Living in the United States today, one might think the entire foundation of this nation has cracked. Closer to the truth would be the removal of founding principles comprising the foundation of this nation by every splinter group one can find leaving a nation teetering on the last few pillars of freedoms, which are eroding rapidly. Many groups in America exhibit disdain, distaste and almost hatred of Christians in a nation founded on Christian principles. It is the era of Christianophobia that has brought out groups looking to put the final nails in the coffin of Christendom in the United States.
Atheists or non-religious America somehow feels "slighted" prompting activists to write a letter to Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah last week asking him to "do something no other American president has done: reach out to secular America." Freedom From Religion Foundation co-presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker penned the letter and sent it on the very same day "Obama addressed the National Prayer Breakfast last week." In it, they asked Obama to "welcome the 'nonreligious to the American family.'"
These individuals want Hussein Soetoro to welcome the "nonreligious to the American family" on the day of the National Prayer Breakfast. Now, that makes a lot of sense. Are they truly not feeling the love after the Supreme Court invented "secular humanism," after they removed prayer from the schools and insisted on attacking any religious symbol, worked to remove The Ten Commandments sculptures from courthouses, supported the invention of the "right" to engage in sodomite "marriage" and ruled that mothers could murder their babies in the womb? What more do they want -- banning of religious texts?
The individuals wrote:
"To help counter anti-Muslim bigotry, you spoke at a mosque yesterday. Last week, you spoke at the Israeli embassy and, in a show of solidarity with the Jewish minority, said, "I, too, am a Jew." It is laudable for the President to embrace citizens of all colors and religious viewpoints as being part of "one American family" and to caution citizens not to be "bystanders to bigotry." But there is one U.S. minority that has been consistently excluded from such notice: nonreligious Americans.
"We respectfully invite you, in your final year in office, to do something no American president has ever done: reach out to secular America. Such attention from the Office of the President would demonstrate that freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and rationalists are accepted citizens. As you pointed out in your first inaugural address: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers."
For designation as a minority, this group of "freethinkers, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and rationalist" have successfully worked to remove God from the public square, out of government and into "phobia" status. Yet, these individuals feel unwelcome. From where many sit, it would appear these groups are getting way more concessions than others. And one can guess they probably believed the Liar-in-Chief Hussein Soetoro when he claimed "I, too, am a Jew."
One wonders where they classify pagans. The category of "nonbelievers" may cover that group as well as Satanists. But, pagans believe in something and so do Satanists. If you believe in a negative such as Satan, you would naturally have to believe in a positive such as God. Just as there is yin and yang, good and bad, positive and negative; there is God and Satan. It's there in the laws of physics -- for every action, there is an equal opposite reaction. Do nonbelievers refer to those who don't believe in God? Or, do nonbelievers refer to anyone who doesn't believe in a "higher power," "laws of nature," or Mother Nature, or anything spiritual?
Among some of the sentiments in the letter, Barker and Gaylor stated, "Yet reprehensible prejudice and ubiquitous social stigmatization dog U.S. freethinkers, atheists and agnostics. Those of us who are nonreligious daily encounter unwarranted stereotypes, putdowns and assumptions that we cannot be good people or good citizens. A December 2011 study in the Journal of Personality and Psychology found, appallingly, that atheists rank, with rapists, as least trustworthy! "
The Journal of Personality and Psychology producing a study that would indicate anything else would be surprising. How could a journal of such scientific stature producing a scientific study with very useful information be relatively unknown? This faces the same issue as the Journal of Doggie Poo and Pah conducting a study indicating that your dog would poo and pah more if you feed and watered it less. Needless to say, the study in the Journal of Personality and Psychology is one that really should not be taken seriously.
As far as stereotypical applications go, Christians receive plenty of stereotypical labels, putdowns and assumptions from those who are non-Christians. We are the "Bible Thumpers," "Holy Rollers," "Jesus Believers," "Jesus Freaks," "Goody Two-Shoes," and "Westboro Baptist types" along with any other label these individuals choose to use. It is Christians who are accused of "pushing religion down everyone's throat when they don't want it" by the very individuals who are pushing immorality, debauchery, and criminality down the throats of all. We hear almost constantly, "You aren't a Christian, as you may claim, if you don't want people to have health care, are against the migrants coming in who just want to better themselves here, hate gay people, don't want to help people through social programs, and deny women's right to choose."
