ATHEISTS-- EXPOSED AND CONFRONTED!
militant atheist association is the child of the late, arch-atheist, Madalyn
O'Hair, a woman with "questionable" moral
standards, and much fury against anything linked with God and religion. Though
the founder is dead, the organization is proudly involved in many lawsuits
involving Church/State issues. So far they have won several and are bent on winning
many more. Though they use separation of Church and State as their "official"
motivation, their hidden agenda is to neutralize the power of religion and
to finally erase God from the American culture.
The following extract
from an interview by Playboy reveals much about O'Hair's "morals."
lovers have you had, if you don't mind our asking?"
"... I've had five affairs, all of them real wingdings."
"Would you call
yourself an advocate of free love?"
describe myself as a sexual libertarian -- but I'm not a libertine. "To each
his own" is my motto. If anybody wants to engage in any kind of sexual
activity with any consenting partner, that is their business. I don't feel
that I can sit in judgment on them, or that society can sit in judgment on
And my sex life is
peculiarly my own. I will engage in sexual activity with a consenting male
any time and any place I d--n well please."
Interview of Madalyn Murray O’hair.
(28 Oct., 2007).
Madalyn O'Hair and her
American Atheist Association were the litigants in the famous case that removed Bible
reading and prayer recitation from American public schools.
This is their greatest and most
destructive achievement. In removing Bible readings and prayer recitations
from American schools
they have succeeded in destroying an effective method of daily "conscience
building" for young people, and a daily acknowledgement of a Supreme Being
who watches over our every move and to Whom we have to answer for our every
consequences? Relativity in morals, rampant individualism, self-worshipping
adolescents who, unfortunately, too often turn into self-worshipping
adults; little or no conscience in kids with insufficient ethical home education; the infusion of
atheistic/agnostic worldviews into adolescents' minds by teachers who
push their anti-religious views on their students, and an
anti-God attitude in kids who are told, directly or indirectly, that they are
the result of blind chance.
The grand result? Psychopaths
running rampant, an epidemic of depressed young people, about forty million cases of incurable
STD's, countless abortions, prisons overflowing with angry, merciless men
and women, an ever-increasing number of female criminals --
"TO SECURE OUR FREEDOM FROM
Author's comments: Their
ultimate goal would be to
neutralize religion altogether and to use the education system to
brainwash future generations into embracing a totally materialistic worldview.
"TO LABOR FOR, IN ALL LAWFUL
WAYS, THE COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE."
comments: By so doing they would diminish the influence of religion over
society. No organized religion's influence over the government can only mean
less influence over law making. They, in turn, want to increase "their
influence" over law making, so as to shape the society of the future in
"TO DEFEND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
Author's comments: Which civil rights? Do they not enjoy total freedom of
speech to the point where they can angrily tear apart believers and
religious organizations as they well please? Can they not publish what they
want? Are they not allowed to push forward (lack of) moral values that would
greatly harm any nation? Does anyone arrest them for protesting publicly?
Are Christians as fortunate as atheists in America, in parts of the world
where atheists still rule supreme, such as in Communist China, for instance?
(19 Feb., 2007).
"We have the right to be free of an enormous
tax burden in order to support the few people who do go to church regularly."
Author's comments: Unfortunately, they
fail to mention the following critical truths about religious organizations:
1. They support great numbers of charitable organizations that benefit this and other
societies around the world, and by so doing they save the government large
amounts of money in social spending. There are around 5-6 million atheists
in the US and hundreds of millions worldwide; where are their charitable
2. They teach
countless millions the value of hard work, and responsibility toward others (Crime
prevention, that is).
3. They teach the
importance paying their taxes in full to the government, and many actually
teach the importance of harmony and unity within families and the
destructive power of divorce. The fact that many professing Christians
divorce is the result, in most cases, of
individuals who only pay lip service to the words of Jesus Christ.
5. They teach about the
havoc caused by STD's, and by so doing limit health expenses on the part of
6. They teach
that pre-marital sex is wrong and that single parenting may lead to
dependence on welfare, poverty, angry children and adolescents who often
join gangs so as to feel loved and accepted. Because of this education, many young people chose to do what
is right and do not become a burden on society.
7. They teach new
generations about the evils of drug and alcohol abuse and the resulting
havoc they brings
upon society-- not to mention the fact that they help limit the gigantic
expenses society has to bear in increased policing, an expanded judicial
system and vast and very expensive prisons.
(19 Feb., 2007).
"Organized religion has been a
major opponent of the distribution of birth control information, the lack of
which has led to the increased incidence of child neglect, child abuse, and
above all, the use of abortion as a birth control measure."
Author's comments: How about the
following contrasting interpretation? Religion teaches the importance of
abstaining from behaviors that lead to unwanted pregnancies and the evils
that follow. The media and "atheism-influenced" education have been teaching
our young people that they have the "right" to indulge in pre-marital sex.
Young people, with a very few exceptions, know full well what is available
in the way of birth control from schools, the media, friends -- not to
mentions relatives and parents. But young people don't want to be
bothered with the self-discipline or taking daily pills, and they certainly
don't want to be deprived of their right to "full" sexual satisfaction, so they choose not
to use any "interfering" methods of birth control. The result of
"selfishness" and "irresponsibility" often leads to unwanted
pregnancies, a host of abortions and, in some cases, single mother status--not
to mention a plethora of incurable STD's. The end result is poverty,
frustration, depression, and desperation.
What is the real cause of this nightmare? Is it lack of knowledge of birth
control methods, or is it minds saturated with, and poisoned, by selfishness
and irresponsibility? Any sensible mind knows where the problem really lies.
But "American Atheists" are not very well known for their common sense.
"Marriage and divorce laws
should be based on the individual desires of the participants in the
relationship. Neither the state nor the church has any right to say with
whom you can cohabit. That is your exclusive freedom as an individual."
Author's comments: But the government has no right to tread on "sacred"
territory. It definitely has no right to transform future generations' views
regarding the most fundamental institution in human existence:
marriage. When the government declares "alternative" life styles as
"normal," it gives public education the go ahead to teach
new views as to what is right or wrong. That indoctrination will become a
part of the thinking of future generations and will affect the choices of
those generations. Thus a "liberal" government, will become a partner
of sexual liberals who long to shape the minds of youth in their image,
further adding to their numbers and their power to shape society according
to their views. It is because of this and more that conservatives must
continue fighting to protect the definition of marriage and must continue
defining alternative life-styles as sinful, as God does.
"Religion is antifeminist. The principal
opposition to the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment was from religious
groups. The cornerstone of Christianity is the domination of the female by
the male. If you are a woman, you must abandon religion first before you can
talk equality. The position of women in any religious system is below that
comments: What a sad generalization and what sad understanding of
Christianity this manifests. What follows is what the Bible "really" teaches
about man-woman relationships:
A WOMAN'S DUTY:
These are the scriptures used by
Atheists and feminists to create discontent and anger in women. They conveniently forget to mention
what God demands of men. Once both sets of Scriptures are put together, one
can clearly see that in a "true" Christian marital relationship abuse cannot
be present, and that the results of such a marital arrangement would be
blissful for both parties.
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18)
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."
"Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives
be to their own husbands in everything."
A MAN'S DUTY:
any woman be unhappy with such a husband?
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be
bitter toward them. "(Do not be angry or
abusive towards them.)
"So husbands ought to love their own wives
as their own bodies;
he who loves his
wife loves himself."
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ
also loved the church and gave Himself for her.
(In other words, give yourself totally to your wife."
That's quite a command. Any woman unhappy with this command?) (Ephesians 5:25)
"Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the
wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of
life, that your prayers may not be hindered."
(A warning to men: mistreat God's daughters,
and He will ignore your prayers. You'll be in His bad books, in other
words.) (1 Peter 3:7)
"Religion is anti-science. Religious dogmas can never be verified through
the scientific method. Therefore, science is the enemy of religion. Through
the scientific method it has been proven that Earth is not 6,000 years old
as Christianity claims. Human virgin birth is not possible.
Transubstantiation is not possible. The church must retard science, for its
spread means increased explanation of human questions and the lessening of
the need for a faith solution."
comments: Let's first of all deal with
the concept that religion is anti-science. Which religion? The Catholic
Church has recently accepted evolution as a fact. There are lots of
Christians that accept evolution as God's way of bringing about creation.
Finally there are people, such as this author, that does not see any
statement in the Bible about the earth being 6000 years old, but sees in it
plenty of evidence of previous, ancient creations instead.
The problem all must accept -- especially
atheists-- is the science is tentative. Hawkins has stated in his
famed, A Short History of Time, that all in science is a "hypothesis"
which can potentially change at any time. Berger, a well known South African anthropologists in his book,
In the Footsteps of Eve, as recently stated that the hominids
considered to have been human ancestors thus far may very well be found in
the future to
have not been human ancestors at all. Having a healthy skepticism of
right and good, and "American Atheists" would be wise to encourage it, just as
they encourage skepticism toward faith.
As to what is possible or not in the realm of the Divine, is not a judgment
that pertains to people who have an unshakeable, and close-minded view of
reality. Rigid materialists would not believe in angels even if they saw
one; if they "talked" to one; if they "touched" one, or if they "saw" one perform miracles. In spite of all the
"scientific" evidence, they would insist that it was a "hallucination."
Nothing will change their mind, as long as their blind hatred of God
and religion saturates their whole being.
"Most important of all, the worst intrusion of religion into your life
is religion's anti life teachings. Life is not important, says the church.
