Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

There is a question that needs answering, and in the spirit of advocating the spread of

knowledge and the free exchange of opinion, I feel an obligation to present my answer. Before I roll up
my sleeves and get to work on the question and it's implications, I think a quick refresher of definitions
is called for. Some of the terms that will be used are not in common usage outside of theological and
secular debate. Indeed the lack of awareness of these terms is well known; we encourage ignorance to
them in our regular discourse. To use some of these terms is to make a majority of people
uncomfortable, even though they may feign open-mindedness or security with the subjects. So here
they are, and with them are some definitions that are objective and referable, from the Merriam-
Webster Dictionary:

• Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one
God, viewed as the creative source of the human and the world who transcends yet is immanent
in the world.

• Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a deity.

• Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality,


and in the 18th century, denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.

Alright, onto the question. This was put to me by a longtime friend while we were briefly
discussing Atheists. He asked :

"Why are Atheists so militant?"

It's an observation, question, and a fallacy all in one -- I don't know if my dear friend realized he
was begging the question and using the compositional fallacy at the same time, but this is a fairly good
example of mixing illogical thinking with bigotry. The question is also an assumption, since not every
Atheist is militant or brash about their unbelief. Some Atheists may not even be aware of their
Atheism. I might even suggest it's a form of conversational globalization; it paints all of one group with
a single brush, which we all know is not the most accurate way to describe a diverse group. The
framing of the question reveals a bit about the mindset that produced it, a common human tendency to
inaccurately describe the entire group based on observed actions of a few within it. The questioner was
right in a sense; there are militant Atheists, but there are also Atheists that are so meek that you may not
even be aware of their views. I'm willing to bet that investigation into your own social circle (if this
type of questioning is not taboo, or avoided at all costs as it normally is) would reveal surprising
information about what your family and friends believe or don't believe. I think it's very likely that
everyone knows, or has met, a person that doesn't quite buy into the doctrine and dogmas of Religion,
and to go further, may reject the idea of Gods all together. One of many commonalities between the
believer and the skeptic is that neither group can honestly be portrayed as dutifully sharing one
approach to present their views to the world around them. In other words, there can be militant Atheists
just the same as there can be militant Christians. It depends on the person and their choice of methods.

I like to think that my friend was framing the question in a broad sense, but also in a personal
sense, he knew me well enough to understand that if I was an Atheist – or I was to become one – I
would be of the militant stock. I feel that in matters as important as this, one should have a developed
view, and one that stands up well to inquiry and criticism, or even better, one that could withstand the
punishment of a full-on nuclear assault by the opposition. Views are worthless until tested in earnest;
pitted against reality, empirical evidence, and independent questioning.

The question is certainly justified. Putting myself into the shoes of my good friend, I would
quite rightly ask the very same question, or perhaps one that skipped over the fallaciousness. What does
it matter to them, I'd ask. After all, my belief in a God is personal, and I don't insist that they participate
or comply with my views. I don't proselytize on street corners, I don't blow up other religion's places of
worship, I don't insist that my friends convert to my religion, or even pay much respect to my God.
What business do Atheists have poking about in other people's beliefs! How does my faith concern
anyone at all?

The answer to this question is enunciated everyday by bomb blasts. It reveals itself every time a
parent lets their child die because they refuse modern medical treatment for common ailments. The
answer is obvious when a board of educators at a public high school lies and breaks constitutional law
by sneaking Creationism into the classroom. It's echoed in book burnings, honor killings, witch
hangings, crusades, annexations of land and property, genocide, rape, torture, female genital mutilation,
jihad, dominionism, purgatory, hell, original sin, and the indoctrination of children in death cults.

