Why America Is in Jeopardy

pic_giant_121713_SM_No-Ones-Watching-Prison-Rape-in-AmericaOn page 563 of his latest biography, “John Quincy Adams: American Visionary,” author Fred Kaplan (biographer of Abraham Lincoln, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain and Gore Vidal among others) cites this insight of the sixth president:

“Christianity had, all in all, he believed, been a civilizing force, ‘checking and controlling the anti-social passions of man.’”

That insight is pretty much all an American needs to know in order to understand why the American Founders considered religion — specifically ethical monotheism rooted in the Hebrew Bible — indispensable to the American experiment, and why the America we have known since 1776 is in jeopardy.

It is easy to respect secular Americans who hold fast to the Constitution and to American values generally. And any one of us who believes in God can understand why some people, given all the unjust suffering in the world, just cannot believe that there is a Providential Being.

But one cannot respect the view that America can survive without the religious beliefs and values that shaped it. The argument that there are moral secularists and moral atheists is a non-sequitur. Of course there are moral Americans devoid of religion. So what? There were moral people who believed in Zeus. But an America governed by Roman religion would not be the America that has been the beacon of freedom and the greatest force for good in the world.

In order to understand why, one only need understand John Quincy Adams’s insight: How will we go about “checking and controlling the anti-social passions of man” without traditional American religious beliefs?

There are two possible responses:

One is that most Americans (or people generally, but we are talking about America here) do not have anti-social passions.

The other is that most Americans (again, like all other human beings) do have anti-social passions, but the vast majority of us can do a fine job checking and controlling them without religion as it has been practiced throughout American history.

These are the views with which virtually every American who attends secular high school or university is explicitly and implicitly indoctrinated.

Both are wrong. And not just wrong, but foolish — and lethal to the American experiment.

To deny that human beings are filled with anti-social passions betrays a denial of reality and a lack of self-awareness.

One has to be taught nonsense for a great many formative years to believe it.

If we weren’t born with anti-social passions — narcissism, envy, lust, meanness, greed, hunger for power, just to name the more obvious — why the need for so many laws, whether religious or secular, that govern behavior?

The second objection is that even if we do have anti-social passions, we don’t need a God or religion in order to control them. Only moral primitives, the argument goes, need either a judging God or a religious set of rules. The Enlightened can do fine without them and need only to consult their faculty of reason and conscience to know how to behave.

Our prisons are filled with people whose consciences are quite at peace with their criminal behavior. As for reason, they used it well — to figure out how to get away with everything from murder to white-collar crime.

But our prisons are not filled with religious Jewish and Christian murderers. On the contrary, if all Americans attended church weekly, we would need far fewer prisons, and the ones we needed would have very few murderers in them.

Meanwhile the record of the godless and Christianity-less crowd is awful. I am not simply referring to the godless and secular Communist regimes of the 20th century that committed virtually every genocide of that century. I am referring to those Americans (and Europeans) who use reason to argue, among other foolish things: that good and evil are subjective societal or individual opinions; that gender is purely a social construct and therefore the male and female distinction is of no importance; that marriage isn’t important — it is just a piece of paper and it was invented by the religious to keep women down; that a human fetus, even when it has a beating heart, a formed human body, and a conscious brain, has less right to life than a cat; and that men, let alone fathers, aren’t necessary (see, for example, The Atlantic Are Fathers Necessary? and the New York Times Men, Who Needs Them?). And that is a short list.

For proof of the moral and intellectual consequences of the secularization of America, look at what has happened to the least religious institution in America, the university.

Is that the future we want for the whole country?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Alleged Comment

    But of course!

    Why they cannot see that is beyond me. The evidence is so obvious. I guess they just don’t care and see the easy way out no matter the consequences, the Bible and God be damned! Slam the accelerator not the brakes!!!

  • hapixii

    The secularists who disdain Christian beliefs and the Judeo-Christian civilization do not look up to the American revolution, democracy, John Adams and other fathers of the American experience. They look up to the “philosophes” and the French revolution, which has led to dechristianization of France, as well as the reign of terror. France could not have descended in the reign of terror had the leaders of the revolution then believed in God, His laws, and moral codes imbedded in the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    • aliciakpowers

      my buddy’s sister makes $87 every hour on the internet
      . She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her payment was $19402
      just working on the internet for a few hours. go right here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

    • sofiarconlon

      Peyton . true that Jessica `s blurb is shocking, last
      monday I got a gorgeous Peugeot 205 GTi after having earned $6860 this past 4
      weeks an would you believe ten-k this past-month . with-out a doubt this is the
      easiest-job I’ve ever had . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much
      immediately started to bring in minimum $84… p/h . Read More Here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    We’ve been through this before with Prager. The founding fathers studied Jesus for salvation in the next life but studied Roman literature for this life. The colonial colleges had a classical liberal arts curriculum based on Latin texts and all the courses were taught in Latin. Indeed you had to be proficient in Latin to get into college. Cicero’s ethical treatise, Des Officiis (On Moral Duty), had been the most influential ethnical treatise since Plutarch made Cicero the foundation of the Humanism during the Renaissance.

    The lead founding fathers (and big-government John Quincy Adams wasn’t one of them) cited Cicero as a key influence. John Adams (yes, Prager, a real founding father!) put Cicero first of all authors and was shocked when John Quincy wasn’t getting enough Cicero in school while abroad in Europe.

    Cicero was a strong voice for virtue, a Roman word like virility that has the Latin root “vir” meaning man. Roman virtue meant manly virtues of courage, strength and the willingness to fight for what was right. Cicero deplored degeneracy and hedonism. He particularly condemned Epicureanism and their lack of civic duty and courage. No doubt had Christianity been around his response would have been typically Roman. Early Christians refuse to assume their civic duty and fight for their country.

    Today’s secularists that Prager talks about have become too Christian. They deplore war and oppose our military, which they see as barbaric, anti-social, and “so 19th century” to quote John Kerry. They prefer hedonism to civic duty. They believe in sharing to the point of socialism (can’t be anti-social can we?) They have secularized the wrong kind of Christianity. They have gone back to the Gospel (don’t rise up against Roman oppression) instead of Constantine (a virile Roman Christian). Prager gets it wrong again.

    • KhidonNOR

      Wrong. They did not derive their morality from Roman literature and rejected Judeo-Christian morality.

      Your comment is pure fantasy. I dare you to find one major moral area where that happened. Did they support Roman infanticide?

      Your Cicero versus Christianity is a false dichotomy fallacy. St. Ambrose in 390 declared it legitimate for the Church to use (along with everything else Cicero, and the equally popular Roman philosopher Seneca, had written). It became the moral authority during the Middle Ages. Of the Church Fathers, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and even more so St. Thomas Aquinas, are known to have been familiar with it.

      To blame Christianity for today’s atheists rampant hedonism and hatred for military is both deceitful and false.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        I said colonialists believed in salvation through Jesus. Their social and political philosophy were Roman in origin as you just proved by noting that Christains accepted Cicero’s teachings.

        I’ll take your dare. The founders rejected Romans xiiii, obey the monarch for God appointed him as the rightful secular leader. The founders rejected the Christain doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. They favored Cicero’s republicanism with its strong defense of property rights and balanced constitution.

        Rome sadly rejected Cicero’s prescription and choose to follow an emperor. Jesus and Paul just happen to be born during the imperium. They accepted the political status quo. It was the Humanist revival which brought back an interest in republican government and that included Christain forms of republicanism such as Milton and Cromwell.

        With Locke and the founders we find a more tolerant and secular political philosophy which no doubt they found to be in concord with there religious sentiments–just as the earlier Christans found much to appreciate in Greco-roman thought.

        • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

          Let me add that Western thought (both secular philosophy and Christian tradition) are split. In philosophy there is the paternalistic ( indeed totalitarian) model or Plato and there is the more liberal models of Aristotle and Cicero. In modern political philosophy I’d contrast the statist Marx with the liberal Locke.

          So to do you have more illiberal paternalistic thinkers like Augustine (following Plato) vs. thinkers like aquinas who champions Aristotle. Today you have right- leaning libertarian Christians and you have leftists. Look at many of today’s mainstream churches and seminaries. Look at the current Pope.

          The classical liberal tradition is rooted in the better thinkers among the Greco-Roman philosophers. Good Christians can and do incorporated this thought and we all should support our religious brothers in this struggle. But to omit our great classical heritage would undercut our effort.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I can’t seem to edit my typos on the ipad. “or Plato” should have been “of Plato.” There are a few others. Sorry.

          • KhidonNOR

            The population in Europe and America derived their moral universe and civilizational understanding from the Bible. That the rulers had to obey God’s laws as well. That God had given them individual rights that the ruler could not take from them, and so on.

            The common people in Europe, the farmers, the fishermen, did not read extensively various philosophers. To believe that philosophy, and not the Bible, shaped Europe, is a pure pseudo-academic fantasy.

        • KhidonNOR

          Your reasoning is not factual, but fantasy based. That the founding fathers studied Cicero, an author well accepted by Christians, does not in any way lead to your conclusion that they based their lives and morality on Roman literature and only looked at Christianity for salvation.

          Romans xiiii? You mean XIII, right? No, there is no Christian doctrine that Christians shall obey ungodly and evil Kings. On the contrary, just one example, in 1579 by Frenchman Philippe du Plessis Mornay. Written originally in Latin, it was titled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, but was later reprinted in English as “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants”. This treatise took the position that government being ordained of God was referring to the general institution of government rather than to each and every distinct government.

