Mikey Weinstein – embarrassing atheists since… hell, I don’t know

I’ve blogged about embarrassing atheists before. These are the sniveling, perpetually offended pimples, who are never satisfied just being atheists, but they insist on ensuring that their precious, sensitive corneas are never pointed directly at any kind of religious symbol, and their fragile sensibilities are never exposed to anything remotely having to do with faith, because SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

There’s this Newdow moron, who has declared a personal fatwa on anything that even implies religion. His pathological compulsion to get rid of anything having to do with God has taken him down the road of targeting schools for for allowing students to stand silently, during the Pledge of Allegiance, because it contains a reference to God, and trying to rid money of “In God We Trust.”

For the record, I think it’s a waste of energy. There’s nothing coercive about the Pledge. Students are allowed to sit it out, but are obligated to be respectful of those who don’t. That’s a respect issue. It’s teaching someone to be the type of human being who allows others to do what they do without being rude shitsticks. And having that phrase on money doesn’t bother me either. As an atheist, I just have better things to do than get chafed labia over some words on some currency.

There’s some Special Snowflake who was SHOCKED! at seeing a cross. APPALLED, in fact! As if it burned its odious presence into his soul through his eyeballs APPALLED!

And then there’s this asshole. Mikey Weinstein has declared jihad on Christians. Jonn has blogged on him numerous times. You can read it all here. Weinstein’s latest crusade targets some poor schlub of an Air Force officer who had the unmitigated gall “harboring and encouraging a truly abhorrent example of First Amendment civil rights violations.”

Wow! That sounds really bad. A truly abhorrent example of First Amendment rights violations? What could it have been?

bibleDid Maj. Steve Lewis force his subordinates to attend church?

Did he counsel them on their lack of faith or administer non-judicial punishment based on biblical law?

Did he encourage them to read the Bible?

Nope. Maj. Steve Lewis committed the egregious crime of having an open Bible on his desk.

Mikey Weinstein claims this is egregious and outrageous, because the desk belongs to the US Army, and therefore anything religious that touches said desk will cause burns, which is destruction of government property, and service members are scared… Yikes!

Shit, if they’re scared of a fucking book, I can’t imagine how they’re going to fight ISIS! They’ll just duck and run, I suppose. All ISIS has to do apparently is pelt them with pages from the Koran. What kind of stupid is that? That’s like saying you can’t say “God bless you” to someone after they sneeze in a government space!

The atheist site Patheos picked up on the story with all the zeal of a squirrel hopped up on steroids. Except they’re idiots with an agenda, so let’s fisk them real quick, shall we?

If a lance corporal was said to be out of line for putting unlabeled Bible verses all over her workspace, then surely having an open, highlighted Bible at your desk is even worse.

That’s what Major Steve Lewis at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs has done for the past several years, and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is now trying to put a stop to it.

Except the reason the Lance Corporal in question was out of line is because she was sharing a desk with others and was spreading her religious shit all over it, and then refused to obey a direct order to remove said verses, earning her a bad conduct discharge. It wasn’t about religious freedom, but rather because it wasn’t her personal space to decorate. Lewis had the book in his own office on his own desk. But by all means, let’s compare apples to Vagisil, because it fits our agenda!

It all began with an email from someone who deals with Lewis on a regular basis:

“It certainly gives the appearance of favoritism toward one religion,” says a Peterson military member who insisted on anonymity for fear of retribution. “I’m a Christian myself, and it’s concerning. I don’t think people should be promoted or given opportunities based on whatever [religion] they are. It should be about your performance.”

Much like reading Monster Hunter International books in my office gives the appearance of favoritism toward one author, right? And because the author is the International Lord of Hate, it must be removed at once! Otherwise, Special Snowflakes will get their tender labia chafed at the thought that someone might like something they don’t, and we just can’t have that!

Other than the anonymous emailer’s quivering lips, is there any evidence that Lewis discriminated against any of his subordinates based on religion? Were there any complaints lodged against him? I’m sure if there were, Weinstein and Patheos would be all over them like Oprah on a baked ham, screeching about how Lewis actually violated others’ rights, instead of quoting an anonymous snowflake’s butthurtery. But since that’s all they got, they’ll beat that drum until their little hands get bloodied raw.