Take, for example, the faith of Islam. Like Christianity it's based on plagiarized content from
the Old Testament, or the Hebrew bible. Islam claims it's holy work was dictated to the prophet
Mohamed by three angels (a necessity since Mohamed couldn't even read). Of course these divine
insights were denied to his wives as a matter of dogma (Since woman are to obey – but really not
participate – in religion) and also as a matter of maturity and the ability to understand since one of
Mohamed's brides was only nine years old. Islam believes it's the "final revelation" and the one true
word of God. Those that do not obey or convert are only fit to be slaves to Allah and his earthly
followers, much like the females in Islamic lands. Islam is ordered to spread far and wide; to expand in
all directions. If you're a person living in a land recently conquered by Islam and you already have a
faith, you are to convert under the threat of death, or lifelong servitude. Your land, property, faith, and
your entire life is to be turned over to the jihadies. The word "Islam" is Arabic for "Submission". Those
that leave the faith don't have much more luck than anyone else; the punishment for apostasy is death.
Even worse than all of this is the fact that there are voices from the Muslim world calling for the
rebuilding of the old empire: the Caliphate. The Caliphate was a sort of Islamic version of a Theocracy;
respect and finance for the established religion was not an option. You support the religion in any
manner they saw fit, whether you believed or not. Early Muslims did fairly well for themselves from
the imperialistic point of view; their empire was quite large, and held power for a considerable amount
of time, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula. At its height, Islam claimed most of northern Africa, the
Arabian Peninsula, spreading east as far as China and India, and north to the borders of Russia.

Jihadists don't care if you're happy with your faith, or if you prefer to not enjoy theirs. They
don't care if you are an Atheist, an Agnostic, a Christian, or a Jew. The only thing that matters is that
you're willing to bow down their Religion, their dogmas, and their laws. There are no innocent or
unaffiliated groups; there are just those that haven't had the pleasure of converting at the business end
of a gun, or perhaps in their last moments before they are erased from the earth by a bomb. Now, who
in their right mind would refuse the offer (read: command) to join this wonderful faith? Surely we all
recognize their amazing treatment of half the human race; women. Al-Ghazali, regarded by Islamic
historians and intellectuals as the second most important Muslim in all of history, falling just behind
their pedophile prophet Mohamed, summarizes a woman's role in Islamic society as follows:

"She should stay at home and get on with her spinning, she should not go out often, she must not be
well-informed, nor must she be communicative with her neighbors and only visit them when absolutely
necessary; she should take care of her husband and respect him in his presence and his absence and
seek to satisfy him in everything; she must not cheat on him nor extort money from him; she must not
leave her house without his permission and if given his permission she must leave surreptitiously. She
should put on old clothes and take deserted streets and alleys, avoid markets, and make sure that a
stranger does not hear her voice or recognize her; she must not speak to a friend of her husband even
in need".

The prophet's own cousin has more insight; he was the fourth Caliph. (religious ruler)

"You should never ask a woman her advice because her advice is worthless. Hide them so that they
cannot see other men!... Do not spend too much time in their company for they will lead you to your
downfall!" "Men, never ever obey your women. Never let them advise you on any matter concerning
your daily life. If you let them advise you they will squander all your possessions and disobey all your
orders and desires. ... And finally to a man teaching a woman to write: "Do not add evil to
unhappiness."

The fact is Islamic beliefs are not just genocidal, imperialistic, and sexist; what's worse is that
they're not optional. You have to surrender to these beliefs. In doing so you provide, at the very least,
your silent consent for this behavior and these atrocities. In much the same way moderate Christians
enable their extremist brothers to murder in the name of their God, centrist Muslims provide the same
cover for their violent followers. Taking a wide view, Islam is powerful religion. According to figures
from our CIA, Islam accounts for 21% of the world's population, with a 6.4% annual growth rate.
Growth around the globe varies: in North America we had a 25% growth rate from 1989 to 1998. In
that time Europe had seen a 142% increase in their Muslim population, and Australia led the pack with
an amazing 257% jump. In America, the faith poses as a harmless minority – which isn't too difficult to
pull off, since bomb blasts in the Middle East are hard to hear this far away. That was the case, until
September 11th, 2001. That day, a group a Muslims decided to share with us the love and peace offered
by their religion. Again, whether we wanted to receive it or not.