          The Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other Christian denominations during the American Revolution all believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy, but that this passage did not mean they had to submit to every civil law (note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the “Faith Hall of Fame” as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience—including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, Moses, etc.). Furthermore, the Apostles in Acts 4–5 also declared their willingness to be civilly disobedient—they would obey God rather than their civil authorities.

          I don’t know a single statement that documents your claim that the Founding Fathers adhered to you false understanding of Romans 13, but they just ignored it and followed some kind of Roman Empire version instead.

          What humanist revival are you talking about? Was it based on atheism?

          I see that the documents from your American Revolution is riddled with references to the Christian God and the Bible, I do not, however, see that they are referring extensively to various atheist philosophers and pagan Roman thinkers.

          Again, provide me just one example where they clearly stated that they rejected a Christian doctrine, that they themselves saw as the correct interpretation of the Bible, but they would rather follow ” Roman literature to live this life.” If you are unable to do so, then clearly your comment is a lie.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Romans 13 has a long history justifying monarchy. It was written when some of the worst emperors ruled Rome. It was understood as justifying obedience to authority. Locke wrote two treatises on politics. The first was to criticize the religious views that supported tyranny. The second was to justify natural rights. He and others laid the ground work for the founding fathers. Rev Jonathan Mayhew was still fighting the battle against Romans 13 in1752. His radical teachings prevailed by the time of our founding. Thus Romans 13 had a 1700 year tradition justifying oppression with a few rare exceptions. It took the enlightenment to break this tradition. You’d have us believe the recent revisionist doctrine are the real Christianity. These are the exceptions to the rule.

            This is the problem. Through out history Christianity was on the side of oppressive rulers. Today the vast majority of mainstream denominations defends state power over the individual with the Pope calling for redistribution of wealth. I support those Christians who interpret the Bible in a way to support liberty. But the bible lends itself to illiberal interpretations more times than not.

          • KhidonNOR

            Again you are lying through your teeth to further your dysfunctional and evil atheist utopia.

            You claim ” It was written when some of the worst emperors ruled Rome. It was understood as justifying obedience to authority.” The Roman emperors would not outlaw, persecute and slaughter as many Christians they could get, if your lie that these Christians understood it as total obedience to the emperor, were true.

            The best protector of human rights, individual rights and liberty, in Europe and arguably the world, has been the Bible. There is nothing close. That is why those in power would kill anyone that tried to translate the Bible into a language the common man could understand. To translate in itself was not a problem, as it already was translated into latin.

            Your presentation of Romans 13 is again based on lies and distortions.

            But of course you have to, as atheism, with its inherent retarded and evil moral relativism and subjective morality has never in the recorded history of mankind been able to produce a society, far less a civilization, and thus your atheist utopia can not be advanced by facts and logic, so lies and distortions of our Judeo-Christian heritage is what you must retort to.

            Sad and evil.

    • guest

      To you and the other commenters here who defend, even laud secularism, one question: can you name any country, even one, in the last say, 150 years that was founded and maintained on secularism that was and still is free, prosperous, and has limited government? I can’t think of any–please enlighten me.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Let’s go back 250 years … The USA. Read the Federalist Papers. You’ll find no religious arguments nor quotes from the Bible. Remember, secular does mean anti-religious. It just means “pertaining to this world.” The founders, like Aristotle and Locke, were empirical. Aristotle studied hundreds of constitutions for his political studies. Locke was the founder of British Empiricism. The founding fathers were also empirical.

        • guest

          None more recently then, than America? Since secularism seems so enlightening, I thought there would be many more other than America only. We all know, of course, about the several secular govts that arose in the 20th century that murdered MILLIONS of their own people. Odd.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Socialism became the fashion in the mid-19th century among both secular and religious. Most mainstream denominations and the Pope are hostile to capitalism.

            The great liberal tradition starting with Aristotle continuing with Cicero, Aquinas, Grotius, Locke, “Cato,” and culminating in the writings of Jefferson,Adams, and Madison was abandoned during the 19th century by both secular and religious.

          • guest

            Do you think that Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s, etc motivation was to be “fashionable” or was “evil” their true motivation? –And their real goal was to gain raw, total power and control over other human beings–which is what men (esp.) do when they reject the belief that they will one day be held accountable for their deeds by a higher power such as “our Creator.”

          • KhidonNOR

            Capitalism is founded on Christianity. Property rights are protected in the Bible. Tax is flat (tithing). Freedom to trade, rule their own lives etc are found in the Bible.

            Pope etc only objects to Darwinian capitalism (monopoly, oligopol, corruption, not caring for the poor etc.

            Most evangelic Christians are conservative. Most self-declared atheists (not agnostics) are hard-left progressives and multiculturalists.

            The atheist French revolution was a blood bath and a total destruction of civility and traditional morality. The genitals of a dead young French aristocrat was paraded through the streets of Paris on a spike. The atheist French revolution gave us the word terrorism. Nothing more. Compare that to the Christian based American revolution.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Capitalism was founded on the Bible? We have no further ground for a discussion.

          • KhidonNOR

            Show me where you historically found capitalism outside the Christian world.

            You are debating like a typical progressive. If I have an opinion that you don’t like, you will end the discussion as soon as possible. PC thought police. Reason is, you can’t use facts and logic, as you mainly use emotions, utopia and myths.

          • KhidonNOR

            Are you the one flagging my comments like crazy?

        • KhidonNOR

          Federalist Papers are written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.

          Alexander Hamilton: Hamilton further asserted the truth of Christianity; he proposed a Christian Constitutional Society in 1802, to take hold of “some strong feeling of the mind” to elect “fit men” to office, and he wrote of “Christian welfare societies” for the poor

          James Madison desired that all public officials would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony: I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. (Letter of Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773), in 1James Madison, The Papers of James Madison 66 (William T. Hutchinson ed., Illinois: University of Chicago Press 1962)).

          John Jay: Served as vice-president (1816–21) and president (1821–27) of the American Bible Society,believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel.Jay, who served as vice-president (1816–21) and president (1821–27) of the American Bible Society, believed that the most effective way of ensuring world peace was through propagation of the Christian gospel.(Loconte, Joseph (September 26, 2005). “Why Religious Values Support American Values”.The Heritage Foundation).

          Locke wrote:
          (1695) The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures
          (1695) A Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity

          To use Locke as some kind of atheist “evidence” for atheist influence of the foundation of America is ridiculous.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I repeatedly said secular, not atheism. I haven’t denied anyone’s being a Christian (everyone was a Christian pre-1789 with few exceptions.) I pointed out again and again that their arguments were secular in nature. You want to rant and cherry pick, go ahead. You’re not interested in a discussion.

          • KhidonNOR

            As long as you contrast Christianity to secularism, you clearly mean atheism.

  • Joe The Gentile

    On the merits of Prager’s claims in the article, Jason P has answered Prager here decisively and excellently, so I don’t need to add much on the merits.

    Conservatives don’t have to agree on everything. But we need to be a cohesive force in the face of Leftism, and here Prager does not serve the good fight in this biased takedown of secularism (and elevation of Christianity). I am a secular, not a religious conservative, and there are many more like me here. I am pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-West, pro-Democracy, pro-Market, anti-Leftist, anti-communist, anti-big-government, and anti-Jihad. This means I share A LOT with Christian Conservatives and I can appreciate our shared values.

    It will be difficult to forge allegiances with either side picking fights out of misconceptions and biases against the other one. Prager’s takedown of secularism is unhelpful. There is plenty of unhelpfulness on the secular side too, with it’s common and equally-wrong blaming of religion for everything.

    Destructive in-fighting in the conservative camp is not going to help us. Secular Conservatives, Christian Conservatives, and Jewish Conservatives are better forging allegiances with each other against our common enemies rather than fighting among ourselves.

    • Judahlevi

      No, Prager is right in his own way. You are misinterpreting his comments if you believe that his article is a “biased takedown of secularism” and “elevation of Christianity.” I sense a knee-jerk reaction to religion here.

      Religion is just another worldview as is secularism. Religion will want some of the values inherent with it in the public square. Secularism will not want any influence by religion in the public square. The problem is, that there is quite a lot of crossover between the values.

      What Prager is saying is that some of those religious values, which many secularists agree with, are good for society. It doesn’t matter where they came from, they are good values for a moral society. Prager is Jewish, so he is not “elevating” Christianity, but using the crossover point of where Jewish and Christian values come together. These same values may also be based on reason, not just religion, and shared by secularists.

      History has shown, however, that purely secular states with no influence by religion (man’s standards only) tend to be very flawed. If secularism completely removes religion from the public square, the results have not been good.

      Prager is saying that the public square benefits from having both secular world views and religious world views for the optimal society. I agree with him – it doesn’t have to be one or the other. A combination of shared values may create the best society. Most religious conservatives would agree, and I would hope, most secular conservatives as well.

      • Joe The Gentile

        >> I sense a knee-jerk reaction to religion here.

        You don’t. I actually appreciate Judaism and Christianity. Especially the way religious people of either faith seem to be considerably less inclined to Leftist thinking. And I don’t go around blaming religion for the evils of the world. And I appreciate many of Prager’s views.

        But you’re giving Prager’s actual article too much credit.

        >> What Prager is saying is that some of those religious values, which many secularists agree with, are good for society.

        If this were all he was saying, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Prager’s article contains a big flawed argument against secularism, a combined Straw Man, and a guilt-by-association attack on it.

        I already know that Prager is Jewish. Why do you think it follows that he is not elevating Christianity? I’m talking about his article, not his personal upbringing.

        >> Prager is saying that the public square benefits from having both secular world views and religious world views for the optimal society.

