Atheists, Billboards and “Hate Speech”

The American Atheists (AA) just erected billboard in Times Square reading, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” with an “X” through “Christ.” While I defend their right to be offensive, I can still take issue with their message.

Even though the West is quickly abandoning their former secular roots and the freedom of speech in favor of repressing what is now deemed “hate speech,” we are on a dangerous trajectory, granting government additional power to suppress speech deemed “offensive.”

Nevertheless, I think that the AA message is needlessly offensive and even hypocritical. It is needlessly offensive because it offends without providing any off-setting content. It represents nothing more than mindless sloganeering. It contributes no substance, edification, inspiration, or illumination, just crass intolerance towards the Christian faith. It offers nothing but offense!

It is also offensive because of what it represents – an attempt to eliminate Christianity! I have dialogued with many militant atheists, and they have made no secret of the fact that they think that the world will be a better place without Christianity, and for this they labor! It is worthy of note that they are little different from their infamous forebears:

• Karl Marx: "In simple truth, I harbour hate 'gainst all the Gods."

• Nikolai Lenin: "Every religious idea, every idea of god, even every flirtation with the idea of God, is unutterable vileness."

• Nikita Khrushchev: "We, Communists ... are atheists ... Public education, the dissemination of scientific knowledge, and the study of the laws of nature, leave no place for belief in God ... We consider that belief in God contradicts our Communist outlook." "We remain the atheists that we have always been; we are doing all we can to liberate those people who are still under the spell of this religious opiate."

These atheistic luminaries were not content to merely speak against the Christian faith. They strenuously  sought to eliminate it along with those who practiced it. Do we have cause to be offended by this modern crop of militant atheists? Without a doubt!

In addition to the offense, the AA billboard also represents hypocrisy. Their website announces their purpose:

• American Atheists, Inc., is organized

·         to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices;

·         to encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to society;

Although the AAs claim that their purpose is “to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry,” their billboard is designed to accomplish the very opposite thing - to silence and discredit any real thought or discussion. This parallels my own experience with the militants. I have challenged them to public debates on numerous occasions, but they have always declined.

They also claim that they want “to encourage the development and public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people.” However, instead of fostering “mutual sympathy,” their billboard fosters blatant intolerance and an utter lack of “sympathy.” Instead of wanting to work along with us to improve society, the AA clearly wants to eliminate us. What else could “Christ” with an “X” through Him connote!

Meanwhile, the militants have hypocritically accused me of intolerance, when I have simply referenced surveys and studies that have demonstrated the ill effects of the gay lifestyle. They have labeled my “homophobe,” “bigot,” “hate-monger” and even “sexist” – nothing to promote their goal of “freedom of thought and inquiry.”

The AA’s claim that they are trying to work for a “humane ethical system,” while they are exhibiting the height of “Christophobia!” While they bash us for our alleged intolerance, they model the very behavior they claim to reject! However, they are known by the fruits that they bear.

Media’s Offensive War on Christmas and Christianity

There has been a lot of talk about the “war on Christmas.” There is only part of what seems to be a war on all positive expressions of the Christian faith. I just received this mass-email last night, and I tend to believe it:

• On the Today Show, Matt Lauer interviewed the wife of one of the Navy Seals killed in Benghazi.

• He asked her what she would say to her children about their dad and how she would want them to remember him.  She said, and I quote, "His love for Christ," and then continued with a few other things.

• Throughout the day and on MSN homepage, when the story is replayed they have edited the "His love for Christ" part out. Why? Because using the word Christ might offend someone.

• Well, I am a Christian and I am offended! Offended that they would edit it out. Offended that we as Christians are asked to tread lightly so as not to offend someone of another religion.

• I think anyone who missed the original broadcast this morning should know what NBC has done.  This man loved his country and loved his God and gave his life for both, just as Christ gave His life for him.

Although the media has been very free to report on the negative aspects of Christianity, it shows sublime restraint when it comes to anything that might cast Christianity in a positive light. How do they justify this? They sometimes justify their bias by claiming that they do not want to give offense.

This is hypocritical to the max. They have shown little regard about offending people like the above commentator. In other words, they are very selective about whom they are willing to offend. And they have been applying this double-standard for quite a while with almost no one to call them to account.

This is serious! The media is supposed to function as the watchdog to point the light upon injustice. However, who will point the light on the media when they systematically apply their double-standards!

As some in the media have confessed, they are more interested in social activism – promoting their own cause – than in truth. Without the vital role of media to provide accountability, “news” becomes propaganda and “knowledge” becomes a euphemism for politically correct indoctrination. Consequently, those who stand on the “right” side of political correctness can proceed with their devious plans without worry that the light will shine on them.