Inhumane Humanism – Atheist Propaganda Thinly Disguised, part 2
We now conclude our consideration of arguments that have broken out about atheist attempts to proselytize children and otherwise express anti-Christian prejudice in the guise of humanism and concern and free thinking freedom of choice.
We have been considering the article written by “The [atheist] Chaplain” from An Apostate’s Chapel as we pick up where we left off in the previous segment.
As for religious wars; this is a ubiquitous atheist talking-point and one that is repeated without evidence as something that everyone known. The Encyclopedia of Wars was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.
Of course there is the simply indefensible such as the examples of the ordained predatory monsters and Islamic stoning. Yet, 1) The Chaplain does not consider two millennia of charitable work by Catholicism and one and a half by Muslims. Moreover, upon what atheistic premise does he condemn anything at all besides personal preferences which are based on personal preferences?
The Chaplain goes on to state, “The list goes on and on. One could argue more persuasively that religions have provided enduring moral teachings than that they have provided moral role models.” This is simply myopic as millions, upon millions, upon millions of “religious” people in the history of humanity have lived perfectly peaceful and moral lives and had nothing to do with any sort of persecution of anyone at all, ever.
The Chaplain notes “Of course, many non-religious philosophies have also provided enduring moral precepts, so the realm of morality is not, and never has been, exclusive to religions. On that point, Dennett and I agree”—example please. Well, for instance, we have non-religious moral philosophy/precepts that urge people to make their living expressing prejudice against “religious” people. But even granting this: if you can be good without God then, get around to it already as studied consistently show that atheist and agnostics are amongst the least charitable, least sociable and lest moral amongst us.
For example, they throw money away on attempting to be clever via ads while not helping people in real need during a time of recession. There most certainly are atheist charities such as certain aspects of the American Humanist Association, but the facts are the facts and it is not exactly atheists who have been known worldwide to be the ones who establish, run and support homeless shelters, hospitals, universities, soup kitchens, adoption agencies, disaster relief organizations, gang intervention units, drug and alcohol treatment center, etc., etc., etc.
The Chaplain also notes that,
“Susan K. Smith, a pastor in the United Church of Christ, had this to say:…I cannot for the life of me understand why humanists don’t just leave people who believe in God alone….Just like atheists don’t want God pushed down their throats, neither do those of us who believe in God want atheism pushed down ours. [second ellipses in original quote]”
The Chaplain commented on the statement thusly,
I cannot for the life of me understand how Smith got the idea that this ad is directed at her. I don’t see anything in it that urges her to give up her beliefs. Here’s a newsflash for Smith and other Christians of her ilk: it’s not all about you. Really. It’s not. This ad is not about belittling believers, it’s about encouraging nonbelievers.
AMEN TO THAT!!! “Nonbelievers,” aka believers in atheism and agnosticism, need encouraging as per the studies to which I referred above. Yet, let us not play games here; the various humanist associations who are wasting money on such ads make their living by expressing anti-“religion” prejudice. They did not produce ads reading, “Be good [period],” or “Attention non-believers; be good [period],” or “Peace on Earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages [period]” but they had to equate being good with besmirching theism by stating, “No God…” Even whilst attempting to encourage goodness they must define their position as anti-theistic: this is atheism as anti-theism. Moreover, there is an atheist commandment here, “Be good…” but ask why and you will be presented with an infinite regress of assertion as to why.
By the way; did anyone notice any ads like these??? The Chaplain is also in favor of keeping “religious” people locked away safely in their “homes and churches.” While demanding that they “keep your religion out of my community’s science curriculum (i.e., intelligent design/creationism)” as, apparently, science is to be a tool for converting children to atheism.
“And out of my country’s medical agenda (i.e., stem cell research)” consider that, for example, the Bush administration—you know, those fundie-evang-YECists-Bible-thumping-born-againers where the only administration to federally fund that research.
“And out of my country’s laws (i.e., abortion)” there you have it, The Chaplain “morality,” the being “good” for “goodness’” sake includes brutality murdering beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies. But fine, let us remove “religious” laws such as The Chaplain’s right to freedom of speech.