That’s right: A Christian blew the whistle on his also-Christian commanding officer.

Maybe you’re having the thought I had when I first heard about this story: What’s the big deal? As long as he’s not proselytizing, this shouldn’t be an issue, right?

Not exactly. Unlike at civilian jobs where personal religious paraphernalia might go unnoticed or unchallenged, the military is far more strict about anything that might hurt cohesion and suggest religious favoritism.

See, the mere suggestion of religious favoritism (which for them, apparently is anything they find objectionable) vice the actual practice of it is enough to make these snowflakes soil their frilly panties!

Has there been any evidence that whatever Lewis has in his office hurt cohesion? Has he been disciplined, counseled, or even reported for favoring Christians over non-Christians? Has he treated anyone improperly, or even been accused of such acts? No?

From the very Air Force Directive these fuck weasels so carelessly bat about:

2.11. Free Exercise of Religion and Religious Accommodation. Every Airman is free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own. Every Airman also has the right to individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs, to AFI1-1 7 AUGUST 2012 19 include conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs, unless those expressions would have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment.

2.11.1. Your right to practice your religious beliefs does not excuse you from complying with directives, instructions and lawful orders; however, you may request religious accommodation. Commanders and supervisors at all levels must fairly consider requests for religious accommodation. Airmen requesting accommodation will continue to comply with directives, instructions and lawful orders from which they are requesting accommodation unless and until the request is approved.

2.11.2. If it is necessary to deny free exercise of religion or an accommodation request, the decision must be based on the facts presented, must directly relate to the compelling government interest of military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment, and must be by the least restrictive means necessary to avoid the cited adverse impact.

Weinstein claims the mere presence of the book violates these regulations. Except it doesn’t, and until he proves that it has, it’s just so much petulant whining.

Has Lewis disrespected others’ viewpoints because they differed from his own?

Has he denied accommodation in any way to those with differing beliefs?

Have the personal, religious items in his office adversely impacted “military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment?”

Whose rights were violated? Is there a right not to see a Bible?

No account has shown a “yes” answer to any of the above, as the perpetually offended haven’t mentioned anything but the presence of a book that they find so triggering.

But Patheos presses forward claiming the military officer somehow violated the last part of that regulation.

That last bit is key. Military officers cannot, in any way, promote religion while on the clock. A teacher at a public high school might be able to get away with this (provided no proselytizing was occurring) but a military officer plays by different, stricter rules.

A Supreme Court case from 1974, Parker v. Levy, even said as much:

This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society… While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections… The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it… Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.

So the case law and precedent are on MRFF’s side, even if their position is bound to be extremely unpopular.

Actually case law and precedent are not. What Weinstein and Patheos haven’t proven is that morale, discipline, health, safety, or mission accomplishment have been in any way impacted by the mere presence of the book. And since the Supreme Court plainly said that members of the military ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE PROTECTION GRANTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, unless discipline and good order are somehow impacted, case law and precedent in this case are clearly on Lewis’ side, and his rights are protected by the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.

It’s an “and” not an “or.” If a member of the military practices his or her religion AND causes damage to military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment by doing so, then yes, they’re in violation of the regulations.

The mere presence of a book doesn’t constitute said damage.

As it stands, the Bible has been removed from Lewis’ desk as an investigation into the matter takes place.

Lewis has not yet been punished for his actions. It’s unclear if he will be.

You can almost see the writer of this piece rubbing his grubby little paws together hoping for a bit of discipline for this officer, whose only “crime” appears to have been keeping a religious symbol on his desk. It doesn’t appear as if that will happen, though. Commander of the 310th Space Wing Col. Damon Feltman says the incident is being reviewed, and confirms what I said above.

“As long as he’s not doing something excessive, the existence of a Bible or the Koran or the Torah or some other religious article is not prohibited,” Col. Feltman said. “It’s what you do with it when you have it.”

