Spock May Have Given Me an Unnatural Lust for Pointed Ears

but when I was 12, I so wanted to marry DeForest Kelley. Who else could put so much pathos into"He's dead, Jim" every time another Redshirt died to prove this danger is really real? And his unwavering determination to save every man, woman, child and telepathic rock that he ran into? Inspiring.

Not. A. Religion.

You made kitteh double facepalm and headdesk.

Did you know that at one point, 30% of conservatives thought Stephen Colbert was serious about the Colbert Report? Almost 1 in 3 failed to see the obvious satire right in front of them. Hell, at one point, people thought Jonathon Swift was totally serious about eating Irish babies.

So it should come as no surprise that an awful lot of Christians think the Darwin Fish is the same sort of symbol as the Jesus fish.

Yet here I am, simultaneously headdesking and facepalming. (Easier on your head, harder on your hand.)

Despite its anti-religious stance and lack of a theistic belief, Secular Humanism is a religion just as Christianity is one, argued [David Noebel].

. . .

For starters, Christianity has the Christian Ichthys as one of its religious symbols while Secular Humanism has a developing religious symbol: the Darwin Fish. And like Christianity, Secular Humanism has clergy members that perform social ceremonies and preach a faith that is just as dogmatic: theological atheism, naturalism, spontaneous generation, and moral relativism, among other beliefs, Noebel points out in his book.

The Darwin Fish, or evolve fish, is not a religious symbol. It's satire. If you were to ask a group of atheists/secular humanists what the symbol of atheism is, you'd get a blank look. Some of us, online, have adopted such things as the scarlet A, but it's not an agreed upon symbol of all secularists. (Trying to get atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats. I once participated in a discussion about whether or not a nonsymbol is as symbolic as a symbol and if it is, is it still a nonsymbol. Don't ask.)

As for clergy members: lol wut? I assume he means people like Hitch, Dawkins and Myers, but clergy? You'd have to stretch the definition of clergy to meaninglessness to consider any of the more famous atheists to be clergy. And dogmatism? See above. Plenty of atheists have little to no opinion on spontaneous generation, we're all (religious or not) morally relative and naturalism? I'm calling that science, and if you post things on the internet, you like it, too.

The author also references in his book the 1943 decision by the Second Circuit to grant conscientious objector status to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his "religious conscience."

"Secular Humanism is a religion. It's just as religious as all the other religions in the world," Noebel asserted to students.

"Now, they deny it to the last drop only because they were caught. They caught themselves on conscientious objectors so they had to declare themselves somewhat of a religion."

So, I looked up the Kauten case, and I can't find the original decision, only commentaries on it, or references to it. According to several references, this case is sealed until 2020, so I don't know where Noebel got this from.

EDIT: (big h/t to [redacted])

Noebel is something of a liar, it seems. [redacted] got me a copy of the Kauten case, in its entirety, and the Court stated outright that Kauten was not a religious man:

We hold that Mr. Hardy's interpretation was well founded. [HN3] In order to avail himself of his privilege a registrant must establish that his objection to participation in war is due to "religious training and belief." It must ex vi termini be a general scruple against "participation in war in any form" and not merely an objection to participation in this particular war. Moreover, the conviction that war is a futile means of righting wrongs or of protecting the state, that it is not worth the sacrifice, that it is waged for base ends, or is otherwise indefensible is not necessarily a ground of opposition based on "religious training and belief." Though the registrant may have been entirely sincere in the ideas he expressed, his objections to reporting for induction were based on philosophical and political considerations applicable to this war rather than on "religious training [*708] and belief." They, therefore, were properly overruled, but not because he lacked membership of any sect or organization whose religious convictions were against war. Such a status was necessary to obtain exemption under the Act of 1917, but the provisions of the present statute are more generous [**10] for they take into account the characteristics of a skeptical generation and make the existence of a conscientious scruple against war in any form, rather than allegiance to a definite religious group or creed, the basis of exemption. We are not convinced by anything in the record that the registrant did not report for induction because of a compelling voice of conscience, which we should regard as a religious impulse, but his declarations and reasoning seem to indicate that he was moved by convictions, however sincere, of quite a different character.

In other words, while Kauten was believed to be sincere, and to hold beliefs that one would normally associate with religion, he was not religious. Atheism is not a religion.

In fact, the Court did define religion in its decision, and secular humanism ain't in it:

It is unnecessary to attempt a definition of religion; the content of the term is found in the history of the human race and is incapable [**11] of compression into a few words. Religious belief arises from a sense of the inadequacy of reason as a means of relating the individual to his fellow-men and to his universe - a sense common to men in the most primitive and in the most highly civilized societies. It accepts the aid of logic but refuses to be limited by it. It is a belief finding expression in a conscience which categorically requires the believer to disregard elementary self-interest and to accept martyrdom in preference to transgressing its tenets. A religious obligation forbade Socrates, even in order to escape condemnation, to entreat his judges to acquit him, because he believed that it was their sworn duty to decide questions without favor to anyone and only according to law. Such an obligation impelled Martin Luther to nail his theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg and, when he was summoned before Emperor Charles and the Diet at Worms, steadfastly to hold his ground and to utter the often quoted words: "I neither can nor will recant anything, since it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do other. God help me. Amen." Recognition of this obligation moved [**12] the Greek poet Menander to write almost twenty-four hundred years ago: "Conscience is a God to all mortals"; impelled Socrates to obey the voice of his "Daimon" and led Wordsworth to characterize "Duty" as the "Stern Daughter of the Voice of God."

Mr. Noebel, you are a liar.

END EDIT.

Mathias Kauten sought conscientious objector status to avoid the draft in 1940 not from religious belief, he admitted to being an atheist or agnostic, but because he distrusted the Roosevelt administration and disagreed with the war.

During and since World War II, political objectors have appealed to the courts for c.o. status, The most significant case has been that of Matthias Kauten, an artist of "atheist or at least ...agnostic" persuasion. In addition to challenging Congress' right to pass laws like the draft which infringe upon the "individual qualities of a person," he disliked the Roosevelt administration and viewed the draft as its answer to unemployment. Further, to quote a Department of Justice Report, "he has stated it is not right to act unfriendly to Japan and now to seek to protect ourselves from the consequences of our wrongdoing.... During his travels [he] has witnessed the animosity which exists among the different peoples of Europe and this has strengthened his opposition to war."

The Justice Department supported the local board's decision to deny Kauten c.o, status. "There is no doubt that the Registrant is sincerely opposed to war but this belief emanates from personal philosophical conceptions arising out of his nature and temperament, and which is to some extent political." An Appeals Court in turn supported the local board's decision, both because Kauten's opposition was to one war and not to all wars, and because "his objections ... were based on philosophical and political considerations ... rather than on 'religious training and belief.'" It observed in passing that "in the early days of the draft, many thousands of the American people distrusted our foreign policy. If men holding such views had been ipso facto classed as conscientious objectors, the military effort might have been seriously hampered."

The significance of the Kauten decision is not that the draftee was denied c.o. status, but rather that in doing so a court ruled that "a conscientious objection to participation in any war under any circumstances ... may be the basis of exemption under the [1940] Act." Kauten's humanitarian convictions might have qualified him for exemption because of a broad definition of "religious training and belief." The Kauten court viewed religion as "a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God that is at the present time the equivalent for many persons of what has been thought a religious impulse." Operating under this definition, that court later reached its verdicts about Phillips and Brandon where humanitarian convictions were also at issue, and the Supreme Court drew on the Kauten reasoning in its broadened definition of religion in the Seeger verdict. Kauten's convictions did not exempt him, however, because "Congress intended ... not to give exemption to the great number of persons who might object to a particular war on philosophical or political grounds." A c.o. may thus be one who opposes all wars on humanitarian grounds but not one who objects to a particular war on political grounds.

Here's what Noebel is hanging his hat on:

The Kauten court viewed religion as "a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God that is at the present time the equivalent for many persons of what has been thought a religious impulse."

So, basically the Court didn't know how to qualify an atheist/agnostic for the purposes of conscientious objector status, so they defined religion broadly enough to include conscience. Um, I kinda fail to see how that makes atheism (Kauten did not identify as a secular humanist, though Noebel does seem to use atheism and secular humanism interchangeably) a religion.

Let me put it another way. Current law regarding abortion puts the woman's right to choose above the rights of a fetus inside her body. Does Noebel believe that to be true? I'm going with no. He's cherry-picking what Court decisions mean to him. Roe v. Wade proves nothing, Mathias Kauten proves I am as religious as the Pope.

Sadly, no.

Now I see Noebel's obsession though, and it ain't Jesus, unless Jesus is spelled m-a-m-m-o-n:

Secular Humanism is among the worldviews taught at one of Summit’s Student Worldview Conferences, a two-week program that teaches young evangelical Christians how to defend their faith and Christian worldview against major competing worldviews.

He makes his money this way. Of course secular humanism must be a religion. Otherwise, he can't charge for a two week program on how to defend against it.

Noebel noted that while the worldviews associated with Christianity and Islam have the largest number of adherents, it is Secular Humanism that has caused more Christians to walk away from their faith.

He attributed the trend to the dominance of secular humanist ideas and teachings in public schools, saying secular humanists "run" the public school system from elementary school to graduate schools.

"Out of Secular Humanism, the one big appeal has always been Darwinism," he said. "More Christians have probably stumbled in their faith over Charles Darwin than just about anyone else, more than Karl Marx."

Oh, you mean science! Okay, then. Sure. As the slacktivist has pointed out, a religion based on the denial of basic science is a brittle faith indeed. You need only to learn the lie of one portion of it, i.e., creationism*, for the whole thing to fall apart. That's not Darwin's fault, asshat.

pic link

*Sadly, it's not just creationism. Watch in amazement as one person defends their faith by positing that our eyes create light, clap with delight as another claims the earth is flat and accelerating, or expanding at quite a fantastic rate.

That's Enough

euripides, atheism, humanism, bigotry,

I've really had quite enough of anti-atheist bigotry. Yes, yes, we don't call genocide a good thing, so we're not moral. We don't fall on our knees the instant you mention your imaginary friend, so we're evil. We shouldn't be trusted with political office, voting or children. We're bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

Oh, and if we dare use our First Amendment right to express our opinion, we should fail a community college history or political science class. A history/poli sci class in which they study the First Amendment. Honestly, it's like the Bill of Rights is partially written in some sort of special ink only the religious can see, so the First Amendment actually reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Unless said speech is not religious or said people are atheists.

I've been out of the loop for awhile flunking all of my students for not believing in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Seventeen of my students failed because they couldn't correctly identify the constitutional amendment that protects the free exercise of religion. In fact, they had no idea there was such a thing. Fourteen more failed for flatly denying the value of the individual's right to keep and bear arms, upheld just last year by the US Supreme Court. I failed seven students for being devout followers of the gospel of atheism and kept trying to preach their secular humanism in class.

Let's unpack all that, shall we? (Note: I think he's probably attempting a joke here, but it's not funny, and it displays a bigotry towards atheists that is also not funny.)

It's a disturbing form of irony for Professor Euripides to be so upset with his students for not understanding the First Amendment when he clearly doesn't either. His students have the right to have any opinion they want. The First Amendment protects atheist speech as much as it protects religious speech. In fact, perhaps he failed these students for having a better understanding of the First Amendment than he does.

Now, let's replace "atheist" with "Jewish" and see how funny the joke is. I failed seven students for being devout followers of the Jewis faith and kept trying to preach their tanakh in class.

Yeah, that was hilarious, wasn't it? I also think he has no problems with Mormons preaching their Mo in class. That's the lord's work!

Spleenweasel.

Chuck Norris Needs to Stick with Kickboxing

Or whatever it is he did before writing paranoid, bigoted rants for WND.

atheism, atheist, humanism, secularism, humanist, chuck norris, stupid, christian, christianity,
This past week an ABC News debate aired on "Nightline," which pitted popular theists against Internet atheists. the theists were popular, the atheists were internet. okay. While I'll have more to say about that battle of wits in my next article, it testifies to the growing number (30 million Americans) of those who profess there is no God. Add to that what I believe is possibly three times the number of functional atheists, you know what this reminds me of? apartheid in South Africa. they were obsessed with who was white and who was not. blue eyed blondes with pale skin were easy enough to quantify as white, but what about those with dark hair and dark eyes and darker skin? they had a test they would give to little children in which they would take a pencil and stick it in their hair. if the pencil fell right out of the hair, they were white. if the pencil stayed put, they were black. (by that test, i'm black.) the fundy obsession with atheists and "functional atheists" reminds me of that. those who believe in a God but practically don't show it, and America is facing a new religious horizon in which atheism is becoming a formidable foe. we're not a "rising movement" or an "important political force", but a "formidable foe". i love it.

Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians they "claim" to be, but we know better, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president. o_O Such a survey is a clear indication that the secularization of society is alive and well. i guess we are formidable, after all.

The opponents of God i don't oppose what doesn't exist.

Once upon a time, years ago, it seemed that the only major fire for atheism burned from the anti-Christian work of Madelyn Murray O'Hair and the American Atheist organization, whose claim to fame was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963. operative word being "public", asshat.

Today many more antagonist groups we're not atheists, we're antagonistic and individuals to theism abound, chuck, get a freakin' editor. you meant "today many more groups and individuals antagonistic to theism abound" and they are using every means possible for global proliferation you know what else "proliferates"? nuclear weapons.– from local government to the World Wide Web. the internet? Such secular progressives include the Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition of America, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Internet Infidels, the Atheist Alliance International, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, etc. Of course no list of atheistic advocates would be complete without mentioning the ACLU and Planned Parenthood no, uh, now you've made the list include nonatheist organizations, unless pap smears for poor women have become a new form of atheism., as well as the anti-God militancy of men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. they're eeeeeeevuuuuulllll!!11!!

Though the U.S. Constitution outlaws religious discrimination, these organizations and individuals would love nothing more than to help society look with distain upon Christianity and, ultimately, make its components illegal. no, that's not where we're going, Chuck. in fact, the ACLU would do whatever necessary to stop that. In fact, right now, they are coalescing oh, that's what that is. coalescing itches! and rallying at least 5 million of their troops how did the uniforms come out? did we go with the red, or did purple win out? to mount counter offensives to Christianity. like the Tet Offensive, only atheist.

For that reason I believe theistic patriots need to be wise to atheists' overt and covert schemes, exposing their agenda and fighting to lay waste to their plans. first of all, the militaristic language is freaking me out, secondly, we're not the NSA, chuck. we're atheists. we can't agree on a damn symbol. in fact, we can't agree if a symbol is a good idea or not. we're a long way from waging a war. the scary part is, the people who like Chuck, also have an unhealthy love of the Second Amendment. and he's riling them up against you and me.

Step 1: Initiate restrictions and legislation against theism and Christianity

In God we bust

For these liberal groups to win the war of ideological dominance okay, i would like to play that board game, they know they must minimize the effects of Christianity, which many are doing (unbeknownst to others) behind the scenes through lobbying and legislation. why do i never get invited to the secret offensives? In fact, two significant actions occurred on the National Day of Prayer let that one soak in just two weeks ago!

The London Telegraph noted that, while American Christians were praying across the land on the National Day of Prayer, atheists were petitioning the Texas Legislature against the civic display of the words, "In God We Trust."
Eroding and erasing theistic language in culture is a growing trend. yes, because if my tax dollars don't pay to put your religion on everything possible, christianity just can't survive. Earlier this year George Washington dollar coins were not only inscribed with the words "In God We Trust" on their edges, but many excluded them entirely! wait, were they inscribed with IGWT or not? Such minting modifications are a flagrant defiance against theism yes, because you can't have theism unless it's on your money. render unto god what is god and unto caeser what is . . . oh, fuck it. and a public reflection of the place God is now relegated – to the fringes of society.

