Controversy: Should American Atheists have been booted from CPAC?

CPAC2014

Nothing like a little controversy to spike attendance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) an annual event attended by 10,000 faithful conservative activists. They will gather on March 6 – 8, just outside Washington D.C. to hear speeches from practically every leading Republican, including the entire bench of 2016 presidential hopefuls.

“Faithful” is the operative word here because a group without faith is generating many pre-CPAC headlines after being booted from an information booth they had recently purchased. That group is the American Atheists and their mission statement taken from their website says:

American Atheists fights to protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse.

Here are the facts surrounding this little kerfuffle between the American Atheists and CPAC.

On February 25, 2014 American Atheists announced via this press release that they “will sponsor an information booth” at CPAC. According to CNN,
American Atheists paid $3,000 for booth 439 in the event’s exhibition hall.

However, the Atheists led by their activist President, David Silverman (a nice Jewish boy who was “forced to do his Bar mitzvah”) was a little too excited about the CPAC booth and used it for bragging rights to CNN.

Here is exactly how the press release read:

Atheists March Into Lions’ Den at CPAC Organization     Confronts Conservatism’s Religious Image   

Does anyone besides me find it ironic that the headline in the Atheists’ press release used a Biblical reference from the story of Daniel in the Lions’ Den? After all, the God that Atheists believe does not exist miraculously saved Daniel from being devoured by hungry lions.

Moving along, on the evening of February 25, Silverman told CNN the following:

“Conservative isn’t a synonym for religious,” Silverman said. “I am not worried about making the Christian right angry. The Christian right should be angry that we are going in to enlighten conservatives. The Christian right should be threatened by us.”

Well, those “fightin’ words” were not kindly received by the American Conservative Union (ACU) the organization that sponsors CPAC. Thus, the Atheists’ next press release  read like this:

CPAC Boots Atheist Booth
Atheists: ‘This Is Exactly the Problem’

On Tuesday, American Atheists President David Silverman received a phone call from Executive Director Dan Schneider informing him that the ACU board is breaking its agreement to permit American Atheists to host an information booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), March 6-8.

According to Silverman, Schneider cited “the tone” in the quote “The Christian right should be threatened by us.”, which was in a Tuesday CNN article, as the reason for the revocation. This reversal came just hours after a press release from American Atheists announcing the booth, one week before the conference.

Now, this entire saga has been widely reported and is causing quite a stir bringing more attention to both CPAC and the Atheists. This is really good news for the Atheists because they will fundraise off the controversy, just in time for their annual convention to be held in April in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Seriously? Their annual convention in “Mormon Mecca?” Salt Lake City residents must rank among the most devout of any city in the USA.

Which begs the question, “What is with these people?” Either they are amazingly brilliant, savvy, strategic thinkers and what they are doing is beyond my comprehension — or they are completely clueless imbeciles who intentionally want everyone to despise them. You decide!

Personally, I believe that the ACU’s board should have let the Atheists keep their CPAC booth because there would have been some fascinating, passionate discussions stretching over those three days in early March.

Furthermore, according to the original press release, “A special promotion will allow anyone attending the conference who visits the American Atheist booth to sign-up for a free 1-year membership.” And who could have resisted that offer?

So now that you have all the facts and links to the pertinent source material, do you think the ACU board should have booted the American Atheists from their booth at CPAC?

Only God, who saved Daniel from the lions’ den, the God who Atheists do not believe in (but like to reference anyway) knows the correct answer to this question, but your answer will be appreciated.

For some CPAC humor read A CPAC survival guide for moderate Republicans also by Myra Adams.

Oops! We could not locate your form.

Myra Adams

Myra Adams

Myra Adams is a producer & political writer. She was on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team and 2008 McCain campaign Ad Council.

Writing credits include National Review, World Net Daily, Washington Examiner, PJ Media, Daily Beast, RedState, Daily Caller, and Liberty Unyielding

Contact Myra at [email protected]
On Twitter @MyraKAdams
Myra Adams

Comments

1,071 thoughts on “Controversy: Should American Atheists have been booted from CPAC?

  1. TravisJSays says:

    “Which begs the question, “What is with these people?” Either
    they are amazingly brilliant, savvy, strategic thinkers and what they
    are doing is beyond my comprehension”

    Um, it begs no questions, because it is obvious that they are militant attention seekers. The best way to treat annoying attention seekers is to yawn and ignore their boring, predictable, lame attempts to garner publicity for themselves.

  2. Maria Szymanska says:

    American Atheists should be booted from CPAC to APAC

    1. Joyce Clemons says:

      CPAC had and has both the legal right to include them, and the legal (case law, SCOTUS) right to EXCLUDE them as an ideological group. They would have no basis to exclude atheists as individual paid conference attendees. They could, however, boot an informal enclave of atheists that coalesce at the conference with a subsequent group behavior of disruptive distraction. That’s the law. The rest is breast beating for media attention by a goofy stunt dreamed up by a goofy guy whom, I have learned, isn’t even highly esteemed among most atheists. Kind of a self-appointed demi-demagogue.

  3. [email protected] says:

    The GOP is determined to marginalize itself as the old white party. Another 30 years the current brand of the party will consist of a distinct minority, most in diapers and drool buckets. Luddites are always footnotes in history. Incidentally I am an old white guy in the south but I find nothing glorious about militant mythical nostalgia or myopic groupthink.

    1. BJ001 says:

      Better to be older and wiser than young and stupid. The Democrats go after young people because they are more gullible. They know older people know better. That is exactly what Hitler and the Nazis did and the communists did before they came to power in their respective countries.

      BTW there are more conservatives than liberals in this country.

      1. Bozzy Lewis says:

        The youth is the future……the Republicans are doomed !

        1. BJ001 says:

          Youth ages and grows up. It happens with every generation. Although this generation seems to be more “Hitler youth” Your dreams of a one party dictatorship won’t be realized, commie.

          1. Bozzy Lewis says:

            That’s right…they eventually age, and their beliefs stay the same. Every generation despises the next and thinks their ideas are “crazy” and “wrong !” Like Judge Judy said,…the old guard must die off, via the grim-reaper, before we see real and positive change in this country. President Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents this country ever had ! A “Commie”‘,…you must really be an old and old of touch dinosaur ! You poor soul…..living in a world you do not recognize and hate…but not for long !

          2. BJ001 says:

            LOL are you full of crap or what. It is a well known fact that older people tend to be more conservative. These same people were more liberal when they were younger. Some views stay the same but most don’t. Kids grow up, get on their own and realize they are no longer going to be handed things in life. Obama has you so brainwashed it is not even funny. Obama’s approval ratings and other polls tell a different story. I know you think that Obama is a messiah, but he isn’t. He has you convinced that in order to achieve a utopian society that a certain segment of the population must be eliminated. Very Hitler-like stuff right there. You are a fool.

          3. Bozzy Lewis says:

            Nothing gives me more pleasure than to see you far right low lives….bigots, hate-mongers, homophobic and ignorant souls lost through time cry the poor “victim” and wallow in their own venom and hate-filled juices ! Time has moves on…you have been left in the dust ! Your 1960’s mentality, where you were in sole control, and vilified and degraded everything and anything different or a dissenting voice is history !

          4. BJ001 says:

            Well obviously you got my last post deleted. Well here it is again. Obama’s approval ratings tell a different story about his presidency. I know you think Obama is some messiah, but that just isn’t the case. Obama has you convinced that we have to get rid of a certain segment of the population to achieve some “utopian” country. That is exactly what Hitler did with his people. When you get rid of these old people then who are you going to go to for money? Who are you going to go to for wisdom? It doesn’t matter though, the fact remains that youth tends to grow more conservative as they grow older and get out into the real world and realize that things just aren’t handed to them on a silver platter. At least that was the way it was before Obama. Obama is making sure my generation stays dependent on government and their parents the rest of their lives. I was raised differently. I wasn’t spoiled. You better hope you are not right, because if you are, this country is headed for the end.

        2. BJ001 says:

          No, the fact remains that youth ages and grow more conservative as they get out into the real world and realize that things just aren’t handed to them on a silver platter. Obama’s approval ratings tell a different story about his presdency. Even my liberal friends think that Obama has been a mediocre president at best. I know you think he is a messiah, but that just isn’t the case.