As to the precious little Snowflake who was so outrageously outraged at the existence of what atheists essentially believe is a book of fairy tales, perhaps the military is not the place for them. After all, if this chafed ass cheek is so traumatized by a book on someone’s desk, can you imagine it on deployment?

These sniveling, piss-swizzling dick flakes make me ashamed to have anything in common with them!

45 responses

  1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard | Reply

    One atheist on Baen’s Bar refers to those “embarrassing atheists” as anti-theists and it fits.😦

    Liked by 3 people

  2. How did Mikey survive Air Force Academy and being an Officer with such delicate nerves?

    Like

    1. A lifetime supply of Vagisil?

      Liked by 1 person

  3. There’s a big difference between a person practicing their beliefs and promulgating them. The foundational documents of the US (Declaration and Constitution) presuppose a belief in the supernatural, and military law accedes to this.
    Comes down to this:
    A person has a right to their beliefs; they have a right to practice them. They also have a right to make an explanation for those beliefs if questioned; it’s a basic right of response.
    An employer (private or government) has a right to expect a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. An employee who spends their work day proselytizing instead of working is defrauding their employer. This does not follow along with most religious teachings.
    An employer does not have the right (usually abused) to tell one employee they cannot respond if questioned, if the responder is replying calmly and respectfully. And especially if the responder is still accomplishing their tasks.

    Like

  4. Atheism is a religion based on two dogma: reason and scientific methodology. Among the apostles of this religion are Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell…both monumental philosophers and thinkers.

    The modern evangelists of atheism are people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are much weaker, since both are embarrassingly ignorant of matters religious and theological.

    Weinstein represents another group: the anti-theists. Not content to disagree with theism and theists, these people are on a crusade to destroy religion and people of faith at all costs. They are fascists and Stalinists intent on putting people like me in a mental hospital or concentration camp for our strong adherence to theism.

    The Constitutional prohibition against establishing a religion was not about “separation of church and state.” It was a prohibition of the federal government having the power to prescribe an official religion backed by centralized power. As a reminder, states often DID have a government-sponsored religious faith when the Constitution was ratified by the states.

    People like Weinstein are a menace. Their efforts are a threat to the American principle of freedom. I will – and have – opposed these efforts as a clear violation of the “free exercise” rights described in the First Amendment.

    Like

    1. Atheism is a religion based on two dogma: reason and scientific methodology. Among the apostles of this religion are Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell…both monumental philosophers and thinkers.

      It can’t be a religion, because a religion has to do with worshiping god(s), and that is one of those things *not* believing in any god(s) *can’t* entail.

      It IS a worldview, a conception of the nature of reality. Well, no, not quite. It’s many different worldviews. I am pretty sure my view of the world bears little resemblance to that of a doctrinaire Marxist, even though neither one of us believes there’s a god.

      Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. What the person does think about anything else is entirely disconnected from that definition, there’s certainly no requirement that an atheist think anything positive about Nietzsche and/or Russell.

      The Constitutional prohibition against establishing a religion was not about “separation of church and state.” It was a prohibition of the federal government having the power to prescribe an official religion backed by centralized power. As a reminder, states often DID have a government-sponsored religious faith when the Constitution was ratified by the states.

      It’s about a good deal more than this. In particular, our political system may have been founded by a group of largely Christian group of people, but our law and political system are not, in any way, “founded on” or “based on” Christianity. Many (perhaps not you, but I’m going to go ahead and preemptively answer this point because someone will surely bring it up if you don’t) will bring up the Ten Commandments, claiming our legal code is based on them. Oddly enough, you have to get to Commandment #6 before you find something that is actually banned by law, then it turns out that only #6, #8, and #9 are prohibited by law (maybe #7 in some jurisdictions). The first four commandments are purely religious directives, and in point of fact the first commandment, commanding people to worship Yahweh, would be incompatible with the first amendment if imposed by law. So it’s kind of hard to make the argument our legal system is based on the Bible, even if this country is full of people who follow it.