It is only valuable as a preparation for death and life after death -- the
real importance is placed on the "afterlife." The world and our lives on
it are considered disposable; they mean little. Our efforts here only bear
on the kind of existence we will have eternally. "
Author's comments: Life is the way to greater life,
teaches. It is indeed a preparation for life after death, to be lived
honestly, lovingly, decently and wisely, as opposed to living it
irresponsibly, selfishly, impetuously and without any real transcendental
purpose. Most of all, committed Christians live life knowing that all they experience has
"great meaning," and thus, they truly live life to the fullest.
The great contradiction of Atheists is that
they are pro living life to the fullest, yet they are not willing to give
tens of millions of babies the right to even taste life. Like God, they
want to decide who lives and who dies. This is probably one of the reasons they
want God out of the picture: so as to take his place.
"Life, the only thing we know, all that we have, is thrown aside by
faith in something beyond our termination. If you are one of those who
knows that life here and now is wonderful and should be lived to the
fullest, you are one of us... According to sociological studies,
there are about 22.5 million persons in the United States who are
Atheists, persons who have rejected the concept of spending their lives
preparing to die; persons who have found the ultimate freedom, FREEDOM OF
Author's comments: How arrogant can one get. Believing that people of faith do not live
life to the fullest is absurd. Truly religious Christians
live their life to the fullest every single day, because they see God's involvement in
everything they do; because they see all human beings as brothers and
sisters to be loved and served; because their are filled with a joy that
comes from knowing that they are loved by the greatest of beings; because
they know that even their greatest sufferings have transformational power, and finally
because they know that humanity is in very good hands, and that, no matter
what suffering befalls individuals or societies, the long-term results are
bound to be stunning, because a God of love is in control.
Contrariwise, what kind of living to the fullest can a person
have when they believe that they are only chemical compounds waiting to
return to the earth where they came from; when they see no transcendental meaning to the
anguish and suffering their loved ones, and finally themselves, have to
confront; when they believe that they are only the result of blind cosmic
chance and that oblivion is all that is ahead for the whole
universe. You call this living life to the fullest?
AMERICAN SCIENTISTS AND GOD
The ”American Atheists” web site dedicates a page to
Edward Larson’s 1998 study that “supposedly” proves that most scientists in
America are now Atheists or Agnostics. Let me quote from their page and
please then proceed to the analysis.
“…members of the scientific community are "more likely than ever to reject
God and immortality," discloses Britain's Daily Telegraph.
That claim is
based on another study which repeats a historic survey first made in 1916 by
Dr. James Leuba of Bryn Mawr University.
It revealed that over eight decades ago, only about 40% of the scientists
surveyed expressed belief in any supreme being. Leuba predicted that
advances in education and technology would further erode faith in religious
In 1997, Edward
Larson of the University of Georgia
decided to revisit Leuba's study and evaluate the prediction that religious
belief was disappearing, at least in the scientific community.
Larson closely followed Leuba's methodology (, repeating the same questions
and attempting to find a representative sample which met the original
a figure considered high for any surveys.
40% expressed belief
in a deity, while nearly 45% did not…”
(15 Dec., 2007).
This is another classic example of biased reporting that the militant
atheist world abounds in. To start, you should be informed that Edward
Larson asked scientists if they believed in “a God who would answer
prayers.” This is clearly a belief in a “Personal God” that Christians, Jews
and Muslims, etc. believe in. This question does not include a belief in a
“Creator” who is not involved in human affairs, such as the divinity
that “Deists” and “Pantheists” believe in. Without doubt, a significant
number of scientists would describe themselves as such. Einstein, in fact,
defined himself as a Pantheist; Hawkins believes in a Creator but, reportedly,
not a “Personal God” and is, therefore, either a Pantheist or a Deist. If
Deists and Pantheists had been factored in, the number of believing
scientists would have been higher. (A few years ago, Edward Larson, in our
correspondence, encouraged me to do a study that would ask a more
all-encompassing question. I have not done so yet, but I am sure it would be
Not surprisingly, “American
Atheists,” in their continuing effort to elevate unbelief, skillfully
transformed the results into “40% believed in
a deity, while 45% did not.”
Fortunately, there are many sharp minds around who can
spot the manipulation quite quickly. On the other hand, there are lots of
fanatical atheists who will gloat at anything that appears to imply the
gradual death of God and Religion.
Unfortunately for them, what is amazing is that decades of brainwashing by
unbelieving evolutionists who heavily influence Education have not sufficed
to transform all scientists into disciples. Furthermore, with the backlash
that is presently in full bloom on the part of creationist scientists, they
can be assured that the number of unbelieving scientists who in the future
will turn to religion will be significant.
Author of the award-winning book,
God Seen Through the Eyes of the Greatest Minds
Through the Eyes of the Greatest Minds
book is intriguing, fascinating, revealing and energizing. I recommend
this excellent reference book." (Beacon Hill Excerpts, Kansas)
"The book is a must for those who believe that the
greatest rational thinkers in history were
devoid of religious faith. If you can be persuaded without the
occurrence of an actual miracle, then I recommend you read the book."
(Tony G., Reader)
Angel Award (2001)
© Copyright, Michael Caputo, 2009