Consider just how far The Chaplain has gone in positively believing the materialist mythos, “That battle has already been fought and the religious have lost it – humanists, atheists, etc., will not respect beliefs that we deem to be either ridiculous, or, in more worrisome cases, dangerous.” Just how is a “battle” won via arguments from personal incredulity, by referencing that which he—with a mind safely locked away within a box of thought restricting, not following evidence where it leads, materialism—consider “ridiculous”? And “dangerous” indeed, and there is plenty of that to go around as you merely have to consider the history of the most secular and bloodiest century in human history.
The Chaplain then quotes President of Fuller Theological Seminary, Richard Mouw who wrote:
We evangelical types have paraded enough of our own in-your-face stuff in public places, so why should we complain when the unbelievers do the same? Nor should we get too worked up when those same folks insist that morality is possible without a belief in God. Actually, the Bible itself teaches that such is the case….
Ultimately, of course, the big question is what–or Whom–we are trusting in as we go about our efforts to “be good for goodness’ sake.” But, as for the Humanists wanting to run their anti-God ads: I say, “No problem”–at least in the short run. [ellipses in original quote]
I certainly agree with the first sentiment and have iterated it and reiterated it variously. Let them exercise their theistically inspired free speech as nothing discredits atheism more and faster than simply having atheist speak up as loudly and often as they please.
But what did The Chaplain get out of this, “Did you catch that? He ended with the trump card to trump all trump cards – the Threat of Hell! What a humble guy! His cup runneth over with Jesus’ love.” Certainly, hell should not be a threat but a loving warning.
The Chaplain also states,
“The person who most closely captures my attitude about the whole War on Christmas issue is Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, formerly of Chicago Theological Seminary and now a fellow at the Center for American Progress:
American public holidays are about consumption, not God. Even worse, the Christian faith has internalized this message of cultural Christmas. Christians themselves often forget what Christmas is really about. The humanists really can’t do any more harm to Christians about Christmas than we’ve already done to ourselves.
American holidays, particularly Christmas, are all about the economy. Economists track the health or weakness of the economy based on the purchasing habits of American consumers between now and Christmas….
We’ve set up our entire economy to depend on the sales generated by the hype of “holidays,” particularly Christmas. What could this possibly have to do with God?
I believe that this is rightly and simply categorized under, “Speak for yourself.” Certainly, the sentiment is true at large and in general but if your “holidays are about consumption, not God,” if they are not holy days then, repent. If you are a celebrator of “cultural Christmas” then, repent. If you have forgotten “what Christmas is really about” then, repent. If you neglect the Christ in Christmas then, repent. Repent and return to the joy of celebrating the birth of the Messiah Jesus.
The end of The Chaplain’s article is an appeal to personal, and conveniently self-serving, anecdotes. Yet, even here he misses the point. He is attempting to further prove that:
The secularization of Christmas has occurred…with the full cooperation of Christians. Here’s an example of how a Christian organization does its part to secularize Christmas: the American Family Association opposes the secularization of Christmas by rating “naughty” and “nice” retailers according to how vociferously their sales catalogs promote Christmas rather than a generic holiday season. Moreover, the association urges people to boycott the naughty merchants and do all of their Christmas shopping at the nice stores…i-r-o-n-y.
I am not certain that it is secularizing Christmas to encourage the solicitation of merchants who, more so than not, support Christmas.
The Chaplain leaves us with a generalized references to “I’ll leave it to others to fight faux religious wars, max out credit cards and do almost everything to excess…”
Harvard University's humanist chaplain endorsed the AHA campaign with the claim that "if Humanist organizations are celebrating the holidays more publicly these days, it is because the holidays are not about God."
Again, this is a personal decision and one that may be rectified by remembering the reason for the season: Jesus.
Oh, by the way if Christmas brings an infusion of much needed money into the economy in a time of recession I suppose that I will say—you are welcome.
It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any
print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as
long as the following conditions are met: