Don't like to read?
Atheists have elevated their profile in the western world – particularly in the United States – to one of a, supposedly, persecuted minority and, in doing so, have exposed their failure to understand both man and the very concept of God. Their bizarre and desperate need to stamp out Christianity exposes the many hypocrisies of their own agenda and actions – quite apart from an almost criminal distortion of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The fact that they will never truly succeed is rooted in both their misunderstanding of human nature and their failure to grasp the very idea of deism.
An atheist is someone who professes a belief in two basic principles: First, the non-existence of a deity, or deities; second, the belief that man is the only master of his own destiny and that only through a true understanding of humanism will mankind reach its full potential. This first tenet, however, betrays one very simple gaping flaw and the second betrays the abject dishonesty inherent in the atheists’ war upon religion.
A fair starting point in the argument over the existence of God – a Creator, a higher power, a supreme being or whatever label one chooses to apply – is the acknowledgement that the existence of such a being, or deity, has never been scientifically proven and, perhaps, never will be. Such a statement, however, demands the caveat that the non-existence of God has also never been proven, nor could it ever possibly be proven. Herein, then, lies the utter rejection of that first tenet of atheism: One must take, for context, the idea that a ‘god’ is a being of all-encompassing power and possibility; a being that has created everything that exists and possesses all knowledge; a being that defies the very laws of physics, as they are understood by man. A simple – and very short – leap of logic, then, brings one to the realization that, in order to be certain that such an omnipotent being does not exist, one would have to be an omnipotent being. How else could one possibly know, with certainty, that an all-seeing, all-knowing deity – existing beyond the physical grasp and sight of man – does not exist unless one actually possesses all the known and unknown knowledge of the universe – and whatever is beyond? In short; only if one were God could one say that God does not exist – and then, of course, one would be denying one’s own existence.
Having established, therefore, that atheists do not understand the nature of God, it is worth examining the ways in which they also fail to understand the nature of man. The mere fact that belief in God – or in multiple gods – has been with mankind from its very beginning demonstrates a faith and a need which is beyond understanding and, certainly, beyond eradication. Whether man was created or whether he evolved from the primordial sludge, it is in his very nature to believe, to hope or to assume that his destiny is guided by intelligence beyond his mortal reach. Whilst one can argue that religion is a conscious creation of man and, therefore, is irreversibly tainted with the worldly desires of human beings – power, influence, money and so on – one cannot deny that pure faith and pure spirituality is a natural and integral part of the human psyche. Man’s belief in one or more deities was not instilled in him by other men, as adherence to religious dogma was; it was a part of him from the very beginning. Did God create him like this or was it simply born out of his need to explain that which could not be explained by contemporary knowledge? The question cannot be answered with certainty, but only speculated upon. Nevertheless, spirituality remains a constant human factor which cannot be extinguished.
In the US, atheist groups have gone far beyond what they are claiming to be pushing for, which is the complete separation of church and state. Their goal appears to be nothing less than the complete eradication of Christianity from American society. Their obsession with bringing lawsuits aimed at removing Christian symbols from public display begs the question: If one does not believe in God, how can one possibly be offended by the idea that other people do? Not believing in something implies a lack of feeling or emotion, regarding that something. It is simply not possible to be offended by a concept in which one claims not to believe. There can be only one possible explanation of why atheists become so agitated at the very idea that others put their faith in God; it comes down to politics. Atheist groups in the United States are merely Socialists in disguise and, like all Socialists, they insist that the only loyalty a citizen should have is loyalty to the almighty State. religious faith stands in the way and that is precisely why Socialist governments always persecute those who believe in God.
That is not to say that all atheists are Socialists; those who simply choose not to believe should be distinguished from those who join groups which try to force others not to believe. The former are merely exercising the basic human right of freedom of thought whilst the latter are intent upon denying others that right in order to impose upon them a Progressive agenda which allows for no individual liberty.
The final, but not the least significant, blow to the credibility of the atheist is the issue of the First Amendment and the so-called separation of church and state. Atheists have maintained, for some time, that separation of church and state is enshrined in the Constitution. This, however, is a myth. There is no part of the Constitution that demands such a separation; the First Amendment is very clear on the subject. The religion clause within the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering in religious matters. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is as clear as it could possibly be: The government is prohibited from forcing any one religion upon the people; nor can it write laws that promote any one religion over another; nor can it write any laws that restrict an individual’s right to worship in whatever way they choose.
A 2013 incident at a Ohio high school demonstrated how far atheists have taken their deliberate misinterpretation of the First Amendment. A photograph of a high school football team praying on the field led the atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation to write a letter of complaint to the school district, in which they described the prayer – and the wearing of tee-shirts bearing religious slogans – an “unconstitutional Religious display.”
Clearly, however, the First Amendment applies only to Congress; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Neither private businesses, nor any other private entity, nor school districts, are necessarily bound by the First Amendment. A school district that allows prayers to be conducted on school property is not in violation of the First Amendment since they are not doing so in order to comply with any federal legislation. Additionally, the First Amendment – were it taken as applying to all public sector activities – actually protects the right of public school students and staff to engage in prayer or other religious activities. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is this second part of the clause, forbidding the prohibition of religious practice, that protects everyone who wishes to pray, if one is to extend the authority of the First Amendment to every entity, rather than just Congress. If students or staff of any public school are acting unconstitutionally by praying, then the atheists who are trying to force them not to pray are similarly violating the constitutional rights of those who wish to engage in religious devotion.
In short; the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prevents Congress from passing a law that would make prayer mandatory in public schools, but it does not prevent any other entity from choosing to hold a religious ceremony and, in fact, prevents Congress from passing any law that would prohibit such a thing.
Atheists have chosen to interpret this First Amendment clause as meaning that the government itself must be without religion which is, of course, preposterous; the very men who wrote the Constitution were, themselves, God-fearing men who, clearly, would not have intended to create a government that was without faith. The point of the First Amendment is very clear and extremely simple; government does not have the right to persecute or suppress; it does not have the right to force one to believe or force one not to believe; it does not have the right to favor any one religion over another.
Atheism, in truth, is a religion in itself; it is the religion of Statism and its lifeblood is fear and intimidation. If the atheist truly had no interest in God, then he or she would have no interest in the idea that others worship God. The obsession with forcing non-belief upon people, however, betrays their greatest fear; that God stands in the way of their ability to exercise their own control over man. Atheists understand neither man nor God and only strive to separate the two because they understand that, when you strip a man of his faith, you are more easily able to command him. The atheist should be content with saying “I want the freedom not to believe and not to worship,” and many are. The activist, however, says “I want the freedom to force everybody not to believe and not to worship.”
This is hardly a mindset that shows any respect for the First Amendment.
Opinion by Graham J Noble