      Like

  5. Mikey Weinstein is a practising Jew. See here: http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=67512&cpage=1#comment-2888245

    He is definitely not an Atheist, but he is definitely an obnoxious, greedy, spoiled jerk whose MRFF foundation rakes in money from people who want religious choices removed from existence.

    I don’t know what his personal beef is with Christianity, nor do I care, but his hyperaggressiveness about this says that he has some issues with something about it – maybe some fundie Xtian tried to convert him or something. I’m waiting for him to try to oust all the military Chaplains who serve various denominations and faiths, including Neopagans, Wiccans, and Buddhists. We haven’t heard about Mikey going after them, have we? No, and just what would this slavering bald dorkwad do if I had some neo-Druidic texts on my desk?

    What we were told in the Olden Times, before the internet stuff, was that you were allowed to read military-related training materials if you were on duty, but that was all. No other forms of literature were allowed, including religious materials. That was the 1960s-1970s. I don’t know what’s changed, but since religious preference is a personal choice, I should think that those rules would settle any argument, if they’re still in effect.

    Like

  6. If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t Separation of Church and State ment to go both ways? The Church couldn’t setup a theocracy and had to follow Rule of Law, but the State couldn’t infringe upon the Churches right to practice and preach their religion in public.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. For the record, I think it’s a waste of energy. There’s nothing coercive about the Pledge. Students are allowed to sit it out, but are obligated to be respectful of those who don’t. That’s a respect issue. It’s teaching someone to be the type of human being who allows others to do what they do without being rude shitsticks. And having that phrase on money doesn’t bother me either. As an atheist, I just have better things to do than get chafed labia over some words on some currency.

    It does bother me (but not to the level of chafing in the genital area). Because it’s often used as “evidence” that this is rightfully a Christian nation, and that non-believers are “less than” real Americans. The government believes in god, right? So what’s your problem, you damned atheist? Our government ought to stay strictly neutral on the subject, and it pretty much was. The original motto was “E Pluribus Unum.” IGWT was added to coinage starting in 1864 and to paper money in the 1950s, it was also made the national motto about the same time. This was an effort to distinguish ourselves from the commies…alas we attacked the atheism rather than the collectivism. So now we have a government not-so-subtly pushing the point of view that you’re not a real American if you don’t believe in god.

    The motto should never have been added in the first place. Now that it’s on, I look like a bad guy wanting it removed, and true neutrality restored. It’s not as if I’d like to see an atheist slogan in its place (though at least one group publishes such images, but that’s primarily to make the point to the religious of how IGWT looks to them).

    As to recent cases: A cross or other symbol on a post office, no bueno. Nativity scenes on a courtyard, no bueno. They’re government buildings (post offices shouldn’t be, but they are until that’s fixed), and these cases appear to be an endorsement by the government. A bible on an officer’s desk? Depends. Is he leaving it out so people will notice it, or is he using it at the time? If he’s using it, it’s no different from a novel. If he wants people to notice, it’s a passive form of proselytizing and he probably ought to put it in a desk drawer when not reading it. The principle being that when acting in an official capacity one must remain neutral, and certainly should not pressure subordinates (which has been alleged in other cases, not this one).

    As a final note, I rarely hear about one of these supposedly rabid atheists complaining about religious displays on private property, so painting them as people who cannot abide the sight of any religious imagery is a bit over the top. They just don’t want to see the government, which “belongs” to them as much as it does to the religious, do it.

    PS for some reason internet explorer periodically prompts me to re-enter my WordPress password whenever I’m logged into your page, ofttimes siezing the keyboard focus in mid-word. That’s in addition to THREE TIMES immediately after reloading on a login. I don’t know if a) my situation is normal for IE users or b) there’s anything to be done about it. (It just did it again.) Not an issue with Firefox.

    Like

    1. a) my situation is normal for IE users or b) there’s anything to be done about it. (It just did it again.)

      As to a) I don’t know but probably.
      For b) most certainly, DO NOT USE Internet Exploder. The only valid use for it is to download a real browser.
      Better yet stop using Microsnot altogether, Lunix works better and is free.

