meaning the “state” or other municipal or national leaders to order society) has a proper place in the affairs of men.   But I know that the “proper place” is extremely difficult in a world of passionate human beings who love to lord over other human beings.  And I manipulate this difficulty to my advantage.

In fact, as you know from history, I actually experience little difficulty in eventually devolving every form of human government into some form of tyranny.

Kings, princes, rulers.  All eventually succumb to a sinful world’s demands to enforce tyranny, even if for supposedly noble purposes.

But tyranny nonetheless.

It’s a beautiful thing.

That’s why, my servants, I must confess that the American Experiment scared the . . . , well, the heck out of moi.

Yes, the living heck.

Do you know why?

If you are an American, you should.  But I bet you don’t.

I’ll tell you, even though even now it makes me shiver.

Those Americans served up a double whammy.  First, their Experiment was founded on a Biblical worldview.  That is to say, America was founded by and  among a people that largely believed in a true, transcendent, living God.  In time this foundation upheld what could be fairly described as a Christian nation.

Blechhhhh!

Now, that first whammyfier is an undeniable truth that is often denied today.  But there can be no question that America was, at one time, a “Christian nation” in the sense that its traditions and culture, including its laws and government, were informed by a Biblical worldview.

Let the deniers deny.  I’ll soon set them down.

But it’s the second whammyfier that sent my kingdom into spasms of anguish.  You see, the American Founding Fathers knew that sovereignty must rest in someone.  Someone must be the ultimate “who sez?”

And do you know who America’s Founding Fathers made the ultimate “who sez?”

Think.

No, it was not God.

But in the case of the Americans it was the next most destructive thing, though.

Here it is.  This is key to understanding both the early success of America, and its now-sure demise:  the Founding Fathers structured their new government such that sovereignty rested with the people.

A free people!

Yes, the American Constitution set the governing law for a nation of free men living under a very limited federal government.  The American Constitution sets forth specific things the federal government was permitted to do.  Outside of these few enumerated powers, the federal government was to let a free people live free.

Government officials were to be servants of the people.

Even today, government officials are still called civil servants.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, that one always makes me chuckle.

Now, pay attention.  I see some of you only half paying attention.  Listen up.

American liberals today fail to understand a fundamental truth that their Founding Fathers knew: a government where sovereignty rests in the people only works where the people can govern themselves under an inner morality and virtue.

Yes, my liberals predictably deny that religion and virtue (the two only go together for Biblical-based religions, which is the case in early America) are a necessary ingredient for freedom and liberty.  But both experience and the Founding Fathers (many of whom were not flaming fundamentalist Christians) weigh in (as usual) against present-day liberals:

Consider George Washington: “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”

Consider Benjamin Franklin: “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Consider Thomas Jefferson: “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and . . . . their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice . . . . These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”

Religion? Virtue? Right and wrong?

Blechhhhh!

Now to the fun part, my servants.

I knew that to destroy America I had to undermine both of the whammyfications: the moral base of a Christian nation, and the sovereignty of a free people.

It was not easy, but we are almost there.

And, as you probably know, I used the one check and balance of limited government that was best suited to manipulation: the judiciary.

Over time I ensured that the very Constitution that was originally formed to order a free, moral people, was used to shackle and demoralize (in the truest sense of the word).

Prayer in schools, gone.  Teaching the scientific evidence of true creation in public schools, gone.  Dignity of life, liberty and happiness itself at the most vulnerable point of all three, gone–snipped as easily as the snip, snip, snip of a doctor-like person’s legally protected immoral, un-virtuous, corrupted practice permitted not by the people, but by the Court.

Oh, how I love the US court system.

Demoralizing people to render them largely without transcendent, meaningful moral compasses was the first step in destroying America.

But I did it; I nullified the first whammification and in less than two generations transformed America into a “post-Christian” nation.

Thank you.

Now for the second whammification.

Remember, everyone will be ruled by someone.  Either a man will be ruled by the mandates of a conscience informed by God, or he will be ruled by the mandates of another man.

Mandates?  Did I day mandates?

How convenient!

Yes, my servants, every living man (which includes those on earth and elsewhere) lives by mandates.  The mandates are either internally imposed from a free man’s heart to live in peace and tranquilly according to God’s law, or they will be externally imposed from another man on earth.

To get free Americans to bow under the mandates of other men outside the constitutionally enumerated powers of government was a little more difficult and time-consuming.  But I did it by slowly changing society’s notions of “fairness” and “justice.”  You see, the American constitution was originally based on a notion of fairness that sees outcomes based on individual achievement of individuals playing on a level playing field of laws designed to provide the justice of equal opportunity.

Some individuals succeed.  Some fail.  Equal application of laws protect them all.  That is, the laws of the land protect the life, liberty and property (the actual meaning of happiness; look it up) of the individual against all those who would seek to take it/them.

Of course, liberals cannot have this kind of equality.  For liberals, who imagine themselves compassionate, it is equality of outcome that matters.

And equality of outcomes requires that the life, liberty or property be taken one for the good of another.

I had to transform America into a nation of makers and takers.  I had to realign the thinking of sovereign people to believe it is just that government originally formed to protect property instead confiscate property so that envious others can shamelessly mooch in the name of fairness.

Just and fair, right?

Yes, if you have my sense of justice and fairness (as well as envy, jealousy, laziness, etc.), i.e., theft from one for blissful dependence of another!

So I had to slowly transform the Constitution’s foundational premise of equal opportunity to all into a premise of guaranteeing equal results to all.

And I’ve been almost completely successful.

Don’t believe me?

ObamaCare.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

But I’m ahead of myself.

ObamaCare did not happen overnight.  ObamaCare is the result of years of my effort to remove sovereignty from the people and put it into the hands of an ideologically driven ruling elite.

And I did this within the American system by slowly over time transforming an electorate that has become ignorant of the Constitution’s noble ideals of free men under God, to an electorate, a large part of which has succumbed to the post-constitutional ignoble ideas of dependent men under a ruling elite.

The siren call of a ruling elite fashioning “fairness” in the name of “justice” is too much for some to resist.

And when the moochers vote for more and more moochies, my job is done: America has become post-constitutional because sovereignty gets de-facto transferred to a ruling elite in spite of the people.

Don’t believe me?

ObamaCare.

I’m not the first to use the term “post-constitutional” but I’m the one responsible for it.  Mark Levin, for example, explains “post-constitutional”: It means that much of what the federal government does is not authorized by the Constitution.

Another writer uses the term to enlighten his proposition that “the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”

Get it?

I’ve successfully brought the American people to a place where the Constitution has little to do with America’s current form of governance.

As Michael Gerson put it, over time I’ve arranged that “conservatives” who usually do not like to lurch about as liberals do, tend to let liberal lurching go unchecked:

If the conservative response following every period of liberal activism is humility and continuity, then the ideological ratchet only turns leftward.

I am the racheter, my friends.

Paradoxically, because a large voting bloc votes their sovereignty to a ruling elite, this leftward racheting ensures that political power no longer resides in the hands of the American-by-idealogy electorate.

Welcome, my friends, to post-constitutional America, where a small band of un-American idealogues, lead by me and my chief beelzebud Obama, lead a large population of American idealogues who no longer have the votes for constitutional governance of free people by a limited government.

ObamaCare.

Proof of my success.  Again, as Mr. Gerson put it with respect to Chief Justice Robert’s ObamaCare opinion:

What initially seemed wise now smacks of mere cleverness — less a judge’s prudence than a lawyer’s trick. To find the health care law constitutional, Roberts reimagined it.

Judicial cleverness. Re-imagining the ruling elite’s oppression as liberty and freedom for all.

It’s what I do.

And I’m good.

I’m very good.

I’m ObamaCare good.

Welcome to post-constitutional America, my friends.  Where nothing is beyond the reach of the federal government’s mandate.  And where the federal government’s mandate can and will crush the mandates of conscience every time.

Where what theirs is theirs and what’s yours is theirs.

Where life, liberty, and property are no longer inalienable rights.

They have been alienated.

And I’ve succeeded in once again dividing into the Divided States of America.  This time the division is between those who believe the fundamental role of government is to apply just laws to protect life, liberty and property in the name of fairness, and those who believe the fundamental role of government is to redistribute life, liberty and property, also in the name of fairness.