        No he isn’t. This is what you’re saying. :)

    • Rebecca

      But, are you saying you are for homosexual marriage and you are pro abortion, and the general breakdown of social norms, like the Left, and you think that is a conservative stance?

  • Charles Martel

    Christianity will not save American. It is too far gone, and Christianity welcomes the strange who comes to destroy. Christianity also supports the belief in total equality which further opens society to disasterous deterioration. Also, some of the most religous people in the world are African Americans, yet their cities are deplorable examples of the third world living among American society. Just look at the happenings in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend.

    I am very pessimistic. the America which I grew up in early on is long gone, and most people seem to welcome this. We are in a fast downward spiral. Look to Detriot and Birmingham To get a good glimpse of the future America.

  • Barbarossa Rotbart

    Thank you for that seminal article. May you read the gospel of Jesus and embrace him as the Jewish Messiah, foretold repeatedly in the prophecies of the Tanakh ..

  • Sharon Moe

    The perceived loss and longings of American Christianity of Prager’s understanding is not the essence or application of biblical teaching. But don’t worry about us ever becoming too Christian; parents gave up their duty to teach the faith to their children when the church created its myriad drop-off recreational programs in an effort to create the appearance of being socially relevant. Claiming proof of an increased moral and intellectual capacity of a church’s users creates a caste system. Disclaimer: I am a retired church staff member.

  • Consider

    Today, one can watch stories about animals on many TV channels.
    We see herds of gnus, buffaloes, packs of lions, herds of giraffes, elephants, famillies of gorillas etc…
    They all behave in some way that is advantageous to their community. They don’ t jump on each other’s troaths. There might be some, hm, say, rituals to establish primacy that may be violent and repulsive, but generally (within their own species) they behave in a way that serves the advancement of that particular species. It may be usefull to remind how conflicts of this kind where resolved in most pious and most observant religious communities among humans. (like the Borgias for example).
    All this (I am talking of animals) without religion and without Christiantity.

    • The AntiAllah

      Yes to both “Consider” and “Liz.” I was going to reply to Liz along the lines of Consider, but Consider got in first. I would just add here that belief in the unbelievable, religious faith, has not worked, cannot work, because it is so completely out of touch with what we know about human and natural reality. The behaviour of young children themselves should gives us all, all the faith we need in the human race. But we need to keep in mind that psychopaths and lesser degrees of threats to social cohesion have a strong genetic and social determination and ways will eventually have to be found to deal with all of those aberrations. We need to learn to deal with aberrations such as Hussein Obama, for instance, get them out of the way before they do irreparable damage to the well-being of us all. And just another instance, Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammad: Profit for Our Times” I believe the title is. Really!! THAT is an aberration — religious faith gone “psychopathic.”

      • The AntiAllah

        For “Profit” read “Prophet”. I will get the proofreading habit yet. Just one more thing, to paraphrase HO — The future will belong to those who slander Islam’s Mr. Perfect!!

  • liz

    The moral values upheld by Christianity were not invented by Christians. They built them on the earlier values and laws developed by the Romans and Hebrews, who got them from the Egyptians and Persians.
    Since the morals developed in civilized societies preceded Christianity, they will therefore continue on after it. Christians should not regard secularism as the enemy.
    It is not secularism itself, but the Leftists manipulating it, who erode morality deliberately to cause the breakdown of capitalist society.
    The author of this article makes the usual mistake of conflating secularism or atheism with Leftism. These are not the same thing and should not be confused.
    A secular society is not automatically an immoral society.
    A Leftist one, however, is.

    • KhidonNOR

      Absolutely rubbish. Take just one example, freedom of speech.

      Jesus Christ never infringed on the freedom of speech of anyone. No matter how false, evil and offensive the speech. No matter who said it. Likewise, even King David was rebuked, and he acknowledged the criticism and repented. Without killing or harming the messenger. This was the basis for freedom of speech as we had it in Christendom for centuries. It was looked upon as a basic human right given to us by God, expressed in the Bible. Compare that to Europe today, where judges openly states that even truth is not protected, if the statement is “offensive” to a protected group. Geert Wilders could not defend himself in court, by appealing to the truthfulness of his statement. Truth is no longer protected speech in Europe. Thanks a lot atheists. Same with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria. The judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a pedophile (Sabaditsch-Wolff’s actual words were “Mohammed had a thing for little girls.”).This is how it is in a society based on the moral relativism logically inherent within atheism.

      I challenge you to find freedom of speech, granted to everyone, in the Egyptian and Persian culture. Please provide academic documentation. If you can’t find it, your claim is obvious false.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Jesus was never in power so his supporting or infringing the rights of freedom of speech was never an issue. You might remember his statements “my kingdom is not of this earth.”

        As for freedom of religion, it existed under Roman rule for all religions that showed mutual respect. When Christians came to power they banned all pagan religions. Freedom of religion would not return until the Enlightenment.

        • KhidonNOR

          Jesus never claimed that some speech should be forbidden. That he never infringed on freedom of speech is totally independent of being in power or not.

          So why were Christians thrown to the lions then, if it were, as you claim, freedom of religion in Rome? Or what does this mutual respect and social cohesion claim really mean.

          It was not the persecuted Christians that later came to power in Rome. It was part of the ruling class that adopted parts of Christianity. To make a general statements about “Christians” you must give me the teaching of Jesus Christ that commands us to ban pagan religions.

          The Enlightenment consisted of predominantly Christians.

          Atheist regimes have always showed no tolerance for religion whatsoever. There is nothing within atheism that protects any kind of human right. As you have proved so well, so many times.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            The Romans tolerated Persian, Egyptian, Greek, and many more religions. They just didn’t tolerant intolerant religions. Christianity was such a religion and it banned all those religions when it came to power. Sir Thomas Moore and John Calvin were still burning heretics in the 1500s.

          • KhidonNOR

            Absolutely rubbish.Your hatred for Christianity has totally blinded you, and you present wild distortions as fact. This is the modus operandi for you atheist Utopians.

            This is what you call “freedom of religion” in Rome. Every year, every person had to burn a stick to the Roman gods and the emperor, as to worship them. Pagans had no problem with this, only Christians. Any Christian who did not do it would be thrown to the lions, or other wild animals, with his family, including children. When Romans saw that the Christians were not afraid, they started to cloth them in animal fur, as to not see their faces. According to Roman law, one were allowed to defend oneself in the matter of death penalty. Christians, however, got their tongues cut out, before the trial. So they could not mention Jesus Christ in the trial. Nero had them nailed to crosses, oiled, and put on fire to light up his garden for his guests. This is what you lying utopian atheist call “freedom of religion”.

            I have already dealt with your false claim that Christians were intolerant and that was the cause for the persecution. You of course couldn’t care less, but just continue to drone on with your fanatic atheism. Sad.

          • Ken Abbott

            Calvin burned no one, sir. He didn’t have the authority in Geneva to do so, never having held civil power there. The Genevan Small Council and the ruling syndics convicted Servetus and sentenced him to burn at the stake. Calvin attempted (unsuccessfully) to have the method of execution changed to beheading, which would have been more merciful. Calvin cannot be exonerated in the matter of Servetus’s end but he was not responsible for burning him.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            OK, change my statement to “Sir Thomas Moore and John Calvin were still sanctioning the killing of heretics in the 1500s.” Moore was chancellor during the executions and de la Fontaine had been in service to Calvin. Both Moore and Calvin approved of surprising religious decent by execution.

          • Ken Abbott

            Yes, well, “sanctioning the killing of heretics in the 1500s” was pretty much the tenor of the day. Folks in the 16th century had decidedly different opinions on the matter than do persons in the 21st century (at least, in most parts of the world–talk to the remaining Christians in Syria and Iraq and Nigeria). Just out of curiosity, have you an idea why men like More and Calvin thought it was appropriate in some instances to punish heresy and blasphemy with death?

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I don’t remember off hand. Remind me.

            By the way, beheading, despite it seeming barbaric to us today, was seen as the most humane form of capital punishment if done correctly. I vaguely remember that France continued to prefer beheading up until the last instance of capital punishment in the 1970s.

            PS, I’ll have to look up the pagan reference when I return home and have access to my library. Sorry I don’t know it off hand.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I can read your comment below “awaiting moderation” and appreciate the insight. One never knows what triggers the auto-moderating function.

          • Ken Abbott

            Probably my colorful characterization of serious heresy. The phrase is accurate and of old lineage, but I can see how a computer wouldn’t be able to distinguish between it and a (mild by contemporary standards) profanity.

          • KhidonNOR

            So where is your pagan reference? It is absolutely unbelievable to what great lengths you fanatic atheists go in order to lie and smear Christianity. In my experience, you are even more dishonest and filthy than even the Muslims. Shame on you.

          • KhidonNOR

            And of course you got the typical ” when I return home and have access to my library” excuse, and then heard nothing.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I won’t be home until the weekend.

          • KhidonNOR

            Sure, and to make a fast google search related to what you claim are known facts, is impossible. Right?

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            First of all we are not disputing the core facts: (1) Romans exhibited a level of tolerance not seen again until the 17th century. They tolerated Egyptian, Greek, Persian, and other religions with the exception of the Judeo-Christian tradition. (2) When Christians came to power they suppressed all those religions and persecuted pagans. (3) This lasted into the 16th century when both Catholics and Protestants had heretics killed.

            What we are disputing are the details. Calvin objected to some manners of killing heretics. I was incorrect on details of his support and I’m glad that this was pointed out by someone who had the honesty to acknowledge Calvin’s sanctioning of the killing of heretics. When the Christians came to power in Rome they persecuted pagans. Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I in particular persecuted pagans. Whether this included killing pagans via throwing them to the lions is just a detail. The outlawing of pagan religions, closing of pagan institutions, and in many cases violence against pagans is not in dispute.

            Now I’ll recheck my library when I’m home this weekend. I have historic books not online.

          • KhidonNOR

            Repeating your lies will not help you. Are you seriously telling me that known historic facts are not found online, but only in your history books in your library? So instead of giving the documentation asked for, you choose to drone on your lies and deceitful bashing of Christianity. Absolutely disgusting and utterly dishonest. The atheist way.

          • KhidonNOR

            So, where is your documentation then? Atheist liar.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            See the comment I just posted in reply to Ken.

          • KhidonNOR

            I most certainly do not. Again you use pseudo-academic methodology to support your biased anti-Christian view.

            1. You use a single-source documentation.

            2. This source is the author of “The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason” and is clearly biased and borderline fanatic.

            3. You made a general statement about Christians and could only document a single man.

            4. As long as you can not provide any theological foundation, based on the Words of Jesus Christ, that burning of pagans was a Christian act, then your statement is just as false as me claiming that atheists had human sacrifices to honor a certain god, based on one person claiming he was an atheist, despite the contradiction in terms.

            5. So who stopped this practice, if it ever existed? The Christians? If so, your statement is utterly absurd and contradictory.

            6. Since you used a general statement, can you provide evidence that this practice was supported by the majority of Christians? Or at least a significant minority?

            7. Are you the one flagging my comments like crazy?

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            You called me a lair. You didn’t say I was inaccurate but you claimed I deliberately fabricated an untruth. You owe me an apology. PS I don’t flag people I’m refuting.

          • KhidonNOR

            Sorry, I am totally convinced that you are firm within the lying-through-your-teeth territory, and not just some minor inaccuracies. Get a dictionary regarding refuting.

            However, I DO appreciate that you took the time to find the source and quote.

          • KhidonNOR

            of course you, and only you, are doing the flagging here. Who else is reading a month old thread? Who else knew that I posted a comment just days ago.

            What I don’t understand is what’s wrong with the moderator here, if not you are the one doing the moderating. Anyway. I will never come back and comment here again. As long as logically sound and true arguments, without any swearing etc, are deleted. There is no true and open debate here. Thanks to flaggers like you.

      • liz

        You missed my point. I said laws and morals were DEVELOPED, meaning over the centuries, by mankind.
        They didn’t originate with Christianity or even with the Egyptians or Persians. They developed as part of the process of human evolution and the development of civilization.
        Of course you aren’t going to find the freedoms we have now, under our constitution, exactly replicated in ancient civilizations – they hadn’t DEVELOPED to this level yet. They hadn’t DEVELOPED to this level at the time of Christianity’s beginnings, either. Or at the time of the Magna Carta, or whatever.
        You’re the one spouting absolute rubbish by insisting that Christianity invented morality just because you can’t find Jesus prohibiting “free speech” in the Bible.

        • KhidonNOR

          I believe in moral absolutes. I never claimed morality was “invented”, nor did I claim “just because”, I said “one example”. Atheist liar.

          So you just “know” that morality develops? Then surely the gassing of naked mothers with a baby on her arm, just because they were Jews, must be the height of moral development. No nation was more developed than Germany in philosophy and science. And in addition, much less of the Christian “oppression” found in America.

          Surely atheist reign of terror in France, atheist killing fields in Cambodia, atheist Gulags in USSR and atheistic death camps in China were fare more superior and developed than the 2 000 year old teaching of Jesus Christ.

          Surely the 20th century, with far less Christian “oppression” of atheists and moral “development” was the most peaceful century the world has ever seen. Right? Just like atheists are the most peaceful, moral and kind group on the internet, right?

          • liz

            You are obviously an absolutist, but I won’t stoop to your level and call you a liar.
            In your rush to condemn atheists, you seem to have missed the fact that all those “atheistic” reigns of terror were committed by Nazis, Socialists and Communists.
            Being atheists (or Christian, in the case of many Nazis) didn’t make them killers; being Nazis, Socialists and Communists did.
            Religion did lead to a lot of killing (as in the Inquisition) in the Middle ages, and it leads to a lot of killing now (by Muslims), but being an atheist does not lead to killing.

          • KhidonNOR

            I demonstrated that you are a liar. But in your world of atheistic moral relativism, to call a known liar for a liar is something to condemn. Very judgmental. Lying, however, is perfectly alright. This is what you get when you adhere to sick and evil atheist morality.

            2 250 were executed during the Spanish inquisition (Prof. Agostino Borromeo). That is far less than Atheist Mao killed during one hour. More than 100 million innocent people were killed, raped and tortured by atheists within less than 100 years. More than anyone else in the recorded history of mankind. Show me one murder, rape and torture justified by the teaching of Jesus Christ. Show me one evil act that is forbidden, or even labeled evil, within atheism.

            No the communist regimes based on atheism did not kill due to communism. If they were communists and based their morality on Christian teaching, no one would be killed. Nothing within atheism says it is wrong to slaughter all the people you want. To claim otherwise is a lie. Just as illogical and ignorant as to claim that there would be no causality between removing breaks in cars and an unprecedented increase in the level of car accidents.

            Show me one murder, torture or rape that was justified by the teaching of Jesus Christ.

          • liz

            You have not demonstrated that I am a liar, but you have demonstrated that you are clueless.
            To say that “nothing within atheism says it is wrong to kill.. And to claim otherwise is a lie” is just nonsensical. Atheism is not a religion or ideology, and cannot be equated with one. No one has ever killed or done anything else “in the name of atheism”.
            Atheism is simply non belief in the supernatural.
            However, the killings committed by Christians, not only during the Inquisition, but countless other instances of the murdering of heretics and “witches”, were all done by their perpetrators in the name of Christ, and they used the Bible to justify it. (Deuteronomy commands the killing of heretics and witches.)
            It was not because of the Bible and religion that civilization advanced beyond that level, but in spite of it.

          • KhidonNOR

            Pathetic. I said “one example” and you lied and said that I stated “just because”. You lied and claimed that I believed morality was “invented”. I never said anything of that sort.

            Moral relativism and subjective morality are LOGICALLY inherent within atheism, thus atheism is a belief system and not just absence of something.

            Your typical atheist argument, “in the name of”, is illogical and delusional. I can kill in your name against your will. What does that say about you? Nothing.

            Christendom was the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. Europe is now imploding, mostly due to morally, spiritually and logically decay due to rampant atheism. Care to explain why you atheists never ever in the history of mankind managed to create a society, and far less a civilization, based on your illogical and utterly evil/dysfunctional my-truth and your-truth mental garbage? That is the basis for our multiculturalism in Europe. Thanks a lot progressive atheists. You smashed the greatest civilization the world has even seen within a few decades.

            Deuteronomy is from the Old Covenant. Christians follow the New Covenant. There is no theological support for killing of witches within Christianity. In Cambodia it was enough to be able to speak French, to receive a death penalty. Nothing within atheism says that is wrong. Nothing within atheism will prevent you atheists to do that again.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            You are ranting and insulting. Normally I’d continue to let others see how you make a fool of yourself but I have many Christian friends here and I don’t want to insult them by making it appear that you represent the sane Christian view and manner. Besides, I’m not home at my computer. Proceed if you wish, you are not furthering a civil discussion.

          • KhidonNOR

            You are lying through your teeth and can not answer my questions. I live in Europe and know what atheism does to nations. You are a true fanatic and present your atheist utopia as some kind of fact, as you rewrite history to bash our Judeo-Christian heritage.

            You should be the last to talk about a civil discussion. Your lies and distortions have only exposed you as the pseudo-academic charlatan you are. No wonder you are an atheist.

          • Consider

            I also live in Europe and would like to know what is atheism doing to nations.
            So far (from the time I become consious of the world that surrounds me) in Europe I have seen only the tragedy in the Balkans for which one of the main culprits is religion The other is nationalism and they are not mutually exclusive.

          • KhidonNOR

            Atheists like to claim that Christianity is a destructive force in society and they fallaciously refer to Scandinavia, as some kind of crazy “evidence” for that.

            With more atheism in Europe, do we have more or less; murder, rape, divorce, suicide, drug abuse, psychiatric cases, children per family and crime?

            Christianity has moral absolutes. Atheism has subjective morality and moral relativism. That means that the utterly dysfunctional and utopian multiculturalism, that is destroying Europe now, is based on Atheistic world-view. We have atheistic gibberish my-truth and your-truth propagandized to our children in schools.

            Our history textbooks functions now as tools to bash our Judeo-Christian heritage and history, and indoctrinate atheism. That is why chapter after chapter is written about the Spanish Inquisition with 2 250 executed, but nowhere in our children’s textbooks are the 20 million Christians executed by atheists in USSR (over 20 million were martyred in Soviet prison camps”, Todd M. Johnson), solely due to their Christianity, mentioned.

            We have had protected freedom of speech for centuries in Europe. Nothing within atheism protects freedom of Speech.

            Jesus Christ never infringed on the freedom of speech of anyone, no matter how evil and false the speech. So this is a right given to man by God.

            Now, after atheists took over Europe. Even documented truth is not protected. As clearly stated in the court documents of the trials of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria.

            The idea that all religions are equal, so it is the same if Europe has 50 million devout Christians or 50 million devout Muslims, is an atheistic idea and rejected by a Christian understanding.

            Can you name one unquestionable good thing that atheism has ever given Europe?