To this you may hear opposition, or diverging views. There was even one predominant religious
figure in the United States that claimed the we were indeed to blame for this attack on our civilian
population. By allowing our citizens to choose whatever sexual lifestyle they like, we somehow
offended God, and the attacks were some kind of divine retribution for allowing homosexuality in our
country. Comments like this are not just ignorant, they border on insane. Islam has been a concern to
American ideals for quite some time. John Quincy Adams said:

“The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by
a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the
imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is
always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed
alike, by fraud, or by force”.

It's plain to see that Islam extends us a blood soaked hand in friendship, a not-too-subtle threat
considering its past accomplishments and methods of diplomacy. In its other hand it holds all the tools
of war, ranging from conventional, to exotic and exclusive. The hand has been shook by many, Prince
Charles has made many pro-Islamic comments, and taken public stances in favor of the faith. He even
offered some advice to one of our former Presidents on embracing the lighter sides of the Muslim faith.
I'm sure in his talks with our leaders, he didn't bring up the case of Theo van Gogh, nephew of the artist
Vincent van Gogh. Theo was a Dutch film director, columnist, author, and actor. After he made a film
called "Submission", which was critical of the treatment of women within the Islamic faith, he was shot
eight times then stabbed twice in the chest, and had his throat slashed so badly that he was nearly
decapitated – all in broad daylight on a street in Amsterdam. This is the capacity for tolerating criticism
within the borders of the Islamic faith. It's also an insight to the Islamic stance on the freedom of
speech. These examples of the the parties of God destroying civil society really do speak for
themselves. This is not something they care to keep to themselves. They plan to share this with
everyone, if possible. In fact, it is a matter of their religious doctrine that they do.

Muslims do not have a monopoly on religious tyranny or doctrinal foolishness. One could find
plenty of examples closer to home. It seems that religions share a habit of aggressive behavior to those
outside of the faith. The degrees to which they will mistreat outsiders seems to vary. Luckily, we live in
a more civilized society, where we don't suffer theocratic rule. The commonalities we can find in
theocracies include genocide, rape, state sponsored seizing of property and assets, subjugation of
women, murdering of minorities, and those that dissent. Here in America we don't buy into all of that,
we believe that matters of religion don't belong in the matters of the state. Our founders spoke plainly
on the issue of religious freedom; by not establishing an official religion, we allow all religions a place
to practice as they wish. Here, a Christian can live side by side with a Muslim, even though their views
are incompatible at their cores. One religion cannot use the levers of government to impose their views
onto others. That's one of the most widely cited complaints from our founders: the tendency of a
religious party in charge killing off other religions with the help of the state. In a theocracy, the
established religion tends to drown out all others. Finding historical and modern examples is not
difficult. Yet religion displays its ever present tendency to spread itself; whether wanted or not, into
whatever areas it's allowed to embed itself. Take the example of public office in modern America:
despite our founding documents stating that there shall be no religious test required to hold office, the
chances of an out-of-the-closet Atheist holding public office lies between slim and none, and indeed
more than a few states are in direct violation of this rule since they require their leaders have religion.
Religious bigotry, fear, and hatred prevents anyone not professing a faith in Jesus, from holding office.
Though I dream of the possibility of a rationalist in high office, I realize the incredibly small chance of
this happening. Doubly so when there are those serving, or those that have served, in the highest office
of the land, making statements like:

“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as
patriots. This is one nation under God.” - George H.W. Bush

