digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Tyranny Of The Atheist Minority

worldnetdaily.com — The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect people from religion. It was written to protect religion from government tyranny.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nippinawassee, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1Thank you for this article... my question is: how did we reach this point? I believe that the past 30-40 years, the buzz phrases promoted by the mainstream media, the slanted biased reporting have done a number on the United States. the buzzphrase: politically correct or incorrect... this has been one of the more controlling things that the media has promoted. The general public heard so many of the talking heads on what passes for 'news' reporting using these phrases: oh you're so politically INcorrect (which is a badge of honor for ME) - he's so politically INcorrect... finally the general copycat public began using this buzzphrase in their conversations, primarily to make themselves appear to be more 'in-the-know' when it was the opposite. Mimicry, copycatting is used by those who are incapable of coming up with an original comment themselves. More and more co-workers would strut around, mostly women, and wait for an opportunity to show just how 'IN' they were on what is going on. I'd throw out a comment and wait - much like fishing - and sure 'nuf - bam! They'd jump right in with their putdown:

    Oh you are so politically INcorrect...! My response was: Tell me just what I said that made you call it politically incorrect..." Now, this is what is fun. They have NO - absolutely NO - answer. The huff and puff and going back to their desk was their response. I followed them and repeated my question - nothing. Most of the people who adore and ape the talking heads on the mainstream media are empty headed. They have NO basis for what they are saying, MUCH LIKE THE TALKING HEADS. They are simply mimicking what they've heard and since they, the empty heads, were obviously impressed by this buzzphrase, they hasten to incorporate it into their conversations.. Why? Why to show everyone just how up they are on everything! But ask them WHAT was it you said that brought up the PI comment and they cannot respond because why? they are so damned stupid - anyone that spouts off that buzzphrase has a hollow head and that hollow head stores all the mainstream buzzphrases so they can appear to be 'in the know'... These are the people who VOTE! These are the people who believe anything that is tossed their way by the mainstream buzzphrase media... we're toast!
  • nippinawassee, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1PS: forgot! The problem with the 'politically incorrect' chastisement and other statements taken from the mainstream media is this: 1) most people just don't like being embarrassed = they keep their opinions to themselves rather than risk being labeled "politically INcorrect" in front of others and most, if not all, of the ones who love parroting the mainstream medias buzzphrases have to make their comments in front of others so they can bask (they think) in the group's admiration of them. being the jerks they are, they don't realize that's not admiration but total disbelief that someone could be so damned stupid. 2) the other side of this is: no one will stand up to them - counter their little jabs with: tell me what I said that deserves your saying I'm PI? Most just walk away keeping their thoughts to themselves... why? because we've all been brainwashed that it's BAD to speak your opinion unless it's identical to the groups' opinion. We've had so many years of this psycho-babble from the mainstream media that we actually bow to it. People who disagree with the pinhead liberals' statements in public are afraid to counter those statements for fear of being criticized in front of others. Wake up people! that's just a way of life! Make your critics explain what it was that you said that led them to label you politically INcorrect. don't back down - thank them for giving you this title - tell them you are striving for excellence in the field of being a PI. It's amazing how they slink off when they are countered in public to explain what is behind their accusation. they have NO answers! Why? Because they are the parrots of the liberal left... they parrot phrases and buzzwords that are aired by the liberal media and because THEY are impressed with these phrases and words, they then try to use them to make others be impressed by what they have said... Doesn't work... I still believe that the past 30-40 years has been the making of the truly SILENT majority. the liberal reporters are skilled at twisting words and in interviews, they are skilled at shifting the emphasis to make the one being questioned appear inadequate... best thing to say? I only speak to intelligent reporters... and walk off... they are there to make YOU, the public, appear inadequate and stupid... don't let it happen...
  • rylege, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8If the minority is dictating in a democracy then its the majorities fault!
  • bioya1, on 05/16/2008, -10/+2The atheists have their one shot right now. For them there is no tomorrow. At some point they will meet their maker and realize their horrible mistake, but by then it'll be too late.
    • rylege, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10Go to hell for being skeptical? Nice God you have!
      • bioya1, on 05/17/2008, -8/+2You have to have faith, first of all. If you don't, it doesn't matter, does it? If you do then the Bible lays it out - you don't believe in Jesus you don't meet God. Since you appear to be ignorant on all this I suggest that you start studying up on it before you leave this life.
      • StaticThunder, on 05/17/2008, -1/+8My creator made me without faith. Its his fault. Again, nice God you have!
  • AThoughtOrTwo, on 05/16/2008, -7/+5Absolutely right. May I add to nippinawassee's post only these things:
    1) being 'politically incorrect' most often also gets the label of either *racist* or *bigot* or *homophobe*.
    2) after hate crimes laws were passed, 'politically incorrect' also become punishable by force of law.
    3) why is it ONLY *JudeoChristian* beliefs that are attacked by media as PI?
    4) since this has worked so well against religion - it is being used against everything from same sex marriage to illegal invaders.

    IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A MAJORITY - YOUR OPINION DOESN'T COUNT.
    • kayala, on 05/17/2008, -4/+9Quit playing the victim. You only make yourself look like a brainless, rambling idiot.
  • TritonX, on 05/17/2008, -1/+10ROFL, ROFL, ROFL.
    Tyranny, lol, we're just asking answer to all your contradictions, and since you never gave any substances to you extraordinary claims, society can't give religion any credibility or authority on anything.
  • Phyraxus, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Good thing the constitution is a "living document" and can be interpreted by people(i.e. the courts) who live in the time it is being interpreted. Good thing the bible is kinda like that too, if it wasn't christians would be stoning people who worked on the sabbath and their kids if they got a smart mouth.
  • Aircaptain, on 05/17/2008, -6/+0None of the inconsistencies of the left wing and its atheist doctrine makes any sense to normal Americans until they become aware of the underpinnings of Political Correctness. It allows a very small elite to manipulate a very big societal mass.

    This has been the most successful tool of Cultural Marxism, and is designed to render control of our society to some real bad people, through victimhood and stealth socialism.

    Most ordinary Americans cannot believe what is behind this. I recommend viewing:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369 ...

    It takes about 22 minutes, but it will totally open your eyes to what the bad guys are doing when they try to wreck your America, and all its fine traditions and institutions.
    • kayala, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5Wow. Just... wow. Your post is a rhetorical masterpiece, flinging steaming piles of ***** in every direction. Atheists and liberals are not the "bad guys," but rather are cast as evildoers by the fundies who want to play the victim to gain support. I'm sorry if this is dashing all your hopes and dreams, but America is not going to become a theocracy, and no amount of screaming about the bible and Gawd is going to make it so. So shut up.
  • Viend, on 05/17/2008, -6/+1lol atheism
  • ArkansasAtheist, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3"..atheists offended by prayers at graduations" - because not all students believe
    in the same or a single deity. If these students wanted to sit through your prayers,
    they would attend your church.
    "..and football games" - Teachers and coaches are not there to conduct a prayer service.
    Both of the above examples, of course, apply to public schools.
    "offended by a Cross or Star of David" - roadside memorials are just a bad idea for
    several reasons. The proper place for remembering and honoring a person, is at their
    burial site.
    "offended by Christmas carols or patriotic hymns" - I'm not sure I know of examples of
    atheists complaining about these occurrences.
    "offended by Christmas trees and menorahs" - public capital grounds are not bulletin
    boards to show your religiosity. Once the Flying Spaghetti Monster has made it's
    appearance is when the right wingers start coming around to recognizing that public
    religious displays may not be the brightest idea.
    "offended by the Ten Commandments" - For starters, it states that there is only one god.
    There's no proof of there being a god. However, atheists can agree with the 'no murder,
    'honor your parents', and 'don't steal' parts, those are alright.
    "or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance" - originally the Pledge came without that phrase.
    "offended a teacher might hint there may be a Creator" - science would gladly accept an
    opposing theory for how things began, but the Creationist and ID proponents keep sidestepping
    the process. Instead of submitting their hypothesis to peer reviewed journals, like all
    other theories had to do, instead of just trying to vote their story in or get legislators
    to write it into law. Play be the rules or don't play at all.
    "offended a soldier said "God bless you" at a funeral" - did he offer that to an atheist or
    deceased Wicca soldier's family?
    "offended the Boy Scout Oath says "Do my duty to God and my country" - the only problem with
    the scouts is that they openly violate the governments non-discriminatory policies. If you
    want governments assistance, then you can not discriminate based on sexual orientation or
    religion.

    So that's kinda funny, but kinda not because all of these arguments are old and have holes
    all in them. What the secular community is trying to do now is call the religious on the
    boundaries that they've wrongfully crossed so many times and so many years ago. There's no
    one that will stop any student, in a public or private school, from praying. We all recognize
    that students have that right.
    The religious' attempts to interject their personal philosophies into policy that affects
    every American is what continues to divide this country. If your religion asks that you don't
    work or drink on Sunday then don't do it, but it is wrong for you to impose that on everyone
    else. If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one, but outlawing the legal and
    safe practice of this service will only make it more complicated and dangerous in the future.
    If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. What
    harm is being done by allowing everyone to pursue their happiness with whomever they wish?
    Let's try to keep this "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice FOR ALL"
  • DyslexicAtheist, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Federer has got it wrong when he maintains that The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect people from religion. Jefferson made this crystal clear when he first coined the phrase "wall of separation between Church & State". This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by James Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination:

    ... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

    Federer creates a scarecrow... a false image of the issues. Atheists (and the non-religious, which constitute 14% of the population and are therefore the fourth largest group by denomination) do NOT complain about PRIVATE exhibitions of faith, but rather against the compulsion of government of one particular religion (evangelical fundamentalism, mostly) over all groups. This includes mandatory school prayer, Bush's illegitimate billion-dollar faith-based initiative program, and compulsive religion indoctrination in our schools, our prisons and our military.
    John F. Kennedy got it right, on 12 September, 1960, in the following speech to to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Too bad Bush and most other politicians (and this columnist) have it wrong today:

    But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
    I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
    I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
    For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
    Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
    That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
  • FVThinker, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0Two points:
    1) We are a Republic and, as such, it is not a 'majority rules' type of state. It is the minority position that must be protected.

    2) There are very few sites that are as intellectually addled as WorldNetDaily.com. I find it odd that their site does not even support comments. They just get to spout their fundamentalist c**p to the fundamentalist choir without having to field intellectual challenge of people who think on a regular basis.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.