          • Consider

            To much nonsense to answer point by point. I must watch the final match of the world soccer ( or more exactly football) championshhip.
            More rape and divorce (what’s wrong with divorce if the marriage doesn’t work), children per family (?) etc.
            All this the consequence of atheism?
            BTW what’s wrong with the idea that all religions are equal.
            Equal bullshit, I mean.

          • KhidonNOR

            Unless you are able to make a coherent comment and valid arguments, why bother to comment at all? Europe is imploding, thanks to atheist idiots like you.

          • Consider

            The problems in Scandinavia are the result of increased immigration of mostly (one could say almost, exclusively) religious people.
            Still what’s the problem with divorce?
            The only reason that Christianity looks somewhat better than, say, Islam is that the power of the Church has been curbed some 200 years ago.
            I get tired of quoting Christian ‘moral absolutes’ but here is one just for you:

            Deut 25:11
            If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, 12 you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.
            Blessed be those following such ‘moral absolutes’.

          • KhidonNOR

            The rises of atheism and destruction of traditional values and morality, with all its ugly and dysfunctional consequences happened before massive immigration of Muslims. The whole idea of the illogical and false multiculturalism is based on moral relativism, not found in Christianity, and would not have happened without rampant atheism.

            You believe the implosion of the nuclear family structure is a good thing?

            Science was financed by the church. For centuries and long before one could derive economical value from it. But the Bible said that one could learn about God in nature. And with a law giver in nature, we had cosmos, instead of chaos. Without Christianity, no science. Your claim about curbing the church is a Marxist myth.

            No idea why you quote Deut. You clearly don’t understand that Christians follow the New Covenant and not the Old. That is basic knowledge and strange that you are willing to comment on Christianity with certainty, without even rudimentary knowledge and understanding.

          • Consider

            Moral relativism is inherent to the theory of ‘religion as the basis of morality’ for obvious reasons which I see no need to elaborate here.
            The Ten Commandments are compiled from the OT, as far as I know and you should know better than I do, being such a devout Christian.
            I am sick of instructing Christians who do not even care to consult their basic documents:

            Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
            So jumping from the OT to the NT and back as you think it suits your purposes shall not do.
            Divorce is better than forcibly maintaining a union that does not work anymore.
            If there were no church, by some estimates, we would have had Internet in the 16 th century.

          • KhidonNOR

            Explain logically why Christians don’t view the Moral laws given by God through the Bible as objective morality, but just something subjective, that this is merely God’s opinion and not command.

            The ten commandments are part of the New Covenant as well, despite being in the Old Testament. Educate yourself.

            For you to claim that you have to “instruct” Christians that don’t “even care to consult their basic documents” is highly delusional and laughable at best.

            When I see your reference to Matt 5:17, I know you have not read a single page within systematic theology. Not a singe page in church history. You are an atheist hobby-theologian who has not read a single academic book within Christianity. To fulfill rules out to continue to follow. Jesus stated many places that He would give a New Covenant. One example:

            Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

            Again, is higher divorce rates a good thing for you atheists? Something we should applaud and cherish?

            “If there were no church, by some estimates, we would have had Internet in the 16 th century.” – This is pure fantasy from atheist la la land.

            Fact is that you atheists have never in the recorded history of mankind been able to produce a society based on atheism, far less a civilization. When one see how atheists operate on the internet and in puclic, it is easy to understand why. Compare that to Christendom, the greatest civilization the wold has ever seen.

          • Consier

            Since you are free to chose any religion that you want (or perhaps Christianty is mandatory?) you adopt a moral code that goes with it.
            If you chose to be an Aztec, human sacrifice shall be good for you. If you chose to be a Moslem , Jihad shall be good and even possibly obligatory (according to various interpretations).
            Theology is a discipline so futile that could be eliminated without a slightest loss to humanity.
            Citing Matt. 5.17 is more like drawing attention to rules from a gentelman’s club than engaging in ‘systematic theology’.
            The greatest civilization that the world has ever seen, raised despite Christendom, not because of it.

          • KhidonNOR

            I see Satan’s fingerprints in any other religion, so I would not adhere to the morality of that “god”.

            “Theology is a discipline so futile that could be eliminated without a slightest loss to humanity.” You tried that in Soviet Union. Remember? Now they are going back to their religious roots. Both the state and the population. Reality proves your ignorant comment wrong.

            Your comment regarding Matt 5:17 makes no logical sense. Elaborate.

            Sure. Everytime you fanatic atheists have had full control over a nation, you turned it into an atheist hell-hole. No exception. From the reign of terror in France to the killing fields in Cambodia. You have never been able to build a civilization on evil, illogical and dysfunctional atheism. Please explain why. And please explain how you reached your “conclusion” that Christendom was the greatest civilization the world has ever seen “despite” Christendom. Would be interesting to see. I need a good laugh.

          • Consider

            YOU see Satan’s fingerprints!

            Satan’s!?

            This rises some questions about your sanity.

            Appart of this Satan bullshit, who are you to be the measure of anything?

            I don’t remember anything from the USSR since I was there only after it became Russia.

            Anyhow regarding theology I was loosely quoting Richard Dawkins.

            My comment of Matt 5:17 simply means that all previous rules remain valid, plus some new ones that our hero is bound to introduce, like the following:

            Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

          • KhidonNOR

            Sorry, not possible to have any kind of discussion here with all the flagging going on.

          • Consider

            Forgot the divorces.
            Better to end failed relations that to maintain them at any cost.

          • KhidonNOR

            So, where in Europe do you come from? An atheist “paradise” on earth I guess. You sound indoctrinated.

          • KhidonNOR

            lol. As usual, fanatic atheists are flagging comments.

          • Joe The Gentile

            If you blame communist mass murder on atheism, be consistent and blame historical Jihadist mass murder on religion. Then the score is: atheism, 100,000,000 murdered, with religion kicking butt with around 250,000,000 murdered.

          • guest

            Joe, surely you understand that jihadist mass murder is not due to “religion,” as if all religions believe and teach the same principles. Surely you know that jihadist mass murder is due to—ISLAM! New Testament Christianity is the exact opposite of islam.

          • Joe The Gentile

            Yes I do agree. I DON’T blame Jihad on ‘religion’ and likewise, communist murder should not be blamed on atheism.

          • KhidonNOR

            The communist murderers were atheist, and they killed due to atheism, Not communism. If the Russian revolution was based on Christianity and communism, and they followed strictly the teaching of Jesus Christ, they would not have murdered tens of millions of their own people. Over 20 million of them solely on the ground that they were theists (Christians and Jews). So atheism is the causality,not communism.

            To just say “religion” and include everything from Christianity to satanism, is just as academic deceitful as bashing love and claim that human emotions is behind every evil act in the history, and love is a human emotion, thus evil.

          • Joe The Gentile

            I don’t blame ‘religion’. My point is that blaming atheism for communism is as useless as blaming religion for Jihad. I stand by that.

          • guest

            I don’t agree at all w/ you and the other atheists or secular-defenders of this very interesting and lively debate, but am real curious: what do you blame communist murder on?

          • liz

            Interesting how Christians claim theological support from the Old Testament when it furthers their cause, and disown it when it doesn’t. If you would read historical accounts you’d know that Christians did use such Old Testament passages to justify their deeds.
            Also interesting how you use logic to support the argument for the “moral relativism” of atheism, but do not apply logic to recognize the fact that you are conflating atheism with Leftism, which is an ideology.
            Atheism is not (and cannot logically be) a belief system or an ideology. That’s why some atheists can be leftists and some, like myself and others on this forum, can be conservatives.

          • Judahlevi

            Atheism is a belief that there is no G-d. It is not nothing.

            Stemming from that “belief” is the rejection that there is any god-given absolute moral commands. There are some consequences to the atheist belief, it does not exist in a vacuum.

            From a value perspective, it would seem that an atheist could have any value, no matter how good or how bad, as long as the value does not acknowledge that it came from a god. It is not a system of values, it is just the one value that G-d does not exist, and any derivatives of believing in that one value.

            I agree that atheists can be leftists or conservatives dependent on which other values they incorporate into their worldview.

          • liz

            “Atheism is the belief that there is no God”. – Is it necessary to “believe” that there is no Santa Claus?
            Belief in something is necessary when there is no proof or evidence that it exists. Once you accept the fact that the lack of evidence for it is an indication that something doesn’t exist, you stop believing in it. You don’t then have to “believe” that it doesn’t.

          • Judahlevi

            You are confusing “belief” and faith.

            And yes, you have to “believe” that Santa Claus and G-d does not exist.

          • KhidonNOR

            Are you a Jewish Levite? And do you believe Jews will built the third Temple in Jerusalem, as prophesied in the Book of Ezekiel, in our times?

            I can’t stand seeing the satanic and demonic al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. But then again, if anything happens to al-Aqsa, we most likely will have third world war on our hands.

            What are your thoughts?

          • Judahlevi

            We may have a third world war even without the destruction of the al-Aqsa Mosque if Islamism does not change its course. Islam needs to adjust to modernity.

            No, I don’t believe that Judaism needs a rebuilding of the temple. All religions need to progress with human understanding. The day of sacrifices is long gone.

          • liz

            Well, that’s what I mean – “faith in God” and “believing” that a god doesn’t exist are not the same thing.
            I thought you were confusing the two.
            In the sense that you hold an opinion about something, you believe it, yes. But in the sense that you believe something exists in spite of all evidence to the contrary, you have “faith” in it. So we are in agreement.