Where is the American sense of freedom in this? Putting aside the narrow minded insult of the
statement, where is the religious liberty that our founders put forth in our founding documents? How
would this statement match up against the First Amendment? This kind of commentary reeks of
McCarthyism. I don't agree with the message, but I am proud that I can live in a country that will not
censor it. It's my right to be insulted by it, just as much as it is his right to insult me with it. That's the
freedom of speech in action. It's in place for exactly this kind of bigoted commentary. In this country,
thankfully, we extend extra protection to these kinds of messages. The comment is quite revealing
otherwise – it shows plainly what religion does to a mind. Christianity sells itself to the masses as yet
another religion of love and peace. One that claims the values of acceptance, respect, and indeed, love
for your neighbor. It paints itself as modeled after the incredibly liberal teachings of Jesus Christ:
unqualified love of strangers, caring for those less fortunate, preaching against wealth, promoting peace
and self-fulfillment through God (a very telling contradiction), forgiveness even to the point of a fault.
As a whole, the followers of Christ would have you believe their faith is one that should not just be
allowed, but one that should be welcomed, some say necessary, as it represents the finer points of our
maturing race. Of course, after thousands of years of the faithful demonstrating otherwise, I think we
can dismiss their claims to morality and ethics. After a faith goes so far as to rape children and blame it
on their very victims, we moral humans have to call the faith for what it is: just another ignorant and
hateful machine that kills, rapes, and otherwise destroys life in civil society.

I was raised with faith, like everyone in America. I was indoctrinated to recognize the pleasant
aspects of the faith. As a result I believed – despite the mountains of evidence all around me – that my
religion was somehow a force for good in the world. I heard the inspiring stories, David and Goliath for
example. A story of triumph over bleak odds. I was not informed, however, of David's genocide against
the Amalekites; a group of people that God must have really hated, because he ordered David to
slaughter them down to the last person. Note that I said "to the last person" not "to the last man". God
commanded an entire group of people be wiped out. That is to say, not just the able bodied men capable
of fighting, or even those younger men that could one day raise a sword in retaliation – oh no, God
ordered every man, woman, and child killed. Genocide. Infanticide. The murder of people that pose no
threat at all. This is the love of Christianity, love if you are with us, and murder, rape, and theft for
everyone else. Another example would be the Midianites, which were also slaughtered by the parties of
God. This time a shred of something resembling mercy was shown: Moses ordered the Israeli soldiers
to kill the Midianites, but they would spare the virgins. I can only imagine why they would extend
mercy to that particular group of people – this is not moral teaching. Looking back, I can see a pattern
of behavior on the part of my religious leaders. A very purposeful attempt to illustrate the uplifting
stories, while leaving out, say, the slaughter of infants. Skipping lightly over things like genocide, rape,
murder, slavery – all of which was not just carried out by the parties of God, but authorized, and
commanded by God. I won't allow the faithful to deflect this point; these actions were not done by
those who just happened to believe in God, the big man himself was said to have ordered it. I will not
be told to accept this kind of stupidity as right action, this is the worst kind of violent crimes and it is
handed down from on high.

It's not very surprising then to see a group like the Westboro Baptist Church, picketing the
funeral of dead American troops with signs reading: "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God
for IEDs". To those free of Christian indoctrination, the actions of these people are not only jaw-
droppingly cold, vicious, and petty, they're also tame by comparable standards. As disgusting as their
message is, the followers of Shirley Phelps-Roper are not even close to the old kings of Israel in terms
of depravity; I would say they are not even in the same ballpark. Shirley, and her group of mouth-
breathing followers that also comprises the extent of her immediate family, are not deserving of
comparison to the Old Testament's heroes. When reviewed, I think it safe to say that a good number of
the old kings of Israel, if alive today, would be shackled and brought before the world for crimes
against humanity. Considering the claim of divine involvement, and also the scale of the crimes stacked
against the total population of the area, I think the would-be trials of David, Moses, and Joshua would
make a solid run against any challenger for the title of "most disturbing actions carried out in the name
of God". Of course they would have to compete against Hitler, which is tough for any maniac to take
on.

Another noteworthy example of Christian love and care would be Eva Worthington, a 15-
month-old baby girl from Clackamas County, Oregon. Eva's parents, Carl and Raylene, decided that
instead of bringing their sick infant to the hospital, they would turn to faith healing to cure her ailments.
This predictably failed, and Eva lost her life. She died at the age of 15 months because her parents
decided to turn their back on modern medicine, and instead, pray about the bronchial pneumonia and
infection that ultimately killed her. Eva was never able to make that decision for herself. She was never
presented with the choice between taking common antibiotics or dying. Her parents made that call for
her, and the one that paid the ultimate price was not either one of them, it was their baby girl.

In 1998, two-year-old Harrison Johnson was stung 432 times by wasps. After a torturous seven
hours of unimaginable screaming and crying, the parents finally called the police. The police found
Harrison dead, and the parents later admitted that he had been unresponsive for 30 to 45 minutes before
they even put the call in. Their rational response to their sons condition? They asked the neighborhood
to pray for him. They stood by for seven hours while their helpless son screamed in agony. They
refused to get him medical help while his lungs filled with water because they believed that modern
doctors practiced witchcraft. Amazingly, the parents were acquitted of felony child abuse on the
grounds that they were not responsible for the harm caused to the child. I guess that standing around
doing absolutely nothing while your child convulses in pain for hours on end and later dies a slow and
horrible death in front of your eyes is somehow not a crime. I cannot stress this enough, we are paying
too high a price for this superstition in our lives, and the price is paid, very often, by the most helpless
around us.

In December of 2008, a set of parents from east Texas showed the nation how logical the Bible
Belt could be. They arrived to court and stood accused of beating a 13-month-old girl to death with a
hammer. Jessica Carson and Blaine Milam claimed that they briefly left Amora Bain Carson home
alone. They further claimed that upon their arrival home they found Amora dead. Under pressure from
authorities, Jessica later admitted that she had watched Blaine perform an "exorcism" on the baby,
which involved the hammer and biting, as Amora had 15-20 sets of teeth marks on her body. The baby
was found on her back, in a bedroom. Lt. Reynold Humer, one of the officers on the scene, stated:

"I’ve seen a lot of (murder scenes) in my 30 years but this is worse I've ever seen."

The incompetence of faith does not just kill babies and toddlers, take the case of Zakk Swezey,
who died a slow and agonizing death, from a preventable problem, all in full view of his parents.
Zakk's father told police that he knew his son would die 10 or 15 minutes before he took his last breath.
A ruptured appendix would be enough to claim the life of a 17 year-old man. His only mistake was
trusting his parents with the task of deciding for him what to do with his medical emergency.

In all of the listed examples, the parents defaulted to "Christian Science" to cure their ward of
what ailed them. People that, in the eyes of the public, are qualified to make life-and-death decisions
about their children's health failed to rise to a basic level of responsibility in the arena of basic child
care. Also, in every one of the cases listed, a person holding irrational "personal" beliefs was
responsible for helping to kill an innocent person that had not yet made a similar religious choice for
themselves. Infringing on someone else's liberty is one thing -- watching them die as a result of your
own credulity is something else entirely. Yet in example after example, we see "personal" beliefs kill
people that do not share the faith, or kill those that are incapable of making that choice in the first
place. The problem is rooted in religion as a whole – they know what they know simply because a book
says so, they are taught a conclusion, but no methodology for arriving at said conclusion. Even if
decades of medical advancement show that their books are wrong, or that the voices in their heads are
wrong across the board, it won't matter; they hold their beliefs not because of evidence or reality, they
hold it because of wishful thinking. They wish desperately that their dying child will spring back to life
and good health, despite real world evidence to the contrary. They want to believe that there's a
celestial father figure that will watch out for their child as it watched over them. Moreover they claim
the right to extend this childish thinking onto others without their permission or consent, and without
responsibility for the predictably bad results. The thinking behind this, their fallacy as believers, is that
it was not them as individuals that came up short in reasoning, it was just God's will that their family
member/friend died from preventable causes. Who needs that dose of antibiotics when you have God?
Why turn to surgery when you have the creator of the known universe on your side? After all, he did
create space and time -- he could certainly help your cousin with breast cancer right? When he doesn't,
what's said by the faithful on his behalf? What about free will? I'm sure that if you were able to ask any
one of the victims, they would say their will was to get help, and not be left to die unimaginable deaths.
In these cases; their free will was curbed by a religion that they had not yet chosen for themselves, and
the result was the loss of their lives.

Another example of a religion of love and peace not allowing freedom from their crackpot ideas
would be George Richard Tiller, MD. The doctor practiced out of Wichita, Kansas before he was
murdered by the religious right. He provided a horrid, but thankfully extremely rare, service --
abortions past 21 weeks, or "Late-term" abortions. Dr. Tiller was murdered as he ushered at his local
church, by an activist named Scott Roeder. Perhaps Scott somehow convinced himself that taking a life
via vigilante justice was somehow rational. Or more likely, he heard a voice that told him to do it,
indeed granted him the personal authority to carry out God's will. I don't mind so much when a person
talks to God, what I do mind is when they claim he talks back to them. Is it just coincidence that
people's Gods have views on critical subject that are strongly similar to the views of the human? What
is more likely: God holds the view we assign to him, or there is indeed only one true word of God?
Have we not noticed that our Gods share our views, as if by accident? If a person wanted to maintain
that there is a true divine message, they would have a very high burden of proof -- even a short glance
at our world reveals that there are billions of different people that all hold contradicting views, yet all
of them claim them as God's will. Certainly even God cannot hold all these views himself, and some of
these views cannot mix. Take the example of tattoos: there are some religious people that claim God
does not want people to ink their bodies, but still there are those of the same faith that claim God is not
concerned about the matter. So which one is right? They can't both be right after all, someone has to
admit to screwing up God's will. It seems the faithful can't even bring themselves to agree on
something as trivial as tattoos. Instead, they project to their God their own beliefs, to further support
their own prejudices. Do you hate gays? There's a God for that. Do you think that homosexuals are not
a problem? There's a God for that too. Do you prefer your holy day to fall on a Sunday? Christianity is
for you. Perhaps Saturday would be a better day; simply convert to Judaism. Maybe Friday should be
your God's one true holy day, is that case go for the Islam package. The evidence for religion being
man-made is all around us, yet because of faith and indoctrination we refuse to accept this reality. We
have to believe our Gods are real, if they're not, that opens a floodgate of uncertainty and
embarrassment. If God didn't make our world in seven days, some 6-10,000 years ago, what did? If
there is no God, that means there may be no heaven, so what happens to me when I expire? Some
people even go so low as to say that without Gods, how would we decide what is right, or what is
wrong? The answers to these tough question are out there, some are even in your head right now. Yet
we cling to our Gods like bawling infants; afraid of the dark, and afraid to die, scared witless by the
uncertainty of existence without a divine father figure.

It's plain to see that God is modeled after our human concept of "father". We refer to God with
the male pronoun, even though we haven't met him to confirm his sex. (an odd thing, as I find the
mother concept more in line with something that would give / produce life) We want to believe he
watches over us, just like a paternal father would. We draw comfort from the idea that he's guiding our
lives in a good direction. When we're lonely, he's never too busy to spare us a moment. When we're
uncertain, he has the answers. He is a provider, as well as an enforcer of discipline. He has rules that
must be followed. The rules themselves, and the punishments for breaking them, vary from God to
God. The God of Einstein, for example, had a hand in the creation of space and time, but doesn't
meddle in our affairs. Thomas Jefferson's God was similar, a non-interventionist God. It seems to me
that Deism is pretty common in people's world-view. The God of Abraham is quite different, that
particular God meddles quite a bit. Take the example of drowning everyone on earth except Noah and
his family as some sort of punishment. I have to say this Abrahamic God is a God I want absolutely no
part of, it would be corrosive to my morals and ethics. There's enough nonsense in the world already, I
don't need more. Professor Richard Dawkins describes that particular God as follows:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and
proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a
misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal,
sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