In short, my Divided States of America are divided over the fundamental role of government: is government’s proper role to enforce a level playing field? Or is it to tilt the playing field?

The tilters are winning because now the ruling elite believes in redistributive fairness, and the “who sez” is “government sez” on everything whether or not the people like it, want it, or asked for it.

Sovereignty.

Squandered.

If I had a daughter, she would look like Julia

Posted in freedom, liberals, liberty, Obama, politics, progressives, secularism, welfare state, worldview with tags , , on May 5, 2012 by devilbloggger

Julia.

By Jove, I think they’ve got it, those Americans.  That is, of course, if America’s own Julius Obama can successfully convince 1 or 2 more percent of the remaining 51% of free Americans of the benefits of Father Government.

Father Government, you ask?

Yes, as in Our Father, who art in Washington . . .

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh, the Obama administration is so over the top that I’m concerned that at any time the 51% of holdouts to complete government dominance will finally wake up and shout STOP!

Oh, but they must be dulled to sleep by the complacency freedom breeds.

For those who are wondering what “Julia” has to do with any of this, let me enlighten you.

“The Life of Julia” is, as Rich Lowry states, “the Obama reelection team’s cartoon chronicle of a fictional woman who is dependent on government at every step of her life.”

And a beautiful thing it is.

Thy government come, thy will be done in my life as it is in Washington . . .

With Julia, Obama reveals a vision for a nation of helpless women who depend on a benevolent government for everything, literally from cradle-to-grave.  This woman Julia, incidentally, has no father, husband, or, apparently, any family, except for her fatherless child.

Give me this day my daily bread, as well as my daily birth control and lots of other free stuff . . .

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Dana Loesch, a writer over at Big Government, said it best after chronicling in detail why Julia is straight out of my kingdom dreams:

As a woman, the idea that I can’t accomplish anything in life unless a male in government plans it out for me is offensive. It’s amazing to me how progressives reject the oversight of the Divine and the gift of free will but embrace the oppressive oversight of flawed men who reject free will. Men, too, should be offended at their lack of representation in the life of Julia–the white, faceless female stereotype that the Obama administration sees as the average female voter.

And forgive my self-control as I forgive those who exercise self-control over me . . .

Ha ha ha ha ha.

How right Ms. Loesch is.

It’s a good thing the 51% are dulled.

And lead us not into the temptation of freedom, but deliver us to evil . . .

If I had a daughter, she would look just like Julia.  Faceless and dependent upon government for everything.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

For mine is the kingdom, the power, and the gory almost forever and ever . .

Amen.

My Will Be Done in the Bronx

Posted in atheism, atheists, Government, liberals, liberty, secularism, separation of church and state with tags , , on December 5, 2011 by devilbloggger

Bronx.

What do you think of when you think of “the Bronx”, my servants?  For those in America I hope you thought first of the word “crime.”  Because I have for years made Bronx, New York, affectionately called “the” Bronx, a center of my will on earth, complete with crime, death and destruction. And I want to keep it that way. Hopefully my good servants in the American court system will help.

I will explain, but first a lesson in my success at wreaking havoc among lives on earth.

I will illustrate my greatness by comparing the Bronx to its big brother, New York City, which is no Garden of Eden.  Did you know that, according to neighborhoodscount.com, there were 166 crimes per square mile in New York City last year?  Guess how many there were in the Bronx? Wrong. There were 1117.  The national average in the US is 41.8.

I’m good.  I’m really good.

In New York City your chances of becoming a victim of a violent crime are 1 in 248.  Not bad; I’m trying to get that up.  But in the meantime, I have my will in overdrive in the Bronx, where your chances are 1 in 104. Please, visit the Bronx, my friends.  And marvel at my greatness in bringing wanton evil to bear on innocent (and not so innocent) creations of God.

Enough with the good news, my friends; I’m disturbed.

Why am I disturbed, you ask?

I’ll tell you. I read a AP article entitled, Tiny church in NYC awaiting Supreme Court decision, and thought to myself, what is a church, tiny or not, doing in the New York City?  Then, to my horror, I read that this church is actually in the Bronx! A church in the Bronx???? How can this be? Fortunately, my good servants, I’m on the job through my good friends of the New York Civil Liberties Union who are dutifully trying to shut down these rogue Godpunks.

Why?

