Omnileech
CHuck Norris
Atheists from England to the West Coast of America are stepping up their efforts this year to make a bigger antagonistic splash on the Christmas scene. From London and Washington, D.C., buses to Colorado billboards, skeptics are skewering religions with little respect to the adherents of the religions.
At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?
If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.
Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?
What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country? As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."
What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?
What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?
What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?
What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"
What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator? As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
What profit would there be if I posted the fact that atheists denigrate every religion and prayer that ever has been offered? To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered. That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.
Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?
We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas. Yet atheists do and get away with First Amendment murder.
I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.
As long as different displays line the corridors of Washington state's Capitol like Christmas potpourri, let me posit this last idea as a final pre-Christmas posting. At the base of the bust of George Washington (which stands between the atheists' winter solstice sign and the Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol), I suggest the posting of one more sign, which would contain the wisdom from George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?
If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.
Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?
What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country? As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."
What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?
What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?
What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?
What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"
What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator? As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
What profit would there be if I posted the fact that atheists denigrate every religion and prayer that ever has been offered? To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered. That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.
Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?
We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas. Yet atheists do and get away with First Amendment murder.
I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.
As long as different displays line the corridors of Washington state's Capitol like Christmas potpourri, let me posit this last idea as a final pre-Christmas posting. At the base of the bust of George Washington (which stands between the atheists' winter solstice sign and the Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol), I suggest the posting of one more sign, which would contain the wisdom from George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
See, this is why he sucks.
Mr. T are least is so awesome that he regularly ignores the laws of physics.
I refute, see, this is why he wins. You just raised my opinion of C. Norris from "oh that joke again" to "this thread, sir, is belong to you".
Sexy Native Baby
Vampires! Chuck Norris is the Devil in disguise. All Vampires would destroy him! Of course a Vampire wouldn't suck his blood because who knows what kind of disease would plague the Vampire race.
And hey, if he was really the devil, all the vampires would be pandering to him and therefore he wins by default. razz