The parties of God have their beliefs, and they are dying to share them with you. If they can,
they will force them on you with authority; they will insist that you, as a child, make religious choices
that no rational person would say you are capable of making for yourself. Indeed, you don't make these
choices – authority makes them for you. If religious authority fails, they will use other means of forcing
compliance: violence, war, economy, emotional blackmail, isolation, persecution, scapegoating, insults
and whatever other means that are available will be used to spread their "personal" beliefs. Here are a
few stand out examples:

• Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District: Christians attempted, once again, to force their
"personal" beliefs to public high school students, by way of forcing teachers to portray
Creationism as an alternative to Evolution, which is unconstitutional in our secular democracy.
The judge, John E. Jones III, ruled that it was indeed illegal. He also noted in his conclusion: "It
is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious
convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real
purpose behind the Intelligent Design Policy."

• Edwards vs. Aguillard: Christian activist in Louisiana passed a law stating that Creationism
must be taught anywhere that Evolution is. The Supreme Court ruled that such laws are in
violation of the Constitution by using the government to promote religious views. There is a
method for determining what is legal and what is not; it is called the Lemon Test. Which is:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting
religion; and

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government
and religion.

• The parties of God raised money, and had Bibles translated to the Pashtu and Dari languages, so
they could be read by Muslims in Afghanistan. A soldier that attempts to convert others from
Islam to any religion would be in violation of General Order No. 1, which states plainly that the
United States Military cannot be used to spread religious ideas. Once again, despite clear rules
against it, the faithful seek to force their beliefs on others.
• The Dominionist movement seeks to not just use the Government to spread their beliefs, but
they seek to make the Government itself a religious entity; flying in the face of the
Establishment Clause, First Amendment, and the intent of our founders. They seek to change
the nature of our laws, replacing them with biblical law. There are different degrees of
Dominionism, "soft" Dominionists are the variety that claim "America is a Christian nation".
Evidently they can't read. Extreme forms of Dominionism seek a radical restructuring of our
country to better reflect their "personal" beliefs. They realize that our country grants us all the
freedom from their religion, and Dominionists are not happy about that fact, they want to use
the levers of the government to force their “personal” beliefs onto others.
There is a message that is worth repeating -- the parties of God are not content to just have their
faith, and leave the rest of the world to seek their own path. They have quite a history of trampling
other people's liberty. If you seek freedom from their views, you are targeted for action not just by the
religious, but by their Gods as well. Military-grade Atheism, like basic Atheism itself, is a reaction. A
reaction to Theism, the parties of God, declaring war on the freedoms of unbelievers and infidels.
When someone says they're at war with you, you are, whether you like it or not. Whether their
aggression is warranted or not, just or unjust, faith is on the offensive and wants to force its way into
your home by hook or by crook.

Luckily, there are people that will hold the line. Thankfully there are those who will stand up for
religious freedom as spelled out by our founders. Atheists like PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, and
Daniel Dennett, as well as Christians like John E. Jones III. There are rational thinkers that understand
that one person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. So long as there are parties that
deny this basic truth, so long as there are people that will deny evidence and reality, there will be those
of us who will correct their fallacious and destructive thinking. As the discussion goes on the rosters
will change, and new examples will come forward to replace the old ones. Nevertheless, the
underlining problems will persist so long as we remain a poorly evolved species that clings to fictional
books from the Bronze Age that should not have survived an elementary school education.

Until the time comes when we can let go of our fear of the unknown, and our fear of death, we
will engage in a back and forth struggle with religion. By abandoning the crutch of religion humans
will be able to progress in the ways our intellect demands. Advancement of our race or even
maintenance of our current progress, will not come from wish thinking, or reverence of our holy books.
Acceptance of our nature, accountability for our actions, and freedom from unjustified – and thus
unnecessary – authority will be the some of the underpinnings of our success in the future. This
involves critical thinking, and the dismissal of beliefs so stupid that even children can see right through
them. Why so militant? I would suggest a rephrasing: why do we force them to be so militant in
defense of their basic freedoms?