      Like

      1. It’s a box I have no control over.

        The one I’m on right now is doing exactly as you suggest, Firefox on Linux.

        Like

  8. I shudder to think of the loss of morale and combat efficiency in a unit in which religious expression is prohibited. By now, we all know that what keeps the troops on the line in the face of adversity is their devotion to the troops on either side, And, during my three years as an enlisted medic, in Germany 1973-5, affiliation with a group was a real life saver. Anyone who attempts to restrict troops from forming the most meaningful relationships is corrupting the most powerful force we have to build unit cohesiveness.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “…is corrupting the most powerful force we have to build unit cohesiveness.”
      All part of the plan.

      Like

  9. James Pritchett | Reply

    My question, why do they complain about something they don’t believe in? They don’t believe in God, so why all The crying over The symbols they don’t believe in? Seems just a little hypocritical, but I’m too stupid to understand.

    Like

    1. My question, why do they complain about something they don’t believe in? They don’t believe in God, so why all The crying over The symbols they don’t believe in? Seems just a little hypocritical, but I’m too stupid to understand.

      It’s not the fictitious god who is the problem, it’s many of the people who believe it and want to force me to as well.

      Like

      1. And of course no sooner do I hit post then realize I left out a key phrase.

        It’s not the fictitious god who is the problem, it’s many of the people who believe it, want to force me to do so as well, and demand that I live according to laws allegedly made up by said god (but which were instead made up by bronze age goatherders).

        Like

    2. James,

      A good question, but that level of logic would make their head spin.

      Like

  10. Well, reading the MHI books DOES seem indicate a favoritism towards gun-fetishing reanimated cadavers and fascist heteronormative werewolves over gender-curious dinosaur imaginers with pronoun trouble.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I really cannot love this comment enough!😀

      Like

      1. Geese Steve, like I said I’m stupid. I didn’t see the gun to your head. Because anything less is not force. But hey, what do I know. You don’tt like the laws, go somewhere else or change them. But like i said,what to i know.

        Like

        1. James, when you are compelled to do something under the threat of imprisonment or fines, that is force.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          While I haven’t been following the decision, when I listen to some anti-theists, I remember a Poul Anderson quote concerning the 1950’s Red Scare.

          IE “People were shouting from the roof-tops that they were afraid to whisper”.

          Like

        3. @Paul: You mean like how Christians are loudly screaming about how they’re being persecuted?

          Like

        4. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          SteveInCo, if it’s silly for Christians to “scream” that, it’s just as silly for atheists to “scream” that.👿

          Like

        5. It is undoubtedly much, much sillier for Christians to say that.

          There are three times as many churches as there are gas stations. Those churches operate utterly tax free, to the extent that the entire cost of the minister’s dwelling–even if it’s a fricking hundred room mansion–is tax exempt, provided only that the church pays for it. The only thing the church must do in return is follow the same rule other non-profits must: they cannot endorse candidates for office–though they can talk about issues all they want, to the point where any idiot knows who they would endorse. And by the way, even that rule isn’t being enforced.

          As opposed to atheists, who are so disliked they are the only group of people a majority of Americans would not consider for President, no matter what.

          Like

        6. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          SteveInCo, considering the atheists that our host mentioned, dislike of atheists is quite understandable.

          Especially when atheists start whining about Nehemiah Scudder.

          Scudder is one of the dumbest creations of RAH.

          Like

        7. Heinlein claimed, decades later that “If this goes on” had generated lots of fan mail…but none of it…NONE of it…said “but it can’t happen.”

          Sounds like your perception of the “stupidity” of the creation of the Nehemiah Scudder character is quite unusual.

          Like

        8. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          SteveInCO, very likely because very few people thought it out.

          While, Scudder could have been elected President there’s the problem of him “converting” the entire US Army into his followers in only four years.

          Scudder claimed to be a Great Prophet of God but nobody in the US Army questioned that?

          Even in Heinlein’s day, there were great differences among Christians and Scudder’s claim to be a Great Prophet would be questioned by plenty of Christians of Heinlein’s day and today.

          Yes, you could get an idiot like Scudder elected but no fucking way could he gain enough followers in the US Army for him to be able to use the US Army against Americans.

          Sure, he might get a few but doing in such a way that nobody talked before he struck?

          While Heinlein is dead and can’t answer for himself, I wonder if the real reason he never wrote about the Rise of Scudder was that he realized what people like don’t realize.

          Scudder’s rise to power couldn’t have happened as Heinlein had already established that he had.

          But I guess you “Brights” believe that American Christians would be willing to kill all non-Christians in the US.

          Like

        9. Heinlein established (in a different novel, I don’t recall which one) that Scudder had had millions of *religious* followers. Some of them would undoubtedly have been military; he could have moved them into positions of power, purged the rest…and encouraged them to join. Or forced the military to stand down, rather than prevent him assuming power, and letting brigades of thugs run loose to terrorize the rest of the population into submission. He could assure them of a pardon, after all.

          As for your last paragraph, now who is going off the rails? I do NOT assume that all Christians want me dead, I have no idea where you’re getting that from. I’ve run into a lot of bigotry, but no overt violence. On the other hand, violence has indeed been offered to atheists who bring church/state cases.

          You’re being hysterical.

          Like

        10. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          Considering how many stupid “church vs state” cases have been brought by idiot people, I’m surprised that “more violence hasn’t been offered”.

          If Christians were as “bad” as some anti-theists claim, there would be more dead anti-theists.

          As for that other book of Heinlein’s, what is it?

          I’m going by the original story and Heinlein’s “stories not written” (along with his time line).

          If it was a later book, it sounds like Heinlein was “correcting the flaws” in his original story.

          Of course, too many idiots are always calling some Christian Republican President a Scudder.

          I’m tired of such assholes.

          Like

        11. Once again I fall back on the fact that none of his fan base thought the premise was absurd, even immediately after his publication. The claim that he had millions of religious followers is actually illustrated in “Logic of Empire” where the main character encounters a Scudder follower. All that was made clear in the other work, whatever it was, was that there was no election the year four years after Scudder was inaugurated. (What I wrote as to how someone could pull it off were not Heinlein’s, but they illustrated how it could be done despite the army. Do remember that Hugo Chavez and Hitler pulled off the same feat, winning democratic elections and becoming total dictators.)

          As far as judging whether a “church state separation” case is absurd or not, I fall back on this standard. If Christians would howl if the government did the exact same thing only with Islam, then A) the government shouldn’t be doing it for Christianity, and B) those Christians are hypocrites for insisting the Christian based violation is “minor.” Government has no business promoting ANY religion, and that includes ANY flavor of Christianity, or even generic Christianity, or even generic “Judaeo-Christian” or “ceremonial deism.”

          Here’s an example. If the government were to change the motto on the back of the paper money to “In Allah we Trust” I am sure you’d howl in outrage. Therefore it SHOULD NOT put “In God We Trust” there either. (The blank spot that was there before 1957 contradicted no one’s theological beliefs, except perhaps for those who INSIST that “God” or “Jesus” must be plastered everywhere or we’ll all burn in hellfire.) Any other course is favoring one religion over another, and if that’s fine with you…well, you’re a theocrat, or at the very least one of those people who simply cannot understand the concept of impartiality vis-a-vis your favorite form of mysticism.

          Like

        12. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          “Impartiality” is one thing, but I’m seeing anti-theists wanting “hostility” toward religion.

          But then atheists are always right and Christians are always wrong. :sarcasm:

          Like

        13. …and I’ve seen plenty of Christian hostility towards atheists. So what? What does that have to do with the issue of what government should be doing?

          I know I’ve personally dropped the boom on particularly derpy Christians, denouncing them as fools, fucktards, and worse. But I’ve never, NEVER, said they shouldn’t have the right to believe what they do, nor worship as they wish. But by the same token I won’t stand idly by and let them use the government–that I am compelled to help pay for–to proselytize for them. And every single one of these “stupid” cases has been about that. Stuff that, as I’ve said, you’d probably be outraged over if it was Allah instead of Jesus they were promoting. I’ve seen NO instance of a suit to force government to be hostile towards religion.

          One last thing I forgot to mention:

          Considering how many stupid “church vs state” cases have been brought by idiot people, I’m surprised that “more violence hasn’t been offered”.

          It’s utterly unacceptable, no matter how “stupid” you might think those cases are, nor how “idiot” you might think they are. You seem to think it’s understandable.

          Like

  11. Some day this issue will be pushed to the wall and some charismatic (Sincere or not – doesn’t matter.) person will lead a charge to amend the constitution to make Christianity the state religion. Witness what Trump was able to do because of the fecklessness of the GOP. The Weinstein types should take their (numerous) victories and call it a day. If and when the pushback comes, it won’t be pretty. Think it can’t happen? Did you think Trump could ever get nomination?

    Like

    1. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard | Reply

      ROFL

      If some nutcase tried that, it would fail mainly because plenty of Christians (including Conservative Christians) would ask “which branch of Christianity”.

      Your comment just shows the ignorance too many “anti-theists” have about American Christians.

      Like

  12. This sounds like a classic case of an SJW attack. To see how closely it fits the pattern of such an attack, read the extremely informative book, SJWs Always Lie, by Vox Day. Not a long book, but I think his analysis of the SJW movement, how it operates, and how to counter them is pretty much right on the money.

    Like

  13. what happened to live and let live? i have 2 daughters, one is an atheist the other a devout catholic. do they agree? nope. do they try to convince the other to adopt their belief? nope. it used to be called common courtesy but i guess it’s no that common anymore.

    Like

    1. We ended up with a government that dispenses favors and goodies a lot. As soon as that happens the “services” (ofttimes more like “servicings” if you get my drift) become a political football, and different groups fight over them.

      There wouldn’t BE any fighting over (say) prayer or teaching evolution in school if the schools weren’t funded with tax money. But since they are, the people who don’t like prayer, or don’t like evolution, are rightfully offended when tax money that they are compelled to pay goes to support those things. Conversely, it’s tempting to get those dang heathens (or dang biblethumpers) to pay for a service YOU want even if they don’t, but you think they should.

      Make something a government service, and it becomes something to fight over in the political realm. And more and more shit is government-controlled or government provided, so expect it to get worse.

      Like

  14. “It certainly gives the appearance of favoritism toward one religion,”

    Well fuck me with a broomstick, what would these people do if confronted by someone the like of Chesty Puller. “I can’t understand why our Church sends such poorly prepared men as chaplains when fighting breaks out…The Catholics pick the very best, young, virile, active and patriotic. The troops look up to them.” “In all our fighting I’ve known only a few Protestant chaplains worth their rations.”

    Like

    1. Wow, that was… low.

      Like

  15. In general, I rather agree with you. But I’d really appreciate it if you would correct your terminology.
    These people attacking this church and that religion are not atheists. Rather, they might be, but the fervor with which they attack suggests pretty strongly that they have SOME religion.

    In any event, lumping these loonies in with true atheists is rather annoying. Speaking for myself ( I wouldn’t presume to speak for other atheists), I don’t give a damn if you have 30 crosses on your wall and a 23 foot bible on your lawn.
    Or a 45 ft menorah.
    Whatever.

    But these twits who attack the representations of your faith? They are better described Ayla anti-theists.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Speaking for myself ( I wouldn’t presume to speak for other atheists), I don’t give a damn if you have 30 crosses on your wall and a 23 foot bible on your lawn.

      I know quite a few militant atheists, and almost without exception they don’t give a crap either.

      Unless it’s a government desk, a government wall, or a government lawn.

      Like

  16. “After all, if this chafed ass cheek is so traumatized by a book on someone’s desk, can you imagine it on deployment?”

    Nope. So annoying when people take offense and make a veritable social justice cause out of the most innocuous stuff like this, as though there aren’t bigger things in life–like actual war and poverty–to worry about.

    He forgot to fill out this form: http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Hurt-Feelings-Report.jpg

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: