I was about to go run errands but stupidly decided to check my feed reader first.
I came across this video from World Net Daily. Now, I’m too angry to go to Target. There’s something wrong on the Internets and it must be fixed.
Here’s Molotov Mitchell (click on the video that says “The faith of the atheist”:
How many mistakes can we find…
Obama did indeed tone down the National Day of Prayer. He didn’t stop anyone from celebrating it. He just didn’t make a big display of it. He prays privately. Not to mention the actual “National Day of Prayer” is a Religious Right event (chaired by James Dobson‘s wife) and he has no desire to cater to their whims and exclude people of other faiths.
What about Georgetown? The president was there to deliver a speech on economics. There were religious symbols in the background and he asked that they be covered up so they would not distract from his not-about-religion speech. Georgetown University had this to say:
“The White House wanted a simple backdrop of flags and pipe and drape for the speech, consistent with what they’ve done for other policy speeches… Frankly, the pipe and drape wasn’t high enough by itself to fully cover the IHS and cross above the GU seal and it seemed most respectful to have them covered so as not to be seen out of context.”
There’s nothing anti-religious about that. If a cross was up there, people could get easily confused about what he was trying to do. Better to use a typical backdrop.
MItchell also says Torcaso vs. Watkins defined Secular Humanism as a religion.
Here’s what you need to know about the case: Torcaso wanted to become a notary public, but as an atheist, he did not want to declare a belief in God as was required by Maryland state law. The state denied his appointment, he sued, the case went to the Supreme Court, and the court unanimously ruled that Torcaso was right and Maryland’s law was illegal.
In the court’s decision, they wrote this:
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person “to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
The court is absolutely right. The government shouldn’t be telling us to worship or not to worship. They should stay out of that business.
There’s also a footnote to that excerpt that reads like this:
Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.
Why put that in there? To offer examples of non-theistic faiths that should also not be endorsed by the government. That’s it. I don’t think the court’s intention there was to define Secular Humanism as a religion despite the wording.
Even if it did define it as such, the purpose is to say the government cannot force Secular Humanism on people. And even then, the court would be right.
The only way to not force either religion and non-religion on anyone is to not bring it up at all in government affairs.
That’s not anti-Christian. That’s pro-everybody.
Mitchell does say one right thing: “There’s not enough evidence to sufficiently prove or disprove God.”
Which is why atheists don’t (and shouldn’t) say “There is no God.” Instead, we say we don’t believe in one.
So why are Christians so certain that God exists? Maybe someone should show them Mitchell’s video…
After that, he gets even crazier… saying we atheists take plenty on faith: manmade global warming, Communism (while showing Obama’s campaign symbol), the Gay Gene, etc. And then he attacks Democrats. Which, apparently, all atheists are.
You have to love the end of the video, in which he says “separation of church and state should apply to them [atheists] as much as us” while showing American troops bowing their head to a cross.
Ok. Rant over. Off to Target now.
