|
AMERICAN ATHEISTS-- EXPOSED AND CONFRONTED! This 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." PLAYBOY: "How many lovers have you had, if you don't mind our asking?" MURRAY: "... I've had five affairs, all of them real wingdings." PLAYBOY: "Would you call yourself an advocate of free love?" MURRAY: "I'd 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 them. 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." (Emphasis mine) Playboy Interview of Madalyn Murray O’hair. <http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/madplay.htm> (28 Oct., 2007).
MOST DESTRUCTIVE ACHIEVEMENT 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 action. The 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 -- and a nightmarish future.
STATED AGENDA "TO SECURE OUR FREEDOM FROM RELIGION." 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." Author's 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 their image. "TO DEFEND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ATHEISTS." 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? <http://www.atheists.org/visitors.center/intro.html#primary> (19 Feb., 2007). WHAT THEY BELIEVE "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 organizations? 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 listen. 4. They 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 the government. 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. <http://www.atheists.org/visitors.center/intro.html#primary> (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 of men." Author's 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 to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) "Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:24)
A MAN'S DUTY: Would any woman be unhappy with such a husband?
"So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself." (Ephesians 5:28)
"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) "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." Author's 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 science is 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, religion 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 THE MIND." 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? MODERN 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 claims. 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 survey profile. 60% responded, a figure considered high for any surveys. Of those, 40% expressed belief in a deity, while nearly 45% did not…” <http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm> (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 quite revealing.) 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. Michael Caputo Author of the award-winning book, God Seen Through the Eyes of the Greatest Minds
© Copyright, Michael Caputo, 2009 |