Because these peace-loving, life-changing, scoflaws are clearly ignorant of the great American Constitution and are meeting, of all places, on weekends in a public school! And in America any group can meet in public school facilities except Christians.  When a Christian group rents public school space it is automatically and unquestionably an establishment of religion by the United States government.

Because the Americans have lost their minds on the “separation of church and state” issue.  I have so totally screwed up Americans’ minds on this that most people in the public sphere really believe that the mighty US Constitution, secured in place by unapologetic Christians who regularly worshipped in public places, now forbids unapologetic Christians from worshipping in public places. Yes, my good friends, this little band of selfless Christians trying to bring a glimmer of hope into my Hell on Earth called the Bronx, will be shut down if I can have my way.

And I will; my legal slave-servants working through the American court system are on the job. Hopefully it’s only a matter of time, and I will have the Bronx all to myself. Again.

And the beat goes on.

Memories of 9/11

Posted in multiculturalism, political correctness, religion, secularism with tags , , , , on September 10, 2011 by devilbloggger

Memories.

Yes, I have memories of 9/11 just like everyone else.  Fond memories, in fact.  It was one of my better days on earth. Killing, stealing, and destroying all in one big, burst of eye-riveting, televised extravaganza of devilish destruction.

Ah, yes, fond memories.  Rarely has my work on earth produced such lasting fruit for my kingdom.

Let me share a few with you, my servants, including the best memory, which I’ve saved for last.

I remember the terror imposed on an entire planet by a few of my handmaidens (they hate it when I refer to them as “my handmaidens”).

I remember with great satisfaction the desperate phone calls from the confused and terrified innocents inside the burning buildings and the doomed airplanes.

I remember basking in my success of the moral conundrums of the media and political elite as they strove to avoid using words like “evil” and “wrong,” except against “religion” in the abstract.

I remember provoking many to steer the collective conversation to one about “religious extremists” and how extremists can be found in “every religion,” and so “religion” must be suspect everywhere.

I remember my delight in seeing the dancing in the Arab streets in celebration of our common goal.

I remember, unfortunately, the seemingly unlimited number of men who fearlessly charged into the World Trade Center to rescue those inside.  I remember thinking to myself, who are these men among modern men?  I rarely see such selfless bravery in men anymore.  Same for those men among men who moved with “Let’s Roll” on Flight 93.  Of course, I got them all as well, although now that I think about it, I don’t recall ever seeing them down here.

I remember the short-lived attention of many to spiritual matters.   So many people began praying for the first time that for a moment I panicked, thinking that maybe my plan would ironically backfire.  Fortunately, in almost every case, people soon went back to their prayer-less lives.  The few that didn’t fail to outweigh my destructive success.

But here’s what I remember with the greatest delight: the surprised looks on the smirking faces of those 19 al-Queda badboywusses when they came tumbling into my eternal presence.   Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah  Khalid al-Mihdhar Nawaf al-Hazmi, Hani Hanjour and all the others–smug smirks quickly turned to wide-eyed confusion.

I remember Mohamed Atta swaggering up first, looking around, as if he was expecting to find something else.

I remember to this day the shock in all their faces when I told them, “Sorry, little prettyboy pukes, but we’re clean out of virgins down here.  It’s just me.”

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Secular gnostics: invincibly (and wonderfully) ignorant

Posted in atheism, atheists, progressives, religion, secular humanism, secularism, Truth, worldview with tags , on September 5, 2011 by devilbloggger

Gnostics.

Are there still gnostics today?  Do gnostics still speak today?  Do gnostics get any attention?  Any press?  Do you know, my servants, even what a gnostic is? 

No, no.  You are thinking of an agnostic, which is a person who dwells in the realm of cowards, religiously speaking.

No, a gnostic is one who claims to have personal knowledge of otherwise unverifiable truth.  As one privileged to have such self-knowledge, gnostics generally hold their personal “knowledge of the heart” over those less enlightened. 

And the beauty of a gnostic?  No one can challenge the gnosis because it is personal, and not subject to objective evidence.

Of course, an agnostic person believes that truth is not only unknown, it is unknowable.  And a true agnostic, like a true atheist (both words are merely the negation of their positive sense), is a mythical being; agnosticism (or atheism) being merely a label claimed by intellectual cowards.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that!  After all, I make both agnostics and atheists, and, I might add, even a few gnostics.

Are you still with me? 

I hope so, because I want to bring your attention to a most interesting article that appeared this weekend in The Catholic Thing.  The article, written by Francis J. Beckwith, is entitled “Secular Gnositicism and The New York Times.”

Secular gnosticism?

Don’t you just love that term?  I do.  I wish I had thought of it!

And although I find Mr. Beckwith’s insight dangerous to my kingdom, I must say I’m flattered by his recognition of my complete religiousification of what remains of the world’s “secular” institutions.

Religiousification? 

Yes, religiousification: the increasingly religious nature and tenor of atheistic, aka secular, arguments in the world today.

Mr. Beckwith recognizes my handiwork, most recently in the past week, where “Bill Keller of the New York Times opined about the religious beliefs of several Republican presidential candidates, suggesting clusters of questions that he would like to ask each of them.”

Remember? I answered Mr. Keller’s “crude and uncharitable” questions in this post.

Mr. Beckwith takes issue with Mr. Keller’s sloppy work, including his lack of “serious preparation or journalistic curiosity.”

But what Mr. Beckwith notes in his piece is something I actually hoped no one would catch onto:

Lurking behind [Keller’s] clumsy queries is an intellectual posture I call “secular gnosticism.” It assumes a position of cultural privilege on what counts as knowledge and justified belief, though it is rarely doubted and thus rarely defended.

Secular gnosticism.  Rarely doubted and rarely defended.  Yes, that is the beauty of my religiousification on earth!  While theism is the default setting on the human soul, atheism is the default desire of the human heart. 

Everyone knows in his or her soul that God exists, but everyone wishes to live as if he doesn’t.

It’s the human condition.

And it’s because of me.

Thus theistic religious leanings have become the subject of suspicious scrutiny in the modern secular society, while atheistic religious leanings are given a pass.

As Mr. Beckwith puts it, with respect to the secular gnostics:

For that reason, its believers do not subject their position, its presuppositions, and its sources of authority to the sort of rigorous interrogation they suggest the beliefs, presuppositions, and sources of authority of religious believers should undergo.

Get it?  The modern secular gnostic “assumes a position of cultural privilege” on what counts as “justified belief” which is “rarely doubted.”

And what is the end result of this, my will on earth as it is in heaven?

I could not say it better than Mr. Beckwith:

For this reason, the Gnostics were, in a sense and ironically, invincibly ignorant. No amount of contrary evidence, philosophical argument, or Biblical exegesis can convince someone who has private, direct, incorrigible, and impenetrable acquaintance with The Truth.

Invincibly ignorant. 

I love it. 

And yes, my servants, you can congratulate me on this one.  Mr. Beckwith is right.  I’ve raised up a generation of secular religionists, whether they go by the name of atheist, agnostic, free-thinker or skeptic. 

But every one of them is nevertheless a religious person in the secular gnostic faith, a faith built upon each of their “special knowledge” of truth.

And I’ve made every one of them invincibly ignorant.

Don’t believe me?  Just try to convince one of them that God exists.  Use the clear evidence of creation.  Use the Bible.  Use whatever authority you have at hand, including the undeniable moral law written on their darkened hearts.

Wait.  What am I saying?

On second thought, don’t try to convince them.  Do not challenge them to think broadly and freely.

Because every once in a while, one actually escapes my clutches.

Because some are merely ignorant.

Satan Answers Mr. Keller’s Tough Questions.

Posted in atheism, atheists, Bible, Darwin, Darwinism, evangelisim, evolution, False religion, God, heresy, homosexuality, liberals, political correctness, prayer, public schools, secular humanism, secularism, separation of church and state, Truth, worldview with tags , , , on August 25, 2011 by devilbloggger

Oh yeah.

My my my.  Sometimes one of mine outdoes himself in his blind hatred of all things God (true God, that is).  Sometimes this servant of mine has a loud voice that gets heard by many, convinces a few, and pleases one. My my my.

When I saw Bill Keller’s article  in today’s New York Times entitled, “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith,” I must admit I was worried.  I thought it might be an exposé focusing on the atheistic faith of some politicians, the anti-Christian faith of others, or the general degradation of all things moral and upright by almost every politician.