          • Consider

            Let us suppose that a person, name it X, considers that a conduct, name it Y is good, just, true etc.
            So according to, you X must first believe (needless to say, without any proof or argument) that a supernatural being that commands Y, exists.
            Then X must believe that some individuals of dubious historicity (at least some of them) also existed, and what is more important, that they were his messengers (again without any proof or valid argument), and transmitted the message that Y is the right thing to do.
            One wonders why just X just don’t do Y if he thinks that it’s right, and discard the suparnatural entity and the self proclaimed messengers.
            It’s simpler.
            Otherwise it resembles the mathematical expression dx x dy (an infinitesimal quantity of the second order) that is usually neglected in mathematical calculations.

          • liz

            Interesting! Would that be another way of saying it’s redundant?

          • Consider

            Yes!

          • Judahlevi

            No, you are saying that I believe that one cannot be moral without a faith or belief in G-d. That, as you know, is not true.

            There is much more to religion than just a moral code. It cannot be simplified by a mathematical expression of any kind. Certainly not this simple.

          • KhidonNOR

            The Old Testament is not the Old Covenant. Either you don’t know the difference, or you are lying again.

            If what you are saying is true, you will have no problem of listing major Christian theologians throughout the history that supports your claim. Go on.

            I did not conflate atheism with leftism. Another lie from you.

            Again, moral relativism and subjective morality are logically inherent within atheism. That is your belief system. To claim otherwise is ludicrous and illogical. Your moral relativism and subjective morality, combined with vile hatred for Christianity (Judaism), is the basis for multiculturalism and the imploding of Europe as we see today. Thanks a lot atheists.

            An atheist can be a conservative without any problem. But too many of you are just like you and Jason P, fanatics that adhere to an atheist Utopia. That makes you more or less as dysfunctional and dangerous as the hard left atheists that are crashing Europe now.

          • liz

            I’m not a “fanatic that adheres to an atheist utopia”.
            Either you are making unfounded assumptions or you are lying again.
            It is Leftists, not atheists, who adhere to a collectivist Utopia. Either you are continuing to conflate the two, or you are lying again.

          • KhidonNOR

            I dare you to document that I have lied.

            As atheism has never functioned as a basis for a society, and you promotes atheism, while bashing Christianity, clearly you are referring to a foggy atheistic utopia and not historical reality.

            I have never mentioned collectivism. Again you lie.

          • liz

            You’re the one pompously throwing around accusations of lying here. I was simply mocking you.
            There is no such thing as an “atheist utopia”.
            And I did not accuse you of mentioning collectivism – I did the mentioning. So because I mention it I’m lying?

          • KhidonNOR

            I demonstrated where and how you lied. That is not an accusation, but a documented fact.

            Again, I dare you to document where and how I lied.

            Of course there is an atheist utopia, who are you trying to fool? Show me ONE leading atheist describing a future with rampant atheism, in a neutral and analytical manner, without involving atheist utopia as a supposed outcome of this fanatic atheism.

            What is it with you fanatic atheists and pathological lying?

            When you stated that:

            “It is Leftists, not atheists, who adhere to a collectivist Utopia. Either you are continuing to conflate the two, or you are lying again.”

            Then it is obvious that I can not conflate something I never mentioned or talked about. Consequently your next claim is either insane or you are lying again:

            “And I did not accuse you of mentioning collectivism”

          • liz

            As I have been saying all along, you are conflating atheism with Leftism. In trying to explain this, maybe I did not make myself clear. – Atheism is not an ideology, therefore it does not adhere to a doctrine of Utopia (or any other doctrine).
            Leftism is an ideology which adheres to a doctrine of a collectivist utopia.
            I can’t spell it out any more clearly than that, but you are refusing to recognize the difference.
            By calling atheists fanatics who engage in pathological lying, you are projecting your own pathological, fanatical – and misplaced – hatred of atheists onto them.

          • KhidonNOR

            Show me where and how I conflate atheism with leftism.

            For the fourth time: Subjective morality and moral relativism are logically inherent within atheism. That is a belief system. This belief system may, and often do, lead to multiculturalism and claiming that all religions are the same. Hence 50 million devout Muslims in Europe is the same as 50 million devout Christians in Europe.

            If you are not able to comprehend basic logic, I can not help you.

            Both you and Jason P have been lying through your teeth the whole time. I have demonstrated where and how. Pointing this out clearly enrages you. As an atheist, you reject objective morality, so there is no lie, right? Only my-truth and your-truth.

          • liz

            Your main problem with atheism seems to be that “moral relativism” is inherent to it.
            What do call it when no two Christian denominations agree on their interpretations of the Bible?
            For example, head coverings for women. Some Christians – the Amish, for instance, interpret the passage (found in the New Testament) concerning the wearing of head coverings by women to be a moral imperative to be strictly adhered to. Most other Christian denominations ignore it, or interpret it another way that invalidates it. Is that not “moral relativism”?
            On the other hand, most people, Christians and atheists alike, consider stealing to be morally wrong.
            (Except for Leftists, both Christian and atheist alike, who consider it fine as long as the government’s doing it.)
            No moral relativism there.

          • KhidonNOR

            Well, that is a valid point. Main idea is that all Christians, and Jews, will agree that objective morality exists, given by God, – and where to find it. Then you will have minor discrepancies between the various interpretations of this objective morality.

          • Joe The Gentile

            >> Main idea is that all Christians, and Jews, will agree that objective morality exists, given by God, – and where to find it.

            Before we even get to the scriptural-interpretational problems outlined by liz above, they DON’T even agree precisely on ‘where to find’ morality, and to the extent that they do, that’s historical happenstance, as Christianity developed out of Judaism.

            The difference between atheistic moral non-relativists and Christian moral non-relativists is that Christian moralists BELIEVE that they get their morality from God. Believing that they get it from God does not in itself mean that they do — as Christians will happily themselves tell an Islamist.

            Also, atheism does NOT imply moral relativism, as many here seem to think.

          • KhidonNOR

            So Christians don’t know that objective morality is found in the Bible? Really? Do you have any documentation for that claim?

            Atheism per se DO imply moral relativism. Where does atheism get objective morality from?

            Atheism gives zero morality. Show me one evil deed, no matter how horrific, that atheism condemns. Compare that to the teaching of Jesus Christ. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

            The difference between believing in universal and objective morality and rejecting the notion is enormous. You atheists have proved that so well, so many times.

          • Joe The Gentile

            >> Atheism per se DO imply moral relativism. Where does atheism get objective morality from?

            ‘Atheism’ as liz has already told you, is not a religion; religions come with a system of morals generally, atheism does not. It is between insensible and incorrect to say that ‘atheism does not condemn evil deeds’, similar to saying that ‘not believing in Unicorns (‘aunicornism’) does not condemn evil deeds’.

            Atheists who believe in objective morality believe that it is just there, just as mathematics and logic are there.

            >> The difference between believing in universal and objective morality, and rejecting the notion is enormous.

            I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that this is true in practice. BUT….

            >> You atheists have proved that so well, so many times.

            Very, very bad things have happened also under a ‘moral’ system which is absolute and is believed to come from God. Some estimates are that Jihad has killed 250,000,000 people — around 2.5 times the murder total of atheistic communism.

            I don’t actually blame ‘Jihad’ on ‘religion’ (although many atheists would, and I believe it unhelpful). Likewise, don’t blame ‘communism’ on ‘atheism’.

          • KhidonNOR

            I can’t answer you, as my comments get flagged.

          • Joe The Gentile

            Try short comments. I think there may be something in the software that subjects comments to moderation when a poster has posted a lot in a particular thread or article.

          • KhidonNOR

            Sounds like a good advice. Thanks!

          • KhidonNOR

            I said “one example” and you lied and said that I stated “just because”. You lied and claimed that I believed morality was “invented”. I never said anything of that sort.

            Moral relativism and subjective morality are LOGICALLY inherent within atheism, thus atheism is a belief system and not just absence of something.

            Your typical atheist argument, “in the name of”, is not logical. I can kill in your name against your will. What does that say about you? Nothing.

            Christendom was the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. Europe is now imploding, mostly due to morally, spiritually and logically decay due to rampant atheism. Care to explain why you atheists never ever in the history of mankind managed to create a society, and far less a civilization, based on your illogical and utterly evil/dysfunctional my-truth and your-truth atheistic pseudo-morality? Atheism is the basis for our multiculturalism in Europe. Thanks a lot progressive atheists. You smashed the greatest civilization the world has even seen within a few decades.

            Deuteronomy is from the Old Covenant. Christians follow the New Covenant. There is no theological support for killing of witches within Christianity. In Cambodia it was enough to be able to speak French, to receive a death penalty. Nothing within atheism says that is wrong. Nothing within atheism will prevent you atheists from doing that again. Sick and evil.

          • Joe The Gentile

            KhidonNOR, you are confused about what atheism is. Period. You keep attaching things to atheism which are not inherent in it. Such as moral relativism. Or leftism. Or multiculturalism. This makes you very obnoxious in the presence of atheists. Live and learn. As I keep saying, there are many atheists here who are conservative, and who deplore these things as much as you do.

            P.S. Yes, I know that you’ll likely call me a ‘liar’ now.

          • KhidonNOR

            No. I am not confused about atheism, as a Norwegian I know it very well, and what it does to nations.

            The problems with you outspoken and god/Christian-hating atheists is that you constantly refer to your atheist utopia, and get really angry when someone points out the logical and practical flaws in their utopia.

            You claim that moral relativism is not inherent in atheism. Then I will ask you where atheists get their objective morality from. I don’t ask you personally, or what some atheists chose to call their objective morality, where within atheism do you find objective morality. Christians have the morality from the Word of God, the Bible.

            So tell me where within atheism ALL atheists agree, must do logically and per definition, that they find their OBJECTIVE morality IN atheism. If you can’t find that ,then you have moral relativism.

            You can’t have multiculturalism based on Christianity, as Christianity has objective morality. Atheists have no objective morality and can claim that all cultures are equal, all religions are equal, my-truth and your-truth, etc without contradict a single thing within atheism.

            It is thanks to atheism we have multiculturalism in Europe. Even conservative parties in Europe support multiculturalism and vile Muslim immigration out of control. This due to their atheism.

            Exceptions are agnostics like Geert Wilders that adopts Judeo-Christian values and morality. So in many ways, he de facto operates as a Christian/Jew in the natural world, without the spiritual dimension. Same with Wafa Sultan. Sadly, most atheists do the opposite, They hate Christians and Christianity with a passion, and thanks to the subjective morality inherent within atheism, love Islam and Muslims at the very same time (in no conflict with atheism = moral relativism)

            But of course, pointing out the obvious moral relativism in atheism to atheists is unbelievable obnoxious for atheists. In fact, ANY argument against the lies and distortions from atheists are obnoxious for them.

          • Joe The Gentile

            I’m not a Christian-hating atheist, I’m a Christian-friendly atheist. The existence of someone such as me does not fit into your worldview, so you keep denying it.

            I have already said that atheistic non-moral-relativists believe that morality is there, just as mathematics and logic are there.

            You may be right in some senses that atheism has damaged Norway, though I would say it may be more accurate to say that de-Christianization damaged Norway.

            Sweden may be more damaged still, with its suicidal immigration policy. But my conservatism would have stopped this suicidal policy just as well as a Christian’s conservatism, and indeed there are plenty of Christians in Sweden who partake in this liberal insanity. I don’t blame Christianity for liberal insanity, don’t blame atheism for it.

            You’re looking to simplify everything into a fight between atheism and Christainity. It doesn’t work.

  • Ivan Ewan

    Secular != Atheist. Secularism is just where the state does not push a particular religion on people. If you somehow reduce the amount of atheism in the USA, how do you deal with the socialist fruitcakes who think Jesus was chums with Marx?

  • Johnnny

    The core problem with secularism is that the gov owns it. Effectively it breaks down barrier between church and state by having a value pronouncing ideology promoted at public expense. What we are finding out is why having a state funded religion is not a good idea.

    • carolynggarcia

      my classmate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the
      computer . She has been fired for 7 months but last month her paycheck was
      $15495 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit the site C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

    • carolynggarcia

      just before I looked at the receipt ov $8130 , I
      didn’t believe that my sister woz like actualy bringing in money part-time from
      there pretty old laptop. . there aunts neighbour has been doing this 4 only
      about 22 months and at present repayed the mortgage on their appartment and
      bought themselves a Chrysler . see here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • DAW

    Straw-man argument by Prager; most of Prager’s points of morality can be
    agreed to by atheists or at least many atheists. Liz made the point that atheists and leftist are not necessarily the same people.
    Jason P, Joe and Liz all have good comments.

    Prager may be right that most people need religion? We certainly need a moral code or philosophy. But that is where religion came from, a need
    to control people to make them “better” or in the past (or in cults today) to
    make them maybe just more helpful to the leadership (be that better or worse,
    in a moral sense).

    • Judahlevi

      I don’t think that religion was created to “control people” or make them “better”, although the latter is closer.

      Religion has become a worldview just as secularism is. The religious worldview is dependent on ‘which’ religion, but it provides an understanding of the purpose of life and attempts to provide a way of living. Secularism is also a worldview with almost infinite amounts of interpretation – whatever a man can think of to explain the meaning of life.

      There is much wisdom in religion and wisdom with secular thinkers as well. One would be deprived from one source or the other if they adopted the narrow view that either was devoid of value.

  • KhidonNOR

    Dennis Prager is absolutely right. Moral relativism and subjective morality is logically inherent within atheism. You can not base a society on the utterly false and insane my-truth and your-truth, garbage. This is why not a single society ever has been based on atheism. Far less a whole civilization. Compare that to Christendom, the greatest civilization the world has ever seen.

    Hard left atheism has been a disaster for Europe. Russians learned their lesson and are now returning as fast as they can to their Biblical foundation.

    With more atheism in Norway, we got more murder, divorce, rape, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, crime, etc, – not less.

    • Joe The Gentile

      >> the utterly false and insane my-truth and your-truth, garbage

      I *partially* agree with you, as I partially agree with Dennis Prager. This ‘my-truth, your-truth’ garbage is indeed no foundation for civilization, in fact, it thoroughly undermines civilization.

      But I don’t believe that atheism itself is inherently the problem. You can be an atheist and not believe in the garbage in question. Many readers and posters here are in that camp.

  • hockeydog

    Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and the late, great Christopher Hitchens attitude towards religion is the only peaceful way to go. Everything else is totalitarianism and bloodshed.

  • WhiteHunter

    Thank you for another excellent piece, Dennis. I don’t understand the vehemence that it seems to have elicited in many of these posts.

    It’s become commonplace for atheists (“humanists,” as they now like to style themselves) to ridicule and vehemently attack Christianity (though never Islam, for some reason!), especially by citing long-ago aberrations such as, for example, the Crusades.

    While the Left is quick to protest that a Moslem who committed a massacre yesterday while shouting “Allahu akbar!” “isn’t a real Moslem!” all Christians, and Christianity itself, are always blamed for any evil act committed by a nominal “Christian” in outrageous violation of everything Jesus exhorted His followers to do (or refrain from doing) in The Sermon on the Mount.

    And while there is much wisdom and beauty in the writings of the ancients–whenever I read the poems of Catullus I can’t help wishing I’d been one of his circle of carousing young friends; or those of Horace that I’d been able to recline with him sipping wine, discussing poetry, and enjoying the notes of his lyre–it must be recalled that the world of those pagans was a hideously brutal one, and that they not only took for granted, but actually enjoyed witnessing, the bloodiest and cruelest spectacles–and then with a clear conscience went home to enjoy the poetry and lyre over a convivial dinner with friends.

    The murderous atrocities that passed for a good afternoon’s entertainment in the Coliseum are just one example; cruelty–either witnessing it, inflicting it, or suffering it–was a daily fact of a Roman’s life. Neither the Greeks nor the Romans felt the slightest qualm about killing their own newborn infants by exposing them on hillsides, with no particular reason necessary except, perhaps, the displeasure of the paterfamilias (some might say that our own practice of partial birth abortion is an exact equivalent, and it’s hard to disagree).

    All of these impulses–toward cruelty and cold indifference toward (or even taking recreational pleasure in) another’s agony–are “natural” ones for Man. It was, largely, the teachings of Christianity that, over many centuries and with many stumbles backwards (some even still today), restrained and, eventually, put an end to them.

    No doubt a man can be “good” and repudiate cruelty (and stealing, and perjury, and adultery, and envy and covetousness, and murder) without necessarily being a believing, practicing Christian. But what is certain is that by definition one cannot commit theses sins/crimes and at the same time be a believing, practicing Christian.

    Christianity is a religion for the brave and the strong because (unlike Islam, for example) it commands the believer to master and overcome his “natural” impulses. Its Law is the exact opposite of the Satanic cult’s dictum “Do as you will.”

    And the founding principles of our own country, though not explicitly and overtly Christian in the religious sense of worship and ritual, were almost congruent with Christian teachings, not those of paganism or atheism. And I don’t think that was just a coincidence.

    • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

      I actually enjoyed your post even though I part ways with your summary judgment. We, of course, both find inspiration in many of the Greek and Roman writers. I would have chosen Cicero, especially his ethical writings. Of course, Roman law is of such high regard to Western Civ that the Christian Emperor Justinian had it codified; it forms the basis of law in continental Europe.

      Yes there is much to criticized and the best Romans did just that. Cicero was a critic of the Circuses (which continued when Christians rose to power and fed pagans to the lions). The Stoics believed in universal equality and argued for laws against ill-treatment of those less fortunate. It’s not clear that Christianity added anything to secular matters but froze Roman society as they found it in the 4th century until the rediscovery of Aristotle in the 13th. Indeed, Orthodox Christianity stagnated even longer having no Renaissance and Enlightenment. Could that be a coincidence?

      What I find troubling is the use of legacy limitations to denigrate the great inheritance to Western thought by the innovators who set the foundation for our civilization. It reminds me of those who refuse to honor the greatness of our nation’s founding because the legacy of slavery remained for decades.

      • Ken Abbott

        Sir: Do you have a citation for the claim that Christians fed pagans to the lions in the 4th and later centuries?

        • KhidonNOR

          Good question! Not sure you will get an answer, though. His modus operandi is to spread as much misinformation as possible, while bashing and trashing Christianity, and if anyone asks for documentation, or logical coherency, he will deflect with computer problems, Ipad problems, or will claim to answer later when access to his library. If you later on, still insist to get an answer, he will mass-flag your comments. It is more or less the same with all fanatic atheists.

          • Ken Abbott

            I asked because it is well-established that Christian influence led to the end of the gladiatorial blood sports under the emperor Honorius around AD 400. A certain monk named Telemachus, traveling from Asia Minor to Rome, discovered what was going on and inserted himself into the action, decrying the horror of it all and invoking the name of Christ in order to stop it. He paid with his own life, but the consequence was a rising tide of public opinion against the games that led the emperor to issue a decree banning them. Major changes in culture take time–the people of Rome were accustomed to the games and did not at first like having them criticized or disrupted, but the leaders of the church were consistent in pointing out the discrepancy between professing Christian beliefs and allowing blood sports to continue.

          • KhidonNOR

            Thank you very much! I did not remember all these details. I have never read anywhere that Christians fed pagans to the lions, solely because of their paganism, as atheist Jason P claims.

            It is very hard to debate with many of these internet atheists, as they shamelessly lie about known facts. Shall be interesting to see if your comment will be flagged.

          • Dag A. Torp

            Since they closed the thread on the NP article, and you have closed the massege function on your Disqus account I will give you my answer here.

            ———————————-

            You seem very defencive all of a sudden, why is that?
            Did I touch a nerve perhaps?
            And no, I am not going to answer your “questions” because you are neither the leader of this discussion nor are you in any position to set terms for it.
            What I will do is explain my point further, as it seems you are a bit slow and are obviously finding it difficult to understanding even the simplest things.

            Many christians cringe when Breivik is described as a christian terrorist. But that is what he is.
            It is true that Breivik was much more concerned about politics and history than about scripture and religious belief. But much the same can be said about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other muslim terrorists. Bin Laden was a businessman and engineer, and Zawahiri was a medical doctor; neither were theologians or clergy. Their writings show that they were much more interested in islamic history than theology or scripture, and imagined themselves as recreating glorious moments in the muslim past in their own imagined wars.
            Breivik, in his manifesto, writes of al Qaeda with admiration, as if he would love to create a christian version of their religious cadre. Though he only occasionally quotes scripture, and admires the lutheran church in Norway largely as a cultural center for Christendom, he is captivated by christian history. Breivik is fascinated with the crusades and imagines himself to be a member of the Knights Templar, the crusader army of a thousand years ago. He would like to have a christian army comparable to al Qaeda’s muslim militia.

            As to your claims about Æsatru, they only go to show that you are completetely ignorant of even the very basic ideas behind the belief system. Æsatru is, unlike christianity, not a static religion, meaning that we do not adhere to everything that once was believed by the ancestors.
            We have the ability to change with the changing times, you do not. You are stuck with the bronze age view of the world, which includes geo-centricity, talking snakes and unicorns…

            The reason why the Fb button on my Disqus profile links to your Fb account is because I have hacked it, and now I am just about to publicise all the pictures you have of yourself in ladies underwear… o.O

            Seriously, are you this new to the internet?
            Dum fk….

            This discussion is now over from my part, partly because I have to prepare for the Odinsblot tomorrow, but mainly because of something the late great George Carlin once said:
            ‘Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience!’

            Lev Vel

          • KhidonNOR

            Your “religion” is a joke. Do you change your religion yourself, so everything is manmade and consequently not with any spiritual origin, just some variant of a bridge club? Or is it your “god” who tells you this? And if so, how does he/she/it communicate with you?

            So these guys are the real deal, you say? Former HJK/MJK operators? Seriously?? With this moronic statement:

            “Guide Conditioning

            Selected Guide Trainees are then to attend a 3-month physical and psychological fitness program in order to meet physical standards higher than those required to graduate from U.S. Navy SEAL training, as well as mental standards suitable for a career as a guide with AMARUK®”.

            Plus claiming to have their own private/civilian C-130? And involved in a company that is obviously nothing but a fraud?

            And you “know” I am not the real deal, whatever that means?

            lol

            You forgot answering these questions.

          • KhidonNOR

            National Post has up a new article. Looks like their insane claims regarding their companies are just as fake as your claim regarding the guides/management being former HJK/MJK operators.

            http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/10/questions-raised-over-norse-adventure-firm-in-wake-of-human-rights-complaint-by-b-c-woman/

  • KhidonNOR

    Can you fanatic atheists please stop flagging my comments? Not one of the flagged comments has been removed. You use flagging as a tool to disrupt the discussion and discourage anyone from debating evil and illogical atheism with you.

  • Joe The Gentile

    How many times do I need to explain? I AGREE that blaming Jihad on ‘religion’ is wrong, simplistic etc. I’m also stating that blaming communist mass murder on atheism is also wrong, simplistic etc.

    • KhidonNOR

      I just explained how atheism is the causal factor for atheists murdering, raping and torturing more than 20 million theists in Russia, within a few decades.

      One more time

      Communism + teaching of Jesus Christ = no murder/rape/torture if 100% following His teaching.

      Communism + atheism = murder, rape and torture all you want. It is not as if a God says it is wrong, and will punish you if you do. If you atheist mind tells you that it is better to kill tens of millions of theists, and it is for the better good for society, go ahead and do it. Nothing within atheistic god-hatred will stop you and even say it is wrong.

      So, communism in itself does not cause mass-killings. Only when the breaks of human morality is thrown away by atheism, do you get a killing machine. Thus atheism, and not communism, is the causal factor in atheists killing, raping and torturing more than 100 million innocent people within less than 100 years. More than anyone else in the recorded history of mankind.

    • guest

      But Joe, the teachings, commandments, and example of Moohammed as recorded in the “holy” books of the “religion” that mooslims call “i-slam,” ORDER violent jihad by force and the sword in order to spead and maintain the i-slamic control of everyone they can. The “religion” of i-slam IS the problem and is wrong.
      Atheism comes at things from the opposite side: it doesn’t order anyone to do anything, but neither does it say there are clearly defined standards for right and wrong, good and evil. Atheists are free to do WHATEVER THEY THINK is good and evil. Can you not understand this?

  • KhidonNOR

    This comment to the atheist “liz” has now twice been flagged and removed:

    I said “one example” and you lied and said that I stated “just because”. You lied and claimed that I believed morality was “invented”. I never said anything of that sort.

    Moral relativism and subjective morality are LOGICALLY inherent within atheism, thus atheism is a belief system and not just absence of something.

    Your typical atheist argument, “in the name of”, is not logical. I can kill in your name against your will. What does that say about you? Nothing.

    Christendom was the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. Europe is now imploding, mostly due to morally, spiritually and logically decay due to rampant atheism. Care to explain why you atheists never ever in the history of mankind managed to create a society, and far less a civilization, based on your illogical and utterly evil/dysfunctional my-truth and your-truth atheistic pseudo-morality? Atheism is the basis for our multiculturalism in Europe. Thanks a lot progressive atheists. You smashed the greatest civilization the world has even seen within a few decades.

    Deuteronomy is from the Old Covenant. Christians follow the New Covenant. There is no theological support for killing of witches within Christianity. In Cambodia it was enough to be able to speak French, to receive a death penalty. Nothing within atheism says that is wrong. Nothing within atheism will prevent you atheists from doing that again. Sick and evil.

    • KhidonNOR

      The moderator at frontpagemag is an utter disgrace.

  • Guest

    Excellent logic –it’s so crystal clear that the group known as “atheists” –ie, human beings who believe they will NOT be held accountable one day by their Creator (see Decl. of Indep) causes most of the enslavement, murders of citizens, loss of Freedom, etc throughout history—because to them, THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE GOOD AND EVIL.
    THEY decide what is good and what is evil and do whatever they can get away with until they’re stopped, usually only by killing them in battle or capture and execution.
    (and please–don’t blah blah blah about the Catholic Church killing blah, blah, blah—-NO WHERE in the Christian New Testament does it command Christians to enslalve or kill in the name of Jesus or God)

    • KhidonNOR

      THANK YOU very much! I totally agree with you. So strange that atheists can’t see it themselves. Blessings :)

  • Joe The Gentile

    >> It is impossible to break the laws of math and logic.

    It certainly is, in the correct sense of ‘break’ as ‘not follow’. People fail to follow logic all the time!

    Again, all the things you are attributing to atheism is actually Leftism, although those following these ideas don’t necessarily identify themselves as on the Left at all.

    I get the impression that about 90% of people in Norway/Sweden are Leftist. This is probably true of many of those on the ‘political right’! Leftist ideas pervade. Would I be right about this? This includes quite a number of religious believers.

    • KhidonNOR

      No, you can’t break the laws of math and logic. You can’t force 1 + 1 to be 123.

      No, the correct sense is not “not to follow”. I asked you where do you atheists find these moral laws? Since mass-killings have been the result every time you atheists have gotten full power over a nation, then surely mass-killings for whatever fancies you atheists are in accordance with your morality.

      No, this is not “leftism” this is atheism. I have already demonstrated why subjective morality, moral relativism and consequently multiculturalism is logically inherent within atheism. It is not possible, logically, to be follower of Jesus Christ and at the same time be a multicultural moral relativist.

      Atheism is the most dangerous force in America now. You should learn from Europe. Atheism will also function as an enabler for Islam. Christianity civilized man to the highest level of civilization the world has ever seen. Without Christianity as a positive force in the society, man will sink down to degenerated moral level of the leftists. Automatically. Proven by history.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    It has been a decade since I read this but looking back at my books here is where I got my information: page 597 of Charles Freeman’s “Egypt, Greece, and Rome.” He writes: “… as late as 580 the emperor Tiberius launching a persecution of pagans, used the traditional Roman punishment of crucifixion (in the case of one pagan governor, Anatolius, after he had first been thrown to wild beasts).”

    • Ken Abbott

      Thank you. Tiberius II Constantine, Byzantine emperor, at least for a short while (four years; death by poisoned mulberries, according to Will Durant). Practices amongst rulers in the east were often far from Christian despite the faith professions of their perpetrators. I observe that Tiberius was not acting in the context of the old-style blood sports but in a particularly brutal punishment of opponents. No excuses, but there’s a reason “byzantine” has come down to us as a description of sneaky ruthlessness and back-stabbing underhandedness. Cruel rulers will act cruelly.