        3. Joyce Clemons says:

          So saith He: The words of the Preacher,[a] the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

          2 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
          vanity of vanities! All is vanity. ROFL at the doomed!

          1. Bozzy Lewis says:

            What a pompous and arrogant individual ! Can you have a normal and clear conversation and write in regular everyday English ? Join the real world of sane people….I think you will be much better at explaining yourself and your positions that way !

  4. FilmDoctor says:

    The problem with many atheists’ self-identification and argumentation is that they too often talk and write like anti-theists, not a-theists. I propose making a clarification or a series of clarifications or distinctions between Deism, Atheism, and Anti-Theism, especially since so many self-described atheists want to limit the definition of atheism to mean simply “without a belief in God.”

    By the way, the basic or general morality or ethical system of the New Testament doesn’t contradict the basic morality of the Hebrew Scriptures. We have laws against stealing. Just because the Bible says “Do not steal” doesn’t mean that we now have to do away with all laws against stealing. Personally, I don’t see how you can rationally defend any law or any moral teaching, or defend the use of the basic laws of logic (including a scientific use) without a solid belief in a Rational, Personal God, who is the ultimate, transcendent, unchangeable, eternal source of logic, morality, and goodness because they are an essential part of His divine nature.

    1. SpeakTruth says:

      Your suggestion of clarification is reasonable. Personally, I have only known of one person self-identifying as anti-god (anti-theist). However, Christopher Hitchens did not see any evidence for god and much evidence for the non-existence of one (atheist), nor did he like or want the existence of one (anti-theist?) Every other non-believer (atheist) I am aware of simply says the evidence and common sense directs their non-belief. There are a range of opinions within the atheist community, however, manifesting from activism and education to a more pacifist (live and let live) attitude.
      I am incredulous that someone could suggest the ethitical systems of New and Old Testaments do not conflict. The fundamental requirements that murder and theft are shared, but many specific rules to live by are in direct contradiction not to mention the general tons of both. One god being jealous and vengeful, the other kind and loving. Laws against murder and theft are pervasive in almost all cultures both ancient and current, and predate the bible. The Law of Reciprocity or Golden Rule is the same, predating the bible. A society’s morality has been and presumably will be fluid, changing with the acquisition of information. Slavery and racism were based on the idea that black people were an inferior race, thus the justification of both. Additional information and experience proved those things morally wrong. Not the bible that, although it doesn’t order slavery, it clearly does not think it immoral. People are and should be good to people because it benefits themselves, benefits society, and because we are biologically wired to dislike the suffering of others. There are those that have “bad wiring” to be sure. There are also cultural and religious influences that cause people to go against their natural inclination of avoiding or causing one to suffer. (Circumsion, punishment, fasting, etc.)

      1. Joyce Clemons says:

        I know I am not addressing your main point but given that: Inoculation makes babies cry and get fevers but you wouldn’t argue that it is significant suffering compared to a life-long benefit. Ask any circumcised male if he feels disfigured or even inconvenienced. Female circumcision of course is another matter that I think we can agree is horrific in intent and result. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0

        1. SpeakTruth says:

          Not at all! I agree with you that there are countless times that we repress our urge to alleviate suffering, labor and delivery being one, and vaccines, exercise, etc. My mentioning of those things was just that our natural instincts together with logic and common sense are more than adequate to have a moral civilized society. When someone claims we NEED god or the bible to decide right and wrong, I have to strongly disagree. For the ambiguity and conflicting directives of the bible opens it to a wide range of interpretations of good and bad. Many choosing one verse over another to sanction bigotry, racism, murder, genocide, etc. Sin only exists in reference to religious texts. It should not, I would argue, be governed. For instance, when Christians concern themselves more with teenagers having sex (“sin”) instead of providing sex education, birth control, and the HPV vaccine (proven 100% effective and saves lives), it just doesn’t make sense and is cruel.

          1. Joyce Clemons says:

            The word sin means nothing more than error, missing the mark. So as a synonym, yes, sin is heavily used in Scriptural writings. People get pretty hung up on the idea that sin is something “God” invented to induce a special version of guilt. But it seems clear enough to me that errors like not keeping your hands off other people’s material possessions without permission,.. it is completely legitimate to address that in tort law and criminal law when applicable. “You will not steal”. BAM. Coveting? No, of course not, that would be mind control by government. If one man ogles another man’s wife, and the husband throws the first punch, he is the one that goes to jail. (a mild form of “thou (you) shalt not kill) Wide range of interpretations of good and bad exist among those without religion also or in situations where religion per se aren’t relevant.. I am a scuba diver. If I ignore the dive tables or drink and party the night before going out on the “cattle car” to the reef, and my behavior violates the norms of comfort, safety and enjoyment of everyone who paid their way, and I puke through my regulator and panic, I have violated not only the diving etiquette, but at least three of the 7 deadly ‘sins’ (errors): greed, pride, and gluttony. This is what people will criticize..”selfish, arrogant lush!” not so much what the dive book says. Can people without religion figure this out? Of course, and the bible addresses both that, and the issues of unforgiveness, hypocrisy, and reconciliation. Nothing wrong with using empiricism, traditional moral standards, and non-religion based norms in the wide range of civil law. As far as sex education is concerned, you might be surprised at what goes on inside a Christian home at the dinner table between Mom and daughter, Dad and daughter, etc. It might not be as benighted or cruel as one might like to suppose. The “cruel” thing escapes me. I am 62 and observed that when in high school, the liberal educators experimentation with sex education was awkward, contrived and dimensionless. Talking about sex with my folks and our doctor was much more edifying and helpful. Not that sex education is bad, but religious parents have just as much to put on the table today as anyone else. The outcome in the school ought to be consensus based anyway, not mandated “federally”. etc. We could TRY to tease out every influence of monotheism from the common and civil law system, but that is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time better spent on working out the extra-legal nuances of liberty through civil discourse. I don’t think we will ever know whether we “need” an extra-secular moral code (meaning a religious foundation to code) because in order to find out, we would need to reinvent the wheel. I think everyone wants fewer single teen mom parenting situations, including the teens themselves. Fornication is generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. Fornication (let’s forget the connotation, because that is completely artificial) is acknowledged to be 99% hard-wired into humans for good reasons. Discouraging that by any loving means among teens is just one thing in the arsenal against short-circuiting a woman’s potential. I think the answer is what we are doing here: civil discourse. Less vitriolic pronouncements on the “Scourges” of modern society. From any ideological base. So I appreciate YOU, since that is what YOU are doing. Even though we see things differently, we can learn a bit.

          2. SpeakTruth says:

            I absolutely agree. Aside from religious reasons, there are valid reasons why teenagers should be discouraged from having sex. I know many Christian and other parents of faith that do discuss sex with their children. We should encourage them to abstain and give them good reasons. But, it is at best naive and at worst fatal to teach abstinence only. The Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control and condoms have done much to perpetuate poverty and AIDS in Africa. Their sanctimonious dogma regarding sex is medieval, refusing to even educate married African men and women on birth control and AIDS prevention is downright immoral. The Catholic Church will have much to answer for if there is a just god. It seems, however, that the new pope has a more humane philosophy. Perhaps he can push the church forward a few hundred years. I am a 46 year old wife and mother of 3 by the way.

          3. Joyce Clemons says:

            I am a recovering Catholic. Pardon me if I do NOT disagree with you on this (lol) but moreover, don’t even get me started. about the myriad other reasons I chose to be almost any other flavor of christian other than Catholic. In spite of this, I am very thankful for having been reared at least Catholic in some degree of standard orthodoxy. I don’t think a change of Pope will fix what ails “THE CHURCH OF ROME” although it might save some lives such as of those you speak. I am a mother of three 40 somethings, two of them masters-level educated,one artsy and an educator, one a globetrotting infosystems innovator. One a HS graduate with a fabulous career in robotics technology. (a dynamo he is) 7 grandkids, one on the way. I am a widow. Adored my marriage, lived the love story, now happy being single. I do not consider myself being ‘religious’,in a conventional sense but my faith in God is something I could liken to my respiration and pulse. And that is probably why I am not Catholic. I would say ‘no offense’ to my Catholic friends, except that they couldn’t stomach my views on following Christ either so it’s a wash. No harm no foul.

          4. SpeakTruth says:

            I too have been fortunate in my marriage. We have been very happily married for 23 years. Two boys, 21 (junior in college) and 15, one girl, 13. My husband was raised catholic and shares my views on religion. I was raised Presbyterian. Both of us have post graduate degrees and we own a software development company. I haven’t “worked” since the kids were born.
            If you haven’t seen it yet, Christopher Hitchens debated catholic clergy a few years ago and like everything else is on YouTube. You might appreciate most of his position.
            Signing off, and good night.

          5. Joyce Clemons says:

            I’ll look for it, thank you.

          6. Joyce Clemons says:

            ps I relate to the two boys then a girl, and especially the youngest , a girl, arriving at puberty. Hope you don’t mind if I remember you in my prayers…:<)

          7. SpeakTruth says:

            Lol! I appreciate any and all help, when it is offered with sincere good will, as I know yours is. Thank you.

      2. Joyce Clemons says:

        Few believers really care if someone is an atheist or not, other than a fairly human inclination to persuade others to a shared view. Activist atheism/naturalism is on a rapid rise whether you personally know peers who fit this description, and by activist I mean those who proselytize this view by grand statements about the wounded mental health of believers, and using personal insults to underscore their advocacy. I am going to quote wiki because it is crystal clear on Gould’s idea: “Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view advocated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion each have “a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority,” and these two domains do not overlap.” I think he was sensible to say this, and the rest, in the US (surely elsewhere) is a mere power-struggle for material ascendancy, which is truly just human nature. And politics (many blood sucking insects?)

    2. I don’t want to be rude, but the fact that you can’t see how to rationally defend those things doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

      There have been literally thousands of philosophers throughout human history who have written a great deal to defending things like logic or ethical propositions without appealing to a god. Some of them, like Kant, were even Christians.

      I hardly have to time to give you a full run down of the philosophical arguments here but if you spend a bit of time reading through the various arguments that people have made on these issues you would see that things are not nearly as cut and dried as you make them here. Ethics and epistemology are complicated topics and simply declaring that you have solved those complex issues by posting a divine source for them is the lazy way out in my opinion.

  5. merleliz says:

    No. It was quite simply wrong to ban someone due to their religious beliefs, or even their lack thereof. I disagree with their viewpoint, but they have the right to express it.

  6. John Grey says:

    Sadly, the only people who can loose the election for the Republicans is the republicans themselves.

    Gallup stats indicate that those who vote conservative on a religiously percentile basis is 12-14% based upon a poll taken in 2006. (LOOK it UP!)
    Those who WANT OBAMA OUT & a THINKING, honest CONSERVATIVE to lead this country must face a hard fact: if they continue to Kow-Tow to a small percentage they alienate a larger one or at best loose votes of “fence-sitters” (which is one reason why Reagan won over Carter; aside from Carter being a gutless wimp).
    The Party NEEDS to be more inclusive but more importantly, it needs to realize that developing platform for a small margin is suicidal.
    The coming Presidential Election (or even the Senate) is the Republicans to loose. They had better dump that which had not worked well in the past. IF they want to be an inclusive party, they had better stick to 1st & 2nd Amendment freedoms.

    1. SpeakTruth says:

      I agree. I do have Christian Conservative friends and family who will, like you said, vote primarily republican. But the vast majority of moderate Christians, “deists”, Jewish, and atheists (myself) I know have become disgusted with the GOP social stance. It seems the GOP has decided that the “sins” of our nation’s citizens are a bigger threat to our nation than anything else.

    2. Joyce Clemons says:

      You are correct that the Republican Party needs to be more inclusive, but you didn’t quite adequately address the lower-middle and low income that have run away tearing their hair out over the bizarre spectacle of the Democratic “big tent” as evidenced at their last convention. And as far as ethnic and racial minorities: it takes cojones for a black or Hispanic citizen to buck their community ‘norms’ and espouse fiscal, let alone social conservatism publicly. I observe that those that do are being increasingly embraced by both the moderates and the “religious right” of the Republican and libertarian camps, because most feeling humans reject the “Uncle Tom” (and worse) insults being thrown at them by the left wing-nuts. Whose rule is it that one not dare think for themselves and say what is on their mind? Yes, the upcoming races are to be won or lost at the Republicans own doing. The conservative need not blame the leftist, because one only legitimately criticizes someone one otherwise needs to.

      1. SpeakTruth says:

        I agree with everything you said, Joyce. In some of my other posts, I have addressed the problems with the Democratic Party. As I agree with the Republican Party’s fiscal responsibility,
        less government, and I agree more with their foreign policy, I would rather vote Republican. However, I feel so strongly that the evangelical Christians are attempting to prohibit a portion of US citizens from obtaining equality and respect, I cannot, in good conscience, do so. It physically sickens me that teenagers are being told they are an abomination and will burn in hell for who they are. As long as the Republican Party agrees to promote this position, I will campaign, contribute, and vote against it. It is no longer possible to ignore their ranting when it is harming so many people. In addition, evangelicals are increasingly pushing their agenda in the classrooms. The fact that creationism is even discussed as an alternate “theory” is shocking. From your posts it seems as if you are a woman either scientifically educated or well read. How do you feel about this? We do not yet know how it all began, and it is reasonable to say that

        1. Joyce Clemons says:

          Both parties have wing nuts. And even if there were no partisan politics in the US, (bear with me, suspend disbelief, as in fiction, allegory) there would be religion and irreligion. And in a subset of families of both views, a child will struggle with sexual identity. And some subset of those would treat the matter in a judgmental way. Behind the scenes there will be some agonizing no matter the open responses. Some subset of those (religious) people would come out publicly with an embarrassing, pedantic interpretation of Judeo-Christian “ethic” regarding sexuality. We call those “MORONS” . No getting around that. Families that do not experience the challenge within…they ought to just shut up. But we know people don’t shut up. That is the main thrust of this thread albeit in a different subject area. There is nothing wrong with garnering attention in places one deserves to be heard, but the means and motives are rightly open to question. My bottom line: when I go to the polls (I MUST!!) I hold my nose. It all stinks. I make a final choice based on what I believe is the most compelling priority in terms of public policy. I am not a scientist, nor a political scientist, but my educational and career background is in public policy and administration. I love science, and faith in God affirms my spirit and meets my deepest needs. So I see no irreconcilable dichotomy between hard science and faith in God. But science isn’t religion nor is religion science. So if a responsible scientist has great and sincere confidence that time and matter (the universe) sprung from a ‘singularity’ (a sound mathematical principle related to dividing by zero, and infinity) of energy, I say..”FAR OUT!!! And if someone asks…where did the singularity come from, and the scientist says “WE” don’t know, and the believer says “I do”, I say “FAR OUT”. As Gould put it: ‘non-overlapping magisteria’. As it happens, SCOTUS settled the ‘creationism as science” madness in legal manner. NO. NO.Nothing wrong with that. It’s a science class k-12, case closed. .So people like me are left with the option to advocate for an academic treatment of comparative religion as part of an optional social studies curriculum. THAT is perfectly legal. Non dogmatic, cultural reality education. Period. A student in a class like this should feel free to express a critical thinking opinion without being bullied by a naturalist with a wounded soul. Naturalism won the science class. Let them not be the blob that ate Chicago. Religion as dogma belongs in the kitchen and church, period. Where science is also welcome, by the way. Thanks for hearing me out. Appreciate it.

  7. carolskey says:

    80% of Americans self-identify themselves as Christians/Jewish. Our country pays homage to this faith via:

    1-our money
    2-our courts
    3-our founding documents
    4-our holidays
    5-our government buildings

    Atheists have a world full of countries to choose from who don’t identify as countries of faith…maybe go there if you truly crave peace. Or, just be quiet if you stay in America and NO Christian will EVER bother you! Christians know what you will be missing out on and they will be praying for you! God Bless!

    1. SpeakTruth says:

      First of all, I would like to stay here as I love this country and realize how lucky I was to be born in the US. Secondly, if it were only the case that Christians or Christianity or religion in general would only affect the people holding their own beliefs, this conversation would not be happening. Religion, unfortunately, affects everyone whether we wish it so, or no. It is the root cause of terrorism which threatens us all. It is the root cause of discrimination of thousands of people in this country. Evangelical Christians push for changes in education that would would make other first world countries question our mental state. Catholics continue to claim birth control is a sin and push that philosophy in their charitable work in Africa when population is exploding and parents cannot feed the children they already have (even married couples are told birth control is not accepted by the church). Not to mention that Catholics refuse to educate those for whom they care on HIV/AIDS prevention and protection, perpetuating the spread of this disease. They are not, of course, required to do so, however, the continued teaching that condom use and other birth control is a sin, does great harm in the effort to eradicate poverty and HIV/AIDS.
      So, keeping my mouth shut, in my humble opinion, is immoral.

      1. carolskey says:

        “So, keeping my mouth shut, in my humble opinion, is immoral.” Then you answer to “someone” because YOU have a code of conduct and an opinion of what “is” or “is not” moral!

        The problem with a “personal” code of conduct is there are as many of those as there are people to follow them! The Bible presents God’s view of what is sinful and therefore harmful to his babies. And as a universal truth concerning the viewpoint of a being more brilliant and beyond the comprehension of mere man, this can be trusted.

        YOU have special interest, your own! And if you want to do something that is considered immoral you might do it, and then you could justify it to yourself and others. The Bible reminds us that the ONLY special interest of God towards us, is to BLESS US.

        Following a moral code of conduct by God takes out the opinion of man, the special interest in sinning, and provides no justification for following our personal desires! It isn’t easy at all being a Christian (forget your lambasting of Catholics or Evangelical Christians…I am discussing looking to God as your internal code of conduct!), but the decisions are easier! And the rewards are out of this world! God Bless!

        1. SpeakTruth says:

          To your first point, yes, I have a personal code of conduct as do we all. We are biologically hard wired for certain things. Aside from people with mental defects, we go to great lengths to avoid suffering for ourselves and others. Humanity learned way before the bible that it is beneficial to treat others as you wish to be treated. These are not just my own personal morals, they are shared by every other human being unless mental illness, cultural or religious ideologies disrupt or suppress that instinct. I don’t pretend to know the answers to the problems I listed in my previous post, however, when we think about alleviating suffering and maximizing happiness and well-being for the individual and society (sometimes they might conflict), the problems look different. For instance, teenage pregnancy in this country would be addressed much differently, perhaps. Most will agree teenagers having babies is not a good idea. However, sex is a natural tendency. Hypothetically, if we taught valid reasons to abstain, provided easy access to condoms and other birth control, vaccinated girls for HPV it is reasonable that teen pregnancy, abortion, the spread of HIV/AIDS, and cervical cancer could be reduced. Suffering goes down, happiness and well-being goes up. When the avoidance of “sin” is the the 1st priority, the answers are much different.
          Secondly, the bible has to be true (other religious texts as well), in order to be true for “sin” to have any meaning. Out of respect and limited space and time, I will refrain from listing the vast amounts of evidence that discredits the bible. Additionally, there are many books and articles readily available and are more eloquently stated by more qualified and notable people.
          Lastly, thank you for the blessing as I will assume it was a sincere hope for my well-being. I assure you it is appreciated and reciprocated.

          1. carolskey says:

            You have no argument with me. And yes, I meant it…God Bless!

  8. Payton Manning says:

    Here we find Hussein Obama talking about his self-proclaimed Muslim faith: http://youtu.be/bMUgNg7aD8M?t=6s

  9. BTeboe says:

    In this great country we are allowed freedom of religion. We are also allowed freedom from religion. If atheists don’t want to believe in a higher power than themselves, then I say have at it. However, your disbelief rights do not trample my belief rights and vice versa. If the sight of a cross makes you ill, then any object of religious significance will as well. What about wine? Wine is used in the sacrament. Does the sight of wine make you ill? Some of you are entirely confused about the separation of church and state. What that statement means is that the govt cannot force you to belong to any religion. And guess what – no one does.

  10. jeff BROWN says:

    If God did not exist, how could he possibly be in Government? So what’s the problem? If he does exist (which he does) isn’t it well to assume that it’s his world, his country, and his Government, then don’t we owe proper respect? So what’s the problem?

Comments are closed.

Related Posts