But I suppose I should have known better.  After all, this showed up in my paper of record.  And it didn’t disappoint.

Yes, Mr. Keller dumped not on “faith” in general, a necessary element of anyone’s political worldview, but only on sincere God faith of the type expressed by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

I’m with Mr. Keller on this one, my friends.  There is nothing worse for my kingdom than a politician who has a sincere belief in God, and nothing better for my kingdom than a politician who has a professed, but clearly non-existent faith in God.

You will notice Mr. Keller has no problem with Mr. Obama’s faith.

Neither do I.

But consider the faith of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, or horror of horrors Rick Perry, and Mr. Keller begins asking the baited question, “Does it matter?”

Matter?

For what?  For an ordered society where people can live freely in relative peace like they used to do when God was not banished from public discourse?

Yes, I suppose it does matter.

And to press his point, Mr. Keller sent a questionairre to suspect candidates to find out where they stand on questions he believes important.  The entire questionnaire can be found on The 6th Floor blog.  Just for fun, I have given my answers to his questions below.

Enjoy. 

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

My answer:  Yes, of course.  Everyone has faith in something or someone, and the public has a right to know what or who is the object of one’s ultimate faith.  Obviously, it is that “something” or “someone” which/who will ultimately drive a politician’s policy choices.  I just hope that atheists, and practical atheists like most Democrats in the US don’t get questioned on this point.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

My answer: Yes, it is fair.  But the emphasis should always remain on “pastors” and not “thinkers” like Karl Marx,  Bill Ayers and others who espouse destructive ideas that I’ve miraculously made standard thought among the political elite, as well as the faculty of most college campuses.

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in  practice?

My answer:  No. America used to be a Christian nation.  Of course it is not now.  In practice a Christian nation would not kill millions of babies for convenience, celebrate homosexuality as normal, or trash Biblical sexual morality (all three are intimately related).  A Christian nation would not ban Christmas displays, censor Christmas carols in public schools, fire teachers for reading Bibles at work, object to crosses in public places (whether inadvertent or purposeful), freak out over after-school bible studies, go spastic over graduation prayers, kow tow to imprisoned terrorists on religious grounds, sue every person for every Christian utterance made in public, or … well, you get the idea.

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

My answer: I encounter conflicts all the time.  The Constitution was written based on an implicit faith in the God of the Bible–an obvious conflict for my purposes.  Fortunately, I resolve it by convincing many people that the Constitution is “living” and subject to change based on prevailing morals by consensus.  Does it seem like the time is right to make abortion a Constitutional right?  Then, by God moi, I make sure someone finds that right buried in that dadgum thing somewhere. 

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

My answer: Moi?  Ha ha ha ha ha.  Of course not. 

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

My answer: No.  But Mormons can be just as damaging to my kingdom.  I hate Mormons almost as much as I hate Christians.

7. What do you think of  the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

My answer:  Frankly, that idea scares the . . . well, the . . . the heck out of me.  Fortunately, it will never happen, but I can use the notion to prey upon fears, just as I’ve done with Mr. Keller.  Question: Would Mr. Keller care if “Dominionism” was the idea that atheists, and only atheists, should hold dominion over “secular” institutions of the earth.  Why not?

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

My answer:  I LOVE the theory of evolution.  This theory has done more to advance my kingdom than any other in the history of the world.  Of course it should be taught in public schools, but not as Darwin presented it, a tentative scientific theory, but as dogmatic fact immune from criticism.  Darwin, a true scientist, included many reasonable scientific objections to his theory of descent with modification in his book Origin of Species.  I would not want students to know these objections, all of which continue as refutations to Darwin’s theory today.  One of my greatest lies on earth is that Darwinism is ironclad science and anyone who questions it is naïve at best, and evil at worst.  (Consider: Darwin’s own book, half of which contains scientific criticism of his theory, could not be taught in public schools today!  The criticisms are just as valid today, but they are not allowed to be taught. Darwin would likely abandon his theory based on them.)

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

My answer:  Are you serious?  Of course not.  Unless, of course, the prayers are to an ungodly toy deity.

There you have it, my servants. 

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller opposes?

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller endorses?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

%d bloggers like this: