addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [atheists-55] Atheists Need Religion Too

From: user 6.
Sent on: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:12 PM

Yes! And they always argue with blinders on. This guy says "Religion has always been important in America and that should not change. " He's right, it was VERY important to use religion as a justification for the extermination of the American Indians. No other method of thought could excuse that. And only with religion could the early settlers burn so-called witches alive. The KKK used the bible to support their terrorist philosophies. This is but the tip of the iceberg regarding religious atrocities. 

He's wrong, however, about it "should not change."


> Ever notice a trend here...All the people on TownHall that post derogatory
> articles about atheists tend to be white angry looking people who probably
> haven't been laid in years (just look @ that can almost see the
> lack of a good day in bed with someone of their choosing)
> <>
> Atheists Need Religion Too
> By David R. Stokes "a.k.a. somebody please F#$#K me"
> Mitt Romney spoke about the relationship between religion and politics
> again
> last week, continuing and clarifying the argument he made in December
> while
> still a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. The occasion
> for his recent remarks was his receipt of the prestigious Canterbury Medal
> awarded by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The award is given to
> recognize "Courage in the Defense of Religious Liberty."
> The Becket Fund, a Washington, D.C. based non-profit organization is named
> after Thomas Becket [masked] A.D.). This great man served as Archbishop
> of Canterbury under Henry II and resisted the king for meddling in church
> affairs. The organization bearing his name is "dedicated to protecting
> the
> free expression of all religious traditions."
> For being a man of his convictions, Becket was brutally murdered by
> Henry's
> knights.
> The Romney speech echoed some of the points he had previously made, but
> paid
> special attention to a people-group inadvertently left out in December -
> NON-believers. Noting that he had received some criticism about this,
> Mitt
> told the audience listening to him at the Metropolitan Club in New York
> City
> that he "had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that
> non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending
> religious
> liberty." He further argued that: "Religious liberty and liberality of
> thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion,
> that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation."
> It's not likely that Mr. Romney's eloquent words will assuage the darker
> passions of some nouveau atheists (better: anti-theists). Men like
> Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins very much see religion (of
> whatever
> sort) as a scourge on society – the very root of all modern evil.
> Their kind of thinking was reflected in a story out of the United Kingdom
> a
> couple of years ago. *BBC History Magazine* conducted a poll in its
> January 2006 issue asking the question: "Who was the worst Briton in the
> past thousand years?"
> Mr. Becket – a man who has been venerated by both the Roman Catholic and
> Anglican Churches – came in SECOND. The 5,000 people who participated in
> the poll ranked only JACK THE RIPPER higher. I guess a killer is just
> slightly worse than a cleric.
> Apparently, the desperate question uttered by King Henry II way back in
> 1170
> A.D. (pardon that religio-centric date citation) – "Will no one rid me of
> this turbulent priest?" – would have plenty of respondents in century
> number
> twenty-one.
> Freedom of religion is a very good thing. Freedom FROM religion, though
> promoted by some as the wave of the future, is not.
> A simple look back at the eighteenth century gives us a case study. It
> was
> the "age of revolution." Here in America, very much in the spirit of
> Becket, we rejected tyranny. Over in France they tried to do the same
> thing.
> It worked out very well here. Not so much for France. For all the cries
> of
> "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" – they instead wound up with a period
> of
> violent chaos only somewhat resolved when that despotic secularist
> Napoleon
> took over. Hello short man, good-bye freedom.
> What made the difference? Well, an often overlooked factor is that it was
> RELIGION that may have made the difference – particularly something that
> happened here in the years immediately leading up to 1776 and beyond. It
> was called THE GREAT AWAKENING. Inspired by men such as George Whitefield
> and Jonathan Edwards, there was a period of deep religious reflection in
> the
> land – one that ultimately served to temper human passions – even those
> inflamed by injustice and revolutionary fervor.
> Anti-theists notwithstanding, we need religion as part of the glue that
> holds civilized society together. When we get to the place where values
> get
> turned so upside down that men like Mr. Becket are thought to be as evil
> as
> mass murderers, it's time to pull down the curtains and turn the light
> off.
> Life as we have known it is just about over. It's getting close to that
> in
> Western Europe – we are lagging somewhat behind, but we shouldn't be in
> that
> race at all.*
> <>
> *
> Sure – when religion and the state are "one" tyranny can happen. No
> thinking non-Muslim religionist wants that kind of thing for America. But
> the other extreme, one that so marginalizes religion as to dismiss it from
> social discourse, is just as bad. Yes, there are some predominately
> secular
> nations in Europe functioning as democracies. But they tend to have that
> socialist quirk that makes the state itself a religion. Let's see how it
> looks over there in twenty-five years.
> Religion has always been important in America and that should not change.
> To
> the extent that it's a part of a would-be president's lifestyle, it should
> be on the table as people make electoral choices. When Mr. Romney made
> his
> first speech on the general subject several months ago, the issue at hand
> was his Mormon faith. The subject, not to mention the speech itself,
> reminded many of when John F. Kennedy appeared before The Greater Houston
> Ministerial Association less than two months before he narrowly defeated
> Richard M. Nixon for the presidency in 1960.
> He effectively neutralized the idea that his religion (Catholicism) should
> somehow disqualify him for the nation's highest office. The subject had
> been an undercurrent in the campaign.
> Even before he announced his candidacy in 1960, Kennedy was talking about
> the issue telling one national magazine in 1959: *"Whatever one's religion
> in private life may be, for the officeholder nothing takes precedence over
> his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts – including the
> First
> Amendment."* That was the essence of his argument before the Texas
> ministers.
> Eugene McCarthy was a Senator from Minnesota at the time, though he is
> best
> known to most of us for what happened in the 1968 campaign. He was a
> devout
> Catholic who actually took issue with Kennedy's handling of issues of
> faith. Writing in *America**, *a Catholic weekly, at the time he said:
> *"Although in a formal sense church and state can and should be kept
> separate, it is absurd to hold that religion and politics can be kept
> wholly
> apart when they meet in the consciousness of one man. If a man is
> religious
> – and if he is in politics - one fact will relate to the other if he is
> indeed a whole man." *
> McCarthy, in my opinion, hit the nail right on the head. Yes, the mixing
> of
> politics and religion will always be tense. It might even threaten at
> times
> to become toxic. But a nation without religious influence will…well…let me
> let John Adams, our 2nd President (quoted by Mitt Romney in his speech
> last
> week) say it for me: *"Without religion, this world would be something not
> fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."*
> Indeed.
> *David R. Stokes (*** <>*) is
> the host of "DAVID STOKES LIVE" heard Sunday Nights from 9:00-11:00
> (eastern) across North America on XM SATELLITE CHANNEL 170 – FAMILY TALK,
> and at *** <>*. He is Senior Pastor of Fair
> Oaks
> Church in Fairfax, Virginia
> (***<>
> *). *

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy