c l a s s i c a l
From American Atheists, we witness the first-rate, illogical meanderings of atheistic philosophy. Blair Scott, regarding the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rallies, notes:
Religious freedom is guaranteed to the individual: not a collection of individuals or an organization. A church does not have religious freedom: the individual congregants do. A collection of religious persons do not have religious freedom: the individuals in that collection do. You cannot amass your individual freedoms to trump the freedoms of others. (link)
So, groups, which are inherently made up of free individuals and citizens, can have no freedom. This concept and his final statement in the above paragraph will be essential points below.
The New and New-New Atheists (post-New Atheists) are operating under a false assumption -- that the separation of church and state is meant to silence all religious conversation in state and federal matters. This is an abuse of the phrase "the separation of church and state," both presently and historically.
For an historical example, men such as George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln and many, many others have publicly spoken about their dedication to the Bible. George Washington himself stated, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." (link)
The admonition of the separation of church and state, in its proper historical context, ensured the church that the state would not have ultimate control over what could and could not be counted orthodox regarding church government or what was preached within its walls; it was not to protect the state from religious opinion. The New Atheists, however, not only rewrite but also reinterpret American history.
Atheists such as Scott fear that Christian rallying groups are supporting "theocracy and religious oppression." (link) Standing up for religious freedom, say the New Atheists, is a form of theocracy and religious oppression. This is not the problem, in my opinion. The problem for the New Atheists is their perpetually failing attempts at stamping out religion and voiced religious opinion altogether.
Such is demonstrable from American Atheists and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Note the preposition from in lieu of of. The FFRF states: "The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion." (link) Where is there evidence for such a belief? None is offered -- only an insistence.
They tout themselves as "freethinkers," assuming and praising themselves for such victories as prison reform, humane treatment of the mentally ill, abolition of capital punishment, women's right to vote, death with dignity for the terminally ill (i.e., euthanasia), the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion (i.e., murdering innocent babies), and the first to call for an end to slavery. (link)
While they want us to think that atheists have historically fought for and pioneered all these social values -- if one can consistently maintain both an abolition of capital punishment and an advocacy of death in the form of euthanasia and abortion -- such is merely a rewriting and reinterpreting of actual American history, i.e., verifiable fact as historical truth. But exhaustively exposing this latter error is not what I care to highlight. What I want to bring into focus are the double standards of the New Atheists.
For example, Blair Scot, as insisted upon above, writes that religious freedom is guaranteed to the individual but not to a collection of individuals or any organization. He states: "A church does not have religious freedom: the individual congregants do. A collection of religious persons do not have religious freedom: the individuals in that collection do" (emphasis added).
Shall we, then, insist that an atheistic group does not have freedom: individual atheists do? A collection of atheistic persons do not have freedom: the individuals within that collection do? What shall we say, then, about organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation or the American Atheists? Have they any freedom as organizations to silence or to call for the silencing (or eradication) of religious freedom? Not even by their own logic.
He summed up his statement: "You cannot amass your individual freedoms to trump the freedoms of others." But this is exactly what organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Atheists are attempting. The hypocrisy is astounding!
Atheist individuals are oppressively vying, as a collective whole, in such groups as the American Atheists and the FFRF, to trump the freedoms of others, namely, religious persons and organizations. Can they really be that blinded by their own particular biases?
Was not religious freedom why men and women fled England to establish their own country, wherein the state or federal government could not dictate the legislation of the church? Yes, this is historical fact. But this fact never undermined or tried to expunge religious ideology in either the marketplace or the state or federal government.
Atheists willfully and desperately neglect that "we the people" includes people of many religious persuasions. This, however, is exactly what they, in varying organizations, intend to either abolish and/or silence.
The admonition of the separation of church and state, in its proper historical context, ensured the church that the state would not have ultimate control over what could and could not be counted orthodox regarding church government or what was preached within its walls; it was not to protect the state from religious opinion. The New Atheists, however, not only rewrite but also reinterpret American history.
Atheists such as Scott fear that Christian rallying groups are supporting "theocracy and religious oppression." (link) Standing up for religious freedom, say the New Atheists, is a form of theocracy and religious oppression. This is not the problem, in my opinion. The problem for the New Atheists is their perpetually failing attempts at stamping out religion and voiced religious opinion altogether.
Such is demonstrable from American Atheists and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Note the preposition from in lieu of of. The FFRF states: "The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion." (link) Where is there evidence for such a belief? None is offered -- only an insistence.
They tout themselves as "freethinkers," assuming and praising themselves for such victories as prison reform, humane treatment of the mentally ill, abolition of capital punishment, women's right to vote, death with dignity for the terminally ill (i.e., euthanasia), the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion (i.e., murdering innocent babies), and the first to call for an end to slavery. (link)
While they want us to think that atheists have historically fought for and pioneered all these social values -- if one can consistently maintain both an abolition of capital punishment and an advocacy of death in the form of euthanasia and abortion -- such is merely a rewriting and reinterpreting of actual American history, i.e., verifiable fact as historical truth. But exhaustively exposing this latter error is not what I care to highlight. What I want to bring into focus are the double standards of the New Atheists.
For example, Blair Scot, as insisted upon above, writes that religious freedom is guaranteed to the individual but not to a collection of individuals or any organization. He states: "A church does not have religious freedom: the individual congregants do. A collection of religious persons do not have religious freedom: the individuals in that collection do" (emphasis added).
Shall we, then, insist that an atheistic group does not have freedom: individual atheists do? A collection of atheistic persons do not have freedom: the individuals within that collection do? What shall we say, then, about organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation or the American Atheists? Have they any freedom as organizations to silence or to call for the silencing (or eradication) of religious freedom? Not even by their own logic.
He summed up his statement: "You cannot amass your individual freedoms to trump the freedoms of others." But this is exactly what organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Atheists are attempting. The hypocrisy is astounding!
Atheist individuals are oppressively vying, as a collective whole, in such groups as the American Atheists and the FFRF, to trump the freedoms of others, namely, religious persons and organizations. Can they really be that blinded by their own particular biases?
Was not religious freedom why men and women fled England to establish their own country, wherein the state or federal government could not dictate the legislation of the church? Yes, this is historical fact. But this fact never undermined or tried to expunge religious ideology in either the marketplace or the state or federal government.
Atheists willfully and desperately neglect that "we the people" includes people of many religious persuasions. This, however, is exactly what they, in varying organizations, intend to either abolish and/or silence.
Muslims should have input into the government including their own brand of religious tenants? Jehovah's witness? Mormons? Christian Science? Moonies? This country is pluralistic and secular. But really we as followers of Jesus should not care. Democracy is an earth construct designed to allow the majority to rule, and the majority will always be fallen.
ReplyDeleteI knew you would disagree with this when I wrote it, because I know your views of religion and politics.
DeleteI would add, though, that some of the proponents of those religions already do have input into the government, even if not inputting their own particular theological beliefs into law -- which I would not necessarily advocate Christians doing, either.
What a relatively free nation like America should allow for, however, is the allowance of Christians to voice their opinions -- the very thing atheists would like to silence -- which was the main point of this post.
I'm curious, pastor Rick: when the Psalmist wrote, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD" (Ps. 33:12), I wonder, from your perspective, can a nation have God as its Lord without it effecting social and both state and federal government policies?
William, I believe that the word "nations" in a New Testament context means people (ethnos). We are to preach the gospel to ever creature. The Unites States has never been free. In fact it has imprisoned millions to the god of materialism, humanism, and an elevated view of America that considers most other countries as less. The only freedom that interests God is that which is found in Christ and has been purchased at a high cost. No country can ever have Jesus as Lord when it is a mixted multitude of saved and lost.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Scriptures teach that the overwhelming majority of sinners will be lost. That is not a recipe for the Lordship of Jesus. In fact, the evangelical community has mile to go before Jesus is actually Lord among us all. One man's opinion without tears. :)