Secularists of course have made repeated attempts to rid "under God" from "The Pledge of Allegiance." it was added during the cold war by the same people that brought you McCarthyism. Thank God the Legislature of Texas is moving along a bill to include the words in our state pledge: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible." i'm a little concerned that texas has its own pledge. texas is still a part of the US, right? I was also grateful to read in the Dallas Morning News May 1 that the House also embraced legislation "that seeks to clarify the rights of Texas public school students to offer public prayers at football games or graduation, hand out religious messages or hold religious meetings during the school day if they want." yes, atheist Texans should totally pay for that. though i don't care if individual students want to pray at games or graduation.

Another example of atheistic advocacy can be found in the 10,000-member Freedom from Religion Foundation initiation of a Supreme Court case, which asserts that President Bush's faith-based initiatives pose a violation of the wall of separation between church and state. duh.

Atheists also received a proverbial shot in the arm by locating a representative and advocate of sorts in Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who "is the first member of Congress – and the highest-ranking elected official in the country – to make known that he is a nontheist." anyone get the impression that Chuck thinks atheists shouldn't be allowed to hold elected positions?

His election stands in stark contrast to the wishes of our Founding Fathers, who encouraged American citizens to vote Christians into public office. As John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Treaty of Tripoli, bichez.

do you suppose chuck is capable of understanding the inherent hypocrisy here? it's okay to deny atheists the chance to hold elected office, but if we did that to christians, that would be the worstest thing ever? i bet he doesn't get that at all.

(the rest of this article is a screed against the hate crimes bill, because apparently, if you aren't committing hate crimes, you're not a christian. nice, Chuck.

A Call to Theocracy

theocracy, religion, jesus, gospel, christian, christianity, god, atheism, atheist, secular, humanism,
Right now, there are six theocracies or countries with theocratic aspects in the world*: Iran, Andorra, the Tibetan Government in Exile, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Vatican City. Given those examples, I can't quite figure out why the Disciple Nation's Alliance wants to change our fine representative democracy into a theocracy.





I suspect their reasoning goes something like this (you may remember this meeting from various tea parties): I was fine with big government and removal of civil liberties until a democrat/black guy/muslimTERRORIST!!!1!!one!! became president, and now I want to burn it all down.





As a result, I can't figure out if I'm more offended/disturbed by the following on the basis of patriotism, aversion to racism or atheism.

The Lordship of Christ Over All over everyone, including people who totally don't worship Jesus, aka Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, atheists, agnostics, and well, everyone who isn't christian. You know, about 1 out of every 4 USians. Yes, let's make them all subject to a Christian Theocracy. That totally makes sense.

The first of our DNA Core Beliefs i'm going to click on that after taking a valium. is the “Jesus is King.” good for you. it's not my core belief, and I'm every bit as USian as you. It is first, because it is the very foundation for everything we believe, write and teach. again, good for you. leave me out of it. As pastor Barry Seagren says in this powerful sermon, the Lordship of Christ is: for christians?

. . . one of those things that no [sincere Christian] can object to. not even an entire sentence and we've got a logical fallacy: No True Scotsman. No one believes in the Lordship of Christ over half of life. wtf? But it is not as straightforward as it may seem. i'll give you that, theocracy is a rather straightforward concept. Why not? Because in Western culture there is a dichotomy, a sharp division which has affected us deeply. separation of church and state.

The most common is the division between the sacred and the secular. believe what you want, leave it out of lawmaking. oh, no, that's not all that complicated. Religious or spiritual things are on one side of the line; normal, everyday matters are on the other. for a good reason. Another way to express the split is the private versus the public. Religion is fine, but it’s a private matter, and it must be kept private. To let it impinge on the public sphere is known as “shoving your religion down someone’s throat.” i liken religion to genitals: it's fine to be proud of them (mine are fabulous!), but you keep them hidden unless someone asks to see them. Christopher Reeve, the actor, made this comment about stem cell research: When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have a place at the table. In other words, you can have your religion, if you need that sort of thing, but keep it to yourself. seems obvious to me. Reeve’s statement is a big con, picking on the dead and disabled guy. classy. because what it actually means is that only one religion gets a place at the table, namely secular humanism. secular humanism is not a religion. not. a. religion. To give another example, perhaps someone has said to you, “Well, that may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” exactly.

This dichotomy is what keeps Christianity boxed up to a tiny religious area, i wish. totally private and completely innocuous and irrelevant. oh, yeah, you guys are so private, innocuous and irrelevant. in my dreams. This is what strips the Gospel of its power to permeate the whole of our lives, and strips it of its power to challenge and redeem the whole of our culture. because that's what the US has been missing: theocracy.

Well said. Read the rest of his sermon here. It is well worth your time!

-Scott D. Allen

what's really scary is these people vote. and they really want to vote to not be able to vote anymore.

*feel free to correct me, that's all I could find

Read My Lips

Well, you can't, but . . . THERE IS NO FREAKIN' WAR ON CHRISTMAS! See that above? Is that happening to Christmas? No! Get over it!

Ok, I've calmed down a little bit, so let me put it to you this way: I am an atheist. If anyone would want to have a war on Christmas, it would be an atheist. I celebrate Christmas! I put up lights and wreaths, I host a Christmas Eve and Christmas party (we're having prime rib this year), I send out Christmas cards, the whole nine yards. I love Christmas. (Except for the music, but that's another story.)

I, as an atheist, have no interest in ending Christmas. I work for a law firm. Three of the four partners are Jewish. We have a Christmas tree set up in the reception area, we send out Christmas cards and Christmas presents to clients.

There is no war on Christmas.

You are welcome to celebrate Christmas any way you want. You can only celebrate it as a religious holiday, you can celebrate the religious and secular aspects, or only the secular aspects, as I do. And that's the problem. The fundavelagists don't want everyone free to believe what they want. They want everyone to be forced to believe one thing. Freedom means something entirely different to a fundavelagist than was ever meant by the founding fathers.

Try telling that to the fundavelagists.

This is from the RaptureReady message boards, a post entitled Merry . . . Off Work Day.

The OP's tag, by the way? "Humbly proud"

I noticed the hours sign at Cabella's read "Closed Thurs Dec 25". How dare they tell you what day they are closed! The nerve! Uh, hello, not everyone in the US is a native born or a christian. All natives/christians would know what day Christmas is, but a recently immigrated Hindu, for example, might not know what day that is. I know this, because I worked customer service for Fleet Bank for a while, and a large number of callers on July 4 were very confused as to why the bank would be closed on that day. God forbid we give a clear definition of what day the store will be closed! I guess expunging Christmas is in full swing. Yeah, that's it. That's why they bothered to close that day.What a whimp out from a "man's" store. I dunno. Never heard of Cabella's before. Sounded like an Italian restuarant to me. Afraid to face the music eh? What music? Does this idiot imagine that atheists are confronting store owners for displaying the word Christmas? Christmas music no less.

The voice of reason says: Lots of places do that and have for years. It really isn't a big deal.

The voice of theocracy future replies: I know what you mean Wally. I am working seasonal retail at home taking sales calls for a clothing company and we are requested to use the term "December holidays" rather than "Christmas". In case you can't see why, the clothing company is trying not to offend anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas. I, personally, am not offended by the innocently offered "Merry Christmas", but I can see people of other faiths, or other atheists, getting seriously annoyed by it. Why not include everyone in your well wishing, as opposed to only one group? Although, I have to say, "December holidays" is a little wierd. What about "Happy Holidays"? While there has been a on-going trend of removing God from every aspect of our lives no, there isn't. No one is capable of removing god from your life, idiot. Even in countries where religion actually has been banned, China and Russia, god remained in the lives of the those who wanted him. What is happening is that I no longer have to suffer having your religion shoved down my throat at every turn. Boo fucking hoo., I would say we are seeing a dramatic increase in those who are becoming more forceful about removing Him from our daily living. These individuals and groups who are trying to iradicate God again, how does one eradicate an omnipotent being? are getting bolder as they receive more support from those in agreement with them and less opposition and increased tolerance from the "church".

Trust me, guys. You'll know exactly when the war on Christmas starts. Until someone whips out a Lancer, calm down.

For Whom Does the Bell Toll?