In the letter, these two contend that a de facto religious test is being used in a nation with a secular Constitution when it comes to the Boy Scouts of America, which they claim the President is the nominal "commander-in-chief." Barker and Gaylor wrote that while the Scouts lifted the ban on sodomites, the organization brags about excluding "nonreligious" boys. They go on to name many historic as well as modern-day figures, famous and infamous, are nonreligious. These two quoted John Stuart Mills' observation, "The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments — of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue — are complete sceptics in religion."
One of those "brightest ornaments" listed was Margaret Sanger -- the eugenicist, racist, mother of Planned Parenthood where the murder of babies in the womb occurs thousands of times daily but not before they slice and dice the unborn infant up to sell its parts for profit. One can see where these individuals might think Sanger was distinguished in wisdom and virtue for putting into practice values they espouse.
The entire point of their "amusing" ramblings was to invite Hussein Soetoro to attend their event, The Reason Rally, on June 4, in Washington, DC, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, describing it as "making a historic appearance." The reason is to "encourage atheists, agnostics, and those unaffiliated with faith to converge for a secular revival of sorts." They stressed it would offer Hussein Soetoro an "ideal opportunity for the office of the president" to truly welcome and address attendees to the rally. Hussein Soetoro can entertain them with his rolling "R" when saying "Qu'ran," talk about the beauty of the Muslim call to prayer and end with the sha- babba- ali-babba -- you know, that conversion statement.
More aptly put in the letter, Barker and Gaylor wrote, "By showing up on June 4, as you did at the mosque, and addressing nonbelieving Americans, you can send a signal that the marginalization of a quarter of the U.S. population is unacceptable. Please use your "bully pulpit" to help erase harmful attitudes toward the nonreligious minority in the United States, as you have done for religious minorities. Please address the Reason Rally on June 4 or speak at our auditorium in Freethought Hall (our offices) any time. We look forward to your reply. "
One thing they did get right is the "bully" part as far as Hussein Soetoro goes; but, using the word "pulpit" conveys a vision of some type of religious symbolism. Why not use "podium?" Granted, "bully podium" does not have the same ring or connotation as "bully pulpit." Being nonreligious and/or nonbelievers, one would presume they would want to avoid any type of religious innuendo altogether. Alas, they have no problem with that since they are the ones using it. If these individuals are marginalized, as they claim, I am Princess Grace of Monaco.
The Blaze reported, "the 'nones' — or religiously unaffiliated — are not necessarily atheist or agnostic. While the umbrella group most certainly includes non-believers, recent Pew Research Center data shows that 61 percent of 'nones' still believe in 'God or [a] universal spirit,' though that proportion is down from the 70 percent that was observed in 2007."
Interestingly, it was also found that 3.1 percent of the nation identifies as atheist while 4 percent identify as agnostic.
For a small portion of the population, these "groups" have a very loud voice -- a voice that currently has the ear of government. They shout "democracy" all day long as they, the minority, are setting the rules, quickening the pace to remove and replace goodness with foulness. The founders did not frame this nation on the principle of "mob" rule, monarchical rule or oligarchic rule. The founders framed this nation as a constitutional republic, whereby government is instituted among men to protect individual God-given rights so well stated in the Declaration of Independence as laws of nature, Nature's God and their Creator.
One has to find it interesting that these individuals choose to live in a Christian nation versus a non-Christian, read Muslim, nation. They know living in any nation but a Christian nation would mean subscribing to the idol of that nation or face the consequences of death, slavery or paying a tax. It could also mean marginalization if living in the region of Asia. They like freedom, liberty and having "rights" that are granted by God without believing in Him. But, by not believing in God, who endowed us with rights, these individuals look wrongly to government as the giver/granter of rights. As the old saying goes, "what the government is big enough to give you, it is big enough to take away."Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.