The problem with the evangelical movement has always been that it is a movement, not an organization. When the Pope speaks for Catholics, individual Catholics might not agree with him, but they, and the rest of the world, agrees that the Pope, and the Pope alone, has the right to speak for Catholics. The evangelical movement, however, suffers from the same problem that the Islamic religion as a whole has: there is no one leader that can speak for all. There are only individuals, offering individual opinions that other individual evangelicals may or may not agree with.

This issue is dealt with well by the slacktivist, on numerous occasions. This issue is dealt with poorly by Dave Welch in Who speaks for evangelicals? (Hopefully not this guy, or the world is in trouble.)

The recent Proposition 8 victory of bigotry in California seems to be tempered somewhat by a growing realization that on a national level there is confusion in the evangelical church regarding how we respond to the demand for legal recognition, moral legitimacy and even religious blessing of "sexual diversity." You know, I would take evangelicals, and all christians, a lot more seriously if they would stop obessessing over what consenting adults do with their time. Love is always morally legitimate. If god doesn't find love to be morally legitimate, then fine, I'll take my chances in hell. (According to Mr. Welch, all the gays will be there and none will be in heaven, so hell will be better decorated and the parties will be much more fun!)

As the online eHarmony.com "soul mate" matching service (founded by an evangelical Christian!) has now bowed before the alter of Baal admittedly, I am a sucker for phrases such as "bowing before the alter of Baal". Not sure what Mr. Welch is referring to? eHarmony was originally founded by James Dobson, yes, that James Dobson. He hasn't owned the thing in forever. Until very recently, the only possible pairings through eHarmony were female and male pairings. The excuse? That eHarmony creates matches using research into what creates lasting relationships and there was no research on what makes gay couples work. You know, because gays aren't like . . . humans! Anyway, there were lawsuits and now eHarmony is required to offer m/m pairings and f/f pairings. in caving in to the threats of the "trysexual" movement (they will try anything, as it is now far beyond "gay rights" i love how Mr. Welch equates gays looking for love with sheepfuckers. nice.) and as a leader of the formerly conservative National Association of Evangelicals has kissed the ring by expressing support for civil unions a civil union, by the way, means that no church would ever be involved in the marriage of a gay couple. a civil union is entirely secular. so this guy is supporting rights for gays that in no way conflict with rights for religion– does the NAE or some of these "influential pastors" featured in major evangelical publications speak for us? Apparently not for you, Mr. Welch. I'm not sure who "us" is.
When Dr. Richard Cizik, the person shaping the public policy positions for and representing the NAE to government admits to having voted in the Virginia primary for the most anti-life please, Mr. Welch, I will refer to you as prolife instead of pro forced pregnancy, because that's what you want. in exchange, you must refer to me as I wish, prochoice, anti-marriage show your work, Mr. Welch. Mr. Obama is himself married and there is no evidence of his being antimarriage, anti-free market candidate the difference between a tax rate of 36% and a tax rate of 39%? socialism. ever to run for president, the answer is unequivocally NO.

When he declares that in regards to recognizing same-sex civil unions, "I'm shifting, I'll admit. … I believe in civil unions," oh no, someone abandoned bigotry and baseless fear, it must be the work of Satan! the answer is absolutely NOT.
When global warming and humanistic environmentalism until you figure out how to breathe water or vacuum, buddy, I suggest doing something about global warming. oh, I forgot, the rapture will happen in a few years and we won't have to worry about that. Fine, then give me the contents of your retirement account. have usurped the sanctity of life, the definition and protection of traditional marriage gays didn't cause divorce among straights, asshat. That was a problem well before civil rights for gays came to the forefront. Unless you truly believe that the only thing holding together straight couples is their inability to marry members of their own gender. In which case, I suggest you find the door of the closet your hiding in, and open the damn thing! and family and the concept of limited, constitutionally-restrained government as the primary agenda items of the NAE, the answer is emphatically NO. How is limited, constitutionally-restrained government a religious issue?

and then we move on to true wierdness:

One of the premier organizations that has assessed the worldview of Christian youth for over 20 years is the Nehemiah Institute, founded by Dan Smithwick and based in Minneapolis.

This is the Nehemiah Institute's goal, from their website: The mission of the Nehemiah Institute is to unleash a massive spiritual awakening within the Christian community, by helping Christian organizations and the individuals and families they serve, establish quantifiable standards for worldview education indoctrination? and a personal plan for each individual to achieve and maintain a Christian worldview brainwashing?. You know, replace Christian with "communism" or "nazism" and you have the goal of Marx of Hitler, or Jim Jones for that matter.

The PEERS worldview test administered to Christian students in government, private and home schools to assess beliefs in politics, economics, education, religion and social issues has revealed a deeply disturbing trend that explains much of where we are. I wanted to take the test to see what the questions are, which is a very important part of any sort of test, but it's 11.95 to take it online, so . . . moving on.

With a top biblical worldview score possible of 100 points, wish I knew what this represented. Whose interpretation of the bible are we using? Which translation of the bible? How are the questions worded? How are the answers worded? I have no way of evaluating any of this. Mr. Smithwick reports the latest assessment of Christian youth reveals that, "Assuming the same rate of decline in test scores of the past seven years, students from 'traditional Christian schools' schools with nuns? probably not. would score on average at -9.9 in the year 2016. you can't score negative on a test. Think about it. If you give me a test consisting of 100 questions, and I get every answer wrong, my score would be 0. How could I manage to score less than zero? Bad attitude? A better way of saying this would be to tell me the yearly rate of decline and how this is measured. Youth from Christian homes and attending public schools would score -24.5 in the same year. see above. These results, remarkably close to the view seen in 2001, wait a minute, if scores have been steadily declining over the last 7 years, wouldn't the results be LESS than in 2001? do evangelicals not understand how math works? would mean that the students had intentionally rejected the basic tenets of Biblical Theism as opposed to what? biblical atheism? in favor of basic tenets of Humanism/Socialism." (emphasis added) By the way, take a few minutes, go to the NI website and take the PEERS test to see how you do! all the pseudoscience you can handle for the low, low price of $11.95!

Every assessment of the worldview of evangelicals under the age of 25 dang kids!paints a grim picture of how poorly most Christian parents, pastors and church leadership are doing at transferring the historic tenets of the faith to our children failures! you're all failures!. As a result, the emotionally compelling arguments promoting activist government involved with the smallest minutia of our lives the difference between 36% tax rate and 39% tax rate? Obama watches you floss. has captured many young men and women who profess Christianity while following the path of Dr. Cizik and voting for Barack Obama. We won! You lost!

We DO have responsibility to be good stewards of God's creation, didn't he just say that concern for global warming was causing divorce? we DO have a duty to wisely use the natural resources He put here, and we have a clear mandate to defend the defenseless unless they're muslim!, care for the widow and orphan unless they're muslim, in which case we make them widows and orphans! and feed the hungry (the church, not the government!) in Jesus' name come over here and beg for your soup, goddammnit!, not for the sake of good works and easing our conscience. National defense, the economy, business and commerce, education – they are all "fair game" for evangelicals and where God has given us stewardship duties. Pretty sure Jesus didn't say anything at all about national defense, economy, business (well, render unto caeser), commerce and education. wait a minute . . . rereads bible . . . nope. There is a catch, however. there's always a catch, isn't there?

When Jesus declared to his followers (John 8:31-32) that, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free," there was a clear "if" as there is in so much of Scripture attached to God's blessings and provision. yeah, it's right there at the beginning of the verse. and? Our applied principles and actions in addressing the above list of crucial issues must square with the truth of His word, or the consequences will be catastrophic. show me where, exactly where, you found all that crap about the economy, defense, etc. and I will bow down before you, Mr. Welch. it's not in the bible, jesus never said it, and you really need to stop putting words in his mouth.

It is time for a new, grass-roots voice what an odd image! rising up hey, i called dibs on the revolution! city by city from coast to coast, resonating from teams of biblically grounded pastors and church leaders who will transcend political parties and top-down organizations adrift on the sea of moral relativism to speak to every vital issue of the day in their proper order of priority – beginning with the sanctity of life, marriage and family. wow, i'm not sure that english there at the end. but, apparently, you can't talk about global warming without having first talked about abortion and gays. this makes for very long sermons, i'm sure.